Last post on Jun 19, 2013 at 6:38 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Hyundai Sonata, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, Mazda MAZDA6, Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu, Kia Optima, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#16903 of 18437 Re: 1.6 turbo Eco Boost 1.6 [benjaminh]
Sep 22, 2012 (1:12 pm)
My problem with the Ford Fusion doesn't have to do with any of the engines. The engines are probably all fine (although if the base 2.5 now is anything like the 2.5 found in the rental Fusion I had a few years ago, it will be loud and unrefined compared to an Accord).
My main problem with the Fusion is this from Automobile magazine:
"...With its high beltline and steeply raked windshield and backlight, the Fusion can’t come close to matching the outward visibility of the new Honda Accord, but few can. Thick A-pillars and two-piece C-pillars compromise the driver’s view somewhat..."
Read more: http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1209_2013_ford_fusion_first_drive/#i- - - - - - - - - xzz27EJhrkPn
I would go beyond "few can" and say that no competing midsize car can match the Accord's best-in-class visibility.
Rather than the bunker-like closed-in feel of many other midsize cars, the Accord is open and airy, and has great visibility. And you can roll your rear windows down almost all the way in an Accord. Try that in a Fusion, Altima, Sonata, Passat, etc.
And yet the Accord also has best-in-class safety with the ACE II body structure.
As some have said, you can just adjust and use your mirrors more carefully in these cars to help make up for the poor visibility. Fair enough.
The styling on the Ford Fusion looks great, and Ford's Ecoboost engines are excellent. I understand that for many the car is a very good choice....
#16904 of 18437 2013 Accord
Sep 22, 2012 (2:52 pm)
I saw the 2013 Accord up close today at my local Honda dealer. Styling is a huge improvement (although when I first saw the rear end I wondered to myself why there was a new Genesis parked outside the front door). I like the dash treatment much better than on the previous generation also. Rear seat leg room was OK, but toe space was kind of tight. Much more room in the old Accord, and in cars like the Passat and even the Jetta.
But the greatest thing about the Accord is the starting price: a bit over $23k for the well equipped LX with CVT that includes sharp-looking alloys, backup camera, Bluetooth, Pandora, auto headlamps, and all the basic power features. Consider that's less than $1000 more than a Sonata GLS with alloys, and that doesn't have a backup camera. Plus the LX can be had with a 6MT (in only two colors, however ) for less bucks than the Sonata. I think Honda will sell tons of LXes.
#16906 of 18437 Re: 2013 Accord [backy]
Sep 22, 2012 (4:10 pm)
backy: Yeah, that's one of the surprises about this Accord—it has more standard features than any other non-premium midsize car. But I think you're the first to show that the 2013 Accord LX has an even lower price than a Sonata GLS when comparably equipped. Wow. Honda dealers are gonna sell a lot of them just on that basis alone.
And I think in the next couple of months the IIHS will release its video of the small offset crash tests of midsize sedans. My guess is that the Accord is going to come through pretty well on that, because Honda designed it to help passengers survive that kind of crash. I don't think the other manufacturers have done that yet, but we'll soon see.... Anyway, if that turns out the way some people are guessing it might, it could give the Accord a significant advantage in safety for a year or two.
#16907 of 18437 Re: 2013 Accord [benjaminh]
Sep 22, 2012 (6:02 pm)
Well, I didn't say that the Accord LX has a lower price than the Sonata. I said that it's less than $1000 more than a comparable Sonata GLS. The Accord LX has some features at that price that the Sonata doesn't have, e.g. backup camera, but the Sonata has some features the Accord doesn't such as power driver's seat and heated seats.
The Accord LX with a stick is about the same price as the Sonata GLS with automatic. But I expect Honda will make very few of those 6MTs. The Sonata used to be offered with a 6MT but as of 2013 that's been dropped--just not very popular in mid-sized family cars.
#16908 of 18437 Re: 2013 Accord [backy]
Sep 22, 2012 (6:35 pm)
Sorry about that. I guess I read your post too fast and missed a word. But the prices are pretty close....
2013 Sonata GLS w/alloys, etc.= 22495
2013 Accord LX w/ cvt= 23270
Giving us a difference of 775. Not much at all. And there are some things you get on the Accord, like dual climate control, back up camera, pandora, etc. that I don't think that Sonata has, although as you said the Sonata has heated cloth seats (!?).
