Sign in to follow this  
Variance

C&D Comparison: Aura 4th out 6

41 posts in this topic

Good for the Optima. Like anyone but Enterprise cares.

And yay for the AURA. And, guys, this is the XE everyone makes fun of!

Also, I have an issue with the 'Gotta Have It' factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was really only 9 points off from first place, as the "Gotta-have it" factor is totally BS, especially how they rated the Accord the most "gotta-have" when it is the oldest vehicle. I also don't see the point of Fun-to-drive, because that's just based on scores from handling and powertrain, and is nothing they didn't already evaluate. Basically, that's just giving more points to cars that handle and accelerate better, when they already awarded points for that. So, I guess you could say it was really 5 points away from 1st place.

I think the Malibu may be able to take first place, but there will be a new Accord then, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Aura gets the highest marks for exterior styling and acceleration and ties for best performance. Not a bad showing at all, but it also demonstrates what a competent vehicle the Accord remains in its final year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit worrying that the Kia beat the Aura in fit and finish... And I also fear that the new Accord will be unbelievably good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm eager to read the whole article to read what they said about the Aura.

Result reminds me of Edmunds comparo back in 1998 of the Intrigue vs Camry, Accord etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are forgetting the most important part of this review... the fact that the Sebring sucks ass... :pbjtime: :pbjtime:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL @ the new Camry for placing below the Aura. Not to denounce the Aura, but the Camry was once the rule and the exception. Congrats to KIA for building a competent sedan. Too bad I can't look past the stubby Lucerne ripoff styling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are forgetting the most important part of this review... the fact that the Sebring sucks ass... :pbjtime: :pbjtime:

We knew that anyway. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this was not the top of the line versions and the fusion was missing. Most v6's were missing. No Galant Ralliart. No Legacy.

in other words, this comparo sucks ass. Pretty worth less comparo. Where Kia ended up pretty much says all. The KIa would have been last if this were v6's.

Edited by regfootball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this was not the top of the line versions and the fusion was missing. Most v6's were missing. No Galant Ralliart. No Legacy.

in other words, this comparo sucks ass. Pretty worth less comparo. Where Kia ended up pretty much says all. The KIa would have been last if this were v6's.

This was a comparison of entry-level family sedans, and these examples were probably pretty close to the bulk of the sales in the segment in terms of price. I don't know why the Fusion wasn't included though. I'm sure they'll do a sport model test in the future, but I seem to recall they did one not too long ago and I doubt there are many new entries. Maybe when the Aura RL comes out they'll do a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Accord and AURA were 6's.

I seriously doubt the Accord was a 6 or it would have aced the acceleration test and not the fuel economy one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations to the Aura, but I really feel that it should have at LEAST placed second. It's undoubtedly the best looking automobile there, and exceptionally competent.

Jeers to Chrysler for making such a blah and busy car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt the Accord was a 6 or it would have aced the acceleration test and not the fuel economy one.

The Accord SE is the V6 at 4 cylinder pricing, its Special Edition new for this year, if you go to hondacars.com and build an Accord it only says SE V6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Accord SE is the V6 at 4 cylinder pricing, its Special Edition new for this year, if you go to hondacars.com and build an Accord it only says SE V6

There is a Special Edition Accord with the I4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Accord SE is the V6 at 4 cylinder pricing, its Special Edition new for this year, if you go to hondacars.com and build an Accord it only says SE V6

so honda blew Csere and handed over a big check to stage another 'comparo' that Honda easily won..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised at the Camry and Kia's position. Seems like the Camry took the most hits for being so numb to drive. Toyota must be targeting the elderly :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the placement in this comparo is a little dissapointing, I'm not sure how anyone is too surprised at the Aura's finish. It's still an updated epsilon (3+ model years old) and this chassis, no matter what the application (Malibu thru 9-3) has never been an 'award' winner. Competant. but not class leading in any of the categories it competed in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where's the rest of the comparo? That sucks Aura placed near-last-even though the XE model has an engine that should never have been discussed, let alone brought to production, its still a fine car and absolutely no other mid-size car beats it in terms of value for the dollar-I hope the Aura XE continues like this, instead of GM someday screwing up and decontenting it like they did with the Malibu/Classic. The new Sebring is a horrible car, Camry is okay but nothing groundbreaking, Optima-185hp out of its V-6, lol? The Pontiac Grand Am had that in 1999! What a joke! And its styling is beyond unoriginal, so much that it makes the current Malibu look inspired. Why can't Car and Driver ever do actually comparative tests? Like, you know, matching up the Aura XR V-6 with the Accord EX V-6 and Camry XLE V-6, and not the 4-cylinder volume/base models vs. the mid-level/top V-6?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the placement in this comparo is a little dissapointing, I'm not sure how anyone is too surprised at the Aura's finish. It's still an updated epsilon (3+ model years old) and this chassis, no matter what the application (Malibu thru 9-3) has never been an 'award' winner. Competant. but not class leading in any of the categories it competed in.

I think the concensus is similar to my view that the subjective categories gave the mediocre (or below?) Optima far too much credit. Who can honestly look at the Kia and give it a 'Gotta Have It' factor above anything else there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the concensus is similar to my view that the subjective categories gave the mediocre (or below?) Optima far too much credit. Who can honestly look at the Kia and give it a 'Gotta Have It' factor above anything else there?

Can't. But I think that's more of a commenatary on where Kia was & how big an advance the Optima is, for them.

I'm a huge fan of the Aura and believe the best idea to come from GM in a while was the financial commitment to Saturn, but I'm much more excited about the stuff coming down the pike, rather than today's Aura...the Astra, Outlook & possible Zeta derivative sound better than anything before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this