Comparison:

The Big Test: 2013/2014 Full-Size Sedans Chevrolet Impala LTZ vs. Chrysler 300S vs. Ford Taurus SEL vs. Kia Cadenza vs. Toyota Avalon Ltd

By Rory Jurnecka | Photos By Jessica Walker | From the July 2013 issue of Motor Trend

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.

Performance

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.

Efficiency

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.

J

ust 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.

T

he 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

Cockpit/Cabin

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.

2013 Toyota Avalon Limited

Big on room and features, but materials need improvement.

2014 Chevrolet Impala LTZ

It's middle of the road in most areas, but the rear cabin is roomy.

Safety

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

Value

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.

Conclusion

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.

Notable Features

Toyota Avalon

Not just heated rear seats, but a climate-control knob for rear passengers, too. Chrysler 300

The only contender to offer heated and cooled cupholders.

Chevrolet Impala

The touch screen display rises to reveal a USB input and storage for an iPod. Kia Cadenza

An analog dash clock and faux wood trim make an attempt at old-guard luxe. Ford Taurus

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

Depreciation $23,276 $24,016 $19,055 $26,435 $22,842

Financing $3,555 $3,823 $3,084 $4,071 $4,037

Insurance $7,207 $7,490 $6,380 $8,222 $7,118

Fuel $11,178 $10,821 $11,178 $11,376 $10,284

Maintanence $1,943 $2,659 $1,740 $2,277 $1,900

Repairs $465 $614 $729 $168 $604

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

POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS

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

COMPRESSION RATIO 11.5:1 10.2:1 10.8:1

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

AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE

RATIO

2.77:1/2.05:1 2.65:1/1.78:1 3.16:1/2.34:1

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

STEERING RATIO 15.2:1 15.5:1 15.0:1

TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.6 2.5 2.6

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

DIMENSIONS

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

TEST DATA

ACCELERATION TO MPH

0-30 2.4 sec 2.5 sec 2.5 sec

0-40 3.4 3.6 3.6

0-50 4.8 4.9 5.0

0-60 6.2 6.4 6.6

0-70 8.2 8.3 8.8

0-80 10.6 10.6 11.1

0-90 13.1 13.0 13.6

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

CONSUMER INFO

BASE PRICE $34,555 $33,990 $29,695

PRICE AS TESTED $39,505 $40,625 $33,490

STABILITY/TRACTION

CONTROL

Yes/yes Yes/yes Yes/yes

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

POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS

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

COMPRESSION RATIO 11.5:1 10.8:1

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

AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 3.04:1/2.35:1 3.24:1/1.97:1

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

STEERING RATIO 14.3:1 14.8:1

TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 3 2.8

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

DIMENSIONS

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

TEST DATA

ACCELERATION TO MPH

0-30 2.4 sec 2.3 sec

0-40 3.5 3.3

0-50 4.8 4.8

0-60 6.3 6.3

0-70 8.3 8.0

0-80 10.4 10.1

0-90 13.0 12.5

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

CONSUMER INFO

BASE PRICE $35,900 $40,445

PRICE AS TESTED $41,900 $42,719

STABILITY/TRACTION

CONTROL

Yes/yes Yes/yes

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

Read more:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1307_the_big_test_2013_2014_full_size_sedans/viewal

l.html#ixzz2VUJzDGN5