Edmunds Comparison Test: Economy Sedans

[ifcar]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=106881

Introduction

By Erin Riches
Date posted: 08-22-2005

It's lunchtime at the Busy Bee Market in the port town of San Pedro, California. We snake through the crowd of burly union dockworkers and scrawny white-collar analysts from nearby Kaiser Permanente and order seven of the world's best roast beef sandwiches. They're lean, juicy and delicious, and a steal at $5 apiece.

Outside, on Walker Avenue we've parked seven economy sedans that range in price from $16,000 to $20 large. Like any sandwich, each is a cheap, practical solution to a basic need. But only one is as tasty and value-packed as a Busy Bee roast beef.

Several of the segment's players have changed since our last economy car test in 2003. Fresh faces include the Chevrolet Cobalt (successor to the Cavalier), Kia Spectra, Mazda 3 (successor to the Proteg?) and Suzuki Forenza. The 5-year-old Ford Focus isn't exactly fresh, but its new engine and cleaned-up interior warranted a second look. We also invited back our defending champ, the Honda Civic, for one last battle before an all-new Civic takes its place for 2006. We let the Hyundai Elantra tag along, since it finished less than a point behind the Civic in the 2003 comparison.

We ordered each of these front-drive economy cars with an automatic transmission, but other equipment varied. As on the Busy Bee's shelves, where you'll find everything from bulk commercial-grade toilet paper to ginseng-infused juice drinks, these seven four-cylinder sedans showed up with everything from manual window cranks to iPod hookups.

We drove them through every L.A. suburb that appears in San Andreas ? a mix of high-speed freeways, stop-and-go city traffic, steep hill climbs, twisty coastal highways, Starbucks, Big Kmart and ambient road rage. We blasted the A/C nonstop. We spilled coffee on the upholstery. For a week we doled out the punishment the way real economy sedan owners would, and then we hit the track for a day of acceleration, braking and handling tests.

Personalities Run the Gamut
These may be the cars no one really wants to drive, but they're not all without personality. In fact, the Mazda 3 is overflowing with it. By far the most refined and best handling car of the group, the Mazda doesn't look, feel or drive like an economy car. Instead, it comes across as a less expensive alternative to the Volkswagen Jetta or Audi A4. Everyone wanted to drive it home at night. Deals were made, offers were rescinded, money was pocketed.

Although the seventh-generation Civic has fallen behind in performance, it's still a likable package for the buyer who wants a little of everything ? class-leading fuel economy, confident handling, top-quality interior materials and Honda's legendary reputation for reliability. Plus, it's the only economy sedan with a flat floor in the backseat, allowing you to seat three kids across.

Kia's Spectra had the lowest price tag ($16,330) in the test, yet our test car's cabin was tastefully appointed and loaded with almost all the features we consider essential in an economy sedan. It also had the plushest, roomiest backseat and the best cupholders and storage slots. The Spectra isn't much of an athlete, but ample low-end pull, a smooth ride and good brake feel make it a fine commuter car.

Six years essentially unchanged and the Ford Focus remains an entertaining compact with a forgiving highway ride. It's not as refined as the Mazda 3, but it has a sporty European feel. The cabin disappoints in build and materials quality, but all except the tallest adults will be happy inside, thanks to seats that feel like overstuffed chairs and simple controls.

Hyundai's Elantra shares a platform with the Kia, along with its agreeable on-road demeanor and plentiful storage space. Unfortunately, it's an older design and its interior feels dated, even with the perforated leather upholstery in our GT tester. The Elantra was also more expensive than the Spectra but was missing a couple of the Kia's features.

The epitome of fast and cheap in this group, Chevrolet's Cobalt turned in the fastest 0-to-60-mph time and cost only $100 more than the Spectra. The Cobalt also provides a smooth, quiet ride, but its soft suspension isn't much fun in the turns. Inside, its rough plastics, thin seats and roll-up windows made us feel like we were doing time, rather than killing time in freeway gridlock.

At $17,194, Suzuki's Forenza was also fairly inexpensive, but with the slowest acceleration and sloppiest handling of the seven, it reminded us of this fact too often. An attractive interior with a roomy rear seat and plenty of storage scored it some points, but it lost just as many for its inconsistent materials quality and excessive wind noise.

Which One's for You?
If you want the best roast beef sandwich in San Pedro, go to the Busy Bee. If you want the best car in the economy sedan segment, buy a 2005 Mazda 3. Driving this car never feels like drudgery, it just feels good.

The Civic was far back in second place, but even in the last year of its model cycle, it's a smart buy, especially if fuel economy is high on your list. The roomy Spectra and Focus were close behind in third and fourth, while the aging Elantra came in a distant fifth. Class-leading acceleration wasn't enough to launch the fresh-out-of-the-box Cobalt higher than sixth place, while the outgunned Forenza brought up the rear.  

[ifcar]

First Place: 2005 Mazda 3




Most economy sedans feel like a compromise. The 2005 Mazda 3 isn't one of them. Its level of refinement is far beyond that of the others. Drive it and you'd swear you were in a car from a different class, a higher class. Drive it and you smile.

But the Mazda isn't just about the drive. Everything about this car, from the sound of its engine to the feel of its seat upholstery, bombards you with positive sensations. It's a car with that immeasurable something special that makes you want one. It's a cool ride, a car that goes beyond its metal, a car anybody would be proud to own.

Costs a Little More but It's Worth It
Our 2005 Mazda 3 s test car stickered at $19,750, which made it the most expensive car in the test by about $1,000. Although we did dock the Mazda a few points for its big price tag, it's worth it. The car's extra features justify the bigger spend. Things like its 160-hp, 2.3-liter inline four, the largest and most powerful engine in the test. If you instead choose the 148-hp, 2.0-liter engine in the base i model, you'll save $3 grand right off the bat.

