If you’re an auto enthusiast and are of “that age” where you’ve had the opportunity to experience all things automotive for the past fifty years or so, you’ve probably concluded we are in a pretty good place in 2016. Certainly from a performance perspective we survived the lows of the ‘70s, and are enjoying a real performance renaissance – Hellcat, Shelby GT 350, Corvette Z06, M4, GT-R, P90d – we’ve never had it this good, and that includes that hallowed era that spawned legends such as the Hemi, Boss 429, ZL-1, and GS Stage 1…
But there is one segment that has really reached a peak – and it’s a segment that has not typically been known for innovation, design leadership or “emotion” – that segment is mid-sized sedans. Let’s take a quick look at three I think really stand-out…
Mazda 6
I already have offered my view on how well-styled I think the Mazda 6 is – it’s just an absolute stunner. In addition to its good looks, it provides sports car levels of handling and balance. Some have criticized its lack of a performance engine, but Mazda spent time and effort ensuring the SkyActiv engine and transmission complimented each other perfectly – the powertrain is amazingly smooth and linear. And knowing Mazda’s emphasis on performance, I’d bet there’s a turbo or supercharged mule running around a Hiroshima test track right now – maybe even one with a next generation rotary.
Ford Fusion
Look back over the past several decades – can you name one where Ford’s mid-sized sedan offering was considered its best looking product? Fairlane (60s)? Torino (70s)? Tempo (80s)? Contour (90s)? I don’t think so. Yet today, while Ford’s line-up has some great looking vehicles, I’d vote the Fusion as No. 1. It’s beautiful – not a bad line on it. And Ford has continually put money to update it – you may have seen the recent announcement of an upcoming ST model with AWD and 325 hp – I’ll be the first in line at the dealership for a test drive…
Chevy Malibu
I actually didn’t pay much attention to the new Malibu’s introduction as my expectations were pretty low. While the 2008-12 version was considered a competent mid-sizer, the 2012-15 version was routinely derided as cramped, clumsy and crude. So when I first saw this 2016 version I was pretty staggered – “looks nice, no, actually looks real nice……” I saw one magazine refer to it as looking like a US version of an Audi A7. I may not go that far, but again, look throughout GM’s line-up – Buick, Cadillac, other Chevy’s – I think the Malibu comes out on top. And early reviews also give high marks to its interior and driving dynamics.
So – back to our question, is this a golden age for mid-size sedans? I’d say yes.
What do you think?
A qualified maybe. I love the Mazda 6…and having driven the new Malibu, it’s very impressive, too. But beyond that, the Fusion is getting long in the tooth (and always looked to me a bit like someone took a Hyundai Sonata and then said “let’s make the front look like an Aston” and the Chrysler 200 is easy to mistake for a Sonata at 25 feet. Kia Optima is nice, but then you hit Accord, Camry, and Altima and you’re looking at handsome, but unexceptional styling.
If there’s a “Golden Age”, it’ll be the next generation. How do Mazda and Ford refresh? Can Hyundai and Kia keep raising the bar or are they in diminishing returns on styling? And since they’re the three best-sellers, do Honda, Toyota and Nissan have any reason at all to join the cool kids in styling?
Agreed. So much so I purchased a Mazda6 manual. I plan to keep it a long, long time.
The golden age for any class of car has passed long ago.
Until the concept is revived by those much younger than us.
I’ve never understood the concept of “they don’t make them like they used to”, because invariably the newer model is better. In everything except exclusivity of ownership. There’s nothing special about a current sedan because you just go to the dealer and buy one. While a sixty or so year old version cannot necessarily be bought just because you have the available money.
Rose colored memory and lack of availability. The fastest way possible to get a car rated well beyond what they actually were.
Well you used to be able to actually get Rose colored cars back then, and many other flower colors 😀
+1!
And you used to be able to personalise it with trim levels, engine options, interior and exterior accessories to get just what you wanted – and not have one just the same parked next to you.
I’ll throw my vote in for the Kia Optima. Both the last (first really beautiful) generation and the recently introduced new model. One of those rare times when the refresh doesn’t shine badly on the original.
+1. They look like something Saab might have put out if the last decade had turned out better for them.
The Kia is nice.
I thought the previous generation Optima was stunning, clearly ahead of any other mid-size offering at the time (remember it appeared in 2010). The current one is handsome, and smooths out a few of the awkward points of the previous model, but it doesn’t wow me. Too evolutionary, perhaps.
I’m also mad at them for discontinuing Corsa Blue. It was a rare color on the Optima (partially because it was only available on the SX/SX Turbo, partially because it was quite bold) but it looked gorgeous on the car.
I don’t think anything has surpassed the 92 Camry for mid size sedans in terms of design, performance, quality, and value relative to the period. Of course, all the cars mentioned are objectively better, but then that’s true of any automotive segment. I do like the exterior design of the cars mentioned here, but almost universally dislike the interiors of new cars; large cars that feel small, crappy material quality, bizarre styling. And don’t get me started on infotainment systems – although that may just be the Luddite in me. To me, the mid 90s cars didn’t suffer these problems to the same degree, particularly with higher trims. I would have been happier with a Camry XLE in 1992 than a Fusion Platinum today, which cost roughly the same adjusted for inflation.
On the other hand, small cars today absolutely blow anything older out of the water. No contest.
Agree 100%
Infotainment … Sigh. I bought my first car (used) just over 40 years ago. The info was a speedometer, fuel gauge, and coolant temp gauge; and the ‘tainment was an AM radio. I just bought a 2016 Toyota (Tacoma, not a mid-size sedan), my first vehicle with nav, Bluetooth etc and it’s quite an adjustment. A huge waste of dash space and a distraction for the driver. And I’m not really a Luddite; if I could just plug in my smartphone and get a big screen and voice or steering wheel controls, I’d be very happy. But Toyota can not engineer apps or user interface like Apple or even Google/Android. Anyway, back on topic. I think these mid-sizes may be great cars, but does anyone who reads CC really care? The only cars I’ve owned that were even close to this category were a Volvo 122S, an Alfetta Berlina, and a 1st gen BMW 5-Series. I’ve had kids, so you could say I’ve owned “family cars”, I’ve owned several Fords, Toyotas and VWs and one Chevy, but nothing close to a Fusion (or Torino), Camry or Passat. Or Malibu, though my friend in high school had a ’67 Chevelle with 283 and Powerglide. Not a great car, I’m sure today’s Malibu is indeed much better.
My 1999 Accord EX is a fantastic car. The number of them I still see on the road is a testament to the car’s goodness and overall quality & durability. It isn’t too small or big, handles well and gets fantastic gas mileage.
On a given day I may see at least five or six of them driving around as if they were only five years old, not seventeen!
Mine has 191,000 miles on it and still drives and handles like a new car. In my opinion, and I’ve owned quite a few Accords – even much newer ones – my 1999 is my all-time favorite.
Yes, the 1992 Camry was a great car too – but I think my Accord is right up there as being one of the best.
I’d say the Mazda 6 styling is in the eye of the beholder. I say that mazdas corporate schnoz is HANEOUS!!! I’ve driven it and the fusion (2.5 and 1.5) and while I found the fusion a delight to drive the 6 was rough, noisy, weak, and too close in size to the 3.. It’s especially sad given how fun to drive the 03-08 6 was.
We had an ’04 Mazda6 4 cyl auto for about a year. It had about 180k miles on it when it was totaled. A 16 year old girl in a SUV turned left in front of it and they hit head on. Both were totaled. Everyone was safe with just bumps and bruises.
It had good power for a 4 cylinder and drove and rode nice. Seemed to be well put together even with the high miles. I would have to be careful not to hit my head on the low roof getting in and out and I’m only 6ft tall. It was trouble free for the year we had it, but did tend to use a quart of oil every 600 miles. No leaks or smoking though, and passed it’s smog check.
Very loaded question. The key word here is *sedans*, in which I’d say yes, this is possibly the golden age. A 4 door Fairlane from the 60s or a 4 door chevelle from the 70s or a 4 door Mazda in the 80s really was never anything to get excited about. A coupe or hardtop offering however? Eh NO. A 70 Torino sportsroof looks hands down better than the fish faced Fusion, same with a Chevelle coupe, even a Mazda 626 coupe for that matter. But this is the 21st century, where statistics trump emotion, so with us groomed to demand 4 doors, yes 4 door styling is now more inspired.
I would argue though I think the early to mid 90s gives this time a run for the money. The original (gen I and II) Taurus and SHO, the 4DSC Maximas, even the Camry and Accords of that era were great sedans, they too looked good(don’t judge them by familiarity bred contempt and run down beater examples today) and unlike today’s crop of porky pigs, their weight and packaging was still post downsizing svelt, yet they’re all easier to get in and out of unlike the heavily arched rooflines of today. You can see out of them better, trunklines were still reasonably low and they didn’t need a million monitors for blind spots to make driving them easier, they just were. Sure, their power is more modest in today’s nothing under 200 horsepower world, but that’s progress, and odd progress at that, given the fact were all driving them on a day to day basis on the same infrastructure (only more crumbled) and are so inundated with driver distractions I fail to see the point of having a ludicrous speed setting. 220 horsepower examples in that era really put you into the seat more so than today as well, there’s so much emphasis on NVH, isolation, and smoothness in todays cars the often standard 200 horsepower engines that would have been hot 20 years ago just feel weak, by direct comparison.
Oh and new tires for all of these cost a fortune!
I agree XR7Matt, but the SHO and Max of the early 90’s would be better than the equivalent of these as they were considered sports sedans and drove well and offered a lot of features. The early 90’s Accord and Camry I would agree they would give these a run for there money comparatively speaking!
I’ve always liked sedans better, always thought they looked better, and always found them more practical, but I come from a European car background where there is much less peer-pressure to dismiss sedans.
I also don’t know what you guys are smoking with the 90s love. That decade and the early 2000s was wasteland of ultra-cheap molded plastics, temperamental luxurious electronics, and the least creative design language yet put out (short answer: let’s take everything from the 80s and round the edges. done.)
I have no arguments with a 92 Camry as a good new car value, but they are an utterly depressing place to spend time in. To each their own I suppose.
Funny, I’d say today’s design language is let’s take everything from the 90s scale it up 8/7ths and add unnecessary creases and bulges, oh and add BIG wheels. The 90s(and later 80s) pretty much standardized the last major leaps in car design – flush body color bumpers, steeply raked glass, molded headlights and virtually every wind cheating touch that was only present on the occasional model until then. In my eyes, for someone who grew up in the 90s, who supposedly would be nostalgic about it, car design to me really hasn’t changed much since then, it’s just gotten taller and proportions weirder. If I’m going to embrace that design philosiphy I’d rather have the cleanest iteration, and the examples brought up are the ones I’d consider so
It’s all perspective. In the 90s a car having an interior chock full of details like wood or aluminum trim bits to brighten things up was regarded as fussy and cheap. That’s pretty much what modern interiors are. The same “ultra-cheap molded plastics” used then are still used, they’re just camouflaged by so much tinny crap you don’t notice as much. And as far as temperamental electronics go… Well we’ll see how all the infotainment features of current models hold up 10-15 years from now. At least in a 90s car a crappy stock stereo is easily upgraded.
I’m with you here. Mid-size sedan bloat in the last ten years has been awful. I thought the ‘bigger is better’ mentality died back in the seventies. Just because modern engine technology can make cars more economical does not mean everyone will automatically want a bigger car that gives them the same economy as they’re used to.
Memo to car companies: Wake up, you lot! There’s a real world out there, and it’s full of garages and car parks that aren’t getting any bigger. What on earth makes you think I would want a 4.8 metre sedan to replace my old 4.4 metre one? Especially when it’s harder to see out of, and needs electronic band-aids to make up for its packaging deficiencies? No sale!
Those 3 cars all look similar. So, car designers have gone from copying the Camry of the past few years to what now looks like a four door fastback? Don’t any of these car designers have any originality? And the 70’s was the malaise era?
There were a lot of look-alike cars in the ’70s…and ’60s…and ’30s…and on.
Yep, It’s generational! I’ve heard the line that “all cars look alike” my whole life (or since I started noticing cars in the early7 0s) But I say it! Same as saying “today’s music is noise” (and BTW it is…) Now GET OFF MY LAWN!!
Nope. I grew up in the 90s/00s, music was shit then and it’s shit now.
Born too late.
+1
Yes and no.
Yes there were clear design leaders and copycats, but there were still some very different cars.
A Volvo 142 was ALOT different from a VW 411 or a Dodge Dart or a Toyota Corona.
Today, the drivetrain and design difference between Volvo, VW, Dodge, or Toyota is slim.
Jim, I couldn’t agree more; however, I’ll go a bit further and say that this is a golden age for cars at the extremes of the market, specifically the subcompact/compact and exotic/performance segments. Today’s least expensive subcompact sold in the U.S. is, in terms of technology, features, and build quality, light years ahead of even 1970s-era luxury cars. At the opposite price point, we have 1,000 hp, computer-controlled active aerodynamics, carbon fiber and Kevlar construction and engines whose specific output would have been unthinkable not that long ago. The best of times may well lie ahead, but as you pointed out, 2016 is a pretty nice place to be in the interim.
Golden age is, of course, super subjective. I find more recent cars to be too tech laden and claustrophobic for my liking, and the styling is too similar from brand to brand. Of course safety and performance numbers are vastly improved, but that does not make a huge difference to me.
Yes, me too. My in-laws have a Fusion and while it’s quite a nice car and performs great, I feel like I’m in a bunker when I’m driving it. Not a great family car IMO.
I think pretty much all of them look decent, none of them are big enough for me though.
Lest’s see what’ve got:
01. Alfa Romeo Giulia (with a little bit of patience…)
02. Audi A4
03. BMW 3-series
04. Cadillac ATS (yes, we do have Cadillac dealerships)
05. Citroën C5
06. Ford Mondeo
07. Hyundai i40
08. Infiniti Q50
09. Jaguar XE
10. Kia Optima
11. Lexus IS
12. Mazda 6
13. Mercedes C-Class
14. Opel Insignia
15. Peugeot 508
16. Renault Talisman
17. Toyota Avensis
18. Volkswagen Passat
19. Volvo S60
That’s 19 D-segment / mid-size sedans. All of them available with a wide choice of gasoline and diesel engines, and with manual or automatic transmissions. Most of them are also available as a wagon; actually, the wagon is often more popular than the sedan.
And then you still have the DS5 (hatchback only), Skoda Superb (hatchback or wagon) and Subaru Levorg (wagon only). Plus the coupe-versions of the cars mentioned in the list, like the Audi A5 and BMW 4-series.
Hell yes ! This is the Golden Age for the mid-size sedan (and wagon) !
Regarding the (RWD) Alfa Romeo Giulia, until recently we only saw the brutal and red high-performance QV. This is how the lesser gods look, and I like what I see.
The EPA considers the ATS compact size. The CTS is midsize.
The CTS is also available, but isn’t the current model an A6 / E-Class / 5-series competitor ? (E-segment / executive cars, so one level up)
Here in the US I believe we consider those midsizers too. I know the A4, and 3-series are compacts, and I think the C-Class is also a compact.
The equivalent of a midsize car in the US must be a D-segment car in (continental) Europe. The Audi A4, BMW 3-series and Mercedes C-Class are clearly D-segment cars.
If an Audi A4 is a compact, then in which segment is an Audi A3 ?
(C-segment / “Golf-class”)
Here’s an example, using Ford models available in Europe:
A-segment: Ford Ka
B-segment: Ford Fiesta
C-segment: Ford Focus
D-segment: Ford Mondeo
E-segment: -nothing-
F-segment: -nothing-
There are not many automakers that cover all segments from A to F, among them are FCA (Maserati included), Toyota (Lexus included) and the VAG-Group (Audi included).
Midsize is based on the passenger plus cargo space. Station wagons are a separate class. The following European cars are classed as midsize:
Audi A6, A7, RS 7, S6, S7 and S8
Bentley Flying Spur and Mulsanne
BMW 528, 535, 550, M5
Ferrari FF
Jaguar XF
Maserati Ghibli
Mercedes Benz AMG E63, B250e, E250, E350, E400, E550
Mini Cooper Clubman and S Clubman
Rolls-Royce Wraith
Volkswagen Passat
Volvo S80
“Midsize is based on the passenger plus cargo space. Station wagons are a separate class”.
Aha, that explains a lot. Thanks.
Typically a D-segment car is called a “middle-class” car here. It can be a sedan, wagon, coupe, MPV or CUV.
Decades ago the good old Ford Taunus was a middle-class car, while the (Euro) Ford Granada was Ford’s executive car. Ford doesn’t offer an executive car anymore since the death of the Scorpio.
I can’t exactly remember when the whole A to F segmentation began, but it’s handy when you want to compare car models.
I saw a Renault Talisman on the street in Lisbon this week. I really like it, but then I like large Renaults and Peugeots.
Previous top-model Renaults were hatchbacks, like the D-segment Laguna and the older E-segment R25. So apart from the DS5, Skoda Superb and Subaru Levorg the standard for a mid-size car is a sedan. With a wide range of wagons and a few coupes as a bonus.
Great rundown on all the D segment cars available in Europe – wish we had access to all of them in the states. Looks like the Alfa will be coming here soon – looking forward to seeing it. Jim.
There’s a qualified yes. If you can afford the rather stratospheric prices, you can walk into a dealer, plunk down a pile of cash and many of these will perform quite well for their intended function – much better than most cars that preceded them.
But, there are compromises. Bleeding edge electronic and drivetrain technology to optimize electronic competition (for the consumers that care) and to optimize CAFE numbers mean these cars are expensive, complex, and will be very expensive to repair.
The most satisfying cars in this segment have spacious cabins (Camry, Accord, Fusion), that offer V-6 engines (Camry, Accord) relatively simple transmissions (Camry) are going to be the best long term values. I’d probably lump Impala into this class as it really isn’t much larger, looks like the Malibu, and offers a V-6.
Camry is probably the best value proposition by far, but depending on the day I’d probably roll the dice on any of the cars I’ve mentioned. All are well supported by dealers near my home, and that also makes a difference.
Stratospheric? Come on! None of them are that expensive. It’s not like shopping executive class sedans…
Golden age of Catfish Design – absolutely.
However the contents of those pisces bodies are absolutely awesome. Generally roughly 200 hp in the 4 cyl versions and 300 hp in the V6s (where available) and likely double the real world fuel economy of the midsize sedans of my youth in the 1980s.
396-454 Chevelle SS, 389-455 Pontiac GTO, Plymouth Road Runner, Ford Fairlane Talledaga are just a few of the mid-size cars from the mid-late 1960s that were celebrated when new and highly collectable today. While in most cases there cars were terrible for anything except the drag strip, they were beautifully styled (mostly) and made very nice sounds. I doubt that 40 years from now there will be many people collecting today’s Mazda 6 or Chevy Malibu – even though they are much better cars by all objective criteria.
Silver age, maybe. If we have more V6s available…
I would say no these cars and the ones not mentioned all look alike and I find most of them ugly and derivative in styling. They all have round roofs, short hacked off trunks, grotesque giant headlights and space sucking consoles. I don’t like the complexity and over use of infotainment screens and nanny features, I don’t like the size and I don’t like the lack of color or interior choice. The Kia looks the best of the bunch. I would say we are in a horrid period of styling. We have too many cars that look the same along with the hideous mid size derivative crossovers but no big cars, no coupes, no waggins of any size. No broughams, no non tiny convertibles, no rwd. It seems only the Korean companies and Chrysler can make a decent looking car any more. Hopefully all this will pass away and soon.
Contour and tempo were mot mid sized.
It’s somewhat of a gray area. Yes, they were compacts in dimensions but they were “mid-sized” in that they were between the Escort and the Taurus in size, in a segment that evolved to become today’s mid-sizers. And in other markets they would have been considered mid-sized. This was part of a frustrating time where the domestics split their mid-size offerings into two different size classes (Stratus/Intrepid, Malibu/Lumina etc).
I didn’t know Intrepid was a large midsizer. I always thought that it was an actual fullsize since the first gen. And technically GM did that until the Wimpala was replaced with the new Impala.
I see your point – I was basing it on Escort-compact, Contour/Tempo-small mid-size, Taurus-large mid-size, Crown Vic-full size. Agree with William’s assessment. Jim.
I agree that all three sedans are good looking. But I take issue with the Tempo as the Ford example for a mid-size 1980’s sedan. The Tempo was a compact. The Taurus, which was mid-size, was stunning and made every other car company rethink what they were doing with styling.
I was about to say the same thing. The Taurus when it was introduced was considered their mid-sized car, up against the Celebrity (and later Lumina) and Dynasty; the Tempo was their small car shopped against Cavaliers and various K-car variants (and probably numerous Japanese cars, though if they test-drove any of them they wouldn’t drive home in a Tempo). And the Taurus was the best-looking mid-size car available in its time. It’s hard to believe its a 30-year-old design; and other competitors from 1986 (Plymouth Caravelle?) look antiquated next to it.
I don’t like to label current eras “Golden Ages”, as I feel that only time will tell, but I will say that current midsize sedans from most automakers are more appealing than they’ve ever been. In some ways, however, it’s almost overkill just how many technology features you can get on most of these new cars, and how much it will cost you for them.
I mean, a fully-loaded Malibu with leather, blind-spot warning, adaptive cruise control, forward collision alert, sunroof, etc. will run you over $36K… for a Malibu. Prices for other midsize sedans similarly equipped are up in that range as well, though you can get all those same safety and tech features in the Mazda6 for around $3K less. On the other hand though, $36,000 for a fully-loaded car, sans much performance, in some ways is a bargain.
In any event though, most midsize sedans on the market today are quite good looking, with the Mazda6, Kia Optima, and Honda Accord being my favorite current designs. I’d seriously consider them if I were in the market for a new mid-size car.
No one really stepped up their game style-wise until the Koreans did.
No. Beltlines are too high, rooflines are too low. Trying to make the workaday sedan look like a coupe. Fail.
Put me down for the early ’90s too. For the most part, the midsize was a huge step up from a compact in both refinement and usable space; now all the extra length of the Fusion over a Focus or the Mazda 5 over a 3 is eaten up by the increase in console width and roofline swoopiness plus the loss of the compacts’ hatchback option (Same for the Chevy unless you have to buy NOW and are comparing the new Malibu to the outgoing Cruze), and the smaller cars are sufficiently solid and refined that you won’t feel like you’re in a tin box at all.
We are in a time where there really is no “bad” offering in the segment. Even say, 10 years ago, we had a lousy Chrysler Sebring, a mediocre Chevrolet Malibu and Suzuki Verona, etc.
Now, Chrysler’s 200 is a little small but otherwise an appealing package. The Malibu is one of the best in the segment according to initial reviews. The Altima is extremely fuel-efficient. Etc etc.
Say what you will about styling – and I think there are definitely some attractive designs in this segment – but this is a great time to be a mid-sized sedan shopper because you can’t really buy a bad car.
Well put. It really is hard to go wrong in this segment. Personally, I am liking the new Malibu and could well own one in a few years.
+1 William Stopford
I like the Fusion – called Mondeo here. The Mazda 6 is a great car but I think the sides, especially near the front wheel arch, are over styled and will date quickly.
Here in Australia they will finally stop making the Falcon later this year. It has been in production since 1960. The Fusion/Mondeo might just be the biggest Ford we’ll have after that!
I think they might bring the Chinese Taurus to Australia if they decide to have another fullsize car over there.
Mondeo Fusion is wider than the current Falcon already.
Which makes you wonder if there’s really a worthwhile market here for a car that’s even bigger. Ford obviously didn’t think so when they discontinued the Fairlane in 2007.
Ford plans to sell the Fusion/Mondeo down under, the Mondeo is already a good seller in NZ Falcon sales tanked some time ago. Holden is rebadging some more Vauxhalls for Aus/NZ though they will tell you they are locally designed as usual they will be RHD Opels built in the UK by Vauxhall as usual
not according to wikipedia (in regards to the width)
I trust BIL working for Ford much more than Wiki, inside its a bigger car.
The 2013-2015 Nissan Altima deserves some recognition for being in the middle of this golden age of mid-size sedans. A impressive modern design with a upscale appearance that has it looking like its Infiniti Q70 cousin.
I don’t love the Altima’s looks, but I saw a new Maxima the other day and was very impressed with the styling, which I haven’t been able to say about a new Nissan in quite some time.
And the drive on the new Maxima is quite good, a re-worked V6 and cvt (duck and cover) impresses!
I would say it’s only a “golden age” for sedans if you are single or a small family. I’d never seriously consider any of those for our family of 5. Even with just one kid I’d hate to get a kid buckled into a carseat through those low rear doors.
As I mentioned above, my in-laws have a Fusion. Nice car, feels like driving a bunker though. Huge console doesn’t help.
The Accord or Passat with their taller greenhouses should suit your needs. But with a family of 5 I would have to think a minivan would be minimum entry need.
Yep, that’s why we have a minivan. That shouldn’t be a requirement for a family of 5, but with almost all vehicles designed for only 2 real people in the back seat and even most CUVs with tiny 3rd rows, that’s the way it is today.
I think that is ok for a mid-size car, if only there were proper large cars above them that actually fit three adults in the rear seat. Eg the Chevrolet Impala seems to be very little wider than the Malibu.
Oh and while I am at it, let sedans be sedans with decent headroom in the rear. One of the benefits of buying the wagon version if available, in addition to the greater versatility.
The outgoing Malibu is the same width as the Impala, being on the same Epsilon II platform. The new Malibu is also the same width. Remember that both the old W-body Impala and the EII Impala are essentially long mid-size cars, not full-size.
How times (and cars) change. Growing up in the 80s, our car for a family of 5 was a Citation. My friend’s family had a Monte Carlo for their family of 6. Anymore, everyone I know buys a minivan or 3 row SUV once they have one kid.
That’s just a bit excessive! Though, with all the stuff that accompanies babies/toddlers around these days, fitting everything you need for an overnight trip into a sedan might be tough. With wagons having mostly disappeared from the non-premium segment, a CUV/SUV becomes the answer for those who don’t want a minivan.
If you have more than two kids, then a minivan or a 3-row is probably quite necessary…it may have worked at the time, but five people in a Citation or 6 in a Monte sounds pretty miserable!
I would like to add one here that’s not listed unless it’s considered a derivative of but shares no panels, the Lincoln MKZ, comes with a v6 and a lot of upscale features. I think the styling is as good or better than the Fusion.
Some nice European current offerings. (Won’t bother mentioning the ones you already know of in the US, and which are sold there, mercedes, BMW, etc)
I would say quite a few of these are very diverse looking, to say they all look the same would be wrong, really.
Skoda Superb ( lives up to its name.)
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yMT8HcHhV-o/maxresdefault.jpg
Also a very handsome ‘wagon variant:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zt-WpFRwBEU/maxresdefault.jpg
Opel Insignia ( I think Buick sells one of these as a rebadge)
http://www.motorsportnationals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Opel-Insignia.jpg
Stationwagon:
http://www.kvia.no/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Nye-Opel-Insignia-Sports-Tourer-02.jpg
Peugeot 508
http://bestcarmag.com/sites/default/files/9021845peugeot-508-04.jpg
Wagon/tourer:
http://www.topgear.com/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_1280w/public/cars-car/image/2015/02/buyers_guide_-_peugeot_508_sw_2014_-_front_quarter.jpg?itok=f3LApUZe
Renault Talisman:
http://icdn3.digitaltrends.com/image/2015-renault-talisman-left-side-angle-970×647-c.jpg
Wagon/tourer:
http://bilde.dinside.no/renault+talisman+sport+tourer-renault+talisman+som+stasjonsvogn+.jpg?o=5274789&w=940&h=0&ee=1440600659
Citroen C5:
http://media.citroen.no/image/98/5/-0mm00n9v-1cx7a4sj2mzza0cz-zzzzzzzz-001-01.152985.png
C5 tourer:
http://allfotocars.com/data_images/gallery/01/citroen-c5-tourer/citroen-c5-tourer-02.jpg
I wouldn’t disagree with your premise, or 2/3rds of your nominees. The Malibu doesn’t do anything for me style-wise; the Optima is far more stylish, however I also find the Accord very attractive.
To those of you who think all mid-size sedans look alike these days as opposed to the ‘good old days’, here’s some evidence to the contrary…
Yeah, but why not throw a Volvo 144, VW Type 412, or Toyota Corona, or BMW Bavaria in the photo mix, and then it would be very clear that mid sized sedans did look quite a bit different.
For the record, I’m not hating on new cars, that Fusion is **really** sharp for example, but there is virtually no technological or design difference between Euro-Asian-American automobiles, while in the past there was quite the spread…
Add the current Passat, Camry, and BMW 5-series and they look different today as well.
It has to be mentioned that the US interpretation of midsize (or back then, intermediate) was vastly different to the rest of the world’s. It still is to a smaller degree.
The golden age will be over once they replace everything with turbos and CVTs.
I love my mid-size sedan — even more-so than my old Mercedes C230 Sport Coupe Kompressor (how come that hasn’t been written about yet, but I digress lest I get assigned the task).
I have the 1st generation, version 2 (it’s a 2012) of the Ford Fusion that is based on the Mazda6 platform and I absolutely adore the machine. It is definitely my golden age of vehicle ownership. It has all the features of the old Merc plus power seats and has reliability built in (knock on wood…).
What’s not to love? With the Mazda designed engine and GM-Ford multi (3 figure)-million dollar joint venture R&D 6 speed 6F35 automatic transmission (probably a weak point, I concede), I anticipate this will be a long lasting relationship beyond the 1.5 years I’ve already owned the thing for. Even down to the “lowly” 1986 Ford Tempo I once drove, I have always regarded Fords as being attuned to North American driver’s needs and pragmatically designed such that they feel like old boots from day one — no wonder Ford trucks are so popular.
As for other mid-size sedans in the jungle, the Accord and Camry are always the go-to references when fellow co-workers need car buying advice. The new Chevrolet Malibu looks enticing for sure with its tasteful design. The Subaru Legacy has a premium air about it. And Hyundai was a bit of a game changer (1986 Taurus style, perhaps, but to a lesser degree) with its Great Recession-era Sonata.
Only recently, however, I have been disappointed to read about Chrysler’s misfortune with the 200’s reputation; I thought for sure it would have distanced itself from the previous lackluster generation based on initial reviews, but I guess not. Too bad.
So yes, I would have to agree that now, if not the past decade (because I’m biased with my current and adored Fusion 😛 ), could certainly be considered the golden age of mid-sized sedan motoring.
***
“Sync: Please say a command.” …
Love it.
I think this is in fact a Golden Age for mid-size sedans, at least in terms of choice.
Want a stripped down, no nonsense commuter with not much amenities? That’s gonna cost you about 22,500 before incentives.
How about something with a couple more speakers, power seat(s), and fancier alloy wheels? 25,000.
Looking for more customization? Hybrid? All wheel drive? Leather? Sunroof? Appearance Package? Heated Seats? Premium audio? 25,000-30,000 will get you a mixture of any of these features.
Of course, you can hunger for more advanced amenities above 30,000, but the just under 30k price point offers up so many choices for the modern shopper, and its ALL the manufacturers doing this, not just some of them.
This isn’t a trend unique to mid sizers, but the lack of a true stinker highlights the great choices you have when picking out a sedan and the requisite option package.
If you wanted something to chase Corvettes with, the CTS-V is about $85,000. The turbo V6 CTS is less and might do.
Golden age for mid-sized cars? Perhaps in terms of exterior design, maybe, but a sense of sameness reigns supreme.
1. You basically get one interior color – charcoal grey/black. You used to be able to have much more choice.
2. Lack of bright colors. Same old white, gray, black, taupe, silver or some sort of dark red. Boring, boring, boring. (yes, my 2012 Impala is Ashen Gray w/black interior.)
All these and many more cars that are 4-door sedans look like coupes, and there’s simply just not the airy feeling when you sit in one. I believe – and I hate to say this – the Camry is the closest to a traditional three-box design that is, in my opinion, necessary for back seat passenger comfort and interior roominess, not to mention outward visibility..
That being said, I love the new Malibu, but saddling all these cars with 4 cylinder engines in spite of the vehicle’s weight just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
The colors, or lack thereof, are a definite annoyance. Would it be that hard to offer some more exciting hues? They’re available on compacts. I guess no dealers would stock them because they might be hard to move…
And for the interiors, I don’t expect a return to greens and golds, but how hard would it be to offer a third color? Brown can look nice. Red is a fun option in a black or dark-colored car. I think the new Lincoln Continental carried a blue interior on the auto show circuit; I wonder if that’s actually going to be a production option?
We really lost a lot when dealers started refusing to special-order cars. At least in my opinion. And I don’t know if that’s the fault of the dealers, or if the manufacturers won’t build to order anymore.
This is a good time for mid-size sedans, but I think the late ’80s and early ’90s were nice too (1st-gen Taurus being my favorite), and a case could be made this is the golden age of C-segment small cars (Golf, Civic, Mazda 3, Focus), minivans (a top-of-the-line Sienna Limited, Odyssey Touring, or the new Pacifica are awesome road-trip vehicles whether your passengers are kids or adults), super-minis (has there ever been so much competence in this segment – Fit, Fiesta, Mazda 2 er Scion er Toyota iA), and of course crossover SUVs which take up half the market so there must be a good one out there.
I’m still an old car guy, but i’d agree that the new Malibu looks really good. And the newer Impalas look great, as well……especially from the rear. They look sporty aggressive, and I don’t know if I can say that about an Impala since the mid to late 60’s. The Fusion, I think, is also a great looking car. It blends Euro styling with American flavour, and for a regular sedan that lots of people drive, it is one of the best looking that I can remember.
I can find things to like about both older and newer cars so I don’t exactly consider today’s bunch a golden age. That is unless you put a load of emphasis on reliability (never a real problem with any of my cars over the years) outright handling, highway fuel economy and safety. But with these 4 items comes deficiencies. You want that Fusion or Malibu in a coupe or wagon. Yeah right. You want a V6. Well you can wait until Summer and get an AWD Fusion with 325 HP for nearly 40 large! Otherwise it’s 4 bangers all the way unless you buy an Accord or Camry. You want some interior color. Well your choices are limited to charcoal, grey and maybe tan on a few select higher trim levels. You can forget about blue, maroon, light green, white etc unless you fancy that Special Edition Camry with it’s blue seat inserts. How about Winter driving. Well unless you take the poverty spec base trim levels with 16 or 17″ tires plan on treacherous 18-20″ rubber that makes driving in inclement weather a nerve wracking experience. Oh and those massive over sized tires make ride quality deteriorate considerably on bad pavement, increase road noise and impact harshness, cost a small fortune to replace and develop air leaks and flats very easily.
Complexity. Each year it gets worse with more and more and more so called safety items designed to save us from ourselves and replace driving skill with electronics. That is when it works properly. My rental 2015 Taurus had radar cruise control that refused to stay working for any given time often switching itself off. Surprise! My best friend rented a 2015 Impala LTZ that did the same thing. Touch screens and infotainment. To operate the settings on that Taurus’s heated seats means going into that blasted touch screen, into the menus screen just to adjust the setting which means that I must pull the car over in order to do so or risk getting into a major accident. Blind side zone alert. It sometimes went ballistic when I was driving in any construction zone with high cement barriers thinking a car was on the side of me. I ended up turning all this crap off because it was proving useless. I have little faith most of this stuff will work after the warranty runs out. And lets not forget about keeping all this tech up to date. The moment you roll that new car off the lot the software is already outdated and like GM’s Onstar built prior to 2006 is not compatible with the latest updates leaving you with a potentially tech laden glitch ridden mess that you could lose some or all features on.
Then there is engine/drive train complexity. Direct fuel injection has caused many owner headaches with failed timing chains, skips and unsteady rough idle situations. Power loss too due to sever coking of the intake valves which in many cases requires pulling the top of the motor apart to run solvents or crushed walnut shells through to correct. Now we have tiny displacement 4 cylinders with turbos and direct injection running there asses off in hot climates and ignorant owners not changing the oil enough or letting the engine sit and idle to equalize the temperature. Does anybody think today’s little turbo direct injected engines will last 200-300K miles without failures and expensive turbo replacement? I’m having serious doubts. Ditto some of the new transmissions with 8 and 9 speeds, DCT’s and CVT’s. These units have dropped many new car scores over the past 4-5 years with numerous complaints of roughness, slipping, harshness and hesitation, all things that most average consumers are not used to after a real golden age of 90’s to early 00″s electronic 4 speed transmissions that shifted perfectly all the time gave. Worse it varies from one car to the next. One Malibu or Fusion 6 speed could shift perfectly while another could hesitate and clunk. That is why car reviews vary drastically from one car to the next. I have driven load of newer rental cars. Some shift good while others like a 2015 Chrysler 200 9 speed was a mitigated disaster! That horrible excuse of a trans axle ruined my impression of an otherwise okay car and I would never consider one because of it.
Styling. I would swear that only 4 overall car designers exist today. The BMW stylists. The Lexus stylists. The fastback coupe like sedan stylists and the retro stylists. Everything else is just a rip off or miss mash of somebody else’s ideas often taking many design elements from the first 3. About the only ones that really stand out are the retro coupes like the Mustang, Camaro, Challenger and the Beetle. The FCA RWD large sedans also stand out with bold brashness. BMW’s, Mercedes, Jaguar, Infinity, Acura, Audi, Volvo etc not so much. Well we were driving around in a huge car dealer that carried all of these brands and my best friend’s son pointed to a new Bimmer and said look at that new Lexus. I told him it was a Bimmer. He then mistook an Infinity for a Nissan, a Lexus 350 for a Camry and thought a new Chrysler 200 was an Altima from the side. Forget about the Korean knock offs like the K900 or Genesis. Also gone from today’s cars are presence, flash, chrome, trim and ornamentation. And some don’t even offer exterior colors other than white, silver, grey, black, tan and some form of extra cost pearl coat. The coupe like roof lines also, as mentioned many times, take much away from side and rear visibility. I recently sat in 6 mid/full size sedans including the Taurus, new style Impala, Fusion, Malibu, 200 and Optima. Not one of them was worth a crap for rear visibility and the tapered off rear door window made the back seat feel more claustrophobic meaning that yet another electronic device is a necessary evil to combat this, the rear view camera.
Now we can say plenty of good things with these new car designs too. That 325 HP Fusion Sport AWD will be quite the performer in a straight line and on the twists. It will probably be a reasonably good long distance cruiser, have better than average traction in anything but outright Winter driving and will probably be very reliable well past 100K miles if services regularly. Name one 325 HP mid size sedan from the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s that could make this claim. All for the starting price of 35K and with AWD. Want something for about 21K. Well you have many good mid or compact choices with longer than normal bumper to bumper warranty’s of 5/60k on the Korean
cars as an example and 5/60 powertrain on GM and Chrysler.
All three of the cars you cite here Jim are my favorites of the mid-sizers currently available, so I think I may have to say yes to this QOTD.
Can’t disagree. IMHO the Fusion, the Optima, and the Acoord are the best lookers, and the Malibu is growing on me. The Altima is just plain weird (like every Nissan), as is the the Sonata. The Camry shows its stale 2001 bones if one looks at it carefully. The Dart and the 200 I can’t say as I have any opinion on them, they just seem to fade into the background.
The Fusion is ok as rental cars go, but the “trout pout” is getting old.
Also, the rear of the Fusion is totally uninspired. Kudos to Chevy for making a better looking cat.
Plus the Accord is way classier than the rental Fusion.
I’m in rentals almost every week. Last week I had a 2016 Impala LTZ V6. Very competent, lusty engine, an all-day cruiser. The week before I had a 2016 Passat TSI. Basically I could say the same thing about it as the Impala aside from the little puffer turbo 4 vs. the Impala’s V6.
I don’t get Fusions nearly as much as I used to, but the last one was a hybrid Titanium edition and while power was lacking somewhat it was as good as the VW and Chevy. I like the looks of the Fusion better; it still looks pretty fresh despite the age, but the 2016 facelift is barely noticeable.
In 2011 I rented a Mondeo turbodiesel in Romania and was so impressed with the way it drove and handled in the sketchy Carpathian mountain roads. The torque from that engine could uproot a redwood, and it had a fine six-speed manual. Ford did a good job of bringing that car to N America in 2012 to replace the prior Fusion, even offering it with a manual up until last year I think (I’ve never seen one of course). But it’s getting old.
In this class there really aren’t any BAD cars, even the maligned Chrysler 200, though to be honest I’d take pretty much anything else over it because it’s so uninteresting and dull. I’ll take a Passat, Impala, Fusion over any Korean or Japanese marque on the Avis lot. The Optima is nice, but the rest are so… beige.
I don’t like the 200 much either mainly due to the cramped rear seat, but I do feel it’s got the best infotainment system out of any of them which can be a compelling reason in itself after dealing with Ford’s Sync (now gone) or Honda’s dual screens.
As with CR the 200 would be at the very bottom of my shopping list after having spent a weekend with a 2015 200 S with the 2.4 and 9 speed automatic. It wasn’t a horrible car exactly. Its just that many little things and one huge problem made me dislike the experience altogether. Yes that 9 speed transmission was the pits and ruined the way this car drove. I wanted to like this car and when they handed me the keys I was fairly excited to try out an all new design which is a rare thing at the rental places these days.
Rear visibility was bad and my head touches the roof back there due to its low sloped roof line. The seats at first seemed okay but after several hours the side of my left leg was bothering me due to the overly aggressive side bolstering. The stupid knob that Chrysler substitutes for a proper shifter was very annoying and I on several occasions nearly put the car into reverse mistaking it for the fan speed or radio volume knob. It’s a small wonder there are pending complaints filed to NHTSA about this.
The 2.4 didn’t feel like it was making 184 HP which is the same as the Mazda and close to the Accord. Both of those entries are much quicker and I blame that on the 9 speed and extra weight this car has over it’s competitors. Speaking of the transmission it was the single worst aspect of the car. It shuddered, felt like a massive rubber band was keeping it from moving off the line, was slow and dim witted and was a royal pain in city driving never seeming to be in the right gear. Chrysler would have been far smarter to offer this car with the old 6 speed from the previous car as the basic choice and refined it for better mileage.