Last post on Dec 10, 2013 at 5:02 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
#18418 of 20239 Re: Lemmings [cski]
Jun 17, 2013 (8:29 am)
We plan to look seriously beginning in August and probably buy in August or September, but thought we'd try different rentals as we take our trips in order to give us a feel for what the company has to offer - even if it is the bottom of the line (the Malibu was the bottom of the line and the Altima was one step up from the bottom of the line, but the drivetrains are the same as the top of the line - if sticking with a 4 cyl). I have no intention of walking into a dealership for a beating and would rather rent something to try them out.
You only buy so many cars in a lifetime and one really bad experience can stick with you. I bought the RX-7 the first year it was out (1979) and my dealings with mazda left a very sour taste in my mouth. No love for Chrysler after two of those either. In 2010, we drove the 2009 and 2010 sonatas. We liked the 2009 more than the 2010, but bought a venza. The passenger seats in many of the sedans are just too low and that was the case with the 2010 sonata, too. I hadn't really given Kia much thought and may give it a look. We lived in a rural area without much traffic so the Honda didn't bother me. Now that we've moved to a more densely populated area and everyone seems to be distracted with their electronic gadgets while driving and better safety technology is available we have decided it's time to get rid of the accord. We mostly just use it for very short trips in town. I don't think we've put 1,500 miles on in in the past year.
#18419 of 20239 Re: Lemmings [wayne21]
Jun 17, 2013 (8:45 am)
If you find the passenger seats too low won't that be the case with almost all midsize sedans? Maybe you should be thinking of something different -- a small crossover like the Honda CRV or Kia Soul? Just a thought.
#18420 of 20239 Re: Lemmings [wayne21]
Jun 17, 2013 (9:15 am)
Shoppers haven't exactly flocked to the new Malibu so it has gone through a mini-redesign after one year. Great deals on the 2013 now.
From USA Today:
With updated styling, General Motors hopes Malibu will sell on looks again as well. Buyers will note the change right away from its new front end. The appearance now is closer to its big sister, the redesigned 2014 Impala full-size sedan. The changes are a very quick refresh of the Malibu that was redesigned for 2013.
The new Malibu goes on sale in the fall.
#18421 of 20239 Re: crash ratings [akirby]
Jun 17, 2013 (9:25 am)
Actually, I think the IIHS would like to become irrelevant. It is financed by the insurance industry and I'm sure the insurers would love cars to be designed so that there would be minimal injury claims. If the NHTSA had more robust testing, they would happily close up shop and use that money for more marketing and bonuses.
#18422 of 20239 Re: crash ratings [huskerfan5]
Jun 17, 2013 (10:43 am)
While I don't doubt their motives it is counter-intuitive to think they would close up shop and say "we're done here". They seem to revel in creating tests where cars perform poorly so they can be perceived as Knights in shining armor forcing the big bad auto mfrs to build safer cars against their will. Note how they changed the criteria for some test (forgot which one exactly) so that a car that got a 5 star rating a few years ago now only gets 3. That's sensationalistic and wrong. They should have left the old cars as a 5 and raised the scale for newer safer cars to 6 or 7. Instead they simply changed the grading curve because it's easier to call for change when something scores "fair" or "poor" than saying they want to improve something that's already 5 star.
And once you have that power it's not easy to give it up. If we see yet another slight variation on an existing test where the current vehicles all score poorly then that should tell you something.
#18423 of 20239 Re: crash ratings [akirby]
Jun 17, 2013 (12:04 pm)
The NHTSA revised their tests in 2011, not IIHS. Go to safercar.gov. The IIHS is a pure expense for the insurance industry. They have no need to be considered knights in shining armor. The IIHS earns no revenue. Is anyone going to go out and buy more insurance to thank the insurance industry for funding the IIHS. Besides, considering it has existed for decades, it has virtually no name recognition. Most people assume the govt is performing these tests. They are in it for one reason - money - safer cars mean lower payouts. Trust me, the companies who fund the IIHS would gladly subcontract with the NHTSA to do these tests and disband the IIHS if the NHTSA would do it for less than the cost to fund the IIHS.
#18424 of 20239 Re: crash ratings [huskerfan5]
Jun 17, 2013 (1:11 pm)
I didn't say it was the insurance companies - I'm talking about the IIHS itself and it's simply human nature.
I could be wrong but this strikes me as the same situation with union contract negotiators. If the negotiators (on both sides) said they were happy with the contract they just negotiated 3 years ago then they wouldn't be needed. So every 3 years they come up with new demands thus guaranteeing themselves a job for the next 3 years even is the current contract was really really good.
#18425 of 20239 back from the road trip...
Jun 17, 2013 (1:28 pm)
Drove from central CT to about 25 miles north of Detroit and back over the weekend.
3 people and a pretty full trunk, although nothing too heavy.
Overall, averaged 30.8 mpg. Worst tank, really a little more than 1/2 was the first one 26.2.
It was cool, raining and uphill.
Best tank was the last one, also a little more than 1/2 a tank, warm and downhill, average 34.8.
Ran the A/C the whole way back.
The PA hills didn't bother the car at all, other than the ride being kind of abrupt at times on the worst roads. After the first 15-20 miles or so after crossing over from New York, they go a lot better. Michigan also has some roads in need of repair.
There must have been a bit of tail wind on the way home, because the trucks didn't slow dramatically on the uphills.
#18426 of 20239 Re: crash ratings [akirby]
Jun 17, 2013 (1:49 pm)
I understand your point. They do publish a monthly newsletter and want to be relevant. Obviously, if you work for the IIHS, you have a stake in it's continued existence but the point I was trying to make is it is similar to a subsidiary of a corporation that would not hesitate to shut it down if it wasn't contributing to the bottomline in some way at an appropriate level. For example, if the insurance industry thought that investing the money in driver training would be more beneficial, they could consider cutting funding to the IIHS. In your example, it's the union itself that is trying to validate it's existence, not a non-necessary component as the IIHS is to the insurance industry.
#18427 of 20239 Re: crash ratings [huskerfan5]
Jun 17, 2013 (2:29 pm)
Except the insurance company want tests to show a car is " unsafe" or sustains " excessive damage" in an accident so they can justify raising their rates so they can make more profit. The NHTSA may not give them enough ammo for that.