Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

thegraduate · October 2006

I used the bumpers to illustrate that Honda was the first car company out there to relax safety standards. I know full well the limits of a car bumper. Do you perceive me as an idiot?

No, and it was not my intention to make you feel like I was insulting you (and I don't think it seemed like I did that, to be honest). You don't have to be so defensive, we're all on the same team (car consumers) here. I'm not trying to grill you as if on a witness stand.

Most of our points are, however, that there are way too many individual factors in a car crash to determine if a car is as safe as another one in an instance; that's why the IIHS and NTHSA do strict experimental testing procedures, with as much control over each situation as possible.

Sorry I draw off life experiences here not supposition.

And nobody here is condemning you for it, as you have a firsthand look at crashes daily. The point stands however that there are way WAY too many variables in particular car wrecks to deem one as safe and another as unsafe, even though you see crashes daily, I highly doubt that the particular models of vehicles, point(s) of impact, speeds of the vehicles, and conditions have ever exactly duplicated themselves. Maybe once or twice in 30 years. (Example being say a 1994 Taurus T-boning a 1997 Dodge Ram where the Ram was going 25MPH, the Taurus, 40 MPH; exact impact at the rear wheel of the Ram, airbags opening in the Taurus, and only one injury)...

The thing is, the IIHS CAN institute such controlled accidents, and that's why it is hard for some of us to believe that the Honda is as unsafe as you say, because it got top scores in all the ratings (except for not having "active" head-restraints as in the Sonata and Camry, etc)... The cars themselves hold up quite well. Ask me about my guardrail collision in my 1996 LX. I walked away unharmed (save for a now-chronic stiff back) from a 40 MPH frontal/sliding sideways hit on a guardrail.

heavensoldier · October 2006

Don't know if anyone remembers this message, but I was wondering how does a Acura TSX compare with a Honda accord, altima, sonata and etc. It looks like a nice car is has great reviews here http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/acura_tsx_2006/4721/model_user_reviews.html

Thanks and God Bless.

backy · October 2006

More expensive, less power (than V6 models), smaller inside, great handling, very nice interior. Probably closer to a Jetta GLI than one of these mid-sized family sedans, although you could come close with the Mazda6s for less money (but not as nice an interior).

kdhspyder · October 2006

And yet more than twice as many people choose the Corolla over the Sonata every day and every week. While the Sonata stays in the 'under $20K price range that is the competition.. the Corolla/Civic.

Buyers normally class themselves by their budgets; i.e. '$12000 vehicle' .... 'about $15000' ... 'under $20000' ... 'in the $25000 to $30000 range'.

Thus when they go to shop they look for vehicles in these ranges. A $15000 buyer is going to look at the vehicles in that range. Those would be the Corolla, Civic and Sonata. It's the way the buyers think.

A $25000 buyer is going to look for vehicles in that range only.

cajuncycler · October 2006

I'm glad you posted that backy, maybe I will get over my paranoia with Hondas. I'm sorry another tragedy had to end that way but it frustrates me to know end when I see posts where people who own Hondas question the safety of my car. The fact is none of us are safe from reckless and careless drivers unless we all purchase tanks.Peace

joe97 · October 2006

That may be true for some type of buyers, not for others, however. Some look for roominess, some look for value, some look for V6, etc.

While I am not disagreeing the cross-shop of the Sonata and Corolla/Civic, but based on price, cross-shop can also happen between different segements, (i.e. Sonata vs. Colorado) so going by price is probably not be the best/closest comparison for some buyers.

It should be noted Sonata competitors are still those including Camry, Fusion, Altima, Accord, etc, with Camry/Accord/Altima in the higher range, and Fusion in the lower range along the Sonata.

elroy5 · October 2006

Some look for roominess, some look for value, some look for V6, etc.

I think most people have a certain "spending limit" in mind (20k, 25k, 30k), when shopping for a car. Then other (personal) criteria enter into the equation. One guy may shop only certain brands, and will settle for a smaller car, if it's a brand he likes, and under the spending limit. Another guy may shop any make, and will buy the roomiest car that is under the cap. Everyone has their own priorities.

kdhspyder · October 2006

Hyundai cannot sell their cars for the same price (ie market price) and terms and conditions as Honda and Toyota.(ie 3 year warranty) They have had a huge rebate promotion going on as well. So I guess what is being said, is all cars in this segment either sell for huge discounts or have huge rebates. That does make sense.

In the end it's the market which determines the correct price level for a vehicle no matter the content or capability. In the end while there may be imperfections in any shortterm view the market rights everything in due course.

At the present, and Hyundai/Ford recognize this, their respective entries in this field have to be sold at a price lower than the Camry/Accord.

Noone at this time is going to pay $25000 for any Sonata. That is a fact. It's the market speaking and the marketing people in Hyundai and in Ford have the pulse of this segment at hand every day and week.

Does anyone think for a minute that if Hyundai could sell their very capable V6 Sonata's for $25000 that they wouldn't? Hyundai and to a lesser extent Ford and Nissan are just practicing good business sense by pricing their vehicles at the level at which they will move. It's nothing more than recognizing what the 'market will bear'.

imidazol97 · October 2006

>there are way too many individual factors in a car crash to determine if a car is as safe as another one in an instance;

Exactly right. That's why I love it when someone picks a light, thinly built car because it gets great ratings in crash testing.

kdhspyder · October 2006

True, but as elroy noted above most buyers limit themselves by their budgets. A $15000 buyer may 'look' at a CamCord but will not seriously consider a new one. He or she will consider a Sonata or Civic or Corolla.

Most buyers classify themselves in this manner. As in everything there are the exceptions.

In theory the Sonata, Camry, Accord, Altima, Fusion are competitors but it's not so in the majority of daily decisions being done beforehand ( over the kitchen table ) by the buyers.

elroy5 · October 2006

Hyundai and to a lesser extent Ford and Nissan are just practicing good business sense by pricing their vehicles at the level at which they will move.

Different companies have different "market strategies". One company may set a certain price expecting to sell a set number of cars. Another company may decide to set their price lower, to get a higher volume of sales. Both of these companies could end up with the same percentage of profit. Of course the cost of new manufacturing plants (expansion, if necessary) has to be factored in also, when considering higher volume.

lilengineerboy · October 2006

>there are way too many individual factors in a car crash to determine if a car is as safe as another one in an instance;

Exactly right. That's why I love it when someone picks a light, thinly built car because it gets great ratings in crash testing.

Which is why I like it when someone gets a huge heavy car because they think it safer and then rear-end people because their huge barge doesn't stop like an Accord would. Or they get an SUV and roll it.

The idea is to avoid the accident. Cars with stability control (like on the Scion xB and just about any SUV worth its salt) is something I would look at first.
Crash tests are only important if you crash. Avoiding the accident with a smaller, more nimble car would be a better strategy.

lilengineerboy · October 2006

Hyundai cannot sell their cars for the same price (ie market price) and terms and conditions as Honda and Toyota.(ie 3 year warranty) They have had a huge rebate promotion going on as well. So I guess what is being said, is all cars in this segment either sell for huge discounts or have huge rebates. That does make sense.

Thats the point, the Hyundai represents a better value. If they can make money from selling a well equipped car at a price less than their competitors, that is what they call an ADVANTAGE.
The idea isn't to charge through the nose for a car (well except for some very limited vehicles).

elroy5 · October 2006

Thats the point, the Hyundai represents a better value.

All of us do not share your idea of what value is. Speak for yourself. Put an "IMO" after a sentence like that one.

kdshapiro · October 2006

Value is subjective. Getting seemingly more for less isn't always value.

bhmr59 · October 2006

Excellent observation, Spyder.

Almost 2 years ago I thought I'd have to look at used cars. Then, I discovered the Sonata.

I bought an '05 GLS "Special Value", which was the LX without leather seats or power drive seat, for about $5000 less than it would have cost me for an '06 LX.

I'm very satisfied with everything about my car, especially the little things like the heated seats. Price paid "to dealer", before tax, reg. and other state fees was $16,705.

ontop · October 2006

Exactly.

I never look at the cheapest anything when it comes to a major purchase. Bad mojo.

bhmr59 · October 2006

Another good comparative issue.

There's more than one way to compare cars.. size category and price, being two.

Sonata offers just so much more than Civic or Corolla in space and features at about the same price. Sonata offers more in space and features than Camry or Accord at a lower price. That brings us back to the quality/reliability/dependability issues.

Don't be surprised if you see '06/07 Sonatas ranked right along side '06/07 Camrys & Accords in 5 or 6 years as used cars.

mfletou1 · October 2006

Well, I'll see you there when I sell my car. I don't want to go to Maui now, but I might then. See, I'd prefer to drive a class leading car for a bunch of years, THEN go to Maui.

elroy5 · October 2006

Don't be surprised if you see '06/07 Sonatas ranked right along side '06/07 Camrys & Accords in 5 or 6 years as used cars.

Don't be surprised when they're not. IMO, these are very unrealistic expectations.

thegraduate · October 2006

I never look at the cheapest anything when it comes to a major purchase. Bad mojo.

Bad mojo?

Looking at the most options is just a good, sensible, shopping tactics. Shop all ends of the spectrum to see what is out there for the money, and if the more expensive models are worth the money. It's just common sense. I looked at everything from Sonata to Passat (knowing I would likely not end up in either) just to see what features and ideas I liked from them each. I ended up in a mid-priced family sedan, a 4-cylinder, EX cloth, Accord, for $22k. I couldn't see paying another $2k-$3k for a V6, but it was worth it to me to spend the extra dough over a Malibu, Sonata, or Fusion to get the nicer interior and silky engine of the Accord.

That way, I'm not left wondering "what if I had looked at the Whatchamacalit SE-V6 and liked it?"

thegraduate · October 2006

Thats the point, the Hyundai represents a better value. If they can make money from selling a well equipped car at a price less than their competitors, that is what they call an ADVANTAGE.
The idea isn't to charge through the nose for a car (well except for some very limited vehicles).

You don't believe one bit that if Hyundai could sell as many cars as Toyota Camry at $24,000 instead of $18,000, it would? Sorry, but business is business, regardless of which company. They're gonna maximize profits all they can.

lilengineerboy · October 2006

Okay, fair enough, you are correct value is subjective. The point I was feebly trying to make is that Hyundai can make enough profit to satisfy its shareholders while selling the car at much lower costs.
I know this car or that car may be a little better or worse to some people or whatever, but it is in the segment and if not a class leader it is at least competitive in the class. If it wasn't everyone wouldn't be so up in arms about it.

thegraduate · October 2006

No doubt. The car is VERY competitve, it is definitely in the top half of the class as far as I'm concerned.

imidazol97 · October 2006

>Which is why I like it when someone gets a huge heavy car because they think it safer and then rear-end people because their huge barge doesn't stop like an Accord would.

I think you don't have any kind of data to support a difference in stopping distance and you're thinking an Accord has a perfect stopping distance because, well, it's your favorite car?

>Avoiding the accident with a smaller, more nimble car

Again I think you're blowing smoke with no reality!

cajuncycler · October 2006

Thats the point, the Hyundai represents a better value. If they can make money from selling a well equipped car at a price less than their competitors, that is what they call an ADVANTAGE.
The idea isn't to charge through the nose for a car (well except for some very limited vehicles).

Has anybody considered the fact that Hyundai is selling their cars cheaper to get folks into the showrooms to take notice of their vehicles? Price is definitely a lure to get you to take notice. It did for me. There may be no difference at all in the cost of building the Sonata with what it costs Toyota to build a Camry or Honda to build an Accord but if you want to be taken seriously in the competitive market you have to get noticed, somebody has to drive and buy your cars. I think once people see what they are getting and Hyundai is moving cars, the price won't stay at this level. Price does not necessarily equate to cheap construction or lesser overall quality. It could simply be a temporary marketing tool by cleaver marketers. It may well be worth Hyundai taking a loss here in the states to get established as a quality car builder. Ever think of that?

And on that same note buyers who take the bait are not necessarily suckers but end up smart shoppers by both getting a quality vehicle and saving money. Something usually not heard of these days. I'm taking my money and going to Maui now!

jeffyscott · October 2006

"...you're thinking an Accord has a perfect stopping distance because, well, it's your favorite car?"

Yeah, isn't the Accord known for having crappy brakes?

thegraduate · October 2006

The Accord has a rather long stopping distance relative to some of the others in the class, but interestingly, it has arguably the best/shortest pedal feel out of them, too (not mushy, short stroke, etc...). Part of it may have to do with the tires Honda equips the cars with (according to the last Motor Trend article on the Accord (a comparo) they said the tires should take part of the blame too (small and economy-minded tires rather than great grippers).

I'm not trying to make excuses, just give some insight as to why. My 2006 EX can activate ABS on DRY pavement (did so Friday from 55 MPH), so there isn't a shortage of braking power here...

bobad · October 2006

The 3 series still had the dealer tag.

Orange peel isn't related to the age of the paint.

Until you closely examine a brand new 3 series as I did, you shouldn't be using such phrases as "above reproach".

The light on the door panel caught my eye, and it looked like a badly distorted mirror. It was gross orange peel, and a walk-around revealed a lot more in other areas of the car.

Google "BMW orange peel" I rest my case.

bobad · October 2006

Buyers normally class themselves by their budgets; i.e. '$12000 vehicle' .... 'about $15000' ... 'under $20000' ... 'in the $25000 to $30000 range'

You're correct. I used to shop exactly as you say.

However, I did it a bit differently this time. I test drove a bunch of cars, and decided which one had room, comfort, safety, quiet, quality, features, and performance levels I would be satisfied with for the best price. Some were simply too small. Some were too noisy and rode rough. I found 1 was a perfect compromise for me at that particular time.

I would have spent more and more until I found something I was 99% satisfied with. Luckily, I found a car for $16,600 +TT&L.

goodegg · October 2006

The point I was feebly trying to make is that Hyundai can make enough profit to satisfy its shareholders while selling the car at much lower costs.

Another feeble point. How do you know WHAT Hyundai's profits are? A Korean company, closely held by the Korean government, financial statements in Korean currency, using Korean accounting 'rules' and so on....

But I do agree that Hyundai is definitely buying market share here at the expense of someone or something in Korea.

baggs32 · October 2006

grad,
You might want to re-read your post I'm replying to. Particularly the two quotes below.

Most of our points are, however, that there are way too many individual factors in a car crash to determine if a car is as safe as another one in an instance; that's why the IIHS and NTHSA do strict experimental testing procedures, with as much control over each situation as possible.

The thing is, the IIHS CAN institute such controlled accidents, and that's why it is hard for some of us to believe that the Honda is as unsafe as you say, because it got top scores in all the ratings

As you may remember from another thread I have always argued that crash tests are no way to measure the safety value of a vehicle. Really think about what you typed. "way too many individual factors in a car crash to determine if a car is as safe as another one in an instance" and "controlled accidents". What does that say to us? Call me crazy but aren't the crash tests conducted by the IIHS and NHTSA showing us "if a car is as safe as another one in an instance"? Only they show us the same instance over and over again for the different vehicles rather than having two of them involved in the same instance.

All the IIHS and NHTSA are proving to us is that if you were to crash your car into a parked car which was parked in front of a solid wall, either head on or offset to the driver's side of course, you would be protected at their measured levels. And that's even pushing it a bit. CHANGE one of those "too many variables" and who knows what will happen. :surprise: Would it surprise you if a manufacturer strengthened specific parts of a vehicle just to garner a good crash test score?

I find it humoring that we are ignoring someone with real world experience, which can be hard to do on an internet forum as we all well know, while trusting a "controlled" test of something that is so out of control and unpredictable that it boggles the mind. I think we need to give cajuncycler's posts some serious thought and not brush them to the side because a test in a vacuum. :sick:

w9cw · October 2006

If Hyundai is "buying marketshare" by pricing their vehicles lower than the competition, this strategy was used with great success previously by other manfuacturers, not only in the automobile market, but the consumer electronics market as well. Who was it that used this strategy 20, 20, and 40 years ago?

ALL Japanese manufacturers regardless of product . . .

lilengineerboy · October 2006

Pat and Karens,
I was thinking maybe we should add the Legacy to the top and side as well (get a quote and the helpful links). Is there anything else midsized non-premium that we should consider?

eastcoasta · October 2006

Hi Folks,

I currently own a 1996 Ford Taurus and have been very happy with it. The repair costs I've been quoted are extremely high and so I am looking at purchasing a 2006 Ford Taurus, SEL. I have been quoted a price of $14,000 with mileage of 18,000. I saw a recent post here where someone purchased the same car for $12,700. I would appreciate it if anyone could offer any advise as to what I should pay for this car, especially since productionof this model has permanently ceased.
p.s. I am a female buyer and don't feel comfortable
bargaining.

Sincerely,
eastcoasta

w9cw · October 2006

FWIW, I saw a private sale classified in our local paper for a 2006 Taurus SE for $10,000 yesterday. Seller said the car was in excellent condition with 22K miles, and had the 3.0L pushrod V6 engine.

kdshapiro · October 2006

"Until you closely examine a brand new 3 series as I did, you shouldn't be using such phrases as "above reproach". "

Ummm, I did. And I stand by my comments. It's real easy to say the $15K car has a better paintjob than a $40K car. It's much harder to make people in the know believe it.

edit - I did a google, the only real thing I saw was for an 18 year old car and for one color. That is the best you can do? I'd like to see your Hyundai in 18 years.

louiswei · October 2006

Regardless of orange peel or not, anyone whom stated that the Sonata has better paint job than 3-series is blinded by bias and to me has no credibility in his/her post at all.

Period.

03accordman · October 2006

"The 3 series still had the dealer tag.

Orange peel isn't related to the age of the paint.

Until you closely examine a brand new 3 series as I did, you shouldn't be using such phrases as "above reproach".

The light on the door panel caught my eye, and it looked like a badly distorted mirror. It was gross orange peel, and a walk-around revealed a lot more in other areas of the car.

Google "BMW orange peel" I rest my case."

I leased a 330i two months back; let me assure, there is no comparison between the paint job on a 3 series and one on a Sonata (for that reason an Accord or Camry). The depth as well as overall attention to detail on the 3 series is on a different plane altogether, as it should be.

I don't know what you are referring to.

joe97 · October 2006

Somewhat related:

Question: does Ford still sell new Taurus via retail?

I ask because the latest sales figure has Ford selling over 22K units of Taurus, impressive (fleet or not) figures, considering only 10K of the Fusion model was moved..

Back on topic, good luck hunting your Taurus

imidazol97 · October 2006

The standard crash tests attempt to perform controlled experiment crashes. The only problem is these are easily engineered for by the companies so their cars look good. Take a lighter car, put your metal in just the right places for the crash standards and voila you pass. But the customer will suffer when a different angle crash occurs in real life. The metal wasn't engineered for that mode of crash. Oh well, they passed the IIHS and HNSTA. Add airbags of the right type (if they go off when they're supposed to) and the customers just lap up those results and advertised safety items like young puppy dogs.

The problem is only getting into those kinds of off center front and side crashes. I keep trying to make sure I don't have the wrong kind of accident. But then I have a heavier car with a little more mass.

thegraduate · October 2006

Really think about what you typed. "way too many individual factors in a car crash to determine if a car is as safe as another one in an instance" and "controlled accidents". What does that say to us? Call me crazy but aren't the crash tests conducted by the IIHS and NHTSA showing us "if a car is as safe as another one in an instance"? Only they show us the same instance over and over again for the different vehicles rather than having two of them involved in the same instance.

Yes, but it is the only fair way of doing so, best I can tell; put differently, it's the closest thing we have to objectivity in deciding car safety. Does it show only one particular type of crash? Yes. But like you said, "they show us the same instance over and over again for the different vehicles " which at least shows some uniformity in crashworthiness when comparing cars. I want an apples to apples comparison in car safety to help me decide.

I find it humoring that we are ignoring someone with real world experience

I don't think anybody is trying to "write anyone off" as far as their posts, rather, they/we are just trying to offer some opposing views and raising some questions - not in an effort to be difficult, but rather to maintain some objectivity (which, ironically, crash testing tries to do).

If I seemed like I was ignoring his information, I apoligize, I strictly meant to raise the point about the lack of objectivity when comparing different vehicle crashes versus those that have controlled variables.

thegraduate · October 2006

I think a lot of people fail to remember that a 5-star rating is only for other cars within that class.

A Honda Odyssey with a 5-star rating will likely not fare nearly as well as a Honda Fit with a 5-star crash rating in the same crash situation.

That wasn't necessarily an error made by any in this thread, but I thought I'd bring that to light, because some people fail to realize it and think they are as safe in their Fit as they are in an Expedition. :sick:

pat · October 2006

Done!

bobad · October 2006

Regardless of orange peel or not, anyone whom stated that the Sonata has better paint job than 3-series is blinded by bias and to me has no credibility in his/her post at all.

Bias? I love BMW's.

I was standing there shaking my head in disbelief. I couldn't believe the orange peel on that brand new car.

Go look at a DK blue BMW 3 series before you tell me their paint is perfect. Maybe it was just 1 car. I certainly hope so.

cajuncycler · October 2006

Looks like I will start paying more attention to BMW paint :surprise: in parking lots from now on...

cajuncycler · October 2006

don't think anybody is trying to "write anyone off" as far as their posts, rather, they/we are just trying to offer some opposing views and raising some questions - not in an effort to be difficult, but rather to maintain some objectivity (which, ironically, crash testing tries to do).

If I seemed like I was ignoring his information, I apoligize, I strictly meant to raise the point about the lack of objectivity when comparing different vehicle crashes versus those that have controlled variables.

This is kinda funny since I have pretty much stated I was biased against Hondas and if you read nearly every post on here the biasness is there for or against one brand or model over another by everyone here? So where on these many pages of posts have you found that objectivity? :surprise: LOL!

lilengineerboy · October 2006

...how strongly people feel about cars in this segment. Its pretty amazing. I don't know if its a personal validation thing because of the purchase a particular person made or a sense of belonging from owning the same make/model as someone else.
I don't know if I will ever feel strongly enough about a car to say not only was it the best choice for me, but for everyone else, too. I like my purchase decision, it was definitely the best car for my needs, but man, I don't think it would work for a lot of other people.
My mom actually wants one, and I don't think it would be the best car for her needs.
Its also been really interesting to see how people define "best" or "value." It seems like cost is a factor for a lot of people, safety, and fit and finish. Are there any other big hitters?

baggs32 · October 2006

Yes, but it is the only fair way of doing so, best I can tell; put differently, it's the closest thing we have to objectivity in deciding car safety.

I will not argue with that but most people who view the results seem to put too much weight on those results when making a decision. Now the manufacturers have to put them on the window sticker. I think that's just wrong for reasons stated previously.

I think the tests give you a good idea of how much passive protection a vehicle has, mostly by viewing the videos. You can get a good idea of whether or not the roofline is too low for you, or the seat sits back to far and too close to the B-pillar, etc, etc. Unfortunately they don't take active saftety into account.

I want an apples to apples comparison in car safety to help me decide.

Why? If you're ever in a crash, God forbid, I can guarantee it won't be anything like those used for testing. I've been in two and neither were close.

bobad · October 2006

If you're ever in a crash, God forbid, I can guarantee it won't be anything like those used for testing. I've been in two and neither were close.

The tests are far from perfect, but they are the best we have at the moment. They are far better than nothing.

They serve a very useful purpose. They force the car makers to test and constantly improve, and they raise the consciousness of consumers.

To make the tests significantly better, you would have to crash hundreds of cars and use live crash test dummies. Would you like to volunteer?

Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles