Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
That must have been really disappointing; expecially with your good experience with the earlier Accord (though I would say 170k for the motor is pretty low). Didn't the warranty cover the expenses while you were getting it fixed, since you had only 20k miles on it?
Scape, this post is confusing. Are we supposed to believe what we read, or not? First you say look at the Fusion challenge, then you say don't always believe what you read. Does that mean we should only believe when the article picks a Fusion over other cars, that too in an advertisment?
Actually I found it wasn't a mechanical issue that killed those, it was the shock towers rusting out and the car collapsing. And this was in California.
Let's drop this circular conversation about that particular comparison. It was what it was and there really isn't anything left to say about it that hasn't already been said - over and over and then again some more!
Let's move on!
Car and Driver didn't have a hard time defending the 2007 Accord as best-in-class against all new-for-2007 models. It was certainly best in class for my dollar as well, and that's all that needs to be said on my part. Analyzing forum posts is something that the host doesn't take kindly to.
I got a sedan that does 0-60 in 5.9, shift when I want, with leather and a sun roof for under 26K
Saturn Aura XR. Out handles the Camry and beats the Altima to 60, 80, 1/4mi, and 100.
Can you tell I love my XR?
The underdog that took Car of the Year. Saturn is leading GM into the next generation of automobiles with European styling .
I haven't been inside one yet; but externally it sure looks very nice. One of these days I am going to check it out.
You are good at mixing words here. Just read the comparison. Ford did pay for it, Car and Driver Hosted it, consumers came to it.. geese.. :sick:
So, I guess the Camry/Accord having stability control has no merrit? What do you mean? how Ford paying the way questions were asked?? this makes no sense?? Car and Driver was there asking the questions.. The fact that an AWD Fusion can be had for the same price.. and offer more for your dollar is a bad thing?? :confuse: These were comparable vehicles. Read the article again.
You also missed my saying my MPG has been going up steadily. It has gond from 23.4 to 23.9 and is on a steady trend up. We can talk all day about V6's and this HP war with family sedans. Kind of like my Dad is bigger than your Dad. The fact is most of this HP war is all bragging rights. And last I read is Nissan now has the bragging rights
saw the opel version when i was in greece last year - i was hoping we'd end up with one of those for a rental...no luck!
enjoy your aura!!
-thene
I've got lots more to say based on all that I've read but our good host has said we are done with this discussion and I wholeheartedly agree. :sick:
I believe the Nissan with the bazilion dollar technology pkg has Bluetooth hands free. Is that an option on any of the other vehicles?
We have wasted way too much bandwith arguing about it and I'm sure we can find other subjects to, um, banter about.
Move on please...
I'm not a Camry advocate, by any means, as I've never owned a Toyota (they're too boring for my tastes).
Regards:
OldCEM
Regards:
OldCEM
I decided getting the rotors turned was unnecessary. I have never had to replace rotors on any car or truck. No problems with wear, chatter, squeal, or uneven braking either. Even if the pads wore a little faster (which I doubt since I only changed them once in 140k miles) I think I could have changed them twice as often, doing it myself, for less than paying someone else to change them, and turn the rotors making them thinner, and weaker.
I decided getting the rotors turned was unnecessary. I have never had to replace rotors on any car or truck. No problems with wear, chatter, squeal, or uneven braking either. Even if the pads wore a little faster (which I doubt since I only changed them once in 140k miles) I think I could have changed them twice as often, doing it myself, for less than paying someone else to change them, and turn the rotors making them thinner, and weaker.
Ah yes, "deferred" maintinance always seems to make maintenance cheaper. Did you at least check to make sure the rotors were above minimum thickness? It might also be related to locality. Where the car lived in CA, there were hills that required brakeing. If you lived in Nebraska or Kansas, it might be less of an issue.
Rotors only need to be turned if they're out of spec on runout. A few hard stops will normally clear any surface glaze or rust on the rotor or pads.
Turning the rotors and putting in new pads is the equivalent of rebooting your computer to fix an error. It's quick and easy and usually fixes the problem - at least temporarily.
Rotors only need to be turned if they're out of spec on runout. A few hard stops will normally clear any surface glaze or rust on the rotor or pads.
Turning the rotors and putting in new pads is the equivalent of rebooting your computer to fix an error. It's quick and easy and usually fixes the problem - at least temporarily.
Its not the rust and the glaze you want to get rid of, its the grooves. When new pads go on grooved rotors, they wear "funny" and that creates the griding and squealing. The more aggressive the pad, the more friction, the better the braking performance. Certain OEMs that have softer pads to protect the rotors are also criticized for having brakes that are considered not as strong as those of competitors (and excessive brake dust).
I personally have had good luck with Axxis metal-master pads (or Hawks for the track events), and Brembo blanks (about the same as the OEM rotor from the dealer).
I found the money for the important thing better spent than what I could have gotten for $26K from Nissan, Toyota, or even Hyundai. I didn't get an arm rest in the back seat, but I didn't have to pay extra for split lay-down rear seat. I did get a sound system for the rear seat that has it's own radio tuner and can select a CD from the 6 CD changer up front, It comes with two wireless headphone so the passengers in back don't have to listen to mom and dads choice up front.
Saturn put tinny red led's in the roof console's to give ambient red light on the interior at night. You can actually see stuff now that used to be hidden in the dark. I have never seen this and don't know if red LEDs in the roof is normal for today's sport sedans or not, but it is really cool.
Every time I get in this new car I find something else that blows my mind.
:shades: :shades:
The ambient lighting is a big deal, Audi started it in the 90s, and now other manufacturers are chiming in as the price of LEDs comes down. I'm glad you like the technology.
The higher end Accords have this feature.
So which of these cars have those softer pads to protect rotors at the expense of reduced braking performance?
Cons
Brakes should be more powerful, missing some of the premium features being offered by newer competitors, Hybrid model's disappointing fuel economy.
IMHO; it's not how hard or soft the pads are that cause the groves. It's not the groves that cause squealing or chattering when the pads come in contact with the rotors. Disk brake manufacturers have a spec for the depth of a grove that requires turning as well as a spec for the thickness of the rotors. The brake shop will know what the specs are. A good shop wont do the job if you don't want to turn rotors that the manufactures says need it. If you do the job yourself, like I usually do you have know the specs before you start.
In my nearly 50 years of experience, which goes back before disk brakes were used on US automobiles, I have developed the following guidelines (for myself only). If the groves are less than 0.002" I leave them alone. If any are over o.oo2" deep I turn the rotors.
What causes the minor groves in the rotors is dirt, sand, and tinny metal par ticals picked up from the road. It doesn't make any difference what the pads are made of, they will all pick up this junk and scratch/grove your rotors.
Replace your pads with a compound that best meets your driving style. Don't put on metallic pads designed for racing, just because you think it's cool. Don't use soft OEM pads if you do a lot of "performance" driving on mountain roads. Metallics take time to heat up to a useful temperature and soft pads fade after a few hard stops.
That has been different then my experience, but I have also used some very aggressive brake pads. On a track environment, there is very little debris to pick up and get stuck in your pads. If you have a hard, aggressive pad and a soft rotor, the rotor is going to get eaten.
If you do the job yourself, like I usually do you have know the specs before you start.
Yeah, its been a very long time since anyone other than myself touched my brakes. I usually have to borrow the dial gauge to check for warping.
Replace your pads with a compound that best meets your driving style. Don't put on metallic pads designed for racing, just because you think it's cool. Don't use soft OEM pads if you do a lot of "performance" driving on mountain roads. Metallics take time to heat up to a useful temperature and soft pads fade after a few hard stops.
This is an incredibly valid point. Hawks I would only use for racing (although they have a street pad, its pretty pricey), while the Axxis pads have a cool enough thermal range to work well on the street (which is their intended use).
When I would do HDPE stuff, a lot of times guys would leave their racing pads on at the end of the day and drive back to the hotel. Then, first thing in the morning they would get up, jump in their car and head for the MickyD's drive thru, where they would then realize how poorly stone cold racing pads work as they rear-end the vehicle in front of them. :sick:
That's about normal. 80% of your braking is done in the front.
Not so quick or easy on 4th generation Accords. Thankfully I never had to do it. My rotors were still good when I sold it.
Brakes should be more powerful, missing some of the premium features being offered by newer competitors, Hybrid model's disappointing fuel economy.
Thanks for the clue, but wouldn't it have been easier to just name the model :confuse: . Accord was what popped into my head when I read your reference to weak brakes.
Ok, sure the dealer loves doing brake jobs (easy $$$). I'm not taking rotors off, unless there is a problem.
Maintenance on that Accord was quite expensive when anything broke down. Headlight burned out, needed new headlight assembly (I guess many of today's cars are like that so Honda was truly ahead of everyone else). A broken radio antennae (a top of the right side A pillar) required tearing apart the dash board.
Hmmmm...'85 Accord, look at what Honda had done since. '88 Excel, look at what Hyundai has done since. And Hyundai only became dedicated to becoming a real player in the USA in the last 5 to 10 years.
Yet, some people choose to rag on all Hyundai models because Hyundai made some crummy cars in the late 1980's to early 1990's.
Look at what has happened to computers in the last 15 years...wasn't it 1992 or '93 that IBM brought out it's first PC, at about $10,000? How many people buy an IBM PC now when there are so many equally as good products available? Yep, some will still pay a premium price for the IBM name (brand loyalty). Others have learned they can get much greater value for their dollar from other brands and "clones."
I wouldn't be surprised that on average, a new car stays with the original owner for five years before being sold. So yes, resale value is often (although not always) important.
In 2000, I bought a new Chrysler 300M (a great car BTW and still going strong at 120K miles) for 30K. Today it's worth around 5K. If I would have bought a 20K Accord, it would probably still be worth about 10K. Fortunately, I'm not in a situation where I have to sell the car.
High resale value was one of the numerous reasons we bought an '06 Accord. We figured if our needs changed down the road, we wouldn't take a bath on the car if we sold it.
"With manual transmission, 4-cyl Fusions are adequate at best and feel slower than our test car's 9.2 sec 0-60 time would suggest. Inordinately heavy clutch action, balky shift linkage makes manual transmission unpleasant to use."
In contrast:
"Four cyl Accords peppy enough with slick-shifting manual transmission; test EX coupe did 7.9 seconds 0-60 mph."
The Accord sedan weighs about 75 lbs more, but should still get from 0-60 in less than 8.5 seconds.
So, the Accord's transmission seems to be smoother, and its engine is slightly larger and more powerful, and yet the EPA rates the 4-cyl Accord with manual at 26/34, while the Fusion is rated 23/31. For some models the Fusion may be close to equal, but for this base model it seems the Accord is substantially ahead. Of course, the Accord probably costs about $2000 more. But it appears that a good chunk of that money goes into a better engine and transmission.
Was that Accord 0-60 time from before they bumped the power for the 2006 model year? Car and Driver clocks my exact car, a 2007 Accord LX Sedan 5-speed manual, 0-60 in 7.5 seconds.
I think you mean '82/83. And at that point, the Apple II+/IIe was still a serious contender. IBMs business model doesn't really include personal computers anymore, as they tend to leave the low rent stuff to the myrads of offshore companies that specialize in that. IBM is more of a value add/service provider to integrate business machines into organizations.
I think a better example of people paying a premium might be Apple but that is a whole other discussion
that's pretty quick for a 4 banger - but understand that those times are relative to whose doing the testing, the specific car, and even test conditions. C&D seems to specialize in milking the best 0-60 times out of all cars, they must have 'car abuse king' testers that compete! Not to say that you personally might not be able to do the same thing, but I doubt seriously that 99% of us are going to be able to get the car to 60 in less than 8 seconds, and while the CG test is more conservative, perhaps might get closer to that 9+ time in the Fusion 4 banger. A big difference nonetheless, as you say, however. If you like 4 bangers, Honda would still be superior.