March 2008 Car & Driver Bread and butter sedan comparison
02-15-08, 09:05 PM
#1
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 2,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
March 2008 Car & Driver Bread and butter sedan comparison
THE BUZZARD-AND-BALONEY BRIGADE - COMPARISON TEST
Seventh Place: 2008 Dodge Avenger SXT
Sixth Place: 2008 Ford Fusion SEL
Fifth Place: 2008 Toyota Camry LE
Fourth Place: 2009 Hyundai Sonata Limited
Third Place: 2008 Chevrolet Malibu LT
Second Place: 2008 Nissan Altima 2.5S
First Place: 2008 Honda Accord EX
2008 Dodge Avenger SXT - Seventh Place
HIGHS: Good fuel economy, easy-to-read gauges, inexpensive.
LOWS: A festival of NVH, hard interior surfaces, feels insubstantial.
THE VERDICT: A mid-size sedan relying almost entirely on its sticker price.
It may look like a seven-eighths-scale Dodge Charger, but any other claim the Avenger may lay to its big brother’s well-earned reputation is a stretch.
What most damages the Avenger is its 173-hp, 2.4-liter “world engine,” built just down the road from us in Dundee, Michigan. It produces way too much racket—the noisiest in our group at full throttle and at 70-mph cruise. And the sound quality was alternately described as “walnuts in a Cuisinart,” “a weed whip with a loose spool,” and “four shot wheel bearings.”
What’s more, the engine felt overwhelmed in this package. To 60 mph, it was the second slowest in the group, and the four-speed transmission was often guilty of summoning the wrong gear. On backwoods roads, it was sometimes difficult to keep the powerplant on the boil, which at least mitigated the noise. The upside, however, was that the Avenger equaled the Camry for best observed fuel economy.
The Dodge lost points for its plasticky interior, with so many hard and angular edges that it resembled a gray Picasso. “There’s no common theme in here,” griped one editor. “Watch what your elbows bang into, because it’s gonna hurt.” With its squat, upright windshield and high beltline, the Avenger felt small, inside and out. And it wasn’t wholly an illusion. In this group, its back seat proved the most cramped for two adults, and the Dodge offered the least capacious trunk.
Which isn’t to say the car came up snake-eyes. The front-passenger seat folds flat, and the cushions are firm, with seatbacks that are supportive in the right places. The gauges feature easy-to-read black numerals on white faces. The steering proved agreeably accurate, with appropriate heft. You can store chilled drinks in the beverage bin. The chassis remained composed when called on to hustle. And our 22,000-mile test car was not only the least expensive in this group—by a wide margin—but also more rattle-free than the Camry.
Still, if you’re drawn to the Avenger, cough up the extra $1350 for the DOHC 2.7-liter V-6. It’s worth it.
2008 Ford Fusion SEL - Sixth Place
HIGHS: Sharp styling, leather interior, thoughtful ride-and-handling trade-off.
LOWS: Too little power and a transmission that spoils the party.
THE VERDICT: Right face, wrong drivetrain.
This wasn’t the Fusion we wanted. Its as-tested price was far too high, due mostly to its optional sunroof, nav system, and several other gratuitous gewgaws—all of which we tried to ignore. Still, if you specify just the five-speed automatic ($875), the sport-tuned suspension ($895), and the leather skins ($895), you’ll wind up with a quite luxurious little sedan fetching just over 23 grand.
This Ford’s interior was a knockout, with joyful red-leather inserts in the seat cushions, matching red stitching, a jewel-like analog clock, and a leather-wrapped wheel. Forward sightlines were excellent. The trunk was as large as the Hyundai’s.
Set off by tasteful alloy wheels, the Fusion’s sharp-pleated exterior was uplifting, too, lending the whole package a whiff of elegance unexpected in this class.
We would have preferred that the HVAC controls weren’t buried down in the inky-black well of the center stack and that the driver’s seatback could be adjusted electronically. What’s more, the lone signal/wiper stalk always confused us, even after 600 miles of experience.
With its 18-inch performance-biased rubber, the Fusion not surprisingly evinced best-in-group skidpad grip and was equally athletic around our “Hockingheim ring,” where it was abetted by sharp steering, sure turn-in, and nicely controlled body motions—all at little cost to ride quality.
So why didn’t the Fusion rank higher? First, its 160-horse, 2.3-liter Duratec just couldn’t get the job done. In this group, the Ford was slowest to 30 mph, to 60, through the quarter-mile, and in both our top-gear tests. Lowest top speed, too.
