@andre1969 said:
In reference to one of your earlier posts about the Malibu being 15 out of 22, I was just thinking that it's surprising there are actually 22 "affordable, midsized" cars to choose from these days!
Once upon a time, there were essentially four. GM, Ford, Mopar, and AMC.
Just out of curiosity, do you know where the Camry ranked on that list? On New Year's Day, I went with my uncle and grandmother to see my Mom and stepdad because we missed Christmas with them, and I drove my uncle's 2013 Camry. It's not a bad car at all, but at the same time, I don't think there's anything really special about it. Seems like such an easy-to-hit target, that it shouldn't be hard for the competition to surpass it. But, these things also have to be built to a certain price, and I think even Toyota is having to succumb to that more and more these days.
Don't laugh, but I was going to look at a 2011 Toyota Avalon Limited as a potential replacement for my 2005 Mercury Grand Marquis.
Despite its small wheel openings (I've always had a problem with that), I think the previous Avalon was one of the few handsome Asian automobiles. I can't say that about the new one.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
@uplanderguy said:
Despite its small wheel openings (I've always had a problem with that), I think the previous Avalon was one of the few handsome Asian automobiles. I can't say that about the new one.
That's why I'm considering the previous one. The current one's front end is grotesque. I still in shopping mode right now. I'm not ready to make a serious commitment yet. I want a largish sedan that is nice, but not so nice I'm afraid to take it out on the streets of Philly. I can't seem to find many nice late-model Grand Marquises or Town Cars with low miles. I'm also surprised at the dearth of recent models of the Buick Lucerne - especially the 4-holers with the Northstar V-8. Not many Chrysler 300s either. My Merc's getting pretty beat and a big hand-sized chunk of paint is about to come off the deck lid near the rear window. I'm afraid my wife's aunt's late husband had this car repainted at some time - poorly. The driver's side front and rear fender are loosing paint too!
Re.: early Toyotas....a friend whose Dad was a Ford dealer in Illinois in the early-Mustang era said the Toyota road man came in one day to see if they were interested. The Dad called his brother, the Service Manager, up front, saying they had to agree on all big decisions like that, as partners. The brother, a veteran of the Pacific theater, walked around the car and said, "What makes you think we'd want to handle a POS like that?". Politically incorrect, but I still laugh when I think of that. I can just picture it. I've met the Dad, but never his brother.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Count me in on one who had an appreciation for the previous Avalon, as well. I always thought that if someone could have built a car that looked like my 2000 Park Ave on the outside, but was like that Avalon on the inside, that would be a damn fine automobile!
Truth be told, I'm not crazy about the styling direction Buick is taking, either. IMO, the LaCrosse seems a bit disproportionate here and there...high sills, small windows, too small of a trunk and hood but too long of a passenger cabin, etc. But, at least it's not ugly like an Avalon! And, compared to my Park Ave, Buick has improved by leaps and bounds with regards to fit and finish, build quality, etc. Plus, I'd imagine that the 3.6 is quicker and more fuel efficient than the supercharged engine in my Park Ave.
Funny thing though, I've been looking (not too seriously though) at Crown Vics! I found a pretty blue one the other day that would just have matched the hair in Grandma's wig. And, seriously, I think it's a really pretty color, but I bet it would age me 20 years if I bought it!
Count me in on one who had an appreciation for the previous Avalon
I've driven several of those and they are a Buick and are produced in the US. Actually, I think the previous Avalon is more a traditional Buick than some of the current new Buick offerings. I haven't driven the new version Avalon yet.
How does the 2011 Avalon trunk compare to the 2005 Mercury Grand Marquis? I carry a lot of paints and solvents in two 18 gallon tote boxes along with some tools.
According to www.fueleconomy.gov, the Avalon only has a 14 cubic foot trunk, compared to 21 for the Grand Marquis. The EPA rounds off, so I think the Avalon might actually be 14.4.
Still, depending on how the trunk is laid out, your gear might still fit. However, one potential weak spot with the Avalon could be the size of the trunk opening. Most cars today are pretty "cab rearward" in that, even if they do have a large trunk, a lot of that volume is far forward, tucked up under the rear window, leaving a short decklid and small opening.
Something I've always wondered, when they calculate trunk volume, do they account for the spare tire? For instance, with an Avalon, and most cars today, the spare is in a compartment under the trunk, whereas on the Grand Marquis, it's on that shelf over top of the rear axle and vertical gas tank, in front of the deep well. So if a spare tire takes up, say, 5 cubic feet, would that mean that the Grand Marquis truly has 21 cubic feet of useable trunk space, or would you have to subtract for the spare?
