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
So you are already attesting to the reliability of the Edge and asking US to take our head out of the sand? How many Edges have you seen on the road???
Agree with you on the original Taurus, whatever happened to it down the line? Maybe the Coutour didn't sell (though I see a lot of them even today) could be many reasons (pricing? positioning? etc) that doesn't mean they just stop making/selling good cars here. I always feel cheated that a US company does not sell its best cars here. After driving the current Mondeo, I would gladly buy it over my Accord (given everything on the Mondeo remains the same). But Ford has never till recently been concerned about car buyers here, just SUVs, trucks and they are therefore suffering. I have no sympathy for them.
My point is, Ford would have done much better had it released the redesigned Focus here (they completely skipped a design cycle for the US) as well as the Mondeo.
Now I don't know anything about Ford's GQRS (Global Quality Research System) year end survey, but here are the numbers:
The rankings reflect things gone wrong per 1,000 vehicles at three months service.
Dodge Stratus 1,066
Chevy Malibu 1,073
Milan 1,149
Fusion 1,172
Toyota Camry 1,193
Honda Accord 1,353.
I've owned 1 Acura Integra, 1 Honda Civic and 2 Honda Accords. I like Hondas. Hondas and Toyotas are good cars but they're not perfect and there are other cars like the Fusion that are now as good if not better quality. Why is that so hard to believe?
Nobody is disputing that there were quality problems with domestics in the 80's and 90's and still today in some cases, but it's a new millenium and what was true 10 years ago is not necessarily true today.
The real benefit of Stability Control is that the driver inputs a set of instructions to the vehicle through the steering wheel telling it that the wheels should go ' in this direction'.
When the vehicle starts to get out of control yaw sensors match the current 'out of control' direction to what was originally input and then reacts to bring the vehicle back onto the original course.
It does this by throttling down the vehicle so as not to exacerbate the the 'out of control' situation and it applies the brakes selectively to bring the vehicle back onto course.
The new VDIM system ( Lexus and Prius ) also impedes the steering in the wrong direction while assiting the steering in the intended direction.
This system has nothing to do with being able to accelerate out of trouble or to steer away from an obstacle or dangerous situation unless you get out of control. When the yaw sensors start going off then the SC kicks in to bring the vehicle back under control. If you're not out of control then it's never in use.
Nobody is disputing that there were quality problems with domestics in the 80's and 90's and still today in some cases, but it's a new millenium and what was true 10 years ago is not necessarily true today"
Where have I said that Honda/Toyota are perfect? You are missing the point. I responded to Scape's post that Ford/GM problems were due to the media bias, had nothing to do with Honda/Toyota/Hyundai quality/reliability.
Do you dispute the fact that if the car itself is good it will do well? If yes, please explain the success of the Sonata, or even the Fusion.
I don't doubt that the Sonata and Fusion are great cars, but if they were just as good as cars like the new Camry, wouldn't they be able to sell without marketing support (aka rebates)? And people can save their breath about the dang media bias that I've heard about a LOT since I started posting here a year ago... People aren't idiots, especially when it comes to spending $20k of their money. They know which car suits their needs best by DRIVING them, not by reading a report that says a car is more "refined" than another.
As you stated it only goes into effect when the vehicle is experienceing loss of control from the drivers intended direction.
EURO/NCAP recommends ESC
Click on EURO/NCAP recommends ESC
In my experience and research of Consumer Reports, I often encountered many reviews that blatantly showed a bias toward Honda and Toyota. As I grew older, I became more aware of this unfair bias. I couldn't bring myself to continue being a subscriber to a magazine that touted itself as being unbiased when, in actuality, it was the exact opposite. I felt it was a fraud; and it got to the point that this decades long subscriber CANCELLED his membership. I never thought that day would happen, but it did. Why? Because Consumer Reports is blatantly bias toward Hondas and Toyotas PERIOD, and it bothered me.
I know I am not stating any numbers or facts to back up my comments, cuz I can't remember any specific ones, but any person with HALF a brain that reads the reviews can definitely see it for themselves. I even used to read the reviews out loud to non-car fans and they, too, would agree and mention that the bias was clearly evident. CR reviews often contradicted themselves, as well. If a Honda or Toyota displayed a small flaw, CR would just gaze through it as a non-issue, whereas if a Nissan or Mazda or any other car, for that matter, displayed the same flaw, they SLAMMED it! And what is UP with the CR statistic ALWAYS being SO different than EVERY other car testing authority? I don't get it. How can they report a 52.5 mph speed through the cones, yet every other car reporting authority reports it over 60pmh?!? How can they report a turning circle of over 40 feet, when everywhere else reports UNDER 40 feet? How can they report a stopping distance of 135ft, when everywhere else reports it at 120? How can they report an accelarationg time of 8 seconds, when everywhere else you read is below 7? They do it all the time and it makes them even MORE suspect in my eyes.
So, though I am rambling
These are very valid points and for those affected it may have kept them from owning another Toyota or Honda. But it's the incidence of these problems and the way in which they were handled in the end which determines if a customer returns to a brand or not.
If the incidence is small or the inconvenience is inconsequential then to the owner it's a 'Ho-hum' situation. I've had a recall on my Prius and one on our Highlander in the last 4 months. Both were fixed as part of a normal oil change procedure and my reaction is 'eh.. so what'. But this is after 8 Toyota's and Honda's since 1989 with over 500,000 miles on them and a total of $400 in 'unexpected' expenses.
Now compare that to the
Olds 88 that had to be towed from our driveway 5 times leaving my kids unable to get to school those days. ( It was taken back as a lemon );
Replaced by an Olds 98 which was fine;
Dodge Charger which would invariably stall in the middle of the busiest intersections in North Jersey whenever it was cold and rainy;
Chrysler LHS that lost its AC 5 times one summer while commuting in and out of NYC; ( a new refrigerant was in use and noone told the production line )
Chrysler Concorde which needed a new tranny at 45000 miles.
Not only did GM/Chrysler lose me as a customer but they also lost my three children as well - for life.
Admittedly all suppliers are getting closer to each other now in quality but the old saw about 'if it ain't broke...' very much applies. With nearly no extra costs on 8 vehicles and absolutely no downtime in 17 years why in the world would I even consider switching?
Do you think it might be possible for anyone ( or a group of people ) to make a posting like the person who gave it a 1.5 o/o 10. We've gone over this many many times. The surveys above are in no way a scientific sampling since there is far too few responses and none are random.
They are interesting reading but actually show nothing.
The answer is simple... CR tests differently that the car "rags" like Car and Driver and Motor Trend. Motor Trend will have no problem revving a car to 5,500 RPM then letting off the brake (known as brake-torquing) to launch faster, where Consumer Reports will accelerate as the majority of people would drive - simply hitting the gas.
Also, turning circles can be measured differently (depends on where you take the radius). Braking? Some magazines test at the threshold of lockup, others will actually lock them up. Slalom speed diffs? Some turn off Stability Controls, others leave them turned on.
-Cj :P
One man does not agree with you. His name is Albert Einstein. He said "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe"
All I'm asking for is equal and unbiased fact reporting. Let the products speak for themselves.
And the Fusion has only had a $500 rebate since it was introduced (other than end of year clearances). That's a big improvement from the $2k-$3K rebates on other models in the past. And I'm not sure they even need that rebate - they're selling as many as they can make. The new Edge and MKX will launch without any rebates and are expected to once again sell all that they can make without them.
I'll say it one more time - this is not 1995 and we're not talking about the Taurus. The Fusion, 500 and other new Ford vehicles are very good and very competitive and they're also making money.
So, Toyota's numerous recalls being on the Nightly News don't count to you? They were certainly near the top stories when the (Highlanders I think) 400k+ vehicle were recalled.
Ford, on the other hand, hasn't been on the news much at all lately, except for pure business reasons (not really vehicle related).
I am NOT suggesting that you go buy a Fusion. If you like your Toyota or Honda that's fine.
I'm only suggesting that if you compare a 2007 Accord, Camry and Fusion on current statistics you'll find that the Fusion is more reliable, cheaper to buy and has predicted higher resale value than either the Accord or Camry.
American cars should no longer be crossed off the list because of perceived quality differences because they're not reality anymore.
Now it comes down to preference and need on the vehicles too. As a mega-commuter there are only two viable options for me, a Hybrid Civic or a Prius. Note the sources. There are no other options.
Now in the midsized category the differentiation is much much less and it's a real battle for the hearts and minds and purchases of a huge segment of the buying public. My own personal feeling is that you can throw a blanket over all the entries and - until proven otherwise - all of them will prove reliable and capable for most owners.
Now business wise if GM/F/DC decide to screw with the pricing and make the buyers wish they had taken another route, well that's got nothing to do with the vehicles themselves but it has everything to do with the satisfaction of the owners.
Yesterday Toyota recalled 30,000 Scions for inadvertent side airbag deployment. This is the only regular media article I could find on it using google. If this was Ford it would be headlines.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-ap-mi-toyota-recall,1,3288578.story?c- oll=chi-news-hed
I just couldn't help looking up some numbers to contradict this claim. Yes, the Fusion is cheaper. I'm not sure about realibility. However, the claim about resale value is not correct.
I just did a search on LeaseCompare.com for leases on an Accord, a Camry, and a Fusion. I am not that familiar with the trim lines, so please forgive me if I did not get similar trim. I tried.
The Accord LX V6 stickers for $25,200. Its predicted resale value (used to calculate the lease) after 3 years and 36K miles is $14,616, or 58%.
The Camry LE V6 stickers for $23,340. Residual value is $12,604, or 54%.
The Fusion SE V6 stickers for $20,880. Residual value is $9,814, or 47%.
Exactly.
Now business wise if GM/F/DC decide to screw with the pricing and make the buyers wish they had taken another route, well that's got nothing to do with the vehicles themselves but it has everything to do with the satisfaction of the owners.
A very good point, which Ford has taken to heart. Not sure about GM. Given DCX's recent admittal that they manufactured 50,000 2006 vehicles that are sitting at the factory unordered by the dealers - I don't think they get it yet.
What used to kill Ford vehicles was overproduction. Because of the UAW contracts and jobs bank, etc. they felt it was better to keep the plants running building cars even if the public wasn't buying them at that pace. The only way to move the cars is to put big cash on the hood or dump them in fleets, both of which kill resale value.
The new vehicles at Ford like the Fusion/Milan/MKZ/Edge/MKX are being built in modest numbers which keep the plants near peak capacity and the business plan is to make money at those smaller production volumes. This prevents huge incentives and protects resale values. As I said the Edge and MKX will launch with no incentives and the Fusion/Milan/MKZ have minimal cash on the hood ($500). The expected residual value for a Fusion is over 50% and higher than the competition. That wouldn't happen if they were trying to sell 400K/yr. And if sales drop they'll cut production instead of putting out huge incentives and dumping to fleets.
And that's one big reason that Fusion and the other new Fords are different than Fords of the past.
Ford ( corporate ) committed a 'crime' when it short-shrifted the Fusion in terms of safety equipment and crashtest worthiness and powertrain. There is no reason it shouldn't have given it's new flagship midsized sedan the ability to fight the transplants with all the safety equipment standard and Ford's most capable V6.
Just do it!!
No they took a couple of shortcuts. OK this year they will fix that. Why not give it to the public right from jump street?
Chrysler just admitted today that they've done a horrible job in meeting the demand of the public for capable midsized/smaller vehicles. They are still years away and then things will change again.
GM did a great job of getting a jump on it's two Detroit neighbors with it's warranty extention. Just do it!!!
Ford vacillated and decided 'No not now. Let's cut 600 dealers from our network instead.'
One last point. Did anyone at GM/F/DC notice that over the last 20 years the HUGE majority of midsized buyers want 4c vehicles? The detroiters are essentially saying 'If you want a 4c midsized auto go see Honda, Toyota, Nissan or Hyundai we're not interested.'
The Camry LE V6 stickers for $23,340. Residual value is $12,604, or 54%.
The Fusion SE V6 stickers for $20,880. Residual value is $9,814, or 47%.
It looks like they all lose about 10k. The Honda drops 10584, the Toyota drops 10736, and the Fusion drops 11066. That makes the worst within $500 of the best.
Now if you had invested the $4320 price difference in a 5% CD for the lease duration (3yrs) you would have $5018 to put down on the next lease.
I'm not saying that is what I would do, but its interesting. :P
My friend, I don't even own a Honda anymore (didn't want to change my nick-name); I drive a 330i. As for Honda/Toyota lovers being blind, where does that get Media bias in?
Huh? there is no $4320 price difference unless you are paying cash in which case the higher resale on the Honda will get you back $4802 (14616-9814) after the 3 years. That $5018 then can be compared to that $4802 and what you really have is that the Honda cost you a whole $6/month more to drive than that Fusion.
On a lease you only pay for the portion of the car you use which,by your example, is about the same 10-11 grand, meaning of course, that the lease cost/mo. should also be about the same. In this case, don't think there are a whole lot of folks out there that are going to be turning down that Accord or Camry when they can have a Fusion for the same price (on a lease).
Except for the fact that those 'domestic' vehicles discount a whole lot more up front, of course.
Especially when CamCords have a 20 year solid heritage backing them and a Fusion has a what - 1 year of 'pending' behind it.
A no brainer for the CamCord.
Honda Civic LX: Fifth Place
The Verdict: Something new from Honda — a loser.
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2505/double-dip-dreamboats-page5.html
Huh? Search these forums here and you won't find a single complaint about "lag below 2k rpm" for the TL (at least 04s and up). I've never seen it anywhere else, and you are saying this is truth? Huh? And any high hp FWD will have some torque steer. 06+ TLs have upgrades minimizng it.
As the Geico caveman says "do some research". And yea test drive a TL and you'll see that even below 2k rpm, there is NO 'lag' (huh?), only readily available Honda hp.
Bad example. You're better than that.
i guess it isn't as obvious as i thought it was. :shades:
the 'TL'. in my neighborhood, the vehicle of choice for middle aged women, who don't want to drive an s80, because is isn't 'hot'.
How about the comparo C/D did of the 2006 Civic Si (current generation) and VW GTI? The Civic didn't win that one either. For people who are biased towards Honda, they are doing a crummy job.
then it was posted as a reply that the civic was not well reviewed. i went to the c & d web site, but didn't see anything that i would perceive to be a negative review of the current civic. i excluded the 'si' and noted that.
my name is andy and i have approved this post. :P
Not quite, I blew a 3.0 v6 in a 93' Thunderturd at a mere 138k miles. Not exactly as dependable as my 97' escort has been. I would surely hope it's been greatly refined since then... but I'm very leary of anyones V6's for the way I drive. 4cyl or V8, I'm going out on a limb if I buy the fusion. A driver like me will break something if it's going to(One who does redline daily, er no more often than that)
if you want to get factual, the v6 in a 93 'bird is a 3.8 liter.
Unexpected expenses = $0.00.
I'll be shopping Honda's in my future. Was it perfect like my Parents' and brother's toyota's .... NO! Was it cost effective and practical... yes!