Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
BTW, The SOnata fit ours, lol
Really the 6 does have a lot of things that they could be emphasizing in their marketing besides having more "zoom" than their peers. Things like having 3 body styles to choose from, awesome brakes, and having a six speed automatic transmission available for better fuel economy are other features that better targets the average buyer of this category of car. An ad with someone pulling out a lawn mower (or something else that would never fit in a sedan)from their great looking hatchback would attract people who value practicality more than handling dynamics.
Having driven an Accord (and being a certified honda-holic), Altima, and Legacy before buying the 6, it's disappointing that Mazda's marketing limits potential buyers even though it is a very capable car in many more ways than just "zoom". But then again, if people did know, I would have ended up paying a much higher price for my car because of higher demand....
I vote the 6 as this comparos best kept secret.
In other words, the 6 really needs a redesign, quick.
"In their survey on initial quality for the 2005 model year, JD Powers shows Mazda at 148 prpblems per 100 vehicles. That's an average of 1.48 problems per vehicle. Toyota is at 105/100 (1.05 problems per vehicle) and Honda is at 112/100 (1.12 problems per vehicle)
The best is a lexus at 81/100 (0.81 problems per vehicle.)
Is 0.43 problems per vehicle really that much worse?
And in the Vehicle Dependability Study, which looks at 3 years worth of problems, Mazda is at 252 problems per 100 vehicles (2.52 problems per vehicle), Toyota is at 194/100 (1.94 problems per vehicle) and Honda is at 201/100 (2.01 problems per vehicle.)
Once again, Lexus was at the top with 139/100 (1.39 problems per vehicle.)
For 2004 the IQS numbers were worse for Mazda, but better for Toyota and Honda. So Mazda is improving initial quality and they are getting worse. All three were better on dependability numbers.
Overall, I don't see the quality being different enough - either initial or long term - to worry about!"
now i'm not suggesting that the 6 has the same universal appeal as the accord or camry. both these cars have a much wider target market and a heritage to match. but given it's strengths, the mazda 6 deserves to have sales #'s that at least keep the altima in sight. again, i would suggest that the reason the 6 has lame sales #'s is more to do with how the car is marketed rather than how the car compares to it's peers. because when you take a look at the whole package (price, performance, and quality) the mazda 6 is worthy of consideration and better sales #'s.
Rear seat room: many families have teenagers, co-workers, parents... all of whom would like more vs. less leg room. Go down and compare the rear leg room of the Camry, Sonata, and Fusion/Milan to that of the Mazda6. Big difference.
Crash tests: Unfortunately, the test results with side airbags aren't published for the Mazda6, so we really don't know how well it would perform with those bags, do we? When buyers look up the test results, they see the Mazda6 far down the list. That can't help bolster their opinion of the car.
Standard traction control: So what? The Sonata has standard traction control and ESC, plus standard side bags and curtains and active head restraints, for less money than the Mazda6. Maybe that is one reason sales of the Sonata are soaring and those of the Mazda6 are lagging.
Fuel economy: Less is less. How many buyers of mid-sized family cars do you know who say, "I don't care about fuel economy"?
Price: You can get a Mazda6 V6 for the same price as a Legacy 4-cylinder. So what? I can buy a Sonata V6, with more power (and safety and fuel economy and room and warranty...) than the Mazda6 V6, for less money than the Mazda6i.
Quality/reliablity: Maybe you don't see anything to worry about. But when people are looking where to put their hard-earned money and they see that the 6 is Not Recommended by CR due to below-average reliability, and they look at the lists from JD Power and they see Mazda far down the list, and they see much better scores for cars like the Accord, Camry, and even the Sonata, what might they conclude? "I'm going to buy the lower-reliability car, because it costs more, has poorer crash tests results, fewer safety features, lower fuel economy, less passenger room, and less power than other cars I can buy!" Somehow I don't think so.
Mazda has a marketing approach, "zoom zoom", that appeals to only a small segment of the population. And so does the Mazda6. Does that mean it's a bad car? No. It just doesn't have the broad appeal of other mid-sized cars, and that translates into lower sales. And let's face it, when the 2007 Camry and Altima arrive, the 6 will be the oldest mid-sized family car design save for the sorry DC mid-sizers.
