Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

1218219221223224235

Comments

  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Maybe the IIHS felt sorry for Bill and the gang; the news hasn't been great at Ford lately. That could explain why they tested the Fusion/Milan for the 3rd time when they haven't tested many 2006/7 models at all. ;)
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,250
    i would check the revolutions per mile on tires you are looking at. tires of the same 'size' can be very different as actually constructed. view the sizes as 'guidelines'. no, i'm not a pirate of the caribbean. ;)
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,250
    it's just one of those things we all have to deal with at times. this is supposed to be about some car or other, but where do you draw the line? it is tough to just let things pass at times, even though they are obviously inflammatory.
    hopefully, everyone is enjoying their mid sized sedans. ;)
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "Yes, apparently the new joint effort Ford/GM 6-speed isn't that great"

    I don't understand here??? Please link me to where you are seeing the problems with the 6speed transmission in the Fusion/Milan?? :confuse: I searched and searched the web and cannot find any problems? My 6 speed has been fine. Gets me 33MPG doing 75! Better than advertised..
    Thanks for the link
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "Wow - the 'face the music' comeback.

    You're probably the only one on the planet that thinks the Fusion outclasses an Accord.

    Whatever.

    Check out the new Altima's interior. Its pushing Accord quality. Leaves the Fusion looking very old.

    Once again, I have never said "out classess", you did.. I will say competes very well however.. Nice how you take a car that is new and compare it to one that is now going on 2 years old... Frankly, I don't see the big hoopla about Accord interior quality.. I feel much of it is beaten into your head by the media and by past reputation. I did not feel the Accords interior was worth the extra $3,000.. And after owning my Fusion SEL V6 for almost a year.. My interior has no rattles or squeaks.. unlike my 2000 Accord!! ;)
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "Maybe the IIHS felt sorry for Bill and the gang; the news hasn't been great at Ford lately. That could explain why they tested the Fusion/Milan for the 3rd time when they haven't tested many 2006/7 models at all. "

    With comments like these you wonder why I post like I do? Plain and simple the test by the IIHS is Good for the Fusion/Milan. No longer is this an issue. Comments like these are why I say image is what Ford needs to overcome. They build great vehicles. ;)
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "The Accord already has good/good IIHS ratings from 2004. Ford is about 3 years late to get into the game, but looks like they're finally catching up! "

    Once again wrong Honda propaganda.. The Taurus/Sable made Good/Good... quit spreading incorrect information.. :mad:
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "Sure, the Fusion/Milan compete in this segment. Do they have any chance of winning a comparison test (that's not paid for by Ford)? NO! "

    And again, spreading wrong information.. Yes, the Car and Driver segment was sponsered by Ford. Were the 600 people paid by Ford, NO!!. It says these people were not Ford employees, every day Joes like you and I. Now, get off the Ford buying people kick. It says it right in the segment also.. The Fusion chosen was comparible in price to the Camry/Accord. Some say the Fusion was AWD and its not fair. So I guess its unfair the Camry/Accord come with stability control?? Please.. face the music. A Ford won in this comparison. ;)
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    thanks for sharing...i've been wondering what a cvt would feel like.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    find out what Ford did to the Fusion in 1 year to have it rate better in the IIHS crash test ratings. Anyone knowing please link me or let me know. I am very curious.
    In the mean time I am searching the net for answers.. :shades:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Sorry, he probably didn't see the Taurus or Sable as vehicles that are included in this conversation.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    Seriously though, the Mustang's clutch is stiffer than that of our old Civic or ZX2 but it's not as stiff as the Mazda6 V6 I had either. The clutch in the Mustang has a lot more feel and is much more accurate than the one in the 6 too. I would be the 6 has the stiffest clutch out of any car compared in this thread too.

    I'm not too sure what you mean by a "stiff" clutch, but I think it might be the effort you have to use to engage it? I haven't found that myself, but the other comment you make about not having a lot of feel, I'd have to agree completely. The Mazda6 clutch is much like a switch; it's either on or off, and sometimes shifting can be a bit abrupt/ jumpy without rev matching or getting the timing just right.

