Inside Line: 2012-'13 Midsize Sedan Comparison Test

Redesigned Camry, Malibu and Passat Take on Accord and Sonata
By Erin Riches, Senior Editor | Published Apr 30, 2012

For many, $3,240 is a lot of money.

It's a few mortgage payments, or enough to furnish a whole room in your house. It's also the price difference between the car that won this test — the 2012 Hyundai Sonata — and the next least expensive car — the 2012 Volkswagen Passat. The difference only gets bigger if you look at the other contenders.

Of course, interior room, ride comfort and fuel economy matter, too. But when you're looking at family sedans, money is always an overriding factor.

Meet the New Neighbors
The Honda Accord and Toyota Camry are the block-party captains of the midsize sedan class. Some vintages are better than others, but they're nearly always a marvel of packaging with their fuel-efficient four-cylinder engines, spacious cabins and tight build quality. Honda and Toyota sell a lot of them.

In this midsize sedan comparison test, there's a 2012 Honda Accord EX, representing the last year before the redesign. It costs $25,875. Meanwhile, our 2012 Toyota Camry SE is freshly redesigned and pricey ($28,658), mainly because we didn't keep a lid on the options when we bought it. It has a navigation system and keyless ignition.
The Hyundai Sonata is the only car here that has made a serious run at the Camry-Accord sales crowns. It moved into the neighborhood a couple years back and immediately had the greenest lawn and the best Halloween candy. Priced at only $22,355, this 2012 Hyundai Sonata GLS test car features the most powerful four-cylinder engine of the group, plus a power driver seat and USB input.

Previous Volkswagen Passats lived in ritzier subdivisions — near-luxury cars, basically. Now VW, too, is aiming for the heart of the market with a larger, less expensive Passat. Our midrange 2012 Volkswagen Passat 2.5 SE still looks upscale, but for $25,595 you don't get everything. VW's proprietary USB cable isn't included, nor is a diesel engine — we're sticking with the base gasoline five-cylinder.

The richest neighbor is the revamped 2013 Chevrolet Malibu, which lands at $29,230 — a consequence of GM's phased launch strategy. So far, Chevy has rolled out only the Malibu Eco light-hybrid model, while a cheaper non-hybrid Malibu model powered by a 2.5-liter inline-4 follows this summer. The Malibu Eco starts at $25,995, but ours has the 2SA upgrade group (premium audio, back-up camera, power driver seat) and the Leather package.

The redesigned 2013 Ford Fusion and 2013 Nissan Altima haven't moved in yet. Look for a rematch later this year.

As Homey as a Tract House
You see the influence of suburban tract housing in these sedans. The cabins are enormous and the front seats are comfy regardless of your size. The stitching on the dashboards in the 2013 Chevy Malibu and 2012 Toyota Camry reminds us of granite countertops — not strictly necessary, but classy.

The U.S.-built 2012 Volkswagen Passat leads the way in overall ambience. The grain patterns on its dash and door trim match so perfectly that a native-born German designer must have had the final say on materials. The instrument pack and touchscreen audio display would make the cut in an Audi.

There's no bad choice to make here. It's mostly about personal taste, and your personal finances.

Mind you, we're not thrilled with the half-hearted simulated leather in this Passat 2.5 SE, nor its driver seat's limited adjustability, but there's no arguing with all the space: The Volkswagen has 39.1 inches of rear legroom — a windfall if you have kids in rear-facing car seats.

However, the overly upright angle of the VW's rear seatback cushion significantly limits real-world headroom, especially for 6-footers of James Riswick proportions. The 2012 Honda Accord and Toyota Camry offer a better compromise of headroom, legroom and outright comfort in back. Rear legroom is adequate in the Hyundai Sonata, but a high-mounted bench and the shallow angle of the rear glass create a headroom issue in here as well. Meanwhile, there's enough headroom for Riz in the 2013 Chevrolet Malibu's backseat, but real-world legroom is on par with the stands at Wrigley Field.

Around back, the Eco part of the Malibu necessitates a lithium-ion battery pack, which results in an oddly shaped trunk that only Tetris master Chris Walton could appreciate.

Diner Coffee
No other sedan feels as upscale as the VW. Hyundai has taken a crack at a two-tone color scheme, and some of us like it. Others dismiss it as over-styled — a caricature of a Volkswagen interior. Our 2012 Sonata GLS tester's rough urethane steering wheel betrays its low price, as does the knuckle-exfoliating plastic on its door panels.

But it's hard to fault the Sonata. It has key sanity-enhancing features for commuters (Bluetooth, satellite radio), plus the same clever storage areas found in the Camry and Accord.
The 2012 Honda Accord EX has some of the nicest cloth upholstery we've ever seen. We've complained about leather-upholstered Accords, but with cloth, these are great seats. The controls are laid out to near ergonomic perfection, and every button, dial and stalk has a satisfying heft. Visibility is so good we never wish for any of the electronic parking aids Honda doesn't offer (whereas we'd love a camera to help us park the swoopy Sonata).

But the Accord's audio display is no better than that on our 10-year-old clock radio, and although of solid quality, the dash materials are drab. Cloth-lined EX models are starved of features. Our tester doesn't have Bluetooth or even an outside temperature display.

Large Mocha With Whip
Of course we have all these conveniences on our 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Eco and 2012 Toyota Camry SE. Notably, these two come with MyLink and Entune, which let you use various smartphone apps while driving. Toyota's Entune has more functionality, because it's part of a navigation package, so you can use your phone connection to bring up traffic data on the nav system's maps. However, Entune requires you to register for a password and download a dedicated app for your phone, and most features aren't available while you're driving anyway. If you just want to use Pandora, Chevy's MyLink is simpler, and the Malibu has better-looking touchscreen graphics to boot.

Although we like the control layouts, neither cabin exemplifies clean design. The Camry's metallic trim looks as sharp as the stuff on our side-by-side fridge, but there are too many other materials competing for our attention — and not all are high in quality.

The Malibu is the only sedan that feels truly medium-size. It seats you in a cockpit instead of abandoning you in an aircraft hangar. But it's marred by clunky gauges, brittle control stalks and ambient light strips that look like really long air vents in the daytime. Our Malibu tester has more misaligned panels than the others, too, though at least everything fits tightly, unlike the loose door handle trim we found in the Passat.

Storage space is also scarce. Evidently, someone realized this late in the game and created a compartment behind the Chevy's touchscreen. Predictably, this compartment gets very warm, so what could you possibly stow here?

"Kittens," says Mike Magrath.

Powerful, Like My Electrolux Washer
Any of these sedans will deliver you to work in safe and unmemorable fashion. With automatic transmissions driving their front wheels, they pass through the quarter-mile within a second of each other.

The 2012 Hyundai Sonata GLS features a direct-injected, 2.4-liter four-cylinder rated at 198 horsepower and 184 pound-feet of torque and a six-speed automatic. It's good for a 7.9-second 0-60-mph time (or 7.6 with 1 foot of rollout) and a 15.9-second quarter-mile at 88.2.
There's nothing personable about this drivetrain, but passing maneuvers come easily, so what's not to like? Maybe the fuel economy. We averaged just 22.1 mpg over 600 miles against the car's 24 city/35 highway/28 combined EPA rating. During our 19,000-mile long-term test of a 2011 Sonata with the same drivetrain, we averaged 25.6 mpg.

Next quickest are the 2013 Chevrolet Malibu (8.2-second 0-60, 16.2 at 85.1 mph) and 2012 Toyota Camry SE (8.5-second 0-60, 16.2 at 86.9 mph). The Malibu Eco has a direct-injected 2.4-liter four-cylinder rated for 182 hp and 172 lb-ft of torque. In certain conditions, it gets a very small amount of electric assist from its belt-driven, 15-hp electric motor, but it's imperceptible to the driver. Low-end grunt isn't the 2.4-liter's strong suit, and it's paired with a six-speed automatic that takes it easy changing gears in its quest for smoothness (though we still notice an occasional not-so-smooth upshift). Because of this tuning strategy, the Malibu feels slower than the others, in spite of its solid track numbers.

