Ask the Car People.SM


Article Comments - 2010 Ford Taurus vs. 2009 Honda Accord

40 messages,  Last post on Nov 30, 2010 at 7:06 AM

You are in the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable Forum.

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)

Messages Page 1 of 4

#1 of 40 Article Comments - 2010 Ford Taurus vs. 2009 Honda Accord by KarenS HOST

Jul 22, 2009 (12:10 pm)

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.
 
Comparison Test: 2010 Ford Taurus vs. 2009 Honda Accord

#2 of 40 Stupid by ram88

Jul 22, 2009 (4:08 pm)

Taurus is 9 inch longer 2 inch taller 3 inch wider and has tons of more options then accord. Taurus's trunk is nearly twice the size of accords, accord's trunk is actually smaller then ford fusion.
 
You guys could have asked Taurus with less option (same as accord) and gotten it cheaper.
 
Nice import ass-kissing.
 
--

#3 of 40 Re: Article Comments - 2010 Ford Taurus vs. 2009 Honda Accord [KarenS] by elroy5

Jul 22, 2009 (5:37 pm)

Replying to: KarenS (Jul 22, 2009 12:10 pm)
ram88,
I think they optioned out the Taurus, and it was still not as good as the Accord, in their opinion. You don't have to agree. If SYNC, and trunk room are important to you, that could sway the decision in favor of the Taurus. They did say the Taurus was the more comfortable long distance cruiser, so that could also be important to some.

#4 of 40 Unfair comparison by nomoreford2

Jul 22, 2009 (5:48 pm)

The 2010 Fusion is what the Accord and Camrys should be compared to, since the Fusion has similar interior room to the Taurus to an extent. And why wasnt a $28k Taurus SEL picked instead, since that will be the one that most folks buy.
 
Also the article makes it seem like a accord is so much faster than the taurus, but is .6 sec that much faster in the real world considering up to 45mph they are just about identical.
 
TAURUS
Performance
0 - 30 (sec): 2.9 (2.9 traction control on)
0 - 45 (sec): 5.0 (5.0 traction control on)
0 - 60 (sec): 7.8 (7.9 traction control on)
 
ACCORD
Performance
0 - 30 (sec): 3.0 (3.1 traction control on)
0 - 45 (sec): 4.8 (5.0 traction control on)
0 - 60 (sec): 7.2 (7.4 traction control on)

#5 of 40 Typical BS. by mschmal

Jul 23, 2009 (4:35 am)

I've pretty much given up on this web site and its articles like this one that are the reason why.
 
This is a Road and Track style comparison about 0 to 60 times. Edmunds.com is hardly a performance oriented site and its aimed at the main stream consumer.
 
First of all the comparison is irrelevant, the Accord is not going to be cross shopped with the Taurus. The Taurus is aimed at the Avalon and will compete with the Maxima and Acura TL in terms of amenities.
 
Second they didn't even mention may of the real world important points where the Taurus totally destroys the Accord, such as in Truck space, interior passenger space, ability to run on regular gas.
 
So overall more BS from a BS site.

#6 of 40 Re: Typical BS. [mschmal] by brucelinc

Jul 23, 2009 (5:47 am)

Replying to: mschmal (Jul 23, 2009 4:35 am)
http://blogs.edmunds.com/strategies/2009/07/comparison-test-accord-vs-malibu-vs-- fusion-vs-mazda6-vs-sonata.html
 
They prefer the Fusion over the Accord in this comparison.
 
I enjoy reading comparison tests from all the publications and websites but I do not get too hung up on the writer's opinion. His/her priorities may be different than mine. For example, in the Accord test, they talk about wind and road noise. I have also found that objectionable in many Hondas. For me, that is a deal breaker. For others, it is no big deal because it is not important to them.
 
There is insight to be gained by reading a variety of tests and comparisons but the writer's final opinion is pretty irrelevant, IMO.

#7 of 40 Re: Article Comments - 2010 Ford Taurus vs. 2009 Honda Accord [KarenS] by cawfebug

Jul 23, 2009 (8:56 am)

Replying to: KarenS (Jul 22, 2009 12:10 pm)
I come from a Ford family, but have had many a Honda as well as Ford. To be technical, they have to compare them because of the EPA rated "large car" category.
 
However, I do think they are completely different cars and the comparison just doesn't work. The Taurus is HUGE! It certainly feels more upscale. I had a 07 Honda Civic hybrid and couldn't stand the dashboard design. Too fussy... like something from a sci-fi movie - same for the Accord. So, yes, the editor, (naturally as anyone would) has their own opinion on driving qualities. I would say that I've disagreed with almost every automotive magazine. You can read the comparison, but it's up to you to go drive it and make a decision.
 
and yes... Hondas have tons of road noise, and that is why they weigh less.

#8 of 40 Live with One for awhile by wjtinatl

Jul 23, 2009 (11:23 am)

Having owned both Accord and (old) Taurus, I'd say living with one for a couple months might tilt the deck to the Ford. Most people use cars like this for mundane tasks; commuting, the family trip to the beach, the household runs to Wal-Mart, Home Depot and the grocery store. Same way I use my cars 99% of the time and I am a enthusiast (Focus SVT and Camaro Z-28 SS). 3/10ths of a second zero to 60 doesn't matter except 1 time on paper, better mileage on regular gas does, every few days at the pump. A couple hundred pounds savings is nice on paper, however a huge trunk and back seat compensate nicely on those big box store and beach trips. Crisper handling and faster slalom times is cool in the press, a quieter ride and better highway composure on comfort will matter more at the 40th payment. Quality wise, press and my experience rate it a draw, no recent Honda experience but my 3 Ford products dating back to 2002 and 90k miles have been trouble-free. Wildcard in this scenario (and unmentioned in the article) will be resale value. Here Honda's shine and Ford's (and most domestics) pale. Hopefully Ford and the others have gotten religion, scaled their production schedules to retail customers and won't result to dumping 100,000 Taurus's into Hertz, that will be re-sold at half of original sticker in 6-12 months. That's what kills the resale value.
 
As a family that usually uses a full-size SUV (Navigator) as the vacation vehicle of choice, 800 miles around New England in a rented Chrysler 300 reminded me just how comfortable a full-size car can be. For my money, I'll skip the track test results and concentrate on how livable a car will be. Looks like the Taurus would be my choice.

#9 of 40 Re: Typical BS. [mschmal] by elroy5

Jul 23, 2009 (2:44 pm)

Replying to: mschmal (Jul 23, 2009 4:35 am)
First of all the comparison is irrelevant, the Accord is not going to be cross shopped with the Taurus.
 
Why wouldn't the Taurus and Accord be cross shopped? They are both "large" cars now.
 
Second they didn't even mention may of the real world important points where the Taurus totally destroys the Accord, such as in Truck space, interior passenger space, ability to run on regular gas.

They certainly did mention trunk space, and said the Taurus was a better cross country cruiser. They also mentioned that the Accord felt more spacious in the cabin, whether driving, or riding in back. Of course, if you have people riding in the trunk, they'll have more room in there. They also said the Accord had the more ergonomically designed interior. The Accord does run on regular gas. Did you actually read the article, or did you see that the Accord won, and immediately dismissed everything they said? It was not all about 0-60 times.
 
Why do people HATE the Accord so much?

#10 of 40 What does fun have to do with these cars? by testuser3

Jul 23, 2009 (7:10 pm)

People hate the Accord/Camry, because they epitomize soulless appliances on wheels.
 
Price wise the Fusion competes with the Accord and that's what most people will cross shop. Still, it's surprising when you actually look at the sizes of these cars. The Accord is actually in between the Fusion and Taurus in terms of size. It's a good deal longer than a Fusion and a good deal shorter than a Taurus.
 
Camry = 189 inches long
Fusion = 190 inches long
Accord = 194 inches long
Taurus = 200 inches long
 
I'll agree, most don't cross shop these, but you can make a case for it. Still, it would be nice if these stats were scrutinized in the article.
 
As far as performance is concerned, no one buying this car is going to care much, which means the focus should be on practicality entirely. They both return miserable 0-60 times, terrible 1/4 mile times and are front wheel drive. People buying these cars want to haul a lot of stuff, get decent gas mileage and have a few nice features.
 
I guess one could be more "fun", then than the other. It depends on your definition of fun, though. Which one is more fun to drive: an Accord or a Taurus? It's like asking which is more fun: to close your finger in a car door or miss a nail and hit your thumb with a hammer? I'm not sure, but I don't like either.

Messages Page 1 of 4

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement