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
Wait, wouldn't that be a perception at its best, also? Just because it agrees with you, scape, its still a perception.
The host has already asked several times to leave the media to the news and views department, yet you never fail to bring it up, do ya? You'd think I'd be doing it, as a broadcast journalism major, but I don't.
I'm not saying they should be proud of it but I just don't see it as a big deal IN THIS SEGMENT. Certainly not something that will affect sales.
actually yes, I think the average car buyer regardless of how conservative he/she might be, looks first at the EPA ratings and then at the HP, drives the car and then, makes a decision based on some priority between FE and power.
BUT, if I bite into your argument, then you tell me why Ford is having difficulties selling the Fusion/500? They are both intelligently designed and competitive in about all aspects IN THEIR RESPECTIVE SEGMENTS - once you shut the hood...
Not quite, the sense of hearing is also logarithmic. Small dB differences translate into large differences in enery, not percieved loudness. You can listen to 3 dB differences for yourself at: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/dB.html
IMO, Ford needs to rethink what it is doing. Mustang sells well. Fusion doesn't (without big rebates and fleet sales). A great looking V8 coupe with RWD for about $25000 - there's absolutely nothing in this market that beats the awesome package offered by Mustang. Mustang is a winner. Ford needs to build eye-popping head-turning winners, and not just a modest me-too car like Fusion.
Fusions are selling in 30 days - half of the industry average. Where did you get the idea that they were having trouble selling them?
A V8 RWD 4 door, well we do have the 300c and it does sell well at $30-35K, but not without costing you dearly at the gas pump - which is where I think the problem is. But, you are right, if there ever was anything that Ford/GM/Chrysler has done well it has been RWD V8s.
and you surely don't want to compare Fusion sales with those of Camrys, Accords, Nissans - especially net of those fleet/rental lot giveaways. Heck, you don't even need to do that, simply count the number of Fusions you see on the way home tonight, vs. any of the other 3. The American public has not received the Fusion as well as perhaps it should be - and there must be a reason?
A much more reliable source of real life residual can be found at the regular banks, where making money (both in terms of turning a profit and making the deal before your turn to a competing bank) not moving cars is the priority.
I test drove one after oogling over the interior room and nice design. Driving one soured me tho. The 3.5 should make this car much more competitve.
But why can't Ford come outta the gate with a winner instead of taking a model year or 2 to figure out their weaknesses? Seems kinda sloppy.
in central ct, i don't see a whole lot of new fusions or camrys. accords, it is hard to tell. new sonata's are the ones that are the most obvious.
when i was in the mid atlantic state about 6 weeks ago, i saw quite a few camry's. it is probably regional.
It would be Camry's with an apostrophe, because the Camry isn't possesive.
I don't know the right way to do it! lol...
I believe it's quite regional, as you say. I live in Birmingham, and here, we have a lot more Sonata rentals (the Sonata is built a mere 100 miles away, just south of Montgomery, AL).
In this case the 3.5L was 2 years later than expected. It was supposed to be there when the 500 launched. That's Ford's biggest problem of late - doing the right thing 2 years too late. I think they're being overly cautious to protect quality but I think being this late to market is worse than having a *few* problems.
Exactly. And what do you think the banks use as their source for residual values? Wouldn't most of them use ALG? Or is there another industry standard source for residual values?
thank you
Most of the cars sold today have spark plugs that will last 100,000 miles. And many car makers advertise that the car can go 100,000 miles before needing a tune-up. So the Camry is not alone in this area.
The 100,000 tune up is kind of a misnomer because it only applies to changing the spark plugs. Fluids, belts, and hoses must still be changed at shorter intervals.
Toyota, for example, armed with the $10 billion of profits and in 2005 a line of solid but dynamically challenged (HP) V6s can spend several hundred million developing and producing a new engine for the Avalon, that is strong enough and economical enough to become the powerplant of choice throughout the Toyota/Lexus lines. And they are saving hundreds of millions every year now just in production costs. Not a new concept, Nissan has been doing it for years with the VQ. Meanwhile Ford, with a little help from Volvo and Mazda have some really pretty good designs, but can not do anything with them except saddle them all with versions of a 14 year old engine.
Remember that it is those 'bean counters' that may yet 'save' Ford.
The new 3.5 (also to be called a Duratech) is testing relatively well in the new Lincolns, and is a big improvement - an engine with about the same level of sophistication as the Hyundai 3.3 and 3.8, but still short of Toyota/Honda/Nissan offerings. Expect also some teething problems with the new drivetrain, one thing that can said for the 3.0, it is pretty darn reliable.
But of course it is. Why, because it's a FORD?
Gimme a break, the engine is barely out and they're ALREADY getting slammed? I don't think so...
Where's your proof? Have you test-driven one?
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm
which makes it similar to the Hyundai engines - but go ahead and take things out of context if you will, the 3.5 is a big improvement for Ford, something I said that you conveniently ignore.
Also remember that it is indeed a new engine, and I'm sure that VVT will be added in the future. IIRC, the Toyota engine didn't start of with full VVT itself (I could be wrong about this one, go ahead and call me on it if I am). Again, it may be late to the game, but I'd rather they get the R&D and testing done right, instead of rushed to market and failing after 39K miles. That would be MUCH WORSE for Ford.
ENGINE
Type 3.5L DOHC 24-valve V-6
Manufacturing Location Lima Engine Plant, Ohio
Configuration 60-degree V-6, aluminum block and heads
Intake Manifold Composite, slit plenum
Exhaust Manifold Cast iron
Crankshaft Forged steel
Redline 6700 rpm
Throttle Body 65mm, electronic
Valvetrain DAMB, 4 valves per cylinder, intake variable camshaft timing
Valve Diameter Intake: 37mm Exhaust: 31 mm
Pistons High temperature cast aluminum alloy with low-friction coated skirts, low-tension rings
Connecting Rods Cracked-powder metal
Ignition Pencil coil
Bore x Stroke 3.6 x 3.4 in/92.5 x 86.7 mm
Displacement 213 cu in/3.496 cc
Compression Ratio 10:03:01
Horsepower 250 @ 6250 rpm (estimated)
Horsepower per Liter 71.5 (estimated)
Torque 240 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm (estimated)
Recommended Fuel 87 Octane
Fuel Capacity 20 gallons
Fuel Injection Sequential multiport fuel injection
Oil Capacity 5.5 quarts, with filter
Recommended Oil GF4, 5W-20
Do you really think it is MUCH WORSE for Ford to have cars for sale with inferior (but proven) drivetrains than it would be to have the same car available with something a lot more competitive but unproven?
It sure stopped me from buying the 500!
Here are my impressions:
1) Engine – same as before – noisy, but less torque due to CVT. In order to accelerate quickly you need to floor it. I hated that, because it took some time to get this thing going. I hated the noise though, it sounded bad.
2) I don’t know what to think of this CVT, I guess that some people love it – I hate it – it provides such a huge disconnect between you and the car – think of it in terms of Manual vs. Auto – this CVT is like that.
3) The interior was much better than the 06, and I loved the Intelligent KEY system, which was cool. The gauges looked much better than the old orange ones.
4) The steering killed me. It is like driving a Chevy Malibu – same electronic steering, what the hell were you thinking Nissan? After driving Mazda 6 and 3, the steering in the Altima sucked big time.
5) The ride was ok, nothing special.
6) I hope that the 3.5L SE is much better, because I would never buy the 2.5
I’d take a Honda Accord with the 2.4L (I can’t believe I just said that :surprise: ) over the new Altima 2.5
I don't see where the 3.5 can be called inferior - at worst it's comparable to the competition. Same for the 3.0L in the Fusion and Milan - perfectly adequate. The 3.0L in the D3 cars is another story - I think they need the 3.5L to be competitive and I think the sales numbers reflect that.
They have the major packages linked to each other and to VDC
so to get one you have to get the other, which can drive the cost of a V6 over 30000. What are they thinking.
This must have been taught in marketing 102 how to make the customer mad right away, with a new product. Old Mike
So the seats were not leather.
The sticker was $23,500 - I almost vomited when I saw it.
I can have a fully loaded Sonata limited with 3.3L v6 and leather and all the goodies for under 20k - what is wrong with the car market - is this going to be the same as the housing market in CA? Every time you turn around - they jack up the price a little more, and before you know it these mid size family sedans are pushing 30 grand - that is a price of a luxury car 10 years ago :sick: .
Otherwise, on the Toyota engine front, a new series of Dual VVTi 4s is expected to debut with the next generation Corolla, and I'd speculate that the larger or largest version of this engine will be a MMC change swap for the Camry's current 158 horse unit - itself very smooth and efficient but could definitely benefit from another 15 horses and a coupla foot pounds.
~alpha
and you bring up something else applicable in this particular group - these cars are all getting larger and heavier, now in the 3300lb category with 4 cylinder engines.
Hp is Hp and Lbs. are Lbs., and most of these cars are expecting adequate performance at 20 lbs.+ per pound.
IMO, not nearly enough - especially when these new V6s are only a couple of mpg shy of what these now overworked 4s do. Would contend to you that what these 4 cylinders really need is closer to a 200hp minimum, hopefully attainable without the need for turbocharging.
an unfortunate perception perhaps shared with the other US and even Korean mfgrs. - and not exactly true anymore. Ford, as has been noted, is downsizing - they can and do spend more time building a car, if for no other reason than they are almost in a position of finding work for too many employees to do. It is really Toyota that is starting to feel the 'quality' pinch, quite the opposite problem, not enough hours in the day or qualified employees, to do the same job.
For example, in terms of the Camry, as an ENGINE, I think the 2.4L is outstanding - smoothest 4 in the business in my experience, and efficient too. However, as a package, the Accord's SLIGHTLY harsher, more vibration-prone (at idle really) does a better job of moving the car. This is the best Camry 4 yet, no doubt, but it would be better with Dual VVTi - which, if historical applications yield true again - can increase both power/torque and efficiency.
I don't see a need for turbo-charging sedans in this segment, though VW's more niche-esque (and higher priced) Passat uses this feature very well.
One interesting note that you touch on is the efficiency of (Toyota's) new V6s.
Consider this:
When Consumer Reports tested the 204 horse, 3510 lb. Lexus IS250, it accelerated from 0 to 60 in 7.7 seconds and offered 24 MPG overall.
When Consumer Reports tested the 158 horse, 3300 lb. Camry LE 4 cylinder, it accelerated from 0 to 60 in 9.6 seconds and offered 24 MPG overall. (Same MPG for the last 4 cylinder Accord tested, but at 9 flat to 60).
True, the Lexus offers a kick-[non-permissible content removed] 6A which no doubt helps its cause, but the point remains.... the 4 cylinders in this class allow for room to improve. And this improvement, most likely, will be in the form of the next Accord, and/or the next generation of 4s in the Camry. I haven't read of or expect any major developments re: the units now used by GM/Ford/Nissan/Hyundai or the recently introduced, powerful but not most fuel efficient 4 in the Sebring.
~alpha
I would too...
"what is wrong with the car market - is this going to be the same as the housing market in CA? Every time you turn around - they jack up the price a little more, and before you know it these mid size family sedans are pushing 30 grand - that is a price of a luxury car 10 years ago"
Well what happens is we consumers demand a lot more in vehicles in a short period of time. 10 years ago what did (even luxury cars) have in the way of safety? Broomstick stregnth door beams and kill-em 200 mph air rocks (bags)... Now it's not a contender in this class if there's no stability, abs, 8 airbags, etc... You ask, you get, you pay
Hp is Hp and Lbs. are Lbs., and most of these cars are expecting adequate performance at 20 lbs.+ per pound.
IMO, not nearly enough - especially when these new V6s are only a couple of mpg shy of what these now overworked 4s do.
You think the 4-cylinder engines are overworked and inadequate? Many people disagree (about 70% of Accord and Camry buyers opt for 4-cylinder models, in a recent report I read).
Consider this: ten years ago the power to weight ratio of a standard LX Accord was 130 hp/2855 lbs, or 21.96 lbs per horsepower, and offered 25/31 MPG (these are manual transmission figures). Boy have 4-cyl cars come a long way in ten years, let's look...
Today, the power to weight ratio of the same Accord LX 5MT is 166 hp/3133 lbs, or 18.87 lbs per horsepower, better than the V6 Accord of ten years ago (which offered bascially the same horsepower and weight, 170 hp and 3219 lbs, or 18.93lbs per horsepower for a 96 V6). Don't forget the speed advantage offered by a 5-speed automatic vs. 4-speeders of old.
Let's now mention that I-4 engines in these midsizers achieve better mileage than engines in some compacts that make less power (Chevy Cobalt comes to mind as having worse power AND worse economy than an Accord at 24/32 and 145 hp vs. the Accord's 24/34 and 166 hp), and much better economy than the engines of 10 years ago, that made a lot less power.
I'd say the I-4 engines of today, and even 10 years ago, are MORE than adequate. Really, do you feel the need to go faster than you did ten years ago? Because today's 4-cylinders are faster than the V6s and V8s of ten or fifteen years ago. I can't say the last time I've had to floor my I-4 Accord to merge or pass safely, and I drive an interstate where the speed limit is 70 (which means traffic is routinely 80MPH).
Edmunds editors agree, even on the old 2003 model which is down about 10 horsepower on the current 2007 model Accord I-4.
"The Accord is the first car I've driven in some time that has made me seriously reconsider my affection for bigger engines. The power is there, and the refinement is there — there isn't even a hint of that frenetic thrashing I used to associate with inline fours. If I can have good fuel economy without giving up quietness and power, count me in." — Road Test Editor Brian Moody
"I settled into the cockpit fully expecting the vehicle to feel a bit light on juice in certain situations. But this was never the case. I put the car through its paces on highways, on city streets and up and down steep mountain roads in the foothills near my apartment. The Accord proved itself up to the task in each and every circumstance that came its way." — Associate Editor Warren Clarke
"Can't ask for much more than this from a four-cylinder — plenty of pull for passing and merging, quiet at high engine speeds and very frugal. I rarely was left wishing for more power. Unless you absolutely have to have V6 power, the four-cylinder will satisfy 90 percent of the time." — Senior Road Test Editor Ed Hellwig
"The car is fast. Not fast for a four-cylinder but simply fast. I never felt like it was lacking in power, and considering the way I typically drive on my commute down Pacific Coast Highway, that's pretty amazing." — Editor in Chief Karl Brauer
From the edmunds' comparison:
Db idle: (1) Sonata 40.0 (2) Fusion 45.0 (3-tie) Accord 46.5 (3-tie) Camry 46.5
Db full throttle: (1) Camry 73.9 (2) Sonata 74.3 (3) Accord 74.7 (4) Fusion 77.1
Db 70mph cruise: (1) Sonata 69.0 (2-tie) Accord 70.0 (2-tie) Camry (2-tie) Fusion 70.0"
You should remain idle.
Of that 70%, I would be willing to bet you that at least 80% of those are auto trannies which will suffer more from a power perspective than the MT. The new Camry is suffering from this right now, not enough power to hold high gear with the cruise control on anything other than really flat terrain.
Do I need to go faster? of course not, if anything I drive slower than I used to. But, I do feel safer with what amounts to be excessive power while still getting 27mpg overall on a 3600lb. Avalon
I have never found a venue where I could use all 166 horsepower and not be reckless, living in Suburban Birmingham. Maybe in Montana I could have more driving fun with 100 more horses, but here, 166 is already more than I can use.
THIS JUST IN!
Another preview of the new accord has been announced.
It looks like the Honda Sports4 concept but more civilized. I LIKE IT! It kinda has a civic facia in the front too. The rims gotta go though. I like how they complement yet dis vehicles all at the same time... Sad thing is that i see a pentagonal grille... That might be a clue that that is the acura version (See Acura TSX or Euro Accord)...
If you're curious about the 08 accord, you should check this out!
-Cj
And seriously, does it need to be even LARGER? Geez, slap a Chrysler badge on it and call it a New Yorker.