Howdy, Stranger!

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

Hyundai Azera vs Toyota Avalon vs Ford Taurus vs Chevrolet Impala



  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    " still makes more sense to invest in one of the Japanese brands new."

    I think you meant "buy" rather than "invest." Very few cars ever go up in value. Almost all go down in value. You don't "invest" with the expectation of getting back less after a period of time. You invest in hopes of getting more back over time.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    simple math - the 03 Taurus SEL Premium listed at 23950, invoice 21891, the Camry XLE V6 25405/22610. Source:MSN.
    Lets logically assume that you bought the Toyota for 23000, a few hundred dollars OVER invoice, the Ford for 20000 even, to allow for rebates that Detroit is now so famous for, and a total of 1891 UNDER invoice - a difference of 3000.00. We still have both cars today - the Camry is now worth 17750.00, the Ford 12280.00 (source at 43000 miles and retail) a difference of about 5500.00. The Ford has cost you an additional $2500.00 to own over the 3 years. And this also assummes that repairs, fuel etc. are the same;
    if as you contend, that Taurus really is as trouble free as the Toyota - ignoring whatever consumer studies you would like.
    Total cost of ownership is obviously not the same.
    Back to the subject at hand - what is it about the 500 that would make anyone think that this is going to change? Really think that Ford should be marketing the Fusion and the 500 under a different name - kind of like GM did with Saturn a few years back - except produce a truly competitive car to some higher quality standards to try to avoid these problems they obviously have. In that same COY article I also referenced, the Korean manufacturers were noted to have superior quality than anything from the Big 3 - almost approaching Japanese standards. Tell me why Ford/GM/Chrysler can't do what Hyundai/Kia is apparently capable of doing. If Ford continues on its present path the only people that will profit will likely be from Hertz, and the US taxpayer may be left with a Chrysler style bail out bill.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,564
    Run the same numbers 10 years down the road, when both cars are worth very little as used cars. At that point, I still have the $3000 I saved in initial cost, and if I Invest that money, say in something that returns a fairly conservative 5%, at the end of ten years I have $4887. At that point, I doubt if you will find the Camry has held that much of a value advantage.

    My point is blanket statements about which vehicle is cheaper to own are highly dependent on the individual situation.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    very few people actually keep cars that long but point taken - but, what do you think happens to repair costs of the average 10 yr old Taurus vs. the 10 yr old Camry.
  • Actually, using Edmunds TCO calculator puts the least expensive crown on the Taurus! Using the model choices you made and plugging them into calulator and using Edmund's assumptions (5 year time frame, 15000 miles per year, etc), the Camry will cost you 43 cents per mile to operate over 5 years and the Taurus will run 38 cents per mile over those same 5 years! Edmund's also estimates the depreciation for the Taurus at approx. $6500 over those 5 years and the Camry will take an $8500 hit over that same time. Food for thought! ;)
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    further thought, as long as the depreciation advantage of the Toyota exceeds the $190.00/year investment opportunity cost (1887/10) the Toyota will be the better buy. The gap will certainly narrow as the cars get that old.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,564
    Well, I can only speak from my experience, my 1990 Taurus was extremely good in the ten years and 98K miles I kept it, and my 2000 Taurus at 54K miles has been excellent as well.
  • littlezlittlez Posts: 167
    Fusion was in the running this year, not the Five Hundred. Five Hundred was last year.

    Side note: Nice of Motor Trend to give the award to a vehicle that got recalled right out of the shoot.

    Also, the Five Hundred was just named the safest car on the road by the NHTSA in their latest crash tests. I'll take a Five Hundred, please!
  • littlezlittlez Posts: 167
    Why are you comparing the Accord to the Five Hundred. They're not in the same segment.

    What you get with the Five Hundred is room, which is quite lacking the Accord. Anyone got a shoe horn to get people in and out of the back seat?

    What you also get with the Five Hundred, is the safest car on the road. Isn't that worth something?
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    You should clean up your facts.

    The Five Hundred (only when equipped with Optional Side Curtain Airbags) was named by IIHS (NOT NHTSA) as a "TOP PICK"- along with 9 other models from the various sedans and minivan categories (although no minivans got the award). SUVs were not included this time around because the IIHS has not had the opportunity to side crash enough of them.

  • littlezlittlez Posts: 167
    I've noticed you have an attitude.

    OK, so its the IIHS, I stand corrected. Yippee.

    I didn't say the Five Hundred did not have side air bags, so that fact was correct.

    The Detroit News Article says the "Five Hundred/Montego, Saab 9-3, Subaru Legacy and Honda Civic 4-door all received the Gold Award and earned "top" scores in frontal offest and side impact tests.

    The Gold Award (4) winners scored better than the Silver Award (6) winners.

    You can clean up your facts.

    Also, who is talking about minvans and SUVs?
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    the purpose of my posts is really not intent on 500 bashing, the 500 (as I said) is a well designed large comfortable, and safe car (as are the Azera (apparently) and Avalon)- the only faults I find with it is its subpar engine (compared to what's in the Azera and Avalon) and that it should depreciate much more rapidly than the Avalon specifically. The 500 could be so much better with a simple heart transplant! The sleeper in this group is actually the Azera, because it may just represent the better all around value despite suffering from a similar resale value problem that Ford products do. The same comments about powertrains and residual values also generally apply to GM and Chrysler cars as well.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    "What you also get with the Five Hundred, is the safest car on the road. "

    No attitude, I just took issue that you called the Five Hundred "the safest car on the road". You made NO intial reference to the other vehicles that received the EXACT same award, nor did you make any reference to the fact that NOT ALL Five Hundres are recipients of that award.

    My facts are clean- I stated that the Five Hundred with Side Airbags received a Top Pick award along with 9 other vehicles. That statement is true.

    Finally, I made the statement about Minivans and SUVs because of your initial statement that the Five Hundred is the safest car on the road; there may be more vehicles eligible for the same award (read: SUVs), but they were not included because not enough have been tested in the side impact.

  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,444
    the sho, with airbags was about 300 lbs lighter.
    it still wasn't slow with 3 people on board.
    that would make it about the same weight as a fwd/auto five hundred.
    sho had about 10% more torque.
    point is, sho was not much lighter, a little more power.
    it just points to the five hundred having good power, not great.
  • littlezlittlez Posts: 167
    I believe, based on the study, that 4 cars can be called the safest car, the Five Hundred, Civic, Legacy and Saab 9-3. If anyone called any of these cars the safest car on the road, I wouldn't argue with them.

    The IIHS gave these cars the Gold Award. I would assume that since Gold is better than Silver, than they must have scored better than the Silver Award cars.

    I know where you were going with the SUV comment, but I did say that it was the safest "car", not vehicle.

    Sure they gave the award to the Five Hundred with side bags, but I did not see a Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, and many others, equipped with all of their safety features on the list.

    At least give credit where credit is due. Maybe Ford just made a pretty good car. (OK, more horsepower would be nice.) But, it still wouldn't stop me from buying one.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,444
    i'm sure the iihs is prodding manufacturers to make safer vehicles. i kind question their tests, in except rare real world circumstances. the offset frontal test is into a fixed barrier. keep away from the bridge abutments, and you avoid their test.
    the side impact test involves an 'suv' that has aboslutely no crush zone in the front. it is basically a battering ram on wheels. i am not afraid driving my focus.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    "I believe, based on the study, that 4 cars can be called the safest car, the Five Hundred, Civic, Legacy and Saab 9-3. If anyone called any of these cars the safest car on the road, I wouldn't argue with them."

    Well, ok, I would agree the four of them are very safe vehicles, but the way you cited the Five Hundred as "the safest vehicle on the road", without mention of the other winners of the same award, led me to believe you were using the word "safest" as definitive, and superlative in the sense that no other car matched the performance.

    The absence of the makes you note is due to Head Restraint performance, something probably more easily remedied than actual crash performance.

    I like this award, and think its a good one, and Ford absolutely deserves credit for achieving this type of performance. But in this class of vehicle, Side Curtains should be standard, not optional. Then, I'd sing praises without stipulation.

  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Both barriers are deformable, so its not quite the bridge abutment and 78 Chevy Surburban that you cite.

    I'm not afraid driving my Sentra either, though I did opt for head protecting seat mounted inflatable side bags. (Which IIHS has never tested, but I'm optimistic, given that the Sentra didnt get the bottom ranking for structure- in fact, in the small car class, only the Mazda3 and new Civic score better than Marginal..... but I digress...)

  • "the only faults I find with it is its subpar engine (compared to what's in the Azera and Avalon) "

    There we go again. Words like "underpowered" and "subpar engine".

    The car is NOT "underpowered", nor is the engine "subpar". Even though it has less power than the top of the line vehicles offered in a similar class.

    For one thing, the 3.0L Duratec has been tried and proven since 1996 in the Taurus. That's one reason I felt no qualms about buying the Five Hundred (and a Freestyle). The Taurus was never underpowered with that engine . . though it did lack a decent transmission (not nearly smooth enough). The CVT changed all that.

    If I wanted a full-sized (or is it medium-sized?) sedan with POWER, then I would've gone for the Chrysler 300C with the Magnum engine. Now THAT'S got power. I guess that makes the Avalon "underpowered", huh, using your "logic"? LOL

    And, for the record, I DID test drive a Chrylser 300C (and the Dodge Magnum) with the Magnum engine before I bought my Freestyle in January. Later (in July) I bought a Five Hundred because I loved the Freestyle so much, and because of the employee pricing. Those two made me trade in a perfectly fine Taurus that was not yet 4 years old . . . and I NEVER trade in a car that early. I typically go 8 to 12 years. THAT'S how good the 3.0L Duratech and CVT and AWD are on these vehicles.

    I'm in my early 40's . . and while the 300C would've been a great "mid-life crisis" car (with all that wonderful power), it became quite obvious to me that the cars with less power (but still not "underpowered") made infinitely more sense . . and at a lower price tag, to boot.

    All those extra ponies under the hood don't do much good if you're not going to USE them on a routine basis. And that was my whole point about being able to beat 99% of Crovette DRIVERS (not the cars) with my '96 Taurus . . it was because I was determined to get around them, and they didn't feel the need to use any of those extra ponies they'd paid for.

    I drive pretty fast . . I hate being in a group of cars, and love to get around a pack as quickly as I can do it in a safe manner. And I've never felt the need for more power than I have now to do this. Unless, of course, I had wanted to literally "race" somebody. And if THAT'S what I wanted to do, then I certainly wouldn't settle for an Avalon . . I'd have that 300C.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    being championed largely by the consumer organizations, CR is now downrating perfectly fine cars simply because they don't have the side bags which seem to be the determining factor esp. in the side impact test.
    Mass, perhaps unfortunately (but quite logically), remains a major factor in these tests. Nothing like a whole bunch of iron and steel to help dissipate some of those impacts. So, as a result, the small cars will continue to have problems in these tests, presenting somewhat of a quandry for these consumer organizations that would have us driving around in small, light weight econoboxes. Or maybe they would have us outlaw all those 5-6000 lb. SUVs? The 500, Avalon, and Azera should all do well in these tests, if equipped with the side bags, and because they are all larger and heavier cars.
Sign In or Register to comment.