Edmunds CarPool

This is a dead end, ridiculous argument. Drop it. There are no bad cars in terms of the criteria demanded by AVERAGE car buyers. You folks in the auto media have concocted absurd standards of measurement that have no relevance to real world buyers. I challenge anyone to explain to me in objective terms why the Sebring is really a "bad" car? I've never driven one but to my knowledge its as quiet as other cars in the class, has a soft camry type ride and a decent level of optional equipment. I personally think the car is ugly inside and out but I could say the same for the Accord and Galant. In terms of getting someone from A to B in comfort the Sebring is no worse than the best selling Camry. The real reason we are supposed to believe its "bad" is because it has hard plastics and doesn't handle like a slot car. Who cares? If American buyers cared about driving dynamics the Camry wouldnt be the best selling car and the F150 wouldnt be the best selling vehicle. And evaluating cars based on the softness of their dashboards is absurd- especially when numerous best sellers (Corolla) are awash in hard plastics. And before any tells me about the Sebring being bad based on its old school tranny (Corolla, 4Runner, Scions, etc. still have 4 speeds BTW) I would note the Sebring gets same mileage as Accord with 5 speed auto.

There are many cars on the market that arent appealing to enthusiasts but that is not the same as saying there are "bad" cars. The primary function of a car is to transport people on their daily commutes, not to carve up canyon roads in the California desert. The recent review of the Sonata exemplifies all that is wrong with the mentality of car reviewers these days. The entire review focuses on the sportiness (or lack there of) of the Sonata GLS with nary a mention of what its like to live with daily as a family commuting car. The car's inability to stay composed when tackling switchbacks or the slalom course is not relevant to buyers of that type of car.

I agree completely that there are bad cars, and that what defines "bad" is determined by the rest of the class. - its a moving target.

You can have BAD value, BAD ergonomics, BAD fuel economy, etc. Its all in perception.

If, as 1487 so 'eloquently' put it, the AVERAGE consumer is just worried about something with four wheels that can get you to your destination, then yes its possible there are no (or at least, very few) BAD cars. However, as is often the case with 1487's arguments, simply rolling to your destination is not the whole picture.

I tend to think VALUE is the most realistic comparison tool in this instance.

Amen. Cars should be viewed against an ideal. An always moving target. We didn't reach the tippy-top of engineering in 2000 and now everybody is living the dream.

Average cars are just that...average and average is bad. If you are in the middle, then you by definition are just ho-hum. Nobody should aspire or applaud mediocrity.

"However, as is often the case with 1487's arguments, simply rolling to your destination is not the whole picture. "

That is the whole picture for the majority of Americans. I laugh when people try and lecture more on these supposedly high standards people have while ignoring the best seller list month after month. how many "good" cars, much less enthusiast oriented cars, are on that list?

The key differentiators amongst today's cars are styling, price and feature content. Thats really it. Regardless of what people want to believe most vehicles within a given class drive remarkably similar and have near parity in terms of mileage, road noise, safety features, etc.

What are the key objective differences between a Camry and a Sebring?

"That is the whole picture for the majority of Americans. I laugh when people try and lecture more on these supposedly high standards people have while ignoring the best seller list month after month. how many "good" cars, much less enthusiast oriented cars, are on that list?"

Just because it is a best seller does not make it good. As with anything, sales often result from hype/product history. The 'best' product from a value point of view does not always get the sales.

"The key differentiators amongst today's cars are styling, price and feature content. "

Yes, and within those items, its possible to determine cars that are good and bad, from a value perspective. You talk about this frequently with regards to the Camry and Accord - I'm not sure why you're arguing against it now...other then disagreeing with people for the sake of disagreeing.

Nice attempt to cover up that JRiz helped write "No Bad Cars? What a Bunch of Bull.".

It's too late to save the article. It was garbage. Learn from it and move on.

I have never contributed to a Mechanic piece. Ever. I like signing my name to things.

Domestic fan boys are going to flame you.

good article though. I agree with you and the Mechanic.

I'm going to side with 1487 on this one. Using some of my argument from the P.O.S. article from the P.O.S. author on the P.O.S. website (again, remind me why The Mechanic is employed by a publication that so heartedly engages in, and makes money from, actions that The Mechanic so heavily criticizes), I bring forth the Mazda3 and Corolla. The Mazda3 is something akin to the critical holy grail of compact cars. It is loved by enthusiasts on a budget worldwide. When my coworker was looking to downsize from her Mercury Sable, the Mazda3 was the first car I had her look at.

Did she buy the Mazda3? No. Did she like the Mazda3? No. For her, it was too cramped, too noisy, too stiff, steered too fast, and got poor fuel mileage. Valid points? From a non-enthusiast driver, they are all very valid points (except perhaps the steering quickness, but to her it made the car feel too "jumpy"). What was her favorite car? The Corolla, which is a favorite of many compact car buyers out there. Sure, it is akin to pure evil for the enthusiast driver. Does that make it a bad car?

"It's not a bad car by any stretch of the imagination..." That quote is one of the first things consumers will read right here on Edmunds.com when they look up the Corolla. It goes on to state the car is pretty mediocre now that the competition have stepped up their game, but no where does it say the Corolla is a bad car and no where does it call a consumer a fool for buying one.

I also fall back on my argument that price is a huge factor is what defines a supposed bad car and a "fool." If someone buys a $16k Cobalt for $11k, is he/she still a fool? Should they have really bought that Mazda3 for $17k instead? Or how about someone that spends $26k for a Mazda3? It's a nice car, but $26k? I guess as long as it's not a Cobalt or Corolla, you can't go wrong...

From someone who has sold cars before, I can tell you this: How critically acclaimed a car is has very little to do with how much real consumers like it. Sales tell a lot about a car (not everything, but a lot). Cars a big-ticket items, and how people vote with their wallets is a massive indicator on what is really "good" and "bad."

And have you seen Sebring sales recently?

jriz, nice response to my stick poking.

jstandefer, you're dead on. Enthusiasts seem to think the general public should have the same priorities they do. They're wrong.

jriz

Well put about the Sebring sales. However, to turn it back at you, have you seen the Cobalt sales? :)

In addition, many of the cars that IL recommends are not cars that the average American can afford, and really don't want to own after the warranty wears out.

Let's look at your criteria and see if it really works. We will use the old Accord, IL's favorite, and the bad Saturn XR.

performance

0-60,
Accord 0-60 6.5-7.0, range
Aura XR 0-60 5.9-7.0, range

Draw

fuel economy
Accord IL averaged 22 mpg, I think
Aura XR, IL averaged 20 mpg, I think,

Advantage, slight Accord, but then again, we don't know if both driven identically.

Features
Accord, has most, including Navigation
Aura XR, has most except Navigation

Advantage, slight, Accord

Space Efficiency

Accord, considered fullsize
Aura XR, midsize

Advantage, Accord

Interior quality

Accord, IL considers outstanding
Aura XR, IL considers average at best

Advantage Accord

General Build Quality

Accord, again IL loves Honda, therefore, wonderful
Aura XR, not a Honda, therefore, not wonderful,

However, comparing the cars, here are the issues.

Aura had the steering issue. The Accords are now known for going through back brakes every year at a cost of up to $500.00. Saturn has and was covering the steering issues under warranty, Honda was refusing to do so until lately. Which would you prefer to have as an owner to deal with, one repair, or a repair each year, out of your pocket, until you sell the car?

Accord wins, under the JRIZ criteria, to him, but is the Aura XR a bad car? Absolutely not, it is a quiet, quick, incredibly safe car. Much quieter to be in than the Accord.

The Accord is also a quick, incredibly safe car. Not so quiet, would I say it is a bad car under my criteria, no!!

The problem here is the word "bad". Bad implies there is something wrong with something.

What everyone is arguing here is that some cars are better then others.

But if you wrote a blog with the title "I've decided some cars are better then others" would anyone pay much attention?

Bad does not equal average. If it did then we are all bad as I doubt many top performers waste their time debating Cobalts and Corollas on an internet blog...

...just as the world's top news writers don't spend their day writing for one.

jriz: "And have you seen Sebring sales recently?"

I'm not coming to the defense of that car! Critics and consumers alike have reflected their dislike for that car.

Who said anything about the Aura being bad? Not great, but it ain't bad. Also, there are cars I'd sooner recommend over an Accord nowadays -- Fusion, Mazda 6, Hyundai Sonata.

"Just because it is a best seller does not make it good. As with anything, sales often result from hype/product history. The 'best' product from a value point of view does not always get the sales."

How is the camry a bad car considering how Americans use cars? Answer me that.

"And have you seen Sebring sales recently?"

Considering what Chrysler is going through and the TOTAL lack of advertising for the car I'm not surprised it doesnt sell. Still waiting for a list of objective reasons why the car sucks. The Fit is outsold by the Versa but the auto media claims the Fit is a world beater while the Versa is mediocre. Don't use the "low sales proves its trash" argument here.

"Well put about the Sebring sales. However, to turn it back at you, have you seen the Cobalt sales? :)"

Good point. All of the arguments about what constitutes a great car start to fall apart after looking at a few examples from the sales charts. The Corolla is generally considered one of the most lackluster compacts on the market and yet it easily trounces the 3 and Golf in sales. The general public does not care about hard plastics (I've yet to determine how this criteria is critical in a new car) or exciting driving dynamics. The bashing of certain cars becomes so cliche that after a while we dont even question why these cars are trashed. I've driven a Cobalt and it basically feels like a corolla in terms of the way it drives. Nothing great about it, but nothing offensive that makes you want to jump out the car and run to your nearest Honda dealer. The Caliber is often trashed as well but I'm not even sure what makes it a terrible car. Hard plastics? You will find those in every small car on the market today. We keep hearing Americans should learn to embrace hatches and the Caliber is a hatch. Its not the most efficient to my knowledge and its slow but most compacts are slow. If the real reason the Caliber has been trashed is driving dynamics I would say most don't really care about that anyway.

1487, you bring up good points. Overall, the cars are selling and people are judging v. bad based on if it starts, has the room they need, doesn't fail, is cheap to repair, gets decent mileage, etc.

If every car has the qualities listed above, then that becomes average. Yes?

From there, I guess it's personal interpretation of the concepts of good and bad.

To me, everything can't be good, as that means the bar for good should be raised and everything that shares the same traits and nothing more becomes average; average, as I have been taught, is failure. Different perspectives... shrug.

Great post, but you guys need a Spanish spell checker. Ceviche, cojones, problema, caramba… I see them misspelled far too often.

JRIZ

I used the Aura because was Saturn was mentioned. Looking back, who knows what he would have said about individual models.

Has the Z06 really been fixed?

"How is the camry a bad car considering how Americans use cars? Answer me that."

I've explained this twice already, but as usual, you don't read.

I should clarify my above statement: I've explained twice already how a vehicle can be considered BAD from a value point of view. This could probably be applied to a Camry, but I'm not going to develop that specific argument. My point is that not every vehicle which has 4 wheels and can roll from point A to B is good from a value perspective. In the car world, being good or bad is determined by the other vehicles in class, not by the bottom of the class.

A P1 computer from 15 years ago is capable of word processing and browsing the internet - the two most common functions in the computer world. That does not make it a good computer.

Let me bring my sales experience back in here... there are two things that are very, very hard to get out of the typical consumers' heads: Perception of quality and perception of dependability. Those two perceptions are MASSIVE sales drivers. For consumers that don't have those perceptions when they look at a particular make or model, it's going to be a bad vehicle in their mind.

Look at Chrysler and GM, but especially Chrysler... It's probably going to take at least two generations (human family generations, not car model generations) before they can start to win back a general perception of quality and perception of dependability from enough consumers to make a big difference in their market share. Look at Toyota... they have built an entire empire around these perceptions. Do their cars still live up to these perceptions? I don't think so, in general (a few models, particularly the pricey ones, still live up to it). But they know just how much the floor mat and unintended acceleration recalls can hurt those perception, and if they lose those perceptions, their sales will plummet for a while regardless of how good of a car they can come out with.

I think the big difference here is how we're looking at what a "bad" car is. Some are looking at it from a statistical, analytical point of view. Some are looking at it from the consumers' point of view. Ultimately, the consumers' point of view is the only one that matters. And if you're not listening to the consumers (whether you're an auto manufacturer, or a consumer-oriented publication), you've failed.

And although it sounds like I'm slamming Edmunds.com, they do get it: "The car's broad appeal stems from its affordable base price and respectable fuel economy -- two pretty important things for an economy-minded car -- as well as its smooth and quiet ride." That was from the Edmunds.com review of the 2010 Cobalt. They do list its faults and recommend other cars, but concede that the Cobalt excels in what consumers want it to do at that price level. But I guess they should just let The Mechanic take over and put "You're a fool if you buy this" in big red letters on the review.

After this, can we argue over why sex, drugs, and alcohol are all bad? I think we could get some differing opinions on that, too.

So who is "The Mechanic"?

Is Karl "The Mechanic"?

These two articles between The Mechanic (for whom I have zero respect for) and Riswick (for whom I have a great deal of respect for and at 22 years of age aspire to) make me really have to wonder where I even fall in this pendulum of AVERAGE consumer and enthusiast. I've been driving a Neon SRT-4 for seven years this year and am still satisfied with its performance (although it has undergone some modification and has since been surpassed by the Cobalt SS/TC... stock, at least) and with its interior, which I realize is not exactly great. But the door handles are soft, the arm rest is still looking good and I don't spend a ton of time massaging the dash to realize it's hard plastic.

What am I missing, other than RWD, obviously? I've driven 135i's, my gone but not forgotten (with genuinely bad interior) LS1 F-body, my sister's Mini Cooper S Checkmate Edition, my friend's last gen MS3, but for a new car with a 7/70K warranty, I still haven't found a better deal for 20 grand.

"I've explained this twice already, but as usual, you don't read. "

I read what you wrote- it wasnt satisfactory. You didnt "explain" squat. You said that some cars are better values than others and I agree with that. That doesn't answer my simple question: Why is the camry a "bad" car for the average American?

I never said you can't rank cars based on value, performance, etc. I said there really are no unacceptable cars on the market these days. Many of the vehicles that self professed car experts love to trash are actually good values. While the Caliber or Sebring are not class leading, they can be had for cheap and easily give you 100k miles of use with respectable reliability. Are they bad cars if they offer only 90% of what the class leaders have for 70% of the price? Dont think so.

"But I guess they should just let The Mechanic take over and put "You're a fool if you buy this" in big red letters on the review"

The Mechanic threatens to undermine the credibility of the entire site. As with certain automakers who struggled for decades Edmunds doesn't seem to take customer feedback too seriously. The Mechanic belongs on some second rate hack site like TTAC, not a major consumer site like edmunds.com. The response to his posts has been overwhelmingly negative and yet they still allow his vitriol to be posted without any real name so that he can be held accountable for his stupidity.

slickers:

You are driving a "bad" car. How can you survive driving a car without a luxurious soft dash? When it comes to Chryslers, standards are extremely high with regards to interior execution. Not so much for vehicles from Toyota, Mistu, Suburu or other manufacturers whose vehicles are drowning in rock hard plastics.

1487:

Its obvious that we disagree over the use of the term 'bad', which is fine. You stated that 'some cars are better values than others'. I agree with that statements, but I'm taking it to the next level. I believe that a car with worse value can be considered a bad car. You're being charged more (or equal) for less, therefor the vehicle is bad given the criteria by which it is judged. It may still be good in the sense that you can get in it, start it up and drive it to work. But I don't believe thats a suitable criteria by which to judge a vehicle. If every vehicle in class is capable of operating reliably, then the target for what is 'good' and what is bad moves. If not, the world would have stopped innovation many years ago on any number of products, including cars.

P.S. I don't know if my point of view makes the Camry a bad car or not. I'm guessing because of its age, any number of competitors contain more options, better materials and better warranties for equal or less money. Therefore, the Camry is a bad car because it fails to meet the expectations of its class/price range.

** therefore, the Camry COULD be considered a bad car. Again, I haven't researched the specifics on that car, I'm just going by what I've read recently.

I think we can agree that a car is a "poor value" or "bad value" relative to the competition. I would say those terms could be applied to Camry and Accord and I wouldnt buy either one. That said, both are decent cars that will serve the needs of the average American driver well for many years. Thanks to the mistakes of Detroit and the then superior engineering of the Japanese brands Americans have been convinced since the 70s that the primary criteria for measuring a "good" car revolve around reliability. Styling, driving dynamics, material quality and value have all taken a backseat to reliability and thus by the standards of most car buyers its hard to call any reliable vehicle "bad" in 2010. I do agree that there is more to the competence of a vehicle than mechanical reliability but most car buyers feel everything else pales in comparison to that ONE metric. This mentality explains how Toyota has excelled in the US market with products that are often average in most respects.

I'll continue to say that the Town car and the Crown Vic are not bad cars. They have proven better at their intended purpose than any other vehicles on the market. These body-on-frame dinosaurs are much better for heavy-use livery and municipal purposes than any Camry, Sienna, Impala or Escape could ever be.

For these other cars, I'll focus on the Sebring, they are horribly outclassed. The absolute frustration that the automotive world exhibited when the Sebring was launched clearly showed that Chrysler didn't get it. After years of building great looking, unique vehicles that were poorly made, we all knew that Chrysler could never survive selling poorly made cars that are also ugly. What people want to see in every new generation of cars is, better built, more refined, better looking and better performance. If an automaker fails in those areas, they are stuck with this car in their showroom for five years. What makes the Compass, the Nitro, the Caliber "bad" cars, is how they show no evidence of progress... and appear to have gone backward in many ways. These cars represent squandered opportunity and a lack of understanding of the industry.

"Is Karl "The Mechanic"?"

Ummm...let me make this clear because I don't want any confusion on it.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (wish I could use bold, italics, underline and font size changes in these comments...)

1487, you're exactly right. I'm going to go put my head on my dashboard and have a good cry. I spend a lot of time touching my dash so this shouldn't be out of my comfort zone.

To build on what you've said about the double standard by the automotive journalists, I gave my friend with a 2008 Corolla SE a ride home a few weeks ago and the first comment was how much nicer my interior was than hers. Considering she couldn't care less about automotive histories or loyalty, it was a nice, unbiased opinion.

ne1:

I dont agree about lack of progress. I know someone with a 90s era Stratus and I can tell you the current Avenger/Sebring are MUCH better in terms of build quality and feature content. Lets not forget both cars offer a 6 speed auto which the Accord does not- even today. They also had numerous handy features like a music HD, cooled cupholder and a nice entertainment package. The materials are average inside but based on my experiences they are put together as well as any competing car. I believe both have struts for their trunks unlike the 2011 Sonata which has space eating hinges. I think the Chrysler cars failed on two counts- the standard mileage killing 4 speed automatic and styling. Look at the G6- this is a car that got OK reviews and was even dogged by some in the press but it easily outsold both Chrysler cars. Why? It was a stylish car and it was competitive in fuel efficiency.

slickersstrip:

As Karl has noted numerous times before its harder and harder to find major flaws in cars because competition has honed them to the point where you could live with almost any new car that met your needs and budget. I feel that price and value should be stressed more when ranking cars but instead we get a lot of focus on interior plastics. I would laugh whenever I read comparos of the Cobalt SS in which the car got demerits for hard plastics. It cant be beat on the track or in a drag race by any of its competitors but some wouldnt give it credit because the dashboard was just too hard.

1487,

All good points. Chrysler does put a lot of thought into their vehicles. Especially their minivans. But I will say that most people's perceptions of quality or value have to do with what they see and touch. That's where the Sebring and many other Chryslers have failed in recent years... just as other foreign and domestic brands have started to pay closer attention to these tactile elements.

Couldn't agree more, 1487. These lists of bad cars really ought to be on a sliding scale of cost to value as well as what meets the needs of a person.

" That's where the Sebring and many other Chryslers have failed in recent years... just as other foreign and domestic brands have started to pay closer attention to these tactile elements. "

Some have. I've seen no improvement in Toyota or Honda interiors over the last 5 years. I dont find the interior of the Camry to be that much better than the interior of the Sebring. Both have lots of silver plastic trim and mediocre materials. I do agree that GM, Ford and Hyundai have stepped up their interiors.

1487,

Hondas have always had good interiors. Definitely not top-tier, and they haven't improved much in the past three generations. But they've always been pretty solid. Toyota interiors have gotten conspicuously worse in the past ten years. Many are downright junky. I'd put the design of the Camry HVAC controls at about the same level as a cheap Sony clock radio.

I did know someone with a '96 camry in the past and based on memory I might have to say the interior was better than the current car- especially when you consider it was much older.

Crap I gotta remember to check CarPool more often this was a good thread

Late 90s Hondas and Toyotas had average materials, but the seats were comfier and the dash layouts made more sense. Fitment and build quality is higher in contemporary Toyotas. I haven't been in an Accord in years.

The Camry's cabin certainly doesn't inspire faith in big T's design studio, but the build quality is exemplary. It's a safe, reliable car. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but it's easy to see why people like and trust them.