Just got the latest issue of C&D in the mail. They conducted a comparison test of family sedans, entitled "Familial Four-Doors." This wasn't a test of uplevel versions, as each car was equipped with the base engine and transmission combination. Prices ranged from $20,915 to $24,594.
6 - Chrysler Sebring Touring - 163 points
Highs: Adventurous styling, rides on marshmallows, easy-fold rear seats.
Lows: Slushy controls, a sitting-in-a-hole feeling, slow-mo acceleration.
Verdict: Chrysler pitches one to the Buick generation.
5 - Toyota Camry LE - 176 points
Highs: A smooth engine, scads of storage cubbies, a well-utilized interior.
Lows: Languid handling, a few loose trims bits, the curse of blandness.
Verdict: Still the crown prince of mainstream.
4 - Saturn Aura XE - 190 points
Highs: Styling a la mode, V-6 torque, happy in curves.
Lows: Dime-store interior, hand-dirtying trunk, poorest mileage.
Verdict: Laudable, but let down by details.
3 - Kia Optima EX - 193 points
Highs: Tops the Toyota's fit and finish, quiet inside, feature-packed for the price.
Lows: Spongy suspension, styling has high yawn factor.
Verdict: Surprisingly delightful for fewer dollars.
2 - Nissan Altima 2.5S - 198 points
Highs: Z-wannabe handling, quickest to 60, Mach 2 sheetmetal.
Lows: Silly start button, engine thrash, some cheapness inside.
Verdict: A pole setter that needs polish.
1 - Honda Accord SE - 202 points
Highs: Heavenly steering, engine sings with gusto, no wasted space inside.
Lows: Anonymous looks, fussy rear-seatback latch, dated interior.
Verdict: The everyman's car that bonds with enthusiasts.
Notable quotes:
"However, only riders above the posted age limit should get in line for this tranquilized cruiser." - Regarding the Sebring.
"Toyota sedans have never throbbed with driving passion, but at least they could boast of unimpeachable quality. The Camry was impeachable."
"If fit and finish ceases to be Toyota's obsession, what will define the company's products? We shudder to imagine." - The best quote of the entire article. Very, very true. :praise:
"It's not an official category, but the Aura would get 10 points out of 10 for being a perfect 'almost.'"
"Looking more Citroen than Chevy, the Saturn Aura breaks some GM patterns while thoroughly reinforcing others."
"And you thought Japan was worried about North Korea." - Talking about the Optima.
"If Kia wants to build the uber-Camry, Nissan offers the un-Camry."
"The Altima is ultimately cut down to second by small slip-ups."
"Honda has the formula so nailed that there can be no place for this car but up front."
"No question Honda still wears the kanmuri in this class."
If you have any questions or requests for more information, I'll be glad to oblige. :ohyeah:
Quote from: VetteZ06 on December 28, 2006, 01:57:21 PM
"And you thought Japan was worried about North Korea." - Talking about the Optima.
:lol:
I'm surprised the Accord still wins these comparisons. It's getting on a bit now isn't it?
Disappointed and surprised to see the Sebring last. It might look like shit but I was still expecting it to be a decent car.
Even more surprised they placed the Kia above the Toyota. By criticising the Aura for having a 'dime store' interior, then putting the Kia above it, seems to suggest the Kia is equal or better for interior quality. Was this the case?
Is the Accord that good a handler?
Yes, they spent an entire paragraph talking about the Kia's interior and, specifically, how it was better than the Camry's. Better fit and finish, better materials, well-damped controls, etc.
Seeing the Aura's performance in this test really gets on my nerves. GM is so close to offering up a real winner, but they had to cheap out on the little details. The Aura had great performance numbers (second-best zero to sixty, best quarter-mile acceleration, best skidpad grip, second-best stopping distances) and was apparently a lot of fun to drive, but in typical GM fashion, it just couldn't be a complete package. They loved the exterior styling, too, giving it a 10 out of 10 - the next best was an 8 for the Altima. If GM had given the Aura a well-executed interior, it probably would've been second place or higher. :banghead:
The current Camry has inconsistent quality in the sense that some cars are built well, and some (more base models than uplevel, I've noticed) suffer fron the sort of problems they describe, en masse. But all have too-hard plastics.
I agree, the Aura has great potential, I'd really like to drive one.
I'm a Honda fan, but I'm surprised to see the Accord win, and even more surprised to see the Camry place so low (not that I think it's undeserved).
What were the prices of the cars? I know you said 20k to 24k, but I just wondered how the Aura compared to the Accord in price.
It's a shame GM still don't seem to have learned their lesson on interiors. Often I've thought that perhaps people are being too harsh on them for their interiors, but the fact that its a subject that keeps coming up even when new models are being tested suggests that GM really haven't improved quality that much :huh:
On the other hand, low 20s is a really good deal for a car like the Aura. I guess you get what you pay for in a way.
They have improved drastically, but everyone else started better and also improved, changing the standards.
I wouldn't even be swayed by a lesser quality interior so much either. As long as everything is functional, not going to fall off, and doesn't scream super chintzy, I could deal with it. I'm more interested in the longevity of the vehicle.
Out of that group though, I'd probably buy the Honda for the sole reason of an available manual transmission. Otherwise, the Aura would be high on my list.
The Aura doesn't have manual? :confused: :nono:
find is annoying that magazines will praise an interior (Aura) and then put it down in a later test. I've seen this with other mags too. It seems like the hype of a new model blinds them to obvious shortcomings.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on December 28, 2006, 02:42:45 PM
The Aura doesn't have manual? :confused: :nono:
Nope. The only domestic branded GM cars with manual gearboxes are the Aveo, Cobalt/G5, Ion, HHR, Solstice/Sky, Corvette and the Cadillac CTS. Basically just economy cars and sports cars (and one sport-lux).
Quote from: MX793 on December 28, 2006, 03:18:02 PM
Nope. The only domestic branded GM cars with manual gearboxes are the Aveo, Cobalt/G5, Ion, HHR, Solstice/Sky, Corvette and the Cadillac CTS. Basically just economy cars and sports cars (and one sport-lux).
You can get the G6 with a manual.
Quote from: Catman on December 28, 2006, 03:01:47 PM
find is annoying that magazines will praise an interior (Aura) and then put it down in a later test. I've seen this with other mags too. It seems like the hype of a new model blinds them to obvious shortcomings.
It's because most new cars look good viewed in isolation, but a comparison can expose the flaws.
Quote from: mazda6er on December 28, 2006, 03:21:16 PM
You can get the G6 with a manual.
Not anymore. The 6MT that came in the GTP was dropped in favor of a 6AT with "manual shift mode" for '07. Also, the GTP is now powered by GM's 3.6L DOHC instead of the 3.9L pushrod, which I suspect is one reason why the manual gearbox was dropped.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on December 28, 2006, 02:19:11 PM
What were the prices of the cars?? I know you said 20k to 24k, but I just wondered how the Aura compared to the Accord in price.
Prices: Base/As-tested
Chrysler Sebring - $20,195/$22,785
Honda Accord SE - $21,420/$22,220
Kia Optima EX - $19,995/$22,695
Nissan Altima 2.5S - $20,915/$20,915
Saturn Aura XE - $20,595/$24,020
Toyota Camry LE - $20,400/$24,594
Quote from: MX793 on December 28, 2006, 03:29:42 PM
Not anymore. The 6MT that came in the GTP was dropped in favor of a 6AT with "manual shift mode" for '07. Also, the GTP is now powered by GM's 3.6L DOHC instead of the 3.9L pushrod, which I suspect is one reason why the manual gearbox was dropped.
That's shitty.
I know a lot of folks are probably surprised by the showing of the kia Optima, but actually the new Optima is a very nice car. It's nothing like the one it replaced. Kia didn't opt for the Sonata 3.3 liter V6, but went with the 2.7 V6 which has been upgraded substantially, and is not anything like the old Sonata 2.7 V6 at all.
