Topic: Comparison Test: 2014 Mid-Size Sedans

[PJ]

I thought the big debate would be V6 engines vs 4's.  Amazing that some people are so against manuals that they can't accept even one of the cars having one. 

I think the failing of turbo 4's to beat the V6 engines they are suppose to replace is a much better story. 

[dirtyjeffer]

I think the failing of turbo 4's to beat the V6 engines they are suppose to replace is a much better story.

failing them is a matter of context...beat on a V6 and see how great the fuel economy is (hint, it isn't).

[dirtyjeffer]

Im sorry, I have never bought a car simply for the Consumer Reports type of reasons as these. My heart also had to be in it. If we all bought cars by empirical data, everyone would be driving a Corolla.

judging by the sales volumes of Civics and Corollas, everyone is buying them...you are a minority buyer.

[Fobroader]

Im sorry, I have never bought a car simply for the Consumer Reports type of reasons as these. My heart also had to be in it. If we all bought cars by empirical data, everyone would be driving a Corolla.

judging by the sales volumes of Civics and Corollas, everyone is buying them...you are a minority buyer.

Oh I know that I am, when I bought my Altima I had 4 choices of a manual V6 from Manitoba to Victoria.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Im sorry, I have never bought a car simply for the Consumer Reports type of reasons as these. My heart also had to be in it. If we all bought cars by empirical data, everyone would be driving a Corolla.

judging by the sales volumes of Civics and Corollas, everyone is buying them...you are a minority buyer.

Oh I know that I am, when I bought my Altima I had 4 choices of a manual V6 from Manitoba to Victoria.

You had a car

[Fobroader]

Im sorry, I have never bought a car simply for the Consumer Reports type of reasons as these. My heart also had to be in it. If we all bought cars by empirical data, everyone would be driving a Corolla.

judging by the sales volumes of Civics and Corollas, everyone is buying them...you are a minority buyer.

Oh I know that I am, when I bought my Altima I had 4 choices of a manual V6 from Manitoba to Victoria.

You had a car

I know....surprising...Ive had a few. 

[KartMan]

We are not into SUVs, so "mid-size" sedans are the only other options for us. We preferred the V6 Accord over the Mazda 6, but with 2 young grandchildren and their gear, the Accord's lack of a split rear seat back was the deal breaker. Same issue with our skis.

We've never understood why the Accord and Acuras never offered a split rear seat back... does anybody out there know why Honda/Acura doesn't offer a split rear seatback on their mid-size sedans?

[tooscoops]

while i don't sell cars, a few people in here do...i would like them to confirm if any customers come in with "driving dynamics" as one of the things on their checklist.

well... yes. but those customers who have this as a priority are generally not truly enthusiasts... so they can be swayed by a sales pitch. a real enthusiast who knows how to drive and will look for proper driving dynamics knows what car they are looking for. they come in with a purpose and a price.

[toolatecrew]

I thought the big debate would be V6 engines vs 4's.  Amazing that some people are so against manuals that they can't accept even one of the cars having one. 

I think the failing of turbo 4's to beat the V6 engines they are suppose to replace is a much better story. 

No one here seems to be against manuals...in fact quite the opposite. But if you are going to include the manual version of a car that gives the option would you not do it with all the cars that give that option? If people WANT a manual they won't even look at the Malibu for example. If they want a manual they won't look at a V6. Personally I'd love to see a comparison of the mid sized cars with manuals. Its not about who won but about giving a comparison between cars you might actually compare.

BTW boo on ford on the whole 1.5 Turbo with an Auto. How about a nice Fusion Gt with a 2.0 Turbo and a 6 speed stick.Having driven a 2.0 Turbo auto that car would be very tempting.

[sacrat]

Jacob, you need to fix your post on the Mazda6, it doesn't have the V6... I know we wish all for it...

Yeah, sorry, that was cliff notes unedited,just bashed out quickly at the end of the day. Obviously not part of the article, but yes, I will edit my post.

On the other hand this cliff note should have DEFINITELY been part of the article

 "the Malibu was looser than a 6 o’clock necktie."

    

[Black Hatch]

To say the 6 won because it appealed to the enthusiasts more though is very much correct. And THAT is worth debating.

The only flaw that could reasonably be argued, then, is that the title is misleading by virtue of being rather vague.  What constitutes a "comparison test" other than 'here are 3 2014 Mid-Size sedans?  Presumably, it should read in some way or another "our choice" or "an enthusiast's choice" or "best value while retaining some form of driving enjoyment", etc.

I am not insinuating that autos.ca intentionally misled, nor that the name should be changed; rather, such brevity in titling the article left it open to the rants and debates that we're seeing here.  The comparison is what it is on face value, but the specific face isn't obvious until the conclusion of the article.  No official award is being provided, so the implicit reviews from the article serves the stated purpose only: to choose a 2014 mid-sized sedan within the ambit of $35,000 that the writers would most prefer.  I think it's rather fair, if not rather nice of them to open up the forum to the emotions of the posters - it's my daily enjoyment, how about yours?

You are right to a certain extent.
It is a comparison test and the reviewers are also car enthusiasts. They have to determine what is value for the common consumer.

Perhaps they require some second opinions... like an earlier article on the Accord with Pritch's mom or Mike's wife viewpoint on autoguide.

But I'll just take the reason the Mazda6 won over the Accord was basically the missing rear split-fold rear seat.

[fixer]

While I think the Mazda is nice, for families it has 2 glaring shortcomings. Smallest interior and smallest trunk.

[dkaz]

I sat in the backseat of the 6 and found it roomy enough. Not VW Passat roomy, but my knees and head didn't hit anything. How big is the trunk in the 6? 420L or so? I somehow recall it being average in the midsize pack.

My 3 has a small 330L or so trunk but it fits all my goalie gear. When I went camping with the kids, an extra 50L would've been nice, but we have a minivan for that now. 


Sent from something using something

[Noto]

but with 2 young grandchildren and their gear, the Accord's lack of a split rear seat back was the deal breaker. Same issue with our skis.

While I think the Mazda is nice, for families it has 2 glaring shortcomings. Smallest interior and smallest trunk.

Exactly my thought, as stated numerous times.  Go me.

We've never understood why the Accord and Acuras never offered a split rear seat back... does anybody out there know why Honda/Acura doesn't offer a split rear seatback on their mid-size sedans?

Same reason why the previous Lexus IS didn't, and why the new Lexus IS can - structural rigidity.  To be cheaper, they use regular steel rather than more rigid stuff, so they need the space behind the rear seat to stiffen the chassis.  When a manufacturer, such as Lexus, stiffens the chassis, they open up the ability to have split fold-down seats (with a larger opening).  It also (and more often) comes down to cost - how much does it cost to split the seats?  Not much on a grand scale, but more than not doing it (and therefore, an area where costs can be minimized).  Mercedes used to (still does?) offer the base C-class (C250) with 1 piece rear folding seat, and then in higher trims (C300 and above, to my recollection) you could option split folding rear seats.  Ridiculous, IMO, but it's what they did.

I think most of these comparisons should end with multiple winners. Things like " If you love driving and  you're looking for the car that will put a smile on your face choose "X" or "If the best value in a reliable transportation appliance is what you're after then "Y" is for you."

Then read Kelly Blue Book.  I find that their "if"s are usually fairly obvious - e.g. on the Forester:

Building on its well-established reputation for capability, reliability, practicality and longevity, the new Forester now delivers even more comfort and convenience while offering the added benefit of standard fuel-efficient all-wheel drive – and does it at an outstanding price point.
...
Buyers desiring a vehicle with more expressive styling, a pillow-soft ride, the flashiest telematics/infotainment system – or anyone needing a larger 3-row SUV with greater towing capacity – will still have to look beyond the new Forester to find their ideal travel mate.

Notice that the former really doesn't add much, and the "you won't like" shows its shortcomings on a fairly obvious scale.  Not useLESS, but not all that useful.  Most consumers would read "the flashiest" as more than they need anyway, and equate "pullow-soft" with Buicks of yesteryear...

[dirtyjeffer]

Not VW Passat roomy,

honestly, what else is?

that thing is almost a limo.

[jyarkony]

To say the 6 won because it appealed to the enthusiasts more though is very much correct. And THAT is worth debating.

The only flaw that could reasonably be argued, then, is that the title is misleading by virtue of being rather vague.  What constitutes a "comparison test" other than 'here are 3 2014 Mid-Size sedans?  Presumably, it should read in some way or another "our choice" or "an enthusiast's choice" or "best value while retaining some form of driving enjoyment", etc.

I am not insinuating that autos.ca intentionally misled, nor that the name should be changed; rather, such brevity in titling the article left it open to the rants and debates that we're seeing here.  The comparison is what it is on face value, but the specific face isn't obvious until the conclusion of the article.  No official award is being provided, so the implicit reviews from the article serves the stated purpose only: to choose a 2014 mid-sized sedan within the ambit of $35,000 that the writers would most prefer.  I think it's rather fair, if not rather nice of them to open up the forum to the emotions of the posters - it's my daily enjoyment, how about yours?

You are right to a certain extent.
It is a comparison test and the reviewers are also car enthusiasts. They have to determine what is value for the common consumer.

Perhaps they require some second opinions... like an earlier article on the Accord with Pritch's mom or Mike's wife viewpoint on autoguide.

But I'll just take the reason the Mazda6 won over the Accord was basically the missing rear split-fold rear seat.

you're forgetting about fuel efficiency.... in this comparison the 6 also gained enough separation because of a fairly large fuel economy advantage, but it is also so fun to drive that it beats the V6s, that many would think are the fun choice (because power = fun  ).

Clearly, a head-to-head Accord four-cylinder sport manual against this manual 6 is in order. We're on it. If Ford can send us a manual 1.6 Fusion, we'll bring that out as well.

and Noto, if I ever wasn't sure about you being a lawyer, well, that settled it...

[jyarkony]

While I think the Mazda is nice, for families it has 2 glaring shortcomings. Smallest interior and smallest trunk.

while it may be one of the smaller interiors in the segment, the 6 is still entirely sufficient for my family, and with the way this entire segment has grown, these are plenty large for most families with anything but the lankiest teenagers. Some families just don't need Suburban levels of cargo and seating capacity.

[dirtyjeffer]

you're forgetting about fuel efficiency.... in this comparison the 6 also gained enough separation because of a fairly large fuel economy advantage, but it is also so fun to drive that it beats the V6s, that many would think are the fun choice (because power = fun  ).

so the 4 cylinder, manual transmission equipped sedan bested the V6 and Turbo4 automatic transmission equipped cars in fuel economy??

i think we could have told you that before you drove them.

[fixer]

While I think the Mazda is nice, for families it has 2 glaring shortcomings. Smallest interior and smallest trunk.

while it may be one of the smaller interiors in the segment, the 6 is still entirely sufficient for my family, and with the way this entire segment has grown, these are plenty large for most families with anything but the lankiest teenagers. Some families just don't need Suburban levels of cargo and seating capacity.

That is good to here, what about trunk space and hauling luggage?

[Solstice2006]

While I think the Mazda is nice, for families it has 2 glaring shortcomings. Smallest interior and smallest trunk.

while it may be one of the smaller interiors in the segment, the 6 is still entirely sufficient for my family, and with the way this entire segment has grown, these are plenty large for most families with anything but the lankiest teenagers. Some families just don't need Suburban levels of cargo and seating capacity.

That is good to here, what about trunk space and hauling luggage?

What about it?  Specs have already been posted in this thread?