TSX69

Sebring vs Accord vs Altima vs Optima vs Aura vs Camry

The name Camry comes from the Japanese word kanmuri, which means “crown.” In 1983, the Toyota Camry replaced the Toyota Corona, which in Spanish also means “crown.” And Toyota currently makes a sedan for Japan called the Crown Royal, which is often seen disappearing into garages with the Mazda Carol MeLady.

Those crazy Japanese.

We’ve placed our own kanmuri on the Honda Accord more times than you can shake a sutekki at. We also just named the Accord a 10Best Car for 2007. We hear it’s in contention for Car of the Universe.

Just to be extra double certain, however, we’ve acquired five of the Accord’s newly introduced or redesigned competitors and gone out to lay a little rubber. A very little, in fact, as we’ve gone for four-cylinder cars with automatic transmissions, which are also the overwhelming people’s choice — 84 percent of Camrys, truth be known, came with four-bangers in ’05. The new Saturn Aura moves only via V-6 and is the exception here.

Camrys and Honda Accords may not be the reds and greens in your personal M&M’s bag, but the sales arithmetic makes them important. Of the 7,961,509 new passenger cars sold in North America in 2005, the Camry, the Accord, and the Nissan Altima ranked one, two, and four. Mid-sizers are the bread, butter, rice, and kimchi of this business.

The fresh faces include Chrysler’s revamped ’07 Sebring, slightly shorter and taller than before — remember when new Chryslers were longer and lower? — and baked in a medley of Chrysler Crossfire and 300C styling cues on a platform that shares Dodge Caliber components. Among other achievements, Chrysler boasts front seats raised 2.5 inches, great for ex-SUV owners still in rehab. Just $18,995 buys you in, but our Touring model started at $20,195 and finished at $22,785 after a doodad pile-on, including a power-equipment pack, a sunroof, alloy wheels, and Sirius satellite radio.

At $22,220, the frill-free ’07 Honda Accord SE is almost the cheapest slushbox Accord available. Sink much cheaper, and you’re into stick shifts, rear drum brakes, and steel wheels. It’s also the only car to report with a double-control-arm front suspension, fancy suspenders in a group full of struts.

The ambassador from Kia’s retooled Optima line is this $19,995 EX. It’s one rung higher than the base LX and brings with it, for that price, alloy wheels, a power driver’s seat, and a six-CD changer. Anti-lock brakes are an option here, although standard on all the others except the Altima. At least Kia from Korea keeps the prices cheap: $300 for ABS, and another $300 for stability control. At $1300, the Leather package, including heated seats and power-adjustable pedals, represents the longest dollars, followed by the $800 sunroof.

Familial Four-doors
Introduction
Sixth Place: Chrysler Sebring Touring
Fifth Place: Toyota Camry LE
Fourth Place: Saturn Aura XE
Third Place: Kia Optima EX
Second Place: Nissan Altima 2.5S
First Place: Honda Accord SE

A redesigned Altima goes for the throat with styling from the ionosphere and an accent on sport. It’s smaller than before, with almost an inch trimmed from the wheelbase and 1.7 inches from the length. The long-stroke 2.5-liter four makes 175 horsepower — only the 224-hp V-6 Aura outguns it — and turns a belt-driven continuously variable transmission.

Speaking of the Aura, the new Saturn is all Epsilon, meaning its parts come from the same buffet table as several GM vehicles, including the Pontiac G6, Opel Vectra, and Saab 9-3. This one is an XE, meaning it runs the 3.5-liter “high value” pushrod V-6 (XRs have the 252-hp, 3.6-liter “high feature” dual-overhead-cam V-6). The base price is $20,595, but leather, a sunroof, and various power accessories cranked up our Aura’s glow to $24,020.

Watch as we separate the roadworthy from the rental queens.


Sixth Place: Familial four-doors: 2007 Chrysler Sebring Touring

Highs: Adventurous styling, rides on marshmallows, easy-fold rear seats.
Lows: Slushy controls, a sitting-in-a-hole feeling, slow-mo acceleration.
The Verdict: Chrysler pitches one to the Buick generation.

Did Chrysler put AARP on its design team? Everyone who climbed aboard the Sebring felt it was aimed at buyers for whom Buicks have become too racy.

Life slows down in your golden years. So does life in the Sebring, last of the group through the 60-mph trap at 9.5 seconds, despite a midpack power-to-weight ratio. The Sebring was slowest around the skidpad at 0.77 g and tied the Accord for longest stops, at 194 feet. The 2.4-liter four (basically, the same joint-venture engine is in the Kia Optima) does its chores to a distant drone, and the Sebring is quiet, soft, and creamy in a highway-straight line. It’s also soggy, jiggly, and tipsy in corners as drivers attempt to aim it with steering set on extra-numb. The notebook pen scratched with venom not seen since the last New Yorker.

A wide chrome-encrusted grille and spiffy chrome wheels seem tailored to disenfranchised Imperial buyers. The interior caused controversy: Some gave the multitextured art deco dash with its silver-tone accents and white-face gauges points for originality; others thought it looked “constructed from the parts of five different cars to look like the lobby of the Chrysler Building.”

Despite the tall roof and jacked-up driver’s seat, many felt as if they were sitting in a hole. Blame the bulky dash and a high beltline that pinches the side glass. It’s styling voodoo — done to applause on the Chrysler 300, but less effective on the Sebring.

Tied — again with the Accord — for smallest trunk, the Sebring at least makes rear-seat folding the breeziest, with simple pull rings on the seatbacks. The back bench is less pleasing to sit in, offering a flat, formless cushion that lacks support. Chrysler skimped on the cubby space and what-not pockets but won the coveted Coolest Map Light award. Push the lamp barrel to turn on the blue-tinted light and aim it with two-axis aiming rings. Pairs shine in both the front and back.

However, only riders above the posted age limit should get in line for this tranquilized cruiser.


Fifth Place: Familial four-doors: 2007 Toyota Camry LE

Highs: A smooth engine, scads of storage cubbies, a well-utilized interior.
Lows: Languid handling, a few loose trim bits, the curse of blandness.
The Verdict: Still the crown prince of mainstream.

No question, mainstream sells, and compared with the Camry, hotcakes sell like square tires. But in seeking the widest possible audience, this new blunt-nose Camry loses ours. Its steering wheel passed through our hands without leaving an impression. Its handling — rolling, floppy, understeer always ready to douse any rising red mist — elicits no emotion other than jejune boredom. It is A to B boiled down to ones and zeros.

Toyota sedans have never throbbed with driving passion, but at least they could boast of unimpeachable quality. This Camry was impeachable. A few trim pieces hung loose. Some dash panels didn’t match up. The rear-seat armrest cup holder fell out with only the slightest persuasion, leaving behind a ragged hole in the fabric. If fit and finish ceases to be Toyota’s obsession, what will define the company’s products? We shudder to imagine.

Emotion is less important to a Camry owner than efficiency. Mapped out with logical control placement and readable displays, the cockpit offers ample acreage for four adults in comfortable if not overly supportive seats (as in all these cars, using all five of the Camry’s seatbelts requires a squeeze). The Camry tied with the Accord and Altima for best observed fuel economy at 24 mpg. With electronic brake assist, it set the shortest braking distance at 174 feet.

In almost every other performance measure the Camry was solidly midpack as its 158-hp, 2.4-liter four and busy five-speed automatic conducted business quietly and without vibration. The Camry did ace the cubby contest (the Saturn finished last with micro-cubbies too small for a notebook). With a supersized glove box, two generous bins in the center console, a hide-away garage below the A/C controls, plus-size door pockets, a slide-out change tray, and a pair of little “knee” cubbies on either side of the center console ready to accept your junk, clutter away!

If the Camry remains dull, perhaps it’s because nobody demands it be otherwise. We’re taking our opportunity here and now.


Fourth Place: Familial four-doors: 2007 Saturn Aura XE

Highs: Styling à la mode, V-6 torque, happy in curves.
Lows: Dime-store interior, hand-dirtying trunk, poorest mileage.
The Verdict: Laudable, but let down by details.

It’s not an official category, but the Aura would get 10 points out of 10 for being a perfect “almost.”

