Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

brozhnik · May 2005

Let me try and get your second point. Far be it from me to defend the insurance industry, which has more than its share of scum (see: recent Eliot Spitzer actions); but let me play the devil's advocate, so to speak, to make sure I have this straight. If I were an insurance company, I would want my actuaries to give me, internally, the most accurate data possible about risks. The more accurate the risk estimates, the more likely I will set premiums right - not too low OR too high. Too high? Yes - a concern to insurance companies. Of course, they have an obvious incentive to not set the premiums too low - if they do they will lose money because paying out future claims will require more money than they have taken in. And of course, they have an incentive to set them as high as they can get away with. But on the other hand, they also have an incentive not to set the premiums too high - that is, so high that it creates what in microeconomics 101 is called "adverse selection" (Adverse selections means my best customers (the ones who realize taht they' have the least risk) realize they don't need my insurance enough to pay my super-high premiums, leaving me only with the worst customers (the ones with the highest risk, who know they need insurance even better than I do).
So insurance companies have an incentive to charge the highest premium they can get away with, but they can't go TOO high or they create adverse selection. They have an incentive, in fact, to make riskier customers pay mroe and less-risky ones pay less.
OK - so, hopefully what I've said so far is no big deal - surely, in-house, the insurance comapnies want the most accurate data they can get on the risks of different models (as well as on the risks of different drivesr, which they get from age, gender, tickets, accidents, etc.).
But what you seem to be saying is that in public, it's a different matter. The IIHS is an industry front, not an industry data source - and is giving the public fudged, skewed data meant to mislead, so that the insurance companies can jack up their premiums in the most profitable ways. They might, for example, take a particularly popular car and give it a poor crash-test rating so that they can jack up the premiums. They might give better crash-test ratings to an unpopular car.
But... if I were an editor at Edmunds.com, or Consumer Reports, or the NY Times, or Wall Street Journal, or any other standard news publication, I'd say. Wait a second - sounds interesting, but can you prove the assertion? Do you have two independent, reliable sources? Evidence that for each increase in one car's crash-test scores there's an equal and opposite decrease in some other model's scores so that it all comes out even each year? Or whatever - something other than hints? In short, can I see the evidence that the IIHS is fudging its data?
I'm as cynical as anyone else, so I'm not saying you're wrong. Usually, I'd love to bash insurance companies, so it's surprising I'm not doing that here. I just need to see some evidence before I concede that you're right. If you have it, lay it on me - I'm very, very interested.
(As for crash tests being not perfect proxies for real-life,, nobody has ever disputed that, but this is another issue and we'll get into that another time. Let me focus now on the fudged-data implication.) Thanks for anything you can tell me.

alpha01 · May 2005

The bottom line is that in part because of crash tests and continual enhancements in safety equipment, the total number of vehicle related fatalities has remained fairly constant in this country, around 43,000 per year for the last several. This, despite that EACH new year sees more and more vehicle registrations, and the mileage that people drive has increased steadily for the past two decades since the oil crisis. THAT is a big accomplishment, IMO, and theres no way you could convince me of its existence, was there not crash testing.

~alpha

ctalk · May 2005

There is no denying the Sonata is a great vehicle. But it wont be a classleader, it still needs to build its reputation.

"the sonata was found to be the new benchmark in my books"
What about the Sonata sets it apart from Accord and Camry (besides the price)?
The Accord was considered a benchmark for this generation because it came with features never seen before in a mid-size sedan (dual-zone climate control, 240 hp) What also put it ahead is how a 240hp engine can have good fuel economy (it literally left editors marvelling at its brilliance). I know the Sonata has a great price and is feature packed BUT i dont see how its an industry benchmark (what more does the Sonata offer?).

"The camry and accord just aren't as sophisticated and classy currently compared to the sonata"
I dont see how the Sonata is more sophisticated? The Accord produces 240hp and is near the top in fuel economy. If the Sonata is suppositly more sophisticated it should have better fuel economy (imo) The Sonata still doesn't match the Accord and Camry when it comes to overall refinement.

bklynguy · May 2005

http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/irep13e_20050513.htm

annek · June 2005

Can I ask how you know that Honda will make vehicle stability control standard on 06 accords? Will it include the 4 cylinder as well as the 6 cylinder? Please advise. I am debating on buying an 05 Accord at a good price ($400 less than invoice in my area) or waiting for the 06 Accord with vehicle stability control. I can't find any confirmation that the 06 Accords will have that feature though, especially the 4 cylinders? I don't want to pay the extra gas money for the 6 cylinder.

joon · June 2005

The changes to the 06' model are closely guarded by Honda. Nobody really knows for sure which changes, including stability control for the 4cyl. Honda will make. All the changes posted here and in other forums are just educated (some not so educated) guesses. If I were you, I wouldn't wait for something that may or may not happen, especially as prices are currently so low. Just my opinion.

By the way, I don't know where you're located, but in some areas (CA, NJ, etc.) 05 Accords are selling for up to $1,800 under invoice. So, you may be able to do better than your current $400 below invoice depending on the area. If you haven't done it yet I would recommend you check carsdirect.com for prices in your area (zip code), and if prices are not low enough try some major cities that are relatively close to you. This may save you hundreds of dollars.

Good luck.

bklynguy · June 2005

Most of the changes posted here for the 06 Accord are educated guesses (but some are based on a "spyshot" which may have been posted by Honda to stir interest).These "educated" guesses are based on what the competition currently offers or in the case of Toyota with its upcoming 07 Camry, will offer in the next 8-12 months. Honda will not reveal most of the changes until they announce it officially to protect 05 Accord sales (btw, it doesn't seem to be helping much since Accord sales are down 23.7% for the month of May compared to last year).

If you're comfortable with the current styling of the Accord and you don't care about VSA (which will probably be standard on most mid-size family sedans in next 2-3 years, Hyundai just raised the bar by making it standard on all 06 Sonatas) and a few other new features, then buy the 05. The deals right now are great, especially in states like CA & NJ. We're waiting for the 06. We also considered waiting for the 07 Camry (coming in about 8-10 months), but we don't want to wait that long, hoping Toyota improved the steering/handling.

joon · June 2005

I completely agree with you. However, chances are pretty good that people won't be able to get their 06' Accords at the deep discounted prices they are able to get on the 05's today. So, the decision is whether to wait for a few months until the 06' hits the showroom with some or all of the changes mentioned on this and other forums and pay several hundreds more for it, or get the 05' now at these deep discounted prices. That's the thought process I (and presumably many others) went through. My decision was to buy now. But, I'm sure many other just as informed people have decided to wait for the 06' model. That's also perfectly reasonable, assuming people are willing to pay the likely higher prices.

Good luck.

annek · June 2005

Thanks for your reply. I didn't know they were going for that much under invoice ($1800). I'm in Missouri.

Question:
I found an 03 camry in mint condition with all the airbag safety features I want.
Can anyone advise on this? the seller is about $50 bucks above blue book and $100 less than Edmunds true market value price. I've heard the best deals or on cars 2 or 3 years old. However, with hondas selling below invoice, I don't know if that makes up for the typical depreciation one would face when first driving a new car off the lot. (I've always heard it's best to buy a car 2 or 3 years old with low miles if you can find one0.

So, does it make more sense to get a price below invoice on a new car or to pay true market value price for private party seller price on a used one? The car is in excellent shape. The owner was very meticulous with it. I think that's why he's being such a stickler on the price.

In other words, does the fact that dealers are selling the 05 accords below invoice make up for typical new car depreciation? how do I figure that out? is there a formula?

annek · June 2005

Is anyone familiar with this? The bank uses "black book" to determine value of cars. Can most people get the seller to this price? I"ve been unable to do so. He wants blue book price.

danf1 · June 2005

Black book is a wholesale book used regionally. It is very accurate to true values because it is based off of actual auction reports and updated weekly. It would be difficult to get a dealer to sell you a car at black book prices because that is typically what we pay for the cars. Then we recondition, inspect, detail etc....

annek · June 2005

How common is it to get black book price from a private seller? Private seller won't budge from the true market value price. He's about 50 buck over blue book and about 100 bucks under TMV.

danf1 · June 2005

Private sellers can be strange. Many times they are driven by ego to price their cars. Typically they will sell for more than trade in value, but less than retail. These are mainly people who were not happy with the offer that they got from a dealer and are looking for more. If they won't budge off of their price, then they probably aren't the most motivated seller in the market.

Keep in mind that buying the least expensive example of any used vehicle is probably akin to buying the worst cared for car. A good detail can hide years of neglect. Sometimes paying a little more up front will save you a lot of aggravation down the road.

annek · June 2005

That's a good point. I know he's so particular about the price because he cared for the car well and thinks it's worth every penny. Here's my question, though. does it make more sense to pay under market value for a brand new car (since the dealers are selling under invoice) or to pay right at market value for a good used car with low miles? (hard to find in toyota and hondas and I think the seller knows that). The new car salesman told me depreciation is not a factor on new cars right now since they are sold under invoice, but that is not true. they just have less depreciation.

I feel like I'm getting a better "deal" with the new one since they are under invoice and thus under true market value, however, this used car with low miles gives me a chance to get things I wouldn't pay for otherwise but that I like (spoiler). It has the advanced safety features like the side curtain airbags...also rare in a 2 or 3 year old model. I'd be saving about $3700 off the price of a new one. I know new cars depreciate most in first two years so that's why the general advice is to find a well-cared for car with low miles 2 or 3 years old. However with new prices so low, it's hard to figure out which way would be better in the end.

Opinions here?

danf1 · June 2005

For less than $4,000 I'd get a new one, but that's just how I think. Only you can answer which makes more sense to you. I don't see much value in a spoiler. Side air bags are a must in my opinion. That said, they aren't all that expensive on a new car, and with some manufacturers they are standard. Warranty is nice to have as well.

lmacmil · June 2005

Have you got a firm price for a dealer for a new Accord at well under invoice? If you're not in a major metro area with multiple dealers, I'd be surprised if you could get that good a deal. If you can, then it's probably a better buy than the 2 yr old car.

blane · June 2005

Ditto on getting the new Accord. That's what I'd do.

You didn't specify the mileage on the two-year-old Camry so it's difficult to evaluate the deal. Was it an "early" 2003? Or, was it made later in the model year? That should be part of your equation. It could be closer to a three-year old than a two-year old.

Have you seen all maintenance records? Has it been serviced by the Toyota dealer? Do they have computer records of all service and any areas of concern?

annek · June 2005

It has 29,500 miles. Yes, I've seen maintenance records and yes it's been serviced by the dealer. no areas of concern. just routine maintenance due at 30 K miles.

annek · June 2005

the seller is about $50 bucks above blue book and $100 less than Edmunds true market value price. I've heard the best deals or on cars 2 or 3 years old. However, with hondas selling below invoice, I don't know if that makes up for the typical depreciation one would face when first driving a new car off the lot. (I've always heard it's best to buy a car 2 or 3 years old with low miles if you can find one).
How is depreciation affected by the fact that new cars are selling for about 300 below invoice in my area? I looked at some formulas and it shows they are depreciating at about $3000 the first year. So wouldn't I save in the long run with the used car since the initial buyer had to take the hit in depreciation?

lmacmil · June 2005

"So wouldn't I save in the long run with the used car since the initial buyer had to take the hit in depreciation?"

It sounds like price is your primary consideration. If that's the case, then the '03 Camry is your best bet. That's clearly the cheaper alternative and if you don't really yearn for a brand new car, then no matter how good a deal the new car price is, it's going to be more expensive both in initial outlay and depreciation over any time period you want to use.

Look at the Edmunds "true cost to own" calculators to get a comparison.

annek · June 2005

I looked at those and it seems the used car is cheaper in long run. It's just confusing, though, because the used car is right at True Market Value and from what I can tell, the Accord is almost $900 cheaper than True Market Value (300 below invoice). Of course, i guess TMV will change soon enough as the 06s come in. Am I crazy to not get a new accord for that much under TMV? Other people I've read have seen them at $1400 below invoice but that's not the case in Missouri.

My primary considerations are cost (both short-term and long-term) and reliability.
Of course, this is not exactly comparing apples and apples since the accord tends to retail for $500 more than the camry, right?

When I do true market value on the comprable 05 camry, it's about $300 under TMV. There was no option for spoiler (which the used one has) so I coudn't factor that in, though I think there is some curbside value to that.

annek · June 2005

If someone pays below invoice for a new car, does this just affect the first year of depreciation or does it affect all the years? Edmunds' True Cost to Own calculation is based on a true market value of 500 above invoice, which no-one is paying at this time of year (or at least they shouldn't be).
Doesn't that skew the TMV values and make them reported higher than they actually are?

pat · June 2005

Have you seen this: Learn More about TMV? Also there are several archived discussions on the ways and wherefores of TMV. You can find them by using the keyword search on the left for TMV and also for the fully phrase true market value.

Otherwise, let's see what the folks here think.

lmacmil · June 2005

I suspect the Edmunds true cost to own assumes a TMW purchase price. If that is the case, then anything below TMW will reduce the first year's depreciation but subsequent years shouldn't be affected.

I hope I don't offend you if I say you are over analyzing this. Unless you plan to trade the car in 3 years (in which case you ought to just lease a brand new one), the difference will decrease the longer you keep the car.

I leased my first new car (a Toyota SE-V6) in 30 years in April. I was looking at 2 year old lease turn-ins and decided to spend the extra bucks and enjoy a brand new car. I knew it wasn't the best deal economically but sometimes you just want to treat yourself.

midnightcowboy · June 2005

Also remember:

Private Seller = NO WARRANTY

Unless you are in love with this exact car, I would look elsewhere.

cruis'n in 6th :shades: ,

MidCow

backy · June 2005

Not necessarily. The factory warranty may still apply, esp. for a car as new as a '03. Also, with many used-car dealers you don't get any other warranty than the remaining factory warranty, although some offer extended warranties at extra cost (or with the cost tacked onto the price of the car, ala "certified" used cars).

210delray · June 2005

Agree, you seem to be overanalyzing. If the 2003 is in good shape, is reasonably priced, and has side airbags (rare, as I found trying to search for them in used cars), go for it. The factory warranty is 3 years/36,000 miles bumper-to-bumper and 5/60 for the powertrain.

Accords and Camrys don't depreciate like typical domestic cars so you're not going to save all that much buying used compared to new (but you will save some).

bhmr59 · June 2005

If you buy the used car and it is due for 30K service in a few hundred miles, you should consider that cost as part of your purchase price. Service intervals of 30K, i.e., 30, 60, 90, etc, are usually extensive (and therefore significant). If you buy a new car you should have 30K miles before facing significant maintenance costs. Plus, you'll have new tires and a new battery.

Regarding depreciation: how long do you plan to keep the car? In 4 years, you'll have either a 4 year old car OR a 6 or 7 year old car. What is the 4 year old car liable to be worth vs what the 6 or 7 year old car will be worth? A lot hinges on the price difference between the new car and the used car. Depending on how many miles you drive per year, in 4 years you could still have the original tires, battery and lower overall maintenance cost. If you buy the used car you will probably have had to replace tire, brakes, battery and if you drive only 7500 miles per year, you'll have had (or will be looking at) the 60K service interval--which for most cars is the most expensive maintenance.

As someone said earlier, you should make your decision on the price difference, all other things being equal. I think he said $4,000. If that's affordable, great. If not, determine what difference is affordable and weigh it against the above considerations.

jrock65 · July 2005

C&D in their August test of the 2006 Sonata LX praised the car a lot.

They also got a 0 to 60 of 7.0s. This was equal to their number for the Accord EX-V6, and only beaten by the Altima 3.5SE manual.

brian1 · July 2005

don't forget the Altima VQ engines require premium unleaded where the Honda V-Tec is regular unleaded. The little bit of torque gained is not worth the extra .30 cents per gallon especially when the Honda is just as fast 0-60.

mazda6s · July 2005

No, the Altima VQ engine does not require premium. From the Nissan web site:
"Use regular unleaded fuel with 87 octane. For maximum power, use premium fuel."

maxamillion1 · July 2005

its recommended...

And isn't the Nissan Altima 3.5SE rated at like 6.3 seconds in automatic trim.

The 3.5SE manual gets like 5.9 seconds 0-60.

alpha01 · July 2005

Depends on the source of the testing. I prefer Car and Driver's clearly detailed methods, and actually, their Street Start is a much better measure of the kind of acceleration that you or I would get by nailing the throttle at launch (as opposed to brake torque-ing).

The Accord isnt that far behind the VQ Altima, but it doesnt run as quickly, IIRC.

~alpha

maxamillion1 · July 2005

Seeing how the new 2006 Honda Accord EXV6 6spd compares with the Altima 3.5SE.

That's going to be an interesting comparo....

carzzz · July 2005

SE + "R"

maxamillion1 · July 2005

You are right...

Funny thing is that the SER isn't any faster than the Altima 3.5SE....

Oh well...

jrock65 · July 2005

The following new features are standard on the 2006 Accord LX V6 and EX V6:

17" alloy rims
Vehicle Stability Control
Heated side mirrors
6 MT option

These features (except the 6 manual tranny option) seem to be pretty much a response to the 2006 Sonata.

backy · July 2005

Maybe, but if they really wanted to fire back at the Sonata they would have put VSC on all trim lines, like the Sonata has. I wonder if this means the HAH will get VSC also.

choe13 · July 2005

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=9741&page_number=1

anonymousposts · July 2005

is chasing. For it to be leading it would have to be more refined, more efficient, and engineered better than it currently is.

backy · July 2005

Another view is, for Camry/Accord to be leading, they would need to be safer, roomier, quicker, and have more feature content for the money.

anonymousposts · July 2005

with the exception of the interior room is debatable. With no crash tests yet for the Sonata how can you say it's safer? We know the Accord and Camry are safe. Although I will give the edge to Honda and Hyundai for offering the side curtain airbags as standard equipment.

As far as performance goes. Without a head-to-head comparison there is no way to know which is quicker. All three sedans have a similar HP output. However, based on previous experience my money is on the Honda 4 cylinder and the Honda V6. Both engines will be gaining 10 more HP for 2006 along with a 6-speed manual option for the V6 sedan.

Interior volume is an advantage for the Sonata. However, a Ford 500 is a larger car than the Sonata. Does that mean it's a better car? Heck, a Sonata is larger than a BMW 3-series but that doesn't mean that the BMW 3-series is chasing the Sonata.

anonymousposts · July 2005

It doesn't matter what features a car has for what price. If it doesn't have what I want then I don't care how cheap it is. In this case, the Sonata doesn't have what I want. It has no manual transmission model available that has the options I want in my car. That, for me, makes my Accord a better deal.

backy · July 2005

I can say the Sonata is safer before there are any crash tests as easily as you can say that Sonata trails in fuel efficiency before there is any body of real-world experience to determine that.

I am basing safety on the availability of ABS, traction control, VSC, side airbags and curtain airbags, and active head restraints on all Sonata models. Of those features, Accord has only ABS and side bags and curtain airbags standard on all models. Camry has only ABS standard on all models. If Sonata does poorly on the crash tests, I'll retract my statement.

As far as performance, C/D has tested all the mid-sized sedans using the same methodology. They found that the Sonata ties the Accord V6 in 0-60 and beats the Camry V6. The only car in this class that tested faster is the V6 Altima with a manual shifter. And since we are talking present tense here... I can't buy the '06 Accord or Camry yet.

Does a larger interior make the Sonata a better car? All things being equal, I'd rather have more space in my car than less space, especially if there is no penalty in the car's length. Wouldn't you?

Obviously the Sonata is not the car for you because you need a stick shift and a moonroof. That doesn't mean it isn't a desirable car for others.

anonymousposts · July 2005

I would rather be wrong about MPG than about safety. We KNOW that the Accord gets great gas mileage and has great crash test scores.

Performance can vary depending on temperature. If they tested one car in the summer and one car in the winter there would be different results. Either way, with 240HP the Accord is comparable to the Sonata. Again, the 2006 Accord will have 240HP and the 4 cylinder will also get a bump to 170HP. So it's safe to say that with 10 more HP the Accord will probably have a slight advantage even if they are equal now. And to say that we must talk present-tense is very near-sighted. The 2006 Accord will be out within a few months. Just as you thought Dan Healy should have acknowledged that all Hyundai's will have XM in the near future I think it's only fair to point out what the Accord will have in the near future.

The Accord has more than enough room for what we use it for. If I needed more room I would look for a car with more room. Since the Accord has enough for me it's a non-issue.

I never said it wasn't desirable to some. My point is that some are saying that the Accord and Camry are now chasing the Sonata. If all you look at is price then that may be true. All things considered though the Accord and Camry are competitive in all categories and they are a known entity. Let's wait until we have crash tests, reliability data, and resale info before we say the Accord and Camry are now on the chase.

bhmr59 · July 2005

Manual tranny a/k/a standard tranny is not a feature most drivers want. Most cars either come with automatic & offer a downgrade to standard or they charge extra for automatic. Funny how you switched from "more refined, more efficient and better engineered" to your transmission preference.

Pick any one single attribute for a mid-sized car and you can skew the results.

I think backy was talking the total package, everything that comes with the Sonata vs other models. Where does one get the most bang for the buck?

Sonata seems to be leading the way. Mine is a 3 month old '05, a different car. So far, 2900 miles, it's been fantastic. Compared to other '05's, quality, features & bang for the buck, there was no comparison. Sure a Toyo or Honda could have gotten me about the same features as the '05 GLS SV...for several thousand more dollars.

ctalk · July 2005

Manual tranny isn't as unpopular as you think, quite a number of people would like to buy the 6 speed manual Accord because one it's more fun to drive and two it's comparable to the Nissan Altima manual.

You bought the 05 Sonata? No offence but it is nothing compared to the Accord. Quality, Features, Safety, Ride, Engine the Accord leads the way. But the 06 Sonata I admit is comparable to the Accord but i feel the Accord has a better engine, interior and craftmanship. Hyundai did make a huge improvement but i think there is still some room for improvement if it's going to be considered better then the Accord or Camry.

choe13 · July 2005

I will tell guys like Anonymonposts i have driven all three cars and though i'm not like some godsend expert, i will firmly say Sonata is the Leader.

You talk about safety?? 2005 Elantra got prob the best safety scores out of any compact size cars, and sonata heavily borrowed what was great in the elantra for safety into their "saviour" car. Plus just to make sure they went beyond to add side airbags, stability, traction control standard. If you don't call that safety measures than i don't know what to say.

Reliabitly?? i don't know if u know about JD power quality who are one of the worlds most renowed quality measuring for auto car companies out there, Hyundai was ranked top three in its category for 05 , something accord and camy even by their own owners will not admit.

You add into the size of the car, quietness, exterior design, suspension, and price advantage over accord and camry, with on par engine(maybe no tech wise, but how quiet it is, smoothness, operation) how else can accord nor the camry be leading ?

I'm not here to put down these fine cars, but i think honestly Hyundai went over and beyond to make 06 sonata. Anynomysposts drive one , you won't believe it yourself

LAstly the mid cycle Accord is going to be sad. Only the back design and a few design changes, but almost zero changes to suspension or other important areas of the cars will happen.

If i was hyundai i would worry about 07 camry, which should be better, though i still would guess it would lack "sporty" appeal, though everywhere else improves.

2006 Hyundai Sonata is leading but may have a hard time leading "honda" "toyota" reputations, anyone rational will get it

ps. read it again, the cons are not even what you call real cons.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=9741&page_number=1

jimr21713 · July 2005

I drove the 2006 Sonata 4 cylinder GLS with auto transmission while looking for a replacement for my 05 Camry LE that my daughter had wrecked after we had it for 5 months. I had seen the good reviews from the auto magazines and I liked the look of the new Sonata. I was also impressed by all the options that come standard on the Sonata GLS. I was however not as impressed with the test drive. The car did not ride as solid as the 05 camry, its something I describe as "boaty", it seemed somehow top heavy or slightly off balance. The 4 cylinder in the Sonata had as much pickup and power as the Camry but was much noiser giving the impression that it was straining. I think these attributes are what the car mag reviews mean when they say "unrefined". I'm sticking with the Camry

anonymousposts · July 2005

In what test did the Elantra come out on top for safety? I checked IIHS and the Civic was a Best Pick. The Elantra got a good overall rating but was rated only acceptable in two categories while the Civic was rated good in all categories. The Civic was not tested for side impact but the Corolla was better than the Elantra is front and side impact tests. Again, please show me a link where the Elantra was picked as the best small sedan for crash tests.

The mid-cycle Accord refresh is improving what is already one of the best sedans in the class. How is adding more HP, more safety features, more options, and a new transmission choice as well as improving the styling sad? They are adding a 6-speed manual V6 sedan as well.

I have seen you go from forum to forum with that same link trying to get a rise out of someone. It's not going to happen. People who want Accords and Camrys will buy Accords and Camrys and barely give the Sonata a sideways glance. That may change if the Sonata proves to be reliable and the crash tests are impressive. But for now the Sonata is the underdog and the Accord and Camry are the all-stars.

Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles