Midsize Sedans 2.0

moparbad · January 2008

Aura appears "cheap" to me and the Malibu appears sleek and upscale in comparison. Chrome grill and chrome finisher on the trunk are the major items that ruin the Aura IMHO.
On the Malibu, I like the black grill and do not like the chrome grill Malibu.

moparbad · January 2008

Fusion with the sport appearance package is my favorite Fusion.

m6user · January 2008

I remember the first time I saw a Aura on the road. It was black and I was sitting at a light and it went across in front of me. I stared at it and thought to myself....Man, that is really a good looking car, what is it? At first I thought it was some kind of BMW or something. Anyway, I still really like the outside styling and it was high on my list when I was looking to buy a new car. However, after sitting in one at the Chicago Auto Show I didn't care for the interior from a roominess and quality aspect. I also didn't like the gas mileage on the base six and puny gas tank. That's one thing I do look for is some range to a tank of gas. Filling up in Jan and Feb in Chicago gets old so I like some distance/time between tanks.

lilengineerboy · January 2008

What ticks me the most is the inside, every GM car has the same center console, that black rectangle with aircon/climate control at the bottom. Im not saying its a bad unit, very easy to use, but its just boring, ugly and looks cheap.

I actually always thought that was a cool thing, its very consistent across brands so you don't have to figure it out every time.

Is there something you would do to improve the look or feel? Is it too shiny or not shiny enough? Should it be a flat color? Do you like the knobs that are knurled on the ends or rubber-ized? I think the things people touch every day in their cars (steering wheel, switch-gear, door handles, radio/climate controls) are the most important. I think Honda (great door handles) gets this, Ford is trying to figure it out, GM is outsourcing figuring it out, Toyota is forgetting it, and Chrysler is...well I am sure they will do better in the future.

lilengineerboy · January 2008

I remember the first time I saw a Aura on the road. It was black and I was sitting at a light and it went across in front of me. I stared at it and thought to myself....Man, that is really a good looking car, what is it? At first I thought it was some kind of BMW or something.

I mistake it for the previous generation Accord all the time.

elroy5 · January 2008

I think the use of the same basic A/C and audio units does look cheap (Fusion, Malibu). When a car has an interior that was designed specifically for that car, it looks a lot more up-scale. Why doesn't the Malibu have a padded arm rest on the door? This also adds to the cheap look. Improving in this area might cost a little more, but would probably pay for itself in the long run. If a car looks more expensive, it can be more expensive. If they really want to compete with the best in class, they should spend what it takes to build them that way, IMO.

pengwin · January 2008

it looks cheap becausea $40k saab has the same center console as a $15k cobalt. If im paying 40k for a car i want it to be unique. I dont see lexus sharing center consoles or toyota sharing center consoles.

lilengineerboy · January 2008

vs

I think you might be exaggerating just a bit.

backy · January 2008

Funny... I happen to have a magazine (Newsweek) in my hotel room that has a four-page foldout ad for the Malibu inside the front cover, and the photo is of the interior. I see no evidence of the "basic A/C and audio units" or the "black box" mentioned earlier. The center stack is quite tasteful IMO, with the controls enclosed in a steel-gray surround. It looks much better than any control stack I've seen on a Cobalt or Impala, and nicer even than the stacks on cars like the Camry and Accord. The two-tone dash with a hint of wood trim, and the two-tone seats with contrast piping look good also. (This is NOT the orange-tint interior, which I don't like at all, but a tan/brown combo.)

elroy5 · January 2008

Ok, I'll show you what I mean. In the picture below you can plainly see where the audio unit begins and ends, and where the A/C unit begins and ends. They are clearly separate units, each with their own separate place (square shape) in the center console.

In the picture of my Accord's interior below. Where are the square shapes? Where does the audio and the A/C unit begin and end? It is all integrated, with one display, and looks like it was designed for this car only. Buttons and knobs are placed where you would want them, not according to where the unit is placed. It's called attention to detail, and I appreciate it. GM is getting better in this area, but the "cheap freaks" still have some control over the designs.

backy · January 2008

What is the problem with seeing where the audio controls begin and end, and where the HVAC controls begin and end, and having those kinds of controls clearly delineated? I think that's a good thing, not a problem. Personally I find the control layout on the Accord (both previous-gen and current-gen) hard to decipher. Have you seen the reviews of the 2008 Accord that mention the confusing control layout? I would not that "attention to detail." It's a styling exercise that some folks (like you) like, and others don't think is anything special. Also, the odd shape of the Accord's audio unit makes it more difficult to replace it with a 3rd-party unit, no?

P.S. The color combo in the Malibu photo that you selected is the one I detest. :P

elroy5 · January 2008

One more try.

This is the Cadillac DTS interior. Reminds me of the Accord interior. I guess the cheap freaks don't get to join in on Cadillac designs. You can't tell where each unit starts and ends. No separate square shapes. INTEGRATED! Why do you think the Malibu is not designed this way? CHEAP FREAKS. That's why.

elroy5 · January 2008

P.S. The color combo in the Malibu photo that you selected is the one I detest.

I don't find any of the colors appealing. :P They have some very strange colors, and combinations of them. That's all subjective though. I guess if the design doesn't bother you, maybe the colors don't either.

backy · January 2008

Hmmm... it reminds me more of the Malibu interior, with the HVAC controls at the bottom, clearly separated from the audio (and nav in the case of the DTS) interior. I don't see any special integration here compared to the Malibu except that which is reaquired due to the nav unit.

Maybe try comparing apples to apples, e.g. a Caddy w/o nav to the Malibu?

elroy5 · January 2008

Maybe try comparing apples to apples, e.g. a Caddy w/o nav to the Malibu?

Is there such a thing (Caddy w/o nav). It would probably take forever to find a pic of that.

Anyway, If you can't see that the Accord and Caddy interiors look more sophisticated, and more cohesive than the Malibu interior, I give up.

You see what you choose to see.

backy · January 2008

I see that the DTS center console controls are more integrated because of the nav unit. That forces integration of many controls into a single space, whether it's a DTS or Accord or Corolla. Sorry. :sick:

moparbad · January 2008

Integrated control units (combination climate and audio) are usually used to save money on manufacturing costs or to utilize a single screen for complex controls (vehicles with NAV).

Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable pre-2008 models are examples of using integrated climate & audio unit to reduce cost.

Integrated = cheap

Integrated NAV/audio/climate are not cheap, however, they are not as simple to use as traditional 3 dial climate and two dial audio systems.

Complex is not necessarily better.

IMO the Accord has taken two steps backward regarding design of controls for audio and climate. Same with the current Civic.

Like the exterior of the new Accord and I'm a fan of Honda, however, very disappointed with all the darn buttons.

Two piece design for audio and climate has no correlation at all to lack of attention to detail.

One more point, replacing an integrated unit is more expensive than replacing a radio or climate control module when they are separate units.

elroy5 · January 2008

Integrated = cheap

Really? That's a new one

Like the exterior of the new Accord and I'm a fan of Honda, however, very disappointed with all the darn buttons.

More buttons can be a good thing. A car can have one button for all the climate control vent positions (windshield, floor, dash + combinations), but you have to cycle through the selections. Although this eliminates 5 buttons, it is actually more difficult than having 6 different buttons. You may have to push that one button 5 times, to get to the selection you want, whereas with 6 individual buttons, one push is all it takes. This translates into less eyes off the road time, so give me more buttons. If I can push a button once, instead of 4-5 times, I'll take more buttons.

lilengineerboy · January 2008

Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable pre-2008 models are examples of using integrated climate & audio unit to reduce cost.

And since those were mostly fleet sales, they didn't care about the lack of features or ability to upgrade the audio system. There are aftermarket faceplates for those applications now though.

IMO the Accord has taken two steps backward regarding design of controls for audio and climate. Same with the current Civic.

Actually, in my seating position, I think the controls in the '07 Accord to control where the air is coming out and the defroster and so forth are very low and hard for me to read/see. I didn't find this issue in the Civic.