Here are some other comparisons.
2013 Fusion 1.6 auto: 25,290
That's obviously 2k more than the Accord. I think this is the engine that's comparable in performance and mpg to the Honda earth dreams DI engine. And the Accord still beats the Fusion for equipment in a lot of areas.
2013 Passat w/alloys+ auto: 23,270. That's basically identical to the Accord, but the Passat has an old tech engine that gets only so so mpg and is said to be less refined.
#16909 of 18437 Re: 2013 Accord [benjaminh]
Sep 22, 2012 (8:25 pm)
One area where the Passat has the Accord beat hands-down is in rear seat space. Also VW seems to be pushing the Passat with sweet lease deals. Saw one today for a Passat S automatic with Appearance Package for $199/month, 0 down. Accord leases are much higher, despite strong resale values. If I were in the market for a mid-sized car, I'd be tempted by that Passat deal even with the lower-tech engine. Passat has been top-rated by some car mags. Will be interesting to see if the Accord can knock it off that perch. I expect it will... unless the Fusion does.
Ford will need to ante up some incentives to sell the Fusion that's $2k more than the Accord, $3k more than something like an Optima. And the Altima is no slouch either.
#16910 of 18437 Re: 2013 Accord [backy]
Sep 22, 2012 (9:27 pm)
That is a nice lease deal on the Passat. They are definitely blowing the 2012s out the door to make way for the 2013s....
In terms rear leg room, the 2013 Accord and Passat are pretty close in terms of numbers, at least according to Edmunds.com
Rear leg room
38.5 in. 39.1 in
So there's a about half an inch difference there, but maybe the seat design on the Passat let's you put your toes underneath the seat more? Don't know.
But anyway, both seem pretty good on this measure, and quite a lot roomier than a Sonata, which I think has about 35 inches of rear leg room.
My bitter experience experience with a Jetta from long, long ago has lead me to write off the VW brand forever, I think, although I'm sure that today's VWs are much, much better. I'm actually quite happy with VWs success with their factory in TN.
The 2013 Accord CVT gets 5 more mpg than a 2013 Passat auto (30 combined mpg for Accord vs. 25 mpg for the Passat). That's about a $400-$500 a year difference in what you're going to pay for gas for these two cars. I think in about a year the lease differences between these two cars will get closer, but no doubt there will still be a gap.
I may be biased, but right now it looks to me like the 2013 Accord is the top of the midsize class overall, and if you want the best you can expect to pay just a little bit more....
#16911 of 18437 Re: 2013 Accord [backy]
Sep 23, 2012 (3:44 am)
...Styling is a huge improvement (although when I first saw the rear end I wondered to myself why there was a new Genesis parked outside the front door).
I think may be it's just me because no one else mentions this. I don't need to go to see a optometrist after all.
#16912 of 18437 Re: 2013 Accord [benjaminh]
Sep 23, 2012 (12:11 pm)
I've found you can't go by just the numbers on leg room, they can be very misleading re rear seat comfort. Best way to test that is to go sit in the car with the driver's seat adjusted as it will be for the main driver(s). That's how I always test rear seat room. And by that test, the Passat is simply cavernous compared to the Accord. Also the toe space was tight on the Accord (that's for the EX-L with two power seats, maybe it's better with non-power front seats). Even the smaller Jetta has lots more usable leg room by my testing. Actually, even the subcompact Versa hatchback is much roomier than the Accord in back, at least for leg room. But the Versa hatch is roomier in that regard than most mid-sized cars... it's an anomaly.
A big factor in usable rear leg room is how the driver's seat adjusts. If it can go forward and high, and still provide good thigh support, then that opens up the rear seat more. That may be why rear seats appear similar "by the numbers" but in reality are much different. That's one reason the Versa, for example, has so much rear leg room.
Re gas, that's more important for some people than me, as I only put about 7,500 miles a year on my car (as my wife does on her car). So that's only about $200 a year at $4 a gallon. That would be made up for within about 4 months of car payments, comparing 2012 Passat S to 2012 Accord LX leases in my area. Also consider the Passat has 3 years of free maintenance, so you save a few bucks there.