Last post on Dec 12, 2013 at 5:18 PM
You are in the Sedans
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
Sep 24, 2012 (5:55 pm)
In top line trim, a Fusion Titantium 2.0 turbo gets from 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. Surprising, but a 4 cylinder Accord Sport manual is equal to that acceleration (but is otherwise much less lavishly optioned) for about $12,000 less.
The Fusion Titanium that Motor Trend tested priced out at $37,670.
The new top-of-the-line Touring 6 cylinder Accord lists for $34,220.
A 2013 Accord 3.5 V-6 coupe 6 mt goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, which is seriously fast.
Inside Line says that the 6 cylinder auto sedan gets to 60 in 6.1 seconds.
http://www.insideline.com/honda/accord/2013/2013-honda-accord-ex-l-v6-vs-2013-ni- - ssan-altima-3-5-sl-track-test.html
#16921 of 20240 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [benjaminh]
Sep 25, 2012 (5:31 am)
Those are realistic numbers, and indicative of the entire mid-size sedan 4 cyl performance range.
The Fusion has indeed matched or bettered every car in it's segment with a significantly smaller, turbocharged engine; therefore improving fuel economy while doing it.
I am just defending the naturally aspirated 2.4 liter, 200hp and 186lb-ft engine in my car. I believe that this is the correct engine for it's application. (24/35 mpg).
The turbocharged, SX version of my car was too expensive for my needs. (274HP, 22/34 mpg).
I would not buy the 2.5 or the 1.6 liter Fusion. If I was going to pay for a turbo on my insurance then I want ALL of the benefits. Namely strong, powerful performance and reasonable fuel economy figures. The 2.0 liter choice felt right when I drove it and on paper.
#16922 of 20240 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [benjaminh]
Sep 25, 2012 (8:37 am)
27 city and 30 combined is pretty impressive. CVTs are fuel efficient for sure.
But the Fusion Hybrid gets 47/47/47. I don't think Accord can touch that even with a CVT.
#16923 of 20240 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [akirby]
Sep 25, 2012 (9:51 am)
Yeah, if you want a hybrid the Ford Fusion seems to be on top at this point. I'm a Honda fan, but if the competition can beat you then I say so be it. At this point it looks like Ford has the best hybrid 4 door sedan on the market. Hats off to them! And even the regular gas models are fairly close in terms of price. I still think the Honda Accord is the best-in-class, but the Fusion is giving them a run for their money...
#16924 of 20240 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [akirby]
Sep 25, 2012 (11:31 am)
well, the C-Max also supposedly gets 47 combined mpg as well, but Inside Line could only get 33 mpg over 393 miles. i'm not sure if they spent many of those miles flogging a boxy hybrid, but those numbers seem underwhelming like the Sonata hybrid (nowhere near 40 in real life, although the guys at cleanmpg seem to get close to 60 mpg somehow).
also TTAC (thetruthaboutcars) was able to get mid 40s mpg from the plug-in Accord hybrid which is estimated to get 100mpge (like the Fusion Energi) when driven in purely electric mode, so i think that the regular Accord hybrid might get similar if not better real world fuel economy than the Fusion hybrid.
#16925 of 20240 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [akuma]
Sep 25, 2012 (12:27 pm)
If they only got mid-30s in a car rated at 47/47 then something is seriously wrong.
#16927 of 20240 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [akirby]
Sep 25, 2012 (1:36 pm)
Why the surprise? These car mags often get mid-20s in cars rated upper 30s to 40 mpg. They flog their test cars. Unless they are specifically driving for high FE, their FE usually sucks. So getting mid-30s on a car rated 47 isn't abnormal.
#16928 of 20240 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [akuma]
Sep 25, 2012 (1:36 pm)
I wasn't questioning the report - I already read it. I'm saying there had to be something wrong with the Cmax they tested which was obviously a pre-production model.
#16929 of 20240 CVT pro/con
Sep 25, 2012 (3:50 pm)
I hope some Altima owners can comment about the CVT. Seems like Nissan recommend CVT service for every 30K miles (see sources quote 100K miles too), and each would cost around $300 (oil plus labor). Is that true?
I would think Honda's CVT would probably be the same story. If so, the extra savings from MPG advantage of a CVT wouldn't sound so appealing anymore? this is disregarding whether one prefer CVT or not, or whether CVT is as durable as conventional auto -> pure cost consideration.