Ask the Car People.SM


Midsize Sedans 2.0

18198 messages,  Last post on May 21, 2013 at 5:27 PM

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 370 of 1821

#3683 of 18198 Re: Not according to this... [jeffyscott] by thegraduate

Jul 25, 2007 (5:00 pm)

Replying to: jeffyscott (Jul 25, 2007 8:46 am)
Thegraduate (me) said: Bury your right foot in a 2006 Altima 3.5 and you'll suddenly see why FWD has its limits...
  
jeffyscott said: Yes, but the problem is not FWD it is putting these excessively powerful V6 engines in these type of cars.
 
But, then we're returning to elroy's statement that said the Chrysler RWD V6 cars were slow (which isn't true if you consider sub-8 second 60 MPH runs very slow - it's similar to a Fusion V6).
 
Heck, the V6 RWD sedans (Charger/300) from Chrysler are faster than the V8 RWD sedans from Ford (Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, Town Car), which make the 0-60 run in something like 7.9 seconds (according to C&D).

#3684 of 18198 Re: Not according to this... [urnews] by benderofbows

Jul 25, 2007 (7:05 pm)

Replying to: urnews (Jul 25, 2007 4:38 pm)
"As a safety matter, I just don't see horsepower to be a significant factor. I once totaled a 1958 VW Beetle (32 horsepower). But the reason was driver error: I fell asleep at the wheel and took out a guardrail. "
 
Good statistics on the road departures. I think the whole "more powerful = safer" argument has little merit.
 
Plus one for driver error. I totaled my first car, road departure / driver error. It had 110 horsepower, in a midsize sedan.
 
While I admit I've been in situations before where I want more power, I can't say I've ever needed more power.

#3685 of 18198 Re: Not according to this... [urnews] by captain2

Jul 25, 2007 (8:40 pm)

Replying to: urnews (Jul 25, 2007 4:38 pm)
That logic totally ignores the fact that Mazdas and Fusions have exactly the same engines and the Fusions (Milans, MKZs) are based on a slightly modified Mazda chassis.
urnws- I think you are missing my point. In the sentences before I am contending that vehicle dynamics (power, handling, braking) are largely what makes a car safe and given that contention that a beeter handling car (the 6 in this case) is a safer car than the others in this group simply by accepting the generally held view that the 6 handles better. And likewise, if any car is down on power (like the Fusion (or the 6), for example) the opposite must also be true. Of your quoted 25347 road departure accidents, would be willing to bet that many of those were just like the one you had in your VW, not necessarily falling asleep at the wheel but probably inattention, cell phones, and/or 'playing' with the stereo - all the kind of things that are very unrelated to the task and responsibilities at hand.
I never said anything like that 221hp (or even the 150-175hp in the 4 bangers) wasn't enough in any particular car (although you can go back in any number of my posts and find a number of times that I have said it just isn't competitive these days) - HP and relative FE numbers don't lie. What I did say though, is that I think the 270 is safer than the 221, not because it is anything that any of us that have it use even occassionally, but because it is there, in reserve, on those very rare occassions that we HAVE to use it - having that extra 50hp gives you the option of 'aggressively' (bad choice of words, perhaps) avoid a number of real life traffic situations similar to those I specifically mentioned.
 
Not a whole lot different than having a car with a great set of brakes, the same sort of very rare times that a 10 or 15 feet shorter stopping distance can make a helluva difference. When was the last time that any of us can remember 'locking them up' (or getting the the ABS to engage)? If anybody out there can honestly answer 'it happens even semi-regularly' - well, then they are driving too 'aggressively' (good choice of words), their ABS is malfunctioning, and their insurance rates are justifably stratospheric.

#3686 of 18198 Re: Not according to this... [captain2] by mz6greyghost

Jul 26, 2007 (4:45 am)

Replying to: captain2 (Jul 25, 2007 8:40 pm)
Sorry. I love having more power from a V6 than a 4-cylinder, but a V6 being "safer" due to it's power reserve is simply ludicrous! For all the power "in reserve" that a V6 has, a 4-cylinder car, in general, handles better than a nose-heavy V6, due to it's lower front-end weight and better weight distribution.
 
Great acceleration can help you avoid an accident, but so can an emergency lane change.
 
Do I think a 4-cylinder model is safer than a similar V6 model? No way. Having both passive and active elements help to avoid/survive an accident, as well as defensive driving, paying FULL attention to the road ahead, around, and behind you, driving appropriately for road and weather conditions, and properly maintaining your vehicle.

#3687 of 18198 Re: Not according to this... [thegraduate] by goodegg

Jul 26, 2007 (7:15 am)

Replying to: thegraduate (Jul 25, 2007 5:00 pm)
I think BMW has it right with their 230 hp, RWD, perfectly balanced chassis. 230 hp isn't big these days, but in a 328, its sublime.

#3688 of 18198 Re: Not according to this... [mz6greyghost] by captain2

Jul 26, 2007 (7:20 am)

Replying to: mz6greyghost (Jul 26, 2007 4:45 am)
a 4-cylinder car, in general, handles better than a nose-heavy V6
absolutely - and therefore are 'safer' -in that respect, than the V6 - and effectively a tradeoff from a safety perspective - what you gain in handling abilities vs. what you are sacrificing in power.
a true story - recently 'stuck' behind a little Korean subcompact, both of us attempting to merge off a short entrance ramp onto a busy highway that happens to be move at about 75 all the time. By the time he actually got to the end of the on ramp, he was huffing and puffing all the way up to maybe 45 or 50! The ensuing screeching of 'locked up' brakes and 'panic' lane changes , of course followed as he then 'forced' his merge, all from those 75 mph 'victims' of this certainly underpowered car cutting in front of them. Me, being relatively far behind him (maybe 100 yds.), understanding what he was attempting to do (and what he was attempting to do it in), and anticipating his probable inability to do it, bailed to the road shoulder but I thought I was about to be 'taken out'. What would expect this guy to do? Stop at the end of the ramp! That may be even worse than what he actually did do.
And then you tell me, that having some extra power is ludricious and not safety related? Now that would be ludricruous! Granted an extreme example and I'll even admit that even a 4 banger from this particular group could at least approach a condition safe merging speed.
 BTW, I drive this ramp every day and left to my own means (and my own 268hp) I can easily hit that 75mph to merge. The Avalon, I drive, a safer car if only because of that 'surplus' of HP! Or maybe we should all drive around in (90hp?) Kias and then blame situations like this on the fact that many drivers largely ignore speed limits or tend to drive at speeds that 'keep up with the flow'? Oops can't do that either, give it enough time and even those Kias can (and do) move well above posted speeds as well!

#3689 of 18198 Ford announces 2nd Quarter Earnings by akirby

Jul 26, 2007 (8:20 am)

For those of you who think buying a Fusion is a bad bet because Ford is going out of business, you might want to take note: Ford just announced a 2nd quarter profit of $258M NOT including the proceeds from the sale of Aston Martin. That's right - profit, not loss. Revenue was up 6% from last year. And they did it while cutting rental fleet sales. And that doesn't really include the new Taurus/Sable or Focus sales and only a few Escape sales which are setting a record pace.
 
It's amazing what can happen when you cut unnecessary costs, build high quality desirable vehicles at sustainable volumes.

#3690 of 18198 Re: Ford announces 2nd Quarter Earnings [akirby] by dieselone

Jul 26, 2007 (8:41 am)

Replying to: akirby (Jul 26, 2007 8:20 am)
Definitely good news for Ford. This news maynot help dealing with the Union, but regardless, maybe they are on teh right path to profitability. They certainly aren't out of the woods yet.

#3691 of 18198 Re: Ford announces 2nd Quarter Earnings [akirby] by urnews

Jul 26, 2007 (9:40 am)

Replying to: akirby (Jul 26, 2007 8:20 am)
Ford just announced a 2nd quarter profit of $258M NOT including the proceeds from the sale of Aston Martin. That's right - profit, not loss.
 
That's great news. Thanks for posting it, Allen.

#3692 of 18198 Re: Ford announces 2nd Quarter Earnings [akirby] by m1miata

Jul 26, 2007 (9:53 am)

Replying to: akirby (Jul 26, 2007 8:20 am)
Yes, amazing, shock & awe news.
Time will tell, with foot notes and post scripts to come.
 
I would not take the time to read the small print and instead just wait and see how this all plays out. I don't see the stock price doubling today, and big inverstors now have the data at hand.

Messages Page 370 of 1821

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