Howdy, Stranger!


Midsize Sedans 2.0



  • I agree, Dash! The 2011 Optima I have is a MAJOR HEAD TURNER all day long! Kudos to for the a great article.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159

    It makes my head turn the other way. I think the design is way to over done. So, in a sense I agree, but, in the opposite way it was intended. Afterall, styling is subjective.
  • dash5dash5 Posts: 418
    Styling is subjective, but if one guy is praising the Mona Lisa and the other is telling you it stinks or they feel like their velvet painting of Elvis is better... well...

    I'm not saying the Optima is universally praised for it's looks or that it's a Mona Lisa, but I'm pretty sure it's running at least 90% positive in the reviews I've read. Especially in this category, I cant think of another competitor that has had more praise for its exterior other than the Sonata, which is much more polarizing.
  • mickeyrommickeyrom Posts: 936
    I don't know about the looks of the Optima,because beauty is in the eye of the beholder,but I loved the way it drove and the interior.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    If you see the Optima as way too overdone, what do you say about the Sonata?
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Posts: 1,230
    Click me!

    I didn't even know the Galant was still being built... :)

    Truthfully, it couldn't happen fast enough. Mitsu really needs to get on the ball if they still want to sell passenger cars here in the states.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159

    So is the Eclipse and Endeavor. A part of me is a bit sad. My brother owned a '98 Galant and it was a pretty good car and I had a '98 Eclipse GS-T. I really enjoyed owning the GS-T. Great drivetrain, lousy interior, but, man did that car turn heads back in the day!!
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    I had a '92 Galant, purchased used, and it was a good car for the day. I recall back in the late '80s and early '90s, the Galant was considered one of the top cars in the class. Shows how hard it is to keep up and how much investment it takes these days.
  • sandman_6472sandman_6472 Coral Springs, FLPosts: 2,816
    Funny, compared to the Accord, Camry, Fusion & Altima, the Sonata & Optima are a breathe of fresh air in the mid sized segment. Time for the above mentioned players to freshen up their entries in this most competitive segment.

    Sure beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but hey, it's definitely time for the other guys to play catch up already!!!

    The Sandman :sick: :shades:


  • I've never been to a Kia dealership, but I had to stop and drive the EX. I too was impressed with its price and features. However, I don't know that my inner-snob would approve of owning a Kia.

    I also drove a Buick Regal Turbo the same day. I think that the Regal handles beautifully. The navigation and its controls already look dated in comparison to the Kia.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    edited January 2011
    At only 2 cubic ft less interior room (95. vs 96.8), the new Buick Verano is a Regal killer, IMO. Both are compact cars, believe it or not, since the *interior* space is what the government goes by. IIRC, the break-point is 110 cubic ft, and so while the Regal *looks* mid-size, it's simply not where it counts. There's tons of bloat and excess sheet metal.

    That said, if you consider the Regal to be mid-size in terms of seating and the interior, then the Verano should be a great family sedan. Simply because it's essentially the same drive-train and suspension minus 400 lbs of dead weight. Oh, and 5K in price, since the turbo isn't required to move that extra weight around. That helps, too.

    Note - the new CTS is 98 cubic ft for reference.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    FWIW, EPA actually classifies the 2011 Regal as midsize, with interior "volume" of 98 cf and cargo capacity of 13 cf (total = 111 cf > 110 = midsize).
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    edited January 2011
    Actually, the Regal is 96.8 + 14.2. They basically squeaked in under the wire, probably for marketing purposes.

    Concerning the Cruze
    NOTE : The EPA database is off. It says 94+16. Which is still 110 and should be mid-size. Their site says quite plainly:

    Compact 100 to 109
    Mid-Size 110 to 119

    Actual data directly from GM:
    94.6 Cubic Ft. (interior)
    15.4 Cubic Ft. (trunk)
    (link) - - ages/news/us/en/2010/Jun/0603_cruzepricing

    Officially it is exactly 110.0 according to GM. This couldn't have been a mistake. They hit the mid-size category by *exactly* what they needed. My guess is that GM is trying to market it as a compact car, yet that's blatantly unfair to the competition. Of course it has a larger interior. And handles better than most actual compacts. It's a size larger.

    The EPA simply has it wrongly classified as compact. This error is going to cost a lot of paperwork to correct, I suspect, since all of the online databases, window stickers, and so on are all wrong(as is GM's marketing). So we might not see it for changed for the Cruze. But we should at least make sure the Verano is right.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    Many of the midsize sedans offer different tire sizes for different models. The ford fusion, I beleive, offers 16" in base, 17" in premium and 19" in sport model. Whether these are correct numbers or not I am asking whether different wheel or tire size will alter the accuracy of the speedometer (and odometer) readings. Is there a computer correction that occurs.
    As an example the difference between the diameter of 16" and 19" tires is 3/16=18.7%. The circumference (2.pi.d) as increased by the same percentage. Would the speedometer be off by that amount?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    No the outer tire diameter will be the same or nearly the same for all those wheel sizes. The bigger sizes mean the wheel diameter is larger, but the sidewall height of the tire is correspondingly reduced.
  • I did notice that the Regal wasn't very roomy in the back seat. I wonder when the Verano will be released.... :confuse:
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Posts: 1,230
    edited January 2011
    An example of this is the Mazda6. It also offers 3 different sizes, but the aspect ratio (in other words, the tire's sidewall height) compensates for the different sizes..

    16" wheels - 205/65-16 tires
    17" wheels - 215/55-17 tires
    18" wheels - 235/45-18 tires

    It also allows an owner with 18" wheels to downsize their winter wheels/tires to 17" or 16", as long as the sidewall makes up for the lower size.

    And no, there doesn't need to be any adjustment to the speedometer, odometer, or any electronics.
  • podpod Posts: 176
    Good explanation. I didn't think of that and should have. It helps to have other people's insight when you make a bad assumption. Thanks.
  • acdiiacdii Posts: 753
    When it comes to the class of cars, they have it all wrong. If you truly look at some of the so called "mid-sized" cars, they are not much bigger than most compacts in interior space, but add in trunk space and voila there you have it a midsize car. I have heard complaints about the lack of trunk space in the Camry Hybrid, yet in the time I owned one, I never was at a loss for trunk space. People room, yes, but never trunk space. Make a midsize car that is wide enough for 3 adults, Like the Crown Vic, and now you have a car! Is it really too much to ask to make the car have 60" of hip room, yet not be as long as a yacht? If you were to take the fusion, or Camry, both have pretty close dimensions, and make it 7" wider, but not change its length, you would have a more stable car, and plenty of room for those of us who need room for 2 car seats and a teenager.

    The Prius made it to midsize category, yet it is barely wide enough to fit 2 car seats in. The bugger has a lot of leg room, isnt very wide, but has a lot of trunk space, so bang, midsize!
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    True about the cars betting narrower. But most of it is actually the silly severely sloped roof line. I had no issues fitting two child seats in the back of a Volvo 240 years ago. Boxy does have its advantages.

    That said, the Cruze and Verano take the other extreme. They take a nearly mid size interior and add a small trunk to it. 14-15 cubic ft is quite tiny, in fact. But they rightly figured that the number of uses for a trunk in a typical sedan is quite limited. Maybe fit a couple of suitcases in it every so often.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    14-15 cubic ft is quite tiny, in fact.

    Pretty common in this class, however. For example, the trunks of some of the best-selling mid-sized sedans such as Accord, Camry, and Malibu, and others such as the Passat and Legacy, are all in the 14-15 cubic foot range. The Altima's is just over 15 cubic feet. So 14-15 cubic feet on a compact car is pretty darn good, IMO.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    Note - it's not compact. GM markets it as such, but it's only 1 cubic ft smaller than the Regal inside. The EPA says 110 - 119 is mid-size. The Cruze is 110.0 Their database has it wrongly categorized as compact and GM is all too happy to play along as it gives them an unfair advantage versus cars that are as a rule a lot smaller than it.

    Edmunds has it classified correctly, as do a couple of other automotive sites.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    edited January 2011
    By overall size, the Cruze is a compact vs. the much bigger cars like Accord, Camry, Sonata, Optima. Cars like that are commonly considered "mid-sized" sedans, vs. those one class down in size, like the Cruze. And Verano.

    I know we have had this discussion on "what is a mid-sized sedan" here before (maybe multiple times), and we agreed back then that "mid-sized" in this context was not interior volume but overall size of the car. Otherwise, since the EPA considers the Versa mid-sized, that would be in this discussion also, even though it's two feet shorter than the typical mid-sized car.

    Also, if we go strictly by EPA volume, we need to kick the Accord (w/o moonroof) and Sonata outta here, since they are in the EPA large-car class by interior volume. Which doesn't make much sense, does it?
  • I agree. Pontiac made pretty cars for their time. But the quality wasn't there. Kia makes REALLY nice looking cars. But when I test drive one, confidence is not what comes to mind. And I guess the current and past posts about all of the probelms with the warranty and the cars doesn't help either.

    I think we'll be seeing huge discounts on the optima in the not to distant future.
  • I wouldn't say 'H' is 'made' in the US, more like assembled. I don't think they trust american labor that much.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    :sick: Much of the assembly of cars today is done by robots. So I suppose you would say that no manufacturer "trusts" its workers to make (or assemble) a car. Or maybe you only buy the cars that are still hand-made. Aston Martin, maybe? Not one of these mid-sized family sedans, though. I would be surprised if any of them says on its window sticker, 100% of parts manufactured in the USA.
  • My first car was an '89 Galant purchased in 1992. It won car of the year in '89. I bought the car with 44k for $5k, drove it 140k and sold it for $2k. It was the base base model - it had a 6 speaker am/fm cass but no A/C. Compared to the Accord I wanted, it was ALOT cheaper, had a pass side mirror, a better stereo, better seats, interval wipers, oh and fuel injection (base Accord for '89 was carbs). I loved that car. It looked a lot like the Accord that came out in '90.
    When I finished college and was looking for my next car, I went back to Mitsubishi to get the Eclipse GSX I always wanted, only to find out they dropped the AWD turbo turned it into FWD wanna-be for another segment of the population.
    I did have a glimmer of hope for them when they brought over the Lancer EVO but then they made it so hard to get a configuration I found desirable I gave up and went to Subaru. I wish them the best of luck.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    edited January 2011

    Given how they have grown over the last few changes, I'd say, yes, my initial response to seeing the most recent Accord was, and I quote "Wow that's a large car." It's technically mid-sized, but just barely.

    What's really happened is that everything grew by just enough over the last decade to no shift most cars up an entire size class. There are actually very few actual compact cars left for sale in the U.S. Hence why the thread should be "small cars" instead of any EPA derived category.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    I think you are getting your discussions mixed up. This is about Mid-Sized Sedans, not compacts (or "small cars"). And not about large sedans, ala 300 and Taurus.

    Today's mid-sized car is bigger than the mid-sized cars of several years ago. That's just the way things are.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,776

    All cars are global these days. There's not even a big correlation between a US vs. foreign nameplate and the percentage of domestic content. Hyundai is doing quite well employing US citizens, as are most foreign nameplates. The US makes MORE cars now than in many of the years past -- the difference is that a much smaller proportion of those cars is one of the Big 3 nameplates.
Sign In or Register to comment.