96 Pony Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 #1 - Toyota Avalon, priced Invoice:$24,011 - $29,976. Delivers ample interior space in a highly refined cabin, swift V6 passing power, and outstanding quality and reliability. #2 - Chrysler 300, priced Invoice:$22,841 - $37,766. Delivers class-leading backseat room, classic and commanding style and a top-notch optional V8 performance trim. #3 - Hyundai Azera, priced Invoice:$22,841 - $37,766 Delivers solid performance, a very roomy interior, a long list of safety features and an unmatched warranty. Rounding out the top 5 was #4 Dodge Charger and #5 Mercury Montego/Sable. Guess who was at the bottom at the list. Clicky Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 The Montego is a 5 and the Taurus is an 8? :hysterical: Some find the interior controls complicated in the Taurus, but the ones in the Montego are OK? What because the ignition was hard to locate on the column? Sounds like fishing if you ask me.... What a waste of an article, and not because the Taurus scored so low.......but because there really is no quality control to how vehicles received their rankings. Nevermind the fact that they left out the Maxima. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 The Montego is a 5 and the Taurus is an 8? :hysterical: Some find the interior controls complicated in the Taurus, but the ones in the Montego are OK? What because the ignition was hard to locate on the column? Sounds like fishing if you ask me.... What a waste of an article, and not because the Taurus scored so low.......but because there really is no quality control to how vehicles received their rankings. Nevermind the fact that they left out the Maxima. So much for scientific based study. The Avalon has some of the worst quality ratings out there and doesn't sell very well. There have been many articles out there about Avalon's poor quality. In fact, last year it made the front page of the The Detroit News as many customers wanted Toyota to buy the vehicle back from them. The Avalon should have been last based upon quality alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Martin Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Are those fuel economy numbers right? Sable is better than Taurus, and CV gets 17 mpg HW? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I would suggest emailing the editor, and letting him now how unreliable the Avalon is, and provide links as well. If I'm the only one doing it, then it's not enough...so feel free to do so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I would suggest emailing the editor, and letting him now how unreliable the Avalon is, and provide links as well. If I'm the only one doing it, then it's not enough...so feel free to do so... Rankings based on an in-depth analysis by U.S. News editors of all published auto ratings, reviews and test drives. What "published auto ratings, reviews and test drives" did they read where anybody would rank a 2007 Montego higher then the 2008 Taurus? They listed "Acceleration still lagging after engine improvements" as a con for the Taurus based on a Car & Driver article: Yet, Car and Driver still calls the improved engine "meager," saying that the "V-6 left us yawning." This article is retarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 (edited) I emailed them about their fuel economy ratings: They used each car's ratings for that model year, so all the 2007 models get a 3mpg handicap over the 2008 Taurus. Since the new fuel economy ratings are readily available, they took a really lazy shortcut. Edited October 11, 2007 by Noah Harbinger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Guess who was at the bottom at the list. Does that bother you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96 Pony Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 Does that bother you? Very much so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Very much so. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 What "published auto ratings, reviews and test drives" did they read where anybody would rank a 2007 Montego higher then the 2008 Taurus? They listed "Acceleration still lagging after engine improvements" as a con for the Taurus based on a Car & Driver article:This article is retarded. guess they never ran a 2008 Sable next to a 07 or whatever avalon, sable spanked it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFan Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Doesn't the Avalon hit 40K and over when fully loaded? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SysEng Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Are those fuel economy numbers right? Sable is better than Taurus, and CV gets 17 mpg HW? No, they are not right. CV and GM numbers are identical. 17city/25hwy. :reading: And that report rates right up there. For dummies by dummies and of dummies. In fact, I am amazed anybody could be so stupid to buy those other cars ( less safe, less reliable, less economical ) and feel anything but ripped off. Just think your basic GM LS gets nearly the same fuel economy of cars half or 1/3 its size! Obviously value for money is not on anyones radar these days. There, was that the reply you were looking for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 No, they are not right. CV and GM numbers are identical. 17city/25hwy. :reading: And that report rates right up there. For dummies by dummies and of dummies. In fact, I am amazed anybody could be so stupid to buy those other cars ( less safe, less reliable, less economical ) and feel anything but ripped off. Just think your basic GM LS gets nearly the same fuel economy of cars half or 1/3 its size! Obviously value for money is not on anyones radar these days. There, was that the reply you were looking for? Maybe because they don't want an interior and exterior that was last redesigned in the 1990's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Maybe because they don't want an interior and exterior that was last redesigned in the 1990's? Maybe they want a car that will go a proven 300K with very little problems. BTW...a 2.73 geared Panther will get close to 30 on the highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roush6 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 They incorrectly stated that the 2007 Avalon has 22/31 MPG when in fact it only gets 20/28. If you click on the Toyota Avalon link and then click on Performance, it stated the latter. Totally misleading! U.S. News gets a thumbs down in my book! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman100 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 With only very minor changes, my list would be almost the exact opposite order of this one. Their reliability ratings are completely bogus as well - rated based upon 90 day ratings, which are completely meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 With only very minor changes, my list would be almost the exact opposite order of this one. Their reliability ratings are completely bogus as well - rated based upon 90 day ratings, which are completely meaningless. Yeah, but your opinion doesn't count because you drive a Panther. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman100 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Yeah, but your opinion doesn't count because you drive a Panther. I guess a 90 day rating would matter if I planned on buying a new car every 90 days. Since I don't, I find the J.D. Power 3 year dependability ratings more important. However, even that is kind of short term for a Panther owner - my last one was 11 years old when I replaced it, and my current one will be replaced around 2010 or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I guess a 90 day rating would matter if I planned on buying a new car every 90 days. Since I don't, I find the J.D. Power 3 year dependability ratings more important. However, even that is kind of short term for a Panther owner - my last one was 11 years old when I replaced it, and my current one will be replaced around 2010 or so. Eek... I meant that your opinion doesn't count on this site, because you drive a Panther. And...for the record, I really don't think that a car that has been proven to do 600K miles of hard service has to prove it's reliability to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarShark Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I don't care how reliable the Panthers are. They can run 'til doomsday for all I care. They are still ass-ugly, cramped, cheap, low-tech reminders of why progress is indeed a good thing. Undesirable in every relevant way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Well, I guess we're back to "Who cares about US News anyway?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96 Pony Posted October 12, 2007 Author Share Posted October 12, 2007 Why? Because comparing a Panther to the top 3 is like comparing a Model T to a Fusion. I don't care if a Panther can go 1,235,996 miles without an oil change or whatever it is the mafia claims it can do. It is a bland car with 1990's interior that is now fleet only because it wasn't selling well in retail because it was never updated. Re Taurus/Montego. A lot of these reviews often place Mercurys higher than Fords but I agree that it is bogus to have the Taurus 3 positions down from the Sable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchdevil Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 The Montego and Sable are preferred because they simply don't have the Ford nameplate attached since Ford is not percieved as luxury or upscale. Perhaps it's the more touch of Lincolness in trim details they have. It's the same old reason people would rather have a Buick than a Chevrolet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 The Montego and Sable are preferred because they simply don't have the Ford nameplate attached since Ford is not percieved as luxury or upscale. Perhaps it's the more touch of Lincolness in trim details they have. It's the same old reason people would rather have a Buick than a Chevrolet. But Toyotas ARE perceived as luxury? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.