Last post on Dec 05, 2013 at 12:48 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
#17546 of 20191 Why not this deal?
Feb 18, 2013 (11:56 am)
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 20191 Re: Why not this deal? [pegasus17]
Feb 18, 2013 (12:37 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 20191 Re: Back to midsize sedans [benjaminh]
Feb 18, 2013 (1:04 pm)
Well that's a totally different issue.
#17549 of 20191 Re: Why not this deal? [backy]
Feb 18, 2013 (1:09 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 20191 Re: Motorweek comparison test [backy]
Feb 18, 2013 (3:15 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
#17551 of 20191 Re: Back to midsize sedans [cski]
Feb 18, 2013 (3:46 pm)
Geography can be an issue. But Minneapolis has its fair share of traffic too - especially when you work downtown and live in the 'burbs. My current commute after a recent move is a cinch - about 10 minutes. But my old commute across the metro was 45 minutes to 2+ hours, depending on traffic and weather. And I had a stick (and still didn't want an automatic). Yes, having to operate a clutch can be constant in heavy traffic, but I never really thought of it as a form of torture.
Automatics, on the other hand, are a form of torture (in my opinion - we can agree to disagree). And the more speeds they have, the worse the torture (I actually prefer CVTs to traditional planetary gearset transmissions when it comes to modern automatics). It seems like whenever I'm in a rental, the thing's never in the right gear in traffic. Modern automatics upshift way too early (indeed I understand it saves fuel) and when you turn a corner and hit the gas, there's always that moment of pause (during which I admittedly have a tendency to punch the accelerator ) before it kicks down a couple of gears and rockets forward. Annoying.
I've had salespeople tell me that transmission electronics can predict my behavior. I kindly disagree. And then invariably they tell me their transmission can predict my behavior. Whatever.
I just like manuals and the days of manuals are going away. I've got plenty of years ahead of me to drive automatics. Eventually, we'll all be forced to. I just want to enjoy that extra control behind the wheel while I still can.
#17552 of 20191 Re: Motorweek comparison test [ivan_99]
Feb 18, 2013 (4:09 pm)
No, I think you're still missing his point. IMO his point is that back in the day we thought 9-11secs or more to 60mph in a economy car was just fine. Now we complain if it's over 7 secs. Everyone knows cars have gotten heavier due to general size, crash safety standards and add equipment. But the HP has way more than kept pace with weight gains. Don't get me wrong, I like the pep just fine. But the point was our expectations of how fast a car is has changed. We would not be satisfied with todays cars with just enough hp to go 0-60 in 9-11secs.
Heck, a 1982 Accord LX took almost 13 secs 0-60mph. Don't think that would go over too well today.
#17553 of 20191 Re: Motorweek comparison test [m6user]
Feb 18, 2013 (4:17 pm)
#17554 of 20191 Re: Motorweek comparison test [backy]
Feb 18, 2013 (7:27 pm)
My first car was a 1969 VW Bus. 0-60 in c. 22 seconds. I'm not kidding.
Today my 2008 Honda Accord 4 cylinder 5 MT is considered somewhat slow, but it gets to 60 in somewhere around 8.5 seconds.
#17555 of 20191 Re: Motorweek comparison test [benjaminh]
Feb 18, 2013 (8:01 pm)
And here I thought the VW Bus was... a bus! Come to find out it's a mid-sized sedan!
Who is it who considers your 2008 Accord "somewhat slow"? You? Or the guys at C/D who drag race their V6 Accords, using launching techniques that are clearly "do not attempt this at home"?