What Keeps You Loyal To A Brand?

rockylee

LOL, I'm sure I will be in the same boat as you in a few years.

Rocky

derrado1

Maybe... maybe.. I can see the resemblance. You are referring to the 2000s one, right? It has got the slim headlights, somewhat angular front. In the corner of your eye, I suppose it makes sense.

IMO, I thought the Bonneville was a great looking car, even with the Batmobile tweaks in the early 2000's. When they revised the range to look more like the GXP, it looked even better. Alas, like most GM cars at the time, it was saddled with an incredibly cheap, ugly interior. When you're paying $30k, you want plastics that don't look dime-store toys painted black.

m1miata

Well I have to disagree on the CTS being close to any of the others mentioned. The lines are sharper angles, and more like those of a stealth fighter plane. The MKS/Milan is a pretty good looking car, in the high butt class. Fairly vertical, as is the CTS, but more of a rounded approach and more typical. An Acura I see as a most refined, and powerful Honda, with added research and development put into the steering and cornering ability, with some added gadgets. A more expensive Honda, with a bit more classy style lines added, is how one could class the older ones, but I added the other pluses beyond style alone.

The older cars had more soul for one thing, though I think a certain feeling is projected by the CTS. It is bold and sporty, with multiple focus points which are interesting based on which angle it is being viewed. When I first saw the car, I was thinking that Cadillac had lost their minds. I did like the back deck immediately, but the rest took some time to take to heart. That front was sort of "in your face " look with nothing rounded, I thought a bit harsh at first. For some odd reason it all looks good to me now. Stacked headlight, like the '65 Ford Fairlane. Hey wait a minute, I bet this is todays medium sized rear wheel drive car for America. Well there is the Charger. Just think of how few cars there really are with RWD for under $30K.

An Acura TL is a good FWD car. But what is the soul? Think of the first Mustangs, the Pontiac GTO, the Riviera, the Eldorado, and the older cars yet, such as the first Thunderbirds, Mercedes SLs, or a real Lincoln Continental. Parked in a museum, with one viewing, you could have a feel for what they were like in motion, the type of driver that would be at the wheel, and have an sense that they were in some unique way special. Today, the Malibu doesn't have a heart beat. The '68 or '69 was the "Heartbeat of America." A current Malibu is not vibrant, powerful and confident. Oh my, maybe GM and America is just getting too old.
-Loren

explorerx4

i don't know the model year(s), but the final version.

nvbanker

So I guess just a better looking vehicle can get folks to jump shop to another brand?

It will once! Big, Giant DUH!!

m1miata

If they buy the Solstice and the thing blows up, well I would say, once burned twice learned. Should be interesting to see how this car does. The CTS launched with a few problems. Actually, I would avoid the '03 and go with the '04 on. Not too long ago it took three years to work the bugs out of American makes. Hope that is not true today. All GM needs now is people unhappy with the new models. Didn't the Cobalt start out on the wrong foot? Sure Japan and German makes have had some missteps, unfortunately for GM and Ford, they have a bit a wiggle room and most people cut them more slack. If GM and Ford blow it now it can go mass critical. People giving them that one more chance may say farewell for the rest of their buying life.

GM needed more style, which is a good thing. They equally need to get the engineering down correctly on new launches of autos.
-Loren

lemko

Stacked headlight, like the '65 Ford Fairlane

You mean stacked headlights like the '65 Ford Galaxie/LTD. The Fairlane didn't get stacked lights until '66. The '65 Fairlane was a rather homely effort on behalf of Ford. Pontiac started the '60s trend of stacked lights in 1963. Others adopted it in 1965 including Ford, Plymouth, Cadillac, and the AMC Ambassador.

qbrozen

Looks is definitely part of it, but I think its more of the "new" factor, as someone else mentioned.

Yeah, the MX5 is "new" but its still just another rendition of the Miata. The thing with the Miata/MX5 is that it has held consistent year after year. Take a look at the last MR2. It was a pretty big deal because it looked great and was a new Toyota droptop sportscar after many years off the market. Where is it now? It sold over 7k units in '99 and 121 in its final year, '05. Once pent-up demand gets met for a particular vehicle, only the best survive. We'll just have to wait and see what happens with the solstice/sky.

louiswei

An Acura TL is a good FWD car. But what is the soul?

I guess you are just praising a different god then me, that's all. Every single manufacture out there has their own soul and every car it makes has its own too. Those might not be the "soul" you are after but you can't say that they don't have one. Let me give you 2 examples:

Mustang's Soul: Muscel, Pure American Power, Wild, Untamed...

Camry's Soul: Get you from point A to point B, ultimate family car, good reliability and top of the class built quality...

As matter of fact, I don't think that I have the same "soul" as you do...

lilengineerboy

I'm 6'5" and my wife is 5'4". I want the minivan, but she doesn't. However, you would think it should be the opposite since its to my benefit to have the CUV since its higher up and easier for me to use. *shrug*

I was thinking relative to the vehicle. Short wife usually wants minivan for baby seats.

She doesn't think of the practical side of things, though. Like alot of CUV drivers, she fears the stigma attached to the minivan. (yet i can't seem to get her to see there is a stigma attached to the cuv, as well.)

Like the fact that you are still driving a glorified station-wagon?

qbrozen

actually, i was thinking more along the lines of the whole soccer-mom thing. I think it applies to both the minivan and cuv. :b

m1miata

OK, whatever '65 or '66. I liked the Fairlanes. To each his own. Quite a lot of great looking cars by Ford, GM, and Chrysler, with an occasional entry by AMC, like the AMX.

m1miata

OK, should say an appealing soul for a car nut. Or a character which says he let's go play, or I will treat you like royalty. As for Camry, it was the most reliable car; not so sure these days. Well shall see.
-Loren

ateixeira

I could not agree more. And Solistice demand has already tapered off. It's possible to find them in stock now.

Miata has been a continuous success for 17 years.

Actually, 16 model years, as there was no 1998 model.

-juice

andre1969

I thought the 1965 Comet was a cool looking car.


It was about the same length as a Fairlane, but was actually a stretch of the compact Falcon platform. In '66, the Fairlane was redesigned, and the Comet then "technically" became a midsized car. The Falcon actually moved to the midsized platform as well, but had a shortened wheelbase and much less overhang, cutting it back down to compact dimensions.

Mercury did have a sister to the Fairlane in '63, called the Meteor, which I also think was a sharp looking car:


The only problem with it was that, even though it was midsized and was larger inside, and built sturdier, the Comet was still the same length so at a quick glance they looked almost like the same car. And the Comet was cheaper, so most buyers went for it instead, prompting Mercury to drop out of the midsized car field in '64-65. Shame though, because I thought the Meteor was a good looking car!

fintail

That was certainly a peak of styling for just about all makes. Almost everything looked pretty decent during those years.

rockylee

An Acura TL is a good FWD car. But what is the soul?

What do you mean ? It's the fastest FWD car in the world to the best of my knowledge. The Type-S is a drivers car and can keep up with the best entry sport-lux sedans and Loren, the Type-S will spank a CTS. My former 2005 Acura TL with a 6-speed was capable of running 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. I'm waiting to see just how much faster the Type-S will be. If the rumors hold true the 2009' Acura TL will have SH-AWD and 320-330 horsepower do I need to say more ? This car will be the best car in the world if Acura, keeps its tradition of offering the latest in "gadgetology" and continues to offer it's customers value. Acura, is the benchmark value leader. Nobody gives you so much for so little. I know some will say Hyundai, but if you look closely at Hyundai's they cut more corners then Edward Scissor hands in product quality. Hyundai, also uses reject lawn mower engines and a Briggs and Stratton looks "state of the art" in comparison. :surprise:

Rocky

prosource1

I am loyal to the Honda Pilot for the following reasons:

- paid less than $30 for a 8 passenger, leather, rear entertainment system, power and heated everything and no maintenance besides fluids and brakes req'd.

-My first Pilot gave me almost 100,000 miles in 20 months with no issues whatsover.

- I achieved 20+ miles mpg in mixed driving

Would there be any other reason to buy any other vehicle for my needs.

louiswei

My first Pilot gave me almost 100,000 miles in 20 months with no issues whatsover.

100K miles in 20 months? :surprise: What did you do? Drive from NY to Chicago to work everyday?

wale_bate1

It's still FWD, and even with its world-leading technology in FWD (thank you Honda), presents plenty of torque-steer and the usual understeer, and lacks any dynamic feel. It ain't fun, and it ain't inspirational, though it's very nice for a freeway trip or around town schlepping.

Don't kid yourself, Rock, even Toyota banked on straightline acceleration in its new IS 350, and ended up with a pig that goes fast. 5.7 seconds (IS 350 as well) in a car that can't match its 7.9 second predecessor (IS300) for steering, handling or cornering dynamic is not an improvement, and the coffin-like sensory deprivation of the cabin takes the last glimmer of soul out of the equation. Rather tough indeed to add lux and retain soul, it is.

Very few toys out there right now still have soul worth mentioning. From what I've driven recently that you can buy new, I'd say Audi's S4 Avant (even in absence of RWD) or Infiniti's G35 coupe (not the sedan) are still my leaders. Acura hasn't made it yet, IMO, even though I hold Honda product in otherwise lofty regard.

nvbanker

I know some will say Hyundai, but if you look closely at Hyundai's they cut more corners then Edward Scissor hands in product quality. Hyundai, also uses reject lawn mower engines and a Briggs and Stratton looks "state of the art" in comparison.


A little harsh, Rocky, but not altogether incorrect...

The Hyundai is probably the value leader in the low end, Acura in the high end.

louiswei

plenty of torque-steer and the usual understeer, and lacks any dynamic feel

Have you driven the new TL-S before? Report has it that Acura has managed to eliminate the torque-steer and the TL is more nimble than some of the RWD cars. Technology that we have today can easily eliminate the torque-steer on those FWD cars, another example is the 07' Nissan Altima.

The IS350 is a pig with VDIM on that I agree with you. However, during the earlier Car & Driver comparo between it and the 330i they managed to shut it off and the result is very different according to the magazine. I understand that it's a long (and odd) process to shut the VDIM off on the 06' model but the 07' comes with an off-switch. With that being said, no, it's not a BMW 3-series and yes, Lexus should have offered the manual tranny on the IS350.

coffin-like sensory deprivation of the cabin takes the last glimmer of soul out of the equation

As I said before, it has a soul, just not the soul you are looking for. However, its "soul" fits me perfectly .

tlong

i was thinking more along the lines of the whole soccer-mom thing. I think it applies to both the minivan and cuv.

Interesting about the SUV vs. Minivan debate. I guess I'm atypical, because I don't like BIG and I don't like PONDEROUS. I tend to like smaller cars because they handle well. But I also like refinement and quality. So I naturally attracted to cars like my previous A4 - good handler, high quality, refined. When the kids got bigger I bought an Acura TL -- still midsized, but nice looking, decent handling, nice interior. And yet even the TL is not as much fun as the A4.

When it comes to needing space for stuff, I actually like the minivan BETTER than a large SUV - minivan is smaller, holds more, gets better mileage, is less ponderous. And the sliding doors are a lot more practical. My kids still tend to fling doors open and we park 2 cars in the garage without a lot of excess space. Those sliding doors protect both cars from dings from my kids!

I do like some of the newer crossovers... as they get less ponderous and of higher interior quality, they become more appealing to me.

m1miata

MR2, if it had the old targa top, and a decent trunk, would be a good selling car, is my prediction. The blocky style, no roll bar and no trunk space is what killed it for me. Well, a little larger size would help too.
-Loren :shades:

andre1969

over the weekend. C&D/R&T and Ford were sponsoring a local test drive event where they let people drive a Fusion, Camry, and Accord around on a closed test track at Fed-Ex Field in Maryland. They had courses laid out in the parking lot where you could put the car through a little slalom, around some tight corners, etc. They sent a professional driver out to ride with you, and they let you get a little spirited with the cars.

Of the three, I ended up liking the Accord the best. Part of it was simply the driving position. All three cars had sunroofs, the old fashioned kind that retracts into the roof and cuts into headroom, versus the newer ones that slide up over the roof. Well, the sunroof cut down headroom on the Camry and Fusion enough that I felt tight in the front seat, and downright claustrophobic in the back seat. The Accord seemed to have much better headroom.

The driving experience was what really woke me up to the Accord, though. It almost begged you to push it harder, and felt the most responsive off the line, and seemed to handle the turns the best. The Fusion wasn't bad, but just didn't seem quite as responsive or nimble. And the Camry felt kinda like someone dusted off a '76 Electra and put some racecar tires on it. It could handle, but the steering just felt vague and numb, and it was a bit wallowy. It also felt bigger than it was, and I thought the visibility on it was horrible, two things that are going to be a deterrent to pushing the car to its limit.

In all honesty, any one of these three cars would probably serve most people out there just fine. There really isn't a bad one in the bunch. But I can see why people keep buying their Accords, and staying loyal to them. GM, Ford, or Chrysler is really going to have to pull off a coup to get people to give up their Hondas!

As for the Camry, I just didn't get it. I didn't see anything there that justified it being the #1 selling car in America. Now I know, most people aren't enthusiasts; they just want reliable point-a to point-b transporation that's comfortable and good looking (subjective, I know).

I also thought it was a bit odd, because I tend to prefer bigger, cushier, cars, so you'd think I'd have a predisposition for the Camry. And maybe the Camry's a better highway car? Still, it just didn't do it for me. But for a good chunk of America, I guess it does.

Another interesting thing I noticed was the paint. Believe it or not, the Fusions they had out there seemed to have the best paint. They all had orange peel, although I swear ANY car has it if you look closely enough. But the Fusion seemed to have it more under control than the others. And one of the Camrys they had looked so bad in certain lights that you'd swear it had been repainted. On the cheap. But who knows? Perhaps it could have been?

nippononly

"As for the Camry, I just didn't get it."

Yeah, neither do I really. But if I had to guess, I would say it is exactly the same characteristic that we enthusiasts always revert to calling "wallowy" or "floaty" that most buyers like so much - the maximum disconnect from the road possible. They don't WANT to feel the road in their point-A-to-point-B, commuting-and-grocery-getting family car. Where I live most of the roads suck really bad - they don't WANT to feel the potholes, hear all the poor paving surfaces, etc. And disconnect from the road is OK as long as you have the ABS and VSC, etc, keeping the car straight. These aren't sporty drivers anyway.

The funny thing is, this buyer preference for soft-riding, wallowy cars is the one thing that holds the most promise for Buick, I think, if they can ever get some models with really good fuel economy. Most people are averaging high 20s to about 30 mpg in their Camry 4-cylinders - that isn't going to happen in a Buick. Camry transaction prices are also lower.

As for Accord, I heartily agree. I have some friends with Accords, all 4-cylinder, and I have borrowed them at various times. I like the driving position, the responsiveness for such a large car (in my frame of reference), and the really good seats and ergonomics.

I finally test drove the Aura XR yesterday, and was underwhelmed. To me, this car gave the impression so many of the higher-priced GM cars do: a great powertrain stuck in a so-so chassis. It did drive smaller than it was, which I liked. But the highway ride was VERY busy and almost jittery for such a large car, and there was more noise than I would have liked. Lots of wind noise, and some road noise from those low-profile 18" Goodyear Eagles too. Inside, the car is almost up to snuff for my tastes, with a hard surface or two and some tacky appointments (like the dome light which I turned on and it almost fell off in my hand). BARELY OK for the car's no-dicker sticker of $24,6. :-/
But that Caddy 3.6 with the new 6-speed auto is quite a thrill to drive, that's for sure. The transmission is VERY responsive to driver requests for downshifts, and if that's not enough to satisfy you, there's the paddle shifter. The engine's power is overkill for this 3600-pound car, but overkill is nice occasionally (:-)) and it still makes a 20/28 EPA rating and is oh-so-smooth.

edit...PS I couldn't believe my eyes: while the Aura XR gets Goodyear Eagles, the lower-trim XE gets Hankooks???? A GM car being sold new with Korean tires? What have we come to here? And talk about bad gas mileage - the XE with the Malibu 3.5 OHV and a 4-speed auto (and 15% less power and torque) gets only ONE POINT better fuel economy on the highway, and the exact same mileage as the XR in the city. I call that a jip. The base model isn't all that cheap either, at $20,5 (no-dicker) to start. This exemplifies why Camry sells better, IMO. Now there WILL be a Green Line in about three months, slated to start at about $23,5 and pull about 37 mpg highway, according to the salesman I spoke with yesterday.

michaellno

I finally test drove the Aura XR yesterday, and was underwhelmed.

As the Saturnista here at Edmunds, I'm ashamed to admit that I have to agree with you.

Whilst I haven't yet driven the Aura, I have sat in them a couple of times and have the same opinion you do regarding the interior. Granted, it's better in some ways than my L300, but some of the surfaces are just cheap - especially the door armrests.

However, what I find hard to deal with is the weight gain the Aura has .. my L300 is pretty loaded, and the base curb weight (according to Edmunds) is just under 3200 pounds. Not sure that I can see where the extra 400 pounds came from.

Sigh.

ateixeira

Funny, I went to Taste of Lexus (same place, by the way, FedEx Field in MD), and my conclusion was I really didn't want to own any of their cars.

Thing with Toyota and Lexus is they really do not cater to the enthusiast. Note the MR2 never got the Celica GT-S engine. The IS doesn't offer a manual with the 350 model. They constantly turn their noses up at enthusiasts.

Strange that such a successful company doesn't seem to inspire much passion in any of their models, Toyota or Lexus.

Yet the lack of passion doesn't hurt sales at all. A lot of people just want reliable point A to point B, i.e. a car that quietly does its job.

-juice

dino001

One word - appliance. Car is an appliance for most people. Coming from traditions of Buicks, Oldsmobiles and such, many believe that soft suspension and soft seats are "fun".

ateixeira

Yes, and while we say that as faint praise, many appliances perform for decades on end without complaint.

Toyota has built enough of those to overcome recent glitches (sludge, hesitation, etc). They have a great rep.

-juice

m1miata

My 1987 Olds 98 with the 3.8V6 could get up to near 30 MPG on the freeway, all so many years ago. GM V6 cars get decent gas mileage. It got even better mileage sitting in the service bay :sick: . Don't talk about the tranny, as it blew at 62K. I bet today's, more reliable GM autos, with the 3.8 III gen. engines, or better yet more modern V6 engines are easily into the 33 or 34MPG actual mileage on the road (freeway). As for handling, my '87 Olds98 handled better than my '85 base Mustang. It was not like my Stealth or Miata, but then again for a luxo model of an Olds, it handle well. Better than the Achieva in handling. Pretty close to the same feel as my Dad's 2000 Camry.
-Loren

m1miata

I think the more basic Toyota and Hondas of the early nineties will go down as most reliable. This decade has seen more gadgets, and I think more interior changes to the dash and doors, which will lead to more wear over the years, and less reliability. Got this feeling that Toyota and GM are getting closer every day. That is a feeling, and thus, like a hunch, or an opinion, is just a personal observation. Consumer Reports, and JD Powers I assume still shows the Big Two of Japan well ahead of the Big Two of USA. If you look at real recent figures from JD Power on say the Fusion, you see a five star rating for initial quality. Will this translate to a five year great car and higher resale? I would never venture that far out as to say that a non- Toy/Hon car is a better financial buy. Personally, it seem like too much of a premium price paid for say an Accord V6 vs. all the rest.
-Loren

imidazol97

I agree about the lack of gadgets and novelties on certain cars in the 80s made them more reliable than the cars which typically had all the bells and whisles--and they break. They gained a reputation built on the durability of simplicity and kept it until recently. That's what I think you're saying.

dino001

Form me JD Power lost its credibility when I saw three circles in Subaru Legacy GT "performance" category (anybody who sat in a moving Legacy GT knows what I mean). Similar with reliability data - in 2005 Consumer Reports placed Subaru as their top brand and it is consistently say top five or so for many years. Yet, JD Power gives them below average ratings, also consistently even in their durability vategory (I could see lower scores in meaningless initial quality ratings).

You would have to see how they rate Impreza WRX in categories like appeal, performance or owner satisfaction and there is no way I can be convinced about their methodology or metrics. I suspect no foul play, just totally messed up sampling and methodology of observation.

Giving three circles to Legacy GT or WRX for performance shows no one there even looked at those cars and has any idea what they are talking about. They probably tested one trim (2.5i) or lumped results from all three together and then applied the average to all trims, as if they were making unique distinctions, when they were not.

62vetteefp

JD Power does not test the cars. They do not base any ratings on their opinions. They survey a cross section of vehicle owners and get the actual data from the actual drivers/owners.

JD Power is the industry standard of all OEM's. Consumer Reports is not.

nippononly

Yup the door armrests are hard and uninviting to the elbows, and that center armrest on top of the console is no picnic either. But oh geez, that dome light was crap. However, most everywhere else plastic texture was good, and most of it was soft-touch. The Aura has funny little gauges - they are brightly lit in orange-yellow, a bit distracting and in contrast with the radio controls, but mainly oh-so-little. Why so small, I wonder?

I can't imagine why anyone would buy the crappy-tired, crappy-engined, crappy-transmissioned, plastic-wheel-covered Aura XE for $21-23K. That trim level can vie with the Grand Prix and G6 for new rental fleet king. I think the XR has better chances. I was disappointed to discover that you can't get the factory moonroof without going for the leather package either. The pair costs $1600, or alternatively the salesman can get you into an aftermarket sunroof with a longer warranty (from the sunroof company, not from GM) for $1100. Indeed, my salesman was jumping out of his pants to do so. :-/

3600 pounds is a porker, that's for sure. But check out some of the competing models with V-6s. Unfortunately, we live in a porky age. 3600 pounds is not far above par for this type of car.

I left wondering what replacement costs would be for a set of 225/50/18s - I bet they're pricey considering it's a family sedan.

Thing is, I want to be a loyal Saturn repeat customer (well, maybe not loyal, but I am pulling for Saturn!), but the Aura isn't going to do it. Neither is the Outlook, although I think it and the Aura will lead Saturn to salvation for the next decade. I still have high hopes for the Astra.

Juice: your point is well-taken. Make the very best, most comfortable, and longest-lasting appliance automobiles, and the customers will flock in. I am a Toyota fan, but there isn't a single model Lexus makes that I would be interested in, that's for sure. Except maaaybe the IS250 with a stick. Toyota has become too truck-heavy in both the Toyo and Lexus lines, and they need to turn that around a bit.

dino001

survey a cross section of vehicle owners and get the actual data from the actual drivers/owners

So how do you explain Legacy GT average acceleration? It's arguably the fastest car in its price and size category, yielding only to true sports cars and supersedans, like M or AMG. My explanation is simple: they survey owner allright, but they got either insufficient data on this trim or are to ill-informed to understand its distintion from base model and lump them togetherm but then present it in a form as it was done separately - when you go to their website, you can choose trim line and get rating that appears to be unique to the trim, but in fact it's not. So then have an averaged rating on performance from two trims that are different by this much makes no sense whatsoever.

Now the question becomes - if they are so "well informed" in performance range, where else are they making mistakes of that magnitude? So if JD Power is an industry standard than I pitty for the industry...

andre1969

on the subject of armrests, the Camry had about the most retarded armrests I've ever seen. The grab handle was placed so far back that nobody other than a circus dwarf could actually rest their arm on that armrest!

As for my next car, I hate to say it, but I'm probably going to go the cheap route, which means a more basic trim level, so I'd actually be curious to try out the base version of the Aura. I think it's a better looking car than the Grand Prix or the G6, so that's half the battle right there! Come to think of it, I'd take a G6 over the Grand Prix as well, because IMO it's laid out better. At least, it seems bigger inside to me, while being smaller on the outside. Longer wheelbase, though.

But then, it would be interesting to see how a base Aura compared to a more basic Camry or Accord.

Another thing I thought was interesting with this comparison drive I took on Saturday, is that the Accord tends to get slammed for being smaller inside than the competition. I think the biggest areas it gets slammed for is the trunk and backseat legroom. Seemed fine to me, though. Now I could tell that the Camry had more legroom in the back than the Accord or Fusion, but they were all adequate for me. And as much as I gripe about backseat legroom, you'd think that if I can fit, just about anybody else should be fine with it! :P

I just hope I don't have to buy another car anytime soon. The only car I ever had a payment on was my Intrepid, which was paid off two years ago in November. And now that I'm used to not having a car payment again, I feel so free and liberated!

nvbanker

No question the Accord is the sportiest of the three, Andre. I've not driven a Fusion, but the Camry is anything BUT sporty, however, it's probably the easiest car to drive on the planet. It just goes where you point it, easily, effortless, and comfortably. Of the two, I like the Camry, but I'm an old guy 220 lbs, and partial to comfort, rather than sport. My sport days are over....

62vetteefp

Performance: This component of APEAL is based on owner satisfaction with the vehicle's powertrain and suspension systems, including acceleration, handling stability, braking performance, and shift quality.

Per the explanation this score is what the owner feels about his vehicle. It does look like they averaged the data for all Legacy's together. They should have a note somewhere saying that they were discussing a generic Legacy.

However I thought we were talking about quality data. That is the data the OEM's use.

andre1969

No question the Accord is the sportiest of the three, Andre. I've not driven a Fusion, but the Camry is anything BUT sporty, however, it's probably the easiest car to drive on the planet.

One thing that just hit me, I think the Camry they had out there on the test track was an XLE or something like that. It had the horizontal grille bars. I wonder if an SE would have been a better handler? I saw an '07 Camry SE model today, and I thought that it looked kinda nice with that mesh grille.

Personally, I didn't think the Camry was all that "easy" of a car to drive, because it had all sorts of blind spots that I'm not used to. Now visibility isn't so hot in my Intrepid, but the Camry's windshield seems like a narrow slit compared to the Intrepid. The Camry's A-pillars really block the view for me, and the high cowl and low windshield top really cut down the view, IMO. Now the Intrepid has the same problem with the low windshield top, but it feels like it has a lower cowl, and the windshield feels wider, putting the A-pillars further from my line of vision.

But, like anything else, I guess you just get used to it. After all, I thought my Intrepid was a visiblity nightmare at first, because I was used to an '89 Gran Fury that, outdated as it was, should serve as a role model for outward visibility.

I did notice that the Camry's seats were wider than the Accord's or the Fusion's. That's something I've noticed about Nissan, too...in the bigger cars like the Altima ('06 at least, haven't tried the '07 yet) and Maxima, it feels like they use small-car seats in them, like something that was originally intended for the Sentra.

I have a skinny butt, but still prefer a wider seat. For me, the Accord and Fusion still felt fine, but who knows? On a longer trip, maybe the Camry would have started to show its strengths?

dino001

Per the explanation this score is what the owner feels about his vehicle. It does look like they averaged the data for all Legacy's together. They should have a note somewhere saying that they were discussing a generic Legacy.

My point exactly - you go to their website and they let you choose the trim and then they show those scores as they pertained to that trim. Makes it worthless for models with large huge spread between their trims. I could think of many more instances and categories where this generic aggregate result is totally worthless for somebody buying lower-volume trim (usually upper) in hig-volume model (think minivans, midsize SUVs, some midsize): interior quality, ride, said performance, etc.

For someone who claims to be industry leader in objective and reliable data gathering and processing such omissiossions are simply unacceptable.

62vetteefp

My point exactly - you go to their website and they let you choose the trim and then they show those scores as they pertained to that trim. Makes it worthless for models with large huge spread between their trims. I could think of many more instances and categories where this generic aggregate result is totally worthless for somebody buying lower-volume trim (usually upper) in hig-volume model (think minivans, midsize SUVs, some midsize): interior quality, ride, said performance, etc.

Perhaps that is why there is a red * after the Legacy data?

* Ratings for this model are not available for one of two reasons:
1) This model is too new to have owner ratings. We provided the ratings for the previous year,
which may be helpful but not directly comparable.
2) We do not have sufficient feedback from owners at this time.

dino001

Well, I should have been precise - this was from my last visit on their website (a few months ago) and my observations pertained exactly to '06 and '05 Legacy. They had ample time to collect and understand the data correct way. After seeing what I saw APEAL results for that GT, I simply lost my confidence in what they had to say about anything regarding cars. I'm sure there is no foul play here - just plain ignorance on their part when processing the data entries. But the damage is the same and one can wonder where else are they as "objective" and "thorough". I'm sure more brands and models suffered similar "lump everything in one, but present as it was distinct" approach.

On other point, I simply can't explain the discrepancy in reliability and satisfaction ratings between JD and CR. No other brand has such big disparity. Really - most brands and models are quite close when it comes to both ratings. This thing seems to have persisted for several years by now. I'm simply puzzled, where is the problem and who is right?

chevy598

My 1987 Olds 98 with the 3.8V6 could get up to near 30 MPG on the freeway, all so many years ago.
You have to remember speed limits on highways were a lot slower back in 1987. Back in '87, people drove 60-65 mph on the highway. Nowadays you can be going 80 mph and get passed. That has a big impact on fuel economy numbers when comparing two eras.

andre1969

You have to remember speed limits on highways were a lot slower back in 1987. Back in '87, people drove 60-65 mph on the highway.

It depends on the driver and the locality. I got my license back in 1987, and I don't drive any faster on the highway than I used to back then. About the only difference was that back in 1987, 75 mph would have gotten you a pretty hefty ticket, whereas nowadays a cop might not even notice you.

The main thing I notice is that nowadays, people tend to drive much faster on back roads and residential streets, and they also tend to drive faster in bad weather. But that's about it.

Anyway, the 3.8 has always been geared very tall, exept for possibly back when they put it in heavy, older RWD cars like the '77-85 B-bodies, the handful of ~75-77 intermediates, and the few hundred '76 LeSabres that it ended up in. By 1987 it was fuel-injected in the 98, and very efficient. Plus, the 98 was a fairly light car.

Even today, the 3.8 can get around 30 mpg in large cars. They've made improvements to it, but most of those improvements went to make the engine more powerful, and not really more economical. And unfortunately, the cars are getting heavier, which cancels out the additional power. Sadly, Loren's '87 Olds 98 would probably accelerate about the same, yet get better fuel economy than the 2007 Lucerne with the 3.8!

Now if you want an example of some extreme fuel economy, my grandparents took a trip in their 1985 Buick LeSabre, with a 307 V-8, back when it was still pretty new. This was back when the speed limit was 55, and Granddad usually did keep it around to 55-60. Pretty rare that he'd get up to 65. I think that car was rated something like 17/24. Well, on one leg of their trip, through the desert, they got close to 29! I think that was a combination of Granddad driving slow, the flat desert terrain, and the springtime weather which didn't require the use of air conditioning.

Now when Grandmom drove, she was usually more like 65-70, sometimes more. Needless to say, she didn't get the same economy! :surprise:

chevy598

I don't know why everybody makes a big deal about small cars like the fit, yaris, aveo. I had a Chevette in '87 that would get 30+mpg on the highway, but that was at a 55 mph speed limit. Michigan has went from 55 to 70 mph since then, and it seem like since the last move everybody does 10 over. I know those instant mileage gauges in new cars aren't perfect, but there is a big difference between 60 mph and 80 mph in your mileage. If I remember right if you floored the chevette it would max out at 80 mph.
The 3.6L 3800 engine in my 91 Bonneville is a perfect example of refining an engine year after year. It gets the same mileage with todays heavier cars at faster speeds, as it did 15 years ago with lighter cars at slower speeds.

qbrozen

If I remember right if you floored the chevette it would max out at 80 mph.

You do remember correctly.

Although I believe we had my sister's '81 up to 85 on a LONG downhill run.

chevy598

I think mine was an '82 and you thought you were trying to leave the atmosphere at 80 mph, because the car would shake so bad. You knew you were going fast!!!!

imidazol97

>The 3.6L 3800 engine in my 91 Bonneville

You mean 3.8 liter 3800 engine...