Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
I geuss all I'm saying is that these descriptions only take you to a very shallow understanding of the cars and their characteristics in this (or any) class. and if "netting it out" leaves you with a long list of exceptions, why bother? and if over-generalized statements leave you needing to explain the nuances for 5 minutes, the over-generalized statement doesn't have a lot of value to anyone buying a car. It's like reading headlines about a news story and thinking that this has helped you to truly understand the issues. This practice is not wise nor smart...to be blunt, I'd call it lazy.
Let's look at just the first statement (b/c going through them all would take FOREVER):
"Asian: Average driving dynamics/Good reliability"
The 6 has above average driving dynamics as does the accord. But the accord's driving dynamics are not nearly as sharp as the 6. Mazda's brakes are clearly superior, and steering is light, communicative and tight, where the accord's steering is firm but a bit more isolated. The Legacy has a lot of body roll in turns, but it's steering is very good. Traction in tricky weather and in corners is superb. Nissan's Altima has decent brakes, and great acceleration, but steering is a bit vague and body roll is pronounced.
This list of nuances could go on and on, but then where are we in terms of the original statement? In other words, what exactly does the statement "average driving dynamics" do for you? is there some scale of braking, acceleration, steering, seating position, visibility, suspension and road noise that has been graphed and balanced so you think you can even define what is average? So are the characteristics you think are average the same criteria that another buyer would use to be determine their average?
and what is average reliablity anyway? the average is still really good btw...this use of the word average is another oversimplification: in CR, the difference b/t average and above average is only a few percentage points over several years. is a problem of a rattle in a door as significant of a transmission failing? of course not, but these both count as one problem that would be reported to JD Powers.
knowing the severity of a specific problem(s) that a model has had a propensity to have and what solutions exist to resolve the issue(s)would be the info that I really would value. And this is where forums like this have become so important. It takes us past over-generalizations to real actionable information that can be evaluated to determine if a certain model is acceptable or not worth a gamble.
Sorry for this rant, but as you might geuss by now, I HATE over-simplifications because I think they do more to distort the truth instead of telling the truth.
Gee doesn't this sound familiar?? :sick:
Yes, i do.
I fail to see a large upgrade/change from one over the other. Different color pointers, a revised badge on the steering wheel... Yeah, superficial is what I'd call those changes.
I said the rear-end treatment was more significant, but it didn't change how "old" the car is (it is the same basic car as debuted in fall of 2002).
I looked at an 05 and compared it to an 07. The front is way different
Way different?
The front: only very SLIGHTLY updated with a bumper revision and a new strip of chrome. Even the headlights go unchanged.
1995 Accord
1996 Accord
In my opinion, new taillights and grill treatment do not make a new car, just a facelift.
How is the Jetta underpowered compared to a 4 cylinder Accord? The Accord's engine is more refined and rev happy, but underpowered? Don't think so.
Since when does size equate to the price of the vehicle? I guess the TSX is a real loser compared to the Accord.
For those who want an affordable German sedan, then the Jetta is what you're left with. The Civic is probably the best economy class car but that is not the class the Jetta is in. Only in size is the Civic comparable to a Jetta. In all other aspects it's more comparable to an Accord. When you equipped this car with wood trim, it's real. I do think the 2.5 seems out of character in the Jetta though.
The performance of the Jetta 2.0t w/DSG on the other hand is a different story. The Jetta 2.0t doesn't seem too expensive when compared to a TSX.
The performance of the Jetta 2.0t w/DSG on the other hand is a different story. The Jetta 2.0t doesn't seem too expensive when compared to a TSX. I think the TSX is pretty low on the value equation, myself, which is why I wouldn't consider one over a V6 Accord; mainly making the same argument that I do for the 2.4L Accord over the 2.5L Jetta: Jetta offers too little room, too little power, too little economy when compared with the Accord. All I get is a "German" nameplate and different steering feel (the Audi A4 1.8T Cabriolet I drove last year felt no better than my Accord), and unlike Acura, VW is a nameplate that has very questionable (at best) reliability over the last few years. I hope that is improving!
Underpowered 2.5 Jetta?
150 hp - 3300 lbs for the 2.5 Jetta, 22/30 MPG
166 hp - 3200 lbs for the 2.4 Accord, 24/34 MPG
I should've made it more clear, the Jetta is underpowered considering the size and thirst of it's engine relative to some other offerings in the market. It is also not as smooth, tending to "moan" when pushed. It is also down on interior room with other cars in its price class, so, in my eyes, you are paying a premium just to get a "german" car, something that I can live without, while others cannot.
To each their own, but I'll keep my "refined and rev happy" Honda, because when I punch the gas, I want my car to rev happily.
To each their own, but I'll keep my "refined and rev happy" Honda, because when I punch the gas, I want my car to rev happily.
Excellent points, as usual. I feel the same way about Japanese and German cars.
The 2.5 engine is designed for low end torque, 1750 ft-lbs @ 3750 rpm vs. 160 @ 4000 for the 2.4L Honda engine in the Accord. Also note that the HP peak for the Jetta comes at 5000 rpm rather than the 5800 of the Accord...this more than accounts for the difference in peak HP numbers.
Not sure what this "moan" is that you refer to, we like the sound of the engine.
Yeah, no point in getting a German car if you don't get what all the fuss is about with one. I was in that camp until I drove a Jetta.
Don't get me wrong, the Accord is a great car. And frankly, those who say the Accord is a plane Jane appliance car are clueless. But I MUCH prefer my Audi A4 over my previous car, an Accord EX V6.
To be totally honest, part of me felt I was being a fool for spending the money I did on this car. But after driving the car day in and day out those feelings have disappeared.
The 2.5 engine is designed for low end torque
Yes, it is. The reason I'd rather have a "revver" is this:
When you need to accelerate in a hurry, perhaps in an emergency situation, where the quicker the better, what do I do? Floor the throttle if I need to move as fast as possible. This sends my RPMs higher than the torque peak of either of the two cars, and right to the horsepower peak. This means that having a high-horsepower peak (and higher peak horsepower) will benefit me, and my line of thinking for quick acceleration. For around town, the Jetta might feel quicker right off the line , but runs out of steam relative to the high-end thrust of the Honda.
And, I think you mean 170 lb-ft at 3750 RPM, not 1750! Haha, That Jetta would be a real stump puller with 1750 lb-ft of torque!
Car and Driver sort-of backs me up in their impression of the Jetta. From the May 2005 issue:
"The run to 60 mph might also be classifiable as better than average, with a manual transmission. However, our test car, like pretty much all the initial run of early-production Jettas, was equipped with a new six-speed Tiptronic automatic transmission. This device operates smoothly and does a good job of making the most of the Jetta's lovely torque, but outside of a race for three-legged dogs, 9.2 seconds to 60 and a 16.8-second, 85-mph quarter-mile can't be called quick. We're sure the standard five-speed manual would chop a couple ticks off the total. Not to mention enhancement of the old fun-to-drive quotient."
And from March 2005
"Drive the Jetta like it’s a sports car, and the engine’s tiresome whirring thrum will make you think you’ve developed a case of tinnitus."
I know Accord's aren't perfect either, I was just pointing out some of the reasons that the Jetta doesn't win me over like it does a lot of people.
I'm glad you're liking the Audi! And I completely agree with you on the fact that the Accord is more than an appliance!
on a track it doesn't matter as much.
i don't really have what i consider to be a family sedan, although i do have a 4 door focus. it's a bit small for us to be a family sedan.
Of course C&D is not going to like the 2.5 and/or an automatic. I'm sure they would not be satisfied with an accord in a 4 cyl automatic either. They are only going to want the 2.0T in the Jetta and the V6 in the Accord and a manual transmission...or perhaps DSG in the Jetta.
but it helps better from low speeds than at highway speeds. of course if you have an engine that maintains the torque at high revs (which means the engine will also have high horsepower) then you'll have a car that furnishes immediate acceleration at both the stoplight and for passing.
What all this have to do with a 2.5 Jetta I don't know. The car is peppy at low speeds but nothing Earth shattering in that regard. It's just not the smoothest and refined engine around. Seems out of character from the rest of the car.
Here's Motor Trend's take on both cars:Nestled aft of our test GL's chrome-washed prow is a new 150-horsepower, 2.5-liter transverse-mounted five-cylinder engine that shares bore spacings, but not much else, with Ingolstadt's old fives. This is the Jetta's new base unit replacing the earlier, long-serving, and now pensioned-off 2.0-liter four. While it delivers--and this is being charitable--sprightlier acceleration (9.4 seconds to 60 mph) than previously, be happy to consider the turbocharged alternatives, like the interesting 1.9-liter diesel and, later on, the 200-horsepower, 2.0-liter direct-injection four-cylinder.
The five suffices to move the Jetta around, but it's relentlessly grumpy about doing so. Our test car was sticky on throttle tip-in, causing pause-then-jerk-away starts however velvetly the right foot probed, and, once wound to its early-to-bed 5800-rpm redline, you'll be tempted to put a bullet through the firewall to still the racket. At redline, the five sings an unearthly moan, sounding like a duet of hoarse-throated ghosts.
If you consider Motor Trend and Car and Driver to be in the same type of journalism and car preference (I subscribe to both, and find that they generally agree) then I'd have to say otherwise. They list the "what's hot" about the Accord LX Auto:
Slick Automatic Transmission
Sprightly Performance
High Resale
The Lows:
Bulbous Styling
No 60/40-split Rear Seat
No head curtains on LX (this is a review of the old 160 hp 2003 LX Accord, new models have been upped by about 10 hp, reflected as 6 per new SAE testing procedures).
Sprightly Performance is a plus in the Accord according to MT, but it's not too different from the Jetta (8.5 sec 0-60 for the 5Auto Accord, 9.4 sec for the 6Auto Jetta. Neither car is TOO slow, the Accord is just peppier of the two.
2007 Altima 2.5 inline-4
Horsepower: 175 @ 5,600 RPM
Torque: 180 @ 3,900 RPM
EPA mpg: 26/34 (CVT)
2007 Altima 3.5 V6
Horsepower: 270 @ 6,000 RPM
Torque: 258 @ 4,400 RPM
EPA mpg: 22/28 (CVT)
Combined legroom: 81.7 in.
Trunk volume: 17.9 (16.6 w/ full-size spare)
Xenon lights are standard on the 3.5SL.
2007 Camry 3.5 V6 (For comparison)
Horsepower: 268 @ 6,200 RPM
Torque: 248 @ 4,700 RPM
EPA mpg: 22/31
Combined legroom: 80.0 in.
Trunk volume: 14.5
I would agree that from other numbers (eg. CR) I have seen the Accord is a little quicker. Either is adequate, to me. I never could get past that "bulbous styling", though.
I also agree with motor trend comments on the Jetta's throttle tip-in, When I drive my wife's car, I have that problem. But, for whatever reason, she does not.
I also agree with motor trend comments on the Jetta's throttle tip-in, When I drive my wife's car, I have that problem. But, for whatever reason, she does not.
The styling is something that I don't consider "beautiful" on either car. The Accord looks more bland than it drives, and the Jetta reminds me of my girlfriends 2004 Corolla, only a little chunkier and more solid looking.
As for throttle tip-in, that's something I had to get used to in my 06 Accord; it has a very sensitive throttle pedal, but it is something you grow accustomed to and would not be a problem after very many miles; I guess your wife got used to it, as you probably would if you drove the car more. No biggie.
I'm surprised they got 8.5 sec out of the 4 cyl automatic
I was too when I first read the article; then I started driving my Accord I-4 more, and I fully believe it. Above 3,500 RPM, the car is downright zippy. On an interesting note, Car and Driver got 0-60 in 7.5 seconds from an Accord I-4 with the 5-speed Manual. Now THAT surprises me.
And yes, Motor Trend/Car and Driver use whatever technique will deliver the best acceleration times (such as brake torquing automatics) on all their cars. I like CR's method of just laying the pedal down and taking off, like the average driver would do to accelerate quickly.
I actually think the Jetta looks somewhat similar the TSX...though I prefer the TSX's appearance. If the Accord looked like a TSX (or if the TSX were available with cloth and a 4 cyl), it would definitely get more consideration from me.
My wife liked the Jetta's looks though...and I am glad as it was much cheaper than any other car she considered .
Just FYI, in Jan 2003 CR measured 9.0 sec for 0-60 time on 4 cyl Accord. I think that had the same engine and transmission as today's (I am not aware of a more recent test by CR). The weight of the one tested was 3195 lbs.
To me they look nearly like the same vehicle from the outside. When the Corolla came out 5 yrs ago I thought it was the Jetta. The Jetta has gotten a little bigger now, it's between the Civic/Corolla and CamCord in size but it just looks like the Corolla slightly larger twin.
The TSX has no cloth option, but it comes only as a 4-cylinder (205 hp). I do wish the Accord looked more like a TSX, but, then I'd have nothing to complain about, would I?
Just FYI, in Jan 2003 CR measured 9.0 sec for 0-60 time on 4 cyl Accord. I think that had the same engine and transmission as today's (I am not aware of a more recent test by CR). The weight of the one tested was 3195 lbs.
That sounds reasonable. The transmissions haven't changed, although the engines have been massaged for about 10 more horsepower (reflected as 6 hp since the new revised engines debuted at the same time as the new SAE hp test regulations went-into use by Honda). Honda has said the difference in the two engines is about 10 hp; current weight range for 4-cyl auto Accords is 3,188lbs-3,250lbs (Value Package to EX-L). About .2 sec difference is all I'd expect out of a 10 hp increase.
I think I've said too much and guided the conversation too much this weekend; I'm gonna bow out a little while (not long) and let everyone else catch up and talk about what THEY want. Sorry for my busy mouth!
in normal driving, torque provides more of an advantage than ultimate horsepower. i never floor the accelerator out of necessity.
I don't generally floor the car much, although to say I "never" do it would be a lie. Merging on the highways in Birmingham can be a difficult proposition; many hills and short ramps make the process a nerve-racking one in my old 130hp 96 Accord, less-so in my 06. The 06 revs so freely, smoothly, and quietly, that I don't give it a second thought anymore when the tach slides up to 5,000 RPM or higher; it becomes more of a production of noise and vibration in the old Accord though!
I can't see the need to ever floor a GLI Jetta or V6 Accord, but on the interstates in B'ham, where urban sprawl dictates a rush hour speed of 80+MPH sometimes, flooring is a necessity to merge safely in my 4-cylinder Accords.
The Accord's 2.4 provides slightly less torque but it's available accross a broader rev range. It's also smoother and more refined.
Thankfully VW's excellent 2.0t engine is available in this car.
All is forgiven. :P
All is forgiven. :P
all i can say is you need to pick a better gear earlier, or drive a vehicle with more torque.
my explorer generates about 280 ft/lbs of torque. only 239 hp. it doesn't much care if only the driver is on board or 5 people.
my focus has a very 'torquey' engine too. i can drive as low as 5 mph in first gear and push on the gas pedal to accelerate without any problems.
(cubic feet)
Sonata 2.4l/ 105 / 16 / 24/33 / 162@5800 / Std / GAG
Camry 2.4l / 101 / 15 / 24/33 / 158@6000 / std / GGM
Accord 2.4l/ 103 / 14 / 24/34 / 166@5800 / std / GGP
Altima 2.5l/ 103 / 16 / 23/29 / 175@6000 / std / GPA(w/out side airbags)
Malibu 2.2l/ 101 / 15 / 24/32 / 144@5600 / n/a / GGA
Optima 2.4l/ 104 / 14 / 24/34 / 161@5800 / n/a / G?G
Fusion 2.3l/ 100 / 16 / 24/32 / 160@6250 / std / APM(w/out side airbags)
Galant 2.4l/ 99 / 13 / 23/30 / 160@5500 / std / GGP
Passat 2.0l/ 96 / 14 / 22/31*/ 200@5100 / n/a / GGA
Mazda6 2.3l/ 96 / 14 / 24/31 / 160@6000 / std / GPP(w/out side airbags)
G6 2.4l/ 96 / 14 / 23/34 / 169@6300 / n/a / GAM
Sebring2.4l/ 94 / 16 / 22/30 / 150@5100 / n/a / APA(w/out side airbags)
*Passat 2.0l turbo engine takes Premium gasoline.
2007 Altima 4 cyl.
Horsepower: 175 @ 5600 RPM
Torque: 180 @ 3900 RPM
EPA mpg: 26/34 (CVT)
2007 Camry 4 cyl.
Horsepower: 158 @ 6000 RPM
Torque: 161 @ 4000 RPM
EPA mpg: 24/33 (auto)