Ask the Car People.SM


Midsize Sedans 2.0

18205 messages,  Last post on May 22, 2013 at 3:13 PM

You are in the Sedans Forum.

What is this discussion about? Hyundai Sonata, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, Mazda MAZDA6, Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu, Kia Optima, Car Comparisons, Sedan

Messages Page 1688 of 1822

#16863 of 18205 2013 Accord by benjaminh

Sep 13, 2012 (11:53 pm)

I'm seriously thinking about buying one of these myself.
 
One of our cars is already an Accord, a 2008 EXL Navi 5MT Sedan, which is by far the best car we've ever owned. Our other car is a 2010 Mazda 5 5MT.
 
That Mazda5 looks from the outside like it would have good visibility from the inside, but it's actually only so so. The far back rear quarter window on the driver's side is almost unusable from the driver's seat, because of the thick pillars in the far back. The interior quality and handling are also not at the Accord level.
 
Anyway, even though this car has only 13k miles, I think we're probably going to trade it in on a 2013 Accord. I've always liked manuals, but my wife prefers an auto, even though she can drive a stick well. And so the model we are leaning toward is a 2013 EXL Navi CVT in Basque red pearl with a white leather interior. I feel a bit guilty about not getting a manual, since I'm part of the save the manuals crowd, but it happens that we love factory navi for trips and even for around town, and the navi is only available with the auto these days (I had to special order mine with a manual back in 08, but now that's not an option).
 
I'm also intrigued by Honda's Earth Dreams G-shift CVT. The idea of cruising at 60 mph while only running at c. 1500 rpm seems appealing. No wonder this car gets high highway mpg. My 2008 Accord runs, I think, at c. 2700 rpm in 5th at 60 mph. There are many reasons I like manuals, but one of them has always been that I felt I could get better mpg than with an auto. But no matter how well I shift I can't ever beat this new CVT on the hwy.
 
The new Accord has a best in class smooth shifting 6 speed manual too available for some models. That is appealing! But even in 6th with the manual you'd be running at maybe 2400 rpm. That's why the EPA mpg ratings for the first time for the Accord are lower for the manual than for the auto.

#16864 of 18205 Camry, Accord, and the Korean models...... by cski

Sep 14, 2012 (4:58 am)

1) Hey guys. I am not looking for a fight about the Camry. There is no question they are good cars, but at the time I bought my new car they were still making a 5 year old design. I have 3 grade school kids so I had a limited budget.
 
2) The reason the pillars are so thick on ALL the late model sedans is because the federal government demands it for the ever increasing roll-over and crash protection standards.
 
3) The mid-size sedan segment is THE toughest automotive class to design and sell. These cars have to be everything to everyone. For example; I want a sports sedan, my neighbor wants great gas mileage, other neighbor needs a big trunk, and the kid down the hall want a fast car w/o high insurance premiums that go along with 2 door coupes.
 
4) I probably should not have bashed Toyota so thoroughly in my last post, and would like to apologize to Camry owners who I may have offended.
 
Anyway, great discussion!

#16865 of 18205 Re: Camry should be called Chintzy.... [backy] by fushigi

Sep 14, 2012 (5:14 am)

Replying to: backy (Sep 13, 2012 3:22 pm)
Ditto. My sister's '04 Sonata has 194K miles and is just starting to get aged car random quirks. She has a 60+ mile each way commute and is strongly considering an Elantra to replace it. Absolutely no problems with quality.

#16866 of 18205 Re: Camry, Accord, and the Korean models...... [cski] by benjaminh

Sep 14, 2012 (6:02 am)

Replying to: cski (Sep 14, 2012 4:58 am)
cski wrote:
"2) The reason the pillars are so thick on ALL the late model sedans is because the federal government demands it for the ever increasing roll-over and crash protection standards."
 
Good post overall. But this part is, I believe, incorrect. New higher grades of steel make thinner pillars possible while still *increasing* the strength of the car. It's not a structural problem, it's a *style* problem.
 
If what you write is true, how is is that the Accord, both the current generation as well as the all new 2013 Accord, get or are expected to achieve top scores in all safety and crash tests while still having *excellent* visibility? I'm not try to annoy or argue with you needlessly, I'm just trying to give you more information for what I think is an honest mistake you are making in that one sentence there.
 
Here's a little on the new Accord to give you additional info on this:
 
"High-Strength Steel
The 2013 Accord unit-body uses 55.8-percent high-tensile steel, more than in any previous Accord. In addition, 17.2-percent of the steel is now grade 780, 980 and 1,500 – extremely high grades that have never before been used in any Accord. This contributes to higher body rigidity and reduced weight, which directly benefits ride and handling, interior quietness, performance and efficiency and long-term durability.
 
The measured improvements in rigidity are significant. In static tests, bending rigidity is up 34 percent and torsional rigidity is up 42-percent compared to the previous-generation Accord. In dynamic tests, front lateral rigidity is up 16 percent and rear vertical rigidity is up 39-percent....
 
Collision Safety
Collision safety capability is enhanced in the 2013 Accord, thanks to the newly revised Advanced Compatibility Engineering™ (ACE™) body structure, while the more extensive use of high-tensile steel allows protection to be provided with less weight. While official testing had not been completed at press time, internal Honda results indicate that the Accord will earn 5 Stars (the top rating) in federal NHTSA crash testing, along with Good crash ratings (the top level) and a TOP SAFETY PICK rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
Projected test results include:
NHSTA
Projected Rating
Overall Vehicle Score
5 Star
Overall Frontal Crash Safety rating
5 Star
Overall Side Crash Safety rating
5 Star
Rollover rating
5 Star
 
IIHS
Projected Rating
Frontal collision rating
Good
Side collision rating
Good
Neck protection rating
Good
Roof strength rating
Good
Narrow offset frontal collision rating
Good
 
http://www.hondanews.com/channels/honda-automobiles-accord/releases/2013-honda-a- - - ccord-safety

#16867 of 18205 Re: 2013 Accord [benjaminh] by nyccarguy

Sep 14, 2012 (5:52 am)

Replying to: benjaminh (Sep 13, 2012 11:53 pm)
I commend you for sticking to your guns & buying manual transmissions for so long. You even went as far as special ordering your '08 Accord with a stick. You've done all you can to "save the manuals" & shouldn't be ashamed for buying an Accord with a CVT.
 
I have 1 car of 3 that's a stick, my 2001 Honda Prelude Type SH.

#16868 of 18205 IIHS small offset crash test by benjaminh

Sep 14, 2012 (7:16 am)

And yes, that's from Honda, but in the independent IIHS small offset crash test they recently tested several premium midsize cars. Almost all did poorly, including cars by Mercedes, Lexus, Lincoln, etc.
 
The two cars that passed were the Volvo S 60 and the Acura TL (which is based on the Accord).
 
The new 2013 Accord is improved over the previous design on which the Acura TL is based. Honda calls its system Advanced Compatibility Engineering. The new Accord uses the second generation of this, the ACEII.
 
This 3 minute video is worth watching. The rather poor results received by some premium cars like Lexus ("one of the worst vehicles in our test") are a bit shocking.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7xh-nYlnpo
 
The IIHS is expected to crash test midsize sedans like the 2012 and 2013 Accord, Altima, Fusion, Camry, Sonata, Optima, etc. in the next few weeks. I think most cars will not do well on this, with the probable exception of the Accord.

#16869 of 18205 Re: 2013 Accord [nyccarguy] by benjaminh

Sep 14, 2012 (6:19 am)

Replying to: nyccarguy (Sep 14, 2012 5:52 am)
nycarguy: Thanks for easing my guilt a little. And I figure this new car is more my wife's car. When I get the replacement for the 2008 Accord, probably in about 4-5 years, I'll most likely get a manual for myself...If one is still offered that is.

#16870 of 18205 Re: 2013 Accord [nyccarguy] by benjaminh

Sep 14, 2012 (6:03 am)

Replying to: nyccarguy (Sep 14, 2012 5:52 am)
nycarguy: That Prelude must be fun to drive! Now that's a rare car. It's almost a collector car, I'd say, at least at this point....

#16871 of 18205 2013 Fusion by akirby

Sep 14, 2012 (6:35 am)

Anybody considering a 2013 Fusion other than me?
 
I really wanted the 1.6L ecoboost auto start/stop engine but with Intelligent Access and push button start but alas the 1.6L is only offered in the SE and IA is only on the Titanium which only offers the 2.0. Even the hybrid doesn't get push button start which I don't understand. So it will be a 2.0 Titanium for me fully loaded. Or maybe a MKZ but I'm not sure I can justify the added cost.
 
The 1.6L ecoboost with auto start/stop gets 26 city/37 highway on regular fuel. The hybrid gets 47/44. And the plug in hybrid version should be out in a few months.

#16872 of 18205 Re: 2013 Accord [benjaminh] by nyccarguy

Sep 14, 2012 (9:40 am)

Replying to: benjaminh (Sep 14, 2012 6:19 am)
In reality, the ONLY reason to buy a car with a manual transmission is because you truly LOVE the connection it gives you with the car. Years ago when most autos were 3 & 4 speeds, then a similarly equipped car with a stick would be faster & get better mileage. We've all got significant others & traffic issues to deal with.

Messages Page 1688 of 1822

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement