Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options

Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

1135136138140141235

Comments

  • eagle2aeagle2a Member Posts: 97
    Oracle: Said "you get what you pay for." quoting others. I have heard this all my life and I disagree. If you change the sentence to read, "You SHOULD get what you pay for" I will agree with this adage. But that is the whole deal is it not? And why we come to boards like this to hear what others are actual experiencing.

    My experience so far with my 06 GLS I4 auto has been great. But only several years of driving will tell me definitively if it is as good as my 1992 Honda Accord.

    In the interim you will just have to gamble like the rest of us. But my guess was, and is, that it is a very good car!

    Good Luck! :)
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    I have to agree. The materials are NICE IMO, not quite Camcord levels, but nice. I think the design is incohesive though. It lacks any form of style in this class.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    You'll want to read up in the Hyundai Sonata 2006+ discussion as well. Good luck and let us know how it goes.
  • bobadbobad Member Posts: 1,587
    The 06 Sonata is by no means new. The platform is now 17 months old in th eUSA, and a bit older worldwide. There have been no major problems with this car, and unusually few minor complaints. Mine is 8 months old, and has 7K miles. I am very pleased with the car, and have absolutely no regrets. It still doesn't have a single squeek or rattle. If S&R were going to be a major problem, I think they would have shown up by now. The engine is a real gem. It was developed by Hyundai, Daimler-Chrysler, and Dana as a "300K mile engine", whatever that means.

    Some 06 V6 Sonata's (including mine) have a "k-thunking" noise in the rear suspension when running over potholes. Hyundai is developing a simple fix for it by replacing the rear shock bushings. I'm waiting on my dealer to call me when the bushings are in. Once fixed, my car will be flawless. The 06 4cyl and none of the 07's have this suspension noise.

    If you can get a V6 for near the price I got mine ($16,600+TT&L) then it's by far the best buy in its class.
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    "Motor Trend about the Aurora. With the top o' the line V6... it only beats the "underpowered" Fusion by .2, Yes folks.. .2 seconds.. that is with a 25HP advantage! Looks like the little 3.0 in the Fusion is really no slouch after all!"

    Whoa there. Have these cars tested at the same time under the same road conditions and I'll guarantee you the difference will be more than 0.2 seconds.
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    Attention to detail is high on my priority list too.

    Here are my rankings for interiors:

    Passat/Jetta
    Camry
    Accord
    Sonata
    Milan/Fusion
    Altima (current model)

    I like what I see from photos of the new Altima but I haven't seen the car in person. The Aura is another new car I haven't seen in person yet. The interior of the new cirrus doesn't look promising from photos I have seen.
  • cxccxc Member Posts: 122
    "Oracle of Omaha" (Warren Buffett) and Ben Graham believe that you can get a lot of more for a given amount of money by carefully choosing unpopular and undervalued “cars”.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Did they mention you can get even more out of a given amount of money if you buy one of those unpopular/undervalued cars as a slighly used car? ;)
  • mfletou1mfletou1 Member Posts: 508
    All this talk about an "Aurora" made me wonder if Oldsmobile had been rekindled (never should have been killed in the first place).

    In a way, though, the Aura is sort of what the next gen Intrigue would have been, so I suppose its a fitting mixup. The Intrigue was, imo, the best looking GM midsize ever put together. For a while, I really loved it (great engine, transmission, good driving dynamics), but, alas, the reliability bug began to bit it, and when it rained, it poured. Like a pretty girl you fall for and it turns out she sleeps around on you, but you can't quite let it go. After 4 years I did, and got my Camry Hybrid.
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Member Posts: 992
    The fusion v6 is a good v6. I have 3 questions about it though.

    1)Why is it soo loud and clunky sounding when accelerating(louder than sonata, accord, camry, aura)?

    2)If the 3lv6 in the fusion is soo good, why did the change the v6 in the MKZ(aka Zypher) to 3.5l?

    3)Why is everybody comparing the fusions 0-60 times so competitively when the fusion weighs soo much less than the competitors?

    If someone loads the fusion up to the weight of the accord, then the 3l v6 will feel completely different.

    The Fusion's interior is ok but the milans is better.

    -cj :)
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "1)Why is it soo loud and clunky sounding when accelerating(louder than sonata, accord, camry, aura)?

    Loud maybe, clunky? no..

    May want to take a look at the weight of the cars you mentioned. Not a whole lot of difference between Accord/Fusion..
    You miss the whole point here. The 3.0 Duratec V6 with VVT is the smallest, lowest HP, lowest torque engine in this class of vehicles. Yet, some cars with 20-40HP more only best the Fusion in 0-60 by tenths of a second. Most will look at HP/Torque ratings and immediatly feel the Fusion is "underpowered" when in truth it isn't. What is going to happen when Ford does put the 3.5 in the Fusion/Milan? Game on! ;)
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "Whoa there. Have these cars tested at the same time under the same road conditions and I'll guarantee you the difference will be more than 0.2 seconds. "

    What do you mean here? Are you saying the Aurora was tested in the rain or snow? Fusion was tested on a nice dry track? Pleeeese.. Just take the numbers and swallow them with a little water... :P
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "3)Why is everybody comparing the fusions 0-60 times so competitively when the fusion weighs soo much less than the competitors?

    If someone loads the fusion up to the weight of the accord, then the 3l v6 will feel completely different."

    I did the research for you on weights of the vehicles..

    1. Ford Fusion 3,101
    2. Honda Accord 3,128
    3. Hyundia Sonata 3,253
    4. Nissan Altima 4,202
    5. Toyota Camry 3,262

    As you can see the majority of these are within 100 lbs or so of the Fusion. Your argument of the Fusion weighing so much less doesn't hold up well. Also, you ask that the Fusion be "loaded with weight" Well, should this be fair and the Honda/Toyota/Saturn, whichever be loaded with the same amount of weight? 5 adults, luggage whichever....?? :shades:
    Just face the facts. The little 3.0 in the Fusion holds its own. Granted its not the "BEST" but for having the lowest HP/Torque in its class.. it does just fine.. ;)
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Member Posts: 992
    Just for the record, you might want to check your numbers.

    Fusion: 3,280lbs Sel v6
    Accord: 3,435lbs Ex v6
    Camry: 3,516lbs Xle v6
    Aura: 3,647lbs Xr 3.6 v6
    Sonata: 3,458lbs Limited v6
    Altima: 3,377lbs SE-R v6
    Passat: 3,576lbs 3.6 v6

    Heres my link! For altima and passat take off one and add it.

    I didn't know ford added AWD to the 2007 fusion as an option. I didn't compare the weight of the AWD fusion. Every pound makes a difference. Trust me, you'll feel the difference. Until ford does add a 3.5l v6 to the fusion, nothing else (other than AWD) will change the performance.

    -Cj :P
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    "What do you mean here? Are you saying the Aurora (Aura?) was tested in the rain or snow? Fusion was tested on a nice dry track?"

    What do I mean? I have seen 0-60 times for the Accord range from 6.6 to 8.0 and such variances for other mid-size cars. So if you pick and choose your times carefully you can make the Accord look pretty bad.

    Wouldn't you agree the best way to compare acceleration times would be at the same time by the same people with the same testing equipment? We'll see who'll be swallowing the numbers if and when the Fusion and Aura are both involved in a comparison test. I'll swallow ALL the numbers in the universe if the difference is 0.02 seconds or less.
  • bobadbobad Member Posts: 1,587
    Thank you! I knew those weights weren't right.

    0-60 times are mostly a product of engine power, gearing, and overall car weight. It is what it is. No excuses. One can't excuse a car for being slower in the 0-60 because the engine is smaller or the car is heavier. Excuses don't make the car faster.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I agree. That's why I tend to pull my numbers from one specific article when I do comparisons (when possible). The last 2 comparison tests I read both had the Accord at 0-60 = 6.6sec, Fusion 7.2sec (one may have been 7.4 sec, will have to check)... Is this terrible? No. The Accord is faster, but not terribly so.

    If anything, the bigger difference here is smoothness/sweetness/loudness of the engines in comparison with each other.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,928
    "3)Why is everybody comparing the fusions 0-60 times so competitively when the fusion weighs soo much less than the competitors?

    If someone loads the fusion up to the weight of the accord, then the 3l v6 will feel completely different."

    I did the research for you on weights of the vehicles..

    1. Ford Fusion 3,101
    2. Honda Accord 3,128


    Your data is inaccurate, biased, and misleading. You are comparing the V6 Fusion weight to the 4 cylinder 2.4L Accord. No fair. Add about 225 lbs for the 3.0 V6 VTEC Honda Engine.
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "One can't excuse a car for being slower in the 0-60 because the engine is smaller or the car is heavier. Excuses don't make the car faster."

    Thank-you! Granted I was off by not using the V6's weight, but.. still the weights are only a few hundred pounds.. the extra 20-40HP and 20-40ft/lbs of torque the other cars output over the V6 in the Fusion should more than make that up! Gee, I wonder what is going to happen when/if the Fusion gets the 3.5? Smokin!! :shades:
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    I guess I am trying to understand your logic of "weighing down the Fusion"? If anything Ford has balanced out power/weight to sedan size pretty well. Why would you want to weigh the sedan down in order to compete?
    And.. the sedans in this class have HP and torque advantages over the Fusion as it is with the additional weight they carry?? Don't you think with their advantage of both HP and Torque this should more than make up the weight differences?? After all some have as much as a 40 HP advantage and a 50 ft/lb torque advantage. Yet, the little 3.0 holds it own by tenths of a second!! I say great job Ford! :P
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    After all some have as much as a 40 HP advantage and a 50 ft/lb torque advantage. Yet, the little 3.0 holds it own by tenths of a second!! I say great job Ford!

    Well, to be fair to the Camry (the only real competitor in here with a 40+hp advantage (47 to be exact), it ran the 0-60 in 6.1 seconds, much more than a few "tenths" of a second quicker than the Fusion (which I've always seen in the low-mid 7s).

    Where Ford obviously did the best was by taking a lot of its styling cues from its 427 (i think!) concept car. This car has lots of style, but it wasn't enough to overcome the interior for me, or I'd be driving one; I think it's better looking than my car on the outside, no doubt. But I felt like my car really shines inside, where it doesn't look dated to me, which is impressive after 4 years on the model cycle. The Fusion, OTOH, looked dated when it came out IMO (the green gauges are reminescent of my 1996 Accord, and the ergonomics aren't as good as that same 1996 either). Just my personal opinion.
  • chrisfordchrisford Member Posts: 55
    The Fusion, OTOH, looked dated when it came out IMO (the green gauges are reminescent of my 1996 Accord

    I wouldn't think a buying a car without green gauges. Green is the most none distracting color you can have on gauges. Why do you think the military uses green display on most if not all weapons system? Green is easier on the eye, which is what you want from car gauges.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Red is the next color away from invisibility (infrared), and is the longest wavelength and least intense(approx 380 on a spectroscope). Red would be most ideal at night because it requires the least adjustment of the eyes from darkness, from a scientific standpoint.

    I personally have green (96 Accord) and white (2006 Accord)... both cars are legible, but the 1996 LOOKS like a 10 year old design, and isn't nearly as clear to read as my new-car gauges. It's just my picky nature probably, but I like having something that looks newer when I'm buying a 'new' car. I don't want it to be real comparable to my 11 year old car.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    The 3.0 Duratec V6 with VVT is the smallest, lowest HP, lowest torque engine in this class of vehicles. Yet, some cars with 20-40HP more only best the Fusion in 0-60 by tenths of a second.

    This is only part of the picture though. The Accord's V6 is the same size as the Fusion's engine (3.0L), but it out performs it in every way imaginable. Smoothness, power, torque, and fuel efficiency. It's just a better overall engine. Ford simply doesn't have the technology to make an engine as refined as the Accord's V6, or I4 for that matter.

    What is going to happen when Ford does put the 3.5 in the Fusion/Milan?

    They may catch up in power and torque, but fuel mileage will really suffer then. If you're going to gain 30 hp, at the expense of 5-10 mpg, it's not a good trade-off, IMO.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    I suggest you stop speculating on an engine (the upcoming Ford 3.5) for which final horsepower, torque, and EPA mileage figures have not even been issued yet for any vehicle it will be installed into. There is enough misinformation floating around on engines for which the ratings are available.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    From www.lincoln.com:

    The 3.5L engine will make 263 @6250 RPM horsepower, 249 lb-ft of torque @4800 RPMin the Lincoln MKZ (Zephyr). The EPA estimates fuel economy at 19/27, with 18/26 for AWD models.

    The MKZ is the same basic vehicle as the Fusion/Milan, so if the Fulan got the 3.5L, it looks like Fuel Economy would drop from its current level of 20/28.

    That said, those EPA numbers won't blow anybody away if in the midsize class (most of which offer numbers better than this).
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    I suggest you stop speculating on an engine

    Honda makes better engines than Ford ( I4, or V6 ). That's not speculation, or misinformation. That is the plain truth.
  • averigejoeaverigejoe Member Posts: 559
    when ford gets around to putting a 3.5 in a fusion, maybe the competition will have 3.9's in theirs. kinda senseless to compare cars which have not even been for sale yet
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    Yes, but Edmunds spec's on the MKZ list it at 3533 lbs, significantly heavier than current Fusion/Milan, so what the exact weight, performance and EPA mileage will be in a 3.5 equipped Fusion is all just speculation at this point.

    Besides, I find all these arguments about a few percentage points of torque or horsepower or EPA mileage differences of generally 1-3 MPG all a bit stupid. Almost all "normal" drivers who have driven any midsized car with a 200 HP or more engine would likely be hard pressed to require much more. Just try running your Honda Accord to redline every time you accelerate to get into the range of utilizing that 244 HP and see what kind of mileage you will actually obtain.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    The best value of all...

    Buying a good reliable vehicle 3 yrs into its 15 yr lifespan will save the astute buyer 25-50% of the original price.
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Member Posts: 992
    I'm speculating that honda will either bump the accord up to the 258hp 3.2l v6 as in the tl or the 280hp 3.5l v6 as used in the Rl or Tl type-s. Significantly better than the 225 from the fusions v6. Honda may make the I-4 accord go up to 170hp. Thats right there with my 12year old v6 accord! Ford will definitely have to hurry then. The 2008 accord is like christmas; Right around the corner...

    Hopefully honda will resurrect, clean up, and use the old ATTS (Active Torque Transfer System) from the old prelude(1997-2002) so the accord (at least v6) wont have the TL and TL-s torque-steer. Atts will make the accord sportier and expand the competition line to include the g35, Cts, ect. Atts gave birth to what we know as Sh-awd (Super Handling All Wheel Drive) on the sportier acura models; Rl, 07Mdx, and Rdx. A diesel is also what I expect from honda as well within the next 3 years. If not a hybrid 4cyl will do ;) !

    -Cj
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Just try running your Honda Accord to redline every time you accelerate to get into the range of utilizing that 244 HP and see what kind of mileage you will actually obtain.

    The whole point of having the V6 Accord is you don't have to run the engine to redline, to get good acceleration. And the extra power is there, when you do need it. The Accord V6 will get better mpg, in either case, than the Fusion V6. "Choice" is good, but "VTEC" is better.
  • wildman63wildman63 Member Posts: 27
    In the "good old days" us aviators wore red goggles around the ship prior to night flying. Instrument lighting was all red as were the flight deck flood lights, to "preserve night vision".

    The Navy switched over to low level white floodlights for improved depth perception. For the record, pilots are not supposed to look at the deck (just keep in in their "scan") and concentrate on the glide slope "meatball" and deck centerline. Instrument lighting has transitioned to LOW LEVEL white lighting in aircraft. The trick is to minimize the level of lights on the instruments. Remember, you're driving using "Visual Flight Rules".

    The color of the lighting is a factor, but lighting level is much more important. Dim those instrument lights.
  • bobadbobad Member Posts: 1,587
    My Audi had red gages, and I really liked them. Blue is probably my favorite, but I bet it's hard on the eyes at night.
  • ontopontop Member Posts: 279
    Hard on the eyes? Huh? The TL's blue lighting is sublime.
  • ontopontop Member Posts: 279
    VTEC" is better

    No doubt. Look at the engines in the Indy 500 cars. All Hondas. Ford's engines in the Mazda 6 are that car's downfall.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    Ford's engines in the Mazda 6 are that car's downfall.

    Obviously, you've never driven a 6 with the V6. Not only is the power pretty linear, but it's neither louder, nor any rougher, than any Honda V6 I've ever driven. Granted, I'm biased, because I bought one, but I liked the Honda V6 in the Accord as well, I really did. I just couldn't justify the extra $2K sticker for a similar-equipped car to my 6, or the fact that it cornered like a boat.

    OTOH, handling may not be what ALL midsize car buyers are looking for, but neither is power, considering that the majority of Accord, Camry, and even 6 sales are 4-cyl models. Why bother fighting over 0-60 times and HP numbers for 4-DOOR SEDANS anyway?
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,602
    My '05 Sonata has read pointers for the instruments as did my '91 Chrysler. My prior car, '84 New Yorker had green digital dash/instruments. '71 Volvo had white on black pointers. I can't remember the instrumentation for the cars I had before '71.

    However, I don't understand who you think one color makes a car look "newer." Maybe you just mean "different"?

    Personnaly I like the red. It was easy to see with the top down ('91 Chry.) and is easy on the eyes at night.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    Personnaly I like the red. It was easy to see with the top down ('91 Chry.) and is easy on the eyes at night.

    The Mazda6 is my second car with red gauges, and I like them. They feel easier on my eyes as well, unlike the green in my wife's Neon. I can't drive her car at night without a bit of eye-strain after long trips. The VW blue works for me as well.
  • tallman1tallman1 Member Posts: 1,874
    I've got to agree with thegrad on this one. I drive a lot of rental cars so I've seen a lot of dashes but when I first saw the 06 Accord's white lights (even during the day) I was knocked out.

    I remember that the fiber optics on my new 1980 Datsun 200SX also blew me away when I first saw them at night. That was pretty cool... some version of orange, I believe. :shades:
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 20,723
    how about formala 1?
    2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Member Posts: 992
    "Why bother fighting over 0-60 times and HP numbers for 4-DOOR SEDANS anyway?"

    Lets say you have a family of four, and own a 130hp sedan. You and your spouse decides to go on the trip. Everyone knows how the majority of women over pack for the occasion most of the time and take up most of the cargo room. As you squeeze everything else into the trunk and go, your car will feel taxed. Try accelerating and boy it will take forever. And if you're late and rushing... Forget it!! LOL!! Thats where having those extra horses will come in handy in a family sedan. You haven't lived in a rush-rush area have you?

    "Its better to have them, than to need them and not have them" my dad always says. ;)

    -Cj :P
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 20,723
    the sedans being compared here have way more than 130 hp.
    my focus has 14x hp, and can drive up any hill in 5th gear with no problem. no vacation gear packed though. we wouldn't take a sedan with 4 pepople in it on vacation anyway.
    2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    OTOH, handling may not be what ALL midsize car buyers are looking for, but neither is power, considering that the majority of Accord, Camry, and even 6 sales are 4-cyl models.

    Even though I have a family sedan, I still want some power, for passing and merging. Handling is not all that important to me. Driving around town, the 4-cyls are great (gas mileage), but out on the highway the V6 shines.
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Member Posts: 992
    elroy5 said what i meant in post 7199!

    -cj :P
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    However, I don't understand who you think one color makes a car look "newer." Maybe you just mean "different"?

    I should rephrase what I said, because it wasn't as clear as it could've been :) .

    Relative to my green gauges in my 1996 Accord, the 2006 Accord's instrument panel is a lot more bold and crisp, even with the dimness turned way down (like it currently is in my car). Even in daylight, the gauges are more vivid and easy to see than basic gauges.

    When I said the car seemed newer, dare I say, I meant more "trendy" or up to date?
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    Considering that the vast majority of sedan owners are commuting back and forth to work or school, with only one person in the car, the "taxed" 4-cyl will still do it's job, without drama, even in the "rush-rush" areas. Chances are a family of four in this day and age will be taking a trip in a SUV, minivan, or even a wagon, which uses similar V6s to the sedans, but IN A LARGER PACKAGE (ie, bulkier, heavier, less nimble), and they don't seem to have a problem with accelerating and keeping up with traffic, even when fully loaded.

    And yes, I live in a "rush-rush" area. That's why I bought a V6, but my "pathetic" 220 HP can easily keep up with the 260-270 HP Hondas, Toyotas, and Nissans in heavy traffic. But once again, the majority of those vehicles on the road are 4-cyl models anyway, so again, it's not an issue.

    Again, these are FAMILY SEDANS. If you're worried about HP and 0-60 times, get a Mustang or 'Vette.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    >That's why I bought a V6, but my "pathetic" 220 HP can easily keep up with the 260-270 HP Hondas, Toyotas

    It's the torque values in the usable, actual driving speed ranges that makes a car feel and drive better. The peak horsepower can be greatly manipulated and isn't very useful. Your car, and the gearing used, may be more useable than the others.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    how about formala 1?

    BMW, MB/McLaren, Ferrari, Toyota, Honda. Not sure if Audi and Prosche have engines in F1 but wouldn't be surprised if they do. Last time I checked Ford (as well as GM) doesn't have an engine for F1.

    This is already off-topic but here's the breakdown:

    Indy: Honda

    NASCAR: Chevy, Ford, Dodge and Toyota (currently in Truck series, will enter the Cup series in 2007)

    F1: BMW, MB/McLaren, Ferrari, Toyota, Honda, Porsche(?), Audi(?)

    Champ Car: Honda, Toyota, Chevy and Ford.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    My car gives me 125 different gauge colors to choose from with the touch of a button. You may all be jealous now. :P

    Dash colors.

    I have it set to #115 right now and really like it. But it is a bit bright at night and kind of hides the high beam indicator as they are roughly the same color. I'm thinking of switching to something like 431 or 531 next.

    Unfortunately the center stack with the radio and HVAC controls does stay green with the exception of the temp dial's hot/cold markings. I don't mind the green though. I had red in the 6 and found it a bit overbearing and we had white in our Civic which didn't seem bright enough. I like the blues and greens that are out right now the best I guess. Not sure what my dad's new Zephyr's gauge colors are or I'd comment on those for comparison sake with the Fusion.
This discussion has been closed.