Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
hopefully, everyone is enjoying their mid sized sedans.
I don't understand here??? Please link me to where you are seeing the problems with the 6speed transmission in the Fusion/Milan?? :confuse: I searched and searched the web and cannot find any problems? My 6 speed has been fine. Gets me 33MPG doing 75! Better than advertised..
Thanks for the link
You're probably the only one on the planet that thinks the Fusion outclasses an Accord.
Whatever.
Check out the new Altima's interior. Its pushing Accord quality. Leaves the Fusion looking very old.
Once again, I have never said "out classess", you did.. I will say competes very well however.. Nice how you take a car that is new and compare it to one that is now going on 2 years old... Frankly, I don't see the big hoopla about Accord interior quality.. I feel much of it is beaten into your head by the media and by past reputation. I did not feel the Accords interior was worth the extra $3,000.. And after owning my Fusion SEL V6 for almost a year.. My interior has no rattles or squeaks.. unlike my 2000 Accord!!
With comments like these you wonder why I post like I do? Plain and simple the test by the IIHS is Good for the Fusion/Milan. No longer is this an issue. Comments like these are why I say image is what Ford needs to overcome. They build great vehicles.
Once again wrong Honda propaganda.. The Taurus/Sable made Good/Good... quit spreading incorrect information.. :mad:
And again, spreading wrong information.. Yes, the Car and Driver segment was sponsered by Ford. Were the 600 people paid by Ford, NO!!. It says these people were not Ford employees, every day Joes like you and I. Now, get off the Ford buying people kick. It says it right in the segment also.. The Fusion chosen was comparible in price to the Camry/Accord. Some say the Fusion was AWD and its not fair. So I guess its unfair the Camry/Accord come with stability control?? Please.. face the music. A Ford won in this comparison.
In the mean time I am searching the net for answers.. :shades:
I'm not too sure what you mean by a "stiff" clutch, but I think it might be the effort you have to use to engage it? I haven't found that myself, but the other comment you make about not having a lot of feel, I'd have to agree completely. The Mazda6 clutch is much like a switch; it's either on or off, and sometimes shifting can be a bit abrupt/ jumpy without rev matching or getting the timing just right.
For the first couple months after buying this car, I really really missed the feel of my old accord (or for that matter of the accord I test drove before I got the 6). But now, I'm pretty well adjusted to it and can't find significant complaint with the 6's clutch. And although I know it's not as good as an Accord (and there aren't that many manual tranny's that are as good at any price) it's still a very rewarding car to drive, especially when driver inputs are done just right.
But while I think the Altima has a better interior overall than the Camry, Fusion, Sonata, Optima and just about everyone else. The Accord and Passat still have the best overall design and materials I think. That's impressive for a car that's 5 years old.
I just hope Honda puts some cohesive style back into the mix. The current Accord has been a great car...but a stylistic hit it has never been. I don't want anything over the top...but something handsomely stylish (98-2002 Accord for example) would be great IMO.
Just about every other tire on the planet is loads better than the miserable Michelins. I've been saddled with them on my Mazda6, and I can't wear them out fast enough! The only thing they're halfway decent in is dry traction, and even that's a stretch. Wet traction is horrible, they're loud, and I'm afraid to use them in the snow. Since I do have snow tires, I've only put about 20K miles on the Michelins, and they're almost worn out! They are definitely not worth the $200 per tire replacement costs.
I hadn't been considering a 225 width before, but I will now!
Just be sure to get a tire that will still fit the rim, and will not rub when the car is loaded down or in a tight turn. Also be sure to get a tire with a load rating that's the same or higher than your current OEMs as well.
Quoted for agreement. The take-up point on my Mazda 6's clutch seems to change ever-so-slightly, which makes engagement jerky at times. It's definitely not the best manual out there, but since the majority of cars in this class don't even make one available with the larger engine (which is a mistake), the car as a whole more than makes up for it.
in front of a good 'sunday morning preacher type' salesman espousing the virtues of AWD, maybe a couple of glasses of wine (maybe not), and a good meal in their bellies and then turn around and put a V6 vs. a pair of 4 bangers, each equipped with VSC which will actually interfere with that day of 'fun' on the track. I would be willing to bet that not a single comment was ever made about any safety benefits the Accord/Camry with the VSC. It's like selling swampland timeshares in Mississippi. Under these conditions the more powerful and less electronically handicapped car should 'win'.
A stacked deck usually yields predictable results, I promise you had the Camry been a V6 SE, or the Accord V6 neither of which handicapped by VSC, your 'results' would be very different because there is simply no contest between those engines and what is in the Fusion. Certainly you can get that wonderful? Duratech in the Fusion for about the same number that you pay for 4s in the other two - there is something to the adage that you do have to pay more to get more - something conveniently ignored in this publicity stunt. The commercial makes me laugh, it is proof that anything can be sold!
http://wardsauto.com/ar/ford_gm_automatic/
This does not answer the question as to what the comment that "the new joint effort Ford/GM 6-speed isn't that great" is based on.
Just about every other tire on the planet is loads better than the miserable Michelins. I've been saddled with them on my Mazda6, and I can't wear them out fast enough! The only thing they're halfway decent in is dry traction, and even that's a stretch. Wet traction is horrible, they're loud, and I'm afraid to use them in the snow. Since I do have snow tires, I've only put about 20K miles on the Michelins, and they're almost worn out! They are definitely not worth the $200 per tire replacement costs.
My old MXV4s were great in snow but less so in everything else. I went with Kumhos (Ecasta ASX) this time around as well (and in the stock size as there are fewer options these days with 15" wheels).
I hadn't been considering a 225 width before, but I will now!
Just be sure to get a tire that will still fit the rim, and will not rub when the car is loaded down or in a tight turn. Also be sure to get a tire with a load rating that's the same or higher than your current OEMs as well.
I second this. There are a few other factors...the tire width has to be compatible with the rim width recommendations from the tire manufacturer (you can't take off a 175mm tire and put on a 275mm tire).
The tire must have the same or better load rating (this usually isn't an issue but something to check). The tire must have clearance not to rub. If you ever go skiing or drive where chains are required, you usually don't have enough clearance to run a +0, although it doesn't sound like you have enough now with the stock tire anyway.
My stock tires on my last vehicle were 205/60 15 91V while my race tires (mounted on a second set of stock rims) were 225/50 15 91V. Its amazing what another 4" of rubber on the road can do for your car (although the comparison from street tire to race tire isn't fair).
Your tire dealer/installer/supplier will have an idea what fits and what you can get away with running.
You might want to check out the Honda Accord Tires and Wheels discussion.
I bought the car (Mazda6) that was most appealing (for a variety of reasons) to me.
Not a reason for choosing it, but I am glad that one like it is not in every driveway of my neighborhood and I'm glad that the annual sales total equals about a month of combined Camry and Accord sales.
However, looks to me that the test track was set up to benefit AWD vehicles (a lot of twisties) and no straight line (at least I didn't see one) to showcase the class leading V6 on the Camry. Also, instead of a pre-determined course I would also like to see how the 3 cars fare in the real world. The test will be more meaningful if each tester was allowed to spend 30 mins on each car in the normal DC traffic. That's where the Accord shines with its well balanced design of performance and comfort.
Steve
Steve
Too bad they left out the large market of 4-cylinder buyers looking for economy with their performance. Nissan's Altima 4-cylinder outran the Aura 3.5L V6, and delivers best-in-class economy.
As for the Alitma, I would really have to see/feel the Aura interior before I can compare, but, as I posted some time back, I was really disappointed by the interior on the Altima I rented. Personally, I put interior design/fit/finish above a lot of other things, and that's where I think the Accord shines. There just is nothing in its price range that has that quality feel as far as ergonomics/fit/finish go (IMO)
The Aura has the 3.5L "High Value" engine (which is the 3.5L I referenced), as in the Malibu, and the 3.6L "High Feature" engine, from the Buick LaCrosse CXS, Cadillac CTS, GMC Acadia, etc... I do not know why they left out a 4-cylinder option. I think 4-cylinder's account for something like 2/3rds or more of Accord and Camry sales in this country. Think of the 4-cylinder sales that might be stolen by the Aura...
I concur that the Altima (and most Nissans) leave me wanting more in the interior quality department. The interior of my 4-cylinder EX Accord is top-notch, feeling like it should cost more than it did given the tactile quality.
Go sit in a VW.
Personally, I would not own a VW due to the ridiculous quality issues this brand has had in the past few years. Maybe they are getting better now; but I will wait before I vote with my wallet.
The Passat is within 2k of the Accord (Passat 2.0t/Accord SE 5M). The Hyundai is about 2k less. I think it is still firmly within the market segment.
Personally, I would not own a VW due to the ridiculous quality issues this brand has had in the past few years. Maybe they are getting better now; but I will wait before I vote with my wallet.
2 "extra" trips to the dealer of the life of the vehicle is something I am willing to endure to have something I enjoy driving. I haven't had issues with the 1999+ VWs in my life.
Mazda6, Fusion, and Milan also sell for about $2K less than comparably equipped Accord or Camry.
One could just as well say the Accord is too pricey to compete with Ford, Mazda, Hyundai while the Civic is too small.
Very obvious you forget the days when buying a Honda or Toyota meant you paid LESS and got MORE, not the way you think.. "Pay more to get more"??? That is not the way our economy runs. Toyota and Honda have lost thier way and are using their past reputation for as long as they can to try to hold onto consumers. I know everytime I see a new G6, Fusion, Altima, Sonata, 6, or any other type of 4 door sedan other than an Accord/Camry. Those consumers have seen past the hoopla and hype over Camry/Accord and have purchased a quality vehicle for less $$$.
Boy, I get hammered for a "conspiracy theory" yet its ok for the Honda/Toyota crowd to use a conspiracy theory?? Just face the facts.. THE FUSION NOW HAS A GOOD crashtest rating from a source that is non-bias. The same source that rates the Accord and the Camry..
Not a reason for choosing it, but I am glad that one like it is not in every driveway of my neighborhood and I'm glad that the annual sales total equals about a month of combined Camry and Accord sales. "
I agree with you hands down! I don't see very many Fusions/Milans around. But when I do they stand out and make a nice impression. Camry/Accords are everywhere and don't entice a second look. It is nice to be different..
However, looks to me that the test track was set up to benefit AWD vehicles (a lot of twisties) and no straight line (at least I didn't see one) to showcase the class leading V6 on the Camry. Also, instead of a pre-determined course I would also like to see how the 3 cars fare in the real world. The test will be more meaningful if each tester was allowed to spend 30 mins on each car in the normal DC traffic. That's where the Accord shines with its well balanced design of performance and comfort. "
What is it you Accor/Camry fans just can't get? The Fusion won this comparison.. Why is it so hard for you to believe?? Oh! I forgot, its because its built by Ford right?? :mad:
in front of a good 'sunday morning preacher type' salesman espousing the virtues of AWD, maybe a couple of glasses of wine (maybe not), and a good meal in their bellies and then turn around and put a V6 vs. a pair of 4 bangers, each equipped with VSC which will actually interfere with that day of 'fun' on the track. I would be willing to bet that not a single comment was ever made about any safety benefits the Accord/Camry with the VSC. It's like selling swampland timeshares in Mississippi. Under these conditions the more powerful and less electronically handicapped car should 'win'.
A stacked deck usually yields predictable results, I promise you had the Camry been a V6 SE, or the Accord V6 neither of which handicapped by VSC, your 'results' would be very different because there is simply no contest between those engines and what is in the Fusion. Certainly you can get that wonderful? Duratech in the Fusion for about the same number that you pay for 4s in the other two - there is something to the adage that you do have to pay more to get more - something conveniently ignored in this publicity stunt. The commercial makes me laugh, it is proof that anything can be sold! "
Once again a misinformed Honda supporter. They were V6 models of the Camry/Accord in the Car and Driver comparison!! Surprise!! Now actually read the article.. :surprise:
Of course, if Accord or Camry was touting AWD and Ford did not have it, then we'd be hearing how Ford is behind the curve...blah, blah, blah.
BTW, re showing you where you can get the info you asked for on how Ford improved the crash test results of the Fusion/Milan... you're welcome.
IMO, the one thing that the Fusion does have to hang its hat on is that they have apparently been very reliable to this point. Maybe this is because they are using old drivetrains on existing platforms - but, that, in itself, doesn't matter, if in fact, what you're looking for is reliability, above all else. Ford (and Honda, actually) have discovered how to do such things even in Mexico. Interesting, because 'cousin' Mazda doesn't do quite as well, and is assembled in the US.
Comparibily equipped, the difference is bigger than 2k. Complare an EX V6 Accord to a V6 Passat, you will get my point.
"2 "extra" trips to the dealer of the life of the vehicle is something I am willing to endure to have something I enjoy driving. I haven't had issues with the 1999+ VWs in my life."
You may have had 2 extra trips, in general Passat issues are well documented and a reason widely recognized for the Passat's losing market share, as well as the whole VW group losing marketshare in the US
Sure, once could say that, in one's opinion, just like I expressed mine. The Sonata is definitely comparable pricewise to a Civic, price wise. Mazda6 MSRP is close to Accord's, but sells cheaper due to its not selling well and some great deals have been had, even with the Mazdaspeed6.
Of course, if Accord or Camry was touting AWD and Ford did not have it, then we'd be hearing how Ford is behind the curve...blah, blah, blah."
This was a Ford paid event. Show me an unbiased road test/comparison where the Fusion has beaten the Accord. One.
The Fusion is not a car that is exclusive or rare, so please don't go there.
Also, if the Fusion was selling more than the Accord/Camry, you would have been gloating the success.
Its not a comparison, its a Ford paid publicity stunt. Lets see a real comparison. Please.
Yes. In bumper to bumper traffic a "stiff" or "heavy" clutch will tire your left leg out pretty fast. I found the clutch in my old Mazda6 S to be too stiff, or heavy if you will, for those situations. That being said, I wasn't complaining because the rest of the car more than made up for that shortcoming in my book.
I have nothing against the Fusion, in fact it has been probably Ford's best car in a long time, right from design to reliability, and has also garnered praise in the same tests where it lost to the Accord. No slouch. Its just the pointed comments from our fanboys here that has me responding, and sometimes I think if its even worth it.
Maybe I should just let them bask in the JDP and Ford comparison event.
How about we tone down the rhetoric and actually discuss the cars instead of just flinging insults at each other?
(Note, this is addressed to everyone who probably thinks it's not meant for them. )
I've posted two of them, but since Ford did not win either of them (although it came in 2nd out of 4 once, and 3rd out of 4 the other time, not terrible at all), he decided that they were biased. Since Ford won this one, and created had rights to make a commercial off of it (something Honda and Toyota have yet to stoop to), they aren't biased. How's that for fuzzy logic?
He'll believe what he wants to believe, and it doesn't hurt us when he says it. Don't feed the bear, and it won't keep coming back touting his same "Ford is pitiful, right?" song. He wants to be a martyr for Ford Fusion, although it needs none because it is a fine automobile.
Comparibily equipped, the difference is bigger than 2k. Complare an EX V6 Accord to a V6 Passat, you will get my point.
VW Passat 3.6L V6/6A 29,960, TMV 28,913
Honda Accord EX-L 3.0l V6/5A 27,400 TMV 26615
I am willing to say $2300 is close enough to my "about 2-grand" comment that they are in the same class, even though in driving experience, they aren't. FWIW the price difference is even smaller with the Camry V6.
"2 "extra" trips to the dealer of the life of the vehicle is something I am willing to endure to have something I enjoy driving. I haven't had issues with the 1999+ VWs in my life."
You may have had 2 extra trips, in general Passat issues are well documented and a reason widely recognized for the Passat's losing market share, as well as the whole VW group losing marketshare in the US
Hmm, now if your opinion had some data, that would be great and I would consider it. That car, as far as I know, hasn't had ANY unscheduled trips for service, but the statistics I saw point to about 2 extra trips on average, over 8 years and 150k. Of course, you are entitled to an opinion, and I am glad you are happy with your vehicle of choice, what ever that may be.