Article Comments - 2007-2008 V6 Family Sedans Comparison

51 messages, Last post on Jan 03, 2008 at 11:38 AM

You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima, Sedan

Comparison Test: 2007-2008 V6 Family Sedans - Each of the four entrants chosen for our comparison test represents the highest available trim level, and each is also packed with nearly every available option and an overachieving V6 power plant driving the front wheels. Heck, the least powerful engine in this test churns out 252 horsepower, a figure that was unheard of in the mainstream sedan world not long ago. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 4 of 6: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; Prev; Next; Last

#24 of 51 Pretty disapointed with comparison... by mypathy2001 Dec 13, 2007 (10:30 pm)
Although, I cannot say I am not surprised by the result, the Honda seems to be a terrific vehicle, although I have never test drove one, but I've seen one in person. Things that really don't make sense about this article, and it strictly deals with the Camry. As others have mentioned, why didn't you use the SE trim? Edmunds complains about "too-soft" of a ride, yet picks the trim-level that is strictly meant to be soft and have a luxiourious ride and absorb bumps and potholes in the road. This doesn't make logical sense. The SE trim comes with: * 17" Wheels * Three-spoke leather wrapped steering wheel. * Entirely different gauge cluster (Speedo, etc.) * Lower "aero-type" body kit. * Slightly tinted front head lamps. * Honey comb black front grille. * Rear V-brace strut bar to strengthen chassis. * Slightly lower to the ground (don't know the specifics of this one...) Looks a little bit better than the XLE doesn't it? I thought so, so much so I purchased one in April 2007. This doesn't mean it is the best car out there, I just think the stage for this comparison was flawed from the beginning. While the Altima is the more sporty of the models throughout, the Malibu and Honda don't have specific "sport" trim models with LTZ & EX-L being their top models, respectively. I'm not trying to demean any of the manufacturers at all, because I think all four are terrific. But I've noticed this trend before, when I was looking at a mid-size vehicle's in the Spring. What I've noticed from Edmunds is that the newer vehicle always seems to win these things. 2005 (Comparing new 2006 models) - the Hyundai Sonata won (exceelent vehicle on its own right) Comparison Test: Hyundai Sonata takes on the Accord & Camry. 2006 (Comparing new 2007 models) - the Toyota Camry won 2006- V6 Family Sedan Comparison Test Now 2007 (Comparing 07-08 models) - the Honda Accord won 2007- V6 Family Sedan Comparison Test Any one see a trend here? Hmmmm.... What I don't get is how Edmunds considers the interior of the Camry in the 2006 comparison as "Seriously, this is not a Lexus interior; it's a Camry. We give credit to Toyota for exploring a new design language in the car. There are typical leather and *(believable) faux wood textures,as well as a cool-blue center stack panel, and burnished/brushed metallic surfaces." and in 2007, Edmunds states, "Plastics are of high quality, but their light gray color doesn't improve their appearance; plasti-wood is unconvincing, too." Is this the same company? I mean come on here. That's why when this article came up posted on Edmunds front home page, I knew who was going to win the "comparo" test before clicking. Another thing I don't understand though, is all the hype with the new Chevrolet Malibu, I've seen one on the road, aside from it's ugly rear end (IMHO) it looks much better. But realiabilty and dependability is still questionable. The Camry is no different, if anyone did any research on the '07+ is that the vehicle had problems with its 6-speed transmissio and V6 engine. I did a lot of research on this before I purchased my car, the dealers said they didn't know anything about it. Now, just two months ago - Consumer Reports mentions the same issues dealing with the 6-speed transmission. No problems thus far with the four cylinders, myself included. Discussion of interiors, as quoted previously, seems to more of an issue of personal taste rather than actual quality. Personally, while I enjoy the redesign of the '08 Accord, I certainly couldn't call the sedan as sporty. Looks better absolutely, but sporty no. The coupe is a completely different story though, looks absolutely terrific. And there is a complete different design philosophy with the Honda compared to the Nissan/Chevy/Toyota. While the Honda looks more technologically advanced, it looks more complicated and more cumbersome. The Altima, Malibu and Camry utilize just two - three knobs to indicate tempature and fan speed. I entirely believe the Honda should be easy to use, despite its deceptive appearance. In the end, I believe that all four cars are terrific vehicles and anybody would be pleased with the purchase of any of the four. However, if I was doing the results - the order would be: 1. Honda Accord 2. & 3. Tie between the Toyota Camry and Nissan Altima * This one could go either way, I personally believe the Toyota is rock solid at least the 4Cylinder is, but the Altima has more power but a cheaper "Pontiac-esque" interior. 4. Chevrolet Malibu What I would like to know is how does a vehicle go from top rankings and then all the way to the bottom then almost less than a year? I think the last paragraph from the 2006 comparison answers my question: "Some might look at our decision to award the Camry 1st place and say, "Well of course the Camry won: It's the newest."" Not only that but a car that was just recently released both Honda and the Chevy, (I'm not all that worried about the Honda's reliability or quality) in the last 3 months. Other factors that go into a car purchase don't register into these comparisons at all, and unfortunately the Malibu will still have poor resale. In the end, this is good for competition, it makes the vehicles better and a happier consumer in the end with a better performing, more efficient, and more reliable product. It's a shame that this comparison seemed to be all over the place in terms of what they were looking for. Replies to this message: pmc4 (Dec 13, 2007 10:47 pm) mypathy2001 (Dec 14, 2007 10:04 am) pmc4 (Dec 14, 2007 10:15 pm) jd10013 (Dec 14, 2007 5:19 pm) andres3 (Dec 19, 2007 12:15 am) bv050506 (Dec 19, 2007 7:48 am) and 1 more... jd10013 (Dec 19, 2007 5:23 pm) and 1 more...
#25 of 51 Re: Pretty disapointed with comparison... [mypathy2001] by pmc4 Dec 13, 2007 (10:47 pm)
Replying to: mypathy2001 (Dec 13, 2007 10:30 pm) mypathy2001, what I don't get about your post is that you insist the Camry is the #2 car, even though it's not sporty, has a large interior, has high levels of comfort and low levels of NVH. Then you say that the Altima should also be the #2 car, even though it's too 'sporty' with a small interior, high levels of NVH and comparatively low levels of comfort. Why the disparity? Replies to this message: mypathy2001 (Dec 14, 2007 10:04 am) pmc4 (Dec 14, 2007 10:15 pm)
#26 of 51 Re: Article Comments: V6 Comparison Test [pat] by pmc4 Dec 13, 2007 (10:52 pm)
Replying to: pat (Dec 13, 2007 6:14 am) "If you're going to quote me rather out of context, then let me point out that no BMW is involved in the topic of this conversation, nor does it make any sense to say that a magazine that specifically does not choose any given vehicle is the least biased. Indeed, deciding a placement based on a name and nothing else is the very definition of bias." Ummm, Pat, the quote of yours I cited in my post was a direct cut and paste from your other post. Replies to this message: pat (Dec 14, 2007 4:09 am)
#27 of 51 Re: Article Comments: V6 Comparison Test [pmc4] by pat HOST Dec 14, 2007 (4:09 am)
Replying to: pmc4 (Dec 13, 2007 10:52 pm) I did not say you misquoted me, I said you quoted me rather out of context. I made a comment to another member that had nothing to do with you nor did it have anything to do with your subsequent comments. You used it out of context for a jumping off point for a post that had little, if anything, to do with the topic. Let's move on, please.
#28 of 51 Camry SE by ahightower Dec 14, 2007 (9:11 am)
I also wish Edmunds had used the Camry SE rather than XLE. The SE won this same comparo by Motor Trend. It can be had with all the luxury features as the XLE, I believe. Maybe not the reclining rear seat, but none of the others had it either. Just a firmer suspension, although I've never seen it referred to as too harsh. I understand flat-out sporty handling was not supposed to be the sole criteria for this test, yet the main complaint about the Camry was that the chassis was too soft. Was it really bad enough to earn last place? Is the SE really that much better? As I see it, the SE gives up nothing compared to the XLE, it only gains a better suspension for those who like to take a corner fast once in a while. Just wondering what might have been. Having said all that, I'd probably take the Malibu or Aura based on good looks alone. I don't want a built in NAV system anyway.
#29 of 51 Re: Pretty disapointed with comparison... [pmc4] by mypathy2001 Dec 14, 2007 (10:04 am)
Replying to: pmc4 (Dec 13, 2007 10:47 pm) Hi PMC4 I wouldn't say that I insist that the number 2 car would be the Camry. I could completely understand if the Altima was there as well. The problems with such reviews as this is that it is highly subjective, is someone going in the mid-size market looking something with a more sporty look? If so, why wasn't the Maxima even in this competition? This may sound silly, what do you mean by "NVH" I wouldn't call the Altima too sporty, actually, in my opinion it was one of the cars that disappointed me when I saw it in person compared to manufacturer's photographs. I thought I would really like the new rear end, but it's not bad -- just not for me. However, the majority of the Camry lines aren't sporty - but I feel to a certain extent, maybe not as much as the Altima, the SE can atleast on the exterior be considered a "sporty" vehicle. Remember, all of these cars are not going to be considered a Chevy Corvette or anything. That could very well be, taken as a whole, the Altima would win over the Cam. It really depends what the consumer is looking for here. Altima and Camry have same interior features and amenities from what I understand, its just that someone might like the Altima's interior a little better and thus give the nod for a #2 position because on something subjective as looks. I truly believe that it's a toss-up between #2/#3, but what gets me is how a car so praised just over a year ago. Goes all the way to number four. Especially in terms of specifications, at least in terms of engines, all of the cars are very similarly spec'ed. I guess it comes down to a few other things such as design or interior quality that was once perceived as impeccable now bottom of the pack? I still have yet to find any reason the Malibu is higher ... granted I think the interior is very nice, and it looks that it is much higher quality that previous versions, but other things just don't seem to be taken into account. Replies to this message: pmc4 (Dec 14, 2007 10:15 pm)
#30 of 51 I must be honest here... v. Interiors by mypathy2001 Dec 14, 2007 (10:18 am)
Just going over the Malibu's interior vs. the others, GM has done a terrific job with designing the interior of the new Malibu. I must say, if it was based strictly on interior design -- I could completely understand why the Malibu would beat the Camry. Heck, IMHO -- it's the between that and the Accord for the best interior. The Altima still screams boy racer and doesn't seem very subdued on both the exterior and interior design elements.
#31 of 51 Re: Pretty disapointed with comparison... [mypathy2001] by jd10013 Dec 14, 2007 (5:19 pm)
Replying to: mypathy2001 (Dec 13, 2007 10:30 pm) good post mypathy, and I agree with you. I stopped taking edmunds reviews seriously a long time ago. but I'll give you another example. look at their comparison of the altima and accord coupes. in that one, the altima is basically said to be a big pile of pooh. they rag on everything about it including the VQ engine that wards once again named as a top 10 (only engine to make the top 10 all 14 years wards has been doing it). Now thats fair enough, they are entitled to their opinion, but now they come out and give the sedan a 2nd place in this compro. I know, its a sedan compared to a coupe, but they aren't that different. not enough to go pile of crap to runner up. and always keep in mind, edmunds has a , err, predisposition toward honda vehicles. they'll always win, always be declared 50x better than their counterparts, and the greatest bit of engineering since the hoover dam. I don't think it's a coincidence most of the honda badge whores post here, and make up a very disproportionate number of posters. but enough of that rant , just take edmunds reviews and compros with a grain of salt, and more as entertainment. certainly don't base a buying decision on what they say. Replies to this message: andres3 (Dec 19, 2007 12:15 am) bv050506 (Dec 19, 2007 7:48 am) golfrski (Dec 20, 2007 8:40 am) jd10013 (Dec 19, 2007 5:23 pm) blufz1 (Dec 19, 2007 10:36 pm)
#32 of 51 Re: Pretty disapointed with comparison... [mypathy2001] by pmc4 Dec 14, 2007 (10:15 pm)
Replying to: mypathy2001 (Dec 14, 2007 10:04 am) "Hi PMC4" Hi. Anyway, NVH is, "Noise, Vibration and Harshness." "I still have yet to find any reason the Malibu is higher ... granted I think the interior is very nice, and it looks that it is much higher quality that previous versions, but other things just don't seem to be taken into account." The reason why you can't discount the Chevrolet Malibu (and why it's one of Car and Drivermagazine's 10-Best for 2008) is that it's built on the most celebrated platform of European sedans, the Opel Vectra platform. This isn't a rickety, rusty old GM platform we're talking about. Combine that with the car's other merits and it's a vehicle that must be cross-shopped with the Accord, Camry and Altima (please note the car was also a runner-up for Motor Trend's Carr of the Year). I'm suspecting Edmunds ranked the Camry so low is because they now can: The car is now no longer recommended by Consumer Reports. The fact that two new cars are now on the scene (Accord; Malibu) does not help the Toyota's case. I showed pictures showing the interiors of all four cars, and it seems as if Honda and Chevrolet made great advances in that department, as well. You're suprised the Chevy ranked #3 and not #4, which is understandable, given the fact that 1990's models had horrendous interior qualities. But I'm surprised the car didn't rank higher, in the #2 slot, given the car's European roots and class-leading interiors. If the Chevy can maintain some kind of positive reliability background, we'll see this car get even higher rankings in the near future.