Second, its transmission acted like some sort of steroidal homing pigeon, drawn perpetually to high gear. The car would step off smoothly, but if you didn’t summon full throttle ASAP, the trans was in fifth gear about 10 feet later. Because the shifter offers only drive and low, our pilots had little choice but to mash the throttle to summon donkey-slow two- or three-gear kickdowns that would snap your neck. “It’s like the engine is either on or off,” wrote one editor.
Despite its solid, composed platform, the Fusion was difficult to drive smoothly. Former Ford consultant Jackie Stewart would have slugged someone.
2008 Toyota Camry LE - Fifth Place
HIGHS: Eerily quiet, Lexus-like switchgear, limousine ride.
LOWS: Early understeer, too much body roll, plastic hubcaps.
THE VERDICT: Practical and tranquil but not much of a dancer.
There’s a scene in a Seinfeld episode in which George Costanza’s father, played by Jerry Stiller, screams, “Serenity now!” He should have been driving a Camry.
This Toyota goes about its business with regal deliberation and narcotic tranquillity, offering the sort of ride you’d expect from a limousine. It was also the quietest at idle, and no other contestant was quieter at a 70-mph cruise. “An engine like a cage full of finches,” wrote an editor.
On the other hand, the Camry steadfastly declined to engage in any childish behavior, supplying the least skidpad grip, the slowest lane-change speed, the most body roll, and the least power—32 horses shy of what the Accord’s inline-four produces, for instance.
It’s no secret that the Camry is aimed at 50-something baby boomers. Just look at its center stack. The radio buttons are large, round, and exactly where they were in the ’60s—on/off control on the left, volume control on the right. Want to switch modes? The AM button is three inches long. The three rotary HVAC controls are even larger and equally intuitive and can be adjusted while you’re wearing gloves. At full whack, the ventilation fan simply purrs. Backlit by a baby-blue luminescence, the center stack evinces a serene art deco look.
The Camry’s transmission was seamless, too, shifting up and down unnoticed. But it doesn’t want you second-guessing it—witness the diabolical left-right maze you’ll need to negotiate to shift manually from D to 4 to 3 to 2 to L.
The steering proved a little numb for our tastes, but at least it was light. The brake pedal was easy to modulate. The back-seat cushion offered excellent thigh support. The optional stability control ($650) was transparent and saved our bacon—our bologna, actually—two or three times on slushy apexes in the hills. And the Camry sidled up to the gas pumps as infrequently as the Avenger.
In stark contrast to the Fusion, it was almost impossible not to drive the Camry smoothly, making it the car everyone wanted to inhabit during heavy-traffic slogs. At day’s end, however, it came up long on practicality and short on exuberance. Sometimes the living room isn’t easily converted into the game room.
2009 Hyundai Sonata Limited - Fourth Place
HIGHS: Soothing interstate cruiser, pillowy ride, delectable manumatic.
LOWS: Too much body roll, could do with a stiffer platform.
THE VERDICT: One foot deeper into Honda Accord territory.
Just as we were packing underwear for this buzzard-and-baloney trip, the Hyundai guys called to ask whether we’d like to sample their latest updates on a 2009 Sonata. “Bring that baby over,” we barked.
This light makeover is appealing. The center stack, the IP, and the center console are totally new, and they’re far more modern and rich to the touch, especially the convincingly real-looking wood. The nose, with its classy new headlights and grille, has been altered to look “heavier.” To us, it looks Lexus-ish. The dampers have been tuned with higher rebound and compression rates. Power is up by 13 horses, yet induction noise has been reduced. A five-speed automatic is standard. And the steering ratio has been quickened.
What’s more, this is a Hyundai, so you get a major load of standard equipment. Among other goodies, our Sonata Limited had stability control, a manumatic transmission, a tire-pressure-monitoring system, a leather interior, fog lights, heated front seats, 17-inch alloy wheels, an Infinity stereo with a six-CD changer, and a sunroof. Nice.
What you notice first about the Sonata is that it’s big and airy inside. No competitor in this group surpassed its front or rear interior volumes. The trunk is as big as the Fusion’s, and the back seat is as comfortable as the Toyota’s. What’s more, it offers a pleasingly low cowl and a dash that is pushed far forward. Truth is, the Sonata is now big enough to meet the EPA’s large-car standard, even though it competes in the mid-size segment.
In the hills, we didn’t really notice a huge improvement in handling. The Sonata is still heavily biased toward a velvety ride, and it shifts weight from corner to corner a little too readily. The steering is still light and agreeably accurate—maybe a titch too quick just off-center—but its tracking and self-centering are fine. What’s more, the slick manumatic makes the Sonata’s transmission the most flexible in this group.
The Hyundai still needs to quicken all of its reflexes by about 10 percent, and the platform still doesn’t feel as solid and flex-free as the Accord’s or the Altima’s. Otherwise, this is an appealing long-distance cruiser, a Sonata playing a nicely orchestrated sonata called, “Creeping Up on the Accord.”
2008 Chevrolet Malibu LT - Third Place
HIGHS: Elegant cockpit, superb engine isolation, a handsome lad.
LOWS: A little heavy, needs more than four gears, fat A- and C-pillars.
THE VERDICT: The best four-cylinder mainstream car GM has ever built.
Every editor who climbed into the Malibu said the same thing: “Wow, this thing feels huge.” In fact, the Chevy is the heaviest in the group, riding on the longest wheelbase, with an extra-large steering wheel. Strangely, it’s also the narrowest, which might account for the tight fit in back.
The Malibu goes down the road like a large car, too. The electric power-assisted steering offers a strong sense of straight-ahead, and its weight builds predictably. The ride-and-handling trade-off is suited to the audience. Pushed to its limits, the suspension proved difficult to disrupt, although there was too much dive under hard braking.
All the voters loved the elegant cockpit, especially the delicate spear of brushed aluminum that shoots across the dash to blend into the front doors. The headliner looked as if it might have been swiped from a Maybach. And the front seats were all-day comfortable, with long, supportive cushions.
Even after 600 miles, it still shocked us to be driving a four-cylinder GM product with such terrific engine isolation. In this group, the Chevy was quietest at full throttle, a statement we can’t ever recall making. The sound deadening didn’t stop there, either. Wind roar, road noise, tire slap, mechanical thrashiness—all have been filtered to superbly low levels. Even the ticking of the turn signal, noted one editor, sounds “expensively hushed.”
There were a few beefs. The clammy plastic steering wheel, in such a pretty cockpit, felt out of place. The “alloy” wheels are actually plastic-covered steel. The fat A- and C-pillars do damage to sightlines. The 16.3-gallon fuel tank meant the Malibu was always the first to hunt for a Mobil station. Apart from drive, the transmission offers only two manual forward selections, making it tricky to hold big engine revs in the hills. And speaking of the transmission, it’s a four-speed. A six-speed will arrive later in the year. You might want to wait for it.
The Malibu is built off the same Epsilon architecture as the slow-selling Saturn Aura. We hope the Chevy moves faster out of showrooms. The General’s effort here was huge. If it doesn’t pay off, we don’t want the company reverting to its old ways.
2008 Nissan Altima 2.5S - Second Place
HIGHS: Drag-strip king, a real corner carver, a Mosler vault of a platform.
LOWS: CVT not to everyone’s liking, no stability control, dour cockpit.
THE VERDICT: True dual personality—fun in the hills, serene on the interstates.
Déjà vu. A Nissan Altima 2.5S finished second—to an Accord—in our February 2007 version of this test. Then as now, the Altima struck us as the sports car of the bunch. Check it out: Quickest to 60 mph, quickest through the quarter-mile, quickest in our top-gear tests, quickest in a rolling start to 60 mph. And when it was time for lunch, the Nissan was quickest to achieve zero mph, too.
The Altima was our only combatant with a CVT, which elicited some of the standard gripes. With no gears, the engine can call attention to its droning, especially on freeway entrances, where it hangs at WOT for longish spells. Fortunately, Nissan’s CVT is smart, even supplying engine braking on downhill stretches. Plus, if you tire of it, you can switch to the manumatic, which expertly blips the throttle on downshifts and whose steps are perfectly spaced.
Around town, the Altima’s steering is well-weighted but becomes a little heavy at speed. Nonetheless, the rack delivers more information about road surfaces than the Accord’s. Turn-in is sharp, and once you select an arc through a turn, the Altima pursues it like a bloodhound. “And when you do manage to get this car all unweighted,” wrote one editor, “you can just tap the brakes and it settles, hunkering down like a cat stalking a mouse.”
Complaints? A few. For starters, no four-cylinder Altima can be had with stability control. At speed in the snow, we really missed it. The interior was relentlessly dark—“like falling into a well,” griped one voter. (Unless you have a heavy supply of Prozac, pick a combo that has a Blond or Frost interior.) The plastic surrounding the shifter made no attempt to disguise its crudeness. The back seat was cramped. The 175-horse engine delivered the worst observed fuel economy, although not by much. And the pushbutton starter was slow to cause any underhood parts to whir. Why can’t we all agree these systems are just dumb?
The Nissan is a solid, confidence-inspiring car with a rigid platform, smart looks, and excellent control relationships. And we’re not the only ones who’ve noticed. Through November of last year, the Altima was the sixth-bestselling auto in the U.S.
2008 Honda Accord EX - First Place
HIGHS: Telepathic interplay among chassis, engine, and transmission.
LOWS: Needlessly complex center stack, could use more steering feel.
THE VERDICT: Another Accord? We’ve pretty much run out of nice things to say.
In its 32-year existence, the Accord has landed on C/D’s 10Best Cars list 22 times. We must have cost Honda a pile of cash in trophy cases alone. In this group, our Accord carried the highest base price, but it was because we wanted to sample the 190 horsepower that comes with the EX, rather than the base LX’s 177. It paid off. Our test car was the second quickest to 60 mph.
The Accord’s essential goodness, however, doesn’t derive from power alone. Even with the standard stability control chipping away, our EX was also the fastest through our lane-change test.
Honda has simply nailed the econosedan formula, and it isn’t just a matter of building the highest-revving engine, the most competent suspension, and the most ergonomic interior. The trick is getting every component talking openly and honestly to every other component. It’s that sonorous mechanical interplay that lends the Accord its agility and charm. Throttle tip-in reminds us of a BMW 3’s, and there’s steady power delivery right up to 7100 rpm. Steering heft and linearity are spot-on, although some of us noted that this new rack doesn’t transmit road textures as clearly as did its forebear. The taut-yet-frictionless chassis makes up for it, however, posting regular updates on available grip. The brakes are easy to modulate. The thin A-pillars let you see around turns. In short, no car in our cast was as eager to establish a friendly rhythm when the roads got tricky.
Although the Accord was tied with the Avenger for loudest idle, it was merely a matter of our microphones registering quantity of sound versus quality.
Like the Sonata, the Accord is now officially a large sedan, with the extra room paying dividends abaft. For two or three adults, the rear seat proved the most spacious in this group. But try it yourself—the seatback is steeply reclined. We loved the three-tier dash, whose bulges and contours place all secondary controls at your fingertips. Which is lucky, because the center stack—ahem—contains 34 buttons.
We wish the Accord came with a manumatic, but you can shift manually by pulling straight back from D, to D3, to 2, to 1. Left to its own devices, the five-speed is prescient about holding lower gears on downhill grades and during spirited driving.
Like its predecessors, this latest Accord contains real meat in the middle. And that ain’t no baloney.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/..._test/(page)/1
Seventh Place: 2008 Dodge Avenger SXT
Sixth Place: 2008 Ford Fusion SEL
Fifth Place: 2008 Toyota Camry LE
Fourth Place: 2009 Hyundai Sonata Limited
Third Place: 2008 Chevrolet Malibu LT
Second Place: 2008 Nissan Altima 2.5S
First Place: 2008 Honda Accord EX
2008 Dodge Avenger SXT - Seventh Place
HIGHS: Good fuel economy, easy-to-read gauges, inexpensive.
LOWS: A festival of NVH, hard interior surfaces, feels insubstantial.
THE VERDICT: A mid-size sedan relying almost entirely on its sticker price.
It may look like a seven-eighths-scale Dodge Charger, but any other claim the Avenger may lay to its big brother’s well-earned reputation is a stretch.
What most damages the Avenger is its 173-hp, 2.4-liter “world engine,” built just down the road from us in Dundee, Michigan. It produces way too much racket—the noisiest in our group at full throttle and at 70-mph cruise. And the sound quality was alternately described as “walnuts in a Cuisinart,” “a weed whip with a loose spool,” and “four shot wheel bearings.”
What’s more, the engine felt overwhelmed in this package. To 60 mph, it was the second slowest in the group, and the four-speed transmission was often guilty of summoning the wrong gear. On backwoods roads, it was sometimes difficult to keep the powerplant on the boil, which at least mitigated the noise. The upside, however, was that the Avenger equaled the Camry for best observed fuel economy.
The Dodge lost points for its plasticky interior, with so many hard and angular edges that it resembled a gray Picasso. “There’s no common theme in here,” griped one editor. “Watch what your elbows bang into, because it’s gonna hurt.” With its squat, upright windshield and high beltline, the Avenger felt small, inside and out. And it wasn’t wholly an illusion. In this group, its back seat proved the most cramped for two adults, and the Dodge offered the least capacious trunk.
Which isn’t to say the car came up snake-eyes. The front-passenger seat folds flat, and the cushions are firm, with seatbacks that are supportive in the right places. The gauges feature easy-to-read black numerals on white faces. The steering proved agreeably accurate, with appropriate heft. You can store chilled drinks in the beverage bin. The chassis remained composed when called on to hustle. And our 22,000-mile test car was not only the least expensive in this group—by a wide margin—but also more rattle-free than the Camry.
Still, if you’re drawn to the Avenger, cough up the extra $1350 for the DOHC 2.7-liter V-6. It’s worth it.
2008 Ford Fusion SEL - Sixth Place
HIGHS: Sharp styling, leather interior, thoughtful ride-and-handling trade-off.
LOWS: Too little power and a transmission that spoils the party.
THE VERDICT: Right face, wrong drivetrain.
This wasn’t the Fusion we wanted. Its as-tested price was far too high, due mostly to its optional sunroof, nav system, and several other gratuitous gewgaws—all of which we tried to ignore. Still, if you specify just the five-speed automatic ($875), the sport-tuned suspension ($895), and the leather skins ($895), you’ll wind up with a quite luxurious little sedan fetching just over 23 grand.
This Ford’s interior was a knockout, with joyful red-leather inserts in the seat cushions, matching red stitching, a jewel-like analog clock, and a leather-wrapped wheel. Forward sightlines were excellent. The trunk was as large as the Hyundai’s.
Set off by tasteful alloy wheels, the Fusion’s sharp-pleated exterior was uplifting, too, lending the whole package a whiff of elegance unexpected in this class.
We would have preferred that the HVAC controls weren’t buried down in the inky-black well of the center stack and that the driver’s seatback could be adjusted electronically. What’s more, the lone signal/wiper stalk always confused us, even after 600 miles of experience.
With its 18-inch performance-biased rubber, the Fusion not surprisingly evinced best-in-group skidpad grip and was equally athletic around our “Hockingheim ring,” where it was abetted by sharp steering, sure turn-in, and nicely controlled body motions—all at little cost to ride quality.
So why didn’t the Fusion rank higher? First, its 160-horse, 2.3-liter Duratec just couldn’t get the job done. In this group, the Ford was slowest to 30 mph, to 60, through the quarter-mile, and in both our top-gear tests. Lowest top speed, too.
Second, its transmission acted like some sort of steroidal homing pigeon, drawn perpetually to high gear. The car would step off smoothly, but if you didn’t summon full throttle ASAP, the trans was in fifth gear about 10 feet later. Because the shifter offers only drive and low, our pilots had little choice but to mash the throttle to summon donkey-slow two- or three-gear kickdowns that would snap your neck. “It’s like the engine is either on or off,” wrote one editor.
Despite its solid, composed platform, the Fusion was difficult to drive smoothly. Former Ford consultant Jackie Stewart would have slugged someone.
2008 Toyota Camry LE - Fifth Place
HIGHS: Eerily quiet, Lexus-like switchgear, limousine ride.
LOWS: Early understeer, too much body roll, plastic hubcaps.
THE VERDICT: Practical and tranquil but not much of a dancer.
There’s a scene in a Seinfeld episode in which George Costanza’s father, played by Jerry Stiller, screams, “Serenity now!” He should have been driving a Camry.
This Toyota goes about its business with regal deliberation and narcotic tranquillity, offering the sort of ride you’d expect from a limousine. It was also the quietest at idle, and no other contestant was quieter at a 70-mph cruise. “An engine like a cage full of finches,” wrote an editor.
On the other hand, the Camry steadfastly declined to engage in any childish behavior, supplying the least skidpad grip, the slowest lane-change speed, the most body roll, and the least power—32 horses shy of what the Accord’s inline-four produces, for instance.
It’s no secret that the Camry is aimed at 50-something baby boomers. Just look at its center stack. The radio buttons are large, round, and exactly where they were in the ’60s—on/off control on the left, volume control on the right. Want to switch modes? The AM button is three inches long. The three rotary HVAC controls are even larger and equally intuitive and can be adjusted while you’re wearing gloves. At full whack, the ventilation fan simply purrs. Backlit by a baby-blue luminescence, the center stack evinces a serene art deco look.
The Camry’s transmission was seamless, too, shifting up and down unnoticed. But it doesn’t want you second-guessing it—witness the diabolical left-right maze you’ll need to negotiate to shift manually from D to 4 to 3 to 2 to L.
The steering proved a little numb for our tastes, but at least it was light. The brake pedal was easy to modulate. The back-seat cushion offered excellent thigh support. The optional stability control ($650) was transparent and saved our bacon—our bologna, actually—two or three times on slushy apexes in the hills. And the Camry sidled up to the gas pumps as infrequently as the Avenger.
In stark contrast to the Fusion, it was almost impossible not to drive the Camry smoothly, making it the car everyone wanted to inhabit during heavy-traffic slogs. At day’s end, however, it came up long on practicality and short on exuberance. Sometimes the living room isn’t easily converted into the game room.
2009 Hyundai Sonata Limited - Fourth Place
HIGHS: Soothing interstate cruiser, pillowy ride, delectable manumatic.
LOWS: Too much body roll, could do with a stiffer platform.
THE VERDICT: One foot deeper into Honda Accord territory.
Just as we were packing underwear for this buzzard-and-baloney trip, the Hyundai guys called to ask whether we’d like to sample their latest updates on a 2009 Sonata. “Bring that baby over,” we barked.
This light makeover is appealing. The center stack, the IP, and the center console are totally new, and they’re far more modern and rich to the touch, especially the convincingly real-looking wood. The nose, with its classy new headlights and grille, has been altered to look “heavier.” To us, it looks Lexus-ish. The dampers have been tuned with higher rebound and compression rates. Power is up by 13 horses, yet induction noise has been reduced. A five-speed automatic is standard. And the steering ratio has been quickened.
What’s more, this is a Hyundai, so you get a major load of standard equipment. Among other goodies, our Sonata Limited had stability control, a manumatic transmission, a tire-pressure-monitoring system, a leather interior, fog lights, heated front seats, 17-inch alloy wheels, an Infinity stereo with a six-CD changer, and a sunroof. Nice.
What you notice first about the Sonata is that it’s big and airy inside. No competitor in this group surpassed its front or rear interior volumes. The trunk is as big as the Fusion’s, and the back seat is as comfortable as the Toyota’s. What’s more, it offers a pleasingly low cowl and a dash that is pushed far forward. Truth is, the Sonata is now big enough to meet the EPA’s large-car standard, even though it competes in the mid-size segment.
In the hills, we didn’t really notice a huge improvement in handling. The Sonata is still heavily biased toward a velvety ride, and it shifts weight from corner to corner a little too readily. The steering is still light and agreeably accurate—maybe a titch too quick just off-center—but its tracking and self-centering are fine. What’s more, the slick manumatic makes the Sonata’s transmission the most flexible in this group.
The Hyundai still needs to quicken all of its reflexes by about 10 percent, and the platform still doesn’t feel as solid and flex-free as the Accord’s or the Altima’s. Otherwise, this is an appealing long-distance cruiser, a Sonata playing a nicely orchestrated sonata called, “Creeping Up on the Accord.”
2008 Chevrolet Malibu LT - Third Place
HIGHS: Elegant cockpit, superb engine isolation, a handsome lad.
LOWS: A little heavy, needs more than four gears, fat A- and C-pillars.
THE VERDICT: The best four-cylinder mainstream car GM has ever built.
Every editor who climbed into the Malibu said the same thing: “Wow, this thing feels huge.” In fact, the Chevy is the heaviest in the group, riding on the longest wheelbase, with an extra-large steering wheel. Strangely, it’s also the narrowest, which might account for the tight fit in back.
The Malibu goes down the road like a large car, too. The electric power-assisted steering offers a strong sense of straight-ahead, and its weight builds predictably. The ride-and-handling trade-off is suited to the audience. Pushed to its limits, the suspension proved difficult to disrupt, although there was too much dive under hard braking.
All the voters loved the elegant cockpit, especially the delicate spear of brushed aluminum that shoots across the dash to blend into the front doors. The headliner looked as if it might have been swiped from a Maybach. And the front seats were all-day comfortable, with long, supportive cushions.
Even after 600 miles, it still shocked us to be driving a four-cylinder GM product with such terrific engine isolation. In this group, the Chevy was quietest at full throttle, a statement we can’t ever recall making. The sound deadening didn’t stop there, either. Wind roar, road noise, tire slap, mechanical thrashiness—all have been filtered to superbly low levels. Even the ticking of the turn signal, noted one editor, sounds “expensively hushed.”
There were a few beefs. The clammy plastic steering wheel, in such a pretty cockpit, felt out of place. The “alloy” wheels are actually plastic-covered steel. The fat A- and C-pillars do damage to sightlines. The 16.3-gallon fuel tank meant the Malibu was always the first to hunt for a Mobil station. Apart from drive, the transmission offers only two manual forward selections, making it tricky to hold big engine revs in the hills. And speaking of the transmission, it’s a four-speed. A six-speed will arrive later in the year. You might want to wait for it.
The Malibu is built off the same Epsilon architecture as the slow-selling Saturn Aura. We hope the Chevy moves faster out of showrooms. The General’s effort here was huge. If it doesn’t pay off, we don’t want the company reverting to its old ways.
2008 Nissan Altima 2.5S - Second Place
HIGHS: Drag-strip king, a real corner carver, a Mosler vault of a platform.
LOWS: CVT not to everyone’s liking, no stability control, dour cockpit.
THE VERDICT: True dual personality—fun in the hills, serene on the interstates.
Déjà vu. A Nissan Altima 2.5S finished second—to an Accord—in our February 2007 version of this test. Then as now, the Altima struck us as the sports car of the bunch. Check it out: Quickest to 60 mph, quickest through the quarter-mile, quickest in our top-gear tests, quickest in a rolling start to 60 mph. And when it was time for lunch, the Nissan was quickest to achieve zero mph, too.
The Altima was our only combatant with a CVT, which elicited some of the standard gripes. With no gears, the engine can call attention to its droning, especially on freeway entrances, where it hangs at WOT for longish spells. Fortunately, Nissan’s CVT is smart, even supplying engine braking on downhill stretches. Plus, if you tire of it, you can switch to the manumatic, which expertly blips the throttle on downshifts and whose steps are perfectly spaced.
Around town, the Altima’s steering is well-weighted but becomes a little heavy at speed. Nonetheless, the rack delivers more information about road surfaces than the Accord’s. Turn-in is sharp, and once you select an arc through a turn, the Altima pursues it like a bloodhound. “And when you do manage to get this car all unweighted,” wrote one editor, “you can just tap the brakes and it settles, hunkering down like a cat stalking a mouse.”
Complaints? A few. For starters, no four-cylinder Altima can be had with stability control. At speed in the snow, we really missed it. The interior was relentlessly dark—“like falling into a well,” griped one voter. (Unless you have a heavy supply of Prozac, pick a combo that has a Blond or Frost interior.) The plastic surrounding the shifter made no attempt to disguise its crudeness. The back seat was cramped. The 175-horse engine delivered the worst observed fuel economy, although not by much. And the pushbutton starter was slow to cause any underhood parts to whir. Why can’t we all agree these systems are just dumb?
The Nissan is a solid, confidence-inspiring car with a rigid platform, smart looks, and excellent control relationships. And we’re not the only ones who’ve noticed. Through November of last year, the Altima was the sixth-bestselling auto in the U.S.
2008 Honda Accord EX - First Place
HIGHS: Telepathic interplay among chassis, engine, and transmission.
LOWS: Needlessly complex center stack, could use more steering feel.
THE VERDICT: Another Accord? We’ve pretty much run out of nice things to say.
In its 32-year existence, the Accord has landed on C/D’s 10Best Cars list 22 times. We must have cost Honda a pile of cash in trophy cases alone. In this group, our Accord carried the highest base price, but it was because we wanted to sample the 190 horsepower that comes with the EX, rather than the base LX’s 177. It paid off. Our test car was the second quickest to 60 mph.
The Accord’s essential goodness, however, doesn’t derive from power alone. Even with the standard stability control chipping away, our EX was also the fastest through our lane-change test.
Honda has simply nailed the econosedan formula, and it isn’t just a matter of building the highest-revving engine, the most competent suspension, and the most ergonomic interior. The trick is getting every component talking openly and honestly to every other component. It’s that sonorous mechanical interplay that lends the Accord its agility and charm. Throttle tip-in reminds us of a BMW 3’s, and there’s steady power delivery right up to 7100 rpm. Steering heft and linearity are spot-on, although some of us noted that this new rack doesn’t transmit road textures as clearly as did its forebear. The taut-yet-frictionless chassis makes up for it, however, posting regular updates on available grip. The brakes are easy to modulate. The thin A-pillars let you see around turns. In short, no car in our cast was as eager to establish a friendly rhythm when the roads got tricky.
Although the Accord was tied with the Avenger for loudest idle, it was merely a matter of our microphones registering quantity of sound versus quality.
Like the Sonata, the Accord is now officially a large sedan, with the extra room paying dividends abaft. For two or three adults, the rear seat proved the most spacious in this group. But try it yourself—the seatback is steeply reclined. We loved the three-tier dash, whose bulges and contours place all secondary controls at your fingertips. Which is lucky, because the center stack—ahem—contains 34 buttons.
We wish the Accord came with a manumatic, but you can shift manually by pulling straight back from D, to D3, to 2, to 1. Left to its own devices, the five-speed is prescient about holding lower gears on downhill grades and during spirited driving.
Like its predecessors, this latest Accord contains real meat in the middle. And that ain’t no baloney.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/..._test/(page)/1
02-15-08, 09:26 PM
#3
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 2,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who says family sedans have to be boring by nature. That's what Americans think. That's why the typical European car, even family sedans, are much more enjoyable to drive than most sedans geared toward the American driver. Me? I'd rather be able to have a little fun with my responsibility.
02-16-08, 05:32 AM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a nice quality to have but isn't most important to the consumer looking for the best family car.On that note, I still agree that the Accord is the best overall car in this group. I think the Camry should have been #2 though.
02-16-08, 05:58 AM
#7
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
02-16-08, 06:12 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
. The Accords dimensions are huge with added weight, if it was 10,000 lbs with 6 wheels and a carriage, it would win in C&D. Oh snap, saw your analogy.....
FYI, these were 4 cylinder models.
02-16-08, 07:25 AM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
Having reviewed almost all of these vehicles myself, in one form or another (I've seen and examined the Avenger but, unlike its brother Charger, have not driven it yet), I agree with much of what C&D says....and I also agree with the posted comments about too much accent on sportiness, especially in family sedans.
But, IMO, they gave the Camry's interior too much credit...I found the center-stack/console, and especially the radio/climate buttons, flimsy, poorly attached, and cheap.....and this comment, to an extent, says it all:
When was the last time a Chrysler product (which are notoriously tinny) with that kind of mileage on it was more solid than a brand-new Toyota? 
I also thought they were a little hard on the Fusion's power train (the AWD model I reviewed did not feel as awkward as they described, but theirs, of course, was a FWD model), and they did not catch the notable lack of rear headroom for tall people in both the Fusion and the Malibu.
But, IMO, they gave the Camry's interior too much credit...I found the center-stack/console, and especially the radio/climate buttons, flimsy, poorly attached, and cheap.....and this comment, to an extent, says it all:
And our 22,000-mile test car (Dodge Avenger) was not only the least expensive in this group—by a wide margin—but also more rattle-free than the Camry.
I also thought they were a little hard on the Fusion's power train (the AWD model I reviewed did not feel as awkward as they described, but theirs, of course, was a FWD model), and they did not catch the notable lack of rear headroom for tall people in both the Fusion and the Malibu.
Last edited by mmarshall; 02-16-08 at 07:30 AM.
02-16-08, 08:04 AM
#10
C&D always seems to judge on the wrong attributes. For a base family sedan test, the most important metric should be value, space, fuel economy, and convenience, with value superceding everything else because if you have a family and are in this range of car, you are clearly on a budget and really don't care if it has a .88 or .85 skidpad...
On the flip side, I've seen more than one sports car comparison test where criticism was levied for back seats that are too small or hard to access. And of course, in a minivan test, the sportiest one wins...
On the flip side, I've seen more than one sports car comparison test where criticism was levied for back seats that are too small or hard to access. And of course, in a minivan test, the sportiest one wins...
02-16-08, 08:41 AM
#11
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 2,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I honestly don't care who wins/loses but saying an Accord or Altima is sporty is saying licorice is a damn tasty candy . The Accords dimensions are huge with added weight, if it was 10,000 lbs with 6 wheels and a carriage, it would win in C&D.
Oh snap, saw your analogy.....
FYI, these were 4 cylinder models.
. The Accords dimensions are huge with added weight, if it was 10,000 lbs with 6 wheels and a carriage, it would win in C&D. Oh snap, saw your analogy.....
FYI, these were 4 cylinder models.
That's just it. Nowhere does the article emphasize sportiness but they do value good driving dynamics. Steering, handling, security at speed and maneuvering. These should be basic attributes of a car. Some in the test are lacking in this such as the Sonota and Camry. And having driven a 2007 Camry for a week I can say that it was the most unsatisfying car I have ever driven and was a celebration in mediocrity, right down to the big plasticky ***** on the center console.
Plus it seems that other journals (Consumer Reports) which do stress practicality and other less enthusiast oriented values still rate the same top two in this test as their top picks.
Practically and driver satisfaction shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive.
02-16-08, 10:02 AM
#12
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C&D always seems to judge on the wrong attributes. For a base family sedan test, the most important metric should be value, space, fuel economy, and convenience, with value superceding everything else because if you have a family and are in this range of car, you are clearly on a budget and really don't care if it has a .88 or .85 skidpad...
Well said!
