Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Pineville, West Virginia

Pineville, WV Car Consumer Discussions

2009 Malibu lease rates

by th83 on Mon Nov 10 16:45:14 PST 2008

Hey, Car man. How are the lease rates for the Malibu looking for this month?

2007 V6 5AT

by th83 on Wed Jul 02 03:23:58 PDT 2008

Over the last 4 tanks, my V6 has averaged 26.2 MPG in city driving. Needless to say, I'm very light on the throttle. The transmission usually upshifts somewhere in the 2000-2600 rpm range and I hardly ever let the engine rev past 3000. I coast as much as I can and I always manipulate the throttle slowly and smoothly when accelerating. In fact, I'm so careful with the throttle that my right ankle often aches during driving from modulating the throttle so precisely. I sometimes wonder why I try so hard when the results aren't really that spectacular. If I were to drive how I wanted to drive (quick acceleration and higher speeds), my mileage would only drop 3 or 4 MPG, I'm sure. I've noticed that my mileage has improved quite a bit in the last few months (warmer weather?). During the winter, it would never rise above 24 MPG no matter how carefully I drove. Most of the time it was between 22 and 23. I should note that I fill up exclusively with Shell V-Power 93. The J30A5 runs much smoother and stronger on this gas than on regular 87. I quit filling up with 87 within the first 1000 miles because I noticed severe pinging/knocking during acceleration, especially uphill. I could even hear it with the radio at a moderate volume. That's how severe it was. Once I switched to 93, the pinging stopped, and within a few tanks I noticed a considerable increase in torque (especially in the low-end) and better fuel economy (up at least 2 MPG, on average, couldn't do better than 21.X MPG city on 87). At first, I thought the increase in power and efficiency was attributable to the engine breaking in, but after trying a few tanks of 87 every so often, I've found that there is quite a difference between the two. After running 93 for several tanks and then suddenly filling up with 87, I notice a slight drop in power and the mileage for that tank is usually about 2 MPG lower than the previous tank of 93. I've yet to try mid-grade, but I really don't see a reason to. It may not ping like 87, but it likely won't perform like 93. For all you 2003+ V6 guys out there, I highly recommend using premium gas. Sure, it costs more up front, but in my experience the greater power and efficiency more than makes up for the couple of dollars per tank premium. In fact, since my mileage is around 2 MPG higher on average with 93 versus 87, I'm actually SAVING money in the long run using the more expensive 93 octane. If you do decide to give 93 a try, have patience. You're not going to notice an increase in performance and mileage right away. It takes a few tank-fulls for the engine's computer to optimize the ignition timing advance for the higher-octane fuel. The difference between regular and premium is far easier to feel when downgrading from 93 to 87, since the engine has to immediately pull the timing advance back to avoid detonation. It takes much longer for the engine to "see what it can get away with", so to speak. It takes time, usually 300-500 miles or up to two tanks of gas. If you have a 2002 or older V6, stick with 87 octane. Anything higher will actually hurt your performance and gas mileage as their engines can't optimize the ignition timing for higher octane fuel like the newer engines can. On the Accord, that nifty "feature" was added in 2003 with the introduction of the J30A4 (when the 7th gen Accord debuted, a Honda engineer even stated that using 91+ octane in the V6 added 10 HP and 10 FT-LBS for a total of 250 HP and 222 TQ). As far as I know, this applies to the 2008 Accords as well, probably even more so since the J35Z2 has a higher compression ratio than the J30A4/5 (10.5 vs. 10.0). On a side note, isn't it amazing how far engine management has come in recent years? 10+ years ago, you couldn't have imagined an engine with a 10+:1 compression ratio running safely on regular gas while making decent power. Now, they can...and then some. The new direct-injection 3.6L V6 in the CTS comes to mind. 304 HP on 87 octane. Wow. Heck, even the 06-07 Accord V6's 244 HP on 87 is impressive (though, from my experience the engine doesn't like 87 much at all). Well, I've gone on long enough, so I'll shut up now :P

Re: have any of you driven the 2006 sonata V6 [macakava]

by th83 on Sun Oct 07 21:10:36 PDT 2007

"Drives and handles beautifully, and pretty fast too. I embarrassed a 2007 V6 Accord that tried to hustle me at a stop light. I believe C & D with their clocked 0 - 60mph times of 6.4secs." Yeah...try 6.6 seconds. And the Accord V6 got the same exact 0 to 60 time, but was faster in the quarter-mile by .2 seconds and 2 mph in that comparison test (C/D 12/05). The Accord is the faster of the two and will leave the Sonata behind after 60 mph. That Accord you supposedly "embarrassed" wasn't even trying. If it were, it would've been a tie.

Re: Full info this time - please respond:) [eromusofwom]

by th83 on Thu Jun 28 17:57:45 PDT 2007

I think you're planning to lease the wrong car. The Sonata is a great buy with rebates and discounts, but it's not a great vehicle to lease for the same reasons. With all of the rebates and discounts, the car's resale value is lowered (and the higher the resale value, the lower the lease payments). If you must lease rather than buy, I'd suggest a Honda or Toyota. Right now, you can lease a loaded Accord V6 (a $28k vehicle) for at least $60 less per month than a Sonata Limited, with the same down payment. I leased my 2007 Accord EX-L V6 back in October. It's a 3 year lease and I put $2000 down and I pay only $280 per month with tax. However, my lease is 12,000 miles per year instead of 15,000/year. I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes in the payment amount, but it can't be much.

Re: North American Car of the Year 2007 [thegraduate]

by th83 on Mon Feb 12 03:28:29 PST 2007

"The Camry hasn't been on the Ten-Best list since...um... a little help here?" 1997, the first year of the 4th-generation. Also, I think it was only the V6 models that made the list and not the grossly underpowered 4-banger models. "If you'll notice, either C & D or Motor Trend (I subscribe to both, and they are pretty similar in their ratings) put the Camry in the top spot of under $30k Family Sporty Sedans (against Malibu SS, Galant Ralliart, and an Altima 3.5 Sport Model whose official trim level escapes me at the moment) - due to the new Camry SE V6 model that added some much needed spice to the Camry lineup that had been missing." Motor Trend tested the new Camry SE V6 against the Galant Ralliart, Chevy Malibu SS, and Altima SE-R. All were automatics, even though the Altima SE-R is available with a 6-speed (a friend of mine has one, and it's a BEAST compared to my Accord). The Camry won because it offered the best total package (performance, refinement, comfort, value, etc.) of the bunch. IIRC, the Camry was also the fastest of the quartet with a 0-60 time of 6.1 seconds and quarter-mile ET of 14.6. I'm glad they didn't include an Accord in that test. It would've been smoked by all but the (relatively) sluggish Malibu SS. I like my 07 Accord V6 and all, but I have to admit it's far from swift, at least in typical daily driving where low-end and mid-range torque is crucial. Its little 3.0 just doesn't have enough grunt to move its mass around with ease at part-throttle. And though I haven't driven it yet, I'm sure the new Camry with its torquey V6 is much quicker on its feet than my AV6 (that's short for Accord V6, for those who don't know). I wish Honda would realize the importance of torque, not peak HP, in a family sedan. High peak HP is great for lightweight sports cars with close-ratio manual transmissions (like the S2000), but less than ideal for a hefty family sedan with an automatic tranny. Because of its high-end biased powerplant, the only time the Accord really shines in terms of acceleration is on the highway. There, it will rip to 100 mph and beyond (it's limited to 130) with absolute ease. But what good is that to the people who drive in this country, where the speed limits are 55-65 mph? Though my 07 Accord V6 is a huge improvement over my extremely sluggish 2002 Accord V6, it's still severely lacking in the low-end torque department. I wish I could've gotten an automatic Altima SE-R instead, mainly for its superior powertrain. Unfortunately, it was out of my price range and didn't even come standard with traction control or side curtain airbags, much less VSA (which wasn't even available), inexcusable for a $30k car. It did have HIDs, BOSE stereo, 18" wheels, and a few other convenience features the Accord lacks, but those weren't enough to justify the extra $3.5k+ a loaded SE-R costs over an Accord EX-L V6. Ah, well. Maybe when it's time to trade in my 07, the 8th generation Accord will have everything I want in a car (torquey V6 engine, HIDs, sportier handling, better stereo...).

5-60 Test

by th83 on Thu Jan 18 15:46:47 PST 2007

I know this is slightly off-topic, but how exactly is the 5-60 test done? C/D's explanation of the test is pretty vague, leaving one to wonder if they get the car rolling 5 MPH before just stomping the throttle, or if they actually launch the car from a dead stop, only without their standard, abusive launch techniques (high-rpm clutch drops and the like) and wheelspin. When Car & Driver tested an automatic Accord V6 like mine in their 12/05 issue, they managed a 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds and a 5-60 time of 7.1. My own (admittedly unscientific) test results differ somewhat, with 0-60 and 5-60 being equal at 6.9 seconds. For the 0-60 test, I just stomp the throttle without using brake-torque (I'm not trying to destroy my transmission, after all) and start the timer just as the car begins to roll. My 5-60 is just as the name implies: I ease the car up to 5 MPH and then floor it so that there's no wheelspin whatsoever, starting the timer as soon as 5 MPH is reached and the throttle is floored. It's strange that C/D's results show a half-second difference between the 0-60 and 5-60 tests, while my results show no difference at all. Could a brake-torque launch really improve my car's 0-60 time by a half-second as opposed to just stomping the throttle outright? Or does C/D just do their 5-60 test differently than I do, accounting for the half-second discrepancy between the two tests? It'd be nice if my Accord could hit 60 in just 6.4 seconds, but I'm going to put my money on the latter. But, if so, how is their 5-60 test done?