Chevrolet Impala LTZ vs. Chrysler 300S vs. Ford Taurus SEL vs. Kia Cadenza vs. Toyota Avalon Ltd
Is there a more peculiar automotive segment than that of the entry-level, full-size sedan? Loved by comfort-seeking retirees, client-shuttling businessmen, and family-hauling parents alike, the full-size sedan means many things to many people. To us, the full-size segment should mean comfort, interior space, and lots of features. As a step up from the popular midsize market, these sedans are aimed squarely at those who can’t quite afford (or don’t want to pay for) a full-fledged luxury platform.
The last time we visited this space, we pitted the Toyota Avalon (the very same one we have here, in fact) against the new Hyundai Azera and the aging Nissan Maxima. The result of that comparison was a photo finish between the Hyundai and the Toyota, with the Avalon winning by just a grille. Now, we’ve invited the Avalon back to take on two brand-new-to-market challengers, the Chevrolet Impala and Kia Cadenza, along with two recent large refreshes, the Chrysler 300S and the Ford Taurus.
The winner will need to display superiority through multiple criteria, including ride comfort, interior refinement, performance, fuel economy, safety, and value. Full-size sedan shoppers are about as concerned with the fun-to-drive aspect as they are Justin Bieber, so we’ll put our normal enthusiast perspectives aside for this one and concentrate on what makes a full-size sedan so desirable to so many people.
Ride and Handling
Let’s face it: If you’re shopping for a full-size sedan, ride comfort is paramount. Leave the kidney-busting, sport-tuned damping for the sport sedans of the world — this segment is all about a ride that won’t leave sloshed latte all over your business colleague’s white-collared shirt.
Sad to say, a comfortable, composed ride is something the Avalon just doesn’t have, as we noted in our last full-size comparison. Associate editor Mike Febbo found “it crashes and bangs over the smaller bumps, then just floats away over the bigger ones.” Those crashes and bangs also transmitted a lot of noise through the cabin, leading to a “cheap and unrefined” feel, according to executive editor Ron Kiino. The Avalon’s steering seemed artificial, though the Toyota did feel fairly nimble on the twistier sections of our drive route, in part because of its low 3557-pound curb weight.
The Chrysler 300 had a firmer than average ride as well, but managed to maintain a strong level of comfort and composure. It rolled little in corners and had plenty of grip, but as the only one in the pack to tip the scales at more than 2 tons, there was no hiding the 300’s bulk. Perhaps most disappointing was that the Chrysler’s rear-drive platform didn’t make it feel much different from the rest of the front-drivers. Around the curves, the car felt much more nose-heavy than its best-in-test 51/49-percent front/rear weight split would suggest.
The full-size segment should mean comfort, interior space, and lots of features
By comparison, the 3968-pound Ford Taurus (the second-heaviest car here) was decidedly middle of the pack. “On the road, the Taurus is acceptable,” said associate online editor Benson Kong. “The car bounces around a bit, but it isn’t uncomfortable.” That soft, floaty ride contributed to massive body roll in corners that, when combined with quick turn-in, tossed occupants around more than we’d like.
The Impala, while lighter on its feet than the 300, drew fans for its “American car” ride — supple and never crashy, though well-composed and stable at the same time. Said Kong, “The Impala is my pick for most appropriate ride of the segment. There’s a bit of a controlled heave to let you know, ‘Hey, the car is going to provide as plush a ride as it can.'” Kiino agreed, “The ride is well composed. Much better than Toyota’s and marginally better than Kia‘s.”
But what of the Kia? Associate online editor Nate Martinez noted of the Cadenza, “It’s extremely smooth, well-sorted, and amazingly comfortable.” While the Kia’s steering lacked much feel, it wasn’t significantly worse off than most others in the group, and body roll was minimal. Also worth noting: The Kia drove like the smallest car in the group, even though it’s larger in every exterior dimension than the Avalon.
Fun fact: Every vehicle in this test has a dual-overhead cam, 24-valve, 60-degree V-6 under the hood. In fact, the greatest variance between the smallest engine in our group (Kia) and the largest (Chrysler) is a measly 16 cubic inches. It’s what they did with those cubic inches that mattered.
The Avalon impressed everyone with its smooth, punchy power delivery and a transmission that was quick to respond, especially in Sport. With the lightest weight and such an eager V-6, it wasn’t a surprise when the Toyota posted the top quarter-mile time of the group. “The 3.5-liter V-6 is the best part of this car,” said Kong.
Kia’s Cadenza also impressed with its eager 3.3-liter mill and paddle-shiftable six-speed auto. Though only midpack on output with 293 hp on tap, the Kia tied for second-quickest quarter-mile time with the most powerful car in the group: the 305-hp Chevy Impala. On the road, both cars felt plenty quick merging into busy freeway traffic, but on winding, hilly roads, the Chevy‘s transmission hunted endlessly for the proper gear, resulting in frustration and a lot of engine noise. Manual mode is an option, but per Kiino, “The toggle buttons aren’t the quickest or easiest to use. Give me paddles!”
Most editors found the Kia’s shift paddles well-placed, but thought downshifts were a little slow to arrive, while upshifts were usually quick.
Another car in this pack to offer paddle shifters was the Chrysler 300S. Feedback was generally positive for the 300’s 3.6-liter Pentastar engine and adjoining eight-speed automatic. Though the Chrysler was the heaviest car of the group, it trailed the Avalon by just 0.2 second in the quarter mile and did it with a burly rumble from its exhaust. The 300 also earned praise from Kiino for its quick-acting gearbox. “The eight-speed is sweet — smooth, quick, and intuitive.”
The Impala drew fans for its plush “American car” ride over rough stretches of road
The Taurus brought up the rear of the pack in most performance measures. Slowest in the quarter mile and the longest-stopping car from 60 mph at 125 feet (the 300 and Impala were shortest at 115), the Ford had just 20 more horsepower than the Avalon to bring its additional 400 pounds up to speed.
That said, its quick turn-in and huge 255-width tires were enough to bring it the second-quickest time in our figure-eight testing, behind the 300. Unfortunately, the Ford suffered from lots of engine noise and a balky transmission, with similar gear hunting and awkward button-style manual modes to those of the Chevy.
With curb weights in this group ranging from just shy of 3600 pounds to more than 4100, your average 3-and-then-some-liter V-6 has to work reasonably hard to gather and maintain momentum. While we do tend to push our test cars a bit harder than the average user, our figures take into account freeway driving, city driving, and the type of winding, hilly back roads you might find on your next weekend getaway. With all the cars driven the same way on the same roads, we’re able to draw some conclusions about which are more efficient in the real world — EPA numbers aside.
Just looking at EPA numbers shows that four of our cars are rated at 19 mpg city (the Avalon is 21 mpg city) and a spread of 28 to 31 mpg highway (Kia at the bottom end, Toyota and Chrysler at the top). Our observed, real-world numbers were nothing close to those.
Even an eight-speed transmission couldn’t help the Chrysler. The 300’s Pentastar V-6 downed fuel like a hipster chugging PBR to keep its 2 tons moving, returning a lackluster 16.1 mpg in our testing. That’s 3 mpg less than even its EPA city estimate. The Ford fared a bit better at 18.1 mpg, but with its constant gear-hunting and second heaviest curb weight it couldn’t contend for the top spot. Not surprisingly, the Ford and Chrysler had the worst weight-to-power ratios of the group, with 13.8 and 13.7 lb/hp, respectively.
The Chevy and Kia finished just 0.1 mpg apart at 19.0 and 18.9 mpg, respectively, an especially impressive performance for the Chevy given its extra 100 pounds over the Kia and its penchant for gear-hunting. Both cars effectively matched their estimated city EPA rating, which, considering our road driving loop, is fair.
The not-so-surprising winner of the fuel-economy shootout was the Toyota Avalon. With observed fuel economy of 22.1 mpg, not only did the Toyota beat its city EPA rating by 1 mpg, it also beat the Chrysler’s observed rating by a huge 6 mpg, despite an equal EPA highway rating of 31 mpg. In our last full-size test, the Avalon outsipped the Hyundai Azera and Nissan Maxima by nearly 3 mpg.
The 300S rode well and rolled little in corners, but there was no hiding its considerable bulk
A full-size sedan’s interior is a complex thing. Not only does it have to provide the driver with comfort, practicality, and pleasing aesthetics, it also has to provide the same for up to four passengers. As a near-luxury segment, there’s also a higher expectation of quality for full-size sedans. Just as no one would pay for business class and be happy flying coach instead, full-size sedan shoppers shouldn’t settle for midsize amenities.
The Avalon made up some ground in this category, too, with an interior that drew style praise from nearly everyone. Though the material quality didn’t wow every editor, the rear seat did with an abundance of legroom and separate climate controls instead of just vents as in the competition. The Avalon was also exclusive in offering three (instead of just two) 12-volt outlets and featuring auto up/down rear windows. As with the Kia, the rear seats are also heated.
Kia scored high here as well. Though on paper, rear seat legroom comes up a few inches short to the Toyota, sitting in the rear cabin reveals little difference in actual space. We also praised the Kia for its rear-window sunshade (as in the 300 and Avalon), soft leather upholstery and heated and cooled front seats (also seen in the Toyota and Chevy). One strike against: Front and rear headroom were found to be slightly lacking for 6-plus-footers, possibly to do with the panoramic sunroof. Some also disliked the virtual gauge display.
The Avalon crashed and banged over bumps, transmitting lots of harsh noise to the cabin
The best of the rest was the Chevy Impala, with a fairly spacious but somewhat hard and uncomfortable rear seat. We also griped about the laggy center display and questionable gray leather with teal stitching, a color combination we might have seen at a Sizzler restaurant in the 1990s. That said, headroom was good front and rear, and there were two USB ports in the center console. Trailing just behind was the Chrysler 300 with less usable rear seat room than the others despite its huge dimensions. While the dashboard layout was pleasant enough and the display worked well, some felt the all-black interior needed to be livened up a little.
Bringing up the rear was the Ford Taurus, with its “gun-slit” rear window visibility, marginal rear seat room (though some found slightly more foot and legroom than in the 300) and plenty of hard plastic interior materials. This being a low-optioned tester, the Taurus was also low on features and many found the front seating area cramped as well, with an oversized center console and protruding dash.
<img src="http://enthusiastnetwork.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/42/2013/06/2013-Toyota-Avalon-Limied-cockpit-cabin.jpg" alt="2013 Toyota Avalon Limited
Big on room and features, but materials need improvement.” class=”wp-image-2102622″ /><img src="http://enthusiastnetwork.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/42/2013/06/2014-Chevrolet-Impala-LTZ-cockpit-cabin.jpg" alt="2014 Chevrolet Impala LTZ
It’s middle of the road in most areas, but the rear cabin is roomy.” class=”wp-image-2102623″ />
It’s all about the trickle-down tech. Once only found in the rarified air of S-Classes and 7 Series sedans, adaptive cruise control, lane-departure warning, precollision systems, adaptive lighting, and blind-spot monitoring have made their way to the masses. The Kia, for example, includes all those things, plus eight airbags when the boxes for the Technology and Luxury packages are ticked, as on our tester. Unfortunately, the Cadenza is so new to market that it has yet to be crash-tested by either the IIHS or NHTSA. The similar Hyundai Azera was tested by the IIHS and named a Top Safety Pick, though it has yet to be tested by the NHTSA.
The Impala is also yet to be tested by either safety organization, meaning crash test results can only be hinted at by the Cadillac XTS, with which it shares a platform. The XTS also received a Top Safety Pick rating from the IIHS, and our Impala came with blind-spot monitoring, frontal-collision warning, and a lane departure warning system all standard as part of the 2LZ package.
The Avalon, Taurus, and 300 have all been tested by the NHTSA and the IIHS, each receiving 5-star overall and Top Safety Pick scores by the respective organizations, though the Toyota was the only one that didn’t achieve five stars on the NHTSA’s frontal crash test. As expected by its entry-level price, the Taurus is lightest on techy safety features, with no preemptive crash avoidance to speak of, though it does have eight airbags.
Our 300 came equipped with blind-spot monitoring and what Chrysler calls Cross Path Detection, which monitors intersections and driveways for vehicles approaching from the side. Forward collision warning and adaptive cruise control are also part of our car’s SafetyTec package, among other features. Seven airbags can be found in the 300’s cabin.
Like the 300, the Avalon includes adaptive cruise control in its Technology package, as in our car, and adds a precollision system to boot. Blind-spot monitoring is standard and the Toyota boasts 10 airbags.
In acceleration, braking, and handling, the Taurus brought up the rear of the pack
In these times, value is more important than ever. The midsize sedan segment is one of the industry’s largest markets, offering lower prices than most anything in the full-size range. The question that follows is: What’s the rationale for going full-size over midsize? Interior space and luxury-type features are the most popular answers, so which of our pack gives the most for the least amount of money?
Though the Taurus is light on the wallet with the lowest as-tested price by roughly $6000, it was also light on content and space, and the only car here without nav. For the $33,490-as-tested price, you’d get better bang for the buck in the midsize segment.
We hoped for a little more from the Chrysler 300 as well. Though it offers enough options to rival luxury sedans at a whole other price level, value here also means a rear seat that doesn’t penalize those who have to sit in it. Value also means offering reasonable fuel mileage, and with the lowest efficiency of the group, the Chrysler falls well short of the mark laid down by its competitors in this test.
Chevy’s Impala fared better, offering features of the most expensive car here at a price tag that was $3000 less. A large rear seat and the second-best fuel efficiency also spell value with capital letters, and acceleration is just 0.1 second slower than the quickest car in this competition.
That leaves the Avalon and the Cadenza at $42,500 and $41,900, respectively. The Toyota’s huge fuel economy advantage, roomy rear seat, and exclusive features all bode well for its performance here. But the Kia takes the value cake with similar interior space to the Toyota, better interior materials, 19-inch wheels, and lane-departure warning, all for hundreds less than the Avalon. Sure, $600 isn’t much of a difference at this price point, but here’s the kicker: If you remove the safety-laden technology package from the Kia’s option list, its price drops to under $39,000, making it the second-cheapest car of the group behind the Ford. Now that’s a strong value proposition, if you ask us.
Despite its large exterior dimensions, the Kia drove like a much smaller car than it really is
Cost of Ownership
To give you a better picture of what your new car purchase might cost in the long run, we’ve asked IntelliChoice, our partner in the Motor Trend Automotive Group, to provide five-year cost of ownership data for our consumer-focused Big Tests. IntelliChoice is a recognized leader in providing data on average depreciation, fuel cost, fees, insurance, financing, maintenance and repairs, and more for every car on the market. And if you’re not ready to buy one of the cars in this comparison today, IntelliChoice also provides data on used and Certified Pre-Owned cars, so you can buy a used model in a few years’ time with confidence.
Our low-cost leader in this comparison is clearly the Ford Taurus, but that doesn’t tell the whole story, because of the Taurus’ low purchase price. The Toyota Avalon featured the lowest depreciation by percentage of purchase price (52 percent) while also boasting the lowest fuel cost along with the second-lowest maintenance and insurance totals.
With gas tanks hovering near empty and engines ticking softly as they cooled, we wrapped up our drive loops and sat down to a seafood-fueled debate over which pretender to the luxury car throne made the most convincing argument. We talked about how the Chrysler had the most street presence of the pack and how frugal the Taurus’ price point was, even if it struggled to keep up. We agreed that the Impala represented a huge comeback for an even bigger nameplate and probably has one of the best-looking front ends this side of a Camaro.
We discussed the Avalon’s stylized interior and its huge efficiency advantage over the rest of the pack, and expressed disappointment that its ride and interior isolation had diminished from the previous car. Then we talked about how Kia had managed to build a car utilizing roughly the same engine and platform as its upscale brother, Hyundai, and somehow managed to do a better job. While the Kia wasn’t the best in every category, it was strong in those that make the most difference: ride comfort, interior space, and fuel economy. It has a features list that could rival an $80K BMW‘s and value that places it above its full-size brethren. For those reasons, the Kia Cadenza is our full-size champ.
1st place: Kia Cadenza
A huge value proposition, solid fuel efficiency, near-luxury ride, and pretty sheetmetal make the Kia our near-unanimous choice for first place.
2nd place: Chevrolet Impala
Despite a few flaws, the Impala offers a well-thought-out package at a reasonable cost. This is a solid step forward for the American sedan.
3rd place: Toyota Avalon
Extremely efficient and generous in interior room and features, the Avalon is let down by a bone-shaking ride and an uninspiring drive.
4th place: Chrysler 300S
A pretty face goes a long way, but it can’t argue with reality. Poor fuel economy and interior room relegate the good-looking Chrysler to fourth.
5th place: Ford Taurus
The Taurus needs more than a refresh to compete in this segment. If you’re on a budget, shop for something in the midsize category.
Not just heated rear seats, but a climate-control knob for rear passengers, too.
The only contender to offer heated and cooled cupholders.
The touch screen display rises to reveal a USB input and storage for an iPod.
An analog dash clock and faux wood trim make an attempt at old-guard luxe.
The space-age center stack is sleek and stylish.
|Chevrolet Imapla LTZ||Chrysler 300S||Ford Taurus SEL||Kia Cadenza||Toyota Avalon Limited|
|Purchase Price (including tax)||$38,724||$41,633||$33,580||$44,349||$43,972|
|Average State Fees||$453||$517||$481||$520||$536|
|5-Year Cost of Ownership||$48,076||$49,940||$42,646||$53,069||$47,321|
|PURCHASE PRICE: Target purchase price includes destination and average applicable state taxes applied to a transaction price between invoice and retail, based on applicable incentives.|
|2014 Chevrolet Impala LTZ||2013 Chrysler 300S||2013 Ford Taurus SEL|
|DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT||Front engine, FWD||Front engine, RWD||Front engine, FWD|
|ENGINE TYPE||60-deg V-6, aluminum block/heads||60-deg V-6, aluminum block/heads||60-deg V-6, aluminum block/heads|
|VALVETRAIN||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl|
|DISPLACEMENT||217.5 cu in/3564 cc||219.9 cu in/3604 cc||213.4 cu in/3497 cc|
|POWER (SAE NET)||305 hp @ 6800 rpm*||300 hp @ 6350 rpm||288 hp @ 6500 rpm|
|TORQUE (SAE NET)||264 lb-ft @ 5300 rpm||264 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm||254 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm|
|REDLINE||N/A||6400 rpm||6500 rpm|
|WEIGHT TO POWER||12.6 lb/hp||13.7 lb/hp||13.8 lb/hp|
|TRANSMISSION||6-speed automatic||8-speed automatic||6-speed automatic|
|SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar||Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar|
|POWER STEERING TYPE||Rack-assist electric||Electro-hydraulic||Rack-assist electric|
|BRAKES, F;R||12.6-in vented disc; 12.4-in disc, ABS||12.6-in vented disc; 12.6-in disc, ABS||13.9-in vented disc; 13.9-in disc, ABS|
|WHEELS, F;R||8.5 x 19-in, cast aluminum||8.0 x 20-in, cast aluminum||8.5 x 19-in, cast aluminum|
|TIRES, F;R||245/45R19 98V M+S Goodyear Eagle RS-A||245/45R20 99V M+S Firestone Firehawk GT||255/45R19 100V M+S Michelin Primacy MXM4|
|TURNING CIRCLE||38.8 ft||38.9 ft||39.6 ft|
|CURB WEIGHT||3855 lb||4110 lb||3968 lb|
|WEIGHT DIST, F/R||59/41%||51/49%||60/40%|
|HEADROOM, F/R||39.9/37.4 in||38.6/37.9 in||39.0/37.8 in|
|LEGROOM, F/R||45.8/39.8 in||41.8/40.1 in||41.9/38.1 in|
|SHOULDER ROOM, F/R||57.9/56.9 in||59.5/57.7 in||57.9/56.9 in|
|CARGO VOLUME||18.8 cu ft||16.3 cu ft||20.1 cu ft|
|ACCELERATION TO MPH|
|0-30||2.4 sec||2.5 sec||2.5 sec|
|PASSING, 45-65 MPH||2.9||3.0||3.4|
|LATERAL ACCELERATION||0.83 g (avg)||0.85 g (avg)||0.87 g (avg)|
|MT FIGURE EIGHT||27.1 sec @ 0.68 g (avg)||26.7 sec @ 0.66 g (avg)||26.9 sec @ 0.67 g (avg)|
|TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH||1600 rpm||1300 rpm||1700 rpm|
|PRICE AS TESTED||$39,505||$40,625||$33,490|
|AIRBAGS||Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain|
|BASIC WARRANTY||3 yrs/36,000 mi||3 yrs/36,000 mi||3 yrs/36,000 mi|
|POWERTRAIN WARRANTY||5 yrs/100,000 mi||5 yrs/100,000 mi||5 yrs/60,000 mi|
|ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE||5 yrs/100,000 mi||5 yrs/100,000 mi||5 yrs/60,000 mi|
|FUEL CAPACITY||18.5 gal||19.1 gal||19.0 gal|
|EPA CITY/HWY ECON||19/29 mpg||19/31 mpg||19/29 mpg|
|ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY||160/112 kW-hrs/100 mi||177/109 kW-hrs/100 mi||160/112 kW-hrs/100 mi|
|CO2 EMISSIONS||0.80 lb/mi||0.84 lb/mi||0.80 lb/mi|
|MT FUEL ECONOMY||19.0 mpg||16.1 mpg||18.1 mpg|
|RECOMMENDED FUEL||Unleaded regular||Unleaded regular||Unleaded regular|
|2014 Kia Cadenza||2013 Toyota Avalon Limited|
|DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT||Front engine, FWD||Front engine, FWD|
|ENGINE TYPE||60-deg V-6, aluminum block/heads||60-deg V-6, aluminum block/heads|
|VALVETRAIN||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl|
|DISPLACEMENT||203.9 cu in/3342 cc||210.9 cu in/3456 cc|
|POWER (SAE NET)||293 hp @ 6400 rpm||268 hp @ 6200 rpm|
|TORQUE (SAE NET)||255 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm||248 lb-ft @ 4700 rpm|
|REDLINE||6700 rpm||6250 rpm|
|WEIGHT TO POWER||12.8 lb/hp||13.3 lb/hp|
|TRANSMISSION||6-speed automatic||6-speed automatic|
|SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar|
|POWER STEERING TYPE||Column-assist electric||Column-assist electric|
|BRAKES, F;R||12.6-in vented disc; 11.2-in disc, ABS||11.7-in vented disc; 11.1-in disc, ABS|
|WHEELS, F;R||8.5 x 19-in, cast aluminum||7.5 x 18-in, cast aluminum|
|TIRES, F;R||245/40R19 94V M+S Hankook Optimo H426||225/45R18 91V M+S Bridgestone Turanza EL400|
|TURNING CIRCLE||36.5 ft||37.4 ft|
|CURB WEIGHT||3755 lb||3557 lb|
|WEIGHT DIST, F/R||60/40%||61/39%|
|HEADROOM, F/R||38.0/37.3 in||37.6/37.9 in|
|LEGROOM, F/R||45.5/36.8 in||42.1/39.2 in|
|SHOULDER ROOM, F/R||58.3/56.5 in||58.2/56.9 in|
|CARGO VOLUME||15.9 cu ft||16.0 cu ft|
|ACCELERATION TO MPH|
|0-30||2.4 sec||2.3 sec|
|PASSING, 45-65 MPH||3.2||3.0|
|LATERAL ACCELERATION||0.82 g (avg)||0.81 g (avg)|
|MT FIGURE EIGHT||27.2 sec @ 0.67 g (avg)||27.2 sec @ 0.66 g (avg)|
|TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH||1800 rpm||1700 rpm|
|PRICE AS TESTED||$41,900||$42,719|
|AIRBAGS||Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain||Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee|
|BASIC WARRANTY||5 yrs/60,000 mi||3 yrs/36,000 mi|
|POWERTRAIN WARRANTY||10 yrs/100,000 mi||5 yrs/60,000 mi|
|ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE||5 yrs/60,000 mi||2 yrs/25,000 mi|
|FUEL CAPACITY||18.5 gal||17.0 gal|
|EPA CITY/HWY ECON||19/28 mpg||21/31 mpg|
|ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY||177/120 kW-hrs/100 mi||160/109 kW-hrs/100 mi|
|CO2 EMISSIONS||0.87 lb/mi||0.79 lb/mi|
|MT FUEL ECONOMY||18.9 mpg||22.1 mpg|
|RECOMMENDED FUEL||Unleaded regular||Unleaded regular|