Midsize Sedans 2.0

[Deleted User] · July 2013

I finally jettisoned my OEM tires, and I am glad I did. The new Bridgestone's have totally changed the ride, which was hard as a rock... and loud in comparison. The ride and noise levels were my main gripe about the stock Nexen tires, so when I saw that the Turanza's were also a low rolling resistance design as well, that sealed the deal. They also were highly rated for wet traction too. I don't know how they got all these great features out of one tire, and the jury is still out on wet traction, since it is 100 degrees here and refuses to rain.

I am obviously a little OCD about my Optima, so as you folks can imagine it took a couple of weeks of agonizing research to finally take the plunge and get this done. I am going on vacation in August (including a 1000 mile round trip), and since Kia did not provide me with a spare, there was no way I was doing it with 3 tire plugs and marginal tread life after 20k of pounding DC traffic.

I found the new Bridgestones at NTB, and they gave me 20% off for applying for their credit card, 6 months same as cash, and I got a $60 Visa debit card from Bridgestone. Pretty happy.

NTB/Merchants all-inclusive price was $120 per tire INSTALLED, after the 20% discount, which was great because just the tires are $143 each on the tire rack. I did pay tax and a $6 disposal fee.

Basically it was $530 total.

The Turanza's have very positive reviews everywhere I looked, and so far it seems to be accurate.

benjaminh · July 2013

Are you folks seeing the online ad on this site by Toyota trying to literally "crush" the Accord? The ad is both obnoxious and misleading. The animation has a Camry on a platform on top of an Accord, and the Accord gets smashed into the ground. Text pops up saying things like: "American Made," "Long Lasting," etc. For one, both of these cars fit American made, since the Camry is made in Kentucky and the Accord in Ohio. Both are long lasting. No points have been made, in other words, but the Accord is crushed anyway. I can't imagine Honda doing anything as crass and crude as this.

The Accord has better safety ratings than the Camry, accelerates more quickly, has more standard features, higher mpg, better handling.

andres3 · July 2013

I just decided the test drive the Accord yesterday at my local dealer. I test drove the base model LX Accord.

The 4-cylinder with 185 HP will have perfectly adequate power for 9 out of 10 people, unfortunately I'm in the 1 out of 10, but it was very good for a 4-banger.

The CVT is fantastic and works just like a normal good automatic transmission. This transmission makes every previous CVT made by other manufacturers look like a dinosaur.

The car was pretty good, but I preferred the seats in the EX-L, and I love a leather steering wheel (although Honda's isn't as nice as Audi's).

Looks like the Sport model might hit the niche I would want from this car (slightly more HP, leather steering wheel).

Seat travel is limited so if your more than 6'3" tall, you'll get pissed that you can move the seat further back.

[Deleted User] · July 2013

It seems like Toyota is grasping at straws and taking the low road in trying to win it's battle over the now-in-first-place Accord in sales.

We talk about how the Camry continues to be a best seller despite it's less than stellar reviews, comparatively lower safety scores, and ho-hum styling.

Well, I have noticed that there are more new Accords on the road around here than any other current model mid-size else except the Sonata. To be fair, I can't tell a 2011 Sonata from a 2013 so this is just an observation...fair or not. I DO see a LOT of 2011/2012 Camry but I will address that next.

By personal observation on mid-size sedans made since 2004, I would have to say that I see the Camry more often BY FAR than any other car on on the road. Next would be the Altima, and then the Accord, with the Fusion bringing up the rear in fourth.

Now, I know this isn't the compact car forum, but the Corolla and the Civic are a tossup for first, with the Mazda 3 and Focus tied for second.

This is just my observation...I am not an expert, but I would like to play one on TV.

backy · July 2013

However....I have noticed that there are more new Accords on the road around here than any other current model mid-size else except the Sonata.

Must be a local thing... or maybe it's because people tend to notice what they're looking for.

I see tons of Sonatas, but also lots of Optimas and Passats and 200s. Probably because they have been out longer than other mid-sized re-designs. I see more current gen Camrys, Altimas, and Fusions than Accords. I've actually seen very few Accords, only a couple of Mazda6's. And very few new Malibus despite relatively decent sales numbers.

benjaminh · July 2013

base model auto trans
200 24
Passat 25
Malibu 26
Fusion 26
Camry 28
Sonata 28
Optima 28
Accord 30
Altima 31
Mazda6 31

benjaminh · July 2013

The current standard is only about 23 mpg combined.

The standard for midsize cars in 2017 is about 27.

The standard for midsize cars in 2021 is about 32.
(The Mazda6 is already there if you get the optional Tech Pkg with regenerative braking, etc.)

The standard for midsize cars in 2025 is about 38.

Only the last standard is a significant jump over where the most economical cars are now. We can assume that a dozen years of improving technology and better designs will help us get most of the way there, without even the use of hybrids. But the 38 mpg requirement is actually weakened by "credits" that manufacturers get for various things like hybrids, ac refrigerants, etc. Once manufacturers buy down the requirement with the credits, the real standard will probably be about 35 combined, which is only 3 mpg more than the current Mazda6 gets with Tech Pkg, which admittedly is an all-new state-of-the-art car. But still, if you ever hear someone whine about these unrealistic CAFE requirements, they are really just blowing smoke imho. We'll get there, and we'll get there without sacrificing room, safety, or performance.

ahightower · July 2013

I am 6'3" and ended up with accord (sport) precisely because of the leg and head room. I do wish the steering wheel had a little more reach, but I'm still getting settled after just 1,000 miles. Options are sitting up straighter than I'm used to, or having the seat forward a bit. Moving every seat all the way back is a lifelong habit... The amazing thing is I can actually fit in the back seat even with driver seat all the way back. In my old Mazda3 there was virtually no room behind the driver.

benjaminh · July 2013

Does the Sport Accord have a power seat? Lumbar? Yeah, the legroom in the new Accord is impressive, esp. since the car is about 3 inches shorter than the last model (I like the added room in my small garage). At 38.5 inches, I think the only midsize car with more rear legroom is probably the Passat.

Do you use the paddle shifters much? They are probably fun to have, even if you only use them once in a while.

The tires on the Sport Accord are massive. Does it seem like they help with handling and grip, or is it hard to tell?

ral2167 · July 2013

Grasping at straws? Ho hum styling? Compared to the Accord? I beg to differ. Just 12 presets for XM radio on the accord. Dumb. Is XM even offered on the lower end EX or LX models? Dumb. Plus the gimmicky passenger side blind side monitor. Dumb. Accord really let me down. And I had a 2007 Accord EX-L 4 cylinder coupe 5 speed manual in my driveway up until recently-- great car. But no manual offered on the ex-l now? Dumb. What was smart of accord? Driver seat position memory-- good move. Camry could learn from that.

m6user · July 2013

It seems like Toyota is grasping at straws and taking the low road in trying to win it's battle over the now-in-first-place Accord in sales.

The Camry is 207,626 ytd thru June. The Accord is 186,860. How can Accord be "now-in-first place" in sales?

benjaminh · July 2013

I think cski meant was that the Accord is leading in to sales of retail customers as opposed to selling cars cheaply to rental car companies. Since only 80% of Camry sales are retail, that means they sold about 166,000 that way, which is below the c. 185,000 the Accord sold retail.

Among the big players in mid-sized cars, Honda is alone in mostly shunning fleet orders through April.
FLEET SALES AS PCT. OF TOTAL FLEET SALES AS PCT. OF TOTAL
Chrysler 200 52% Toyota Camry 20%
Chevrolet Malibu39% Hyundai Sonata 17%
Ford Fusion 34% Honda Accord 1%
Nissan Altima 33%
Source: R.L. Polk & Co. data analyzed by Edmunds.com

m6user · July 2013

yeah, I guess he could have meant that but that's what he should have said then. But for years and years Camry has beat Accord in sales both retail and fleet. Doesn't make Camry a better car then and it doesn't make Accord a better car now. I don't think anyone would argue that a Camry is a better car than Accord as I personally would rather have an Accord(well actually I would rather have a Mazda6) but using a sales number as one's criteria is foolish. That would make Corolla the best compact sedan just because it sells better worldwide and it certainly is not the best car.

[Deleted User] · July 2013

I was specifically responding to benjaminh on a post featuring a Toyota commercial with a Camry piled on top of an Accord and crushing it. That was where the "low road" comment came from.

On the sales comment, it was the net Accord sales vs Camry w/o fleet or Taxi sales.

I always research a post string before I make comments about it.

wayne21 · July 2013

I was specifically responding to benjaminh on a post featuring a Toyota commercial with a Camry piled on top of an Accord and crushing it. That was where the "low road" comment came from.

I understood that from your reply. I think Honda is producing all the cars they can and selling them to individuals while Toyota has a larger production capacity (more than one US factory) and relies on taxi/fleet sales for their numbers. I don't know (and not interested in looking up) the resale values, but one reason the accord historically has held its value better than camry is the fleet sales. When companies get rid of these cars they flood the market and lower the price for all camrys - not just theirs. I remember in 2000 when we bought an accord. A friend of ours who worked at a Toyota dealership suggested we buy an accord. He stated that the camry costs $1,000 more new and in 3 years will be worth $1,000 less than the accord.

benjaminh · July 2013

It's been an epic battle stretching back for 30 years. As you say, Toyota has the capacity to build a lot, I think up to 500,000 Camrys a year for sale in the USA, although they've never actually sold quite that many. Their top year was about 470,000 iirc, although I'll try to look that up. As you say, the "extra" production, so to speak, goes to rental car companies and that affects resales values.

Hondas top sales year for the Accord was maybe c. 420,000, but that was a long time ago, and I think that might have included a small percentage of imported Accords from Japan. I don't think they usually import more than a very small number from Japan these days, but the recent drop in the yen might change that. I think they are selling every one that they can make in Ohio at the moment.

For the history buffs, here is the history of the sales battle between Accord and Camry in the USA. In the 80s the Accord was way ahead, but slowly and surely the Camry overtook it, in part by selling to fleets and rental car companies:

1986
Toyota Camry: 151,767
Honda Accord: 325,004

1987
Toyota Camry: 186,623
Honda Accord: 334,876

1988
Toyota Camry: 225,322
Honda Accord: 362,663

1989
Toyota Camry: 255,252
Honda Accord: 362,707

1990
Toyota Camry: 283,042
Honda Accord: 417,179

1991
Toyota Camry: 262,531
Honda Accord: 399,297

1992
Toyota Camry: 284,751
Honda Accord: 393,477

1993
Toyota Camry: 297,836
Honda Accord: 330,030

1994
Toyota Camry: 319,718
Honda Accord: 367,615

1995
Toyota Camry: 326,632
Honda Accord: 341,384

1996
Toyota Camry: 357,359
Honda Accord: 382,298

1997
Toyota Camry: 394,397
Honda Accord: 384,609

1998
Toyota Camry: 427,308
Honda Accord: 401,071

1999
Toyota Camry: 445,696
Honda Accord: 404,192

2000
Toyota Camry: 420,451
Honda Accord: 404,515

2001
Toyota Camry: 388,219
Honda Accord: 414,718

2002
Toyota Camry: 431,647
Honda Accord: 398,980

2003
Toyota Camry: 411,088
Honda Accord: 397,750

2004
Toyota Camry: 424,803
Honda Accord: 386,770

2005
Toyota Camry: 429,519
Honda Accord: 369,293

2006
Toyota Camry: 445,808
Honda Accord: 354,441

2007
Toyota Camry: 470,710
Honda Accord: 392,231

2008
Toyota Camry: 434,935
Honda Accord: 372,789

2009
Toyota Camry: 356,824
Honda Accord: 290,056 (2564 Crosstours)

2010
Toyota Camry: 327,804
Honda Accord: 311,381 (28,851 Crosstours)

benjaminh · July 2013

The Camry is probably the least expensive midsize car you can get, and there some good things you can say about it. But the last time I had one as a rental I was not at all impressed. And I'm not the only one. Here's what Motor Trend said in a 6 car midsize car comparison test several months ago. The Camry was 5th:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1212_2012_2013_midsize_sedan_comparis- - on/viewall.html

"....The competition has crept up, though. And the Camry itself is -- dare we say it? -- showing signs of weakness. True, the basics are still there: a genuinely huge and inviting rear seat, impressive real-world fuel efficiency (we observed 26.1 mpg), a full complement of conveniences, and aggressive pricing ($25,570 base for the topline XLE). So why aren't we in love?

Ask Febbo: "This car is just so cynical. Horribly executed, and not a drop of passion anywhere. Interior looks like it was designed by the accounting department. Monochrome display for the HVAC system could have been developed in the '70s. The knobs are cheap, the buttons are cheap, everything is built to the lowest price."

Febbo isn't alone. Writes Seabaugh: "Did Toyota even try? Seems like they just phoned it in. Cabin has way too many hard plastics, a shoddy infotainment system, a dash so shiny it reflects into the windshield in direct sunlight. This is the McDonald's of cars: billions and billions served. But that doesn't mean it's good."

Motor Trend said some even more critical stuff after that....

wayne21 · July 2013

I would not refute motortrend's writing. Of the midsize cars we've checked out, the camry easily had the cheapest interior. I think most of the cars on the Toyota lot had really cheap interiors. If one is buying a car solely for reliability, perhaps the camry is a good idea because it can be had at a good price. But that's about it. I looked at the USAA website for my area and I can buy a comparable accord for about $500 more than a camry and that's because the camry has been discounted so much. IMHO - the accord is worth far more than the $500 difference. In fact, I think the accord is probably worth $2500 to $3000 more than the comparable camry BEFORE all the discounting.

backy · July 2013

I am pretty sure the least expensive new midsized sedan (as defined in this discussion, not as defined only by EPA interior volume) right now is the Avenger, followed by the 200. I've seen new Avengers, decently equipped, advertised in my area for under $16k... and that's before any negotiating. Similarly for the 200s. I'm pretty sure you can't get a new Camry for $16k.

Of course, you get what you pay for.

benjaminh · July 2013

Wow. That is cheap for the 200 and Avenger. I'm not sure I've ever even seen one of those in the flesh. No wonder more than 50% go to rental companies and fleets! I wonder what they get them for? 15k?

The cheapest Camry I saw advertised recently in Louisville was for $18,990. And so, yeah, that's a lot more than a 200. But as you say, you get what you pay for. As cheap as the Camry seems in places, I bet the 200 is that much worse. The base model has a 4 speed auto (??) which is a sign it's going into your local Budget if not Rent a Wreck...

backy · July 2013

If Toyota can get away with a 4 speed automatic on its redesigned 2014 Corolla base model, maybe Chrysler figures it can get away with a standard 4AT on the base trim of the old 200, with the 6AT available as an option (and standard on all other trims). I'll bet both of those low-end trims are destined only for rental car lots, or at least most of them are.

Chrysler really does need a new mid-sized sedan. They did a pretty good job on the Dart, so that gives hope for the successor to the 200.

benjaminh · July 2013

wayne wrote: "In fact, I think the accord is probably worth $2500 to $3000 more than the comparable camry...."

I think you're probably right. And the Accord probably costs Honda maybe something like $1000-2000 more to make than a Camry.

Back in 2009, in the depths of the financial crisis, the President of Honda told the Civic team to take something like $1000 off the cost of the 2012 Civic. They did, but then the 2012 Civic was justly criticized for being cheap in some obvious ways. The President himself took the blame, and told the Civic team to go back to the drawing board and see how to put c. $1000 back into each car to make it better. This involved better plastics, more sound insulation, better steering, better suspension components, thicker glass, nicer styling, etc. But they only raised the price something like $100 bucks, which doesn't seem like it would make financial sense. But the 2012 Civic was only selling with big rebates, while the 2013 Civic is selling with much smaller rebates. I'm not sure the profit level per car changed, but Honda effectively moved the Civic upmarket.

The 2013 Accord was also an attempt by Honda to move upmarket, because the KIA Optima and Hyundai Sonata and some other cars had already moved upmarket a few years earlier. The Optima looks amazingly classy for a midsize car, inside and out, and has great engineering and standard equipment. Plus they are selling with only small rebates.

Normally a "halo" car is something like a Corvette, which may be profitable in an of itself, but more importantly gives prestige to the brand. I can't find the link, but there was some Honda executive that described the 2013 Accord as their "halo" car. At first, I thought he might be misusing that word, but then as I saw the whines and complaints from Acura fans at places like vtec.net, and I saw what he meant. Normally, the best and newest tech for halo cars starts at the high end cars and brands and moves down to the high volume models in a few years. But Honda, to the anger of some Acura fans, has put some of the best stuff they have on the Accord first, before Acura, like the direct injected engines, the lane watch, etc. Plus, they moved down a fair amount of stuff that used set Acura apart, like chrome door handles, etc. So a base Honda Accord not only gets from 0-60 faster than an Acura TSX, but it gets better mpg, has more high tech stuff, and costs a lot less. No wonder Acura is only doing so-so right now.

But this also means that Honda probably can't really offer the rebates that Toyota has right now for the Camry. If they did, they'd might lose money. Toyota can sell the Camry for less and still make a profit.

berri · July 2013

I'm not sure Honda would meet Toyota rebates even if they could financially. Part of their image is high resale. I think that's why even with miniscule (regardless whether they are Bernanke artificial) interest rates, Honda never went below 0.9% while many of it's competitors offer 0% differing from each other only in terms of loan duration at that rate.

ahightower · July 2013

Accord Sport does have power driver seat and power lumbar adjustment.

I got the manual, so can't comment on the paddle shifters.

I didn't drive an LX or EX, so can't compare the performance of the upsized wheels and tires, but I will say they have plenty of grip even in the rain, and they are not noisy at all. The OE tires are rated 400 A A, I'm anxious to see how they hold up over the long run. There is plenty of sidewall, so they are not what I'd call "low profile", the ride is not harsh. And there is a nice rubber "lip" built in to protect the wheels from minor scuffs. Also, the sport wheels' gray painted finish hides brake dust nicely.

I'll be honest, the thing I like most about them is they just look cool. The Sport has a nice "stance" compared to the LX/EX. LX 16"s in particular look fairly wimpy, although it's a lot better than the plastic wheel covers on base Accords up through last year. The 17"s, which are the same wheels from EX all the way up to Touring, are a bit bland as well. Sport wheels combined with the dual exhaust, lip spoiler, and moderate chrome trim front, rear, and door handles, and tinted windows, it's a rather upscale look. I've had several comment that it looks much more expensive than it really is (FB photo taken from side had one friend convinced I'd bought a new BMW... haha. Not quite. Although I do see a faint resemblance to the new Lexus GS, if you'll permit the fantasy...)

ctl · July 2013

Automotive News cites R.L. Polk data in noting that many of the family sedan segment's heavyweights are running above 30-percent fleet sales, including the Altima, Fusion and Chevrolet Malibu, while the Camry is expected to finish the year under 15 percent. Even so, Camry sales to fleets are ahead of this time last year (despite 2012's numbers having sizable catch-up sales after 2011's tsunami-tightened supplies). Honda has long touted its low fleet sale percentage, and the new Accord is no different  its fleet sales sit at 1 percent.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/07/01/toyota-camry-incentives-and-fleet-sales-crank- ed-to-keep-sales-cr/

mcdawgg · July 2013

Resale is only a potential problem if you keep a car less than 5 years or if it is totaled in that time. But Camry still has very good resale, even with fleet sales of about 12%. And if you look at a Camry vs. Accord, used the Accord is about $900 more for comparable 2010s, but the Accord was about $800 more new, so I am not seeing any real big decrease in resale value in my quick look at Edmunds pricing for the two. And that is just one element of the total cost to own. Factor in insurance cost, maintenance costs, part costs, ease of DIY maintenance, etc, etc.

andres3 · July 2013

Resale is only a potential problem if you keep a car less than 5 years or if it is totaled in that time.

I think that statement is correct 30 years ago, but nowadays you have to change that 5 year figure to more like 7 years. Cars are getting very expensive and used car values have been higher lately.

ahightower · July 2013

I'd say the longer you keep a car, the MORE it matters. Honda and Toyota may be about the same, but compare either of those to anything American or Korean after 3, 6, 10 years...

backy · July 2013

I have done that. Have you? I own a 9-1/2 year old Elantra. It's still worth about half of its original purchase price after all that time. Not bad at all for a nearly 10 year old car!

Take a look at used car prices for late model Hyundais, including 2006+ Sonatas. They're up there with the best of them. Probably because they've improved a lot in the past 8-10 years.

I also see resale values of the better American mid-sized cars like the Fusion holding up well too.

Where I see the big dropoff in value is on higher end cars. Luxury cars in particular really take a hit in resale value the first few years.

[Deleted User] · July 2013

You know, I find the IP on the 2014 Crayola much more cohesive than the hodge-podge, IP-by-committee "style" on the Camry.

See it here: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1306_2014_toyota_corolla_first_look/p- hoto_02.html

I had to laugh when the author said "whats with the giant circles on the steering wheel? I feel like I should be firing missiles". Awesome!

Also, thank you Toyota for not putting any fake wood trim in the new Corolla dash.

So, Toyota, if you are listening, fix the Camry dash layout. Focus on good materials, and dump the wood if you can't do it tastefully. Sell out the current stock at a discount. Maybe as the "Honey Boo-Boo edition". Or whatever. Just call up Clem in fleet sales. He'll know what to do.

Kirstie_H · July 2013

Maybe you know someone (certainly no one here would have a car in such condition) who could enter:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+edmunds/posts/CMK35ZmphMB

m6user · July 2013

Only midsize car discussed here that made the cut is the 2014 Mazda6. I know, it means nothing to some but it counts for marketing.

backy · July 2013

It's the ONLY mid-sized car in this discussion that could qualify for the NA COTY. It would need to be a 2014 model, or at least introduced since the last COTY; the Mazda6 is the only new mid-sized design for 2014.

m6user · July 2013

Yeah, you're right. I guess the only way it would really help marketing is if it happened to win. It does have a lot going for it with huge mpg and looks but it would be a long shot. Who would have thought just a couple of years ago that one of these midsizers would be able to hit 39-40mpg hwy and not be a hybrid or diesel.

benjaminh · July 2013

"Accord Sport does have power driver seat and power lumbar adjustment.

I got the manual, so can't comment on the paddle shifters.

I didn't drive an LX or EX, so can't compare the performance of the upsized wheels and tires, but I will say they have plenty of grip even in the rain, and they are not noisy at all. The OE tires are rated 400 A A, I'm anxious to see how they hold up over the long run. There is plenty of sidewall, so they are not what I'd call "low profile", the ride is not harsh. And there is a nice rubber "lip" built in to protect the wheels from minor scuffs. Also, the sport wheels' gray painted finish hides brake dust nicely.

I'll be honest, the thing I like most about them is they just look cool. The Sport has a nice "stance" compared to the LX/EX. LX 16"s in particular look fairly wimpy, although it's a lot better than the plastic wheel covers on base Accords up through last year. The 17"s, which are the same wheels from EX all the way up to Touring, are a bit bland as well. Sport wheels combined with the dual exhaust, lip spoiler, and moderate chrome trim front, rear, and door handles, and tinted windows, it's a rather upscale look. I've had several comment that it looks much more expensive than it really is (FB photo taken from side had one friend convinced I'd bought a new BMW... haha. Not quite. Although I do see a faint resemblance to the new Lexus GS, if you'll permit the fantasy...)"

Yeah, I find this new Sport model really tempting. Awesome sneakers. And you're right, nicer looking alloys than the nice enough but somewhat bland EX and above, dual exhaust, power seat and lumbar . All for a list price of $23,390 for the 6 speed manual. And Honda's manuals are the best. (Although probably the manual in the new Mazda6 is just as good.)

What kind of mpg are you getting so far? I've driven a few 6 speed manuals, but my daily driver is a 2008 Accord EXL navi with 5 mt. Might take me a little while to get used to it. But I would like the greater power of the Earth Dreams powerplant. My car gets to 60 in maybe 8 seconds if I really push it, but it seems that some are cutting a second off of that with the 2013 even with shifting into 3rd. How does the power feel to you?

The only thing that's slightly worrying to me about the Sport model is that I think the turning circle is a little bigger because of those big wheels and tires. But I imagine you get used to it.

benjaminh · July 2013

As you say, the mpg of the Mazda6 is awesome. In fact the whole car is quite impressive. They probably have a shot at this award.

The only thing I find slightly strange about the new 6 is the "stripper" Sport manual model. It allows them to have a base price of just $22,085, but it doesn't have bluetooth, backup camera, pandora, etc. It's otherwise very well equipped for a base model, but the lack of bluetooth esp. seems weird for an all-new 2014 midsize car.

benjaminh · July 2013

Perhaps it's just me, but I think the new Corolla is a very weird looking car. What's with the giant frown? And the whole thing looks bulked up, as if it had ground effects or was an angry robot or something.

A few years ago I felt like Honda was putting out one ugly car after another:
Acura "power plenum beak"??, Crosstour whatever (Yuck), Odyssey lightning bolt styling (somehow this one has actually grown on me).

But finally Honda has started putting out some nice looking form follows function designs, like for the 2013 Accord and 2013 Civic.

Imho it looks like it's Toyota's turn to be infected by a bad styling virus. I thought the 2012 Camry was bad, but this seems even worse to me. It has more character than the last Corolla, or maybe any Corolla, but I'm not sure people who drive economical compact cars want a bulky robotic car with with a giant scowl out front. Oh, they'll sell a million of em, I'm sure, but it's one of those what were they smoking cars for me....Perhaps it's just me, as I said.

stickguy · July 2013

every time my wife sees a new Odyssey, she makes a face and says it looks like a hearse.

good thing she did not want a new van last year when we replaced her old Odyssey, because no way she would have gotten a new one!

backy · July 2013

If the Elantra can win the NA COTY, so could the Mazda6. It's certainly a much better car than the 2011 Elantra was.

benjaminh · July 2013

my wife said the same thing! Lol. I hadn't noticed it, but as soon as she said it I had to say she seemed a little bit right.

m6user · July 2013

Of course it could but it's still a long shot. As I look over the list though there are four that stand out to me.
Mazda6

Mazda3. Although only prototypes have been tested so far and loved but to me the MPG is not that impressive especially when you compare it to the Mazda6. Course that has always been the case between the two. They gear the 3 up for sport I think.

Chevy Impala --finally a very impressive Impala harking back to "good ole days".

Kia Cadenza - I wouldn't want one but it's a pretty impressive offering from Kia.

berri · July 2013

every time my wife sees a new Odyssey, she makes a face and says it looks like a hearse.

Funny, but take a look at a dark colored Mopar van - same thing. Personally, I still think the new Ody looks disjointed, like the back third was tacked on in a body shop. Worse, that open gash for the sliding door mechanism looks like it got cut badly in a bar fight. Gonna need a plastic surgeon or ENT to sew up that baby without serious scar damage!

benjaminh · July 2013

from an interview with Derek Jenkins in Motor Trend:

MT: Current design fashion seems to limit the size of vehicle greenhouses. Do you think it's one that will continue? Isn't more visibility better/safer? DJ: That's definitely a styling trend. I think we've already tested the [styling] limits with respect to outward visibility. But pillar sizes have gotten huge for safety, rollover and side impact. Like anything, I think you'll see a reversal of that trend. At a certain point when you slim the glass down and pull the beltline up too high, the cars get visually heavy. They start to take on that armored vehicle look. That's something that we've been quite conscious of. We're trying to get a lighter feeling and a sleek profile. One of the tricks in car design is playing with that side window graphic, making sure it has a slim profile is an important part of getting a coupe-like feeling. The tradeoff is visibility.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/1307_interview_with_derek_jenkins_on- _the_news_mazda3/#ixzz2ZvcpTdLP

benjaminh · July 2013

And yet the Accord has thin pillars and excellent visibility, and get the highest safety ratings of any midsize car. He's blowing some smoke there....

The Mazda6 looks like it has pretty good rear visibility.

But the new Mazda3 hatch looks bad in back from the inside pix.

backy · July 2013

Which would you rather own... and drive every day? A Mazda6, a Cadenza, or an Impala?

The Cadenza and Impala are nice large cars, but how are they special?

benjaminh · July 2013

Is that a real question?

Of course, the Mazda6! That is probably the best looking midsize car out there. And the engineering is pretty impressive. Skyactiv is more than just a silly name. There's some real juice behind it.

m6user · July 2013

What I want to own has nothing to do with which vehicle is chosen. I often don't agree with the choice. I remember some real dogs that have been picked over the years like the Saturn Aura and the Chrysler Cirrus. Motor Trend COTY is even worse when you look back over time. Remember the Vega? So even though I personally really like the Mazda6, my choice often doesn't win.

As far as the Impala and Cadenza goes, no I wouldn't want either one but the judges are looking for breakthroughs I think and both of these cars are on the list for different reasons. One because it is somewhat of a resurrection of a very famous name and seems to be hitting the target to make it desirable again. The other because of the luxury appointments from such a value brand. Not that that hasn't been done before but they seem to have checked a lot of boxes with the Cadenza if one is looking for that kind of car.

ahightower · July 2013

It's doing about 29 mpg, only about 1100 miles on the clock though. First tank was 28, then 29.2, now reading 29.6 (trip computer seems to be reasonably accurate, within 1 mpg compared to manual calculations). I'm using gastracker, you can look them up online and see others' real world mpg. Not a lot of manuals out there, but they do seem to be returning a bit less than the CVT. Maybe the CVT is that good, maybe the stick lovers just have more fun.

Turning radius has not been a problem. Easy to park, easy to U-turn. Our other car is a Suburban, so...

Power is fine. To me, it feels comparable to the Altima and Optima, stronger than the Mazda6. Blows the doors off my old Mazda3 2.0. Decidedly "average" below 3,000 rpm, which is where I've intentionally spent most of the first 1K. But I'm opening it up occasionally now. It revs quick, and sounds nice doing it. It's a manual, you're in charge. She will move when you want to. 80 feels like 50. Low end is fine for creeping in traffic in 2nd.

Gearing on the 6-speed has required some getting used to. I don't have the technical term for it, but 5th feels a little too close to 4th. It may just be my driving style. I'm coming out of a five speed and muscle memory has me letting the revs fall a bit farther going into 5th than what the Accord likes. I keep forgetting that there is a 6th gear.

m6user · July 2013

The last stick I owned was a 4spd. On calm drives I can remember jumping from 2nd to 4th once in awhile. Do you find yourself jumping gears on purpose to cut down on the number of shifts? If so, which ones do you omit?

dudleyr · July 2013

I can omit all but 6th and 1st. It is no problem to go 1-2-6 if you accelerate hard you are over 60 in 2nd so just slide into 6th. Downshifting you can go from 6-2 if you are entering a really tight turn and want some power coming out. Or if you just need a burst of power when starting you can go 1-3 or 1-4.

Lots of combinations and they don't have to be sequential - beauty of a manual.

Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles