Ask the Car People.SM


Midsize Sedans 2.0

18220 messages,  Last post on May 24, 2013 at 7:58 AM

You are in the Sedans Forum.

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

Messages Page 330 of 1823

#3286 of 18220 Re: Yes.... a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry ... [oldcem] by thegraduate

Jul 13, 2007 (9:34 am)

Replying to: oldcem (Jul 12, 2007 8:02 pm)
Whoa - my friend. Our last 6 Chryslers lasted longer than our last 3 Hondas did.
 
Interesting. Our experience with Chrysler would show that 6 Chryslers might have the combined lifespan of 3 Hondas! I'm at 174k miles on the '96 Accord, and it hasn't stranded me yet. Has it needed some repairs? Of course. Any car with that many miles will, even so-called "perfect" Honda. I've spent about $1,000 in the last five years on three repairs. Not perfect, but not bad at all in my eyes.
 
We got burned once in 1994, and in an act of stupidity, bought another one in 1996. BOTH proved to be garage-queens, with one vehicle needing a suspension rebuild, and both having transmission issues keeping them in the shop for not multiple days, but instead weeks.
 
And, the lucky for us, the cars were so new, they never got out of their warranty (the '94 LeBaron Convertible had less than 20k miles and was traded 8 months after purchase on a 95 Civic. The '96 Sebring was sold at 35k miles because my folks knew they couldn't afford the car once in ran out of warranty - they came back to Honda the second and final time). They don't limit their shopping choices to Honda (nor do I), but they do boycott Chrysler, even 10 years later.
 
And, "Viking Funeral Package" lol

#3287 of 18220 Re: MPG Comparison [captain2] by baggs32

Jul 13, 2007 (10:10 am)

Replying to: captain2 (Jul 13, 2007 9:04 am)
a possibility that the 'new' 3.5 is really nothing more than a bored/stroked 3.0?
 
There's a good bit more to it than that but I don't know all the details off hand. Some reviews I've read of the Taurus have praised the low engine noise levels so maybe the D35 has been tweaked over the last year.

#3288 of 18220 Re: MPG Comparison [captain2] by baggs32

Jul 13, 2007 (10:12 am)

Replying to: captain2 (Jul 13, 2007 8:21 am)
a spot where we will differ, any car that logically should run in the low 6s (high 5s?) 0-60 and still return something like 30 mpg on the highway and well into the 20s all around, gets my vote for 'great' gas mileage.
 
I don't differ with you on that but I don't see Honda increasing the mpg numbers over what they are for the competition that's all. Claims have been made in this thread that they will increase those numbers (thus saving the planet ) and I'm a bit skeptical if you can't tell.

#3289 of 18220 Re: MPG Comparison [baggs32] by captain2

Jul 13, 2007 (10:17 am)

Replying to: baggs32 (Jul 13, 2007 10:10 am)
yes, also have read some better opinions of it and not had the chance to 'experiment' with one myself. But almost all reviews I've read (even the more favorable ones) still put the 3.5 at some level lower than similiar (and older) engines from you know who...

#3290 of 18220 Re: MPG Comparison [captain2] by baggs32

Jul 13, 2007 (10:23 am)

Replying to: captain2 (Jul 13, 2007 10:17 am)
I get the impression that no matter what anyone does to their motor it will always be at least a level lower than you know who.
 
One reason for the better refinement is the way Ford changed the engine mounts. They mounted it to a different part of the structure and used different mounts which went a long way. I'm wondering if this new discovery will carry over to other products like the Fusion in the coming years.

#3291 of 18220 Re: MPG Comparison [baggs32] by captain2

Jul 13, 2007 (10:33 am)

Replying to: baggs32 (Jul 13, 2007 10:12 am)
if Honda is going to save the planet, look for an Accord with a high tech diesel in it. Toyota's 2GR is a remarkable accomplishment (and yes, I drive one of these) but I don't believe even it bumps the limits of these current engines. Honda I would put a lot a faith in to improve on these things that Toyota has already proven possible, the nextstep maybe a mpg or two after correcting for EPA changes. Revolutionary hardly, although that title might be argued for the now 'ancient' Nissan VQ and the Toyota 2GR.

#3292 of 18220 Re: MPG Comparison [captain2] by urnews

Jul 13, 2007 (10:44 am)

Replying to: captain2 (Jul 13, 2007 10:17 am)
I, too, have not had an opportunity to test drive the 3.5-liter V6 from Ford but, from what I've read on the Internet, it is a reworked 3.0-liter Duratec, but has already earned a spot as one of the 10 best engines from Wards Automotive.
 
According to an article in Wikipedia, Ford expects the 3.5 to be in 20 percent of all FoMoCo vehicles by the end of the decade.
 
Mileage results for this engine do not seem very impressive to me, sort of run-of-the-mill. Am I missing something here?

#3293 of 18220 Re: MPG Comparison [baggs32] by captain2

Jul 13, 2007 (10:49 am)

Replying to: baggs32 (Jul 13, 2007 10:23 am)
no actually I believe the GM 3.6 is a really fine effort, an engine that sounds and feels good in the XR (and the CTS).
As for the rest of it, I don't think that it can be argued, that 'Detroit' mfgrs. in general has NEVER produced a smaller engine that 'led the pack' in anything (except possibly gas consumption), those type of engines coming instead from the 'Japanese' and 'European' mfgrs.. Call it bias if you wish, I'll call it fact, at least until GM/Ford/Chrysler can produce a whole lot more than just a single 3.6L 'high-feature' V6.

#3294 of 18220 Re: MPG Comparison [captain2] by urnews

Jul 13, 2007 (10:58 am)

Replying to: captain2 (Jul 13, 2007 10:17 am)
I, too, have not had an opportunity to test drive the 3.5-liter V6 from Ford but, from what I've read on the Internet, it is a reworked 3.0-liter Duratec, but has already earned a spot as one of the 10 best engines from Wards Automotive.
 
According to an article in Wikipedia, Ford expects the 3.5 to be in 20 percent of all FoMoCo vehicles by the end of the decade.
 
Mileage results for this engine do not seem very impressive to me, sort of run-of-the-mill. Am I missing something here?

#3295 of 18220 Re: MPG Comparison [urnews] by captain2

Jul 13, 2007 (11:02 am)

Replying to: urnews (Jul 13, 2007 10:44 am)
it is a reworked 3.0-liter Duratec, but has already earned a spot as one of the 10 best engines from Wards Automotive.
I actually agree with baggs32 on this, think there just must be something more ot it than just a simple displacement increase. Ward's 10 best - whoopee - that honor held for many many years by things like the 50s vintage GM pushrods (as well as the DT3.0) in whatever rendition. 'Best' engines are powerful, economical, smooth and quiet, and if the DT3.5 fails to measure up in 3 of those qualities, it will never find its way under my hoods - or maybe I'm just expecting too much?

Messages Page 330 of 1823

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement