Low End Sedans (under $16k)

randyt2 · October 2001

Can you show me any reference that states that side impact tests for the NHTSA tests can be compared outside of vehicle weight classes?

majorthomecho · October 2001

It is not a question of finding a reference saying you can compare side impact crash tests results, it is more a question of finding a reference saying you can't compare side impact crash tests results.

The NHTSA site makes it clear that you cannot compare FRONTAL crash test results between cars that have more than 500 pound difference in weight.

The NHSTA site has no such restriction when it comes to the side impact crash test results.

Also, the weight of the object driven into the side of the vehicle does not change with the weight of the vehicle. It is 3,150 pounds whether they are ramming it into the side of an SUV or into the side of a lightweight, low end car.

FWIW, after I post this, I am going to be writing to the NHTSA and ask them if what I have been told about side impact crash test results (that you can compare them outside of weight class) is true.

randyt2 · October 2001

Are the cars held in a lateral manner when the test happens? If an 3000 lb object is pushed into a lower weight car, maybe a lighter car slides laterally in the same direction more than a higher weight car? Who knows, all I am saying is that the weight of the car may play a dynamic in the results.

majorthomecho · October 2001

Well, I have done as I said I would and have written to a gentleman at the NHTSA. I will let you know what he says.

At this point all I know is the object is moving at 38.5mph and the vehicle is stationary.

mariners · October 2001

I today was too early for church this morning ;-)

majorthomecho · October 2001

There was some discussion sometime back in either this thread or the Echo vs. ??? thread that I created about whether or not you could compare the overall rating for the Toyota Echo given by Consumer Reports with other small sedans given that Consumer Reports grouped the Echo with fuel-efficient cars and not small sedans in their new car guide.

I have found evidence that suggests you can.

I have the December 2000 issue where Consumer Reports rated fuel efficient cars. The story was about the Echo, the Toyota Prius, the Volkswagen Golf GLS TDI, and the Honda Insight.

However, Consumer Reports also showed the ratings for other less fuel-efficient small sedans such as the Ford Focus, Mazda Protege ES, Volkswagen Jetta GLS 2.0, Toyota Corolla LE, Nissan Sentra GXE, and Saturn SL2. The only distinction they made was between models with an automatic transmission and those with a manual transmission.

They did NOT say you could not compare the ratings of any of these cars with the others.

Looking at those ratings, at the time of publication, Consumer Reports gave the Toyota Echo a higher overall rating then the Honda Insight, Saturn SL2, Nissan Sentra GXE, Toyota Corolla LE, and the Volkswagen Jetta GLS 2.0.

The Echo tied the rating for the Mazda Protege 2.0 and got a lower rating than the Volkswagen Golf GLS TDI, Toyota Prius, and the Ford Focus ZTS.

Pretty good showing I think.

backy · October 2001

I recall reading in CR a few years ago that their car ratings, i.e. the "bar" that runs from Poor to Excellent, is a single scale with which they rate all cars they test. Also, each individual category such as braking and front seat comfort is a single scale for all cars. That means that, technically, we can rate the ECHO and in fact any car that CR tests against any other car they have tested.

It's also why we will probably never see the best economy cars get the highest possible rating from CR, because there will be more expensive cars that will test out better in some areas. CR just reviewed luxury sedans and said the BMW 530i is the highest rated car they have ever tested, and in fact its overall rating "bar" is all the way over to the right (Excellent), meaning I guess that CR doesn't think any car can get much better than that.

The ECHO's high rating by CR is I believe a reflection of CR's criteria for testing cars, which does NOT include totally subjective criteria such as styling. I know a lot of people on these boards don't think much of CR, but I happen to think they provide valuable information and a more scientific approach to testing cars than most (all?) auto mags.

P.S. I went to church Saturday afternoon to avoid any chance of showing up early (and for other reasons). But I also remembered to set my clocks back last night. Except on my Elantra. So as I was driving my 13-year-old son home from his campout today, he reached over without a word and reset the clock.

majorthomecho · October 2001

Backy, you would be incorrect that you can rate any car that Consumer Reports tests with any other. The specifically say that they are rated within categories.

If I had not found my issue dealing with the Echo and the fuel-efficient cars, I would not have known for sure they were also in the category of small sedans and could be compared against other small sedans. The rating for the Echo cannot be compared against the rating for the BMW 5-series for example.

Sorry for not making that clear.

majorthomecho · October 2001

Remember that I wrote to someone at the NHTSA about side impact crash test results and the comparability between cars of vastly different weight. Well, I got a shock this morning. I already got a response.

The man I wrote to is named Jeff Guiseppe and he indicated that side impact crash test results CAN be compared between cars of vastly different weight.

HOWEVER, the weight, that is crashed into the side of the vehicle, is at the ride height of a passenger vehicle. This means the test does not simulate getting hit in the side by a vehicle such as an SUV. Mr. Guiseppe said that typically the higher up you are in a side impact crash test, the better you are.

So, in summation, this means a three star rating for side impact crash protection is a three star rating is a three star rating.

majorthomecho · October 2001

You never told us how you came out in the game of Life.

randyt2 · October 2001

Mecho, there you have it.

IF the majority of Edmunds voters of the Most Wanted had safety as a primary concern, AND if those voters were highly concerned with the SIDE IMPACT safety of the REAR seat passengers, then they could possibly have chosen the Echo over Focus ZX3.

majorthomecho · October 2001

I don't agree with the implication that Edmunds would have/should have chosen the Focus over the Echo. That was not my point and I really don't care that they did not choose the Echo. I am not lobbying for the Echo in this regard.

My point is if Edmunds truly is concerned with safety given all the harping they do where the Echo is concerned, they have a funny way of showing it.

They pick two cars that had some pretty bad safety rating scores and they don't even mention the poor safety ratings.

I know the actual Most Wanted write ups of the two cars were brief, but I cannot see that the poor safety rating has been discussed in the any article about the two cars. I specified article because Edmunds does divulge the ratings information in that section devoted to specs and safety.

What's important to me now is determining how Edmunds developed the $13,000 ceiling. The introductory article does not make it clear.

randyt2 · October 2001

That sounds like a good NEW topic (hint, hint) that does not have to deal specifically with sedans.

BTW thank you for writing to the NHTSA and getting an answer.

pat · October 2001

If someone wants to make a "Questions about Edmunds Most Wanted Vehicles" discussion on the main Sedans board, I'll do my best to get an editor (or two, three) to respond. No promises, but what have we got to lose?

Pat
Host
Sedans Message Board

backy · October 2001

Major, I have to disagree with you on comparing CR's car ratings. I think it's a single scale. I vividly recall reading that in CR, although it was a long time ago; I remember it because it was a revelation to me, something I did not expect. Can you find the statement regarding how they are rated within categories? And does that statement apply to their regular monthly reviews or to some other comparisons they did?

Let me provide an example and see what you think. Look at the August 2001 issue (the only one I can find in the house right now; beloved wife has a bad habit of tossing out my mags). It reviews compact crew-cab pickups (sorry, out of topic--but then so are 747s). Take a look at the ratings for Ride. All the scores save one is Fair or Poor; the S-10 gets a Good for full-load ride. Then notice the comments about ride. For example, on the S-10 they say, "Though it doesn't compare with a sedan's ride, the S-10's is relatively well isolated." (There's more, but I don't want to violate the Membership policy with too long a quote.) It's clear from the reviews that the S-10 has the best ride in the group. So, can you explain why the S-10 did not get an Excellent for Ride? If the trucks are really weighted within categories, and this category is compact crew-cab pickups, and CR tested all the trucks in that category in this review (except the Sonoma, a twin of the S-10), how come the best-riding truck doesn't get an Excellent score?

Check out all the other ratings in this article. Of all the ratings, there's only 4 Excellent marks, all for either climate control system or controls and displays. The compact crew-cab pickup with the best acceleration (0-60 in 8.9 seconds, not bad for a pickup) in the category doesn't get an Excellent. The compact crew-cab pickup with the roomiest rear seat doesn't get an Excellent. The quietest compact crew-cab pickup doesn't get an Excellent. And on and on. The only explanation I have for these scores is that these trucks are being compared against vehicles that are outside of their category.

Also look at the overall ratings. The highest rated vehicle in the category, the Ford Explorer Sport Trac, only makes it half-way into the Very Good Category. Three others are Good. One is Poor. So what is CR trying to say here? That they have some idealistic vision of what the perfect compact crew-cab pickup should be, and all the pickups in the category fall far short? Back to the drawing boards, Ford, GM, Daimler Chrysler, Nissan, and Toyota!

How about cars (finally!)? Don't you wonder why no car has ever scored the maximum possible rating on the Overall Rating bar until the BMW 530i did it last month? Even though CR has rated many excellent economy cars over the years and has gushed over many of them? So why would it not give these fine small cars its highest rating? Maybe because they are being compared against cars outside of their category.

