Honda Cars : Inside Line: Comparison Test: 2010 Ford Taurus vs. 2009 Honda Accord | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

Alot of good things said about both makes;
A Product of Their Times
By Erin Riches, Senior Editor Email
Date posted: 07-20-2009

If you understand the limitless desire of Americans for personal space, then you understand the thinking behind the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited and 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation. Taurus and Accord may be iconic midsize-sedan nameplates, but now the badges are on large-car rumps.

Officially, the 2010 Ford Taurus and 2009 Honda Accord each seat five. Realistically, neither of these large sedans will ever see more than four passengers. And nobody will so much as rub an elbow, shoulder, buttock or knee during the 15-minute drive to the sushi buffet.

As crossovers promise everyone a whole row of seating to himself, families are fleeing even the roomiest of family sedans like these. So you might be driving around by yourself in a Ford Taurus or Honda Accord. And you might care about something besides shoulder room and legroom.

In its previous life, the Taurus couldn't stand up to such scrutiny. It was a big lug, a slobbery SUV shaped like a sedan. However, the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited reflects a serious change of heart at Ford. This is a smarter Taurus with crisper handling, quality interior bits, and up-to-date but easy-to-use technology.

This is also exactly the sort of Taurus that should be able to do battle with the smarty-pants of the family car class, the 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation.

Tuck in That TummyYou'll notice we call both the Taurus and the Accord large cars. We don't kid you, though. The truth is, these two have gotten fat together.

Our 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 Navi tester weighs in at nearly 3,600 pounds. It outweighs the previous-generation Accord by 250 pounds. It outweighs a 1999 Accord EX V6 sedan by more than 300 pounds.

Although rivals like the Mazda 6 and Nissan Altima are close in size (and weight, in the case of the Mazda), only the Accord crosses the 120-cubic-foot interior volume threshold into the EPA's "large car" classification.

Built on a 112.9-inch wheelbase (2.7 inches longer than the Accord's), our 2010 Ford Taurus Limited stretches nearly 203 inches from nose to tail. It's 8.5 inches longer than the Accord, not to mention unnaturally tall (60.7 inches) and wide (76.2 inches) for a sedan.

The Taurus is certainly the hulk of the family sedan class. It draws fat jokes from strangers and outweighs the hefty Honda by 450 pounds. But at 122.3 cubic feet, its total interior volume only tops the Accord by a couple cubes.

Pounds of GadgetsAt least a few dozen of those pounds are accounted for by all the technology in our 2010 Ford Taurus Limited, which isn't even fully optioned. Notably, it lacks a sunroof, Ford's hard-drive-based navigation system and the multicontour seats that heat, cool and knead your backside. We'll live.

For a $31,995 base price, the front-wheel-drive Taurus Limited provides a leather interior, 10-way power front seats, dual-zone automatic climate control, a USB jack, the Sync hands-free interface, wood-grain interior accents that may or may not be to your taste, and 19-inch wheels that definitely will not be to your taste.

Our test car also has Package 302A ($2,000), which adds keyless ignition, a blind-spot information system (Volvo's BLIS), automatic high-beams and a very decent 12-speaker Sony audio system. The blind-spot radar supplements the car's standard rear-bumper sonar by providing useful warnings on the trip computer display like "vehicle approaching from the left" when you have the Taurus in reverse.

Adaptive cruise control adds an additional $1,195 to the Ford's bottom line for a total of $35,190.
Most of these features simply aren't available on the Accord. However, our 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 comes with the high-quality Acura navigation system (stripped of the nav weather and nav traffic features), as well as Bluetooth, heated leather-upholstered seats, dual-zone climate control, a sunroof, and an unassuming set of 17-inch wheels.

We don't mind the lack of wood-grain appliqués in the Accord, but this car needs an iPod-friendly USB jack. Aux alone doesn't cut it in 2009.

Still, this 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation can be yours for $31,615 — a savings of $3,575 over the 2010 Taurus Limited.

Different Personalities
You wouldn't know the 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 Navi is the cheaper of the two based on how it drives.

Right away, the Accord establishes itself as the sportier of the two sedans, which isn't terribly hard to do when your opponent weighs 2 tons. Still, we wonder if Honda has subtly recalibrated this car's drivetrain for 2009, because this Accord V6 doesn't feel as shortchanged on low-end torque as the 2008 models we tested. In addition, its five-speed automatic transmission shifts crisply right at the 3.5-liter V6's 6,800-rpm redline instead of short-shifting. Good thing, because there's still no manual shift gate.

