Last post on May 18, 2013 at 6:47 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
#16992 of 18167 I still want one of these...
Oct 17, 2012 (3:24 pm)
2012 Suzuki Kizashi
For now I'll just have to poach looks at them from here or there whilst driving around the Spokane-Coeur d' Alene area, eh?
I'm gonna get one one day! That blows the Ford Fusion, Chevy Malibu, Toyota Camry, even my beloved Mitsubishi's Galant outta the water. Sheesh Mitsubishi, do ya think it's time ta update your Galant? Or is the Galant toast? I think Mitsubishi decided to put the kiebash on the Galant because of poor sales but even the outgoing Galant blows the Toyota Camry cleanly out of the water.
This is what I'm talking about
This almost looks grey ta me but I think it's that gorgeous silver I've been talkin' about. I don't see how you could want any other car on the planet besides the Mitsubishi Lancer GTS. Simply gorgeous, great running, great performing car automotive dudes and dudettes.
#16993 of 18167 Re: I still want one of these... [iluvmysephia1]
Oct 17, 2012 (3:33 pm)
But the Kizashi is getting a bit long in the tooth. A styling update would help, but so many of the options and features on these other cars are not even available on the Kizashi. I like the size though...it's one of the reasons I bought a Volvo S60.
#16994 of 18167 Mid size sedan comparo C/D 11/12 issue-4 cars
Oct 17, 2012 (7:56 pm)
Well, as predicted the new Fusion with the 1.6 Eco-Boost lost the comparo. It was also $29k. It IS a beautiful car...and it IS available with the 2.0 Eco-Boost with 237 HP.
I recently saw one in a beautiful bright, deep blue color and was very impressed with it's looks, materials in the interior, and I am sure it drives fantastic.
The numbers look good on the 1.6 engine...average power (178) and best torque in the comparo (184), but it is only available in one lump at a certain RPM. The transmission has to work hard to keep it on boost...and that kills engines over time.
There is efficient and there is under-powered...a fine line to walk. I know MPG sells, and I know the EPA and CAFE requirements are tight...but there is NO WAY I would buy a 1.6 in a 3500 pound car. That's just me.
#16995 of 18167 Re: I still want one of these... [iluvmysephia1]
Oct 18, 2012 (4:58 am)
Nice car, but I don't see any advantage of getting one over some of the current models, such as the new downsized Accord (esp. the LX 6MT, a great value) or the Optima LX (also a great value, although no MT), except AWD for people who need that. And I'd go with the Impreza for that, for less money, better FE, and actually more rear leg room (and availability of a hatchback).
But the main reason I wouldn't touch a Kizashi is a very very small dealer network, and the real risk that Suzuki won't be selling cars in the USA much longer.
#16996 of 18167 Good mid size values... C/D comparo....
Oct 18, 2012 (6:24 am)
The new 2013 Accord won the test, but not by much. The winning order is as follows:
1) 2013 Accord
2) 2013 Fusion
3) 2013 Altima
4) 2013 Passat.
The Fusion, Accord, Passat, and the Altima in the test are all the newest model mid-size sedan's on the USA market.
My 2012 Optima EX was the best value I could have ever hoped for. I have three elementary school-aged girls and bought the nicest car I could afford, and it has surpassed ALL of my expectations.
I actually detailed the outgoing 2010 Accord EX for a neighbor yesterday, with similar options as my Optima. I immediately noticed the hard black and grey plastics everywhere, no real aluminum or tasteful wood grain trim. The shift knob looked like it came out of a "94 Grand Am.
It's black leather seat's however were FAR better than mine, and it drove about the same. The exterior was ok, but no fog lights or dual exhaust with the Accords 2.4, and it was just an older design. I can't wait to drive the new "13.
#16997 of 18167 Re: Mid size sedan comparo C/D 11/12 issue-4 cars [cski]
Oct 18, 2012 (6:53 am)
To each his own. Ford has been engineering its Ecoboost engines to be bullet-proof...one of the many reasons they cost more than their non-ecoboosted choices. The hp and torque of the 1.6 are easily competitive with anything in this comparo list, and along with the transmission they use, it tends to stay a good torque curve. Don't like it? The Honda or any of the others are worthy alternatives.
Interesting in the comparo was the use of the 1.6. The that is Ford's step-up engine from the 2.5 liter. All the other cars seemed to be fielded with their base engines. I suspect the Fusion may not have come in as high as second if the 2.5 model had been tested.
Oops...I think I was referencing another test in Motor Trend, where the Passat came in first, then Accord, then Fusion, then Altima, followed by Camry and Malibu.
#16998 of 18167 Re: Mid size sedan comparo C/D 11/12 issue-4 cars [gregg_vw]
Oct 18, 2012 (10:30 am)
Thats ok. The Passat came in first in my magazine just 45 days ago too. Funny how it was last this time. Funny as in odd.
We will just have to see if the 1.6 holds up in real use. I very, very much like the Fusion. I wanted my favorite magazine to test the 2.0 in a comparo.
It is more expensive because it the engine is made in England and is shipped here for installation in Dearborn, Michigan.
The 2.5 is assembled in Mexico. Not sure where the 2.0 is built.
#16999 of 18167 Re: Mid size sedan comparo C/D 11/12 issue-4 cars [cski]
Oct 18, 2012 (10:58 am)
It's more expensive because it gets slightly better fuel economy and it's not the base engine. It's not about cost - it's about marketing.
There are no bad cars in this segment. Just varying degrees of good. The new Accord and Fusion appear to be just slightly above the rest overall but individually you could make a good case for any of them. Yes - even the Camry.
I think Fusion will still offer the most powertrain options with 1.6, 1.6 autostart/stop, 1.6 manual, 2.0, 2.0 AWD, 2.0 Hybrid and 2.0 PIH.
I'm likely ordering a 2013 Fusion Hybrid Titanium. 47 mpg is hard to pass up.
#17000 of 18167 Re: Mid size sedan comparo C/D 11/12 issue-4 cars [akirby]
Oct 18, 2012 (1:02 pm)
Agreed. 47mpg is awesome.
I have had so many problems with cars in the past...stranded on the road in many, that I am gun shy of anything that is limited production, turbocharged, or GT versions. My 87 Z24 with unrepairable cracked transmission and alternators that died monthly. 1994 - Yamaha engine melted down in my SHO. 96 Passat TDI that had to be shut off and on every 5 miles to get the turbo to work.
All sales people had said things like "bullet proof" and "will never leave you stranded". All did. So, now I buy cars more likely to make it 150k without a major problem, and with the most available and cheapest parts. All the while still trying to buy something that isn't a bread-box on wheels.
I understand why millions buy Corolla's and Camry's. They are a safe bet for reliability and are serene places to sit and drive. I am amused the adding an "S" on the back of everything increases sales. I am also amused that every 75% of Toyota Corolla's I see on the road (the ones with the "S" usually) are missing at least one hubcap. Does the S stand for stolen?
No. With me it seems the S stands for sub-standard, stranded, sucker, and stupid.
I am still holding out that I can drive a nice looking car that isn't a Camry or Accord or a Corolla out of fear of breakdowns.
However, the EX on the back of my Kia may yet be EX-ploded or EX-pensive to repair. I hope not. Not this time.
I do a lot of research now before I buy now. The rest is how I treat the car, and that the welding robot wasn't off-line when my car sailed down the assembly line. But it doesn't have an S....so there is hope.
#17001 of 18167 Re: Mid size sedan comparo C/D 11/12 issue-4 cars [cski]
Oct 18, 2012 (1:55 pm)
You are talking about 1980s/1990s cars that had special engines. Car companies don't put out hardware that is not designed to last the long haul. They can't afford to in this competitive environment. Even VW with its questionable quality reputation had engineered their TDIs to be much more problem-free than their gassers by the early 2000s. My 2003 TDI is still going strong (with its new owner), and both a 2002 TDI and a 2005 TDI in my extended family have gone beyond 200K with only routine maintenance. Soon enough you will not have a choice. Contrary to what Allen said, the 1.6 and 2.0 Ecoboosts do cost more right now because they have the direct injection/turbo technology and equipment not present yet on some competitors' engines. Some components have been re-engineered for the added stress, so that the engine will last similarly to a non-Ecoboost 2.5 liter. However, soon enough most engines will be DI turbos, because with tightening MPG regulations, it is one way to get good mileage and the torque people want, without resorting to diesels, or the even more expensive hybrids and electrics.
There has never been a time when the mid-size car buyer had so many excellent choices. Buy what you like, don't drive the piss out of it all the time, do the routine maintenance suggested, and any of these cars will give you more satisfactory service than you have had with your previous rides.