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
As far as manual transmissions, sure a lot of cars can come equipped with a manual, but how many do you actually see on a dealer's lot? I was looking for a Corolla with a 5spd and couldn't find anything in the dealer's 5 state region, and all I wanted was cruise control with the 5spd. I'm guessing that folks looking for 5spd in mid-sized sedans will have to go with a bare-bones version, unless they plan on ordering one.
How can a 'reliability report' on a one year old car stack up against the proven track record of a CamCord?
Get back to us when the F/M/Z has 100,000+ miles on it and lets review the 'reliablity report' again.
I'm on 40,000 with my Ford Freestyle with zero problems, my previous car was a '99 Mercury Cougar whose only problem before 100,000 miles was an alternator replacement, and my car before that was a '91 Ford Escort that had zero problems before 100,000 miles. All three of these cars were in their first model year, or for the Escort and Cougar, the first model year of a major redesign.
Sometimes people get too hung up on reliability. Yes in general Honda/Toyota are more reliable than Ford/GM, but in any ranking, someone has to be higher than another, even if the differnces between them aren't that great. I'd be more interested to know the actual differences in repair costs and time in the shop between a 5 yr old Accord and Taurus for example. Yes I know that the reliability is better for the Accord, but if "better" only means one less trip to the shop in 5 years and a repair cost difference of $200, that "difference" isn't all the much, even if in the rankings the Accord is still higher.
Instead of looking at reliability statistics/rankings, I've looked at the costs of extended warranties. You'd think that extended warranties for Honda/Toyota would be a lot cheaper than for Ford/GM, but from what I've seen they're not. So if a company is going to charge $1000 for a 7yr 100,000 warranty on an Accord and for the exact same coverage charge $2000 for a Taurus, then I'd say that the warranty company figures that the Taurus will cost them a lot more since they're supposed to be so unreliable as compared to the Accord. But in fact, both warranties will cost about the same, which makes me think that the warranty company at least has calculated that the repair costs will be the same for the Accord and Taurus, which in turn makes me think that the reliability must not be that much different.
Most financial advisors tell you that new cars are not smart purchases, rather good used cars are the best bet. The President of our local bank, whose advanced degrees include finance and a MBA, has never bought a new car in his life!
Getting back to the Taurus, lately in this area off-lease 2006 Taurus' can be bought for less than $10K, some as low as $8,500 with only 9,000 miles on the clock. I will wager that whoever buys these will have reasonably trouble-free miles for 100K miles. When you look at total cost of investment and operation, this would be hard to beat by any other vehicle.
On the other hand, why anyone would want to purchase a used CamCord is beyond me due to their low depreciation rate - in this case, you're much better of buying a new one, but at a great price.
Your analysis contends the cars are the same except for the repair costs. Nothing could be further than the truth. My Taurus was a disappointment, whereas BOTH Accords (and the Camry my wife owned) were excellent.
Why not just buy the better car from the start? Then you have years of satisfaction instead of years of remorse.
This is such a ridiculous paragraph that it's hardly worth wasting bandwidth to reply to it. I never tried to impose any decision on anyone here. What I have often said is that all the vehicles are good choices for one reason or another.
.. The Sonata is a screaming bargain and is likely to prove itself as one of the best over the next 5 years.
.. The Fu-lans are Ford's best offerings in a decade and are likely very very good. But Ford Corporate made significant errors in the rollout of these vehicles which could make the vehicle look bad in comparison to the others in this segment.
.. The new Aura and Malibu are beautiful in initial impressions.
.. It is not wrong morally, ethically or financially to buy a Camry, Accord or Altima! It's only a personal choice nothing more.
.. The amount you want to spend on a vehicle is your own business no one else's. My own preference is for 2-4 y.o. pre-owned midsized cars, the Prius notwithstanding.
That's it.
Your analysis contends the cars are the same except for the repair costs. Nothing could be further than the truth. My Taurus was a disappointment, whereas BOTH Accords (and the Camry my wife owned) were excellent.
I guess you missed the point of my post. My point had to do with the differences in reliability and long-term cost of, in my example, a 5 yr old Taurus and 5 yr old Accord. In your personal example you had bad luck with Ford, but in my example I had good luck. That's why I looked at extended warranty costs as another way to compare reliability. I don't have time to individually poll thousands of people for opinions like yours and mine.
If you want to look at another example, the costs of an extended warranty for a new Fusion and Accord are about the same, so that's just another way of gauging possible differences in future repair costs.
By the way, my parents drive a 5yr old Taurus and they haven't had any problems with it. One of the main reasons they like it is because of the front row bench seat...yes old fashioned, but you can seat 6 in a Taurus in a pinch, plus it makes it feel very roomy in front without the huge center consoles found in just about every car out there.
http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2569/act/usedc- - - - - - - - arreviewreliability/
2003-06 Honda Accord: Reliability (you can read the details online, but here is the list of areas)
Trouble Spots
Airbags:
Check-engine light:
Electrical problem:
Engine mounts:
Sunroof/moonroof:
Timing belt:
Wipers:
Item Name Repair Cost
A/C Compressor $685
Alternator $450
Automatic Transmission or Transaxle $4,205
Brakes $420
Clutch, Pressure Plate, Bearing $680
Constant Velocity Joints $1,350
Exhaust System $740
Radiator $600
Shocks and/or Struts $2,495
Timing Chain or Belt $195
TOTAL: $11,820
http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2374/act/usedc- - - - - - - - arreviewreliability/
2000-06 Ford Taurus: Reliability
Trouble Spots
Audio system:
Fuel odors:
Heater core:
Vehicle shake:
Item Name Repair Cost
A/C Compressor $405
Alternator $535
Automatic Transmission or Transaxle $1,120
Brakes $240
Constant Velocity Joints $990
Exhaust System $300
Radiator $405
Shocks and/or Struts $1,100
Timing Chain or Belt $180
TOTAL: $5,275
Based on this information, it looks like a Taurus not only has less problems, but the cost of repairs is about 1/2 to the Accord. Even accounting for a huge error rate, it's hard to say how this information could show that a Accord is more reliable than a Taurus, or that the repair costs are less. And the recall history is about the same if you compare from 2003-2006 for both vehicles. In fact, if I used Car X and Car Y instead of putting Accord and Taurus, I'm sure everyone would have said that car Y was the better pick. Perception can really affect reality.
The '82 GM X-car derivatives (Century, 6000, Celebrity, Cutlass Ciera) were pretty troublesome in their early years, but by the time that style Century was finally put to pasture in 1996, it was one of the most trouble-free midsizers around. 15 years of 'lessons learned' can have that effect, you know?
~alpha
No use wasting bandwidth on this quote, its been deliberately posted by Scape portending that it comes from a Honda/Toy/Niss fan, to get replies like yours. I haven't seen any poster except Scape say this kind of nonsense. Its all in his mind.
Few examples:
When the media is negative to Ford - It is biased
When the media is positive to Ford - It has begun to see the light
When Ford closes plants in the US, laying off thousands of workers - its good for the country
When Hon/Hyu/Toy make new plants here, giving jobs to thousands of Americans, its bad for the country (because the profits go to Japan - according to him)
When Ford assembles cars outside the US and sells them here, its capitalism and good business sense.
When some other automaker (Non-American) does the same, it a 'Foreign' automaker
When Scape spends 20k for a Fusion, its money well spent
When someone else spends 22k for a Hon/Toy, its a waste of money (its not a waste of money if Scape could as well have bought a Sonata for 2k less)
One thing from all of Scape's posts:
EVERYONE SHOULD BUY A FUSION/MILAM/MKZ, else you are wasting your money (if you paid more) or not getting a good enough car (if you paid less money)
All new vehicles after 2000 are essentially rolling electronic devices. All are much more complicated than their ancestors in the last century. The cost of components is higher.
Simple example: Electronic Throttle Control with intelligence and Electronically Controlled Transmissions with intelligence. Neither existed in the 80's or early 90's. While making an adjustment to these can be as easy as doing a software flash.. replacing them is similar to relacing your laptop or PDA. Current vehicles have as many as 15-20 of these throughout. They replaced mechanical operations with electronic ones which make the vehicle lighter and in some ways simpler but the replacements ( with labor ) can be wallet destroyers.
I recently was given a quote, including TTL, for a 2007 Accord SE I4 automatic for $21,700. I think it's a good deal on a great car, but comparing an 2007 Sonata GLS with equivalent options, it's not only $2K less than the Accord, but $5K less at our local Hyundai dealer ($16,811 including TTL to be exact), and that's including Sonata's VSC which the Accord doesn't offer with the I4. Although I'm a fan of Honda, and have owned a number of Hondas, a $5K differential certainly does tend to get my attention.
Of course it should! It got mine too when I was car shopping. The way I looked at it (and my dad did too when guiding me) is that a buyer can spend $18k and be unhappy with their car, or $21k and be quite happy and completely satisfied. If I had been completely satisfied with the Sonata, I'd have one in the garage. The Honda is what rang my bell and made me happy, so I'm driving an Accord, for yes, more money than the Sonata. Spending $18k on something I didn't want would be the waste of money, in my eyes.
That being said, I'm not trying to say nobody wants a Sonata, because that just can't be true. They are handsome cars with great warranties, and engines that are competitive if not class leading. I'm not knocking your choice or saying any other buyers have wasted their money if they are happy with what they bought and paid what the market supports for their vehicle (Don't pay above invoice for a Hyundai, or above invoice for a Honda). If you got what you wanted, you haven't been wasteful. If you got what you wanted for less than I paid for what I wanted (because we wanted different things) then more power to you!
It's not wasteful, though.
Sorry if I was not clear, the 2k difference was between a Fusion and Sonata, not an Accord and Sonata, and a hypothetical one in any case
My dad's 2003 Accord (that got smashed, so he got a 2005, now has a Civic) was built in Japan, and had more rattles than any of our other cars, but that could be chalked up to it being a first year for the new design. It also had the radio display go out on him.
I don't think there is a lot of difference between the quality, personally, but there are a lot of die-hard fans who would say go with the Japanese made car.
Or if your a cash buyer becuase you don't want to finance, 3-5k would mean selling another stock.
As far as manual transmissions, sure a lot of cars can come equipped with a manual, but how many do you actually see on a dealer's lot? I was looking for a Corolla with a 5spd and couldn't find anything in the dealer's 5 state region, and all I wanted was cruise control with the 5spd. I'm guessing that folks looking for 5spd in mid-sized sedans will have to go with a bare-bones version, unless they plan on ordering one.
So far I have been able to find what I wanted with a manual. Its interesting you mention Toyota in your example, I think this is especially true with them and one of the reasons they aren't real high on my list. Also, if you do go with the Corolla (especially the base model) I HIGHLY recommend upgrading the suspension to include a front and rear sway bar like every other car in its class.
All new vehicles after 2000 are essentially rolling electronic devices. All are much more complicated than their ancestors in the last century. The cost of components is higher.
Okay, then here are the figures for mid-90's Accord/Taurus. There still seems to be quite a few problems for the Accord, and the overall repair costs are still $1000 greater, but my point isn't the a Taurus is BETTER, more reliable, or cheaper to own then an Accord, but only that claims that the Accord (either today or in the mid-90s) is light-years ahead in reliability as compared to a lowly Taurus aren't necessarily true.
So today when looking at the Fusion vs Accord and people start saying how much greater the quality and reliability are for the Accord and how it will be a big mistake to buy a Fusion because of the cost of future repairs, those same people would have said the same thing 5-10 years ago when comparing the Taurus to the Accord and might have been just as wrong then as they are today.
If someone wants to show me reliability stats to the contrary that would be great. And not red/black circles or JD Powers reports, but actual stats on the frequency and cost of repairs for a given model over a given number of years.
http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2048/act/usedc- - arreviewreliability/
1994-97 Honda Accord: Reliability
Trouble Spots
Audio system:
Automatic transmission:
Brakes:
Dashboard lights:
Engine noise:
Fuel gauge: Manual transmission:
Oil leak:
Vehicle noise:
Vehicle noise:
Item Name Repair Cost
A/C Compressor $530
Alternator $380
Automatic Transmission or Transaxle $1,055
Brakes $250
Clutch, Pressure Plate, Bearing $550
Constant Velocity Joints $670
Exhaust System $540
Radiator $485
Shocks and/or Struts $545
Timing Chain or Belt $350
TOTAL $5,335
1990-95 Ford Taurus: Reliability
http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2043/act/usedc- - arreviewreliability/
Trouble Spots
Blower motor:
Hard starting:
Oil leak:
Suspension problems:
Tire wear:
Tire wear:
Vehicle noise:
Item Name Repair Cost
A/C Compressor $455
Alternator $440
Automatic Transmission or Transaxle $930
Brakes $230
Constant Velocity Joints $505
Exhaust System $365
Radiator $525
Shocks and/or Struts $495
Timing Chain or Belt $210
TOTAL $4,155
My experiences tell me the Taurus was an aweful car and that my Accord was fantastic. End of study. Dismissed.
My point was that its easier for designs that haven't changed in years to experience lower rates of reliability related issues, since nothing has changed and earlier design/production issue have been rectified.
Try holding SOME variable contstant. For example, since the 94 to 97 Accord was redesigned FOR the '94 MY, and ran for 4 MY, why not compare it to the '96 Taurus (point of redesign) and extend it 4 MY?
Also, I think it ironic that you're calling the information you've provided "statistics". How is simply citing a "Reliability Trouble Spot" a statistic? Can you speak to how these areas were determined to be a "Reliability Trouble Spot", because most of us may not know. And repair costs aren't statistics, they're data points.
~alpha
I had my Accord 4 years. Lets see - my repair costs were.......$0.00
I had a Taurus 2 years. Wore me out. I traded it cause I didn't want to fix the slipping transmission nor the coolant leak that couldn't be found (always smelled coolant around that thing) and took a major bath in doing it.
Never another Ford.
I realize my posts are pretty long, so I'll just NO, I'm not saying that the Taurus is more reliable. I'm just saying that I haven't seen any stats to show that the Accord is more reliable by the way I define it: lower number of repairs and lower overall repair cost. What I'm using as "evidence" to show that the future repair costs between an Accord and Taurus (just as an example, you can replace Taurus with Fusion if you want) may be closer than people think are:
1) the fact that the extended warranty costs are the same and my reasoning is that it should cost LESS for an extended warranty for cars that are more reliable, while in fact, cars that are popularly known as being more "reliable" (Accord) for example, doesn't have extended warranties any cheaper than any other car.
2) While the web link I posted isn't a scientific study, on a general level it shows historical repair problem areas and repair costs and I'm more interested in buying a car with the least problems areas and lower repair cost than I am buying a car with the most red circles in CR.
What does it really mean for car outranking another car in CR or JD Powers? Does this tell you how much more it will cost in repair or how many more trips to the repair show you'll have on average for a given number of years??
Anyway, I was just trying to think outside of the box of "reliability/quality" because all that's in the box is CR, JD Power, and personal car history stories and for me, none of those 3 are sufficient.
suppose that's one way to look at it - the other, of course would be that depending on how much you actually use the car and how long you keep it, you will recover a good portion of that money, when you trade it in on your next car. A 2003 Accord will be worth approx. 4 grand more at trade in than the Sonata, using 2000 models the difference shrinks to $2300.00. Figures from kbb.com, trade-in values - the bottom line how much is that Accord really costing you - maybe a couple of grand spread over 7 years? Works out to $25 a month (or $50 if you want to include the time value of the money (either in your savings account or on a loan). As I said, it would certainly be worth it to me to be happy driving the Honda than the Sonata.
And the Sonata seems to be a damn fine little car, make the alternate a Fusion, G6, Malibu or something like that, and the amount I would be willing to pay to avoid them would double!
Also, if you look on ebay there are far more one year old American cars and truck for sale than comporable foreign models, does anyone know why this is?
Show me where I mentioned the hood not closing all the way please, I'd love to see it. If you can find it, I'll eat my hat.
Just because I don't like the DESIGN of an interior, doesn't mean I think it's cheap. You said it, not me. Also, how does me referring to an interior design suddenly make me a buyer of "image?" My point was this: I could have gotten a Fusion with similar features to my Accord for less money. I'm not disputing that. It isn't the features that make the car; the Fusion would be a car that was unsatistying to me because I feel the interior design looks dated, and is not ergonomically well-designed. Would it have been smarter for me to save $2,000 to buy a car I don't like? Is that what you want me to say?
If it is, then you should have bought a Sonata - same basic features as your car for less money. Why did you buy a Ford over the Hyundai, could it be IMAGE? Maybe not. Maybe you liked the design of your car better, or the way it handled, or the engine, or something else about the car made the Fusion worth more to you than a "comparable" Sonata. Which is it?
Don't put words in my mouth, scape. It isn't polite, and it takes away your credibility.
Yeah it can, the Taurus was practically unchanged for 10 years, it better well have all the bugs worked out ten years later.
*Sarcasm noted
Although I'm confident that your neighbor's Taurus has needed a significant number of repairs over 14 years and 145k (this would be true of most all cars because it's not just the mileage but also the age). We all have good and bad stories about cars - like my 92 Nissan Maxima that had 280k on it until the tranny crapped out (my fault for not keeping it routinely serviced) and never went back to a dealer for any reason. Does that in itself make the Maxima a good car, or that Taurus you're talking about a good car - NOT NECESSARILY.
Actually, I wouldn't know. I've never been left stranded by my 169k mile 11 y.o. Accord except when I was run off the road and ate guardrail (doing $3,100 damage to the car and bending the frame), and even then, I drove the car to the body shop. I waited on the police though, so that was the only real time I've sat on the shoulder of the road.
In the market for a plain, unexciting car? Try the new ten year old Taurus!
Because the rental fleets are mostly American makes and that is a big source of one year old cars.
Example, brand A has an initial quality of 125 problems per 100 vehicles and brand B has an initial quality of 118 problems per 100 vehicles. There's no real difference in quality between brands A & B, its so small that if it were a bug you couldn't see it with your "naked eye".
Don't forget, I was just using the Taurus vs Accord as an example. But since no one has yet posted any URLs with any other studies, I guess we're still sticking to stories.
Of course I'd never buy a 4dr sedan anyway. I'd rather buy a station wagon/CUV or whatever they're calling them today because they're so much more versatile than a sedan with a 14CuFt trunk. The Taurus wagon...mmmmm....now there's a sexy car!
Actually I drive a Ford Freestyle and Honda Fit, so I can officially bash both companies :P