V6: 268 hp, 22/31
Hybrid: 192 hp, 43/37
I like the fact that the bread and butter LE has a power driver seat. That makes things much easier for multiple drivers.
I hate that the CD changer is only 4 disc with the Nav. What up with that? It has alll that new technology, blahblahblah, but they couldn't figure out how to fit a 6 cd changer with the Nav?
Exterior wise, it's okay. Better than the Accord, but I prefer Sonata and Fusion styling.
Interior wise, it's a close second to the Accord. In the XLE, they should have made the wood cover the center console compartment door like they did with the Japanese version. It looks a bit too cold in there with all that fake aluminum in the center and the steering wheel. The shifter area is definitely better than the Accord though.
Hm... no HID option (Altima has those). I was hoping that the XLE would carry them.
http://pressroom.toyota.com/Release...YT2006010675087
Something about this pic says last gen Monte Carlo to me.
I think the car as a whole looks like Dr. Frankenstein had a hand in the design. Some Mazda, some Hyundai, some Honda, but no Toyota original except for the interior. Maybe I'll change my mind when I see it in person.
No AWD?
"In North America in the near future, all of Nissan’s front engine/front-wheel drive vehicles except for Quest and some Versa models will come equipped with CVTs – including 100% of Sentras, Altimas, Maximas and Muranos sold with automatic transmissions."
The Milan is also highly rated, but only with 9 reviews.
Drive a Passat, and you will see why they're so appreciated. It does everything exceptionally well.
The above statement is pure opinion.
backy knows I don't always agree with him as far as Hyundai's go, but, given Volkswagen's new "Corolla" designs would keep me away in a heartbeat, not to mention the bloated sticker and underwhelming dealer attention/service. I'll take the Sonata over the Jetta anyday (since they are much closer in terms of price, though as far as car for the money, the Jetta is blown out of the water by our Korean friends).
Who gets to drive their VW? Most I know of live in the repair shop! Maybe it's VW owners' way of telling themselves their overpriced, underengineered (JUST LOOK AT RELIABILIY, I mean, Hyundai has them beat by a mile IMO) car wasn't a mistake to buy.
Oh, and the 06'Jetta just beat out all the competition in the February Car & Driver comparo.The Passat is even better. That's not just "pure opinion" from me, a lot of others agree. Drive one and then let me know what you think.
I've driven several VWs. The last one I drove had less than 40,000 miles on it (2000 model New Beetle), and had cost the owner (a friend of the family) $2,200 in repair bills for her Electrical system and A/C. She was currently trying to have the lemon :lemon: law invoked. I have no doubt that the germans engineer the best steering in the business, I'll give ya that. It drove beautifully. But as far as a car lasting a long time, many (Consumer Reports for one) show that they don't match up to today's reliability standards, and that's not just opinion, lots of others agree.
Perhaps at your age you can afford to spend money maintaining a German car, but I can't.
BTW, the Jetta you mention did beat the Accord in that test, because it was based on handling and such. I concede that the Jetta is the better handler, and at THAT PRICE, with that little amount of room, and the looks of my girlfriend's 2004 Corolla, (i'm 6'5" and find room VERY important), it should be. I'm outta here for a little while. Have fun chatting!
the grad
The new Jetta is about the same size as the last generation Passat, which is not small.
Are you saying you like the design of your girlfriend's Corolla?
I liked the jetta quite a bit (I don't really care for the passat that much, but also never drove one). I ended up with the Honda for a few reasons, one being money, and another concern over LT reliability, although I wasn't that worried.
It did drive real nice though, just not particularly cheap at 25ish (discounted from the 26K sticker). I would have been much more likely to lease one of these to "try it out", but the deal wasn't anything special.
I also have to teach my son to drive next year, so an Accord should be a safer (and cheaper) bet for that!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
The new Jetta is about the same size as the last generation Passat, which is not small.
Are you saying you like the design of your girlfriend's Corolla?
The new Jetta has three less inches of legroom than the Accord does, pretty small considering the current Accord is about the smallest in its segment.
No, I don't like the design of my girlfriend's Corolla, it is dated looking outside and in.
May I ask how much an oil change costs at your local VW dealer? How often is the scheduled maintenence?
I use synthetic oil in all my cars, and change every 5000 miles. I just think it's good insurance.
besides looking at short term reliability, one should also consider how a car has held up over time. my 2 accords both got more than 200k without significant probs outside of wear and tear issues. cars like the passat and hyundie have yet to earn my trust. perhaps in time they will (the sonata has two solid years to build on), but for now, i would not want to make a multi-thousand dollar gamble.
-- as I recall, there aren't any other cars in this forum that made the cut.
Not even a Volvo made it to the list this time around. . . .
THE WINNERS
TOP SAFETY PICKS 2006
CARS & MINIVANS
Large
Ford Five Hundred
and twin Mercury Montego
with optional side airbags
Audi A6
Midsize
Saab 9-3
Subaru Legacy
Audi A3
Audi A4
Chevrolet Malibu
with optional side airbags
Volkswagen Jetta
Volkswagen Passat
Small
Honda Civic
Minivans
no winners
That is what I love about my 6. The gauges, bose 6-disc, and sirius sat. Something you can't get in the Sonata. I'm not trying to bash the Sonata, I'm sure it is a good car and cheaper than the competition, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Dealership here has been sitting on about 20 Sonata's since Thanksgiving. So I know they aren't selling here anyway. The Sonata by the way has a combined total cash back of $3000 dollars. Kind of high for an 06 sedan already. I know the Mazda 6 06 has about $2000 in incentives, too. Its all about selling cars.
Here's the situation in my household. It may not make sense to everyone, but I'll try to be clear.
Before the purchase of my 06 Accord, we had a 2000 Honda Odyssey (mom's car), a 2005 Accord (dad's car), and the 96 Accord. My parents work at the same office and ride together in my dad's car daily (it made more sense than driving the Ody, that drinks more gas, and premium, to boot!). So, as of September, I am driving about 1,500 miles a month in my 1996 Accord (at that time, about 152,000 miles). I am in school in downtown Birminham, Ala (UAB), so driving and parking an old car makes more sense than driving a new one there to get beat up, right? That was our thinking...
The reason for the new purchase...
Our Odyssey was never getting driven. We had no real use for such a large vehicle anymore, and even though it was paid for, it was sitting in the garage losing value (traded it for $13,000 b/c it had only 39,000 miles on it). My parents are frequently at their condo in Gulf Shores, AL (beach) in the 2005 (dad's car)which used to leave me driving my old car everywhere, with noone to come pick me up if (God Forbid) the 96 broke down. My parents decided that since I had gotten a full scholarship to college, they were going to buy me a new car sometime in the future (as my reward for saving them 25 grand!). Well, dad got promoted to Vice Pres. at work (with a raise) the van was worth a lot (considering its age), and I was putting more and more miles on the old car with noone around, so having a car payment wasn't necessarily a problem.
Long story short, they figured we ought to have a new car that would actually get driven versus the excellent Odyssey that noone drove.
Now the 1996 goes to school to park downtown, and has Lowe's and Wal-Mart (horrible parking lots for dings and such) duty, while my new car is driven otherwise. I have put 3,100 miles on the 2006 since getting it in mid-November. I have also put 2,000 miles or so on the 1996 since then too.
I know it's complicated, but there is my reason.
*Also, trading in or selling the old one wouldn't get us that much money ($4,000 or so if we sell it), and we need a third car for those times when we all drive at different times, so we kept the 1996 as the third car because it is not costing us any money in repairs (knock on wood), or showing any signs of breaking down.
thegrad
PS: Thanks for not treating me like a kid on these forums, on some others, people think that because I haven't been driving that long (4 years or so) I don't know anything about cars. What most don't know is that I have had car magazine subscriptions since I was in elementary school.
Thanks again!
Now for my daughter, yea. The price is right!
Let me ask everyone to keep your comments focused on the vehicles - if you feel you must "reprimand" another member, that's the time to drop me an email instead.
Thanks!
I still like the Mazda6 for what it offers, but I just don't think it hits enough buttons of the majority of buyers in this market to be a big seller. But driving something different than most people drive isn't a bad thing, either!
Re the 20 Sonatas "sitting" on your dealer's lot since Thanksgiving... are you sure those are the same 20 Sonatas that have been there for the past six weeks? The dealer should have received more shipments since then. If the dealer hasn't sold any Sonatas for six weeks, with all the rebates available, the other thing I'd wonder is if they are asking unrealistic prices for them. One person reported in the Sonata discussion that his dealer wanted $24k for a Sonata LX. I can understand they would not move at that price. Now at under $20k for a loaded LX, with rebates, then they should move. And they are moving in at least some parts of the country, or Hyundai would not have set an all-time record for Sonata sales in December.
results, they see the Mazda6 far down the list."
Actually, you misrepresent the facts. mazda's frontal and frontal offset ratings from both the insurance institute and the nhtsa are excellent. Now, I'm not positive as to why you would say this, but it's not sticking to the facts like you suggested.
Backy says: "Unfortunately, the test results with side airbags aren't published for the Mazda6, so we really don't know how well it would perform with those bags, do we?"
As far as side impacts are concerned, again you say something that you have not looked into. Europe and Australia receive the same mazda as the US does (except for the rear bumpers, tires, and engine which would not affect side crash results) and they have done side impacts with curtain airbags. The european test has an impact from the side at 30mph (exactly the same speed as the US insurance institute test) and the results were 4 out of 5 stars. in fact, they found that the side crash results were better than the frontal crash results which have been found to be excellent.
The original point that i was making is that the mazda is not just for those who want a canyon carving sports sedan. Many people have pets or on occasion need to haul things around so having an option that a hatchback or wagon provides is very practical (I just found out that the hatchback has only 2 cubic feet less storage space than the wagon!!!). Characteristics like excellent brakes (which stop from 70mph 20 feet sooner than the sonata; enough to leave someone crashing into the car in front of them), quick and responsive handling to respond safely to hazards while driving, a nicely styled exterior that is unique and attractive, and comfortable seats that make driving enjoyable (which compared to the slippery leather seats in the sonata which have left many magazine reviewers uncomfortable). So to those who have not considered the 6 as a decent option, I would suggest that it is worthy, especially at the prices it is selling for (I bought my v-6, moonroof, bose soundsystem, auto climate control, side curtain airbags, in hatchback body style for less than 20K - that's more than 7k off msrp).
Normally i'm a huge honda and subaru fan, so buying a mazda was a surprise even to me. If the accord coupe had better visiblity when driving and was 5k less, or if the legacy gt was around 23k, I probably would not be driving the 6. but after reading all the reviews and doing a lot of research, coupled with the incentives I was able to get, i'm more than comfortable with the purchase i made.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=30
That is why I said buyers see the Mazda6 "far down the list" when they look up crash test results.
As for side impact tests w/o side bags, I was referring to the NHTSA and IIHS tests. The NHTSA and IIHS tests were done without side bags/curtains. The IIHS side impact test is different from those in other countries, and in fact is different from the NHTSA's test. One major difference is the size of the sled used by the IIHS. It is much bigger, for example, than the sled used by the NHTSA. This difference makes the IIHS test more severe than the NHTSA test. Many cars that do well on the NHTSA side crash test do poorly on the IIHS test. That is why I said that we don't really know how the Mazda6 will perform on side impact crash tests--and to be perfectly clear I should have said the IIHS crash test, which is the one I am most interested in--with side bags. Unless you know for a fact that the side crash tests in Australia and Europe are identical to the IIHS crash test?
I am glad you enjoy your Mazda6. I have found it an enjoyable car to drive and even considered buying one, a 5-door, about 2 years ago.
results, they see the Mazda6 far down the list."
Actually, you misrepresent the facts. mazda's frontal and frontal offset ratings from both the insurance institute and the nhtsa are excellent. Now, I'm not positive as to why you would say this, but it's not sticking to the facts like you suggested.
This whole issue of safety ratings is a fast-moving target, as it should be, benefitting us as consumers. The frontal offset sests of the IIHS are old news from the late 90's to 2003. The IIHS now admits that all vehicles are good picks. It's rare in todays world of lightning fast technology for one maker to be more than a year behind another. Citing frontal tests is not useful.. all newly designed vehicles are good essentially.
Even the side impact tests are old news. The IIHS had done an excellent job for us in showing the benefits of SaC/AB. The NHTSA is so far out of line in it's tests that on their site they admit that they have to change it. But again this is old news. The target has moved again.
Now former top picks like the Accord and Camry are 2nd rate and nothing has changed - except that the IIHS had added 'whiplash minimzation' into the equation. Most vehicles fail this criteria so they are relagated to 2nd class, 3rd class and Failure status.
Add 'accident avoidance' technology to the equation and most autos will fall into 'hish-risk status'.
However to be fair it doesnt mean that certain vehicles are deathtraps like the late 90's Cavaliers/Sunbeams it just means that relatively speaking some, for legitimate reasons like model changeover, are falling behind the others.
i would prefer safety in design as to opposed to a bunch of add-on's and software, which may or may not work when you need them, years down the road. jmo.
I don't think the mpg losses are due to safety gains.
of course, the Civic of twnety years ago probably weighed 60% of today's civic. It also was smaller and less comfortable. So, yes, the Civic is safer and weightier today, but it's not really the same car. It is a bigger car. Comparing a 2005 Civic to a 1985 Civic is about as valuable as comparing a 2005 Civic to a 1985 Corolla.
~alpha
4 cylinder auto: 24/33.
So the Camry 4 cyl. 5 speed auto has the exact same mpg as the Sonata 4 cyl. 4 speed auto (which incidentally has slightly more hp and torque). So what's supposed to be the advantage of the 5 speed auto?
Kinda disappointed that the trunk room (14.5 cu./ft.) has gone down more than 2 cu./ft. from the 2006 Camry (16.7 cu./ft.).
http://pressroom.toyota.com/presstxt/2007toyotakit/2007Camry_s.pdf
The car can put the transmission closer to the power peak with more gears to choose from. Example:
My 1996 4-speed Auto will downshift to third when floored at 75 mph (say, when needing to pass a dump truck). This puts the rpms at about 4000-4500 rpms, which is about 1000 rpm short of the horsepower peak. If it went to second, the engine would redline, therefore, third, and 4500 rpm is the best I can do.
My 2006 5-speed Auto will downshift twice to third. Since the fourth gear allows a less drastic downshift at 75 mph (to about 3500rpm), the third gear shift is able to put the car dead on the peak horsepower (about 5500 rpm), making passing much easier.
You may be surprised at the difference this makes. The 5-speed 2003 Accord is actually quicker than the 4-speed 2003 Altima, even though the Altima has a horsepower advantage. The secret weapon is the extra gear ratio, allowing the car to stay closer to its horsepower peak when under full acceleration.
Also, for those times you need some power, but flooring it isn't necessary, a 4-speed is likely to downshift to 3rd, revving the engine past what is necessary to complete the maneuver called for by the driver. A 5-speed gives the driver the option of just going down to 4th gear, keeping the engine quieter and less stressed, while delivering a more optimum level of power.
I hope this makes sense to those who asked. Have a good one!
thegrad
I have a '03 TL-S w/5-speed auto and '03 Maxima SE w/4-speed auto. I feel that the trani on the Maxi is a lot smoother to downshift and upshift making passing a lot less drama than the TL-S's which is jerky in comparison. The TL-S revs a lot quicker, but doesn't produce that much forward movement in return. Maybe it's due to the 3.5L engine on the Maxi and 3.2L on the TL-S. And maybe, someone can dig up the passing stats (30-60mph) on both cars and compare.
At 60mph the Maxi rev ~2200rpm and the TL-S is at ~2000rpm, but by 90mph both are ~3000rpm. The TL-S might get more miles per gallon at high speed (I haven't taken it on a long trip yet), but around town they get the same mileage. :confuse: