Comparison Test: Accord vs Malibu vs Fusion vs Mazda6 vs Sonata
By James Riswick, Automotive Editor
Photos by Kurt Niebuhr
The sedan has always been the vehicle that drives America. Wagons, trucks, minivans, SUVs and crossovers have each had their day, but the traditional family sedan has stood the test of time, accounting for nearly 2.2 million sales last year. Today's batch is better than ever, but the choices are varied, and differences are sometimes difficult to discern. After all, most have roughly the same dimensions and deliver the same sort of performance, and many even look similar to the untrained eye. Moreover, all five participants in this test scored five stars in the government's frontal and side-impact crash tests.
So which is the best midsize family sedan for the greatest number of car buyers? And which cater to specific buyers? To find out, we compared the top sedans that have been recently updated, namely the 2010 Ford Fusion and 2009 Hyundai Sonata, along with three we've rated highly in previous testing: the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, 2009 Honda Accord and 2009 Mazda 6. The 2009 Nissan Altima was invited, but there wasn't one available in Nissan's press fleet. And that's correct, no Toyota Camry. It finished a distant last in the two Inside Line comparison tests it participated in (four-cylinder test, six-cylinder test), and was universally panned by our six real-world consumer testers. Great sales don't necessarily equal a great car.
Each of the cars on hand features the most powerful V6 engine available. We readily admit that the four-cylinder versions of family sedans are the volume sellers, but most media outlets aren't interested in volume sellers, so finding enough four-cylinder models in manufacturer press fleets proved to be an impossible task. However, many of the conclusions regarding these vehicles apply regardless of engine choice.
After a lengthy comparison drive, a full day of track testing, two weeks of real-world driving and a few hours of number crunching, the results were in -- and they may surprise you.
5th Place: 2009 Chevrolet Malibu 2LT V6
As-Tested Price: $27,220
For more information, please read the 2009 Chevy Malibu model review
Where it Follows:
The 2009 Chevy Malibu is a car of extremes -- strong in some areas and a failure in others. There's rarely any middle ground, and ultimately, the failures outweigh the strengths. Chief among the former is its back seat, which has the least head and leg room for occupants, and is the most cramped with three across. It also lacks a center armrest and grab handles. Additionally, the Malibu's trunk was the smallest on hand, with a shallow depth and narrow opening, and the driving position was panned by some editors for its widely spaced pedals on significantly different planes.
Chevy has been justly praised for improving the Malibu's interior quality from the previous generation to this one, but there is still work to do. Although there are plenty of soft, squishy dashboard materials on hand, there are just as many hard, flimsy pieces that don't line-up well. Although the Malibu scored big points for having the lowest price, it received just as many demerits for lacking features. Items like a rearview camera, navigation and dual-zone climate control are simply not available on any Malibu.
Dynamically, the Malibu surprised us all during our comparison test drive through the Santa Monica Mountains, exhibiting commendable body control and a capable chassis. Unfortunately, the heavy steering feels artificially weighted, as if the comically large wheel is attached to the steering rack by Soloflex elastic bands. This prevents the Malibu from ever feeling fun, and the steering's heavy weighting can also make low-speed maneuvering a pain. The four-cylinder Malibu features electric power steering that, while numb, is pleasantly light in weight.
Where it Leads:
Despite its last place finish, the Malibu remains a stylish, comfortable car with capable performance. Its 0-60-mph time was tied with the Ford's for second at 6.7 seconds and only 0.1-second behind the muscle-bound Mazda's. The Malibu's skidpad and slalom numbers were also close to the top, while its fade-free braking distance of 122 feet from 60 mph was tops in the test by a foot. Subjectively, the Malibu's V6 was praised for its muscular power delivery and sound.
In our real-world impressions, the Malibu tied the Ford for best ride quality, which is impressive given its surprisingly adept handling. It also took home top honors for quelling road noise, which, along with the comfortable front seats, makes the Malibu a good road trip companion. Editor Warren Clarke noted that the Malibu's straightforward audio and climate controls will be appreciated by older drivers and those who appreciate a simple, uncluttered cabin. At the same time, its two-tone color scheme and twin cowl dash make it the most visually interesting cabin in the test.
Is the Chevy Malibu a bad car? No, but like a baseball player who hits .320 one month and .210 the next, a lack of consistency keeps it from being an all-star.
Best For: Older drivers, folks looking for some style in their family sedan, people who prioritize a quiet and comfortable ride.
4th Place: 2009 Hyundai Sonata Limited V6
As-Tested Price: $27,895
For more information, please read the 2009 Hyundai Sonata model review and test drive.
Where it Follows:
If the Malibu is all peaks and valleys, the 2009 Hyundai Sonata represents a flat plain of blah. It was mid-pack in virtually every area, relying on the tried-and-true Hyundai formula of lots of stuff for a low price. But beyond value and fuel economy, the Sonata faltered, coming in last on our evaluation score card and battling the Malibu for being the least recommended vehicle by our editors. The more we drove the Sonata, the more it revealed its aging platform (the last full redesign was in 2006) and lack of dynamic sophistication, failing to stand out in a segment of stand-outs.
The Sonata was the least powerful car in the test with its 3.3-liter V6 and consequently the slowest from zero to 60 -- although only 0.8 seconds slower than the Mazda 6. The Toyota Camry may not be in this test, but for all intents and purposes, its spot was filled by the Sonata. On our handling driving loop, the Sonata wallowed about just like a Camry, evincing nebulous steering feel, nautical body motions and a general lack of structural poise. Unlike the Camry, though, the Sonata's highway ride is not particularly plush and certainly not as comfortable as the Fusion's or Malibu's. If it's going to be boring to drive, it had better ride on a cloud of marshmallow. The Sonata doesn't.
Of all the cars here, you're least likely to remember ever owning a Sonata.
Where it Leads:
We had high hopes for the Sonata, a car significantly improved for this year thanks to an all-new interior and a pair of revised engines with increased power and fuel economy. We knew it would have immediate advantages in terms of price, features and fuel economy, so a solid finish didn't seem out of the question. Indeed, at $27,895, the Sonata was only $675 more expensive than the Chevy, yet was crammed full of significantly more equipment. Better still, tech items like the optional navigation system, iPod interface and Infinity sound system were deemed to be excellent by our testers. Meanwhile, the Sonata's combined fuel economy of 22 mpg tied the Honda's for best-in-test.
If you're simply looking for inexpensive transportation with strong value, good fuel economy and a user-friendly interior, the Sonata remains a good choice. Indeed, it trailed the perennial favorite Accord by a mere 0.2 points in the final scoring. In the end, though, most consumers will find they can do better.
Best For: Value-conscious shoppers, former Toyota Camry loyalists
3rd Place: 2009 Honda Accord V6 EX-L with Navigation
As-Tested Price: $31,615
For more information, please read the 2009 Honda Accord model review and test drive.
Where it Follows:
The 2009 Honda Accord trailed in the performance category, being the second-slowest from zero to 60 mph and featuring a V6 engine short on low-end punch. Of all the cars here, the Accord probably suffered the most from the V6-only requirement, as the Accord EX's four-cylinder is a jewel compared with most rival fours. The brakes were a bigger issue, delivering longish stopping distances with lots of fade. At 133 feet from 60 mph, the Accord needed 7 more feet than the next-worst Mazda and Hyundai. The transmission's lack of a manual mode and clunky shifter also drew complaints.
The interior is a mixed bag. Unlike in past Accords, materials quality here is consistently unremarkable, even though the quality of construction remains high. The abundance of dashboard audio and climate buttons raised ire for creating a cluttered look, and unlike the Fusion's, these buttons aren't particularly well laid out. Despite being the second-most expensive car in the test, our loaded-to-the-gills Accord was lacking several important features. Most notable is an iPod interface, which is unavailable on the Accord but inexplicably included with the virtually identical navigation systems found in Honda's Pilot, Civic, Insight and Fit.
The Accord's biggest drawback, however, is the amount of noise that makes its way into the cabin. Not only do you hear the roar of your own tires, but you also get roar from the car next to you and the pickup three lanes over. Wind noise is only slightly quieter. This, along with a rather firm ride, dims the Accord's prospects as a road trip choice.
Where it Leads:
The Accord is huge, so it lends itself well to family use. It offers the most rear seat head room, leg room, under-thigh support and space for three across. It also was the easiest sedan in which to install a child seat. Its trunk was deemed no bigger than the other sedans' (minus the Malibu), but that just means it can swallow practically everything you might throw back there. Despite the Accord's size, visibility remains excellent, with a tall greenhouse and good sightlines, and it tied the Hyundai for best fuel economy thanks to its cylinder deactivation system. As such, the Accord is perhaps the most utilitarian choice here.
In short, the Accord offers just about what you'd expect from a car with its name. You get in and everything seems just right -- the steering effort, the throttle tip-in, the reach to primary and secondary controls. It feels like a formula achieved after years of fine tuning. But "feel" isn't enough, and the Accord V6 ultimately finds itself mid-pack in too many categories to be the best choice in the segment.
Best for: Those who prioritize a big back seat, shoppers looking for a strong residual value.
2nd Place: 2009 Mazda 6 s Grand Touring
As-Tested: $32,790
For more information, please read the 2009 Mazda 6 model review and test drive.
Where it Follows:
With a price tag that pushes $33,000, the 2009 Mazda 6 s Grand Touring is in entry-level luxury car territory. While it certainly had the most luxury features (niceties like keyless ignition/entry and xenon headlights aren't offered on any of the others), the 6 had the lowest quality interior materials, and that robbed it of a premium feel. There are too many hard and cheaply textured surfaces, and the black color scheme and oddly striped trim do little to justify the price of admission. The same could be said for the $2,000 navigation system, which features chintzy graphics, severely compromised audio controls and unimpressive route guidance. We'd skip it.
It should come as no surprise that the Mazda 6 is the enthusiast's choice in the test. As such, it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but it's still not as edgy as you'd expect. Although the 6's ride was firmer and louder than the Ford's or Malibu's, it was no worse than the Accord's. Indeed, on our highway driving loop, the Mazda was judged friendlier than the Honda -- but not the rest of the pack. The seats are on the firm side, but they're relatively flat and accommodating for wide American butts.
Where it Leads:
The Mazda 6 was the uncontested "fun to drive" winner of this test. "This feels like a real car!" Editor Chris Walton announced over the radio as he pulled away from the pack during our mountain driving loop. As he went on to write after sending the 6 through the slalom in a test-best 65.9 mph, "Drive this car by itself and you don't realize how capable it is. Put it in the group, however, and it's eye-opening." The steering is communicative and strikes a good weighting balance for enthusiasts and consumers alike. The Mazda 6 is a sporty car, but not so much that it punishes those who simply want to go from A to B.
The 6 is more than just a capable handler and the top performance scorer, though. Its back seat tied the Ford's for second place, trailing the jumbo Honda by only a few half-inches here and there. The lack of a center head rest makes it less appealing when traveling with three rear passengers, but space is sufficient. Up front, the 6 tied the Fusion for top driving position, while in the very back, trunk space is on par. In other words, the 6 nearly matches the Accord for practicality while being more fun to drive and a more pleasant highway cruiser.
Surprisingly, the Mazda 6's sales are dismal compared to the others in this group (17,648 thus far in 2009, versus 60,481 for the next-worst Hyundai and 137,235 for the unimpressive Camry). We think it deserves a closer look.
Best For: Driving enthusiasts, Accord fans who want some extra spice, people who like to check every options box
1st Place: 2010 Ford Fusion Sport
As-Tested Price: $29,545
For more information, please read the 2010 Ford Fusion model review and test drive.
Where it Follows:
Throw on a better set of tires and that "fun to drive" category could've turned out differently. The 2010 Ford Fusion Sport feels like an immensely capable car until you head into that first turn, hear the Goodyear tires scream and feel the car struggle to grip the pavement. Of course, a grippier set of rubber may have hurt the Fusion's test-leading ride comfort and road noise scores, but if you're looking to maximize the Sport's handling potential, a trip to Tire Rack is in order.
There were other minor shortcomings. The tightly constructed interior has the best materials in this test, but the overall look is a bit stark despite the contrasting stitching and snazzy gauges. The Sport's available red or blue color schemes would have brightened things up. Like the Accord, the Fusion had lots of little buttons on its center stack, and the climate controls are mounted too low on the dash.
Where it Leads:
This really wasn't close. The Ford Fusion Sport scored either first or second in every subjective scoring category, barely trailed the Mazda for top features score and was picked by all but one editor as the sedan we'd most frequently recommend to consumers -- all while being only the third-most expensive car in the test. In those categories it didn't win, the Fusion was always close to the victor.
We know what you're going to say: "Of course the Sport model wins a comparison test, you people love fun cars." We do, but the truth is, the Sport isn't that sporty. Despite its sport-tuned suspension, it had the best ride in the test, it was the quietest (in terms of both wind and road noise), and it had a large back seat that didn't trail the Accord's by much. The Fusion had the most comfortable front seats (although they can pinch the shoulder blades of taller or long-torsoed occupants), which are actually shared with the sedate Hybrid model. The driving position was friendliest for the widest array of driver sizes, and long distances passed by with the greatest comfort. The Sync electronics interface is becoming a beloved feature, and the rearview camera was unique in this test. The Sport's hydraulic power steering is tactile and nicely weighted at speed, yet sufficiently light for parking maneuvers (the non-Sport Fusions have less communicative electric power steering).
The Ford Fusion is a wonderfully well-rounded automobile. The Sport is simply its best version, offering an ideal ride/handling balance that is comfortable enough for the average buyer, but sporty enough for enthusiasts. It is also the only way to get the 263-horsepower V6 as opposed to the SE and SEL's 240-hp mill (both V6s return equal fuel economy). Despite its advantages, though, the Sport costs $1,145 more than a similarly equipped SEL, but we think it's worth it. Yet, even if you'd rather save the cash with an SEL, we're convinced the Fusion would still emerge victorious. How about that, folks: the best family sedan can now be found at a Ford dealership.
Best for: The majority of family sedan shoppers, iPod and cell phone addicts.
The manufacturers provided Edmunds with these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.
- Posted by
- James Riswick July 19, 2009, 11:00 PM
- Permalink
- Categories:
- Comparison Road Tests
Is it just me, or does it seem like auto manufacturer's are taking a step backwards when it comes to interior quality and design?
Out of every one of these interiors there's not one I can say I really like. They all look like they have too many hard plastics and are full of plastic painted silver for "accents."
I think I'd rather have a return of interiors that were slightly boring, but had much better materials - instead of the current trend of attempting to look high class while failing miserably.
Good for Ford. Seems like a few years ago it was the domestics that weren't even invited to the comparison tests. Who would have thought the Camry would be dissed like that?
I suspect the Altima would have taken 3rd place if they'd participated.
Interesting test. I'm actually pretty surprised to see the Malibu so far behind. I thought I remembered from the real-world-consumer test that the choice between the Accord and the Malibu was basically a wash and personal preference.
I personally think the Fusion is the best looking in and out, but I've not driven it so I cannot comment there. I've never been a fan of the interior style of the Malibu, though I did think the materials were nice.
I have seen quite a few new Fusions on the road, so I think they must be starting off well. Good for Ford. Now lets see a new Focus and the Fiesta here ASAP!!
Great comparison test, awesome read on the Fusion! Still, I would have liked to have seen the Camry - I get the reasoning re: last two comparison tests, but Edmunds.com has never tested an SE model (4 or 6), ever, and I think it has a different feel than LE/XLE. Also bummed the Altima couldn't make it, esp. given the favorable Edmunds.com LT experiences
BTW, great review. I think more multi-vehicle reviews are in order. I'm sure they are difficult from a logistics point of view, but for a reader/buyer, they are priceless! Its so much more interesting to debate the merits of EVERY CAR IN THE CATEGORY.
It seems as though the Edmunds writers have turned into what many people stereotype Americans as. The cramp car lost. The big powerful car won.
Wow, Edmunds strikes again! You can't honestly say a Sonata is better than a Camry! Maybe not with a straight face though. Altima didn't make it either which is a surprise but hey, since when did Edmunds ever accurately judge a 'Yota? Great Sales Does Mean Great Car or it wouldn't have a lot of return buyers. Accord a third? Please!
FliFl: Outside of the hybrid and the 3.5 V-6, what exactly makes the Camry a better choice? I've driven both (thanks Hertz) many of times and the overall comfort and fit/finish of the Hyundai would seal the deal.
Better yet look at what the folks at Ford and Hyundai did with their mid-cycle refreshes vs. what was done with the Camry. 'Nuff said.
And please provide a reason why the Accord deserves to be slotted up better in this test. It's filled with a ton of buttons, oversized, small trunk and brings nothing new to the table.
I love the comments. The editors can't win - even with cars that weren't tested. I CAN'T comment about the validity of the scoring because I've only driven two of these cars (the Accord and the Fusion) and not back to back. But keep telling yourselves that the editors are biased while you've never driven all or even some of the cars and not back-to back on the same roads at the same time because that's not biased, huh?
And FYI: I liked the Fusion (i got it as an insurance rental when someone backed into my S2000) and thought the Accord was too big for me (single, needing a more practical commuter to go with above S2000).
Do these people do ANY fact checking? The Malibu is available with a USB port which gives you ipod connectivity and it also offers a power passenger seat.
1487: It probably would have been a more fair comparison if Edmunds was able to get a hold of an LTZ, but I don't think a power passenger seat is available w/2LT trim package.
"Wow, Edmunds strikes again! You can't honestly say a Sonata is better than a Camry! Maybe not with a straight face though"
Sonata looks better, has more space, has better warranty and has superior interior. Its a Camry by Koreans and it costs less.
I'm more concerned by the fact that they cant even get the available equipment straight when they are bashing the Malibu. They didnt even test the top trim (LTZ) and then say it has too few features. Lacking nav is a negative, but you dont pay for what you dont get and a loaded Malibu is about $30k- cheaper than the rest.
luke:
Its much easier to be seen as objective if you get your facts straight. The Malibu has been EXTENSIVELY tested by edmunds and everyone else. Not only are they now saying its poorly built (first time I heard that)- they are saying it lacks features that are available as options.
Do the sonata and Accord even have a rear view camera?
I disagree with the sentiments that the Mazda6 has low interior quality, save for a few pieces like the handbrake it's one of the best for me. Everything fits nicely too.
1487: iPod integration/usb port is a late addition to some 09s. It's not an option per-se, it's sort of the luck of the draw if you get a USB jack and if the dealer has one on the lot. For the build-date of this car, USB was not an option or available.
-mm
mm:
Power passenger seat is standard on LTZ and yet the comparison says is not available on ANY Malibu. How do you explain that?
Also, the USB availability should at least be explained since people looking NOW can find a car so equipped. To say its totally not available is just not correct. It would also be nice if the Malibu got credit for what it does have- remote start, 18" wheels, 6 speed auto, paddle shifters, Onstar with turn by turn, standard XM, rear sunshade, etc. I mean it would only be fair to mention those things before calling the car underequipped. I assume the LT2 was all that was available, but its silly to discredit the car for lack of features when you dont have the top trim available when the other 4 are in top trim.
Where in the review did it say that a power passenger seat is unavailable on any trim level?
Also I've been less that impressed with the Malibu's trim as well. The seat backs are covered in nasty, scratch pone plastic, the door panels are thinly padded and the sliding cover over the center console is very cheap looking/feeling. Having said that the interior is still trimmed better than that of the Camry.
Power passenger seat is indeed standard on the LTZ, though not available on the other trim. That was an error on my part, which has been corrected in the text. The USB jack was not listed on Chevrolet.com nor on the media site listing of features. Looking deeper, the later roll-out for the feature showed up -- though Chevy still doesn't call it out on the Web site. Despite what some may think, there was no melicious intent involved, just a simple mistake. I went back and double checked the scoring and the outcome didn't change. It has been corrected in the article, thank you for pointing it out.
" Additionally, the Malibu's trunk was the smallest on hand, with a shallow depth and narrow opening,"
Actually, the Accord has smallest trunk on hand- 14 cu ft. Malibu has 15 cu ft.
"Where in the review did it say that a power passenger seat is unavailable on any trim level?"
I dont see it anymore, there was a reference when I first saw this and posted.
Nothing wrong with mistakes- glad they were fixed. But I would like to know why you guys are keen on mentioning whats missing from the Malibu but not what's included- you did the same thing in the IL comparo where you said the car was "underequipped". And yet the Accord is not just because it has nav.
When you go to "build your own" on Chevy.com the USB port is mentioned as part of the audio system. Its not listed separately on the list of features- it was before they changed the format.
Mazda6 sales are dismal? Probably because we're used to low and heavily discounted prices of the previous gen 6. Mazda is trying to force the 6 upscale when it was always the low-priced mid-sized alternative.
Either way the sales are poor. Americans are creatures of habit and many of them dont look at any midsize car not called Accord or Camry. Just ask VW, Ford, GM or Mazda.
Not just Americans. I was talking to a neighbour here in BC who just bought a new Accord. I asked how it compared to the other cars she looked at and she replied she didn't look at any others.
I just smiled and said "Nice car".
Not that there's anything wrong with an Accord but there is such an incredible selection these days that you have to shop around.
The Accord's trunk is a cubic foot smaller than the Malibu's but the Malibu's opening is ridiculously small. The Accord's is much larger making its trunk much more useful overall. I find this to be a trend with many American cars. Large trunks with mail slots for openings.
Fodder for debates with my Chevy-loving friends. Thank you Edmunds.
So let me get this straight. The Sonata is boring, antiquated, and generally undesirable, the Accord is loud, incapable of braking, lacks features, is expensive, and has a control layout that would baffle the crew of the Starship Enterprise, and the Mazda6 has bad brakes, a "bad" interior, and an insanely high price, but the Malibu finishes behind all of them just because you don't have the option of wasting thousands of dollars to have a difficult-to-upgrade nav system permanently fixed to one car rather than spend one tenth of that amount for a perfectly good portable unit that can be swapped from car to car, and the Malibu's adequately large interior is just less adequately large than the rest?
And would someone please explain why "soft and squishy" is the end all be all measure of interior quality? Unless you rest a body part on it regularly, or it squeaks or doesn't feel durable, why is hard plastic so awful? My mom's Mazda3 has plenty of hard plastic, but it is all very durable and doesn't squeak or rattle at all. I find nothing wrong with it.
This "comparison", combined with Bill Visnic's yellow journalism inventing statistics from weak anecdotal evidence concerning Camaro quality knocks Edmunds completely out of credibility. You guys are making Consumer Reports look fair and reasonable.
Why is it the incredibly annoying posts by the user name of 1487 are on every thread I look at it here at Edmunds? Dude most not have a job or a life (or both) and spends all day/night posting about stuff he knows nothing about yet spouts off like he does (these are called know-it-alls where I come from and they generally know very little) He is also a cheerleader for the American auto manufactures and argues to the death about their superiority over Japanese imports. I hope the dude is at least getting paid for his efforts by GM. GM in their wildest dreams could not have imagined a better mouth-piece for their products than this guy.
Anyway, I absolutely agree with this comparison test comments about the Hyundai Sonata. I owned the car for a year and was very happy to get rid of it. It was a limited V6 model and it had a host of issues within the first year in addition to being the lump of a car Edmunds describes. My 2009 Honda Fit Sport, which is an econobox in every sense of the word has much, much better build quality than that Sonota. Don't even talk about resale value, it's simply horrible. I actually did pretty well to unload it private party for $20K, as dealerships would have only offered me $15,500 for trade in. The car retailed for $27,500 (I didn't pay that much) and so it lost $12,000 in value the first year, horrid! Doubtful I will be buying from that manufacture again.
I give Hyundai lots of credit, they've improved leaps and bounds since the early days, but they have a ways to go before they build cars as well made as Honda, Acura, Toyota, or Lexus.
I too was disappointed in the Malibu's placement; I echo 1487 in that this is the first time I've heard Edmunds knock the interior quality. However, the review implies that the availability of "deluxe" features was a criterion, and the Malibu does lack somewhat in this area. I just think that people who don't care about such things will find the car a far superior choice than the Sonata (at the very least).
Also, I didn't know it didn't have grab handles?! I thought GM corrected that oversight after the Aura.
Very exciting for the Fusion, although I still think that front overhang is approaching R8 territory (and that's not a good thing). :P
Discarding one of the most premiere and technologically advanced car manufacturer (Toyota) just because most of reviewers on track test (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=123972) didn't like Camry on track is not trustworthy. "Great sales don't necessarily equal a great car" ??? Edmunds, let's be objective - many years in the row best-selling car in America is not good even for comparison?
Accord is noisier and sharper handling Camry alternative but Camry still outsells Accord, why bumping Accord from comparison?
I think Edmunds reviewers are living in fantasy world, where teenagers and mid-life-crisis individuals dominate, which values are only razor-sharp handling, driving on rails and to some degree 0-60, quarter mile numbers.
Also I would recommend for Edmunds to introduce new characteristic: performance/NVH (noise, vibration, harshness). It is simple to put tires with ultra-stiff sidewalls, remove mufflers, remove sound insulation (to save weight) and make better performing car but by the cost of significantly increasing NVH. We are not living on race track and attaining higher performance and handling by sacrificing towards higher NVH is not for drivers who prefer to have refined and civilized car.
BTH, by my personal opinion in performance/NVH the best car below 100,000 is Lexus LS. BMW 5 Series is majestic but has noticeably higher NVH. Pre-2010 7 Series simply doesn’t cut it, while S-Class is pretty good but still Lexus LS is better in performance/NVH. Camry is surprisingly good in performance/NVH category comparing to most of budget family cars.
The malibu came in last? are you guys crazy? I've test driven most of these cars in this review when looking for a replacement my wife's 2001 camry. Just to be clear, we went with the camry again because the wife loved her old one. I have to say that the chevy was one of my top choices because of the bang for the buck, the overall style and the warranty and i'm in my twenties. To the point,You guys put that car down because of lack of options avail on it and it wasn't even the LTZ model that you tested and the others were top of their line? Where is the unbiased, researched and well informed reporting that i've grown to expect from you guys? Man, you dropped the ball on this one. Lost alot of respect points with me.
"The Accord's trunk is a cubic foot smaller than the Malibu's but the Malibu's opening is ridiculously small. "
The MAlibu has the larger trunk, period. Also, unlike the Accord the Malibu has a squarish trunk space with a flat floor. The Accord's trunk is smaller and has an odd shape that compromises utility.
"He is also a cheerleader for the American auto manufactures and argues to the death about their superiority over Japanese imports."
You sound like an idiot. Nothing you said is correct. What does anything I've said here have to do with domestics being better than imports. In case you missed it (and you seem a little slow) Edmunds picked the Fusion as the best car. I didn't come up with that result.
Misterfusion:
I agree that it lacks a few features such as nav and dual zone AC. But when you consider how few midsize cars are sold with navigation it seems silly to penalize the car for lacking nav. Especially when it's priced thousands lower than the Honda and Mazda. Plus it would be nice if the Malibu got credit for features it does have like Onstar and remote start. Last time I checked its the only car here with those features.
Stov1:
You summed things up pretty well. The last place ranking of the Malibu makes little sense when you consider it had the 2nd lowest price and performance that was better than average in the test. Putting it in last place because it lacks navigation is a little silly.
Out of curiousity, why is this not on Inside Line, but that kinda odd comparison between the Accord and Taurus is? What is the intention of the different venues if comparison tests appear on both?
I know it falls under a subjective category and all, but I have to call BS to the 6 supposedly having the 'worst materials'. I didn't attend Interior Quality 101, like everyone else on the internet, but I know what's nice and what isn't. I sometimes think Mazda could bolt one of those overrated and overpraised audi interiors into one of their cars that come to edmunds for a test, and these 'experts' would STILL call it 'cheap'.
I have experience with every car tested here except the new Fusion. While each has a nice interior in its own right, I dont find any of the bottom three any better than 6. This goes for materials AND design.
You guys seem a little biased. These are great cars, but you did leave out the car that has been either number one or number two in the last 12 years - the Camry. If this car finished at the bottom of the various consumer reviews and testing, if it is so bad, then why is it a perenial best seller or near the top each year? And, with the exception of the Accord, I do not see any of these cars matching the reliability of the Camry? I never heard of a Chevy of Ford sedan that lasts 15-20 years on the road (you still see Camrys' from the mid '80's and the early '90's still being driven today with well over 300,000 miles and more). I do admit that the Camry is not that exciting and the most recent generation has had some quality issues but that should not erase the many years of its durability and longevity. After all, there is a good reason why over 400,000 Camrys are sold each year, it's a damn good car!
Seriously, I love edmunds, but WHEN is a VW EVER going to make it in a comparison test? You test midsize sedans several times, but not ONE involved the Passat. You tested COMPACT sedans and again, not ONE involved the Jetta. In fact, i think other than the somewhat recent comparison of the Touareg TDI vs its Twins, there really hasn't been any mainstream Vws. I know they are not the most exciting vehicles on the road, but it would still be nice to see how they also hold up in comparison tests.
FWIW, the beetle is 11years old, but its still is competitive!
Another thought: Can we have a Tier 3 sedan comparison test of other midsize cars? Maybe titled "The Best of the Worst"? A review comparing black horse cars such as the Mitsubisi Galant, Kia Optima, Chevy Malibu, Saturn Aura, Pontiac G6 (i forgot this one existed.... oh well, its getting phased out anyway), Dodge Avenger, and Chrysler Sebring. I know some are twins and really do not need to be included, but this would be one comparison test worth seeing for those that buy cars but don't want the car seen on every block.
Speaking of comparison tests, I remember one you had of Sedans under $22k. Here is an idea. One of 4seat Convertible cars under $35k.
Now on the actual review:
I am shocked! Not by the fact that you left out the Altima and Camry (the Accord Camry and Altima usually hold the top3 spaces in comparison tests anyway), but by the fact that the Malibu came in last without any real clear explaination that hasn't been contradicted by other reviews featured on insideline of the malibu. I think the Malibu has a Great interior with materials no worse than anything in this test.
This comparison seems accurate and fair for what it is... it seems right on really.
Here's why:
1) The #1 choice is from a company that didn't scam taxpayer money to be sold to the public using their own money to build a car, and then charge them twice for it (once with taxes, second with the purhcase price) I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay two times for the same thing, so BOO! to bailout companies. Ford isn't in that category, good for them, this #1 ranking shows why they were able to avoid bankruptcy.
2) The last place finisher came from the company that probably has been the most incompetent out of those tested here, and was certainly the company that wasted the most tax payer dollars to date.
3) The current generation Accord is a few steps back from the previous generation which was class leading by far.... so makes sense it's in the middle now.
4) The Camry stil has a much better drive train than the Sonata, so Edmunds did screw up there. Also, The Camry and Accord are super duper reliable and dependable, which counts for a lot. The other vehicles in this test have no real track record.
I am shocked that Malibu is last. Speed and handling near the top, the quietest interior, best highway ride, the best interior with a very attractive exterior and Edmund's doesn't like it? I can't see why people say Edmund's is bias against GM.
"You sound like an idiot. Nothing you said is correct. What does anything I've said here have to do with domestics being better than imports. In case you missed it (and you seem a little slow) Edmunds picked the Fusion as the best car. I didn't come up with that result."
Give me a break you dork, every single thread I ever see your name in (and you're in all of them) you are raving on about domestics and their superiority over Japanese. I tend to not read user comments very much, but when I was posting in the 2009 Fit thread I noticed your posts were incredibly assine, annoying, and flat out wrong. Especially because you don't own a Fit (I do) and you don't care for Japanese cars, so what the hell were you doing posting in the Fit threads I thought to myself? Then I come to learn that you post in any thread where I've looked at user comments. You have no life and like to be annoying is the only explanation for that.
I believe all of these cars are good cars.
Its a matter of opinion as to which one is the best.
it was funny to read the reasons why the Malibu came in last.
The way I see it, any of these cars could be first or last... just depends on who you ask.
I've test driven all of these cars in the list.
The only one I did NOT like was the Fusion.
I liked the Malibu the most (which is Why I bought one), and I liked the Sonata second (which is My wife almost bought one).
The Camry, is just awful for me, the feel is gross, not as bad as the fusion though The Accord... totally ugly, and too noisy inside.
Cars are like religion, if "Everyone is right", then "everyone is wrong."
People, love the car you love. If you pick anyone of these cars, you'll be fine.
I rented Chevy Malibu recently and here are my impressions. I was pleasantly surprising by its ride and handling. It had 38K miles and still looked and felt as if it just came from dealership lot even after being abused every day. Interior and suspension were was as solid and noise free as of the new car. It had 4 cylinder engine which was powerful for freeway and more refined than previous GM 4I I experienced before. Steering was electrical and kind of numb but much much better than one on Cobalt I rented several months before. I agree with editors that GMs electric steering as strange as it may sound feels better than hydraulic (one which I tried on Aura XR).
I did not find steering wheel big and interior had good and even some luxurious feel (similar to previous generation Accord) except of flimsy door panels which are not padded and moving. Brakes were impressive - had solid feel and were most effective I experienced in this price range - I could easily stop with no drama and as sharp as I wish - nose never dived.
I do not think it is fare to put Sonata ahead of Malibu, but I did not drive Sonata so it is up to editors to come to this conclusion.
And BTW editors are right about Mazda interior. It is made of cheap plastic. They are also right about Fusion interior - it has highest quality materials in group (even if you add there Camry) but unfortunately Ford designers somehow designed it to look stark.
I feel like edmunds is bias with toyotas, because i drove every single vehicle and the camry is not distant to any (especially the over rated Malibu). I guess when you are on top (despite the vw teaming with porsche) everyone tries to knock you.