Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Glad to oblige...
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=109710
Camry 1st
Accord 2nd
Sonata 3rd
Fusion 4th
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0512_family_sedan_comparison
Accord 1st
Fusion 2nd
Sonata 3rd
OLD Camry 4th
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12148/2007-chrysler-sebring-touring-vs-2- 007-honda-accord-se-vs-2007-kia-optima-ex-vs-2007-nissan-altima-25s-vs-2007-satu- rn-aura-xe-vs-2007-toyota-camry-le.html
Accord 1st
Altima 2nd
Optima 3rd
Aura 4th
Camry 5th
Sebring 6th
Fusion - hmm, they didn't even bother testing it! :lemon:
Let's really read something, see quantifiable results and then we can talk - because accordman is right, there has never been any Fusion (or other Ford/GM product) that has ever tested to the same standards set by Honda and Toyota - at least in the last 25 years or so...
Altima 2nd
Optima 3rd
Aura 4th
Camry 5th
Sebring 6th
Fusion - hmm, they didn't even bother testing it!
Car and Driver typically will only invite back cars they have previously compared if that vehicle won the last comparison (which the Honda had done). The Fusion came in third, I believe, in the last V6 comparo with Sonata, Fusion, Camry, and Accord. Similar results from the Motor Trend test, but the Sonata and Fusion swapped places for 2nd and 3rd.
Yeah, I said it was about $2000 more. If we get to compare what people said they paid then there are a few 3.6l Passat sales around 26k, or about 2k more. The AWD Passat looks like another 2-3k above that, but Honda doesn't offer an AWD car so thats not a fair comparison.
The 4 cylinder looks like it is about 2k more than the comparable Honda as well. It is more expensive (about 2k) but not outside the category.
I know one article (Motor Trend or Car and Driver, I get them confused) had the 2005 Accord against 2006 models of the others. The Accord won it, and I KNOW the Fusion came in 2nd in that one, against a Camry LE V6 and a Sonata GLS V6, I believe.
The other one had all 2006 models, and I thought that the Sonata came in second. I don't have the time to find the article at the moment; I'm about to go to class.
We don't get many VW comments on this site -
Question, anybody out there know what the specific issues are with the 2 liter turbo specifically? Did drive a 3.6 and thought it was a helluva machine, but in that iteration the car has done better (at least according to CR)
The 2.0t is a new design of the 1.8t with more power. The turbo is relatively small and engine tuning isn't in the 80s anymore so I found turbo lag imperceptible. It just feels like a torquey 6.
From the C&D comparo article:
Just to be extra double certain, however, we’ve acquired five of the Accord’s newly introduced or redesigned competitors and gone out to lay a little rubber.
The winner was invited back to compete against all newcomers. The Fusion, and Sonata for that matter, are not newcomers, did not win, and therefore were not compared.
FWIW the Fusion came in second in the 2006 comparo.
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/10245/mid-size-four-door-sedans.html
And some people say Nissan's CVT is like always being in the wrong gear, the transmission is lagging behind the engine.
Hearing someone complain about having to hold the clutch in for a really long time... that's their fault, really. When you come to a stop, you put it in neutral if you are idling for a long time or leave it in first gear and creep forward at 1-2mph. Yes, it lugs the engine a bit, but it causes no appreciable wear compared to riding the clutch.
And your leg never gets tired. I loathe having to hold the clutch in myself - as much as anyone, so I either leave it in gear or neutral if it takes longer than about 2-3 seconds.
The "2 extra trips over the life of the vehicle" is a misinterpretation of cumulative reliability data that has been published in CR and elsewhere. I know this because I committed the same mistake on VwVortex and was corrected by one fellow who was more statistically sophisticated than I am. I learned that you can't take cumulative data from groups and apply the average difference to describe individuals. It just becomes misleading to do so. Doing so washes away real differences between groups and overemphasizes the importance of the mean or average.
It's like measuring the height of 10,000 people in Group A and comparing their average to the average height of 10,000 folks in Group B. Let's say the average of Group A is 5'5" and that of Group B is 5'6". If the two groups stood next to one another and you stood 1/4 mile away the two would look virtually identical (that's analogous to the virtually equal repair rates in a CR group reliability survey). However, if you lined both groups up in order of height you would see that Group A had many more people who were under 5'0" and many less people over 6'0" than Group B. It's the same bell curve phenomenon with CR's cumulative group reliability statistics: While the average difference (the peak of the bell curve) is very slight, the relative number of VWs with below average, poor, and very poor repair records is progressively greater than that of Honda, for instance. And the number of Hondas with above average and excellent repair records is proportionately greater than VWs.
So, the conclusion is that many VW owners will have equivalent repair histories to Honda owners. Relatively few VW owners will enjoy a better repair record than the average Honda owner. But a substantial number of VW owners will experience a worse repair history than the average Honda owner, and of that group there will be a much greater proportion of VW owners with serious repair problems compared with Honda owners. It is this last group and its subset that constitutes the basis of VW's poor reputation for reliability.
(I was going to talk about my personal experiences with my '99 Passat, but I'll save that for another post.)
The fatigue that I mentioned was not from holding the clutch in but rather from having to push it in and out many many times in stop and go traffic. Holding it in is bad practice, I agree.
I would pretty much concur with everything in your post. I would also add that it assumes a randomly distributed statistical sample and there is no recording bias or error in data collection. Since there is no one validating this collected data, I would also assume some errors on that end.
The point I was making is the difference between those peaks, that distance between Honda and VW, im most people's experience, isn't that great.
I have had 2 vehicles from CRs "black dot" list and both returned 150k/10year reliablity, so I don't have a lot of faith in these surveys, they don't weigh heavily into my purcahse decision, and I enjoy being an outlier.
Not sure about that. A lot of times the "hunting" problem, along with some other "problems", can be fixed with a simple software update. I wouldn't be surprised if Ford already addressed this with one. The catch is, you have to report the symptom before most dealers will perform the update. Others simply do it as a kind, but very thorough, gesture.
That being said I don't quite know if more than 5 gears are needed without diminishing returns on 99% of the vehicles out there today. I have 5 in my '06 Explorer and 5 (manual) in my '06 Mustang and I can't imagine having any more especially in the Explorer. Both of those have much larger engines with a good bit more power than the Fusion so I can't imagine that the 6 forwards are necessary in that car.
How many will the next Accord have? 6 or 7? The MTX V6 already has 6 right?
And some people say Nissan's CVT is like always being in the wrong gear, the transmission is lagging behind the engine.
Never heard that before. In contrast, I've heard nothing but good things about Ford's CVT in the Escape Hybrid, Five Hundred (soon to be the Taurus), or Freestyle. Too bad it's been axed in the latter two because it can't handle the power of the Duratec35. :sick:
Unfortunately the 2006-7 (B6) Passat didn't do it for me, (didn't like the GLi Jetta either). Something of the driving magic of the B5 Passat got lost, and I hated the redesigned rear/tail lights. I also realized that I was kind of burnt out worrying about when the next repair "hit" would come (had to replace the ABS, then a complete brake job within two months), and with 116K I decided to bail. I like the V6 a lot but I don't think I'll ever love it like I did that Passat. I'm a Vdubber in a Honda body right now, but at least I can relax, stay away from my mechanic, and not be an outlier for a while. I'm looking forward to upgrading the tires and adding a thicker rear sway bar and see how she drives.
Taurus X
Taurus
Mercury Sable
And the front of the Sable:TNG looks like a copy of the Milan. But it looks out of place on the Sable, which is rounder than the Milan.
The Taurus X (what kind of name is THAT??) looks OK with the Gillette grille though.
Well this just showcases the very sad state of Ford. The Taurus was a real hope for American nameplates in the late '80's. Sadly Ford just let it languish and then came out with that horrendous oval thing. I drove a rental Taurus in the early 2000's and was impressed at the size and the overall handling -- but the interior was disgustingly monotone and the engine sounded like a chainsaw.
Hopefully Mulally can get some real product improvements out there soon, as he did great things at Boeing. This looks like a desperation move to buy a couple of years.
It is cutesy naming.
They might look better in person, but the photos are not promising. From these photos, the Sable looks best, then the Taurus "X," then the Taurus the most ugly of all.
Did test drive the Fusion four banger. Not bad. Won't say it bests the Accord four cylinder though. The seats are comforatable. It moves, after a brief couple of seconds, when you tell the transmission you need to power up Scotty. Once under way, the engine is has pretty good power. Steering is pretty good. Noticed some unidentified noises. Was testing a former rental car, so I could get on the gas and brakes more.
On a GM note:
Is it just me, but the G8 looks like Aura and Malibu. Is this going to be a one style fits all?
-Loren
GM's new products are well liked. New large SUVs, new large pickups, new large crossovers, new Malibu, new CTS and new Camaro down the road. Everything new looks like they can be good sellers.
Chrysler: "300C. And then what?"
In Consumer Reports' ratings the Aura came in squarely in the middle of the pack with a score of 70. The V6 Camry got an 87 and the Accord was #1 with an 89.
IMO, CR tests are far more realistic than C & D, MT, etc.
The CVT may make or break the Altima - it is a different and non-traditional 'drive'. Involving even more computer control, depending on how hard (and quickly) you hit the accelerator, the engine will 'lock' at a specific rpm, and yes as the belt pulleys change their relative diameter[s]the car will continue to catch up to the engine speed until that accelerator position is changed. There, of course, is no gear change sensation only one of a constant engine 'drone' unrelated to speed. One thing for sure, if this is going to work out, the engine itself should sound and feel happy at whatever speed it assumes. I could see this working out OK for the VQ V6, but despite the HP, the Nissan 2.5 is no Honda engine. The Ford 6 speed been noted for its rough shifts and inability to decide what gear to be in - but this is not unusual for many of these newer tech multiple speed 'traditional' trannies. If the behavior of the Ford (or Toyota) 6 speeds is where we are heading, the CVT may be the lesser of evils.
Honda Accord EX-L 3.0l V6/5A 27,400 TMV 26615
I am willing to say $2300 is close enough to my "about 2-grand" comment that they are in the same class, even though in driving experience, they aren't. FWIW the price difference is even smaller with the Camry V6."
I ran a comparison on carsdirect for the two cars, below;
2007 Accord Auto EXV6 with leather - $24,814
2007 Passat Auto VR6 with Pkg 1 (Luxury) - $32,164
For the Passat, I must say that the Pkg 1 gives it some more equiment than an EXV6 Accord: Manual sunshades, Heated washer nozzles, PDC, rain sensing wipers, Memory ext mirrors plus the obvious HP advantage it has over the Accord V6. Reason I picked the Pkg 1 was that it equips both cars similarly. On the other hand, if I deselect the Pkg 1, that brings the price down to $29,194, the difference still is around $4.3k. Not taking the Pkg 1 however, results in euipment lost, I have pasted Pkg 1 details (PKG 1: Driver & Front Passenger Comfort Seats w/P3L .•Vienna Leather Seat Trim .•Leather-Wrapped Gearshift Knob & Boot .•4-Spoke Leather Multi-Function Steering Wheel .•Wood and Aluminum Trim .•Manual Side & Rear Sun Shades .•Automatic Headlights w/Coming Home Feature .•Climatronic Dual-Zone Automatic Climate Control .•Fog Lights .•Heated Front Seats .•Heated Washer Nozzles .•HomeLink Garage Door Opener .•Park Distance Control .•Rain Sensing Wipers .•Trunk Storage Net .•Self-Dimming Rearview Mirror .•Power Heated Memory Side Mirrors including power seats, leather seats)
In any case the price difference seems substantial, and I am not saying its not worth it, definitely is for some, just that its IMO gets prices out of this comparison. That also may be the reason that we seldom see any posts comparing the Passat in this forum, actually I have seen more Jetta comparisons.
"Hmm, now if your opinion had some data, that would be great and I would consider it. That car, as far as I know, hasn't had ANY unscheduled trips for service, but the statistics I saw point to about 2 extra trips on average, over 8 years and 150k. Of course, you are entitled to an opinion, and I am glad you are happy with your vehicle of choice, what ever that may be."
Even I am happy for you that your car has been great, enjoy.
I actually thought about that, but due to the bigger power diff + wight, thought it makes sense to compare the V6 models; this does not mean buyers may not compare these two; I am sure some will. Also, there's no engine upgrade in options, you either take the 4 or the 6and then add hte pkges. Sorry if my post came out like that.
Does anyone have 0-60 times for the V6 Passat v/s V6 Accord?
The Fusion/Milan is really too small a replacement for the Taurus/Sable. The Five Hundred is a bit bigger than the Taurus but its a good match. Just gonna need that 3.5 in it. Its been under-engined for a while now and has overall gotten pretty positive reviews, so the engine will sweeten it.
I know this thing is bigger than the cars compared here but it's price point isn't far off of the Accord and especially the Camry. With the new engine, AWD, stability control and all the other safety stuff it should sell better. With the right marketing it could steal some sales from those compared here.
The end result with the Nissan CVT is that if you baby the throttle and expect the engine to do much, it does exactly what you say - it babies the engine and you wonder why it's so darn slow. The same thing happens if you slowly give it more and more gas like a typical car.
You gotta learn to whomp on it hard to get quick acceleration, then back off once you get there. Ie - you want 3/4 throttle right off the bat and then you ease it back to 1/4 as you approach full speed. The exact opposite of what you do in a typical car(mash the accelerator harder as you build up speed)
It takes a few minutes to adjust. But the car runs just fine. Better, in fact, than a typical 4-6 speed transmission.
Test drove a Fusion four cylinder. Good little car. Test drove a Honda Accord. Great car! May test drive the Milan V6 some day, though it would have to be heavily discounted to be a deal compared to the Accord SE V6 and i4 sedans. Looks wise, I kinda prefer the coupe, so my sights today are on an Accord Coupe. Good handling, with sharp looks, I'd say.
-Loren
It was like the Earl guy in the Buick commercials...most of Gen x/y have no idea why they should even care.
This is probably the same group that thinks the Nova is a old Toyota Corolla clone...although maybe if the bring back the name for a cheap sedan version of the new Camaro platform or the G8...
I mean, if there is even one 2006 Ford Taurus with 24k miles sitting on the used lot with $13,995 in the window (as there are MANY on the local Ford lots), how are they ever going to sell a new one for anywhere near sticker?
No matter how good the new car is, that depreciation stigma is going to be hard to overcome. I know I'd be scared of the future value of a new Taurus, fleet sales or not. It's hard to change public opinion, and it doesn't just happen overnight.
The change was applauded in local media...
It's a risk but "Five Hundred" doesn't seem to be catching on with anyone right now. I think it's worth a shot.
The bigger picture here is Ford is actively making changes and at this point trying something different is better than not doing anything at all.
I think you are mistaken. Edmunds says: The 3.6L ices the cake with 17-inch alloy wheels, an in-dash CD changer, satellite radio and a sunroof.
But in any case, I don't think the proper comparison is what the most loaded up version sells for. The Passat starts at about the same price point as the Legacy, so it certainly can be purchased for prices comparable to other mid-sizes that are discussed here.
Everything else in this segment is an also ran, including Sonata and Fusion. I think Ford should've based the Fusion on the new European Mondeo, whose style makes it the Jag of this segment. So what if its debut would've been delayed for 6 months to a year? Right now not many people are buying it at all!
1) how well the new Altima hybrid sells--it looks like a winner to me
2) how well the two coupes do relative to one another
3) how well the '08 Accord redesign does
4) how well the '09 Accord diesel does--I have a feeling it's going to be huge, and will be the "Prius" of the passenger diesel in the US
5) Honda's rapid increase of US manufacturing capacity
6) the relative financial positions of Nissan vs. Honda. Nissan is barely turning a profit and has lost its #2 position to Honda in Japan recently. Honda's worldwide profits are huge in comparison. Honda's financial and engineering resources give it a real leg up in any competition with Nissan.
Taking all the factors as a whole, Honda's ability to distance itself from Nissan in the midsize category is apparent. Like in a horse race Altima has come up to within a nose of Accord, but the old champ may well pull (way?) out ahead once again in the next few years. It will interesting to see how things turn out. The nice thing is that they are both building quality products in this category.
Although these dimensional gains yield a car that's about the same size as a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry, they do add up to a roomier Passat. And inevitably, it adds up to a slightly heavier one. We can't make direct comparisons from our own archives, since the last two Passats we tested were hefty all-wheel-drive models equipped with VW's seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time W-8 engine (C/D, July and October 2002), and the one before that (C/D, June 2001) was propelled by a turbo four.
Nevertheless, 3592 pounds is portly for this class. If this Passat had been part of the mid-size-sedan comparison that appears elsewhere in this issue, it would have been the heaviest of the group—a group, we should add, powered by V-6 engines.
It was also found to be quite fast, similar to the Camry V6 (6.1 sec 0-60), as fast as the Accord 6MT V6 (5.9 sec), and ahead of the Accord 5AT V6 (6.6 sec):
By contemporary standards, the 3.6's output numbers aren't extraordinary for its displacement, but it gets the Passat out of the starting blocks with impressive zeal: 0 to 60 in 5.9 seconds, the quarter-mile in 14.3 seconds at 101 mph.
The big problem the article cited was price:
But for all that, we think the Passat may face an uphill fight for its place in the U.S. mid-size-sedan market. Beyond the noise and suspension-clatter issues, there's that price. The least expensive Passat—VW calls it the Value Edition (read "decontented"), with a 197-hp, 2.0-liter turbo four and six-speed manual transmission—starts at $23,565. That's only about two grand less than a Honda Accord LX with a V-6. The starting price for the Passat 3.6—$30,565—is in BMW 3-series territory. And our subject car's as-tested number is enough to bolt you into a BMW 330i.
*All italicized info from Car and Driver, DEC. 2005
I did not take the most loaded version, you can load these Passats to 35k easily. I compared a V6 Accord to a V6 Passat, with options as close as I could get them. The Passat's Pkg 1 puts it aorund 7k higher, but as mentoned, there is some extra equipment. Even without pkg 1 (which puts the Passat at a significant diasdvantage equipment wise, the price diff is around 4k, and if I was getting a Passat, I would certainly take with the Pkg 1.
If you mean that I should have compared the V6 Accord to the I-4 Passat, then, that to me is not a correct comparison.
The Passat was a hotly discussed car on this forum, before the redesign. It has dropped off from here mostly because of price, IMO