The Mazda 3 is the only car to offer a manual-shift mode for its automatic transmission. Inside, it has electroluminescent gauges with red-orange backlighting, a thick-rimmed three-spoke steering wheel with telescoping adjustment and breathable mesh upholstery. And it's the only sedan other than the Kia to offer both side and head curtain airbags.

Smooth Drivetrain, So-So Mileage
Any economy sedan would be proud to have Mazda 3's 2.3-liter engine under its hood. It's a smooth operator with a healthy midrange, and a sharp-shifting four-speed automatic lets it rev across the tach whenever the mood strikes.

Although the scrappy Cobalt beat the 3 in acceleration testing, it was only by a nose ? a 9.2-second 0-to-60 and 16.6-second quarter-mile to the Mazda's 9.5 and 16.7. The difference comes down to torque and gearing: The Mazda 3 offers a healthy 150 lb-ft at 4,500 rpm, but the Cobalt's 2.2-liter produces 155 lb-ft at a lower 4,000 rpm and the first two gears of its transmission are shorter than the Mazda's.

Fuel economy a potential liability for Mazda, at least amongst would-be Civic buyers. The 3 had the second-lowest EPA rating at 24 mpg city, 29 mpg highway, and editors tended to drive it harder than the other sedans, resulting in a mediocre 20.8-mpg average, the lowest of the group. As usual, getting the manual gearbox will improve your numbers at the pump.

Phenomenal Dynamics
No such qualifiers are needed when it comes to the Mazda 3's ride quality, handling and braking. Spot-on chassis tuning results in quick turn-in, hardly any body roll and lots of grip on twisty blacktop. At the same time, the highway ride is smooth enough to please commuters. "I was surprised by the amount of compliance, even compared to the Lexus IS 350 I recently drove," one editor wrote in the car's logbook.

Sixteen-inch wheels and tires are standard on the Mazda 3 s, as they are on the Focus, and our tester's 205/55R16 Toyo Proxes provided better adhesion than the skinnier 15s on the other sedans. The Mazda recorded the best slalom speed of the day, 62.7 mph, which is quick for any car.

The 3 also stops and steers better than its rivals. Its steering delivers perfect weighting and feedback at any speed, and its four-wheel antilock disc brakes are strong and easy to modulate. The Mazda's 127-foot 60-mph-to-0 braking distance was actually second to the Forenza's 126-foot effort, but the 3 is far more stable and confident while stopping hard.

Top-Quality Interior
Mazda designers outfitted the interior in monochromatic black, accenting it with faux aluminum and carbon fiber. Beautifully choreographed textures, nicely damped controls and tight-fitting panels give the cabin a top-quality feel, and editors rewarded the 3 with high scores for its design, materials and build.

Our staff ranges in size from 5-foot-5 to 6-foot-4, and everyone fit well in the front seats. In keeping with the car's sporty mission, the Mazda's seats offered the best lateral support. The rear seat is equally well designed, but 6-footers marked off points for tight legroom. The Mazda does a good job of protecting its occupants: It earned four out of five stars in NHTSA frontal-impact crash tests and was named a "Best Pick" for its performance in the IIHS frontal-offset test. Its side-impact scores are lower, but neither agency has tested a 3 with side airbags.

The 3 doesn't have quite as many cupholders and storage slots as the Hyundai and Kia, but its provisions are ample for the typical latte- and cell phone-toting driver. The 11.4-cubic-foot trunk is the smallest in the group but didn't prove to be an inconvenience when loading groceries. We do wish Mazda would add a button to pop the trunk lid to the keyless remote, however.

Go Buy One
Sporty yet upscale, nimble yet comfortable, the 2005 Mazda 3 is a dream car among economy sedans. It's the new Jetta VW should have built. Need an affordable compact car this year? Buy this one.
Vehicle Tested:
2005 Mazda MAZDA3 s 4dr Sedan (2.3L 4cyl 5M)
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $19,750 Price It!!

What Works:
Superbly refined suspension, steering and brakes, sharp styling inside and out, supportive seats, smooth 2.3-liter engine, excellent build and materials quality.

What Needs Work:
So-so fuel economy, tight rear-seat legroom for 6-footers.

Bottom Line:
The Mazda 3 doesn't look, feel or drive like an economy sedan. Go buy one.

[ifcar]

Second Place: 2005 Honda Civic




Chances are you're already thinking about the redesigned 2006 Honda Civic ? the return of the Si coupe, the debut of a more sophisticated hybrid sedan, the plans for a CRX encore. But the 2005 Honda Civic will be around for another four months, and it's still a major force in the economy sedan segment.

Granted, the seventh-generation Civic no longer has the performance and refinement to keep up with the Mazda 3, but it still offers a pleasant driving experience and outstanding fuel economy. Its interior styling caters to more conservative tastes, but high-quality furnishings and exclusive features like a flat floor in the backseat and our EX Special Edition model's iPod-enabled audio system give the outgoing Civic plenty of appeal.

Small Engine, Smart Transmission
Engines are getting bigger in the economy sedan segment, and the Honda's 1.7-liter inline four was the only one in the field with less than two liters of displacement. But that didn't matter much at the track, where the 127-hp Civic posted the third best acceleration times with a 10.9-second 0-60 and a 17.5 quarter-mile. However, this is an old-school VTEC engine that needs to rev to make its best power. Editors rated it lower than the Focus's 2.0L, which turned in slower times but produced more grunt with less noise.

The Civic's four-speed automatic transmission is smart as a whip, though, and does its part to mask the fact that the car only has 114 lb-ft of torque at its disposal, the lowest figure of the group. Shifts are so crisp and perfectly timed that you're scarcely aware of its presence ? quite a contrast to other trannies in this test that behave like annoying houseguests.

