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
Although you have your hands free, you are still distracted. When a customer asks you a tough question, for the few seconds it takes to think about what the answer is, you are not thinking about your driving. Maybe it will never cost you, and maybe it will.
I'm certain that the Prius will end up where it's supposed to at about 103,000 units or so by the end of the year which would make it even with last year. The excitement and some of the capacity has been with the TCH this year, the Prius has taken a back seat in focus and production.
I agree that the new Accord should be right at the head of the class barring some misstep. But whither the Civic?
Nothing like a car that can run on a home-grown renewable energy source.
JD Power customer Retention Study
Interestingly, I've seen ads for the Civic EX (through Craigslist in my area) for about $17,800.
Although I drive an Accord, my two favorite vehicles are the RX 350 AWD and the Lexus ES 350. If I wanted to step up in vehicle class/segment, I would definetly purchase one of those 2.
Should cell phone users be singled out?
Edmunds Forum discussing just that
That can be a slippery slope. Checking the gauges on a HDD takes your eyes off the road as does tuning the radio. Using a nav system definitely requires eyes off road time (as does a map).
Its how much eyes off road time it requires and whether society deems it "acceptable risk" or not.
Distractions are distractions, whether it's a cell phone or talking to passengers or groovin' to music.
There is no good reason for a minor to be driving between midnight and 6 am.
Factually (I think) though, once the mfgrs. get past the costs involved in installing these DBW systems that control our brakes, engines, trannies, steering etc. then it becomes a simple and less costly endeavor to put in the computer chips/programs that establish at what levels these DSC systems kick in. Given the mass market that all these vehicles sell in (as opposed to the market that BMW sells in), I think the danger is in a lowest common denominator approach to how these systems are set. I drive an Avalon, wonderful car - that has for many years sold to a quite old demographic - my driving capabilities were certainly much better 20 years ago than they are now, and although I may be a better (more cautious and defensive) driver when I'm 70 then I am now, I will likely also be less capable. So the question remains for those computer programmers - what abilities are they assumming I have, me when I was 30, now at 50, or what I'll be capable of when I'm 70. From a legal perspective I think that answer has to be the latter, something that should bother anybody that enjoys these 4 wheel conveyances we have. Judging by your frequent comments about 16 year olds and totaling cars, it is apparent that you would support making those systems as invasive as possible thereby protecting them from their own inexperience - which is great - but it doesn't likely allow me to avoid that accident that I did a year ago. From my perspective, the best cars in this group are the ones that handle the best, have the most power, and the best set of brakes (in short those that can most effectively avoid an accident) - not necessarily the ones with the most airbags, best crash results, or most 'effective' stability control system. A car, even in this group, should be more than simply an appliance. If you spent that extra money on something like a 330, I would expect that you already understand that.
Seems to me ESC should kick in at the precise moment when the car is loosing traction (wheels spinning, sliding) no matter what the abilities (or age) the driver has. It should be the driver's option to turn the system off (and take his chances) if he so desires though.
The point is DSC systems in midsize cars. I was using the BMWs as an example. While you belive DSC will cause people to drive like idiots I am concerned the lack of DSC systems in cars is causing car crashes that could be preventable. Seems like we are on opposite sides of the fence, but on the face it I have to say, my view seems a bit more rational. Sorry don't mean to be pejorative, but this technology is here to help not create more crashes.
"but it doesn't likely allow me to avoid that accident that I did a year ago."
The next time you try a move like that you may end up dead. The Lord gives you one chance like that to avoid an accident, the next time you might need DSC.
a link to those oft referenced tests, for those that may be interested:
http://www.caranddriver.com/search.asp?section_id=56&article_id=0
If it goes bad then the bond holders are going to have a mess liquidating all of this. It's highly unlikely but it is a monumental risk.
Which desk at Dearborn did you want to bid on?
assume you are talking about biodiesel greasers, and not that E85 'Flex fuel' hoax that GM is perpetrating to get around CAFE requirements? 2 different 'energy sources'.
-does 'handled better' mean being able to complete a lane change without fishtailing or staying within defined lane markers, or does it mean the actual speeds at which the cars were able to complete the change, VSC (Toyota's acronym) or not. Would suspect the former, CR does have this habit of changing the rules to get the desired result.
-and 'felt better', even that they would feel the need to even point out something so subjective - raises a red flag. Have to read the article and find out if the deck was 'stacked?
Thank you, took the words right off my keyboard. IMO, a good example of CR type 'spin' that would have a lot of folks out there believing that VSC/DSC actually improves anything - other than safety.
Thank you, took the words right off my keyboard. IMO, a good example of CR type 'spin' that would have a lot of folks out there believing that VSC/DSC actually improves anything - other than safety"
That is the point of these nannies...to keep the car moving perpendicular to the line of travel. It however, can only work within the physical limits of gravity and traction. By making the car feel more grounded, it translates into the driver feeling more confident about the handling, which in turn leads some to say better handling. The DSC computer can snap a car in line by jiggering the brakes on one or more wheels simultaneously, something the driver cannot do.
I imagine the system in the Camry is a fairly new generation, as it is a new generation vehicle. Maybe this helps.
Any car with 60%+ of weight over the front wheels will understeer heavily, that 'plowing' sensation you get when you corner hard and under acceleration combined with fighting the car (which 'wants' to go straight) to keep it in the corner. All the cars in this group have this problem - not unique to Camrys by a long shot, and less bothersome in some cars than others. The Mazda 6/Fusions are probably the closest thing in this group to even approaching a more 'neutral' handling balance. And before you get upset about understeering Camrys, it is without a doubt an inherently safer condition for drivers to handle, the 'corrections' for oversteering vehicles are generally counterintuitive. Thanks for the explanation on the tests, but I would guess that it really was power that made the difference, and that difference would have been greater if they hadn't been giving up the 100 hp.
The test is designed to see how a car handles during a rapid turn off course and then back on course as if avoiding a sudden impediment in the road - such as a child running after a ball.
Yes VSC can make a vehicle faster. If it can apply only one rear brake to keep the rear from sliding out and hitting a cone (or whatever the obsticle), or can keep the front from plowing, then the car will be able to stay on track at the speed where the imbalance occured.
The VSC can help balance a vehicle. It will help less with a perfectly balanced vehicle of course. Also "feeling" in control is a good thing - it helps keep somebody from panicking and making a bad move/turn.
It is not like ABS which does not improve on an expert braker - but gives everybody near expert results.
When you track your car. :confuse
I thought this thread was about mid size sedans. Like the upcoming 08 Accord, the awesome new Aura, the Camry Hybrid etc. These last few days about ESC have been nauseating.
Ford dug itself into this hole, and it can climb it's way out.
It's up to Corporate now. If fuel goes to $4.00 a gallon and holds for any length of time it will be very touch and go for Ford and DC. Neither have enough small efficient vehicles to make up for the lost profits from the trucks and SUV's.
They are very quick to do that on other Edmunds topics.
most don't realize they are the last of the formerly know as the 'big 3' to do them.
if gas goes to $4 a gallon it will hurt every manufacturer, even the very hot toyota brand. there is just a lot related stuff that goes along with vehicles in this country.
I think it has the same fate as any other large corporation in America, but why should the feds throw Ford a lifeline? Why bail out a mediocre, at best, auto maker and award them for their weak business plan? Its not like they're paying boatloads of income tax.
Let Ford work out their own problems. If and when they do, they'll emerge stronger.
Seems to me trucks is their strong suit, not cars.
they don't have an extra irs approved tax credit or something like that.
A tax credit is useless if you owe no tax to begin with. And all tax credits are IRS approved buddy.
I'm suggesting Ford shouldn't get any type of bail out favors from the Feds. Not saying they're getting any now.
This is dependent on how much traction is available. Instead of fishtailing into something, it will understeer and plow into something. That said, hitting something with the front of the car is much safer than hitting something with the side of the car (4+ feet of crumple zone vs ~16 inches between outside of car and your butt).