I know it would seem logical that you'd only include the useable trunk space, and not fluff it up with the space the spare occupies, but what's that old saying about lies, damned lies, and statistics?
@stickguy said:
Andre, you own a Desoto and a Buick, and you are worrying about getting aged?
The DeSoto never gave me that feeling, mainly because I started wanting one (or any Forward-look era car in general) after I saw the movie "Christine" when I was a kid. So I associate it more with my youth, I guess...even though most people who associate something like that with their youth have probably been collecting social security for awhile now...
Sometimes with the Park Ave though, I feel like I could be driving my parents' hand-me-down, even though I'm not. Which is odd, because I've had a few hand-me-downs over the years (1980 Malibu, 1986 Monte Carlo, 1985 LeSabre, 1985 Silverado), and they never gave me that vibe.
My gear fit in my 1988 Buick Park Avenue's trunk. How does the Avalon compare to it? The car I was going to look at actually comes with a full-size spare on an alloy wheel. The Merc isn't making it easy for me - a big chunk of paint roughly the size of the base of an iron just flew off when I left work to go to lunch. I come out to return to work and see it! It reminds me of the blight that affected early models of the Plymouth Neon!
"Don't laugh, but I was going to look at a 2011 Toyota Avalon Limited as a potential replacement for my 2005 Mercury Grand Marquis."
Lemko, I've always felt that you can't get an accurate perspective on cars until you've owned a variety of makes and models. Why not? We would love to hear about your experiences. Made in USA, and if you didn't like it you could resell it and not lose much due to the low depreciation. Good luck in whatever path you choose!
Looks like Lemko can buy a US-made Lexus pretty soon....
The ES is Lexus' top-selling sedan, but the Japanese luxury marque has never manufactured it outside of Japan. In fact, Lexus has never made any cars in the United States, one of its largest markets worldwide. But that's about to change.
Yesterday, construction began in Georgetown, Kentucky, on the first Lexus assembly line in America, the first concrete (or steel) step in a $360-million expansion of Toyota's plant in the Bluegrass state that will create 750 new jobs. The expansion was announced last April by chief executive Akio Toyoda at the New York Auto Show.
Once the new assembly line gets online in the fall of next year, Toyota plans on building some 50,000 units of the ES each year. Lexus sold a record 72,581 examples of the ES in the United States last year – 30 percent more than the previous year – so Lexus will either have to import some more from overseas or leave some buyers disappointed.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky (TMMK) also builds the Camry, Avalon and Venza, with a capacity to assembly 500,000 vehicles and 600,000 engines each year.
I'm surprised it's taken Toyota this long to bring ES production to North America. BTW, the article is incorrect - the RX has been made in Canada since 2003.
@uplanderguy said:
Life's too short to buy a car you're not getting a warm feeling that you know you'll like. That, and cars are too expensive to guess on that.
I wonder if renting a car that you think you might like, for a week, would be enough to see if the car would be a good fit? I know that doesn't always work simply because not all cars are available on the rental market, but it might be an idea.
In response to an earlier post, I would never buy a car because it is best-selling. But then, I lust for certain Studebakers. Seriously, I tend to avoid 'best-selling' stuff.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I just thumbed through the Consumer Reports "New Car Buying Guide" that's on my drugstore's magazine rack, "To be displayed through Feb. 24, 2014". It shows the Sonata as having scored 89 points, Malibu scored 89 points, Optima scored 81 points, and Fusion 78 (as reported by me previously). All had average reliability per their sampling, IIRC. Not a single comment trying to influence the reader about styling or clashing colors (LOL). It really is too bad more people don't 'think outside the box' (yes, I hate that phrase too) and consider something besides the conventional wisdom. Perception still lags reality, apparently. But to each his own...it's his/her own money.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
@uplanderguy said:
Optima scored 81 points, and Fusion 78 (as reported by me previously). All had average reliability per their sampling, IIRC.
Wow. The Optima must really be a POJ to score 81 compared to the Malilbu and Sonata.
I recall their rear seat kneeroom was smaller than the Malibu, so maybe that's a factor with the Optima.
I know the front passenger seat is really low. That makes it a problem for anyone with creaky back or knees to enter.
Prepare for ten quotes from buff mags that say differently.
I do recall that the published numbers for rear-seat legroom in the Sonata was less than the Malibu, although most people think it must have been measured differently than the Malibu, which is certainly possible.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The Accord scored 90, but down in the little box where it would detail what trim level, etc., it was gobbledygook that I couldn't understand...almost like it was a message not meant for printing. Seriously, it looked to be an editing goof of some kind.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Prepare for ten quotes from buff mags that say differently.
I do recall that the published numbers for rear-seat legroom in the Sonata was less than the Malibu, although most people think it must have been measured differently than the Malibu, which is certainly possible.
I'm definitely convinced that there's something going on with the way the cars are measured. I've tried out the back seat of the Sonata and Optima, and found them to be okay, much better than their published spec of 34.4" or whatever it is. Just going by feel, I'd say the back of a 2013 Malibu feels worse than the back seat of my '76 LeMans coupe, or my old '68 and '69 Dart hardtop coupes. FWIW, I think the published spec for the LeMans was 32.9" and the Dart was only around 32"!
The Dart's back seat was really low, forcing you into a bit of a fetal position, so that might have actually worked in its favor, since your thighs would be angled upward, rather than more straight-out. The LeMans has a higher seating position and thicker, more comfortable cushions, but it felt like knee room was even worse.
Legroom is a combination of two things...how much fore-aft distance there is back there, and how high off the floor the seat is. I wonder if the Malibu has a higher seat, but less fore-aft distance than a Sonata or Optima?
@uplanderguy said:
I just thumbed through the Consumer Reports "New Car Buying Guide" that's on my drugstore's magazine rack, "To be displayed through Feb. 24, 2014". It shows the Sonata as having scored 89 points, Malibu scored 89 points, Optima scored 81 points, and Fusion 78 (as reported by me previously). All had average reliability per their sampling, IIRC. Not a single comment trying to influence the reader about styling or clashing colors (LOL). It really is too bad more people don't 'think outside the box' (yes, I hate that phrase too) and consider something besides the conventional wisdom. Perception still lags reality, apparently. But to each his own...it's his/her own money.
Great point there uplander, and sounds legitimate. But one thing that's interesting, even in this forum, is that CR is regularly lambasted for having "flawed methodology", being inconsistent, being pro-foreign makes, etc. So they are wrong and flawed when certain things are reported, yet legitimate and used as support for other arguments when those arguments agree with whatever point any poster wants to make. We should all admit that we have various biases and that lots of people cherry pick other opintions to support their own views, while ignoring or criticizing the flaws in other opinions that don't support a given view.
IMHO Consumer Reports is mostly correct but they are obviously humans as well and so errors and biases can creep in at times, just as for C&D, R&D, or any other publication. Who says that any given publication is evaluating and weighting factors that are most important to any of us? It's great that we have the level of choice that we do in the auto markets, unlike cellular carriers or internet providers.
I have pointed out that I have long questioned their statistical sampling (although I'll admit that nobody else does anything like it that I'm aware of). But testing a car? I think there's far less 'cool/not cool' subjectivity in their testing than in something like Automobile or Car and Driver.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
@Stever@Edmunds said:
The feds make it easy - this is from the [CFR]
Interesting, I always theorized it was simply an index...taking shoulder room X headroom X legroom and then dividing by 1728 to get to cubic feet. I noticed a long time ago that if you do that, you almost always get a number the same as what the EPA lists. Looks like they do sort of a combination of shoulder and hip room though, which can throw some things off a bit, though.
I'd like to know though, exactly how they take the legroom measurement. To do a comparison, one year I tried measuring a few of my cars for front legroom, to the base of the accelerator pedal. And I got the following numbers...
2000 Intrepid: 45.7"
1979 New Yorker: 44.8" (I think, I remember it was less than the Intrepid)
1976 LeMans coupe: 46" (at least, I remember it being more than the Intrepid)
1967 Catalina convertible: 42.1"
2003 Corolla (uncle's): 41"
Now, the gas pedal placement is going to have some impact here. For example, the Catalina's pedal is hinged on the bottom, and on the floor, whereas the other cars are suspended, and most likely at varying heights, so that can make some difference.
But, as for "official" numbers? I remember the Intrepid being listed at 42.2", the '79 New Yorker at 42.3". Oddly, the New Yorker always felt roomier, even though my own numbers show the Intrepid to have about an inch more legroom! I think the LeMans official number is around 42.5" And if you look through any published specs, there are precious few, if any cars that are going to come anywhere near 44", let along 45-46"! Most cars are listed between 41-43".
I think my 2012 Ram is listed at either 41 or 41.5", which sounds skimpy. But it feels fine to me.
Also, those interior volumes, since they're merely an index of those three published specs, don't take into account things such as intrusion from dashboards, transmission/center humps, wheel wells, and so on. So sometimes a car with less interior volume can actually feel roomier...which is what I've suspected all along.
" I think there's far less 'cool/not cool' subjectivity in their testing than in something like Automobile or Car and Driver."
Agreed. I'm just speculating on what makes a person actually buy a car or not? The stats are good, but a lot has to do with intangible factors, which vary person to person and are very hard to measure. Having publications rate vehicles and having that provide any correlation to market success or not seems quite difficult. I read recently that researchers are trying to have computers understand "formulas" that make a song a hit, or make a movie a hit. It seems like car ratings mirroring predicting actual sales popularity is a similarly difficult proposition.
I don't know how "official" those EPA numbers are, just a quick search hit. Well, they're "official" but are they minimums? Doubt it so long as safety is okay. There's probably some US DOT regs out there too - there's also some arcane stuff about H points and gaps between the seat and headrests and how that affects safety calculations.
Somewhere around here we had a thread about how do define a car size and that EPA link has a bunch of stuff about that, going by interior volume.
Must be fun working in the design and engineering labs at the automakers and have to keep up with the regs.
I would never make a decision based on published #s. Real world comfort is often wildly different than what the #s would imply. Especially when a lot of the # is headroom, where IMO above a certain amount it is "wasted" stat padding!
@stickguy said:
I would never make a decision based on published #s. Real world comfort is often wildly different than what the #s would imply. Especially when a lot of the # is headroom, where IMO above a certain amount it is "wasted" stat padding!
Keep in mind that the Europeans, I am told, use a different formula for measuring interior space.
But yeah, how true--the only way to judge is to sit in the car!
that is why I love going to the car show. There are always a few cars that from reading about I expect I will fall in love with, but end up turning me off. And some others that I wrote off without trying that end up being short listed.
I think the problem with ergonomic stats is that body types can vary a lot. A six footer can be long legged with a short torso, or vice versa, or pretty evenly proportional. The leg and headroom is going to seem different to each of them because of that.
@stickguy said:
I would never make a decision based on published #s. Real world comfort is often wildly different than what the #s would imply. Especially when a lot of the # is headroom, where IMO above a certain amount it is "wasted" stat padding!
I would guess that for most people, they have a certain segment that they're looking for, and they look at the vehicles in that segment, and discard any obviously bad vehicles. Then it probably becomes some combination of price, features that are important to that person, and intangibles - how they "feel" about each vehicle. And of course for some buyers with high brand loyalty, that pretty much excludes all other contenders unless their favorite brand has more than one vehicle in the same segment.
There's too much choice (a good thing, for sure), so you have to find a way to narrow it down. And i would rather have a tooth pulled than walk into a dealership, so 2 or 3 at most is all I want to look at. I read CR, have an idea from cars I've bought in the past, and go from there. As you say, fit, handling, are all very subjective, so what works well for one person is uncomfortable for someone else. That said, I've never ended up with a newer version of what I had before.
Somewhere around here we had a thread about how do define a car size and that EPA link has a bunch of stuff about that, going by interior volume.
Yeah, the EPA rates car sizes based on interior volume, rather than external size. For a sedan/coupe type of car, I think the classification is something like:
120 cubic feet of combined passenger/trunk volume: Full Size
110-120 cubic feet: midsize
100-110 cubic feet: compact
There's a breakout between compact and minicompact as well, but I forget what it is.
A lot of what is marketed as "compact" cars these days are actually midsized according to the EPA: cars such as the Chevy Cruze, Dodge Dart, Hyundai Elantra, and I think the Honda Civic just barely made the cut. The latest Corolla may technically be a midsize as well.
Most cars marketed as midsized are at the upper end of their threshold. In fact, the 2008-12 Accord, if you got a base model without the sunroof, was technically a full-size according to the EPA! I think the sunroof takes away 4-5 cubic feet.
And, the few cars left that they try to pass off as "full size" are in actuality barely over the threshold, so that's probably why anybody who's into old-school big cars will tend to scoff at them. For instance, a 1982 Malibu had 119 cubic feet of interior volume (102 interior/17 trunk) while a 1982 Caprice was more like 131 (110 interior/21 trunk), so when they take these wanna-be full-sizers that only have maybe 104-106 cubic feet of passenger space, they just "feel" more like a midsized car.
I'm not particularly tall (5'11" with a 30" inseam), but one of the main factors for me when I was looking for my last car was the amount of room getting in and out - specifically, not bashing my head against the top of the door jamb.
The Elantra GT I ended up leasing is quite nice in that respect - many of the cars I test drove forced me to be careful when getting in & out. Since I'm in and out of my car a few dozen times a night when I deliver pizza, this was a big deal to me.
Comments
Don't laugh, but I was going to look at a 2011 Toyota Avalon Limited as a potential replacement for my 2005 Mercury Grand Marquis.
Despite its small wheel openings (I've always had a problem with that), I think the previous Avalon was one of the few handsome Asian automobiles. I can't say that about the new one.
That's why I'm considering the previous one. The current one's front end is grotesque. I still in shopping mode right now. I'm not ready to make a serious commitment yet. I want a largish sedan that is nice, but not so nice I'm afraid to take it out on the streets of Philly. I can't seem to find many nice late-model Grand Marquises or Town Cars with low miles. I'm also surprised at the dearth of recent models of the Buick Lucerne - especially the 4-holers with the Northstar V-8. Not many Chrysler 300s either. My Merc's getting pretty beat and a big hand-sized chunk of paint is about to come off the deck lid near the rear window. I'm afraid my wife's aunt's late husband had this car repainted at some time - poorly. The driver's side front and rear fender are loosing paint too!
Re.: early Toyotas....a friend whose Dad was a Ford dealer in Illinois in the early-Mustang era said the Toyota road man came in one day to see if they were interested. The Dad called his brother, the Service Manager, up front, saying they had to agree on all big decisions like that, as partners. The brother, a veteran of the Pacific theater, walked around the car and said, "What makes you think we'd want to handle a POS like that?". Politically incorrect, but I still laugh when I think of that. I can just picture it. I've met the Dad, but never his brother.
Ah, well, they probably walked away from being rich, but at the time, who knew? Henry Ford refused a gift of the VW factory right after the war, too..
Count me in on one who had an appreciation for the previous Avalon, as well. I always thought that if someone could have built a car that looked like my 2000 Park Ave on the outside, but was like that Avalon on the inside, that would be a damn fine automobile!
Truth be told, I'm not crazy about the styling direction Buick is taking, either. IMO, the LaCrosse seems a bit disproportionate here and there...high sills, small windows, too small of a trunk and hood but too long of a passenger cabin, etc. But, at least it's not ugly like an Avalon! And, compared to my Park Ave, Buick has improved by leaps and bounds with regards to fit and finish, build quality, etc. Plus, I'd imagine that the 3.6 is quicker and more fuel efficient than the supercharged engine in my Park Ave.
Funny thing though, I've been looking (not too seriously though) at Crown Vics! I found a pretty blue one the other day that would just have matched the hair in Grandma's wig. And, seriously, I think it's a really pretty color, but I bet it would age me 20 years if I bought it!
Andre, you own a Desoto and a Buick, and you are worrying about getting aged?
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Count me in on one who had an appreciation for the previous Avalon
I've driven several of those and they are a Buick and are produced in the US. Actually, I think the previous Avalon is more a traditional Buick than some of the current new Buick offerings. I haven't driven the new version Avalon yet.
How does the 2011 Avalon trunk compare to the 2005 Mercury Grand Marquis? I carry a lot of paints and solvents in two 18 gallon tote boxes along with some tools.
According to www.fueleconomy.gov, the Avalon only has a 14 cubic foot trunk, compared to 21 for the Grand Marquis. The EPA rounds off, so I think the Avalon might actually be 14.4.
Still, depending on how the trunk is laid out, your gear might still fit. However, one potential weak spot with the Avalon could be the size of the trunk opening. Most cars today are pretty "cab rearward" in that, even if they do have a large trunk, a lot of that volume is far forward, tucked up under the rear window, leaving a short decklid and small opening.
Something I've always wondered, when they calculate trunk volume, do they account for the spare tire? For instance, with an Avalon, and most cars today, the spare is in a compartment under the trunk, whereas on the Grand Marquis, it's on that shelf over top of the rear axle and vertical gas tank, in front of the deep well. So if a spare tire takes up, say, 5 cubic feet, would that mean that the Grand Marquis truly has 21 cubic feet of useable trunk space, or would you have to subtract for the spare?
I know it would seem logical that you'd only include the useable trunk space, and not fluff it up with the space the spare occupies, but what's that old saying about lies, damned lies, and statistics?
The DeSoto never gave me that feeling, mainly because I started wanting one (or any Forward-look era car in general) after I saw the movie "Christine" when I was a kid. So I associate it more with my youth, I guess...even though most people who associate something like that with their youth have probably been collecting social security for awhile now...
Sometimes with the Park Ave though, I feel like I could be driving my parents' hand-me-down, even though I'm not. Which is odd, because I've had a few hand-me-downs over the years (1980 Malibu, 1986 Monte Carlo, 1985 LeSabre, 1985 Silverado), and they never gave me that vibe.
My gear fit in my 1988 Buick Park Avenue's trunk. How does the Avalon compare to it? The car I was going to look at actually comes with a full-size spare on an alloy wheel. The Merc isn't making it easy for me - a big chunk of paint roughly the size of the base of an iron just flew off when I left work to go to lunch. I come out to return to work and see it! It reminds me of the blight that affected early models of the Plymouth Neon!
Buy it and drive right to the social security office;)
I think those early FWD Park Ave and Ninety Eights had around 15.5-15.7 cubic feet of trunk space.
"Don't laugh, but I was going to look at a 2011 Toyota Avalon Limited as a potential replacement for my 2005 Mercury Grand Marquis."
Lemko, I've always felt that you can't get an accurate perspective on cars until you've owned a variety of makes and models. Why not? We would love to hear about your experiences. Made in USA, and if you didn't like it you could resell it and not lose much due to the low depreciation. Good luck in whatever path you choose!
Actually, there is a neighbor down the way who bought a Caddy last year and bemoans giving up her Avalon. There you go Lemko!
Life's too short to buy a car you're not getting a warm feeling that you know you'll like. That, and cars are too expensive to guess on that.
GM leads in Truck Safety!!!!
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/09/gm-chevy-silverado-gmc-sierra-crash-test-nhtsa-5-stars/
Looks like Lemko can buy a US-made Lexus pretty soon....
The ES is Lexus' top-selling sedan, but the Japanese luxury marque has never manufactured it outside of Japan. In fact, Lexus has never made any cars in the United States, one of its largest markets worldwide. But that's about to change.
Yesterday, construction began in Georgetown, Kentucky, on the first Lexus assembly line in America, the first concrete (or steel) step in a $360-million expansion of Toyota's plant in the Bluegrass state that will create 750 new jobs. The expansion was announced last April by chief executive Akio Toyoda at the New York Auto Show.
Once the new assembly line gets online in the fall of next year, Toyota plans on building some 50,000 units of the ES each year. Lexus sold a record 72,581 examples of the ES in the United States last year – 30 percent more than the previous year – so Lexus will either have to import some more from overseas or leave some buyers disappointed.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky (TMMK) also builds the Camry, Avalon and Venza, with a capacity to assembly 500,000 vehicles and 600,000 engines each year.
I'm surprised it's taken Toyota this long to bring ES production to North America. BTW, the article is incorrect - the RX has been made in Canada since 2003.
I wonder if renting a car that you think you might like, for a week, would be enough to see if the car would be a good fit? I know that doesn't always work simply because not all cars are available on the rental market, but it might be an idea.
I think that'd be a great idea. I used to rent all the time and drove 'em all, but work at home most of the time now.
If you have a local agency down the street, that would be the way to go, since you could refuse the rental if it's the wrong car and try again later.
Be worth it just to ask the dealer too. They may at least loan you one overnight or may have a demo they can let you have for longer.
Ford will save almost 750lbs in the next F-150 by moving to aluminum. Wow.
This is what leadership looks like. GM and C I'm sure will follow after a .....while.
http://bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/mulally-s-f-150-weight-cut-long-shot-seen-within-reach.html?cmpid=yhoo
As Lotus' Colin Chapman used to say, if you wanted to go faster, you needed to "add lightness".
In response to an earlier post, I would never buy a car because it is best-selling. But then, I lust for certain Studebakers.
Seriously, I tend to avoid 'best-selling' stuff.
Seriously, I tend to avoid 'best-selling' stuff
Well now I understand your statistical approach - you're an "outlier" man! Neither tree nor forest, just the weeds - Just Kidding!
Too funny, berri.
I just thumbed through the Consumer Reports "New Car Buying Guide" that's on my drugstore's magazine rack, "To be displayed through Feb. 24, 2014". It shows the Sonata as having scored 89 points, Malibu scored 89 points, Optima scored 81 points, and Fusion 78 (as reported by me previously). All had average reliability per their sampling, IIRC. Not a single comment trying to influence the reader about styling or clashing colors (LOL). It really is too bad more people don't 'think outside the box' (yes, I hate that phrase too) and consider something besides the conventional wisdom. Perception still lags reality, apparently. But to each his own...it's his/her own money.
Wow. The Optima must really be a POJ to score 81 compared to the Malilbu and Sonata.
I recall their rear seat kneeroom was smaller than the Malibu, so maybe that's a factor with the Optima.
I know the front passenger seat is really low. That makes it a problem for anyone with creaky back or knees to enter.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Prepare for ten quotes from buff mags that say differently.
I do recall that the published numbers for rear-seat legroom in the Sonata was less than the Malibu, although most people think it must have been measured differently than the Malibu, which is certainly possible.
The Accord scored 90, but down in the little box where it would detail what trim level, etc., it was gobbledygook that I couldn't understand...almost like it was a message not meant for printing.
Seriously, it looked to be an editing goof of some kind.
@uplanderguy said:
I'm definitely convinced that there's something going on with the way the cars are measured. I've tried out the back seat of the Sonata and Optima, and found them to be okay, much better than their published spec of 34.4" or whatever it is. Just going by feel, I'd say the back of a 2013 Malibu feels worse than the back seat of my '76 LeMans coupe, or my old '68 and '69 Dart hardtop coupes. FWIW, I think the published spec for the LeMans was 32.9" and the Dart was only around 32"!
The Dart's back seat was really low, forcing you into a bit of a fetal position, so that might have actually worked in its favor, since your thighs would be angled upward, rather than more straight-out. The LeMans has a higher seating position and thicker, more comfortable cushions, but it felt like knee room was even worse.
Legroom is a combination of two things...how much fore-aft distance there is back there, and how high off the floor the seat is. I wonder if the Malibu has a higher seat, but less fore-aft distance than a Sonata or Optima?
The feds make it easy - this is from the CFR.
Great point there uplander, and sounds legitimate. But one thing that's interesting, even in this forum, is that CR is regularly lambasted for having "flawed methodology", being inconsistent, being pro-foreign makes, etc. So they are wrong and flawed when certain things are reported, yet legitimate and used as support for other arguments when those arguments agree with whatever point any poster wants to make. We should all admit that we have various biases and that lots of people cherry pick other opintions to support their own views, while ignoring or criticizing the flaws in other opinions that don't support a given view.
IMHO Consumer Reports is mostly correct but they are obviously humans as well and so errors and biases can creep in at times, just as for C&D, R&D, or any other publication. Who says that any given publication is evaluating and weighting factors that are most important to any of us? It's great that we have the level of choice that we do in the auto markets, unlike cellular carriers or internet providers.
I have pointed out that I have long questioned their statistical sampling (although I'll admit that nobody else does anything like it that I'm aware of). But testing a car? I think there's far less 'cool/not cool' subjectivity in their testing than in something like Automobile or Car and Driver.
Interesting, I always theorized it was simply an index...taking shoulder room X headroom X legroom and then dividing by 1728 to get to cubic feet. I noticed a long time ago that if you do that, you almost always get a number the same as what the EPA lists. Looks like they do sort of a combination of shoulder and hip room though, which can throw some things off a bit, though.
I'd like to know though, exactly how they take the legroom measurement. To do a comparison, one year I tried measuring a few of my cars for front legroom, to the base of the accelerator pedal. And I got the following numbers...
2000 Intrepid: 45.7"
1979 New Yorker: 44.8" (I think, I remember it was less than the Intrepid)
1976 LeMans coupe: 46" (at least, I remember it being more than the Intrepid)
1967 Catalina convertible: 42.1"
2003 Corolla (uncle's): 41"
Now, the gas pedal placement is going to have some impact here. For example, the Catalina's pedal is hinged on the bottom, and on the floor, whereas the other cars are suspended, and most likely at varying heights, so that can make some difference.
But, as for "official" numbers? I remember the Intrepid being listed at 42.2", the '79 New Yorker at 42.3". Oddly, the New Yorker always felt roomier, even though my own numbers show the Intrepid to have about an inch more legroom! I think the LeMans official number is around 42.5" And if you look through any published specs, there are precious few, if any cars that are going to come anywhere near 44", let along 45-46"! Most cars are listed between 41-43".
I think my 2012 Ram is listed at either 41 or 41.5", which sounds skimpy. But it feels fine to me.
Also, those interior volumes, since they're merely an index of those three published specs, don't take into account things such as intrusion from dashboards, transmission/center humps, wheel wells, and so on. So sometimes a car with less interior volume can actually feel roomier...which is what I've suspected all along.
" I think there's far less 'cool/not cool' subjectivity in their testing than in something like Automobile or Car and Driver."
Agreed. I'm just speculating on what makes a person actually buy a car or not? The stats are good, but a lot has to do with intangible factors, which vary person to person and are very hard to measure. Having publications rate vehicles and having that provide any correlation to market success or not seems quite difficult. I read recently that researchers are trying to have computers understand "formulas" that make a song a hit, or make a movie a hit. It seems like car ratings mirroring predicting actual sales popularity is a similarly difficult proposition.
I don't know how "official" those EPA numbers are, just a quick search hit. Well, they're "official" but are they minimums? Doubt it so long as safety is okay. There's probably some US DOT regs out there too - there's also some arcane stuff about H points and gaps between the seat and headrests and how that affects safety calculations.
Somewhere around here we had a thread about how do define a car size and that EPA link has a bunch of stuff about that, going by interior volume.
Must be fun working in the design and engineering labs at the automakers and have to keep up with the regs.
I would never make a decision based on published #s. Real world comfort is often wildly different than what the #s would imply. Especially when a lot of the # is headroom, where IMO above a certain amount it is "wasted" stat padding!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Keep in mind that the Europeans, I am told, use a different formula for measuring interior space.
But yeah, how true--the only way to judge is to sit in the car!
that is why I love going to the car show. There are always a few cars that from reading about I expect I will fall in love with, but end up turning me off. And some others that I wrote off without trying that end up being short listed.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I think the problem with ergonomic stats is that body types can vary a lot. A six footer can be long legged with a short torso, or vice versa, or pretty evenly proportional. The leg and headroom is going to seem different to each of them because of that.
I would guess that for most people, they have a certain segment that they're looking for, and they look at the vehicles in that segment, and discard any obviously bad vehicles. Then it probably becomes some combination of price, features that are important to that person, and intangibles - how they "feel" about each vehicle. And of course for some buyers with high brand loyalty, that pretty much excludes all other contenders unless their favorite brand has more than one vehicle in the same segment.
There's too much choice (a good thing, for sure), so you have to find a way to narrow it down. And i would rather have a tooth pulled than walk into a dealership, so 2 or 3 at most is all I want to look at. I read CR, have an idea from cars I've bought in the past, and go from there. As you say, fit, handling, are all very subjective, so what works well for one person is uncomfortable for someone else. That said, I've never ended up with a newer version of what I had before.
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
Looks like the actual results favor the Buff Mags!
2013 Sales
Does anyone follow CR anymore? What gives??
Where's the Optima? Hard to believe I know, but you seem to have left that out.
Yeah, the EPA rates car sizes based on interior volume, rather than external size. For a sedan/coupe type of car, I think the classification is something like:
110-120 cubic feet: midsize
100-110 cubic feet: compact
There's a breakout between compact and minicompact as well, but I forget what it is.
A lot of what is marketed as "compact" cars these days are actually midsized according to the EPA: cars such as the Chevy Cruze, Dodge Dart, Hyundai Elantra, and I think the Honda Civic just barely made the cut. The latest Corolla may technically be a midsize as well.
Most cars marketed as midsized are at the upper end of their threshold. In fact, the 2008-12 Accord, if you got a base model without the sunroof, was technically a full-size according to the EPA! I think the sunroof takes away 4-5 cubic feet.
And, the few cars left that they try to pass off as "full size" are in actuality barely over the threshold, so that's probably why anybody who's into old-school big cars will tend to scoff at them. For instance, a 1982 Malibu had 119 cubic feet of interior volume (102 interior/17 trunk) while a 1982 Caprice was more like 131 (110 interior/21 trunk), so when they take these wanna-be full-sizers that only have maybe 104-106 cubic feet of passenger space, they just "feel" more like a midsized car.
I'm not particularly tall (5'11" with a 30" inseam), but one of the main factors for me when I was looking for my last car was the amount of room getting in and out - specifically, not bashing my head against the top of the door jamb.
The Elantra GT I ended up leasing is quite nice in that respect - many of the cars I test drove forced me to be careful when getting in & out. Since I'm in and out of my car a few dozen times a night when I deliver pizza, this was a big deal to me.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
You guys are too funny!