Midsize Sedans 2.0

pengwin · October 2007

here's my 2 cents.

I have a 1994 maxima GXE (amazing car). I go out of town once in a while and i get a rental (my car isn't in the best of shape). Few weeks back, i got the saturn aura, picked it out just because there's soo much commotion about it, "best car from saturn yet", "north American car of the year (even though it's essentially European)". Any who, i took the saturn. Instantly found the seats to be hard, and the dash was made from what felt like melted down action figures. Absolutely terrible. If you don't believe me go to the saturn dealership and try it yourself. Maybe the seat is better for some of you but the dash and interior quality in general is pretty bad, just give the dash a slight tap with your nails. Its pretty sad if the aura is saturns "best car yet". I don't want to see what they made before. With that said, the aura did handle very nicely, but at the same time, im not going to a track, I'll take comfort over handling in a mid sized sedan.

Two weeks ago i took a camry (very easy choice after the aura). The seats were wayy better than the aura's and initially i thought the car was pretty good. I saw why the camry is the best selling car in the US. So after about an hour in the car i started to fiddle with all the things. The more i fiddle the less impressed i was. The center stack was misaligned, plastics didn't feel that good, center stack felt like the plastic from a box of valentine chocolates. Overall, still felt very cheap, very cost cutting, not quite as much as the aura though. I even noticed the carpeting coming off the floor of the car, i could see the wiring and chassis. This car was motor trends "car of the year" This car had ~4k miles on it. Very disappointing.

For those who have never sat in a 94 maxima GXE, find one and sit in it, feel the dash, feel the materials. My dash is literally as soft as a baby's butt. The steering wheel has actual leather with real stitching on it.

edit: just thought about it and my 03 corolla has more rock scratches than my 94 maxima. the front hood of my 03 corolla has lots of tiny scratches from rocks that go all the way down to the actual hood. what has happened to paint? Frankly, I'll take an extra 2 or 3 layers even if my MPG drops a little due to the weight of the extra paint...seriously. New cars are disappointing.

Where have cars interiors gone? I mean....do i need to buy a premium brand to get the luxury of a 14 year old nissan?

my second thought is more or less a question. The camry is now off my list, so is the aura/new malibu. How is the passat and the new accord? anyone have either of the cars and wanna shoot me some feed back about quality of the materials/comfort/etc.

backy · October 2007

Where have cars interiors gone?

Cost cutting. Automakers are under extreme price pressure. That's why you don't see things like soft-touch materials everywhere any more. But to be fair, I think the automakers are trying their best to put the money into the important things on a car. For example, all those airbags cost money. So do high-powered, efficient, low-emissions engines. (How much power does that Maxima of yours put out? I'll bet there's some I4s in the mid-sized class today that would top it, or come close. And what's its fuel economy, and emissions?) When you think about it, how often do you touch the dashboard--except to find out if it's padded?

Even the new Accord has a lot of hard plastic in it--less so as you move up the trim lines. But it's quality plastic, for this class of cars. I think the Passat has a very nice interior for this class (VW does interiors well in general), but it's also one of the most expensive cars in this class, if not the most expensive. So it should have a great interior. If you're looking at a car like the Passat, you can afford to look one class up, e.g. Avalon, Azera, Lucerne, Taurus/Sable. Or maybe a slightly used luxury sedan?

As for paint, the automakers are using water-based paint now (less pollution), and that might partly account for the drop in paint quality. And of course, thinner paint means lower cost.

pengwin · October 2007

i agree with you but cost cutting has its limits. misaligned interior bits? thats just crappy craftsmanship. also im fine with a hard dash, but make the areas where i rest my elbow/arm softer than the rest of the car. and how about a steering wheel not covered with hard plastic? how much more can those minor additions cost? i'll pay an extra 100-200 bucks for it. i understand cost cutting if its in a kia rio. but if im paying in the neighborhood of 20,000 i'd like the car to be built decently.

avalon is a little too big and ugly, looks like a whale, massive overhang. also the avalon is closer to 30k than 20k. still skeptical on hyundai/kia's. No good long term info on them. I can get a VW 2.0T for 22ish, a well equipped accord is 22ish too.

as i see it, the same thing that happened to American brands is happening to Japanese brands. GM and ford used to make properly great cars like the 72 monte carlo (i had one and loved it). They mass produced cars and quality and reliability suffered. At the same time the Japanese slowly nudged into the market. Americans couldn't turn around fast enough and have always been behind the Japanese. With the new CTS and the upcoming G8 i can see some turn around happening. But until interior quality gets better americans wont flock to GM and ford dealerships like they do to honda and toyota's

now people say "if we up quality we won't make a profit". subject A. Chevrolet Impala. Rebate: $4700 (friend of mine bought one for 17,xxx). Get rid of the 4700 dollar rebate and use it to build a car with newer technologies, better looking and feeling interior, more powerful engine.

