DC Car Examiner
-
Posts
1,308 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by DC Car Examiner
-
-
I had a 2015 Camry XSE V6 as a rental recently, and I was surprised how cheap the interior is for being an upper trim level. Between clumsy exterior design (fish mouth and blacked-out C-pillar, same tired greenhouse from 2007) and the cheap interior, there is no way I would give it 2nd place on a midsize shopping list. It feels warmed over, and it kind of is.
I agree -- among upper trim levels, the Camry's interior gets to be a problem. It's less so on the base/near base models, though, which was what was in this test, though it's still listed in the review as one of the reasons not to buy a Camry.
Styling, meanwhile, is something folks can and will make their own judgments about, though the review does also note the fake window on the C-pillar.
-
Yawn...
Another NISHONTOYUBARUZDA wins the appliance shootout. Broken record for the last 15 years. Why bother.
There were some Accord and Camry duds during that time, and at times I had one of each model in last place (2010 Accord, 2013 Camry). They've improved.
-
I wonder if Brady wears suede loafers, we that sets of certain posters....ahem
Either this is especially random or my Walmart boot/sneaker hybrid was spotted in one of the photos. Fear not, no fashion consciousness went into that shoe -- as my fiancee readily attests.
-
1
-
-
Do the categories have unequal weighting factors? For example, does the 'Comfort/luxury' category bear more importance than 'Fuel economy'? Or is the 'Overall' category just your overall impression and not an exact tally of the rankings? Not trying to poke holes but just curious.
Yeah, in the article explaining each of the factors, it clarifies that it's not a numerical calculation -- "overall" is just as much of a judgment call as the individual categories, except based on an overall impression of the car as opposed to an overall impression of its comfort/luxury or its driving dynamics. :-)
http://www.examiner.com/article/comparison-review-ten-2015-midsize-sedans-ratings
And for chart fans, there's another here (also with explanations):
http://www.examiner.com/article/comparison-review-ten-2015-midsize-sedans-rankings
-
"The ranks of midsize family sedans are filled with competitive and popular models from around the world: the U.S., Japan, Korea, and Germany. But in the popular mindset – and on the sales charts – two models routinely stand out from the rest. That's the Toyota Camry, for years the best-selling passenger car in the United States, and the Honda Accord, often its runner-up and a reliable recipient of critical acclaim. The “CamCord,” as they're sometimes collectively known.However, in many ways, recent Camrys and Accords were resting on their laurels. The last Camry wasn't especially nice to drive, didn't have a very nice interior, and had failed one of its crash tests. Accords have at times been overpriced, and haven't always offered the fun-to-drive character that Honda promised was the tradeoff for a less-than-cushy ride quality. One of these cars was in last place in each of this reviewer's last two comparisons of midsize sedans: the Accord in 2010 and the Camry in 2013.Honda and Toyota have since turned those cars around. This assessment is based on back-to-back test drives of the Accord, Camry, and eight competing midsize sedans; an analysis of their prices, fuel economy, and safety ratings; and the impressions gleaned from those drives. These two sedans at last live up to their reputations – the Accord for blending driving enjoyment with everyday versatility and value, the Camry for exchanging spice for a mastery of such mainstream values as comfort and usability. In the final rankings for this comparison, the Accord placed No. 1 in the class and the Camry placed No. 2."Continued at link: http://www.examiner.com/list/comparison-review-ten-2015-midsize-sedans-the-best-and-the-worst(I have the Fusion in No. 3, by the way -- still quite nice, though it's less endearing with cloth.)For anyone keeping score, this comparison also has new type of ranking and rating chart, a revised format for the full reviews of the individual cars. Feedback welcome.
-
Top 30 best-sellers of the year:
http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/sales-charts-of-the-top-30-best-selling-cars-of-2014
Fords are at 1, 10, 11, 16, and 19.
-
I took a close look at our Focus' last night and did not see any misaligned interior pieces. I looked at the neighbor's Civic last night too just to compare.
I found that the Focus is just superior to the Civic, especially when comparing materials. The Focus has a more upscale feel, as well (ours are SE).
I checked out Washington Examiner on Wikipedia and the print edition shut down last year because it had only 45,000 subscribers.
Frankly, I think people like that bring articles to forums like this to gin up viewership on their own web pages to enhance advertising cash.
Perhaps it is just me but I take offense to this, especially when somebody pastes it on a Ford forum and then slams the brand.
Recall he did this with Taurus earlier in the year.
Am I making too much of this?
The Washington Examiner newspaper is unrelated to Examiner.com. And yep, I posted here to earn nearly one cent for each person who clicked. I am making bank off you, yep. Probably almost a dollar!
About interior quality, the Civic got upgraded interiors for both the 2013 and 2014 model years; which year were you in? And do you also have photos of the problems you found?
I've liked different Fords different amounts. Fusion, Flex, and Explorer have all been at or near the tops of the comparisons they've been in. Escape was in the middle. Taurus and Focus at or near the back. Shall I post only nice things?
-
2
-
-
That's because you don't need a physical unlock button on each door. The front doors open with the handle whether they're locked or not and the rear doors open with a second pull on the handle.
If you're going to ding a car for something you should make sure that it's really a deficiency. I would argue this solution is better and simpler.
Fair, that's worth noting -- though it's a better system still, I would argue, to have a physical lock button *and* the ability to open the door just using the handle. It's clearer when the doors are locked, easier to lock a door, and less of a problem in the event of failure.
-
isnt the CVT only in the higher end versions....base still has THAt 4 speed if Im correct...
True, the base model has the four-speed. But that's also a car with no cruise control or remote locking -- a car that exists to advertise a low price, not a mainstream part of the lineup.
-
I still chuckle to think the Corolla has a 28 year old transmission and people have no clue about that...
The Corolla has a CVT that's new for 2014.
The question is whether the differences you noted (on all of them) are something a buyer would notice or if it's something that you noticed only because you were looking for differences?
Well, that's the argument against cross-shopping -- if you don't look at anything else, you can be satisfied with something worse. And if you don't care about panel fits, then that's fine -- just like with any other aspect of a vehicle that some people care about and others don't.
-
Hey Brady,
Did you manage to check out whether other Focuses at the dealership had the same level of fit and finish?
I'm wondering whether that car is indicative of all of them or just a bad example...
John
I didn't specifically check out others as part of that visit, but it's consistent with others that I've been in.
-
The fit could be slightly better, but how many times do you hear people say I want to return this car because the dash panels aren't right? I don't see anything that way out of the ordinary unless your being anal retentive.
It would be certainly weird to return a car over it, but it is certainly not unheard of for someone to choose one car over another in part because of interior quality issues. And speaking as someone who just spent a lot of time in eleven cars in this class, I can say that the Focus's interior assembly is worse than most of its peers'.
Which is not to say that it's the most important thing about a car. It's just one of many things, and is given that level of attention within the review.
-
I'll handle these in order:
"How about some proof (pictures) of poor panel interior fittings to back up your observations of the Focus."
I'm limited by the site software to 20 fairly small photos, but I'm happy to provide a couple here that I photographed as part of my own notes:
"Can you not add the MFT (Sony and MyFord Touch Package) to the Focus SE trim."You can, but only when bundled with thousands of dollars worth of other options."What if you priority is not family size interior space."The comparison includes rankings based on varying priorities, with family-size being just one option."Why did you mention the word bargain so many times regarding the Focus"Because it had the lowest price in the comparison. -
This comparison includes all the compact sedans but the Mitsubishi Lancer -- Cruze, Dart, Focus, Civic, Elantra, Forte, Mazda3, Sentra, Impreza, Corolla, Jetta. In addition to full reviews, there are quick summaries on the introduction page:
There are also separate ranking orders based on specific areas (for instance, comfort, performance or fuel economy):
And separate rating orders for different types of customers (for instance, someone seeking a basic commuter car versus a fun car):
Feedback welcome as always; folks who followed the last one of these that I post might recognize formatting changes that were suggested here.
-
Best-sellers by class:
Subcompact cars: Kia SoulCompact cars: Toyota CorollaMidsize cars: Toyota CamryLarge cars: Chevrolet ImpalaEntry-luxury cars: BMW 3-Series/4-SeriesLuxury cars: Mercedes-Benz E-ClassSporty cars: Chevrolet CamaroCompact crossovers/SUVs: Honda CR-VMidsize crossovers/SUVs: Chevrolet EquinoxLarge crossovers: Ford Explorer/InterceptorLarge SUVs: Chevrolet Tahoe/SuburbanEntry-luxury crossovers/SUVs: Lexus RXLuxury crossovers/SUVs: BMW X5Vans: Dodge Grand CaravanPickups: Ford F-SeriesTop-10 sales chart for each class:http://www.examiner.com/article/top-10-best-selling-cars-of-the-first-half-of-2014-by-class
-
No surprise -- the Ford F-Series is still holding the No. 1 slot. But there's been some movement further down the list. See analysis, the list of Top 30 best-sellers, and comparisons to 2013 and 2012 data:
-
I've not used CUE except for briefly playing with it at auto shows when there is power in the car, so I was just curious as to your take, given its similar implementation.
-------
Regarding the article/page setup....I'll put discussion/explanation comments in regular text, and suggestions in bolded text.
When I click the link provided (http://www.examiner.com/list/comparison-review-ten-large-sedans-the-best-and-the-worst), I'm linked to the introduction page. That's fine, and is to be expected. However, as I finish reading that introduction, I then am presented with a list of links, which at first glance, appear to be links to other reviews you've done.....I know it says "more from this comparison," but look below that series of links, and you will see "See also" with links to other reviews. To me, that list of associated reviews for the CURRENT comparison gets lost amongst the list of OTHER comparisons you've done......meaning, at first glance, I disregard that entire series of links simply because generally that is where most webpages (yours included) put their "see also" links that I'm usually not interested in, so I'm then left wondering where the rest of the review is. Now depending on what mood I'm in, I may look more thoroughly and realize oh there's the associated pages, but I'm guessing many others may not realize that either. I hope that's making sense. Then on top of that, the way the list of car names (which are, in fact, the individual vehicle reviews) is presented, it strikes me as simply a "tagged" list of names of vehicles. It doesn't strike me as a location for individual reviews of each vehicle.
If nothing else, I'd suggest somehow better separating the links associated with the current comparison from the "see also" links. That alone I think would make it more organized than what looks like a random pile of links at the bottom of the article.
Ok....now that I look at it again, when you click the link for an individual review, I do now see the "next" or "previous" link you said you did have. Again, I never even saw it, because for me it got lost in the large number of links you have placed at the bottom of the review. I counted 14 links piled down there on one review. The next review and previous review links are not clearly marked in comparison to the 12 other links down there.
When I read a review that has multiple pages (one for each car, one overall, etc. etc.), I don't want to have to hunt for how to get to the next section. I am much less inclined to read the entire review if I struggle to figure out how to navigate through it.
I'd suggest having the reader proceed from the introduction page to the #10 car review with a large yellow-orange (or whatever color, that's just the one on the page currently) box that says "10th Place -->" Then on the next page have "<-- introduction" and "9th place -->" clearly marked, and continue on down to 1st place, at which point, you could then provide another clearly marked link to "Rating the 10 large sedans", and then from that page "Ranking the 10 large sedans"
Alternatively, if you didn't want to rearrange the setup, you could instead on each page simply having a large "previous review" and "next review" link within a different color box (you could use that yellow-orange color) so it's very clear how to navigate through it.
The arrangement of the pages could be altered....for instance, if you'd rather have the "rating", "ranking", and "quick review" pages at the front before the full review of each car, and then shift into the "10" "9" "8"....format, that's fine too, or you don't have to use the "countdown" format if you don't like that. My key point is to just make the progression from one page of the overall comparison to the next very easy to understand and clearly marked, rather than hidden amongst over a dozen links as it currently is.
I hope that made sense and helps some. Others may have differing views/thoughts/etc., but those are mine.
The point about distinguishing which links mean what at first glance is a valid one. Maybe the solution is to have fewer links regarding the comparison on each page -- the idea behind that was to let people jump around the comparison if they didn't want to go in order. Also, a lot of traffic comes into the individual reviews via Google rather than starting at the introduction, so I want the main articles to be highlighted. But....I want everything to be highlighted....so I can see how that becomes a muddle.
One thing I sadly can't do is anything more with text/arrows, because the Examiner.com publishing tool gives very few options. Bold and italics are the only options -- no change in font, text size, or text color. Nor does it let you make boxes or any other formatting but bullets and numbering. The box I'm typing in right now to compose this post is far more advanced than what I'm offered for an Examiner.com article.
Meanwhile, the summary reviews are in a format designed for multi-page articles, but it's not customizable and only allows for one photo instead of a gallery, so that doesn't work for the full write-ups.
-------
Anyway, within the bounds of what the site will let me do, would it be an improvement to rearrange some things?
So here's what the order is now, for a sample article:
[Last sentence of review]
Overall grade: B-- More photos of the 2014 Toyota Avalon Limited- Report card: Rating the Avalon -- how does it compare in different ways, such as comfort, performance, and fuel economy?- Report card: Ranking the Avalon -- how does it stack up for different types of buyers?More from this comparison:- Previous review: 2014 Nissan Maxima 3.5 SV (7th place)- Next review: 2014 Buick LaCrosse Leather (5th place)- Introduction- Rating the ten large sedans- Ranking the ten large sedans- Quick summaries of the ten large sedans: Pros, cons, conclusionsSee also:[links to reviews of other Toyotas][specs/data]
So how about if it were:
[Last sentence of review]
Overall grade: B-- Previous review: 2014 Nissan Maxima 3.5 SV (7th place)- Next review: 2014 Buick LaCrosse Leather (5th place)- Introduction to this comparisonMore about the 2014 Toyota Avalon Limited:- Photo gallery- Report card -- how does it compare in different ways, such as comfort, performance, and fuel economy?- Report card -- how does it stack up for different types of buyers?More from this comparison:- Rating the ten large sedans- Ranking the ten large sedans- Quick summaries of the ten large sedans: Pros, cons, conclusions[specs/data][links to reviews of other Toyotas]Or would you recommend omitting "more from this comparison" entirely, and/or distributing those links throughout the article? That is to say, finding article text they'd make sense near? -
Let me take a look again, and I can send you a PM with some thoughts as to not take over this thread. I just know in the past, I've not gone past the first page of your review even if I want to because I've found it confusing to navigate.
I understand those thoughts. My folks have a 2014 Explorer with the MFT panel and I've found it responds quickly when you push a "button." I can definitely understand the uncertainty of button location with the flat panel.
Just curious, do you have the same complaints with Cadillac's CUE system which also uses touch sensitive buttons?
I actually wouldn't mind if you posted the criticisms here in case anyone else wanted to agree/disagree. I have changed the layout around over the years and it seems that feedback had improved over time.
About CUE, I've only played around while parked as I haven't driven any of the latest Cadillacs. So that's not the best measure. They do have the vibration feature when you touch a button, but it still seems like a workaround to a problem that never needed to exist.
-
I don't remember what the article specifically said, but I recall the lack of buttons being mentioned.
On a side note, I find the setup for the reviews he posts absolutely terrible....you have to click several different links to hopefully get to the summation of the vehicles, let alone trying to find a review of each car. A simpler "next" link progressing through reviews of each car would be better, IMO).
Anyway....back to MFT....the lack of buttons is a fair criticism. We've seen Ford move back to buttons. I wonder if creating indents/bulges in various areas (while retaining touch sensitive controls) would've worked as well
Reliability and responsiveness is definitely a fair criticism, but refusal on the part of reviewers to actually sit with and learn the system for more than 2 minutes is not necessarily the system's fault.
I'm always trying to make the formatting better, but I'm not sure what your complaint is. There is a "next" link below every full review, and in the summary reviews there are big "next" and "previous" arrows. On the introduction page and the two ranking summaries, you can click on the link to every individual car if you don't want to go through the whole thing in order, and every page has a link back to both of those two. What would work better for you, do you think?
About MFT -- touch-sensitive controls with ridges is what Toyota has in the Avalon, and it works a little bit better. But there's still the chance of brushing against the wrong control, and not knowing as well whether you've hit the button you wanted, especially when the response isn't the swiftest.
-
If I read it right (only skimmed it), the biggest complaint is the touch-sensitive dash buttons (not just the MFT), which is a deficiency Ford has acknowledged. I am extremely glad my C-Max has physical buttons.
MFT's problem was never its complexity, just its reliability and responsiveness.
Yeah, this is more of the issue. There are complex infotainment systems that work well, and then there are those that don't. Chrysler and Kia have great systems -- the screen is there for all the fine-tuning details (or for people who like using the screen), but then there are simple buttons and knobs that you can feel for for simple things. And the screens on those also tend to respond faster than Ford's, and freeze up less often.
Sure, you can get used to it, but that doesn't mean it's well-designed.
-
10 full reviews with photo galleries, 10 quick summary review, and separate rankings for different categories and different types of potential buyers. 2014 LaCrosse, Impala, 300, Charger, Taurus, Azera, Genesis, Cadenza, Maxima, and Avalon.Spoiler alert: It's time for a new Taurus.
-
Interesting that they put the Grand Cherokee in the mid-size class with the Edge and the Explorer in the full-size class. I thought the GC was a full-size SUV?
Good work, Brady. Thanks for this.
I wouldn't even call Explorer full-size, to be honest. Here's how I'd break it down...
Midsize SUV - Explorer, Grand Cherokee, 4Runner, etc.
Fullsize SUV - Expedition, Sequoia, Tahoe, etc.
I tried to squeeze the Durango in, but Mopar likes to straddle size classes with that thing,,,
The current Explorer is quite large, some seven inches longer than the Grand Cherokee. The way I handle vehicles that straddle classes is by listing them in multiple places -- for instance, the Honda Pilot for being sized like a Grand Cherokee but generally competing with much larger three-row models like the Durango, Explorer, or Traverse; or the Chevy Equinox for being GM's entry-level SUV despite being the size of an Edge.
The other thing I do in these charts is to break out the full-size crossovers from the full-size SUVs, giving each their own chart. I've thought about doing the same in the smaller classes, but there just *aren't* that many traditional smaller SUVs left anymore.
Of course, so much of this is just judgment calls. Which similar cars should be grouped together? What's in what class? Everyone is probably going to have their own way of doing it, and certainly there are more valid ways than mine. But, gotta pick just one.
And thanks to everyone for the kind words!
-
Everyone knows the top three, which haven't changed in years -- F-Series, Silverado, Camry. What about farther down the list?Sales charts and discussions of the Top 30 of 2013: http://www.examiner.com/article/america-s-most-popular-cars-the-top-30-best-selling-vehicles-of-2013See also: Top-10 best-sellers by class
-
1
-
-
Which is the same thing you should be doing. It's not fair to ding the Escape for poor crash test scores and not ding the Rogue when one is a current top safety pick and the other isn't. It would have been sufficient to just report the scores and leave that out of the negative list.
Right, it would have been unfair to criticize one and not the other, so I criticized both. Both got four out of five stars in NHTSA testing when a lot of competitors get five, neither did very well on the small-overlap test (though the Nissan did better), and the Rogue was one mark behind the Escape on the roof strength test.
In fact, as you'll see on the ratings page, I gave the Escape the slight safety edge over the Rogue: http://www.examiner.com/article/comparison-review-nine-compact-crossover-suvs-ratings
My comparison: 10 midsize sedans
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
^Very thoughtful look at the market -- I'll explain where I can.
In running a comparison, I pick a group of features that would be reasonably expected in a given class so that the cars can be comparably equipped; in this case, one of those was a sunroof, though several of the cars only let you get one if you basically loaded up the car with everything else. The Passat and Sonata were two of those, but they're too important to the class right now to exclude because of it. However, the Optima was a third, and because it's about to be replaced anyway and the Optima LX is only comparably priced to the Sonata SE (it's true that leather can come more cheaply), it just didn't seem like it was about to be a standout. The Mazda6 was another car that might have done a little better if a different set of features had been chosen, but in part it's the reduced incentives like you said -- which would still be a factor to someone buying now.
The other issue with the Mazda6 is that I have never had much fun driving the current generation. That's after two dealer test drives of 2014s, a week in a 2015, and now a dealer test drive of a '16. I have a weeklong 2016 test scheduled next month as I continue to try and figure out what people are loving about this car; it's not like I don't like the rest of the Mazda line, either. The review acknowledges that this might just be a personal issue, but it would feel like bias to just give it the benefit of the doubt.
As far as the Camry, I didn't find it to be floaty and squishy compared to the 2007-2011 generation, which was soft and not competitive from a handling perspective. And it also improved upon the 2012-14 for ride quality and steering response -- I was taken aback by how much more pleasant this car had gotten, as there wasn't really anything about the pre-update that I enjoyed from a driving perspective. The Camry got better at pretty much everything but luxury qualities like the best interior and the quietest engine, as indeed you mentioned. Accordingly, my separate ranking order that gives more weight to luxury puts the Camry in 7th place, pretty similar to your conclusion.