2005 Full-Size Sedan Comparison Test

[91 s-10baja]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...7/pageId=63175

[VivienM]

Somebody care to explain why they put the LaCrosse, which is by most standards a [large] midsized car, up against three bigger competitors?

People wonder why GM fans like me accuse the press of bias, but please... it seems half of these comparos are rigged so the GM product isn't comparable to the others.

[Proetus]

Originally Posted by VivienM

Somebody care to explain why they put the LaCrosse, which is by most standards a [large] midsized car, up against three bigger competitors?

If the figures on the 'Specification and Performance' page of the article are correct the LaCrosse, Avalon and 300 are within 1" of the length, width and height of each other. Only the Ford is a few inches larger than these three.

edit: Just noticed the prices of the vehicles tested...

Buick LaCrosse CXS: 33,650
Ford Five Hundred Limited: 27,930
Chrysler 300 Limited: 33,115
Toyota Avalon Limited: 37,928

I know there is a logistical challenge in getting press cars from the automakers at the same time to do a comparison test, but a 36% price spread seems a little absurd.

[AdmiralViscen]

Doesn't the 300C start at 33,000? Why not include that in the test? Why was the Avalon fully optioned out? Why did the Avalon win for its reasonable price when it was 10,000 dollars more costly than the lowest-priced car in the test (which is also fully decked-out)? What horse ****************.

[member12]

Toyota's got a good car, but that should have been the Lucerne, Montego, 300, and Avalon. The LaCrosse competes directly with the loaded camrys, not Avalons.

Those 500s are really starting to grow on me...I wonder if they would pull my boat...

[VivienM]

Originally Posted by member12

Toyota's got a good car, but that should have been the Lucerne, Montego, 300, and Avalon. The LaCrosse competes directly with the loaded camrys, not Avalons.

Agreed... but then why did GM price it so high?!

[Avarno]

I haven't read the Edmunds test, but a lot of the problem with these comparisons, is that its based on EPA standards, which are messed up. I think its something like they're based on interior volume or something equally stupid for categorizing vehicles.

AV

[86fleet]

Surprise, the ugly Toyota wins. On another note, what's up with the Avalon ads, there written like the author was getting high while reading Dr. Suess

[MelvinJ]

A few notes from the scores:

It's no surprise they complained about interior space in the LaCrosse. The W-body has always been pretty stiff one, but not terribly space efficient.

How on earth did the 300 score higher in the engine category than the LaCrosse? It's slower, thirstier, and they didn't make any note of it's smooth power delivery like they did with the LaCrosse.

Quite Tuning seems to be working. The Buick won the quietness category, and I'm sure the Toyota is very good in this department.

The LaCrosse came in second in the transmission category. No surprise that it beat a Chrysler automatic, but it beat the 6-speed in the Ford. Gee, could there be more to transmissions than the number of speeds?

Visibility on the LaCrosse was barely any better than the 300 - surprising.

The smaller rear seat in the LaCrosse was judged better than the 300. On paper the 300 has a big advantage.

The 300 scored the best in rattles and squeaks, with the LaCrosse second and the Avalon LAST! HERESY!

The Buick was rated higher in vehicle materials than the Five-Hundred and the 300.

[HEMI300C]

Originally Posted by AdmiralViscen

Doesn't the 300C start at 33,000? Why not include that in the test? Why was the Avalon fully optioned out? Why did the Avalon win for its reasonable price when it was 10,000 dollars more costly than the lowest-priced car in the test (which is also fully decked-out)? What horse ****************.

A FULLY loaded 300C RWD is nearly the same price as the Avalon they tested. The 300 is the only car tested that wasn't the highest trim level, too. What's up with that? I guess they wanted to pigeon-hole the test to V6s. They should have also held the line on pricing, too. A $4,000 gap between the 300 Limited/LaCrosse CXS and the Avalon Limited is a ridiculous.

And they should have used the Montego. That would have helped close in the pricing and equipment on the lower end.

Here's what they said about it:

A high level of amenities is expected when you run up a bill of almost $38,000. We adjust for price disparities in our scoring, but it's easy to look at our loaded-up Avalon Limited and think, "No wonder it won." So we compared an unoptioned XLS model ($31,340) feature for feature, and guess what? It still comes with seven of the 10 items we consider important for a full-size sedan and would also have won this test by a wide margin.

[AdmiralViscen]

Originally Posted by MelvinJ

A few notes from the scores:

It's no surprise they complained about interior space in the LaCrosse. The W-body has always been pretty stiff one, but not terribly space efficient.

How on earth did the 300 score higher in the engine category than the LaCrosse? It's slower, thirstier, and they didn't make any note of it's smooth power delivery like they did with the LaCrosse.

Quite Tuning seems to be working. The Buick won the quietness category, and I'm sure the Toyota is very good in this department.

The LaCrosse came in second in the transmission category. No surprise that it beat a Chrysler automatic, but it beat the 6-speed in the Ford. Gee, could there be more to transmissions than the number of speeds?

Visibility on the LaCrosse was barely any better than the 300 - surprising.

The smaller rear seat in the LaCrosse was judged better than the 300. On paper the 300 has a big advantage.

The 300 scored the best in rattles and squeaks, with the LaCrosse second and the Avalon LAST! HERESY!

The Buick was rated higher in vehicle materials than the Five-Hundred and the 300.

I think that these comparos would be better if they posted the scores in all of the different categories, as you have, and STOPPED THERE. No reason to pick an overall winner. Show the winners of each category, and let the reader decide which categories are most important to them.

[MelvinJ]

Originally Posted by AdmiralViscen

I think that these comparos would be better if they posted the scores in all of the different categories, as you have, and STOPPED THERE. No reason to pick an overall winner. Show the winners of each category, and let the reader decide which categories are most important to them.

That's true. If you know what attributes you like, then there's no need to hear their overall opinion - you can look at the data and decide for yourself.

If you don't have a clue how to decide from the individual scores, you might as well buy whatever car your favorite dealer sells.

[Buick61]

Well, I like it when car magazines have a backbone and just outright pick a winner. I'm intelligent enough to know that I don't have to agree with their conclusions but still get valid comparative information from the comparison.

What bothers me about this test was that the Avalon had such a high price, but yet they didn't make one mention of why they gave it such a low "squeaks/rattles" score. For that price, the car should have been the tightest one of the bunch. The fact that it wasn't deserves at least some explanation.

[magneto112]

ummm....repost??? I guess Mods can combine the too, if yall can do that here.

http://forums.gminsidenews.com/showthread.php?t=12811

[LAMRONH]

Originally Posted by VivienM

Agreed... but then why did GM price it so high?!

GM priced it so high because apparently after 100 years in the business they still have an almost nonexistent understanding of the relationship between price and sales numbers.
Those boyz need to put down the bottle for a couple of years and get their feet back on the ground. Otherwise their corporation will be 6 feet under the ground.