Ask the Car People.SM


Midsize Sedans 2.0

18436 messages,  Last post on Jun 19, 2013 at 12:40 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 54 of 1845

#524 of 18436 Acceleration in 1995/96 by jeffyscott

Apr 29, 2007 (4:53 am)

Replying to: thegraduate (Apr 28, 2007 9:49 pm)
From CR testing, automatic transmissions:
 
0-60
Accord, 4 cyl = 10.4 sec.
Accord, V6 = 9.7 sec.
Ford Taurus V6 = 9.4
Ford Contour 4 cyl = 12 sec.
Mercury Mystique 6 cyl = 10.4 sec
Chysler Cirrus, 6 cyl = 9.6 sec
Toyota Camry V6 = 8.6 sec
 
45-65
Accord, 4 cyl = 6.4 sec.
Accord V6 = 6.4
Ford Taurus V6 = 5.8
Ford Contour 4 cyl = 7.7 sec.
Mercury Mystique 6 cyl = 6.7 sec
Chysler Cirrus, 6 cyl = 6.4 sec
Toyota Camry V6 = 5.3 sec.
 
Most of the V6 performance numbers from then are around where the 4 cylinders are today.

#525 of 18436 Re: I guess I'll start? [jd10013] by kyrpto

Apr 29, 2007 (5:09 am)

Replying to: jd10013 (Apr 13, 2007 4:29 pm)
Car and Driver discovered that the reg auto trans got better mileage than the CVT in the Altima.

#526 of 18436 Re: I guess I'll start? [kyrpto] by jd10013

Apr 29, 2007 (5:53 am)

Replying to: kyrpto (Apr 29, 2007 5:09 am)
In some situations. But its hard to make an apples to apples comparison being as nissan no longer makes auto transmission. The only way to know for sure would be to test an auto altima (which doesn't exist) against a cvt altima. the same way the sticks are compared to autos. but even nissan themselves rate the cvt version as having 1 mpg wors than the stick version. But, the cvt does get better mpg than most any automatic out there, under most driving conditions. It' the most fuel efficent auto out there, and very close to a stick. and I believe the comparisson was done with a sentra, that doesn't have the same version in it, and is not as good.
 
But thats not the bennifit of the cvt, not to me at least. It't the way it handles, the acceleration you get at any speed, the overall smoothness of it. and after having drove about 2k miles with it now, i stand by my prediction. In 10 years most cars will have the option of a standard or cvt. the automatic transmission will go the way of the carburator.

#527 of 18436 Re: slow-pokes, I hate following them [jeffyscott] by micro99

Apr 29, 2007 (7:03 am)

Replying to: jeffyscott (Apr 29, 2007 4:26 am)
I just can`t see ever cutting a passing maneuver so close that 0.5 to 1.0 sec would make a difference. It`s fine that you want a V6, I just don`t buy your attempts at rationalizing it as almost a need
 
Agree with this sentiment totally. This will however likely bring out those few regulars who seem to strongly adhere to the view that " more and more accleration prowess is directly correlated to greater safety ". As usual , the impossible challenge is to find agreement on what is required so to safely pass another vehicle, or,to safely merge into traffic. Your comments concerning the appropriate TECHNIQUE to pass are right on the mark!!

#528 of 18436 Re: slow-pokes, I hate following them [micro99] by jd10013

Apr 29, 2007 (9:11 am)

Replying to: micro99 (Apr 29, 2007 7:03 am)
I wouldn't consider a v6 a need either, but it is fun. I think it just a matter of how far engines and cars have come. I think comparing a v6 to an I4 is like comparing a v8 to a v6 from 20 years ago. add to that better valve systems and much ligher cars and you have cars equiped with I4's that accomodate any driving "need". at least in a mid size and up. I think for compact and sub compact cars, the type of engine and its HP is probably more of a concern.

#529 of 18436 Re: I guess I'll start? [kyrpto] by backy

Apr 29, 2007 (9:51 am)

Replying to: kyrpto (Apr 29, 2007 5:09 am)
Are you sure you aren't referring to the Versa? C/D did a test of the 4-speed automatic vs. the CVT in the Versa and found the 4-speed got better highway fuel economy. I was not aware that the new Altima even comes with a regular automatic transmission.

#530 of 18436 Re: I guess I'll start? [backy] by jd10013

Apr 29, 2007 (10:34 am)

Replying to: backy (Apr 29, 2007 9:51 am)
I don't think you can get a versa with an automatic either. I believe nissan has switched all their cars to either cvt or stick.
 
this is from a review, can't remember where:
 
"A CVT has no forward gears or complex clutches and bands. Instead, there are two tapered pulleys with a steel belt connecting them. These pulleys can change their effective diameter through a signal from the computer. If the pulley halves are squeezed together making them narrower, the diameter in effect, increases causing the belt to move to the outer edge. At the same time, the other pulley would spread out causing the diameter to decrease. Changes in the two pulleys are always coordinated to keep the belt taut.
 
If the smaller pulley is being turned by the engine (the drive pulley), the steal belt would turn the larger pulley (the driven pulley) more slowly. If the diameters change, the speed of the driven pulley will also change. By allowing the computer to control the diameters of the two pulleys, the transmission ratio will smoothly and gradually change from low "gear" to high "gear"
 
This design eliminates the need for a 4 speed, five speed or even a six speed transmission, instead allowing for an infinite number of "speeds". The net effect is better fuel economy (at light throttle, the engine rpm is always at the optimal point for maximum fuel efficiency), and better performance (the engine can stay in its sweet spot for maximum horsepower delivery)"
 

#531 of 18436 Re: I guess I'll start? [jd10013] by backy

Apr 29, 2007 (11:03 am)

Replying to: jd10013 (Apr 29, 2007 10:34 am)
In fact you can't get a base Versa with the CVT in the U.S., just the 4-speed automatic or 6-speed stick.
 
Which leads to a thought... since the Versa is roomier than some "mid-sized" cars, especially in back, is it a mid-sized car? I'll bet most people don't consider it mid-sized, but it can hold four adults in comfort with the best of the mid-sized field. There's a few other small cars like that too, e.g. Elantra and Sentra. I wonder if people who are satisfied with a four-cylinder cross-shop cars like that when looking for a "mid-sized" car? FWIW, I do.

#532 of 18436 Re: I guess I'll start? [backy] by jd10013

Apr 29, 2007 (12:34 pm)

Replying to: backy (Apr 29, 2007 11:03 am)
Yes, your right. only the 1.8sl offers the cvt. as for the roominess, it has to be less than the altima and sentra, otherwise it wouldn't be considered a sub compact.

#533 of 18436 Re: I guess I'll start? [jd10013] by backy

Apr 29, 2007 (12:57 pm)

Replying to: jd10013 (Apr 29, 2007 12:34 pm)
Yes, the Versa (95 cubic feet) has less interior volume than the Sentra (97) or Altima (101), but the Versa is actually considered a mid-sized car by the EPA, as are the Sentra and Elantra (98). The Mazda6 is considered a mid-sized car, but has only 96 cubic feet, just one more than the Versa and less than the Sentra and Elantra. The Accord EX has only 98 cubic feet according to Honda. The Legacy has only 93 cubic feet! So these smaller cars match up pretty well in interior room against some of the mid-sized cars. I suspect the Versa is classed a subcompact by some only because of its length. In some countries, it would be considered a "family car".

Messages Page 54 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