Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

17172747677333

Comments

  • jaymagicjaymagic Posts: 309
    I would be willing to go with that analysis as a decent generality. I can even believe that there are some who may even like the looks of the Buick the best (us older geezers).
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    now that I like - except that us 'old geezers' might just surprise you once in a while! The Avalon buyer median age used to be 63 - several years older than me. But the car sold relatively well because it offered a lot of what a Buick did - right up to and including bench seats and column shifters - with the Toyota name and associated reliability and resale values. Can imagine that some of those faithful (and older) Avalon customers were scared away by the '05 when it came out. 'Scaring the bejeepers out of poor ole Gramps' by simply pushing the accelerator too hard, perhaps. Conservative Buicks (and FTM cars like the CV/Grand Marquis) still remain, however, for those that really like 'slow and docile' but would bet that you'll see less new Avalons in the retirement community parking lots than you used to..
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    If others looked at this way too, there would be a lot less debate.

    I agree...you can't go wrong with any of those 4, but it boils down to why you are buying and what you're expecting.

    If you want the sporty, harder ride...the Maxima gives you that. It's not a luxury ride, so the inside isn't going to be what you'll find in the Avalon or the Azera.

    If you want luxury, but you don't want to spend a lot for it...the Azera is your choice. It doesn't have an overly soft ride, yet...you're not inclined to throw it into curves on a twisty road either. The fit and finish for the Azera belies it's value as you definitely get more for your money (materially).

    If you want sound luxury, fuel economy and top notch technology with a proven reliability track record...the Avalon gives all of that to you. However, you do pay a little bit more for it.

    Then...if the foreign entries aren't your cup of tea and you want to keep your money in domestic hands, the Lucerne and even the upgraded 500 are strong offerings too.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Actually...you are correct, both the Avalon and the Camry are putting out the same HP for '07. Honestly...that sucks!!! As an Avalon owner, I would feel cheated in that. A flagship car sharing what someone could pay much less for (in a sense).

    What's really sad, is...the Camry is not far off when it comes to the innner dimensions from the Avalon. THAT...really sucks.

    That's what I faced when I bought my '02 Sonata. The XG at the time was practically identical in size (interior), but offered a few more amenities and about 20 more HP. If I was gonna spend that much more...the car should have offered more.

    That being said, I'm starting to beleive that a fully loaded Camry is a better value than a fully loaded Avalon! :surprise: The Avalon has a few things that the Camry doesn't, only gains an inch or two here and there on the interior, almost equal trunk space and the Camry is a bit lighter which means a bit better FE. Yeah...the true value would be with the Camry. Avalon owners are beign cheated on this one! LMAO
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 972
    Wish you guys would just drop it or make a new forum for it if you think it really exists.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    You're funny!
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 972
    By all means, if you can't tell the difference between 2 cars, buy the cheaper one. Makes sense.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    You can tell the difference in how they look, but when you really break them down and start comparing numbers and other statistical data...that's where they become almost twins. In that case...you're right!!!
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 972
    Hahaha! Hardly twins described below:

    2002 XG 350 3.5 liter 194@5500 and a torque rating of 216@3500.

    2002 Sonata 2.7 liter 170 @6000 HP Torque: 181 @4000 ft-lbs

    Performance specs from Edmunds Comparison tests:

    XG 350 beat 2 out of 3 2002 competitors in the races. It beat the automatic Camry V6 and the manual transmission Passat GLX V-6. The then new 240 HP Altima 3.5 SE was the quickest with a 0-60 mph time of 7.4 seconds and a 1/4 mile time of 15.5 seconds.
    (In another 5 car comparison test, Sonata was a distant 5th place loser.)

    XG 350
    3.5 liters motor
    194 HP at 5500 RPM
    216 torque at 3500 RPM
    7.7 seconds 0-60 MPH
    15.9 seconds 1/4 mile
    127 ft. 60-0 braking
    60.6 mph slalom
    18/26 city/hwy EPA MPG

    Sonata
    2.7 liters motor
    170 HP at 6000 RPM
    181 torque at 4000 RPM
    9.1 seconds 0-60 MPH
    16.8 seconds 1/4 mile
    132 ft. 60-0 braking
    60.0 mph slalom
    19/27 city/hwy EPA MPG

    XG 350 has 103 cubic feet for passengers, 15 for luggage.
    Sonata has 100 cubic feet for passengers, 13 for luggage.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Hey Joe...I did this when I was looking at the '02 models. From a money standpoint, the XG didn't discerne itself enough to justify me paying the extra money for it.

    Also, I didn't buy for racing either.
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 972
    Yes, those numbers are for 2002 models.
    And yes, the XG had a higher MSRP.
    My point is they are not twins.
    The XG has better performance and is bigger.
    Guess you'll have to agree on those things.

    Whether the benefits are worth your money? Of course that is your decision, I'm not arguing that.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    I didn't say they were twins, I said the numbers when it came to interior dimensions were very, very similar. Sitting in the two...you didn't see the 4 extra cu. ft. of space.

    Considering the XG had 22 more HP and weighed only slightly more than the Sonata, the performance SHOULD be better. Again, I didn't buy the car for performace.

    However, the looks of the Sonata did more for me than the XG did. Just loved having a baby jag! ;)

    However...if you look at the '07 Avalon & Camry, outside of sheet metal, they are darn near twins!
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 972
    You said, "...when you really break them down and start comparing numbers and other statistical data...that's where they become almost twins."
    So that's what I did, gave you numbers and other statistical data to compare. But the data shows they are not almost twins.

    But yes, by all means, if you can't tell the difference between the '07 Camry and Avalon, buy the cheaper one (like you did with the Hyundais earlier).
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Okay..taken too literal (and my fault for not specifying). I was referring to the interior room numbers. Honestly...if I was going to pay the difference...I wanted more car, I wanted more room.

    Go ahead and take a look at the Camry and Avalon and tell if you don't see what I'm talking about though. Do you feel that there is $6K worth of difference between the two?
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    What's really sad, is...the Camry is not far off when it comes to the innner dimensions from the Avalon. THAT...really sucks.
    before you make a statement like that you really need to sit in the Avalon and then the Camry, especially the back seat which is really only rivaled by the back seat in the 500. Numbers can be misleading, the Avalon feels and indeed is much larger than even the Azera (which is no slouch in that dept) never mind the new Camry but only has one lousy cubic foot more of interior volume (than the Azera). It is not necessarily how much space there is but also how it is used.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    I have sat in both and I know exactly what you mean, but...the numbers don't lie and that's what I've been talking about all along. Personally, I would have loved to have seen the Avalon retain the 280 HP it had.

    Exactly my point between the XG and the Sonata. However...I don't ride in the back seat so my back seat feedback doesn't matter. My children do and with both of them being girls that may grow to be no more than 5'6" at the most...

    You are quite correct in your assessment. One advantage the Avalon has over all is the reclining rear seat, that makes a huge difference in perceived rear room when one is back there.

    The interior space is cavernous in my Azera compared to the Sonata I had. There was no way I was about drop $22K on the XG back in '02, but the Azera was well worth the $26K I paid for it.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    LARGE sedans, please??
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    No offense, but...Azera and Avalon.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Um, huh? There are a number of vehicles being batted around here that aren't in the large sedan category. We really, really, REALLY need to get back on topic.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Okay, okay...we'll drop the lil guys from the convo! ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.