GM and ford are huge companies and if they cant make cars that are at the same level of quality as a toyota or honda. Here's and idea GM has like 18 brands, if they start cutting those 18 down to maybe....2. A mainstream brand and a premium brand they'd save money and they could concentrate on making a decent car. instead they choose to use the same car for 4 brands and spend all their money on making it look different.

elroy5 · October 2007

GM and ford are huge companies and if they cant make cars that are at the same level of quality as a toyota or honda. Here's and idea GM has like 18 brands, if they start cutting those 18 down to maybe....2. A mainstream brand and a premium brand they'd save money and they could concentrate on making a decent car. instead they choose to use the same car for 4 brands and spend all their money on making it look different.

Ditto. Too many designs, competing for the same midsize buyer. Since Chevy is the most popular brand, Saturn, Pontiac, and Buick would have to go. At least two of those three. And isn't the Saab 9-3 competing for the same customers too? Way too much spent on one size platform, IMO.

pengwin · October 2007

Ditto. Too many designs, competing for the same midsize buyer. Since Chevy is the most popular brand, Saturn, Pontiac, and Buick would have to go. At least two of those three. And isn't the Saab 9-3 competing for the same customers too? Way too much spent on one size platform, IMO.

better yet, combine Saab and Cadillac and form one brand, Caddy could learn a lot from Saab. Like how to install a decent turbocharger.

backy · October 2007

Yes, when cost cutting affects quality, that's none too good. It's a tough mission to cut costs without affecting quality. There's some ways to cut costs while improving quality, but when those are used up...

If you can get a 2008 Passat 2.0T for $22k and like the car, why not just go ahead and get one? You said you were concerned about reliability (wrt the Korean cars). Have you taken a look at the reliability record of the 2.0T? For example, CR won't even recommend it because of poor reliability.

On the 2008 Accord, good luck getting anything more than an LX-P AT for $22k right now, until the new-design hoopla wears off. Have you seen the lease ads for the Accord lately? A few months ago they were $199/month for either an LX or SE-V6 (2007 models). Now they're $259/month for an LX, with about the same money down.

I haven't seen a hard plastic steering wheel for a long time--maybe not since my mom's 1980 Omega. That wheel was not only hard, but shiny, with faux wood trim. :P Cars today (the cars in this class at least) either have padded plastic or leather-covered wheels.

Re profit and quality: Toyota is a very profitable company. But you used the Camry as an example of slipping quality. If any company could afford to put a few more bucks into quality interiors, it would be Toyota. But it's not a priority for them. Why? Because look how many people buy the Camry with its interior with ill-fitting seams--an interior that was compared unfavorably to the less expensive Optima's in C/D's last mid-sized car comparo. As long as so many people flock into Toyota dealerships to buy cars like the Camry in huge numbers, why should Toyota put their profits into improving interiors? Maybe when more car buyers take notice and start looking elsewhere, as you have done, Toyota will do something about it.

pmerk28 · October 2007

Pengwin: the fit/finish and quality of materials used in the interiors of cars has nose dived the past 2 years with few exceptions. I leased a 2000 Toyota Solara SLE with leather and owned a 2005 Camry XLE with leather. Both of these cars had thick padded dashes, soft touch materials throughout and impeccable fit/finish. I currently own a 2005 Sienna and the the interior is very good. I leased a 2003 Mercury Mountaineer with leather and the interior quality was very good. I have a 1991 Camry and the interior is padded everywhere, same thing with a 1988 Accord I once owned.

The following is a list of cars whose quality of interior materials and or fit/finish is worse than the previous generation. This is based on my either have test driven them/ sitting in them at auto shows or reading reviews on them ( and seeing photos online or in magazines):

2008 Accord
2007 and up Camry
2007 BMW 5 Series
2006 and up VW Passat
2008 Mercedes Benz C Class
2008 Ford Focus
2008 Toyota Highlander
Current Generation Toyota Corolla
Almost all Dodges/Chryslers have terrible interior quality

Only Nissan seems to have gotten better across the board.

backy · October 2007

You didn't mention some other brands, e.g. Mazda (IMO the Mazda6's interior is superior to that of the last 626), GM (improving, comparing the latest cars e.g. Aura and Malibu to those of a few years ago), Hyundai/Kia (interiors of current Sonata and Optima are much better than those of the previous generation cars). So it seems some brands with a reputation for quality interiors are slipping, and some of those who needed to improve are improving. Maybe soon we'll have reached a level of similar quality across all but high-priced luxury cars.

pmerk28 · October 2007

Backy: GM has nowhere to go but up but it is true the Caddy CTS is stunning inside and the Buick Enclave is gorgeous. The new Malibu interior was too cheap looking and feeling. I was dissapointed. The Mazda CX-9 is stunning inside. You are right about Hyundai as well.

Having owned a 2005 Camry, the minute I sat in the 2007 at the dealership I could tell in 5 seconds they cheapened it all over the place. The salesguy claimed Lexus complained that the top line Camry was stealing ES sales. Whatever the reason it still boggles my mind how people run to Toyota to A)trade in their current Camry for the new one and B)pay practically MSRP for it without noticing or caring about all the cheapness inside.

The Ford Fusion and Nissan Altima use better material inside than the new Camry.

zzzoom6 · October 2007

The northwest has many endearing qualities, but sunny fall weekends are few and far between. So with the sun out and many trees' leaves dressed in fall colors, I thought it would be well worth driving through the Columbia River Gorge with it's amazing waterfalls and scenic views connected with miles of twisty roads and loads of elevation changes. Unfortunately though, much of the old Historic Columbia River Highway is very narrow with the some sections having just a dividing line on one side and barely the width of midsize car away is a concrete wall.

When going around a series of 20mph curves it occurred to me that I was lucky to have a car that had very precise steering and one that wasn't too wide. Having a large car or SUV would have made the drive not the joy that it was in the Mazda6 but instead an effort at accident avoidance. I know the trend is set that cars in this class will continue to get bigger in width and length and often in weight, but I can't help but think that maybe some cars are moving past what is necessary or needed to a size that is bloated and just an effort to achieve bragging rights.

venus537 · October 2007

"Only Nissan seems to have gotten better across the board."

Perhaps, but only because they had a lot of room for improvement.

When it comes to interior fit and finish it still comes down to VW, then Honda and then the rest.

I got to say it cracks me up when I read that someone's 1988 Accord interior is better in some way then today's Accord. I've owned Accords from that period and their interiors were top notch for the day but by today's standards they're pretty dreadful. I can guarantee you that after a 4 hour trip your back is going to feel much better in a 2008 Accord then a 1998 Accord.

One area where all the car manufacturers seem to be cutting cost is the protective moldings on the side of the car.

At least Audi seems to be keeping to their expected standards.

jeffyscott · October 2007

I have seen several people complain about Camry being favored by CR as they recommend even the new model by default. That doesnt seem to be an issue with Focus being recommended when it first came out.

I think this has been clarified by others already. The Focus had the highest score in their testing, this has nothing to do with reliability. On the pricing I was talking about the actual net transaction prices, not artificial figures like MSRP. By your own numbers Fit is comparably priced to Focus, since the rebate exceeds to $2000 price differential that you came up with. so far the Fusion has not required large incentives, but still selling prices are, I think, closer to the civic than to the Accord. Will the lower prices for comparable cars mean that Ford can still not afford to invest as much in upgrading the Fusion as Toyota and Honda can for the Accord and Camry???

BTW, you mentioned somewhere not subscribing to CR, I don't either, my library provides free online access (available from home with my library card number) to CR as well as hundreds of other magazines. In the case of CR there is a 3 month embargo. Check your library website, if my library that serves a population of only about 20,000 provides this access, I'm sure many others do also.

mickeyrom · October 2007

Ford can still not afford to invest as much in upgrading the Fusion

I have read that there will be a hybrid Fusion in 2008,but I seriously doubt that anyone will be able to find one at a dealer showroom. :confuse:

robertsmx · October 2007

Many sports cars are wider than one would thing they need to be. Corvette is 72.6", that might be comparable to many full size cars. And the new Nissan GT-R is supposed to be 2" wider! Thats SUV territory. Somehow I feel that carving those roads won't be bigger issue in those cars.

Its not the size, rather how cars drive. Some big cars drive small, and some small cars feel bigger than they are. This goes beyond spec sheet.

pengwin · October 2007

You said you were concerned about reliability (wrt the Korean cars). Have you taken a look at the reliability record of the 2.0T? For example, CR won't even recommend it because of poor reliability.

true, sadly, CR recommended the Camry, which I rented from Alamo. I drove it from STL to chicago, along the way, low tire pressure light came on, then off, then on, then off... Engine light came on for about 15 mins along the way. And my favorite feature would easily be the gasoline air refresher that they installed in the car. Revs go above 3000 and the refresher kicks in. For those of you who didnt pick up on the sarcasm. When you go to pass someone and the revs go above 3000 a very big whiff of gasoline scent tingles your nose hairs.

