Last post on May 23, 2013 at 3:51 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
#16923 of 18218 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [akirby]
Sep 25, 2012 (10:51 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 18218 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [akirby]
Sep 25, 2012 (12:31 pm)
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 18218 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [akuma]
Sep 25, 2012 (1:27 pm)
If they only got mid-30s in a car rated at 47/47 then something is seriously wrong.
#16927 of 18218 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [akirby]
Sep 25, 2012 (2:36 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 18218 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [akuma]
Sep 25, 2012 (2:36 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 18218 CVT pro/con
Sep 25, 2012 (4:50 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.
#16930 of 18218 Re: 1.6 turbo Eco Boost 1.6 [benjaminh]
Sep 26, 2012 (8:56 am)
I was not attempting to slam Ford's Eco-boost engine QUALITY in any size. Just that a 3500 pound car with 178 HP is going to be under the whip and therefore having to work harder. Harder working engines experience more wear in general. (That's why we have odometer tampering laws).
See comparison below....
Have you guys ever seen Jeremy Clarkson (Top Gear) drive a BMW M3 vs. a Toyota Prius in order to compare fuel economy?
All Jeremy had to do was keep up with the Toyota, with the Toyota going as fast as it could around the track.
The M3 got better MPG in an engine twice as large, and on a heavier and larger vehicle.
Just a counter-point.
#16931 of 18218 Re: CVT pro/con [ctl]
Sep 26, 2012 (10:03 am)
You know the CVT didn't get off to a great start. It was supposed to be revolutionary when they first came out. Unfortunately most folks didn't buy one, and they were relegated to almost exclusive duty in economy cars. The Subaru Justy comes to mind (shivered ). The only CVT I have ever driven was in a Dodge Caliber I had to rent. That 2.0 and the CVT was a double-kill for the Caliber. It was just bloody awful.
Nissan aims to change all that. They reduced friction/wear by 30% as compared to the outgoing model. CVT's also have far fewer moving parts. I really want to drive this new Altima. There is a 2013 on my street and I really liked the styling from afar and close up. It's gotta nice **S.
#16932 of 18218 Re: CVT pro/con [cski]
Sep 26, 2012 (10:27 am)
I recently rented a 2012 Altima for trip Chicago/Dallas r/t. I really like the CVT for low revs at speed, good mpg and good pickup from 50-80mph. However, was in a right lane at light and didn't realize the lane ended right after going through the light and had to get into the left lane quickly. Decided to floor it and holy crap was there a racket(basically I think it redlined) and it really didn't have the accompanying surge forward but just kind of sat there. I quickly slowed quickly and let the other cars go ahead and meekly pulled in behind. I thought that my little Mazda6 auto with much less power would have been more than adequate for what I tried to do. The CVT...not. I decided that I didn't want a CVT right there. I'll keep trying them from time to time to see the improvements they make but for now I just don't like certain ways they respond.