Last post on May 20, 2013 at 3:18 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
#17541 of 18179 Re: Back to midsize sedans [akirby]
Feb 18, 2013 (8:37 am)
That might well be true. But some people, like me, would somewhat prefer if more of the money they spent on a car stayed in the US working here. But for many that's not a consideration. Everyone gets to make their own choice....+++ And the Fusion is a great looking car with a lot of plusses, including the best braking time that I've seen.
#17542 of 18179 Re: Back to midsize sedans [bb49]
Feb 18, 2013 (11:50 am)
I just recently read in a Motor Trend article that Mazda is going to be offering the Touring trim level with the manual as well, so I hope there's some validity to that. Unfortunately, it includes a bunch of equipment I could probably live with if I absolutely had to (vinyl seats, 19 inch wheels, "Commander Switch", etc.), but still doesn't give me entry to the sunroof (presently available only on the Grand Touring). I wish Mazda would just go the track Ford/GM/Chrysler have in the past and offer a sun/sound package on the base model. Problem solved.
#17543 of 18179 Re: Back to midsize sedans [cski]
Feb 18, 2013 (12:31 pm)
I've never really understood the whole automated manual concept myself. I remember driving a new Dodge Stratus w/Chrysler's "Autostick" back in the late '90s and thinking afterward, "Why would anyone want one of these?" Thought the same thing when I test drove a VW with "Tiptronic" a few years later. And then again with an A3 dual clutch paddle shift a couple years after that. Since then, I think I've driven 20 or so different models - domestic and foreign - with some form of automated manual in them. And what's to say? They're still automatics (and I dislike them for all the same reasons).
I kind of wonder why manufacturers even bother with them. The percentage of automatic drivers who actively use them has to be smaller than the number of folks driving regular manuals. My parents, for instance, weren't even aware their new Volvo XC70 had a "Geartronic" shiftable auto until I pointed it out to them - 9 months after they brought the car home. They still don't use it (and I suspect they're probably glad they don't have to).
If I was forced to drive a slushbox, I wouldn't be in hunting in this segment anyway. There's a Chrysler dealer a block from my house and I'm forced to drive past a row of shiny new Chargers every day I leave home. To each his own, but that's the most attractive vehicle on the road today IMHO (even beats the new 6). And with Chrysler's never-ending rebateathon, a brand new HEMI model (with my requisite sunroof) can often be had for under $27K.
Like overweight ladies, I really wish I loved automatic transmissions. Life would be so much easier - there's certainly no shortage of them.
#17544 of 18179 Re: Back to midsize sedans [gogophers1]
Feb 18, 2013 (12:50 pm)
I think the issue here could be geography. There is no way I am going to pump a clutch in DC traffic. It's hard on me and hard on the car. However, on the rare occasion that the beltway/395/95 highway is clear, I enjoy a spirited cruise. I don't own the turbo, but I do like to decelerate with my "slushbox" in manual, keep the rev's up, and shoot through a corner on full boil in 3rd then back to auto.
The Optima Turbo does not have a real dual-clutch automated manual either. It is the exact same 6 speed auto that is in the EX 2.4, with flappy paddles added on.
You use the term "slushbox" a lot, and it reminds me of the days of the "turbo-hydromatic" 3-60E GM 3 speed automatic. Today's 6-speed auto units are far more advanced, and extremely durable.
#17546 of 18179 Why not this deal?
Feb 18, 2013 (12:56 pm)
2012 Toyota Camry SE Special Edition (2012 only) - basically an SE V6 package with the 4 cylinder engine. They only made them for 4 or 5 months last year. They are loaded with sunroof, nav, entune but not leather and no rear camera (dammit). Several available if you shop around.
MSRP 27k (or so); sell price 23.5k (clearance)
residual 15077 (for 12000 miles per year)
money factor 0.00001 (yes, that is very low)
Dealer offer: 35 payments of $262 (includes 6.5% sales tax) with absolutely zero o-t-d
This weekend (additional $500 from TFS): payment reduced to 249
Rationale for why i passed:
1. after driving a few cars with the rear camera, i am hooked
2. fear of having to replace the 18 inch tires before/at the end of the lease
Back to the Accord forum...
#17547 of 18179 Re: Why not this deal? [pegasus17]
Feb 18, 2013 (1:37 pm)
You forgot the #1 reason re "why not this deal?"...
IT'S A CAMRY!!!
Although it's a good lease price compared to something like a 2013 Accord LX (which is going for $289/mo with 0 out of pocket in my town), there's comparable lease deals on better, newer cars e.g. Passat SE, Sonata GLS w/PEP, and Optima LX. Add an aftermarket nav system for $100 and drive happy w/o the pitfalls of the 18" wheels. No moonroof, but payment will be less than $249 also. You might find a Sonata Limited or Optima EX for around $250/mo--I haven't shopped those trim levels.
#17548 of 18179 Re: Back to midsize sedans [benjaminh]
Feb 18, 2013 (2:04 pm)
Well that's a totally different issue.
#17549 of 18179 Re: Why not this deal? [backy]
Feb 18, 2013 (2:09 pm)
I currently drive a 2011 Sonata GLS and the lease is up in 2 months. I drove the Accord and this particular Camry (back to back) and was surprised that the Camry SE with the 18 inch wheels and lower profile tires did not have a harsh ride. The deal is sweet but the downsides were enough to keep me shopping.
BTW, the lease deals on the Accord are 255 LX, 284 EX with first and fees down here in OH. Still no cash incentives from honda and the Sport model of the Accord is the prime seller. Time is still on my side for a little while...
#17550 of 18179 Re: Motorweek comparison test [backy]
Feb 18, 2013 (4:15 pm)
I got the point
I loved the 88 accord too.
My point was it was 800 lbs lighter (2500 lbs). So in the 'olden' days 98hp adequate.
You 'need' more now with heavier vehicles; more hp, more gears etc. 98hp in the current Accord would be like adding 800lbs in the 88 Accord...a show stopper.
"Need" is very subjective when automobiles are involved; I too have been guilty of "need"...But recently I explicitly looked for a 4cyl in my current vehicle...bypassing the V6. After many years stuck in traffic in 300+hp cars I figured what's the point