Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

jeffyscott

I think price has to be somewhat of a factor for just about everyone. It is just that for some it is a bigger factor than for others.

When my wife was looking for a car she considered cars ranging from under $20,000 to over $30,000. Price was not much of a consideration. If there had been a $45,000 car that she really like the best, we would not have bought it. If she liked a $30,000 car better than the $20,000 car she actually bought, we would have bought the more expensive model. That is not to say that it was not nice to save the $10 grand.

For some people if they can get an acceptable car for $2000 less (or, say, with 72 months 0% financing) than the one they really want, they are going to choose the acceptable one. This is a good decision, if you have limited finances. While it is possible you may regret not getting the other car, if you did get it you might regret having spent the extra money that could have been used for something else.

louiswei

Well, for me when I say that price is not a consideration that usually means that WITHIN A RANGE the price is really not a factor. For example, if I set my range to be mid size sedan I would get a car that I don't desire just because it's 5K lower than the one that I do. As matter of fact I probably wouldn't even consider the car that I don't desire no matter how low the price is. However, for many bargain shoppers, 5K lower may be a very important decision factor.

jeffyscott

A car that retains its value better...and is cheaper to insure due to good crash-test ratings lowers "True Cost of Ownerhip" ...a car that don't sell without long warranty or 0% APR is not desirable to me though it's very desirable to others.

I don't really care about how fast a car depreciates as I keep them forever, anyway.

I don't think crash test ratings have much to do with your own insurance costs. Your insurance is not paying for damage to you. Differences are about the cost of replacement body parts. Its more about the cost of the fender bender, than it is about the rare 40 mph offset crash.

Seems like you are actually very interested in how desireable the cars are to others. The cars that most find desireable don't have the big discounts and don't have a lot of depreciation. :surprise:

lahiri

"The cars that most find desireable don't have the big discounts and don't have a lot of depreciation." - this applies to me as well. Hondas and Toyotas are desirable as far as I am concerned. But then I have my personal bias that keeps Mazda6/ Altima/ Accord on top my shortlist. Without the personal bias I would be down to Camry/ Accord.

backy

I will continue to buy Hondas, until I buy one that doesn't measure up to my expectations.

The 2001 Civic was the one that did it for me.

jeffyscott

Pretty sure it will be a Mazda6 for me...but they do have $3000 rebates on them. I thought this meant that they must be a bad choice in your view. :confuse:

Accord was an okay car to drive for me. I don't happen to find the exterior appearance appealing at all, though. Since there is also a price premium, I can't see much reason to choose it over the 6...better crash tests is about all I can come up with.

Altima I have not driven, but again I don't really care for the appearance and I think price is higher than the 6, as well. Crash tests are pretty comparable to the 6.

joe97

For a lot reasons, I just can't see a typical family purchasing a family sedan, with its top priority rested on acceleration.

As for the braking distance variances, certainly 6 feet is long enough to potenitally turn into a tragedy.

I am glad I stopped my C&D subscription...

joe97

0% APR / long warranties have little or no correlation to the car itself. Let's face it, nothing is perfect.

kdshapiro

"certainly 6 feet is long enough to potenitally turn into a tragedy."

Statistically speaking probably not. Not to mention, the variation in cars. Given two different vehicles, the Accord would probably win. And as I mentioned if you were in the loaded Sonota, the Accord would stop, while the Sonota would be part of a tragic situation.

joe97

I am not talking about a specific car, or a specific situation. I am just talking about the potential of 6 feet, which you might see as something insignificant, others might not.

kdshapiro

I understand what you are saying, what I am saying is the numbers are bogus. 6 feet is a statistical discrepancy which might be reversed in favor of the Accord with two different cars.

6 feet at 60 mph? If it ever came to that one is tailgating. 6 feet at 25 mph is another story.

joe97

But they test each car under similar (if not exactly the same) conditions.

kdshapiro

The problem with C&D is they apply a propietary algorithm to their results. Which means you never know the real number. The 6 feet, IMO, could be reversed in favor of the Accord if two different cars were used. Saying the 6 feet won by the Sonota, translates in a lifesaving 6 feet with *your* Sonota, just doesn't "compute". It is nice to know that stopping distances of the competitors are all within a close margin.

lahiri

Well, I like the Protege I will be trading in and that's why Mazda6 is in my shortlist. But I'm not impressed by 6's engines. Altima's engines, both 4 and 6 cyl, feel very strong and the car feels very nimble. Accord's okay except that I don't like the nose (it really needs a grill). Altima is currently at number #1. However, all these cars will soon be replaced by new models. If the new models are big improvements, I'll go for a new model. Otherwise, I'll opt for an outgoing model and save some. It depends. I'll make my decision a year from now.

backy

Sonata braked shorter than the Accord in C/D's comparo. Sonata braked shorter than the Accord in CR's comparo. Sonata braked shorter (15 feet!) than the Accord in MT's comparo. This is not a "statistical aberration" or due to some proprietary algorithm. The Sonata simply brakes better than the Accord. Consistently. I know it's hard for some people to admit that a lower-priced car is better than the Accord in some areas, but that's the facts. And the Accord is better than the Sonata in some areas. Personally, I consider differences of 6 to 15 feet at 60-0 significant. If you don't that's fine. Here's what the editors of MT had to say about the Accord's braking performance:

Perhaps the Accord's sorest point is middling grip displayed during our stopping tests--149 feet from 60 mph. "One forty nine?" was heard over the walkie-talkies. "You've got to be kidding." Here the finger points to the modestly sized Michelin Energy MXV4s, then back again at Honda for not asking Bibendum for grippier tires.

jrock65

I too, consider consistent tests of 6 to 15 feet less for 60-0 braking to be significant. That could translate into rear ending someone or not rear ending someone. And there are instances where 60-0 braking could be VERY important on a freeway (sudden traffic or accidents).

kdshapiro

I don't consider the number to be *different*. If it were 50 feet, that is a bit of a difference. I've never had a situation where 6 feet meant a lick of difference at 60+. Maybe because I never tailgate.

I have had situations where 6 feet meant the difference between a cruncher and not at 25 and lower.

We can *argue* the theoretical advantage of the comparos in the mags all day long, but as a potential buyer of all of these cars, I consider the comparos to be entertainment over scientific fact. In my view there is no advantage in the braking department. And 6 feet are neither scientific nor guaranteed.

Comparos in general are great for views of the cars and opinions. Maybe they point out something one didn't already know.

backy

Lucky for you no one has ever cut in front of you on a freeway, then slammed their brakes on. I hope that never happens to you, either. It's happened to me. (Probably because I wasn't tailgating and someone took the opportunity to slip into that space.) Six feet was very meaningful then--the difference betweeen no collision, and having the front end of my car five feet into the rear of the other car. Not theoretical, but very real.

Think of it this way: 15 feet is about one car length. At 60 mph, that's a lot of space to have in one's favor. I'd rather have that advantage than not have it.

kdshapiro

"I'd rather have that advantage than not have it."

Yes, I'm a rather good driver with a clean record for a bunch of years. Before someone cuts me off, I'm already braking.

I'm glad you *believe* that the braking advantage works to you in the Hyundai. It probably gives you more confidence in the car.

Having a car that is bigger and roomier, such as the Hyundai, which is an advantage if one needs the room, turns into a liability when trying to execute an emergency maneuver at 60 mph speeds.

I would rather not have the *supposed* 6 feet. And have a better feel of the road and be more confident of the cars handling in a emergency situation.

The ability to make an emergency maneuver safely could make the difference between living or dying, or driving away or being towed away.

There are trade-offs.

jimlockey

Still too many people looking for HP and 0 to 60. We all need to look for MPG too.

jeffyscott

Here the finger points to the modestly sized Michelin Energy MXV4s, then back again at Honda for not asking Bibendum for grippier tires.

As indicated, the "brake" test may have more to do with tires than brakes...but who wants to pay to replace the tires on a new car right away?

backy

Not quite sure what you mean re the Sonata's being roomier than the Accord being a liability. The Sonata is smaller outside than the Accord. In MT's tests, the Sonata was a hair faster than the Accord in the Figure 8 test and also a little faster in the 600-foot slalom. In C/D's emergency lane change test, the Accord was a hair faster than the Sonata. I don't see any liability there, or trade-off. I do see an advantage to the Sonata's standard stability control when executing emergency maneuvers at high speed.

njerald

You shouldn't confuse them with facts like that!!

scape2

"So what if his resale value is not better. Does it affect you? It was his money and not yours and you cannot dictate people on what would make them happy. Have a life man and let Ford take care of its media problem (if there is?). "

My whole point here, if you didn't get it is. Here is just one example of a person paying $4,750 more for a vehicle that has 40 more HP, MP3/Blue tooth, and stability control over another sedan, the only options my Fusion doesn't have. Is the $4,750 worth it? I guess to this guy it was. Now, You Toyota/Honda fans are alway going on and on about resale value. Doesn't initial price matter? or better yet lower financing costs matter? Yep, they do. I highly doubt my Fusion has depreciated $4,750 dollars in 3 months, and ontop of the the extra $3,000 I saved in financing.. Gee, I wonder why Toyota is making record profits.. I guess you get some people so whipped up they are willing to pay higher prices for a perceived advantage.. not me

louiswei

Well, I won't get into the resale values. That criteria was never in my decision making process. However if I know that spending 5K more would make me happier down the road I will do that. I'd rather to have a car that I really want than a car that I need to find reasons to justify of buying it.

lahiri

Has anyone driven/ test-driven Legacy? How does it compare to others in the market?

jeffyscott

I test drove a 2006 Legacy. I thought the seats were somewhat smallish (this is something I am very picky about) and the 4 speed automatic was substandard, since I can get a 5 speed in a number of other sedans.

I also thought it was kind of pricy, but AWD is not much of a factor for me.

jeffyscott

Gee, I wonder why Toyota is making record profits.. I guess you get some people so whipped up they are willing to pay higher prices for a perceived advantage.. not me

I wonder how Toyota will fare, if it turns out they have lost their "reliability" advantage?

(Toyota) is reviewing design, procurement, and other stages of car manufacturing, while looking more closely at complaints from buyers to reduce recalls and defects in production...Toyota has faced an increasing numbers of recalls...

Toyota May Delay Some New Models

backy

I wasn't that impressed by the Legacy. As noted, the seats are smallish but the biggest drawback IMO is that the back seat is cramped compared to several competitors. The ride was not as quiet and well-controlled as the Fusion or Sonata. The interior was nicely styled, but no better IMO than the Accord, Camry, or Milan. The main advantage I see to the Legacy is its AWD, but there is a fuel penalty to pay for that and with FWD and traction control available on many of the mid-sized sedans, I'm not sure I need AWD with the kind of urban driving I do 99% of the time.

bhmr59

I am saying the opposite. I don't like 0% APR or long warranties.

That seems odd to me. Assuming all else is equal, why wouldn't one favor 0% APR, paying it off in 3 or 4 years, whatever the terms are instead of paying cash, if one has the cash, or paying interest if one doesn't have the cash. I opted for the largest rebate rather than the reduced APR offered because "the numbers told me to do it."

Why wouldn't one want a long warranty? Why do many pay extra for an extended warranty?

I just don't understand your logic on this.

elroy5

My whole point here, if you didn't get it is. Here is just one example of a person paying $4,750 more for a vehicle that has 40 more HP, MP3/Blue tooth, and stability control over another sedan, the only options my Fusion doesn't have. Is the $4,750 worth it? I guess to this guy it was.

You don't seem to get the Camry buyer's point. He spent $4,750 more for the 40hp, MP3/Blue tooth, stability control, and because he wanted a Camry, and not a Fusion. Maybe the Camry's "smooth ride" is what he wanted. A smooth ride may not be a high priority for you or me, but for him, it was a major selling point. Different strokes...

louiswei

Or maybe he just wanted a Camry, plain and simple. Nothing wrong with that.

venus537

"This is what I meant by my saying it takes the media longer to catch on to what consumers are really saying about products and buying."

Actually, if anything, it's the media that's ahead of the curve, not the other way around.

Take the new Sonata, it could be argued that at least part of the car's success can be contributed to the good early reviews it received.

The Accord and Camry were receiving good marks from the car magazines long before they became the sales juggernauts they are today.

I'm not saying the media determines the goodness or badness of a particular car but if a car is receiving universal praise then more often than not the consumer will have the same opinion.

venus537

Subtle changes indeed. The car looks GOOD. I had nothing to fear afterall.

satire2

We have two Legacys currently - a 2.5i base wagon and a Legacy GT, which is the turbo. We owned the previous generation Camry (an SE V6) and an Accord V6.

I agree that the seats and the back seat areas are smaller than the Accord and the Camry, but those aren't a problem for us. In fact, we prefer slightly more compact midsizers, and the Legacy is more compact both inside and out.

The ride is distinctly sportier and better controlled than both the previous gen Camry and the Accord, and it is much quieter than the Accord. I can't address what Backy says about the comparison to the ride of the Sonata or the Ford Motor Company products, since we didn't test or own those.

We live in the snow belt, and get an average of over 200 inches a year, so all wheel drive is a no-brainer, and yet I agree that traction and stability control systems combined with front wheel drive and dedicated snow tires are nearly as good.

The Legacy interiors are as good as the Accord and better than the previous gen Camrys.

I'd suggest the Legacys are skewed toward sporty driving, particularly if you're not an oversized human or if you live north of the Mason-Dixon line, or if you want a normal station wagon-type body.

Overall, the Legacy is with the frontrunners in the Accord-Camry-Sonata-Fusion class. It just depends upon your wants, needs, desires, and pocketbook.

maxamillion1

Still not impressed with the interior.

baggs32

...or the exterior. What happened to Chrysler lately with designs? They seemed to be on a roll and then, BOOM, everything new is just average IMO.

louiswei

Center console has Honda Accord written all over it.

venus537

It doesn't look like the accord's at all.

louiswei

Not that V-shape design which extended to passenger side?

scape2

$4,750 is a bit extreme for the excuses some gave me..
Maybe the person "just wanted the Camry". "smooth ride" Face it.. this person spent way too much for a perceived advantage.

Looks like there are cracks in Toyotas armor..

Heck, In the past I have come down on Honda for its prices.. I should have looked at the prices of the Camry.. Yeeeouch!...

backy

The V is reminiscent of the Accord, but it just doesn't have the quality look of the Accord's dash. Maybe it's all the faux aluminum trim. (Assuming it's not real brushed aluminum, if so it still looks cheap to me.)

The door panels remind me of updated versions of the doors on my first drive, the '66 Dodge Coronet. Very angular. Maybe that is intentional... the Nostalgia Factor?

louiswei

$4,750 is a bit extreme for the excuses some gave me..

LOL

I really don't think that I need to give you "excuses" if I want to spent MY extra 5K to get the car that I desired. Please tell me what's wrong with a person just want a Camry or an Accord, plain and simple.

jaxs1

What is the hatchback vehicle behind it?
It still looks bad outside even though that is a more flattering angle than previous photos. Instrument panel looks like an Altima.
Interior looks so-so, maybe better lighting and a different color and trim would look better.
Maybe the exterior would look ok in the right color if you look at it from the right angle and squint your eyes, but I'm pretty sure Chrysler really messed up the design of the car.
I think there will be a big percentage of fleet sales to car rental companies or else this will be a complete sales flop.

venus537

"Looks like there are cracks in Toyotas armor.."

Some cracks, Toyota can sell a Camry for $4750 more than a Fusion.

Let me see if I got this straight, anyone willing to spend more money on a comparable sedan than your precious Fusion is being hoodwinked by "perceived" advantages. Okay, I got it. Thanks.

ctalk

The interior is quite nice. But the huge splash of faux metallic trim is starting to annoy me. Similar to the Accord's "V" design. But the Accord still has a better look IMO. I also think the Accord's faux metallic trim looks more "real".

ctalk

What is the hatchback vehicle behind it?

The Chrysler Pacfica? (To the left of the Sebring)

louiswei

That would be my guess as well.

zzzoom6

if you're talking about the legacy gt, that car is a blast to drive. personally, I found handling a touch more vague than the 6 (which I own), but much much better than the altima which i'd best describe as "boat-ish". there is a bit too much body lean in cornering though. the aftermarket can address all these issues without spending a lot (relatively) and these mods would make this package better than what you could do with any other car in this class.

the turbo power of that thing is awesome. awd, which is very handy in weather like we have in the NW, is also very helpful for accelerating out of corners quicker.

no traction control until you get into the spec B is a minus. brakes suck (especially compared to the 6 - which does beat most cars in 60-0 #'s). it is pretty small, especially in the back seat. gas mileage is pretty bad. i thought it was pretty quiet, but then I bought the 6, so road noise is not something that bothers me.

the cars i was considering was the altima, accord, rsx, legacy, and the 6. in other words, i was looking for something fun to drive. straight line speed was secondary to handling. the short list was the 6 and the legacy gt. the 6 got the nod for a few reasons...looks, warranty, 5k, handling, backseat space. if you want something a lot more mellow than your protege, the legacy should be something you try. but the true driver's car would be the 6 imo.

backy

No, I was talking about the non-turbo Legacy.

I prefer the Mazda6 to the Legacy myself. Even in base form the 6 a good-looking, great-handling mid-sized car, with a bigger back seat than the Legacy (although still tighter than the likes of the Camry, Fusion, and Sonata). And it's much less expensive than the Legacy--starting price around here for a 6i stick is around $16k.

P.S. I don't own a Protege. Nice car, but a little too firm a ride for my taste.