Howdy, Stranger!

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

Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread



  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,623
    The old Camry was class-leading in reputation for reliability, maybe tied with the Accord. In this market of family sedans, that and overall competence are enough for success.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Interior space. The old Camry was huge when it first came out, even bigger than the current gen.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I wonder if back in the old days, when the Camcords were much smaller than the US competition, if there was criticism of them for this...were they called cramped, did reviews say the back seat space was tight, etc.?

    It is interesting to look at some of these old figures.
    Today's Corolla and Civic are about as big as the 1990 Camry and Accord.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,627
    "Camry/Accord V6's better" how? by .6 -.8 seconds 0-60 depending on what review you want to believe? The 3.0 Duratec equipped with VVT is a proven engine. It has been around now for almost 10 years and has proven to be a longterm reliable engine. What do you mean??

    This sounds like those in the GM crowds that keep touting GMs 3800 v6.

    Yes the Duratec is reliable, but it's crude.
    I haven't driven a Fusion, but my wife has Ford 500 for a company car with the Duratec and I've driven the vvt version in a Mazda 6 which was far from impressive. Handling was first rate though. The 500 version is pitiful. No torque and sounds like a wounded dog when revved.

    The Fusion maybe marginally slower than Accord v6, but the Accord v6 is far smoother. Ford needs the new 3.5 ASAP.

    I think the Fusion is a fine car, but the 3.0 will keep me from buying one.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    Duratec is crude in what way? It has dual overhead cams, VVT, 24valves per cylinder, aluminum block and heads. Its all on paper that makes it look crude. I am very pleased with the get up and go in my current Fusion. IF the 3.5 offers better or equal MPG to my present 27.4 average. I would consider trading it in for another Fusion..
    My toy..
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,627
    Duratec is crude in what way? It has dual overhead cams, VVT, 24valves per cylinder, aluminum block and heads.

    I don't find it to be smooth like competing v6s from Toy/hon/nissan. It's certainly better than any of Fords other OHV v6s, but it's not going to impress anyone that has driven an import.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    24valves per cylinder

    I think you meant 4 valves per cylinder and 24 valves overall.
  • lahirilahiri Posts: 394
    What about the quality of your Fusion? Ford and GM are consistently behind Toyota and Honda in quality. Do you think that Fusion will help Ford close the gap?
  • lahirilahiri Posts: 394
    "Ford, put the 3.5 V6 in there and you'll have a winner. "

    If Ford puts the new engine without raising the price and compromising fuel economy, I may consider it. But I will probably buy Mazda6 (I believe 6 offers the same engine with better styling and warranty). Still, I wonder if Ford has anything really convincing that will make me pick Fusion over Accord or Altima.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    I have to check but I don't think 02-06 Camry interior volume of 101.8 cu. ft. is considered class leading :confuse:
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    Not anytime soon at least. What incentives would buyers have to buy a Zephyr/MKZ if the 3.5 V6 was also offered on the Fusion. Even the luxury flagship MKS is expected to have the same 3.5. If anything, it'd be in the SVT version.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Then please tell which other midsize sedan in 2002 has a bigger interior volume than 101.8 cubig ft?
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    What incentives would buyers have to buy a Zephyr/MKZ if the 3.5 V6 was also offered on the Fusion.

    That's not a valid excuse of not offering the 3.5 on Fusion.

    Toyota uses the same 3.5 V6 on Camry, Avalon and ES350 and it definitely didn't hurt Avalon and ES350's sale numbers. Also, Nissan uses the same VQ on the Altima, Maxima and G with slightly different output adjustment and I don't see any problem there either. I think Ford should put a less powerful version of the 3.5 on Fusion and Milan so the MKZ could still hold the prestige.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    Taurus for one?
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    Camry has actually taken sales away from the Avalon, since introduction; same for the Altima/Maxima. ES came out almost around the same time as the Camry so it's hard to say. Nissan will actually drop the new VQ engine in the G.

    If everything holds true, and the Fusion does receive the 3.5, this would mean its entry level, all the way up to its luxury flagship will all have the same engine - something no other automakers utilize, most with V8s for its luxury flagship.
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Posts: 1,467
    gets the new VQ has well, which will be 80 percent revised from the VQ used in the current Altima and the 07 Maxima. Thus the reason the 07 Altima will make more hp than the 07 Maxima. The Maxima continues with the older Vq, the new Altima gets the heavily revised new Vq.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Avalon sale numbers:

    June: 6608
    July: 6757

    Don't see how the new Camry has taken sales away from Avalon. Yes, Nissan is dropping the new VQ into the G but that engine will eventually replace all the current VQ under Nissan's lineup. As for why Ford's luxury flagship won't receive a V8 is totally beyond me.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    Not long ago, Avalon sold well in the 8K units(maybe even as high as 10K? - correct if mistaken)

    The fall due in part (not in any order nor equal percentage splits):

    1) Reliabilty issues
    2) Other new competitors - Lucerne, Azera
    3) Camry
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    You would think so but it's not...
  • njeraldnjerald Posts: 688
    Avalon sales YTD in 2006 thru July are 0.6% (600 vehicles) less than 7 months 2005.

    Camry sales YTD in 206 thru July are 0.9% higher (800 units) higher than the 7 months in 2005.

    Not even worth a discussion.
This discussion has been closed.