Saturn got it almost right. A clean, monochrome body with clipped overhangs and a muscular tire-to-body ratio has a believable Made in Europe stamp. The pushrod V-6, invigorated with variable cam timing, supplies extra punch (and some torque steer) for four-cylinder money, and the chassis ate every corner fed to it with well-tuned body control and fog-free steering. Although slower than the Altima, the Aura was still 7.7 seconds lickety-split to 60 mph despite a 3557-pound curb weight, tops in this test. A firm brake pedal elicited the second-shortest stop (181 feet), and a tight suspension and good rubber tied it with the go-go Altima for best skidpad (0.82 g).

Euro-skinny — at 70.3 inches wide, it’s the narrowest of the group — the Aura is a tuna can with five aboard but airy and loose-fitting with four. Drivers did complain of an expansive center console that invades the footwell — bumped right knees are the result—but generally approved of the interior styling.

As we said, almost right, until the sponges in GM’s Cheapness Department got to the project. Although styled well, the interior is executed with hard plastic, glaring panel gaps, ragged mold lines, and the scrape-scraping of a gear selector that slides through its range like a screwdriver through sand. Have GM’s cheapness freaks ever sat in an Accord?

Dim thinking lies elsewhere. Pop the Aura’s trunk — key fob or door button — and it jerks open just a few millimeters, forcing you to wedge your formerly clean fingers between trunk and bumper to lift it. (The Nissan is the trunk-pop champ; its trunk springs vertically. The Accord’s, the Camry’s, and the Sebring’s rise partway up.) The folding rear seats have no trunk release at all, just rings on the parcel shelf, and don’t fold much beyond 45 degrees. And there’s no trunk handle or ledge to grab for closing, so you’ll know an Aura by all the handprints on its ass. And the boot prints from its competitors.

Looking more Citroën than Chevy, the Saturn Aura breaks some GM patterns while thoroughly reinforcing others.


Third Place: Familial four-doors: 2007 Kia Optima EX

Highs: Tops the Toyota’s fit and finish, quiet inside, feature-packed for the price.
Lows: Spongy suspension, styling has high yawn factor.
The Verdict: Surprisingly delightful for fewer dollars.

Kia’s retooled Optima strives to be more Camry than a Camry. John Doe looks? Check. Joe Average performance? Check. A relentlessly detailed and fastidiously executed interior that shames pricier cars here? Watch out, Kia has caught Toyota (and others) napping.

The Camry interior styling and fit and finish get eights, even from the East German judge, but the Kia’s pull solid nines. There’s nothing cheap or flimsy to be seen in the Optima. Tasteful titanium-hued accent plates lock together with the rest of the interior trim with aircraft accuracy, most of the seams carefully lap-jointed to hide fissures. All drawers and hand grips slide with spring-damped motion. It’s a soft-touch, low-gloss, fine-grained home run. It’s how Toyota does it when it has its game face on.

At $22,695, this Optima came stuffed with amenities large and small. Not only do you get a six-CD changer but also a cassette player. Not only does the steering tilt, but it telescopes as well.

Softer suspension settings mean the Optima squirms around in corners more than the Accord and Altima but with a notch more body control and steering precision than the Camry. The brakes were criticized for mushiness under pressure. As in the Sebring, the 2.4-liter GEMA engine (for Global Engine Manufacturing Alliance, of which DaimlerChrysler, Mitsubishi, and Hyundai/Kia all partake) mostly hums quietly to itself and winds to high revs without major vibes. Curb weights are about equal, Sebring to Optima, but the quarter-mile time favors the Kia and its five-speed auto, one ratio more than the Sebring. As we said, this car is stuffed with stuff.

Stuffed with people, the Kia proved spacious and well planned. Posteriors in front sink into buckets with a cushy top layer akin to a pillow-top mattress. Side support is wanting, but few complaints were noted during long freeway slogs. The rear bench is high off the floor, keeping knees at a happy angle while toes have room to park under the front seats.

And you thought Japan was worried about North Korea.


Second Place: Familial four-doors: 2007 Nissan Altima 2.5S

Highs: Z-wannabe handling, quickest to 60, Mach 2 sheetmetal.
Lows: Silly start button, engine thrash, some cheapness inside.
The Verdict: A pole setter that needs polish.

If Kia wants to build the über-Camry, Nissan offers the un-Camry. The Altima is windswept, crouched, and ready to rumble. Its sprint times crushed the competition, the long-stroke 2.5-liter four and CVT pushing the pointy snout through 60 mph in 7.4 seconds. The Altima was also snappiest through the lane change by 1.3 mph. It would have set better braking distances, too, had our $20,915 stripper been optioned with anti-lock brakes ($300).

The logbook waxed eloquent on the ballistic styling, the grip from the Altima’s sticky Continental tires, its well-weighted and communicative steering, and its right-now turn response. A few even declared Nissan’s rack superior to the Accord’s.

Nissan wants the driver to feel sporty as well as be sporty. The dash layout with its trio of center vents is pure 350Z jive. Synthetic mouse fur — what Lamborghini owners call Alcantara — wraps the center and door armrests. A keyless start/kill button gets the engine turning and stopping, with large numbers in the orange-ringed gauges reporting its progress.

The Altima is always straining at the bit, a jumpy throttle making for unintended tire chirps. The 2.5 makes power all right, but not aural pleasure, particularly closer to redline, where the noise turns harsh. During on-ramp accelerations, the CVT holds the revs high so you have time to soak up the car’s brake-horsepower bronchitis.

By pruning the wheelbase 0.9 inch to 109.3 (it’s still tied with the Camry for second longest), Nissan nibbled away at rear-seat room. Scores on the back-seat test, once a walk for the Altima, suffered slightly as knees bumped into the seatbacks. Conversely, the trunk is supertanker class at 18 cubic feet, largest here.

The Altima is ultimately cut down to second by small slip-ups. The interior suffered a wind whistle and has shades of cheapness. Ours was spray-bombed in a depressing primer gray. The start/kill button offs the engine and the electrics all at once — and that NPR interview you were following.

Push again to reboot the radio, and yet again to uncork the un-Camry.


First Place: Familial four-doors: 2007 Honda Accord SE

Highs: Heavenly steering, engine sings with gusto, no wasted space inside.
Lows: Anonymous looks, fussy rear-seatback latch, dated interior.
The Verdict: The everyman’s car that bonds with enthusiasts.

Honda has the formula so nailed that there can be no place for this car but up front. After finding faults in all the others — some picayune, we’ll grant you — the Accord simply elicits one big “Ahhhhh.”

First off, it drives as if made out of titanium and carbon fiber, with a center of gravity just below the catalytic converter. The delicate steering wheel, dimple-patterned for grip, is light and precise, the body motions clipped, the turn-in sharp, the chassis rigid. Even the doors feel featherweight as they swing on super-lubricated hinges. A fingertip touch is enough to latch them.

Second, the powertrain is marvelous. It has torque, it is hot-blooded for revs, the vibrations stay out of the cabin, and the transmission is never in the wrong gear (even though it lacks a manumatic function). At redline the exhaust snarls, a lively contrast to the other cars, which have nothing to offer but a rising crescendo of whirs, hums, and buzzes. Would you buy a sedan from the same guys who engineered the NSX? Of course you would.

Third, the Accord is built in the size of JR (just right). Dimensionally, it’s midpack — at 3177 pounds it’s not even the lightest car here, nor does it have the most-even weight distribution. It feels small on the road, as if the front bumper were just beyond your toenails. But a crew of four enjoys ample space and comfort, especially as all the seats are sculpted with body pockets. The word “flawless” was used to describe the driving position. A low dash and cut-down window sills mean lots of glass to see out of.

Other words were used for the coal-colored interior and its carbon-fiber trim (faux, of course): “functional,” “a bit dark,” and “uninspired.” With the other cars dazzling us with their fresh designs, the new-in-2003 Accord looks plain inside and out. That, and an inconvenient rear-seatback release requiring one to stoop in and insert the key into the parcel shelf (at least it is theft resistant), were the only complaints mustered.

No question Honda still wears the kanmuri in this class.

chungkopi

ouch, what da hell happened to camry?

kia at #3 is a huge surprise.

ostrich

LOL! The Kia beats the Camry!!!

I think it's about time that Toyota stops building such offensively bland cars. No character. No emotion. No style.

Oh, I hear you all telling me that the millions of people who bought one wanted it like that. Did they really want it like that? Or did Toyota build such a bland car and sold it so well that made everyone thought that they wanted blandness?

charliemike

I'm not sure about the interior but that dirty hand trunk thing is grasping at straws IMO.

CivicEx1998

the majority of people who buys the camry, only cares about reliability. they expect to drive the shit out of it forever. my dad bought the coralla for that same reason. The corolla is a boring car, but i think is quiet reliable. i wouldnt be suprise about the fit and finish of todays toyota. My girls Mazda 3 has 10x better fit,15x more solid frame, 16X better steering (corola handles better though).

fsttyms1

Dead last here but motortrend can place it as Car Of The Year ????

gocubsgo55

can i get an "in your face Toyota"? I am really suprised the Altima lost to the Accord, yet again. I expected the new design to out compete it.

gavriil

The Sebring just came out and it gets the last place while the Accord is ready for a new generation and wins. C+D gives way too much emphasis to how sporty/controlled the ride of a vehicle is on their comparos I believe. However I am sure the Sebring, once again, is nothing to "write home about".

gavriil

That shows how comparos are only as good as the criteria used for those comparos.

chungkopi

agreed 100%.

heyitsme

Just one comment browsing through, the Camry exterior styling is the best among all the cars imo which is a big step. Although I think the interior sucks and thats where it falls behind the curve of even subcompacts.



As far as handling and brakes of the camry, I have to take the review comments. Obviously it now has power, that doesn't make a car but it would have been nice if they tested an SE to make sure of that.

Seeing the Altima in that pic, I wasn't too impressed and had no issue with the Accords 'old' style picking up the win. No doubt the new Accord Sedan will eat this segment based off the new Accord coupe.

heyitsme

Forget Camry, What happened to OPEL vs Kia, GM is screwing up something in translation...This is a serious issue when they are moving towards one group of global cars.

mg7726

wow, the accord on it's last legs still places above all. i can't wait to see the next gen accord!

F23A4

Having driven an 06 Accord V6 6MT recently, I can see why it is still the benchmark. .....and ergonmically, the other 5 hardly compare.

Black Tire

watch out, Korea is going to start leading everything very soon.
Whats scary is that this Accord is so old....everybody is going to get owned when the next gen comes out.

F23A4

Exteriorwise, the Saturn Aura looks pretty sharp. Give it the Accord's interior and I would consider one.

JediMindTricks

is the author of this article trying to be funny? it's got some lame humor to it.

anyways, not surprised to see C&D place the accord 1st. but it's really hard to guage a car based on magazine reviews and rankings.

i wish they would have included the sonata.

charliemike

I think that GM probably changed some things and in the process de-contented teh XE too much. I think that we'll see a slight bump in price soon with corresponding attention to details to make the interior nicer.

cmschmie

I'm not a big fan of the CotY award. I liked C&Ds 10 Best awards better.

Motor Trends award seems to, every year, be "What's new, popular, makes big news etc...?"
i.e. PT Cruiser, Civic, 300, Camry, Prius

Car and Driver's 10 Best can have repeat winners and has different classes.

n3ok318

iTrader: (1)

i'm surprised no hyundai was in there

alphason'sac

Me Too. That's strange. The Korean car companies are really on the move. It could have made this a little more interesting. Not that I am a Hyundai fan, but they are just on fire with their new products.

TMQ

Kia and Hyundai are essentially the same company.

C/D stuff is always nice to read - some humor here and there, some history, never lacks criticism. I hate car "review"s which call every car great.

The camry that I saw in China (below) has a slightly different design but looks better.

Of course, most people don't care about how it drives - road feedback? lane change speed? Nuh, just keep pace with the stop and go traffic.

dom

The Optima is pretty much a Hyundai and if I'm not mistaken a platform mate of the Sonata. I think Hyundai purposely held back the 3.3L V6 to protect the Sonata.

chungkopi

optima and sonata is a completely different cars


anyway, i'm surprised there is no mazda 6 and sonata, but i think this comparo was more about newcomer vs. accord.

dom

You sure?

Black Tire

Agreed. The Car of the Year award/MotorTrend doesn't really represent what the real world likes or thinks is going to be a success. Just what they think is popular.

Car and Driver are more in tune of what the buying public likes or would like in a car.
On car reviewer failed to find any flaws in the current Accord back when C/D was on TV.

chungkopi

"Contrary to popular belief, the 2006.5 Kia Optima is not a restyled Hyundai Sonata. It’s based on a smaller, separate platform – which explains why the Sonata’s 3.3-liter V6 doesn’t fit in the new Optima."


There is one thing shared between these two and it's the 4cyl engine. That exactly where it ends.

dom

Interesting. Seems to be some misinformation going around. I know I read somewhere that they shared a platform and that the 3.3L V6 was withheld from Kia. Kia is also saying they are not the same car but that could be for marketing.

Not saying I don't believe you, I just find it hard to believe that Kia/Hyundai would design an entirely new platform for the Optima when just about every other car they sell is a basically a rebadge of a Hyundai or vice versa. I'm sure the cars are different enough, but still based off the same basic architecture. ie TSX and Accord.

chungkopi

having driven both cars they are both completely different cars to me. i think optima is similar to new elantra. maybe you are confused with a previous optima and sonata?

"A redesigned Optima replaces a basic and uninspiring predecessor. The new model is both longer and wider, and offers more head room. It is also better equipped than the car it has replaced. Both the 162-hp, 2.4-liter four-cylinder and the 185-hp, 2.7-liter, V6 engines are slightly updated. Curtain air bags covering both rows of seats are now standard, but ABS and electronic stability control are optional on the new car. Unlike previous versions, the Optima now shares a platform with the new Elantra, not the Hyundai Sonata."


Why offer a V6 engine in the 2006.5 Kia Optima if it makes just 24 more horsepower and 19 more lb.-ft. of torque than the four-cylinder model?

Kia is focusing on the four-cylinder models, and plans to stock dealerships in an 80/20 blend of fours and V6s. Ian Beavis, Kia’s VP of marketing, says that with fuel prices going the way they are and renewed customer interest in fuel economy, this is the right strategy. Yet, noted Kia’s COO Len Hunt, some customers want a V6 engine no matter what. He says that by offering the old Optima’s improved 2.7-liter V6 as an option, the new Optima provides a good value equation for a V6-powered sedan. When we asked Alex Fedorak, Kia’s director of public relations, why the new Optima didn’t get the powerful new 3.3-liter V6 engine that parent company Hyundai supplies in the Sonata midsize sedan, he explained that contrary to popular belief, the Sonata and the new Optima are on separate platforms, so the corporate 3.3-liter V6 wasn’t a part of the plan.

How different from the Hyundai Sonata is the new 2006.5 Kia Optima?

Looking at the specifications, the Optima is a smaller car than the Sonata. Its wheelbase and overall length are shorter, its track and width are narrower, and its trunk is smaller. The Optima weighs more than 100 pounds less, and offers less headroom, shoulder room, and hip room. Plus, the Kia is down more than 15 cubic feet in overall interior passenger space compared to the Hyundai. However, the Optima is taller than the Sonata, and offers more front leg room for the front passenger while matching the Hyundai in terms of driver leg room.

If the 2006.5 Kia Optima is smaller than the Hyundai Sonata, and the V6 version is substantially less powerful, and they offer the same excellent warranty protection, why should I choose the Kia?

First, the Kia Optima is more pleasing to drive than the Hyundai Sonata, even if the Sonata V6 spanks the Optima V6’s butt in a straight line. The Optima’s suspension, steering, and brakes are near perfection, and since the four-cylinder engines are virtually identical, the Optima’s lower curb weight translates into sprightly performance. Plus, only the Optima pairs a five-speed automatic with the four-cylinder engine; the Sonata has a four-speed unit. Second, the Kia Optima is less expensive than the Hyundai Sonata, though once you add the ABS and stability control systems that come standard on the Hyundai but are optional on the Kia, that value equation suffers erosion, making the remaining price differential easier to swallow for the Hyundai’s larger interior and bigger trunk. Third, the Kia Optima EX is equipped with a stunningly good Infinity sound system. So what’s it gonna be? A powerful V6 and a roomier cabin in the Sonata, or nimble handling, great music, and a lower price with the Optima?

dom

Thanks for clearing that up. But what else was I supposed to think when I find an article that states the 2006.5 (new) Optima shares a platform with the Sonata.

Don't the Spectra and Elantra share platforms as well. I guess the Optima is a on a stretched Elantra/Spectra platform.

charliemike

Is that 2.7 the same one in the Tiburon?

dom

But the 2.7 was revised for the 07 MY I believe so there are some differences vs the 2.7 they've been selling for awhile now.