Last post on Nov 30, 2010 at 7:06 AM
You are in the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable
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)
#32 of 40 Re: Typical BS. [elroy5]
Aug 08, 2009 (7:59 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.....
#33 of 40 Re: Typical BS. [neuspeed]
Aug 08, 2009 (10:41 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 40 Re: Typical BS. [baggs32]
Aug 09, 2009 (9:00 pm)
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 40 Re: Accord Owner [edk57]
Aug 14, 2009 (10:50 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.
#36 of 40 To each his own....
Aug 14, 2009 (1:42 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 40 Re: Accord Owner [bruneau1]
Aug 15, 2009 (6:34 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 40 Re: Typical BS. [mschmal]
Sep 20, 2009 (9:38 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.
#40 of 40 Re: Typical BS. [baggs32]
Nov 30, 2010 (7:06 am)
Baggs32. What you missed is the Accord had Navigation. If you downgraded the options on the Taurus to meet the Accord, the Taurus would not have navigation. So the cars were similarly equipped....if you are shopping a Nav Eqquiped accord, it makes sense you would expect Nav in the Taurus at the same price point.
The Truth of the matter is you have to LOAD a Ford up to make it as nice as its competition.
For example, even a BASE Nissan Maxima has pushbutton start and bluetooth handsfree system.