Gas mileage is nothing short of stellar, as the Civic earns a 31 mpg city/38 mpg highway rating with this drivetrain. Stop-and-go driving was the norm during our week of testing, and the Honda still managed 25.1 mpg, the highest average of the group.

Well-Mannered on the Road
Much like the midsize Accord, the compact Civic finds the hallowed middle ground between comfortable ride quality and balanced handling. Editors rated it second only to the Mazda in the suspension category. This didn't translate to a good number in the slalom (58.4 mph), but we suspect that had something to do with the modest thresholds of the car's 195/60R15 tires. They're Bridgestone Potenzas, but they have about the least grip of any rubber ever sold under that name.

The steering is light but accurate, while brake feel is firm yet progressive. The Civic's antilock front disc/rear drum setup yielded an initial 60-mph-to-0 stopping distance of 128 feet, although fade set in rather quickly after that.

Excessive road noise was one of the few complaints editors had about the driving experience. We hope Honda's engineers have seen fit to put more insulation in the 2006 Civic.

A Nice Place to Spend Time
We've always liked the interior of the seventh-generation Civic. It's light, airy and generally gives the impression that you spent a little more on your economy sedan. Plastics are consistently low in gloss with classy grain patterns. Instrumentation is always legible and attractive. Editors also noted small touches like a nine-speed A/C fan and a cloth-padded center armrest in our EX Special Edition tester. We were, however, a bit dismayed by the amount of flash left on the plastics from the injection-molding process.

Evidently, Honda fears the Civic's cockpit may not be hip enough for younger buyers, as the company has crammed an upgraded sound system into the EX Special Edition model. The bright silver head unit is a jarring addition to the otherwise serene interior, yet we can't argue with the portable music player jack, simple controls or surprisingly good sound quality. But we do reserve the right to make fun of the babyish equalizer display that washes out in sunlight.

The front seats are on the firm side, but editors found them roomy and well shaped. Some editors really liked the cloth upholstery, comparing it to the fabrics used in the Accord, but others complained that it didn't breathe well in hot weather. In back, the Civic's flat floor makes it easy to get passengers in and out, but there's a bit less hip- and shoulder room than in most of the other sedans.

Strangely, side airbags are not available to buyers who select the Special Edition model; however, the Civic has a four-star rating for side-impact protection even without the bags. When it comes to frontal impacts, occupants get a full five stars' worth of protection. The IIHS named the car a "Best Pick" in frontal offset testing.

Storage space is adequate in the Civic, though there aren't as many slots for phones and wallets as in some of the other cars. The cupholders are located behind the shifter and can only accommodate beverages of short stature. Loading up a large cooler is no problem, as the Civic's 12.9-cubic-foot trunk has a huge opening and a low liftover.

Many Practical Reasons to Buy One
If you think buying an economy sedan should be a smart choice rather than an emotional choice, it's hard to go wrong with the 2005 Honda Civic. Besides being a capable and desirable compact car, the Civic has a well-deserved reputation for reliability and low ownership costs. And you can bet that dealers will be offering discounts as they clear inventory to make room for the 2006 model.

Vehicle Tested:
2005 Honda Civic EX Special Edition 4dr Sedan (1.7L 4cyl 4A)
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $18,660 Price It!!

What Works:
Class-leading fuel economy, pleasant road manners, smart automatic transmission, quality cabin materials, flat floor in backseat, iPod-enabled audio system.

What Needs Work:
Not enough low-end torque, too much road noise, no side airbags on Special Edition model, excessive flash on interior plastics.

Bottom Line:
No longer the best, but still one of the most likable cars in its class. Definitely worth a look if fuel economy, reliability and iPods are high on your list.

[Raghavan]

Civic didn't do so badly.  

[ifcar]

Third Place: 2005 Kia Spectra




Forget about economy sedans that try to be sporty or upscale. Maybe you just want one that does a good job of being an affordable car without making you pay extra for a flashy brand name or 16-inch wheels. The 2005 Kia Spectra doesn't put on airs. It's the lowest-priced sedan in this test at $16,330. Yet it has all the makings of a fine commuter car ? decent power, a smooth ride, comfortable seats, simple controls and standard side and head curtain airbags.

The Spectra wasn't a car editors got excited about driving, but after a week, everyone agreed that Kia has put together a solid package. And it's one that will appeal to just about anyone looking for a good value.

Nice Pull Off the Line
Equipped with a 2.0-liter inline four, most Spectras make 138 hp and 136 lb-ft of torque. However, we had the SULEV version sold in California and the northeastern states which drops you to 132 hp and 133 lb-ft. Fuel economy rates 24 mpg city, 34 mpg highway with an automatic transmission ? third best in this group. Our tester averaged 22.3 mpg in a heavy mix of city driving.

The 2.0L is tuned to deliver a healthy dose of torque right off the line, allowing the Kia to get around town and merge into freeway traffic with ease. Some editors felt the Spectra actually had better low-end pull than the Elantra, which has the same engine.

This sensation was borne out in instrumented testing, where the Kia was significantly quicker from zero to 60 mph with an 11.2-second time versus the Hyundai's 11.7-second effort. Other than subtle variation between the cars themselves, there's no good explanation for this: drivetrain specs on these sedans are identical and the Kia actually weighs a bit more. The performance gap narrowed at the quarter-mile mark, as the Spectra ran a 17.6 to the Elantra's 17.9.

Performance Fades in Midrange
The Kia's affable around-town demeanor faded a little when we hit the more demanding stretches of our test loop. The engine has to work hard to maintain speed on uphill grades and doesn't sound very good doing it.

Opinions were mixed on the transmission's performance. Several editors praised its positive upshift feel and prompt downshifts, but just as many criticized it for being too quick to upshift and slow to kick down.

