Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

1412413415417418586

Comments

  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    The Ford 3.5L V6 is extremely competetive in any objective category you want to look at. Not that anyone here wants to be objective about anything.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    If it was a generation behind (the Ford 3.5L) then it would not be competitive with the current offerings from other mfrs. IF someone else comes out with something better, then you can make that claim. Not today.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    we don't put V8s in midsize sedans do we? BTW before buying my Toyota, my personal drivers a sequence of Suburbans - and despite what CR (or anybody else says) they were wonderfully reliable trucks. I don't need to explain how to make a V8 to 'Detroit', they do do that quite well - and have for years!
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    "I don't like Toyota's in general and I don't like Camry's in particular. It's a styling issue for me. I'd never buy one. But I don't try to tell everyone that they're crap or that they shouldn't buy one."

    It would be hard to say their crap, because they are not. You might not like them, I don't like the Camry much either. But since it's one of the best selling vehicles in it's class in the US, it's success speaks for itself.

    "What I have a problem with is someone making objective statements about Fords or Fusions or any other make without any objective data to back it up."

    I have objective data to back up my statements. I have nothing to say about the Fusion in particular, but everything to say about Ford in general. You don't like that fact I had issues with 2 Fords? Or my bro-in-law got his Ford bought back via the lemon law?

    "With the exception of the very least reliable cars, I don't think there is enough difference in cars today to make that a big factor in a purchasing decision. Styling, performance, ride quality, features and price are much more important than whether one car scored 10 points higher than the other in a quality survey."

    The quality survey says nothing to me. If you really don't believe there is a difference in cars that make a big factor in purchasing decisions, I understand your like of Ford. But to me there is a huge difference and the Accord and Camry are the benchmarks for the segment.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    In the 12 years (140k miles) I had my 92 Accord three parts were changed. Master cylinder (my fault, never changed the brake fluid). Transmission computer $400, fuel pump. Total of $600 spent in 12 years. I don't know what exactly went wrong with my father's Malibu cooling system, but I do remember a gasket was blown. The brakes were never any good, no matter how many times he took it to the dealer. The ignition switch just gave out one day with no warning. I can remember when he was writing a letter to Chevrolet to complain about the many problems with his car. All you have to do is get in the car, and drive it around the block, to know it's junk.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    What's wrong with the Ecotec? Or the Ford and GM V6s I mentioned? Aren't those "competitive"?

    I'm gonna give a big no on the Ecotec. All I had to do was hear one run to know it wasn't a smoothie like a Honda/Toyota I-4.

    I also have this basic problem with the Ecotec. Example: Chevy Cobalt

    145 horsepower, 24 City/32 Hwy, very coarse sounding

    as opposed to my much larger/heavier Accord sedan

    166 horsepower, 24 City, 34 Hwy, and is as smooth as some V6s (many car testers agree with me on the smoothness part).

    No, I think the Ecotec is about 13 years behind the Honda I-4 engine (IIRC, the 1994 Accord EX had 145 horsepower from the same 2.2 liters, and approx 24/30 MPG depending on transmission option (25/31 with a manual, I imagine the auto was lower).
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    the best example the '05 Toyota 2GR-FE or FSE, continuously DVVTi, direct injection (FSE), the 3.6 in the Passat, and the 3.5 Honda in the new TL both of which I think are the same, and then, of course, the grandaddy of all the engines of this type, the Nissan VQ. And then, of course, there are all those BMW and MB 6s which I guess should be disqualified because of the overpriced vehicles they come in. I posted the specs on the DT3.5 a few days ago, compare them and then tell me it is not a generation behind, and from a test of the only vehicle it is currently available in, it still doesn't approach the smoothness and willingness to rev that you find in those 'Japanese' brands you like so much. Again, too litle too late!
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Ok, but the Ecotec CAN produce as much as 172 horses, can it not? And MPG is also a function of gearing, with the Cobalt having one less ratio than your Accord. Additionally, the '94 Accord ONLY made 145 horses in the EX version, and we all know that is not an SAE certified figure, so true comparisons are not really possible.

    The Ecotec isn't really THAT coarse, especially compared to GM's older 4 cylinder engines, and is definitely appropriate to vehicles like the Cobalt, which it moves very smartly.

    ~alpha
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Wait a second, what will all the CR bashers do now that they can't claim "import" bias in the reliabilty ratings!

    We'll say that the folks who used to use CR as "proof" of import superiority over Ford will have to find some other biased publication to use.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Ok, but the Ecotec CAN produce as much as 172 horses, can it not?

    Yes, in the 2.4L version (Such as the HHR, and Cobalt SS sedan), you are right.

    And yeah, the Ecotec is that coarse when compared to the I-4s in this discussion. Comparing the engine of the Cobalt to an old GM I-4 is like comparing the speaking abilities of Stallone to Schwarzenegger; bad to worse.

    I agree, the Cobalt is fine for its job as a workhorse in a budget-minded sedan, but it is not in the same class as those in this discussion as far as sound quality and coarseness go; it's just not a pleasing engine to hear, IMO.

    And MPG is also a function of gearing, with the Cobalt having one less ratio than your Accord.

    And? That's GMs fault, not mine. Vehicles like the Mazda 3 and Honda Civic come with a 5-speed Auto, so I'm not willing to excuse GM for not having a 5-speed Auto just because the engine belongs in a compact.

    This is all just my particular take on things... I would like to see mileage of the compact/economy cars at LEAST be better than my midsize, 3,300 pound, more powerful, Accord.

    *steps of soapbox

    Sorry for leading the discussion slightly astray, guys... I'm through. :)
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Show me the specs (power, fuel, emissions, etc.) that make the VQ "a generation ahead" of the DT 3.5L.
  • lahirilahiri Posts: 394
    Reliability become non-factor??? Reliability was the sole reason I dumped my Chevy Blazer for a Honda CR-V.

    Well, check this article on resale values: http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/vcars_1.html
  • lahirilahiri Posts: 394
    And, Cobalt weighs as much as Accord! Chevy has no shame.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    yep - the VQ which has been around for close to 15 year in one form or another IS (in the Altima) about what the DT3.5 is - except the VQ apparently smoother (at least according to reviews). Surprise, surprise - it's called refinement, a term pretty much not in the vocabulary in 'Detroit' - yet.
    It is remarkable in that it has been bulletproof and in establishing a standard that even Toyota and Honda chased for years. If the new DT can even prove to have HALF the reliability and durability of the VQ then Ford really will have something, although it is awfully difficult to call anything good (or competitive) that's only been available for a few months. As I said, a generation behind. If you really want to see what that 15 year old VQ is now capable of - check out the engine in the G and M35, Z - over 300 hp.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    One way to judge the manufacturers expected reliability is to look at how much an extended warranty costs.
    Look at the best price you can get on the $0 deductible HondaCare full coverage warranty on something like a Honda Accord and compare that to the cost of the best $0 deductible Ford PremiumCare warranty for similar mileage and coverage on Fusion .
    You can get Honda warranties out to 8 years. Ford would not dare or it would have to have a laughably costly price point to make it profitable, so they don't bother.
  • ck8rck8r Posts: 4
    It's interesting how many lies and generalizations there are in this page.

    Is Avi paying you to say these things? I know that Edmunds now focuses more on rah-rah'ing certain marques that pay their bills. But do you guys even know what you're talking about?

    It sounds to me like you're more into spewing the regurgitated garbage of the New York Times than actually looking at the hard data to form your ideas. How pathetic. But... wait... the New York Times has a neat little partnership with this site as do certain other unique interests. Hmmm.. I wonder what models are being promoted on your front page.

    First off, the difference in defect rates between marques sold today is less than one delay per vehicle. That means that your Lexus is really not that much better than your Focus these days as it applies to initial quality.

    Second, if you were actually in the industry you would know that GM currently has the lowest cost per defect in the industry while MB, VW, and Nissan (that's right... Nissan) have the highest. Of course, that doesn't mean that every single VW and Nissan model has high defect costs, right??? I'm sure you'll actually do some due diligence and find this out first before saying they ALL suck.

    But wait... you guys don't do ANY real esearch besides reading whatever non-industry article comes your way.

    Let me give you a hint. The underpaid journalists from New York City and Consumer Reports no about as much on cars as they do refrigerators. Literally, this is the group that calls a 0-60 time of 10.5 seconds snappy (Toyota Celica) while complaining about the 'coarseness' of a rear wheel drive sports car.

    Third, J.D. Power in particular actually has a pretty good listing for durability of vehicles over a five year period. With the exception of Toyota in a few distinct vehicle classes, all the other rankings represent a virtual mishmash between the manufactureers, with GM's Buick and Cadillac marques scoring a bit higher than the rest of the group on average. Ford (the company you primarily have bashed as of late with no facts to support your position) actually scores quite well in a lot of categories, especially with minivans, midsized vehicles and subcompacts.

    Finally, if we are talking about the difference of one extra trip to the repair shop for the duration of an ownership experience, then I think most folks will consider a lot of other factors where Toyota in particular usually falls flat.

    For starters, Toyota's are widely seen as just about the most boring vehicles to drive on the open road. The Corolla is a literal incarnation of the automotive 'wallflower' and is about as fun to drive as CSPAN is to watch. The Yaris, on the other hand, is a butt ugly vehicle with nothing in front, small little dials in the middle...where they don't help, and an advertising campaign that takes a nice page off the original introduction of the Neon. It's interesting to note that when the Neon was first released, it was Toyota who tried to publish the first ever negative campaign directly against an American automotive manufacturer. It didn't help that the Neon outsold the Tercel and Echo by more than 4 to 1 for the majority of the 1994 - 2004 period.

    In fact, the Tercel was such a bad and uncompetitive car that they even tried to sell it via infomercials. Apparently they figure out that Mr. Poppeil's garden weasel promos were what the Tercel really needed to jump up the sales volume.

    Like the Paseo and the Echo, it was a complete and utter flop. However they have always had a streamlined Camry to rely on. At least until the recent redesign.

    The redesigned Camry is not only bland and oversized now, but the rental quality materials they are now using in the interiors are even cheaper to the touch, and to the eye, than those used 15 years ago. The Camry of today has become as midsized as Roseanne and as fun to drive as a 1980's Buick LeSabre.

    Oh, and before I forget, we finally have an Avalon that is not only is bigger than the Cadillacs of 20 years ago, but also has a worse reliability record thanks to some severe design defects in their transmissions. Unfortunately like the engine sludge issues of Toyota's 3.0L V6, this will take a lot of time and litigation to resolve.

    Toyota is good at attracting to new buyers. But they are having an awful lot of trouble attracting repeat buyers, and especially younger buyer, which is why they had to launch an alternative marque in America (Scion). This is because a lot of folks simply want something more fun to drive than the Typical Toyota.

    The company that has the highest percentage of repeat buyers???

    That would be GM.

    My advice to anyone out there looking for a vehicle is simply to compare and drive.

    Drive a Ford Fusion and see how it compares with the Toyota Camry.

    Drive a Chrysler 300C, and see how it compares with a Toyota Avalon.

    Drive a Hyundai Elantra GT or a Honda Civic, and see how they do against a Saturn Ion Red Line.

    Drive the vehicles, look at the quality of the interior components, figure out which one gives you the most bang for your buck, and simply enjoy your new ride.

    In fact, more than 90% of new buyers already enjoy whatever car they end up getting regardless of what the wonks and wankers who follow this business have to say about it.

    Please note: Any attempt to censor or edit this post will result in an automatic doubling of the posting. You have been warned ;)
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    We're talking about new cars you can buy TODAY. Not 1995.
  • jiaminjiamin Posts: 556
    Talking about VQ, I used to have 96 Maxima bought new. Its VQ is so smooth, so powerful (that time), all the way to nearly the redline. I wanted to keep it long time. Unfortunately it got rear ended.

    Now I have 02 QX4 VQ. It feels not as smooth as the Maxima VQ, maybe due to the SUV design, and the overall high level noise during driving...
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Refinement is subjective. Show me where the Duratec 3.5L is way behind in power or emissions.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,628
    No censoring or editing (only the author can edit a post anyway), but just to set the record straight on one thing (since there is no time in all the world to deal with the entire post):

    The [car] company that has the highest percentage of repeat buyers??

    According to JD Power, that would be Lexus. Followed by Toyota. Followed by Honda. Then (finally) Chevy. Then Hyundai. And so on. Only two GM marques, Chevy and Cadillac, are over the industry average.

    http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005249
This discussion has been closed.