Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
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
Do yourself and favor and drive lower end cars from Lexus (250), BMW (328), Cadillac, TL and the like. What you get is standard equipment and options that go beyond these cars. In addition, the drivetrains of the luxury cars are usually superior in one way or another. As far as crossovers drive the X3/FX35/RX350.
Good luck buying a car is fun...until you pay for it. :suprise
I don't know what your requirements would be, but she could wait for the new TSX (likely out in Spring 2008), look at RDX (although, I'm not a fan of crossovers/SUVs for myself), try Volvo S40/S60, or something along those lines.
Do you folks need two largish sedans in the family? I have two sedans myself, one (1998 Accord/182K miles) because it was paid off almost eight years ago and an 06 TL. If I were to replace the Accord within next six months, I might seriously consider Fit. It would be just a better long term solution for me (I drive a lot and prefer to keep the cars for a long time). But I have a feeling, if you go for that, you might end up driving it. :P
I know people will have different shapes, but a general idea would help. I've sat in a 2003 once, but can't remember really what it was like.
Appreciate it...
Ethan
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
Actually it's worse.
Not to hijack this thread with a crossover but this does relate to the topic in a way that midsize sedans do make more sense than CUVs when it comes to fuel economy.
I've actually spent some serious time trying to decipher the differences between say a Honda, and an Acura TSX for example.
Here's what you pay extra for in the Acura vs. the Accord:
Acura has the luxury nameplate and brand image.
Acura has the longer warranties (which are useless and never needed by Honda anyway).
Acura has nicer interior materials and luxuriously nice interiors. Honda's are nice, Acura's are luxury.
Honda gives you more HP and MPG per dollar than Acura; advantage V6 Accord. Honda gives you more torque in the V6 vs. the TSX 4 cylinder. Honda is slightly roomier (07 and older versions).
As you can see, the main difference is interior quality and exterior style. The TSX was definitely a step up finish wise, and they are built and assembled in Japan (a definite plus in my mind, but not to many others).
Also, I didn't drive the TSX, but from what I hear and read, it has a sportier ride than your typical Accord.
Okay, what about the TL-S or the RL? Whether the TL-S is worth the difference over a Honda is an individual decision. No doubt pay more, get more.
In case of Acura versus Honda, you could get the more powerful Accord V6 for about the same as Acura TSX. However, there are a few differences. I considered the same a little over a year ago. TSX was #1 on my list, followed by TL and finally Accord. But with Accord, I would have gone EX-L. So, TL was the only car considered with V6. The combination of dealers not budging at all on TSX, and excellent deal on TL prompted me to get that car. I liked quite a few things about the TL over TSX, but TSX chassis tuning was more to my preferences.
That said, the Honda to Acura difference can be seen in smaller details (outside of Acura TLC and additional features). There is greater attention to detail in trimmings and the material used (although, TSX wasn’t quite a runaway, compared to Accord). And many of these are hard to put against a dollar amount. If you see it, they are worth it, otherwise one would be fine with the Accord. And of course, one can also see TSX/TL as lifestyle choices, with fewer produced and seen on the road serving a niche as opposed to more sensible choices like the Accord.
At this point, and since both TSX and TL are due for redesign (I’m expecting both to be out in about six months), you might be able to find fantastic deals on them, if your wife is fine with older designs.
The CX-7 compares, and for 2008, will run on regular. While it may not save you on MPG's, it saves in overall dollars in you pocket.
Besides, the point of RDX here is a look into entry level luxury brands. CX-7 is a Mazda. If that weren't the case, CR-V would make a lot more sense, as it seems to be as economical as mainstream midsize sedans.
Sort of like the way the Mazda leather seems like vinyl compared to the robustness of Audi's leather to me.
After the ECU reflash in the CX-7's, fuel economy improved, and the 2008's have a new map, and adjusted the timing to achieve the same fuel economy using regular. Plus, the added savings over the purchase price make the CX-7 more economical. Now if you are looking for the "A" on your grill, then I guess it's the wrong choice for you. So I would look toward a 3-Series BMW w/ X-Drive before I looked at an RDX. Better fuel economy, more luxurious, better driving dynamics.
See, to me Audi looks like pleather, especialy in black. Actually, doesn't Audi use fake leather?? It also does not wear well. VW has the same problem. Take a look at the new Mazda6 leather, it's much nicer, they changed it in 2006.
One of my business colleagues just purchased a 2005 LS430 with 36,000 miles, and it's feels and looks new - price paid: $32,700. As Accords, and others, march up the price ladder, an excellent or certified vehicle like the Lexus LS becomes an affordable alternative without much compromise on anything - other than corresponding fuel economy of course.
And some people do care for badges, hence the recommendation. One reason the poster's wife didn't want another Accord was not because she was unhappy with the car, but because she seems to want something "un-mainstream".
That is why there is a market for new cars, and certified old (if certified old were fine, why not get loaded Accord/Camry for $15-16K?).
I believe almost all Audi's use some kind of Nappa genuine leather though. Not sure about the black, but if you touch it, it does feel a bit softer and has more traction and grip than the vinyl sections.
If Mazda has improved their leather quality in 2006, that is indeed a good thing. Did that carry over to the Mazda3 as well?
It had to happen sooner or later...
Perhaps, but the LS430 is substantially more car, both literally as well as figuratively, than either the Accord or Camry. Whether a certified version is worth twice that cost is certainly arguable however.
And to relate that article to this topic, it says:
Consumer Reports said it no longer recommends V6 versions of Toyota's Camry...
and
Of the 39 cars rated "Most Reliable" in Consumer Reports new list, four are by domestic manufacturers. They are the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan,...
A lot of car to some may not be a lot of car to another. When I think LS430, I think a big boat with higher upkeep costs.
A brand new fully loaded Accord V6 can be driven home for about $28.5K. If an old LS430 (assuming, complete with all the features, including NAV) costs $32K, there is a $4K premium for an older (but more prestigious) car. And considering only fuel costs over next four years/60K miles and assuming gas prices to stay unchanged, Accord V6 would be another $3K cheaper. So, in the name of driving a luxury car, and the true price difference might hover around $7K already.
Next, consider the fact that Accord V6 will still qualify for sale as a CPO with only 4 years/60K miles which helps raise the resale value. The Lexus would be out of warranty as a used car, and that will make it less appealing. So, you would lose more money trading/selling it.
These are just a few of the things that are easy to overlook, as most of us tend to focus purely on initial costs (worse, MSRP).
Shame on Toyota for cheapifying the Camry.
Supposedly? Until now, they were. The proof is in the article.
"In the past, because Toyota products have so consistently proved reliable, the magazine would assume at least average reliability for Toyota's brand new cars, without waiting for survey data from owners."
Sounds like bias to me.
"But from now on, the magazine will wait for a full year of reliability survey data to come in before it recommends a Toyota product - as it does with most other manufacturers."
If they're an "independent" agency like they say they are, then shouldn't they be doing this for ALL manufacturers in the first place?
This article only proves to me what I've suspected all along.
Just my take on it.
Well, if having Bias is the same as betting on Mike Tyson the first 35 or so fights of his career, then I guess you could put Mike Tyson and Toyota on the same pedestal.
You could of bet the farm on Mike Tyson winning every fight every time. And you'd of been right and won every bet until you lose your 34th farm on that 35th bet. :P
I think CR bet on Toyota the same way. It's not a bad bet.... until of course... it all falls apart. Of course, even Tyson showed signs of life after his first loss.
No, because the Fusion was basically an all-new model when introduced, from a company that hasn't consistently ranked well in the past.
The Camry, OTOH, is a new design as well, but CR gave it preferential treatment due to the previous-gen Camry that HAS scored well in the past, and that's where I get the bias from.
I'd think that if I were running CR, when a new model gets evaluated that's been significantly re-designed or re-engineered, they should NOT "recommend" it based on the past, but to actually wait a year until the results come rolling in. They do this for other automakers, so they should do this for ALL automakers, including Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus/Scion.
1) Toyota has a history of redesigning models generation after generation and never having a problem, whereas Ford really hasn't EVER proven they can do the same.
But it's still not a scientific survey. It may be a convenience survey and they admit in the article they include visitors to their website; imagine the potential there for slanting against or in favor of a particular vehicle.
But JD POwers:
Lexus Ties Buick for Reliability!!!!
JD Powers uses true survey techniques up through year three.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
No, they still use the same leather they used since it's inception. But, it's a cheap($$) car. No need to go all out using extra fine leather in an economy car, especialy when most of it's competition does not even offer leather.
But to me, there should NOT be any "benefit of the doubt", whether they've scored well for 2 years or 20 years past.
It shouldn't matter whether it's from Ford, Toyota, Chevy, etc. A new model SHOULD be fairly evaluated for a year BEFORE getting "recommended" or "avoided".
Right or wrong (I agree with you that its wrong), it isn't just a bias to Toyota.
The Camry, OTOH, is a new design as well, but CR gave it preferential treatment due to the previous-gen Camry that HAS scored well in the past, and that's where I get the bias from.
It is not Toyota's fault that Ford can't keep its model names rolling and feel the need to change them ever so frequently. CR sticks with a formula that is consistent across the board. They are not giving any advantage to Camry by using its past reputation, because it has one. Any other car would get the same treatment. Do you not think Fusion would get that preferential treatment when the next generation rolls around?
I agree that it isn't just Toyota that's getting the bias (and I apologize if anyone thinks I inferred that it was only Toyota), I just don't give credit to CR for supposedly NOT giving bias.
And it's not Ford's fault that CR "recommends" a redesigned model based on name alone, and NOT any hard data.
They are not giving any advantage to Camry by using its past reputation, because it has one.
I disagree. It sure seems that the Camry is getting an advantage based on the past. A "neutral" company such as CR shouldn't give ANY advantage, at all.
Do you not think Fusion would get that preferential treatment when the next generation rolls around?
It shouldn't.
Once again, it shouldn't be about the name on the car, it SHOULD be about the products themselves, and that they ALL should be evaluated fairly before getting "recommended". In other words, no "recommended" titles on ANY re-designed or re-engineered models, new name or not, until the data has piled in.
"Consumer Reports magazine reported today that the quality of cars made by Toyota, long the benchmark for reliability among automotive brands, had slipped so much that the organization no longer will automatically recommend them. The 2007 Camry V6 and Tundra pickup scored below average. Consumer Reports won't recommend any model scoring below average to it's readers. " By MSN Money
"Ford Scores Big"
For Ford, the news was positive. The magazine said 93% of Ford Lincoln, and Mercury models scored average or better, allowing a "Recommended" designation. This includes the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan.
I know this was discussed, but, I thought I would just say it myself!
Let us get a perspective on this. You seem to be a Mazda fan. Now, you know what the current Mazda6 is like, in terms of driving experience and potentially, ownership. Would you call yourself utterly clueless about the next Mazda6 because you haven't really driven/owned one yet?
In essence, yes. I "expect" the next 6 to be just as fun to drive as the current model, this would make me biased toward the 6. However, for all I know, it could handle like a yacht and I'd hate every second of it. That's why I'll test-drive it as well as the competition to see what I'd prefer, previous experience be damned.
I wouldn't make ANY decision about any NEW car until I have a chance to test it out for myself, just as CR shouldn't make the decision to "recommend" a vehicle until the evidence has piled in.