Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Chevrolet Malibu Chevrolet Malibu vs. Toyota Camry vs. Honda Accord
653 messages, Last post on Dec 05, 2009 at 2:22 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Malibu Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
| The Accord has been added as requested. | |
|
|
|
Replying to: venus537 (Jun 24, 2006 8:45 am) It's been brought up that stats say people who buy imports are better educated and wealthier. As far as GM vs imports I've never really considered people who buy particular brands as being smarter, or people who earn more being more intelligent. I know rich people who aren't educated and I know educated people who arent rich. It all depends on what a person wants out of life. I happen to be educated but havent made work the most important thing in my life so I'm not getting financially rich but I am rich in other areas. I certainly dont follow that social perception of what you drive makes you better or more intelligent. Vehicles are an expensive luxury which cost most people alot of money. I've always been a smart buyer who considered cost of ownership above keeping up with the Jones'. I could care less what people think of me based on the car I drive. I've stated before that most of my past vehicle purchase decisions have been made with my immediate needs and cost of ownership in mind. I've also made financially intelligent choices and I've proven time and time again that you dont have to lose vast amounts of money to drive a dependable, good looking and comfy vehicle. And dare I say that all my vehicles have been North American. A "rich" friend recently poked a bit of fun at me for buying another "North American piece of crap". Why dont you get smart and buy "jap" he said. They depreciate so much less. Based on percentages that's true. He proceeded to tell me how smart he is for buying a Japanese suv, purchased new for about $45k. He figures it's great that after 4 years it's still worth about $30k, a reasonably low depreciation rate and if he was to sell at that point, all it'd cost him to drive that suv is about $15k. Pretty good I say but now lets take my last car, a one year old GM which was purchased for $12k. It had all the features, was a great car to drive, safe, economical and looked sharp. If I sold it after about 4 years, I'd get about $7k. Thats a loss of $5k, a bit less than his loss of $15k and that's not including other possible differences such as financing or fuel costs. The only response after a fairly long pause was, "sure but I got to drive a better vehicle." So his main reason for losing vast amounts of money is image. He'd be perceived as poor and stupid for driving a GM. I tend to disagree on who the stupid one is. It turned out by an unfortunate turn of events that my previous vehicle only made it to the 2 year point. My insurance settlement at the time of it's demise was $500 less than I paid for it 2 years earlier. A cost of $500 to drive a nice car for 2 years. I guess I'm not too bright for using my money to buy a better house to live in, education for my kids and fun leisurely times with my family rather than buying expensive products that ineveitably lose piles of money. I can also take pride in supporting my own continent's auto industry for the past 30 years. Different people place different things on their priority list in life and I certainly do appreciate an expensive vehicle but I dont think anyone deserves to be called less intelligent because they choose to drive GM and in the end, throw away a lot less money to drive a nice car.
|
|
|
1. As stated above the Maxx's engine may be a bit less smooth than the others but it should be durable, gets great mileage (about 24 mpg mixed, 30+ on the road)and has a great torque curve which only needs a 4 speed transmission. I had to spend $800 on a 60K inspection--with timing belt-- on my last car, an Elantra. This should be a lot less expensive. 2. For whatever reason, I find GM dealers a lot less arrogant than Toyota or Honda dealers. 3.-I find the Maxx better looking than the Malibu sedan but both are on the ugly side of the midsize group. You don't have to look at it when you're inside, however. I wish Hyundai, Ford, Toyota or Honda made a big hatch. With the exception of Mazda and the Maxx that's it. The flexibility of the hatch is great too bad Americans hate 'em. 4. Any depreciation is offset by the bigger discounts on new cars. I paid $16K for my Maxx, $6 thou off list. 5. I think the Maxx's interior is a bit Equinoxish, not as classy as the Camry and no where as good as an Accord. Still, it's very comfortable, flexible and straight forward. It's great for long trips. All in all I'm happier with the Maxx than any car I've owned (and I've owned 30+ of 'em), sure the others are better than ever as well. I'm sorry GM never figured out how to market them. Had a woman with a 'Bu sedan ask me about it. Would have bought one but the dealers never told her about it. It is good to see the Japanese (especially the Civic) taking a few more risks with design. Things were getting more and more boring during the nineties. I think the Koreans are going down the same road. The newest versions of Hyundai and Kia are much better than the previous generations but somehow seem less creative and some are decontented. Maybe it's the strengthening Won. |
|
|