Comfy Ride, Average Handling
One of the Spectra's strengths is its softly tuned suspension, which dutifully absorbs bumps and grooves. One editor went so far as to say that the Kia's ride quality "feels more luxurious than the car's price would indicate."

The downside of this setup is considerable body roll around corners. The car is easy to predict in these situations, however, and leaves you an impression of competence. The steering offers decent weighting and feedback, while the Spectra's 195/60R15 Goodyear Eagle LS tires are low on grip but provide plenty of warning before they give way. The Kia's 59.7-mph slalom speed was respectable for this group.

Our test car didn't have ABS, but its four-wheel disc setup still provided a solid, progressive feel through the pedal. Its best 60-mph-to-0 stopping distance was 139 feet, second longest in the test. Antilock brakes will cost you $400 extra and we consider that money well spent.

Bland but Inviting Interior
There's nothing revolutionary going on in the cabin when it comes to design, which editors described as "clean, if uninspired," "a bit plain but tasteful," and "basic, functional, very reasonable." Even so, materials quality is above average. Soft-touch vinyls cover the dash and door tops, while the cloth upholstery is plush and soft. Shiny plastic control stalks are the only offenders. Build quality was also good in our tester ? everything feels sturdy and gap tolerances are tight (although, on the exterior, both the hood and trunk lid were misaligned).

Some editors found the front seats quite comfortable, others found them merely passable. There's plenty of room for all, though, as our 6-foot-4 editor gave the car a 9 out of 10 in this category.

Our tall-statured editor was similarly enthusiastic about the backseat, writing on his evaluation, "I could ride behind myself and be happy. The legroom is the best in the test, while headroom is just enough." Additionally, the Kia's rear bench offers generous cushioning, and the back cushion comes up high enough to fully support the shoulders of an average-size adult.

With the Kia's standard array of side airbags, you would expect class-leading side-impact protection. However, the Spectra's star ratings are no better than the Civic's (without side airbags), and it actually scored lower for rear occupants, earning just three out of five stars. In IIHS side-impact testing, the Kia received a "Poor" rating, however, head protection is better than it would be with no airbags at all. For frontal impacts, the Spectra earned four stars from the government and an "Acceptable" rating from the IIHS.

Everything Has its Place
Although a couple of editors complained about the fan speed dial's lack of an "off" position, the Spectra has simple controls overall. Every one of its oversized dials, knobs and buttons is easy to grasp and intuitively located. Plus, this is one of the few economy sedans with retained accessory power.

The Kia also scores big for its storage and cupholders. A vast selection of trays, bins, pockets and containers provides a spot for anything you happen to be carrying, while six large cupholders make road-trip dehydration a thing of the past.

Trunk capacity is just 12.2 cubic feet, but thanks to its wide opening, the Spectra's cargo hold was as functional as any of the others during our week of testing.

All About Value
We still think you should look at the Mazda 3 and Civic first, but if you buy the bargain-priced 2005 Kia Spectra, you're not going to do without anything important.

Vehicle Tested:
2005 Kia Spectra EX 4dr Sedan (2.0L 4cyl 4A)
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $16,330 Price It!!

What Works:
Low price, large backseat, comfortable ride, lots of storage and cupholders, generous features list, good low-end pull.

What Needs Work:
Engine feels weak and buzzy at midrange rpm, too much body roll around turns.

Bottom Line:
An excellent value for buyers who aren't looking for maximum refinement or fun in an economy sedan.

[ifcar]

Fourth Place: 2005 Ford Focus




Here's a car that loves life: After six years on the market and a dozen recalls in the first year, most economy sedans would be ready for the grave. But the 2005 Ford Focus is still out there working the crowd ? and still good enough for fourth place in this test.

Fourth out of seven is hardly a victory, but to the Ford's credit, most editors preferred it to the third-place Kia Spectra, giving it higher evaluation scores and ranking it higher among their personal and recommended picks. However, the Focus couldn't compete with the Spectra's rock-bottom price or feature content, and it didn't post very impressive acceleration or braking numbers at the track. Unquestionably, the Kia offers the more complete package, but on an intangible level, many of us feel the Focus would be more satisfying to own.

New Engine for 2005
Any car would be getting stale by its sixth year, so along with some cosmetic surgery, Ford updated the '05 Focus with a new pair of engines. Most models, including our SES sedan tester, come with a 2.0-liter inline four rated for 136 hp and 133 lb-ft of torque. A top-line ST sedan gets a 151-hp, 2.3-liter four. Both engines are Mazda-derived but have their own software and plumbing. They also do without the Mazda 3's variable valve timing.

Equipped with an automatic transmission, our Focus test car turned in mediocre acceleration numbers at the test track. It took 11.2 seconds to reach 60 mph and 17.7 for the quarter-mile. Yet, unlike the Kia, Ford's compact sedan never feels slow on public roads, as its 2.0-liter engine offers a juicier torque band that doesn't let up in the midrange. Power delivery is smoother as well, although the Honda and Mazda engines are smoother still.

The transmission manages just fine in normal driving situations, upshifting cleanly and downshifting when appropriate. However, start driving aggressively and confusion sets in. Downshifts come too late. Then, after the tranny finally drops a gear, it holds on a long time, oftentimes too long. If you're an assertive driver, take a hint and get the manual gearbox.

Fuel economy is a strong point for the Focus, as it earns 26 mpg city, 32 mpg highway rating, second only to the Civic. Our tester's 22.8-mpg average was also second best in the group.

Still a Delight to Drive
If you're looking for the best ride and handling dynamics in the economy sedan segment, you really should treat yourself to the Mazda 3. It rides on a newer platform and everything about it feels more buttoned down and refined. But there's something about the Focus that won't let us walk away from it, like an old relationship that rekindles with the slightest touch.

That touch could be the Ford's plush, forgiving ride quality. It's as if engineers tuned the suspension expressly for cross-country road trips and 60-mile-a-day commutes.

The steering also brings back fond memories. It's quick, responsive, never too heavy and just about perfect for a spontaneous run on a twisty road. The suspension allows moderate body roll in the corners, but if you push through it, the Focus sticks. Some credit goes to the car's 16-inch Pirelli tires, which offer a lot more grip than the 15s on the other cars. The Ford's 61.1-mph slalom speed was second only to the Mazda 3.

Progressive brake feel is also a Focus strength, but our test car's front disc/rear drum setup did not have ABS. Its best 60-0 stopping distance was 141 feet, the longest in the test. Do yourself a favor and pay the extra $400 to get antilock brakes.

Revised Design, Same Old Troubles
Ford's designers did some work on the cockpit for 2005, replacing the car's quirky angular dash with a more refined, symmetrical layout. The new look is less likely to turn off buyers with conservative tastes, but it's the same old Focus, which means easy-to-read instrumentation and simple controls.

Unfortunately, materials quality is still mediocre and there are so many different grain patterns it looks like the place was furnished piecemeal. Build quality hasn't improved, either. Many of our tester's interior panels didn't fit properly, nor did its hood and doors line up. We don't expect perfect fit and finish on an economy sedan, but on a car with a questionable reliability record, continued inattention to detail is not encouraging.

Occupants Sit Tall
Focus seats are chair-height and padded to the point you'd think the seams would burst from all the stuffing. The car earned top marks for seat comfort front and rear, as editors raved about the cushioning and thigh support. Our 6-foot-4 editor was the lone detractor, complaining that he didn't have enough legroom and that the high seating position cut into his visibility.

Telescoping steering wheel adjustment is a nice touch in front, but the complete lack of head restraints in back is an annoying slight. Storage is hard to come by in this cabin; designers added a CD drawer this year, but it opens right into the driver's knee. Additionally, the cupholders are too small to contain venti-size coffees. The 14.8-cubic-foot trunk, on the other hand, is the largest in the class.

Optional side airbags protect the heads and torsos of front occupants, but no protection is available for those seated in back. Neither NHTSA nor the IIHS has tested a Focus with side airbags: Without the bags, the government gives it four stars for front-occupant safety in side impacts and three stars for the rear, while the IIHS rates it "Poor" ? typical among small cars without full head protection. The Focus received a four-star frontal-impact rating and a "Good" rating from the IIHS for frontal-offset crashes.

Lovable but Flawed
Comfortable and fun to drive, the 2005 Ford Focus is an easy car to fall for, even in a class with superstars like the Mazda 3 and Civic. But its slipshod build quality and uncertain reliability make us hesitant to recommend it to friends who own Japanese cars.

Vehicle Tested:
2005 Ford Focus ZX4 SES 4dr Sedan (2.0L 4cyl 5M)
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $18,685 Price It!!

What Works:
Fun-loving character, forgiving ride quality, responsive steering, seats that feel like overstuffed chairs, simple controls.

What Needs Work:
Sloppy build quality, mismatched interior plastics, inadequate storage and cupholders, no rear headrests.

Bottom Line:
Still one of the most satisfying drives in the economy car segment, but continued fit and finish problems make it hard to forget this model's history of recalls.

[ifcar]

Fifth Place: 2005 Hyundai Elantra




Life isn't easy in the economy sedan segment. Just when you think you've come up with the perfect compromise of comfort, performance and value, the competition comes up with something more powerful and better equipped. A 2003 Elantra finished a very close second in our last comparison, but in this test, a 2005 Hyundai Elantra GT took some hits and ended up a distant fifth.

Some of the most crushing blows came from the car's own backyard, as its Kia Spectra platform mate trumped it in interior design, rear-seat room, features and even acceleration.

Slower Than the Spectra?
With Hyundai's 100-percent stake in Kia, parts-sharing is inevitable, and indeed the Elantra and Spectra have the same iron-block, 2.0-liter inline four rated for 138 hp and 136 lb-ft of torque. On our SULEV cars, the totals came to 132 hp and 133 lb-ft. Both sedans benefit from variable intake valve timing, and their automatic transmissions have identical gearing. The Elantra does have a weight advantage, coming in almost 70 pounds lighter.

Although you'd think any advantage in acceleration would also go to the Hyundai, it turned out to be the opposite. The Kia beat the Hyundai's 11.7-second 0-to-60-mph time by half a second. The Elantra began to close the distance in the quarter-mile, but its 17.9-second time still put it three-tenths of a second behind the Spectra.

Several drivers pointed out that the Elantra seemed to have less low-end punch than the Spectra on public roads as well. Ultimately, though, the sedans earned similarly mediocre scores in the engine category of our evaluations. Power is adequate for most everyday driving situations, but neither motor offers a vigorous midrange or seems especially smooth.

Editors had varying levels of patience with the Elantra's automatic transmission. Some were content with its downshift response in normal driving, but conceded that it could be pokey when pressed. Others were quicker to annoy: "The gear ratios are not suited to the engine," said one driver flatly.

Oddly, the 2005 Elantra has a lower EPA estimate than the Spectra. It rates 24 mpg city/32 mpg highway to the Kia's 24/34. However, our Elantra tester turned in a slightly better average than the Spectra, 22.6 mpg versus 22.3.

Smooth Ride, Unremarkable Handling
Intended as a slightly sporty take on the standard Elantra GLS sedan, the GT has firmer shock absorbers, thicker anti-roll bars and rear disc brakes instead of drums. Slightly is the important word here, as the Elantra GT still has the soft, unassuming ride quality of the base model, although one editor criticized its "nervous" attitude over freeway joints.

The GT doesn't get any sportier through the turns. There's body roll. There's understeer. The 195/60R15 Michelin Energys lose their stick easily. But it all happens in such a predictable manner you're never caught off-guard. The steering certainly isn't quick, but its weighting and feedback suit the car's personality. The Elantra's 59.5-mph slalom speed was midpack.

The ABS-equipped Hyundai's 130-foot 60-mph-to-0 braking distance was also midpack. Pedal feel is confident enough in everyday driving, but lacked progression during maximum efforts at the track.

Dated Cabin but Still Functional
Now in the fifth year of its model cycle, the Elantra is beginning to show signs of age on the inside. A Casio watch has a larger display than Elantra's stereo head unit, and the GT model's VW-knockoff, purple-and-red instrumentation clashes with the soft green backlighting on the center stack. Aside from those complaints, though, it's a functional design with straightforward controls. We liked the rubberized A/C dials, and the Elantra was the only other car besides the Cobalt with a distance-to-empty display.

Editors disagreed mightily over the Hyundai's materials quality. Some singled out the car's plastics as worst-in-group, while others pointed out the cabin's numerous soft-touch surfaces, perforated leather upholstery and embroidered floor mats.

Fit and finish was average for this group with a few interior panel misalignments and a trunk lid that didn't line up properly. However, the Elantra lost face with several editors for its excessive number of rattles, the worst of which was a creak from the driver door during hard cornering.

Accommodates Tall Adults, Large Cargo
Several editors reported that the driver seat was comfortable, well shaped and easy to tailor to their body requirements, thanks to its two-way seat bottom tilt. Others complained about a lack of lower back support. Your comfort may vary, but we can assure you there's plenty of room in all directions.

Legroom is good but not great in the backseat, while a clamshell-shaped headliner leaves ample headroom for taller passengers, our 6-foot-4 editor noted. Unfortunately, the low bench doesn't offer much thigh support.

Corralling your personal effects is easy thanks to the wide variety of bins, pockets and rubberized wells, while six good-sized cupholders help stave off thirst. The Elantra's 12.9-cubic-foot trunk capacity is average for this group, but the trunk opening is extra large, allowing us to load up our 50-quart cooler without swearing or even grumbling.

Unlike the Spectra, the Elantra doesn't offer head curtain bags to protect rear-seaters; however, its standard side airbags in front provide both head and torso coverage. The Hyundai earned four stars across the board in government side- and frontal-impact crash tests. The IIHS gave it a "Good" rating for frontal-offset protection, but a "Poor" rating for side impacts although head protection for the driver was good.

The Fallen Value Leader
The 2005 Hyundai Elantra is not an undesirable car, it's just not the complete package it once was. It still offers adequate power, a pleasant ride and a functional interior. A redesigned Elantra will be along in a few months ? if it's anything like the '06 Sonata, Hyundai will soon be back among the leaders of the economy sedan class.

Vehicle Tested:
2005 Hyundai Elantra GT SULEV 4dr Sedan (2.0L 4cyl 4A)
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $17,589 Price It!!

What Works:
Smooth ride, pleasant cabin ambience, standard leather upholstery, lots of storage and cupholders.

What Needs Work:
Engine's lack of midrange pep and refinement, creaking interior panels, low rear bench, outdated audio controls.

Bottom Line:
Now that Kia has dethroned it as the value leader, the Elantra is just another economy sedan with average credentials. Good thing a redesign is coming soon.

[ifcar]

Sixth Place: 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt




Our expectations for the 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt were high. It's the all-new replacement for the 10-year-old Cavalier, so we thought it would be right up there with the leaders in this test, duking it out for the title. But despite being the fastest car here and delivering a smooth, quiet highway ride, Chevy's new compact fails to offer a complete package.

Shortcomings include too much cheap plastic in the cabin, low scores for seat comfort and storage, and a lack of feature content. At $16,435, our base trim Cobalt was the second-least expensive car in the test, but it was also the only car of the seven without power windows, power mirrors and cruise control. Despite its other flaws, had it offered a few more luxuries, the Cobalt could have landed in fifth place.

Where's the Hospitality?
Aside from an attractive set of gauges and stereo head unit, the Cobalt interior left us cold. In fact, editors gave it the lowest scores for interior design and materials. Rough plastic covers most of the interior and the cloth upholstery is coarse to the touch. Fit and finish wasn't very good, either, though it wasn't any worse than the fourth-place Ford's.

Editors also gave the Cobalt the lowest scores in the group for seat comfort. The driving position is good, but the front and rear seats are flat, while the short seat bottoms of the front seats cut into the thighs of taller adults. And when you're stuck in traffic, there's no center armrest for weary elbows.

Rear legroom is only average, and there's little room under the front chairs for your feet. Plus, the rear bench is mounted so low it forces adults to sit with their knees up. Editors rated the Cobalt's backseat the least comfortable of the group.

The storage situation isn't any better. There's no center console container and the cupholders are inconveniently wedged under the center stack. At 13.9 cubic feet, the Cobalt's trunk capacity is second only to the Focus, but its small opening makes it tricky to get at the space. Our 50-quart cooler did not fit.

On the plus side, the Cobalt offers good crash protection if you ante up for the optional side curtain airbags. It's the only car in this test to earn an "Acceptable" rating from the IIHS for side-impact protection. The IIHS also named it a "Best Pick" for its frontal-offset crash performance, while NHTSA gave it four stars for the driver and five for the passenger in frontal-impact tests.

Unexpectedly Quick
If outright speed is your thing, the Cobalt is the muscle car of the bunch. Getting to 60 mph takes just 9.2 seconds, which makes it the quickest car in this test. The Mazda 3 was closing fast by the quarter-mile mark, but the Cobalt still beat it by a tenth of a second with a 16.6-second run.

