Article Comments - 2010 Ford Taurus vs. 2009 Honda Accord

38 messages, Last post on Sep 20, 2009 at 8:38 AM

You are in the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Ford Taurus, Honda Accord, Car Comparisons, Sedan

Comparison Test: 2010 Ford Taurus vs. 2009 Honda Accord - 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. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 4 of 4: 1; 2; 3; 4; Prev; Next; Last

#29 of 38 Re: Sync Fails [mikemartin] by baggs32 Aug 05, 2009 (9:47 am)
Replying to: mikemartin (Aug 04, 2009 11:42 pm) That's just the new Navi feature and one scenario. It's certainly not perfect but it can help you in a pinch and it's free. If you want something better, spring for a portable unit or the factory versions. Good grief.
#30 of 38 Re: Typical BS. [elroy5] by baggs32 Aug 06, 2009 (8:40 am)
Replying to: elroy5 (Aug 04, 2009 1:33 pm) Is available equipment the only thing that's important to you? Nope. Just like everyone else I have a list of things that are important to me. Personally, I don't need SYNC. I guess the reviewers didn't think it was enough to sway the decision either. SYNC is not the only feature the Taurus had over the Accord. I like my moonroof, too bad the Taurus didn't have one. No, too bad the Accord did. Because they chose to compare an Accord EX, which comes with a moonroof standard, they completely made this comparo irrelevant. Their statement was that they were comparing large, sedans and the Accord EX is not classified as such by the EPA. To make this apples to apples they have to compare an Accord LX which is a large sedan according to the EPA. Doing that lowers the price for the Accord significantly but also gets you smaller wheels, a much smaller engine, and far less features/options. The smaller engine and wheels could very well take that small handling advantage away from the Accord. Yes, even against a Taurus SE or SEL. I understand why they compared the top Accord to the Taurus and that similar size/space measurement you keep preaching. However they did not compare comparable models and they could have just as easily compared a Taurus SEL to the same Accord and it would have been much closer or even a different result altogether because the SEL's price is quite a bit lower than the Limited's and is far more comparable, in size and features, to the EX-L V6. IIRC Edmunds also just compared an Accord LX to a 2010 Fusion SEL and the Fusion won. I think the Edmunds editors need to communicate a little more before they go posting articles willy nilly again. Replies to this message: elroy5 (Aug 06, 2009 1:21 pm)
#31 of 38 Re: Typical BS. [baggs32] by elroy5 Aug 06, 2009 (1:21 pm)
Replying to: baggs32 (Aug 06, 2009 8:40 am) I think it was a good comparison. The Accord is actually closer, in size, to the Taurus, than it is to the Fusion. If you don't think the comparison is valid, you don't have to agree with them. It's not like they passed a law saying you have to buy the Accord over the Taurus. I don't think you have a problem with the comparison, just the car they picked as the winner. Chill out. They liked the Accord better. You don't have to agree.
#32 of 38 Re: Typical BS. [elroy5] by neuspeed Aug 08, 2009 (6:59 pm)
Replying to: elroy5 (Aug 03, 2009 1:25 pm) elroy5 - go stop by the dealers and look/stand next to the Taurus and do the same w/the Accord. The Taurus is much bigger. Some of the measurements the author mentions (moonroof or no-moonroof) may be similar but they are significantly different in size. The Taurus is much more substantial. The hood/beltline is so much higher and the bigger rims don't look that big on the Taurus. When you sit in the Taurus you feel so much higher......and the Taurus is several body bags bigger in the trunk.....In terms of size, it looks about the size of the Chrysler 300........ Do the same visual comparison with the Fusion/Camry/Accord/Altima and those cars look similar. The Taurus (like the 300) just looks too big and out of place in that group.....I'm a former Accord owner and I'm thinking about getting the Fusion but I saw the Taurus at the dealer and that thing was huge.....too big for me frankly but maybe not for others who want a full size car..... Replies to this message: elroy5 (Aug 08, 2009 9:41 pm)
#33 of 38 Re: Typical BS. [neuspeed] by elroy5 Aug 08, 2009 (9:41 pm)
Replying to: neuspeed (Aug 08, 2009 6:59 pm) Is "looking large" from the outside, or being higher off the ground important? Not IMO. The important part is the interior space for me and my passengers. I think the fact that the Accord gives you the same interior size, with a smaller exterior, is a plus, for driving and parking. Of course the Accord sacrifices trunk room, but that would not be a big concern for me, since I haven't joined the mob yet (not many dead bodies to carry).
#34 of 38 Re: Typical BS. [baggs32] by elroy5 Aug 09, 2009 (8:00 pm)
Replying to: baggs32 (Aug 04, 2009 8:24 am) Correct, but totally irrelevant because the reviewer was going by EPA classification when comparing them and not how they "feel". You can't have it both ways when trying to be objective. What? I don't think you understand what the reviewer said. They said the Accord felt more open and spacious, despite the EPA measurements. In other words, the EPA measurements don't tell the whole story. If the ceiling is two feet above your head, it doesn't make the car feel more spacious, unless you're 7 feet tall. The Taurus would be a big hit with basketball players, I guess, but not so much for normal size people.
#35 of 38 Re: Accord Owner [edk57] by bruneau1 Aug 14, 2009 (9:50 am)
Replying to: edk57 (Jul 28, 2009 10:43 am) I just drove the 2010 Taurus limited. First of all, the Taurus and Accord appeal to two very different groups, so it makes little sense to argue over them. As for the Taurus, If you have ride as one of your priorities, stay away from the 255/45/19 tires. That means no Limited. Those tires are too thumpy and detract from the feel of the car. I have ordered a SEL. No fake wood, but a more civilized model and a much better value. Also, hate the moon roof which impedes vision from the rear and limits headroom in front. I would never use it anyway. A big car with a very substantial feel and very well put together. I enjoyed using the paddle shifters. Replies to this message: brucelinc (Aug 15, 2009 5:34 am)
#36 of 38 To each his own.... by jontyrees Aug 14, 2009 (12:42 pm)
Both seem to be fine cars. I have a 2008 Taurus Limited, and I love it. Big, solid, comfortable, easy to drive around town or on long trips, outstanding stereo, huge trunk. I've had sports cars, compacts, trucks, SUVs, wagons, you name it, and there's a lot to be said for the attributes I list above. I think the editors, and a lot of consumers, are sometimes too impressed with at-the-limit handling ability, and driving experience. Most of my driving experience is stuck in traffic, heading from stoplight to stoplight, or carting the kids from one sports event to another - and for that, a large sedan is the business. Just my 2 cents.
#37 of 38 Re: Accord Owner [bruneau1] by brucelinc Aug 15, 2009 (5:34 am)
Replying to: bruneau1 (Aug 14, 2009 9:50 am) If you have ride as one of your priorities, stay away from the 255/45/19 tires. For years it seemed that most new cars were "under-tired." Now, in many cases, it seems to me they have gone too far in the other direction. I agree that the 19s on the Limited seem like an odd choice. Particularly the use of the RS-A tires which are not noted for ride quality, noise isolation, or much of anything else. They probably offer a bit of a sportier ride/handling balance than the 18s but is that what most buyers of a Taurus Limited are looking for? The 19" wheel/tire combination makes some sense on the SHO but seems out of place on the Limited. I think they should have been an option rather than standard equipment.
#38 of 38 Re: Typical BS. [mschmal] by thegraduate Sep 20, 2009 (8:38 am)
Replying to: mschmal (Jul 23, 2009 3:35 am) First of all the comparison is irrelevant, the Accord is not going to be cross shopped with the Taurus. Funny; those are the two vehicles my parents cross-shopped back in 2008. They got an SEL with leather, Sync, Convenience Pkg for the price the local dealer was offering on an LX 4-cylinder Accord with hubcaps and no power seat. Both are large cars, but the Taurus was the value leader for them. They have a Civic for running to work, around town. The Taurus is their highway car; they live on the gulf coast, but the whole family is in Birmingham, AL. They travel a lot, and the softer riding Ford was better for that.