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)
#35 of 40 Re: Accord Owner [edk57]
by bruneau1
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....
by jontyrees
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]
by brucelinc
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]
by thegraduate
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]
by steevo
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.