Last post on May 22, 2013 at 3:13 PM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Hyundai Sonata, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, Mazda MAZDA6, Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu, Kia Optima, Car Comparisons, Sedan
Mar 13, 2009 (6:25 pm)
The 2009 Chevrolet Malibu hits a high-water mark for its size and price with taut proportions, elegant lines and a crisp, clean profile. Its split grille represents the new global face of Chevrolet cars, and its twin round taillamps are traditional Chevy cues. With tight panel gaps and rich-looking details, this new mid-size Chevy looks like $40,000 while starting at half that price.
Current rebate puts the LS into the upper $19's. These came out at 19,995 in 2007. They added ESC and lowered the price since then. KBB puts a 1 yr old one at $12,500 but a 100 mile radius search found only 2 for sale and the lower priced one was $13,800 with over 28k miles on it. At least locally, they almost hit KBB predicted value drops of 42% of 22,605 in year one. You can get one new in the high 18's so the drop you feel is more like $5k for 2 yrs worth of miles, but isn't that about the same as a Camcord? Would you pay more than $16 for a 28k mi used Camry that was $21k new OTD? That's the only fault they found in the Malibu review by KBB.
#12068 of 18205 Re: Camry vs Accord sales-436000 vs 37200 in 2008 [mz6greyghost]
Mar 14, 2009 (6:33 am)
Well, I have, and I was NOT disappointed. I'll admit that there was a slight decline in the overall sportiness of the 6 compared to the 1st-gen, but in return, you get a car with more room in the back (which IMO it needed), a larger trunk, a HUGE improvement in interior materials and fit-and-finish, and more power with the same fuel economy. It still felt polished and composed when cornering hard, still had excellent brakes which were easy to modulate, still had accurate steering, and IMO is still the Drivers car of the class.
I don't think I have run into anyone on here who has spent as much time in both gen1 and gen2 Mazda6's then me and I will agree with that statement in it's entirety.
It's nice to know that a company listens to the negative feedback in reference to their cars and actually improves almost every aspect that needed improvement.
Materials used? Check
Fuel economy? Check
More Power? Check
Large enough to compete with class leaders? Check
Safety content? Check
Sporty design? Check
Make it drive like a Mazda? Check
More content? Check
Seems they did a good job to me.
#12069 of 18205 Re: Camry vs Accord sales-436000 vs 37200 in 2008 [aviboy97]
Mar 14, 2009 (8:20 am)
Yet Mazda6 sales are down about 49%, year to date. Yes, everything is down, but I would guess that is a greater than average decline, meaning a reduced market share for the new mazda6. Also these declines are from what were already, I believe, disappointing (to Mazda) sales numbers for the previous version.
They just may find that this "me too-ism" does not work.
#12070 of 18205 Re: Camry vs Accord sales-436000 vs 37200 in 2008 [jeffyscott]
Mar 14, 2009 (8:32 am)
The decline in sales of the Mazda6 is very close percentage-wise to declines for cars like the Accord and Camry. This is not a Mazda6-specific problem. Maybe it's not a reflection on the 6 redesign as it is of the car market in general, and other, lower-priced models such as Sonata (UP year-to-date in sales compared with 2008) taking market share from the higher-priced models. The Mazda6 is suffering too from being one of the highest-priced cars in this class, out the door, due to lower incentives and discounts for this all-new design compared to most competitors. The higher price is a big contrast to the ultra-low closeout prices Mazda was offering on the old 6 at this time last year, e.g. a very nicely equipped Mazda6i VE for around $16k.
#12071 of 18205 Re: Camry vs Accord sales-436000 vs 37200 in 2008 [jeffyscott]
Mar 14, 2009 (8:50 am)
Chevrolet Malibu - What the Auto Press Says: The Malibu now threatens the traditional favorites in this class. It's a viable alternative to the popular Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, and should be on your test drive list before you put money down on either of those. If you're looking for something more exciting, however, many find the all-new 2009 Mazda6 a more enthusiastic ride, particularly in corners, and a better-looking car.
• Measured against the Honda Accord, "On a curvy road, the Chevy heightens the fun factor, providing superior ride composure, the ability to perform fingertip shifts, and communicative, albeit slightly heavy, steering that carves tighter, crisper lines. Hop on the highway, and the Malibu continues to separate itself, delivering a softer, quieter ride and power that, while down 14 horses, seems to pull more strongly and naturally." - Motor Trend
Malibu has 2750 rebate that gets you ESC, auto, great looks, and the top consumer's ratings(9.4) for High 18's with little negoiating time.
#12072 of 18205 Re: Camry vs Accord sales-436000 vs 37200 in 2008 [backy]
Mar 14, 2009 (9:57 am)
I'm sure the price is part of it, but Accord is "only" off 37% year to date, I doubt that either they or Mazda would consider that to be close to the same as a 49% decline. Selling at 63% of prior years rate (a 37% drop) would be nearly 25% more units than selling 51% represents.
The Fusion is also "only" down 35% ytd.
If this new Mazda6 is so much more appealing than the old one, it would not, I think, be seeing a 49% drop. Or put it this way, perhaps it is more appealing to the average buyer, but there is no real reason for that average buyer (who is looking for a transportation appliance) to prefer the Mazda6 over the Accord or Camry.
#12073 of 18205 Re: Camry vs Accord sales-436000 vs 372000 in 2008 [dave8697]
Mar 14, 2009 (9:58 am)
The problem with the malibu and the aura-- are not 1-2 yr dependability,performance or even long term resale.The problem,I would say is long term relaibility.Any sedan nowadays is ok till 60-70k miles,,but the true indicator of reliability is how cars perform after 75k miles.
In that aspect,Camry and Accord have a long lasting record.Whereas the malibu and aura are relatively unknown .Yes first 3 or 4 years ,they are fine,,after that who knows?
If the quality has really improved,,it would take atleast 5 more years for real long term reliability.
Same thing for the fusion.Lasts 3 years were good.Now the real test comes in the next 3 - 4 years.
Honda and Toyota did not get an easy pass..They have decades of proven reliability to back up their record.
Infact ,i would say,,cars nowadays have an easier pass than say some 20 years ago.The first toyota,honda and hyundai cars were the butt of all jokes.
But see, how remarkably they have reached the top.Infact,,if any,,american sedans get an easier pass-- just an improvement over a previous model becomes a game changer.Maybe very true,,but long term reliability trends are needed.[[ and long term is like 85k+miles or more ,,not 30k miles]]
#12074 of 18205 Paying extra for what?
Mar 14, 2009 (11:27 am)
I am living proof you don't have to pay the premium price that Honda and Toyota demand for their vehicles either new or used. I am one of those folks who test drove and test drove every car in this segment before settling on a domestic brand vehicle in 2006. I paid between $3,000 - $5,000 less for a like optioned vehicle. I was told by many Honda/Toyota owners that I would be sorry, my car would break down, ect.. Well, after 42,000 trouble free, squeak free, rattle free miles, now what argument? I made a great choice and have never looked back.. I believe I am a growing number of consumers that are finding out that you don't need to pay a lot of $$$ to get a reliable, well made vehicle.
And before this vehicle I owned another domestic vehicle that went over 110,000 miles with no issues. Looks to me this argument of longterm reliability is down the tubes. There is also an article on the net about how a New York cab company using Escape Hybrids that have well over 100,000 reliable miles on them..
#12075 of 18205 Re: Paying extra for what? [cannon3]
Mar 14, 2009 (11:50 am)
Cannon3, it's true that most cars are reliable in the first 100k miles (or 75k, or whatever lesser number you choose). So your 42k trouble-free miles, which would have been noteworthy 20-30 years ago, really can't tell us much.
Expectations have changed. Customers now expect far more than 100k miles of reliability. So it's too soon to tell if your 2006 model is really going to be reliable over the long haul. It probably will be, if it's a recent Ford or GM midsize sedan, but we don't know yet.
#12076 of 18205 Re: Camry vs Accord sales-436000 vs 37200 in 2008 [jeffyscott]
Mar 14, 2009 (11:51 am)
Did you look at the numbers for February? The Mazda6's percentage decline is within a point or two of Accord and Camry. In fact I think those cars were a little higher percentage-wise in sales drop-offs in February than the Mazda6. So the current trend is looking better for the Mazda6--maybe due to increased incentives of late?
Don't you think the huge price difference between the 2008 close-out specials and the all-new 2009s has something to do with the sales drop-off? This was not a factor for Accord, Camry, or Fusion, at least up until now. It will be interesting to see how Fusion sales hold up if incentives and discounts are cut for the 2010 models. Will sticker shock reign?