Sebring vs Accord vs Altima vs Optima vs Aura vs Camry (http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12148/2007-chrysler-sebring-touring-vs-2007-honda-accord-se-vs-2007-kia-optima-ex-vs-2007-nissan-altima-25s-vs-2007-saturn-aura-xe-vs-2007-toyota-camry-le.html)
http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2006/Q4/122120061124145855.jpg
The name Camry comes from the Japanese word kanmuri, which means “crown.” In 1983, the Toyota Camry replaced the Toyota Corona, which in Spanish also means “crown.” And Toyota currently makes a sedan for Japan called the Crown Royal, which is often seen disappearing into garages with the Mazda Carol MeLady.

Those crazy Japanese.

We’ve placed our own kanmuri on the Honda Accord more times than you can shake a sutekki at. We also just named the Accord a 10Best Car for 2007. We hear it’s in contention for Car of the Universe.

Just to be extra double certain, however, we’ve acquired five of the Accord’s newly introduced or redesigned competitors and gone out to lay a little rubber. A very little, in fact, as we’ve gone for four-cylinder cars with automatic transmissions, which are also the overwhelming people’s choice — 84 percent of Camrys, truth be known, came with four-bangers in ’05. The new Saturn Aura moves only via V-6 and is the exception here.

Camrys and Honda Accords may not be the reds and greens in your personal M&M’s bag, but the sales arithmetic makes them important. Of the 7,961,509 new passenger cars sold in North America in 2005, the Camry, the Accord, and the Nissan Altima ranked one, two, and four. Mid-sizers are the bread, butter, rice, and kimchi of this business.

The fresh faces include Chrysler’s revamped ’07 Sebring, slightly shorter and taller than before — remember when new Chryslers were longer and lower? — and baked in a medley of Chrysler Crossfire and 300C styling cues on a platform that shares Dodge Caliber components. Among other achievements, Chrysler boasts front seats raised 2.5 inches, great for ex-SUV owners still in rehab. Just $18,995 buys you in, but our Touring model started at $20,195 and finished at $22,785 after a doodad pile-on, including a power-equipment pack, a sunroof, alloy wheels, and Sirius satellite radio.

At $22,220, the frill-free ’07 Honda Accord SE is almost the cheapest slushbox Accord available. Sink much cheaper, and you’re into stick shifts, rear drum brakes, and steel wheels. It’s also the only car to report with a double-control-arm front suspension, fancy suspenders in a group full of struts.

The ambassador from Kia’s retooled Optima line is this $19,995 EX. It’s one rung higher than the base LX and brings with it, for that price, alloy wheels, a power driver’s seat, and a six-CD changer. Anti-lock brakes are an option here, although standard on all the others except the Altima. At least Kia from Korea keeps the prices cheap: $300 for ABS, and another $300 for stability control. At $1300, the Leather package, including heated seats and power-adjustable pedals, represents the longest dollars, followed by the $800 sunroof.

Familial Four-doors
Introduction
Sixth Place: Chrysler Sebring Touring
Fifth Place: Toyota Camry LE
Fourth Place: Saturn Aura XE
Third Place: Kia Optima EX
Second Place: Nissan Altima 2.5S
First Place: Honda Accord SE

A redesigned Altima goes for the throat with styling from the ionosphere and an accent on sport. It’s smaller than before, with almost an inch trimmed from the wheelbase and 1.7 inches from the length. The long-stroke 2.5-liter four makes 175 horsepower — only the 224-hp V-6 Aura outguns it — and turns a belt-driven continuously variable transmission.

Speaking of the Aura, the new Saturn is all Epsilon, meaning its parts come from the same buffet table as several GM vehicles, including the Pontiac G6, Opel Vectra, and Saab 9-3. This one is an XE, meaning it runs the 3.5-liter “high value” pushrod V-6 (XRs have the 252-hp, 3.6-liter “high feature” dual-overhead-cam V-6). The base price is $20,595, but leather, a sunroof, and various power accessories cranked up our Aura’s glow to $24,020.

Watch as we separate the roadworthy from the rental queens.

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2006/Q4/122120061124166507.jpg
Sixth Place: Familial four-doors: 2007 Chrysler Sebring Touring

Highs: Adventurous styling, rides on marshmallows, easy-fold rear seats.
Lows: Slushy controls, a sitting-in-a-hole feeling, slow-mo acceleration.
The Verdict: Chrysler pitches one to the Buick generation.

Did Chrysler put AARP on its design team? Everyone who climbed aboard the Sebring felt it was aimed at buyers for whom Buicks have become too racy.

Life slows down in your golden years. So does life in the Sebring, last of the group through the 60-mph trap at 9.5 seconds, despite a midpack power-to-weight ratio. The Sebring was slowest around the skidpad at 0.77 g and tied the Accord for longest stops, at 194 feet. The 2.4-liter four (basically, the same joint-venture engine is in the Kia Optima) does its chores to a distant drone, and the Sebring is quiet, soft, and creamy in a highway-straight line. It’s also soggy, jiggly, and tipsy in corners as drivers attempt to aim it with steering set on extra-numb. The notebook pen scratched with venom not seen since the last New Yorker.

A wide chrome-encrusted grille and spiffy chrome wheels seem tailored to disenfranchised Imperial buyers. The interior caused controversy: Some gave the multitextured art deco dash with its silver-tone accents and white-face gauges points for originality; others thought it looked “constructed from the parts of five different cars to look like the lobby of the Chrysler Building.”

Despite the tall roof and jacked-up driver’s seat, many felt as if they were sitting in a hole. Blame the bulky dash and a high beltline that pinches the side glass. It’s styling voodoo — done to applause on the Chrysler 300, but less effective on the Sebring.

Tied — again with the Accord — for smallest trunk, the Sebring at least makes rear-seat folding the breeziest, with simple pull rings on the seatbacks. The back bench is less pleasing to sit in, offering a flat, formless cushion that lacks support. Chrysler skimped on the cubby space and what-not pockets but won the coveted Coolest Map Light award. Push the lamp barrel to turn on the blue-tinted light and aim it with two-axis aiming rings. Pairs shine in both the front and back.

However, only riders above the posted age limit should get in line for this tranquilized cruiser.

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2006/Q4/122120061124151389.jpg
Fifth Place: Familial four-doors: 2007 Toyota Camry LE

Highs: A smooth engine, scads of storage cubbies, a well-utilized interior.
Lows: Languid handling, a few loose trim bits, the curse of blandness.
The Verdict: Still the crown prince of mainstream.

No question, mainstream sells, and compared with the Camry, hotcakes sell like square tires. But in seeking the widest possible audience, this new blunt-nose Camry loses ours. Its steering wheel passed through our hands without leaving an impression. Its handling — rolling, floppy, understeer always ready to douse any rising red mist — elicits no emotion other than jejune boredom. It is A to B boiled down to ones and zeros.

Toyota sedans have never throbbed with driving passion, but at least they could boast of unimpeachable quality. This Camry was impeachable. A few trim pieces hung loose. Some dash panels didn’t match up. The rear-seat armrest cup holder fell out with only the slightest persuasion, leaving behind a ragged hole in the fabric. If fit and finish ceases to be Toyota’s obsession, what will define the company’s products? We shudder to imagine.

Emotion is less important to a Camry owner than efficiency. Mapped out with logical control placement and readable displays, the cockpit offers ample acreage for four adults in comfortable if not overly supportive seats (as in all these cars, using all five of the Camry’s seatbelts requires a squeeze). The Camry tied with the Accord and Altima for best observed fuel economy at 24 mpg. With electronic brake assist, it set the shortest braking distance at 174 feet.

In almost every other performance measure the Camry was solidly midpack as its 158-hp, 2.4-liter four and busy five-speed automatic conducted business quietly and without vibration. The Camry did ace the cubby contest (the Saturn finished last with micro-cubbies too small for a notebook). With a supersized glove box, two generous bins in the center console, a hide-away garage below the A/C controls, plus-size door pockets, a slide-out change tray, and a pair of little “knee” cubbies on either side of the center console ready to accept your junk, clutter away!

If the Camry remains dull, perhaps it’s because nobody demands it be otherwise. We’re taking our opportunity here and now.

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2006/Q4/122120061124043120.jpg
Fourth Place: Familial four-doors: 2007 Saturn Aura XE

Highs: Styling à la mode, V-6 torque, happy in curves.
Lows: Dime-store interior, hand-dirtying trunk, poorest mileage.
The Verdict: Laudable, but let down by details.

It’s not an official category, but the Aura would get 10 points out of 10 for being a perfect “almost.”

Saturn got it almost right. A clean, monochrome body with clipped overhangs and a muscular tire-to-body ratio has a believable Made in Europe stamp. The pushrod V-6, invigorated with variable cam timing, supplies extra punch (and some torque steer) for four-cylinder money, and the chassis ate every corner fed to it with well-tuned body control and fog-free steering. Although slower than the Altima, the Aura was still 7.7 seconds lickety-split to 60 mph despite a 3557-pound curb weight, tops in this test. A firm brake pedal elicited the second-shortest stop (181 feet), and a tight suspension and good rubber tied it with the go-go Altima for best skidpad (0.82 g).

Euro-skinny — at 70.3 inches wide, it’s the narrowest of the group — the Aura is a tuna can with five aboard but airy and loose-fitting with four. Drivers did complain of an expansive center console that invades the footwell — bumped right knees are the result—but generally approved of the interior styling.

As we said, almost right, until the sponges in GM’s Cheapness Department got to the project. Although styled well, the interior is executed with hard plastic, glaring panel gaps, ragged mold lines, and the scrape-scraping of a gear selector that slides through its range like a screwdriver through sand. Have GM’s cheapness freaks ever sat in an Accord?

Dim thinking lies elsewhere. Pop the Aura’s trunk — key fob or door button — and it jerks open just a few millimeters, forcing you to wedge your formerly clean fingers between trunk and bumper to lift it. (The Nissan is the trunk-pop champ; its trunk springs vertically. The Accord’s, the Camry’s, and the Sebring’s rise partway up.) The folding rear seats have no trunk release at all, just rings on the parcel shelf, and don’t fold much beyond 45 degrees. And there’s no trunk handle or ledge to grab for closing, so you’ll know an Aura by all the handprints on its ass. And the boot prints from its competitors.

Looking more Citroën than Chevy, the Saturn Aura breaks some GM patterns while thoroughly reinforcing others.

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2006/Q4/122120061124000893.jpg
Third Place: Familial four-doors: 2007 Kia Optima EX

Highs: Tops the Toyota’s fit and finish, quiet inside, feature-packed for the price.
Lows: Spongy suspension, styling has high yawn factor.
The Verdict: Surprisingly delightful for fewer dollars.

Kia’s retooled Optima strives to be more Camry than a Camry. John Doe looks? Check. Joe Average performance? Check. A relentlessly detailed and fastidiously executed interior that shames pricier cars here? Watch out, Kia has caught Toyota (and others) napping.

The Camry interior styling and fit and finish get eights, even from the East German judge, but the Kia’s pull solid nines. There’s nothing cheap or flimsy to be seen in the Optima. Tasteful titanium-hued accent plates lock together with the rest of the interior trim with aircraft accuracy, most of the seams carefully lap-jointed to hide fissures. All drawers and hand grips slide with spring-damped motion. It’s a soft-touch, low-gloss, fine-grained home run. It’s how Toyota does it when it has its game face on.

At $22,695, this Optima came stuffed with amenities large and small. Not only do you get a six-CD changer but also a cassette player. Not only does the steering tilt, but it telescopes as well.

Softer suspension settings mean the Optima squirms around in corners more than the Accord and Altima but with a notch more body control and steering precision than the Camry. The brakes were criticized for mushiness under pressure. As in the Sebring, the 2.4-liter GEMA engine (for Global Engine Manufacturing Alliance, of which DaimlerChrysler, Mitsubishi, and Hyundai/Kia all partake) mostly hums quietly to itself and winds to high revs without major vibes. Curb weights are about equal, Sebring to Optima, but the quarter-mile time favors the Kia and its five-speed auto, one ratio more than the Sebring. As we said, this car is stuffed with stuff.

Stuffed with people, the Kia proved spacious and well planned. Posteriors in front sink into buckets with a cushy top layer akin to a pillow-top mattress. Side support is wanting, but few complaints were noted during long freeway slogs. The rear bench is high off the floor, keeping knees at a happy angle while toes have room to park under the front seats.

And you thought Japan was worried about North Korea.

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2006/Q4/122120061123574026.jpg
Second Place: Familial four-doors: 2007 Nissan Altima 2.5S

Highs: Z-wannabe handling, quickest to 60, Mach 2 sheetmetal.
Lows: Silly start button, engine thrash, some cheapness inside.
The Verdict: A pole setter that needs polish.

If Kia wants to build the über-Camry, Nissan offers the un-Camry. The Altima is windswept, crouched, and ready to rumble. Its sprint times crushed the competition, the long-stroke 2.5-liter four and CVT pushing the pointy snout through 60 mph in 7.4 seconds. The Altima was also snappiest through the lane change by 1.3 mph. It would have set better braking distances, too, had our $20,915 stripper been optioned with anti-lock brakes ($300).

The logbook waxed eloquent on the ballistic styling, the grip from the Altima’s sticky Continental tires, its well-weighted and communicative steering, and its right-now turn response. A few even declared Nissan’s rack superior to the Accord’s.

Nissan wants the driver to feel sporty as well as be sporty. The dash layout with its trio of center vents is pure 350Z jive. Synthetic mouse fur — what Lamborghini owners call Alcantara — wraps the center and door armrests. A keyless start/kill button gets the engine turning and stopping, with large numbers in the orange-ringed gauges reporting its progress.

The Altima is always straining at the bit, a jumpy throttle making for unintended tire chirps. The 2.5 makes power all right, but not aural pleasure, particularly closer to redline, where the noise turns harsh. During on-ramp accelerations, the CVT holds the revs high so you have time to soak up the car’s brake-horsepower bronchitis.

By pruning the wheelbase 0.9 inch to 109.3 (it’s still tied with the Camry for second longest), Nissan nibbled away at rear-seat room. Scores on the back-seat test, once a walk for the Altima, suffered slightly as knees bumped into the seatbacks. Conversely, the trunk is supertanker class at 18 cubic feet, largest here.

The Altima is ultimately cut down to second by small slip-ups. The interior suffered a wind whistle and has shades of cheapness. Ours was spray-bombed in a depressing primer gray. The start/kill button offs the engine and the electrics all at once — and that NPR interview you were following.

Push again to reboot the radio, and yet again to uncork the un-Camry.

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2006/Q4/122120061123514610.jpg
First Place: Familial four-doors: 2007 Honda Accord SE

Highs: Heavenly steering, engine sings with gusto, no wasted space inside.
Lows: Anonymous looks, fussy rear-seatback latch, dated interior.
The Verdict: The everyman’s car that bonds with enthusiasts.

Honda has the formula so nailed that there can be no place for this car but up front. After finding faults in all the others — some picayune, we’ll grant you — the Accord simply elicits one big “Ahhhhh.”

First off, it drives as if made out of titanium and carbon fiber, with a center of gravity just below the catalytic converter. The delicate steering wheel, dimple-patterned for grip, is light and precise, the body motions clipped, the turn-in sharp, the chassis rigid. Even the doors feel featherweight as they swing on super-lubricated hinges. A fingertip touch is enough to latch them.

Second, the powertrain is marvelous. It has torque, it is hot-blooded for revs, the vibrations stay out of the cabin, and the transmission is never in the wrong gear (even though it lacks a manumatic function). At redline the exhaust snarls, a lively contrast to the other cars, which have nothing to offer but a rising crescendo of whirs, hums, and buzzes. Would you buy a sedan from the same guys who engineered the NSX? Of course you would.

Third, the Accord is built in the size of JR (just right). Dimensionally, it’s midpack — at 3177 pounds it’s not even the lightest car here, nor does it have the most-even weight distribution. It feels small on the road, as if the front bumper were just beyond your toenails. But a crew of four enjoys ample space and comfort, especially as all the seats are sculpted with body pockets. The word “flawless” was used to describe the driving position. A low dash and cut-down window sills mean lots of glass to see out of.

Other words were used for the coal-colored interior and its carbon-fiber trim (faux, of course): “functional,” “a bit dark,” and “uninspired.” With the other cars dazzling us with their fresh designs, the new-in-2003 Accord looks plain inside and out. That, and an inconvenient rear-seatback release requiring one to stoop in and insert the key into the parcel shelf (at least it is theft resistant), were the only complaints mustered.

No question Honda still wears the kanmuri in this class.

I'm kind of suprised the Camry finished so low compared to those cars, I expected it to be more of a heat between the Accord and the Camry. Also, they should have thrown a Passat 2.0T into the mix.

I probably would agree the Accord is the best of this bunch, but
Car and Driver is getting a bit out of hand with their pro-Honda
bias :p

1. This comparo puts me to sleep
2. C&D must buy the lube so Honda can continue to give it to em......

1. This comparo puts me to sleep
2. C&D must buy the lube so Honda can continue to give it to em......


I agree, but I'm still curious as to why they didn't include a Passat and also where it would place in this comparo.

I'm really surprised the Hyundai Sonata wasn't involved in this comparo. I would've liked to see how it compared. Both Toyota and Honda better be lookin out for Hyundai in their rearviews.

Funny how Car & Driver and Ford have these commercials out about the Fusion beating the Camry hands down, yet it wasnt included in this comparo. LOL.

The Accord's win is especially suprising because it's at the end of it's cycle while the others are all brand new.

I guess you can't let the auto mags decide what is best since many others have given the Camry tons of praise and has also been named Car of the Year. One thing is certain, you need to evaluate the cars yourself.

Funny how Car & Driver and Ford have these commercials out about the Fusion beating the Camry hands down, yet it wasnt included in this comparo. LOL.
i guess they didnt find the way to spin it THAT much

:-)

C&D is such trash, I had an 03 Accord V6 and would prefer to own the 07 Camry V6 anyday.

The Hyundai Sonata is pretty much the same car as the Kia Optima.

I will say that Hyundai is coming up fast...I had an Azera for a couple of weeks as a rental, and was quite impressed. They've still got something to learn from Lexus, but not as much as you'd think.

Who cares if the accord wins first.

Loved this comment
"If fit and finish ceases to be Toyota’s obsession, what will define the company’s products? We shudder to imagine"

Who cares if the accord wins first.

I do, I owned the car and it doesn't deserve a 1st place win. The new Camry is a much better vehicle.

I do, I owned the car and it doesn't deserve a 1st place win. The new Camry is a much better vehicle.

You owned the previous generation Accord and you don't own the Camry. Where do you get your facts from again?

You owned the previous generation Accord and you don't own the Camry. Where do you get your facts from again?

No I owned the current Accord, and have extensive seat time in the new Camry.

You owned the previous generation Accord and you don't own the Camry. Where do you get your facts from again?

My mistake on the 03.

However, even the Ford Fusion poll (which nobody seems to like here - and no was not done by C&D like their other ones) people preferred the Accord over the Camry - oh and the Accord outsells the Camry when you take out fleet sales - so even individual customers prefer it over the Camry!!!!

My mistake on the 03.

However, even the Ford Fusion poll (which nobody seems to like here - and no was not done by C&D like their other ones) people preferred the Accord over the Camry - oh and the Accord outsells the Camry when you take out fleet sales - so even individual customers prefer it over the Camry!!!!

okay, first the Camry sold 39,539 vs the Accord's 29,886 last December.

second, I don't think the Suburu plant has begun building Camries yet.

third, you assume the new Camry is being sold to fleets at the same level as the previous model.

C&D writes like the Accord is a perfect car, the reality is far from it. Actually I owned the 02 Accord before someone totaled it. And I much prefered the 02 Accord's interior (excluding the audio) and heavier steering compared to the 03 Accord's.

From my experience the new Camry is the best car for the money. Anything cheaper is an econobox, and anything more expensive suffers from the laws of dimishining returns. Quite frankly I don't consider the Accord to be in the same league as the new Camry.

come to think about it this explains why the LS460 scored last in C&D's recent comparo. the writers are clueless, no suprise why they could never find real jobs.

okay, first the Camry sold 39,539 vs the Accord's 29,886 last December.

second, I don't think the Suburu plant has begun building Camries yet.

third, you assume the new Camry is being sold to fleets at the same level as the previous model.

C&D writes like the Accord is a perfect car, the reality is far from it. Actually I owned the 02 Accord before someone totaled it. And I much prefered the 02 Accord's interior (excluding the audio) and heavier steering compared to the 03 Accord's.

From my experience the new Camry is the best car for the money. Anything cheaper is an econobox, and anything more expensive suffers from the laws of dimishining returns. Quite frankly I don't consider the Accord to be in the same league as the new Camry.

Judging by what I see on the rental car lot, I have no reason to believe that the fleet sales percentage has dropped.

You may not like the Accord, but let's face it, it provides a more rewarding experience for the driver and as you will see below - the mag is called Car & DRIVER.

come to think about it this explains why the LS460 scored last in C&D's recent comparo. the writers are clueless, no suprise why they could never find real jobs.

Or maybe Car & DRIVER - cares more about how cars drive?

I do, I owned the car and it doesn't deserve a 1st place win. The new Camry is a much better vehicle.

The reason why I say "who cares if the accord wins first" is because it's a magazine comparison. If an accord wins first, people will say C&D is biased and that they do not know a thing about cars. If the Camry wins, the biased comments and such are suddenly disregarded and then the camry gets congratulated.

Remember this review is judged by humans just like you and me. They all have their preferences. Car and driver is more concerned with performance/driving than most anything else. If you want a review for bang for the buck, quietness, etc, then Consumer Reports is what you'll want to look at, not C&D.

Thats why no one should care who wins first because you're ultimately going to buy a car based on your needs, not on what the journalists say.

okay, first the Camry sold 39,539 vs the Accord's 29,886 last December.

second, I don't think the Suburu plant has begun building Camries yet.

third, you assume the new Camry is being sold to fleets at the same level as the previous model.

C&D writes like the Accord is a perfect car, the reality is far from it. Actually I owned the 02 Accord before someone totaled it. And I much prefered the 02 Accord's interior (excluding the audio) and heavier steering compared to the 03 Accord's.

From my experience the new Camry is the best car for the money. Anything cheaper is an econobox, and anything more expensive suffers from the laws of dimishining returns. Quite frankly I don't consider the Accord to be in the same league as the new Camry.


The accord is on its last straw. The Camry had just came out less than a year ago. I would hope that the Camry outsells a car that is on its last year. We'll have to compare the results once the 8th gen accord comes out.

I wouldn't expect the Camry's fleet sale to change dramatically. Fleet owners love the camry for their dependability. They're going to buy a lot of camrys regardless. Honda on the other hand, do not sale to fleet, and if they do, it's a very very very small number (less than 800 last year I believe..i'll have to check up on that).

I am an insurance agent, over the last 5 year, I see my clients buying 3 times more camrys than accords..
so let the comsumers says the truth... ;)

so let the comsumers says the truth... ;)

The consumers are telling the truth :D

For the last 5 years or more, The Camry has always been the number one seller, but Toyota commercial doesn't tell you that they factored in fleet sale. Consumers, like you and i, buy more accords than camrys. Now if I could only find that info again :uh:

These are family cars. Not sure why some mags want you to think they are sports cars. LMAO.
I'm worried about space, trunk room and the newest tech and safety.
I'm going for the Camry. The Accord is 5 years old. Clearly, it holds more than its own but I am not buying an Accord b/c its sporty.

I know The Accord and Camry are always on the top in car sells but the Altima has come a long way 6 years ago they didn't even have a V6.

C&D often puts the emphasis of their reviews on aspects the average consumer doesn't give a flying crap about; this one is no different. My mom never complained about her Corollas "non-responsive steering" or oversteer, all she cares about is that it's reliable, quick enough, gets good mpg, and carries all her stuff . :)

Loved this comment
"If fit and finish ceases to be Toyota’s obsession, what will define the company’s products? We shudder to imagine"

I actually agree with that comment. The fit and finish on the new IS and GS downright sucks, and the new ES appears to be a rattle box. Even the new LS460, in my opinion, does not feel as solid as LS430 or SC430.

The consumers are telling the truth :D

For the last 5 years or more, The Camry has always been the number one seller, but Toyota commercial doesn't tell you that they factored in fleet sale. Consumers, like you and i, buy more accords than camrys. Now if I could only find that info again :uh:

http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2194913&postcount=198

:)

http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2192521&postcount=190

:)

I need to start bookmarking things like that:D

I need to start bookmarking things like that:D

Damn Mike you are QUICK (That's what she said...)

:)

I put the wrong one in there - I have now corrected it.

Was simple to find -just searched on doug_999 and Where Did you Find
:)

http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2194913&postcount=198

:)

You're both wrong. According to the link above for 2006. When you take out fleet sales for the Camry (which is 12.9%). The Camry still outsells the Accord (Camry = about 390k vs. Accord = about 354k [this is with 1.1% fleet sales included]). So the retail consumers still choose Camry over Accord. Nice try Honda but no cigar. Back to the drawing board, you loser. :p :woohoo: :woot:

The reason why I say "who cares if the accord wins first" is because it's a magazine comparison. If an accord wins first, people will say C&D is biased and that they do not know a thing about cars. If the Camry wins, the biased comments and such are suddenly disregarded and then the camry gets congratulated.

the opposite applies on the Honda forum :)

Mr. Jones. Don't you think it's about time to trade your 03 Accord for a new Camry. :p

the opposite applies on the Honda forum :)



I agree. which is why I dont hang around Honda forums. :p

When Honda didnt win in C&D comparo, really?

Car mags almost always choose the best driving car for their #1 spot.
This is why BMW has always been the king of auto comparos. Doesn't matter if the car falls apart over night, is too expensive, is ugly, ect... If it has the best driving dynamics then it's good enough for them.

Fortunately, this isn't how most people choose a car.

Car mags almost always choose the best driving car for their #1 spot.
This is why BMW has always been the king of auto comparos. Doesn't matter if the car falls apart over night, is too expensive, is ugly, ect... If it has the best driving dynamics then it's good enough for them.

Fortunately, this isn't how most people choose a car.
yep, even when it doesnt start, eh? :-)

Another thing to consider regarding Camry sales (aside for Fleet sales) is the fact that Toyota combines the sales of both the Solara coupe and convertible with the Camry sedans. The Accord has only two major variants vs. the Camry's three major different body styles.

I think the most important question that should be answered is who sells the most sedan version of each car.

I'm really surprised the Hyundai Sonata wasn't involved in this comparo. I would've liked to see how it compared. Both Toyota and Honda better be lookin out for Hyundai in their rearviews.

Agreed.....but Hyundai is no longer in those rearview mirrors. It is now in the windshield.

This comparo is typical C&D......same general style they have been using for the last 25-30 years. The winners usually are the closest to emulate BMW-style cornering and steering, and anything less than that is considered AARP Buick.
C&D, like most "enthusiast" magazines, is into aggressive driving.......so, of course, they want aggressive machines, even in the family-sedan category.

To those asking why certain models weren't included...

Well, if they included every sedan in this class there would be like 20 cars at least. It's a crowded segment, they can't all be there.

Why not Passat? The Jetta would probably fit in with this class more than the Passat. The Passat is usually pricey which would go against Maxima, Avalon, Chrysler 300, ect.

To those asking why certain models weren't included...

Well, if they included every sedan in this class there would be like 20 cars at least. It's a crowded segment, they can't all be there.

Why not Passat? The Jetta would probably fit in with this class more than the Passat. The Passat is usually pricey which would go against Maxima, Avalon, Chrysler 300, ect.

This notion that the Passat is too pricey is a little bit ill-conceived. You can get a 4-cylinder Passat for around the same price as a similarly equipped 4-cylinder Camry. Low-mid 20k'. So that argument doesn't really hold too much water anymore.

This notion that the Passat is too pricey is a little bit ill-conceived. You can get a 4-cylinder Passat for around the same price as a similarly equipped 4-cylinder Camry. Low-mid 20k'. So that argument doesn't really hold too much water anymore.

The Passat's base model's MSRP is: $22,960 - $24,035

The Camry's base model's MSRP is: $18,470 - $19,520

Both prices are for the cheapest 4 cyl. model available.

They can compete but the Passat is no doubt thousands more.

I looked at Jetta's pricing, and they can reach an msrp of $25,065 (4 cyl.)

The Camry is a fine car. It's great for those who hate cars but need reliable and practical transportation - and that's a ton of people! Its looks have grown on me some, but not the interior, which to me looks CHEAP.

And the driving experience would get old to me. It gets you there, but Honda still understands (as does BMW even more so) that some drivers want a car to feel competent, not just be reliable.

The Camry has become a reliable Chevy. Boring, sloppy, but highly reliable.

Its handling — rolling, floppy, understeer always ready to douse any rising red mist — elicits no emotion other than jejune boredom. It is A to B boiled down to ones and zeros.

Yall are a trip, comparing driving dynamics of these cars. 3 pages. wow!

The Passat's base model's MSRP is: $22,960 - $24,035

The Camry's base model's MSRP is: $18,470 - $19,520

Both prices are for the cheapest 4 cyl. model available.

They can compete but the Passat is no doubt thousands more.

I looked at Jetta's pricing, and they can reach an msrp of $25,065 (4 cyl.)


I said comparable equipped (that means similar options and standard equipment) not base models. Of course you can get an even more stripped down Camry, hence its' base CE price.

The XLE 4-cylinder and the Passat 4-cylinder with a couple options compare quite nicely. Similarly equipped they are both around $24k-$25k.

Or maybe Car & DRIVER - cares more about how cars drive?

No, it's not that at all. C&D provides a fallacy dilemma, they assume a car is either boring or fun. The new Camry is not a 70's Lincoln, and the Accord is not a Ferrari Enzo.

I would expect a level of professionalism from the largest subscribed auto mag in the US. But C&D prefers entertainment and hype rather than providing any meaningful benifit to consumers.

Auto sales is perhaps the best indicator of what people want or more importantly NEED in a car. Toyota will soon become #1 in the world because they build what people need and do it with quality.

If consumers were like auto journalists, the BMW 3 series would probably be the best selling car in the world. And before someone says its to expensive to be, it really isn't. Look at the amount of SUV's and pickups that sell and cost MORE than a 3 series.

But even the 3 series has a lot that doesn't meet the requirements of buyers.

I'm always surprised by all the sour apples after people read a review like that. I think that if you go into your test drives with a more neutral position with respect to the cars, you're able to see them for what they really are. I drove the Accord before buying the Civic, and it really does do everything right. It handles and feels incredibly good for a mainstream family sedan. It may not have the highest quality interior materials, but everything is assembled perfectly, and the use of interior space is second to none. The auto mags like Hondas time and time again because Honda does it right. Every time.

When was the last time you got out of a Camry and said "hmm, that was a fun drive!"?

Funny how Car & Driver and Ford have these commercials out about the Fusion beating the Camry hands down, yet it wasnt included in this comparo. LOL.

Yeah, I saw the commercial several times and thought about this thread.

Everyone love the new fusion over the camry yet not in this comparo:egads:

I would expect a level of professionalism from the largest subscribed auto mag in the US. But C&D prefers entertainment and hype rather than providing any meaningful benifit to consumers.

You have to look at it from their perspective. They are C&D and they test automobiles' performance. They dont have to test anything for any "benefits" that brings to the average joe because it's not in their agenda. They are not restrictive to only sports cars.

If people wanted info on the cars, specifically something that may benefit them in terms of comfort, reliability, etc, then consumer reports is probably the better magazine to look at it.

That's like asking Top Gear to indepthly review the camry's reliability, space, quality etc. They mostly test a car's fun factor and its ability to go around the track regardless of what car it is, as you can see they range from the enzo ferarri to the cheap Kias; basically anything that rolls on wheels.
Different magazines have their own purposes, so it shouldn't be expected of C&D to not pick the accord, altima, or whatever over the camry for driving pleasure. And yes, you can have fun in a midsize family transporter.

:):thumbup:

The Accord being sporty is b/c look at the cars it is being compared too. The true sportier Accord is the TSX aka Euro Accord. I've driven Accords (b/c 50% of the girls I date have one) and they put me to sleep as much as a Camry, Town Car or riding the bus.
I've NEVER driven any of these cars or seen them and thought "wow, I would love to have that". Almost the contrary "avoid like the plauge".

There is nothing wrong with these cars clearly, they are mainstream and very very good at it. But getting even remotely horny about them is totally out of the question:D

If consumers were like auto journalists, the BMW 3 series would probably be the best selling car in the world. And before someone says its to expensive to be, it really isn't. Look at the amount of SUV's and pickups that sell and cost MORE than a 3 series.

But even the 3 series has a lot that doesn't meet the requirements of buyers.

Worst example ever :thumbdn:
Name a car as expensive as the 3 that sells as much as the 3 (average transaction price). Not many, if any at all.

Worst example ever :thumbdn:
Name a car as expensive as the 3 that sells as much as the 3 (average transaction price). Not many, if any at all.

Millions of the "big 3" pickups alone (F-150, Silverada, Ram) sell for low $30K average selling price each year. They have a wide range but can go up past $40K for a very well equiped full sizer.

I'm not quite sure why you think that's a bad example (never mind worst ever). :rolleyes:

Unless you mean CAR and not any other type of vehicle. :uh:

Worst example ever :thumbdn:
Name a car as expensive as the 3 that sells as much as the 3 (average transaction price). Not many, if any at all.

Get back on topic please...

The thread was about crappy family sedans :p

Millions of the "big 3" pickups alone (F-150, Silverada, Ram) sell for low $30K average selling price each year. They have a wide range but can go up past $40K for a very well equiped full sizer.

I'm not quite sure why you think that's a bad example (never mind worst ever). :rolleyes:

Unless you mean CAR and not any other type of vehicle. :uh:

yes, by car I mean sedan/coupe (since the 3 sells in different variations).
How can you compare a truck to a car? apples to apples? :rolleyes:

Sry for off topic.

yes, by car I mean sedan/coupe (since the 3 sells in different variations).
How can you compare a truck to a car? apples to apples? :rolleyes:

Sry for off topic.

My original point was to compare pricing only. Meaning, millions of people can afford vehicles in the $30-40K range. Therefore could buy a car such as the 3 series instead. But they choose a vehicle that meets other types of needs rather than cars that have the best driving dynamics.

This is in line with the topic.

camry V6 SE would do much better for C and D likings!

I kinda agree. Camry LE 4 cylinder is inferior compare to the Accord from my perspectives.

My original point was to compare pricing only. Meaning, millions of people can afford vehicles in the $30-40K range. Therefore could buy a car such as the 3 series instead. But they choose a vehicle that meets other types of needs rather than cars that have the best driving dynamics.

This is in line with the topic.

True, there are many reasons to choose one car over the other. However, if say you had two cars that fit all your needs, both looked great, in fact lets say they are the exact same model car but for some mysterious reason one had better driving dynamics than the other, which one would you buy? My point would be if you have two cars both which equally meets ones needs and price, people will generally choose the more fun to drive car given everything else being equal.

Although different for everyone, these are my current purchase priorities in order:

1. Styling
2. Quality
3. Price/value
4. Power
5. Driving dynamics
6. Interior/room
7. Fuel economy

Although different for everyone, these are my current purchase priorities in order:

1. Styling
2. Quality
3. Price/value
4. Power
5. Driving dynamics
6. Interior/room
7. Fuel economy


That is almost exactly the same as mine. My only point was if two cars meet the criteria equally, the one with the better driving dynamics would probably win for most buyers. I only brought this up because of the question asked why Car and Driver chooses the Accord over the Camry. Too me, both cars fits the segment needs nearly equally, so as a reviewer, I can fully understand why the always choose the so called more fun car to drive.

I can't say I can list priorities like the above in any particular order, it really depends on the individual car model I'm looking at & how I feel about it overall. If I like it enough in one area, say if it looks gorgeous, maybe I can compromise a little in other areas. I have never liked a Camry over the Accord though, although I don't like the current Accord based on looks alone.

I do think a car NEEDS to be at least reasonably reliable & well-built especially if it's expensive, since it's entirely unacceptable for me to pay a lot for a car trouble-prone expensive car that can potentially be a lemon nomatter how good it is in one or two other criterias, maybe with the exception of a few exotics (when I can afford them, I probably won't care too much if it's often in the shop) ...