[AdmiralViscen]

^^^^Right. It's all a mirage. Say it 3 times while clicking your heels together, and when you open your eyes, everyone is driving 2004 Impala's while eating ice cream cones and reminiscing on the halcyon days of the Grand Am.

MF

The Accord isn't known for it's smooth ride or quiet interior.

 

[paul8488]

Well this seems like a stupid list. I've recently test-driven the Impala and Taurus, and found they were surpisingly similar in ride and handling characteristics and power delivery. There's no way the Taurus ranks several spots above the Impala. They use the word unexceptional about 200 times in the bottom 10 cars. I don't think I really understand their criteria here. For 4 grand more the G6 is TONS more car than the Verona, yet ranks lower. And I hate that they slam the LeSabre as 'unimpressive' even back in 2000. No, the LeSabre hit the spot... that's how it managed to be the best selling car in its class for a while. This is one of the biggest garbage comparisons I've seen in a long time. The author isn't even smart enough to be biased... just an idiot.

 

[IAMCANADIAN]

This is insulting

 

[driverblogger]

I hense a little bias toward the G6 in that comparison. They gave the Malibu the number 3 spot, but gave the G6 16th...Okkk

I think the G6 should've gotten the number 3 spot, not the Malibu.

 

[griswold44]

They place the Malibu that high just to throw us off their anti-GM stance. LOL.

You do realize you just insulted the Malibu.

 

[TiburonJT]

The placement of the G6 seems odd, but otherwise I don't see why so many think this list is biased.

 

[gm_scott]

did anyone see where they placed the Chrystler 300. somthing is deffently up here...

 

[griswold44]

The placement of the G6 seems odd, but otherwise I don't see why so many think this list is biased.

The G6 could've gone a little higher, but these reviews weren't biased. They said what was wrong, and what was good about the car.

 

[ifcar]

Hello, I happened to stumble across this thread while doing an unrelated Yahoo! search, and as the author of this highly-contested piece, I decided to weigh in here.

First of all, the most common response I came across while reading through this thread was an open hostility from several members to an opinion that disagreed with their own. Instead of actually countering what was written, they simply suggested bias. Bias towards what? I am not sure. But I suppose it's simpler to write that word than to actually counter a review intelligently, and I assume that it is a common response on Internet forums (particularly on those oriented towards specific manufacturers, brands, or vehicles, which I have found to be the case with other reviews as well).

Among the posts that actually mentioned a specific issue, the low ranking of the Pontiac G6 compared to the Chevrolet Malibu was frequently brought up. I felt that this was addressed within the review, but perhaps I need to clarify a few points:
-As some of you noted, price was a significant factor. At the time of the review, the Malibu's CarsDirect Target Price (which was used here instead of MSRP) was well below sticker, and it was also running a $2,000 rebate. This brought about a substantial price difference between the two vehicles.
-Styling was not considered. Though many aspects of a vehicle are subjective, none is more so than styling. As it varies by individual, and every individual can draw their own conclusion simply by looking at the vehicle photos that were included, there was no reason for it to be a factor in the review. That is something for consumers to decide for themselves.
-Aside from styling (and some may even disagree there), the G6 has no real advantages over the Malibu. Thus, considering the substantial price difference, and a few additional Malibu advantages, the Chevrolet scored in the top three of twenty, and the G6 scored in the bottom four.

Another complaint that I noticed was about the inclusion of both midsize and large sedans. As the criteria was set only by price and cylinder count, vehicles from both classes were allowed to compete. Restricting it to one or the other could leave out some vehicles that are on the fine line between the two classes: namely the Buick LaCrosse, the Chevrolet Impala, the Ford Five Hundred, the Hyundai XG350, and the Kia Amanti. Thus, cars as different as the Suzuki Verona and the Buick LeSabre ended up together. Even if you feel that some vehicles do not belong, the order of the remaining vehicles will stay the same.


If anyone has any other intellligent points that they would like me to address, please post them.

 

[AJR]

I did want to respond to this topic earlier, but I never did. When I read the reviews and rankings and such, it brought about a sort of glee for me. For once, somebody was reviewing and rating cars from an average consumer point of view. Things like style and horsepower are things enthusiasts get all excited about, but they never try to factor in what the average mom and pop look for in a car.

I got that sense right away when I noticed the rankings of the Chrysler 300 vs the Ford Five Hundred. The 300 is the visual stunner of the bunch (or some people think that way anyway) and is the "big man on campus" car. The kind of car that can't be touched by the lesser cars in the comparison. Yet, in this review, the styling was about the only thing positive going for it. The V-6 version wasn't the fastest, it was the heaviest and most likely drank the most fuel, it wasn't the most spacious car in the segment although it looks like it should be, and it has blind spots that make driving almost a hinderance - all in the name of style. Its price was the highest, but it didn't offer the greatest level of equipment compared to its competitors. In essence, the V-8 300C is really the only 300 worth getting, but it is considered to be in the entry luxury class. I find the other 300s to be there just so people can buy into the fad without spending a lot of dough.

The Ford Five Hundred did better because it was designed to be more of a family sedan. It isn't in your face, nor does it give up interior room or driveability to the styling gods. Rather, it offers the roomiest interior and trunk, a nice comfortable interior, good gas mileage, and safety features one would expect for a family sedan. It wasn't graded on its hot fad ability, nor its ability to roast the tires, rather, it was tested on the basic job it was designed for - a comfortable family car that gives the buyer a heck of a lot for the money. It isn't perfect, but I understand why it did so well.

I also understand why the Accord and Camry did well like usual. These cars have been so successful over time that I highly doubt Honda and Toyota would change the successful formula they discovered now. They may not set the heart afire, but do everything so well that there really aren't any negatives to point out. They are the typical American family sedan.

There were some choices I couldn't fathom, but they concerned the Kia and Hyundai and I really don't have much of an opinion on them so I just let them go.

 

[griswold44]

Hello, I happened to stumble across this thread while doing an unrelated Yahoo! search, and as the author of this highly-contested piece, I decided to weigh in here.

First of all, the most common response I came across while reading through this thread was an open hostility from several members to an opinion that disagreed with their own. Instead of actually countering what was written, they simply suggested bias. Bias towards what? I am not sure. But I suppose it's simpler to write that word than to actually counter a review intelligently, and I assume that it is a common response on Internet forums (particularly on those oriented towards specific manufacturers, brands, or vehicles, which I have found to be the case with other reviews as well).

Among the posts that actually mentioned a specific issue, the low ranking of the Pontiac G6 compared to the Chevrolet Malibu was frequently brought up. I felt that this was addressed within the review, but perhaps I need to clarify a few points:
-As some of you noted, price was a significant factor. At the time of the review, the Malibu's CarsDirect Target Price (which was used here instead of MSRP) was well below sticker, and it was also running a $2,000 rebate. This brought about a substantial price difference between the two vehicles.
-Styling was not considered. Though many aspects of a vehicle are subjective, none is more so than styling. As it varies by individual, and every individual can draw their own conclusion simply by looking at the vehicle photos that were included, there was no reason for it to be a factor in the review. That is something for consumers to decide for themselves.
-Aside from styling (and some may even disagree there), the G6 has no real advantages over the Malibu. Thus, considering the substantial price difference, and a few additional Malibu advantages, the Chevrolet scored in the top three of twenty, and the G6 scored in the bottom four.

Another complaint that I noticed was about the inclusion of both midsize and large sedans. As the criteria was set only by price and cylinder count, vehicles from both classes were allowed to compete. Restricting it to one or the other could leave out some vehicles that are on the fine line between the two classes: namely the Buick LaCrosse, the Chevrolet Impala, the Ford Five Hundred, the Hyundai XG350, and the Kia Amanti. Thus, cars as different as the Suzuki Verona and the Buick LeSabre ended up together. Even if you feel that some vehicles do not belong, the order of the remaining vehicles will stay the same.


If anyone has any other intellligent points that they would like me to address, please post them.

I never thought it was biased. You gave a explanation for every cars placement , and you said the truth.

 

[ifcar]

Thank you. I certainly don't believe that every responding to this thread simply looked at the order and posted such a one-word summary, but a disappointing number of members here did.

 

[griswold44]

I have a question though. Why wasn't the Toyota Avalon tested?

 

[runningshoes]

oh my god, consumers! we hate consumers! consumers bad! i hope GM doesnt build any cars that consumers would actually want to buy!

 

[tama z71]

i dont see bias, but i do see idiocy. the 300, 500, and lesabre are all full size cars. the criteria seems to differ slightly from vehicle to vehicle. they are comparing cars that are very old to ones that are brand new. they dont factor rebates when comparing price, which seems odd when they make it such a point in the comparisons. just a bad article

 

[runningshoes]

why exactly is it dumb to compare an older car (like the lesabre) to a new car (like the 300C)? they're both being sold as new, and are available to consumers. it would be dumb if they compared a new impala to a used eagle vision.

the older cars are worse than the newer cars. they're less appealing to car buyers, and therefore are fated to perform worse when compared to their peers. but tehy are still out there on the marketplace, and as such should be included in a comprehensive, fair comparison.

thus far, as i'm reading the article, i've yet to find something that's truly unfathomable. the lesabre, grand prix and impala did poorly. did you expect them to win? want them to wait for '06, when the new impala and lucerne wipe away the memory of the old - well, car buyers who need new cars now can't wait, so why should the comparison?

gm overall did poorly. gm has some poor cars. also has some good ones. lets hope the new versions of the old cars are good too.

 

[ifcar]

I have a question though. Why wasn't the Toyota Avalon tested?

The Avalon (and the Maxima) would have been included, but they were too expensive to fall into the set price range.

 

[ifcar]

i dont see bias, but i do see idiocy. the 300, 500, and lesabre are all full size cars. the criteria seems to differ slightly from vehicle to vehicle. they are comparing cars that are very old to ones that are brand new. they dont factor rebates when comparing price, which seems odd when they make it such a point in the comparisons. just a bad article

If a model can still be purchased new, it competes with other models that can be purchased new, whether it has been on the market for ten years or one month.

Also, rebates were most certainly factored into the final price. CarsDirect prices were used rather than MSRPs, and CarsDirect factors in rebates.

And the reason why both midsize and fullsize/large cars were included was already explained.

 

[ifcar]

why exactly is it dumb to compare an older car (like the lesabre) to a new car (like the 300C)? they're both being sold as new, and are available to consumers. it would be dumb if they compared a new impala to a used eagle vision.

the older cars are worse than the newer cars. they're less appealing to car buyers, and therefore are fated to perform worse when compared to their peers. but tehy are still out there on the marketplace, and as such should be included in a comprehensive, fair comparison.

thus far, as i'm reading the article, i've yet to find something that's truly unfathomable. the lesabre, grand prix and impala did poorly. did you expect them to win? want them to wait for '06, when the new impala and lucerne wipe away the memory of the old - well, car buyers who need new cars now can't wait, so why should the comparison?

gm overall did poorly. gm has some poor cars. also has some good ones. lets hope the new versions of the old cars are good too.

The comparison will be revised later this year to include the new and redesigned vehicles that will fit into the price range. The Buick LeSabre, Chevrolet Impala, Hyundai Sonata, and Hyundai XG350 are being redesigned for the 2006 model year, the Dodge Charger and Ford Fusion are being introduced, and the Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord, and Mazda6 are being updated. Prices, of course, will also change, which can make a large difference.

 

[TiburonJT]

i dont see bias, but i do see idiocy. they are comparing cars that are very old to ones that are brand new.

Since when can brand new cars not be compared to older vehicles? Consumers of new vehicles compare all available cars which the desire regardless of when they were introduced as long as the vehicle is still available. The idea that an article can only compare brand new vehicles is unusual. Have you ever read car magazines? Some articles compare new vehicles because they what to test the vehicles first and that is what the readers want, but other test a group of vehicles, such as minivans, in which it is inevitable that some of the vehicles will be older than others.