Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

1208209211213214391

Comments

  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    REGARDING GENERALIZATIONS

    I geuss all I'm saying is that these descriptions only take you to a very shallow understanding of the cars and their characteristics in this (or any) class. and if "netting it out" leaves you with a long list of exceptions, why bother? and if over-generalized statements leave you needing to explain the nuances for 5 minutes, the over-generalized statement doesn't have a lot of value to anyone buying a car. It's like reading headlines about a news story and thinking that this has helped you to truly understand the issues. This practice is not wise nor smart...to be blunt, I'd call it lazy.

    Let's look at just the first statement (b/c going through them all would take FOREVER):
    "Asian: Average driving dynamics/Good reliability"

    The 6 has above average driving dynamics as does the accord. But the accord's driving dynamics are not nearly as sharp as the 6. Mazda's brakes are clearly superior, and steering is light, communicative and tight, where the accord's steering is firm but a bit more isolated. The Legacy has a lot of body roll in turns, but it's steering is very good. Traction in tricky weather and in corners is superb. Nissan's Altima has decent brakes, and great acceleration, but steering is a bit vague and body roll is pronounced.

    This list of nuances could go on and on, but then where are we in terms of the original statement? In other words, what exactly does the statement "average driving dynamics" do for you? is there some scale of braking, acceleration, steering, seating position, visibility, suspension and road noise that has been graphed and balanced so you think you can even define what is average? So are the characteristics you think are average the same criteria that another buyer would use to be determine their average?

    and what is average reliablity anyway? the average is still really good btw...this use of the word average is another oversimplification: in CR, the difference b/t average and above average is only a few percentage points over several years. is a problem of a rattle in a door as significant of a transmission failing? of course not, but these both count as one problem that would be reported to JD Powers.

    knowing the severity of a specific problem(s) that a model has had a propensity to have and what solutions exist to resolve the issue(s)would be the info that I really would value. And this is where forums like this have become so important. It takes us past over-generalizations to real actionable information that can be evaluated to determine if a certain model is acceptable or not worth a gamble.

    Sorry for this rant, but as you might geuss by now, I HATE over-simplifications because I think they do more to distort the truth instead of telling the truth.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I couldn't agree more with your thoughts in the post. One reason why I find JD Powers not valuable as a resource in determining predicted future reliability. CR is better at presenting the information, if you know their methods. But to really understand if a model will be reliabile one has to know if there are any quality issues with the product in general, eg. Toyota sludge or Acura transmission.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    "The large percentage of owners are happy, but it's the vocal minority who gets the coverage, and this will eventually affect Toyota. "

    Gee doesn't this sound familiar?? :sick:
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    Didn't the Accord just go through a face lift a year ago??
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,710
    More like a butt-lift, but it did have some tweaks last fall. It's still the same design that has been with us since the fall of 2002 though. Since then, many cars in this class have debuted or been redesigned. The Accord has held up well, but competition has improved greatly. In years past you didn't see Accords selling for way under invoice like they do now.
  • It got a face-lift like the Escape got a facelift a few years ago; only superficial things were changed (minor updates to the instrument panel, completely new taillights, new chrome grill). The car itself is just like the 2003-2005.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    I looked at an 05 and compared it to an 07. The front is way different and the rear is also different. Interior in the 07 has also changed. You call this "just a face lift"??? For a car to change, I guess your looking for new suspension/engine/trans/ ect?? is this what you mean by superficial things? Upon comparison the change from 05 to 07 is significant cosmetic wise.
  • Interior in the 07 has also changed. You call this "just a face lift"???

    Yes, i do.

    image

    image

    I fail to see a large upgrade/change from one over the other. Different color pointers, a revised badge on the steering wheel... Yeah, superficial is what I'd call those changes.

    I said the rear-end treatment was more significant, but it didn't change how "old" the car is (it is the same basic car as debuted in fall of 2002).

    I looked at an 05 and compared it to an 07. The front is way different

    Way different?

    The front: only very SLIGHTLY updated with a bumper revision and a new strip of chrome. Even the headlights go unchanged.

    image

    image
  • Another example of a redesigned rear being "just" a facelift, exactly ten years before the model we were discussing...1996 also brought new seat fabric, upsized wheels/new covers on LX models, and new color options, as well as a new grille treatment on the 4-cylinder models (to match the 1995 V6 models).

    1995 Accord

    image

    1996 Accord

    image

    In my opinion, new taillights and grill treatment do not make a new car, just a facelift.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    "and a reliable underpowered good-handling car that is priced beyond its small interior and dismal fuel economy should allow (Jetta)."

    How is the Jetta underpowered compared to a 4 cylinder Accord? The Accord's engine is more refined and rev happy, but underpowered? Don't think so.

    Since when does size equate to the price of the vehicle? I guess the TSX is a real loser compared to the Accord.

    For those who want an affordable German sedan, then the Jetta is what you're left with. The Civic is probably the best economy class car but that is not the class the Jetta is in. Only in size is the Civic comparable to a Jetta. In all other aspects it's more comparable to an Accord. When you equipped this car with wood trim, it's real. I do think the 2.5 seems out of character in the Jetta though.

    The performance of the Jetta 2.0t w/DSG on the other hand is a different story. The Jetta 2.0t doesn't seem too expensive when compared to a TSX.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    A redesigned Accord will come out next Fall (looking forward to it too). Last year's changes to the Accord is what Honda calls a mid-cycle change over. Nothing major. But I way say the new rear end was an omission on Honda's part that they screwed up with the earlier Buick like rear end design.
  • No, I'd definitely agree with you on that one. The 2.0 Jetta is a great buy if you go light on the options.

    The performance of the Jetta 2.0t w/DSG on the other hand is a different story. The Jetta 2.0t doesn't seem too expensive when compared to a TSX. I think the TSX is pretty low on the value equation, myself, which is why I wouldn't consider one over a V6 Accord; mainly making the same argument that I do for the 2.4L Accord over the 2.5L Jetta: Jetta offers too little room, too little power, too little economy when compared with the Accord. All I get is a "German" nameplate and different steering feel (the Audi A4 1.8T Cabriolet I drove last year felt no better than my Accord), and unlike Acura, VW is a nameplate that has very questionable (at best) reliability over the last few years. I hope that is improving!

    Underpowered 2.5 Jetta?

    150 hp - 3300 lbs for the 2.5 Jetta, 22/30 MPG

    166 hp - 3200 lbs for the 2.4 Accord, 24/34 MPG

    I should've made it more clear, the Jetta is underpowered considering the size and thirst of it's engine relative to some other offerings in the market. It is also not as smooth, tending to "moan" when pushed. It is also down on interior room with other cars in its price class, so, in my eyes, you are paying a premium just to get a "german" car, something that I can live without, while others cannot.

    To each their own, but I'll keep my "refined and rev happy" Honda, because when I punch the gas, I want my car to rev happily.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The Accord has a complete redesign every 4-5 years (generation) 90-93 = 4th gen, 94-97 = 5th gen, 98-02 = 6th gen, 03-07 = 7th gen, and 08-? = 8th gen. When a car has a complete redesign (new generation) just about everything is changed (frame, body, interior design,). If you look at the 03, and the 07 model Accords profile (from the side), it has the same shape (fenders, doors, hood, roof line). Sometimes they will change things that don't require a complete redesign, within a generation (front and rear bumpers, and interior pieces). This is what's called a "facelift". Most car companies do the same thing.
  • bobadbobad Posts: 1,587
    It is also down on interior room with other cars in its price class, so, in my eyes, you are paying a premium just to get a "german" car, something that I can live without, while others cannot.

    To each their own, but I'll keep my "refined and rev happy" Honda, because when I punch the gas, I want my car to rev happily.


    Excellent points, as usual. I feel the same way about Japanese and German cars. ;)
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    In real world testing (CR) the Jetta gets about the same mileage and acceleration figures as other cars of similar weight and power. It is not any more "underpowered" than a 4 cyl Accord is.

    The 2.5 engine is designed for low end torque, 1750 ft-lbs @ 3750 rpm vs. 160 @ 4000 for the 2.4L Honda engine in the Accord. Also note that the HP peak for the Jetta comes at 5000 rpm rather than the 5800 of the Accord...this more than accounts for the difference in peak HP numbers.

    Not sure what this "moan" is that you refer to, we like the sound of the engine.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    "you are paying a premium just to get a "german" car, something that I can live without, while others cannot."

    Yeah, no point in getting a German car if you don't get what all the fuss is about with one. I was in that camp until I drove a Jetta.

    Don't get me wrong, the Accord is a great car. And frankly, those who say the Accord is a plane Jane appliance car are clueless. But I MUCH prefer my Audi A4 over my previous car, an Accord EX V6.

    To be totally honest, part of me felt I was being a fool for spending the money I did on this car. But after driving the car day in and day out those feelings have disappeared.
  • Actually, I got the "moan" from hearing it accelerate (my friend just bought a lightly-used Jetta; nice car, but not smooth-sounding.

    The 2.5 engine is designed for low end torque


    Yes, it is. The reason I'd rather have a "revver" is this:

    When you need to accelerate in a hurry, perhaps in an emergency situation, where the quicker the better, what do I do? Floor the throttle if I need to move as fast as possible. This sends my RPMs higher than the torque peak of either of the two cars, and right to the horsepower peak. This means that having a high-horsepower peak (and higher peak horsepower) will benefit me, and my line of thinking for quick acceleration. For around town, the Jetta might feel quicker right off the line , but runs out of steam relative to the high-end thrust of the Honda.

    And, I think you mean 170 lb-ft at 3750 RPM, not 1750! Haha, That Jetta would be a real stump puller with 1750 lb-ft of torque! :)

    Car and Driver sort-of backs me up in their impression of the Jetta. From the May 2005 issue:

    "The run to 60 mph might also be classifiable as better than average, with a manual transmission. However, our test car, like pretty much all the initial run of early-production Jettas, was equipped with a new six-speed Tiptronic automatic transmission. This device operates smoothly and does a good job of making the most of the Jetta's lovely torque, but outside of a race for three-legged dogs, 9.2 seconds to 60 and a 16.8-second, 85-mph quarter-mile can't be called quick. We're sure the standard five-speed manual would chop a couple ticks off the total. Not to mention enhancement of the old fun-to-drive quotient."

    And from March 2005

    "Drive the Jetta like it’s a sports car, and the engine’s tiresome whirring thrum will make you think you’ve developed a case of tinnitus."

    I know Accord's aren't perfect either, I was just pointing out some of the reasons that the Jetta doesn't win me over like it does a lot of people.
  • Don't get me wrong, the Accord is a great car. And frankly, those who say the Accord is a plane Jane appliance car are clueless. But I MUCH prefer my Audi A4 over my previous car, an Accord EX V6.

    I'm glad you're liking the Audi! And I completely agree with you on the fact that the Accord is more than an appliance!
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,663
    in the situation on 'needing' immediate acceleration, a high torque engine is a better choice. of course there is more to it than just the engine, the transmission has a lot of say also.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The Accord does a great job of matching the engine with the transmission to get the most out of them, and giving you the most power, when you need it. I personally want the most power when I am passing other cars on the highway. Not when I'm taking off from the red light. A high torque engine will get you off the line strong, but I don't drag race from red lights, with my family car.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,663
    high torque at low rpm engines help in both those scenarios, especially with the gearing in most vehicles.
    on a track it doesn't matter as much.
    i don't really have what i consider to be a family sedan, although i do have a 4 door focus. it's a bit small for us to be a family sedan.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    I wonder how people in Europe manage with Focus-sized and smaller cars as their "family sedans?"
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Car and Driver sort-of backs me up in their impression of the Jetta.

    Of course C&D is not going to like the 2.5 and/or an automatic. I'm sure they would not be satisfied with an accord in a 4 cyl automatic either. They are only going to want the 2.0T in the Jetta and the V6 in the Accord and a manual transmission...or perhaps DSG in the Jetta.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    "high torque at low rpm engines help in both those scenarios, especially with the gearing in most vehicles."

    but it helps better from low speeds than at highway speeds. of course if you have an engine that maintains the torque at high revs (which means the engine will also have high horsepower) then you'll have a car that furnishes immediate acceleration at both the stoplight and for passing.

