I thought 5-60 "street start" acceleration was just to reduce the effects of a controlled launch. It is simply "standing on the gas" from a rolling start. I don't know about this "second gear" business, it may well be true, but it's not the impression I was under from years of C&D subscriptions.
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?
Honestly, I wouldn't pay any attention to those at all. The reason the camry is so high is because they are probably the most honest. the reverse would be true for nissan. The cost of ownership is one of them most minupulated figures out there. To get a lower number, the manufacturer will simply push back the maintanence intervals. for instance, how many people have bought cars where the owners manual says to change the oil every 7500 miles? and to cover their butts, they add that line that if you drive under more severe conditions (never defined though) that you should bump up time/milage intervals.
and to cover their butts, they add that line that if you drive under more severe conditions (never defined though) that you should bump up time/milage intervals.
Actually, my owner's manual states the criteria for "severe conditions." They include extreme temperatures (and actually state the numbers they count as extreme, I just don't have the manual in front of me!), dusty conditions, etc...
To get a lower number, the manufacturer will simply push back the maintanence intervals huh?- scheduled maintanence is a miniscule portion of the cost of owing any car. The important numbers would be what it costs to buy vs. what is worth when you are done with it. Fuel and insurance costs won't make a really large difference either.
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?
That $1000 difference is purely the transmision if it goes south. Toyota's fancy mega-speed computer controlled transmissions are hellishly expensive to repair. Of course, the costs for the manual version(s)... Whole other story.
The Accord VP with stick was by far the best of the bduget sedans that I test drove. This car was built in Japan(one of only 2 or 3 specific Honda Civic/Accord models) with the same gearbox and engine that they use over there. And it was lovely.
The same thing happens if you get a Mercedes with manual and the smaller engine. This is the exact combo they offer in Germany and it's a joy to drive. The big engine slushomatik is crap they churn out for rental companies and it shows.
Sorry, don't see anything there that leads to a valid statistical conclusion with regard to the Fusion or the Accord...which is what I had asked you about.
I purchased my Accord about 1 year ago for $800 under invoice (trunk tray, wheel locks included). At the time, that was a good price for the car.
Now that the $750 mfg. to dealer incentive is in effect, it is common to see deals of $1500 (or more) under invoice posted in the Priced Paid forum.
Since you follow the forum closely, I'm sure you would agree that the prices paid (relative to invoice) have definitely gone down since this $750 incentive went into effect (by $500-$1000 over the last year or so, according to recent posts).
I don't know that I do. If you look at the prices posted about 2 years ago, there are some great deals there. But it's very possible that incentives have increased recently as the current Accord nears the end of its life. That doesn't change the fact that there were significant incentives in place 2 years ago. And IMO the price competition from cars like the Sonata and now the Optima are the main reason why Honda has to offer big incentives to move cars that the automotive press routinely proclaims as "best in class."
I think the PP & BE board has been a really terrific addition to our Forums. I guess it's been up and running for a number of years now and I know it's been a great help to many, many members - myself included.
But I do think it's important for those of us who rely on the exact numbers being posted to be aware that you can't always know the total deal. Something I wish folks would question more closely when people post what look like great deals is the trade-in details, i.e., was there a trade-in, what vehicle was it, in what (fairly assessed) condition and what allowance did you get for it?
The reason I say that is because it's not the least bit unusual for a dealership to undervalue the trade-in for the specific purpose of lowering the stated purchase price.
Another thing to wonder about is the total amount of "document fees" - some dealerships will ink a deal that looks great when you're looking at what they say they are selling you the car for, but then when you go to drive away, you find that there are additional fees up one side and down the other.
I don't want to turn this into a debate over the posts on that board, but I do want to caution that there may be more than meets the eye to some of these deals that seem so deeply discounted - no MATTER what car we're talking about.
I guess I'm suggesting a "trust, but verify" approach. Which is a pretty good idea in most areas of life! :P
Note that Edmunds says those maintenance costs include both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. I doubt the number of oil changes is going account for a difference of this magnitude over 5 years. Unless Camry requires an oil change every month or something.
I don't buy the unsupported speculation that Toyota is more "honest".
Warranty Direct, in their defintion of terms, happens to mention that: Toyota, for example, has a high average cost of repair but quite a good index rating - which means that the car fails infrequently but when it does you will be in for a larger than average bill.
