Midsize Sedans 2.0

kdshapiro · October 2007

"Anyway, thanks again for the input. We've just got some research and test driving to do. I think it will be fun."

Do yourself and favor and drive lower end cars from Lexus (250), BMW (328), Cadillac, TL and the like. What you get is standard equipment and options that go beyond these cars. In addition, the drivetrains of the luxury cars are usually superior in one way or another. As far as crossovers drive the X3/FX35/RX350.

Good luck buying a car is fun...until you pay for it. :suprise

backy · October 2007

The drivetrains of mid-sized cars like the Accord, Camry, and Altima are pretty sophisticated. What you get with the cars you listed, beyond more luxury features standard or available, is RWD or even AWD (although AWD is available in some mid-sized family cars such as the Legacy and Fulan).

robertsmx · October 2007

I think she simply wants to have a more niche vehicle (hence opting out of mainstream names). This reminds me of a friend who almost bought a new Accord but decided to go with a used Mercedes C-class for about the same price.

I don't know what your requirements would be, but she could wait for the new TSX (likely out in Spring 2008), look at RDX (although, I'm not a fan of crossovers/SUVs for myself), try Volvo S40/S60, or something along those lines.

Do you folks need two largish sedans in the family? I have two sedans myself, one (1998 Accord/182K miles) because it was paid off almost eight years ago and an 06 TL. If I were to replace the Accord within next six months, I might seriously consider Fit. It would be just a better long term solution for me (I drive a lot and prefer to keep the cars for a long time). But I have a feeling, if you go for that, you might end up driving it. :P

heavyhitter · October 2007

Hey guys... looking into getting a leftover 07 Accord and was wondering if it would be big enough for me. Any big guys in here have one? I'm about 260 pounds, and 6'4".

I know people will have different shapes, but a general idea would help. I've sat in a 2003 once, but can't remember really what it was like.

Appreciate it...

Ethan

Kirstie_H · October 2007

A reporter with a large newspaper is hoping to talk to consumers who are looking to purchase a new midsize vehicle. Please reply to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Thursday, October 18, 2007 with your daytime contact info. along with what car (or cars) you are considering purchasing.

kdshapiro · October 2007

I forgot about the RDX/MDX. Buy an oil well along with the RDX to supply the gas.

robertsmx · October 2007

RDX is no better or worse than the rest of them out there though. It gets what rest of the powerful/AWD CUVs are.

thegraduate · October 2007

Hey bud... I'm 6'4" (not your size at only 190lbs) but I have plenty of room in the Accord. I'm afraid you may find it sort of narrow though, I'm not real sure. I have a friend who is 6'3" and 250 or so who fills up the passenger side when he rides with me. You sound like an even bigger guy. I'd suggest try it and see!

kdshapiro · October 2007

"RDX is no better or worse than the rest of them out there though."

Actually it's worse.

robertsmx · October 2007

How so? Observed gas mileage (in mag tests) for most of these CUVs tends to be in 15-19 mpg. For example, the new Saturn Vue got 15 mpg, Toyota RAV4/V6 got 16 mpg, RDX usually gets 16-18 mpg. I have had RDX twice as a free loaner from Acura, and both times I averaged 19-20 mpg which is lower than my experience with my sedans but that is to be expected.

Not to hijack this thread with a crossover but this does relate to the topic in a way that midsize sedans do make more sense than CUVs when it comes to fuel economy.

andres3 · October 2007

- Actually, that distinction was part of what was driving my original question--what does a low-end luxury car give you that wouldn't be trumped by a loaded high-end non-luxury car? Why buy a low-end Acura TSX when they could get a somewhat loaded Accord for the same money? I'm sure there's a reason, I just don't know what it is.

I've actually spent some serious time trying to decipher the differences between say a Honda, and an Acura TSX for example.

Here's what you pay extra for in the Acura vs. the Accord:

Acura has the luxury nameplate and brand image.
Acura has the longer warranties (which are useless and never needed by Honda anyway).
Acura has nicer interior materials and luxuriously nice interiors. Honda's are nice, Acura's are luxury.
Honda gives you more HP and MPG per dollar than Acura; advantage V6 Accord. Honda gives you more torque in the V6 vs. the TSX 4 cylinder. Honda is slightly roomier (07 and older versions).

As you can see, the main difference is interior quality and exterior style. The TSX was definitely a step up finish wise, and they are built and assembled in Japan (a definite plus in my mind, but not to many others).

Also, I didn't drive the TSX, but from what I hear and read, it has a sportier ride than your typical Accord.

kdshapiro · October 2007

Real world mileage of the RDX can be the worse of the bunch in the right conditions.

kdshapiro · October 2007

"Honda gives you more HP and MPG per dollar than Acura; advantage V6 Accord. Honda gives you more torque in the V6 vs. the TSX 4 cylinder. Honda is slightly roomier (07 and older versions)."

Okay, what about the TL-S or the RL? Whether the TL-S is worth the difference over a Honda is an individual decision. No doubt pay more, get more.

robertsmx · October 2007

What does a low-end luxury car give you that wouldn't be trumped by a loaded high-end non-luxury car? Why buy a low-end Acura TSX when they could get a somewhat loaded Accord for the same money? I'm sure there's a reason, I just don't know what it is.

In case of Acura versus Honda, you could get the more powerful Accord V6 for about the same as Acura TSX. However, there are a few differences. I considered the same a little over a year ago. TSX was #1 on my list, followed by TL and finally Accord. But with Accord, I would have gone EX-L. So, TL was the only car considered with V6. The combination of dealers not budging at all on TSX, and excellent deal on TL prompted me to get that car. I liked quite a few things about the TL over TSX, but TSX chassis tuning was more to my preferences.

That said, the Honda to Acura difference can be seen in smaller details (outside of Acura TLC and additional features). There is greater attention to detail in trimmings and the material used (although, TSX wasnt quite a runaway, compared to Accord). And many of these are hard to put against a dollar amount. If you see it, they are worth it, otherwise one would be fine with the Accord. And of course, one can also see TSX/TL as lifestyle choices, with fewer produced and seen on the road serving a niche as opposed to more sensible choices like the Accord.

At this point, and since both TSX and TL are due for redesign (Im expecting both to be out in about six months), you might be able to find fantastic deals on them, if your wife is fine with older designs.

robertsmx · October 2007

That can be said of any vehicle. Which CUV comparable to RDX do you think is more fuel efficient? In real world, expect 19-20 mpg out of RDX in mixed driving. Based on trip computers off loaner RDXs, I see other people get just that, as do I. You're going to be hard pressed to find one that does better, unless it happens to be 2WD, or something like a CR-V. One of your recommendations was FX35. It actually does worse.

aviboy97 · October 2007

Which CUV comparable to RDX do you think is more fuel efficient? In real world, expect 19-20 mpg out of RDX in mixed driving

The CX-7 compares, and for 2008, will run on regular. While it may not save you on MPG's, it saves in overall dollars in you pocket.

robertsmx · October 2007

If RDX gets 18 mpg, and CX-7 gets 17 mpg (potentially worse with regular, along with degraded performance), you aren't really saving bucks. I can't recall a single comparison test where CX-7 has even matched RDX in observed fuel economy much less beat it.

Besides, the point of RDX here is a look into entry level luxury brands. CX-7 is a Mazda. If that weren't the case, CR-V would make a lot more sense, as it seems to be as economical as mainstream midsize sedans.

andres3 · October 2007

than Honda's EX-L leather..... noticeably richer.

Sort of like the way the Mazda leather seems like vinyl compared to the robustness of Audi's leather to me.

thegraduate · October 2007

The Birmingham News - Hyundai Article

aviboy97 · October 2007

You mentioned the Toyota RAV and Saturn VUE in your previous post, and comparing their respective fuel economy to the RDX. So, I suggested the CX-7. Surely, you cannot think the RAV or VUE are luxury vehicles. Observed fuel economy in the RDX has consistently been around 16mpg's right there with the CX-7, in numerous tests.

After the ECU reflash in the CX-7's, fuel economy improved, and the 2008's have a new map, and adjusted the timing to achieve the same fuel economy using regular. Plus, the added savings over the purchase price make the CX-7 more economical. Now if you are looking for the "A" on your grill, then I guess it's the wrong choice for you. So I would look toward a 3-Series BMW w/ X-Drive before I looked at an RDX. Better fuel economy, more luxurious, better driving dynamics.

aviboy97 · October 2007

Sort of like the way the Mazda leather seems like vinyl compared to the robustness of Audi's leather to me.

See, to me Audi looks like pleather, especialy in black. Actually, doesn't Audi use fake leather?? It also does not wear well. VW has the same problem. Take a look at the new Mazda6 leather, it's much nicer, they changed it in 2006.

colloquor · October 2007

Although obviously not a midsize, when the discussion turns to quality of leather, attention to detail and build-quality, and the new price of an 2008 Accord EX-L V6, or another new car such as a Camry XLE V6, I would rather have a two to three year old Lexus LS430. A certified LS430 with low mileage can be had for about the same price, perhaps a few thousand more.

One of my business colleagues just purchased a 2005 LS430 with 36,000 miles, and it's feels and looks new - price paid: $32,700. As Accords, and others, march up the price ladder, an excellent or certified vehicle like the Lexus LS becomes an affordable alternative without much compromise on anything - other than corresponding fuel economy of course.

robertsmx · October 2007

I can see why you suggested CX-7, but my point was to bring home a point on poor press coverage with fuel economy on RDX, while the same aspect is getting overlooked in mainstreamers (where it actually should matter more).

And some people do care for badges, hence the recommendation. One reason the poster's wife didn't want another Accord was not because she was unhappy with the car, but because she seems to want something "un-mainstream".

robertsmx · October 2007

Accords and Camrys have held their price (proportionately) over used Acuras and Lexuses for a long time. So, they aren't the only ones marching up the price ladder. They are also doing so due to added features, refinements and added features. And then there is the point of ownership costs, especially if you hold on to the car for a long time.

That is why there is a market for new cars, and certified old (if certified old were fine, why not get loaded Accord/Camry for $15-16K?).

andres3 · October 2007

I don't know of Audi ever using any kind of fake leather. You either get leather or cloth as far as I know. Now they have started only using the nice leather on the "seating surfaces" whereas they use a high quality "pleather" on the high-wear areas, like the sides of the seats and the bolsters I believe.

I believe almost all Audi's use some kind of Nappa genuine leather though. Not sure about the black, but if you touch it, it does feel a bit softer and has more traction and grip than the vinyl sections.

If Mazda has improved their leather quality in 2006, that is indeed a good thing. Did that carry over to the Mazda3 as well?

mz6greyghost · October 2007

cnnmoney.com - CR reliabilty rankings

It had to happen sooner or later...

colloquor · October 2007

"That is why there is a market for new cars, and certified old (if certified old were fine, why not get loaded Accord/Camry for $15-16K?)."

Perhaps, but the LS430 is substantially more car, both literally as well as figuratively, than either the Accord or Camry. Whether a certified version is worth twice that cost is certainly arguable however.

backy · October 2007

Oh my gosh... CR not recommending a Camry based on reliability, or lack thereof. Isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse? :sick:

jeffyscott · October 2007

Wow!

And to relate that article to this topic, it says:

Consumer Reports said it no longer recommends V6 versions of Toyota's Camry...

and

Of the 39 cars rated "Most Reliable" in Consumer Reports new list, four are by domestic manufacturers. They are the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan,...

robertsmx · October 2007

I was surprised with Lexus GS making that list, not so much with Tundra. With Camry V6, I'm left wondering if the trouble spot happens to be the engine (since they specifically mention V6 models) as this could tie back to Toyota suspending sales of Aurion (Camry based "sport sedan") in Australia due to engine failure issue.

robertsmx · October 2007

If people thought along those lines, there would be no need for mainstream midsize or even economy cars. I could buy a 3-year old certified TL or even RL for the same price as a Civic.

A lot of car to some may not be a lot of car to another. When I think LS430, I think a big boat with higher upkeep costs.

A brand new fully loaded Accord V6 can be driven home for about $28.5K. If an old LS430 (assuming, complete with all the features, including NAV) costs $32K, there is a $4K premium for an older (but more prestigious) car. And considering only fuel costs over next four years/60K miles and assuming gas prices to stay unchanged, Accord V6 would be another $3K cheaper. So, in the name of driving a luxury car, and the true price difference might hover around $7K already.

Next, consider the fact that Accord V6 will still qualify for sale as a CPO with only 4 years/60K miles which helps raise the resale value. The Lexus would be out of warranty as a used car, and that will make it less appealing. So, you would lose more money trading/selling it.

These are just a few of the things that are easy to overlook, as most of us tend to focus purely on initial costs (worse, MSRP).

thegraduate · October 2007

Actually Hitler and Saddam just called. Hell just froze over.

andres3 · October 2007

will have to dream up a new argument to explain why the supposedly Toyota biased CR has now slammed Toyota's main breadwinner.

Shame on Toyota for cheapifying the Camry.

mz6greyghost · October 2007

supposedly Toyota biased CR

Supposedly? Until now, they were. The proof is in the article.

"In the past, because Toyota products have so consistently proved reliable, the magazine would assume at least average reliability for Toyota's brand new cars, without waiting for survey data from owners."

Sounds like bias to me.

"But from now on, the magazine will wait for a full year of reliability survey data to come in before it recommends a Toyota product - as it does with most other manufacturers."

If they're an "independent" agency like they say they are, then shouldn't they be doing this for ALL manufacturers in the first place?

This article only proves to me what I've suspected all along.

thegraduate · October 2007

The article speaks a little differently to me, but I'm just another opinion, not the final word. It sounds to me that because of a model's reputation for being reliable in the past, it gets the assumption that it will continue to be. I would think that would carry on with any model. How about the Fusion, would it not get the same assumption?

Just my take on it.

andres3 · October 2007

Sounds like bias to me.

Well, if having Bias is the same as betting on Mike Tyson the first 35 or so fights of his career, then I guess you could put Mike Tyson and Toyota on the same pedestal.

You could of bet the farm on Mike Tyson winning every fight every time. And you'd of been right and won every bet until you lose your 34th farm on that 35th bet. :P

I think CR bet on Toyota the same way. It's not a bad bet.... until of course... it all falls apart. Of course, even Tyson showed signs of life after his first loss.

mz6greyghost · October 2007

How about the Fusion, would it not get the same assumption?

No, because the Fusion was basically an all-new model when introduced, from a company that hasn't consistently ranked well in the past.

The Camry, OTOH, is a new design as well, but CR gave it preferential treatment due to the previous-gen Camry that HAS scored well in the past, and that's where I get the bias from.

I'd think that if I were running CR, when a new model gets evaluated that's been significantly re-designed or re-engineered, they should NOT "recommend" it based on the past, but to actually wait a year until the results come rolling in. They do this for other automakers, so they should do this for ALL automakers, including Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus/Scion.

andres3 · October 2007

I disagree, if The Fusion maintains great rankings throughout its 1st generation life cycle, and Ford doesn't completely fall apart with every other model, I'd whole heartedly expect CR to recommend the 2nd generation Fusion in its first year with only one slight reservation:

1) Toyota has a history of redesigning models generation after generation and never having a problem, whereas Ford really hasn't EVER proven they can do the same.

imidazol97 · October 2007

Amen. Good observation about special treatment in the past.

But it's still not a scientific survey. It may be a convenience survey and they admit in the article they include visitors to their website; imagine the potential there for slanting against or in favor of a particular vehicle.

But JD POwers:

Lexus Ties Buick for Reliability!!!!

JD Powers uses true survey techniques up through year three.

andres3 · October 2007

I saw nothing about admittance of any old visitor to the website slanting their reviews. I saw some implications towards allowing "subscribers" to go online and send in their reviews.

thegraduate · October 2007

OK, I would guess that if the Fusion scored well for 20 years, it would get the benefit of the doubt too.

aviboy97 · October 2007

If Mazda has improved their leather quality in 2006, that is indeed a good thing. Did that carry over to the Mazda3 as well?

No, they still use the same leather they used since it's inception. But, it's a cheap($$) car. No need to go all out using extra fine leather in an economy car, especialy when most of it's competition does not even offer leather.

mz6greyghost · October 2007

OK, I would guess that if the Fusion scored well for 20 years, it would get the benefit of the doubt too.

But to me, there should NOT be any "benefit of the doubt", whether they've scored well for 2 years or 20 years past.

It shouldn't matter whether it's from Ford, Toyota, Chevy, etc. A new model SHOULD be fairly evaluated for a year BEFORE getting "recommended" or "avoided".

thegraduate · October 2007

Be that as it may, the allegation was one that they do this for Toyota and not for others. What they fail to realize is that the "others" haven't ranked consistently well for decades.

Right or wrong (I agree with you that its wrong), it isn't just a bias to Toyota.

robertsmx · October 2007

No, because the Fusion was basically an all-new model when introduced, from a company that hasn't consistently ranked well in the past.

The Camry, OTOH, is a new design as well, but CR gave it preferential treatment due to the previous-gen Camry that HAS scored well in the past, and that's where I get the bias from.

It is not Toyota's fault that Ford can't keep its model names rolling and feel the need to change them ever so frequently. CR sticks with a formula that is consistent across the board. They are not giving any advantage to Camry by using its past reputation, because it has one. Any other car would get the same treatment. Do you not think Fusion would get that preferential treatment when the next generation rolls around?

mz6greyghost · October 2007

Right or wrong (I agree with you that its wrong), it isn't just a bias to Toyota.

I agree that it isn't just Toyota that's getting the bias (and I apologize if anyone thinks I inferred that it was only Toyota), I just don't give credit to CR for supposedly NOT giving bias.

mz6greyghost · October 2007

It is not Toyota's fault that Ford can't keep its model names rolling and feel the need to change them ever so frequently.

And it's not Ford's fault that CR "recommends" a redesigned model based on name alone, and NOT any hard data.

They are not giving any advantage to Camry by using its past reputation, because it has one.

I disagree. It sure seems that the Camry is getting an advantage based on the past. A "neutral" company such as CR shouldn't give ANY advantage, at all.

Do you not think Fusion would get that preferential treatment when the next generation rolls around?

It shouldn't.

Once again, it shouldn't be about the name on the car, it SHOULD be about the products themselves, and that they ALL should be evaluated fairly before getting "recommended". In other words, no "recommended" titles on ANY re-designed or re-engineered models, new name or not, until the data has piled in.

aviboy97 · October 2007

....will no longer automatically recommend redesigned Toyotas, citing below-average quality in new models.

"Consumer Reports magazine reported today that the quality of cars made by Toyota, long the benchmark for reliability among automotive brands, had slipped so much that the organization no longer will automatically recommend them. The 2007 Camry V6 and Tundra pickup scored below average. Consumer Reports won't recommend any model scoring below average to it's readers. " By MSN Money

"Ford Scores Big"

For Ford, the news was positive. The magazine said 93% of Ford Lincoln, and Mercury models scored average or better, allowing a "Recommended" designation. This includes the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan.

I know this was discussed, but, I thought I would just say it myself!

robertsmx · October 2007

There's a reason to building a heritage, a name. CR goes by a standard (formula), instead of nothing at all. This is not a question of being neutral or unfair.

Let us get a perspective on this. You seem to be a Mazda fan. Now, you know what the current Mazda6 is like, in terms of driving experience and potentially, ownership. Would you call yourself utterly clueless about the next Mazda6 because you haven't really driven/owned one yet?

mz6greyghost · October 2007

Would you call yourself utterly clueless about the next Mazda6 because you haven't really driven/owned one yet?

In essence, yes. I "expect" the next 6 to be just as fun to drive as the current model, this would make me biased toward the 6. However, for all I know, it could handle like a yacht and I'd hate every second of it. That's why I'll test-drive it as well as the competition to see what I'd prefer, previous experience be damned.

I wouldn't make ANY decision about any NEW car until I have a chance to test it out for myself, just as CR shouldn't make the decision to "recommend" a vehicle until the evidence has piled in.

Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles