I've decided to make this a thread. IFCAR, what do you think?

[PMC the 1st]

***CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE AUTOMOBILE JOURNALISTS WERE DOWNPLAYING THE HONDA ACCORD'S CRAMPED INTERIOR SPACE***

I'm at the college looking at the old Consumer Reports (they date back all the way to 1940 here!), and I found a 1996 issue, where the following four family cars were compared:

1. Toyota Camry
2. Honda Accord
3. Ford Taurus
4. Buick LeSabre

Here's what they said, which proved my point that the journalists at the time were purposely ignoring the cramped interiors of Toyota and Honda but now harshly critisize a perceived space in the 2008 Malibu:

(January 1996, Volume 61, No. 1) "Inside the car:
The Accord is a little narrower than the other cars (PMC: The Accord, in between the size of a Civic and a Lumina, is just a "little narrower" than the Buick LeSabre?), but you'll never miss that space unless you try to squeeze in five adults. A tilt steering column and 8-way power seat should let most passengers get comfortable. Legroom and headroom are fine..."

We also now know that the 1996 Camry was a comfy cruiser that plowed, bobbed and bounced its way onto the interstate. Consumer Reports said the opposite:

"The Camry, particularly the V6 version, gives the overall impression of refinement, even luxury. It's quiet and roomy inside, and fit and finish are first-rate. (PMC: See my picture below that dispels this lie)
In normal driving, the Camry turns into bends quite eagerly; the steering responds quickly and smoothly, and the body leans only moderately...
The expressway ride is firm and well-controlled, and rough rural roads elicit only muted jiggles and kicks. A full load makes the ride even firmer, but not to the point of discomfort."

Judging by what Consumer Reports wrote about the Toyota Camry back then, you'd expect they were talking about the BMW M5, for crying out loud!
Remember, Consumer Reports tested these cars in 1996 when the internet was in its infancy, meaning we just couldn't go online to see if we were being lied to or not.
Now that we have the internet, Consumer Reports knows they must show greater discretion in how they lie and to what extent, lest their blatant lies -- like the one I just quoted from their 1996 article -- get discovered at the speed of broadband.

Now let's see what Consumer Reports had to say about the Ford Taurus interior room, just one page over:

"...The front seat cushions are comfortably firm, but the seatbacks lack enough side and lower-back support. In the rear, room for head and shoulders is lacking, particularly when three sit abreast."

Notice that with the Honda, they say, "The Accord is a little narrower than the other cars, but you'll never miss that space unless you try to squeeze in five adults."
But with the Ford they say, "In the rear, room for head and shoulders is lacking, particularly when three sit abreast."
AMERICA-HATERS AND IFCAR: Why do you suppose this is?
Also, why do they say the very cramped Accord was "just a little narrower" than both the LeSabre and Taurus?




Notice the grand canyons all around; around the glove box, where the driver door meets the dash, the pass. air bag, etc.
Gaps ar irregular and inconsistent (wide Grand Canyons here; narrower Grand Canyons there, etc.).
Back then, Consumer Reports was able to get away with lying to us about the fit and finish in the Camry. Now, however, we can post pictures proving whether or not a car is well-finished.

[BrickTamland]

Notice the difference. That is why head and shoulder room is criticized.

[PMC the 1st]

I understand how the Taurus interior room may be critisized, but the way Consumer Reports worded it walks dangerously close to fraud. I mean, compare what C/R says about the Ford interior room with what they say about the Honda interior room. Fair? Yes or no.

[Tone]

That WAS good fit and finish in the mid-1990s. The whole industry has come a very long way in the last decade or so.

I'm old enough to actually remember when these cars were new. The Camry of that era was not particularly known as a Japanese Buick yet. In fact, the SE version offered pretty competitive handling compared to its competition of the day: the Maxima SE and the Taurus SHO.

The Japanese mid-sizers of the mid-90s (particularly the Honda) were still a hair smaller than the American cars. But, they generally were better put together, had smoother, more refined engines, and handled better. It was a classic case of, if you don't need the room, these cars are great.

The Taurus of 1996 had just gone through what is now thought of as a disastrous redesign (I actually liked it) which robbed it of rear seat and trunk room ... and boosted its list price well above the previous models. It quickly gave up its best selling title and never looked back.

[PMC the 1st]

I'm now reading the Consumer Reports issue Vol. 61, No. 8, Aug 1996 issue.
In it, they compare the following cars:

1. Ford Contour
2. Plymouth Breeze
3. Oldsmobile Achieva
4. Pontiac Grand Am.

Where's IFCAR saying that the Honda Accord was in this class?
Other cars in the same group: Honda Civic, Mazda Protege, Dodge Stratus...

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by Tone

That WAS good fit and finish in the mid-1990s. The whole industry has come a very long way in the last decade or so.

I'm old enough to actually remember when these cars were new. The Camry of that era was not particularly known as a Japanese Buick yet. In fact, the SE version offered pretty competitive handling compared to its competition of the day: the Maxima SE and the Taurus SHO.

The Japanese mid-sizers of the mid-90s (particularly the Honda) were still a hair smaller than the American cars. But, they generally were better put together, had smoother, more refined engines, and handled better. It was a classic case of, if you don't need the room, these cars are great.

The Taurus of 1996 had just gone through what is now thought of as a disastrous redesign (I actually liked it) which robbed it of rear seat and trunk room ... and boosted its list price well above the previous models. It quickly gave up its best selling title and never looked back.

Since you were old enough to remember these cars, then we're on teh same wavelength.
And as you know, for the price of an Accord or Camry, you could have had a Buick LeSabre. Sure, the Accord/Camry came with very refined powerplants, but, in comparison to nightmare engines like GM's "Quad-4", their only refined powerplants were their inline-fours. Their V6's weren't anything remarkeable, especially comparing it to the Series II 3.8L.

So memory lane is playing a trick on you. You're remembering the cheap (as in inexpensive) Japanese imports. And yes, those $12,000 imports were great cars as basic transportation goes.
But things get ugly when the 1996 Accord/Camry is places in the #1 and #2 spot with the Buick Lesabre coming in last, with all articles having carefully chosen words to ensure the reader would test-drive -- and buy -- the Accord and Camry. That's right, at $12,000 and with a 4-cylinder engine and manual transmission.

[F14CRAZY]

Lesabres have got to be one of the most underrated cars in modern history

[vcs2600]

Lesabre was a much larger, fancier full-sized car. Very odd to see it an article with the Taurus and Accord.

[logansowner]

Kind of a non issue I think, I don't think there is anyone around that doesn't know and accept that most car testing mags are import biased. It's just something you have to ignore, because it won't change...however we brought this on ourselves with years of garbage cars to ruin perception.

[BrickTamland]

Originally Posted by PMC the 1st

I'm now reading the Consumer Reports issue Vol. 61, No. 8, Aug 1996 issue.
In it, they compare the following cars:

1. Ford Contour
2. Plymouth Breeze
3. Oldsmobile Achieva
4. Pontiac Grand Am.

Where's IFCAR saying that the Honda Accord was in this class?
Other cars in the same group: Honda Civic, Mazda Protege, Dodge Stratus...

One could compare the 1996 Accord to this group. At the time, it was a car that "straddled the fence" between Contours/Tauruses and Grand Ams/Grand Prixes.

It is worth pointing out that Consumer Reports does not always compare cars that are in the exact same class. That is why the fullsize LeSabre was included. They give their tests some fairly general parameters, allowing for some class mixing.

[Tone]

Originally Posted by PMC the 1st

Since you were old enough to remember these cars, then we're on teh same wavelength.
And as you know, for the price of an Accord or Camry, you could have had a Buick LeSabre. Sure, the Accord/Camry came with very refined powerplants, but, in comparison to nightmare engines like GM's "Quad-4", their only refined powerplants were their inline-fours. Their V6's weren't anything remarkeable, especially comparing it to the Series II 3.8L.

So memory lane is playing a trick on you. You're remembering the cheap (as in inexpensive) Japanese imports. And yes, those $12,000 imports were great cars as basic transportation goes.
But things get ugly when the 1996 Accord/Camry is places in the #1 and #2 spot with the Buick Lesabre coming in last, with all articles having carefully chosen words to ensure the reader would test-drive -- and buy -- the Accord and Camry. That's right, at $12,000 and with a 4-cylinder engine and manual transmission.

So, what did CC say about the LeSabre? My memory (the one you think is playing tricks on me) seems to recall that they quite liked Buicks of that era, often recommending them over platform-mates that weren't rated nearly as highly.

And .. as memory serves ... the 3800 was fully competitive in the mid 90s, but the 3.0 Toyota six and Nissan's 3.0 six were considered quite excellent as well.

[salbracht]

Originally Posted by PMC the 1st

Notice the grand canyons all around; around the glove box, where the driver door meets the dash, the pass. air bag, etc.
Gaps ar irregular and inconsistent (wide Grand Canyons here; narrower Grand Canyons there, etc.).
Back then, Consumer Reports was able to get away with lying to us about the fit and finish in the Camry. Now, however, we can post pictures proving whether or not a car is well-finished.

PMC ... you never answered this question when I asked it in the original thread. I'd like you to post an interior picture of the Malibu and explain the grand canyon between the driver door and the dash. (Looking at the main interior image from the Chevy/Malibu website, I would say the door/dash gap looks better on this 10 year old Camry.) I'd also like your explaination for all of the various panel joins when the center councel comes up into the dash. Looks like a jigsaw puzzle, with none of the lines visually flowing together. (A/C radio separation line is off from the panel joins.) Also ... I've never seen an interior picture of the Malibu (or Aura) where the trim lines up exactly going from the dash to the door ... especially noticable with the two tone interior.

Don't misunderstand ... I think the Malibu interior is great. But when you are nitpicking other car interiors (and not even recent interiors ... your going back 10 years and older) over these things, I find it funny that you are blind to some of these same flaws in the products that you are promoting. You shouldn't drink your own bathwater.

Just curious ... how many threads have you started to educate everyone how much you don't like Car and Driver and Consumer Reports? Did you really feel it necessary to start yet another one? You don't like them ... we get it. Seems like your just interested in making provocative statements in order to start arguments. I believe that is the definition of a troll. My guess is the moderators have already taken notice and are waiting for you to step over the line just enough to end this.

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by BrickTamland

One could compare the 1996 Accord to this group. At the time, it was a car that "straddled the fence" between Contours/Tauruses and Grand Ams/Grand Prixes.

It is worth pointing out that Consumer Reports does not always compare cars that are in the exact same class. That is why the fullsize LeSabre was included. They give their tests some fairly general parameters, allowing for some class mixing.

Guys: We have to get back on topic.
The point is is that back when the 1996 Accords were being tested, the journalists of the time were downplaying the Accord's lack of interior room by saying, "THe Accord is just very slightly smaller than the Taurus or LeSabre, but who cares? I mean, we won't even take interior size into consideration in our ratings this time. We will not explain why"
And with the new Malibu? "The new Malibu is 0.000001 inch shorter in the back seat versus the Accord, a serious design ommission on General Motors part, and proof that the domestics are once again failing in their pathetic attemptsat world-class automobile engineering. Now if the Malibu were just 0.000001 inch longer back there, we'd reconsider..."

Who's right? Me? Or the journalists of the time?
Well?

[F14CRAZY]

Originally Posted by vcs2600

Lesabre was a much larger, fancier full-sized car. Very odd to see it an article with the Taurus and Accord.

I was thinking the same thing. It's definitely bigger than a '90s Accord or Camry

[PMC the 1st]

Originally Posted by salbracht

PMC ... you never answered this question when I asked it in the original thread. I'd like you to post an interior picture of the Malibu and explain the grand canyon between the driver door and the dash. (Looking at the main interior image from the Chevy/Malibu website, I would say the door/dash gap looks better on this 10 year old Camry.) I'd also like your explaination for all of the various panel joins when the center councel comes up into the dash. Looks like a jigsaw puzzle, with none of the lines visually flowing together. (A/C radio separation line is off from the panel joins.) Also ... I've never seen an interior picture of the Malibu (or Aura) where the trim lines up exactly going from the dash to the door ... especially noticable with the two tone interior.

Don't misunderstand ... I think the Malibu interior is great. But when you are nitpicking other car interiors (and not even recent interiors ... your going back 10 years and older) over these things, I find it funny that you are blind to some of these same flaws in the products that you are promoting. You shouldn't drink your own bathwater.

Just curious ... how many threads have you started to educate everyone how much you don't like Car and Driver and Consumer Reports? Did you really feel it necessary to start yet another one? You don't like them ... we get it. Seems like your just interested in making provocative statements in order to start arguments. I believe that is the definition of a troll. My guess is the moderators have already taken notice and are waiting for you to step over the line just enough to end this.

You can see the grand canyon on this Malibu but it's more like a dried creek bed compared to even the current Accord. Your complaint about the two-tone interior is unwarranted. The pictures of the Malibu you saw was a pre-production model. This interior is from a dealer lot.:




Does the Grand Canyon in this car narrower or wider than in the car above?