- #370 of 653
-
Re: 2008 Comparison Test Available! [KarenS]
by ucisilentbob
-
Jan 02, 2008 (12:18 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: KarenS (Jan 02, 2008 10:53 am)
Why is it that when Edmunds tests the Camry, they always avoid the SE? Handling contributes heavily to not only the performance score but also the editors recommendation. Yet when it comes to choosing a model to test they purposefully choose to go with the (X)LE models that are oriented for the huge percentage of drivers that are simply looking for a plush family hauler. This comparison test along with the V6 comparison test leaves a bad taste in my mouth with Edmunds tests.
|
- #371 of 653
-
Re: 2008 Comparison Test Available! [ucisilentbob]
by thegraduate
-
Jan 02, 2008 (12:46 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: ucisilentbob (Jan 02, 2008 12:18 pm)
If its any consolation, the manufacturers provided the vehicles, so maybe (I don't know, just a MAYBE) Edmunds asked for each manufacturer to provide a test vehicle under $23,000 with no specification on what type was provided.
I don't know, just thinking out loud.
|
- #372 of 653
-
comparo
by chavis10
-
Jan 02, 2008 (1:00 pm)
-
|
|
I still fail to understand the "superiority" of the Accord compared to the Malibu from that article. It was barely faster and returned worse mileage despite a 200 lbs weight advantage and a 5 spd auto. I guess steering feel is enough to make it the winner. When the Malibu gets the six speed, it'll get faster and return even better mileage leaving the Accord behind
|
- #373 of 653
-
Re: comparo [chavis10]
by thegraduate
-
Jan 02, 2008 (1:07 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: chavis10 (Jan 02, 2008 1:00 pm)
Unfortunately we can't compare future vehicles since we don't have them on the road yet.
Keep in mind that there is more to a vehicle than its test numbers. I don't care too much for the 2008 Accord (and I'm a 2006 Accord owner myself) but don't knock it 'til you've tried it. I am surprised by the fuel economy numbers since I beat the OLD epa estimate numbers daily; the new ones are incredibly low.
|
- #374 of 653
-
Re: 2008 Comparison Test Available! [thegraduate]
by eriches
-
Jan 02, 2008 (2:58 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Jan 02, 2008 12:46 pm)
You are right. At the time we requested the Camry, we were trying to meet a very specific price point and the LE trim level was as high as we could go. In addition, the LE is the volume-selling trim level in the Camry line, so it was arguably the best match against the LX/LX-P Accord. --Erin, author of the comparison test
|
- #375 of 653
-
Re: 2008 Comparison Test Available! [eriches]
by thegraduate
-
Jan 02, 2008 (3:01 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: eriches (Jan 02, 2008 2:58 pm)
Good to know - and who wouldn't thunk it, I guessed right!
Thanks for responding, by the way.
|
- #376 of 653
-
Re: comparo [chavis10]
by eriches
-
Jan 02, 2008 (3:02 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: chavis10 (Jan 02, 2008 1:00 pm)
chavis10: On an objective level, the Malibu lost points for its poor braking performance and its mediocre acceleration numbers -- check the performance chart. On a subjective level, it earned lower scores than the Accord on editors' evaluation forms -- four qualified IL/Edmunds editors participated in the scoring process. -- Erin Riches
|
- #377 of 653
-
Why not the SE?
by texases
-
Jan 02, 2008 (3:09 pm)
-
|
|
I keep being baffled by all the comparos that use the Camry LE. Why not the SE? It'd fit in the budget, and would be more to their liking.
|
- #378 of 653
-
Re: Why not the SE? [texases]
by eriches
-
Jan 02, 2008 (3:27 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: texases (Jan 02, 2008 3:09 pm)
See my explanation for this in post #374. Thanks. --Erin, author of comparison test
|
- #379 of 653
-
Re: Why not the SE? [eriches]
by texases
-
Jan 02, 2008 (3:39 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: eriches (Jan 02, 2008 3:27 pm)
w/o options it'd be 22,900, including delivery, and it has alloys.
|