Last post on Dec 10, 2013 at 5:10 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
#16910 of 20238 Re: 2013 Accord [backy]
Sep 22, 2012 (8:27 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 20238 Re: 2013 Accord [backy]
Sep 23, 2012 (2:44 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 20238 Re: 2013 Accord [benjaminh]
Sep 23, 2012 (11:11 am)
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.
#16913 of 20238 Re: 2013 Accord [backy]
Sep 23, 2012 (11:56 am)
I believe you re the Passat and legroom. It looks like it has huge amounts of legroom. I guess that's one place where the Passat wins against the Accord. And the free maintenance too. Plus the low payments.
There are some good choices in midsize cars, and I'd say the Passat is one of the better ones. How is the visibility from the driver's seat? It looks ok from the outside, but I'm guessing that from the inside it's only so so. Those small rear windows are questionable functionally. Or, at least the one immediately in back of the driver usually is.
#16914 of 20238 Re: 2013 Accord [benjaminh]
Sep 23, 2012 (1:18 pm)
I haven't driven the Passat but the windows look plenty big to me, and the C pillar isn't that big. I do like the fact the Accord has a backup camera standard. But I think those have to be standard in general pretty soon, don't they?
185 hp on the Accord LX with the 6MT would be pretty lively, I bet. Plus if it's like typical Honda sticks it will be fun to drive. Finding one of those could be tough, though.
#16915 of 20238 Re: 2013 Accord [backy]
Sep 23, 2012 (1:36 pm)
If your really want an Accord manual you could probably order one. I did that for my 2008 Accord EXL navi manual in white. There basically wasn't a single one in the country in Oct. of 2007 when I went into the dealer, and so he took a deposit, they built it in Ohio, and by early Jan. I was driving the car. I haven't regretted that at all.
But through dealer trades you should be able to get, say, a manual EX, Sport, or LX....
Yeah, the Passat looks good from the outside in terms of visibility, but inside the little window right behind the driver is just not usable. Yes, you can adjust your mirror, etc. But I just prefer better visibility...
#16917 of 20238 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [benjaminh]
Sep 24, 2012 (2:07 pm)
For the record, the Accord has 189 hp and 181 ft-lbs of torque. Not sure about relative weights, but I'll bet the Accord has the advantage there also.
#16918 of 20238 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [benjaminh]
Sep 24, 2012 (5:07 pm)
The Fusion gets better mpg though - 25/37 vs. 24/34.
#16919 of 20238 Re: 2013 Fusion 6 MT vs. 2013 Accord 6MT [akirby]
Sep 24, 2012 (5:50 pm)
True...But, for the autos (probably c. 97% of these cars) the 2013 Accord tops the Fusion in mpg and (I think) in acceleration....
"The Fusion's most efficient engine — the 1.6-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder — is rated at 25/37/29 mpg city/highway/combined with a manual transmission and at 23/36/26 mpg with an automatic. Most Fusions will be sold with automatics."
The manual Accords are rated 24/34/28, which is a 1 mpg difference in combined mpg. To me 1 mpg is not much, but 1.2 seconds faster acceleration to 60 is significant.
The 2013 Fusion 1.6 auto is rated 26 combined. The 2013 Fusion 2.5 auto is also rated 26 combined.
The 2013 Accord 2.4 auto is rated 30 combined.
That's probably about $300-$400 a year. And so it's not a lot, but it's something....