Replying to: shadow5599 (Jun 26, 2006 7:31 am) I tend to disagree on who the stupid one is. i suggested that people who buy foreign vehicles tend to be more educated and wealthier in rebuttal to those posters who implied foreign car buyers are being ignorant for paying more for their cars. you know, that very old adage for GM loyalists: "it's the consumer's fault" for not knowing the goodness of their vehicles. your "rich" friend stated that he was driving a better vehicle and you dismissed that as image. excuse me, your car may fit your needs but his needs are obviously different than yours. it sounds like he was in a market for a new SUV and not a 1 year old used sedan. the question should be: is he better off driving a comparable new GM SUV than the vehicle he drives now? not how his vehicle compares to yours. yes, people who choose to drive GM cars shouldn't be considered less intelligent. by the same token, those who choose to buy hondas and toyotas shouldn't be considered poorly informed either. you're not wrong in thinking you drive a nice car but i'm not wrong either in thinking there are nicer vehicles that are worth the extra money. |
|
|
My '87 Accord Hatchback (purchased new) was getting a little "long in the tooth". I prefer hatchbacks because of their versatility, and, after owning an Accord for so many years, figured I would always own a Honda. A review of the Honda website found zero Accord hatchbacks. The only midsized Honda hatchbacks were from Acura--aka most stolen vehicles in the US, and I did not want to pay the insurance premium because of it. Found the Maxx--WOW! What a deal! Less expensive to purchase and insure than a Honda. Yes, depreciation is higher. But what so many have failed to consider, is that it MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE TO PURCHASE--the up front $$ are a whole lot less. A comparison: '87 Accord purchased new $12,500 (sticker price; dealer attitude was "write the check or some one else will". 110hp 4-banger, 5 spd manual, 13" tires/steel rims. '04 Maxx: 200hp V-6, auto tranny, 4-wheel anti-lock brakes, air bags, 4 door, rear skylights, 16" tires on aluminum wheels, much more interior space and cargo capacity, etc, and, GET THIS: 32mpg (hiway) vs 34 mpg (hiway) of my old 4 banger manual transmission Accord. Yes, my old Accord did much better in city driving than my Maxx-about 28mpg vs 22 in the Maxx. I find my Maxx equal in fit/finish to my old (and even the current Accords I test drove), yet has much more versatility, and a lot lower price. After rebates and incentives, my Maxx was only $14,200 ($1,700 greater than when I purchased my '87 Accord). Insurance is much less on the Maxx compared to an Accord. And, get this--I'm on my second Maxx. My first Maxx was purchased Aug04. I traded it in at 15,001 miles for another '04 Maxx in Jan-05 AT NO COST. After the purchase of my first Maxx, GM sent me a coupon for $2,000 off any new GM product (except Corvette). I traded my first '04 Maxx and the coupon for the second (and my current) Maxx for no out-of-pocket $$. MadMaxx
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: madmaxx (Sep 03, 2006 10:22 am) Why would GM be giving these away? Honda Fits are flying off the lots at MSRPs over $15k, and GM is giving rebate after rebate and can't seem to move them. Sounds like you got two steals in a row! |
|
|
Replying to: maxxind (Jun 23, 2006 8:05 am) settled my suit with GM over the problems with my Maxx, and used the money toward down payment on a 2004 Camry Solara with 38,000 miles on it. The Maxx, and many other GM vehicles, seems like a good deal when you buy it. But, in two years' time my $23,000 car suffered numerous major deficiencies and depreciated to the point where I was being offered $10,000 trade on it. That won't happen with a Camry. And trust me, the Camry drives and handles soooo much better; much better quality materials, and much better build quality. Pass up the GM dealerships (and Ford and Chrysler), and hump on down to a Toyota or Honda dealer. If you fall for GM's rebates and incentives, you will regret it on the day you go to trade your car in on a newer model. A car is an investment; invest wisely.
|
|
|
Replying to: emunson (Feb 14, 2007 3:39 pm) I own an 04 Maxx LT.....87K on it...and its going strong with no problems.......and I will probably run it another 2 years....to 140K or so....... If you buy a car for a $$ investment......personally that is a poor investment.....I drive a car well past 100K regardless of the model..so for me trade in value is minimal at that point... You mentioned camry......go look over at the toyota forum here..and note the many many complains about the camry transmissions...particularly the 06/07s.......again my point is.....the HONDA/TOYs of the world arent perfect either.....
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: emunson (Feb 14, 2007 3:39 pm) I will say, that the driving experience and materials in my Accord even surpass that of the new 2007 Camry, which has become a little cheapened inside (one review cites the new Kia Optima as having better interior materials than Toyota used in its Camry redesign. In the real world, it seems that GM is approximately average, with instances in particular vehicles of above and well below average (TrailBlazer is POOR). Toyota and Honda have had their foibles as well (transmission troubles in V6 models) but I know at least Honda has seemed to get them figured out and fixed in a hurry, and offered major extended warranties on the vehicle that have been problematic. Being proactive about fixing a problem goes a long way in my book. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Chevrolet Malibu Chevrolet Malibu vs. Toyota Camry vs. Honda Accord
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Toyota Camry
2010 Chevrolet Malibu
2010 Honda Accord
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
