Ask the Car People.SM


Midsize Sedans 2.0

18437 messages,  Last post on Jun 19, 2013 at 6:38 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 48 of 1845

#464 of 18437 Re: Turning rotors, not necessary [elroy5] by bhmr59

Apr 25, 2007 (8:21 pm)

Replying to: elroy5 (Apr 25, 2007 7:23 pm)
The point is that his Honda Accord, which he never chose to consider again, was a 1985. Honda has improved.
 
Yet, some people choose to rag on all Hyundai models because Hyundai made some crummy cars in the late 1980's to early 1990's.
 
Look at what has happened to computers in the last 15 years...wasn't it 1992 or '93 that IBM brought out it's first PC, at about $10,000? How many people buy an IBM PC now when there are so many equally as good products available? Yep, some will still pay a premium price for the IBM name (brand loyalty). Others have learned they can get much greater value for their dollar from other brands and "clones."

#465 of 18437 Re: Buying a car, made simple? [elroy5] by exshoman

Apr 25, 2007 (9:00 pm)

Replying to: elroy5 (Apr 24, 2007 8:55 pm)
I'm glad you keep your car for a long time, I also try to buy cars that I can see myself owning for a long time. However, people often get rid of cars for reasons other than not liking it. Maybe you have a kid and need to trade in your 2 seat convertible. Or the kids go off to college and you no longer need your minivan. Or you get a promotion, and that new Corolla CE doesn't quite have the panache that you desire.
 
I wouldn't be surprised that on average, a new car stays with the original owner for five years before being sold. So yes, resale value is often (although not always) important.
 
In 2000, I bought a new Chrysler 300M (a great car BTW and still going strong at 120K miles) for 30K. Today it's worth around 5K. If I would have bought a 20K Accord, it would probably still be worth about 10K. Fortunately, I'm not in a situation where I have to sell the car.
 
High resale value was one of the numerous reasons we bought an '06 Accord. We figured if our needs changed down the road, we wouldn't take a bath on the car if we sold it.

#466 of 18437 Fusion vs. Accord by benjaminh

Apr 26, 2007 (4:02 am)

The Fusion is a great looking car, and may be equal to the Accord in some areas. One area where the Accord seems to be ahead of the Fusion is when both are equipped with the base engine and a manual transmission. Here's what the Consumer Guide says:
 
"With manual transmission, 4-cyl Fusions are adequate at best and feel slower than our test car's 9.2 sec 0-60 time would suggest. Inordinately heavy clutch action, balky shift linkage makes manual transmission unpleasant to use."
 
In contrast:
 
"Four cyl Accords peppy enough with slick-shifting manual transmission; test EX coupe did 7.9 seconds 0-60 mph."
 
The Accord sedan weighs about 75 lbs more, but should still get from 0-60 in less than 8.5 seconds.
 
So, the Accord's transmission seems to be smoother, and its engine is slightly larger and more powerful, and yet the EPA rates the 4-cyl Accord with manual at 26/34, while the Fusion is rated 23/31. For some models the Fusion may be close to equal, but for this base model it seems the Accord is substantially ahead. Of course, the Accord probably costs about $2000 more. But it appears that a good chunk of that money goes into a better engine and transmission.

#467 of 18437 Re: Fusion vs. Accord [benjaminh] by benderofbows

Apr 26, 2007 (5:36 am)

Replying to: benjaminh (Apr 26, 2007 4:02 am)
That was exactly my experience when I drove both cars. The base Fusion felt significantly slower and less responsive.
 
Was that Accord 0-60 time from before they bumped the power for the 2006 model year? Car and Driver clocks my exact car, a 2007 Accord LX Sedan 5-speed manual, 0-60 in 7.5 seconds.

#468 of 18437 Re: Turning rotors, not necessary [bhmr59] by lilengineerboy

Apr 26, 2007 (6:04 am)

Replying to: bhmr59 (Apr 25, 2007 8:21 pm)
Look at what has happened to computers in the last 15 years...wasn't it 1992 or '93 that IBM brought out it's first PC, at about $10,000? How many people buy an IBM PC now when there are so many equally as good products available? Yep, some will still pay a premium price for the IBM name (brand loyalty). Others have learned they can get much greater value for their dollar from other brands and "clones."
 
I think you mean '82/83. And at that point, the Apple II+/IIe was still a serious contender. IBMs business model doesn't really include personal computers anymore, as they tend to leave the low rent stuff to the myrads of offshore companies that specialize in that. IBM is more of a value add/service provider to integrate business machines into organizations.
I think a better example of people paying a premium might be Apple but that is a whole other discussion

#469 of 18437 Re: Fusion vs. Accord [benderofbows] by captain2

Apr 26, 2007 (7:15 am)

Replying to: benderofbows (Apr 26, 2007 5:36 am)
a 2007 Accord LX Sedan 5-speed manual, 0-60 in 7.5 seconds
that's pretty quick for a 4 banger - but understand that those times are relative to whose doing the testing, the specific car, and even test conditions. C&D seems to specialize in milking the best 0-60 times out of all cars, they must have 'car abuse king' testers that compete! Not to say that you personally might not be able to do the same thing, but I doubt seriously that 99% of us are going to be able to get the car to 60 in less than 8 seconds, and while the CG test is more conservative, perhaps might get closer to that 9+ time in the Fusion 4 banger. A big difference nonetheless, as you say, however. If you like 4 bangers, Honda would still be superior.

#470 of 18437 Re: Fusion vs. Accord [captain2] by benderofbows

Apr 26, 2007 (9:28 am)

Replying to: captain2 (Apr 26, 2007 7:15 am)
"2007 Accord LX Sedan 5-speed manual, 0-60 in 7.5 seconds - that's pretty quick for a 4 banger"
 
That's the beauty of the current "horsepower war" - everything is faster, even the 4 bangers. My last sedan was a Mazda 626 with a V6 generating 170 HP and 165 TQ. It would go 0-60 in 7.2 seconds when equipped with a manual. The 4-banger in the Accord has become just as powerful and very nearly as fast as most V6s of 5-10 years ago, especially when you consider the new revised power ratings.
 
Normally I'd agree with you about the C&D testing procedures and a car being faster in their hands than in the hands of the average driver, but I don't think that applies to the Accord.
 
Here's why: the average car is considerably slower in the more conservative 5-60 test than in the all-out 0-60 run, but the difference is only 0.4 seconds for the Accord. The Accord's 5-60 time of 7.9 seconds is on par with cars that go faster 0-60. Additionally, most cars that match its 0-60 time of 7.5 seconds have a slower 5-60 time.
 
Bottom line? Just as some cars feel slower than their specs on paper suggest, in my opinion the Accord drives faster than its spec sheet suggests.

#471 of 18437 ... by plekto

Apr 26, 2007 (10:06 am)

The main reason, IMO, that the Accord is such a nice car with manual is that it's the same exact car they sell in Japan. Almost everyone in Japan drives manual, and the 4 cylinder engine is the "big" engine over in Japan - or about as big as most people pay for since the taxes are based upon displacement(with 2.5L+ being the premium category with almost twice the yearly registration of a 2.0L)
 
Ford - they build their manuals like GM does - something to make the car go for the ultra-cheap model. And it plainly shows.

#472 of 18437 Re: Fusion vs. Accord [benderofbows] by captain2

Apr 26, 2007 (11:23 am)

Replying to: benderofbows (Apr 26, 2007 9:28 am)
the 'feeling' of quickness probably has something to do with torque and where that torque peaks. Torque may not influence acceleration times in the same way that HP does, but it sure does help with some drivability issues as well as that 'feeling' of quickness.
Have a sneaking suspicion that some test driver for a C&D road test is revving the heck out of that Accord and then, popping the clutch in a trial/error process attempting to squeeze a few tenths here and there. My point was, that this is not likely something you would do to your own car and a degree of abuse that the vast majority of drivers never do - therefore, you 'real' 0-60 should be slower - as would it be for all cars.

#473 of 18437 0-60 times by jeffyscott

Apr 26, 2007 (12:03 pm)

Not sure I buy the 9.2 sec for manual transmission 4 cyl Fusion. If it is accurate, then little is lost in going to the automatic. CR, which tests the way a normal person would drive got 9.5 for the 4 cyl automatic in a Milan.
 
It's difficult to believe one could get 9.5 sec by just flooring an automatic, but only improve that to 9.2 driving the manual in an abusive manner.

Messages Page 48 of 1845

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