One more point, replacing an integrated unit is more expensive than replacing a radio or climate control module when they are separate units.

In the case of the Accord, its pretty much impossible. Most of the audio people add a second system and put it in the pocket in front of the shifter. My '05 Subaru has the same issue, which is ashame since both vehicles have pretty poor stock systems.

maxamillion1 · January 2008

I agree with you 1000 percent Elroy. This is why I don't buy into the notion that the Malibu has a better interior than the Accord does.

I've had a lot of time to really sit down and look into the Malibu, Aura and Accord for the last couple of weeks. From an interior standpoint, the Aura is "acceptable" the Malibu is "better than Average" but the Accord is "excellent" as far as materials are concerened, especially compared to the other two.

The Malibu and Aura's door panels feel about as cheap and hollow as the door panels used on the 2002-04 Altimas. Yet its because of the bright trim work, and unique color combinations that are used on the Malibu's interior that gives the car this "upscale" appearance.

Those materials are still cheap feeling IMO, especially the lower dash materials and the secondary controls. It's almost as if GM is doing a half and half process.

The top half of the dash board is the "NEW" Gm, while the lower half and the secondary controls are still "OLD" GM. From the Power window swtiches, power seat controls, secondary buttons on the dash and even the unpadded, hollow feeling door panels and armest, the interior gives me a half baked feel. And the fact that everything from steering wheels to audio controls are shared between the Aura and the Malibu doesnt help it's case with me either.

I think most of these automotive journalist are going Gaga over the new Malibu because it is indeed a much much better effort than the previous malibu and a cut above the Aura. But when I hear folks say it has the "BEST" interior in this class, I have to disagree, and I happen to be a true fan of these two new Sedans (Malibu and Aura.)

As far as styling. The Aura just looks more daring to me. Even in base form, the Aura XE looks way more expensive than the Malibu LS with those ugly wheel covers or "Fasica Covers" as GM calls them. Plus as good as the Malibu looks, it's like GM cut the back end of the car off because the tail lights look funny to me.

But styling is subjective and to each his own.

pat · January 2008

Sorry, but if you are going to display a pic in your post, you must ensure that it fits between the left and the right sidebars. If it pushes up under the right sidebar, it distorts all the messages on the page.

If you can't make it fit, just post the link instead of displaying it.

Thanks.

tedebear · January 2008

To each his own style, right!

I agree. IMHO the new design of the Sebring is hard to beat. The Inferno Red with the chrome trim is my favorite. Add aftermarket tinted glass and...wow! :shades:

thegraduate · January 2008

Yeah, I know its pointless to argue it, so I'll just say the Sebring looks like a very confused car to me. Too many swoops with a Saturn Ion flair to the rear door/pillar treatment. The old Sebring looked much better to me.

baggs32 · January 2008

Here's my ounce of speculation on the 2009 Fusion's engine choices.

Given that the 2009 Escape is now getting a 3.0L 230 HP V6, which is most likely the PIP D30 once discussed here, I'm guessing the Fusion is still in the running to get the same motor. However, it has been written that the Escape's engine bay will not accept the slightly larger D35 and this was the only viable option for it at this point. So I guess that doesn't rule the D35 out for the Fusion either because its bay can accept the D35.

V6s aside, at least the standard I4 option seems clear now. The Escape, along with other Ford and Mazda products, are getting the new 2.5L I4 which in Escape form makes 170 HP. It looks like the 2.3L I4 is dead so it seems to me the Fusion getting this one as its base engine is a no-brainer. The Escape Hybrid is also being upgraded to an Atkinson Cycle version of the 2.5L I4. Since the Fusion has long been promised a hybrid powertrain, it looks like this will be it in 2009. If they give us the hybrid in 2009, that is.

