Chrysler Sebring Touring v Holden Epica CDX 2.5 v Toyota Camry Altise 2007 Comparison

Be dismissive if you will, but it's irrefutable that the Toyota Camry is a car - very often the car - against which others in the medium-large family-sedan segment are judged.

Admittedly, the Camry owes its gold-standard benchmark status to factors other than aspirational presentation and driving qualities. Camry's renown comes from its second-to-none reputation for being well built, reliable and durable, having assured resale value and, above all, being capable (if conservative) transport for motoring's average- to middle-class masses.

That's why Camrys are perennial front-runners in sales volumes the world over, consistently achieving podium places for production numbers and exports, and, for several generations, have been the overt inspirations for other makers, particularly in the USA.

Take Chrysler: when it wanted to improve its prospects in the mid-size sedan market, the Camry was a leading role model for the new Sebring. Which explains why we've brought them together for this comparison test; to see how well the American challenger stacks up against the car that most specifically defines middle-class.

Additionally, to get this hot-pot really stewing, we've spiced the mix with the new Holden Epica from Fishermans Bend via Bupyong, South Korea. Holden makes no secret that the Epica, too, was benchmarked against Camry, among others, and engineered accordingly.

It's important to recognise that things aren't necessarily quite what they appear, however - the Camry tested here is Altise trim, the $29,500 base model which understandably leaves some omissions and options between it and the $33,000 Ateva stablemate.

For Australia, Chrysler leaves the domestic base model Sebring at home and opens its campaign with the $33,990 Touring edition. Its bumper haul of the good-life equipment is eclipsed only by its $37,990 associate, the even more opulent Limited.

Finally, the Epica CDX 2.5 knifes into the fray, deftly undercutting the entry-level Camry and Sebring with a provocative $27,990 package. More niceties come aboard when the Epica is taken to CDXi level at $30,990, or to $32,990 for the CDXi with leather. Yes, there's a CDX 2.0 priced at $25,990 (manual only), but apparently it lacks pulling power in both acceleration and showrooms alike.

So the three models gathered here differ in equipment levels, but do share very similar mechanical arrangements. Their conventions include transverse drivetrains in the nose for ubiquitous front-drive, along with strut front suspension, and disc brakes at both ends. The Camry also has struts at the rear where the others use multi-link arrangements.

Although the Camry and Epica have five-speed automatics to the Sebring's four, that hardly counts as adventurous design. For such you must look under the Epica's bonnet. Spanning just 642mm, the Epica engine is shorter than typical large fours. It's also competitively light, thanks not only to a weight-saving alloy block and plastic intake manifold, but also through not needing supplementary balancing shafts, because straight sixes are natural-born smoothies.

In itself, that very smoothness spells a major plus for Epica's overall refinement relative to its four-cylinder peers. Where the Camry develops a noticeably heavy aural edge when pressed, and the Sebring becomes intrusively loud (even objectionably gruff), the Epica mostly just purrs along. At worst, the sweet-as six never goes beyond sounding busy, and doesn't turn rowdy like some.

Of course, that doesn't mean the Epica has the legs on them when you ask for instant urge. Holden's 'small' six is in the ballpark with Camry and Sebring for claimed maximum power, and actually cites appreciably more torque at significantly lower revs, but the raw numbers don't translate to performance that's sparkly enough to shade its rivals'.

From a standing start, the Epica launches comparatively slowly regardless of the driver's encouragement. It then falls incrementally farther behind the Sebring which, in turn, eats the Camry's dust. That's the outcome from repeated runs in the Epica and Sebring with traction control both on and off. There's no catching the Toyota as it storms away from standstill and lengthens its lead at every post.

In the rolling-start test, however, the Camry meets its match in the equally responsive Sebring which gets seriously purposeful, albeit noisier, when kicked down. The Epica, meanwhile, just lets them have it while it does its own thing; noticeably more smoothly and much less volubly.

Although the softness of Epica's outright performance isn't catastrophic, the obvious deficit doesn't accurately reflect the specifications. Sure, its creamy smoothness tends to mask what is overtly blokey punchiness in the other two, but that doesn't change the results. A clue comes from the power-to-weight factors. The Epica trails on kW/tonne; a shortfall compounded through being taller geared than its foes - unlike the Camry which is geared slightly low to extract its engine's full potential.

But at least the Epica's velvety transmission is finely attuned to all driving conditions, and gives constant reminders as to why four-speed units are yesterday's technology. Which leaves the Sebring's auto seeming and sounding compromised, and compromising, alongside its five-speed peers.

And yet, while the Camry's auto 'box is impressively slick and dexterous far more often than not, it sometimes forgets itself and drags an intermediate gear longer than necessary before upshifting. Similarly, it sometimes inserts zealous downshifts when all you want is lightly rolling deceleration. Otherwise, great; without quite matching the Epica drivetrain's seductive finesse.

Funnily enough, while the three form a clear pecking order in their accelerations, there's scarcely an eye-dropper's worth between them in our as-tested fuel consumption. Where ADR81 numbers cite 8.9, 9.3 and 9.9L/100km for the Sebring, Epica and Camry respectively, our real-world convoys saw the Epica post 9.6L/100km average to just pip the Sebring's 9.7L/100km tally, which just nosed out the Camry's 9.8L/100km. On that basis, not even the proverbial oily rag separates them.

There's not a whole lot to choose between them in driving dynamics, either, because their relatively modest attributes are from very similar moulds. The good news is that each model is competently sure-footed, with secure roadholding and a workmanlike sense of balance, even in reasonably brisk driving. Up to an unambitious point - sports cars they ain't, and they don't pretend or attempt to be overtly athletic.

Try cornering the Sebring, Epica and Camry with forceful intent and they characteristically swan into pronounced roll angles while settling a touch tentatively, without disciplined conviction, in wary anticipation of mid-corner disturbances which ruffle their semblances of poise. For example, the Epica doesn't relish sharp mid-corner bumps that bully a rear wheel into a slight tail twitch. Although the whoopsy sidestep is no big deal, it's edgy enough to notice.

While the Camry and Sebring usually merely shiver at such bumps and proceed without distraction, their cornering isn't calculated to raise enthusiasm. All three are determined understeerers, especially when asked to hustle through demanding corners, where their tardy turn-in and clouded senses of direction aren't helped by unanimously disinterested steering. In all, the weighting errs on the light side of moderate to compound the endemic lack of feel and involvement. The Epica wins faint praise for the (slightly) more responsive steering ratio, from the Sebring and then the Camry.

A very sensitive seat of the pants may arrive at that rating for ride quality too - or suppleness at least - but yet again the differences are minimal. As the epitome of 'built for comfort, not speed', the Epica has almost missionary capacity for soothing the road's slings and arrows. However, the Holden's greater virtue is that it rides relatively quietly across most surfaces, where the Sebring and Camry can rumble more noticeably.

Although the Sebring has so-called Euro-spec suspension, reputedly firmer than the domestic US blancmange, it's still generously accommodating to bumps, so never rattles your fillings. But its ride can, like the Epica's, become discomforted by woozy dips and pitching undulations. The Altise tends to cope best - in fact, for most roads and most driving, the Toyota's ride quality is a shade firmer than the other two and provides reasonably comforting hospitality without trading ride control for soft-centred plushness.

The Camry's front seats do their share to keep you well supported and secure, while the Epica's are not only also very welcoming but perceptibly more richly, if darkly, trimmed in deeper velour. The Epica CDX doesn't tick all the driver's boxes, though, because the seats' side support wilts under hard cornering, there's no left footrest (nor in the Sebring), the accelerator pedal has ankle-cricking placement, and the wheel adjusts for tilt only (unlike the two-way Sebring, Camry and CDXi Epica).

The Sebring's seats are, er, unusual - not because they're leather trimmed as standard (and not even because the hide is particularly taut and slippery), but because, on early acquaintance at least, you sit upon the cushion while the backrest is forbiddingly firm, excessively arched and shallow sided. Remarkably, you may adapt without discomfort in the long run, if you persist that far after the initial reaction.

Still in the driver's region, the Camry has by far the highest cowl; so high as to impinge on short drivers' forward vision and confidence. In fact, even average-to-tall drivers may find that the Toyota's lofty window sills, very deep boot and large turning circle make the Camry difficult to accurately place and park.

After the Camry, the Epica's comparatively low cowl and deep glasshouse foster expansive big-picture views in all directions and facilitate easy parking. The outlook from Sebring is a good average. So is its rear seat, which suffers the firm, glossy leather (and isn't anatomically sculpted), but offers adequately tall headroom while rating between the Epica and Camry for shoulder width and knee space.

So there you have it. This particular threesome can never generate one of the really emotive blood-and-guts stoushes, because the car at the core is so middle-of-the-road in design and engineering that it might as well have a broken white line etched on its underbelly. But while world's-best sales success brings undoubted rewards in reputation, reliability and durability, the Camry is too good at its job of being median in all things to let drivers feel involvement or develop enthused relationships.

That's where the Sebring and Epica come in. Although not great driving cars per se, in part because they weren't benchmarked against one, they have enough character or personality for you to want to live with. The Sebring makes its pitch not with better-than- average driving dynamism, but with instantly identifiable styling and a buxom array of features at competitive prices.

The Epica CDX 2.5 makes an unexpectedly good case for itself. No, not in performance, of course, but in class-leading drivetrain refinement, keen pricing, tastefully subtle packaging and generous equipment levels. Do those ploys work? That's up to you. But for the record, the Epica's the one we argued the toss about who'd get to take it home each night.

Track: Oran Park, dry. Temp: 7° Driver: Mike McCarthy.

To comment on this article click