By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Do you know which Camry you saw/sat in? The CE and LE will share an interior layout and color schemes, while the SEs have unique color schemes and treatments, as well as instrumentation, and the XLE is different in color scheme and materials as well.
~alpha
How do you figure that? Best I can tell, they are histling off car lots everywhere (no rebates offered in my area, anyway!)
Pipas said a sharp increase in fleet sales to rental car companies and the government was one reason for the Big Three's gains. Fleet sales made up 39% of Ford's overall sales in January, compared with 28% of sales in all of 2005. "
That don't impress me much...
for a brand new 1972 Plymouth Duster. Old Mike
Any thoughts?
Toyota/Lexus is covering the entire spectrum of car buyers. They may have a soft spot in the low price sector that Hyundai can exploit, but otherwise Toyota is hot.
I'd consider the loaded Camry as well. Lots of horsepower, features, reliability, craftmanship. A near-luxury car to compete with the TL, A4, and S60.
Sounds like a snobbish opinion.
Sonata prices (real world) are great compared to Camry and so is the overall car including features and quality. If you want a higher priced car, check out the Azera. Fully loaded it retails for about $30K. I've been a passenger in an Azera test drive, and while it's a beautiful car, it doesn't match the Sonata for value.
Higher price doesn't mean better or better value. Some people take pride in how MUCH they pay for something, while others take pride in what they get for the price.
I'm glad that most of them aren't any of Ford's newer offerings.
Once the Taurus is done, I wonder what Ford will sell to fleets in its place? Nothing? Five Hundreds?
Camry - $4000 - Sonata - $1000 - Fusion
If I can get similarly loaded Sonata for 4000 less than Camry, I would go with Sonata. If fusion is 1000 less than Sonata, I would prefer Fusion.
I chose Camry over Accord just because its later model.
I don't understand how single experience at a dealership completely changes the buying decision. Its so easy to go and try other dealership. Moreover, its understandable that Camcord dealers sounds blunt because they are busy. Recently I went to Toyota dealer to find no salesmen were available to attend me (because they had lot of customers buying new Rav4). Went to other dealership and bought LE, whats big deal.
I found the comment about the Camcord dealers being blunt because they are busy really humorous. The busiest dealership I've ever seen was a local Mazda dealership a couple of Saturdays ago. That place was jumping. I was also in a Toyota dealership recently (asking about the Yaris), and it was pretty busy but I was greeted immediately and someone helped me quickly (maybe it's because the sales rep I know there is their Master Rep who trains all the others). But I've been in Honda dealerships several times in the past few years where it was dead, almost no customers, reps were just sitting around yakking, and not one came over to see if they could help me. Fortunately, I am finding that kind of behavior is getting rarer. The last time I visited a Honda dealer, to test out the new Civic, I got excellent service. Competition is a wonderful thing.
With 268 HP, brilliant reliability history, new interior features (far more new technological features than accord), great resale value, decent safety ratings, I am convinced to go with new camry. I would compare oranges and apples, only if apples are 4000 cheaper.
between the two was not justified by the differences
between the two cars. If they were both the same price,
I probably would have gotten the Accord. But they weren't
even close.
And I am not the only one. Check the 200 reviews at the top of these posts.
I think the high-end Camry market will definitely swell. Many people have a lot of money now and with SUVs waning in popularity, a loaded Camry will be attractive.
kdh
Very interesting point! It had not occurred to me but you're right, there is a lot of buyer interest now to move into something more fuel efficient as long as it's not an econobox or Prius or mini-sport model a la the Si/tC.
I respectfully disagree. I think that marketing and economic data prove to the contrary. Currently America has its lowest average savings rate since the Great Depression!! The gap between the rich and poor has never been greater according to a recent study conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, published on 1/27/06. The car market is seeing significant growth in the smaller car market. Most Camry's and Accord's (well over 50%) were comprised of the lower priced 4c versions. Look at Sonata sales. The low price is very attractive. Look also at the recent advent of the 70 month car loan and at what has happened to the average term of car loans. It has swollen considerably, meaning people are paying for cars longer or better put, reducing their monthly payment by amortizing the loan longer. Average income has not gone up. The upper middle and middle middle class is smaller than it has been in decades. Credit debt is at record heights leading the government to pressure credit card companies to increase the amount of the minimum payment to help decrease the debt. If anything, the "swelling" in the market will come from the cheaper models. Look at the cross over segment, it is much cheaper (both as far as price paid and maintenance costs) than the SUV market. SUV's have become too expensive for people, so they are going down market. I think Toyota putting faith in Camry sales other than the 4c and lower 6c is a mistake. We are getting poorer and poorer, it is my sincere hope that our tastes wouldn't be getting richer and richer.
I agree with the 4c hybrid. However, I was suggesting that Toyota would be unwise to expect people to turn to a V6 Camry just because they added a bunch of horses. Honda did the same thing to the Accord and they are still selling way more I4 copies than V6 copies.
This is what makes a Fusion V6 so appealing. It's priced about the same as a Camry or Accord I4 model and has a good bit more power, but not too much power. Fuel efficiancy isn't bad either but it's no I4 there. It's just a good fit if you ask me. For those that want better performance, straight line that is, Ford will have to offer an SVT model (or ST as rumored earlier last year). Until then though, people will have to look elsewhere.
Ask the guy in Montgomery County MD, who's home went from $650,000 to $950,000 in 4 years about his savings rate, credit card debt, and his outlook on the future. Or the guys in S. Fla, NY, CA etc etc etc. Installment interest rates are LOW.
There will always be a low end market for cars, but I agree that the $30K car market will swell. Doesn't mean it'll dominiate but there's big time margin potential in this sector. Even Hyundai wants to be there with the Azera.
You might get your wish. A base V6 FWD stickers for a touch over $21k. Ford has been using the Haldex AWD system in most of it's newer products (you've seen this system in the Volvo XC90, Ford Freestyle, and Ford Five Hundred among others) and will probably do the same in the Fusion. The MAZDASPEED6 uses it so why not? If you don't know about the Haldex I'll sum it up by saying it is light, cheap, and very good at what it does.
The difference in price between a FWD Five Hundred SE and an AWD SE is about $1800. IIRC that bumps you up from a 5-speed ATX to a CVT. If Ford sticks with the 6-speed ATX in the Fusion V6 AWD you may very well see it sticker for something a bit over $22k.
That $30k market is too close to entry luxury sedans, which all seem to be getting cheaper to buy by the minute, to swell right now. Pushing a Camry, Accord, or any of these fine cars up that high in price should make a buyer think twice unless something special is there. DCM knows this which is why a $30k+ 300 has a Hemi. People will pay for something special like a fancy motor or a luxury badge on the grille/hood.
Luxury cars around $30k is what will swell IMO, not your loaded, nothing special about them, average joe sedan.
Yes the stuff reported by our government by people who are paid to knwo it is crap. Yep. I don't live in Arkansas but you seem to be the man from the moon.
Little bit of information for you. The Wall Street Journal and Business Week have both looked at teh current housing bubble. Those lofty prices were financed by cheap bank debt. Meaning, I bought my house at 4.5% fixed, lowest interest rate in decades. Even now, mortgage rates have not adjusted to prime rates. They are still around 6%. Still cheap money. There were also government financing to motivate housing growth like FHB plans and soft second mortgages. You can say what you want about average savings but how about the average and median income taking a dip?? No way around that one. Or what current economic centers are saying about earnings? No way around that one either. Or all the other stuff I mentioned about the automotive industry trends.
Also as someone else put it look at the numbers that the 300 put up or the Impala (minus fleet sales). Those aren't big numbers at all. And at the midsize level, those cars are far too close to the luxury segment. How much more space is there in an Accord versus a G35 or dare I compare a loaded Camry at $30K to a Lexus ES at $33K. Or how about a 300C at $33K compared to the Camry. Somewhere tire has to meet road.
This is certainly true that the 4c will continue to be the basic CamCord model at say 300,000 units annually. If however they want to grow up to 500,000 units a year the low-end 4c alley fight probably is not the best place to look for additional units. Hyundai and Fusion and Altima are all as good 'appliance vehicles' as the CamCords are in the $18-20000 range.
Growth has to come from somewhere else. This IMO is the purpose of the TCH and the over-the-top 268 hp XLE. The goal is to grab some 'conquest sales' who will be able to spend $30K+ for a vehicle and see a well-known nameplate in this range with near-luxury features and performance.
It could be people moving out of SUV's, shopping down from Lexus/Acura/Lincoln/Buick or the 'once a decade' auto buyer just coming out of a 97 Taurus or 99 Intrepid/LHS. Conquest sales.
Past performance certainly indicates that the bulk of the units will remain the basic 4c but if you were looking for growth and additional profit, where would you look? Do you want to fight Hyundai at $17000 or grab a completely new buyer looking for a 'nice ride'?
When more people are making more money and they are able to afford bigger and better things, he is saying that gaps are widening?
Do you think poor people are buying Camry's?
US per capital GDP is at $40,000+ a year.
America is the one of the richest country in the world, within top 5.
Are people better off than 10 years ago? Of course.
Are people making more money than 10 years ago? Of course.
Are people buying better things than 10 years ago? Of course.
Are people having more choices in terms of automobile than 10 years ago? Of course.
If the economy and income disparity is as bad as you say it is, we wouldn't have more choices for automobile.
People are engaging 70+ month payment because they want to. No body is forcing to do anything. Automobile industry is nearly free market. As such, if they want to pay the car off in 1 month to 90 months, they can. Average car lone isn't 70 months. It is 62 months. That’s according to JP Powers as of 12/2004. 70 months is a stretch. Because, these statistics aren't linear.
Credit card debit isn't at record height. Besides, let's just say for the sake of argument, it is the record high. It's high because people are probably buying unnecessary item. And that's okay. They have freedom to do what they want to do within given constraints.
The Growth of upper class and middle class has gotten bigger. You know why, because they are the one who is paying all the taxes. 83.3% of taxes are paid by the top 25%. Tax revenue has grown from year 1995 to 2005
$1.3 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion. That's huge increase in the decade where inflation was relatively low. More people are making more money than ever. This is the fact, not some virtual reality where everything down is up and everything up is down. You know why it grew, people more people are paying on it. People who make less than $30,000 less hardly pay any taxes. They contribute less than 7% of total tax collected by the government.
in property values in my section of the country
has been about the same as the inflation rate.
My daughter couldn't sell their home in Ohio,
two years after they bought for the same price
they bought it, and had to buy half the house
in Va. for twice the price. And not close-in Va.
Winchester!
Nothing to do with snobbish opinion. The facts will tell it all.
Can you please post the source of these so-called facts?
GDP has to do with production, not consumption, and is therefore NOT related to how much a person spends.
~alpha
Okay. Let's talk facts for a second. The government says that the gap is larger than ever. What you have no considered in ONE part of your long monologue is the average cost of living has ballooned. You are looking at just a number. I make more money this year because of my raise at my job. But my gas bill went up more than my raise. So do I make more than ever in my life. Yes Am I any richer? No.
Debt is financing most of America's growth. Allen Greenspan said that. He also said that our negative savings was a real problem. But you say not because you know more than Allen Greenspan. Plus, to go againt all your nonsense. Median income is down. That means on average Americans made LESS last year. Look at unemployment. Look at outsourcing. Does no one else live in the US I live in? Cost of living went up. Think about it people. Name something you paid less for last year. That means peopel paid more and made less. I am not getting into GDP, explain to someone how they calculate that. No one is going to follow you. This isn't a economics seminar. I am talking about things people can understand. You paid more last year than how much you made. And yes a poor person in America is rich if compared to Haiti. Yes if you calculate our poverty level set at maybe $18,000, you are a millionaire there. HOWEVER WE LIVE IN AMERICA! You think you are going to comfort the guy making $18K by telling him he would be the Bill Gates of Haiti? Even at $30K people want more.
The extension of the average car loan was due to people wanting more than they could afford with a more average car note. There is an article on it, where? AT EDMUNDS.COM.
Are people better off than 10 years ago? Of course.
Are people making more money than 10 years ago? Of course.
Are people buying better things than 10 years ago? Of course.
When you were young how much did a nickel buy you? Now a better question economics professor, has cost of living risen at a faster rate than average wages over the last ten years? I'll let you answer since you know more than Greenspan, I am sure you can put the Y, the E, and the S together.
If Per Capita didn't mean anything, then average people in India has just as easy time buying Camry XLE as average people in America.
Per Capita Income is how economist measure how well "on average" people are doing. Because we need some way to measure this, even if you don't like it.
Country where Per Capita Income is less tend to do worse then the country with higher per capita income. This is indisputable facts.
per Capita Income as of 2005 approx.
Korea : $20,000
USA: $40,000
France: $29,000
Germany: $29,000
Saudi Arabia: $13,000
India: $3,400
The government, politicians, or others like you can say whatever they want to say. The fact is, it isn’t. And cost of living hasn’t ballooned. You know why, because average inflation last 10+ year has been less than 2% a year, that’s very little. Other countries have far worse inflation rate. So, you are just wrong because the fact doesn’t support your argument. Let’s say you made $30,000 year in 1995 and now you are making $40,000, you are richer. It’s just simple number. Besides, a lot more things are more affordable then ever. There are more choices for almost every product category. This is just a fact.
Debt is financing most of America's growth. Allen Greenspan said that. He also said that our negative savings was a real problem. But you say not because you know more than Allen Greenspan. Plus, to go againt all your nonsense. Median income is down. That means on average Americans made LESS last year. Look at unemployment. Look at outsourcing. Does no one else live in the US I live in? Cost of living went up. Think about it people. Name something you paid less for last year. That means peopel paid more and made less. I am not getting into GDP, explain to someone how they calculate that. No one is going to follow you. This isn't a economics seminar. I am talking about things people can understand. You paid more last year than how much you made. And yes a poor person in America is rich if compared to Haiti. Yes if you calculate our poverty level set at maybe $18,000, you are a millionaire there. HOWEVER WE LIVE IN AMERICA! You think you are going to comfort the guy making $18K by telling him he would be the Bill Gates of Haiti? Even at $30K people want more.
America never had real good positive saving trends. That’s just America. No body is disputing that potential non-saving is problem but however, we do not really know effect of non-saving versus saving. Because there are countries around the world where saving rates are high but their growth isn’t all that. So, the pro-saving stand is just that, an idea that can or cannot work. However, consumption, speed of way the money move around the market, grows the economy. So, I don’t know whether saving is necessary good. The saving is just a delayed consumption. Saving -> Investment but also Copr.Income can attribute to Investment. But Corp. can finance their operation from other source.
Median income isn’t down because tax receipt tells other wise. If median income is down, we would have less tax revenue. That’s how government taxation works. So, you are wrong. Your argument is fundamentally flawed. The out sourcing isn’t all that bad either because when we out source, it means that the work, production, ect is no longer crafted. The work itself is mature enough to where it can follow some sort of managed processes. This is way the business works. If you don’t have these mature processes, economy wouldn’t grow. This has been like this for long time and it will continue to be this way.
People pay less for computers, less for food, ect a lot of things are cheaper. If you do the price deflator, I bet the price is relatively horizontal. Ices are cheaper, cars are cheaper, TVs are cheaper, VCR, DVD, CDs, Books, ect almost everything is cheaper.
The extension of the average car loan was due to people wanting more than they could afford with a more average car note. There is an article on it, where? AT EDMUNDS.COM.
Yes, http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/100956/article.html
When you were young how much did a nickel buy you? Now a better question economics professor, has cost of living risen at a faster rate than average wages over the last ten years? I'll let you answer since you know more than Greenspan, I am sure you can put the Y, the E, and the S together.
Yes, wage has risen faster than the rate of inflation. It’s a fact. Inflation during last 10 years on average has been less than 2%.
1995, Per Capita Income was at $25,000.
2005, Per Capita Income was at $40,000. That’s more than 2% average during last 10 years.
What are you talking about? What is a technical difference? My post was intended to define GDP, which I did. I didnt intend to talk about Per Capita Income, because that term that was being incorrectly defined.
"Per Capita Income is how economist measure how well "on average" people are doing. Because we need some way to measure this, even if you don't like it."
Um, I didnt say anything about liking or not liking Per Capita income, nor did I even mention it!
~alpha
Most of the time, people are always making more than what they have made previous, in United States and most capitalist societies.
Places where people make less than previous years are non-capitalist society. They usually have high tax burdens, smaller middle class ratio then US, or they just simply can't for various cultural reasons. I do not count for few year of interruptions, rather I am looking at 5 to 10 years as a period.
After 1979, America never really had bad inflation. In fact, during last 10 years, just the opposite. I think this would be a good thing for those who wants to pay less for everything, a la Wal-Mart.
www.census.gov
"Median household income in the United States was $44,684 (Table 1). this was not different from median household income in 2003 ($44,686)."
Now they haven't published 2005 results but I track a monthly publication that indicates that median income is less for 2005. But you know better than the census bureau. The article also indicates that average cost of living has increased.
And from a different study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute:
"the poorest 20 percent of families nationally grew by an average of $2,660, or 19 percent, over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, the incomes of the richest fifth of families grew by $45,100, or nearly 59 percent, the study by the Washington-based groups said.
Families in the middle fifth saw their incomes rise 28 percent, or $10,218"
No math wize needed. If the earnings of the rich are growing faster than that of the poor, is not the gap between the two growing larger. Coincidentally, what happens if you increase one dollar at 2% a year for 20 years. How much of a change is that as a percentage. I get 50% growth but I did it real quick so let me preface by saying I could be wrong.
You know, most people don't stay poor. I mean, 10 years ago, I made x per hour in year 1995. Now, I make factor of 4 to 5 times more. The point is, people go in and out of the so called "poverty" all the time. People could have stayed being ice man or the buggy man.
There are people who stay at the poverty level. They are usually the people who rely on government assistance for living. Like dilapidated public housing, riding buses everyday, not because they want it because most of the time, they need to.
Lower average income for the poor could mean that the wage of the lower skill job has gotten lower because they are low skills. And there is also factor of illegal/legal low skill worker immigration. So, there could have been wage pressure.
You know why income of rich grows faster than poor because they have more working capital to build up things. It’s obvious. If the “rich’s” income fell then we would have real problem. Less restaurants, less disposable income, ect then the lower skill workers would suffer. More money they have better the lower wage workers have chance to move upward. Unlike other countries, America has the greatest upward mobility condition. Upward mobility is a lot more difficult in France, Germany, Korea, or Japan.
We all can't start at $30K car, nice closet full of clothing, nice computer, nice housing, ect... Maybe in a Sims 2 but not in reality. The challenge is to build better things on previous successes. One can start as McDonald Employee, then work one's way up or save up some money to build things that can help one's ability to get a better job to earn more income. Maybe, 10 years down the road, that same McDonald employee can have his own McDonald or part of the investment grouop. This type of business has been practiced for hundreds of years. People come to US with nothing, within matter of several years, they have all these stores, ect... They don't even speak English, crying out loud. Most of these people haven't even gone to any business school, yet they build all these with their will, determination, and good attitude. This kind of mobility is very difficult in other countries.
Medium income of 2005 couldn’t have gone lower because GDP grew one of the fastest paces during 2005. Meaning, people would have made more money, not less.
The IIHS just released test results of the Manufacturer requested Side Impact of the Lexus GS series.
This leads me to wonder why Hyundai has not requested the Sonata be tested, as its been on the Market for a good 8 months now, and as a group, the family sedan segement probably wont be retested by the IIHS very soon.
~alpha
Stay in the Ford family and get yourself a Fusion SE or SEL V-6 for a cost of about $19K-$21K plus tax title and license, keep it ten years or so and minimize your ECONOMIC investment in a depreciating asset, namely a new car!
Seriously, you probably cannot go wrong with any of the vehicles in this list as quality is becoming a nonissue between most brands and so are the performance differences. Give them all a test drive and go from there. All of us who post on these discussions have our own opinions and biases, so don't take anything posted here without a grain of salt, except of course whatever I post!
Don't get a Hyundai. Or a Kia. Or another Volvo. My $.02
The Hyundai Sonata would have to be my other choice. Possibly my top choice in this group of rigs. Great styling, great pricing and great Warranty. Safety equipment standard.
The Sonata should be as successful as the Seattle Seahawks this year. And that's pretty successful, my NFL football-starved Edmunds' geek friends.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
If you aren't large and don't carry around large objects/people much, it's one of the best choices (for those not on a budget, anyway).
The 4 cylinder engine on the Accord has slightly more power than the engines in competitive cars (166hp vs. 162 for Hyundai, for instance) and gets slightly better gas mileage (EPA 26/34). Since you're coming from a high end Volvo, I personally think this is a car you'd be pretty satisfied with driving. Of all the cars listed on this thread, I think the Accord has the most sophisticated suspension and the best handling, and I think it will retain its resale value a little better than the others.
But, there's no doubt about it that the Hyundai is an incredible deal. And it can be had for a c. 2-4 thousand dollars less than a comparable Accord. Also, the Sonata has stability control standard, which is a major plus. You can't get that on the Accord until you get the EX V6.
I've been burned by a first model year Ford, and I just wouldn't go there, no matter how good the car or the deal. I'm sure it is better than my 2000 Focus, but still...I think most people realize that Ford is still perhaps not quite where some others are in quality.
Finallly, the Camry is a great car. This is the only one that for some of us equals the quality of a Honda. I test drove the current outgoing model before I bought my 02 Accord and loved it. The handling, however, is rather Buick-like. It's about to be phased out, and so the last of the 06 Camrys should be available for a very good price. Or, you can wait for the 07 coming out in a few months, which looks to be a major improvement, but you'll pay close to list. There's a reason the Camry is the bestselling car in America--it's an incredible amount of car and quality for the money.
If you want something close to your Volvo, you should probably try the high end models of each of these cars. I think they'd all come pretty close, but I'd still say the Honda is the best car of the bunch, and that the EX V6 is going to equal or exceed your Volvo in most areas. As everyone points out, however, you are going to pay a more for an Accord than the other cars in this group. Is it worth it? Some of that money that you pay buys you a slightly better car, imho, but I could be wrong. I hope you'll test drive some these models and let us know what you think.