My money goes on the D35, the 2.5L I4, AND a hybrid for 2009. I know the EcoBoost, formerly the TwinForce, engines are making all the news these days. But it seems like they are not ready to offer them up on all models yet. I could be completely wrong about that and maybe we'll see the 2.5L I4 as the base engine and a EB I4 in place of the V6. Either way the 2009 Fusion will have more power and better fuel economy no matter which engine you choose. It seems we'll find out what the specs are and the new duds look like at the NY auto show. But that is someone else's speculation, not mine.

akirby · January 2008

The 2.5L I4 is a given and looks impressive with better mileage and power. The 2.5L I4 Atkinson cycle hybrid will be out before the end of this year. I think the PIP D3.0 was killed in the Fusion and only used in the Escape because the 3.5 didn't fit, although it is possible they'll offer both for a short period if the 3.5L supply is an issue. The EcoBoost 2.0 is also planned but not sure it will be ready by the end of this year. Then again, Ford has been pulling things ahead and keeping things close to the vest lately so it's possible. The end result, either late this year or early next year, will be all new engines, new front, slightly modified rear and a new interior plus AWD, Sync, and stability control.

Not bad for a 3rd year refresh.

captain2 · January 2008

speculation is well - speculation and sorely needed if you are going to spend any time guessing what Ford is going to be able to do. New engines are definitely needed to make the Fusion competitive as it has since Day 1. The overall FE for the current (and wimpy) 4 banger is the same as it is for the Toyota and Nissan V6s - leaving 100 hp+ and a whole lot of engine refinement lacking in the Ford products. Not to mention, of course, getting blown away by the other 4 bangers in FE, power, and refinement.
The 3.5 DT (unfortunately) is reviewed to have the same sort of refinement issues as the old DT3.0 and is also not setting any sort of FE records in the Taurus/Edge/MK etc. Maybe Ford will learn to build a smaller engine - sometime this century - or maybe they could strike a deal with Hyundai for the 3.3 and the "World engine' I4, starting yet another unsubstantiated rumor. It's really too bad - a Ford automobile that has demonstrated some quality related attributes but also not having a 'heart'.
Don't know what it is that has you Ford guys so consumed in wishful thinking - whatever the company does manage to do will be several years late and still short of what the competition has been doing for some time now.

akirby · January 2008

Since we don't have any mid size sedan specs yet, let's compare the new Escape 2.5L I4 w/6 speed auto to the competition:

09 Escape: FWD 170hp I4 21/27
08 CR-V FWD 166hp I4 20/27
08 Rav-4 FWD 166hp I4 21/27
08 Vue FWD 169hp I4 19/26
08 Rogue FWD 170hp I4 22/27

Looks like best in class power AND fuel economy. Just because you don't WANT to believe it doesn't mean it isn't true. Ford has made a dramatic turnaround from just 3 years ago and it will take a few more years for them to get fully back on track throughout the lineup. But anyone who writes them off or ignores them now will be sorely disappointed.

aviboy97 · January 2008

Going by 2007's numbers, here are the EPA's estimates for the following for 4 bangers.

Honda Accord : 24-34
Nissan Altima: 26-34
Toyota Camry: 24-33
Ford Fusion: 23-31
Mazda6 : 24-31

I believe that the oldest engine design in this segment is the Fords, because they are using Mazdas 2.3L design that debuted in 2002 for the 2003 Mazda6. All of the other 4 cyl's are newer, aside from Hondas 2.4. Fuel economy seems to be pretty darn close.

aviboy97 · January 2008

Here is a link from Mazda, showing their improved engine technology. Although they don't mention it, I wonder if any of it will be in the new 2009 Mazda6. Perhaps a 2.5L DI engine with their upgraded S-VT system?

http://media.ford.com/mazda/article_display.cfm?article_id=27485&make_id=227

captain2 · January 2008

Sorely disappointed in what - the fact that both the supposed new I4 and certainly the 'new' DT3.5 are unremarkable and still, to a large degree, not competitive even though the mfgr. has had a few extra years to develop them.The subjects at hand here I thought were 'mid-size' sedans not SUVS.

akirby · January 2008

Guess we'll just have to wait and see. If Ford came out with an I4 that got 40 mpg with 250 hp and was smooth as silk you'd still find something wrong with it.

aviboy97 · January 2008

the fact that both the supposed new I4 and certainly the 'new' DT3.5 are unremarkable and still, to a large degree, not competitive even though the mfgr. has had a few extra years to develop them.

Lets take a look and see if Ford is competitive with their 3.5L to Honda and their new 3.5L. The following engines are applied to the Ford Taurus and Honda Accord

Power:
Ford: 263hp 249tq
Honda: 268hp 248tq

Fuel Economy:
Ford: 18-28
Honda: 19-29

Lets look at the definition of "competitive" or to "compete": To be able to do as well or better then others. To put up a reasonable contest.

From these numbers, can we say Ford can compete with Honda. By definition, yes.

Considering that Honda has an advanced VCM system and a high tech variable valve timing system, to only have a 1mpg advantage and 5 hp over Fords 3.5L is quite disappointing.

Lets look at the definition for "refined": Sophisticated and effective, developed to or possessing a high degree of precision and effectiveness.

Considering that these numbers are quite similar, how can you claim that Ford is not a "refined" engine or for that matter, competitive? Please explain?

baggs32 · January 2008

It's no use arguing avi. The "H" blinders are on and they are not coming off. Just leave him be because he'll need the extra free time to figure out all those tiny buttons on the new Accord's center stack. :P

aviboy97 · January 2008

To be a fan is one thing. To repeatedly be incorrect and ignorant, to me, would just be embarrassing. Not at fault for being ignorant, but, I just thought I would post some fact rather then sheer emotional opinion.

kdshapiro · January 2008

Power:
Ford: 263hp 249tq
Honda: 268hp 248tq

Fuel Economy:
Ford: 18-28
Honda: 19-29

Can you tell me when the power comes online? If Fords 249 comes on line at a higher rpm, then I would have to say I would take the Accords lower torque rating as better because more is available at a lower rpm.

What are the acceleration numbers? Measuring raw output is almost meaningless.

zzzoom6 · January 2008

Regarding the mazda sourced 2.3 liter... at least in the mazda6 and the mazda3, most magazines have praised this engine for being extremely competitive (ie: smooth, willingness to rev, etc) compared to other i-4's in this market including the H and Toyo's. So I'm not sure where the self-described "captain" is coming up with his long stated biases against anything ford, but his response was pretty predictable. While it will be nice that Mazda and Ford will likely get newer, more powerful engines with better gas mileage fairly soon, it is far from necessary at this point. Not only do these cars cost thousands less than the H or T variety, but have been getting some very good reviews regarding their reliability and quality of driving experience. Are they everything to everybody? No, but show me a car that is...

aviboy97 · January 2008

What are the acceleration numbers? Measuring raw output is almost meaningless

No, it is not meaningless. We are not comparing the Ford Taurus to the Honda Accord. We are comparing the Honda 3.5 to the Ford 3.5. My response was to the claim that Ford cannot build a fuel efficient / powerful / competitive engine like Honda, or other manufacturers do.

Fords peak torque is 4,500 rpms, Honda is at 5,000

captain2 · January 2008

truthfully the only direct experience I have with the 'new' DT is in the Edge - an application where the engine might be a little more challenged because of vehicle weight. In no way is the engine (DT35) as smooth, quiet, or willing & able to rev as those engines that I do have a lot of experience with - the Nissan VQ and Toyota 2GR. And I'm apparently NOT the only one who thinks so, CR (in their 08 auto issue) notes the engine to be well short of the 'leaders' in this class in their reviews of the Taurus/Lincoln, MT cited the same problem in the Edge (rough, I think was the adjective). This type of thing has always been the problem with the DT3.0 as well (ever drive the Five Hundred?) All of which leads me to believe that the extra HP you guys are so prideful of comes only as a result of the displacement increase from the DT3.0 and nothing more. Although I mentioned the superior FE of the Toyotas and Nissan engines specifically, give me the turbine like smoothness of the SOHC Honda V6 you chose for 'comparison' (the new Accord a bigger heavier car) instead of that DT. There is much more to a good engine then simple HP/Torque numbers (and FE, as well) .
In fact, give me the smooth and quiet operation of Honda's 4 banger in lieu of any DT V6. There is nothing in Ford's past (or present) that would indicate to me that they magically learned to build a truly good smaller engine. I challenge you to name just one. To be fair though, this is a 'problem' shared with 2 other pretty large mfgrs. I can think of, and kind of summarizes the other difficulties all three have been in for 30+ years now.

aviboy97 · January 2008

Since you site CR, they did say that they no longer recommend the Toyota Camry V6, however, every application that the Ford Duratec35 is in IS recommended. What does that say about Toyota? It cannot be refined if it is not reliable, can it?

Also, in regards to engine noise, the majority of the noise is deadened by materials used in the car so you cannot hear it in the cabin, not the actual engine its self. Blame the entire car, not the engine.

captain2 · January 2008

'H' blinders? Don't even own one and haven't since a '78 Accord when they first came out - had a 4 cylinder 'CVCC ?' engine that was less 'screwed up' with pollution stuff (all if I remember right) - great car in its day, of course, and a good example of why 'Detroit' has problems selling anything but trucks these days. And yes there were several 'Detroit' cars I owned after that Honda that even included some Ford products.

captain2 · January 2008

the 2GR engine is not CRs problem with the Camry - it is the early 6 speed trannies and the software related problems that came with it that has caused it to be downgraded - and rightfully so.

captain2 · January 2008

It cannot be refined if it is not reliable, can it?
even if that were the case - of course it can. I can think of a number of primarily British and Italian engines over the years that were quite 'refined' but wouldn't start when it even looked like rain. Thank you Lucas and Magnetti Morelli (splg.)

zzzoom6 · January 2008

if the Honda engine was so wonderful to listen to, why do they put noise cancellation technology in the Accord?

jeffyscott · January 2008

The overall FE for the current (and wimpy) 4 banger is the same as it is for the Toyota and Nissan V6s

Some V6s are surprisingly close to fuel economy of 4 cyls (even non-Ford ones). But just comparing the 4 cylinders we have:

Fusion 23 mpg
Mazda6 24 mpg
Accord 24 mpg
Camry 25 mpg
Altima 26 mpg

As for the "wimpyness" I believe acceleration tests, that are performed the way normal people drive (ie. those done by CR) show any of these within a few tenths of a second of each other for 0-60.

My feeling when I was shopping for a midsize with 4 cyl, which was a year ago+, was that performance and mpg were not different enough to be a significant factor amongst the cars I considered. However, I did not give much consideration to the Altima or Camry for other reasons that trumped any acceleration or mpg advantage for those. I am also one who does not put a lot of miles on...8-10K per year.

andres3 · January 2008

I wonder how everyone is doing as the people will speak and vote with their wallets.

kdshapiro · January 2008

No, it is not meaningless

I disagree. Without looking at the hp and torque curves interpeting the figures means zippo in real life. Case in point, looking at the G37 engine and the N56 (turbo) from BMW, on paper the G37 should have it all over the 3 liter turbo. But it doesn't. Looking at the hp and torque curves tells the story.

Same with the Ford vs Honda engine. I'll betcha in real life (sic: on the street) the Honda is faster and more efficient.

maxamillion1 · January 2008

Okay, I know if anyone would know this it would be Backy?

I was reading over at a VW website (some of you may know this well known site) that the 09 Sonata is to debut at the Chicago Int'l Auto Show next month and that models are actually beginning to surface at dealerships (or should be within the next week)

I know Navigation will be avaialble, but what else will change. Some of the guys on the forum are Hyundai Salesmen and they claim to even have pricing. I'm interested in the facelifted Sonata because it finally addresses the one issue I had with the car...it's interior.

Thanks in advance Backy or to any others who may know!

R.L. Gist

akirby · January 2008

And the Fusion has an extra gear plus AWD. It just depends on where you want to spend the engineering resources.

kdshapiro · January 2008

As the expression goes, sometimes less is more.

akirby · January 2008

And sometimes less is just less regardless of how much spin you put on it.

Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles