I agree with your sentiment about cheap cars and hard plastics but Karl here at Edmunds (and others) trash the Cobalt because it supposedly has too many hard plastics inside. Keep in mind the much praised 3 has tons of hard plastic inside and yet no one seems to notice. The Cobalt is just as good as the Corolla in every category except mileage but the press has deemed it mediocre at best while the dated Corolla is still mentioned as a class leader.
Who is to say how much the plastics cost in one car vs another? The press has conditioned us to believe that anything hard is cheap and anything soft is not but I dont know that to be the case. I think durability of materials is a key factor in how they feel and look. Personally, I dont get much joy out of caressing a dashboard and while I dont want my car to appear overly cheap or to have flashing exposed I am not going to spend thousands extra on a car SOLEY because it has a softer dash.
If we assume the Accord does have softer plastics than the Aura I want to know if that softer plastic makes up for the features the Accord lacks and its higher sticker price. I dont think it does at all. Personally, I want my car to have a manumatic, trip computer, MP3 jack, split folding rear seat, remote start, 18" rims, etc. and I'm not going to give up those things to get softer plastic. The Accord costs a lot more than the Fusion, Aura, Sonata, etc. so I assume some of that extra money is going into the top notch plastics. It would be nice if they found a way to get rid of that passenger airbag panel since they are pumping so much money into the interior.
I think most of the press agrees that the majority of Japanese cars are dull. I would also state that most casual observers and the press feel that recent domestic designs are better than what is coming out of Japan. I find NIssan's cars to be odd and their trucks to be downright unattractive. Most reviews I have read seem to have little positive to say about Nissan's styling.
One test and how many years in running for C&D's top 10 cars of the year? In Edemunds it first lost to the BRAND NEW Sonata then second lost to the BRAND NEW Camry. If I am not mistaken Accord finished 2nd for both comparo. Taking a 4-or-5-year-old-model size it up with 2 brand new models and it still finished second, that to me speaks for itself. By the way, where did Fusion and Malibu end up with? Oh yeah that's right, Fusion finished last (4th) in Edmunds' latest V6 family sedan comparison.
In 2003 while the Accord was is relatively new it finished 1st among 10 family sedans. Where did Malibu end up on this one? Let me check...7th. I know again I am digging "ancient history" but while we see the new comparo that features the new Malibu, Auro, Camry and Accord altogether this is the only evidence that I can based on.
You kept trying to make others sound like "import-biased" but you have failed to see that you yourself is just as well "domestic-biased" on the other end. Just remember, when you pointing your finger at someone, 3 are pointing at you.
You have to kidding about the class leading interior. I cant think of one car in this class than has a worse interior than the Accord
Oh I can, let me giving you several...
Fusion, Malibu, Sonata, Altima, Camry, and the list goes on...
Yes, the Accord is old, however didn't you think a 5-year-old model that can finish ahead of its BRAND NEW competitors in ANY comparo speaks a lot for itself?
I picked up a brochure at the auto show on the Hybrid. It is coming out in the spring so I think it will be an '07 model. Priced under $23,000.
Compare this to the Camry at $26,000 with 187 hp(158 on engine w/o electric boost). MPG is listed at 40/38.
164 hp, 2.4L VVT and electronic throttle control 100,000/ 8 year Hybrid component warranty (5 years on non hybrid powertrain) All safety items standard including Stabilitrak and traction control
MPG is 28/35 which I think is using the '07 standards but it could be '08.
It looks like they are comparably equipped in the major options. So, the question is, is a possible city improvement of 12 and highway of 3 worth the $3000 delta.
I am waiting to see what the new '08 epa MPG numbers will show. I think the full hybrids will see a much larger drop than the mild hybrids (saturns) and the normal gas engined vehicles.
I don't remember Corolla being mentioned as a class leader in any article. If you find one, please pass along. On the other hand, it is the sales leader in its class though.
Styling is purely subjective, it is pointless to argue that one looks better than another.
Many would say the new Camry looks dull and the Bangle Butt is ugly. Me on the other hand think the new Camry is very elegant (especially the SE version with the sideskirt). As matter of fact the Bangle Butt in general has grown on me, as long as the affect is not as dramatic as the 7-series I actually think it's a good way to make the rear end of a car stand out.
xrunner2: Have heard entertainers, media persons, pundits, some politicians (Dems) on major tv networks over the years state that Gore won in 2000. Kind of remember that Bill Clinton went overseas somewhere in last 6 years and said that Gore won.
As has been noted, he won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College vote, which, under the United States Constitution, is the vote that decides the winner. The same thing happened, incidentally, in the election of 1876. Perhaps those pundits, politicians and entertainers skipped American History?
If those politicians, pundits and entertainers aren't familiar with this section of the United States Constitution, they have as much credibility as those who claim that they talk to the dead when they try to suggest that Gore "really" won the 2000 election.
xrunner2: According to recent WSJ, Gore has not been willing to meet with some folks that want to question some of his movie's claims about global warming. But, nonetheless, it would be good for this country for him to run and have national debate about warming, oil use, alternative fuels, upping CAFE mpgs, etc. This would put a spotlight on the auto manufacturers as well as others. Would this cause GM to alter/modify strategy, actions, business models, etc?
No. What will cause GM to alter its business strategies is a shift in consumer demand, and what causes that to occur is higher gasoline prices.
Many of those who wail about GM and other companies selling SUVs will then spin tales of oil company conspiracies when gasoline prices rise, and suggest that government "do something" to prevent this, as though $1-a-gallon for unleaded is some sort of Constitutional right.
And, of course, there will always be some people who don't worry about gasoline prices, and will continue to buy that Tahoe, Corvette or V-8 powered Impala, despite rising fuel costs.
But higher gasoline prices will spur interest in higher quality small cars (something along the lines of the new Civic, or the European Opel/Vauxhall Astra and Ford Focus) and even minicars (Honda Fit, Opel/Vauxhall Corsa, Ford Fiesta and Ka).
GM's problem isn't that it makes Tahoes and Suburbans. Its problem is that Honda is already here with cars in the above-mentioned cagetories, and it is not yet in the game. (Same for Ford, too.)
And, of course, there will always be some people who don't worry about gasoline prices, and will continue to buy that Tahoe, Corvette or V-8 powered Impala, despite rising fuel costs. and Tundras and Highlanders....
Point granted, but Toyota never let its car sales slide as GM did. Toyota sells more cars than trucks and will continue to do so even if the new Tundra is a smash hit.
Of course, Ford and DCX hitched their wagons even more so than GM to trucks (SUVs, pickups, and minivans) than cars, which partly explains why those companies are having more difficulty right now than GM.
I was talking about what is available now. I know full well that GMs upcoming hybrid system will be just as efficient and likely cheaper than Toyotas system. By 2008 GM will have almost as man hybrid models on sale as Toyota and their two mode system will provide a nice boost in hwy mileage which the Toyota system does not.
You may be correct, but I also know that the Cubs will win the world series next year. Let's just see how it actually plays out. You could be right!
Here's a newsflash for you. C&D LOVES the Accord and never criticizes it regardless of the competition. In that recent test there is no reason the Accord shouldnt have finished behind the Altima and possibly the Aura. If you are going to look to C&D you will always be able to find justification for your "Accord is best in class" argument. The Accord never loses in C&D and that is nothing new. How about some other publications? while most people acknowledge the Accord is a good car, only C&D worships the car and ignores the qualities of its competitors. Even though the editors found a way to put the Accord in 1st place with their subjective ratings, the test numbers and the Accords' dated styling speak for themselves. Little in that test justified the Accords first place finish in that test. Of course that's often the case in C&D tests in which Hondas and BMWs ususally win. Check out a R&T test to see how an objective test is really done.
"Oh I can, let me giving you several...
Fusion, Malibu, Sonata, Altima, Camry, and the list goes on... "
OK, its obvious you an Accord fan and cant be objective. The new Camry's interior is no worse than the Accord, same goes for Altima.
"You kept trying to make others sound like "import-biased" but you have failed to see that you yourself is just as well "domestic-biased" on the other end. Just remember, when you pointing your finger at someone, 3 are pointing at you. "
Wrong. I dont think Japanese automakers are incompetent and I dont think people who buy them are less intelligent than those who don't. I like far more imports than you like domestics. I like the TL, 3 series, A4, '07 Altima, Camry SE, A8, '07 G35, etc. I have nothing against those cars in general and I assure you anything I say about imports can be justified. Sure I am no Toyota fan but I'm not going to make up stuff about their products in order to make myself feel better. Toyota makes tons of plain, relaible vehicles and a few of them get great fuel economy. In terms of styling, handling and value they arent really on my radar though.
"Yes, the Accord is old, however didn't you think a 5-year-old model that can finish ahead of its BRAND NEW competitors in ANY comparo speaks a lot for itself? "
If it wasnt in C&D I might be impressed. These are the people who think the Accord is one of the 10 Best cars in america when its not even setting the pace in its own segment anymore. Aside from C&D's opinion I cant think of any proof that the Accord is superior to the new Camry and Altima.
Its not a matter of "if" its a matter of win. I am talking about confirmed hybrid products, not speculation. I love how every time GM makes an announcement there's all this "wait and see" stuff but no one has a problem talking about an alleged 90mpg Pruis that is supposedly being developed but hasnt been confirmed by Toyota. Just like we have people on this site and others talking up the 2008 Accord and Pilot when we know nothing about these vehicles.
GM WILL launch the Malibu Hybrid (fall), '08 Vue Greenline (summer), Aura Greenline (spring) and Yukon/Tahoe hybrid (fall) THIS YEAR. The Vue two mode hybrid will launch next year as will the Escalade hybrid. All of this has been confirmed, in fact GMC has info on their page about the Yukon hybrid already. GM has explained how the two mode system works and it will provide similar boosts in hwy and city economy.
its not news that styling is objective, but many times there is a near consensus on certain vehicles. I would never say "everyone" when describing an opinion on a vehicle, but I would say most. I would say MOST people (journalists and otherwise) do not find Toyota/Honda styling to be exciting. when you read a review of their products styling is rarely mentioned as positive. It almost like they are saying the dull styling is worth tolerating because of the resale value and reliability. MOST people would agree that Ferraris are attractive. MOST people found the Aztek to be ugly. Again, I think we need to be honest enough to acknowledge theat exterior design isnt (and never has been) considered a strength of the Japanese. The quotes that I have read from some employees (most recently a Honda guy talking about Accord concept) seem to confirm that they havent put much emotion in thier designs. They readily acknowledge this so I dont know why you cannot.
"Aside from C&D's opinion I cant think of any proof that the Accord is superior to the new Camry and Altima"
When a car wins a C&D's comparison test, I don't think the magazine really wants to convince you the car is 'superior'. It's really a matter of personal taste, and C&D's taste always tends to favor cars with the sportier handling, given that no major flows can take away that title. There is no way you can convince anyone here that the Camry is sportier than the Accord. The Altima? I haven't read the story yet, but If I know C&D well, they will always tell you the car is as great as the Accord, but there is a 'but'. That's exactly where the Accord excels. Aside from styling and design which is subjective, the Accord has no major flows and does everything the driver asks for with a great level of confidence and with no drama.
Most of Toyota growth in recent years has come from Trucks and SUVS. Did you miss this? Toyota's car lineup has held up steady but there wasnt much growth there before the Prius and Yaris. Toyota's car sales are guaranteed to remain much larger than its truck sales due to high gas prices, this wasnt necessarily Toyota's plan. If they had planned for trucks to remain a small part of their business they wouldn't have built a new plant for the Tundra and Sequoia. Toyota has added far more trucks/SUVS to its lineup than car in the last 10-15 years. Names like Tundra, Sequoia, GX470, Highlander, RX350 and FJ Cruiser didnt even exist 10 years ago.
The Big 3 paid more attention to trucks because of the profits associated with those trucks, not because they were in favor of increasing out oil dependence. This is the same reason why the Japanese and Europeans got into the SUV business big time in the last decade. Since Toyota has always been a car company and only recently learned to make competent trucks they are naturally in a better position now that cars are increasing in popularity. Again, this has little to do with Toyota not wanting to build trucks or loving the environment. If they loved the environment as much as people believe they would increase the efficiency of their crossovers, SUVs and trucks. Everytime this issue is raised people come with the excuse "toyota sells more cars than trucks". So what. You cant be a "green" company and not address efficiency across the line. The fact that the Pruis gets 50mpg only makes the 13mpg Sequoia look that much worse. At least Honda can claim they dont make any vehicles that get less than 20mpg.
"Point granted, but Toyota never let its car sales slide as GM did."
One point, GM still sells more cars than Toyota. Contrary to popular belief, GM never gave up on cars. You cant sell more than your much praised competitor and then be accused of "abandoning" cars to force gas guzzlers on an unsuspecting public.
Yeah GM WILL launch their hybrid wondercars in 2008. No doubt there. But the problem is that the wondercars are most often not so wonderful when they actually hit the market.
To save time and avoid triggering old arguments, I won't list the litany of GM products that haven't set the world on fire despite pre-introduction hype. What's the old saying? I'm from Missouri - show me - and then I'll believe that these new GM cars are wonderful.
To give you some perspective (Not to say that you're so far in the GM corner that you can only see things from one angle)- suppose I told you that Toyota was going to introduce new car that is a radical rethink of the way cars are produced and that it will be ultra low cost ($5K or $6K) and that this will be really serious threat to the U.S. manufacturers. Everything from design to production methods will be radically changed and really ultra-low-cost by design, using ultra-low-cost materials, even developing new materials if necessary.
Wouldn't you want to see that car in production and see how it sells before you started agreeing how wonderful it's GOING to be?
I think you should read the article. The Altima and Aura handled better than the Accord.
"That's exactly where the Accord excels. Aside from styling and design which is subjective, the Accord has no major flows and does everything the driver asks for with a great level of confidence and with no drama. "
You are saying the Accord excels in winning the hearts of adoring C&D writers? Sorry, but I dont know how you can ignore the facts and say "the Accord has to be great because C&D editors said so". A car that doesnt really excel at any one thing isnt a class leader to me. Again, in terms of handling and inspiring driver confidence they didnt really specify how the Accord was superior to the Altima or Aura. It really comes down to the fact that they love the car (its been on 10Best forever) and they dont really care about what the competition brings to the table. another thing about C&D is that features and amenities are a very small part of their ratings system and thus the fact that the Accord is underequipped barely affects its final score. How can you rate comparable cars and not have feature content be a major factor? This is why a BMW can be in a C&D test and have the highest sticker price combined with the fewest amenities and still come out in 1st place.
The Toyota article doesn't mention the car will be qualified for US standards and sold in the US market. I'll believe it can be built for those prices and imported meeting bumper standards, EPA, safety standards, etc.
Toyota? Accord? Are those now being produced by GM?
(I thought not. Back on track, please)
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
"Radical Toyota rethink threatens Big Three The new Hybrid Vue isn't such a great hybrid"
Lokki, Right on. Some people tend to think that the new GM hybrids, which aren't even here yet, will outperform and outshine Toyota's hybrids. It's like Toyota is turning back and taking a Kit Kat break and missing all the action. Toyota has more than 10 years of research and development in hybrids, and unlike GM, they are not going to make a buzz about the 2009 Prius and the next generation Hybrid until it is about to hit the market.
Never said these cars are going to be wonderful, just said they are going to offer great fuel economy. I saw that Toyota article on another website. Very interesting, but I am talking about cars you will be able to buy this calendar year, not ideas or concepts in the works than may be available in 5 years or whatever. Based on the article I am not quite sure how they surmised that this vehicle is yet the latest final nail in the BIg 3's coffin. It seems to me this vehicle is being aimed at emerging markets where dirt cheap new cars are in demand. I have no doubt Toyota will produce such a car if they are determined to do so but I dont see what it has to do with what we were discussing. I am sure GM has delivered promises in the past but this current management team has largely delivered what they have promised. They promised better design, better interiors, less incentives and more competitive new products and they have done that. For their own sake I hope Toyota and Honda are giving them as little credit as you are. People seem to believe Toyota is infallable but they are forgetting that arrogance was the one thing that killed the Big 3's domination. Toyota is every bit as arrogant as the Big 3 were in the 70s/80s. Toyota execs say their sales arent affected by what the competition does, only by what they do. In other words, the other cars on the market aren't even worthy of the attention of Toyota customers. Wow, that is the type of attitude that fires up your competitors, Japanese and American.
There is much information available on how the two mode system will work. Perhaps you should read it before dismissing it as "GM hype" with no substance. If it's all smoke and mirrors as you suggest than it's pretty impressive IMHO.
The GM models arent going to "outshine" the Toyota models, although I appreciate you putting words in my mouth. The point is they will be legit alternatives to Toyota hybrids and deliver similiar mileage gains. Toyota, nor GM is standing still and I think the Volt shows that GM has short term and long term plans.
Again, you and others are speaking as if non of GM's fuel saving models will be available in the near future. This is not pie in the sky stuff, four hybrids will be going on sale this year. The Volt was a CONCEPT and in case you didnt know, its not uncommon for automakers to show off technology and designs years in advance via concept models. People like you get mad at GM no matter what. Now you are complaining because they "hyped" the Volt even though it wont be available for years. I guess Honda should stop showing fuel cell concepts as well.
My post was in respoonse to lokki's post which has a link in it:
"To give you some perspective (Not to say that you're so far in the GM corner that you can only see things from one angle)- suppose I told you that Toyota was going to introduce new car that is a radical rethink of the way cars are produced and that it will be ultra low cost ($5K or $6K) and that this will be really serious threat to the U.S. manufacturers. Everything from design to production methods will be radically changed and really ultra-low-cost by design, using ultra-low-cost materials, even developing new materials if necessary."
I doubt that the alleged car could affect current GM market in US.
The Volt was a CONCEPT and in case you didnt know, its not uncommon for automakers to show off technology and designs years in advance via concept models. People like you get mad at GM no matter what""
I am sorry 1487, but who's putting word's in whose mouth? I never mentioned the Volt. In fact, I never mentioned you. I was responding to Lokki's message about some messages I read here regarding GM's upcoming hybrids which may be sent by you or someone else in previous days. But enough of that. Let's go back to GM cars.
"People like you get mad at GM no matter what"
Mad? Let's see! GM is 7 years late on Hybrids, about 7 years late on crossovers (first being 1996 RAV4). GM is not even there yet in the now-growing mini-car segments, except for the ashamed Korean Aveo. and Finally GM gave up on minivans. While Toyota has the Highlander AND Sienna AND 4Runner, GM willl compete in all these segments with one type of vehicles. The result? Declining sales and profits. If that doesn't get you mad, then you are not a true and responsible GM fan.
YOu are misinformed. GM's first crossover debuted in 2001 which was 5 years after the Rav4. As of the 2007 MY has 5 crossovers on the market if we dont count the HHR and the new lamdas. Where are you getting this information?
"While Toyota has the Highlander AND Sienna AND 4Runner, GM willl compete in all these segments with one type of vehicles. The result? Declining sales and profits. If that doesn't get you mad, then you are not a true and responsible GM fan. "
First of all GM still has the Envoy and Trailblazer on sale and they will be here for another year or two. Last time I checked they compete with the 4Runner which may not be around much longer if the new Highlander is as big as I think it will be. GM has gotten out of the minivan business because GM/Ford have never really made money on them as far as I can tell. Toyota can make a profit on any type of vehicle it makes so it can compete in every segment. It doesn't make sense for GM to make minivans that arent profitable. I dont know how you have determined that the lamda crossovers arent going to be true competition for the highlander/Sienna and thus GM will not make any profits. Care to explain that? I'm pretty sure transaction prices and profits for the lamda will be far higher than the GM minivans of old. I also wouldnt be shocked if GM gets back into minivans once their financial picture improves. Remember they got out of the sports car business in 2002 and we all know the Camaro is coming back.
BTW, you failed to mention Toyota being late to the full size car, full size pickup, full size SUV and large crossover markets. Last time I checked Toyota doesnt even have a three row crossover on the market yet. The Pilot came out 4-5 years ago and Toyota is just now responding.
That motortrend test was done before the '07 Camry, '07 Altima or Aura were on the market. I fail to see your point. At that time I could agree with the Accord's ranking, problem is things change when newer models come out.
I ignored your comment because I dont see your point. What is your point in regards to edmunds' test results? When the Accord was NEW it was best in class and thus it beat the competition. In recent tests it didn't finish in 1st place which was my point. Now you are saying 2nd place isnt too bad (BTW, one comparo only had 3 cars) which is true but I was trying to convey to you that not everyone shares C&D's opinion that the Accord is best in class no matter what it's compared to.
BTW, in those two recent Edmunds test the new Altima and Aura weren't even in existence and they are two of the cars I am talking about that might be superior to the Accord. I know that newer models are usually better than 4 year old model, that was my whole point. You are the one arguing that the 4 year old Accord is still better than the competition. On an objective bases it is not.
Based on your post it seems that Toyota's truck sales have increased far more than their car sales that 8 year period. They more or less doubled their sales in trucks while their car sales increased by 38%.
Also, its hard to understand how GM has abandoned the car market when they sold almost 1.8 million cars in 2005. As someone already stated, GM is far less dependent on truck sales than Ford or DCX.
Hi there. I'm in the market for a new car and this one has caught my eye. It's a barely used Aura XR with all the goodies including the brown moroccan leather. Now get this, some guy bought it for his girlfriend and she refused to drive a Saturn so he traded it in for a new Mercedes C class. The car only has 641 miles on it. Is this too good of a deal to pass up? Obviously it's already taken the used car depreciation hit. I'd imagine it probably sold for around 26K new. It's hard for me to consider buying a domestic car but the new Aura seems like a pretty good car. I'm also considering an '07 Maxima with only 3K for $20,000 (salvage title,my current car is an '01 Maxima with a salvage title and it's been great)I'm leaning toward the Aura.
I made that last statement a while back. There's more in those numbers than you mention. But I'm supposed to be at work. And my computer at home won't boot up. :sick:
I have to admire this marshalling of statistics, but the fact remains that while GM may be selling more cars, "hard to understand how GM has abandoned the car market when they sold almost 1.8 million cars in 2005" they aren't making any money on them. Toyota may sell less but they're making more profit. Remember the whole fleet sales thing?
As far as "how GM has abandoned the market" the answer is that for years, when they were flush with truck and SUV cash, they did nothing to improve their cars. It was only when soaring gas prices were written on the wall that they remembered that it might be nice to do some redesigns.
Regarding Toyota and trucks - Toyota and Honda already had a very nice share of the car market. They're (Toyota in particular) expanding into the truck market.
At the risk of mentioning that darned old biased Consumer Reports, they like the Accord best too
Honda and Toyota have consistently set the standard for well-rounded, reliable family sedans with the Accord and the Camry. Along with the Volkswagen Passat, they regularly trade places as our top-rated $20,000-$30,000 sedan. This year is no different; by a small margin, the Accord regains its top rating over the redesigned Camry and Passat. The Lucerne is a comfortable sedan that delivers a soft ride and good isolation from road noise. However, braking and emergency handling are lackluster, and the V6 trails competitors in refinement and performance.
Why do we have to listen to the proponents of their favorite car extolling their Camry or Accord on and on. If someone from a proGM view posts in those other topics, they are roundly criticized and told how wrong GM is.
I suggest posting about how much people like their Accord or Camry in a topic for those cars.
Everyone has their favorite cars. And they are entitled to that; therefore, I have my favorites which are GMs.
"People seem to believe Toyota is infallable but they are forgetting that arrogance was the one thing that killed the Big 3's domination. Toyota is every bit as arrogant as the Big 3 were in the 70s/80s. Toyota execs say their sales arent affected by what the competition does, only by what they do."
You think Toyota is going to make the same mistakes as the Big 3 did in the 70's and 80's? Their management is too good for that I think. I think Toyota knows the past mistakes of the Domestic Big 3 and I just don;t think in my mind Toyota would make the same mistakes. I don't see anything in the article that says Toyota is getting full of themselves.
"Mad? Let's see! GM is 7 years late on Hybrids, about 7 years late on crossovers (first being 1996 RAV4). GM is not even there yet in the now-growing mini-car segments, except for the ashamed Korean Aveo. and Finally GM gave up on minivans. While Toyota has the Highlander AND Sienna AND 4Runner, GM willl compete in all these segments with one type of vehicles. The result? Declining sales and profits. If that doesn't get you mad, then you are not a true and responsible GM fan."
I usually don't go [non-permissible content removed] for tat like this, but apparently someone has forgotten about the Chevy Equinox/Pontiac Torrent (direct competitors to the RAV4) and the Chevy Trailblazer/GMC Envoy (direct competitors to the 4Runner and highlander brands).
I'm not saying that the Rav4 and the 4Runner aren't very competitive if not superior in these markets (although the Equinox is a great package if you look at it, and the new Re-designed Envoy and trailblazer SOUND promising), but I must disagree that GM is not competing in these markets when it is clear that they do have very competent machines in these slots.
And why do some GM owners troll the Camry/Accord "problems and solutions" boards to gleefully point out those cars' foibles in this GM board? :P (Back to work...I have 50 minutes left...sayonara till tomorrow.)
>troll the Camry/Accord "problems and solutions" boards to point out those cars' foibles in this GM board? >
Reality therapy. I know it's hard, but Dr. Laura recommends it. :P You brought it up. Camry problems
Everytime I've crossshopped for roominess, power, gas mileage, strength of metal, since 1987, I've found GM choices I made to be the best overall cost wise and quality of product. The Honda and Toyota offerings in the price range were minimalization examples. This is the GM board. That's what I found in the past and I bought Centuries and then 3 leSabres. I've had good service from each.
Who knows what the product offering from GM will be when I next make a purchase. But I will compare with an open mind as I did before.
So "Go GM," from a "GM cheerleader"? Hoping for a tour of the Moraine plant to see the company at work building those trucks!
And the hosts will remind me to be on topic which is GM.
"I think most of the press agrees that the majority of Japanese cars are dull. I would also state that most casual observers and the press feel that recent domestic designs are better than what is coming out of Japan."
I'll agree Toyota designs are dull with the exception of the Scion TC(currently.) You think the Cobalt coupe is much better looking than the Honda Civic Coupe? I don;t see that.Both the Cobalt Sedan and Civic Sedan are conservative. The Pontiac G6 is not much better looking than the Mazda 6 in my opinion. The Caddy CTs is much better looking than the Acura TL? I don;t see that either. Even one magazine commented on the TL looks and said "the best looking Honda in years." I think the 01-06 Acura MDX was better looking than BMW X5 or Lexus RX 330. The 07 MDX is just ugly to me though.
"I find NIssan's cars to be odd and their trucks to be downright unattractive. Most reviews I have read seem to have little positive to say about Nissan's styling."
Nissan-The 02-06 Nissan Altima was a nice looking car but I admit not my style. One magazine did even say postive things about its styling but dissed the interior of the 02 Altima. The 350Z is nice looking. The 1st generation Xterra was a way better experimental exterior design than what came after it: see Honda Element, and Scion XB exteriors.
"Personally, I dont get much joy out of caressing a dashboard and while I dont want my car to appear overly cheap or to have flashing exposed I am not going to spend thousands extra on a car SOLEY because it has a softer dash."
Your point is well taken in that post that the interior has to look pleasent but the quality of interior plastics used is not a big make or break for you when buying a car.
"The Accord costs a lot more than the Fusion, Aura, Sonata, etc. so I assume some of that extra money is going into the top notch plastics."
The Sonata's interior isn't even acceptable to me and I wouldn;t even buy that car because the interior looks unpleasent looking. All that wood grain that borders the radio buttons on that car it looks tasteless. The Fusions interior is pleasent aside from the cheap looking gauges but I can't be that picky since competing cars have their defeicenes too. As I said before I like the Aura's interior as I noted before. I even said I don't see a big difference in the feel of the plastics between the Accord and Aura. I did feel the plastics of both interiors in the Accord and Aura.
"This is why a BMW can be in a C&D test and have the highest sticker price combined with the fewest amenities and still come out in 1st place. "
I think Road & Track rates value in terms of content and ameenties. I saw one magazine a few years ago they rated the Acura CL Type S over a BMW 3 Series and BMW fans were furious(from letters I read in the next issue of that magazine)over that the Acura beat the BMW because of value pointing towards the Acura.
I think the reason the Accord wins all the time is because in my opinion from the reviews that I have seen over the years its the best car towards combining both a sport and comfortale ride. I recall the Mazda 6 tieing the Accord in a comparo in a Road & track test a few years ago. The 02-05 VW Passat and 02-06 Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima were also in that comparo.
Consumer Reports has rated the Camry and Passat at times better than the Accord during the last few years. As far as MT didn;t they rate the 07 Camry their car of the year? So MT is not biased. C&D thats argumentative if their biased in favor of the Accord but keep in mind C&D likes vehicles that have a sport ride to them. The Camry has always had a soft ride to it so maybe C&D isn;t looking for a car that has a oft ride to win a comparo. \
I've tried to talk about GM but unless I agree that they're better than all them there Japanese cars, (some) people point out how bad the Japanese really are. Then I point out that the Japanese really may be better, and then off we go. :confuse: Again :sick:
For example, I suggested that GM demonstrate their reliability by some spectacular demonstration of same (say running a car and all it's features for a year nonstop) but that topic vanished without a splash.
Maybe you can do better on changing the subject, but if you mention one of those Pearl Harbor mobiles, you're going to get a beating, don't say I didn't warn you - I know.
Comments
If we assume the Accord does have softer plastics than the Aura I want to know if that softer plastic makes up for the features the Accord lacks and its higher sticker price. I dont think it does at all. Personally, I want my car to have a manumatic, trip computer, MP3 jack, split folding rear seat, remote start, 18" rims, etc. and I'm not going to give up those things to get softer plastic. The Accord costs a lot more than the Fusion, Aura, Sonata, etc. so I assume some of that extra money is going into the top notch plastics. It would be nice if they found a way to get rid of that passenger airbag panel since they are pumping so much money into the interior.
I think most of the press agrees that the majority of Japanese cars are dull. I would also state that most casual observers and the press feel that recent domestic designs are better than what is coming out of Japan. I find NIssan's cars to be odd and their trucks to be downright unattractive. Most reviews I have read seem to have little positive to say about Nissan's styling.
One test and how many years in running for C&D's top 10 cars of the year? In Edemunds it first lost to the BRAND NEW Sonata then second lost to the BRAND NEW Camry. If I am not mistaken Accord finished 2nd for both comparo. Taking a 4-or-5-year-old-model size it up with 2 brand new models and it still finished second, that to me speaks for itself. By the way, where did Fusion and Malibu end up with? Oh yeah that's right, Fusion finished last (4th) in Edmunds' latest V6 family sedan comparison.
In 2003 while the Accord was is relatively new it finished 1st among 10 family sedans. Where did Malibu end up on this one? Let me check...7th. I know again I am digging "ancient history" but while we see the new comparo that features the new Malibu, Auro, Camry and Accord altogether this is the only evidence that I can based on.
You kept trying to make others sound like "import-biased" but you have failed to see that you yourself is just as well "domestic-biased" on the other end. Just remember, when you pointing your finger at someone, 3 are pointing at you.
You have to kidding about the class leading interior. I cant think of one car in this class than has a worse interior than the Accord
Oh I can, let me giving you several...
Fusion, Malibu, Sonata, Altima, Camry, and the list goes on...
Yes, the Accord is old, however didn't you think a 5-year-old model that can finish ahead of its BRAND NEW competitors in ANY comparo speaks a lot for itself?
Compare this to the Camry at $26,000 with 187 hp(158 on engine w/o electric boost). MPG is listed at 40/38.
164 hp, 2.4L
VVT and electronic throttle control
100,000/ 8 year Hybrid component warranty (5 years on non hybrid powertrain)
All safety items standard including Stabilitrak and traction control
MPG is 28/35 which I think is using the '07 standards but it could be '08.
It looks like they are comparably equipped in the major options. So, the question is, is a possible city improvement of 12 and highway of 3 worth the $3000 delta.
I am waiting to see what the new '08 epa MPG numbers will show. I think the full hybrids will see a much larger drop than the mild hybrids (saturns) and the normal gas engined vehicles.
I thought I did?
Many would say the new Camry looks dull and the Bangle Butt is ugly. Me on the other hand think the new Camry is very elegant (especially the SE version with the sideskirt). As matter of fact the Bangle Butt in general has grown on me, as long as the affect is not as dramatic as the 7-series I actually think it's a good way to make the rear end of a car stand out.
As has been noted, he won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College vote, which, under the United States Constitution, is the vote that decides the winner. The same thing happened, incidentally, in the election of 1876. Perhaps those pundits, politicians and entertainers skipped American History?
If those politicians, pundits and entertainers aren't familiar with this section of the United States Constitution, they have as much credibility as those who claim that they talk to the dead when they try to suggest that Gore "really" won the 2000 election.
xrunner2: According to recent WSJ, Gore has not been willing to meet with some folks that want to question some of his movie's claims about global warming. But, nonetheless, it would be good for this country for him to run and have national debate about warming, oil use, alternative fuels, upping CAFE mpgs, etc. This would put a spotlight on the auto manufacturers as well as others. Would this cause GM to alter/modify strategy, actions, business models, etc?
No. What will cause GM to alter its business strategies is a shift in consumer demand, and what causes that to occur is higher gasoline prices.
Many of those who wail about GM and other companies selling SUVs will then spin tales of oil company conspiracies when gasoline prices rise, and suggest that government "do something" to prevent this, as though $1-a-gallon for unleaded is some sort of Constitutional right.
And, of course, there will always be some people who don't worry about gasoline prices, and will continue to buy that Tahoe, Corvette or V-8 powered Impala, despite rising fuel costs.
But higher gasoline prices will spur interest in higher quality small cars (something along the lines of the new Civic, or the European Opel/Vauxhall Astra and Ford Focus) and even minicars (Honda Fit, Opel/Vauxhall Corsa, Ford Fiesta and Ka).
GM's problem isn't that it makes Tahoes and Suburbans. Its problem is that Honda is already here with cars in the above-mentioned cagetories, and it is not yet in the game. (Same for Ford, too.)
Of course, Ford and DCX hitched their wagons even more so than GM to trucks (SUVs, pickups, and minivans) than cars, which partly explains why those companies are having more difficulty right now than GM.
You may be correct, but I also know that the Cubs will win the world series next year. Let's just see how it actually plays out. You could be right!
"Oh I can, let me giving you several...
Fusion, Malibu, Sonata, Altima, Camry, and the list goes on... "
OK, its obvious you an Accord fan and cant be objective. The new Camry's interior is no worse than the Accord, same goes for Altima.
"You kept trying to make others sound like "import-biased" but you have failed to see that you yourself is just as well "domestic-biased" on the other end. Just remember, when you pointing your finger at someone, 3 are pointing at you. "
Wrong. I dont think Japanese automakers are incompetent and I dont think people who buy them are less intelligent than those who don't. I like far more imports than you like domestics. I like the TL, 3 series, A4, '07 Altima, Camry SE, A8, '07 G35, etc. I have nothing against those cars in general and I assure you anything I say about imports can be justified. Sure I am no Toyota fan but I'm not going to make up stuff about their products in order to make myself feel better. Toyota makes tons of plain, relaible vehicles and a few of them get great fuel economy. In terms of styling, handling and value they arent really on my radar though.
"Yes, the Accord is old, however didn't you think a 5-year-old model that can finish ahead of its BRAND NEW competitors in ANY comparo speaks a lot for itself? "
If it wasnt in C&D I might be impressed. These are the people who think the Accord is one of the 10 Best cars in america when its not even setting the pace in its own segment anymore. Aside from C&D's opinion I cant think of any proof that the Accord is superior to the new Camry and Altima.
GM WILL launch the Malibu Hybrid (fall), '08 Vue Greenline (summer), Aura Greenline (spring) and Yukon/Tahoe hybrid (fall) THIS YEAR. The Vue two mode hybrid will launch next year as will the Escalade hybrid. All of this has been confirmed, in fact GMC has info on their page about the Yukon hybrid already. GM has explained how the two mode system works and it will provide similar boosts in hwy and city economy.
When a car wins a C&D's comparison test, I don't think the magazine really wants to convince you the car is 'superior'. It's really a matter of personal taste, and C&D's taste always tends to favor cars with the sportier handling, given that no major flows can take away that title.
There is no way you can convince anyone here that the Camry is sportier than the Accord. The Altima? I haven't read the story yet, but If I know C&D well, they will always tell you the car is as great as the Accord, but there is a 'but'. That's exactly where the Accord excels. Aside from styling and design which is subjective, the Accord has no major flows and does everything the driver asks for with a great level of confidence and with no drama.
The Big 3 paid more attention to trucks because of the profits associated with those trucks, not because they were in favor of increasing out oil dependence. This is the same reason why the Japanese and Europeans got into the SUV business big time in the last decade. Since Toyota has always been a car company and only recently learned to make competent trucks they are naturally in a better position now that cars are increasing in popularity. Again, this has little to do with Toyota not wanting to build trucks or loving the environment. If they loved the environment as much as people believe they would increase the efficiency of their crossovers, SUVs and trucks. Everytime this issue is raised people come with the excuse "toyota sells more cars than trucks". So what. You cant be a "green" company and not address efficiency across the line. The fact that the Pruis gets 50mpg only makes the 13mpg Sequoia look that much worse. At least Honda can claim they dont make any vehicles that get less than 20mpg.
"Point granted, but Toyota never let its car sales slide as GM did."
One point, GM still sells more cars than Toyota. Contrary to popular belief, GM never gave up on cars. You cant sell more than your much praised competitor and then be accused of "abandoning" cars to force gas guzzlers on an unsuspecting public.
To save time and avoid triggering old arguments, I won't list the litany of GM products that haven't set the world on fire despite pre-introduction hype. What's the old saying? I'm from Missouri - show me - and then I'll believe that these new GM cars are wonderful.
To give you some perspective (Not to say that you're so far in the GM corner that you can only see things from one angle)- suppose I told you that Toyota was going to introduce new car that is a radical rethink of the way cars are produced and that it will be ultra low cost ($5K or $6K) and that this will be really serious threat to the U.S. manufacturers. Everything from design to production methods will be radically changed and really ultra-low-cost by design, using ultra-low-cost materials, even developing new materials if necessary.
Wouldn't you want to see that car in production and see how it sells before you started agreeing how wonderful it's GOING to be?
I think so.
Oh - here's the article about the new Toyota
Radical Toyota rethink threatens Big Three
"That's exactly where the Accord excels. Aside from styling and design which is subjective, the Accord has no major flows and does everything the driver asks for with a great level of confidence and with no drama. "
You are saying the Accord excels in winning the hearts of adoring C&D writers? Sorry, but I dont know how you can ignore the facts and say "the Accord has to be great because C&D editors said so". A car that doesnt really excel at any one thing isnt a class leader to me. Again, in terms of handling and inspiring driver confidence they didnt really specify how the Accord was superior to the Altima or Aura. It really comes down to the fact that they love the car (its been on 10Best forever) and they dont really care about what the competition brings to the table. another thing about C&D is that features and amenities are a very small part of their ratings system and thus the fact that the Accord is underequipped barely affects its final score. How can you rate comparable cars and not have feature content be a major factor? This is why a BMW can be in a C&D test and have the highest sticker price combined with the fewest amenities and still come out in 1st place.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
(I thought not. Back on track, please)
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Eltonron
Host- Automotive News & Views
The new Hybrid Vue isn't such a great hybrid"
Lokki,
Right on. Some people tend to think that the new GM hybrids, which aren't even here yet, will outperform and outshine Toyota's hybrids. It's like Toyota is turning back and taking a Kit Kat break and missing all the action. Toyota has more than 10 years of research and development in hybrids, and unlike GM, they are not going to make a buzz about the 2009 Prius and the next generation Hybrid until it is about to hit the market.
There is much information available on how the two mode system will work. Perhaps you should read it before dismissing it as "GM hype" with no substance. If it's all smoke and mirrors as you suggest than it's pretty impressive IMHO.
Again, you and others are speaking as if non of GM's fuel saving models will be available in the near future. This is not pie in the sky stuff, four hybrids will be going on sale this year. The Volt was a CONCEPT and in case you didnt know, its not uncommon for automakers to show off technology and designs years in advance via concept models. People like you get mad at GM no matter what. Now you are complaining because they "hyped" the Volt even though it wont be available for years. I guess Honda should stop showing fuel cell concepts as well.
"To give you some perspective (Not to say that you're so far in the GM corner that you can only see things from one angle)- suppose I told you that Toyota was going to introduce new car that is a radical rethink of the way cars are produced and that it will be ultra low cost ($5K or $6K) and that this will be really serious threat to the U.S. manufacturers. Everything from design to production methods will be radically changed and really ultra-low-cost by design, using ultra-low-cost materials, even developing new materials if necessary."
I doubt that the alleged car could affect current GM market in US.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I am sorry 1487, but who's putting word's in whose mouth? I never mentioned the Volt. In fact, I never mentioned you. I was responding to Lokki's message about some messages I read here regarding GM's upcoming hybrids which may be sent by you or someone else in previous days. But enough of that. Let's go back to GM cars.
"People like you get mad at GM no matter what"
Mad? Let's see! GM is 7 years late on Hybrids, about 7 years late on crossovers (first being 1996 RAV4). GM is not even there yet in the now-growing mini-car segments, except for the ashamed Korean Aveo. and Finally GM gave up on minivans. While Toyota has the Highlander AND Sienna AND 4Runner, GM willl compete in all these segments with one type of vehicles. The result? Declining sales and profits. If that doesn't get you mad, then you are not a true and responsible GM fan.
2,456,019 GM cars 1998
2,122,754 GM trucks 1998
867,814 Toyota/Lexus cars 1998
493,211 Toyota/Lexus trucks 1998
___________________________________
1,784,825 GM cars 2005
2,669,560 GM trucks 2005
1,289,356 Toyota/Lexus/Scion cars 2005
970,940 Toyota/Lexus/Scion trucks 2005
Sources: Automotive News 2000 and 2006 Market Data Books
Sorry, don't have 2006 data -- they're at home and I'm at work. (Now back to work...)
Okay now we know how you think about C&D would you mind to explain why you totally ignored about Edmunds' comparos I used in my orginal post.
So C&D is Accord-biased, are you calling Edmunds to be the same?
What about Motor Trend ?
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0512_family_sedan_comparison
"While Toyota has the Highlander AND Sienna AND 4Runner, GM willl compete in all these segments with one type of vehicles. The result? Declining sales and profits. If that doesn't get you mad, then you are not a true and responsible GM fan. "
First of all GM still has the Envoy and Trailblazer on sale and they will be here for another year or two. Last time I checked they compete with the 4Runner which may not be around much longer if the new Highlander is as big as I think it will be. GM has gotten out of the minivan business because GM/Ford have never really made money on them as far as I can tell. Toyota can make a profit on any type of vehicle it makes so it can compete in every segment. It doesn't make sense for GM to make minivans that arent profitable. I dont know how you have determined that the lamda crossovers arent going to be true competition for the highlander/Sienna and thus GM will not make any profits. Care to explain that? I'm pretty sure transaction prices and profits for the lamda will be far higher than the GM minivans of old. I also wouldnt be shocked if GM gets back into minivans once their financial picture improves. Remember they got out of the sports car business in 2002 and we all know the Camaro is coming back.
BTW, you failed to mention Toyota being late to the full size car, full size pickup, full size SUV and large crossover markets. Last time I checked Toyota doesnt even have a three row crossover on the market yet. The Pilot came out 4-5 years ago and Toyota is just now responding.
BTW, in those two recent Edmunds test the new Altima and Aura weren't even in existence and they are two of the cars I am talking about that might be superior to the Accord. I know that newer models are usually better than 4 year old model, that was my whole point. You are the one arguing that the 4 year old Accord is still better than the competition. On an objective bases it is not.
Also, its hard to understand how GM has abandoned the car market when they sold almost 1.8 million cars in 2005. As someone already stated, GM is far less dependent on truck sales than Ford or DCX.
Thanks.
As far as "how GM has abandoned the market" the answer is that for years, when they were flush with truck and SUV cash, they did nothing to improve their cars. It was only when soaring gas prices were written on the wall that they remembered that it might be nice to do some redesigns.
Regarding Toyota and trucks - Toyota and Honda already had a very nice share of the car market. They're (Toyota in particular) expanding into the truck market.
At the risk of mentioning that darned old biased Consumer Reports, they like the Accord best too
Honda and Toyota have consistently set the standard for well-rounded, reliable family sedans with the Accord and the Camry. Along with the Volkswagen Passat, they regularly trade places as our top-rated $20,000-$30,000 sedan. This year is no different; by a small margin, the Accord regains its top rating over the redesigned Camry and Passat. The Lucerne is a comfortable sedan that delivers a soft ride and good isolation from road noise. However, braking and emergency handling are lackluster, and the V6 trails competitors in refinement and performance.
So let's see: MT, CD, CU, anyone else? Bueller?
They're ALL BIASED in favor of the Honda Accord.
Rocky
I suggest posting about how much people like their Accord or Camry in a topic for those cars.
Everyone has their favorite cars. And they are entitled to that; therefore, I have my favorites which are GMs.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
You think Toyota is going to make the same mistakes as the Big 3 did in the 70's and 80's? Their management is too good for that I think. I think Toyota knows the past mistakes of the Domestic Big 3 and I just don;t think in my mind Toyota would make the same mistakes. I don't see anything in the article that says Toyota is getting full of themselves.
I usually don't go [non-permissible content removed] for tat like this, but apparently someone has forgotten about the Chevy Equinox/Pontiac Torrent (direct competitors to the RAV4) and the Chevy Trailblazer/GMC Envoy (direct competitors to the 4Runner and highlander brands).
I'm not saying that the Rav4 and the 4Runner aren't very competitive if not superior in these markets (although the Equinox is a great package if you look at it, and the new Re-designed Envoy and trailblazer SOUND promising), but I must disagree that GM is not competing in these markets when it is clear that they do have very competent machines in these slots.
check your e-mail....
>
Reality therapy. I know it's hard, but Dr. Laura recommends it. :P You brought it up. Camry problems
Everytime I've crossshopped for roominess, power, gas mileage, strength of metal, since 1987, I've found GM choices I made to be the best overall cost wise and quality of product. The Honda and Toyota offerings in the price range were minimalization examples. This is the GM board. That's what I found in the past and I bought Centuries and then 3 leSabres. I've had good service from each.
Who knows what the product offering from GM will be when I next make a purchase. But I will compare with an open mind as I did before.
So "Go GM," from a "GM cheerleader"?
Hoping for a tour of the Moraine plant to see the company at work building those trucks!
And the hosts will remind me to be on topic which is GM.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'll agree Toyota designs are dull with the exception of the Scion TC(currently.) You think the Cobalt coupe is much better looking than the Honda Civic Coupe? I don;t see that.Both the Cobalt Sedan and Civic Sedan are conservative. The Pontiac G6 is not much better looking than the Mazda 6 in my opinion. The Caddy CTs is much better looking than the Acura TL? I don;t see that either. Even one magazine commented on the TL looks and said "the best looking Honda in years." I think the 01-06 Acura MDX was better looking than BMW X5 or Lexus RX 330. The 07 MDX is just ugly to me though.
"I find NIssan's cars to be odd and their trucks to be downright unattractive. Most reviews I have read seem to have little positive to say about Nissan's styling."
Nissan-The 02-06 Nissan Altima was a nice looking car but I admit not my style. One magazine did even say postive things about its styling but dissed the interior of the 02 Altima. The 350Z is nice looking. The 1st generation Xterra was a way better experimental exterior design than what came after it: see Honda Element, and Scion XB exteriors.
"Personally, I dont get much joy out of caressing a dashboard and while I dont want my car to appear overly cheap or to have flashing exposed I am not going to spend thousands extra on a car SOLEY because it has a softer dash."
Your point is well taken in that post that the interior has to look pleasent but the quality of interior plastics used is not a big make or break for you when buying a car.
"The Accord costs a lot more than the Fusion, Aura, Sonata, etc. so I assume some of that extra money is going into the top notch plastics."
The Sonata's interior isn't even acceptable to me and I wouldn;t even buy that car because the interior looks unpleasent looking. All that wood grain that borders the radio buttons on that car it looks tasteless. The Fusions interior is pleasent aside from the cheap looking gauges but I can't be that picky since competing cars have their defeicenes too. As I said before I like the Aura's interior as I noted before. I even said I don't see a big difference in the feel of the plastics between the Accord and Aura. I did feel the plastics of both interiors in the Accord and Aura.
I think Road & Track rates value in terms of content and ameenties. I saw one magazine a few years ago they rated the Acura CL Type S over a BMW 3 Series and BMW fans were furious(from letters I read in the next issue of that magazine)over that the Acura beat the BMW because of value pointing towards the Acura.
I think the reason the Accord wins all the time is because in my opinion from the reviews that I have seen over the years its the best car towards combining both a sport and comfortale ride. I recall the Mazda 6 tieing the Accord in a comparo in a Road & track test a few years ago. The 02-05 VW Passat and 02-06 Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima were also in that comparo.
They're ALL BIASED in favor of the Honda Accord."
Consumer Reports has rated the Camry and Passat at times better than the Accord during the last few years. As far as MT didn;t they rate the 07 Camry their car of the year? So MT is not biased. C&D thats argumentative if their biased in favor of the Accord but keep in mind C&D likes vehicles that have a sport ride to them. The Camry has always had a soft ride to it so maybe C&D isn;t looking for a car that has a oft ride to win a comparo. \
Can we get back to talking about GM please?
For example, I suggested that GM demonstrate their reliability by some spectacular demonstration of same (say running a car and all it's features for a year nonstop) but that topic vanished without a splash.
Maybe you can do better on changing the subject, but if you mention one of those Pearl Harbor mobiles, you're going to get a beating, don't say I didn't warn you - I know.