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
Why do you consistently put your vehicle (and its counterparts) down? They aren't bad cars - you say they are more than anyone.
Rocky, the same "POS", "Outdated" Accord has beaten its newer competitors in most comparison tests. And I am not talking CR.
Not even out 4 months and Rocky's elevating it to top of the class? Now there's some wishful thinking for a car that does nothing special except look fine.
Yes, CR is a joke, because it has picked the Accord over a Fusion, so is CD, RT, MT etc, because they picked the Accord/Camry over a Fusion.
However, Strategic Designs is not a joke (it picked Fusion's interiors over anything else in its class). Neiher is JD Powers a joke (it picked Fusion as the most appealing midsize), nor is the Ford sponsored 'comparison test' a joke.
Anybody see a pattern here?
Anybody see a pattern here?
I see a pattern. People who like Honda and Toyota over the other cars think CR's loosely gained results are great. Those who think less of Honda and Toyota think CR's survey results are not up to par.
Perhaps we can go beyond the continual Honda/Toyota favorites and discuss the merits of the cars. With a little bit of statistics knowledge I question even CR's appliance reliability survey now. At least there they give a cursory statistical reliability percent of 3-4% certainty variation to indicate the weakness of their data-collecting methods.
To save going off topic in responses, I understand some people disagree with the reliability and intent of CR's data interpretation.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Going all the way back to the CVCC engines of the 70s Honda has always been the industry leader specifically in 4 cylinder engines, and has a V6 that is no slouch either. Ford, OTH, makes a good pickup truck - not smaller efficient engines. If you are one of those that appreciates a little drivetrain sophistication, refinement, and engineering to go along with that HP (4 or 6 cylinder) the Fusion should be well down the list.
In any case, there are other aspects to consider, when choosing a car, besides fractions of a second differences in acceleration times.
Once again I will point out that the Accord should be expected to better than the Ford/Mercury/Mazda, in some way or another, since they sell for a higher price and/or do not offer discount financing. And yes, there is less of a difference for frequent traders or leasers.
I have to disagree with that statement!
I look at what the organization's past is. I look at the type of cars they review (only expensive, high performance cars most drivers never buy?). I look at the type of review writer the alleged reviewer is (are they only interested in how many g's on a skidpad the car can generate?).
I most certainly do look at the source. I do the same on other scientific ideas such as global warming "expert" comments, e.g.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://www.hyundaiusa.com/vehicle/sonata/specs/specs.aspx
I look at what the organization's past is. I look at the type of cars they review (only expensive, high performance cars most drivers never buy?). I look at the type of review writer the alleged reviewer is (are they only interested in how many g's on a skidpad the car can generate?).
I most certainly do look at the source. I do the same on other scientific ideas such as global warming "expert" comments, e.g."
Fair enough, if you look at things that interest you and pick decisions of these publications. What is unfair and incorrect, however, is to pick a review just because it favors your favored car and diss the others that don't. For example, if you think CR is the type of group you trust, that's fine and obviously your choice, but just on the basis of it picking a car you favor, you can't say this magazine is more credible than another that doesn't pcik your favorite. This thread started from Scape calling CR a Joke while continuing to cite tests from other publications, just becuse they may have picked some other car.
Actually others have said the car is right there with the class leaders. Automobile and Autoweek liked the car a lot. The Aura was also named NACTY at the Detroit AutoShow. It was also named best family car by Motorweek. See, it's a little more than just Rocky's personal opinion of the car.
The Aura does more than look fine, it handles fine, has plenty of power and is cheaper than a comparable Camry, Altima and Accord. The XR also has more standard equipment than the Camry SE or Altima SE.
The duratec 3.0 is not the old Ford pushrod 3.0 V6 that had max horsepower @ 5000 rpm and max torque @ 3250 rpm or the 3.8 that had max torque @ 3000 rpm.
I somehow don't see this as being as big a deal in a Taurus (I don't see many Tauri/Fusion on track days), but that 3l DT is a pretty common swap where the 2.5 was and I still haven't gotten any negative feedback about that motor.
-Loren
I completely agree. In 1976 my parents bought a 1967 Rolls Royce Silver Shadow, rather than a new 1976 Caddy. The price for the Rolls was about the same as the new Caddy would have cost at that time. I drove that Rolls a couple of times. It had plenty of power. Yet, Rolls, at least at that time, never revealed HP or torque. It simply said they were "adequate."
Fractions of a second in acceleration or skip pad tests don't affect what I feel is important in a family car. A few seconds, probably. But it is "adequate power", coupled with other features and characteristics, that I feel is important. The package of the entire car is what is important.
CR's reviews may differ from many other sources because CR doesn't get their bread buttered by the manufacturers. Getting paid advertisements certainly encourages less negative reviews.
I suggest buy a car because you love it based on your criteria.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Because the Accord's V6 was much quicker 45-65 MPH than the Fusion V6, whereas the Fusion V6 had an identical time to the 4-cylinder, 34 MPG Accord. The Accord may have similar power peaks, but it has no problem being quicker than the I-4 Accord, something those CR numbers (that DID surprise me to be honest) showed the Fusion V6 couldn't do in 45 MPH passing.
As the owner of a 4-cylinder automatic, I agree with that last statement. But I will say this...
I guess part of the reason this is turning into a bigger deal than it needs to is that people buy a V6 expecting to find a big difference in a higher-mileage I-4 engine, but the Fusion, at least in that particular test, didn't deliver.
What Saturn should do is lower the XR price (note there are rebates already available), and not overload up those they have on the lot. Aura is a decent car. The XE, I may take on another spin. First impression was a bit better than average, but not on par with the Accord. Sometimes a few test rides are needed. And hopefully no demo of OnStar. I want to listen to the car, not an ad while testing. The XE may be slightly quicker than the i4 Accord, and thus a good one to compare to. Expected resale is average on the Aura, so expect to lose a couple grand there. As for the XR, it is possibly a deal at $24K, but not worth over $26K to me personally. You start to approach the price area of some other cars a class higher. The XE at $21K less $500 (may be other deals in some states -$1K) or the XR with no added junk, with similar discounting make sense. A decent deal, but not a steal. I would not say the Aura is better than Accord, Altima, Camry, Mazda6, Fusion, and such, but it is different. Most cars in this class have their own selling points. Total value, if bought at a good price, will most likely go to Accord or Camry in the long run. But there is more to it than that.
-Loren
As for me having an explanation for CRs rating in this particular test; I don't work for them, neither have I read it.
CD's affinity is towards cars that are more on the sporty side (as much as this class can be) and tends to pick cars like the Accord, Mazda6 etc over cars like the Camry etc. They even picked the Fusion over the Camry/Sonata for the same reason. If Honda makes more cars that fulfill these parameters, that doesn't mean CD has a Honda fetish. If that was true, the Civic would not have been called a loser by CD, while picking the Mazda Protege and 3 10 out ot 10 times in their compact car comparisons (both these cars are known to be spunky).
When I have more time, I will point you to tests where the Accord has trumped its newer competitors.
I guess part of the reason this is turning into a bigger deal than it needs to is that people buy a V6 expecting to find a big difference in a higher-mileage I-4 engine, but the Fusion, at least in that particular test, didn't deliver.
I am also a 4 cyl automatic owner, who finds the acceleration capabilities of it to be adequate. Sure is not worth the extra cost (to me) just to go 45-65 1/2 sec quicker and 0-60 about 1.5 sec quicker (for the Ford/Mazda engines). I don't think the 1 and 2 second differentials for the Accord would convince me to pay up for a V6, either. I'll take the trade off of saving several thousand dollars and reduced understeer in exchange for a bit slower (but still adequate) straight line acceleration.
I will also say that when I test drove a V6 Mazda6, I did not feel that the car was much quicker than the 4 cyl. It was an accident that they had me in the V6, I was supposed to be test driving a 4...I figured out the error only when I saw the gear indicator go to 6 on the dash .
Changing direction a bit, isn't it odd that the 4 cylinders actually have peak torque at lower rpm than the V6s? For example in the 2.3 engine in my Mazda, peak torque is at 4000 rpm, vs. 5000 for the V6? Apparently the situation is similar for the Honda engines, as well.
I sincerely appreciate your defense. I don't understand why people have such a hard time respecting this car. Many of the people that dislike it so much I doubt have never driven well except Loren, as I know of. Loren, probably would like the 3.6 w/ 6-speed auto combo better.
Rocky
If all you have is $18-20K and not a penny more, then the wonderful all-beating-God's-gift-to-cars(sic for the imapred) V6 imports just aren't an option. 24-26K is a far cry from 18-20K.
But a nice V6 from GM and a few others will fit the bill nicely.
simple - by driving both of them and owning a Toyota 2GR and a Nissan VQ - the smoothness, willingness, how its sounds and feels, and most importantly the amount of time it takes to 'pull' higher rpms is the difference between night and day. Call it sophistication, design/engineering, balance or whatever you want but there is no comparison. And yes the old Vulcans are a completely different aberration that Ford should have laid to rest about the same time the original DT came out.
A better comparison for the short-termers would probably be lease costs.
I don't put them down, folks like yourself claim the I4 of the Honda Accord is so superior.. Yet when you look at the numbers it really isn't..
However, Strategic Designs is not a joke (it picked Fusion's interiors over anything else in its class). Neiher is JD Powers a joke (it picked Fusion as the most appealing midsize), nor is the Ford sponsored 'comparison test' a joke.
Anybody see a pattern here? "
So, why is the pattern of Honda winning ok? and not Ford? Anyone see a pattern HEAR? :sick:
Quite true.
These days, Mazda, GM, Hyundai, and others offer compelling choices to the price gouging Honda and Toyota are obviously engaging in.
And, my typo - obviously I meant V6 from others vs the 4 in the Camry and Accord.
Btw, when my sister was looking for a car, she narrowed it down to the Civic and the Mazda 3. The reality is that the two cars are so close as to be a wash. Same size, same interiors, same accessories, same power, same...
There were a total of 4 small differences between the two cars that I could find. The thing that amazed me was that at first I was all "two different cars". Then I looked and drove them and poured over every square inch of them - and darn it if Mazda, Nissan, Hyundai, and others aren't making very close clones of the same car for less money. GM isn't making crud anymore, either.
She went with the Honda. Me? I'd have gone with the 3 for less money.
As for Aura, they are predicting average resale. Average is an improvement for GM cars. If the car is desirable in other ways, I would not say that an average resale value is a barrier to buying this car at all. Some cars which have really poor resale may only work out if you keep them 'till they drop. And in the end I suppose people, self included, start to over emphasize the importance of getting the best dollar value car, when in fact it is the overall pleasure it provides which is important.
-Loren
captain, you just shot yourelf in the foot... Very obvious you know nothing about the Duratec V6 that is offered in the Fusion/Milan. They come with VVT, dual overheadcams and 24valves.. and believe me they like to rev....
The Honda Accord has been the standard by which all these cars are judged (including Camrys, Altimas etc) and for good reason