Midsize Sedans 2.0

m1miata · July 2007

Or it could be some people will love a lovable car.

Just a thought,
Loren

P.S. on the serious side, all cars need as long a warranty as possible, as anything mechanical can need to be repaired. In the case of some cars, more often than not.
As for Hyundai, they got some good cars. Tested the Sonata and it seemed good. Trouble for Hyundai with this group is that there are other great choices. Good doesn't trump great.

colloquor · July 2007

Granted, the Camcords have a good track record in the USA, but marketing and consumer perception plays an enormous part in the determination of quality. Kia, which is perceived as a cheap, unreliable brand in the USA, is well-accepted in Europe.

captain2 · July 2007

you buy your kid a high mileage Camcord or Civic/Corolla and that is thought to be a wise decision, do the same thing with a Kia (and many other varieties) and folks think you are crazy - perception, for sure - but also one with about 20 years of history behind it.

noles200 · July 2007

guy1974 wrote this in Satun forum: To soften the blow Saturn have upto $2250 of rebates/incentives on the 07 Aura to help shift the backlog.

Where do I get $2,250 of rebates/incentives! I just talked to the dealership and they acted like I was nuts. They said the only thing they'd give me is $500 for some conquest incentive because I'm trading in another car. $500 is crap. Tell me how to get the other $1750 and I'll buy the Aura today, otherwise I'll have to wait and upgrade to another Accord or maybe buy the '08 Malibu. I just don't understand why Saturn doesn't deal. No wonder they've only sold 9 of 128 Aura's over the past 3 weeks. That's right, they had 128 Aura's on thier lot on the 9th of this month. I don't know how they stay in business without turning inventory. The longer something sits, the worse off they are, no?

m1miata · July 2007

Wonder why buying a high mileage foreign car is considered a wise decision? Seems to me like a costly repair bill would be lurking in the future. I would think the domestics would cost less to repair and be less expensive to insure. On the other hand, buying a used Kia or Hyundai seems like not so wise a move. Yeah, I would buy a used Japan make first. The Kia / Hyundai needs to be backed by the original owner warranty, thus bought new and held for ten years to pay out.

My Dad knew a traveling salesman that bought high mileage Civic, drove them another 50K to 100K then dumped it and bought another one. Well it could work out. To buy a kid one, with the chance of it breaking, with a higher insurance rate makes little sense to me.
Loren

jd10013 · July 2007

I agree. anything over 150k miles is a crap shoot at best. If it was properly and professionally maintained it might go another 100k. But then again, it might not. Unless it was being had real cheap, doesn't really make a lot of sense.

andres3 · July 2007

Your information is all nice and dandy, but I get annoyed, suspicious, and rightfully angry when Insurance Agents (not all agents/companies, but definitely some) ask me the following question when I'm asking to get a quote:

Is your 2.0L Turbo Audi A3 a Sport or Premium version?

They are the exact same car, only the Sport has a "sport" suspension, and high performance summer tires vs. the Premium's all-season performance tires. Cost wise, they were virtually identical in MSRP in 2006; so I ask you..... why the question?

I understand the need to differentiate between the 3.2 Quattro V6 and the 2.0T 4 cylinder in the A3, but not the Sport vs. Premium.

andres3 · July 2007

:lemon: I disagree.

I think Chrysler's biggest problem is having produced nothing but :lemon: 's in their long history. My experience with them and from people I know is that they have produced about as many non-lemons in their entire corporate history as Yugo produced cars in the US period.

Either way, the biggest problem is that everyone knows Chryslers have terrible reliability, including the powertrains, and that leads to terrible resale value since they don't last much past 50K miles.

Since the warranty doesn't transfer, the resale value (one key problem) is not helped one bit! SHAME on Chrysler!

Plus, they won't exist in 10 years anyway, so the warranty won't be worth the paper it's written on.

andres3 · July 2007

My point was the Camcord lovers have such a double standard on things like this that it's almost laughable.

Funny, I don't think anyone became a Camcord lover at first sight. I think they all fell in love after one or more ownership experiences over years. It was a slow love affair.

I don't think anyone hated the Big 3 in the US at first sight, but after an ownership experience, they were ready to kill them in hatred. :mad:

lilengineerboy · July 2007

I don't think anyone hated the Big 3 in the US at first sight, but after an ownership experience, they were ready to kill them in hatred.

Only because they stopped making my beloved Contour

andres3 · July 2007

If it's a crapshoot then betting on Honda must be like taking 1-11 and betting on Chrysler must be like taking 12 and only 12......

I would buy any 150K Honda that still drives like it should (and is supposed to) in a second! Risk of expensive repair..... nil.... Risk of cheap repairs..... some... but not much...

poncho167 · July 2007

I'm not too impressed by the warranty either. It is a gimmick unless you plan to keep the car for along time. Chrysler is banking on what Hyundai did with their warranty in counting on buyers to buy their cars and keep them a few years, and then sell them to void the longterm warranty. Thats what most people do with the auto industry average still about 5-years before trade in.

colloquor · July 2007

Reviewing my friends that have owned Chrysler products, all have had reasonable luck, even though most never adhered to a routine maintenance program, and that includes oil changes.

I recently sold our 1994 Grand Caravan with the 3.3L V6 and 4-speed automatic that we purchased new in late 1994. After 170K miles, the engine was only using about a quarter of a quart of oil between changes (3K or 3 months), and it had the ORIGINAL 4-speed automatic, and it still shifted fine. I used Mobil 1 synthetic, and change ATF every 24k. During trips it would deliver 26MPG with a full load of family and luggage. Many purported economy cars today don't do too much better.

I really believe that much of the poor reliability with any car relates to extremely poor preventive/routine maintenance by the owner.

As to Chrysler's new Lifetime Power Train warranty - I believe it may be a tactic of the new private equity firm owner (Cerebus) to improve sales in the short term (3 to 5 years) to bolster the stock price, and then they will dump Chrysler at a decent profit. After all, that's what private equity firms generally do!

captain2 · July 2007

they won't exist in 10 years anyway, so the warranty won't be worth the paper it's written on.
as much as I might agree with you on the quality comments, and the forbodding 'purchase' by Cerebus might support this, remember that it was Chrysler that required all those loans on the last 'bail-out' several years back and it was the K car, the minivans, and the SUVs/trucks combined with some lower gas prices that allowed Chrysler to pay everything back with interest - early. It may be a little early to declare C, Ford, or GM dead. It would be generally devastating to this country if this would happen to any of the three, in any case.
I've always thought that Chrysler had a penchant for one thing - styling - but also that their products were crappola otherwise. A Sebring (or 300) in my driveway, not a chance, warranties notwithstanding - more like I wouldn't want to have to deal with what I would anticipate being the aggravation of ever owning one - who is actually paying for those repairs being secondary!

elroy5 · July 2007

I'm wondering how much Chrysler is going to charge people for their mandatory drivetrain checkups every 5 years. It would probably add up to the cost of an extended warranty, at least.

thegraduate · July 2007

I would buy any 150K Honda that still drives like it should (and is supposed to) in a second! Risk of expensive repair..... nil.... Risk of cheap repairs..... some... but not much...

I guess "expensive" repair is relative. I have a '96 Accord LX (Auto, I4) that currently has 174k. It drives nicely, if a little floaty (I'll need shocks soon). My last repair was $564 for a new radiator - 172,000 miles. Before that, a new brake master-cylinder, which was about $310 - 160,000 miles. Before that, the main cooling fan motor went at somewhere around 140k-150k miles (the actual mileage is escaping me at the moment). That was $350 or so.

For a car worth $4,000 or less, I've spent $1,100+ not including brakes/tires/gas/oil changes/body repairs since I've had the car. Sure, some cars will cost you that before you hit 100,000 miles, but life isn't perfect on the north side of 150k either.

To its credit, I have entirely original exhaust system, alternator, fuel pump, and transmission, things that often are shot by this point in a car's life.

(By the way, I got the car in Aug. 2002, when it had 121,000 miles on it = 5 years and 53,000 miles under my ownership).

andres3 · July 2007

Those are all cheap repairs in my opinion. An expensive repair is one that costs more than $500. So your new radiator is borderline, and that happened at 172K miles.

In my domestic it seemed almost every repair ended up leading to at least 2 issues to be repaired; which ended up always costing $400 or more (WITH MANY BEING $1,000 OR MORE) way back in the late nineties. With inflation I'd say the figure should be $500 now.

jd10013 · July 2007

thats the whole reason I wouldn't buy a car with over 150k miles one it. You can go ahead and take your chances andres, but there is no part on any car that will last forever. those asian cars that run problem free for over 100k miles can quickly begin to nickle and dime you to death. Sure, the engine will continue to run fine, but with so many miles on original parts, the odds of having to fix something are far to great for me.Now if the car is cheap enough, thats a different story.

I'll give you an example. My 98 200sx with 147k miles and 9 years old has everything on it original. with the sole exception of the front brakes and the battery. that leaves the rear brakes, altenator, starter, power motors for the windows, and moon roof, distributor, water pump, radiator, clutch, exhaust...........i could continue, but you get the point.........with a lot of age and miles on them. I'm not expecting it to, but with so much original equipment that thing could easily turn into a repair nightmare (or mechanics dream depending on your POV :P ). I think its the one way the reliability of asian cars can come back and bite you in the [non-permissible content removed]. It could very easily turn into fix something every 3 months. nothing on its own major or expensive, but enough of them and it starts to add up.

elroy5 · July 2007

I guess "expensive" repair is relative. I have a '96 Accord LX (Auto, I4) that currently has 174k. It drives nicely, if a little floaty (I'll need shocks soon). My last repair was $564 for a new radiator - 172,000 miles. Before that, a new brake master-cylinder, which was about $310 - 160,000 miles. Before that, the main cooling fan motor went at somewhere around 140k-150k miles (the actual mileage is escaping me at the moment). That was $350 or so.

Relative! You can say that again. There are some outrageous charges here. Dealerships charge way too much, IMO. I guess the charge for the radiator is not too bad, but $310 for a MC, and $350 for a fan motor. That's highway robbery.

bhmr59 · July 2007

"Virtually" identical price may be the key. Price range is considered. In distunguishing from one price range to another, a line is drawn (i.e. 1 to 1,000 vs 1001 to 2000). There's not much difference between 995 and 1004, but if the line is drawn at 1,000 there will be a difference.

I just checked the ISO rating symbols and saw that a 2006 Audi A3 "sport" or "premium" have the same rating symbol--18.

The question about trim is probably a standard question that must be answered in a computerized rating/quoting system and has nothing to due with the name a manufacturer slaps on a car for marketing purposes. Do you really think that a Dodge Caravan "Sport" is "sporty?"

Insurance companies have been working toward providing the most accurate quotes possible so there won't be any unpleasant surprizes at the time of purchase. To improve accuracy they need more detailed information than they needed a few years ago.

Why does that make you "annoyed, suspicious, and rightfully angry?" Do you get angry about other questions they ask, some of which may lead to discounts?

poncho167 · July 2007

You know what you have got into it, and its paid for, so you might as well keep it if its not boaring you.

poncho167 · July 2007

According to what I have read, there is no charge for the inspection. I still would be leary of the fine print and what maintenance they expect you to perform and where. Other than the Viper, Chrysler cars don't do anything for me but to each his own.

jd10013 · July 2007

agreed. thats why I kept it when I bought my altima instead of tradding it in. But, I'd never buy one like it. at least that high of mileage and that age because of the reasons I mentioned. Not unless I was getting it for a steal.

thegraduate · July 2007

And, if you can believe it, this dealership is the cheap one in town!

Labor is $70/hr

Sheesh.

At least they stand behind their work (its been proven over and over with my family).

It's time for the timing belt soon, and I'll be having it done at a local mechanic my grandfather uses; his quote from the dealer for a change of all belts (timing belt included) and water pump was about $250 less at the mechanic than the dealership.

thegraduate · July 2007

You know what you have got into it, and its paid for, so you might as well keep it if its not boaring you.

That's the other side of the issue. It is a known entity. It has been treated well for its whole life, and it is worth more to us keeping it in the "fleet" of family vehicles than the cash from the sale of it would be.

It is my family's "extra" car. We are so used to having it, that if we got rid of it, we'd have to get another one, and that would cost more than the cost of keeping this one running (which is about $300 a year + oil changes + gas + cheap insurance).

Also, my vehicle is my 2006 Accord (i drive both regularly though), but since we have the 1996 in the fleet, I'm insured as the primary on the '96, and my mom is "Primary" on the 2006. Saves us money in a roundabout way.

m1miata · July 2007

Try $85 an hour in California! I do know of one mechanic which will do some basic work for $45 an hour. But some things have to be done at the dealership or somewhere they are all the equipment for the task at hand. Dollar wise, I think a doctor charges about the same as these dealerships do per hour

Loren

targettuning · July 2007

Well, I can't report 250K miles (which I think is excessive to expect even in this day of an easy 100K car) on our 2000 Elantra, an early enough model that apparently doesn't qualify as one of the "greatly improved" products Hyundai builds these days (built in the "bad old days" for Hyundai). But, its quality is good enough to have traveled 161.5K miles with only an alternator/battery replacement. Sure...tires, brake parts etc have been replaced. My son drives this car 100 miles per day and since he is in Chicago for a week I have been driving it. It has been some time since I have had the opportunity to do so and I am amazed at how well it runs..drives. Still like new and I didn't have any fear taking it on a 300 mile trip last week-end. So, one man's tale with a 7 year/161K mile old Hyundai.

pat · July 2007

for me to plug the new Dealer Ratings & Reviews feature again.

Several of you are making comments about service experiences that would be helpful to share with the world.

andres3 · July 2007

So why do Insurance Companies use retarded things like "ranges" when they should be using "ratios" to be more exact and accurate.

A 19,001 dollar car should not cost that much more to insure than a 18,999 dollar one (if they are otherwise virtually identical). To be honest, fair and ethical, shouldn't insurance companies stop using ranges like 12-15,000 miles, and start using mathematical ratios to figure out that the difference between 12,000 and 15,000 miles driven per year is significant, but the difference between 11,950 and 12,050 miles/year is less than 1%?

jd10013 · July 2007

I've never had my insurance rate change because of the number of miles driven. What insurance companies do you deal with, or are you just very young (under 25)?

colloquor · July 2007

$70 to $100 seems to be the typical hourly service rate at dealerships, unless you own an exotic. My dealer charges $90 an hour - and, I'm in Illinois.

zzzoom6 · July 2007

I remember reading a few months back that the Mazda6 was one of the least costly to insure compared to other cars in this class. Part of the reason, I would think, would have to do with the a relatively low cost to repair to the bumpers and the rest of the car compared to other cars in this class according to the study done by the insurance companies. And perhaps another part may be that better handling cars will have a better chance at avoiding an accident. Of course using this logic, a sports car would have very low insurance rates, which they don't, so maybe this theory shouldn't be emphasized too much, but I'm not sure what else would explain the differences... maybe the mazda6 looks so nice, other cars don't want to hit it? :shades:

bhmr59 · July 2007

Price ranges are the starting point for physical damage insurance; the line has to be drawn somewhere, just like a city or state boundary line, or voting district boundary lines. Live on one side of the line and you're in a different category than w neighbor who lives on the other side of the line.

After the price range starting point other factors are considered such as frequency of claims and damagability. It's not an everyday happen stance, but it's not unusual for a more expensive car, whether a couple bucks more expensive or even a few thousand bucks more, to have a lower rating symbol than a lower prices car.

Regarding you annual mileage concern: I'm not familiar with that as none of the companies I represent use that criterion. But, again, for those companies that do, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The system is not individualized but is based on large numbers. If it were individualized and you had a somewhat serious accident, you might never be able to afford car insurance again and without insurance you might not be able to register a car or drive.

elroy5 · July 2007

And perhaps another part may be that better handling cars will have a better chance at avoiding an accident.

The handling differences are not that great. So that statement is about as likely as this one.

maybe the mazda6 looks so nice, other cars don't want to hit it?

It's all about the cost to repair. It costs less to buy, costs less to repair, and therefore costs less to insure. Makes sense huh?

bhmr59 · July 2007

Elroy, you're on the right track, but the car that is less expensive to buy is not necessarily the less espensive to repair after an accident.

elroy5 · July 2007

On average, I'd say it's true. If you crash a Buick, and a Benz into a wall at 20mph, the Benz will likely cost more to repair, even if it has a little less damage. "Crumple zones" are meant to protect passengers, but it doesn't bode well for the crumpled car, when the repair costs are added up.

zzzoom6 · July 2007

It's all about the cost to repair. It costs less to buy, costs less to repair, and therefore costs less to insure. Makes sense huh?

If only things were that simple as that kind of logic...actually, as bhmr59 mentioned, there is not a big correlation between the cost of a car vs the cost to repair a car. In the IIHS study that tested most of the midsize cars, the Sonata in a full frontal fender bender cost 4 times more to repair than the Mazda6! And the Altima cost nearly 3 times more in a rear fender bender in comparison to the Mazda6 (probably because the Altima has those huge faux crystals on the back that they call taillights). And the accord cost 3.5 times more to repair a front frender bender than the Mazda6.

Of course deductables make these costs not as significant to the owner, but this would help to understand why the Mazda6 was found to be one of the least expensive to insure in the midsize class.

The handling differences are not that great.

Tell that to the girl in the passenger seat of a bmw that made a sudden left hand turn into my lane a couple weeks ago... going by the test results by many car mags, if I were driving an Accord or Altima, I would have not been able to stop in time and that girl would have a few reasons to be very unhappy.

Oh, and the latest poll clearly found that when given a choice, people prefer to not hit good looking cars, especially the Mazda6 :P

luvmbooty · July 2007

...with an A/T that has a above average fuel economy and has descent power.

I understand the new Altima fits these requirements. Consumer Reports says the 2.5 S Altima goes 0-60 in 8.0 seconds and it does better at the pump than the 4 cyl Camry or Accord. So the 07 Altima 2.5 S has better fuel economy AND has more power!

Also the Sentra SE-R has a 2.5l engine and, under the governments new ratings, does better at the pump than the Altima! Consumer Reports had nothing on 0-60 time on the SE-R. Seems the Spec V is more popular and gets more press.

Comments or advice appreciated.

thegraduate · July 2007

Well, as an Accord owner that hasn't driven the 2007 Altima (so keep that in mind and take what I say with a grain of salt) let me say that I am more than happy with the economy my Accord gives me. I've gotten above 35 MPG on every single highway-only trip I've taken (and I drive between 70-80 MPH typically). In mixed suburban driving, 28-30 MPG is typical for me.

It is also plenty quick, although I believe testing shows the Altima to be faster.

Go drive them and form your own opinions. Accords can be had well below invoice at this point, and in-turn, may give you more bang for your buck.

The best advice I can give is to drive as many vehicles as you can before making a decision.

zzzoom6 · July 2007

Based on the things you've said so far, you want something both fun and frugal with an automatic. It also sounds like you don't mind a slightly smaller car so long as it has 4 doors (which is why you'd consider the sentra).

Some questions I would ask before making a recommendation would include...

1 - would you like to be able to haul somewhat larger items without having to borrow a pickup or SUV? in other words, would a hatchback or wagon be desireable as long as it looked ok?
2 - how much do you like to drive? do you like twisty roads or do you just want enough power to get past the slowpokes? or is a car just a way to get from a to b?
3 - how long do you think you'll keep the car? will the length of standard warranty be a factor for you?
4 - if you could save money on the car purchase, would gas mileage be as important (think of the savings on buying the car as a gas allowance...)?

or if you don't want to think that much, the Altima would be a good choice as long as you can get used to the funky transmission. the Accord is always a good, although a bit too common, choice. and of course the Mazda6 (yes I'm biased...that's what I have) will be fun to drive in the twisties and will have the option of the hatchback which looks like a sedan but can store/ haul big things. The 4 banger automatic is a bit slow though...but you can get it in some markets for 6k+ off of msrp. The Sonata would be another choice that could be described as "practical" and "value oriented."

In the end though, grad is right...drive many of the cars, and don't make a decision too quickly. and never let a saleperson know that you really really like their car!!! always say it's nice, but so was the other car (insert name here). and don't drive a car that you can't afford or don't really want (like a 2 door coupe)... you may make a decision you would regret later.

You'll find many opinions here, so if that's what you want, you've come to the right place!

baggs32 · August 2007

Elroy, you're on the right track, but the car that is less expensive to buy is not necessarily the less espensive to repair after an accident.

My Mazda6 S was roughly $20 less to insure per year than our '96 Civic was. Go figure! The 6 did cost about $4000 more to buy too. That was with Allstate. We've since switched to State Farm and they are only charging me $40 more per year to insure a 2006 Mustang GT over the Mazda6 it replaced. The Mustang cost $9000 more than the 6 to buy(after rebates and all on the 6 which I factored into the difference from the Civic above too).

The 6 was leased though so I'm not sure that that had anything to do with it. I do know that we didn't change any coverage levels when we replaced it with the Mustang though.

kdshapiro · August 2007

None of these cars have "above average" fuel economy, and I wouldn't make the final decision over 1 mpg anyway. Have you considered the Camry hybrid? There are people who rave about it, but I'll take performance over gas mileage.

The Accord is as good as it gets. The 2008 is around the corner, but don't expect any deals. You could probably make out like a bandit with a 2007 though. The Sentra is not as roomy as the Accord. How long do you want to keep the car? A car that may seem fine for a year, you may come to hate over the long haul.

Need to decide how much room you will need and what you in general want to use the car for.

Good luck.

kdshapiro · August 2007

Insurance is funny. I replaced a Jeep with a BMW and my insurance went down significantly. I know the insurance knows why, but I sure don't, nor did I ask.

baggs32 · August 2007

I know the insurance knows why, but I sure don't, nor did I ask.

That's kind of what I was getting at. I thought I was going to get nailed on the insurance when I bought the Mustang but was pleasantly surprised and did not question that one either.

lilengineerboy · August 2007

Also the Sentra SE-R has a 2.5l engine and, under the governments new ratings, does better at the pump than the Altima! Consumer Reports had nothing on 0-60 time on the SE-R. Seems the Spec V is more popular and gets more press.

The SE-R is a regular Sentra with a body kit and the engine from the Altima. The SpecV is a sport sedan with a 6 speed manual that competes with the Civic SI.
It does better at the pump because it is smaller and marginally lighter.

captain2 · August 2007

going by the test results by many car mags, if I were driving an Accord or Altima, I would have not been able to stop in time
probably a very difficult thing to know for sure simply because I doubt very seriously that you know how much distance exactly it took you to stop or even whether that distance was the best your particular car could do. Maybe I need some references here, but 60-0 tests I've read show the Mazda6/Fusion at a smidge over 130 feet (the longest stopping distances in this group), where the other cars you mention test at several feet LESS. In any case, I would suggest that any difference, better or worse, within let's say 10 feet or so is insignificant given the influences of driver reaction time, road and tire type and conditions etc.
Kinda like a high speed accelerating swerve I pulled off awhile back - that has me sold on the benefits of the 'excessive' power I have and has further convinced me that I may not be here today if my car had happened to be ESC equipped - I have no way to KNOW that I couldn't have done the same thing sans the extra HP and with the stability control interference.

benderofbows · August 2007

"I know the insurance knows why, but I sure don't, nor did I ask."

When I got the 1991 Mazda 626, the insurance company ran the VIN number and it came back as a two-door... and they wanted to charge a considerably higher rate just because it was showing up in their system as a coupe.

There were very minor differences between the 4-door and the 2-door... same engine choices, transmissions, etc. They even used the same frame. One was not considerably larger, costlier, faster, or safer than the other. The single biggest difference between the two was the body style. Mazda just decided to call the 4-door the 626 and the 2-door the MX-6.

We had to actually drive the car to the local insurance office so that they could see it in person to verify that it was, in fact, a sedan and not a coupe.

benderofbows · August 2007

"...would you like to be able to haul somewhat larger items without having to borrow a pickup or SUV? in other words, would a hatchback or wagon be desireable as long as it looked ok?"

So far in the 6 months I've owned my Accord, I've had it filled to capacity several times, with anything from luggage and passengers, to bicycles and gear, to 10-foot peices of moulding (inside the car!), to old rotting lumber. I've never missed my previous SUV.

However, I think you are onto something about the larger (midsize) hatchbacks like the Mazda6. Well, there aren't many others are there? I don't know why this isn't a more popular choice today.

Standing and looking at my sedan, there is a lot of wasted space in the design of the cargo area, specifically the differences between a sedan and a hatchback. What is the value of having a fixed rear "parcel shelf" which basically just holds the rear speakers? All I can think of is traditional sedan styling, and perhaps the security of being able to lock items into a closed trunk.

While I've been happy so far with the volume and variety of my cargo capacity, incorporating the back glass into a larger, roof-hinged trunk door and eliminating that "parcel shelf" would allow more room and much easier access. I'm sold on the hatchback idea if it is executed well like the Mazda6.

kdshapiro · August 2007

Your point is valid. When the mags proclaim x car stops in 115 feet and y car stops in 130 feet, this is a sample size of 1. Actual stopping distances may vary due to terrain, car load, condition of brakes, road conditions, tire conditions, etc. I wouldn't bet my life on that 15 feet.

It is useful to know in general the mags think x car stops shorter than y car, but that's where it ends. I wouldn't make a purchase decision on 15 feet.

benderofbows · August 2007

Simply upgrading the brake pads can make a huge difference.

My last ride was a 4,400-lb SUV with an appetite for pads and especially rotors. For the third replacement, out of warranty this time, I upgraded to a set of ceramic pads. After breaking them in a bit, I pointed the truck down a hill and stood suddenly on the brake pedal.

The difference in braking power over the previous sets of stock pads was astounding to me. I don't have numbers, just seat-of-the-pants feel. When I showed my wife, she was amazed as well. My heavy truck had become one of the best-braking vehicles I've owned. When it's time for pads on my car, I'm going to look into an upgrade this time as well.

Sure, they cost a bit more and probably won't last quite as long, but if you are concerned about stopping power, this is the way to go. Those ceramic pads also didn't produce nearly as much brake dust, and my mechanic said they are actually better on the rotors.

Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles