Topic: Comparison Test: 2014 Mid-Size Sedans

[random006]

A few thoughts....

1. When did mid size cars get to be full sized? These things are huge compared to a few years ago

Agreed - looked at the new Corolla when I was in for service last - was pleasantly surprised at the room in it. Seemed as big as our mid 90's camry

Bracket creep.  It's been going on for decades now and no car illustrates it better than the Honda Accord, given its - er - longevity. 

A few years ago, I was reading about the Honda Accord of that year and noticed that it seemed much larger than it used to be.  I checked the history of the Accord and found that it had grown 16.4 inches, (almost 1.5 FEET) over the years from the first model to the then current model.

From the Wikipedia page on the Accord, here are a few models and their lengths:

Year               Length
1976             4,450 mm (175 in)
1988-89        4,564 mm (179.7 in)
2013 - ?        4,862 mm (191.4 in)

[tooscoops]

what i take from this is that there are some really nice cars in this category.... and that whichever one offers the best incentives will have a better chance of gaining some sales.

i will say that reading each cars write-up, it would be hard to place each of these cars without the heading... say the optima... so much positive stuff mentioned about looks and style and interior... only issues is the engine and some nvh... second last. then the fusion... so much positive stuff about the style and interior... only issues is the engine and the nvh (and mft!) second place.

meh.

a couple things that the reviews have always done.. they base how the car looks based on the exact car... the colour, wheels and such seemingly important... while some colours show better than others, i know that... and i'd hate for a car with better lines but grey to lose to a red box. because i know i can just pick a different colour and in many cases get different wheels. just a little note... and also... i figure any people testing these that didn't pick the manual as the best transmission would be laughed at... even though it's not what the buying public generally wants. hopefully those extra points for having the stick isn't want made it win...

[Solstice2006]

what i take from this is that there are some really nice cars in this category.... and that whichever one offers the best incentives will have a better chance of gaining some sales.

i will say that reading each cars write-up, it would be hard to place each of these cars without the heading... say the optima... so much positive stuff mentioned about looks and style and interior... only issues is the engine and some nvh... second last. then the fusion... so much positive stuff about the style and interior... only issues is the engine and the nvh (and mft!) second place.

meh.

a couple things that the reviews have always done.. they base how the car looks based on the exact car... the colour, wheels and such seemingly important... while some colours show better than others, i know that... and i'd hate for a car with better lines but grey to lose to a red box. because i know i can just pick a different colour and in many cases get different wheels. just a little note... and also... i figure any people testing these that didn't pick the manual as the best transmission would be laughed at... even though it's not what the buying public generally wants. hopefully those extra points for having the stick isn't want made it win...

Strongly agree with that.  Which is what is affect Mazda the most I believe, they are so small, can't offer large incentives like the others. 

[Solstice2006]

A few thoughts....

1. When did mid size cars get to be full sized? These things are huge compared to a few years ago

Agreed - looked at the new Corolla when I was in for service last - was pleasantly surprised at the room in it. Seemed as big as our mid 90's camry

Bracket creep.  It's been going on for decades now and no car illustrates it better than the Honda Accord, given its - er - longevity. 

A few years ago, I was reading about the Honda Accord of that year and noticed that it seemed much larger than it used to be.  I checked the history of the Accord and found that it had grown 16.4 inches, (almost 1.5 FEET) over the years from the first model to the then current model.

From the Wikipedia page on the Accord, here are a few models and their lengths:

Year               Length
1976             4,450 mm (175 in)
1988-89        4,564 mm (179.7 in)
2013 - ?        4,862 mm (191.4 in)

Yeah I don't get it either, some of the car companies are listening to the public, because as we know every generation is getting bigger and bigger (at least in NA).  So they want bigger cars, which why this Accord isn't like the European Accord....

If we did comparo of the Mazda6 vs European midsize sedans, they would all feel a little cozy in the back (except for the Mondeo, which is the same as Fusion), which is what a mid-size should be, IMO.  If you want more space, get a large sedan, Impala, Avalon, Taurus....

[JRM]

Where is the Passat with the new TSI engine?  I've been looking for a autos.ca review on it for quite some time.  Other reviews rate it well, including the real world fuel consumption.  It would have been interesting to see how it fared in your mid sized comparo.  I chose it above any of these in the comparo based on value, comfort, quietness, driving characteristics, the classic design inside and out and feature content for the price.

The biggest deal breaker for me with the Accord was the layout of the dash; the Mazda6 - the price and financing costs; the Camry - it's a Camry; the Altima - their CVT, the Fusion - real fuel economy; the Malibu - it's a Chev; the Optima - the suspension & steering.

[Solstice2006]

Where is the Passat with the new TSI engine?  I've been looking for a autos.ca review on it for quite some time.  Other reviews rate it well, including the real world fuel consumption.  It would have been interesting to see how it fared in your mid sized comparo.  I chose it above any of these in the comparo based on value, comfort, quietness, driving characteristics, the classic design inside and out and feature content for the price.

The biggest deal breaker for me with the Accord was the layout of the dash; the Mazda6 - the price and financing costs; the Camry - it's a Camry; the Altima - their CVT, the Fusion - real fuel economy; the Malibu - it's a Chev; the Optima - the suspension & steering.

That's hilarious.  Pretty much agree.  The only way I would accept a CVT is with a V6.  As you don't hear it drone like with the small 4 cylinders, like the Versa... Got a letter from Mazda, offering all these deals for previous owners, like 0% financing for up to 60 months, I think $1000 off the Mazda6, plus the loyalty program.  They need to offer this to everybody... 0% financing on the Mazda6 up to 60 months...

[aquadorhj]

Where is the Passat with the new TSI engine?  I've been looking for a autos.ca review on it for quite some time.  Other reviews rate it well, including the real world fuel consumption.  It would have been interesting to see how it fared in your mid sized comparo.  I chose it above any of these in the comparo based on value, comfort, quietness, driving characteristics, the classic design inside and out and feature content for the price.

The biggest deal breaker for me with the Accord was the layout of the dash; the Mazda6 - the price and financing costs; the Camry - it's a Camry; the Altima - their CVT, the Fusion - real fuel economy; the Malibu - it's a Chev; the Optima - the suspension & steering.

they said in the review that passat was stuck in some eastern province.

[toolatecrew]

Where is the Passat with the new TSI engine?  I've been looking for a autos.ca review on it for quite some time.  Other reviews rate it well, including the real world fuel consumption.  It would have been interesting to see how it fared in your mid sized comparo.  I chose it above any of these in the comparo based on value, comfort, quietness, driving characteristics, the classic design inside and out and feature content for the price.

The biggest deal breaker for me with the Accord was the layout of the dash; the Mazda6 - the price and financing costs; the Camry - it's a Camry; the Altima - their CVT, the Fusion - real fuel economy; the Malibu - it's a Chev; the Optima - the suspension & steering.

That's hilarious.  Pretty much agree.  The only way I would accept a CVT is with a V6.  As you don't hear it drone like with the small 4 cylinders, like the Versa... Got a letter from Mazda, offering all these deals for previous owners, like 0% financing for up to 60 months, I think $1000 off the Mazda6, plus the loyalty program.  They need to offer this to everybody... 0% financing on the Mazda6 up to 60 months...

Here is what I expect with the 6.

it was introduced in 2013 as a 2014. So all through this year its been the "current model".

Come the end of this summer early fall the 2015 will come out. Its just a guess but I think they will introduce the same multi media setup as the Mazda 3 since the one in the 3 is prasided and the one in the 6 has been so universally panned. The 2014 is already slow selling far slower than they thought.

i see some big incentives and long finance rates to clear the 2014s with the inferior media set-up coming. I think for me it would be between an Accord with the 4cyl and stick and the 6 with a stick.

But then again what has been said above about size is true. these things are as big as a full sized car. I don't really need that extra space. I think for the same money I'd rather have a M3 GT with a stick with more features, better performance,better media system .

[Noto]

As always, great comparo, ladies and gents!

The Fusion Titanium AWD 2.0T would have also been within the $ range of this test, assuming other ridiculous 'packages' were left unticked.  $33,999 + $1,700 in Freight, PDI, and A/C Tax - within the cost of the pricier V6 Accord sans AWD.  The 2.0T would be a much better engine and would probably return better fuel economy given the heft of the vehicle (and the autos.ca staff's breakfasts ).

Just sayin'.

Accord should also have been dinged big time for not having 60/40 rear seatback.  Also just sayin'.

My pick would probably be the Accord with a roof rack (thrown in for free since Honda made a stupid omission with the back seat).

My nit picks with many of the vehicles in this category relate entirely to intended purpose vs execution - an Accord without 60/40 split, a Mazda and a Kia with tight interior dimensions, a Ford with a puny, non-American engine (yes, 1.5L escapes Chinese taxes - so don't sell it here - yeah, yeah...global platform), etc.  If I wanted a mid-size (laughs inside) car over a compact, then I am clearly getting it for the size.  If it doesn't offer more interior space/luggage space, then why get it over, say, a Jetta, a Corolla, or Sentra for $10-15,000 less (depending on options)?

A claustrophobic rear passenger compartment (like my perception of the Mazda) pushes me away from even considering it.

[Ace]

If I was shopping for a 2014 mid-size sedan I would probably end up with the VW Passat TDI MT. But I always buy year old, low mileage demos, so I spent under $24k on a 2013 Chrysler 300 Touring , loaded with 23k kms.

[aquadorhj]

forgot to say, great review guys.   one of the better comparos i've read so far this year!

[Solstice2006]

If I was shopping for a 2014 mid-size sedan I would probably end up with the VW Passat TDI MT. But I always buy year old, low mileage demos, so I spent under $24k on a 2013 Chrysler 300 Touring , loaded with 23k kms.

Find that a little interesting.  I understand the 1-2 year old, low mileage.  Not often one goes looking a Chrysler 300 and a VW Passat... Yes they are large cars, but the 300 is RWD, no manual, not very fuel efficient...

[KD]

forgot to say, great review guys.   one of the better comparos i've read so far this year!

+1 Enjoyed the review.  Too bad about the Passat as I think it would have done well here especially for mileage comparisons.  My guess is it's either stuck inside a HUGE snowbank, or the diesel is congealed from this balmy "spring" weather...  

[dirtyjeffer]

Main purpose of the turbos, it does good on paper with the EPA, which is what car manufacturers have to do to meet CAFE standards, in the real world, same or worse than a V6... I know I will be never getting a turbo, if I can help it...

this...i've said it before...the purpose of the turbo fours is simple...they ace the HWY fuel economy test...if you take that Fusion, in the middle of summer, and put the cruise on a 77 km/hr on a nice flat highway, it will sip gas and provide great fuel economy.

you put in silly regulations, and this is what you get.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Your reviews continue to improve. I especially like the table. Well done! 

I liked the Mazda6, but thought it was pretty noisy for the class, and I didn't get along with the HMI.

I've found that previous reviews understated how well the Fusion works as a family sedan. It's solid, quiet, comfortable, but still handles very well. I've never had issues with MFT. Maybe my expectations are lower, and really, I very seldom use much beyond volume when driving. The voice commands work well for me, and it has enough controls on the wheel to do pretty much anything else I typically want to do on the road.

The vast majority of these (80-90%) will be sold with base engines, except for the Fusion, where the 2.0L is packaged with AWD and has been making up somewhere in the 30-35% range of sales the last time I was any numbers.

 

[WRX_Pilot]

Has anybody ever seen a manual 1.6 Fusion?  I'm curious how this almost extinct creature drives...

[Solstice2006]

Your reviews continue to improve. I especially like the table. Well done! 

I liked the Mazda6, but thought it was pretty noisy for the class, and I didn't get along with the HMI.

I've found that previous reviews understated how well the Fusion works as a family sedan. It's solid, quiet, comfortable, but still handles very well. I've never had issues with MFT. Maybe my expectations are lower, and really, I very seldom use much beyond volume when driving. The voice commands work well for me, and it has enough controls on the wheel to do pretty much anything else I typically want to do on the road.

The vast majority of these (80-90%) will be sold with base engines, except for the Fusion, where the 2.0L is packaged with AWD and has been making up somewhere in the 30-35% range of sales the last time I was any numbers.

To each their own I guess, I get along fine with the Mazda HMI, (just like the germans) but not the Ford, MFT...

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Main purpose of the turbos, it does good on paper with the EPA, which is what car manufacturers have to do to meet CAFE standards, in the real world, same or worse than a V6... I know I will be never getting a turbo, if I can help it...

this...i've said it before...the purpose of the turbo fours is simple...they ace the HWY fuel economy test...if you take that Fusion, in the middle of summer, and put the cruise on a 77 km/hr on a nice flat highway, it will sip gas and provide great fuel economy.

you put in silly regulations, and this is what you get.

If you look up the 1.6L on Fuelly, they seem to be getting from the high 7s to the high 9s, so they are getting better fuel economy than the Accord V6s high 8s to high 10s. The 1.5L is a bit more modern, so it should be at least similar, if not better.

The current EPA test has speeds up to 80mph and a number of full throttle runs. In good weather, there's not much reason why a person can't hit the EPA numbers.

[Blueprint]

Having driven all of these in mid-trim / 4-banger configs, my personal pick here would be either a manual Accord Sport (black on black) or a base manual Passat 1.8TSI (black on black again). I did drive the Camry V6 and the words "Pontiac Grand Prix" kept coming back in my head. That one is for the Nascar crowd.

[dirtyjeffer]

i will say that reading each cars write-up, it would be hard to place each of these cars without the heading... say the optima... so much positive stuff mentioned about looks and style and interior... only issues is the engine and some nvh... second last. then the fusion... so much positive stuff about the style and interior... only issues is the engine and the nvh (and mft!) second place.

meh.

i was thinking the same thing...while the Optima seemed to get dinged for its driving dynamics, i'm sure mainstream buyers either couldn't tell or really don't care...i would imagine most people would drive that car normally, and enjoy it as is.

in fact, Russ Bond featured it on a recent episode of "2 Minute Test Drive" and praised its handling characteristics...no, it's no "Sport Sedan", but it doesn't seem that bad.

http://motoringtv.com/segments/two-minute-test-drive/?cur=2289

considering how well it scored on so many other areas, many of which are likely VERY important to mainstream consumers, i think it should have finished considerably higher on the list...and sure, it uses more fuel than the Mazda6, but it also has almost 50% more power and power isn't free...if you don't want the turbo, the 2.4 non-turbo model is also available, and is less expensive too.