MT reviews Midsized Sedans

[93JC]

[sportyaccordy]

Okay, so I read the review.  There's not a whole lot going on at work today. 

Yes, it's poorly written.  Kevin's right, they do try to be clever and fail.  But, it wasn't a bad review.  They weren't nitpicky, and they did a good job of prioritizing what would be important to a midsize buyer.  They talked about gas mileage and interior room, they mentioned which one was the sportiest and best to drive, but didn't place it at the top of the review just because it was the sportiest. 

That said, my choice would be the Fusion, with the 1.6T and the 6 speed manual.  Although, after getting my friend into the Passat when he was considering the Camry, I feel reassured. 

I've been hearing the 1.6T is laggy as hell and is just overloaded with that big ass body

One thing I will say, MT FINALLY didn't pick the new domestic as a winner, which is downright shocking.

[2o6]

I question your guys driving style. Do you guys have your foot to the floor all the time!?

Besides, I keep hearing the total opposite about the 1.6T.

[Raza]

I've been hearing the 1.6T is laggy as hell and is just overloaded with that big ass body

One thing I will say, MT FINALLY didn't pick the new domestic as a winner, which is downright shocking.

Eh, at least it's a turbo and not some dumb NA engine.  I miss having a turbo so much.  And a manual transmission.  No more "I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU YOU DON'T WANT TO DOWNSHIFT HERE YOU SHOULD BE IN 6TH YOU'RE ALREADY DOING 35MPH WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU" bullshit. 

[Raza]

I question your guys driving style. Do you guys have your foot to the floor all the time!?

Besides, I keep hearing the total opposite about the 1.6T.

Pretty much yes.  I drive very aggressively.  I even have a blog about it.

[SVT666]

I question your guys driving style. Do you guys have your foot to the floor all the time!?

Yes.  You don't?  Get the fuck out.

[CJ]

Not everyone can afford the fuel costs associated with that style of driving.

[SVT666]

Not everyone can afford the fuel costs associated with that style of driving.

Lamest. Excuse. Ever.

[280Z Turbo]

Not everyone can afford the fuel costs associated with that style of driving.

So you buy a smaller car and drive the shit out of it!

[68_427]

Lamest. Excuse. Ever.

Not at all.

[TBR]

Plus some of us drive cars with 180k miles and leaking head gaskets so figure pushing hard is tempting fate....

I drive fast, but not quickly, if that makes sense.

[CJ]

Lamest. Excuse. Ever.

If I drove full throttle everywhere, then my fuel costs would likely double.  I'd go from $120/mo on fuel to $240/mo. That's a huge leap.  Starbucks doesn't pay that well and I do have insurance and my credit card bill to pay.

[Vinsanity]

Eh, at least it's a turbo and not some dumb NA engine.  I miss having a turbo so much.  And a manual transmission.  No more "I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU YOU DON'T WANT TO DOWNSHIFT HERE YOU SHOULD BE IN 6TH YOU'RE ALREADY DOING 35MPH WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU" bullshit. 

1. What makes a 178-hp turbo so much better than "some dumb" 178-hp NA engine?

2. Bimmer doesn't have a manual transmission???

[Raza]

1. What makes a 178-hp turbo so much better than "some dumb" 178-hp NA engine?

2. Bimmer doesn't have a manual transmission???

1.  The turbo is what makes it better.  Duh.

2.  Yes, of course my BMW is a manual.  You're talking to me.  Of course I got a manual.  That was non-negotiable.  But the Fusion was the only one in this test that had a manual transmission; everything else had an automatic. 

[Vinsanity]

1.  The turbo is what makes it better.  Duh.

Meh. 178 hp is 178 hp. But I prefer my engines not to be all laggy and shit.

[Raza]

Meh. 178 hp is 178 hp. But I prefer my engines not to be all laggy and shit.

Turbos are just better.  Airwolf had turbos.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Turbos are just better.  Airwolf had turbos.

In helicopters, the entire engine is a giant turbo.

[2o6]

Meh. 178 hp is 178 hp. But I prefer my engines not to be all laggy and shit.

The power curve in the 1.6T is much broader, and makes power sooner and longer than the 2.5L.

[850CSi]

If I drove full throttle everywhere, then my fuel costs would likely double. 

No.

[cawimmer430]

Plus some of us drive cars with 180k miles and leaking head gaskets so figure pushing hard is tempting fate....

You guys really need a T?V.

[2o6]

You guys really need a T?V.

Will TUV tell you that? I've always got the gist that it really is only for car road worthiness (busted suspension members, bad tires, bent frame, ect) rather than faulty mechanicals (Head gasket, ect).

[TBR]

You guys really need a T?V.

Uh, why? So that I can spend $2k on a repair that doesn't impact the car's near term reliability or drive-ability? Don't even need to put oil in it between changes.

[Colin]

Will TUV tell you that? I've always got the gist that it really is only for car road worthiness (busted suspension members, bad tires, bent frame, ect) rather than faulty mechanicals (Head gasket, ect).

Don't know about the TUV, but what you say is true for the British MOT. It is all road worthiness and safety nothing more.

[Atomic]

Which is annoying, because it's really good looking inside and out. 

I am liking it more and more. I never disliked this new model at all. It's just that the outgoing Malibu was one of the sharpest looking GM designs in decades, IMO.

[Raza]

Don't know about the TUV, but what you say is true for the British MOT. It is all road worthiness and safety nothing more.

MOT seems a lot like inspection here, but more rigorous.  In my state, inspection checks tires, brakes, emissions, and little else. 

[280Z Turbo]

Inspections are a waste of money. The amount of accidents caused by malfunctioning cars alone is pretty small.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Inspections are a waste of money. The amount of accidents caused by malfunctioning cars alone is pretty small.

Agreed. Drivers, however, malfunction quite often. I vote for annual driver inspections.

[280Z Turbo]

Agreed. Drivers, however, malfunction quite often. I vote for annual driver inspections.

You have rarely made more sense than this.

[cawimmer430]

Will TUV tell you that? I've always got the gist that it really is only for car road worthiness (busted suspension members, bad tires, bent frame, ect) rather than faulty mechanicals (Head gasket, ect).

They pop the hood while the engine is running and do an inspection of the engine bay. If there's a problem with the engine, they might discover it. They won't fix it - that's your job - but they'll make you aware of the problem and depending on the severity of the issue write you out a warning/fine.

[cawimmer430]

Uh, why? So that I can spend $2k on a repair that doesn't impact the car's near term reliability or drive-ability? Don't even need to put oil in it between changes.

Is this the typical attitude? You don't want to fix something that's broken because the car still drives?

I'd say a leaking head gasket is a big problem waiting to happen. One of these days your car will break down because the head gasket completely broke apart causing fuel and oil to spill all over the engine bay causing damage.