Although the Mazda 3's 2.3-liter has 15 extra horsepower and a few less pounds to propel, the Cobalt's 145-hp, 2.2-liter four has a tad more peak torque. More importantly, its torque curve opens up lower in the rpm range, allowing the Chevy to move out faster.

In the real world, that flat torque curve assures the Cobalt never gets caught flat-footed when hard acceleration is required. And it holds strong on steep uphill grades. Yet, editors gave the Mazda 3 higher scores in the engine category as drivers favored its smoother power delivery.

The Cobalt's four-speed automatic doesn't have the manual-shift mode of the Mazda 3's transmission or the book smarts of the Civic's, but editors appreciated its crisp, well-timed shifts and scored it a close third behind these two.

When it comes to fuel economy, the Chevrolet places midpack with its 24 mpg city, 32 mpg highway EPA estimate. Our tester turned in 22.5 mpg in heavy city driving, also average for the group.

Smooth, Quiet, but Not Much Fun
Although the Cobalt is the only sedan in the test without an independent rear suspension, it delivers a smooth highway ride that endeared it to the long-distance commuters on staff. Also likable was its quiet cruising demeanor and light-effort electric steering.

This isn't a car you'll want to push through the turns, though. The Chevy's 59.5-mph slalom speed was average for this group, but when driven hard, the car has a tendency to transition from understeer to oversteer with little warning. The suspension also allows too much body roll, and the 195/60R15 Continental tires are low on grip. The steering, meanwhile, is slow but not entirely numb.

A better set of rubber would improve the Cobalt's handling, and do wonders for its braking ability. On the track, our ABS-equipped tester stopped from 60 mph in 136 feet, but all the other cars in the test with antilock brakes stopped in a shorter distance. On a positive note, the Chevy's front disc/rear drum setup proved quite fade-resistant and pedal progression was excellent under maximum load.

Budget Commuter Car
If you're looking for an inexpensive commuter car, the 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt is an acceptable choice: It's quick, quiet, smooth and safe. But if you want an economy car that feels like more than basic transportation, especially on the inside, one of the higher-finishing cars will suit you better.

Vehicle Tested:
2005 Chevrolet Cobalt 4dr Sedan (2.2L 4cyl 5M)
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $16,435 Price It!!

What Works:
Outstanding acceleration, smooth and quiet ride, good crash test scores.

What Needs Work:
Cut-rate interior materials, uncomfortable seats, dire lack of interior storage, fit and finish problems.

Bottom Line:
Better than the Cavalier but still well behind the class leaders in interior design, comfort and quality.

[ifcar]

Seventh Place: 2005 Suzuki Forenza




There's nowhere to hide in a large comparison test. If you can't keep up with the leaders, you're a midpacker. And if you can't keep up with the midpackers, well, there's always the rental car fleets.

Earlier tests of a Forenza sedan and wagon had left us with the impression that Suzuki's Korean-built compact offers solid value in the economy car segment. In addition to being well equipped for the price, the manual-shift sedan was relatively quick with a 9.6-second 0-to-60-mph time, while the wagon offered ample utility with 62 cubic feet of cargo space.

However, with neither speed nor utility on its side, our automatic-equipped LX sedan was in way over its head in this field of seven. Save for a handful of advantages like an attractive interior, a big backseat and a long standard features list, it wasn't much of a contender.

Struggles to Get By
At first glance, the 2005 Suzuki Forenza's 2.0-liter engine, which produces 126 hp and 131 lb-ft of torque doesn't look so bad. After all, the Civic only makes 127 hp and 114 lb-ft, and displaces 1.7 liters.

But you have to remember that the Civic's engine has variable valve timing and its transmission is expertly geared. The Forenza's tranny, on the other hand, is geared too wide and is slow to downshift. Anything beyond leisurely acceleration requires a drop into second gear and the process takes too long. Another annoyance is the requirement that you push down on the gear selector when moving from "Drive" to "Reverse."

The Forenza's 11.6-second 0-to-60-mph time was actually a tenth of a second faster than the Elantra's, but on public roads, the Suzuki has nothing on the Hyundai. The Elantra's acceleration is adequate, but in the Forenza, every maneuver in traffic takes planning. "Hill climbing is a nightmare," said one editor. "I keep finding myself hunkering over the steering wheel urging the Suzuki to go faster."

Usually, the upside of driving a modestly powered car is good fuel economy. But the Forenza packs a rare double whammy: slow acceleration and the worst EPA rating in the class (22 mpg city, 30 mpg highway). Our tester averaged 20.9 mpg in heavy stop-and-go driving. Only the Mazda 3 (20.8 mpg) turned in a lower number.

Ride and Handling Fall Short
Compared with the other sedans, the Forenza also comes up short in ride quality. The Suzuki strives for comfort with its soft suspension. This works out fine on smooth pavement, but there's too much movement over bumps and ruts.

Handling isn't one of the Forenza's strong points, either. Editors found it a little unnerving to drive it on the twistier portions of our test loop because of its excessive body roll and early understeer. We're sure a different set of tires would improve the Suzuki's road manners because its oddly sized 195/55R15 Hankook Optimas offer little grip.

In the controlled environment of our test track, the Forenza performed respectably, turning in a 58.4-mph slalom speed, which tied it with the Civic.

The Forenza's steering has some heft but offers little feedback. On a positive note, the car's four-wheel antilock disc brakes proved to be plenty powerful. The Suzuki recorded the shortest 60-mph-to-0 braking distance at 126 feet, a good distance for any car let alone an economy sedan. Unfortunately, it also exhibited poor stability during hard braking and a soft pedal feel.

Nicely Appointed but Flawed
One of the Forenza's selling points is its high feature content. Our LX model was the third cheapest car in this test, yet it was packed with an eight-speaker stereo, steering wheel audio controls, cabin air filtration, a sunroof, alloy wheels and heated mirrors.

Get behind the wheel, and the Forenza makes a positive first impression with its sharp two-tone color scheme, attractive gauges, tasteful use of faux aluminum and soft, plush upholstery. A few cheap plastics are mixed in, but our tester's panels were neat and straight inside and out.

However, editors couldn't give the Forenza top marks for quality given its excessive wind noise and myriad of squeaks and rattles. The Suzuki's door panels creaked during hard cornering; wind noise from the sunroof suggested poor sealing; and when one editor sat in the driver seat, he felt something in the seat snap.

Plenty of Room
Interior space is not a problem in the Forenza, especially in the back where legroom is as plentiful as in the Spectra. The seat bottom cushion is a tad short, but the Suzuki was the only car to offer head restraints in all three positions and a fold-down armrest. Up front, some editors liked the driver seat's firm cushioning and two-way seat bottom tilt, but others thought the seat lacked support.

As in the Hyundai and Kia, storage slots are numerous so you always have a spot for cell phones and CD cases and the front cupholders can accommodate a wide range of beverage sizes. Trunk capacity is 12.4 cubic feet, one of the lower figures for this class, but a wide opening makes it easy to take advantage of the available space.

Standard side airbags provide head and torso protection for front occupants only. Even with the airbags, the IIHS rates the Forenza "Poor" overall for side-impact safety. NHTSA has not tested a Forenza with side airbags. In frontal-impact testing, the Suzuki received four stars from the government and an "Acceptable" rating from the IIHS.

Not a Strong Choice
With its roomy interior and a generous standard features list, the 2005 Suzuki Forenza looks like a good value on the surface. Unfortunately, its acceleration, fuel economy and handling fall well short of the leaders in this segment. Bargain hunters would be wise to put their money on a Kia Spectra instead.

Vehicle Tested:
2005 Suzuki Forenza LX 4dr Sedan w/ABS (2.0L 4cyl 4A)
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $17,194 Price It!!

What Works:
Attractive interior, plenty of rear-seat legroom, lots of storage space, long standard features list.

What Needs Work:
Weak acceleration, sloppy road manners, cheap tires, inconsistent materials quality, excessive rattles and wind noise, worst fuel economy in the class.

Bottom Line:
Plenty of features and interior room for the money, but the trade-off is a subpar driving experience. Buy a Spectra if you want a bargain.

[giant_mtb]

The Hyundai has a really bad front end.  <_<  

[ifcar]

Final rankings:

1. Mazda3: 84.3 points
2. Honda Civic: 76.5 points
3. Kia Spectra: 74.0 points
4. Ford Focus: 73.0 point
5. Hyundai Elantra: 68.0 points
6. Chevrolet Cobalt: 66.5 points
7. Suzuki Forenza: 61.6 points

[Raghavan]

ouch. the cobalt is new and is 6th.

[TBR]

Cobalt:
"Cut-rate interior materials, uncomfortable seats, dire lack of interior storage, fit and finish problems."
Huh? IMHO the Cobalt's interior quality is right up there with the 3.

3:
"So-so fuel economy, tight rear-seat legroom for 6-footers."
Last time I checked all of these cars' rear seats were tight for 6-footers.

[ifcar]

They used a low-end Cobalt, which doesn't have as good materials as the others. Well below a 3s, and probably behind everything in that group but the Focus, maybe the Elantra. And several Cobalts I've been in have had some glaring assembly flaws.  

[bobwill]

They used a low-end Cobalt, which doesn't have as good materials as the others. Well below a 3s, and probably behind everything in that group but the Focus, maybe the Elantra. And several Cobalts I've been in have had some glaring assembly flaws.

How does Edmunds get their cars?
As far as using a low end Cobalt, it was the absolute cheapest in the bunch.  Which is really strange as they could have gotten a Cobalt LT with every possible feature except for a sunroof and Onstar and still have a lower MSRP than the Mazda3.
I don't know if this would have affected the final outcome or not.  Personally, I'd much rather have a Focus than a 2005 Civic.  So, right there I don't agree with their results.

[Raza]

Count on Edmunds to use all automatics.

[bobwill]

The cobalt was a manual, which isn't even an optional transmission on the higher end trim level.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

Personally i would probobly look at these three if i was in this market.

Mazda 3
Focus
Cobalt

To me i just don't think(may be wrong, haven't driven any new cars) the korean cars have caught up to The mazda or focus when it comes to a nice sorted out sporty chassis.

[ifcar]

They used a low-end Cobalt, which doesn't have as good materials as the others. Well below a 3s, and probably behind everything in that group but the Focus, maybe the Elantra. And several Cobalts I've been in have had some glaring assembly flaws.

How does Edmunds get their cars?
As far as using a low end Cobalt, it was the absolute cheapest in the bunch.  Which is really strange as they could have gotten a Cobalt LT with every possible feature except for a sunroof and Onstar and still have a lower MSRP than the Mazda3.
I don't know if this would have affected the final outcome or not.  Personally, I'd much rather have a Focus than a 2005 Civic.  So, right there I don't agree with their results.

From manufacturer fleets, like almost everyone else. (Except for their Long Term Tests.)

[BMWDave]

Anyone know why the Corolla wasnt included in the test?

[ifcar]

Anyone know why the Corolla wasnt included in the test?

Edmunds' typical comparison-test practice is that they will never include the same car in two comparison tests unless it won or changed significantly since the previous test. Here, they made an exception for the close-second Elantra, but not the Corolla, which was 5th.

[BMWDave]

Anyone know why the Corolla wasnt included in the test?

Edmunds' typical comparison-test practice is that they will never include the same car in two comparison tests unless it won or changed significantly since the previous test. Here, they made an exception for the close-second Elantra, but not the Corolla, which was 5th.

I see.