Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

kyrpto

CR is a very respected magazine. You boys are brainwashed.
Must be Bush supporters too.

rockylee

Yeah, imidazol97 knows just how much I love Dubya...grin

Rocky

jaxs1

The resale is of a Grand Prix is much lower than a Camry, but not in the range you listed.
You will not get a used 2007 Grand Prix with 10-20K miles for $11K even if it is a prior rental. That might be around what they go for at wholesale auction, not what they sell for on retail lots.

imidazol97

I'll bet C&D would be a better reference magazine. They don't like Toyos as well... as other imports. Too dull?

elroy5

I guess you ignored my link ?????

http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/FREE/70118010

The Accord was not included in this comparison. Try again.

rockylee

The Accord was not included in this comparison. Try again.

ARE U KIDDING ME ??????

Do you really think that outdated POS is better than the Camry ? Good God try again maybe next year but until then the Camry and Aura reign at the top of the podium.

Rocky

pat

Rocky, you are entitled to your opinions of course, but why not share with us how you arrive at them instead of making unsupported inflammatory declarations. That would be very helpful.

neteng101

Accords can be had with prices off MSRP - you cannot bargain on a Saturn, thus making the pricing difference you mention a totally moot point.

I like the exterior but IMHO the interior of the Aura is certainly more Buick-like luxury and not the way more techno sleek Accord interior. Couldn't care less for wood grain myself.

rockylee

making unsupported inflammatory declarations.

Pat, please re read post 11785 and you might just find your answer.

Rocky

neteng101

Thanks for the numbers.

Its interesting to me that the Fusion V6 times are on par with the old Accord I4, and a second+ slower than the Camcord V6s of today.

Those at speed acceleration numbers are far more meaningful to me than 0-60 times, given highway commutes. It also highlights what I've been saying about how a V6 is often a better choice for quick pickup on the go... of course, not all V6s being created equal.

I'm sure thegraduate will be glad to know his I4 Accord can keep up with a V6 Fusion on the highways... though his probably has the newer I4 which might even beat the Fusion V6 in this particular acceleration number.

Accord I4 = hardly a slouch!

Fusion V6 = :sick: 4-banger performance

scape2

CR is a joke. :lemon:

scape2

"Thanks for the numbers.

Its interesting to me that the Fusion V6 times are on par with the old Accord I4, and a second+ slower than the Camcord V6s of today.

Those at speed acceleration numbers are far more meaningful to me than 0-60 times, given highway commutes. It also highlights what I've been saying about how a V6 is often a better choice for quick pickup on the go... of course, not all V6s being created equal.

I'm sure thegraduate will be glad to know his I4 Accord can keep up with a V6 Fusion on the highways... though his probably has the newer I4 which might even beat the Fusion V6 in this particular acceleration number.

Accord I4 = hardly a slouch!

Fusion V6 = 4-banger performance"

LOL!!!! Your kidding me! We have already gone through this topic and it was shown no way an I4 Accord could best a V6 Fusion/Milan. Look at the numbers man.. 221HP/210ft/lbs of torque vs 166HP/160ft/lbs of torque?? Weight is within 150lbs.. Please! You are taking the worst 0-60 numbers for the Fusion on the net and comparing them to the best 0-60 number for the Accord I would bet. This to ease your mind? The best 0-60 on the net for Fusion is 7.2 seconds. I also laid waste to an 06 I4 EX Accord on I-205 that thought he could beat me.. maybe you? This guy was so mad I could see him punch his dashboard as I steadily walked away from him. Nice try though..

scape2

How the Milan/Fusion I4 that is supposed to be so inferior to to the Accord I4 is 5.9 and 5.4 respectively hmm... .4 seconds.. can you count to .4 seconds?

stevehecht

It's been posted that the V6 is now selling for $750 under invoice around the country, but you might not be able to get quite that discount on the SE V6 because of it's lower initial price. I got mine for $536 under, but that was back in November. IMO the SE V6 is the best deal out there in Accordland.

neteng101

You might want to read more carefully. I was responding to numbers posted from CR for 45-65mph acceleration times.

Lousy gearing and bad use of the engine powerband could easily explain why the V6 Fusion equals the Accord I4 in this particular acceleration number (45-65). It ain't all about HP but how well the HP/torque is utilized and the efficiency of the powertrain.

captain2

the Xb in this case would certainly benefit, and be a safer drive with Toyota's 158hp 4 - but the point of the experience is that there are many traffic situations where having really good power can and does make a difference.

backy

When did VW and Nissan (Datsun) become American companies?

They're not, and I didn't say they are. But they are not Honda or Toyota. One of the accusations was that CR is biased towards Honda and Toyota. That is why I think it's odd that CR has a VW and Nissan at the top of their 4-cylinder family car ratings--where's Honda and Toyota???

jcgable

I drove one Friday and was incredibly impressed. I personally (being a 20 year old college student) am not in the target market for either a Camry or an Aura, but my parents are looking for a new sedan and I test drove the Aura as a preview of the new Malibu. I left very very VERY impressed with the Aura. I drove one with a two tone gray/black interior which looked much better than the cheap wood grain. Additionally, the ride and handling was excellent. The Camry may be better to the mark numbers wise, but exactly how many people are expecting 45 year old accountants and soccer moms to drag race their Camrys and Accords? When I test drove the Camry a month ago, I was very impressed with its handling as well, but the interior was downright ugly to me (and it seems that Toyota is trying to hit a younger target age group this time around). Therefore, while I am not going to praise the Aura as if it is God's gift to Midsize car buyers, I certainly believe it is a very strong entry and deserves to give Camry a run for its money.

This is going to get really interesting however once the new Accord and Malibu make their debuts. I wouldn't be surprised if the Malibu over time (the next 2-3 years) takes a much larger slice of the mid-size pie (210,000-225,000 yearly sales).

*Hides from people with rocks and pointy things* :P

backy

I did look at the AutoWeek review. It was obviously designed to put the Aura over the Camry. Consider:

* The model that they chose to represent the Camry was the SE, with the sport suspension. Yet it's clear these reviewers prefer a softer ride--which all other trims of the Camry have.

* The complained that the Camry was $1900 more than the Aura, but didn't mention that the Camry is available with its potent V6 for an MSRP less than the Aura with its high-power V6.

* They said the Aura's interior had "high-quality materials equal to Camry's", then they expressed disappointment with the quality of the Camry's interior materials. Huh??

* They noted the Camry bested the Aura in acceleration, braking, slalom, interior room, more responsive steering and throttle, quietness, and fuel economy (which they admitted would offset the price disparity between the Aura and Camry SE). The Aura bested the Camry only in skidpad, styling (totally subjective), interior (largely subjective, and questionable given comments above), ride, and value (questionable given comments above, and the fact that Camrys are routinely discounted but Saturns are not). And the Aura won. :confuse:

I noticed they didn't show their scoring methodology, as do reviews like MT, C/D, and CR. I think I know why.

jeffyscott

In the V6, the Fusion had 0-60 of 8.0s vs. 7.3s for the Accord, so there is a bigger difference in the 45-65 times than the 0-60. Which I think means the Fusion is likely faster off the line...like 0-30???

Of course the V6 Fusion is faster 0-60 than the Accord I4...but the Accord I4 certainly does very well with 9.0s time in CR testing.

Yes it appears that 4 cyl accord can keep up with V6 fusion in a 45-65 test, but the Ford/Mazda I4 is not far behind either.

neteng101

Which I think means the Fusion is likely faster off the line...like 0-30???

Does CR explain if they disable VSA for 0-60 runs? If not, the VSA could restrict the Accord V6 somewhat in 0-60 testing. There is no VSA/ESC option for the Fusion.

I wonder what the numbers of the AWD Fusion is like - AWD systems adds weight and decreases performance numbers for the most part.

m1miata

Oh Rocky, you should look at the Accord SE V6, as it is less costly than the Aura 3.6, if we are but talking price at the moment. And the 3.5 Aura is comparable to the i4 Accord Coupe.

I am a bit concerned about reliability. Any suspension problems being noted yet like on the Malibu? The scores for previous Saturns look awful in the CR issue of 2006. But, given time, as the platform matures, I would think the problem areas have been worked out. Fingers crossed, the Aura is third time is a charm car.
-Loren

jeffyscott

Don't know what the did with VSA. But edmunds comparison does indeed show the fusion to be faster off the line, they got faster time for Fusion vs. Accord for 0-30 and 0-45, then for 0-60 and 0-75 the Accord was ahead.

Also by subtraction, edmunds numbers are closer for things like 30-45, 30-60, 45-60, 45-75. For example 45-75 was 6.2 for Fusion and 5.8 for Accord.

m1miata

Well let's analyze this some more. If you have a 100 people buy a magazine with data on reliability of cars, as survey results indicate, and they choose a car based on the data, then logically speaking I would say most are import car owners. Hasn't Honda, and Toyota topped the rest of the world for reliable cars for the last three decades? And you can add less reliable cars like the BMW,Mercedes, and VW, bought for their handling, snob appeal, or whatever their fancy. Yeah, I bet the combined total for Consumer Reports magazine owners is mostly foreign cars. That is today. It wasn't always so.
-Loren

jcgable

* The model that they chose to represent the Camry was the SE, with the sport suspension. Yet it's clear these reviewers prefer a softer ride--which all other trims of the Camry have.

A very valid point, although I didn't find a huge change in suspension to be honest when I test drove. Both rode very very well. The difference is the Camry has always done that. For a Saturn to be on par speaks volumes about the GM resurgence.

* The complained that the Camry was $1900 more than the Aura, but didn't mention that the Camry is available with its potent V6 for an MSRP less than the Aura with its high-power V6.

The Aura base models are equipped with a V6 engine while the camry base model is an inline 4. They are clearly aiming for slightly different tasks here. It will be a much better comparison when they compare the Malibu to the Camry considering Saturn is now being slotted just above Chevrolet. It will be priced in the same category.

* They said the Aura's interior had "high-quality materials equal to Camry's", then they expressed disappointment with the quality of the Camry's interior materials. Huh??

Both have great materials, except again, for a Saturn to be on par with a Camry, speaks volumes. I didn't like the layout of the Camry interior... they were trying too hard to break away from the old aging target group. That said, the interior quality was still very good.

* They noted the Camry bested the Aura in acceleration, braking, slalom, interior room, more responsive steering and throttle, quietness, and fuel economy (which they admitted would offset the price disparity between the Aura and Camry SE). The Aura bested the Camry only in skidpad, styling (totally subjective), interior (largely subjective, and questionable given comments above), ride, and value (questionable given comments above, and the fact that Camrys are routinely discounted but Saturns are not). And the Aura won.

The margins were all very close. Again, it will be a much more fair assessment once the new Malibu and Camry are compared. Upon seeing the new Malibu, a Toyota executive was quoted as saying that it appears GM is coming out of the storm with a line of solid products. I for one am excited. It's about time that there was some real competition. I like the idea of GM and Toyota battling it out for number one for the next several years. It will mean greater innovation and better products.

I'm not saying the Aura is better, I'm saying it is competitive and strong and should not be discounted on this forum as much as it is right now.

m1miata

Outdated -- the Honda? If I was strictly going by something being outdated, the Aura with a 3.5 push-rod engine, two values per cylinder and a 4 sp. tranny really shows its age. Rocky, it is best you not go there. NOT saying it all doesn't work. Simply pointing out that you brought up the issue of a Honda being out of date. Never heard anything but praise for Honda engines, and handling, with a good resale thrown in for toppers. Best to explain what Aura may have to offer compared to the rest. That is the question. What elements of Aura stand above the rest, or are better than the Accord. Bashing other cars doesn't work. Salesmen do that some times. They bash a make, or another dealership -- bad form indeed!
-Loren

captain2

it appears that 4 cyl accord can keep up with V6 fusion in a 45-65 test
the curse of the Duratec

m1miata

I see they road tested the Aura XR, and not the XE. The XR gets pretty pricey as they load them up for those available on the lot. As for price, the Camry would clearly be less. They chose one with tons of extras, do not consider the resale value, and the Aura price is fixed ( plus any thing they add-on ). I would like to see them test the Accord against the Aura. Accord i4 vs the Aura XE and the Accord SE V6, vs. Aura XR. I do think you can get some dollars off on Aura. There is a $500 rebate, and in some states other offers. Wish they had XR models which were not loaded up. It is not worth $27k or more. Guess it is XE or nada in the Saturn line, unless you special order. I see they are adding etching of numbers, and pin stripes on the XE too. I will ignore any side sticker pricing.

One thing about Hondas in California is the resale value. You can still get thousands for an Accord with 150K miles.
Some with mileage so high, if they were the competition car with same mileage they would be sold for scrap.
-Loren

backy

I agree, I am glad to see GM coming out with some competitive mid-sized cars in the Aura and hopefully the new Malibu. Unfortunately for GM, it faces some very stiff competition in the Accord (to be redesigned for 2008), Camry (hard to beat its brand loyalty and reliability even if cost-cutting is more obvious than it used to be), the impressive new Altima, the Fusion/Milan, Sonata, Optima, the Mazda6 (also do for a redux for 2008), Legacy, Passat etc. It's such a tough market that any misstep is amplified.

captain2

I'm guessing that the 3.6 now in the Aura/CTS and soon to be in the Malibu will prove out to be a better engine (in terms of refinement) than the 3.5DT will be for Ford. This months MT, has a short test on the Lincoln MK and notes that the 3.5 is smoother and powerful, still short of the Toyota or Honda engines, but, at least, competitive. Long term reliability for both is a question mark - but, even that these engines exist can't hurt these 'Detriot' mfgrs., they both had a long way to go.

captain2

well, CR may be a joke - to you. They do have their own set of priorities (safety, FE, reliability) that differs from both you and me. But, they likely influence more car buying decisions than any other source of information in this country. You (and I) may not agree with them all the time, but a joke they certainly ARE NOT.

elroy5

One thing about Hondas in California is the resale value. You can still get thousands for an Accord with 150K miles.

In Louisiana or probably anywhere USA you can get top dollar for a used Accord. Got $5,000 for my old Accord (12 years, 140,000 miles). Other makes just don't have that kind of appeal. Ended up paying about $1,000 per year, not bad huh.

gooddeal2

:mad: Got $5,000 for my old Accord (12 years, 140,000 miles) :mad:

WOW, it must be crazy there...here in Philly, in '00, one of my relative sold his 1989 Accord LX, 78K miles, Fair to Good condition and he got only $1500 (private sale). Car dealer offered $500 as a trade in.

elroy5

My car was in perfect condition (couple of door dings). I live next to a busy road, and the guy who bought it said he could tell I took very good care of the car. He passed my house on the way to and from work. My Accord was an EX 92, bought in 91, and sold in 03 (paid $17,000 new)

m1miata

Unless that car was pretty much thrashed, I would say he could have gotten more than $1500. Today, IF the car was in excellent shape, with 78K miles on it, it is worth $4,005. And this is seven years beyond the time he sold the car in Philly. Oh well, it doesn't matter. Considering it is trade-in price, which is of course the lowest, then private sell, which is not always that good, and like you said a condition which was not best, I guess you take the $1,500 as good enough, and move on. I bought a '76 Olds. Starfire and sold it closer to scrap price of $300 in 1982.
-Loren

plekto

m1miata
You are comparing the 3800 V6 to the 3.5 Camry with 268HP.

No, I was comparing the Camry 4 cylinder to the base Grand Prix. My point was that the Camry V6 wasn't even worth considering since it was almost $4000 more money for the most basic model.

And, honestly, the Camry is a joke in city traffic. Sure, it's fast if you flog it - in a straight line, but the Grand Prix(and most of the Pontiacs and Saturns) - they have much better suspension than the Camry. All Toyota is doing with the Camry is essentially making a better Buick. It still drives like a boring, stodgy commuter-box. The Accord is better, but their lower-end models are SERIOUSLY de-contented to the point of feeling like a rental.

jaxs1
The resale is of a Grand Prix is much lower than a Camry, but not in the range you listed.
You will not get a used 2007 Grand Prix with 10-20K miles for $11K even if it is a prior rental.

Technically, you're right - the cheapest I could find was a little over $12K - but that's asking price at a dealership. I'm fairly confident that I could haggle them down to $12K. IIRC, I did say 11-12K.

Shoot, one dealer here in Los Angeles had 4 last month - all identical. Asking $12995. And three are still there a month later - so that price is obviously too high/there's tons of room for negotiation.

gooddeal2

Unless that car was pretty much thrashed, I would say he could have gotten more than $1500. Today, IF the car was in excellent shape, with 78K miles on it, it is worth $4,005. And this is seven years beyond the time he sold the car in Philly.

This is even better now. You mean someone will pay 4K for an almost 20 years old car? I hardly even see that 1989 style on the road any more.

Edit: KBB Private party value w/ good condition

1996 Accord LX w/ 80K miles = $4925

1989 Accord LX w/ 80K miles = $2375 (which I doubt anyone would want this car even at this price)

I don't believe there's an excellent carolder than 5 years old.

backy

I don't know if the 3.6L in the Aura will turn out to be a better engine than the 3.5L from Ford, or even the 3.5L from Toyota or the 3.8L from Hyundai or whatever else. What I do know is that GM has decided to offer the Aura only as a V6, which takes it off the list for me. If I get a car in this class it would be one with an I4, which is plenty peppy enough for my needs plus offers better fuel economy. For example, the Altima 2.5 averaged 25% better fuel economy in CR's tests than the Aura XE V6 yet tied the Aura in 0-60 time and actually did better 45-65. FWIW, the Altima 2.5 was quicker than the Optima V6 and Sebring V6 (admittedly not very strong as V6s go) in the same tests. And I know from my own tests that the Accord, Fusion/Milan, Mazda6, and Sonata I4s are plenty quick for real-world driving, if not Indy 500 driving, especially with sticks.

elroy5

This is even better now. You mean someone will pay 4K for an almost 20 years old car? I hardly even see that 1989 style on the road any more.

The 89 model was not as popular (smaller than a 92), and it would have to be in great shape to be worth $4,000. The 89 model did not sell as well as the 92 did, but there are many 89's still out there. Many of the 89 left on the road have gone through multiple owners by now, and are in rough shape.

jeffyscott

The, probably more realistic???, Edmunds private party average values (I assumed 4 cyl):

1996 Accord LX w/ 80K miles about $3000
1989 Accord LX w/ 80K miles about $1200

imidazol97

>they likely influence more car buying decisions

That's certainly a sorry state of affairs. Doesn't say much about the US public. Are you sure they use FE for their truck choices? I'll have to see if the trucks are rated that way.

I like to think many others are able to look, drive, and decide which car they will be happiest with for their purchase.

elroy5

The private party on my 92 was under $4k (kbb), but the car was in great condition, and I would not have taken $4k for it.

captain2

that will sure take anything made in Mexico and/or Canada off your list - there is a reason that things like the Aura only have 6s, "Detriot's' track record with 4 bangers is much worse..

captain2

well, whether you like it or not, there is some serious statisical data as well as long term vehicles tests that go into their recommendations. Trucks? CR is on record, as wishing they would all disappear, something about weighing 5-6000 lbs, being dangerous to others in collisions, and a horrible waste of resources. Do they test FE, sure and I would imagine something like the Ridgeline quite a bit.

scape2

"Lousy gearing and bad use of the engine powerband could easily explain why the V6 Fusion equals the Accord I4 in this particular acceleration number (45-65). It ain't all about HP but how well the HP/torque is utilized and the efficiency of the powertrain"

You have got to be kidding me??! Once again just because it has a blue oval its got to be "lousy gearing" or "bad use of the power band" Please, :sick: Look at this test CR did a bit closer. Their numbers in now way can be correct. Don't you find it puzzling how a Fusion I4 that weighs only 180lbs less than the V6, yet outputs 60HP less and over 40ft/lbs of torque less can only beat the V6 Fusion 45-60 in .4 seconds?? Think?? :confuse:

m1miata

Perhaps the resale is the telling tale. A Grand Prix is not seen as the same quality as is the Camry. All Hondas come with side air bags. I would say the most basic Honda is the better equipped car. As far as suspensions go, I would imagine the McPherson strutted Pontiac is not that much sharper a handling car than the Camry, though I could be wrong. The G6 and Aura are better handling. That said, only the Honda Accord has the the double wishbone suspension. Nice touch!
-Loren

m1miata

That is the Kelly Blue Book -- retail price. Check it out -- $4005 is the quote.
-Loren

booyahcramer

The Altima is an excellent choice. Nobody here seems to like the styling, but I love it. A nice overall package.

It certainly keeps the I4 class leader (Accord) on its toes.

elroy5

Don't you find it puzzling

Yes, I find your post very puzzling. :confuse:

m1miata

Do you like the CVT transmission and trust the engine on the Altima. Yes - cool looking car. New one has a foot emergency brake. The placement is odd - about the area you would place the clutch on a stick car. To me the CVT seems slightly strange to drive, though like other things in life, one can adapt. The steering is a bit light. Road noise is still there, but perhaps others, like the Honda, are not all that quiet as well. Handling is good. The starter button is pretty cool, though something else to go wrong. Anyone know what key replacement cost is on those? I am a bit leery of the four cylinder engine by Nissan. Good power, but is there oil consumption and other problems with that engine? What happened in 2006 with the cars with suspension problems -- some factory goof-up? I owned one Datsun/Nissan car, and it was great. But that was in early 80's. I am just more shy of the new product, but then again, as always, perhaps it is just me. I see that many people swear this car is the best, and the resale is super good indeed. There are some good selling point to it.
-Loren