After that, i stopped listening to CR and the like. I'll read them and take it for what they are, words. Honestly though, before you buy a car go rent it. Pay the 100 bucks or 200 bucks to rent it for 3 or 4 days, it's the ultimate test drive you can see how the car takes abuse (everyone abuses rentals), you can push it to the limits, etc.

I had the Mazda 6 for a week while my car was getting fixed, someone decided they wanted to use my corolla's front left bumper to stop them rather than their brakes. I believe it was an 80's caprice, huge metal bumper, tore right through my poor little corolla's front fender/bodypanel. Back to the mazda. I did like the dash, was made from the "BMW dash" material. Nothing felt "cheap" but nothing felt expensive, and the car felt sluggish and the precise steering didn't help speed the car up so i found that useless. What i hated the most was the material used on the doors. Mazda used like a cloth mixed with rubber...it wasn't like the VW fake leather but its more rubbery and clothy?(sp). Im not sure how to describe it but it was soft to the touch but irritating to my arm.

On a slightly different note, i owned a 1989 toyota corolla, tranny went bad in the first 30 days but the replacement lasted 230k miles. I never changed the timing belt or anything else but oil, air filter and brakes. At 230k miles, my car was stolen and crashed into the back of a truck. :mad: So it led me to buy a new car, a corolla. I wasn't a fan of the interior but if it was gonna last as long as the old one, i wouldn't mind. At 63k miles my dealership said my tranny was bad. They didn't catch the problem when i was still under warranty...odd. It was going to cost $5k to repair a $15k so i decided not to. My car is now at 140k miles, its an 03 corolla and compared to my 89, its interior quality went down, doesn't feel nearly as fast as the old one, 89 blew colder air, was easier to see out of, had better paint, better seats, cheaper tires (25 bucks a tire!)...come to think about it my new corolla doesnt have anything different from my old one (on the center stack). 89 and 03 both have radio's, air con, defroster etc, clock, no CD player in the 89 or fancy stero. Well, atleast the new one still runs.

andres3 · October 2007

Whatever the reason it still boggles my mind how people run to Toyota to A)trade in their current Camry for the new one and B)pay practically MSRP for it without noticing or caring about all the cheapness inside.

People do seem to make rash and speedy purchase decisions without even comparing or researching any facts, figures, or vehicles. They just see something they like (the 1st car they look at) and are willing to get it, because undoubtedly a brand new car will most likely be much better than their old one.

If their last Toyota was their first car to be absolutely flawless and a perfect ownership experience, then of course they'll go back and get another.

No one besides Toyota and Honda have been able to retain the amount of customers they do due to quality.

lightfootfl · October 2007

re 6767
"I just don't understand why they are so afraid of people knowing there is an engine in the front of the vehicle ..."
Sorry, but I don't understand why people are so afraid of a "quiet engine". It obviously isn't necessary to have a noisy one. I know that any engine, when pushed, will make more "noise" than one at a nominal speed. I find no problem with that, however many seem to object to those that prefer the lessor sound. I enjoy being able to converse with my fellow travelers, or to enjoy the sound of the music without having to scream, or turn the volume up extra loud. This is one of those areas where each of us has to decide for ourselves.
van

backy · October 2007

Honestly though, before you buy a car go rent it.

Good advice. I've learned a lot about potential car purchases by driving them as rentals. I'm fortunate to be able to drive many rentals at the expense of my employer though.

chrono · October 2007

The article your refering to compares the XE. I have an XR which is a big difference.

My switching cars proves to me what I like, and of course it's an opinion like everyone else's. But when a lot of people share the same opinion then there has to be some fact in the matter.

So we can now bring into this discussion luxury sports sedans? I hope an Audi is better then my Aura. Your paying 10-15K more for your car. And btw, I used to own a 330i ZHP and I test drove an S4 at the time which was a big disappointment.

pmerk28 · October 2007

Perhaps, but only because they (Nissan) had a lot of room for improvement.

Nissans interiors were never pitiful. GM owned that category. They were average. Now IMO the Altima has surpassed the Camry inside.

When it comes to interior fit and finish it still comes down to VW, then Honda and then the rest

Yes, and both have gotten worse with the current generation of the CR-V/Accord/Passat/Jetta.

I got to say it cracks me up when I read that someone's 1988 Accord interior is better in some way then today's Accord. I've owned Accords from that period and their interiors were top notch for the day but by today's standards they're pretty dreadful. I can guarantee you that after a 4 hour trip your back is going to feel much better in a 2008 Accord then a 1998 Accord.

You are missing the point in some respects here. I drive my in laws 1996 Camry on regular ocassion. I have test driven the 2007 Camry and sat in them for as long as I wanted at dealerships and car shows. I have been in the cloth seats and the top of the line XLE with leather. Clearly the 2007 version is much roomier inside and I would estimate to be more comfortable on long trips. The 2007 is much better lit inside with the gauge cluster and the overhead lights. The interior layout is pleasing to the eye with a modern swooped dash and flowing center stack/console and an open feel. The colors inside are pleasing as well. The 1996 by contrast is a dull looking saddle brown with no offsetting colors. The gauges are the old back lit design and there is one interior dome light that cannot be turned on from a dash switch. The center stack/console is a plain square. It looks dated now and to be frank wasn't very exciting in 1996 either.

HOWEVER, the material quality and fit and finish are superior in the 1996. The 2007 Camry has hard plastic door handles. The '96 are thickly padded as is the upper door pads and armrests. The 2007 foregos padding and inserts cheap plastic wherever it can get away with it. The carpeting and trim pieces in the 96 have held up remarkably well for 207,000 miles and counting. There is also not a rattle or squeak in the console or glove box door. The 2007 carpet is thin and you can see the staples coming up. I'd love to see it hold up half as well as the '96. The plastic door handles have plastic centers that clip into place which was already falling out of some of the cars I sat in. The center console does not line up on any of the 2007's I saw. I have read reviews on edmunds about squeaks and rattles in cold weather on 3 month old Camry's

We expect a 2007 Toyota Camry to have superior design, comfort and functionality than a 1996 Camry. What I did not expect and what the car buying public should not tolerate is the downgraded quality and fit and finish for a car that Toyota is asking us to pay in excess of 30k for a loaded XLE V6.

Just look online at many 2007 Camry reviews. Sure, there are plenty of positive ones but there is an astonishingly high amount of people complaining for a Toyota and the cheap interior comes up an awful lot. I never thought I would say this but I like the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan better. I have to eat crow on that one too because in the spring of 2006 I ridiculed the the upcoming Fusion saying no way it could be as nice as the soon to be launched 2007 Camry.

pengwin · October 2007

nicely put pmerk. I'd go beyond that. I'm willing to bet the 1996 camry will last longer than an 07 camry. I think the shoddy quality has gone beyond interiors. I'm also willing to bet its going to show up in the engine/transmission and other mechanical areas. Didn't toyota recently recall like half a million vehicles?

My initial plan was to get a camry, after renting the new camry it made me look at German brands. But supposedly VW's are a hit or miss, if you get lucky you get a tank and it'll rarely break down and if you're unlucky you get a lemon and VWoA doesn't help you at all.

I've never bought a honda before, always felt toyota was more reliable mechanically and i'm not pick about interiors as long as it doesn't feel cheap for its price. Thats why i don't complain about my corolla's fairly crappy interior.

The world is running out of mainstream car companies. It seems like you have to spend a minimum of 30k for a good car today. what about buick... comes high in reliability ratings but i cant believe that because it's essentially a rebadged chevy. Anyone have any recommendations? The new corolla going to be any good?

imidazol97 · October 2007

>What i hated the most was the material used on the doors. Mazda used like a cloth mixed with rubber...it wasn't like the VW fake leather but its more rubbery and clothy?(

That sounds like the doors on the 07 Accords I checked out at the dealer a few months back.

bhmr59 · October 2007

Don't laugh.

Try a Hyundai Sonata. You'll be pleansently surprised. Today's Hyundai is not what it was 15 or 20 years ago. Hyundai has been getting good reliability ratings for over 5 years.

pmerk28 · October 2007

My initial plan was to get a camry, after renting the new camry it made me look at German brands. But supposedly VW's are a hit or miss, if you get lucky you get a tank and it'll rarely break down and if you're unlucky you get a lemon and VWoA doesn't help you at all.

Correct on VW.

The world is running out of mainstream car companies. It seems like you have to spend a minimum of 30k for a good car today. what about buick... comes high in reliability ratings but i cant believe that because it's essentially a rebadged chevy. Anyone have any recommendations? The new corolla going to be any good?

Buicks been reliable for a while now. They are made better than Chevy and Buick pays attention to noise levels. Buick only has three models now. The Lacross and Lucerene won't appeal much to anyone under 60 but sitting inside them they are a cut above Pontiac/Chevy. They feel and look solid. The enclave is going to be a smash, i believe, it's that nice. But now we are talking SUV and we are talking 40 grand for a loaded one.

Take a look at the Ford Fusion. An awful lot of car for the money.

venus537 · October 2007

The article your refering to compares the XE. I have an XR which is a big difference.

True, it was the base model. But a lot of the complaints C/D had with the XE would also apply to the XR.

My switching cars proves to me what I like, and of course it's an opinion like everyone else's. But when a lot of people share the same opinion then there has to be some fact in the matter.

What fact would that would be? That the Accord is now in a position of keeping up? You found one article that backs your opinion and now it's a fact. When it comes to a numbers game of who's opinion is the same as yours and who's opinion is the same as mine you'll come short. The only fact that's out there is that for you and others the Aura is the better car. There's no argument there.

So we can now bring into this discussion luxury sports sedans? I hope an Audi is better then my Aura. Your paying 10-15K more for your car.

More like $7-8K as I went easy on the options. The point wasn't that I thought the Audi was the superior car but how disappointing I found the Aura to be compared to my last Accord.

venus537 · October 2007

I suggest getting a car that performs best for you. That's something you'll notice every time you get in your car. When it comes to reliability you're talking about only a few percentage points between a reliable car and one that's not so reliable.

As far as Buicks go, sure they're reliable but very mediocre in quality otherwise. I think the only reason Buick is rated higher than their GM counterparts in reliability is that the elderly are easier on them.

lilengineerboy · October 2007

Sorry, but I don't understand why people are so afraid of a "quiet engine". It obviously isn't necessary to have a noisy one. I know that any engine, when pushed, will make more "noise" than one at a nominal speed. I find no problem with that, however many seem to object to those that prefer the lessor sound. I enjoy being able to converse with my fellow travelers, or to enjoy the sound of the music without having to scream, or turn the volume up extra loud. This is one of those areas where each of us has to decide for ourselves.

I concur, I agree there are definitely different strokes for different folks. I have never been in an enclosed vehicle where I felt I had to raise my voice to converse with passengers or add an amplifier to the stereo to keep up, but at the same time, I do appreciate the sound of an engine, and its mechanical song.

venus537 · October 2007

Yes, and both have gotten worse with the current generation of the CR-V/Accord/Passat/Jetta.

Can't speak to the CR-V as I avoid SUVs like they're the plague. Of course they're useful when I need to haul something. Then it's time to talk to my brother.

As far as the new Accord. I haven't had a chance to examine the Accord's interior throughly but my initial impressions are that it hasn't gotten worse.

Passat. I agree with you there and I think VW is paying dearly for that as their customers have the same opinion as us. But it's still best in class though.

Jetta. I was disappointed that it didn't improve over the last one but I don't think the car got worse either except for the trunk lining. When you get wood trim you still get real wood. When you get leather you still get high quality leather.

I have to wonder if you have a negative reaction to design changes. That you have a comfort level for what you're used to. Case in point, harder plastic doesn't necessary mean it's of lower quality. It's more the texture and flimsiness of the plastic that determines its quality.

pmerk28 · October 2007

Jetta. I was disappointed that it didn't improve over the last one but I don't think the car got worse either except for the trunk lining. When you get wood trim you still get real wood. When you get leather you still get high quality leather

Yes, you are correct I instinctively paired it with the Passat.

I have to wonder if you have a negative reaction to design changes. That you have a comfort level for what you're used to. Case in point, harder plastic doesn't necessary mean it's of lower quality. It's more the texture and flimsiness of the plastic that determines its quality

Re-read my post 6803 on the Toyota Camry.

venus537 · October 2007

I did. Never mind that physco babble stuff I was muttering earlier. Sorry.

imidazol97 · October 2007

> sure they're reliable but very mediocre in quality otherwise.

I have to disagree with you about that, They are good in quality in all ways. I see more elderly who've swallowed the Camry/Accord kool aide I would think their ratings would be going up if your comment that elderly are easier on them were even close to true. In fact, they're pickier about what they'll tolerate in a car despite that they like some other aspect of the car. They take it in to be fixed.

pengwin · October 2007

rented the sonata twice, the current model, what is it now? 2nd generation? When the sonata came out it looked exactly like the accord, thats the one i rented. I'm sorry, i dont keep up on Hyundai's. I didnt like the sonata both times. It wasn't bad but I cant justify 18k on a V6 sonata. The interior is just ugly. The radio/stero area looks like hyundai made the whole dash in mass production, put it in the car then had someone test drive. The test driver came out of the car after a lap and said, "...where's the flippin' radio?". They went back into the car with a hack saw and cut half a circle, shoved a radio in it and called it a day.

If i buy a hyundai, hands down it'll be an azera. But i have the same opinion about the azera as the sonata. if hyundai can get the azera's interior upto the grade of the Veracruz i'd be more than happy to buy it. I have not driven the Azera yet, i'll have to book a car on Hertz next time i go out of town, when i drove by last time i saw a few azera's on their lots.

As far as plastics go. A great example of crappy plastics is the aura. Tap the dash, any where on the dash. The noise you'll receive is hollow. It sounds as if there's nothing behind it, if you tap the new camry, as much as i dislike it, won't have that hollow-ness. I think you can use the cheapest materials in the world but if its soft to the touch and not uncomfortable it's fine by me. Take mazda 6's rubber dash, its cheap but it doesnt feel cheap.

As far as the Passat goes. If i do decide to buy one anyone have any suggestions as to how I can pick the "tank" Passat rather than the lemon. Should i be looking for loose cables or...you guys are the experts, at least some of you

, what's your 2 pennies on that?

pmerk28 · October 2007

I did. Never mind that physco babble stuff I was muttering earlier. Sorry

Lol. No problem. I did examine myself mentally and came out ok, I think anyway.

Seriously, what caused me to agree with you on the Jetta was that an acquaintance of mine got some really low lease deal on a Wolfsburg edition Jetta. I remember being struck by how nice the interior was -both the design AND the quality of material/fit/finish.

tenpin288 · October 2007

Here's a link to some spy pics of what is supposedly the new dash for the 2009 Sonata.

2009 Sonata Interior Spy Pics?

If correct this is a major upgrade for the interior. It should be interesting to check it out when it comes out, likely in the mid-to late spring.

venus537 · October 2007

Well it's true that Camry and Accord drivers are getting older and apparently bigger and heavier, but they're no where near as old as Buick drivers. Now that's a fact. However, it's not a fact that the elderly are pickier about their cars.

thegraduate · October 2007

Looks like the interior it should have had all along. The current version, to me, is the least desirable interior design I may have ever seen. The newer Hyundai interiors (Elantra, Santa Fe, Vera Cruz) are MUCH better to me.

imidazol97 · October 2007

>that's a fact.

You're welcome to your opinion. But it's not a fact in this area.

backy · October 2007

Ergonomically, the Sonata's dash is not bad at all. At least the shifter doesn't block major controls, like it does on the Fusion/Milan. Some people carp about the radio, but its controls are easy to reach and simple (maybe some folks don't like it because it doesn't have a maze of buttons as on some other cars). The rotary HVAC controls on the models w/o auto climate control are silky smooth and simplicity itself in their operation. And the vents are positioned so they don't blow directly on the driver's right hand, which is a problem on many cars. Yes, the plood trim is not very convincing, but in grey (with faux carbon fiber trim instead of plood) or especially black the Sonata's dash is not the disaster some folks make it out to be. But the dash supposedly coming for 2009 does look a lot nicer, more up to date.

thegraduate · October 2007

Don't get me wrong buddy. I had no problem with the quality of the interior; it was on par with most cars in the class; better than several. It was the look of the thing. It had no continuity. It didn't look like interior "design" at all, actually. Just a jumble pieces stuck together. Vent placement is also poor for circulation of air to the rear of the car (unless there are rear-vents built into the back of the console?).I drive at 9 and 3, and vent placement up high doesn't hit my hands in my Accord. It didn't have ergonomic issues like the Fusion, it just failed to be pleasing to the eye. I felt like Honda nailed it on both (in the previous gen, not the 2008 model). Personally I prefer any Elantra from the last 6 years' interior over the current Sonata.

All that said, the MMC interior looks LOADS better. It should help sales, IMO.

Any word on putting the 5-speed Auto in the 4-cyl for 2009, as in the Optima?

pengwin · October 2007

Here's a link to some spy pics of what is supposedly the new dash for the 2009 Sonata.

2009 Sonata Interior Spy Pics?

nice, new sonata looks good but i don't think i can wait that long. I'll try.

I test drove a Subaru Legacy. The interior was really very nice. I just hate the fact that the turboed version costs 30k (at which point i'd buy an ES350). Also it gets crap mileage and a non turbo doesnt make sense to me. Love the pillarless doors, every car company should do that. Any one here own a Legacy? feedback?

joe97 · October 2007

Some of the key features posted in the Sonata facelift thread:

*Azera lookin front end
*Horsepower increase for both 4cyl and V6
*Improved fuel economy for both engines
*5 speed auto trans for 4cyl
*Blue background dashboard lights
*Improved handling and ride
*Specific sport handling for SE model
*Redone interior featuring, more storage,better finish,less plastic looking
*USB port and i-pod jack
*Exhaust tuned for performance sound
*Optional LG navigation system

thegraduate · October 2007

Thanks for the info joe!

backy · October 2007

I think the biggest problem of the current Sonata dash is the thin plood horizontal strip with a silvery accent, which breaks the dash in two. Also the silvery molding around the HVAC cluster is something out of the 1980s. That's why I think the current dash looks a lot better in grey (no plood) and best in monotone black (although I don't like black interiors in general).

Word is that the 2009 Sonata I4s will get a 5-speed AT--only 3 years after the Optima got one. :surprise:

backy · October 2007

That info contradicts other info on the Web that says the 2009 Sonata's front end will resemble that of the Genesis.

joe97 · October 2007

I just copied what was posted there

Personally, I'd want nothing changed on the exterior. I like the clean and crisp look.

venus537 · October 2007

You're welcome to your opinion. But it's not a fact in this area.

Um, it's not a matter of opinion. Either the average age of Accord and Camry drivers is lower than those who drive Buicks or it's not. In other words, I'm either correct or I'm wrong with my statement no matter where I state it.

The average Buick car buyer is 68, the average Accord car buyer is 50 and the average Camry buyer is 55.

mz6greyghost · October 2007

Nissans interiors were never pitiful. GM owned that category. They were average. Now IMO the Altima has surpassed the Camry inside.

My mother has a '03 Altima that proves this wrong. It's quite possibly the WORST interior (both in materials and fit-and-finish) that I've ever sat in. The '07-up Altima has improved immensely, but GM has greatly improved their interiors in MOST of their brands, including the new full-size SUVs and the Aura.

Unfortunately, the G6 seemed to be cursed with the old-school interior design.

Best interiors in this price class? VW
The worst? A draw between the Avenger/Sebring and G6

pmerk28 · October 2007

Best interiors in this price class? VW

Indeed, although the Passat got worse even though they keep raising the prices on it.

The worst? A draw between the Avenger/Sebring and G6

I sat in every 2007 Dodge/Chrysler sedan or coupe and the hard plastic interiors are the worst on the market today. Only the 300 was adequate. Disgraceful. I hear the '08's are improved....

Unfortunately, the G6 seemed to be cursed with the old-school interior design.

The G6 made me seasick when I was a passenger in one and the interior is beyond dreadful

colloquor · October 2007

Backy - if you follow Hyundai and Kia closely, and I know you do, Hyundai corporate seems to launch many of its new designs and ideas first with Kia, then they filter down to the Hyundai product line. Although the designs may be derivatives, Hyundai seems to use Kia as somewhat of a "Beta Tester." The Optima with the 2.4L DOHC I4 with the 5-speed auto, as compared to the Sonata with the 2.4L I4 with the 4-speed auto is a perfect example. You can see this also with the current Spectra vs. the old Elantra. I wonder why?

lilengineerboy · October 2007

I test drove a Subaru Legacy. The interior was really very nice. I just hate the fact that the turboed version costs 30k (at which point i'd buy an ES350). Also it gets crap mileage and a non turbo doesnt make sense to me. Love the pillarless doors, every car company should do that. Any one here own a Legacy? feedback?

We have an 05 Legacy 2.5i Wagon 5 speed. Model-wise, it was comparable with the Accord LX sedan, although the Subaru was less expensive. It has the 165hp non-turbo 4 cylinder, which is perfectly adequate, even when dragging a 2000lb trailer.
We have enjoyed the AWD as well as the wagon body style. Visibility is excellent. I think my main regret with the purchase is not going with the 2.5 "Limited" which gets heated seats/mirrors and a sunroof. The car gets in the high 20s (wife driving - I think she has weights in her shoes) or low 30s (me driving)
The ride quality is a little too active for some, but I really like it. The flat-4 isn't as smooth as the Camry, but again, I have enjoyed it.
If you are concerned with infant seats, you might want to bring that with you to do a fit check. Using the middle seating position with the lap-shoulder belt makes the seat hard to balance, and using the LATCH means you lose the 2 outboard seating positions, making it a 3 seat vehicle (the Accord can have the baby seat in the middle and fine access to the 2 outboard seating positions).
The pillarless doors and frameless windows look cool but will occasionally leak in a car wash; i haven't had an issue on the road though, even driving through weather.

Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles