Agreed. Many forget to point out Hyundai has only been in the US for 20 years, while Toyota and Honda both have been around here for 50 years (Toyota 50+; Honda - just shy of 50 years). I hope many remember there was a time when both Toyota and Honda was, well, let's just say, not as successful as they are today. They were in the same position as Hyundai about ten, fifteen years ago, but the difference, Hyundai is improving and changing the game at a much faster rate.
Count me in the group of Accord owners who have great luck with exhaust systems. My 95 EX I4 manual (that my son now drives) with 220k miles still has the original system, including the muffler. I'm sure it will go any day now.
There are pluses and minuses to either one - rebate or incentives. Rebates are taxable in CA and dealer incentives are not. Rather, rebates are used to offset the purchase price plus all add-ons, taxes, doc fees,license/registration, etc. figure, as are cash you contribute and/or trade-in. You have to be smart to get most/all of the dealer incentives - but the dedicated Prices Paid Forums really help. They are likely to pass on the entire dealer incentive amount - since there is a 3% holdback on a Honda.
I remember Accords always being discounted here in CA since the late 1980s. So, I don't share your experience as to paying above MSRP.
I think the Sonata is a nice looking car. I like the styling of it as much as the Accord. It looks to me like the visibility is a bit better from the inside of the Sonata, because the rear roof pillars aren't as thick as they are on the Accord. Also, look at the features you get on even the base level Sonata--XM Radio (can't get that on the Accord until you go to the exl), stability control (can't get that unless you get the V6), etc.. I love xm radio (which I have as an aftermarket unit on my 02 Accord), and it seems like the advantages of stability control outweigh the disadvantages.
And so far, the people who own the Sonata seem to like it. I'm just surprised that sales aren't higher. Is it still the left over discrimination against cars in the late 80s and early 90s that weren't that good?
They are paying more for the Accord because the media has beat it into thier heads that it is worth it when it is not. The Fusion is by far a better value, costing thousands less.
A .5 second difference?? is a whole lot faster?? can you count to a 1/2 second???
This room is turning into a joke. Once again the Honda fans get to bash away at the Fusion/Sonata or anyone else that differs on their opinion. I have threads taken off that are not near as bad as are posted on here! :mad:
This room is turning into a joke. Once again the Honda fans get to bash away at the Fusion/Sonata or anyone else that differs on their opinion. I have threads taken off that are not near as bad as are posted on here!
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
I don't interpret it as bashing anything non-Honda, more like crowing cause the Accord is that good, even being a 6 year old model. Why take a chance on a Ford (weak reputation) or a Hyundai (unproven to the masses) when you can just buy an Accord and rest easy?
Let me clarify what I said earlier: these incentives and deals on the Accord didn't just start appearing in the past few months, on 5-year-old Accords (design-wise). They have been around for about 2 years. Coinciding with the arrival of the '06 Sonata, the first truly competitive mid-sized offering from Hyundai. I don't think it was a coincidence.
It will be interesting to see what happens if Honda drops incentives on the 2008 Accords and dealers try to sell them at or near MSRP, especially if MSRP goes up. Then it will be back to a $5000-6000+ difference between the Sonata/Optima and the Accord, if Hyundai/Kia maintain current levels of incentives.
I suppose it won't matter as the Accord, will sell like hot cakes. I wouldn't be the least surprise if the Accord is the #1 car sold in America, in 2008.
Why take a chance on a Ford (weak reputation) or a Hyundai (unproven to the masses) when you can just buy an Accord and rest easy?
In the case of the Sonata two reasons immediately come to mind; price and warranty. Then there's the 5 year roadside service and features of each car.
We just bought an '07 Sonata SE w/XM for $3357 LESS than Edmund's TMV. What is the street price of a comparable ACCORD?
We may be looking at a real price difference of $5,000 or more right now. If the comparable Honda is the LX V-6, Edmunds says the TMV is $24,282 and there is a $750 to dealer incentive. If 100% of the incentive is granted to the consumer, the TMV price would be $23,532.
