850k-1M Budget - Your Opinions?

[SkyFlakes88]

How about nissan sylphy 1.6 m/t or the 1.6 cvt even the top variant 1.8 cvt maybe?

[niky]

Actually, reviewing even the acceleration data, I'm wondering if even that might be affected by whatever device or app they're using for testing. Who wrote that article? I'll ask my friends at C! about it.

How about nissan sylphy 1.6 m/t or the 1.6 cvt even the top variant 1.8 cvt maybe?

Given how heavy "compact" cars are nowadays, tough luck finding any 1.6 sedan that will hit 100 in less than 10 seconds.

Semi OT -- Isn't the 9G Civic supposed to be lighter than the 8G?

Did they tweak the acceleration/transmission gearing/braking?

Seems the FB did really poorly in the test.

From our testing and my driving impressions, there's some sort of delay in acceleration when coming from a stop. For all new auto-equipped Hondas. Seems like it's there to either protect the transmission or perhaps aid in getting better fuel economy numbers on EPA and NEDC tests. This adds anywhere from 1 to 2 seconds to the 0-100 times.

Especially disappointing with something like the Accord V6 (adds approximately 1 second compared to the Nissan Altima)... which is otherwise a fantastic sports sedan, and feels faster than the Nissan once you're in second gear or higher.

[jut703]

Actually, reviewing even the acceleration data, I'm wondering if even that might be affected by whatever device or app they're using for testing. Who wrote that article? I'll ask my friends at C! about it.

Given how heavy "compact" cars are nowadays, tough luck finding any 1.6 sedan that will hit 100 in less than 10 seconds.

Ardie Lopez was the lead writer for the article, while Georges Ramirez was in charge of the testing.

I agree that compacts today seems to have gotten heavier. The Altis, Sylphy, Elantra and Civic have their manuals at around 1200 kg. But then again, they're much bigger than their predecessors.

If the Altis 1.6 could do 10.5s on a hard launch, I'd be happy. All I know though is that past 140 kph, it easily out accelerated my Ranger back then on an open stretch of STAR Tollway. Then again, I've made do with a 1.3L 4AT with only 85 kph for the past few months - any additional power and responsiveness is much appreciated.

[jcal68]

IMO, the Altis looks great from the outside. However in the interior, I do not like the A/C grills design. It felt like reverting to the past.
In terms of acceleration, I must agree that the Altis is no match to the FD.

[jut703]

IMO, the Altis looks great from the outside. However in the interior, I do not like the A/C grills design. It felt like reverting to the past.
In terms of acceleration, I must agree that the Altis is no match to the FD.

I like the Altis' AC vents. What I don't like about the interior is the beige color theme - very oldie and easily blemished.

An FD would definitely be faster than an Altis in 0-100 times. But the 5AT of the FD isn't really the quickest out there, and the FB's is much worse. In my real world use, a transmission that downshifts the moment I need it to is more important than half second differences in acceleration, which is why a cheap, peppy manual is good enough for me.

The MT FB is too expensive. 15" rims, no fog lamps, no steering wheel audio controls, manual climate control, all for 100k more than the Altis G MT.

Haven't driven the MT FB. If they haven't dulled it down the way they castrated the AT FB and if it's offered with a discount, I might give it a second look.