Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been browsing the car lots looking for my next purchase and it seems like the large or full sized sedans are little different from the mid-sized sedans in size anymore.
The Buick LaCrosse doesn't seem much different than the Regal.
The Toyota Avalon seems almost the same as the Camry.
The Nissan Altima looks little different than the Maxima.
The Acura RLX doesn't seem much larger than the TLX.
The Ford Fusion and the Tauras seem little different in size.
The Lexus LS 460 doesn't seem much larger than the ES 350.
These full sized offerings still can cost quite a bit more, but seem to offer little more in size or weight. Does it seem like it is worth the cost to go for the full sized offerings?
The midsize class isn't really the same old class of the past. Most when fully loaded make it seem that you're indeed purchasing a full size (interior quality) and the cars have gotten bigger, nearly full sized (interior space, length).
Still some differences but much easier to cross shop between a midsize or a full size and think about whether the extra 10-20k is worth it (with options) or even on base models. Spend a few grand more and get a base Avalon or get a fully loaded Camry.
Cars like the Honda Accord and Camry have a bigger interior while being lighter and smaller overall. That contributes to better fuel economy, acceleration, braking and handling usually. I see little value in a full size car unless you want certain luxury features.
Yes and no. For some like the Nissan Altima/Maxima they're very very very close. For others like the Mercedes E/S class there's a big difference.
There is also a lot of variation in midsize cars. Take the Honda Accord for example. A base model with cloth, etc isn't very nice. A loaded EXL V6 is basically an Acura.
Last edited by Mandalorian; 04-23-2015 at 08:00 PM..
I think those labels can be pretty arbitrary anyway.
A good friend of mine has a '12 Chrysler 200--a mid size, while I have a '13 Focus, a compact.
Yet given a vote, our three teenagers prefer MY back seat to hers. They're positive mine has a "bigger" back seat.
The 2008-2012 Accord sedan was categorically classified as a full size car. I think it has exactly 120 cubic feet of interior volume which puts it over the line. Yet I don't feel like I drive a full size when I drive my 2011 Accord V6 sedan. That car will haul a** AND five people in comfort.
The definitions, if you're old enough, have also changed. Yesterday's (1975) compact car, say a Ford Maverick, is today's mid-size, say a Fusion or even full size Taurus.
Even the Crown Vic, while being the biggest cars made today (I know they stopped being made a few years ago) was still smaller than the land yachts of 40 years ago.
Cars today, as mentioned, do have a lot more interior room.
Cars are becoming indistinguishable from one another anyway. You could remove the badges from one brand, stick it on another brand, and no one would know the difference. Individual style between makes is long gone. Pretty soon we will all be riding around in square boxes with wheels.
Don
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