I've read other magazine road tests of the Kia Optima, and I think it is in some ways a "sleeper", in that it is really making a good showing and impressing a lot of automotive testers and writers. I'd say that Kia and Hyundai are to be watched closely. I think they are catching up at hyper-speed with the other makes. Even the Kia Sedona Van has scored very well against the other Mini Van makes too.
One surprise is that Camry didn't get 1st place as it did with MT. I really am getting to the point where I think MT's car's and trucks of the year are just results of who is pumping the most advertising dollars towards MT's magazines.
I also noticed that the Mazda6 wasn't included in the test. I know it's a little less roomy than the others, but it's still a competent vehicle.
Quote from: eightballsidepocket on December 28, 2006, 03:39:25 PM
I also noticed that the Mazda6 wasn't included in the test.? I know it's a little less roomy than the others, but it's still a competent vehicle.
I think this was a test for recently redesigned (or completely new) cars that they hadn't pitted against each other before. The Sebring, Optima, Altima, and Camry have all been overhauled in the past year or so, the Aura is a brand new model, and they had to include the Accord since it's the perennial class benchmark. The 6 would've been a good addition, but it didn't exactly fit their criteria (not new, hasn't won a previous comparison test).
Quote from: VetteZ06 on December 28, 2006, 03:46:17 PM
I think this was a test for recently redesigned (or completely new) cars that they hadn't pitted against each other before. The Sebring, Optima, Altima, and Camry have all been overhauled in the past year or so, the Aura is a brand new model, and they had to include the Accord since it's the perennial class benchmark. The 6 would've been a good addition, but it didn't exactly fit their criteria (not new, hasn't won a previous comparison test).
I'm afraid it might have finished 4th or 5th.
Quote from: eightballsidepocket on December 28, 2006, 03:39:25 PM
I also noticed that the Mazda6 wasn't included in the test. I know it's a little less roomy than the others, but it's still a competent vehicle.
The Sonata and Ford Fusion are also missing.
From the looks of it, I presume they only included cars that are either heavily revamped or all-new since their last family sedan comparo (Dec 05) plus the winner of the last comparo so that it might defend its crown (which is why the Accord is in the mix).
Quote from: MX793 on December 28, 2006, 03:50:14 PM
From the looks of it, I presume they only included cars that are either heavily revamped or all-new since their last family sedan comparo (Dec 05) plus the winner of the last comparo so that it might defend its crown (which is why the Accord is in the mix).
Correct. That explains the absence of the Sonata and Fusion, since both lost out to the Accord last time.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on December 28, 2006, 03:33:09 PM
Prices: Base/As-tested
Chrysler Sebring - $20,195/$22,785
Honda Accord SE - $21,420/$22,220
Kia Optima EX - $19,995/$22,695
Nissan Altima 2.5S - $20,915/$20,915
Saturn Aura XE - $20,595/$24,020
Toyota Camry LE - $20,400/$24,594
I'm surprised the Aura was 2nd most expensive. I thought GMs were usually dirt cheap.
I'd still take the Aura though, probably because it's the most European out of the six :devil: :lol:
To be honest, none of these cars look as good as the Fusion, Mazda6 or Passat (in my opinion of course).
It was also the only V6.
Very surprised it wasn't higher then. Too bad about the lack of manual.
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on December 28, 2006, 02:42:45 PM
The Aura doesn't have manual? :confused: :nono:
They don't really need one in America, unfortunately.
Quote from: MX793 on December 28, 2006, 03:29:42 PM
Not anymore.? The 6MT that came in the GTP was dropped in favor of a 6AT with "manual shift mode" for '07.? Also, the GTP is now powered by GM's 3.6L DOHC instead of the 3.9L pushrod, which I suspect is one reason why the manual gearbox was dropped.
Actually, although the 3.9 got demoted to the "GT Sport Package" from the GTP, you can still order it with the M6 tranny, for now that is. If GM follows typical GM history, the manual will not be offered past '07.
I'm seeing it listed as "discontinued".
Quote from: ifcar on December 28, 2006, 07:59:24 PM
I'm seeing it listed as "discontinued".
Which is funny, 'cause I just double-checked Pontiac's website, and it's still there under the "build your own" options.
Like this one... click, then scroll down to options (http://www.pontiac.com/byo/buildSummary.pg?regularOptions=PDX&iPi=3&fPi=3&pvc=205&exteriorColor=Black%20&colorOptions=41U%5E19C%5EA51&interiorColorId=19C&styleId=GT%20&make=pg&seatTypeId=A51&model=G6&modelId=081&noType=0&exteriorColorId=41U&year=2007&interiorColor=Ebony%20Impression%20Cloth%20&colorVisited=true&subModelId=250&makeId=002&style=GT%20&zip=48226&&vehicleModel=/images/gmbp/16002/vehicle/2007/med/250_8555.jpg&exteriorColorChipUrl=/images/gmbp/color/chips/ext/med/8555.gif&interiorColorChipUrl=/images/gmbp/color/chips/int/med/19C_g6.gif&contexLink=&originatingBrand=DIVISIONAL).
Perhaps they killed it mid-year and didn't update the site.
Quote from: traumadog on December 28, 2006, 08:04:48 PM
Which is funny, 'cause I just double-checked Pontiac's website, and it's still there under the "build your own" options.
Oh yeah, I see it there. I don't suspect it will be around beyond '07, though.
According to GM Canada the G6 GT "Performance Package" includes the 3900 V6 and the 6-speed manual. It's an option, only available on GT models, but it's still available.
From what I was seeing, it's available on some 07-model cars, but only ones they've already built.
If I had to do it all over again, the Accord wouldn't have made it on the short list.
My '05 Accord has loads of interior quality issues, and brake feel is lousy as is performance (as evidenced by the tester's last place braking finish).
:confused:Isn't the Sebring a brand new car? On the last place? :huh:
Damn, Chrysler engineers must have been smoking a lot of weed lately...
Except for the Accord, they're all new.
Quote from: ifcar on December 29, 2006, 05:31:58 AM
Except for the Accord, they're all new.
Ouuups. Yeah... American market. I mixed up the Optima with our Opirus...
The Accord only got a facelift I guess?
Honda Accord.......oh for goodness sake.
Quote from: pommes-t on December 29, 2006, 08:02:04 AM
Ouuups. Yeah... American market. I mixed up the Optima with our Opirus...
The Accord only got a facelift I guess?
The Accord is unchanged. It was included because it won their last midsize sedan comparo.
The Accord keeps coming out on top even though it's been out for years. When this new one comes out it should destroy the competition if infact Honda decides significantly improve upon what it currently has out. I hope though the sheetmetal is one of the main things they focus on.
The points on the Aura having a cheap interior I don't see. I sat in one in the Auto Show and I felt it looked amazing. Maybe I'd have to live in one for a few days to notice, or maybe I just don't feel up interiors like the editors but I thought it was more than adequate. I'm coming though from a Dodge Intrepid and it just might be my point of refrence.
See what happens when you compare the base models? Toyota doesn't completely dominate.
Quote from: FIU Panther on December 29, 2006, 09:32:41 AM
The points on the Aura having a cheap interior I don't see. I sat in one in the Auto Show and I felt it looked amazing. Maybe I'd have to live in one for a few days to notice, or maybe I just don't feel up interiors like the editors but I thought it was more than adequate. I'm coming though from a Dodge Intrepid and it just might be my point of refrence.
Did you sit in an XE or an XR? I've generally heard positive things about the XR's interior, with a few cheap bits being mentioned here and there, but in many cases the cheaper models (like the XE) have lesser interiors.
It still boggles my mind that GM
knows how to make a killer interior, but refuses to put one in a car as important as the Aura. :huh:
Quote from: giant_mtb on December 29, 2006, 09:36:30 AM
See what happens when you compare the base models? Toyota doesn't completely dominate.
Toyota doesn't dominate with the top-end models either. At least not in the major enthusiast mags like C&D, R&T and MotorTrend.
Quote from: FIU Panther on December 29, 2006, 09:32:41 AM
The Accord keeps coming out on top even though it's been out for years. When this new one comes out it should destroy the competition if infact Honda decides significantly improve upon what it currently has out. I hope though the sheetmetal is one of the main things they focus on.
The Accord will no doubt continue to be one of the most expensive cars in its class, so the redesign probably won't shake up the market too much. If they soften up the ride and bloat up the interior, they'd probably take some Camry sales, but I don't think that's what they want.
I'm not optimistic about the next Accord's styling. The Civic has gotten progressive uglier with each redesign (imho), same with the CR-V and the Ridgeline is just plain homely.
My favorite Accord was the '96-97 followed by the 80's one with the pop up headlights. The newer Accords aren't monstrosities, but they are getting a bit more awkward with each redesign (again, my opinion).
Regardless of looks, I'm sure the new one will be a competent car.
Quote from: The Pirate on December 29, 2006, 03:09:13 PM
I'm not optimistic about the next Accord's styling. The Civic has gotten progressive uglier with each redesign (imho), same with the CR-V and the Ridgeline is just plain homely.
My favorite Accord was the '96-97 followed by the 80's one with the pop up headlights. The newer Accords aren't monstrosities, but they are getting a bit more awkward with each redesign (again, my opinion).
Regardless of looks, I'm sure the new one will be a competent car.
There was one that looked really good a couple of years ago (probably circa 2000) and then after that.... :cry:
Quote from: The Pirate on December 29, 2006, 03:09:13 PM
My favorite Accord was the '96-97 followed by the 80's one with the pop up headlights. The newer Accords aren't monstrosities, but they are getting a bit more awkward with each redesign (again, my opinion).
Best one is still this one:
(http://images.consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/autoreview/400x266/1990-93-Honda-Accord-93802041990207.JPG)
Especially the wagon:
(http://images.consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/autoreview/400x266/1990-93-Honda-Accord-91802041990217.JPG)
I think that C&D is overly biased towards Hondas. I was hoping for a comparo of these new midsize sedans. The Accord is the most dated one, the one with the most boring styling, and the one with the most 'blah' interior. Of course my latter two points are a matter of opinion. I guess I'll wait for my issue tomorrow to see what their excuse was this time.
But you can't ignore the fact that the Accord is really that good. Other than the Passat, I still haven't found a family car out there with a truly better interior than the Accord. Not the mixed-bag Camry, Hyundai Sonata, or any others. While I haven't gotten to check out the Aura in person yet, it would be really hard to make a better overall car than the Accord, which is generic enough to be inoffensive and has enough character to make it stand out.
Just look at the interior of an EX-L plus navigation and tell me it's not the best in class for around 30 grand for a real mid-sized family car.
Quote from: the Teuton on December 29, 2006, 09:19:21 PM
Just look at the interior of an EX-L plus navigation and tell me it's not the best in class for around 30 grand for a real mid-sized family car.
In fact it is less than that. The EX-L Navi has a MSRP of $24550+dest and real life price os $24550. The fully loaded Accord V6 with Navi has an MSRP of 29,400 plus destination (so you are right, it goes up to 29995), however carsdirect sells it for $27,324 in my zip code. I still happen to think that it looks good, though most people either find it ugly or boring. It handles well for a big family sedan, has enough power and the interior still is among the best if not the best, after almost 5 years of introduction. It is priced high because of Honda's policy of clubbing together the features. I guess it saves them money but as long as they are investing it in the car itself, it is good. I do have small complaints like the interior rattle (they replaced the radio and the rattles got worse) and occasional smell from the catalytic converter filling up the cabin.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 28, 2006, 11:33:12 PM
If I had to do it all over again, the Accord wouldn't have made it on the short list.
My '05 Accord has loads of interior quality issues, and brake feel is lousy as is performance (as evidenced by the tester's last place braking finish).
My Accord to actually has interior issues. It has this rattle in the dash that is incredibly annoying. Since one of my friend works for Honda, I may ask if he can get it checked out for free.
Well it's been a solid sedan otherwise.
Quote from: AKL on December 30, 2006, 12:06:11 PM
My Accord to actually has issues. It has this rattle in the dash that is incredibly annoying. Since one of my friend works for Honda, I may ask if he can get it checked out for free.
Well it's been a solid sedan otherwise.
My TL had a new rattle every 2nd day. I just gave up on it, considering some pieces didn't even fit together.
Quote from: ro51092 on December 30, 2006, 12:07:51 PM
My TL had a new rattle every 2nd day. I just gave up on it, considering some pieces didn't even fit together.
Little off topic but hows the A4? Interior quality should be flawless :ohyeah:
Perfect. I am in love with the whole car. I like the switchgear a lot, everything fits well together, the car has an awesome sound system, and it just feels expensive. I love how VW and Audi pay attention to small details.
Quote from: ro51092 on December 30, 2006, 12:22:06 PM
Perfect. I am in love with the whole car. I like the switchgear a lot, everything fits well together, the car has an awesome sound system, and it just feels expensive. I love how VW and Audi pay attention to small details.
That's great to hear! :ohyeah:
I've always loved how the A4 looks, inside and out.
I have a question: Where is my issue?
Quote from: GoCougs on December 28, 2006, 11:33:12 PM
If I had to do it all over again, the Accord wouldn't have made it on the short list.
My '05 Accord has loads of interior quality issues, and brake feel is lousy as is performance (as evidenced by the tester's last place braking finish).
C/D loves the Accord. I was going to win. It probably deserved it too. Imagine what will happen when the new one comes out!
Why people pick the Camry over it is a big mystery.
It's bigger, more comfortable, more powerful with the V6, and quieter.
Quote from: gasoline on December 30, 2006, 01:03:25 PM
Why people pick the Camry over it is a big mystery.
There.
Quote from: gasoline on December 30, 2006, 01:03:25 PM
C/D loves the Accord. I was going to win. It probably deserved it too. Imagine what will happen when the new one comes out!
Why people pick the Camry over it is a big mystery.
Now that I own an Accord, IMO I have some context into the "mystery." The Camry is (much) quieter and smoother riding, and has at least equal if not better reliability and resale track record. The '07 adds more power, 6sp AT, and better fuel economy.
If I had to do it again, the old '06 Camry V6 SE would've been the better choice IMO, let alone the '07 V6 SE. What originally swayed me was that I liked the Accord's seats and its additional power over the '06 (albeit with just a smidge of an acceleration advantage).
Quote from: ifcar on December 30, 2006, 01:23:45 PM
It's bigger, more comfortable, more powerful with the V6, and quieter.
Funny. My aunt has a 2004 Accord and when I asked her why she didn't get a Camry, she said she thought it was too loud.
I never looked to see if it was a 4 or 6 cylinder.
She did love the Mazda 6 though. She said she wanted one. She thought it looked really good--and she's a CR True Believer (TM).
As much as everybody hates the Camry... it's still America's bestselling sedan. Why?
Quote from: TheIntrepid on December 30, 2006, 04:47:36 PM
As much as everybody hates the Camry... it's still America's bestselling sedan. Why?
It's pretty much the default family sedan. It has a good track record in terms of reliability, etc., so anybody who wants to make the "no-brainer" decision seems to go with a Camry. It requires no thought, and it's a safe bet.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on December 30, 2006, 05:05:05 PM
It's pretty much the default family sedan. It has a good track record in terms of reliability, etc., so anybody who wants to make the "no-brainer" decision seems to go with a Camry. It requires no thought, and it's a safe bet.
you take out fleet sales, retail wise it will be the Accord... although this year may be close...
Quote from: VetteZ06 on December 30, 2006, 05:05:05 PM
It's pretty much the default family sedan. It has a good track record in terms of reliability, etc., so anybody who wants to make the "no-brainer" decision seems to go with a Camry. It requires no thought, and it's a safe bet.
VetteZ06,
You are correct that the Camry's record for reliability and quality serve it well. I'm sure there are people who want a new midsize car but, who do not want to go through the hassle of testing a variety of vehicles, will just purchase a Camry because of it's reputation for reliability and quality. The Honda Accord probably benefits from that too. However, as IFCAR wrote above, the Camry does provide a quiet, comfortable ride with a reasonably roomy cabin and trunk. It has an outstanding powertrain with the 3.5 V6 and 6 speed automatic. It is definately quick.
However, it is not engaging to drive, even in the sportier SE trim. I drove one right after a 2006 Ford Fusion and I found the Fusion to be a better handling car with more communicative steering than the SE. It certainly was more fun (as far as a midsize FWD family sedan could be). The same could be said about the Aura (particularly in the XR trim). It is more engaging to drive than the Camry and has just as quiet a cabin too, usually a notable Camry strength. The powertrain in the XR is certainly very good.
The Aura is very competitive in it's class. The Aura just has few oversights that remind many of the old GM where cost cutting is evident or just does not make sense. These have already been mentioned before, such as, a fold down center console arm rest with cup holders in the rear seat, faux stitch trimming, which just looks cheap and 4 speed automatic in the XE model. These are certainly valid critcisims. I'm sure the 4 speed will disappear soon enough to be replaced with the 6 speed automatic, probably with this upcoming model year. It probably had much to do with the ramp up of the production of the 6 speed automatics. Since perception is everything, GM should have made this work.
Quote from: YO on December 30, 2006, 06:19:29 PM
you take out fleet sales, retail wise it will be the Accord... although this year may be close...
Actually Carmy retail sales YTD thru November look to be ahead of the Accord by about 10%:
Camry total: 408,906 (included Solara)
Fleet: 13% (thru June)
Retail: 355,749
Accord total: 324,355
Fleet: 1.1%
Retail: 320,787
Quote from: ciciusss on December 30, 2006, 07:46:19 PM
VetteZ06,
You are correct that the Camry's record for reliability and quality serve it well. I'm sure there are people who want a new midsize car but, who do not want to go through the hassle of testing a variety of vehicles,? will just purchase a Camry because of it's reputation for reliability and quality. The Honda Accord probably benefits from that too. However, as IFCAR wrote above, the Camry does provide a quiet, comfortable ride with a reasonably roomy cabin and trunk. It has an outstanding powertrain with the 3.5 V6 and 6 speed automatic. It is definately quick.
However, it is not engaging to drive, even in the sportier SE trim. I drove one right after a 2006 Ford Fusion and I found the Fusion to be a better handling car with more communicative steering than the SE. It certainly was more fun (as far as a midsize FWD family sedan could be). The same could be said about the Aura (particularly in the XR trim). It is more engaging to drive than the Camry and has just as quiet a cabin too, usually a notable Camry strength. The powertrain in the XR is certainly very good.
The Aura is very competitive in it's class. The Aura just has few oversights that remind many of the old GM where cost cutting is evident or just does not make sense. These have already been mentioned before, such as, a fold down center console arm rest with cup holders in the rear seat, faux stitch trimming, which just looks cheap and 4 speed automatic in the XE model. These are certainly valid critcisims. I'm sure the 4 speed will disappear soon enough to be replaced with the 6 speed automatic, probably with this upcoming model year. It probably had much to do with the ramp up of the production of the 6 speed automatics. Since perception is everything, GM should have made this work.?
FWIW, I really don't like the Camry. :ohyeah:
Quote from: ifcar on December 28, 2006, 02:15:09 PM
The current Camry has inconsistent quality in the sense that some cars are built well, and some (more base models than uplevel, I've noticed) suffer fron the sort of problems they describe, en masse. But all have too-hard plastics.
You guys do know that the feds made that soft dash material not ok to use- right? They discovered its linked to causing cancer or something like that which is why all the new cars have hard dashes now.
If that is the case, I assume that still only pertains to the cheapest soft-touch materials that had been used. There are still plenty of cars that do without rock-solid cruddy plastics today.
they are all decent cars. it boils down to personal taste.