Ofcourse, not just thicker doors but angled pillars, doors and frame to assist in deflecting impact rather than absorb everything. You should look into everything instead b4 come up with final conclusion. Check again, Teana doors, pillars and frames aren't thicker than quality C-segment unless you are comparing it with older '01/03 Japanese C-segment.

Also not to forget, angled pillars and frames with more aerodynamic sides determine safety rating. Quality C-segment Pug408/308 and Focus would score best whereas Civic, Forte, Elantra are scoring good. Not to forget, even Altis '08/10 passed US safety rating and it too has angled sides.

By the way, Teana is D-segment, aren't you supposed to compare it to D-segment instead? In US/EU safety rating, C-segment usually scored lower than D-segment in safety rating. You are not giving answers at all but trying to cover up the flaws.

Compared Teana vs old Mazda 6 '08 both exterior width 1795mm:
- Mazda 6 is sports sedan like Nissan Altima US therefore they are smaller than Camry '07
- Teana is not and it emphasized on maximise interior space and forgo the thick and angled frame/pillars/doors as cheap alternative suited for Japan local domestic market. It is not meant for global market in the 1st place.
- The interior space of Mazda 6 is less as it comes with angled and thick frames/pillars/doors to pass safety standard
- Mazda 6 comes with expensive conti style suspension setup to get proper handling, it is made for passion drive
- Also, Mazda has been known to use much high tensile strength material with proven safety on global and in here.

Whatever you say seems more rubbish. You should look in the mirror to evaluate yourself before you attack others' views and comments with nothing.

You can't even tell why carmakers would make angled pillars and frames yet thicker. Sacrifice so much space and left with less interior space for what? All for safety reason. You can try to get hit in Passat and then try again with Teana both at same speed and angle if you wanted to argue further.

You should change your username to other brands rather than disgracing VW and conti makes here. People share and free to talk about cars here so that owners and consumers get smarter. Not to be brainwashed and continue to be cheated by car companies. If you are not siding with carbuyers and consumers, then stay out of the way.

Kia FC claim for city & highway that involved in lawsuit is achievable under traffic of 80's and early 90's in the US/EU. Carmakers standard FC reading has been based on city traffic of the 80's and early 90's all these while.

As US/EU traffic today in city and highway are much heavier than they were in 80's and early 90's, none of the carmakers' FC claim are achievable and set as never exceed FC guideline.

Your Almera easily get beyond 20km/L is nothing more than never achievable at all under zero city traffic on real road. Only achievable with customised fuel tank designed to cheat fuel pump nozzle in lightfoot. The same goes to your Sylphy, Lavina. You bunch even trained your sellmen in their training guide to inform customers 13km/L in Teana 2.0L and 2.5L in city driving. This is truly cheating and violation. You do this in overseas, you'll cause the company to close shop.

kongbingleek & Dwango,

Another fill in the blank with offensive word. Can't stick to point talk usually the loser.

Thickness of pillars and angle of the slope are vital in determining chassis survival rate. Japan safety rating, what governs them in the first place? Do you think Japanese would play fair in their own domestic market? They tax non-local made worst than us, that is why they could barely afford conti, Korean or US made in Japan.

US and EU safety rating have to stick to facts due to very strong consumer rights law. 1 mistake could land them in lawsuit end up paying dearly. I praise the old Camry '07/09 that come with VSC standard. Same goes to old Altis.

The Altis FL dual VVTi, it is overall good car and passed C-segment category. Legroom is still acceptable for 5'10" adult unless he is the long leg short torso type. FC is truly exceptional. Vios does not have the interior width and legroom is still less than Altis. Besides, Altis has descent handling that passed basic requirement allowing it to turn at higher speed than Vios.

Sylphy & Teana failed C-segment and D-segment category respectively. They have flat straight sides with thin frame and pillars yet no angled sides meaning that they'll absorb impact completely rather than deflect. Both never been through US/EU safety rating evaluation. Stop taking Japan NCAP into comparison, they are not even up to US/EU standard & strictness. So why want to waste your few years of saving to buy a car that failed C or D segment category end up sticking to wrong car for another 7 years of loan commitment?

I don't shoot Lancer because it passed C-segment standard and they give enough quality. Quality does not mean just interior, since it's more performance oriented, they gave quality multi-link and also, quality engine and angled body. That explains why lancer RV is still strong despite existence of Inspira. Sylphy RV dropped like flies when more owners and public knew it's nothing worth. Teana might end up the same anytime soon.

LD Jr,
The 20,000km service interval was applicable when Sylphy introduced in 2008 and early 2009. Later they followed Lancer at 60,000km service interval.

You can't calculate is it? If you are 5'10" with long legs type, then you'll find legroom not enough. 1 5'10" full size adults with balance torso & legs length, he could still fit in the Altis '11. Before you talk bad about Altis, the Sylphy has more defects and flaws in its grooves around between the rear doors, front headlamp, bonnet and bumper/grille. You are the only 1 saying Altis more cramped than Vios.

Yes, RV depends on demand for the used units. As Sylphy failed to meet C-segment requirements and its FC turned out only average like normal car (as opposed to lightfoot gimmick result), yet failed basic handling, its RV is weakest for C-segment today.

Altis 1760mm still has the angled pillars and the doors are pertruding out abit rather than flat straight. It does not have multi-link but it still pass handling with angled springs. The Sylphy's suspension setup is almost straight upright yet it's too narrow for its height + too light causing the car unstable at cruising and would easily go into understeer if you take emergency swerve in defensive driving while crusing at 90km/h, 100km/h or 110km/h adhered to speed limit. Conti, Toyota or Korean using torsion beam, their beam is not just 1 lousy beam like in your Sylphy.

jolokia,
US Altima with angled body + thicker frame also didn't score well on side collision. What makes the empty flat side with thin pillars and doors do better? Fail lor like that. Do you know the Teana 2.0 can't even take hard corner well? Torsion beam Altis also can beat Teana.

Korean cars are much stable and because you don't feel fast, you think it's underpowered. Teana/Sylphy, they came up with more sensitive accelerator plate to give you the impression that it is very powerful in which, it is not. Meaning that you press 1/4 on Sylphy/Teana accelerator equals 1/3 pedals on Korean and conti cars already.

You want to be frog under the shade and shun knowledge especially safety, up to you. But don't go and prevent others from sharing info. Exora & Innova, both are not proper MPV for global market, therefore no comment. You want to talk about midi-MPV, kindly refer Toyota Wish/Verso, Kia Carens 2013, Mazda 5, Ford C-Max. Ok?

Altis '08/10 is about to phase out. At their time, they are qualified to be C-segment though legroom is less than Lancer. By overall, its width, length, wheelbase and height are qualified to be C-segment. Sylphy width 1695mm is B-segment, not qualified to be C-segment in the first place. Teana only 1795mm and not even a sports sedan is not qualified to be D-segment neither. Some C-segment are as wide as that and even wider also got. Sylphy can't even swerve safely cruising on highway. Does it mean you are willing to pay RM120k for C-segment that is so narrow at 1695mm and drive on left lane at 60km/h on 110km/h speed limit wide 3-lane highway?

Honda City '03 has poor legroom. If yours is Honda City '08, that legroom is just average but headroom is terribly low at the back. Civic rear headroom also bad as they wanted to focus on aerodynamic.

Late reply, just came back from site. Any car that went up the ramp would end up with all sorts of flips depends on your approach angle and heading. If Singapore driving is that obedient, there won't be any accident in Singapore involving speeding in the first place. Fact is, there are many accident cases in SIngapore with some involving fatality in crash of over 160km/h, 200km/h and faster as they have many Ferrari and Lambo there.

hondafan,
Taking things personal and left out your brain?

Honda width:
C-segment - Honda Civic 1755mm
B-segment - Honda City 1715mm

Toyota width:
C-segment - Altis 1760mm
B-segment Vios 1700mm

N-brand:
C-segment Sylphy 1695mm
B-segment Latio 1695mm
cheaper alternative B-segment Almera 1695mm

Spot the BIG difference? There is serious issue here.

Correction to your comments.

1) Longer wheelbase better stability can be found in your standard guide for salesman. To be exact, not just wheelbase alone but the width & the suspension stance together determines stability in straight road. Narrow stance/width, high ground clearance & sits higher is giving the Sylphy unstable ride.

2) Sylphy is meant for Japan local domestic market with width 1695mm to enjoy tax exemption in Japan. By right, it is not meant for export market in the first place. Toyota too has narrow 1695mm version Altis but they don't sell it outside Japan. US Sentra B16 & the Altis we have here are meant for global market passed the C-segment category.

3) New Sentra 2013 you meant is for global market. Since you don't sell it here, shut up.

4) Nissan Versa US only passed the safety rating, not scoring full star. Only some C-segment and mostly D-segment get to earn full star score on the rating as only they have the excess space for additional thickness & length to absorb the impact before reaching passenger compartment.

5) Japan NCAP, there is no strict consumer rights group that carmakers that monitor and prevent carmakers in Japan from cheating. US & EU safety rating is monitored by strict consumer rights group with legal power.

You already said the same thing when Sonata & Optima were priced on Japanese quality car price range. You can still find many on the road today. Sonata YF F/L also many. Ends up you N-brand giving huge discount that end up 10-20% cheaper than Korean & Japanese made.

Don't twist the fact. Do you see the Urvan has very good stability at high speed? Stability at high speed is determined by suspension stance, aerodynamic, height + adequate wheelbase length. That explains why your Sylphy floaty when crusing at 110km/h on the highway to Sepang & airport as adhered to that area speed limit.

Best pick your head. It stated that it passed but not scoring full stars. That is not flying colour fyi. FYI means maximum full stars in overall.

K5 & Sonata didn't get discount like your Teana. Teana after the RM6k-10k discount, selling price reduced from RM142k/172k down to RM132k/162k. Cheapese Sonata 2.0 low spec also need to fork out RM139k. Optima/Sonata 2.0 high spec at RM142k. So who is selling dirt cheap now? Isn't that your product? Hard to see facelift Sonata? I see many already. K5 facelift, could hardly differentiate as there is almost no change, is there even a facelift?

The new Altima 2013 & Sentra 2013, I only see them in Thailand. Over here, you bunch still refused to bring in from Thai? Why, can't earn max profit don't want to bring in? Or the production cost is too high for you due to new engine + new gearbox? Or you intended to persuade Japanese principal to let you carry forward old obsolete engine + gearbox from Sylphy?

This post has been edited by jayraptor: Jul 26 2013, 11:35 PM