Honda has rerated the V6 sedan's output at 271 horsepower at 6,200 rpm (from 268 hp) and 254 pound-feet of torque at 5,000 rpm (from 248 hp), but there's more here than meets the eye. Throttle response is downright snappy in the 2009 Honda Accord.

At the track, the Accord reaches 60 mph from a standstill in 7.2 seconds (or 6.9 seconds with 1 foot of rollout as on a drag strip) and hits the quarter-mile in 15.3 seconds at 93.1 mph.

The fact that our 2010 Taurus Limited breaks into the 15s at all borders is impressive considering its weight disadvantage. It runs a 7.8-second 0-60 time (7.5 seconds with rollout) and a 15.7-second quarter-mile. With a trap speed of just 88.9 mph, though, it has no hope of catching the Accord. The Ford's 3.5-liter V6 is rated at just 263 hp at 6,250 rpm, but its torque is accessible at lower rpm, with the peak 249 lb-ft available at 4,500 rpm.

Most of the time, our 2010 Ford Taurus Limited accelerates adequately in traffic. It's only when you hop into the Accord that you realize what you've been missing. Shifts from the Ford's six-speed automatic transmission often feel lackadaisical, too, even in manual mode. Plus, torque steer is an issue under full throttle.

Fuel economy ratings are close, with the V6 Accord earning a slight advantage with its 19 city/29 highway mpg figures versus a preliminary rating of 18 city/28 highway mpg for the front-drive 2010 Taurus. Both sedans return high teens in weekday traffic, though our Taurus test car's 2,500-mile road trip understandably pushes its two-week average above the Accord's, with its average during our test interval coming to 21.1 mpg versus 19.3 mpg.

Weight Management
Ordinarily, we don't give the current-generation Honda Accord a lot of credit in the handling department. Its steering is precise, but conservative suspension tuning, meek P225/50R17 Michelin Pilot HXMXM5 all-season tires and a few too many pounds rob it of it the usual Honda cornering character.

But it's all relative, and a 2-ton 2010 Ford Taurus makes the Accord look good on a back road.
It's not that the Taurus Limited is a terrible handler. There's just a lot of car to transition through corners, and Ford's legal team knows this, so the big sedan has a very aggressive and very non-defeatable stability control system. If it senses you're about to stuff the Taurus into a tight corner, it clamps down hard on that inside wheel. The steering ratio (17.0:1) also feels slower than it needs to be, and heavy inputs elicit moaning from the power steering pump.

At our test track, the 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 manages 0.83g on the skid pad and 64.1 mph through the slalom. With its stability control active, the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited can't do any better than 0.79g and 60.3 mph. When we run the Accord through these tests with stability control on, the numbers are closer: 0.79g on the skid pad and 62.2 mph in the slalom.

In braking tests, the Ford's wider P255/45R19 100Y Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires give it a slight advantage. The Taurus stops from 60 mph in 131 feet. This is 2 feet shorter than the Accord's best stop. Still, we prefer the Accord's firmer pedal. And notably, this is the first Honda we've tested in months — even years — that hasn't had an issue with brake fade (though there's still some smoke coming off the rotors after our testing).

The Comfort Argument
We're not sure how Ford's chassis engineers were able to get such a well-damped ride out of a car with a 19-by-8-inch wheel weighing down each corner, but they did. The 2010 Ford Taurus Limited has an exceptional ride quality. It's plush over most interstate freeways, yet highly controlled at all times. This is the family sedan you want to drive cross-country.

You could do the same in the 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6, but it wouldn't be quite so comfortable. In Honda tradition, the Accord's ride is all about firm control. You might be fine with this as a driver, but passengers often give a different opinion.

We measure a higher decibel level in the Accord at a 70-mph cruise, and we blame it on characteristic Honda road noise, which detracts from cabin calm even when you're just running errands around town.

Better Packaged Accord
Yet you might put up with the extra noise, because the smaller 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 has a subtly more spacious cabin. The beltline is lower, the seats are wider and, whether you're driving or riding in back, the cabin has an airier feel. Here we are back at the personal space argument again.

But there's also cohesion to the Accord's cabin design that makes the car easier to live with day-to-day. All the displays and controls have an ergonomic design that feels instantly familiar, and there's a unity to how everything works. You and the car and all its stuff are part of one Honda life form.

That's not to say you can't live well in the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited, which feels more upscale than the Accord and offers many more conveniences for iPod and BlackBerry users. But somehow the tall chairs, deeply recessed gauge pods, pixelated radio displays and sophisticated Sync interface in this Taurus Limited feel more like a collection of stuff than elements of a whole.

Critical Mass
Family sedans don't necessarily involve your family anymore, so most of us are looking for more than vast amounts of space on the cheap. We want quick acceleration; we'll take adroit handling if we can get it; and the cabin electronics had better play nice with our smart phone.

The 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation wins this test by 2.6 points, largely because it's faster and more agile, yet less expensive. It's hardly a sport sedan, but of these two, the Accord is the driver's pick. A more space-efficient cabin design is another big point in the Honda's favor.

At the same time, the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited is more refined and personable than any Taurus to date. Its nicely resolved ride is no small benefit if you take long road trips, and we really do like Sync. Yet it's tough to justify paying $35K for a 263-hp sedan that needs almost 8 seconds to hit 60 mph.

There's a larger issue here, too, as we'd like to have an intervention with both Ford and Honda to talk about weight. From the standpoint of acceleration, handling, braking and fuel economy, neither the Honda Accord nor the Ford Taurus can afford to get any larger. If anything, make them smaller.

Follow this link to find out what Inside Line Executive Editor Michael Jordan says:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=153146/pageId=173625

Honda Cars : Car & Driver Comparison: 2010 Ford Fusion vs. Mazda 6, Honda Accord | 2013 New Honda Car Reviews 0

BY TONY SWAN, PHOTOGRAPHY BY MORGAN SEGAL April 2009
Hidden talents: Don't let the practicality fool you.

So what if parade floats and minivans are about the only vehicles that people who drive family sedans can laugh at? That doesn’t mean these family haulers can’t be fun to drive.

We think the fun factor is as important as the utilitarian virtues of roominess, fuel economy, comfort, price, and safety. In fact, what makes a car a kick to drive—eager response, precise steering, brisk acceleration, limited body motions, plenty of tire grip, strong braking—also makes it safer. Safety thinking in Washington begins with the crash, inspiring a thicket of regulations conceived to protect occupants from colliding with everything short of meteorites. That’s fine, but we think the occupants are better off if the crash never takes place. And the better a car’s fun-to-drive index, the better its chances are of going unscathed in emergency maneuvers. That’s what our lane-change test is all about.

And, of course, our core philosophy (translated here from the Greek) states: Driving a motor vehicle should provide dynamic gratification to the person at the wheel.

With that in mind, we have pitted the Honda Accord, the defending champ from our last mid-size-sedan comparo [“The Buzzard-and-Baloney Brigade,” March 2008], against two four-doors that have undergone updates, the Ford Fusion and the Mazda 6.

All three pack four-cylinder engines. We’re temperamentally inclined toward potent V-6 engine options, but about 80 percent of mid-size sedans today are propelled by fours. And while automatic transmissions dominate orders in this class, we balked at that mainstream preference. A good manual gearbox is far more gratifying than any conventional automatic.

Starting at the Streets of Willow racetrack in Southern California’s high desert, we spent two days driving in and around the sweet winding roads of the Santa Ynez Valley, where there was so much chanting “Slow in, fast out” that we damn near forgot we were testing some of the most practical sheetmetal on the market.

A winner emerged, though not unanimously. It was close. Here’s what we found.

First Place: 2009 Honda Accord EX-L Sedan

Highs: Sports-sedan reflexes, plenty of power, potent engine sounds, smooth ride, lots of room.
Lows: Forgettable styling, center-stack button clutter, where’s the six-speed gearbox?
The Verdict: Unexpected athletic delights in a big package.

A big ol’ golden-years glider like the Mercury Grand Marquis is what comes to mind when you hear the words “full-size sedan.” That’s how the EPA defines the new Freightliner-sized Accord, but we’re not buying it. Not when it moves with the light step of a running back.

Even though the new Accord is longer and wider than the previous generation, it’s actually nowhere near as grand as the Grand Marquis. That government full-size rating has to do with interior volume, and there’s just enough to nudge the Accord sedan (but not the coupe) into the realm of the bigs.

And the Accord was the biggest car in this test, but not by much—less than a half-inch more than the mega-Mazda in any dimension. It wasn’t heaviest—the Mazda and the Fusion scaled in 20 pounds higher. That weight distinction is obviously academic, but here’s the point: The bigger Accord doesn’t drive big. It’s at least as agile as its predecessor—smooth, unflappable, and polished—with suggestions of an inner tiger when the revs spool north of six grand.

Before we get to the Accord’s dynamic credits, we must list some demerits. As noted, the Accord wins this one on a split decision, and the dissenting crew member marked it down severely for a couple of what seemed to him to be unforgivable laws. “Too big,” he complained, displaying a keen eye for tiny dimensional disparities. “And it’s ugly,” he added.

On this second point, the majority voters didn’t argue with much vehemence. Okay, perhaps “ugly” is much too strong. Let’s say it’s mildly misshapen in the same way that North Dakota is mildly flat.

Our dissident also cited noise, and it’s true that the Accord’s four generated a healthy power crescendo at wide-open throttle. But at freeway speeds, its sedate 68-dB reading was identical to the others.

Still, there were negatives that showed up on all the tallies. One you’ve heard before—a center stack studded with buttons, some for our test car’s optional nav system, some for the audio, some for the climate controls. Our gripe here is that the climate controls are split into two groups that flank the rest of the array—for symmetry, no doubt, but certainly not for any functional advantage.

A bigger black mark goes to the transmission. Not for function—like other Honda manuals, the Accord’s is a pleas­ure to use, with crisp engagements and a sweet clutch. But it’s short one gear—this five-speed should be a six. Power from the Accord’s 190-hp 2.4-liter is robust, and its screaming 7100-rpm redline was highest of the group, but there’s a significant hole in the gearing between fourth and the very tall fifth, and acceleration in fifth is languid at best.

Our test car might have been hobbled a bit by newness—just over 100 miles on the odo when we picked it up, a last-minute substitute for the car originally scheduled (which cost $4000 less). New engines generally perform better once they’ve accumulated a little mileage. But even so, the Accord was tops in standing-start acceleration, a half-second quicker than the next best to 60 mph, and tied the Ford for fuel consumption during the test (25 mpg overall). It was so-so on the skidpad at 0.82 g, but it was quickest in the emergency-lane-change exercise, partially because its stability control could be disabled completely.

The Accord scored well in expected areas—fit and finish, front seats, and ergonomics, that battalion of center dashboard buttons notwithstanding. And as we also expected, its rear cabin felt bigger—in head, leg, and shoulder room—than those of its rivals.

If the steering was a little light, it was also as precise as laser surgery. One logbook comment summed it up best, citing the Accord’s “intuitive path control—you can place the car with complete confidence, right up to the limits of adhesion.” In a very close finish, it was the Accord’s willingness to unwind a winding road that prevailed.

Second Place: 2009 Mazda 6 i Touring Sedan

Highs: Snappiest looker in class, nifty dashboard design, ready and willing to play.
Lows: Some loss of composure on rough pavement, what’s with these blue-halo gauges?
The Verdict: An eye-pleaser that can also satisfy your inner hotshoe.

Behold the four-door RX-8, says the new Mazda 6 with its styling. Right. Behold the plus-size Mazda 3, we say after driving it. Either way you call it, the new Mazda 6 continues to be the rowdy, spirited stud of the mid-size pack.

For all its rousing spirit, the previous Mazda 6 lagged in sales a bit, primarily because it was perceived to be a little small by mid-size-sedan standards. Mazda addressed that perception with its 2009 redesign, which is bigger in every dimension. (The Accord is still bigger, though just barely.) The key question here is whether that size increase has diluted the esprit that made the previous car an enthusiast favorite.

We’ll get to that in a minute. First, let’s take a look at the nondynamic elements. Styling, for example. Although we were far from unanimity on some elements of the scoring in this test, there were no arguments about which car would win in a beauty contest. There’s a hint of RX-8 in the front fenders, the fast rear roofline and backlight suggest speed, and the sheetmetal is wrapped tightly around the 17-inch aluminum alloy wheels. The previous Mazda 6 was a wallflower. This new one is a rose.

The good looks don’t stop at the door. The Mazda’s interior design is clean and elegantly simple, enhanced by quality materials, although the flimsy inside rearview mirror is out of step on this score. We can’t say we’re sold on the look of the major gauges, with their pulsing blue halos, and we were a little surprised that the bolstering on the front seats wasn’t more aggressive, considering the sporty message conveyed by the exterior. Short bottom cushions, too.

On the other hand, the Mazda has a nifty touch we haven’t seen anywhere else in this class: a three-position switch for adjusting headlight level—ideal for occasions when you’ve filled the trunk with heavy stuff such as cement bags or your mother-in-law.

Like the Fusion, the Mazda’s standard transmission is a six-speed manual, a satisfying piece of equipment with short throws and positive engagements. The Mazda’s four-cylinder is up from 2.3 liters and 156 horsepower to 2.5 liters and 170 horses—168 in PZEV (Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle) California editions such as our test car. Although the Mazda’s powerplant comes up seven horses short of the Fusion’s, it registered identical times in our benchmark sprints: 0 to 60 in 8.0 seconds, the quarter-mile in 16.1 at 88 mph.

On our impromptu handling loop, and on the run to and from a lonely stretch of beach west of Lompoc, the Mazda showed that its ability to zig and zag hasn’t been diminished too much by its size increase. But if that’s true, how did it wind up second on the scoreboard?

We’re talking subtle distinctions here. Brake-pedal feel, for example, wasn’t quite as positive as in the Accord. The Mazda turned in readily, the Accord decisively. The Mazda’s freeway ride was good, but it verged on harsh when we operated on patchy pavement. Its suspension tuning was more overtly sporty than the Accord’s, but the Honda held a tangible edge in transient response while delivering a more supple ride on just about any surface.

It came down to a question of refinement, and after three decades and eight generations, the Accord has more of it.

Still, if styling is a high priority, the Mazda 6 looks like a winner. And we don’t think there’s much chance that it would disappoint its owners in matters of fun to drive.

Third Place: 2010 Ford Fusion SE Sedan
Highs: Soothing ride quality, precise steering, supportive front buckets, quiet operation.
Lows: Supersized grille, walrus-hide plastic graining, underdamped suspension, chintzy materials.
The Verdict: Comfortable and competent but not very compelling.

Even with a face inspired by a Lady Schick razor, the Ford Fusion is one of the most hopeful signs of life on planet Blue Oval. “Even if we had 10 cars in this comparo, the Fusion would still be in the top three,” gushed one editor.

The updated Fusion has already made headlines, thanks to the achievement of its new hybrid version, rated tops among mid-size gasoline-electrics by us [“Long Rangers,” February 2009], as well as the EPA (41 mpg city/36 highway). The boring old gasoline Fusion has no similar claim to greatness and is overshadowed in this comparo by two best-in-classers.

Nevertheless, functional updates such as 15 additional horsepower from a new 175-hp, 2.5-liter Duratec four, an engine that is shared with the Mazda, make this face-lifted Ford—it still has the blades to make your legs silky smooth—more pleasant to live with than its predecessor and put it several rungs higher on the mid-size ladder.

Note the word functional. We think Ford’s designers didn’t do the Fusion any favors with their latest cosmetic decisions. The bright three-bar grille that became Ford’s new design face has, for example, increased in size and acquired winglets that extend over its new headlights. With the possible exception of beluga caviar, more of a good thing inevitably becomes too much, as this new grille demonstrates.

Inside, the Fusion’s dashboard and door panels are clad in plastic with a graining that’s somewhere between the look of ostrich skin and walrus hide. It’s too coarse, and too much, to our eye. The material of the cloth upholstery was also underwhelming. Even making allowances for this car’s preproduction status, the upholstery looked cheap.

From a functional point of view, though, the Fusion stacks up well. It matched the Honda and the Mazda in ergonomics, the secondary-control backlighting was welcome at night, and if the blue-and-white instrument illumination seems a little too lurid in a showy Las Vegas way, it’s certainly a vividly distinctive feature.

The front bucket seats deliver the best lateral support of the three cars, although we think Ford’s power-seat policy—it retains manual adjustability for the seatback—is the wrong place to save money. In back, the Fusion offers good room for two adults, although it’s knees up, owing to a low H-point. It’s tight for three, but that’s the case, in varying degrees, for all mid-size sedans. The trunk space is 17 cubic feet, same as the Mazda’s, both of them bigger than the Honda’s 14 cubes.

Dynamically, the Fusion got our vote for the car to be in when you’re stuck on 40 miles of bad road. Easy does it. The suspension tuning was the softest of this trio, and hard cornering produced more up-and-down motions. A little more rebound damping might improve the Fusion’s responses without sacrificing much of its smooth ride. On the other hand, the steering was nearly as good as the best in this group, and the car was absolutely devoid of nasty surprises.

That soft suspension didn’t help the Fusion in the emergency-lane-change test, where it finished third, but it tied the Honda for braking, although stopping in 180 feet from 70 mph is nothing to brag about. It also ran neck and neck with the Mazda 6 in our acceleration tests, and the throws of its six-speed manual transmission, though long, were exceptionally crisp.

The Fusion tied with the Accord for fuel-economy honors, at 25 mpg overall, in driving that wasn’t exactly mpg minded. It was also the most affordable of the cars—lowest base price and the lowest tab as tested.

But as good as it is, the Fusion doesn’t register a high score on our fun meter. “A perfectly decent car,” concluded one crew member. “But it’s soft for intense motoring and might be better suited to someone whose needs include quiet operation and a softer ride.”

Source;
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/sedans/2010_ford_fusion_vs_mazda_6_honda_accord_comparison_test+page-2.html