If I compare our actual Sonata purchase price to the TMV for the Accord, I'm looking at a savings of $6481 for the Sonata. Are Accords selling below TMV? If so, by how much?
I don't think Sonata/Optima are likely to ever steal sales from Accord. They are much more likely to steal sales from cars with less loyal buyers (Galant, Malibu, Fusion, Sebring). To think that the 06 Sonata affected Accord incentives, is exaggeration, if not fantasy.
That wouldn't surprise me, either. Few things do these days. However, the mid-sized market is a different than it was in the fall of 2002, when the current Accord design debuted. Back then, you had the Camry, Altima, and then-new Mazda6 as clear-cut front-runners in the class. The competition is much stiffer now, with new-for-2007 Camry and Altima still there; the Aura, Fusion, Legacy, and Milan; the Sonata and Optima; the Passat; and all-new Mazda6 and Malibu due for 2008. So if Honda tries pricing the Accord too high, there are lots of good alternatives for price-conscious buyers.
I try not to get personal. I deal with that way too much and I have many wounds to prove it.
The 08' Accord, I think will indeed be a nice car. I like the pics I see as it finally has character. I being a former Acura TL, owner (a mistake) did like the product very much but hated the service. I however do think a SH-AWD Acura TL, would be a hit. It will need enough power to overcome the AWD problem if they aren't going to make it a RWD car. I think it would be more popular as a SH-AWD car anyways but it's going to have to come in with plenty of power and have the "gadgetology" to once again become a class leader. We will see.....This fall the best mid-size automobile even though I's perfer the Holden grill is the RWD Pontiac G8. If they make a HSV version of this car like they do in Australia, their isn't another non-lux car out on the market that will touch it's handling and power. It's basically a street legal race car in HSV trim. I however won't expect to see a HSV for a year or two. Acura, right now has the best chance to meet the G8's power. They better not under estimate the G8's impact on their own sales. I still think Acura, would be best to Twin-Turbo their V6 to make the power. Like I said we will see as more and more sporty and luxury cars hit this segment. The new Mazda6 and Mazdaspeed 6 is coming. Of course we have the Spec. B Subie. The RWD Impala in 2009. How bout the 2010 Buick Velite Sedan ? I'm just saying it's going to be a crowded field as more and more offerings hit the midsize segment.
backy, couldn't agree with you more. I as I said in my last e-mail can't believe how crowded this field will get. I guess I should of left out the 09' RWD Impala, as I forgot it will be considered a large car then. The malibu, will take the current Impala's place.
these incentives and deals on the Accord didn't just start appearing in the past few months, on 5-year-old Accords (design-wise). They have been around for about 2 years.
Not according to Edmunds and other sources. There was no dealer incentive when I bought my Accord in March of 06. They started soon after, however,
Manufacturers only offer discounts for one reason, and one reason only. To sell more cars. There is a variety of reasons why they want to sell more cars, such as clearing space for new models, or reaching some sales goal ect. they don't start handing out 1500 dollars to buyers just because the design is old. a $1500 rebate reduces the profit to almost nothing on a camry, altima, accord, or similar mid size sedan.
the same will hold true if buying a car at the end of the year. If for example, you want an altima and they're still selling 25-30% over last years numbers, good luck getting a rebate. If nissan can sell them without one, they aren't going to offer one. ditto for any other car. If you want a rebate on a good selling car, you'll have to wait till jan, or feb, of '08 when they will want all the 07 cars off the lot.
I don't interpret it as bashing anything non-Honda, more like crowing cause the Accord is that good, even being a 6 year old model. Why take a chance on a Ford (weak reputation) or a Hyundai (unproven to the masses) when you can just buy an Accord and rest easy?
Considering this post blatantly breaks the guidelines established in the first post:
Well, duh, it's about midsize sedans. But here is what it is not about:
Not all of these incentives to dealers are public knowledge. Dealers can choose to pass them along to buyers or apply them to their profits. For example, if you look at Edmunds.com now for incentives on the Accord, what do you see? Awhile ago, Hyundai was offering manufacturer-to-dealer incentives on the Sonata, and these didn't show up at Edmunds.com either.
1995 Dodge Stratus with 184,240 miles and the exhaust system is entirely original. It has been in Pa its entire life and has seen its share of road salt. It is a stainless steel system which is a great thing. Pa has an annual vehicle inspection and the exhaust is one of the things looked at so I can't avoid repair if it is found to be leaking.
If you or scape2 or anyone else believes a post to be inappropriate, please email me your concerns. Since I host many discussions, please give me the name of the discussion along with the post numbers. And please give me your user name since I can't tell that from your email address.
You can always get my email address from my profile at the top of any discussion I host, but it's not too hard: pat AT edmunds.com
Where did you get your information about incentives on Accords appearing 2 years ago?
I purchased my Accord in April 2006 and there were NO incentives at that time. To my knowledge, incentives on the Accord were only made available within the last 6 months or so.
Since this discussion frequently strays into a "Honda equals a no-brainer choice that even an automotive dim-wit can buy without regret or fear" sort of mindset I'll give an opposing opinion. We bought our first ever Honda product, a 2006 Civic EX sedan automatic, in Nov 2005. It has had both rear shocks replaced at about 4K miles but the rear suspension noise that resulted from leaking shocks started on the drive home from the dealer @ 6 miles showing. It has had two (of about a dozen potential bulletins for the 06 Civic alone) service bulletins applied, both for abnormal noises. The second required replacement of the right upper motor mount. The interior plastics used are of terrible quality, particularly on the door trim where the door pull/arm rest is. It is a "waffle" pattern that scratches easily and irrevocably. The pattern in the cloth on the driver seat bolster has begun to disappear (as in wear off)and the fabric itself is bunching up on that same bolster. The car has excessive wind/road noise. On the other hand fuel economy is fairly good on the road and we have not had any driving issues except for the interior noise and the 5 speed auto that shifts out of 5th into 4th at the very thought of an incline not to mention a hill. I am not entirely happy with Honda and yes,I was one of those who went into this with that Honda = quality mindset. How did I get that? print media (all those golden articles in all those car and consumer magazines) and word of mouth (ask ANY Honda owner it never breaks). The car currently has 7,358 miles not a typo 7 thousand miles. I previously owned (and several in our family still own)Hyundai products which by comparison were and are trouble free at 10 to 20X the mileage of the Honda. I am a lone voice in the wilderness....
They are paying more for the Accord because the media has beat it into thier heads that it is worth it when it is not. The Fusion is by far a better value, costing thousands less.
A .5 second difference?? is a whole lot faster?? can you count to a 1/2 second???
This room is turning into a joke. Once again the Honda fans get to bash away at the Fusion/Sonata or anyone else that differs on their opinion. I have threads taken off that are not near as bad as are posted on here!
-
Scape, I'll further support my case by asking you to look more closely at the performance numbers. In the Car & Driver article I referenced "The Quickest Cars of 2007: Less than $20,000," they clock the Accord 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. In the same article, the Mazda3 s, being smaller/lighter than the Fusion but having the saving engine, beats the Accord to 60 by 0.2 seconds.
However, look at the "street start" 5-60 mph numbers. In my opinion, this is a good measure of an engines' usable torque and makes a big difference in throttle response around town or in traffic. The Mazda3 s, although faster than the Accord 0-60, is SLOWER than the Accord from 5-60 by 0.8 seconds! (Accord 7.9 versus Mazda3 8.7 5-60 mph).
The 5-60 time of the Accord is only 0.1 second off from the faster, more powerful, 6-speed manual Altima! I think that's noteworthy.
According to C&D, the Fusions "street start" time is 9.0 seconds, or over a second slower than the Accord. That is a difference you can really feel when driving both cars.
AGAIN, does that mean I am "bashing away" at the Fusion? No! Most people don't care too much how quick their car will respond to throttle inputs. I'm just here to talk and compare midsize sedans. Can we do that? You are right, the Fusion is a great value, of course the resale value is less so it roughly evens out.
because the media has beat it into thier heads that it is worth it when it is not. The Fusion is by far a better value, costing thousands less. The media has somehow determined what an Accord is worth??!! Give me a break and the American autobuyer a little credit! Economics 101- it is the buyers that determine the worth of anything not scape2 and certainly not captain2. In this case it is several hundred thousand of buyers that determine what the Camcord and the Fusion is worth both now and later. Economics 102 - 'value' can have little to do with initial price.
Since this discussion frequently strays into a "Honda equals a no-brainer choice that even an automotive dim-wit can buy without regret or fear" sort of mindset I'll give an opposing opinion
No, your not the only one who feels that way. I know a civic is not an accord, but i was so unimpressed with my civic i never even seriously considered the accord when i made my last purchase. I pretty much was picking between the camry and altima. And to be fair, the civic runs great (although I do have to fork out the $$$ for the timing belt change that I never have to with chained nissans) but the interior is just so cheap, and poorly constructed that I wasn't even going to take a chance with the accord. I still can't believe the mid level trim came with a tape player instead of cd. But the problems you described are spot on. the damn texture to the plastics, inaddition to the scratching problem) are a pain in the [non-permissible content removed] to keep clean. and the cloth on the door pannel fell off durring year two. just a cheap glue holding it on.
And as I said, I know the accord is of much higher quality than both the civic and competition in its class. The catch, though, is the price. Out of all the midsize sedans out there, the accord is always the most expensive......and usally several thousand more. Sure, they're rebating the hell out of 'em now, and sales are way up. But, I'd be willing to bet when the 08's show up, the price rises, and the rebates dissapear; you won't get one off the lot for less than 23-24k. For any who doubt, look at the civic. redisgned in 06, much better, nicer car, and much more expensive. At my local honda dealer, the base models are starting at about 18,300. as a result, its the most expensive compact in market, and sales (so far this year) are down about 15%
It is a circular argument. The media ALWAYS says that Honda is golden in all manner of ways and the American auto shopper sees, reads, believes and buys the NEW Honda (much like I did) thus keeping resale up because the media says Honda is golden and the perspective USED car buyer also sees, reads, believes, and wants..you guessed it..a used Honda. How do you think this determined "worth" comes about? It starts with good press. If you think the media (consumer and auto test magazines stating Honda is GOOD)don't have any effect on the "worth" of a used Accord/Civic etc. or conversely any relatively negative comments about a Ford product have a "less than positive" effect on the resale of that Ford product you are incorrect. It is a game of perception initiated by the media. The car itself may..or may not...be so golden in the end but perception is king...
and using the Honda as a reference - there are VALID statistical studies that the new (or used) Honda is likely to be a less troublesome car than any Ford ever thought of being. Reference: the CR 07 Auto issue. BTW if and when Honda makes a car that does not live up to expectations, that 'perception' honeymoon you are talking about will become a 20 year marriage, prices will go down, as will scape's 'value'. I believe, that in general, the Fusion is viewed pretty favorably, perhaps the 'best' Ford product out there, which is definitely a relative consideration. Again, IMPO, I might look at it seriously once they can improve their engines and stop supporting the Mexican economy. Until then, it'll likely be the new Altima 3.5/CVT or possibly the new (09?)Accord (if it is as 'developed' as I think it will be) in my driveway.
According to C&D, the Fusions "street start" time is 9.0 seconds, or over a second slower than the Accord. That is a difference you can really feel when driving both cars.
This 9.0 sec time from 5-60 for 4 cyl manual transmission Fusion lacks credibility, since CR got 9.5 sec for 0-60 in a 4 cyl automatic (march 2006). And they do their test by just stomping on the gas pedal.
there are VALID statistical studies that the new (or used) Honda is likely to be a less troublesome car than any Ford ever thought of being. Reference: the CR 07 Auto issue.
To return this to the midsize sedan topic, what valid statistical conclusion have you come to based on comparing the Fusion to the Accord in the magazine you reference? (I have not seen the issue.)
wish I knew how to post the chart - a line graph showing problems/100 vehicles on the y axis and vehicle age (up to 10 years) on the x axis. So, therefore, an ascending graph as the vehicle ages - Toyota/Honda/Nissan showing about half the number of problems thru the years than the 'US' mfgrs- apparently based on several hundred thousand responses to their questionnaires over the years. The Fusion, incidentally, has been doing pretty well, but hasn't been around long enough to be able to tell if it will continue to show good results over the long term or will become more like the 'usual' Ford. Same sort of situation right now for Hyundai and the new Sonata BTW, because history does not support that mfgr. making cars to the same sort of levels that the 'Japan 3' has. 5 years from now, who knows, we may find out that the 05 Fusion is exactly what scape says it is - it may be the first 'bulletproof' Ford ever made.
The fifth year of one car is the fifth year of another. People become more insecure when a car is only months away from making theirs the old, obsolete model. Toyota did the same thing, Nissan did the same thing, and Ford doesn't dare ask sticker for many of its models, last I looked, including the Fusion (that had at least a thousand in rebate cash).
The media plays a huge role in perception as to what a car is worth to the consumer. If we are told over and over and over again that an Accord/Camry is the "best" then yes people will fork out more $$ for it. It is going to take the consumer some time to realize Honda or Toyota do make good cars. But they are not worth the extra premium price. However, lets look again at the Car and Driver comparison of the 3 vehicles. What some here fail to see is this is a comparison done by consumers, not one person like a review by a magazine that needs to keep its sales up. The mag is going to take the easy route with the sedan that is selling the most vehicles. These test hosted by Car and Driver and yes, paid by Ford were everyday people like you and I. Unlike a bias review from one "expert" that must keep the masses happy to keep sales of the magazine up. This comparison test is very significant. For me, the Fusion was by far the better value, better car than a like optioned Camry or Accord. It handles like its on rails. As far as road noise it matches the Accord/Camry in Db levels. Granted, you romp on the gas and it does get a little noisier than an Accord or Camry.
I point to the actual reviews from consumers above that actually own these vehicles. Experts are a dime a dozen. The consumer is master. Fusion 9.2, Accord 9.1, Camry 8.7??. I don't see how you can discount actual consumers who buy and own these vehicles. And, the Accord/Camry has 3x as many reviews as the Fusion!!
For me, the Accord was the much better value. The 4-cylinder engine is far peppier-feeling than the Fusion's was, especially at low-mid revs, where the Fusion came up weak-kneed. Couple better power with higher fuel economy, and the powertrain sold me on the Accord. The Fusion being noisier with a 90s-blocky interior put it on the backburner for me as well. The Fusion handled nicely, but not enough to overcome the bumpier ride for my butt that it provided.
So the short answer to "what valid statistical conclusion have you come to based on comparing the Fusion to the Accord in the magazine you reference?" is... None.
Here are some numbers for 4 cylinder automatics...edmunds expected total maintenance and repair costs for 5 years/75,000 miles:
Fusion SE = $4229 Accord SE = $4098 Camry SE = $5233 Altima S = $3039
Looks to me like Camry is the one to worry about, not the Fusion. Why does it cost so much more to maintain a Camry? And so much less for the Altima?
This 9.0 sec time from 5-60 for 4 cyl manual transmission Fusion lacks credibility, since CR got 9.5 sec for 0-60 in a 4 cyl automatic (march 2006). And they do their test by just stomping on the gas pedal.
Huh? I was citing times from C&D... Car and Driver. They are very accurate, and I doubt CR just "stomps on the gas."
Remember, "street start" or 5-60 times are almost always slower than 0-60 times for the exact same car. This is because they are conducted from a rolling start which uses 2nd gear. It is desinged to measure the torque or low end (low RPM) power an engine has, kind of like the 50-70 mph tests conducted in a vehicles top gear.
OK then our 1995 dodge Stratus at 185,000 miles has great perceived quality. The engine is quiet, uses no oil,starts instantly in all weather. The interior is not worn at all, the plastic pieces aren't scratched up. All controls click satisfyingly. It drives great..only one problem Chrysler makes lousy cars. But in reality they don't??
"These test hosted by Car and Driver and yes, paid by Ford were everyday people like you and I. Unlike a bias review from one "expert" that must keep the masses happy to keep sales of the magazine up. This comparison test is very significant."
The 'comparison test' was a Ford advertisment as clearly specified. It was a paid advertisment, pure and simple. I wonder if you had felt its significance if the Accord had won it.
Huh? I was citing times from C&D... Car and Driver.
I was aware of that. Point was the two sets of numbers did not make sense to me. But, I was not aware that the test you refer to is based on being in second gear at 5 mph.
Seems like that 5-60 test result could also depend on the 2nd gear ratio. The car with the lower ratio in second would have an advantage, provided a shift to 3rd is not required.
95% of people are buying automatics anyway, so all the tests of manual transmission equipped vehicles should not impact their decision.
I have followed Town Hall closely for over 7 years, and keep up with the "prices paid" discussions. I recall discussions of big discounts/incentives under invoice on Accords going back a couple of years. Here is an example from May 2005, mentioning a $900 "bonus" (a rebate by any other name would smell as sweet...):
If you look at the prices from that time, you'll see many way under invoice. I doubt Honda dealers would do that unless they had some incentives/rebates from the manufacturer. Unfortunately, not all Honda dealers choose to pass these incentives along to customers--which apparently happened in your case.
Comments
Count me in the group of Accord owners who have great luck with exhaust systems. My 95 EX I4 manual (that my son now drives) with 220k miles still has the original system, including the muffler. I'm sure it will go any day now.
I remember Accords always being discounted here in CA since the late 1980s. So, I don't share your experience as to paying above MSRP.
And so far, the people who own the Sonata seem to like it. I'm just surprised that sales aren't higher. Is it still the left over discrimination against cars in the late 80s and early 90s that weren't that good?
The Fusion is by far a better value, costing thousands less.
A .5 second difference?? is a whole lot faster?? can you count to a 1/2 second???
This room is turning into a joke. Once again the Honda fans get to bash away at the Fusion/Sonata or anyone else that differs on their opinion. I have threads taken off that are not near as bad as are posted on here! :mad:
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
I don't interpret it as bashing anything non-Honda, more like crowing cause the Accord is that good, even being a 6 year old model. Why take a chance on a Ford (weak reputation) or a Hyundai (unproven to the masses) when you can just buy an Accord and rest easy?
It will be interesting to see what happens if Honda drops incentives on the 2008 Accords and dealers try to sell them at or near MSRP, especially if MSRP goes up. Then it will be back to a $5000-6000+ difference between the Sonata/Optima and the Accord, if Hyundai/Kia maintain current levels of incentives.
Rocky
In the case of the Sonata two reasons immediately come to mind; price and warranty. Then there's the 5 year roadside service and features of each car.
We just bought an '07 Sonata SE w/XM for $3357 LESS than Edmund's TMV. What is the street price of a comparable ACCORD?
We may be looking at a real price difference of $5,000 or more right now. If the comparable Honda is the LX V-6, Edmunds says the TMV is $24,282 and there is a $750 to dealer incentive. If 100% of the incentive is granted to the consumer, the TMV price would be $23,532.
If I compare our actual Sonata purchase price to the TMV for the Accord, I'm looking at a savings of $6481 for the Sonata. Are Accords selling below TMV? If so, by how much?
...thanks for not going the personal route :sick: .
The 08' Accord, I think will indeed be a nice car. I like the pics I see as it finally has character. I being a former Acura TL, owner (a mistake) did like the product very much but hated the service. I however do think a SH-AWD Acura TL, would be a hit. It will need enough power to overcome the AWD problem if they aren't going to make it a RWD car. I think it would be more popular as a SH-AWD car anyways but it's going to have to come in with plenty of power and have the "gadgetology" to once again become a class leader. We will see.....This fall the best mid-size automobile even though I's perfer the Holden grill is the RWD Pontiac G8. If they make a HSV version of this car like they do in Australia, their isn't another non-lux car out on the market that will touch it's handling and power. It's basically a street legal race car in HSV trim. I however won't expect to see a HSV for a year or two. Acura, right now has the best chance to meet the G8's power. They better not under estimate the G8's impact on their own sales. I still think Acura, would be best to Twin-Turbo their V6 to make the power. Like I said we will see as more and more sporty and luxury cars hit this segment. The new Mazda6 and Mazdaspeed 6 is coming. Of course we have the Spec. B Subie. The RWD Impala in 2009. How bout the 2010 Buick Velite Sedan ? I'm just saying it's going to be a crowded field as more and more offerings hit the midsize segment.
Rocky
Rocky
Not according to Edmunds and other sources. There was no dealer incentive when I bought my Accord in March of 06. They started soon after, however,
the same will hold true if buying a car at the end of the year. If for example, you want an altima and they're still selling 25-30% over last years numbers, good luck getting a rebate. If nissan can sell them without one, they aren't going to offer one. ditto for any other car. If you want a rebate on a good selling car, you'll have to wait till jan, or feb, of '08 when they will want all the 07 cars off the lot.
I don't interpret it as bashing anything non-Honda, more like crowing cause the Accord is that good, even being a 6 year old model. Why take a chance on a Ford (weak reputation) or a Hyundai (unproven to the masses) when you can just buy an Accord and rest easy?
Considering this post blatantly breaks the guidelines established in the first post:
Well, duh, it's about midsize sedans. But here is what it is not about:
# manufacturers issues
# manufacturer vs. manufacturer...
Then yes, Scape does have a valid point.
You can always get my email address from my profile at the top of any discussion I host, but it's not too hard: pat AT edmunds.com
Thanks - I appreciate the assist, always!!
Where did you get your information about incentives on Accords appearing 2 years ago?
I purchased my Accord in April 2006 and there were NO incentives at that time. To my knowledge, incentives on the Accord were only made available within the last 6 months or so.
The Fusion is by far a better value, costing thousands less.
A .5 second difference?? is a whole lot faster?? can you count to a 1/2 second???
This room is turning into a joke. Once again the Honda fans get to bash away at the Fusion/Sonata or anyone else that differs on their opinion. I have threads taken off that are not near as bad as are posted on here!
-
Scape, I'll further support my case by asking you to look more closely at the performance numbers. In the Car & Driver article I referenced "The Quickest Cars of 2007: Less than $20,000," they clock the Accord 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. In the same article, the Mazda3 s, being smaller/lighter than the Fusion but having the saving engine, beats the Accord to 60 by 0.2 seconds.
However, look at the "street start" 5-60 mph numbers. In my opinion, this is a good measure of an engines' usable torque and makes a big difference in throttle response around town or in traffic. The Mazda3 s, although faster than the Accord 0-60, is SLOWER than the Accord from 5-60 by 0.8 seconds! (Accord 7.9 versus Mazda3 8.7 5-60 mph).
The 5-60 time of the Accord is only 0.1 second off from the faster, more powerful, 6-speed manual Altima! I think that's noteworthy.
According to C&D, the Fusions "street start" time is 9.0 seconds, or over a second slower than the Accord. That is a difference you can really feel when driving both cars.
AGAIN, does that mean I am "bashing away" at the Fusion? No! Most people don't care too much how quick their car will respond to throttle inputs. I'm just here to talk and compare midsize sedans. Can we do that? You are right, the Fusion is a great value, of course the resale value is less so it roughly evens out.
The Fusion is by far a better value, costing thousands less.
The media has somehow determined what an Accord is worth??!! Give me a break and the American autobuyer a little credit! Economics 101- it is the buyers that determine the worth of anything not scape2 and certainly not captain2. In this case it is several hundred thousand of buyers that determine what the Camcord and the Fusion is worth both now and later. Economics 102 - 'value' can have little to do with initial price.
No, your not the only one who feels that way. I know a civic is not an accord, but i was so unimpressed with my civic i never even seriously considered the accord when i made my last purchase. I pretty much was picking between the camry and altima. And to be fair, the civic runs great (although I do have to fork out the $$$ for the timing belt change that I never have to with chained nissans) but the interior is just so cheap, and poorly constructed that I wasn't even going to take a chance with the accord. I still can't believe the mid level trim came with a tape player instead of cd. But the problems you described are spot on. the damn texture to the plastics, inaddition to the scratching problem) are a pain in the [non-permissible content removed] to keep clean. and the cloth on the door pannel fell off durring year two. just a cheap glue holding it on.
And as I said, I know the accord is of much higher quality than both the civic and competition in its class. The catch, though, is the price. Out of all the midsize sedans out there, the accord is always the most expensive......and usally several thousand more. Sure, they're rebating the hell out of 'em now, and sales are way up. But, I'd be willing to bet when the 08's show up, the price rises, and the rebates dissapear; you won't get one off the lot for less than 23-24k. For any who doubt, look at the civic. redisgned in 06, much better, nicer car, and much more expensive. At my local honda dealer, the base models are starting at about 18,300. as a result, its the most expensive compact in market, and sales (so far this year) are down about 15%
I believe, that in general, the Fusion is viewed pretty favorably, perhaps the 'best' Ford product out there, which is definitely a relative consideration. Again, IMPO, I might look at it seriously once they can improve their engines and stop supporting the Mexican economy. Until then, it'll likely be the new Altima 3.5/CVT or possibly the new (09?)Accord (if it is as 'developed' as I think it will be) in my driveway.
This 9.0 sec time from 5-60 for 4 cyl manual transmission Fusion lacks credibility, since CR got 9.5 sec for 0-60 in a 4 cyl automatic (march 2006). And they do their test by just stomping on the gas pedal.
To return this to the midsize sedan topic, what valid statistical conclusion have you come to based on comparing the Fusion to the Accord in the magazine you reference? (I have not seen the issue.)
And since we ARE talking about Accords here and not Civics, readers would want to know that the I4 Accords have timing chains, not belts. :shades:
I see Honda is now offering low interest rates? Why? if their cars are selling so well? :confuse:
For me, the Fusion was by far the better value, better car than a like optioned Camry or Accord. It handles like its on rails. As far as road noise it matches the Accord/Camry in Db levels. Granted, you romp on the gas and it does get a little noisier than an Accord or Camry.
I don't see how you can discount actual consumers who buy and own these vehicles. And, the Accord/Camry has 3x as many reviews as the Fusion!!
Different strokes...
To paraphrase something I've heard... "can you really count 1 tenth?"
Here are some numbers for 4 cylinder automatics...edmunds expected total maintenance and repair costs for 5 years/75,000 miles:
Fusion SE = $4229
Accord SE = $4098
Camry SE = $5233
Altima S = $3039
Looks to me like Camry is the one to worry about, not the Fusion. Why does it cost so much more to maintain a Camry? And so much less for the Altima?
Huh? I was citing times from C&D... Car and Driver. They are very accurate, and I doubt CR just "stomps on the gas."
Remember, "street start" or 5-60 times are almost always slower than 0-60 times for the exact same car. This is because they are conducted from a rolling start which uses 2nd gear. It is desinged to measure the torque or low end (low RPM) power an engine has, kind of like the 50-70 mph tests conducted in a vehicles top gear.
The 'comparison test' was a Ford advertisment as clearly specified. It was a paid advertisment, pure and simple. I wonder if you had felt its significance if the Accord had won it.
Exactly. That's why Accords sell more than Fusions.
Opinion, not fact, as stated by your post.
I was aware of that. Point was the two sets of numbers did not make sense to me. But, I was not aware that the test you refer to is based on being in second gear at 5 mph.
Seems like that 5-60 test result could also depend on the 2nd gear ratio. The car with the lower ratio in second would have an advantage, provided a shift to 3rd is not required.
95% of people are buying automatics anyway, so all the tests of manual transmission equipped vehicles should not impact their decision.
willie8, "Honda Accord: Prices Paid & Buying Experience" #7911, 29 May 2005 5:51 am
If you look at the prices from that time, you'll see many way under invoice. I doubt Honda dealers would do that unless they had some incentives/rebates from the manufacturer. Unfortunately, not all Honda dealers choose to pass these incentives along to customers--which apparently happened in your case.