C&D Comparison: Aura 4th out 6

[Variance]

C&D Comparison: Aura 4th out 6

But really, it isn't that bad for two reasons:

• It was only 12 points off from 1st place.
• It beat the Camry.

[Flybrian]

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.

[Northstar]

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.

[bobo]

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.

[CSpec]

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.

[Drew Dowdell]

I take issue with any of these having a "Gotta have it!" factor above zero... yes, even the Aura.

Ooooo... a beige Accord 4cylinder sedan! I gotta get me one of those!

[pow]

That looks about right. I'd probably have the the AURA above the Optima.

[frogger]

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.

[FAPTurbo]

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

[C.H.U.D.]

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.

[CSpec]

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

We knew that anyway.

[regfootball]

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 December 24, 2006 by regfootball

[Northstar]

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.

[BlkHhr104]

The Accord and AURA were 6's.

[frogger]

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.

[MyerShift]

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.

[BlkHhr104]

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

[Northstar]

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.

[regfootball]

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..?

[BlkHhr104]

Sorry everybody my fault I didn't realize there was a Special Edition I4 because the 6 goes by SE and the 4 goes by Special Edition only didn't realize sorry again

[siegen]

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

[enzl]

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.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

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?

[Flybrian]

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?

[enzl]

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.

[Flybrian]

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 suppose so. And I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but that doesn't belong in a review like that, IMO. It unbalances the scoring and produces false results. It doesn't matter how far you've come; its about how good the car is now. You don't get an 'A' for effort. How many people break out the scoring like we do or even look at that chart? How many just look at the ranking and say, "Kia did better than Saturn."

But I digress and agree that with Saturn, the best is definitely yet to come.

[regfootball]

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?

BECAUSE honda blew Csere and handed him a check.

[regfootball]

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?

because that's the agenda of the magazine writers. force a new brand on the public to make things interesting and new.

[Chicagoland]

Car and Driver pretty much is "Accord Monthly". They "love" the car and should just be like the Mustang magazines that bascially ignore other cars. It is sooo boring to read "all cars must measure to the Accord".

My friend has one and I've droven them, and they are just a nice modern car, not anything to call "vastly superior" [most overused verbage by mag racers] anymore.

C/D is a snooze when they say the same thing every test. "The Accord is butter smooth, everything else is crap"

They looked for any excuse to write off the Aura, "unseen interior parts feel icky". I'm glad it won NACOTY.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Chicagoland

[ponchoman49]

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?

Actually the 1999-2005 grand Am 3400 put out 170 hp in SE trim and 175 with Ram Air in GT's. Lets not forget the Kias V6 is only 2.7 liters which is much smaller than most everything out there. Also it weights less than the G6, Aura. Toyotas 2006 Camry needed 3.0 liters to get 190 hp. The 2.7 is also rated at a fairly thrifty 22/30 mpg. Styling opinions are like assholes, everyones got one. The Kias styling is more original than the new 2008 Malibu which trys so hard to be a Camry or a VW Jetta/Passat that it will get lost in any crowd of sedans. Is the Optima a gotta have car? No way. But neither is any other sedan in this comparo. For my money the Aura XE delivers the best bang for the buch, best styling, price for feature content and it handles quite well for it's weight. Plus I like my cars to not look like dull plain looking slab sided wonders that will have more dings and dents than I have car payments.

[Flybrian]

The Kias styling is more original than the new 2008 Malibu which trys so hard to be a Camry or a VW Jetta/Passat that it will get lost in any crowd of sedans.

There is no question that Korean sedans weigh less than their American counterparts. Riding in one will confirm it. Thin doors, thin dash, tinny construction throughout.

[A Horse With No Name]

Kia build quality is just horrible. They ought to compare two year old cars at some point...I am sure the Kia would place dead last.

Besides, there are other cars in the class that should have been tested...Fusion, Mazda 6, etc.

Chris

[Robert Hall]

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.

The Fusion wasn't included because it's not new....the article stated the theme of the comparisons was how do the new-for-07 models (Aura, Altima, Camry, Kia, Sebring) stack up against the Accord. Hence, no Malibu, Fusion, Stratus, Sonata, etc...

[trinacriabob]

I stopped by the Saturn dealership tonight to look at the Aura. It is attractive and nicely proportioned. I will go back to see it when they are open so I can sit inside. I don't think I'd want one because it didn't possess the "gotta have it" factor for me.

I, too, read the 4 out of 6 ranking. I was expecting 2nd, but no less than 3rd. It's about time they acknowledge the Camry is as bland as the day is long.

This isn't the first time that a Japanese product is eclipsed by GM. When the Olds Intrigue hit the scene is 1998, it nudged out Camry AND Maxima according to Road and Track who tends to be kind of high-brow anyway. Have never driven a Maxima, but, in the late 1990s the Intrigue tracked so much more reassuringly than the Camry...by a noticeable margin.

[trinacriabob]

OK, I went back to Saturn today. I like the "no pressure" approach. I saw the Aura and sat in it. It's nice but I wouldn't buy one. It is in the Malibu/G6 league as opposed to the GP/LaX league. It felt too small. I'm sure it's a wonderful sled, but I decided to cross it off the list.

[regfootball]

went to the autoshow again today. sat in many of the Jap anese cars and several Auras. I like the Aura more and more now. The Aura and Milan really made good impressions on me again today. Even though the Aura is a bit small, it's a very 'intimate' car. And all the people that sat in the Aura with me loved the Aura as well. Many commented on how much GM is improving interiors.

The XR with leather and paddle shifters is a tremendous buy and a great car at around 26k. And the interior is a great single person mid sized sedan.

[yankeeguybd]

went to the autoshow again today. sat in many of the Jap anese cars and several Auras. I like the Aura more and more now. The Aura and Milan really made good impressions on me again today. Even though the Aura is a bit small, it's a very 'intimate' car. And all the people that sat in the Aura with me loved the Aura as well. Many commented on how much GM is improving interiors.

The XR with leather and paddle shifters is a tremendous buy and a great car at around 26k. And the interior is a great single person mid sized sedan.

American cars are closing the "quality-gap" against the Japanese cars. The European car quality has tanked.

One of the best things about the Aura which certainly no comparo would address is that the Aura is built by an American company. I can't fathom giving $25,000 to a foreign corporation.

With GM talking about laying off workers, I'd rather keep my neighbors in Kansas working, rather than people in countries who may wish us ill. South Korea turns over a large chunk of their gross domestic product to that lunatic in North Korea...

[invertigo]

Despite the fact that this comparison comes from C&D, I happen to find it very relevant. I am frequently frustrated with the bulk of reviews of super-cars or $50K+ luxury vehicles when so few buyers can afford such.

There was a letter submitted to MT, I believe, regarding this issue a couple of years back. The letter asked why the magazine didn't review many entry level or "normal" cars. The editors reply stated that the testers didn't want to drive boring cars.

Well, that was when I decided not to renew my subscription that I started in 1989.

It's not that I don't care about expensive cars, its just that I want some reality. If I wanted to look at pictures of a Bugatti or a Maybach I'd just buy one of those damn car calendars.

As to the review, I'm surprised that such a "dated" Accord can still hold the top spot. That this is something of favoritism is pretty obvious. The fact that a Kia can beat a Toyota, well that's pretty amusing.

My mother is currently looking to replace her 1999 Alero, and these cars represent part of the field of candidates. We won't buy a Honda product because of issues we had with their finance company (Beware of American Honda Finance Co.) She has over $800 in GM credit, but there really isn't anything compelling in the under $25K price point. I doubt she can wait the 5-7+ months for the new Malibu, so what is she left with?

I have big issues with the Aura. First off, she can't (for some reason) use her GM credit on a Saturn. Second, while the sticker price on an Aura seems attractive, you cannot negotiate for anything under sticker price (not counting factory rebates), despite the fact that there is $1300-$1800 between the listed invoice and the original sticker price. That, in addition to kick-backs and advertising credits result in a huge profit margin on every sale. I personally have tried to buy a Saturn no less than 3 times (1991,1995 and 1999) and each time I walked away and purchased something else. The second time I had a nasty argument with a salesperson regarding the no-haggle policy and then factory ordered my '96 Cavalier Z24 the same day for less than $400 over invoice.

Anyway sorry for the rant, but I'm just not much of a Saturn fan I guess.

[regfootball]

Despite the fact that this comparison comes from C&D, I happen to find it very relevant. I am frequently frustrated with the bulk of reviews of super-cars or $50K+ luxury vehicles when so few buyers can afford such.

There was a letter submitted to MT, I believe, regarding this issue a couple of years back. The letter asked why the magazine didn't review many entry level or "normal" cars. The editors reply stated that the testers didn't want to drive boring cars.

Well, that was when I decided not to renew my subscription that I started in 1989.

It's not that I don't care about expensive cars, its just that I want some reality. If I wanted to look at pictures of a Bugatti or a Maybach I'd just buy one of those damn car calendars.

As to the review, I'm surprised that such a "dated" Accord can still hold the top spot. That this is something of favoritism is pretty obvious. The fact that a Kia can beat a Toyota, well that's pretty amusing.

My mother is currently looking to replace her 1999 Alero, and these cars represent part of the field of candidates. We won't buy a Honda product because of issues we had with their finance company (Beware of American Honda Finance Co.) She has over $800 in GM credit, but there really isn't anything compelling in the under $25K price point. I doubt she can wait the 5-7+ months for the new Malibu, so what is she left with?

I have big issues with the Aura. First off, she can't (for some reason) use her GM credit on a Saturn. Second, while the sticker price on an Aura seems attractive, you cannot negotiate for anything under sticker price (not counting factory rebates), despite the fact that there is $1300-$1800 between the listed invoice and the original sticker price. That, in addition to kick-backs and advertising credits result in a huge profit margin on every sale. I personally have tried to buy a Saturn no less than 3 times (1991,1995 and 1999) and each time I walked away and purchased something else. The second time I had a nasty argument with a salesperson regarding the no-haggle policy and then factory ordered my '96 Cavalier Z24 the same day for less than $400 over invoice.

Anyway sorry for the rant, but I'm just not much of a Saturn fan I guess.

must be why there is still chevy and why there is saturn, i guess.

[PrimeGTP]

Road & Track, on the other hand, gushed about the Aura XR. R&T Aura Review Car and Driver should do a comparo on the upper trims!

Edited May 1, 2007 by PrimeGTP

[biff]

Never thought I'd be checking out Saturn, but I'm considering an Aura to replace the Impala. It's a bit on the small side for this guy, but I really like the XR's powertrain and interior (except for the cheesy door panels). The 3.6L and 6 speed combo is great. Interior fitup is good and better than the Infinity it was parked beside on the lot. I'm having a hard time getting over the fake stitching on the door panels though. That's probably a big reason why other cars will get rated better for interior. Anyone hear how the real world milage is with the 3.6?