Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

jimmy81

I guess the next time I rent a 4cyl Hyundai I'll try this.

Not sure you'll come out of the turn the way you'd like to.

imidazol97

And why were they in trouble with the Japanese government on some of the recalls?... I can't remember how that went. I'd love to hear your spin explanation.

I appears you have your opinion and I have mine. Have a good day.

tlong

I don't think you know how to drive a TL in a way to appresiate it's capabilities.

If you mean that I'm not driving it at 0.8 lateral G's and fishtailing the back end, you are correct. I use it for *normal* driving.

However, my A4 rode like it was on on rails on a curvy canyon road near my home. The TL is nowhere near as precise in its steering and stability as the Audi. It tends to roll too much in the front during brisk curves with a few bumps. The roll causes the steering to want to steer left and right a bit as it rocks and reacts to the bumps in the road. The Audi did not do that.

While I didn't get to test the Hyundai in those types of conditions, the feel of the steering is very good. From a handling point of view I'm looking for precision and tightness in the steering, I'm not evaluating at-the-limits performance. So that is what I was using to make my comments.

backy

In summary I was impressed with how far Hyundai has come.

And just think, the 2006+ Sonata is a much better car than that 2005 you drove. The 2005 Sonata was actually a design from the late '90s, before Hyundai got serious about quality.

venus537

Exactly what point are you trying to make?

Toyota is on track to become the #1 automaker in the world. The automaker continues to increase its market share in this country. They're accomplishing this feat on more than past perceptions. They're doing it by making vehicles that consumers want to buy. No one is saying their cars are perfect nor that Toyota is without sin. But even with the blemishes you have pointed out in regard to Toyota's reliability their vehicles continue to do very well in independent surveys on reliability.

lilengineerboy

Slalom has little to do with emergency maneuvers. CRs emergency testing does not rely on slalom.

CR testing doesn't rely on driving They were very helpful with my last vacuum and weed wacker purchases though.

mfletou1

When I meant new vehicle, I literally must meant a car you buy that's new. I didn't mean a new model. Its certainly true that first year models do tend to have gremlins.

The point I'm getting at, though, is simply that you need a few years to find out exactly how reliable a car is. For example, my '02 Intrigue was deft. NOT a new model. For two years, with one exception, it was fine. Then it almost literally starting falling apart right in front of me. My dealer racked up nearly $5000k in warranty work as parts failed left and right. Did I get a lemon? Perhaps, but every single one of the things that failed the dealer had seen many times on other cars. If i had judged my car's realiability on year one, or even year two, I'd say its really good. Years 3-4...not so much. That speaks to quality.

Speaking of quality, let me give you another example. The GM car we drive now is an 04 Malibu Maxx. It has 22k, and its on its third set of rotors. At various other points, these rotors have been resurfaced 6+ times (truthfully, I lost count, I have it somewhere). Why? Well, really its simple--they're cheap, lousy rotors. They get hot easily, and when they get hot, they warp, and that causes them to wear unevenily. So they get resurfaced, and eventually replaced, but its an endless cycle.

I got to know the Chevy service advisors pretty well, as you might expect. I learned about the parts the quality--or lack thereof--from them. They see Malibus in and out every day with the same problem. The brakes have not been upgraded, and of course the lack of ventaliation doesn't help. The people affected are those that drive in relatively extreme conditions--stop and go traffic every day. I was told that there's nothing that can be done, thanks to the traffic we drive in.

Now, call me crazy, but I don't think Toyota or Honda would handle something like that the same way. But, you know what--they really don't have to. Because alongside my Malibu were Camrys and Accords, etc--and their brakes aren't burning up left and right because they were better. More expensive.

But what do I expect? I paid less for a Malibu. I'm getting less. Same thing for my Intrigue (which died at 65 mph--really, just stopped dead, everything including steering). So I decided to pay a little bit more this time, and see how I get treated and how the Camry holds up. The only American car I truly considered was the Impala. Factoring in the rebate, the Camry Hybrid ended up costing a couple hundred less than an Impala optioned the same way (within reason, of course, since there's no Hybrid Impala). The bluetooth feature--which I actually use all the time--was not available in the Impala, either.

So far, I don't know how the Camry will hold up. I've got just about 10k on it. I've seen the dealer twice--once to buy a key because my was in a bag that was stolen, and the other time to have a bumper repaired when I was rear ended (yeah, that thrilled me--new car and you get hit from behind well stopped at a traffic light. The other guy paid and apologized, at least).

Otherwise, what can I tell you? Not so much as a single squeak or rattle, everything works like its supposed to. It gets 35-38 mpg. Time will tell on long term reliability, but I'm optimistic--why wouldn't I be?

I'm not asking for perfection. I'm just asking for a manufacturer to stand behind their products, do things that make sense (like authorize the dealer to put decent brakes on my Malibu), and not screw over repeat customers (like when my wife's Alero had a total steering system failure at 21k BUT 3 years, 4 months, don't stick me with a $2100 bill to get it fixed, which they did). Is that asking too much?

akirby

Please explain how swerving to avoid something in the road (emergency maneuver) and swerving around cones in the road (slalom) have little to do with each other.

Yet another example where you ignore objective test results just because they don't favor the Camcords.

kdshapiro

"Yet another example where you ignore objective test results just because they don't favor the Camcords."

Hate to break it to you, but CR doesn't do emergency maneuvers around cones and there is probably a reason. It's okay to use CR when it supports your point, but steer away from CR when it doesn't? :confuse

It's not about me ignoring performance results, it's about talking apples to apples. Here's an example. A while back a magazine did a comparo between the G35 and 330. The 330 lost in some aspects won in others. The G35 won the slalom by a small margin. When the cars were taken to the track, the 330 won.

Last time I checked I don't drive around cones on my way to work. If I have to avoid obstacles, it's usually cars.

edit - if you talk to people who understand skidpad and slalom, they will tell you it means little as to a cars overall performance. Skidpad has to do tire thickness as does the slalom. Fatter tires will make for better results, but a poorer handling car.

akirby

You're comparing slalom performance to track performance? Now who's talking apples and oranges?

The question was whether a Mazda6 is safer because it handles better as evidenced by the slalom speeds. If you have other test data to the contrary let's see it.

tlong

And just think, the 2006+ Sonata is a much better car than that 2005 you drove. The 2005 Sonata was actually a design from the late '90s, before Hyundai got serious about quality.

My mistake. This WAS a 2006. I also forgot to mention that it had 18K miles on it and there were no squeaks or rattles in the car.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't overwhelmed or particularly smitten by the car. But I'll tell you that it seemed pretty darn competitive, and was much better than most of the (dare I say it) GM and Ford junk that I've driven as rentals.

venus537

"CR testing doesn't rely on driving"

Actually they do lots and lots of driving and after 5K miles they're in a better position to list the pros and cons of a vehicle than the auto enthusiast media who have the vehicle for only a couple a days of driving. And frankly, CR's critique of the vehicle's handling is better then some writers from the so called enthusiast media.

Of course if you don't find value in things like real world gas mileage, long term seat comfort, road noise over many road surfaces and radio reception then this publication is beneath your obvious superior intellect.

venus537

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Ann Job gave their car a 10 out of 10!

Road Test

zzzoom6

this whole discussion started because you said that the 6 was overpriced and that when you pay less you get less. all I was saying was that in some ways the 6 is of a different quality than the accord. to some, the 6 is better, to others the accord is better. it really depends on which aspects you want to focus on. so to rebutt your statement that because I paid much less than a comparable accord I got a much inferior product, I pointed out a couple things that the 6 is better at.

so instead of staying on your original argument, you take one aspect of what I was saying and drop the rest of your argument. ok then, let's deal with your strawman. handling has everything to do with safety. in instances where an emergency maneuver is needed, how the car handles transitions is key to maintain control. that's what the slalom is a measure of; the ability to maintain control through steering transitions. and in the instance where the car loses traction, traction control can intervene faster than most people can react.

it's interesting you bring up the safety ratings without mentioning a very important aspect: the 6 was tested in the US without side airbags whereas the accord was. in frontal crashes the 6 did very good in both US tests and the European test. In europe, the 6 was tested with side airbags and they found that the 6 did better at side impacts than front impacts.

in the post that you are responding to, I'm sure you read the part where I acknowledged that IMO the accord had an interior that was a notch above the 6. but not everyone agrees with us. I'm not going to take a subjective evaluation and claim it as fact. but next time I need to know whether something is "refined", I know who to ask.

pat

Hi flash11. You really should check out the Entry-Level Luxury Performance Sedans discussion. That's where we are talking about all four of those cars as well as a few others that may interest you.

kdshapiro

"The question was whether a Mazda6 is safer because it handles better as evidenced by the slalom speeds. If you have other test data to the contrary let's see it."

I don't have to "prove" or "disapprove", you can do your own research. My previous point was slalom has little to do with driving down the road. You can have great slalom but fall behind in emergency maneuvers, or lose on the track.

captain2

actually, Saturn could only hope that they are as good - relative to their times - as was the Opel Manta 1900 of the 70's. An autocross champ at that time and a damn fine little car. The Aura platform (and engineering behind it) should be better simply because it does have some Opel in it!

captain2

these discussions on what is safer than something else is entirely a matter of perspective:

1) is a car safer simply because of the number of airbags it has, or crash dummy results in NHTSA labs?
2) taking the active approach - is a car safer simply because it has better avoidance capabilities that may be compromised by those 'electronic nannies' in any case.
3) is a car safer simply because it has that VSC/TRAC which must, by definition - stop the car from reaching its ultimate evasive abilities.
4) is a car safer because it stops quicker?
5) is a car safer because it simply has more power.
6) is a car safer simply because it is heavier.
7) is a car safer because it has all 4 wheels driven and something close to even weight distribution
8) all of the above

To state that any given car is 'safer' than another simply because it can go around in circles faster is a gross oversimplification....

backy

Opel of the '60s and '70s also included the Opel Kadett--not the greatest car of its time to put it mildly. But that is irrelevant, isn't it? If we assessed Toyota and Honda based on what they shipped here in the '60s and '70s, they wouldn't fare very well.

mz6greyghost

To state that any given car is 'safer' than another simply because it can go around in circles faster is a gross oversimplification....

I don't necessarily think it's "safer", but it does help a driver to AVOID some potential accidents. Better maneuverability could very well be the difference between a close call and a collision.

lilengineerboy

Of course if you don't find value in things like real world gas mileage, long term seat comfort, road noise over many road surfaces and radio reception then this publication is beneath your obvious superior intellect.

Real world mileage is usually inapplicable because they test automatics and I drive manuals. I usually beat what ever is on the window sticker, however.
Long term seat comfort is subjective, they rated the seats in my previous car very low for comfort because one of the testers was apparently too wide to fit comfortably in them. That car had the most comfortable seats for me of any car I have ever owned.
Road noise is pretty easy to detect from a test drive (either its wind noise or tire related). I have never had enough of an issue with any radio to think about radio reception as a factor in my purchase decision.
I didn't mean to sound stuck up about it, but I guess in a way you are right, I like to use CR when I don't have a strong base knowledge or a better source of information, so home appliances and the like, deck stains, etc I find the ratings very useful. For cars, I seem to do okay on my own.

kdshapiro

Agreed. A Miata might win the maneuverability award, but I would hate to get into a collision with it. A heavier vehicle could also make the difference between life and death in a collision. You balance out what you want and don't look back.

lilengineerboy

edit - if you talk to people who understand skidpad and slalom, they will tell you it means little as to a cars overall performance. Skidpad has to do tire thickness as does the slalom. Fatter tires will make for better results, but a poorer handling car.

Typically the skidpad results are based on the contact patch. Wider tires typically have a larger contact patch. Skinnier tires made out of a softer, stickier compound will also have better results. Cars with suspension tuned to maximize the contact patch under cornering load will have better skidpad results.
Coincidentally, this also affect factors such as "steering feel," "turn-in," "tramlining," and "twitchiness," which are, amazingly, terms people use to describe handling traits in the real world.
Slalom has to do with how well the car handles transitions. Most street cars have what I classified as "One Good Swerve." In an crash avoidance scenario, someone jerks the wheel to avoid the 3 year old that just ran out in the street. That is your one swerve. Now you are aimed at a brick wall. Can the car swerve again (yes you can turn the wheel, will the car respond? Is it just going to understeer or plow or spin?) While this scenario is hypothetical, I needed to help your understanding since you couldn't picture what the cones might represent.
That said, I call phooey on your statement.

captain2

Better maneuverability could very well be the difference between a close call and a collision.
of course it can - if the 'car' will let you do it - and it is one factor of several. A Porsche 911 is about as manuevable as they come - but if I have to hit some guy that just ran a light - put me in a Suburban!

akirby

So steering left and right quickly through a slalom course is not at all related to steering left, then right quickly to avoid another vehicle in front of you? Please explain the difference.

kdshapiro

Well I call phooey on your analysis. If slalom were the be all and end all, then CR would use the slalom number as the mph number. But they don't. Why is that? Cones are too close together to represent any real world scenario and are typically very narrow turns. Not what you would have to do when avoiding a semi.

kdshapiro

See above and then explain to me why the slalom course will predict a cars emergency handling. Also might want to look at the way CR performs their emergency maneuver testing.

akirby

if you talk to people who understand skidpad and slalom, they will tell you it means little as to a cars overall performance.

Any test that doesn't show Camcords as superior to all other cars isn't valid. How convenient. If they were irrelevant then why does every car magazine perform the same tests?

Name another test that better demonstrates a car's handling capability. And don't say track time because that's influenced by engine power and acceleration and we're just talking about handling performance.

lilengineerboy

You are making a huge assumption with respect to the experimental design of someone else's study.
And I agree, swerving to avoid a semi is all well and good, and goes right back to the "One Good Swerve" theory. Now that you missed the semi and you are aimed at the k-barrier which is less than 60' away, whatcha gonna do?

jeffyscott

Anyway, the Accord certainly ought to be MUCH better in some way, since the actual selling price is so much higher than comparable 6.

For comparably equipped 2007 models, assuming I could buy either at invoice, the mazda6 can currently be had for about $2700 less (including $2000 in rebates) than the Accord.

I'm not sure what this "refinement" is all about...but I think I have a hard time seeing $2700 worth of it in the Accord when compared to a 6. Maybe we should talk about the exterior "refinement" of the mazda6, since using that word seems to be a way to attempt to convert subjective style preferences into something that sounds objective .

captain2

the Accord is worth $2700.00 more simply because that's what it sells for - and you can't can't any more objective than that. Now if you personally can't justify it, that would really be the point...

lilengineerboy

This link is a PDF of a paper in the field of Engineering Aesthetics. Basically the goal is to vary different design characteristics that allow aesthetics to be quantified. Its kind of neat there are all kinds of ethnic and cultural elements for different regions and countries.
Engineering Aesthetics and Ergo-Aesthetics-Yili Liu
This link to Amazon is a book by another researcher in the field.
Watches Tell More Than Time- Del Coates

Styling might not be as subjective as originally thought.

louiswei

See Edmunds' Long-term test wrap-up of the 06' Sonata:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/LongTerm/articleId=108652

venus537

"I like to use CR when I don't have a strong base knowledge or a better source of information, so home appliances and the like, deck stains, etc I find the ratings very useful. For cars, I seem to do okay on my own."

Good point. For us we know what we want.

backy

Those are real big issues they have with the Sonata, aren't they:

* Placement of the radio, vents, and HVAC controls - I think they are very well placed. It's easy to see the radio screen and the HVAC knobs fall easily to the hand.

* No station scan on wheel - added for 2007.

* Bun warmers not warm enough - move to Florida.

kdshapiro

"You are making a huge assumption with respect to the experimental design of someone else's study."

No, I've read what tire experts think and say about these tests.

kdshapiro

"ame another test that better demonstrates a car's handling capability."

I am not saying these test don't have their place. I am saying these tests do not predict a cars emergency handling capabilities. If they did CR would use the slalom as the definitive measure and call it a day.

lilengineerboy

"You are making a huge assumption with respect to the experimental design of someone else's study."

No, I've read what tire experts think and say about these tests.

Cool I would be very interested in reading these as well. Where did you find these reports?

louiswei

There are more in the review...

Just the fact that a 4-year-old Accord has the ability to hang with the all-new Camry but the Sonata does not says A LOT.

Not to mention that the all new Fusion finished 4th (or last) in the comparo. It's not a surprise that the BRAND NEW Fusion finished behind the Camry but by finishing behind a Hyundai and an aging Accord says a lot about how does this car stack up against its competitors.

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=109710/pageNumber=1

kdshapiro

One of the car mags did an article on this a while ago. It might have been C/D, but I don't think this article is on-line, you have to have the magazine.

backy

Since Edmunds.com picked the Sonata over a similarly-priced Accord, I'm not sure what you mean by the Accord being able to hang with the all-new Camry but the Sonata can not.

meateater

No big issues - but none of these cars have big issues. in fact, the only reason Sonata sells well is it's price.

I'm surprised they don't mention the slide-off front seat. Or the annoying handling.

The Sonata's quirky interior does seem tough to live with.

louiswei

What are you talking about??? :confuse:

First Place: Camry (score: 79.84)
Second Place: Accord (score: 79.20)
Third Place: Sonata (score: 70.98)
Fourth Place: Fusion (score: 63.92)

The fact that the aging Accord can hang with the brand new Camry is amazing to me.

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=109710/pageNumber=10

w9cw

If that's all Edmunds.com has to complain about - rather picayune IMO. It certainly doesn't change my feelings on the Sonata. Now, if it was transmission problems, engine surging, other mechanical problems, bits and pieces falling off, etc., now that would change my mind. I can think of a number of cars that you could find faults with interior ergonomics or poor placement of controls and outlets. My SAAB heated seats are not all that effective either, and it comes from Sweden where winters are a bit chilly. So, overall, I'm not impressed with their negative criticism.

w9cw

And, one other thing, $642.82 for two Michelin Pilots in the correct size for a 2006 Sonata LX. Come on, the worst case price I've found for these tires is around $190 each, plus balancing and installation. That dealer sure saw these folks coming. And, Edmunds.com employees don't have a proper torque wrench available or another option for removing the wheels - even at home? Every OEM lug wrench I've ever seen is a pitiful excuse for a wrench. This reviewer is starting to sound like some of the reviewers at Consumer Reports.

imidazol97

I noticed in the review of the Sonata long term test Edmunds is blaming Sonata for two tires that got sliced parked in the reviewer's neighborhood. They commented they cost $400 to replace IIRC. They must really ahte the Odyssey with Touring that I've seen posted that have $400 per wheel and tire replacement-like the wheel has to be replaced with the tire?

plekto

The thing is, it's not $2000 in GM's case, it's $8000 when you factor in the lower cost and the 0% financing. That's a whole other class of car you could move up to.

Or, to put it in perspective, you can get a 2006 Volvo S60 for the same price as an Accord V6. That's almost unfair, really, since the S60 is normally in an entirely differen price-bracket. Gotta love rebates.

http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=91020&acode=USB60VOC171B0&restor- e=false
All I can say is you can keep your Camry V6. That's for the T5 model as well - 257HP and oh yeah - manual transmission as well. Toyota still doesn't offer stickshift on their V6 models anymore.

http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=91020&acode=USB70HOC011G0&restor- e=false
Honda does, though. Nice car, but not a Volvo.

http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=91020&acode=USB70TOC021G0&restor- e=false
Yeah, not even close. Toyota and Honda have pushed their cars larger and larger and their prices have crept up until they are bumping against what you can get luxury models for after rebates/incentives.

http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=91020&acode=USB60INC081A0&restor- e=false
That's the problem. Luxury imports start at what the Camry V6 costs you(unless you get the total stripped down model). And no doubt about it that the G35 will out-everything a Camry or Accord. It's a very nice car.

And last I checked - Honda and Toyota have no programs or rebates. That's the deal-killer for most of us.(and Chrysler has 0% on almost all 2006 models right now. Ford should next month as well if they follow their normal pattern.)

kdshapiro

"Or, to put it in perspective, you can get a 2006 Volvo S60 for the same price as an Accord V6."

Well that is if you want a Volvo..yuch. Given where they are today I am not interested in buying Ford. An Accord V6 leather and all goodies, would be of interest.

"That's the deal-killer for most of us."

It's a deal killer for who? You? It's not a deal killer for the 400,000 people who bought Toyota products last year. It's not a deal killer for me.

plekto

You have to be kidding. The S60 is a beautiful car. Dolby certified sound system as well.

Or you can get a G35 for abot the same price if you like imports. Toyota and Honda aren't price-competetive anymore for what you can get from other makers.

I guess you could go out and buy a Big Mac if you want, but I'll pay the same for a burger at In-And-Out if I have the choice. McDonalds was good once upon a time, but smaller chains have caught up. Mazda and Mitsubishi are prime examples of this. You get more car for the same price.

louiswei

G35 will out-everything a Camry or Accord. It's a very nice car

Let's compare apples to apples here shall we...

The G is not even in the same segment as the Camry and Accord. Not to mention that one is RWD and the others are FWD. Also, last time that I checked, the G does NOT offer a 4 cylinder engine and as you may know by now the majority (70%?) of the mid-size sedan buyers opt for the 4 banger.

Mid-size Sedan: Camry, Accord, Altima, Sonata, Fusion...
Entry Lux Sedan: G, IS, 3er, C-class, CTS...

Here's a suggestion to you, plekto: please next time do some research before posting and please do NOT compare apples to oranges. You have done this in the below $30000 full size sedan board and now you are doing the same thing in the midsize sedan board. It's kind of annoying that this kept happening you know...

And last I checked - Honda and Toyota have no programs or rebates. That's the deal-killer for most of us

Why do they need rebates and programs when they are selling like hotcakes and the supply is barely enough to keep up with the demand? Since they are ranked as number 1 and 2 selling cars in this country I don't think the lack of rebates and programs are the deal-breaker for "MOST" of us as you stated.