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
And what do you think made the media direction change? A new found love for Ford? Or a genuinely good product?
Could it be that the way the media reported on Ford previously would have been becasue the crap product Ford put out for years?
Cmon admit it; put out a good product, you will get good media as well as buyers. Put out crap, you will get none.
Guess how I heard about the Toyota recalls? Through that d@$& biased media!
Sheesh, gimme a break on the media crap. Put it in news and views, and let's keep this discussion on comparing the vehicles themselves PLEASE!!!!
And I owned a 86 Integra, a 87 Civic, a 81 Accord and a 90 Accord. So I do have a basis of comparison here.
The Fusion is one of the top 5 most reliable vehicles for 2007 according to CR. The Camry and V6 Accord aren't. Deal with it.
I don't have to disprove or justify anything
That's what people say when they don't have evidence.
I think I'll wait 10 years before I buy a Camry to see if they've fixed the transmission problems.
Ford made a big turnaround in quality after the 2003 Focus recalls.
of course not, and it is equally absurd to think that decades of problems are magically 'fixed' in the last couple of years.
Bingo. Honda and Toyota have already proved that for the most part they produce reliable vehicles that go to the last mile. Were and are there bumps in the road? But I feel good buying a Toyota, even if it isn't the ultimate driving machine.
I don't feel good buying a Ford, because there is no history of producing an overall product that is as good or better than the Japanese. You have zero evidence to support my assertions that these cars will not fall apart or no require significant $$$ in repairs in the future.
It's very easy to declare a winner based on one model for one year. :confuse
But back in the 90s, they also were great. GM? Nothing GM makes today is even close to a ten year old S-Class. Ford knows to not even try. Lexus - gotta give them props for trying and coming close. A GS300 is a fantastic car.
The new 2007 Camry, or the 5 or 6 year old model that debuted in 2001?
I would hope that a new for 2006 Ford could outgun a 5 year old model by ANY company.
you don't, but the fact does remain that because the 'Detroit 3' effectively gave the car business to the 'Japanese 3' back in the 80s due to inferior products both from quality and dynamic standpoints. Those Accords/Camrys have long established the baseline from which all other 'affordable' sedans are judged much like BMW has long been the standard by which not so affordable 'sports' sedans are judged.
The 2006 Accord, a four-year-old model, was good enough to outpoint both of them.
I think there are multiple examples where Ford has done that over the years. Do they always do it? No.
I'm sure those who think Ford hasn't changed hasn't even driven a Fusion or 500.
I don't buy cars to feel good.
Well I have to have a good feeling from a car. Otherwise I'd buy a Hyundai Accent for $10 grand and call it a day.
To some, it is worth hundreds or thousands of dollars to have that feeling of full confidence in a vehicle.
For example, if I bought a Chrysler Sebring for $20k vs a comparble Honda for $22k, I'd always have the memory in the back of my mind about how poorly our last two Chrysler products were made, and how they left us stranded.
To me, it would be worth $2,000 not to have that feeling every time I wanted to take my car some considerable distance.
Let it be said though, that I do not have this feeling towards Ford; my point being that some do, and this is how they probably feel. I didn't like the Fusion simply because of the interior; reliability (or lack thereof) had nothing to do with my option.
The first new car I bought, the then new '76 Accord that had a non-catalyst CVCC 4 banger, a tradition that Honda carries to this day - superior small engines. Paid a whole $4700.00 for it. I did have problems keeping an alternator in that one but otherwise a wonderful car. By the time the 80s rolled around GM was pushing the 'X' cars, Chrysler the Ks, and Ford had the Fairmont - all of which were already so far behind what 'Japan' was offering that they didn't even warrant consideration. Even got worse in the 90s with the possible exception of the 200hp Taurus (93 or so) and, of course, the Yamaha engined SHO. I did get scared away from that one because of a friend that couldn't afford to keep his older 88 model (Vulcan V6) running and literally had to give a 5 year old car away.
IMO, of course, the 'problem' with those Detroit brands today has less to do with assembly quality or even reliability anymore - it has to do with what is under the hoods! Unless it is a V8, 'Detroit' doesn't know how to do it - and never really has.
There was to me, before I even left the lot on a test drive... the interior. I felt like I was in a brand new 10 year old car. That's just my opinion, and styling is DEFINITELY open to debate (one that will never settle), but the interior lacked sparkle/innovation to me.
Really, where is the dealer? Do they show the actual sale price?
You point to new engines that are improvements from previous offerings that are so new that they have no track record. And likely too little too late. But, in any case, I point to 35 years worth of crappy 'US' engines, and you want to talk about a couple of V6s that either aren't available yet, and/or have no history?
Historically, I challenge you to name anything 'Detroit' made engine-wise past about 1974 that was even close to competitive that didn't have 8 cylinders. And I think you can logically defend only that OHC Duratech of 93' or so - an engine that could have been so much more if only Ford knew how (or had the money) to do it ...
What I have a problem with is someone making objective statements about Fords or Fusions or any other make without any objective data to back it up.
I don't like Toyota's in general and I don't like Camry's in particular. It's a styling issue for me. I'd never buy one. But I don't try to tell everyone that they're crap or that they shouldn't buy one.
With the exception of the very least reliable cars, I don't think there is enough difference in cars today to make that a big factor in a purchasing decision. Styling, performance, ride quality, features and price are much more important than whether one car scored 10 points higher than the other in a quality survey.
What's wrong with the Ecotec? Or the Ford and GM V6s I mentioned? Aren't those "competitive"?
It would be hard to say their crap, because they are not. You might not like them, I don't like the Camry much either. But since it's one of the best selling vehicles in it's class in the US, it's success speaks for itself.
"What I have a problem with is someone making objective statements about Fords or Fusions or any other make without any objective data to back it up."
I have objective data to back up my statements. I have nothing to say about the Fusion in particular, but everything to say about Ford in general. You don't like that fact I had issues with 2 Fords? Or my bro-in-law got his Ford bought back via the lemon law?
"With the exception of the very least reliable cars, I don't think there is enough difference in cars today to make that a big factor in a purchasing decision. Styling, performance, ride quality, features and price are much more important than whether one car scored 10 points higher than the other in a quality survey."
The quality survey says nothing to me. If you really don't believe there is a difference in cars that make a big factor in purchasing decisions, I understand your like of Ford. But to me there is a huge difference and the Accord and Camry are the benchmarks for the segment.
I'm gonna give a big no on the Ecotec. All I had to do was hear one run to know it wasn't a smoothie like a Honda/Toyota I-4.
I also have this basic problem with the Ecotec. Example: Chevy Cobalt
145 horsepower, 24 City/32 Hwy, very coarse sounding
as opposed to my much larger/heavier Accord sedan
166 horsepower, 24 City, 34 Hwy, and is as smooth as some V6s (many car testers agree with me on the smoothness part).
No, I think the Ecotec is about 13 years behind the Honda I-4 engine (IIRC, the 1994 Accord EX had 145 horsepower from the same 2.2 liters, and approx 24/30 MPG depending on transmission option (25/31 with a manual, I imagine the auto was lower).
The Ecotec isn't really THAT coarse, especially compared to GM's older 4 cylinder engines, and is definitely appropriate to vehicles like the Cobalt, which it moves very smartly.
~alpha
We'll say that the folks who used to use CR as "proof" of import superiority over Ford will have to find some other biased publication to use.
Yes, in the 2.4L version (Such as the HHR, and Cobalt SS sedan), you are right.
And yeah, the Ecotec is that coarse when compared to the I-4s in this discussion. Comparing the engine of the Cobalt to an old GM I-4 is like comparing the speaking abilities of Stallone to Schwarzenegger; bad to worse.
I agree, the Cobalt is fine for its job as a workhorse in a budget-minded sedan, but it is not in the same class as those in this discussion as far as sound quality and coarseness go; it's just not a pleasing engine to hear, IMO.
And MPG is also a function of gearing, with the Cobalt having one less ratio than your Accord.
And? That's GMs fault, not mine. Vehicles like the Mazda 3 and Honda Civic come with a 5-speed Auto, so I'm not willing to excuse GM for not having a 5-speed Auto just because the engine belongs in a compact.
This is all just my particular take on things... I would like to see mileage of the compact/economy cars at LEAST be better than my midsize, 3,300 pound, more powerful, Accord.
*steps of soapbox
Sorry for leading the discussion slightly astray, guys... I'm through.
Well, check this article on resale values: http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/vcars_1.html
It is remarkable in that it has been bulletproof and in establishing a standard that even Toyota and Honda chased for years. If the new DT can even prove to have HALF the reliability and durability of the VQ then Ford really will have something, although it is awfully difficult to call anything good (or competitive) that's only been available for a few months. As I said, a generation behind. If you really want to see what that 15 year old VQ is now capable of - check out the engine in the G and M35, Z - over 300 hp.
Look at the best price you can get on the $0 deductible HondaCare full coverage warranty on something like a Honda Accord and compare that to the cost of the best $0 deductible Ford PremiumCare warranty for similar mileage and coverage on Fusion .
You can get Honda warranties out to 8 years. Ford would not dare or it would have to have a laughably costly price point to make it profitable, so they don't bother.
Is Avi paying you to say these things? I know that Edmunds now focuses more on rah-rah'ing certain marques that pay their bills. But do you guys even know what you're talking about?
It sounds to me like you're more into spewing the regurgitated garbage of the New York Times than actually looking at the hard data to form your ideas. How pathetic. But... wait... the New York Times has a neat little partnership with this site as do certain other unique interests. Hmmm.. I wonder what models are being promoted on your front page.
First off, the difference in defect rates between marques sold today is less than one delay per vehicle. That means that your Lexus is really not that much better than your Focus these days as it applies to initial quality.
Second, if you were actually in the industry you would know that GM currently has the lowest cost per defect in the industry while MB, VW, and Nissan (that's right... Nissan) have the highest. Of course, that doesn't mean that every single VW and Nissan model has high defect costs, right??? I'm sure you'll actually do some due diligence and find this out first before saying they ALL suck.
But wait... you guys don't do ANY real esearch besides reading whatever non-industry article comes your way.
Let me give you a hint. The underpaid journalists from New York City and Consumer Reports no about as much on cars as they do refrigerators. Literally, this is the group that calls a 0-60 time of 10.5 seconds snappy (Toyota Celica) while complaining about the 'coarseness' of a rear wheel drive sports car.
Third, J.D. Power in particular actually has a pretty good listing for durability of vehicles over a five year period. With the exception of Toyota in a few distinct vehicle classes, all the other rankings represent a virtual mishmash between the manufactureers, with GM's Buick and Cadillac marques scoring a bit higher than the rest of the group on average. Ford (the company you primarily have bashed as of late with no facts to support your position) actually scores quite well in a lot of categories, especially with minivans, midsized vehicles and subcompacts.
Finally, if we are talking about the difference of one extra trip to the repair shop for the duration of an ownership experience, then I think most folks will consider a lot of other factors where Toyota in particular usually falls flat.
For starters, Toyota's are widely seen as just about the most boring vehicles to drive on the open road. The Corolla is a literal incarnation of the automotive 'wallflower' and is about as fun to drive as CSPAN is to watch. The Yaris, on the other hand, is a butt ugly vehicle with nothing in front, small little dials in the middle...where they don't help, and an advertising campaign that takes a nice page off the original introduction of the Neon. It's interesting to note that when the Neon was first released, it was Toyota who tried to publish the first ever negative campaign directly against an American automotive manufacturer. It didn't help that the Neon outsold the Tercel and Echo by more than 4 to 1 for the majority of the 1994 - 2004 period.
In fact, the Tercel was such a bad and uncompetitive car that they even tried to sell it via infomercials. Apparently they figure out that Mr. Poppeil's garden weasel promos were what the Tercel really needed to jump up the sales volume.
Like the Paseo and the Echo, it was a complete and utter flop. However they have always had a streamlined Camry to rely on. At least until the recent redesign.
The redesigned Camry is not only bland and oversized now, but the rental quality materials they are now using in the interiors are even cheaper to the touch, and to the eye, than those used 15 years ago. The Camry of today has become as midsized as Roseanne and as fun to drive as a 1980's Buick LeSabre.
Oh, and before I forget, we finally have an Avalon that is not only is bigger than the Cadillacs of 20 years ago, but also has a worse reliability record thanks to some severe design defects in their transmissions. Unfortunately like the engine sludge issues of Toyota's 3.0L V6, this will take a lot of time and litigation to resolve.
Toyota is good at attracting to new buyers. But they are having an awful lot of trouble attracting repeat buyers, and especially younger buyer, which is why they had to launch an alternative marque in America (Scion). This is because a lot of folks simply want something more fun to drive than the Typical Toyota.
The company that has the highest percentage of repeat buyers???
That would be GM.
My advice to anyone out there looking for a vehicle is simply to compare and drive.
Drive a Ford Fusion and see how it compares with the Toyota Camry.
Drive a Chrysler 300C, and see how it compares with a Toyota Avalon.
Drive a Hyundai Elantra GT or a Honda Civic, and see how they do against a Saturn Ion Red Line.
Drive the vehicles, look at the quality of the interior components, figure out which one gives you the most bang for your buck, and simply enjoy your new ride.
In fact, more than 90% of new buyers already enjoy whatever car they end up getting regardless of what the wonks and wankers who follow this business have to say about it.
Please note: Any attempt to censor or edit this post will result in an automatic doubling of the posting. You have been warned
Now I have 02 QX4 VQ. It feels not as smooth as the Maxima VQ, maybe due to the SUV design, and the overall high level noise during driving...
The [car] company that has the highest percentage of repeat buyers??
According to JD Power, that would be Lexus. Followed by Toyota. Followed by Honda. Then (finally) Chevy. Then Hyundai. And so on. Only two GM marques, Chevy and Cadillac, are over the industry average.
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005249