rockville

[QUOTE=brockLT1,Feb 27 2006, 11:21 AM] the car looks hawt, really nice swopping body lines, almost evil.

the only downside is you could get a stang gt for the same price????

rai

The BIG DEAL with this vert is it's a hardtop vert.

I guess some could care less, but to me it's a big feature, that puts it in another class from a Mustang vert or a Solara or a A4 vert etc...

Also the price seems reasonable.

VW (Eos) and Volvo are also going to have a hardtop vert and (?) maybe the 3-series.

I think the G6 will be a bit larger and also cheaper than the other HT verts. (I think the VW will be just under $30K with a turbo-4).

Take away the hardtop and the G6 is just another vert. But with the hardtop it's the cheapest HT vert around.

I don't know if the HT is a blessing or a curse. if it turns out to be too complex (ie breaks down a lot) it's not a good thing.

CBeyond

There may be other possible disadvantages to a hardtop convertible...

- Increased weight
- The top uses more trunk space when it's down

To me it seems like a gimmick, and I've never seen the real advantage of a hardtop convertible to a softtop.

As far as the G6; I've got nothing against it except knowing that it's the Oprah car.

brockLT1

aethetics.....rag tops look like ass

rai has a point, the hard top is a huge selling point

rai

Here's the point, a soft top generally has a small rear widow. A coupe or a hardtop has a much larger window:




Also a hardtop can be more quiet and can be warmer and more secure...

I don't think any hard top verts are any great shakes, but they sell well b/c people want 2 cars in one.

rai

rockville

I had one as a rental not long ago. I was pleased with the car for a rental. Compared to the Buicks, Kias, Tauruses and other cars I've had as rentals this thing was great. It took me a bit to get comfortable in the seat. I didn't see the height adjuster. The car I drove had adjustable pedals. Even us tall folk can use those things. The interior FIT was very good. Better than the last gen Accord but not quite as good as the current Accord. The Finish was only OK. The materials were generally good but Honda does a better job with plastics. Honda breaks up the textures a bit more. For instance, the new CRV's interior looks like it's made from many tightly fitted small plastic pieces. In actuality it's made from just a few large pieces. Either way, it looks better though it doesn't feel better.
I put about 150 miles on the car and averaged 25mpg. The engine doesn't sound as good as a Honda V6 but it's not bad at all. It's also not as smooth. By that I mean you can feel small vibrations at idle. Think TSX at idle. Not bad but not undetectable either. The box is VERY smooth. It may only have a 4spd and pushrods but I would take it over an Accord I4 auto any day. According to CR the real world mileage is the same as the I4 Accord. Not bad given the extra power.
The red backlighting is very nice at night. The only part of the interior I was that really put me off (aside from the large swaths of black plastic) was the radio. It's easy to use and also acts as the display for the trip computer, trip meter, etc. The problem is the display isn't very big. It looks like it should be but the actual display is rather small. I didn't think the radio sounded that good. Old school GM over boosted but sloppy base. The car did not have the upgraded stereo.
Two more interior notes. One, the speedo only has one set of numbers. When you change to metric the speedo needle jumps to the new speed. So if you were going 50mph and change to km/h the needle will jump up to 80. The interior looks MUCH better with the tan leather. The contrasting colors really work well in that interior (well I think this is true for most cars).

The drive was good but not incredible. The car road well and felt solid as I drove over many of New England's frost bitten roads. The steering is precise but lacks feel. Better than the last gen Accords my family has but not up the to Contour SVT I used to own. Certainly no BMW. The tires were crap. The car had 4-wheel disc brakes but the pedal was mushy. The mushy part is more of an issue because the car I drove didn't have ABS so brake feel is important.

Overall I thought it was a great car for Civic type money. Based on the info on Carsdirect this would have been a base V6 with a few options. They list the target price at $18,8! I do with it was available in a manual. Really, I think this is a car that seems more expensive than it is. I know it frequently gets compared to an Accord V6 but we are talking base Accord money for this car. Again, I would strongly consider this car for the money if I were in that market. Finally, I think it's one of the best looking non-premium 4 doors on the market. Then again given the current crop of non-premium 4 doors (Accord, Camry, Taurus, Malibu, Altima) that almost a backhanded compliment.

JonBoy

A V6 gets similar mileage to an Accord I4? I don't think so. Just not happening, especially with a 4-spd auto vs the 5-spd MT or AT in the Accord. My Accord regularly gets 35+ mpg on the highway (I've seen as high as 39 mpg, with the car set at 60 mph on cruise control in flat Texas) and 29 mpg in the city. I haven't seen a V6 yet that will do that...

rockville

[QUOTE=JonBoy,Feb 28 2006, 06:13 AM] A V6 gets similar mileage to an Accord I4?

JonBoy

Yeah, Consumer Reports. Just what I trust for car testing.

Seriously, better info would come from actual owners, don't you think? I've got the Accord - who's got the G6 for comparison's sake? I get about 29 mpg daily and 35+ mpg on the highway. I don't believe, for a moment, that the G6 V6 will match those numbers consistently, if at all.