Adrian_Thompson wrote:Javelin wrote: Another thought: Volvo V50 (small, but you can get turbo motors and/or manual transmissions)30mpg is only atainable down hill with the wind behind you. I've never got 30mpg out of my C30, not matter what I do. Best ever was 27.8mpg on a run. Average mixed use being sensible is 25.5-26.6. Fun can drop that fast.
I'm just going by the EPA numbers at fueleconomy.gov. I've only test-driven V50's, never owned one.
Stay away from the 2.0.
Why? I put 60+K on a 2.0 (from 64 to 130k+) and didnt have a lick of trouble out of it (nor was there any trouble BEFORE 64k), and with a manual i wouldnt have had any power complaints either. In fact, if theyd given the auto the 5th gear that the 2.3 got i probably wouldnt have had any power complaints with that either.
It got 30mpg AVERAGE, every time, and it probably would be better with a manual. Ours got 37mpg highway under 'normal' conditions and would go up to 42 if you tried. I knew another guy with a 2.0/manual who got 42 with minor hypermiling so it's possible with the manual as well.
Honestly i have nothing bad to say about first gen 2.0 mazda3s other than get a manual so you wont have that awkward spot from 30-40mph that is too high for first gear and too low for 2nd in the 4spd auto.
I only sold it because i wanted to go from 30 mpg avg to 50 mpg avg, which i did.
nothing wrong with the 2.0, but it was only available in the sedan, hatch was 2.3 only in the first gens at least. they are best with the manual, but later in the model run they got the 5 speed which i think helped with them falling on their face after the shift to second. they do need to be revved to get moving though.
What Strizzo said. The 2.0's were in the sedan only, the early auto's were bad, and they are pretty down on power. From what I've heard the 2.3 doesn't give up mileage to the 2.0, so why not have the more power?
TSX manual transmission checks all the boxes, yes?
Oh, and TL with transmission fluid changes will also fit in there. The majority of people think they can just do gas and (maybe) oil for 100k miles and then are surprised when transmissions go out.
Javelin wrote:bravenrace wrote: How about a Mazda 3? Anyone with any experience with them?Stay away from the 2.0. The 2.3 and 2.5 are both very good and easily pass your 30MPG highway requirement. Very nice interior for a compact car. Entry/exit is a little low but the doors are big and open wide. Back and hatch space are a little small, but the hatch is a much more useful (and better looking) car IMO. Sport is the base Spec, Touring is the Premium one. Options abound including a very nice moonroof, leather, nav, etc. The earlier cars (pre-giant smiley face) have a nicer interior and better nav. I tried *many* of these out before buying the 5, but the usefullness of the sliders for the baby seats, lower prices, 3rd row seating, and larger cargo hold sold me up to the 5. You don't need any of that so the 3 should be great for you as long as you can handle the entry/exit.
Loved mine for what it was prior to trading it for boosted goodness, ya know because my checkbook had ADD that day. I had a 2005 SP23.... the package that became the GT package for 06+. Leather, heated seats, swanky moonroof, beautiful interior trim... it's all there. Got decent mileage, was plenty fun in some corners, enough cargo space for me (my subsequent ms3 is just fine as well... I can fit my minion and all his trappings save for the stroller- and a full set of wheels and tires in it at the same time and still have room for the wife) and damn if I don't think they look good.
How about a newish Hyundai Elantra touring. My sister has one and she loves it. 5 speed with 30 plus MPG. At this point I'd say Hyundai and Honda are neck and neck in the reliability dept. My sister is a big girl and she gets in and out with ease.
From what I've heard the 2.3 doesn't give up mileage to the 2.0, so why not have the more power?
See thats the thing.. Everything ive seen indicated the 2.3 was SIGNIFICANTLY down on MPG and still wasnt remotely fast.
Ive beaten modded 2.3/5spd hatches in my old SOHC neon and in my 5spd dynasty (worlds only!), one of which cost me $200 and the other one i traded a stereo for.
Ive come to feel that the sedan is cooler than the hatch and to this day i would rather have a 2.0/5spd sedan than any 2.3 or a heavier hatch. I liked that MPG too much to trade away for .3 more liters of blah.
bravenrace wrote: That's been blown way out of proportion. I happen to be familiar with it because I owned a TL for a number of years. The failure rate is 5%, which is double Honda's 2.5% allowable defect rate. However, what people fail to realize is that 95% of them are fine.
99-03's were WAY more than 5%. I ran a transmission repair shop for 7 years. If it weren't for 99-03 Hondas, we might have gone out of business. Seriously. I frequently used to print reports of gross sales by brand to send to our ad agency so they knew how to advertise. After getting one particular quarterly report from my main office, the ad rep simply said, "geez, we just need to show an ad with an Odyssey and we'll be great."
... And, keep in mind that this was rural TX where 58% of the population drives a full-size truck. Considering that Hondas made us more money than Dodge A518s, Ford 4R100s and 4R70s combined in that demographic might shed a little light onto things from my repair shop perspective.
Not to mention the M- and B- series 3-shaft Honda autos are nightmares to rebuild comparatively, you might understand why I often times got $3200 for a Honda job compared to $1800-2200 for, say, a GM RWD.
In reply to curtis73:
I have access to actual honda warranty data. It was 5%. Transmissions shops generally don't do warranty work, do they?
bravenrace wrote: In reply to curtis73: I have access to actual honda warranty data. It was 5%. Transmissions shops generally don't do warranty work, do they?
That's because Honda was denying warranties like a banshee my man. They're still in lawsuits over it, too. 
In reply to Javelin:
Where did you get that info? If you don't have factual data to back that up you are just perpetuating the hysteria.
My buddy is a service manager for one of the biggest Honda/Acura dealers in Ohio. They were and are actually being more liberal in accepting warranty claims on these, since they knew it was a problem. Hell, Honda voluntarily extended the warranty on the transmissions to 100k miles. In my opinion, ANY auto trans can fail after that.
In reply to bravenrace:
Uh, it's been in all of the regular auto mags, blogs, and news sites for the last 7 years... Curtis ain't blowing smoke up your hootus, go ask any trans repair shop what their bread-and-butter is.
In reply to Javelin:
Well we know all class action law suits are legit, right?? And which auto mags? Can you provide a link? I get most of them and have never heard much at all about it. And Trans shops work on cars that are out of warranty. Given enough time and miles, ALL auto transmissions will fail. So if that's your metric, then you are correct, a lot more than 5% of them fail. I'm talking about transmissions that fail pre-maturely, meaning under 100k by Honda's definition. Even consumer reports, while it is a weakness noted in the cars that have that trans, still rates those cars very highly, so they don't even consider it a major failure in the cars. My own extended family has 8 Honda's with this transmission, and none of them have ever had any problem at all. But I don't consider that relevant, because the sampling size is too small. But it is a data point.
You'll need to log in to post.