    For the first couple months after buying this car, I really really missed the feel of my old accord (or for that matter of the accord I test drove before I got the 6). But now, I'm pretty well adjusted to it and can't find significant complaint with the 6's clutch. And although I know it's not as good as an Accord (and there aren't that many manual tranny's that are as good at any price) it's still a very rewarding car to drive, especially when driver inputs are done just right.
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    I think Nissan and Toyota have switched positions as far as interior design and materials is concerned. The Camry always had good materials but a boring interior design, while the Altima had a more "daring" design with cheap materials. Now I feel the opposite is true.

    But while I think the Altima has a better interior overall than the Camry, Fusion, Sonata, Optima and just about everyone else. The Accord and Passat still have the best overall design and materials I think. That's impressive for a car that's 5 years old.

    I just hope Honda puts some cohesive style back into the mix. The current Accord has been a great car...but a stylistic hit it has never been. I don't want anything over the top...but something handsomely stylish (98-2002 Accord for example) would be great IMO.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    From the survey results on TireRack.com the Kumhos have much better ratings in road noise AND handling than the Michelin Pilot HX MXM4.

    Just about every other tire on the planet is loads better than the miserable Michelins. I've been saddled with them on my Mazda6, and I can't wear them out fast enough! The only thing they're halfway decent in is dry traction, and even that's a stretch. Wet traction is horrible, they're loud, and I'm afraid to use them in the snow. Since I do have snow tires, I've only put about 20K miles on the Michelins, and they're almost worn out! They are definitely not worth the $200 per tire replacement costs.

    I hadn't been considering a 225 width before, but I will now!

    Just be sure to get a tire that will still fit the rim, and will not rub when the car is loaded down or in a tight turn. Also be sure to get a tire with a load rating that's the same or higher than your current OEMs as well.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    But now, I'm pretty well adjusted to it and can't find significant complaint with the 6's clutch. And although I know it's not as good as an Accord (and there aren't that many manual tranny's that are as good at any price) it's still a very rewarding car to drive, especially when driver inputs are done just right.

    Quoted for agreement. The take-up point on my Mazda 6's clutch seems to change ever-so-slightly, which makes engagement jerky at times. It's definitely not the best manual out there, but since the majority of cars in this class don't even make one available with the larger engine (which is a mistake), the car as a whole more than makes up for it. :)
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    not a chance and I'll tell you why - put 600 folks
    in front of a good 'sunday morning preacher type' salesman espousing the virtues of AWD, maybe a couple of glasses of wine (maybe not), and a good meal in their bellies and then turn around and put a V6 vs. a pair of 4 bangers, each equipped with VSC which will actually interfere with that day of 'fun' on the track. I would be willing to bet that not a single comment was ever made about any safety benefits the Accord/Camry with the VSC. It's like selling swampland timeshares in Mississippi. Under these conditions the more powerful and less electronically handicapped car should 'win'.
    A stacked deck usually yields predictable results, I promise you had the Camry been a V6 SE, or the Accord V6 neither of which handicapped by VSC, your 'results' would be very different because there is simply no contest between those engines and what is in the Fusion. Certainly you can get that wonderful? Duratech in the Fusion for about the same number that you pay for 4s in the other two - there is something to the adage that you do have to pay more to get more - something conveniently ignored in this publicity stunt. The commercial makes me laugh, it is proof that anything can be sold!
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    The 6 speed in the Fusion/Milan is not yet the Ford/GM joint venture. Apparently the Edge is the first Ford vehicle to have it. On the GM side it's in the Saturn Aura and Outlook.

    http://wardsauto.com/ar/ford_gm_automatic/

    This does not answer the question as to what the comment that "the new joint effort Ford/GM 6-speed isn't that great" is based on.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    From the survey results on TireRack.com the Kumhos have much better ratings in road noise AND handling than the Michelin Pilot HX MXM4.

    Just about every other tire on the planet is loads better than the miserable Michelins. I've been saddled with them on my Mazda6, and I can't wear them out fast enough! The only thing they're halfway decent in is dry traction, and even that's a stretch. Wet traction is horrible, they're loud, and I'm afraid to use them in the snow. Since I do have snow tires, I've only put about 20K miles on the Michelins, and they're almost worn out! They are definitely not worth the $200 per tire replacement costs.

    My old MXV4s were great in snow but less so in everything else. I went with Kumhos (Ecasta ASX) this time around as well (and in the stock size as there are fewer options these days with 15" wheels).

    I hadn't been considering a 225 width before, but I will now!

    Just be sure to get a tire that will still fit the rim, and will not rub when the car is loaded down or in a tight turn. Also be sure to get a tire with a load rating that's the same or higher than your current OEMs as well.

    I second this. There are a few other factors...the tire width has to be compatible with the rim width recommendations from the tire manufacturer (you can't take off a 175mm tire and put on a 275mm tire).
    The tire must have the same or better load rating (this usually isn't an issue but something to check). The tire must have clearance not to rub. If you ever go skiing or drive where chains are required, you usually don't have enough clearance to run a +0, although it doesn't sound like you have enough now with the stock tire anyway.
    My stock tires on my last vehicle were 205/60 15 91V while my race tires (mounted on a second set of stock rims) were 225/50 15 91V. Its amazing what another 4" of rubber on the road can do for your car (although the comparison from street tire to race tire isn't fair).
    Your tire dealer/installer/supplier will have an idea what fits and what you can get away with running.
    You might want to check out the Honda Accord Tires and Wheels discussion.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    The report on www.iihs.org tells the whole story on what Ford did to the Fusion/Milan to improve their crash test scores--except why the IIHS moved the Fusion to the top of the list for yet another crash test while many other models have yet to be tested.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Since, IMO, the majority of people are dopes...what do I care what they choose buy or what answers they give on a survey. :P :surprise:

    I bought the car (Mazda6) that was most appealing (for a variety of reasons) to me.

    Not a reason for choosing it, but I am glad that one like it is not in every driveway of my neighborhood and I'm glad that the annual sales total equals about a month of combined Camry and Accord sales.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    Actually the test was conducted using Camry XLE V6, Accord EX V6 and Fusion SEL V6 AWD. I would give Ford credit for giving folks a chance to compare apples to apples (sort of).

    However, looks to me that the test track was set up to benefit AWD vehicles (a lot of twisties) and no straight line (at least I didn't see one) to showcase the class leading V6 on the Camry. Also, instead of a pre-determined course I would also like to see how the 3 cars fare in the real world. The test will be more meaningful if each tester was allowed to spend 30 mins on each car in the normal DC traffic. That's where the Accord shines with its well balanced design of performance and comfort.
  • swhitehornswhitehorn Member Posts: 14
    The Altima has 13.1 cu ft of trunk space with the full size spare & 15.3 cu ft with the compact spare. Check it out at http://www.nissanusa.com

    Steve
  • swhitehornswhitehorn Member Posts: 14
    Nissan has priced it's first hybrid, the 2007 Altima at a very competitive $24,400. After you include the $3,250 tax CREDIT (not deduction), the price of $21,150 is actually LOWER than a similarly equipped 2.5S. For example, in addition to all of the 2.5S standard features, the Altima Hybrid adds 16 inch alloy wheels, dual zone climate control, traction/stability control, power drivers seat, & anti-lock brakes. Of course, trunk capacity is reduced from 15.3 ft to 10.1 ft. Ownership costs, due in part to the tax credit, should be best in class, as the similarly equipped Camry Hybrid costs $1,800 more at $26,200. The epa estimates for the Altima are 42/36 vs. 40/38 for the Camry & it is about .5 seconds faster to 60 than the Hybrid Camry. According to the Consumer Reports March 2007 edition, the 2.5S Altima is now at or near the head of the midsize class. I would very much like to see how the new Altima Hybrid fares after CR tests it. Could this be the new top rated midsize car? Personally, I think it has a very good chance. Too bad Nissan has restricted sales to only 8 states.

    Steve
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    Saw an Aura today (one of guys at work has it); seems to be a pretty nice car, I haven't sat in it/driven it but from initial looks the interior looks good (exterior is pretty sharp IMO). Any comments/experiences folks? The car has a few rebates as well, so looks a good buy.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Saw an Aura today (one of guys at work has it); seems to be a pretty nice car, I haven't sat in it/driven it but from initial looks the interior looks good (exterior is pretty sharp IMO). Any comments/experiences folks? The car has a few rebates as well, so looks a good buy.

    Too bad they left out the large market of 4-cylinder buyers looking for economy with their performance. Nissan's Altima 4-cylinder outran the Aura 3.5L V6, and delivers best-in-class economy.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    Doesn't the Aura have 2 3.5l engines? I believe one of them is the new 'high feature' one, which I think did like 6.6s to 60. I read somewhere that GM deliberately left the 4 banger out, don't remember the reason.

    As for the Alitma, I would really have to see/feel the Aura interior before I can compare, but, as I posted some time back, I was really disappointed by the interior on the Altima I rented. Personally, I put interior design/fit/finish above a lot of other things, and that's where I think the Accord shines. There just is nothing in its price range that has that quality feel as far as ergonomics/fit/finish go (IMO)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Doesn't the Aura have 2 3.5l engines? I believe one of them is the new 'high feature' one, which I think did like 6.6s to 60. I read somewhere that GM deliberately left the 4 banger out, don't remember the reason.

    The Aura has the 3.5L "High Value" engine (which is the 3.5L I referenced), as in the Malibu, and the 3.6L "High Feature" engine, from the Buick LaCrosse CXS, Cadillac CTS, GMC Acadia, etc... I do not know why they left out a 4-cylinder option. I think 4-cylinder's account for something like 2/3rds or more of Accord and Camry sales in this country. Think of the 4-cylinder sales that might be stolen by the Aura...

    I concur that the Altima (and most Nissans) leave me wanting more in the interior quality department. The interior of my 4-cylinder EX Accord is top-notch, feeling like it should cost more than it did given the tactile quality.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Personally, I put interior design/fit/finish above a lot of other things, and that's where I think the Accord shines. There just is nothing in its price range that has that quality feel as far as ergonomics/fit/finish go (IMO)

    Go sit in a VW.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    I have sat in VWs, thanks for the suggestion. I agree VW interiors are best in class; I love their interiors. However, the Passat is now too pricey to compete with the Accord, while the Jetta is too small.

    Personally, I would not own a VW due to the ridiculous quality issues this brand has had in the past few years. Maybe they are getting better now; but I will wait before I vote with my wallet.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    I have sat in VWs, thanks for the suggestion. I agree VW interiors are best in class; I love their interiors. However, the Passat is now too pricey to compete with the Accord, while the Jetta is too small.

    The Passat is within 2k of the Accord (Passat 2.0t/Accord SE 5M). The Hyundai is about 2k less. I think it is still firmly within the market segment.

    Personally, I would not own a VW due to the ridiculous quality issues this brand has had in the past few years. Maybe they are getting better now; but I will wait before I vote with my wallet.

    2 "extra" trips to the dealer of the life of the vehicle is something I am willing to endure to have something I enjoy driving. I haven't had issues with the 1999+ VWs in my life.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    The Passat is within 2k of the Accord (Passat 2.0t/Accord SE 5M). The Hyundai is about 2k less. I think it is still firmly within the market segment.

    Mazda6, Fusion, and Milan also sell for about $2K less than comparably equipped Accord or Camry.

    One could just as well say the Accord is too pricey to compete with Ford, Mazda, Hyundai while the Civic is too small.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "Duratech in the Fusion for about the same number that you pay for 4s in the other two - there is something to the adage that you do have to pay more to get more - something conveniently ignored in this publicity stunt. "

    Very obvious you forget the days when buying a Honda or Toyota meant you paid LESS and got MORE, not the way you think.. "Pay more to get more"??? That is not the way our economy runs. Toyota and Honda have lost thier way and are using their past reputation for as long as they can to try to hold onto consumers. I know everytime I see a new G6, Fusion, Altima, Sonata, 6, or any other type of 4 door sedan other than an Accord/Camry. Those consumers have seen past the hoopla and hype over Camry/Accord and have purchased a quality vehicle for less $$$.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "except why the IIHS moved the Fusion to the top of the list for yet another crash test while many other models have yet to be tested. "

    Boy, I get hammered for a "conspiracy theory" yet its ok for the Honda/Toyota crowd to use a conspiracy theory?? Just face the facts.. THE FUSION NOW HAS A GOOD crashtest rating from a source that is non-bias. The same source that rates the Accord and the Camry.. ;)
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "I bought the car (Mazda6) that was most appealing (for a variety of reasons) to me.

    Not a reason for choosing it, but I am glad that one like it is not in every driveway of my neighborhood and I'm glad that the annual sales total equals about a month of combined Camry and Accord sales. "

    I agree with you hands down! I don't see very many Fusions/Milans around. But when I do they stand out and make a nice impression. Camry/Accords are everywhere and don't entice a second look. It is nice to be different..
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "Actually the test was conducted using Camry XLE V6, Accord EX V6 and Fusion SEL V6 AWD. I would give Ford credit for giving folks a chance to compare apples to apples (sort of).

    However, looks to me that the test track was set up to benefit AWD vehicles (a lot of twisties) and no straight line (at least I didn't see one) to showcase the class leading V6 on the Camry. Also, instead of a pre-determined course I would also like to see how the 3 cars fare in the real world. The test will be more meaningful if each tester was allowed to spend 30 mins on each car in the normal DC traffic. That's where the Accord shines with its well balanced design of performance and comfort. "

    What is it you Accor/Camry fans just can't get? The Fusion won this comparison.. Why is it so hard for you to believe?? Oh! I forgot, its because its built by Ford right?? :mad:
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "not a chance and I'll tell you why - put 600 folks
    in front of a good 'sunday morning preacher type' salesman espousing the virtues of AWD, maybe a couple of glasses of wine (maybe not), and a good meal in their bellies and then turn around and put a V6 vs. a pair of 4 bangers, each equipped with VSC which will actually interfere with that day of 'fun' on the track. I would be willing to bet that not a single comment was ever made about any safety benefits the Accord/Camry with the VSC. It's like selling swampland timeshares in Mississippi. Under these conditions the more powerful and less electronically handicapped car should 'win'.
    A stacked deck usually yields predictable results, I promise you had the Camry been a V6 SE, or the Accord V6 neither of which handicapped by VSC, your 'results' would be very different because there is simply no contest between those engines and what is in the Fusion. Certainly you can get that wonderful? Duratech in the Fusion for about the same number that you pay for 4s in the other two - there is something to the adage that you do have to pay more to get more - something conveniently ignored in this publicity stunt. The commercial makes me laugh, it is proof that anything can be sold! "

    Once again a misinformed Honda supporter. They were V6 models of the Camry/Accord in the Car and Driver comparison!! Surprise!! Now actually read the article.. :surprise:
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    It's just not fair...Ford did not set up the test as a drag race to make sure that Camry would win :cry::cry::cry:;) .

    Of course, if Accord or Camry was touting AWD and Ford did not have it, then we'd be hearing how Ford is behind the curve...blah, blah, blah.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I don't know whether to be flattered to be thrust into the "Honda/Toyota crowd", or not. :)

    BTW, re showing you where you can get the info you asked for on how Ford improved the crash test results of the Fusion/Milan... you're welcome.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    scape - my point was in this 'stacked deck' test they were not comparing apples to apples, giving up 60hp with the Camcords as they apparently were, and then additionally handicapping them with VSC (didn't think you could get VSC on the Honda 4). The initial dollars don't matter for those of us that consider what something is worth after we get done with it (which are most buyers/leasers). The cost of owning that Camcord comparably equipped is NOT significantly different than even something like a Sonata V6, never mind a Fusion or anything else. Yes, many years ago, the Japanese brands were not any more expensive and were built better and nowadays there is a premium for the same thing. As a rule, though, cheaper on the front end = cheaper 3 or 4 years from now. This is not 'hype', it is statistics.
    IMO, the one thing that the Fusion does have to hang its hat on is that they have apparently been very reliable to this point. Maybe this is because they are using old drivetrains on existing platforms - but, that, in itself, doesn't matter, if in fact, what you're looking for is reliability, above all else. Ford (and Honda, actually) have discovered how to do such things even in Mexico. Interesting, because 'cousin' Mazda doesn't do quite as well, and is assembled in the US.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    "The Passat is within 2k of the Accord (Passat 2.0t/Accord SE 5M). The Hyundai is about 2k less. I think it is still firmly within the market segment."

    Comparibily equipped, the difference is bigger than 2k. Complare an EX V6 Accord to a V6 Passat, you will get my point.

    "2 "extra" trips to the dealer of the life of the vehicle is something I am willing to endure to have something I enjoy driving. I haven't had issues with the 1999+ VWs in my life."

    You may have had 2 extra trips, in general Passat issues are well documented and a reason widely recognized for the Passat's losing market share, as well as the whole VW group losing marketshare in the US
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    "One could just as well say the Accord is too pricey to compete with Ford, Mazda, Hyundai while the Civic is too small."

    Sure, once could say that, in one's opinion, just like I expressed mine. The Sonata is definitely comparable pricewise to a Civic, price wise. Mazda6 MSRP is close to Accord's, but sells cheaper due to its not selling well and some great deals have been had, even with the Mazdaspeed6.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    "It's just not fair...Ford did not set up the test as a drag race to make sure that Camry would win .

    Of course, if Accord or Camry was touting AWD and Ford did not have it, then we'd be hearing how Ford is behind the curve...blah, blah, blah."

    This was a Ford paid event. Show me an unbiased road test/comparison where the Fusion has beaten the Accord. One.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    Now you are a believer in publications/testers? Thanks.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    "I agree with you hands down! I don't see very many Fusions/Milans around. But when I do they stand out and make a nice impression. Camry/Accords are everywhere and don't entice a second look. It is nice to be different.."

    The Fusion is not a car that is exclusive or rare, so please don't go there.

    Also, if the Fusion was selling more than the Accord/Camry, you would have been gloating the success.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    "What is it you Accor/Camry fans just can't get? The Fusion won this comparison.. Why is it so hard for you to believe?? Oh! I forgot, its because its built by Ford right??"

    Its not a comparison, its a Ford paid publicity stunt. Lets see a real comparison. Please.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    I'm not too sure what you mean by a "stiff" clutch, but I think it might be the effort you have to use to engage it?

    Yes. In bumper to bumper traffic a "stiff" or "heavy" clutch will tire your left leg out pretty fast. I found the clutch in my old Mazda6 S to be too stiff, or heavy if you will, for those situations. That being said, I wasn't complaining because the rest of the car more than made up for that shortcoming in my book.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    Captain, you have to rememember this was a Ford paid event, set up by Ford, run by Ford for Ford's benefit. The Fusion has duked it out in tests with the Accord, lost eveyrwhere. So Ford decided to do one of their own, make it win and advertise.

    I have nothing against the Fusion, in fact it has been probably Ford's best car in a long time, right from design to reliability, and has also garnered praise in the same tests where it lost to the Accord. No slouch. Its just the pointed comments from our fanboys here that has me responding, and sometimes I think if its even worth it.

    Maybe I should just let them bask in the JDP and Ford comparison event.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    that the more sarcastic a post is, the smaller the chance that its contents will taken seriously.

    How about we tone down the rhetoric and actually discuss the cars instead of just flinging insults at each other?

    (Note, this is addressed to everyone who probably thinks it's not meant for them. ;))
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Its not a comparison, its a Ford paid publicity stunt. Lets see a real comparison. Please.

    I've posted two of them, but since Ford did not win either of them (although it came in 2nd out of 4 once, and 3rd out of 4 the other time, not terrible at all), he decided that they were biased. Since Ford won this one, and created had rights to make a commercial off of it (something Honda and Toyota have yet to stoop to), they aren't biased. How's that for fuzzy logic?

    He'll believe what he wants to believe, and it doesn't hurt us when he says it. Don't feed the bear, and it won't keep coming back touting his same "Ford is pitiful, right?" song. He wants to be a martyr for Ford Fusion, although it needs none because it is a fine automobile.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    "The Passat is within 2k of the Accord (Passat 2.0t/Accord SE 5M). The Hyundai is about 2k less. I think it is still firmly within the market segment."

    Comparibily equipped, the difference is bigger than 2k. Complare an EX V6 Accord to a V6 Passat, you will get my point.

    VW Passat 3.6L V6/6A 29,960, TMV 28,913
    Honda Accord EX-L 3.0l V6/5A 27,400 TMV 26615

    I am willing to say $2300 is close enough to my "about 2-grand" comment that they are in the same class, even though in driving experience, they aren't. FWIW the price difference is even smaller with the Camry V6.

    "2 "extra" trips to the dealer of the life of the vehicle is something I am willing to endure to have something I enjoy driving. I haven't had issues with the 1999+ VWs in my life."

    You may have had 2 extra trips, in general Passat issues are well documented and a reason widely recognized for the Passat's losing market share, as well as the whole VW group losing marketshare in the US

    Hmm, now if your opinion had some data, that would be great and I would consider it. That car, as far as I know, hasn't had ANY unscheduled trips for service, but the statistics I saw point to about 2 extra trips on average, over 8 years and 150k. Of course, you are entitled to an opinion, and I am glad you are happy with your vehicle of choice, what ever that may be.
This discussion has been closed.