Topic: Comparison Test: 2014 Mid-Size Sedans

[toolatecrew]

Last time we did this some of us posted our short cliff notes from the day on here.
These were mine:

Accord: The outside is as ugly as the interior is unwelcoming. Nothing makes me want to drive the Accord, except the V6 engine – which is a blast. None the less, it does some other important things quite well.

Altima: Everyone said it was rubbish, and then I heard it had a CVT , so I was not expecting big things. The Altima surprised me a lot. It was an enormous amount of fun to drive. Also, it had a heated steering wheel! Epic win.

Camry: Really Toyota? $34K and no automatic climate control? I thought you wanted to sell cars? The rest of the Camry was underwhelming, but kudos for putting a V6 in it.

Fusion: The Fusion feels more solid. Heavier to sit in and handle – in a good way. Not in a “big car”  way, in a “wow this is put together really nicely” kind of way. Even the rotary controls feel ultra-premium. And if you ignore the centre stack screen’s many issues and slowness, MyFord Touch works really well in the instrument cluster when controlled by steering-wheel controls. The Fusion was my pick of the bunch.

Malibu: It is a nice car – but it has some taste issues, and the handling on this one was woeful. I’m prepared to blame the tires, but the Malibu was looser than a 6 o’clock necktie. Have to give them credit for the middle-seat LATCH anchors in the back. Nobody else does that.

Mazda6: Pretty, manual, V6, good infotainment system – but the more we get to know the Mazda6, the more things like the thin and tinny doors stick out and bug us.

Optima: The prettiest car in the bunch, with the nicest interior of the bunch, and also the most vague steering and underwhelming drive experience. The car is presented beautifully in every way, but lacks genuine substance.


Re the Accord:
The Accord lost massive points for a few reasons (in no particular order):
1. Looks - interior and exterior
2. The user-interface/radio etc is truly horrible.
3. No split-fold. These are family sedans. What if I want to take my kid and say a set of skis somewhere? Can't fold down the rear seat, hence can't take the kid. Ridiculous
4. Fuel economy - not bulk points, but enough.
5. Value - it was the second-most expensive thing on the test.

On most other things bar engine power and ease of driving, it was just above mid-pack.  It racked up very few individual wins.
I don't think a manual would have helped it. Sorry guys.

Would a $cy Manual to match Mazda's $cyl manual change things?
The Accord lost massive points for a few reasons (in no particular order):
1. Looks - interior and exterior-NO 4cyl looks like the 6
2. The user-interface/radio etc is truly horrible. -No interface is the same
3. No split-fold. These are family sedans. What if I want to take my kid and say a set of skis somewhere? Can't fold down the rear seat, hence can't take the kid. Ridiculous-No same seats (I agree its silly)
4. Fuel economy - not bulk points, but enough. -WAIT a 4cyl manual should be a fair bit more efficient than a v6 right???
5. Value - it was the second-most expensive thing on the test. -A cycl manual is a fair bit less expensive than a V6 isn't it?

Seems to me that the comparison of a 4cyl stick to a V6 CVT makes a large difference in terms of both price and economy.

I fully understand that you can only get what you are ultimately given but I also think that a Mazda 6 auto is not so rare that Mazda wouldn't give you one if you asked in order to make the comparison Auto to Auto across all the cars. Especially given how small a take rate manufactures that even offer a manual have.

Accord and Mazda 6 are the only 2 on my radar because they do offer a manual so don't take my comments that I am supporting automatics.

[Snowman]

Last time we did this some of us posted our short cliff notes from the day on here.
These were mine:

Accord: The outside is as ugly as the interior is unwelcoming. Nothing makes me want to drive the Accord, except the V6 engine – which is a blast. None the less, it does some other important things quite well.

Altima: Everyone said it was rubbish, and then I heard it had a CVT , so I was not expecting big things. The Altima surprised me a lot. It was an enormous amount of fun to drive. Also, it had a heated steering wheel! Epic win.

Camry: Really Toyota? $34K and no automatic climate control? I thought you wanted to sell cars? The rest of the Camry was underwhelming, but kudos for putting a V6 in it.

Fusion: The Fusion feels more solid. Heavier to sit in and handle – in a good way. Not in a “big car”  way, in a “wow this is put together really nicely” kind of way. Even the rotary controls feel ultra-premium. And if you ignore the centre stack screen’s many issues and slowness, MyFord Touch works really well in the instrument cluster when controlled by steering-wheel controls. The Fusion was my pick of the bunch.

Malibu: It is a nice car – but it has some taste issues, and the handling on this one was woeful. I’m prepared to blame the tires, but the Malibu was looser than a 6 o’clock necktie. Have to give them credit for the middle-seat LATCH anchors in the back. Nobody else does that.

Mazda6: Pretty, manual, V6, good infotainment system – but the more we get to know the Mazda6, the more things like the thin and tinny doors stick out and bug us.

Optima: The prettiest car in the bunch, with the nicest interior of the bunch, and also the most vague steering and underwhelming drive experience. The car is presented beautifully in every way, but lacks genuine substance.


Re the Accord:
The Accord lost massive points for a few reasons (in no particular order):
1. Looks - interior and exterior
2. The user-interface/radio etc is truly horrible.
3. No split-fold. These are family sedans. What if I want to take my kid and say a set of skis somewhere? Can't fold down the rear seat, hence can't take the kid. Ridiculous
4. Fuel economy - not bulk points, but enough.
5. Value - it was the second-most expensive thing on the test.

On most other things bar engine power and ease of driving, it was just above mid-pack.  It racked up very few individual wins.
I don't think a manual would have helped it. Sorry guys.

Would a $cy Manual to match Mazda's $cyl manual change things?
The Accord lost massive points for a few reasons (in no particular order):
1. Looks - interior and exterior-NO 4cyl looks like the 6
2. The user-interface/radio etc is truly horrible. -No interface is the same
3. No split-fold. These are family sedans. What if I want to take my kid and say a set of skis somewhere? Can't fold down the rear seat, hence can't take the kid. Ridiculous-No same seats (I agree its silly)
4. Fuel economy - not bulk points, but enough. -WAIT a 4cyl manual should be a fair bit more efficient than a v6 right???
5. Value - it was the second-most expensive thing on the test. -A cycl manual is a fair bit less expensive than a V6 isn't it?

Seems to me that the comparison of a 4cyl stick to a V6 CVT makes a large difference in terms of both price and economy.

I fully understand that you can only get what you are ultimately given but I also think that a Mazda 6 auto is not so rare that Mazda wouldn't give you one if you asked in order to make the comparison Auto to Auto across all the cars. Especially given how small a take rate manufactures that even offer a manual have.

Accord and Mazda 6 are the only 2 on my radar because they do offer a manual so don't take my comments that I am supporting automatics.

+1

[Solstice2006]

Jacob, you need to fix your post on the Mazda6, it doesn't have the V6... I know we wish all for it...

[JacobBlack]

Jacob, you need to fix your post on the Mazda6, it doesn't have the V6... I know we wish all for it...

Yeah, sorry, that was cliff notes unedited,just bashed out quickly at the end of the day. Obviously not part of the article, but yes, I will edit my post.

[JacobBlack]

Would a $cy Manual to match Mazda's $cyl manual change things?
The Accord lost massive points for a few reasons (in no particular order):
1. Looks - interior and exterior-NO 4cyl looks like the 6
2. The user-interface/radio etc is truly horrible. -No interface is the same
3. No split-fold. These are family sedans. What if I want to take my kid and say a set of skis somewhere? Can't fold down the rear seat, hence can't take the kid. Ridiculous-No same seats (I agree its silly)
4. Fuel economy - not bulk points, but enough. -WAIT a 4cyl manual should be a fair bit more efficient than a v6 right???
5. Value - it was the second-most expensive thing on the test. -A cycl manual is a fair bit less expensive than a V6 isn't it?

Seems to me that the comparison of a 4cyl stick to a V6 CVT makes a large difference in terms of both price and economy.

I fully understand that you can only get what you are ultimately given but I also think that a Mazda 6 auto is not so rare that Mazda wouldn't give you one if you asked in order to make the comparison Auto to Auto across all the cars. Especially given how small a take rate manufactures that even offer a manual have.

Accord and Mazda 6 are the only 2 on my radar because they do offer a manual so don't take my comments that I am supporting automatics.

The cars match on price, size and mission. That was our primary concern. 
We did discuss having the auto instead (JY was leaning towards pushing for it), but I argued that if Mazda feels the manual best represents their values, so be it.
I've driven the manual 6 and the auto - and the auto box is still better than Accord's auto box so you wouldn't have clawed back any points there.
And maybe the four cylinder would have been better value, but then it wouldn't have won the categories for engine power/ease of driving - so it would have still lost points overall.

To say the 6 won just because it was a manual is incorrect.

To say the 6 won because it appealed to the enthusiasts more though is very much correct. And THAT is worth debating.

Loving this conversation guys.

[Solstice2006]

Was that sarcasm? 

[JacobBlack]

Was that sarcasm? 

Huh? No.

[dirtyjeffer]

To say the 6 won because it appealed to the enthusiasts more though is very much correct. And THAT is worth debating.

Loving this conversation guys.

herein lies the rub...as i've stated before (as have others), "enthusiasts" are a blip on the radar in terms of car buyers...the mainstream buying public couldn't care less about apex carving an onramp and supreme driving dynamics...they want a car that has the features they want, the price they want (or payment) with the space/utility they need...many may also look at long term reliability and included warranty (or extended warranty options available)...while i don't sell cars, a few people in here do...i would like them to confirm if any customers come in with "driving dynamics" as one of the things on their checklist.

as well, i've already posted a video where the Kia SX Turbo was taken to a track and the reviewer (Russ Bond) commented on how well balanced the car was...seems a little odd how that car's handling is bashed about in the article, yet praised on a track, tested by an actual race car driver...so which is it?

[JacobBlack]

herein lies the rub...as i've stated before (as have others), "enthusiasts" are a blip on the radar in terms of car buyers...the mainstream buying public couldn't care less about apex carving an onramp and supreme driving dynamics...they want a car that has the features they want, the price they want (or payment) with the space/utility they need...

I agree. The handling etc is where the 6 won most of its points, but it didn't lose many points to its main competitors in other categories, and that's why it won. Consider the 6's enthusiast attractions icing on the cake for the rest of the car, which is still very strong.

as well, i've already posted a video where the Kia SX Turbo was taken to a track and the reviewer (Russ Bond) commented on how well balanced the car was...seems a little odd how that car's handling is bashed about in the article, yet praised on a track, tested by an actual race car driver...so which is it?

1. The handling is good, the feedback is vague.
2. Every body has a different opinion - that's normal. I would wholeheartedly support your decision to take Russ Bond's opinion on handling over mine - that dude can seriously drive. (No Solstice, that's not sarcasm).
Not sure how you go in one breath from "nobody cares about enthusiast capabilities" to "we should all listen to a racecar driver" though. 

[Solstice2006]

To say the 6 won because it appealed to the enthusiasts more though is very much correct. And THAT is worth debating.

Loving this conversation guys.

herein lies the rub...as i've stated before (as have others), "enthusiasts" are a blip on the radar in terms of car buyers...the mainstream buying public couldn't care less about apex carving an onramp and supreme driving dynamics...they want a car that has the features they want, the price they want (or payment) with the space/utility they need...many may also look at long term reliability and included warranty (or extended warranty options available)...while i don't sell cars, a few people in here do...i would like them to confirm if any customers come in with "driving dynamics" as one of the things on their checklist.

as well, i've already posted a video where the Kia SX Turbo was taken to a track and the reviewer (Russ Bond) commented on how well balanced the car was...seems a little odd how that car's handling is bashed about in the article, yet praised on a track, tested by an actual race car driver...so which is it?

Maybe part of it has to do with he has it for two minutes on TV... This review, and other reviews drive a lot longer than that.  It was just knocked for handling, wasn't NVH an issue as well...Isn't it possible to have vague steering, and decent handling on the track?  Some don't like vague steering, which is where Koreans cars get knocked for...

[dirtyjeffer]

Maybe part of it has to do with he has it for two minutes on TV... This review, and other reviews drive a lot longer than that.

his segment on the show is 2 minutes long...he doesn't just get a car for 2 minutes and hand it back.

[dirtyjeffer]

Not sure how you go in one breath from "nobody cares about enthusiast capabilities" to "we should all listen to a racecar driver" though. 

i think my point is pretty clear...i am like most consumers...i don't have driving dynamics at the top of my car shopping check list (it's not like any new car is really THAT bad to drive)...but since the driving dynamics seem to have been well praised for the 6 (or others that handled better), that likely cost the Kia some points...at the same time, if you REALLY do care about driving dynamics, Russ Bond certainly didn't seem to have a complaint about them.

in short, driving dynamics are likely low on most people's list, so why bother making them that important in a review.

if driving dynamics are important, why is it slagged here, yet given praise by Russ Bond?

the contradiction is more about what i am questioning.

in the end, consumers choose the winners and losers with their wallet, and despite numerous "car of the year" awards Mazda is winning, i don't see many of their new products on the road...i have seen a few CX-5s, but i still haven't seen one new 3 or 6 yet...perhaps its a regional thing, i don't know...i live in a rust belt, and my guess is there is a lot of dissatisfied former owners who refused to get another Mazda (at least until that bad taste disappears)...i personally know MANY people (likely 20) who have/had 3s and only 2 have kept them...everyone else has moved to other brands and were not happy with their car...they liked it when they bought them, but after a couple of years, were no longer happy (many of the new models were more mechanical issue related than rust though).

[Fobroader]

Yeah, but the Kia doesnt look nearly as good as the 6, its a nice, decent car and all, but if I was shopping this segment it would be very hard to not go for the 6 as it is the drivers choice.....as much as a fwd, family car can be. This is an opinion, but I have driven a few Kias and I agree that the steering feel is very fuzzy, kind of like a steering wheel for an Xbox or something. The car sticks, but you have no idea whats going on with the front tires.

[whaddaiknow]

Yeah, but the Kia doesnt look nearly as good as the 6...

Fob, I would beg to disagree. The 6 has a better frontal view. Any other angle, I prefer the Optima. AND it's a few years old already, AND I still find it one of the best looking sedans on the NA market today. The 6 will not age well. All the swoopy lines... look at the Sonata.

[CAS]

Last time we did this some of us posted our short cliff notes from the day on here.
These were mine:

Accord: The outside is as ugly as the interior is unwelcoming. Nothing makes me want to drive the Accord, except the V6 engine – which is a blast. None the less, it does some other important things quite well.

Altima: Everyone said it was rubbish, and then I heard it had a CVT , so I was not expecting big things. The Altima surprised me a lot. It was an enormous amount of fun to drive. Also, it had a heated steering wheel! Epic win.

Camry: Really Toyota? $34K and no automatic climate control? I thought you wanted to sell cars? The rest of the Camry was underwhelming, but kudos for putting a V6 in it.

Fusion: The Fusion feels more solid. Heavier to sit in and handle – in a good way. Not in a “big car”  way, in a “wow this is put together really nicely” kind of way. Even the rotary controls feel ultra-premium. And if you ignore the centre stack screen’s many issues and slowness, MyFord Touch works really well in the instrument cluster when controlled by steering-wheel controls. The Fusion was my pick of the bunch.

Malibu: It is a nice car – but it has some taste issues, and the handling on this one was woeful. I’m prepared to blame the tires, but the Malibu was looser than a 6 o’clock necktie. Have to give them credit for the middle-seat LATCH anchors in the back. Nobody else does that.

Mazda6: Pretty, manual, V6, good infotainment system – but the more we get to know the Mazda6, the more things like the thin and tinny doors stick out and bug us.

Optima: The prettiest car in the bunch, with the nicest interior of the bunch, and also the most vague steering and underwhelming drive experience. The car is presented beautifully in every way, but lacks genuine substance.


Re the Accord:
The Accord lost massive points for a few reasons (in no particular order):
1. Looks - interior and exterior
2. The user-interface/radio etc is truly horrible.
3. No split-fold. These are family sedans. What if I want to take my kid and say a set of skis somewhere? Can't fold down the rear seat, hence can't take the kid. Ridiculous
4. Fuel economy - not bulk points, but enough.
5. Value - it was the second-most expensive thing on the test.

On most other things bar engine power and ease of driving, it was just above mid-pack.  It racked up very few individual wins.
I don't think a manual would have helped it. Sorry guys.

Would a $cy Manual to match Mazda's $cyl manual change things?
The Accord lost massive points for a few reasons (in no particular order):
1. Looks - interior and exterior-NO 4cyl looks like the 6
2. The user-interface/radio etc is truly horrible. -No interface is the same
3. No split-fold. These are family sedans. What if I want to take my kid and say a set of skis somewhere? Can't fold down the rear seat, hence can't take the kid. Ridiculous-No same seats (I agree its silly)
4. Fuel economy - not bulk points, but enough. -WAIT a 4cyl manual should be a fair bit more efficient than a v6 right???
5. Value - it was the second-most expensive thing on the test. -A cycl manual is a fair bit less expensive than a V6 isn't it?

Seems to me that the comparison of a 4cyl stick to a V6 CVT makes a large difference in terms of both price and economy.

I fully understand that you can only get what you are ultimately given but I also think that a Mazda 6 auto is not so rare that Mazda wouldn't give you one if you asked in order to make the comparison Auto to Auto across all the cars. Especially given how small a take rate manufactures that even offer a manual have.

Accord and Mazda 6 are the only 2 on my radar because they do offer a manual so don't take my comments that I am supporting automatics.

Good list of choices!  I ended up with the manual Accord.  Love revving the engine...smooth and nice sound.

[dirtyjeffer]

Yeah, but the Kia doesnt look nearly as good as the 6...

Fob, I would beg to disagree. The 6 has a better frontal view. Any other angle, I prefer the Optima. AND it's a few years old already, AND I still find it one of the best looking sedans on the NA market today. The 6 will not age well. All the swoopy lines... look at the Sonata.

the Kia also has almost double the warranty that the Mazda has...something that many mainstream buyers would likely prefer over a car that can carve an apex on on-ramp.

[Fobroader]

Yeah, but the Kia doesnt look nearly as good as the 6...

Fob, I would beg to disagree. The 6 has a better frontal view. Any other angle, I prefer the Optima. AND it's a few years old already, AND I still find it one of the best looking sedans on the NA market today. The 6 will not age well. All the swoopy lines... look at the Sonata.

the Kia also has almost double the warranty that the Mazda has...something that many mainstream buyers would likely prefer over a car that can carve an apex on on-ramp.

Im sorry, I have never bought a car simply for the Consumer Reports type of reasons as these. My heart also had to be in it. If we all bought cars by empirical data, everyone would be driving a Corolla.

[OliverD]

Not sure how you go in one breath from "nobody cares about enthusiast capabilities" to "we should all listen to a racecar driver" though. 

i think my point is pretty clear...i am like most consumers...i don't have driving dynamics at the top of my car shopping check list (it's not like any new car is really THAT bad to drive)...but since the driving dynamics seem to have been well praised for the 6 (or others that handled better), that likely cost the Kia some points...at the same time, if you REALLY do care about driving dynamics, Russ Bond certainly didn't seem to have a complaint about them.

in short, driving dynamics are likely low on most people's list, so why bother making them that important in a review.

if driving dynamics are important, why is it slagged here, yet given praise by Russ Bond?

the contradiction is more about what i am questioning.

in the end, consumers choose the winners and losers with their wallet, and despite numerous "car of the year" awards Mazda is winning, i don't see many of their new products on the road...i have seen a few CX-5s, but i still haven't seen one new 3 or 6 yet...perhaps its a regional thing, i don't know...i live in a rust belt, and my guess is there is a lot of dissatisfied former owners who refused to get another Mazda (at least until that bad taste disappears)...i personally know MANY people (likely 20) who have/had 3s and only 2 have kept them...everyone else has moved to other brands and were not happy with their car...they liked it when they bought them, but after a couple of years, were no longer happy (many of the new models were more mechanical issue related than rust though).

The track and the road are two very different places. It's quite probable that a smooth racetrack would not reveal the flaws that real-world driving would. There's also the matter of context. Perhaps the Optima handles fine when judged on its own and it is only when driven back-to-back with the 6 that you notice its flaws.

[dkaz]

The Mazda 6 GS and GT come with no charge automatic.

Warranty, the dealers try to screw you over anyway.

I agree the cars tested should have had like options otherwise.


Sent from something using something

[Noto]

To say the 6 won because it appealed to the enthusiasts more though is very much correct. And THAT is worth debating.

The only flaw that could reasonably be argued, then, is that the title is misleading by virtue of being rather vague.  What constitutes a "comparison test" other than 'here are 3 2014 Mid-Size sedans?  Presumably, it should read in some way or another "our choice" or "an enthusiast's choice" or "best value while retaining some form of driving enjoyment", etc.

I am not insinuating that autos.ca intentionally misled, nor that the name should be changed; rather, such brevity in titling the article left it open to the rants and debates that we're seeing here.  The comparison is what it is on face value, but the specific face isn't obvious until the conclusion of the article.  No official award is being provided, so the implicit reviews from the article serves the stated purpose only: to choose a 2014 mid-sized sedan within the ambit of $35,000 that the writers would most prefer.  I think it's rather fair, if not rather nice of them to open up the forum to the emotions of the posters - it's my daily enjoyment, how about yours?

If we all bought cars by empirical data, everyone would be driving a Corolla.