You are here: Forums Sedans Saturn Aura Saturn Aura vs. Honda Accord

Saturn Aura vs. Honda Accord

326 messages,  Last post on Dec 19, 2007 at 5:48 AM

You are in the Saturn Aura Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Saturn Aura, Honda Accord, Car Comparisons, Sedan

Messages Page 33 of 33 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#317 of 326 Re: bottom line [elroy5] by drwilsc Dec 11, 2007 (10:04 am)
Replying to: elroy5 (Dec 10, 2007 6:30 pm) Did you read the explanation of the scoring? The first 7.5% is admitted to be entirely subjective. The next 7.5% is also basically subjective. Factor out those two pieces (which strongly favor the Accord), and the score differential narrows considerably. These guys actually admit to a personal bias in their own scoring system, so who really cares how they scored the cars. Look at the objective facts, the Malibu is faster, cheaper, etc. Replies to this message: robertsmx (Dec 11, 2007 10:25 am) drwilsc (Dec 11, 2007 12:42 pm) robertsmx (Dec 11, 2007 12:49 pm) and 1 more...
#318 of 326 Re: bottom line [elroy5] by drwilsc Dec 11, 2007 (10:05 am)
Replying to: elroy5 (Dec 10, 2007 6:30 pm) Did you read the explanation of the scoring? The first 7.5% is admitted to be entirely subjective. The next 7.5% is also basically subjective. Factor out those two pieces (which strongly favor the Accord), and the score differential narrows considerably. These guys actually admit to a personal bias in their own scoring system, so who really cares how they scored the cars. Look at the objective facts: the Malibu is faster, cheaper, etc.   How did they decide on 7.5% for their personal bias? Why not 5%? 10%? 20%? 50%?
#319 of 326 Re: bottom line [drwilsc] by robertsmx Dec 11, 2007 (10:25 am)
Replying to: drwilsc (Dec 11, 2007 10:04 am) Did you see Edmunds' comparison? Malibu was cheaper, but at the expense of features. Interestingly enough, while on-star appears to be a selling feature, it ain't free. Folks seem alarmed at the cost of factory installed NAV in Accord for $2K, while "on-star" appears to be free. But is it?   Do the math. On-Star may not cost someone upfront, but it requires an expensive subscription.   If you must cling onto MT comparison, then realize, they have contradicted others in some areas doing similar comparisons/tests (C&D, Cars.com and Edmunds), besides sounding like a paid advertisement. Replies to this message: drwilsc (Dec 11, 2007 12:42 pm) robertsmx (Dec 11, 2007 12:49 pm) drwilsc (Dec 11, 2007 1:03 pm)
#320 of 326 Re: bottom line [robertsmx] by drwilsc Dec 11, 2007 (12:42 pm)
Replying to: robertsmx (Dec 11, 2007 10:25 am) I did do the math. I get the first year On-Star free. Then, at $300 per year, it takes nearly 7 years to have as much invested in On-Star as the Accord's nav. Factor in the fact that I do not have to pay it all up front (and can invest the $2000), and I'm even further ahead. Also, On-Star offers many additional features such as calling for emergency vehicles in the event of airbag deployment, remote unlocking if you lock your keys in your car, vehicle locating if your car is stolen (or car-jacked with your children in it). Does your Accord's nav do these things? Comparing the cost of On-Star with a navigation system is comparing apples to oranges. Replies to this message: robertsmx (Dec 11, 2007 12:49 pm) drwilsc (Dec 11, 2007 1:03 pm)
#321 of 326 Re: bottom line [drwilsc] by robertsmx Dec 11, 2007 (12:49 pm)
Replying to: drwilsc (Dec 11, 2007 12:42 pm) I have those emergency things covered, besides additional benefits thru AAA. And when it comes to NAV, I would rather have a portable NAV for $150-300 instead of pay $300/year to GM (2006 vehicles cost $400/year, so price can vary). If you worry about saving $2K upfront, why not save it all by going portable?   The on-dash NAV adds sophistication, and features I use several times a day. I can also ask it to shut up for directions, and use it even when I don't need directions just my location with respect to streets.   I have never locked myself out of the car (besides, the car won't lock itself if the key is left on ignition) so those features including roadside assistence etc aren't of any value to me.   The key to the discussion, however, is that OnStar ends up being a hidden cost, not visible in those comparisons. Replies to this message: drwilsc (Dec 11, 2007 1:03 pm)
#322 of 326 Re: bottom line [robertsmx] by drwilsc Dec 11, 2007 (1:03 pm)
Replying to: robertsmx (Dec 11, 2007 12:49 pm) You have these things covered? How? Who calls the squad if you are alone and knocked unconscious in an accident?   A GM owner could also opt not to get the OnStar subscription and buy a portable nav for $150-300. OnStar is not mandatory.   How much does your AAA cost? An OnStar owner does not need AAA.
#323 of 326 Re: bottom line [drwilsc] by venus537 Dec 15, 2007 (5:47 pm)
Replying to: drwilsc (Dec 10, 2007 4:53 pm) I just want to let you know I read your post. Congratulations, 0.04 seconds! How sweet victory must be. It does look like the cars even out a bit at the quarter mile mark though.   To be honest, I personally would prefer the V6 engine tuned the way it is in the Accord Coupe manual without all that VCM stuff.   But I was right about which car would win the comparison test and by a large margin the Accord won over the Malibu. I'm with you though, I don't really care who Edmunds picked. Last year the Camry won and now it finished last.   As far as being cheaper? I guess it depends on the value you place on the features and qualities available in each car. For me, the cheaper price wouldn't offset the cheaper workmanship. Oh and there's that resale value thing. Tell me which car was really cheaper when it's time to sell.   And lastly, it's not only Edmunds that has had issues with the Malibu's 6 speed automatic. More gears is not necessarily better. Replies to this message: drwilsc (Dec 16, 2007 8:37 am) venus537 (Dec 16, 2007 10:35 am)
#324 of 326 Re: bottom line [venus537] by drwilsc Dec 16, 2007 (8:37 am)
Replying to: venus537 (Dec 15, 2007 5:47 pm) Congratulations, 0.04 seconds!   Actually, the difference is 0.4 seconds, not 0.04.   To each his own. The Accord is a fine car and will serve anyone who buys it well. It has some advantages over the Malibu/Aura, sure, but the reverse is now also true. GM has made great strides in improving its cars to match the foreign competition. Replies to this message: venus537 (Dec 16, 2007 10:35 am)
#325 of 326 Re: bottom line [drwilsc] by venus537 Dec 16, 2007 (10:35 am)
Replying to: drwilsc (Dec 16, 2007 8:37 am) Yes, I meant 0.4 seconds. Sorry.
#326 of 326 consumer test by mrsyj Dec 19, 2007 (5:48 am)
Malibu did well in consumer test of midsize sedans. They seemed much more complimentary than Edmunds' staff was in the official comparo. Several people liked the Malibu better than the Accord. The Accord gets bonus points because its a Honda and has an established reputation. When you simply compare the cars only, the Malibu and Aura stack up very well vs the Accord.

Messages Page 33 of 33 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Sedans Saturn Aura Saturn Aura vs. Honda Accord