    What all this have to do with a 2.5 Jetta I don't know. The car is peppy at low speeds but nothing Earth shattering in that regard. It's just not the smoothest and refined engine around. Seems out of character from the rest of the car.
  • I drove the Jetta 2.5 adn I really liked the car. I have a soft spot in my heart for funky Euro-five cylinders. I learned to drive on an Audi 5000S. The 2.5 was a real torquer but there's no way it compares to the Accord in terms of sheer speed. Not that the Accord is a rocket, but it is definitely quicker and more light on its feet feeling than the Jetta. That said, the Jetta's premium interior really inticed me.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I really like the Volkswagens (Jetta and Passat) as far as looks. The design of the exterior, as well as the interior, have a high quality look and feel. I probably would have test driven one, if there was a dealership closer than 70 miles from where I live. Dealerships wanted, haha.
  • Of course C&D is not going to like the 2.5 and/or an automatic. I'm sure they would not be satisfied with an accord in a 4 cyl automatic either.

    Here's Motor Trend's take on both cars:Nestled aft of our test GL's chrome-washed prow is a new 150-horsepower, 2.5-liter transverse-mounted five-cylinder engine that shares bore spacings, but not much else, with Ingolstadt's old fives. This is the Jetta's new base unit replacing the earlier, long-serving, and now pensioned-off 2.0-liter four. While it delivers--and this is being charitable--sprightlier acceleration (9.4 seconds to 60 mph) than previously, be happy to consider the turbocharged alternatives, like the interesting 1.9-liter diesel and, later on, the 200-horsepower, 2.0-liter direct-injection four-cylinder.
    The five suffices to move the Jetta around, but it's relentlessly grumpy about doing so. Our test car was sticky on throttle tip-in, causing pause-then-jerk-away starts however velvetly the right foot probed, and, once wound to its early-to-bed 5800-rpm redline, you'll be tempted to put a bullet through the firewall to still the racket. At redline, the five sings an unearthly moan, sounding like a duet of hoarse-throated ghosts.


    If you consider Motor Trend and Car and Driver to be in the same type of journalism and car preference (I subscribe to both, and find that they generally agree) then I'd have to say otherwise. They list the "what's hot" about the Accord LX Auto:

    Slick Automatic Transmission
    Sprightly Performance
    High Resale

    The Lows:
    Bulbous Styling
    No 60/40-split Rear Seat
    No head curtains on LX (this is a review of the old 160 hp 2003 LX Accord, new models have been upped by about 10 hp, reflected as 6 per new SAE testing procedures).

    Sprightly Performance is a plus in the Accord according to MT, but it's not too different from the Jetta (8.5 sec 0-60 for the 5Auto Accord, 9.4 sec for the 6Auto Jetta. Neither car is TOO slow, the Accord is just peppier of the two.
  • jrock65jrock65 Posts: 1,371
    2007 Altima specs are out.

    2007 Altima 2.5 inline-4
    Horsepower: 175 @ 5,600 RPM
    Torque: 180 @ 3,900 RPM
    EPA mpg: 26/34 (CVT)

    2007 Altima 3.5 V6
    Horsepower: 270 @ 6,000 RPM
    Torque: 258 @ 4,400 RPM
    EPA mpg: 22/28 (CVT)
    Combined legroom: 81.7 in.
    Trunk volume: 17.9 (16.6 w/ full-size spare)

    Xenon lights are standard on the 3.5SL.

    2007 Camry 3.5 V6 (For comparison)
    Horsepower: 268 @ 6,200 RPM
    Torque: 248 @ 4,700 RPM
    EPA mpg: 22/31
    Combined legroom: 80.0 in.
    Trunk volume: 14.5
  • I'm surprised mileage isn't higher on the HWY with the CVT... I was looking for it to at least beat the Sonata/Accord on HWY w/ V6. Looks competitive though!
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I'm surprised they got 8.5 sec out of the 4 cyl automatic. I assume they do the brake torque thing to get their acceleration times??? It is interesting that they got 9.4 sec for the Jetta, that is the exact same figure that CR got...and my understanding is their 0-60 runs are done without using the abusive brake torque technique.

    I would agree that from other numbers (eg. CR) I have seen the Accord is a little quicker. Either is adequate, to me. I never could get past that "bulbous styling", though.

    I also agree with motor trend comments on the Jetta's throttle tip-in, When I drive my wife's car, I have that problem. But, for whatever reason, she does not.
This discussion has been closed.