The snappier responses from the Camry's six-speed auto make us happier. And Toyota's port-injected, 2.5-liter four-cylinder, rated at 173 hp and 165 lb-ft in our PZEV tester, is ridiculously smooth in its power delivery. The Malibu Eco has better EPA ratings (25/37/29 versus the Camry's 25/35/28), but our observed numbers are the same — 24.7 for the Malibu, 24.6 for the Camry.

The 2012 Honda Accord EX (8.8-second 0-60, 16.4 seconds at 84.9 mph) and 2012 Volkswagen Passat 2.5 SE (8.7-second 0-60, 16.6 seconds at 84.1 mph) also perform similarly. Rated at 190 hp and 162 lb-ft, the hotter version of the Accord's 2.4-liter inline-4 isn't big on torque, but it sounds good and likes to rev — no surprise then that the Accord has the highest decibel level at wide-open throttle (73.9). It's the only car with a five-speed automatic, but the lack of a 6th gear isn't a liability for performance or mpg. We averaged 24 mpg even against 23/34/27 ratings.

Meanwhile, the Passat has a 2.5-liter inline-5 rated at 170 hp and 177 lb-ft. It has a characteristic five-cylinder grumble and provides acceptable motivation for the big VW. However, throttle response is lethargic off the line. The six-speed automatic's Sport mode helps some, but the Passat 2.5 SE is tricky to drive smoothly in traffic. Still, the awkward throttle calibration might actually benefit mileage; we eked out 26.1 mpg in spite of the Passat's unremarkable 22/31/25 ratings.

It Rides, It Stops, Then I'm Home
Pinpointing differences in how these cars ride, handle and stop is almost futile. But that doesn't mean we don't have our favorites.

Our unanimous pick in the ride quality department is the 2012 Volkswagen Passat 2.5 SE, which does a beautiful job of snuffing out harshness on concrete-slab freeways. Curiously, it's the loudest car at a 70-mph cruise (68.7 dB), which may say more about VW's tire selection than anything else (215/55R17 Continental ContiProContacts).

The 2012 Toyota Camry SE and 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Eco ride slightly firmer but are tied for the lowest 70-mph noise level (66.9 dB). The Camry was officially the winner in the slalom at 65 mph, but as soon as its P215/55R17 Michelin Primacy MXV4s heated up, we could no longer duplicate that performance. Were it not for its non-defeat stability control, the Passat (64 mph) might challenge for the top honor.
The Camry feels surprisingly balanced around real turns on public roads, but if handling is even a consideration, our pick is the 2012 Honda Accord EX. It's the stiffest-riding car of the bunch, but it feels downright sporty through corners, its 63.4-mph slalom speed notwithstanding. The Honda's hydraulic-assist, variable-ratio steering (yep, that's a class exclusive) offers excellent precision and feedback — the electric steering systems in the Malibu and Camry aren't bad, but are hardly in the same league. The Accord and Malibu both generated 0.83g on the skid pad (tops for this group), but this is more trivia than any testament of ability.

Braking is the one area in which the 2012 Hyundai Sonata GLS distinguishes itself. It ties with the Chevy for the shortest 60-to-0 stop (119 feet) and along with the Camry (121 feet), was the least prone to fade. The Accord used up the most tarmac (124 feet), but after the Passat's initial 123-foot stop, its distances increased significantly, topping out at 132 feet.

The Hyundai Sonata rides decently, but if you're a chassis connoisseur, you'll notice that its suspension doesn't filter out small impacts as well as the other cars, while its electric steering feels especially simulated. These flaws might disappoint a 3 Series driver, but if you're used to driving family sedans, they'll barely register.

Pick Any Sedan. We Won't Lose Sleep
Never before have we driven five family sedans that stack up so closely. There's no bad choice to make here — it's mostly about personal taste, and your personal finances.

The 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Eco is a vast improvement over previous Malibus. It has a pleasant ride and a large array of cabin electronics with a user-friendly interface. Our main hesitation is the price tag, particularly since the Eco model doesn't bring a huge fuel economy advantage. The upcoming Malibu 2.5 should address this, but the car's small backseat will remain a liability.

The 2012 Volkswagen Passat 2.5 SE and 2012 Honda Accord EX tie for 3rd. The Passat is certainly the way to go if you value an upscale interior and ride comfort most of all, but its awkward throttle calibration and so-so brakes detract from the driving experience. We also wish VW would bring back the 2.0 TSI four-cylinder to give buyers a more fuel-efficient gasoline engine option.
Meanwhile, driving this Accord EX reminds you how much Honda still does right. This car has lively throttle response, communicative steering and an extraordinarily stable feel as it goes down the road. But the cabin is so bare-bones, it doesn't feel like a great value.

Had we shown restraint in optioning our 2012 Toyota Camry SE, it would cost less than the Accord and still have more amenities. Once again, though, it's the total package that makes the Camry worthwhile. This is a spacious, accommodating sedan with a refined drivetrain, a quiet cabin and surprisingly good handling.
But the Camry is simply out-packaged by the 2012 Hyundai Sonata GLS. The Hyundai doesn't set any new benchmarks. But it's a quick car with good enough seats and a smooth enough ride, and you won't mind driving it every day — especially when you imagine what you could do with an extra $3,240.

Source;
http://www.insideline.com/hyundai/sonata/2012/2012-13-midsize-sedan-comparison-test.html

Inside Line: 1991 Acura NSX vs. 2012 Audi R8

Interesting read.... to actually compare something with a 21 yr difference is an impressive nod to the NSX....
By Josh Jacquot, Senior Editor Published Jan 17, 2012

It's likely that Acura's 21-year-old NSX is most famous for things it never actually did.

1990, you might recall, wasn't a year when supercars covered themselves in the glory of either shocking performance or metronomic reliability. The stink of '80s automotive misery hadn't yet worn off and the glory of middleweight performers like the RX-7, 300Z and fourth-generation Supra was yet to take hold. When it came to supercars, it was the era of the Ferrari 348, a machine so awful to drive it couldn't even find a private investigator drama in which to hide.

Following, in no particular order, are some things most NSXs never did: leak, stall, stink, burn, ventilate their crankcase, cook their clutch, experience catastrophic electrical failure, overheat or simply strand their driver. The NSX, for all its hype, sprang from a time when mixing some mundane Honda Accord into the supercar stew, rolling it up in an aluminum body and dropping it into a market ripe for a real driver's car was a stupendously good idea. Good enough, in fact, to last for 15 years.

Next to Porsche's ubiquitous 911, the NSX might just be the most practical, reliable real-world supercar ever built. But in 1990 there was something more exotic about a low-slung, midengine, aluminum-bodied supercar than there was about any Porsche. And there's still truth in that statement today. Which is why we think Audi's R8 might be the best spiritual successor the NSX could have.

Here, then, is how they stack up.

The Basics
It's the cab-forward, engine-behind-cockpit layout that's the defining similarity between the R8 and NSX. Following modern trends, the R8 is bigger in every dimension. It is 1.2 inches longer, 3.2 inches taller, 4.7 wider and its wheelbase is 4.7 inches longer than the NSX.
If raw output is all that matters, the NSX's transverse-mounted 3.0-liter, 270-horsepower V6 is no match for the Audi's longitudinally mounted 4.2-liter 430-hp V8. Gears are selected in the NSX via a five-speed manual transmission, while cogs are slotted home via a gated six-speed manual in the R8. And when it comes to powertrains, that's where the similarities stop.

The Audi, naturally, drives all four wheels through three differentials that produce a distinctly rear-drive balance. The NSX's rear-drive balance is more authentic thanks to a conventional transaxle and clutch-type limited-slip differential driving, well, the rear wheels.

The Numbers
The performance data in this test serve to demonstrate how far supercars have come in 21 years more so than to help determine a winner.

Accordingly, let's look first at one area where progress isn't so easy to gauge. At 3,010 pounds the NSX might be the only car we've ever rolled onto our scales that exactly matches its manufacturer's claimed weight. And because it's 611 pounds lighter than the R8 (3,621 pounds) it demonstrates one area where technology and cubic megadollars are yet to produce a positive impact in performance cars.

Fortunately, performance hasn't suffered the same decline.

Ripping to 60 in 4.5 seconds (4.3 with 1 foot of rollout as on a drag strip) gets the R8 there a solid 1.1 seconds quicker than the NSX (5.6 seconds, 5.3 with rollout). The 0.9-second gap at the quarter-mile demonstrates that it's the Audi's launch that produces its biggest advantage. Here, even the 21-year-old NSX holds its own by running a 13.7-second pass at 102 mph. The R8's 12.8-second pass at 110.1 mph is quicker, but not as much as its 21-year advantage might lead one to believe.

Handling, too, is beyond the NSX's years. It shimmied through the slalom at 69.3 mph on nine-year-old rubber, (we tested it on new tires, too, but the numbers were inexplicably worse) a feat the Audi handled at 72.1 mph. Lateral acceleration worked out to 0.88g and 0.98g for the Acura and Audi, respectively.

When it comes to stopping, the Audi's contemporary rubber and ABS technology are far superior. It required only 105 feet to come to a halt from 60 mph. The NSX needed an additional 26 feet.

The Similarities
Through the magic of the Inside Line time machine we were able to experience these two cars on the same piece of unoccupied driver's road at the same time. And the gap between them at the top of the road was nearly as substantial as the years between them. But, spiritually, there were ample parallels.

Perhaps the biggest of these is the compact, balanced sense of confidence that begins in each car's powertrain layout and culminates in confident, direct inputs from its driver. There's a deftness possessed by midengine cars that is distinctly absent in any other layout. Wood the throttle in either of these machines and its nose rises with an immediacy and directness that could never exist in a car with its mass centered farther forward.

Similarly, both cars demonstrate a willingness to change direction not available in a car with its engine placed outside the axles. Mass centralization. Don't discount it. Even when it's 21 years old.

But there are differences.

Old vs. Bold
Performance car engineers — at least those developing contemporary cars like the R8 — are obsessed with reactions. Every input should be answered with an immediate and rewarding reaction, right? That's what they say.

The result is a mixed blessing.

Twenty-odd years ago the guys making these decisions on the NSX either had different goals or different expectations. Nowhere is this dissimilarity more apparent than in the way these two cars steer. The NSX's variable-ratio steering rack (18.2:1 to 20.8:1) is slower than the R8's fixed 17.3:1 ratio, but the numbers hardly tell the story.

Predictably, the effort required to corner both cars plays heavily into the experience. The Audi's hydraulically assisted steering makes nearly no demand on its driver and still supplies enough information to attack the road confidently. The NSX's weighty wheel is better than many full manual racks we've experienced, but leaves little reason to do anything but surrender to the car's relatively low limits once understeer is achieved.

Largely, this is because we fear finding ourselves in a situation that requires "fixing" any kind of oversteer without the benefit of modern assisted steering. Call us wimps, but not before you correct oversteer in a midengine manual-steering car yourself.

Still, this limitation doesn't diminish the reward of the NSX experience. It's just one element that makes it slower than its modern counterpart.

Here's Another
The R8's reaction to throttle input is insanely rapid by 1990 standards. Partially, this is due to the blunt honesty of the first-generation NSX's simple, cable-actuated throttle. The control provided by electronic throttles has supplied engineers with undue command over a car's character. The resulting eagerness has reached the point of absurdity in some cars. Fortunately, it's not so much a problem in the R8 as it is motivation to start paying attention.

Snap the Audi's throttle open and the chassis responds instantly and intuitively. Somehow, despite driving all four wheels, the Audi reacts like a rear-driver, offering a rewarding ability to balance power against steering without the need for heavily calculated metering. Its approachable limits are a blessing in a car that could easily have overlooked such details. Vorsprung durch Technik, indeed.

Not so in the NSX.

The Acura's response to throttle input carries far less consequence. Measured against the snap-to-it reactions of the more powerful R8, the NSX's response to big, aggressive movements of the throttle doesn't demand as much attention or reward as heavily. This, we'll admit, is in large part due to a significantly lower power-to-weight ratio (8.4:1 Audi vs. 11.1:1 NSX).

It's here that the NSX, when measured against the wildly involving R8, begins to show itself for what it is: old.

Oldie but Goodie
Still, there are genuinely striking qualities in this aged sports car that are distinctly absent in the R8. Like, for example, the simple, authentic way the NSX gets down the road. Forget about radical urgency. Forget about breakneck reactions. All of the NSX's controls perform their duty resolutely but without the Audi's pressing haste. It's like comparing Mother Love Bone to Mother Theresa. One screams its intent in your face and the other is content to let its actions do the talking over the whole of the experience.

The NSX's shifter slots into the selected cog with a fidelity lacking in most modern car/driver interfaces. It's especially striking considering this car's age. That's to take nothing from the R8, whose manual shifter might be the best in the world today.

Reality says that any car as old as the NSX is going to lack the speed and confidence provided by a modern supercar like the R8. But that doesn't mean the experience is bereft of passion. Perhaps the most potent bit of character is an intake note that tunnels down its driver's ear canal, shoots through his brain stem and penetrates his soul. Truly, there are few cars before or since the NSX that offer the audible reward produced by its 8,000-rpm anthem.

Also, we'd never have thought 21 years ago that we'd look back on Honda's '90s design ethos as soulful. But viewing modern cars through the lens of small pillars, a low waistline and simple controls makes us yearn for such unvarnished honesty in design. The R8 has a similar feel, but can't match the NSX's original brilliance.

The Final CalculusThere's no way to handily summarize the best car here. And that's not what we're trying to do anyway. The point is to capture each car's spirit. The NSX, 21 years ago, was ahead of its time — both in its construction and its attitude. It wasn't the fastest or most powerful car built, but it made a strong case for combining quality, durability and everyday drivability with engaging at-the-limit character. It's an enduring formula that's built into the most successful supercars made today — including the R8.

We're not picking a winner. Rather, we're answering this question: Which car would we want in our garage? Judged on the experience alone, the answer is easy. The R8's ability to engage, its outright speed, its sound and the reward it provides during hard driving easily outshines the 21-year-old NSX.

But experience tells us those qualities aren't all that will matter in 20-plus years. The Audi supercar's place in history will be also determined by its ability to endure time both mechanically and visually. And those are much, much larger demands.

We'll be keeping the NSX around just in case.

The manufacturer provided Edmunds the Audi for the purposes of evaluation. The NSX is part of Inside Line's long-term fleet.

Source;
http://www.insideline.com/acura/nsx/1991/1991-acura-nsx-vs-2012-audi-r8.html

2011 Honda Odyssey Touring Elite vs. 2011 Toyota Sienna XLE Comparison Test

Excellent comparison done by Inside Line, I included the final part of the artical....


Crowning the Ultimate Minivan
Though they have different personalities, the 2011 Honda Odyssey Touring Elite and 2011 Toyota Sienna XLE both offer smart, relevant designs in packages that go a long way toward accommodating every possible desire of the modern family. There isn't another vehicle class that's so singularly focused on the very details that make it perfect for the target customer.

Sure, some say the 2011 Honda Odyssey looks like a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer. Others criticize its beltline hitch and not-so-subtle door-slider track, but whether you're talking about seating configuration or slalom performance, the Honda Odyssey Touring Elite is the ultimate minivan of 2011.

Sienna detractors might say it looks like a hospital gurney with a satin sheet thrown over it, and that it handles like a gurney to boot. However, if you're looking for an extremely low-impact, smooth and quiet minivan (or one with a four-cylinder engine or all-wheel drive), there's good reason to consider a 2011 Toyota Sienna.

The Odyssey Touring Elite is the better overall value, though, as its boatload of features easily offsets its price disadvantage versus the Toyota Sienna XLE. Moreover, the Honda's road manners will win the heart of any car-guy-turned-family-man. Forget crossovers. The 2011 Honda Odyssey Touring Elite is the closest thing there is to an eight-passenger sport sedan.

Source;
http://www.insideline.com/honda/odyssey/2011/2011-honda-odyssey-touring-elite-vs-2011-toyota-sienna-xle-comparison-test.html

2011 Honda Odyssey VS 2011 Toyota Sienna

Here's a quick review on two really good vans....