Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Midsize Sedans 2.0

16791112539

Comments

  • 03accordman03accordman Posts: 671
    "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"

    That must have been really disappointing; expecially with your good experience with the earlier Accord (though I would say 170k for the motor is pretty low). Didn't the warranty cover the expenses while you were getting it fixed, since you had only 20k miles on it?
  • 03accordman03accordman Posts: 671
    "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"

    Scape, this post is confusing. Are we supposed to believe what we read, or not? First you say look at the Fusion challenge, then you say don't always believe what you read. Does that mean we should only believe when the article picks a Fusion over other cars, that too in an advertisment?
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    I too loved the 1977 Accord I owned. She went about 170K before blowing her engine.

    Actually I found it wasn't a mechanical issue that killed those, it was the shock towers rusting out and the car collapsing. And this was in California.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Let's go with the "Don't always believe what you read", good advice wherever you go. ;)

    Let's drop this circular conversation about that particular comparison. It was what it was and there really isn't anything left to say about it that hasn't already been said - over and over and then again some more!

    Let's move on! :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    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.

    Car and Driver didn't have a hard time defending the 2007 Accord as best-in-class against all new-for-2007 models. It was certainly best in class for my dollar as well, and that's all that needs to be said on my part. Analyzing forum posts is something that the host doesn't take kindly to.
  • I drove an Altima was it was pretty good, The Camry seemed to heavy and cumbersome to me. I am an old hot rodder and have had couple of sports cars too. I had to find a quick, agile, 4 door that would make me proud in the stop-light grand prix.
    I got a sedan that does 0-60 in 5.9, shift when I want, with leather and a sun roof for under 26K
    Saturn Aura XR. Out handles the Camry and beats the Altima to 60, 80, 1/4mi, and 100.
    Can you tell I love my XR?
    The underdog that took Car of the Year. Saturn is leading GM into the next generation of automobiles with European styling .
  • 03accordman03accordman Posts: 671
    I think the best decision GM has taken in the recent years is to get the Euro Opels here and sell them as Saturns. The Aura is a strong contender and I have only heard good things about, expecially with the 3.6.

    I haven't been inside one yet; but externally it sure looks very nice. One of these days I am going to check it out.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    "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? "

    You are good at mixing words here. Just read the comparison. Ford did pay for it, Car and Driver Hosted it, consumers came to it.. geese.. :sick:
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    "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"

    So, I guess the Camry/Accord having stability control has no merrit? What do you mean? how Ford paying the way questions were asked?? this makes no sense?? Car and Driver was there asking the questions.. The fact that an AWD Fusion can be had for the same price.. and offer more for your dollar is a bad thing?? :confuse: These were comparable vehicles. Read the article again.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    Once again, you don't seem to get it. This was not "under Fords influence". It was everyday consumers. Why wasn't the Car and Driver comparo "influenced then? because the Toyota won? Once again, what makes this C/D comparo so significant is that the people are everyday consumers, not media, not a car magazine "expert".
    You also missed my saying my MPG has been going up steadily. It has gond from 23.4 to 23.9 and is on a steady trend up. We can talk all day about V6's and this HP war with family sedans. Kind of like my Dad is bigger than your Dad. The fact is most of this HP war is all bragging rights. And last I read is Nissan now has the bragging rights ;)
  • targettuningtargettuning Posts: 1,371
    Actually, I consider this forum a form of media..no? This forum and its unrelenting debate of the legitimacy of that Challange test is what I meant when I said that. The actual commercial itself has prompted intense debate here and in a backhanded sort of way that debate interested me in trying the car..research prompted by media.
  • w9cww9cw Posts: 888
    bv050506 wrote: " . . . push button start . . ." I certainly wouldn't buy a car because it has a push button to start the car. It certainly proves that everything of this nature is cyclical. In fact, the car in which I learned to drive, had a push button start on the dash - a 1951 Ford Custom 2-door! And, the 1950 Ford pick-up's starter was a "large" push button on the floor board. The more things change, the more they stay the same!
  • Hey! Push button start is cool! Especially when it is on my Auras key-fob
  • thenebeanthenebean Posts: 1,124
    sounds like a very nice car :)

    saw the opel version when i was in greece last year - i was hoping we'd end up with one of those for a rental...no luck!

    enjoy your aura!!

    -thene :)
  • tallman1tallman1 Posts: 1,874
    You need to look where I put the comma so that it would make sense to you.

    I've got lots more to say based on all that I've read but our good host has said we are done with this discussion and I wholeheartedly agree. :sick:
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    oh no, I 'get it' exactly for what it is - horse puckey! The same magazine that you like the results from when Ford pays for it, comes up with a different result when Ford doesn't - and you don't think Ford paying for the test (and stacking the deck) had anything to do with the results? I give up - believe what you wish - but I do have some swampland in Phoenix.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    Has anyone used the OEM (not the lil wire hanging out of your tape deck to your iPod, not the thing that makes it play on FM, and not the aftermarket adapters) integrated iPod player unit on any of the cars in this class?
    I believe the Nissan with the bazilion dollar technology pkg has Bluetooth hands free. Is that an option on any of the other vehicles?
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Let's move past the comparison that Ford paid for, that the Fusion won, that regular people decided, or however that went.

    We have wasted way too much bandwith arguing about it and I'm sure we can find other subjects to, um, banter about. :)

    Move on please...
  • tncarmantncarman Posts: 82
    Isn't it ironic, that even though the Toyota Camry is the lowest Consumer Rated midsize sedan on this site, that it still sells more and now Toyota is the biggest car co.?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Well, out of 450,000 Camry owners, I'd say 300 people surveyed allows for a pretty large margin of error. That goes for any of the consumers surveyed for any of the cars.

    I'm not a Camry advocate, by any means, as I've never owned a Toyota (they're too boring for my tastes).
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    There seems to be an incredible amount of discussion on forums about "resale value" and "true cost to own". I just realized that I never even gave any thought about either, when I bought any of my cars or trucks. I say buy the car you like best, and you will likely want to keep it longer. Then, "resale value" and "true cost to own" will take care of itself. If you buy a car you don't really like, you will probably get rid of it sooner, defeating the purpose.
  • oldcemoldcem Posts: 309
    As I remember - the warranty paid to repair a blown air conditioner twice, to fix the front brakes, and to replace both front head light assemblies(kept filling with water). Biggest problem - the car ate tires at an alarming rate. The dealer kept telling me it was fine, and, Firestone kept telling me it couldn't be aligned. I went through 4 sets of tires before I traded it off. The last set lasted for the duration of a trip to the beach - the car was eating the radials so bad that little strips of rubber were coming off the tread. After that I decided to punt.

    Regards:
    OldCEM
  • oldcemoldcem Posts: 309
    I fought the rust the whole time I owned it. Biggest problem area with mine was the rear fender liners. Every spring they'd be rotted out and I'd patch in new sheet metal and apply rust killer. What finally killed mine - the oil pump drive gears failed.

    Regards:
    OldCEM
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    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)

    I decided getting the rotors turned was unnecessary. I have never had to replace rotors on any car or truck. No problems with wear, chatter, squeal, or uneven braking either. Even if the pads wore a little faster (which I doubt since I only changed them once in 140k miles) I think I could have changed them twice as often, doing it myself, for less than paying someone else to change them, and turn the rotors making them thinner, and weaker.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    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)

    I decided getting the rotors turned was unnecessary. I have never had to replace rotors on any car or truck. No problems with wear, chatter, squeal, or uneven braking either. Even if the pads wore a little faster (which I doubt since I only changed them once in 140k miles) I think I could have changed them twice as often, doing it myself, for less than paying someone else to change them, and turn the rotors making them thinner, and weaker.

    Ah yes, "deferred" maintinance always seems to make maintenance cheaper. Did you at least check to make sure the rotors were above minimum thickness? It might also be related to locality. Where the car lived in CA, there were hills that required brakeing. If you lived in Nebraska or Kansas, it might be less of an issue.
  • bv050506bv050506 Posts: 97
    Your Aura is a really nice car and as you put it quick too. Your price of $26K for all you mentioned is strong too and a great buy for all that car. Not as good as the Altima SE in the slalom, not as big inside, and not a lot of bells and whistles, but with Nissan you really pay for those extras. My premium package added $4,400 and stability control another $900 bringing the sticker to $30,045, I paid $27,200. Enjoy your ride....and oh yes, when your car is governed at 124mph I'll still have about 25mph more to play with, ha. Not suggesting we do that however.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    Finally, something worth responding to.

    Rotors only need to be turned if they're out of spec on runout. A few hard stops will normally clear any surface glaze or rust on the rotor or pads.

    Turning the rotors and putting in new pads is the equivalent of rebooting your computer to fix an error. It's quick and easy and usually fixes the problem - at least temporarily.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116

    Rotors only need to be turned if they're out of spec on runout. A few hard stops will normally clear any surface glaze or rust on the rotor or pads.

    Turning the rotors and putting in new pads is the equivalent of rebooting your computer to fix an error. It's quick and easy and usually fixes the problem - at least temporarily.


    Its not the rust and the glaze you want to get rid of, its the grooves. When new pads go on grooved rotors, they wear "funny" and that creates the griding and squealing. The more aggressive the pad, the more friction, the better the braking performance. Certain OEMs that have softer pads to protect the rotors are also criticized for having brakes that are considered not as strong as those of competitors (and excessive brake dust).

    I personally have had good luck with Axxis metal-master pads (or Hawks for the track events), and Brembo blanks (about the same as the OEM rotor from the dealer).
  • :shades: :shades: :shades:
    I found the money for the important thing better spent than what I could have gotten for $26K from Nissan, Toyota, or even Hyundai. I didn't get an arm rest in the back seat, but I didn't have to pay extra for split lay-down rear seat. I did get a sound system for the rear seat that has it's own radio tuner and can select a CD from the 6 CD changer up front, It comes with two wireless headphone so the passengers in back don't have to listen to mom and dads choice up front.
    Saturn put tinny red led's in the roof console's to give ambient red light on the interior at night. You can actually see stuff now that used to be hidden in the dark. I have never seen this and don't know if red LEDs in the roof is normal for today's sport sedans or not, but it is really cool.
    Every time I get in this new car I find something else that blows my mind.
    :shades: :shades:
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    Its great when you find something that meets your needs and your budget and makes you feel good about driving. Congrats on your purchase.
    The ambient lighting is a big deal, Audi started it in the 90s, and now other manufacturers are chiming in as the price of LEDs comes down. I'm glad you like the technology.
  • tallman1tallman1 Posts: 1,874
    ambient red light on the interior at night

    The higher end Accords have this feature.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    To me paying $150-200 per axle for brake pads and turning rotors, to be sure the brakes will be as good as they can be is cheap insurance. For us the fronts have typically lasted at least 50,000 miles and rears (drums) about double that or more. By my calculation this will come to less than $600 for 150,000 miles, or less than 1/2 cent per mile.

    So which of these cars have those softer pads to protect rotors at the expense of reduced braking performance?
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    So which of these cars have those softer pads to protect rotors at the expense of reduced braking performance?

    Cons
    Brakes should be more powerful, missing some of the premium features being offered by newer competitors, Hybrid model's disappointing fuel economy.
  • This is a great thread.
    IMHO; it's not how hard or soft the pads are that cause the groves. It's not the groves that cause squealing or chattering when the pads come in contact with the rotors. Disk brake manufacturers have a spec for the depth of a grove that requires turning as well as a spec for the thickness of the rotors. The brake shop will know what the specs are. A good shop wont do the job if you don't want to turn rotors that the manufactures says need it. If you do the job yourself, like I usually do you have know the specs before you start.
    In my nearly 50 years of experience, which goes back before disk brakes were used on US automobiles, I have developed the following guidelines (for myself only). If the groves are less than 0.002" I leave them alone. If any are over o.oo2" deep I turn the rotors.
    What causes the minor groves in the rotors is dirt, sand, and tinny metal par ticals picked up from the road. It doesn't make any difference what the pads are made of, they will all pick up this junk and scratch/grove your rotors.
    Replace your pads with a compound that best meets your driving style. Don't put on metallic pads designed for racing, just because you think it's cool. Don't use soft OEM pads if you do a lot of "performance" driving on mountain roads. Metallics take time to heat up to a useful temperature and soft pads fade after a few hard stops.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    IMHO; it's not how hard or soft the pads are that cause the groves. It's not the groves that cause squealing or chattering when the pads come in contact with the rotors.

    That has been different then my experience, but I have also used some very aggressive brake pads. On a track environment, there is very little debris to pick up and get stuck in your pads. If you have a hard, aggressive pad and a soft rotor, the rotor is going to get eaten.

    If you do the job yourself, like I usually do you have know the specs before you start.

    Yeah, its been a very long time since anyone other than myself touched my brakes. I usually have to borrow the dial gauge to check for warping.

    Replace your pads with a compound that best meets your driving style. Don't put on metallic pads designed for racing, just because you think it's cool. Don't use soft OEM pads if you do a lot of "performance" driving on mountain roads. Metallics take time to heat up to a useful temperature and soft pads fade after a few hard stops.

    This is an incredibly valid point. Hawks I would only use for racing (although they have a street pad, its pretty pricey), while the Axxis pads have a cool enough thermal range to work well on the street (which is their intended use).

    When I would do HDPE stuff, a lot of times guys would leave their racing pads on at the end of the day and drive back to the hotel. Then, first thing in the morning they would get up, jump in their car and head for the MickyD's drive thru, where they would then realize how poorly stone cold racing pads work as they rear-end the vehicle in front of them. :sick:
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The way I hear it, the shims and whatever that greasy stuff that goes between them are what keeps the brakes from chattering and squealing. I have never had any rotors turned, and so far (knock on wood) I haven't had a problem with brakes. I see many posts about warped rotors and pads wearing prematurely, and it makes me wonder if all these people live in the mountains, where riding the brakes down hill would be harder on pads and rotors than the flatlands in south Louisiana. I have heard how much of a pain it was to remove the rotors on 90's Accords (some have actually converted them to rotor over hub using old Acura CL parts). I must be easy on brakes cause I've never experienced this (knock on wood again). :)
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    Not to mention, the camry did win motor trend car of the year for 2007
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    For us the fronts have typically lasted at least 50,000 miles and rears (drums) about double that or more.

    That's about normal. 80% of your braking is done in the front.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Turning the rotors and putting in new pads is the equivalent of rebooting your computer to fix an error. It's quick and easy and usually fixes the problem

    Not so quick or easy on 4th generation Accords. Thankfully I never had to do it. My rotors were still good when I sold it.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Cons
    Brakes should be more powerful, missing some of the premium features being offered by newer competitors, Hybrid model's disappointing fuel economy.


    Thanks for the clue, but wouldn't it have been easier to just name the model :confuse: . Accord was what popped into my head when I read your reference to weak brakes.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    I was talking about the dealer. Changing pads and turning rotors is easier than trying to figure out the real problem.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I was talking about the dealer.

    Ok, sure the dealer loves doing brake jobs (easy $$$). I'm not taking rotors off, unless there is a problem.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,601
    My brother's '85 Accord went through pads and rotors like crazy. Every time the car needed pads he had to replace the rotors. Rotors were to thin to "turn".

    Maintenance on that Accord was quite expensive when anything broke down. Headlight burned out, needed new headlight assembly (I guess many of today's cars are like that so Honda was truly ahead of everyone else). A broken radio antennae (a top of the right side A pillar) required tearing apart the dash board.

    Hmmmm...'85 Accord, look at what Honda had done since. '88 Excel, look at what Hyundai has done since. And Hyundai only became dedicated to becoming a real player in the USA in the last 5 to 10 years.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I certainly can't explain your brother's problem, but I have had none of the same. I do think that's enough about brakes on the "Midsize Sedan" forum.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,601
    The point is that his Honda Accord, which he never chose to consider again, was a 1985. Honda has improved.

    Yet, some people choose to rag on all Hyundai models because Hyundai made some crummy cars in the late 1980's to early 1990's.

    Look at what has happened to computers in the last 15 years...wasn't it 1992 or '93 that IBM brought out it's first PC, at about $10,000? How many people buy an IBM PC now when there are so many equally as good products available? Yep, some will still pay a premium price for the IBM name (brand loyalty). Others have learned they can get much greater value for their dollar from other brands and "clones."
  • exshomanexshoman Posts: 109
    I'm glad you keep your car for a long time, I also try to buy cars that I can see myself owning for a long time. However, people often get rid of cars for reasons other than not liking it. Maybe you have a kid and need to trade in your 2 seat convertible. Or the kids go off to college and you no longer need your minivan. Or you get a promotion, and that new Corolla CE doesn't quite have the panache that you desire.

    I wouldn't be surprised that on average, a new car stays with the original owner for five years before being sold. So yes, resale value is often (although not always) important.

    In 2000, I bought a new Chrysler 300M (a great car BTW and still going strong at 120K miles) for 30K. Today it's worth around 5K. If I would have bought a 20K Accord, it would probably still be worth about 10K. Fortunately, I'm not in a situation where I have to sell the car.

    High resale value was one of the numerous reasons we bought an '06 Accord. We figured if our needs changed down the road, we wouldn't take a bath on the car if we sold it.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 4,524
    The Fusion is a great looking car, and may be equal to the Accord in some areas. One area where the Accord seems to be ahead of the Fusion is when both are equipped with the base engine and a manual transmission. Here's what the Consumer Guide says:

    "With manual transmission, 4-cyl Fusions are adequate at best and feel slower than our test car's 9.2 sec 0-60 time would suggest. Inordinately heavy clutch action, balky shift linkage makes manual transmission unpleasant to use."

    In contrast:

    "Four cyl Accords peppy enough with slick-shifting manual transmission; test EX coupe did 7.9 seconds 0-60 mph."

    The Accord sedan weighs about 75 lbs more, but should still get from 0-60 in less than 8.5 seconds.

    So, the Accord's transmission seems to be smoother, and its engine is slightly larger and more powerful, and yet the EPA rates the 4-cyl Accord with manual at 26/34, while the Fusion is rated 23/31. For some models the Fusion may be close to equal, but for this base model it seems the Accord is substantially ahead. Of course, the Accord probably costs about $2000 more. But it appears that a good chunk of that money goes into a better engine and transmission.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • That was exactly my experience when I drove both cars. The base Fusion felt significantly slower and less responsive.

    Was that Accord 0-60 time from before they bumped the power for the 2006 model year? Car and Driver clocks my exact car, a 2007 Accord LX Sedan 5-speed manual, 0-60 in 7.5 seconds.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    Look at what has happened to computers in the last 15 years...wasn't it 1992 or '93 that IBM brought out it's first PC, at about $10,000? How many people buy an IBM PC now when there are so many equally as good products available? Yep, some will still pay a premium price for the IBM name (brand loyalty). Others have learned they can get much greater value for their dollar from other brands and "clones."

    I think you mean '82/83. And at that point, the Apple II+/IIe was still a serious contender. IBMs business model doesn't really include personal computers anymore, as they tend to leave the low rent stuff to the myrads of offshore companies that specialize in that. IBM is more of a value add/service provider to integrate business machines into organizations.
    I think a better example of people paying a premium might be Apple but that is a whole other discussion ;)
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    a 2007 Accord LX Sedan 5-speed manual, 0-60 in 7.5 seconds
    that's pretty quick for a 4 banger - but understand that those times are relative to whose doing the testing, the specific car, and even test conditions. C&D seems to specialize in milking the best 0-60 times out of all cars, they must have 'car abuse king' testers that compete! Not to say that you personally might not be able to do the same thing, but I doubt seriously that 99% of us are going to be able to get the car to 60 in less than 8 seconds, and while the CG test is more conservative, perhaps might get closer to that 9+ time in the Fusion 4 banger. A big difference nonetheless, as you say, however. If you like 4 bangers, Honda would still be superior.
Sign In or Register to comment.