P.S. The family decided to play Monopoly instead of Life. I still got the car. I won.

majorthomecho · October 2001

Here is a quote from CR which led me to believe that you cannot compare the overall ratings for two widely different vehicles. I have cut it down for brevity, but I do not believe I have eliminated any important information.

"Not all cars are created equal. [snip] The graphs on these pages show how we've rated each recently tested vehicle, and how it compares to its class peers. [snip]

Each tested model is evaluated against comparable vehicles, and our scoring theme is adjusted to suit the vehicle's type and intended purpose. [snip]"

This is from the Consumer Reports New Car Preview Guide 2001. In this issue they have categories and subcategories.

I believe, but don't know that the admonition on what vehicles you can compare relates to the categories and not the subcategories. Thus, I believe the overall rating for the Echo which is listed in the subcategory of fuel-efficient vehicles can be compared with the rating of the Mazda Protege which is in the small sedans subcategory. Both are in the Mainstream cars category.

However, you cannot compare the rating of the Echo with the rating of the BMW 325i since the former is in the Mainstream cars category and the latter is in the High-End sedans category.

Sorry for the long post and I hope it answers your question.

FWIW, when this question first came up many months ago, I did write a snail mail letter to Consumer Reports asking them to clarify, but I never got a response.

backy · October 2001

Thanks for digging up the quote. But it does not answer one question, that is, do these statements about comparing like vehicles apply only to the graphs in the New Car Preview Guide, or do they apply to CR's monthly tests, both the individual criteria and the overall ratings?

Consider: the statement you quoted says that CR's scoring is adjusted to suit a vehicle's intended purpose. So that would mean that for 2+2 sport coupes, rear seat room/comfort should be scored on a different scale than for 4-door family sedans, because no one buys a 2+2 sport coupe to get a roomy back seat--I've seen CR acknowledge this in their reviews. Yet invariably, CR's reviews will rate the coupes Poor in rear seat room. Poor compared to what? To other 2+2 sport coupes, or to cars in general? I think the latter.

Based on following CR's ratings for over 25 years, I still think the ratings in the monthly reviews are on an single scale, otherwise the best vehicles in each category should score higher than they do. As soon as I get some time I will ask CR about this (maybe when they ask me for the annual contribution ;-) ).

majorthomecho · October 2001

What I quoted concerns the overall rating which is displayed as a bar graph.

I am not sure about the comparability among any car of the "dots."

I will research my issues and let you know.

iluvmysephia1 · October 2001

release. At least for now it does. I'm not interested in one of those anyway-I love my Sportage. It may be of interest to lots of Americans, though, if Chevy sells it here.

majorthomecho · October 2001

Why do you think that a lot of Americans would be interested in the car if it were sold here? If memory serves, it it the size of the Chevy Metro/Suzuki Swift and that combo was not a great seller in the first place.

backy · November 2001

A couple of weeks ago bjfrank42 started an informal survey about any problems we have had or anything we would change on our cars if we could. A few of us posted on our problems (er, our cars' problems), but very few (I was one of those) were frank about what we would change if we could. Anyone else like to confess that their cars are not perfect and play automobile designer?

iluvmysephia1 · November 2001

for the American public in the low-end market. Or it could be. Asia-GM will probably guage it's success in Asia and mull over bringing it here. Or Vibe/Matrix is all for the U.S. as far as new small or smaller cars go? Bleak-weak and bleak if it's true. Kia and Hyundai are just licking their chops. Chop-chop!!!

carleton1 · November 2001

I could name design improvements for every brand.
Based on sitting in all low end sedans at the Auto Show, here are some suggestions:
ECHO: offer an LE model with padded armrest on doors, fold down center armrests, Cruise control, nicer materials for doors and seats.
All other but Prius: Raise the height of the seat off the floor by copying Toyota ECHO. Place an excellent drive train into your sedans so they will perform and also provide the reliability and excellent fuel economy of the ECHO.

backy · November 2001

Carleton, don't hold back any longer, go out and get that ECHO you've been drooling over. Then take it to an upholstery shop, one that does custom work on cars, and get them to recover the seats, armrests (with padding), and door panels in your choice of cloth. It will cost some bucks but probably not any more than Toyota would charge for an LE package (if it existed on the ECHO). Then take it to your favorite auto parts store and pick up an aftermarket cruise control. If you look around you might be able to find an aftermarket center arm rest also. There you have it, a custom ECHO "LE", maybe the only one in the world!

majorthomecho · November 2001

With the Prizm and the Metro going bye bye, that does leave quite a big gap at the end of the spectrum (no pun intended) for GM. Perhaps that is where Daewoo will come in or perhaps GM will bring the Cruze over after some time of being on sale in Asia.

If it does come over, it will probably be a Suzuki since the Swift has also been canceled.

backy · November 2001

You folks are missing GM's grand plan for the Cruze in the U.S. What they will do is borrow an idea from the Air Force (B-52 with a small plane strapped to it) and Star Trek (shuttles on the Enterprise). They will fit a docking bay into the back end of the heavy-duty Chevy/GMC pickup, specially made for the Cruze. It will have power-operated loading ramps and a special streamlined cover. The target market is people who tow a trailer and want a car to tool around in (ever see all the motor homes towing small cars behind them?). But now you can get the truck and the car in one integrated package! Owners will have all sorts of fun figuring out the maximum speed at which they can "launch" the Cruze out the back of the truck, while the truck is moving. GM will probably have to beef up the Cruze's suspension, add skid plates etc. just for this reason. We'll probably see a test model in this winter's auto shows.

Or maybe not.

cjaccetta · November 2001

Major, very excellent and somewhat obscure reference to the late Chevy Spectrum. A freind's mother once owned a Spectrum with a turbocharger! I still see a few of them on the roads. And BTW, I just sold my 1993 Metro three months ago - best darn car I ever owned. I am sad to see the model go away.

Chevy is killing the Prizm? I didn't realize that. I guess the 2003 Corolla platform redesign dictated that move.

After 2002, other than Cavalier/Sunfire, what will GM offer in the low-end Spectrum (pun intended)?

backy · November 2001

There's still the Saturn SL. Maybe GM will see fit to do a redesign one of these decades. I think it's a great concept (space-frame design, rustproof body panels, good reliability) but woefully outclassed in today's market.

majorthomecho · November 2001

Actually, the Prizm is being canceled because the line will be used to build the Vibe/Matrix.

coolguyky7 · November 2001

Major, you beat me to saying that!

csandste · November 2001

will share the Opel platform. Saturn in 03 and Chevy in 04. The Pontiac version is toast.

majorthomecho · November 2001

Principally, I would change the tail lights on my Echo. And the vertical part of the trunk lid. It is an unbroken expanse of metal and I would change it to be similar to the Focus sedan.

majorthomecho · November 2001

There is a girl over on AOL that is a Sunfire fanatic. She is so worried that the Sunfire is being canceled that she actually called GM. They claim to have no plans to cancel the Sunfire. Not that I believe them.

backy · November 2001

Gee, you're not very demanding of Toyota. How about the idiot light for temperature instead of a gauge? Lack of a tachometer? (Practical) unavailability of side air bags? No cruise control?

majorthomecho · November 2001

Those things do not really bother me. They are not things that I see everyday. As far as cruise goes, I did not and do not want it. As far as side air bags go, that is more a change to do with Toyota policy and not specifically my car. In other words, I think it goes beyond the parameters you set out.

janbee · November 2001

the things that backy suggested are nice to have but are not necessary (for myself)..I do 1% highway driving so cruise control would be a waste, a temp gauge (I couldnt care a less),side impact bags might be a nice feature to have but would I have spent the extra $$$$ for it, prob not...I do wish the ECHO had more after-market accessories but maybe with time..Oh and I also wish they sold the hatchback model in America.. being that my work is 5 min from home along with the mall, grocery store etc, a bunch of extra features is something I didnt need which makes the ECHO a great choice, but If I had to do a lot of driving I might have gone with the Corolla instead.

backy · November 2001

I could swear you had complained awhile back about the lack of a tach and a real temp gauge (instead of the idiot lights). Has more time living with the ECHO changed your opinion?

majorthomecho · November 2001

Wasn't me, Backy.

majorthomecho · November 2001

Used cars that have below average reliability are listed by Consumer Reports as ones to avoid. The '99 Hyundai Elantra is just one such vehicle. It looks like it will be having company. The '01 Hyundai Elantra is also said to have below average reliability.

carleton1 · November 2001

I do not personally base any purchase decision based on the questionable value of CR reliability predictions. CR has been wrong on the reliability of most of the vehicles I have owned during the past 40 years.
Once more I can happily report that CR dismal prediction of reliability of DC minivans has again been WRONG. Instead of self-destructing as predicted by CR, our GC has had ZERO problems as have the DC minivans owned by numerous friends.
I would select the ECHO over any other sedan but it has nothing to do with my rating of "NOT Recommended for Purchase" Consumer Reports.

majorthomecho · November 2001

I think Consumer Reports is just one resource that someone should look at when starting the car buying process. A process that should end with a test drive of any car still in the running after all the other resources have been utilized.

And people need to understand that being listed as unreliable or reliable does NOT guarantee something bad or nothing bad will happen.

It just helps you better determine the odds.

backy · November 2001

my memory is still pretty good, Major--most of the time anyway. Since I did recall comments from you bemoaning the lack of tach, and the idiot lights (which struck me as odd coming from you, since you rarely say anything negative about the ECHO), I went back and looked at the "Toyota Echo vs ????" forum that you started. Fortunately it is a short one, and the Search feature works pretty well. Here's some comments from you on the subject:

#64: "The actual speedo is of nice size, but people (not I) might be complaining about the size of the idiot lights. One thing I would have liked to have would have been an actual temperature gauge and not an idiot light."

#154 (Carleton1 - Question for majorthomecho): "Keep everything the same as with current ECHO but add an LE with padded armrests on the doors, fold down padded armrests on inside of front seats, padded/carpeted doors, cruise control,nice seats as in all Siennas?
It should not cost very much for these items over the cost of the cheap appearing items they would replace (except the addition of Cruise Control and possibly the addition of a Tachometer.)"

#155: "I seriously doubt that it will happen. I know there were different trim levels for the Tercel, but the Tercel was a different car for a different time.
Personally, I don't miss any of those items with the exception of a tachometer."

This was not an exhaustive search, I just did enough to prove to myself that my memory neurons are still in working order and I did not imagine that you had mentioned these things before.

I have to agree with you on both counts--I prefer gauges to idiot lights, and I think a tach adds a lot to the driving experience on a stick shift car.

claywaterfill · November 2001

They are simply a reference as it was said before. They hate any car that does not have a Toyota logo on the front grill. They love Hondas as well, but not like Toyota. They say the Volvo S80 gets a "Poor" rank for reliability, yet they have not tested one themselves since 1999. How can they say that about the 2002 models? They have real world data on the Hyundai Santa Fe--in 14 categories, it got (if I remember correctly) 11 "Excellent" and 3 "Very good" scores. That was good enough to get an overall rating of "Below Average." The 2001 Elantra got excellent ratings in the 2002 new car buyer's preview, and they called it below average as well--even though it also got excellents and very goods in their categories. Bottom line, unless you drive a Toyota or Honda, they hate the car you drive.

majorthomecho · November 2001

You have (unknowingly) exaggerated my feelings on the subject.

I do not feel that strongly about the absence of a true temperature gauge and the tach. I guess that is why I didn't remember saying it.

The absence of a tach does not prevent a satisfying driving experience although it would make getting better 0 to 60 times easier. ; )

majorthomecho · November 2001

You seem not to know how Consumer Reports gets the data for the reliability results or else you would not complain about "them" giving the Volvo S80 a "poor" rank for reliability. Based on past experience, it is predicted that the Volvo S80 will have much worse than average reliability. Much worse than average is the actual phrasing rather than "poor" as you typed.

And whose past experience are they talking about? The results come not from the reliability of any Volvo S80s they [Consumer Reports] have owned, but rather from data gathered from surveys sent out to [and returned by] other Volvo S80 owners.

This is the way it is for ANY model.

As far as Consumer Reports hating any car without a Toyota symbol on the front; if this was true, no non-Toyota model would be recommended. This is simply not true.

The BMW 3-series is recommended; the BMW 5-series is recommended; the Buick Park Avenue is recommended; the Chevrolet Impala is recommended; the Chrysler 300M is recommended; the Chrysler Concorde is recommended; and none of these wear a Toyota badge. These are not the only non-Toyotas that are recommended in the 2002 New Car Preview guide, but I think you get my point.

Also, I want to say a few things regarding Hyundais and how they fared in Consumer Reports.

Number one is that the key for trouble spots shows that the little marks indicate a range of the percentage of owners reporting problems. A full red circle does not mean a car scored "excellent" in that category. A half red circle does not mean a car scored "good" in that category. In other words, the way you have characterized the "scores" is incorrect.

Also, the range for the second highest rating (for example) is three percentage points. The number of owners reporting problems could be at the high end of the range and thus it looks like the car did very well, but when compared to the results of other cars in its class [if the results for them were at the low end of the range], it did badly.

You should check out the Consumer Reports Used Car Yearbook. It has an explanation as to why a car that looks reliable (based on the results in individual categories) gets no check for overall reliability.

One final word about Consumer Reports supposedly hating non-Toyota cars. If this were true, they would not have given the Hyundai Elantra an overall higher rating (the little bar graph rating) than the Toyota Corolla. Check out page 18 of the aforementioned New Car Preview.

Clay, you are arguing something with no facts to support your contention. In fact, there are plenty of facts to suggest you are wrong.

FWIW, welcome to the board. Would you mind telling us which car you own and how it has been running for you? I know your profile says you have a Chrysler, but it does not say which Chrysler.

claywaterfill · November 2001

My point about Consumer Reports hating non Toyotas was a little off, but based on their Top Picks for 2002. I'm not talking about the cars that say Recommended--there were a lot of those. The top picks are : Best family sedan, VW Passat; small car, Civic EX; best car tested, BMW 530i; Driving "green", Toyota Prius; fun to drive, Honda S2000; up scale sport sedan, BMW 330i; small SUV, RAV4; mid size SUV, Highlander; pickup truck, Tundra; and mini van, Odyssey. Four Toyotas, 3 Hondas, 2 BMWs, and 1 VW. Seven out of ten were Toyota or Honda, that's what I meant by they love Toyota and Honda. If the full red dot is the best score--2% or less of owners had trouble in that area--then it would stand to reason that 11 red dots and 3 half red dots in 14 categories should do better than a score of below average. I find it hard to believe that they would consider excellence to be average at best. You are right that I must not fully understand their scale. I dislike CR so much that I never read it. The only reason I bought this special edition is because I'm going to be in the market for a new car this spring, and I'm compiling research. I bought a Chrysler mini van last Memorial Day. Traded a 1997 Sonata GLS V6 for it. I enjoyed my Hyundai very much--but had to trade it as we had a third child and could no longer fit us all in it. My other car is a 1995 Kia Sephia LS that gives me no trouble at all--that's why I still have it. It's paid for and it cranks up every morning--just what I need it to do. I will be trading it sometime next year. It's basically used for commuting transportation now. About 90% of the time it's used to take my wife to work and back; the rest for running errands. We want to get a little bigger second car--and my wife is getting tired of the 5 speed in stop and go commuting, so we will replace it. Since it is primarily going to be used as a shuttle to work, we were thinking about a Honda Accord DX Value package. They sell for about $15-$16k in Atlanta. Our good experience with our 97 Sonata took us to the 2002 Sonata, though. For less money than the DXVP Accord, we get power w/l/m, 14 more HP, keyless, side airbags, bigger wheels, fog lights, and, yes 3 times the warranty. I know Honda advocates will say you don't need a warranty with a Honda because it's a Honda. Well, since it will be used mostly by my wife driving alone, the 5 years roadside assistance if a tire blows or something is good for peace of mind. Since she will be racking up miles, what does a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty hurt? Certainly nothing if the transmission goes at 90,000 miles. Even Hondas and Toyotas break down periodically, so there are no guarantees! I would get a more loaded Camry or Altima or something, but with three kids, it's always something. So, since 've never had a bad experience with the Korean cars of my past, we're gonna try it again!

majorthomecho · November 2001

If you don't like Consumer Reports and don't seem to trust what they report, why even buy the special issue? Just because I and a lot of other people may find them to be a good resource doesn't mean you have to use them.

majorthomecho · November 2001

Well, Toyota had a good chance of winning that category. If you count the cars that Consumer Reports categorized as fuel efficient cars in its December 2000 issue, there were 10 cars that could have been the winner and three of those were Toyotas.

claywaterfill · November 2001

I bought it simply for the resource. I thought maybe I'd be surprised this time around. I guess that if the Prius had not won, then the Insight would have.

coolguyky7 · November 2001

The Insight is very impractical though. It's only a 2 seater and doesn't have much real world use besides going long distances on little gas. As for the Prius, its a compact sedan that can seat 5 people. I wouldn't mind owning one. Another point: Has it not dawned on anyone that Honda and Toyota make better cars than other companies? Cavalier vs. Corolla and Civic..Cavalier has poor engine efficiency and teh quality of the materials and ride aren't up to par. Highlander vs. Explorer....I haven't heard of a million lawsuits against Toyota and its Highlander yet.

Low End Sedans (under $16k)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles