Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

1220221223225226391

Comments

  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I have had to extricate many people from Honda Accords and Civics what were crushed when other cars of comparable size had the passenger compartment intact.

    Which cars are you talking about here? Are any of them part of this comparison?

    The car was reliable and handled well but it was thin metaled and light. A bad combination on highways congested with SUVs and 18 wheelers.

    So which one of these cars do you say would fare better in a crash with an SUV or 18 wheeler? Are we all supposed to drive SUVs for safety?
  • The cars I was speaking of were Honda Accords, 1990 through 2004 (the last one I had anything to do with extrication on)and Honda Civics (take your pick of the year) The Tercel I had was a 1983. SUVs only give the impression of safety. A majority of them don't even have to pass safety mandates the smallest car does. Most still have no bumper protection, most will roll over easily and the roofs are not reinforced as cars are. The frame and chassis are the only strengths these behemoths have going for them besides their shear size and mass. Truck based frames. Battering rams for smaller cars. No the best protection is crash avoidance these days. Crush zones work to a point. But there just isn't enough sheet metal in most cars today to save you. I chose the Sonata partially for the room and comfort but also it was the most car for my wallet. Safety was the selling point. Side curtain air bags, side door air bags for the front passengers (wish they had them for the back seat though) ABS, traction control and stability control. All designed to keep you out of trouble. Granted a lot of those Hondas probably didn't have those features, but I got totally turned off when I saw how many bumpers just fell off with moderate impacts. Just trying to be honest here. I own a Honda motorcycle. I think Honda has great engineering, very meticulous engine design (cars and bikes). I just think they could have done more safety wise. And that means a lot since I haul around my small grandkids with me a lot these days.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    "What he forgot about was more problems, more gas $$$, and less quality."

    How do you know this? Another typical Toyota/Honda owner false statement? Less quality? Car was pretty well put together my friend. Ever been in one?


    Yes, I have been in one (for an entire week). The Impala was jittery on straight roads, and nose dived on corners. The interior was poorly laid out, with cheap looking and feeling controls. Many family members own Chevys, and I don't see the "perceived" improvements they've made.

    If Chevy could make a decent V6, they wouldn't have to put a V8 in a car this size to get some (straight line) performance out of it.
  • lahirilahiri Posts: 394
    I just had a look at the window stickers of 2007 G6s with 170 HP I4. They all say 17 MPG city/ 25 MPG highway. Isn't this MPG rating too low for I4? Are the window stickers wrong?
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I chose the Sonata partially for the room and comfort but also it was the most car for my wallet. Safety was the selling point.

    So you are saying the Sonata is safer than the Accord. I think you are assuming a lot here. I bought an 03 Accord, and it has all the same safety features your car has, with the exception of stability control. Did the Sonata offer all this in 03? I seriously doubt it. And I doubt a Sonata is safer than my Accord.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    fueleconomy.gov lists it at 23/33 mpg
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    If the OP gets the Sonata, it would be either a 06 or a 07, which has all common safety features standard, plus five star crash safety ratings across the board (NHTSA) and GAG (IIHS - could be better), pretty impressive overall if you ask me.
  • ontopontop Posts: 279
    Yea...but you're still driving a Hyundai, something most folks don't want to risk buying.

    You keep forgeting the scarlet letter they wear thru their own doings.
  • rcc8179rcc8179 Posts: 131
    I just had a look at the window stickers of 2007 G6s with 170 HP I4. They all say 17 MPG city/ 25 MPG highway. Isn't this MPG rating too low for I4? Are the window stickers wrong?

    It could be that the I-4 engine was listed under "standard equipment" and then the V-6 engine was listed under "optional equipment." I have seen this before on some vehicles--often with transmissions--where it will list a manual transmission under "standard equipment" and a simple glance through the window shows an automatic.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    If the OP gets the Sonata, it would be either a 06 or a 07, which has all common safety features standard, plus five star crash safety ratings across the board (NHTSA) and GAG (IIHS - could be better), pretty impressive overall if you ask me.

    The Accord had all these safety features 3 years ago (03), except for stability control. Did the 03 Sonata have these features available? Hyundai is 3 years too late.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    Hyundai is 3 years too late.

    This discussion is about new cars, not 3 year old cars, correct?
  • lahirilahiri Posts: 394
    Check this... Pontiac G6 4-cyl is rated at 17 MPG city/ 25 MPG highway!

    http://www.carspace.com/lahiri/Albums/windowG6/
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    The 2003 Accord did not offer side airbags in all trim lines. It offered side curtains only on the EX V6. It did not offer active front head restraints and traction control across its lineup (traction only on V6 models). It did have ABS standard in all trim lines.

    http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2006?mid=2002072937039&mime=asc

    Sonata, and in fact all Hyundais, had side airbags standard back in 2003. Honda didn't offer standard side bags across its lineup until 2006. I guess you could say Honda was 3 years late.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    This discussion is about new cars, not 3 year old cars, correct?

    Correct, but it doesn't make the Sonata any less late. Does it?

    The 03 Sonata had no curtains, no abs, and no traction control. Not even as an option. All of these things my 03 Accord has.

    What? No abs. My 92 Accord had abs. They are later than I thought.
  • goodegggoodegg Posts: 905
    Yea...but you're still driving a Hyundai, something most folks don't want to risk buying.

    You keep forgeting the scarlet letter they wear thru their own doings.


    Ouch! Probably true tho.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    Where do you get this stuff? ABS and traction control were available on ANY 2003 Sonata, even the base model. Was that true also of the 2003 Accord? No.

    Only the Accord EX V6 had side curtains. Side bags were an option even on the Accord LX--but standard on all '03 Sonatas. Talk about late!
  • shado4shado4 Posts: 287
    Yes, MSN Autos is full of cr*p.

    I checked the specs for my 2002 Hyundai Elantra GT on MSN Autos and it says my car is not available with ABS, traction control, or a sunroof.

    I have all three!

    I'd look elsewhere for correct information.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I looked it up on other sites. The Sonata had abs, and traction control only as options in 03. Side curtains were not available in any Sonata in 03.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    Backtracking now, eh? Here is what you said a few minutes ago:

    The 03 Sonata had no curtains, no abs, and no traction control. Not even as an option.

    Also, you conveniently ignore the fact that the 2003 Sonata (and earlier Sonatas in fact) had side airbags standard, on all trim lines. Not so the 2003 Accord. No side bags on the DX. Side bags were an option on the LX. However, one 2003 Accord model, the high-priced EX V6, had side curtains. Big whoop. They should be standard on a car that expensive.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    see my post above where my sisters one year old G6 which was bought for $24K +TTF and GAP ( $27K loan ) was worth $14500 at most one year later with only 8700 miles.

    Depreciation is the single biggest expense any owner has on a vehicle, excluding catastrophic out-of-warranty expenses.

    This is what annoys buyers of GM/F/DC vehicles the most. 'Why did I pay that much for it last year, if it was only going to be worth this much this year? I feel violated.'
  • I have owned 4 Hondas....Civic, Accord, Pilot and know an Odyssey. I have always had the best of luck with all of them. My 2004 Accord was a wonderful car and I may still have it if I didnt more room. The car was put together wonderfully,drove well and had a wonderful ride. Hondas reputation stood up well. Hyundai on the other hand doesnt have the reputation of Honda and it will probably take several years to establish.I am by no means saying Hyundais are junk but they are not at the same level as Hondas or Toyotas imo. So please do not try to convice me otherwise.
  • Talk about beating a dead horse. Who cares ? !

    We could talk about pitiful Hyundai a few years back - but we're not - its about what's happening now.

    About how Hyundai has turned things around with the Alabama plant, the new 07 Camry, how the Mazda 6 handles....etc
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,786
    It's impressive the number of good choices out there in the midsize range. Ten years ago the Accord and the Camry were far beyond most of their competitors. I think they still are ahead, but there are very respectible alternatives to be found with the Sonata, Fusion, Aura, Mazda 6, etc.

    I still think the Accord is slightly ahead, even of the Camry, for the following reason:

    My impression, and it might be wrong, is that Honda is the company where the engineers have the most power. Mr. Honda himself was an engineer, and I think the head of Honda today is an engineer. I think all of the presidents of Honda have been engineers, while at other car companies that only happens once in a while. Again, perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the engineers have relatively more power than the bean counters at Honda, at least compared to other car companies. I think if you asked a large group of competent and impartial engine engineers which engine was the most advanced, the Honda i-VTEC would probably get the most votes. It gives the best mpg of any midsize sedan, and is also quite smooth and powerful for its size. The Accord's double wishbone 5 link rear suspension is also, I think, slightly more advanced than its competitors.

    I have another small example of where Honda engineering doesn't go for the lowest common denominator. Starting in the 1990s, the federal government started investigating whether improvements needed to be made in the roof crush protection standard for cars. I think the current standard, which first started about 1970, states that a car needs to hold 1.5 times its own weight upside down without the roof crushing in more than a certain number of inches. Many people have contended that this standard is way too weak, and you've probably seen pictures of cars and suvs with their roofs crushed in that make that point.

    In the mid 1990s the feds suggested that the standard might be changed to, I think, 2.5 times the weight of the car. Ford, GM, and Chrysler have fought this standard, and so far have successfully delayed it from being implemented. I read that Ford builds almost all of its cars very close to the minimum government standard of 1.5, and didn't want to invest the $200 (or whatever it would cost) per car to strengthen the door pillars and the roofs and fix the problem. That surely wasn't what the engineers at Ford wanted, but that's what the bean counters ordered--after all $200 per car adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars over the years. I read that Honda, in the meantime, designed and built the 1998 Accord to meet the tougher standard. I assume the current Accord is also built to that standard.

    On some measures a few of the Accord's competitors may be ahead—the V-6 Camry has more power, the Sonata cost less and yet has stability control across the line (whereas Honda only has it on top end models), etc.—but overall I feel that Honda engineering tends to be a little bit ahead. Now that engineering does cost more—the Accord is thousands more than the comparable Sonata—but perhaps it's even in the small things, like that washer in the door handle mechanism that another poster was talking about—that put Honda slightly ahead.

    Not surprinsingly I own a Honda, and so I'm biased. But I have also owned a Mazda, a Ford, two VWs, and two GM cars, and in my sample the Honda just seems the best engineered—in big parts and small—of any of them. But it's true there are a lot of good choices out there, and even I have been tempted by the incredible value of the Sonata.
  • So you are saying the Sonata is safer than the Accord. I think you are assuming a lot here. I bought an 03 Accord, and it has all the same safety features your car has, with the exception of stability control. Did the Sonata offer all this in 03? I seriously doubt it. And I doubt a Sonata is safer than my Accord. Read the posts. The Accord I looked at was $24,000 no rebates and the dealer acted like he didn't care if I bought it or not. I actually had to ASK for a test drive. The Sonata had the same features plus more interior room, and I paid $16,495. It has a longer warranty, met the same crash test standards and cost me less money and was just as well built. Safer than your Accord? I'm not willing to crash mine to find out are you? I just know safety wise I got excellent value for the dollar spent. Did you?
  • Depreciation IS a huge problem for domestic cars. I think they key is not to pay too much for them in the first place. All the extra equipments don't add much value to a used car. I'd guess that a less equipped 1-year old G6 is probably valued very similarly to your sister's loaded one (assumed from the $24K price tag). If she had gotten a cheaper G6 for around $18K, things wouldn't have looked this bad, assuming you could get one for that much.
  • And you were having a laugh at the poor person/s stuck inside, probably injured, while doing this????????
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I think you make too much of the bumpers. Bumpers are there to protect the sheet metal and save insurance companies money, they have little to do with protecting occupants of the vehicle.
This discussion has been closed.