2011's top 20 best-selling cars

[BlackHorse]

Do I detect a pattern of behavior here? We get it Blackhorse. Your anecdotal experience with the new Focus was not good. I would say the launch of all new and leading edge Focus was a bit rocky, but I would suspect the great majority of problems with launch have been ironed out and 2012 should be good year for Focus. 14,000 sales last month was not horrible. Not sure why you have to keep beating us over the head about how bad your Focus was and how great your Corolla is on forum that has no use for the Corolla. I don't think you are going to persuade many on this forum. I try to be objective when looking at new vehicles. For example, the 2012 or 2012 MKS and MKZ wouldn't be on my buy list if looking at new luxury vehicles. Maybe the 2013 MKS and new MKZ after first year, but not what is in showrooms now. Same for Corolla. It just wouldn't be on my buy list if looking at compacts. Not even close. Toyota did a very weak MCE on it couple years ago and nothing since. As for Focus, I never buy first year all new vehicles period. Surprised you did. I thought you were sharper than that on buying vehicles. Not interested in dated vehicles like Corolla or all new vehicles like Focus with teething problems. Ford does have good track record though of correcting first year problems. The Escape had its shares of problems first year, and look at it now. However, I see the Escape as dated and it wouldn't be on my buy list. The new Escape a couple years after launch would be on my buy list if looking at small utes. It pays to do your research, take your time, and make a good decision on buying vehicles worth $25,000+ or even less. The sports car I recently bought I researched for over a year and looked at scores of them before I finallly bought. No problems first year anyway on expensive vehicle to fix. Porsche is not known for cheap parts and labor rates.

 

There is this sort of unwritten rule that you should never buy the first year model of any car because it's going to have problems. The problem is not the car, the problem is car companies that cut corners and rush products to market with out properly testing and vetting them first and without properly training the labor force. The Fusion overall was rock solid reliable and a good car from the very first year model because Ford made sure that they had all the problems worked out and essentially beta tested the crap out of the thing before it got released to the public. Technically you could consider my Corolla a first year model. It was assembled at the brand new Toyota production facility in Blue Springs, Mississippi. They just started rolling cars off the line in late November. Yet the car is problem free and fellow owners of the 2011 and 2012 Corolla are not reporting problems or issues with their cars on any of the Toyota or Corolla forums. Why? Because Toyota made sure that all of the workers at that plant were more than capable before they let them start assembling cars. The platform itself is by no means brand new so any issues it ever had have long since been engineered out. The same could be said of the Focus platform that was essentially brought here from FOE. It was not at all a new platform to the Ford lineup, just to the guys building it here in the states. So I don't buy this notion that a first year model car is going to inherently have problems. These companies are more than capable of producing a car that is trouble free from the first year model. It has been done before, not only by Toyota and Honda but also by Ford and there might even be a GM example that I don't know of. I think Ford just didn't put the effort into the Focus because "its an entry level compact car so who cares. We would rather sells big trucks anyway."

 

As for the Corolla not being on your list, there's nothing wrong with that. Guess what, the Corolla wasn't on my list either. The damn things are everywhere right? But then I drove the car and I understand now its appeal. The car is just very well engineered, very well put together and it just functions so efficiently and effectively. You really have to spend some time driving one to understand what I mean because it is not something that is easy to put to words. This is why there are so many people that swear by the car FordBuyer. If you took the time to actually talk to some of the owners of this car on its respective forums what you are going to find is much the same. It's not that they hate cars. On the contrary, they love the damn thing. I've talked to a guy who bought another Corolla because he was rear ended by a Dodge dually pickup that was towing two (2) full size chevy vans and all of that weight slammed into the back of his stopped Corolla at 40 to 50 mph. The passenger compartment was never even penetrated. He walked away with a scratch and he decided then and there that his next car would be another Corolla. So I get that you aren't going to buy it because you don't like the way it looks. That's ok, to each his own. I wouldn't buy a Ford Flex because I think its hideous. I wouldn't buy the first gen Fusion because I didn't like the front end even though it was a good car. By the way the Flex is another car that never had any problems from year one. I actually do like the way the Corolla looks. It's not as flashy or eye catching as say a Mustang or something like that, but it's not bad either. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder though. But what I really like about the car is that when I drive it I can tell that it is just a very well built car. I encourage you to test drive one. Hold your nose, take some dramamine or whatever to get you through it but test drive one. You might be surprised.

 

Now as for luxury cars, there's no way I'd go for a Lexus. They're just gussied up Toyota's. I'd probably go with an Audi. I'd like to say that I'd go with a Caddy but I just can't see me ever supporting GM or the UAW again and that's a shame because Caddy makes some nice luxury cars.

Edited January 6, 2012 by BlackHorse

[NickF1011]

Technically you could consider my Corolla a first year model.

 

 

Isn't the Corolla still riding on the same platform it was a decade ago?

 

Jesus, BlackHorse. We get it. You didn't like your Focus. Every thread doesn't need to devolve into a discussion about it.

Edited January 6, 2012 by NickF1011

[DC Car Examiner]

You categorization is off. The Taverse only has two more cubic feet of passenger volume.

 

 

Not that I was going by interior volume, but the Traverse does have an extra 35 cubic feet of cargo space.

 

Basically, I have to cut off the classes somewhere, and the approximate place I chose was 200 inches long for a midsize-market crossover to have become so massive that I also list it with the full-size models. GM's crossovers are all bigger than the models they compete with -- the Equinox, for instance, is marketed as GM's competitor to a RAV4 or CR-V but is longer than the Edge, so I list it in both the compact and midsize classes.

 

The cut-off has to be somewhere, and I don't want it low enough that more than a handful of vehicles that compete against the Honda Pilot (190 inches) in the midsize class are also taking up space on the full-size list. The Explorer is close to the cutoff, not it's not so gargantuan as to not fit in the midsize class.

Edited January 6, 2012 by DC Car Examiner

[BlackHorse]

 

Isn't the Corolla still riding on the same platform it was a decade ago?

 

Jesus, BlackHorse. We get it. You didn't like your Focus. Every thread doesn't need to devolve into a discussion about it.

 

 

Yes and I pointed that out genius.

 

Technically you could consider my Corolla a first year model. It was assembled at the brand new Toyota production facility in Blue Springs, Mississippi. They just started rolling cars off the line in late November. Yet the car is problem free and fellow owners of the 2011 and 2012 Corolla are not reporting problems or issues with their cars on any of the Toyota or Corolla forums. Why? Because Toyota made sure that all of the workers at that plant were more than capable before they let them start assembling cars. The platform itself is by no means brand new so any issues it ever had have long since been engineered out.

 

Read and comprehend Nick.

 

The Focus platform isn't new either, its been around in Europe for awhile now.

Edited January 6, 2012 by BlackHorse

[NickF1011]

Yes and I pointed that out genius.

 

 

 

Read and comprehend Nick.

 

 

You're right. I didn't read your entire rambling rant of a post. I was too dumbfounded to continue after hitting that sentence. My apologies.

Edited January 6, 2012 by NickF1011

[FordBuyer]

 

Isn't the Corolla still riding on the same platform it was a decade ago?

 

Jesus, BlackHorse. We get it. You didn't like your Focus. Every thread doesn't need to devolve into a discussion about it.

 

 

Guess what Blackhorse.....I did have a Corolla once as a company car for about 6 months. I hated it. Sure, it was trouble free, and it got good fuel mileage as you could tell by driving it was a real lightweight. That was the end to the likes. Never could get comfortable in that vehicle and hated it every bit as much as Cavalier with its cheap front seats and back seats that were glorified flat boards. I remember the ergonomics on the Corolla being annoying and it feeling like a tin can. Cavalier and Corolla were the two worst company cars I got stuck with. Best were Taurus with DOHC 24 valve V6, Focus, Contour with V6, and Lumina with V6. The last 7 years I had a Taurus just like my daily driver and loved it. I'd have to lose my pension and be destroyed by Wall Street to go back to a tin can like the Corolla or Cavalier. The days of driving cars like that are thankfully long gone. I'm not nostalgic for the cars of old.

[stpatrick90]

Not that I was going by interior volume, but the Traverse does have an extra 35 cubic feet of cargo space.

 

Basically, I have to cut off the classes somewhere, and the approximate place I chose was 200 inches long for a midsize-market crossover to have become so massive that I also list it with the full-size models. GM's crossovers are all bigger than the models they compete with -- the Equinox, for instance, is marketed as GM's competitor to a RAV4 or CR-V but is longer than the Edge, so I list it in both the compact and midsize classes.

 

The cut-off has to be somewhere, and I don't want it low enough that more than a handful of vehicles that compete against the Honda Pilot (190 inches) in the midsize class are also taking up space on the full-size list. The Explorer is close to the cutoff, not it's not so gargantuan as to not fit in the midsize class.

 

I think that you probably should classify vehicles based on what their competitive set is, not entirely on size. While the Equinox is larger that most compact CUV/SUVs, it is still the class it most directly fits in - you never see an automotive comparison test between an Equinox and an Explorer for instance because they really aren't in the same class. And while the Equinox maybe longer than the Edge, that Edge is much wider. Also while the Traverse is longer/larger that most of its peers, it still is always compared to the Explorer, Highlander, Pilot, CX9, Durango, etc - you never see an automotive comparison test between the Traverse and the Expedition or the like because they really aren't in the same class. Another example would be the Accord, it technically is a fullsize sedan but people don't compare to the Charger, Taurus, and Impala. Simply put you put too much merit on the size of a vehicle when determining its class, you need to look at what a vehicles competitive set is.

[DC Car Examiner]

I think that you probably should classify vehicles based on what their competitive set is, not entirely on size. While the Equinox is larger that most compact CUV/SUVs, it is still the class it most directly fits in - you never see an automotive comparison test between an Equinox and an Explorer for instance because they really aren't in the same class. And while the Equinox maybe longer than the Edge, that Edge is much wider. Also while the Traverse is longer/larger that most of its peers, it still is always compared to the Explorer, Highlander, Pilot, CX9, Durango, etc - you never see an automotive comparison test between the Traverse and the Expedition or the like because they really aren't in the same class. Another example would be the Accord, it technically is a fullsize sedan but people don't compare to the Charger, Taurus, and Impala. Simply put you put too much merit on the size of a vehicle when determining its class, you need to look at what a vehicles competitive set is.

 

I do both size and market position. When it's not clear-cut, cars appear in multiple lists. If I were to go only based on which cars I decided were competitors, don't you think there would be even more criticisms?

 

Besides, the V6 Equinox has been compared to the Edge, for instance, and the Traverse in its extra size compared to a Pilot or Explorer is more of an alternative to one of the traditional V8 monsters.

[stpatrick90]

I do both size and market position. When it's not clear-cut, cars appear in multiple lists. If I were to go only based on which cars I decided were competitors, don't you think there would be even more criticisms?

 

Besides, the V6 Equinox has been compared to the Edge, for instance, and the Traverse in its extra size compared to a Pilot or Explorer is more of an alternative to one of the traditional V8 monsters.

 

No I think there would be less criticism if it were done by market position as that is the traditionally accepted way. If you were consistent then the Accord would technically be the number one selling fullsize sedan. What I dislike is your indecisiveness in classifying cars along traditional lines, your methods are wishy-washy at best. Also none of the major publications have compared an Equinox and Edge, a simple google search shows only the Car Connection has done so and they are hardly an automotive authority. I am not saying that the vehicles can't be alternatives or compared to vehicles in other classes. I simply don't understand your apprehension to prescribe to generally accepted automotive norms.

Edited January 6, 2012 by stpatrick90

[BlackHorse]

Guess what Blackhorse.....I did have a Corolla once as a company car for about 6 months. I hated it. Sure, it was trouble free, and it got good fuel mileage as you could tell by driving it was a real lightweight. That was the end to the likes. Never could get comfortable in that vehicle and hated it every bit as much as Cavalier with its cheap front seats and back seats that were glorified flat boards. I remember the ergonomics on the Corolla being annoying and it feeling like a tin can. Cavalier and Corolla were the two worst company cars I got stuck with. Best were Taurus with DOHC 24 valve V6, Focus, Contour with V6, and Lumina with V6. The last 7 years I had a Taurus just like my daily driver and loved it. I'd have to lose my pension and be destroyed by Wall Street to go back to a tin can like the Corolla or Cavalier. The days of driving cars like that are thankfully long gone. I'm not nostalgic for the cars of old.

 

 

:hysterical:

 

 

The Focus, Contour and Lumina were absolutely horrible cars. You want to talk to me about cheap and then say that the Focus, Contour and Lumina were, . . .. what was the word? Best? :hysterical:

 

 

Those were garbage cars. Oh that was truly funny.

Ok FordBuyer, we really are done trying to have any rational discussion. Clearly your definition for what is best and worst about cars has nothing to do with the actual car. So long as it's sold by a domestic car company you'll say that its the best and if its an import company it's cheap and you'll say that you hate it. Zero objectivity. You have a nice life. The Lumina? LMAO wow

 

 

PS 2012 Toyota Corolla curb weight 2800 pounds

2012 Ford Focus sedan curb weight 2900 pounds --- oh my gosh 100 pounds lighter

 

yeah, zero objectivity.

Edited January 6, 2012 by BlackHorse

[NickF1011]

:hysterical:

 

 

The Focus, Contour and Lumina were absolutely horrible cars. You want to talk to me about cheap and then say that the Focus, Contour and Lumina were, . . .. what was the word? Best? :hysterical:

 

 

Those were garbage cars. Oh that was truly funny.

Ok FordBuyer, we really are done trying to have any reational discussion. Clearly your definition for what is best and worst about cars has nothing to do with the actual car. So long as it's sold by a domestic car company you'll say that its the best and if its an import company it's cheap and you'll say that you hate it. Zero objectivity. You have a nice life. The Lumina? LMAO wow

 

His love for all things domestic is no less irrational than your hatred for all Focuses, despite the issues with yours mostly having been resolved on all of them being sold now. :shrug:

[BlackHorse]

His love for all things domestic is no less irrational than your hatred for all Focuses, despite the issues with yours mostly having been resolved on all of them being sold now. :shrug:

 

Do me a favor Nick, go back a read what I had to say about the Fusion. I'm going to bet you won't quote it either. When I dislike a car, its for a valid reason, not just because it's made by a certain company. A car is either a good car or its not.

[NickF1011]

Do me a favor Nick, go back a read what I had to say about the Fusion. I'm going to bet you won't quote it either. When I dislike a car, its for a valid reason, not just because it's made by a certain company. A car is either a good car or its not.

 

Do me a favor Blackhorse, go back and read what I just posted. I'm going to bet you won't bother. When I posted, I didn't say you said anything bad about any Fords other than the Focus.

[stpatrick90]

:hysterical:

 

 

The Focus, Contour and Lumina were absolutely horrible cars. You want to talk to me about cheap and then say that the Focus, Contour and Lumina were, . . .. what was the word? Best? :hysterical:

 

 

Those were garbage cars. Oh that was truly funny.

Ok FordBuyer, we really are done trying to have any rational discussion. Clearly your definition for what is best and worst about cars has nothing to do with the actual car. So long as it's sold by a domestic car company you'll say that its the best and if its an import company it's cheap and you'll say that you hate it. Zero objectivity. You have a nice life. The Lumina? LMAO wow

 

 

PS 2012 Toyota Corolla curb weight 2800 pounds

2012 Ford Focus sedan curb weight 2900 pounds --- oh my gosh 100 pounds lighter

 

yeah, zero objectivity.

 

He was saying those cars were better relative to the Cavalier and Corolla he had and I think that speaks volumes to the terribleness of those two cars. He can't help it that the company provided many less than stellar cars and just so happens that out of all of them the Cavalier and Corolla were the worse. The Corolla might be reliable but that is the only enduring quality it has. Why would anyone ever buy a Corolla is beyond me, the compact class is full of cars that are better.

[BlackHorse]

Do me a favor Blackhorse, go back and read what I just posted. I'm going to bet you won't bother. When I posted, I didn't say you said anything bad about any Fords other than the Focus.

 

Which doesn't make it "irrational" genius. It just makes the Focus a bad car.

[BlackHorse]

He was saying those cars were better relative to the Cavalier and Corolla he had and I think that speaks volumes to the terribleness of those two cars. He can't help it that the company provided many less than stellar cars and just so happens that out of all of them the Cavalier and Corolla were the worse. The Corolla might be reliable but that is the only enduring quality it has. Why would anyone ever buy a Corolla is beyond me, the compact class is full of cars that are better.

 

 

Anyone that tells me the Toyota Corolla was / is cheap and then tries to hold up the previous gen Focus as better is a joke to me. Just as that car was a joke. The Lumina was no better. It was just big and cheap.

[Deanh]

Which doesn't make it "irrational" genius. It just makes the Focus a bad car.

um, no its not...some service depts suck though.......... :shades:

[Deanh]

Anyone that tells me the Toyota Corolla was / is cheap and then tries to hold up the previous gen Focus as better is a joke to me. Just as that car was a joke. The Lumina was no better. It was just big and cheap.

actually Blackhorse, i would say previous gen focus owners would lobby against that sweeping statement and dare I say it, it was / is every bit as good as the corolla.....I wouldnt say either is better per say than the other, they BOTH perform to their "appliance " moniker extremely well...

[BlackHorse]

um, no its not...some service depts suck though.......... :shades:

 

 

There are guys that have brand new 2012 Focus' that were assembled as recently as November and December that are still having issues. I understand that you guys are Ford fans and you're going to put the spin on it and try to pretend that its not happening. It is.

 

Now we can go back and forth about it for days but frankly I have better things to do. You guys have a nice life.

[stpatrick90]

Anyone that tells me the Toyota Corolla was / is cheap and then tries to hold up the previous gen Focus as better is a joke to me. Just as that car was a joke. The Lumina was no better. It was just big and cheap.

 

The Corollas was and is cheap. I maintain that the Corolla is the worse car in its class, that isn't to say it is a bad car but rather that it doesn't have any endearing qualities that make it stand out.

[stpatrick90]

There are guys that have brand new 2012 Focus' that were assembled as recently as November and December that are still having issues. I understand that you guys are Ford fans and you're going to put the spin on it and try to pretend that its not happening. It is.

 

Now we can go back and forth about it for days but frankly I have better things to do. You guys have a nice life.

 

I direct you to this link. No one says it isn't happening. I mean the fact that Ford has issued how many reflashes is evidence in itself that there was a problem that needed remedying.

My link

[Deanh]

There are guys that have brand new 2012 Focus' that were assembled as recently as November and December that are still having issues. I understand that you guys are Ford fans and you're going to put the spin on it and try to pretend that its not happening. It is.

 

Now we can go back and forth about it for days but frankly I have better things to do. You guys have a nice life.

that wasnt a personal attack Blackhorse.....I still walk through our service drive daily and rarely see focii, not denying there are some with "issues" perhaps, but they are but a small % and in all sincerity a lot can be traced to transmission "unfamiliarity" for sure....I liken it to SYNC....sucks until you come to grips with its idioSYNCracies....h, and lifes pretty darn good, thanks.....

Edited January 6, 2012 by Deanh

[FordBuyer]

He was saying those cars were better relative to the Cavalier and Corolla he had and I think that speaks volumes to the terribleness of those two cars. He can't help it that the company provided many less than stellar cars and just so happens that out of all of them the Cavalier and Corolla were the worse. The Corolla might be reliable but that is the only enduring quality it has. Why would anyone ever buy a Corolla is beyond me, the compact class is full of cars that are better.

 

You are correct...I didn't say the Lumina and Focus were great cars, only better than the Cavalier and Corolla. I had a 2005 Focus SE for a time and actually liked it. I didn't like everything about it, but I didn't find it annoying. As for the others, a bigger vehicle with V6 is always better than an inline 4 that is smaller in my book. The 2005 Focus IMO was the best of the smaller cars I drove. I also once had a Corolla as a rental car back in 2001 or so and hated it. It could be argued that the Corolla has a better power train than the Focus I drove, but I felt more comfortable in Focus than Corolla. I didn't feel cramped at all and enjoyed the ergonomics better. I also drove a couple Geo Prisms that are essentially Corollas built at NUMMI also, and they weren't favorites either. Same cramped feeling with annoying ergonomics. Believe it or not, I actually like the Toyota Matrix as I'm a sucker for good packaging as in extra room.

[DC Car Examiner]

No I think there would be less criticism if it were done by market position as that is the traditionally accepted way. If you were consistent then the Accord would technically be the number one selling fullsize sedan. What I dislike is your indecisiveness in classifying cars along traditional lines, your methods are wishy-washy at best. Also none of the major publications have compared an Equinox and Edge, a simple google search shows only the Car Connection has done so and they are hardly an automotive authority. I am not saying that the vehicles can't be alternatives or compared to vehicles in other classes. I simply don't understand your apprehension to prescribe to generally accepted automotive norms.

 

GM, for one, compares the Equinox/Terrain to both compact and midsize SUVs:

http://www.gmc.com/tools/comparator/compareVehicle.do?pvc=6200&snType=model&year=2012

 

If that link doesn't work, it's Terrain vs. Santa Fe, Edge and Murano. The Chevy site used to list traditional small SUVs for the 4-cylinder Equinox and traditional midsizes (including Edge) with the V6, but I can't get it to load V6s now.

 

The Accord is borderline, like the Explorer: bigger than most cars in its class, but not past the cutoff of oh-so-big. Those GM cars are over the edge to straddle two classes.

 

 

I am making a number of classification changes starting in the new year, and have been weighing whether it's possible to create a second SUV class between compact and full-size. Under this arrangement it would be:

 

Compact: Escape, CR-V, etc.

Midsize: Edge, Grand Cherokee, etc.

Large crossover: Explorer, Traverse, etc.

Large SUV: Expedition, Tahoe, etc.

 

There would still be overlap, of course, probably even more than before, but it would reduce the size difference between the biggest and smallest vehicles listed in the same class.

Edited January 6, 2012 by DC Car Examiner

[stpatrick90]

GM, for one, compares the Equinox/Terrain to both compact and midsize SUVs:

http://www.gmc.com/t...model&year=2012

 

If that link doesn't work, it's Terrain vs. Santa Fe, Edge and Murano. The Chevy site used to list traditional small SUVs for the 4-cylinder Equinox and traditional midsizes (including Edge) with the V6, but I can't get it to load V6s now.

 

The Accord is borderline, like the Explorer: bigger than most cars in its class, but not past the cutoff of oh-so-big. Those GM cars are over the edge to straddle two classes.

 

Acadia

Traverse

 

Equinox

 

I am sorry but the Chevrolet website compares the Traverse and Equinox to their respective peers. Funny that they would compare the Terrain to a different set of vehicles than the Equinox seeing as they are essentially the same car. The Equinox is simple not a peer to the Edge and no automotive publications pretend they are. And all the same GM themselves compares the Traverse/Acadia to their peers which are the Pilot/Highlander/Explorer/etc.

 

 

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept. You should compare sales figures for vehicles relative to their peers. The fact of the matter is that the Traverse competes with the Pilot/Highlander/Explorer/etc and should be compared to their sales. The fact of the matter is that the Equinox competes with the CRV/Rav4/Escape/etc and should be compared to their sales. End of story.