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.
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
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The tests are far from perfect, but they are the best we have at the moment. They are far better than nothing.
Thank you for making the point I was about to make!
I've been in crashes too, in one I was rear-ended at about 5 MPH, the other, a frontal impact into a guardrail (in which I was actually skidding sideways, effectively "dragging" and bouncing the front of my car along the rail. Not a testable procedure, really, I agree. But like bobad said so effectively and simply, right now, those tests are the best we have to work with right now.
-Cj
I would question the logic of buying a 2 seater car in general if I knew I would have more than one passenger. I agree with the premise however, as "the future" had a great deal to do with my purchase decision.
Ride, size, and the power-to-economy compromise to name a few?
Seems to me you made a huge generalization that Hyundais' fit and finish is better than BMWs because of one car. I'm not saying a manufacturer can't produce a bad car. The lord knows, you can pay $500K for a Ferrari that spends its' life in the shop.
I've seen the blue and have not noticed what you are referring to. It possibily could be that I am blind because it's a BMW.
That is correct, for frontal tests. But side tests can be compared across classes because a stationary car is hit by the same sled at the same speed in every case.
I am not sure what you mean though by an Odyssey not faring nearly as well as a Fit in the same crash situation. If the Ody hit a Fit head-on and the Fit hit another Fit head-on, I think I'd rather be in the Ody.
I didn't mean the Ody would fare worse, I meant the Fit would. Sorry if that was misconstrued. I agree with YOUR statement, the Ody would be safer (more mass).
real world may be a whole lot different.
lab tests try to focus on one situation to the exclusion of all others. it may not translate well into actual crashes.
A Honda Odyssey with a 5-star rating will likely not fare nearly as well as a Honda Fit with a 5-star crash rating in the same crash situation.
But it could have been mis-constructed.
My point originally should've been that a larger 5-star vehicle will likely have better protection than a compact 5-star rated car, despite the same "5-Star" protection.
I'm gonna sign out for awhile and regather my brainpower before reposting! LOL
Sorry!
thegrad
Your math seems a little inaccurate here. Are you sure about that 45 mpg you reported? How many miles was that trip? How many gallons did you consume, assuming you started with a full tank and then filled up at the end of the trip in order to get an accurate calculation?
Please don't tell us you calculated fuel consumption by the gas guage readings.
I made no generalization at all. I was very careful to say that the paint on my particular Sonata was far better than that particular BMW's paint. Maybe BMW's paint robots had an off day. Hey, someone brought this subject up and I made the mistake of jumping in. Well, I'm jumping out now, because I don't have a dog in this hunt at all.
Still no argument here. Again, I'm just trying to point out what I've noticed from years of participating in forums like these. People tend to view crash test results as the end all be all to a vehicle's safety. Things like "my car is safer than yours" are said frequently and just aren't true for the vehicle as a whole as far as we know. A 5-star vehicle has only been proven to be safer than a 4-star vehicle in one crash that 99.9999% of the population is never going to reproduce. It all goes back to the "too many factors" statement. A $2.50 steel brace can turn an "A" rating into a "G" from one year to the next but it doesn't make any other part of the vehicle any safer and that's another way these ratings fail.
Having said that, there are certain things I look for when evaluating a vehicle's crash test scores. I would hesitate to buy a vehicle with a poor rating or one with two stars or less. Usually those have some serious structural integrity issues which are clearly shown in the test vieos.
You guys are right that it is not possible to show us more scenarios and that's fine. I just feel that the consumer is being misled by the scores in most cases. I dare say that a pass/fail rating system might make more sense. A system that shows us the actual measurements would be the best way to show results IMO but that would be too confusion to most people. But it would show how slight the difference between the IIHS "G" and "A" or the NHTSA 5-star and 4-star ratings can be. The rating system they use makes the difference look huge.
Maybe the 07 Optima will make a better impression. I'm renting one next week.
Absolutely not. I am a Honda lover, from my lawn mower, to generator, to motorcycle, to car. The truck is next (maybe suv). Hondas have never let me down. I will continue to buy them, until one does.
The NHTSA does provide the actual measurements for anyone interested in reading them.
As for the real-world implications of crash tests:
"Most people think that the majority of crashes are with other vehicles, but a lot of the most severe crashes are single-vehicle crashes, so the results are more relevant than you might think," says the IIHS's Lund. According to NHTSA's statistics, about half of all occupant fatalities in 2003 (the most recent statistics available at press time) were from single-vehicle collisions.
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/43804/article.html
My dad is like that with tires, he only buys Michelins, and would never ever buy Firestone (maybe thats not such a bad idea). Not so with cars, though, he is all over the map lol.
Where? I don't see that at all. All I see are remarks about which car did better or worse on the tests. Give the folks credit, We know the tests are imperfect, but they're the best metric the average person has at this time.
The crash tests would have to be done with a variety of impacting shapes and angles to be collectively meaningful. Otherwise they're sticking a wet finger in the air to see which way it blows on that one particular car being tested. IMHO 3 cars of each should be tested for side and for frontal impact studies to be meaningful at the shallow level of testing being done. Note I'm not saying they should ignore the tests, but I feel it's like political polls, they can be misconstrued and can be wrong by the general public...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Way to pigeonhole people Elroy. Just keep on with your condescending manner and blatant snobbery.
You think you know me, but you don't know diddly poo about me and other Hyundai owners. You'll grow up one day and realize that a car doesn't make you a big shot, more handsome, or smarter. Some day you'll realize that car you love does not love you back.
The '04 Optima was essentially the same as an '04 Sonata.
You probably already knew that, but if not, I hope it does not influence your opinion of the car.
All my Hondas love me. They show it by making my life easier.
My weed whaker (not a Honda, and the highest rated by CR) sucks, however. The motor part is okay, its the clutch on the shaft that fails.
I digress, but while Honda is the worlds largest engine maker (they make the most, not the biggest, since they don't even have a V8 in the flagship), I have been well served by others as well.
But it would show how slight the difference [is] between the IIHS "G" and "A"
... some times. Furthermore, in some cases, the "G" and A" are the reverse of the overall injury risk in the specific crash simulated in the test. This is because the overall rating is derived from the category ratings (for head, torso, etc.,) using an if-then-else-type scheme rather than computing the overall injury risk.
The same problem exists with the way the IIHS combines the scores from the three tests to determine "Gold" and "Silver" awards.
When you can make V6 engines with 300 hp, a V8 is unnecessary. Bigger, is not always better. That's why Honda is the most "fuel efficient" car company.
Back on topic, Honda does not need a V8, I agree. Acura does, espeically in the RL and its next NSX, to make a dent in respective classes.
van
Yes but they are not advertised like the stars are. You have to dig for them a bit.
Incorrect. I think it has a little something to do with them producing zero full-size sedans, only one "pickup truck", one compact SUV crossover and one mid size SUV. Where is their competition for the Avalon, Tundra, Land Cruiser, Sequoia, 4-Runner, and FJ Cruiser? IMO - just because you choose not to participate in producing competitive autos in certain classes, that shouldn't give you any titles.
I'd be curious to see which of the two would hold that title if the fuel efficiency of the toyotas above were removed from the equation.
The Spectra and Elantra are very closely related, however.
IIHS web site has a publication with driver death rates for 1999-2002 model cars. Of the six models of 4 door midsize cars with death rates under 60, half scored "good" and half "acceptable" in their frontal crash test. No vehicle, in this class, with a "good" rating had death rate above 60.
For those with death rates over 100, 3 out of 5 had "poor" rating the other 2 were "acceptable". There were no "poor" ratings among those with death rate under 100, for this class of vehicle.
However, I would disagree with elroy5 that Honda makes the best V6. I think Honda currently is leading in the technology of the 4 bangers and their V6s are top notch but definitely not class leading. IMO Nissan is the class leader with their award-winning VQ series and Toyota is catching up quickly with their own award-winning 2GR-FSE engine. As for the inline-6 I think BMW is still hands down the best of them all.
Acura dosen't "go against" Lexus or BMW. Maybe Infiniti. Over half of Acura sales are from Accord-based models (TSX and TL) which are FWD platforms ( most Lexus, all BMW and all Infiniti are RWD) loaded with performance, comfort, and electronic features for $10,000 or less than these other makes.
I think it's a testimony to Honda/Acura engineering and appeal when a $31K TL is considered in the same league as a $40K+ BMW or Lexus. The market has decided the TL belongs in that comparo, but I doubt Acura decided that as well. They just make the car and let others decide where to put it.
Acura might need a V8 cause the current RL isn't exactly the flagship model it could be. But even the RL can be had for $41K. A comparably priced 5 series is what? $55K?
Where does the refinement and performance end?
You're right about BMW and Infiniti (being RWD based). However, most Lexus sales are not RWD platforms. The ES and RX are based on the FWD Camry platform. These 2 models account for 57% of all Lexus sales.
And Acura definitely does go against Lexus for certain models. The TL is cross-shopped with both the ES and the IS. The RL is cross-shopped with the GS. The MDX is cross-shopped with the RX.
What Acura lacks is a proper LS competitor, and competitors to the Lexus trucks (GX, LX).
IMHO, the FWD Lexus/Acuras are for people who want something swankier (or sportier in the case of the TSX) than a CamCordSion.
When one pays close to DOUBLE for a BMW compared to many other makes and models in the same size class, not only does it have to be the "ultimate driving machine", but ALSO the "ultimate paint job" and the "ultimate" everything else.
I would not expect a Hyundai driver to appreciate a "driver's car" though.
Just like I wouldn't expect a HonDUH worshipper to realize that there's a lot of other car models that are just as good, if not BETTER, than Honda.
I apologize to other Honda owners out there, but geez, could you be any more arrogant and ignorant?
Moving on...
Does it say which occupants died? If they are only referring to driver deaths then of course it will correlate because that's what the IIHS tests focus on. Driver safety.
This is one of the few marketing 'ooops' Honda has made over the last several years.
Honda was known as the world's best engine maker, probably for two reasons. One, its engines won many F1 championships in the 80's. Two, its passenger SOHC engines were more powerful than DOHC engines from competitors, principally Toyota and Nissan. But those days are long gone.
Now Honda has a F1 team. It has trouble earning points, meaning fifth, sixth, and worse. Never mind winning races and championships. Yes, it still wins Indycar, which is not to be confused with F1!
Its SOHC engines can no longer compete with Toy and Nissan. Case in point: 3.5 SOHC in TLS makes 280 hp, same as MB C350. But the engines in IS350 and G35 make a little more than 300. G35 coupe reportedly will make 330. It's time for Honda to switch to DOHC if it wants to keep up.
Does it say which occupants died?
Uh...the driver...hence the reference to driver death rates.