This is from UK data, but perhaps this explains some of the high Camry costs?
then either you didn't understand what I said in #334 or maybe just didn't want to believe it? AGAIN "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" and later "the Fusion is viewed pretty favorably, perhaps the 'best' Ford product out there, which is definitely a relative consideration." I guess these statistics, which tell us that an 8 yr old Honda will report an average of 55 problems/100 vehicles as opposed to 110 for a Ford, mean nothing? Magically I guess the American consumer is supposed to line up to buy a Fusion based on 18 months of some decent reliability conveniently ignoring past histories, when the Accord has been that way for 20 years or so? Or maybe we should really believe those ridiculous TV commercials?
to quote the article and survey: "American manufacturers still have not closed the gap between them and the Asians. Ford has been, and continues to be the most reliable among the domestic manufacturers for older vehicles"
There are problems with looking at things simply in terms of the number of generic "problems per 100 vehicles". Just one is that the assumption that 55 vs. 110 really means much of any significance.
There are other problems with CR red circle data and their data collection methods.
There are problems with assuming that because manufacturer X has a better stat than mfr Y, this means every model from X is better than every model from mfr Y.
There are problems with assuming that because manufacturer X has a better stat than mfr Y, this means every model from X is better than every model from mfr Y.
Exactly. And that is one important reason that in this particular discussion on the Sedans board we're going to talk about the actual midsize sedans instead of the manufacturers.
I appreciate everyone's cooperation on this. If you are going to post here, please make it about one (or more) of the vehicles listed at the top or about any other vehicle(s) in this class.
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.
Wow scape2, how many times have you said this? (100 or more). Talk about beating something into people's heads.
When I bought my first Accord in 91, I had no subscription to any car magazine, and had not read any. I rode to work in a friend's 81 Accord (130 miles round trip). The car had little power, but I could tell the car had very solid construction, and I was very surprised by how well the suspension worked, for such a light car. He was always telling me how great the car was. I decided to try the 92 Accord. I drove that car for 12 years, and 140k miles. I learned in that time why so many people have "I love my Honda" stickers and lisence plate frames on their cars. When I decided to buy a new car, it was going to be an Accord, and the "MEDIA" had absolutely nothing to do with it. The ACCORD, had everything to do with it. The "media" did not make the Accord a great car. Honda did.
to not make this personal, please. You don't have to try to beat your perspective into someone else's head - it ain't a-gonna work anyway, as all of you veterans of the original discussion have surely learned by now. :P
Let's just try to keep our comments on the vehicles themselves and acknowledge - or least allow for - the fact that others may happen to have differing views to which they are as entitled as we are to ours.
That is actually a good thing, because it is what contributes to the overwhelming number of choices we have in this class.
And there are those of us who know how to sift out the posts with unclear pricing info and focus on those that are clear about the details: MSRP, discounts, rebates, fees, any trade-in etc.
Well, I didn't say there weren't. My only intention was to point out some pitfalls that can be encountered without digging into some of the posts there.
Perhaps anyone making a post referencing some particular deal could tell us those things - or provide direct links so we can see for ourselves (the one link I see that you have provided recently here says nothing one way or another about a trade-in) - because without those details, the whole picture is hard to bring into focus. That was my only point.
This is not about you, by any means. I was just making some general observations about things that some people get tangled up in. If you took it personally, I apologize.
What I am reading here is that people think there is some sort of conspiracy behind the public perception that Accord and Camry are of the highest quality... as if Accords and Camrys really aren't made better and worth more than the average car? That people just think that way because that is what "the media" tells them?
Why does "the media" portray them as being of the highest quality? What motive would "the media" have to do so if they didn't think it was true? What reasons could they have had to ever start praising them after they were introduced and further improved through the years?
Is it a conspiracy? Or could it be that all of the independent media outlets, and the buying public, have mostly arrived at the same conclusions for a reason? Where did the "perception" begin, and why?
Could it have been the journalists? Did the majority of independent media outlets all come together and agree to get their stories straight, to falsely represent Honda and Toyota? Why? For what purpose?
Could it be Honda and Toyota? Do they convince the public that their cars are better soley through advertising, marketing, PR, etc? Doubtful, every manufacturer tries to do that.
The public themselves? For years, Honda and Toyota drivers have habitually lied to their friends, family and co-workers, and on surveys such as JD Power, about how great their cars are? And drivers of other makes have been lying as well, making up stories of how mediocre or bad their cars are?
Or is it just that Honda and Toyota have had a better record for many years?
Regardless, the perception isn't going away anytime soon. I think Accord and Camry earned it. They now have some tough competition, and while that says alot for the competitors it doesn't take anything away from Accord or Camry. Plus, I don't buy any of these "initial quality" reports. That is the thing about long-term reliability and future resale values... only time will tell if they've lost their edge.
I believe that this is the point people were trying to make. The date on the example you provide is from May 05, which puts it into the end of model year category. The Accord has received incentives during those times but not earlier in the model year... at least in general.
I used that date because I was replying to a question about pricing from two years ago. I didn't realize May is considered "end of model year", but maybe that is how Honda considers it. I always thought of "end of model year" being in the fall, through the end of the year.
So I guess those who want a deal on an Accord had better move fast... since Honda apparently doesn't care about what Sonatas, Optimas etc. are priced at, only Camrys and Altimas, and those have few incentives now, when the new Accords arrive the incentives will go "poof!".
Please, Please read this whole comparison. The event was paid for by Ford but Hosted by Car and Driver a non bias mediator. I can completly understand if Ford had paid these people or they were all Ford employees. The Accord did not win, the Fusion did. The Fusion was chosen by the consumer not an "expert". This goes to show ya! Don't always believe what you read...
The data also doesn't tell you that the vehicle with half the problems may cost four times as much to repair. That's been my experience with some of these vehicles that are statistically more reliable.
"had the Accord won it - then Ford didn't do a very good job 'selling' and 'paying' - did they/ "
Statements like these mean nothing.. Ford didn't pay anyone. Face it, the Accord is over priced and overrated when compared to a Fusion. Read this comparison, watch the video. I know I am driving a very well manufactured and quality vehicle. After 13,500 miles I have no squeaks, no rattles, no problems. I know 13,500 miles is nothing. But all my past Fords have also been reliable and well built. The Fusion is as solid as the day I bought it. Heck, my average mileage keeps going up! I am now at 23.9 for my average MPG!
Well lets see why the media would not want to tick off the owners of the number 1 and 2 seller. Ever heard of sales, money?? The media does not want to upset the masses. Sales of there mags would go down, hate mail would fly! Time, in time as consumers do buy Fusions/Milans, Optima/Sonata whichever these folks will see that paying the extra $3,000 - 5,000 for a like optioned Camry/Accord was not worth it.
This is why the comparison test that Ford hosted and Car and Driver put on is so important. These are actual consumers that chose the Fusion, not the media.. get it now? :shades:
You are contradicting what you said just two posts ago, when you said Ford paid for the entire event. Ford paid for the whole "SETUP" including the people running the comparison. If that's not bias, what is?
What I said was, the "media" had absolutely nothing to do with ME buying an Accord (or the second one, 12 years later). Sure, the "media" had me convinced that my Accord was so good for 12 years, that I bought a second. Yea, right.
If the media doesn't want to tick off the owners of the number 1 and 2 sellers--which are the Camry and Accord in this class--why does C/D consistently rank the Camry at or near the bottom of the pack in its comparos? Shoot, they put even the "lowly" Optima ahead of the Camry in their most recent comparo of mid-sized cars. I can see that hate mail flying now!
I too loved the 1977 Accord I owned. She went about 170K before blowing her engine. I then bought a brand new 1991 Accord - expecting the same kind of reliability. I swapped it for a Dodge at 20K miles because it was constantly in the shop, and, was a bottomless money pit.
Everything I've read about that "test" has made me very skeptical. Ford paying, the way the questions were asked, the fact that the Fusion was AWD and the Camry and Accord were FWD, etc. I would say the same thing about an ad that Honda or Toyota paid for if their car won.
I agree that the ads (and it IS an advertisement) worked and bully for Ford. I'm all for more competition in this segment as the differences narrow... it only helps the consumer.
Personally, any kind of advertising doesn't hold a candle to my own experiences with a vehicle. And to be perfectly clear, if Accords and Camrys were perfect, there would hardly be any Fusions, Sonatas, etc. sold at all. :shades:
There were a lot of things that led up to a '93 Accord purchase. In the 90s, before Honda peaked, they made tight, fun to drive cars. I liked the visibility, I liked the low hood line, and the manual transmission was the cream of the crop of FWD in the early 90s (although the clutch sucked from day 1). The media acentuated all of these items.
The reliablity of the car has been fine, although not as stellar as others experience. It was basically easy to work on (with the exception of front brakes), and returned good fuel economy.
The current Accord I just find totally unexciting. As I reflect on it, as a strategy, it makes a lot of sense. Build a car that 20/30 somethings want...redesign it a few years later for what 40 somethings want...redesign it a few years later for what 50 somethings want, etc.
My issue is that I am not in the demographic for it anymore; I must be too young. I don't see myself replacing the Accord with another Accord. Its okay I don't see them hurting for buyers.
I then bought a brand new 1991 Accord - expecting the same kind of reliability. I swapped it for a Dodge at 20K miles because it was constantly in the shop, and, was a bottomless money pit.
That's strange, because my 92 Accord (basicly the same car, minus the automatic seatbelts and sport shift switch) was never in the shop. If I would have had problems with it, I certainly wouldn't have bought another one in 03.
with the exception of front brakes
I am in no way a machanic, and I changed the brake pads myself (once), with the help of the service manual. No problem.
The current Accord I just find totally unexciting. As I reflect on it, as a strategy, it makes a lot of sense. Build a car that 20/30 somethings want...redesign it a few years later for what 40 somethings want...redesign it a few years later for what 50 somethings want, etc.
My issue is that I am not in the demographic for it anymore; I must be too young. I don't see myself replacing the Accord with another Accord. Its okay I don't see them hurting for buyers.
As a soon-to-be 20-something, I'm not offended by your post, but I do respectfully disagree with you. I have a 1996 LX Accord, and a 2006 EX Accord (one was a hand-me-down that I learned to drive in, one was in return for a scholarship I earned from the parents). I think that the driving dynamics in the Accord aren't that much different than they used to be, except my new car has much better grip/roadholding. My new Accord also has an advanced engine (i-VTEC) with zingy top-end power and a great exhaust note. The interior is also beautifully designed (controls seem to have design flair on top of just having ergonomic excellence).
My old car (1996) has a very VERY bland interior, a basic SOHC engine, a back seat that makes six-footers cringe, and a design that is classy if not necessarily sporty.
I don't necessarily think Honda is a whole-lot different, but I think it has changed for the better in the places where it is (back seat, interior design, engine technology/economy/power).
I am in no way a mechanic, and I changed the brake pads myself (once), with the help of the service manual. No problem.
Its cool you were wrenching on your ride. Changing disc pads is a good start, its usually pulling the wheels and then 1 or 2 bolts to get the pads out of the calipers.
The issue comes with pulling the rotors to be turned, or replacing the rotors. The rotor is effectively pressed onto the hub, requiring a considerable amount of disassembly to replace.
My guess is you didn't replace or turn the rotors as specified in the manual (its not a super big deal, I have done that in the past as well with other vehicles- it just leads to accelerated pad wear and increases the likelihood of chatter, squeal, and uneven braking)
As a soon-to-be 20-something, I'm not offended by your post, but I do respectfully disagree with you.
Sorry, you are right, I should've phrased that better, that wasn't my point or my intent. I was more talking about a target demographic and while I'm glad you like your Accord, I am pretty sure you are not the target demographic.
Toyota did it too. Their cars got so old they had to invent Scion to get kids to look at thier cars. Mercedes is in a similar situation and BMW has ads making fun of them for it.
OK, even if the "Fusion Challenge" didn't have all of the cards stacked in the Fusions favor by the track layout or the wording of the survey questions, etc... People weren't actually buying Fusions there, were they?
There is a big difference between a consumer (who may or may not be an actual buyer or even in the market in the first place) SAYING on a survey that they prefer one vehicle over another, and actually going out and having to choose one to PURCHASE.
It sounds to me like the Fusion Challenge mainly focused on styling and handling ("See how much better the AWD Fusion drives around this autocross track than its FWD competitors!"). Did the survey include questions about which cars the consumers thought had the best quality/long-term reliability, or which cars would retain the most value?
If handling had been the most important factor in my decision to purchase, and other factors such as reliability record, resale value, and drivetrain were not important to me at all, then I would probably have agreed with the Fusion Challenge.
AGAIN to each his own! That test proves nothing about the Fusion being better overall than Accord. It just proves that, to some consumers, it excels in a couple of different areas.
I lean toward the Hyundai Sonata as my next sedan but this constant Fusion Accord Camry debate makes me want to drive the Fusion and see exactly why some seem to think it is not worthy. I may even go out of my way to rent one next time a rental is necessary. In that respect the Fusion Challenge seems to have prompted a response from me...is that the media doing something to get me, at least superficially, interested in the Fusion?? Nah, the media has no influence with consumers right?.
I've enjoyed the banter between several of you on the Accord, Fusion, Camry. I had a 2007 Camry and it was the V-6 XLE. The 4 cylinder is a toally different car, and much less expensive. The Camry V-6 is a rcoket compared to anything in the other models. It also has a beautiful, Lexus like interior. Perhaps best of all it takes regular fuel and gets strong mileage numbers. My only problem with it was it didn't handle well, and I felt like a fuddy duddy in it. So on to the Nissan Altima and another V-6 with 270 h.p. with the SE package and far superior handling. Consumers Reports ranks it right there with the Honda and Volkswagon Passat for top honors. The 4 cylinder is very quick and also gets a strong write-up. Funny the Fusion finishes well down the list and once again Ford puts no ponies and mediocre mileage in an inferior engine. It does handle very well. I'd tell anyone to look at either the 4 or 6 in an Altima and you'll get great exceleration, good mileage, great handling, push button start and a transmission in CVT form that is extraodinary. Just weighing in on behalf of the Nissan fans.
We get Fusion 4 cyl rentals to go from LAX up the coast to my folks place pretty regularly. I have always found them to be pretty thrifty on fuel and they seem to feel bigger on the inside then they look on the outside (which is kind of the opposite of my old Contour). It's easy to drive and has good visibility. The next trip home we will have a lot more baggage with us so we will see how the trunk does then, so far it hasn't been an issue. I am really leaning towards the Mazda6 right now. I made the mistake of driving a Speed6 last night, which I think is the most fun I've had in quite some time. I can't swing a new one, but it looks like Mazda 6s GTs are a pretty good deal used and reasonably easy to find in a manual transmission.
'selling' and 'paying' takes a number of forms - think OJ Simpson. A lousy 23.9 mpg in a Fusion? my wife's V6 Altima has been running at 26 for 4 years now - my Avalon 27. Tell me you drive the streets of Manhattan, then maybe that 23.9 is something to crow about. BTW if you really want to know what Car and Driver thinks: http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11106/2006-toyota-camry-xle-v-6.html A comparison test, not under Ford's influence, won by the Accord, of course - in which your Fusion actually did pretty well. If only they could have had that 3.5 under the hood, then, the car might really 'win' something.
You really should grab a Fusion or Milan rental and check it out. Hertz for one has a lot of them. I thought the base Fusion (stick, no options) I drove was a very nice car even in stripped form, with a great blend of ride and handling. The stick was pretty good too. Now that the IIHS crash test scores are improved, I think the Fusion and Milan are solid offerings in this class. I haven't quite warmed up to the Gillette grille on the Fusion, so I prefer the Milan styling-wise (also because the Milan comes very well equipped even in base form, with ABS standard).
i don't have any of the cars in question, but everyone has different priorities when choosing a car. some are super brand loyal, some like power, some like handling, some like style. there is no wrong answer to what car you pick or like. i've enjoyed reading a lot of this (though i would like to see the altima mentioned more often! it too gets lost in the shuffle unfortunately).
all i can say is there is a reason why the camry and accord are the two highest selling cars in this segment. i think that is the true sign of consumer opinion on what they think is the "best" car...
i'd still pick the altima though over all of the other cars in this segment. i like power, i like style, and i like handling...and i like to row my own gears...
it sounds to me like the Fusion Challenge mainly focussed on styling and handling---Did the survey include questions about which cars the concumers thought had the best quality/long -term reliability, or which cars would retain the most value?
Isn`t there something to be learned from this statement ? When any of the actual current CARS are compared (styling; build quality; handling; ride quality; comfort and convenience features;safety features;acceleration;fuel economy etc.) the Accord lovers on this forum have a very hard time defending their 'best in class' arguements. So they inevitably abandon discussion of current CARS and instead revert to discussion of how the market place rated reliability and /or resale in previous years ( where the Accord does have an excellent track record).It`s hard for any competitor to come to the table with out giving it time to devlop it`s own record ! Don`t get me wrong, these are important considerations - it`s just that a singular focus on them to the exclusion of all else is, in my opinion, counter productive.
In that respect the Fusion Challenge seems to have prompted a response from me...is that the media doing something to get me, at least superficially, interested in the Fusion??
I think there is a difference between "media" and advertising. Yes, advertising is delivered through different media but I think that when someone here complains about the media giving preferential treatment to a particular car model, he or she means the journalists reporting about the cars. The complaint is about a perceived bias toward that car.
Advertising is very biased. That's kind of the point, isn't it?
So the Fusion Challenge is an example of good advertising because it gets people to consider a car that they might not have, not an example of unbiased media.
Comments
Honestly, I wouldn't pay any attention to those at all. The reason the camry is so high is because they are probably the most honest. the reverse would be true for nissan. The cost of ownership is one of them most minupulated figures out there. To get a lower number, the manufacturer will simply push back the maintanence intervals. for instance, how many people have bought cars where the owners manual says to change the oil every 7500 miles? and to cover their butts, they add that line that if you drive under more severe conditions (never defined though) that you should bump up time/milage intervals.
Actually, my owner's manual states the criteria for "severe conditions." They include extreme temperatures (and actually state the numbers they count as extreme, I just don't have the manual in front of me!), dusty conditions, etc...
I have an Accord, by the way.
huh?- scheduled maintanence is a miniscule portion of the cost of owing any car. The important numbers would be what it costs to buy vs. what is worth when you are done with it. Fuel and insurance costs won't make a really large difference either.
That $1000 difference is purely the transmision if it goes south. Toyota's fancy mega-speed computer controlled transmissions are hellishly expensive to repair. Of course, the costs for the manual version(s)... Whole other story.
The Accord VP with stick was by far the best of the bduget sedans that I test drove. This car was built in Japan(one of only 2 or 3 specific Honda Civic/Accord models) with the same gearbox and engine that they use over there. And it was lovely.
The same thing happens if you get a Mercedes with manual and the smaller engine. This is the exact combo they offer in Germany and it's a joy to drive. The big engine slushomatik is crap they churn out for rental companies and it shows.
this would be that 'None'
I purchased my Accord about 1 year ago for $800 under invoice (trunk tray, wheel locks included). At the time, that was a good price for the car.
Now that the $750 mfg. to dealer incentive is in effect, it is common to see deals of $1500 (or more) under invoice posted in the Priced Paid forum.
Since you follow the forum closely, I'm sure you would agree that the prices paid (relative to invoice) have definitely gone down since this $750 incentive went into effect (by $500-$1000 over the last year or so, according to recent posts).
But I do think it's important for those of us who rely on the exact numbers being posted to be aware that you can't always know the total deal. Something I wish folks would question more closely when people post what look like great deals is the trade-in details, i.e., was there a trade-in, what vehicle was it, in what (fairly assessed) condition and what allowance did you get for it?
The reason I say that is because it's not the least bit unusual for a dealership to undervalue the trade-in for the specific purpose of lowering the stated purchase price.
Another thing to wonder about is the total amount of "document fees" - some dealerships will ink a deal that looks great when you're looking at what they say they are selling you the car for, but then when you go to drive away, you find that there are additional fees up one side and down the other.
I don't want to turn this into a debate over the posts on that board, but I do want to caution that there may be more than meets the eye to some of these deals that seem so deeply discounted - no MATTER what car we're talking about.
I guess I'm suggesting a "trust, but verify" approach.
I don't buy the unsupported speculation that Toyota is more "honest".
Warranty Direct, in their defintion of terms, happens to mention that: Toyota, for example, has a high average cost of repair but quite a good index rating - which means that the car fails infrequently but when it does you will be in for a larger than average bill.
This is from UK data, but perhaps this explains some of the high Camry costs?
AGAIN
"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"
and later
"the Fusion is viewed pretty favorably, perhaps the 'best' Ford product out there, which is definitely a relative consideration."
I guess these statistics, which tell us that an 8 yr old Honda will report an average of 55 problems/100 vehicles as opposed to 110 for a Ford, mean nothing? Magically I guess the American consumer is supposed to line up to buy a Fusion based on 18 months of some decent reliability conveniently ignoring past histories, when the Accord has been that way for 20 years or so? Or maybe we should really believe those ridiculous TV commercials?
to quote the article and survey:
"American manufacturers still have not closed the gap between them and the Asians. Ford has been, and continues to be the most reliable among the domestic manufacturers for older vehicles"
There are other problems with CR red circle data and their data collection methods.
There are problems with assuming that because manufacturer X has a better stat than mfr Y, this means every model from X is better than every model from mfr Y.
Exactly. And that is one important reason that in this particular discussion on the Sedans board we're going to talk about the actual midsize sedans instead of the manufacturers.
I appreciate everyone's cooperation on this. If you are going to post here, please make it about one (or more) of the vehicles listed at the top or about any other vehicle(s) in this class.
Wow scape2, how many times have you said this? (100 or more). Talk about beating something into people's heads.
When I bought my first Accord in 91, I had no subscription to any car magazine, and had not read any. I rode to work in a friend's 81 Accord (130 miles round trip). The car had little power, but I could tell the car had very solid construction, and I was very surprised by how well the suspension worked, for such a light car. He was always telling me how great the car was. I decided to try the 92 Accord. I drove that car for 12 years, and 140k miles. I learned in that time why so many people have "I love my Honda" stickers and lisence plate frames on their cars. When I decided to buy a new car, it was going to be an Accord, and the "MEDIA" had absolutely nothing to do with it. The ACCORD, had everything to do with it. The "media" did not make the Accord a great car. Honda did.
Let's just try to keep our comments on the vehicles themselves and acknowledge - or least allow for - the fact that others may happen to have differing views to which they are as entitled as we are to ours.
That is actually a good thing, because it is what contributes to the overwhelming number of choices we have in this class.
Perhaps anyone making a post referencing some particular deal could tell us those things - or provide direct links so we can see for ourselves (the one link I see that you have provided recently here says nothing one way or another about a trade-in) - because without those details, the whole picture is hard to bring into focus. That was my only point.
This is not about you, by any means. I was just making some general observations about things that some people get tangled up in. If you took it personally, I apologize.
What I am reading here is that people think there is some sort of conspiracy behind the public perception that Accord and Camry are of the highest quality... as if Accords and Camrys really aren't made better and worth more than the average car? That people just think that way because that is what "the media" tells them?
Why does "the media" portray them as being of the highest quality? What motive would "the media" have to do so if they didn't think it was true? What reasons could they have had to ever start praising them after they were introduced and further improved through the years?
Is it a conspiracy? Or could it be that all of the independent media outlets, and the buying public, have mostly arrived at the same conclusions for a reason? Where did the "perception" begin, and why?
Could it have been the journalists? Did the majority of independent media outlets all come together and agree to get their stories straight, to falsely represent Honda and Toyota? Why? For what purpose?
Could it be Honda and Toyota? Do they convince the public that their cars are better soley through advertising, marketing, PR, etc? Doubtful, every manufacturer tries to do that.
The public themselves? For years, Honda and Toyota drivers have habitually lied to their friends, family and co-workers, and on surveys such as JD Power, about how great their cars are? And drivers of other makes have been lying as well, making up stories of how mediocre or bad their cars are?
Or is it just that Honda and Toyota have had a better record for many years?
Regardless, the perception isn't going away anytime soon. I think Accord and Camry earned it. They now have some tough competition, and while that says alot for the competitors it doesn't take anything away from Accord or Camry. Plus, I don't buy any of these "initial quality" reports. That is the thing about long-term reliability and future resale values... only time will tell if they've lost their edge.
I believe that this is the point people were trying to make. The date on the example you provide is from May 05, which puts it into the end of model year category. The Accord has received incentives during those times but not earlier in the model year... at least in general.
So I guess those who want a deal on an Accord had better move fast... since Honda apparently doesn't care about what Sonatas, Optimas etc. are priced at, only Camrys and Altimas, and those have few incentives now, when the new Accords arrive the incentives will go "poof!".
Regards:
OldCEM
Statements like these mean nothing.. Ford didn't pay anyone. Face it, the Accord is over priced and overrated when compared to a Fusion. Read this comparison, watch the video. I know I am driving a very well manufactured and quality vehicle. After 13,500 miles I have no squeaks, no rattles, no problems. I know 13,500 miles is nothing. But all my past Fords have also been reliable and well built. The Fusion is as solid as the day I bought it. Heck, my average mileage keeps going up! I am now at 23.9 for my average MPG!
This is why the comparison test that Ford hosted and Car and Driver put on is so important. These are actual consumers that chose the Fusion, not the media.. get it now? :shades:
You are contradicting what you said just two posts ago, when you said Ford paid for the entire event. Ford paid for the whole "SETUP" including the people running the comparison. If that's not bias, what is?
Regards:
OldCEM
I agree that the ads (and it IS an advertisement) worked and bully for Ford. I'm all for more competition in this segment as the differences narrow... it only helps the consumer.
Personally, any kind of advertising doesn't hold a candle to my own experiences with a vehicle. And to be perfectly clear, if Accords and Camrys were perfect, there would hardly be any Fusions, Sonatas, etc. sold at all. :shades:
The reliablity of the car has been fine, although not as stellar as others experience. It was basically easy to work on (with the exception of front brakes), and returned good fuel economy.
The current Accord I just find totally unexciting. As I reflect on it, as a strategy, it makes a lot of sense. Build a car that 20/30 somethings want...redesign it a few years later for what 40 somethings want...redesign it a few years later for what 50 somethings want, etc.
My issue is that I am not in the demographic for it anymore; I must be too young. I don't see myself replacing the Accord with another Accord. Its okay I don't see them hurting for buyers.
That's strange, because my 92 Accord (basicly the same car, minus the automatic seatbelts and sport shift switch) was never in the shop. If I would have had problems with it, I certainly wouldn't have bought another one in 03.
with the exception of front brakes
I am in no way a machanic, and I changed the brake pads myself (once), with the help of the service manual. No problem.
My issue is that I am not in the demographic for it anymore; I must be too young. I don't see myself replacing the Accord with another Accord. Its okay I don't see them hurting for buyers.
As a soon-to-be 20-something, I'm not offended by your post, but I do respectfully disagree with you. I have a 1996 LX Accord, and a 2006 EX Accord (one was a hand-me-down that I learned to drive in, one was in return for a scholarship I earned from the parents). I think that the driving dynamics in the Accord aren't that much different than they used to be, except my new car has much better grip/roadholding. My new Accord also has an advanced engine (i-VTEC) with zingy top-end power and a great exhaust note. The interior is also beautifully designed (controls seem to have design flair on top of just having ergonomic excellence).
My old car (1996) has a very VERY bland interior, a basic SOHC engine, a back seat that makes six-footers cringe, and a design that is classy if not necessarily sporty.
I don't necessarily think Honda is a whole-lot different, but I think it has changed for the better in the places where it is (back seat, interior design, engine technology/economy/power).
Its cool you were wrenching on your ride. Changing disc pads is a good start, its usually pulling the wheels and then 1 or 2 bolts to get the pads out of the calipers.
The issue comes with pulling the rotors to be turned, or replacing the rotors. The rotor is effectively pressed onto the hub, requiring a considerable amount of disassembly to replace.
My guess is you didn't replace or turn the rotors as specified in the manual (its not a super big deal, I have done that in the past as well with other vehicles- it just leads to accelerated pad wear and increases the likelihood of chatter, squeal, and uneven braking)
Sorry, you are right, I should've phrased that better, that wasn't my point or my intent. I was more talking about a target demographic and while I'm glad you like your Accord, I am pretty sure you are not the target demographic.
Toyota did it too. Their cars got so old they had to invent Scion to get kids to look at thier cars. Mercedes is in a similar situation and BMW has ads making fun of them for it.
There is a big difference between a consumer (who may or may not be an actual buyer or even in the market in the first place) SAYING on a survey that they prefer one vehicle over another, and actually going out and having to choose one to PURCHASE.
It sounds to me like the Fusion Challenge mainly focused on styling and handling ("See how much better the AWD Fusion drives around this autocross track than its FWD competitors!"). Did the survey include questions about which cars the consumers thought had the best quality/long-term reliability, or which cars would retain the most value?
If handling had been the most important factor in my decision to purchase, and other factors such as reliability record, resale value, and drivetrain were not important to me at all, then I would probably have agreed with the Fusion Challenge.
AGAIN to each his own! That test proves nothing about the Fusion being better overall than Accord. It just proves that, to some consumers, it excels in a couple of different areas.
The motor blew at only 170K miles? Wow. I'd have been disappointed.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
I am really leaning towards the Mazda6 right now. I made the mistake of driving a Speed6 last night, which I think is the most fun I've had in quite some time. I can't swing a new one, but it looks like Mazda 6s GTs are a pretty good deal used and reasonably easy to find in a manual transmission.
A lousy 23.9 mpg in a Fusion? my wife's V6 Altima has been running at 26 for 4 years now - my Avalon 27. Tell me you drive the streets of Manhattan, then maybe that 23.9 is something to crow about.
BTW if you really want to know what Car and Driver thinks:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11106/2006-toyota-camry-xle-v-6.html
A comparison test, not under Ford's influence, won by the Accord, of course - in which your Fusion actually did pretty well. If only they could have had that 3.5 under the hood, then, the car might really 'win' something.
i don't have any of the cars in question, but everyone has different priorities when choosing a car. some are super brand loyal, some like power, some like handling, some like style. there is no wrong answer to what car you pick or like. i've enjoyed reading a lot of this (though i would like to see the altima mentioned more often! it too gets lost in the shuffle unfortunately).
all i can say is there is a reason why the camry and accord are the two highest selling cars in this segment. i think that is the true sign of consumer opinion on what they think is the "best" car...
i'd still pick the altima though over all of the other cars in this segment. i like power, i like style, and i like handling...and i like to row my own gears...
anyways, my two cents...
-thene
Isn`t there something to be learned from this statement ? When any of the actual current CARS are compared (styling; build quality; handling; ride quality; comfort and convenience features;safety features;acceleration;fuel economy etc.) the Accord lovers on this forum have a very hard time defending their 'best in class' arguements. So they inevitably abandon discussion of current CARS and instead revert to discussion of how the market place rated reliability and /or resale in previous years ( where the Accord does have an excellent track record).It`s hard for any competitor to come to the table with out giving it time to devlop it`s own record ! Don`t get me wrong, these are important considerations - it`s just that a singular focus on them to the exclusion of all else is, in my opinion, counter productive.
I think there is a difference between "media" and advertising. Yes, advertising is delivered through different media but I think that when someone here complains about the media giving preferential treatment to a particular car model, he or she means the journalists reporting about the cars. The complaint is about a perceived bias toward that car.
Advertising is very biased. That's kind of the point, isn't it?
So the Fusion Challenge is an example of good advertising because it gets people to consider a car that they might not have, not an example of unbiased media.