AUTOGUIDE: 2013 Toyota Camry vs 2013 Honda Accord

By Mike Schlee, April 23 2013. Photos and Video by Stephen Elmer.

If the thought of a Camry versus Accord comparison test doesn’t get your heart racing, we understand. This is not exactly a battle of thoroughbred horses. Want speed, flair and style? Look elsewhere. What we have here, are two vehicles designed for the masses.

Both the Toyota and Honda mid-size sedans are built for people who aren't particularly interested in driving, but who need an easy to drive car, that is spacious, predictable, efficient and reliable. Built more for peoples’ needs than their wants, think of them as the sensible shoes of the automotive world.

Last year three of the top selling six vehicles in America were mid-size sedans with the Camry third overall and the Accord fourth (The only models above them were trucks). The mid-size sedan segment is huge and these two vehicles represented nearly three-quarters of a million vehicle sales last year in America alone. It goes without saying then that the stakes are high. So which is our pick between these two segment leaders?

NEW, BUT NOT DIFFERENT

All new for 2013, at first glance it may not appear that the Honda Accord has changed much since last year. With evolutionary styling not straying far from the 2012, a closer look is need to reveal subtle changes here and there. The LED daytime running lights, dual LED headlights (standard on our EX-L trimmed Accord) and LED taillights all give the Accord a little exterior flash. The rest of the vehicle lines have been sharpened up to give the Accord a fresh, modern look.

Compare Specs

		vs
Vehicle	2013 Honda Accord	Advantage	2013 Toyota Camry
Engine	2.4 L Inline-4	-	2.5 L Inline-4
Transmission	CVT	-	6-Speed Auto
Horsepower	185 hp	Accord	178 hp
Max. Torque	181 lb-ft	Accord	170 lb-ft
Fuel Economy	27 MPG city / 36 MPG hwy	Accord	25 MPG city / 35 MPG hwy
Observed Fuel Economy	25.3 MPG	Accord	23.5 MPG
Weight	3,365 lbs	Camry	3,245 lbs
Front Legroom	42.5 in.	Accord	41.6 in.
Rear Legroom	38.5 in.	Camry	38.9 in.
Cargo Capacity	15.8 cu-ft	Accord	15.4 cu-ft
Front Headroom	37.6 in.	Camry	37.9 in.
Rear Headroom	37.0 in.	Camry	38.0 in.
Starting Price	$22,470	Accord	$23,030
As Tested Price	$30,785	Camry	$28,520

The Camry received its last significant overhaul just last year. Again, it was a case of evolving the styling cues opposed to reinventing the Camry. This is definitely the most dramatic looking Camry to date, but that is not saying much since the Camry has always been more conservative than a one piece bathing suit. The new Camry does feature some nice design cues like the sideways ‘L’ shaped taillights, chrome fog light bezels and sloping front grill. That said, the Accord looks more upscale on the outside and was voted the more stylish vehicle according to our staff.

Both of our test vehicles came equipped as fully loaded four cylinder models. The 2013 Toyota Camry XLE features a 2.5-liter engine producing 178 hp and 170 lb-ft of torque. It sends power to the front wheels through a 6-speed automatic transmission and is officially rated by the EPA at 25 MPG city and 35 MPG highway. The Accord features a similar setup by utilizing a slightly smaller 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine that develops a peppier 184 hp and 181 lb-ft of torque. Power is sent to the front wheels via continuously variable transmission (CVT) and it also offers an edge in the fuel economy department at 27 MPG city and 36 MPG highway.

ENGAGING vs PREDICTABLE

Much has been made about the Accord switching to a CVT from a conventional automatic. The good news is, this is one of the better gear-less units on the market. It is quiet and constantly changing rpm speeds to avoid any of that dreaded CVT drone. Under hard acceleration it will simulate gear changes as well which helps break up the monotonous groaning associated with many CVTs.

Both vehicles offer a sport mode, but only the Toyota features a ‘manual’ mode that allows for driver selectable gearing. Despite a 105 lb. weight advantage, the Camry is not as fast as the Accord in a straight line; a result from slightly more power and the CVT. As well, the Accord achieved better fuel economy during our test period (during the cold winter months) by averaging 25.3 MPG compared to the Camry’s 23.5 MPG average.

Overall, the Accord is the more engaging car to drive of the two. It does excel at throttle response, steering feel and chassis dynamics, but is missing that magical something that makes the Camry feel incredibly easy to drive. The Camry’s ride felt rougher on imperfect pavement and more noise protrudes into the cabin; but that could be due to winter tire choice more than anything else. Overall, the Accord ends up feeling more refined when plodding down the road.

COMFORTABLE vs LUXURIOUS

Inside, the Camry has the upper hand. Although the Accord features a well laid out dashboard design, it cannot match the Camry’s more premium feel. The cross-stitched multi-angled dashboard of the Camry and all the switch gear are crafted out of quality materials.

Both cars feature well thought-out center cluster designs that place all the controls where you would expect them to be. The Camry’s user interface is easier to use, but the Accord’s second infotainment screen, which is dedicated for audio use only, is a nice touch. It is refreshing not having to exit out of various menus just to change the radio station. Speaking of which, the Camry wins the audiophile competition with a nice, bassy sound system.

The Accord was rated as having the better front seats which are wide, squishy and comfortable. Both cars have nearly identical rear seat legroom, but the Accord trumps the Camry’s front seat legroom by roughly an inch with 42.5-inches total. In the trunk it is a similar story with the Accord’s 15.8 cu-ft of cargo space edging out the Camry’s 15.4 cu-ft space.

See Also: 2012 Toyota Camry SE Review

There is a major, albeit curable, downfall in the Accord; the Interface Dial Feedback. If you own a 2013 Accord, best to turn it off. Using a text to speech function it will read out every menu choice and/or radio station selection. If you’re at all quick through the controls it gets so far behind it will freeze the system for 10-15 seconds and lock out any inputs during that time. It is beyond infuriating; how could Honda design such a beautiful gauge cluster, but screw up the text to speech so much?

The base 2013 Honda Accord LX starts at a lower price of $22,470 post-delivery charges thanks to the availability of a 6-speed manual transmission. That under cuts the automatic-only base Toyota Camry L’s post-delivery charge price of $23,030. However, as tested, the Camry becomes the pricing champion with a favourable $28,520 for our loaded up XLE Camry compared to our Honda Satellite-Linked Navigation equipped Accord EX-L which topped out at $30,785.

THE VERDICT

 

Either of these vehicles are a great choice. If refinement, curb appeal and efficiency are important to you, pick the Accord. If a luxurious interior, ease of use and lower MSRP are your top priorities, take the Camry.

However, like with any comparison test, there can only be one winner. Just like the epic sales battle these two vanilla gladiators partake in year after year, it was a very close finish with the edge going to the Accord thanks to better exterior styling, a more comfortable interior and some trick features like the lane watch camera. The fact it's better to drive and more efficient in the real world are just an added bonus.

2013 Honda Accord

LOVE IT Solid driving dynamics Attractive exterior Comfortable interior Fuel efficient

LEAVE IT Interface dial feedback Less premium interior than Camry

2013 Toyota Camry

LOVE IT Easy to operate Luxurious interior Attractive price Well laid out controls

LEAVE IT Bland styling Somewhat rough suspension Not as efficient as Accord Dull to drive

Source;
http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/gallery.php/v/main/comparison/2013ToyotaCamryVS2013HondaAccord/2013-Honda-Accord+_2_.JPG.html

2010 Honda Accord EX vs. 2011 Hyundai Sonata SE, 2010 Subaru Legacy 2.5i - Comparison Tests

Here's a really good comparison test between three really good cars....
Practically Chic: Does style really matter in these mid-size schleppers armed with just four cylinders and slushboxes?

For all the ascendance of crossovers—certainly the most amoebic of all automotive classifications—mid-size sedans continue to be one of autodom’s biggest sales categories. There are many reasons for this—all-around family usefulness, resistance to the swollen SUV bulk of crossovers, respectable fuel economy—but double-take glamour is rarely one of them.

This mid-size dedication to stylistic timidity has always mystified us. Given a choice between two implements that function with more or less equal efficiency, wouldn’t you be inclined to pick the one that looks the best? This is not a trick question. As a Detroit design chief observed long ago, “If practicality was all that mattered, they’d have to put a roof over Kalamazoo so they could build enough Checkers to satisfy demand.”

Checker sedans were terrific taxicabs. But their mass-market appeal was limited. Kalamazoo was never in danger of requiring a big roof, and the factory shut down in 1982.

It’s true that several purveyors of mid-size sedans have tried to raise the curbside wattage of recent offerings—the Chevy Malibu, Ford Fusion, Mazda 6, Nissan Altima, and even the Toyota Camry have all snazzed up a couple of notches compared with their predecessors. But how many actually turn heads? Very few; none, maybe. Staying visible in a 15-minutes-of-fame society requires some risk taking. Daring. Chutzpah.

The 2006–’10 Hyundai Sonata played to solid reviews that praised, in particular, its extensive array of standard features and a marked improvement in overall quality. But it’s safe to say that the styling failed to provoke any oohs or aahs. Responses were more of the ho and hum variety.

If you’ve been following our previews and show coverage on our website, or if you saw Hyundai’s myriad Super Bowl commercials, you already know that the Sonata, like the ugly duckling, has matured into a handsome swan. If it’s not the sleekest thing in its class, we’d like to know what is.

Of course, looks aren’t everything. If they were, Megan Fox would be president. Or, perhaps even scarier, Sarah Palin. There’s gotta be substance, too, which, in our constituency, translates as supple ride, all-day comfort, decent power, competitive fuel economy, contemporary safety features, high-quality fit and finish, and, of course, a high fun-to-drive quotient.

How does the 2011 Sonata grade out on the full report card? The quickest way to place it in the mid-size-sedan continuum is to pit it against a couple of prominent players in this class. The new Subaru Legacy—redesigned inside and out for 2010—needed to be on the menu since it has yet to be tested against its peer group. And, of course, we had to include the reigning mid-size champ—the Honda Accord, a perennial 10Best Cars titlist (24 trophies in 28 years) and winner of our last three mid-size showdowns.

The group’s specifications were constrained by the Sonata’s powertrain limitations. The Accord and the Legacy both offer six-cylinder options, but the new Sonata’s only engine, at least for now, is a naturally aspirated four-cylinder; a manual transmission comes only in the base model. Thus we specified automatics and fours in all three cars—a combination that accounts for a little more than 80 percent of the mid-size, mid-price sedan market.

Our Sonata was the slightly sportier SE model. We requested a midrange Accord EX, and the Legacy was a basic 2.5i with a CVT automatic. Base prices ranged from $20,690 (for the Subaru) to $24,540 (the Honda).

Could one of these newbies knock the Accord off its throne? We assembled our threesome in Southern California to find out.

To continue to the article...click on this link--> Continued...

Source;
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/10q1/2010_honda_accord_ex_vs._2011_hyundai_sonata_se_2010_subaru_legacy_2.5i-comparison_tests

2011 Toyota Sienna vs. 2010 Honda Odyssey Minivan Comparison

Here's a really good read comparing the brand new redesigned Toyota Sienna and the current (and about to be redesigned) Honda Odyssey, don't forget when reading this comparo, the Honda Odyssey hasn't really changed since 2005! - It's remarkable how well it still stacks up to the 2011 Sienna! Both are really nice vans....
Style and stigma be damned, this is a minivan test. A test of utility and usability. A test of family hauling and cargo carrying. A test where practicality overshadows pride. Specifically, it's a comparison test of the 2011 Toyota Sienna and 2010 Honda Odyssey, both vying to be recognized as the warrior queen of the minivan segment. And it's a test any real man should read with honor.

Though the minivan is an unpretentious standard of reference in family haulers, it is still the most practical vehicle in this role. Easier to drive than an SUV or a crossover, a minivan will not only carry more kids and cargo but also shame SUV-style competitors at the gas pump. Equipped with a reasonably powerful V6 engine, the minivan even offers a modest, although useful, towing capacity. Love them or hate them, there's no arguing with the minivan's cost/benefit ratio. Real men will acknowledge this, social stigma or not.

Both the Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey have been winners in our previous Inside Line minivan comparison tests. The current-generation Odyssey has prevailed in these comparisons for more than three years, although this five-year-old design from Honda is due for replacement next year. Meanwhile, the fully redesigned 2011 Toyota Sienna has come to the market with a barrage of features, a new transmission and a kickass, take-no-prisoners attitude. OK, we fabricated that last bit to keep the men reading, but even a glance at the new Sienna makes it obvious that Toyota has Honda directly in its sights.

Sorting out which of these minivans is best is the role of our scoring system, which weights the final result according to price (20 percent), fuel consumption (15 percent), feature content (25 percent), a 29-point evaluation by the editors (20 percent), performance (15 percent) and finally editorial preference (5 percent).

The Players
Both vans in this test are top-of-the-line, front-wheel-drive examples. This 2010 Honda Odyssey is a Touring model, which comes with standard equipment that includes eight-passenger seating, leather seat upholstery, a navigation system, a premium audio system, rear-seat entertainment and much, much more. It also comes with an as-tested price of $41,465.

The list of standard equipment in the 2011 Toyota Sienna Limited is more impressive. Among its features are 18-inch tires, keyless ignition/entry, a JBL 10-speaker premium audio system and Toyota's Safety Connect telematics. This particular Limited also came with the $1,800 Limited Convenience package, which adds rain-sensing wipers and high-intensity-discharge headlamps. It includes the $890 Advanced Technology package, which brings adaptive cruise control, a pre-collision preparedness system and hill-assist control. These amenities raise the Sienna's as-tested price to $41,990, some $525 more than the Odyssey. But from a price standpoint this is a fair fight.

In truth, both these vans are as laden with features as most luxury cars. In fact, each carries such a comprehensive list of features that we found it difficult to differentiate one from the other. For example, the list of features common to both includes such elaborate convenience items as triple-zone climate control, power liftgate, back-up camera and sensors, multiadjustable power seats with memory and hands-free Bluetooth connectivity.

By the Numbers
When it comes to the shadow these two eight-passenger vehicles cast on the pavement, the dimensional differences don't make much of a difference. Surprisingly, the older 2010 Honda Odyssey is the longer overall of the two by 1.9 inches (and here we thought all new cars were getting bigger). When it comes to wheelbase, however, the Sienna's 119.3-inch measurement exceeds the Odyssey's 118.1 inches. And even though it has more features, the Sienna weighs less than the Odyssey, some 4,586 pounds versus 4,612 pounds.

Not that anyone who buys one will care too much, but both the Odyssey and Sienna are powered by a 3.5-liter V6 engine. Honda rates its power plant at 244 horsepower at 5,700 rpm and 245 pound-feet of torque at 4,900 rpm, and the Odyssey utilizes a five-speed automatic transmission to put that power to the ground. The Sienna's V6 (a four cylinder is optional) cranks out more power than the Honda with 265 hp at 6,200 rpm and 245 lb-ft of torque at 4,700 rpm. A new six-speed automatic with a manual-shift feature is standard for the Sienna.

The Seating ShowdownHere's where this test is won or lost. It's in these details that the soccer moms of the world decide the fate of the minivan. And it's here where the aging Honda still holds its own.


Largely, this is because the Odyssey's interior design has so much space-efficiency and practicality that its utility hasn't been surpassed by any important advances in vehicle architecture. Eight-passenger seating capacity isn't unique to the Odyssey (the Sienna offers it as an option), yet we've found that it offers a small but useful margin of utility for occasional duty. The center seat in the second row is small, but it quickly transforms into a center console with cupholders or can be removed to make pass-through space between the seats.

The 2010 Honda Odyssey's lightweight, simple-to-remove second-row seats also offer a measure of utility unavailable in the Sienna Limited. With the center seat/console removed, they can slide together to improve ease of access to the third row through the passenger-side door. They weigh 62 pounds each and can be removed by anybody with a reasonably strong back.

In contrast, the 2011 Toyota Sienna Limited comes standard with second-row "lounge seating," which means that its two second-row seats are reclining captain's chairs with footrests that extend. These recliners were comfortable, but you have to be the right size, and any of our editors taller than 5-foot-9 disdained them. If you're a little too big, then you find your shoes resting against the front seatbacks, and if you're really big, your feet just won't fit anywhere at all.

Still, the Sienna's seats are mounted on sliders in the floor, so they can be moved very far forward to provide easy access to the third row. At the same time, we found that doing so requires so much effort that it probably can't be done by a child. These seats also weigh 76 pounds each — enough to probably preclude their removal unless you're desperate.

B-List SeatingThe third-row seats in both the Odyssey and Sienna vans are split 60/40 and fold flat into the floor. When the seats were deployed, we found the Sienna's third-row legroom more accommodating than the Odyssey partially because its second-row seats have a long range of fore/aft adjustability and partially because there's simply more space.

Folding these third-row seats into the floor is a very different procedure in each of these vans. In the Odyssey the act requires a two-handed reach-and-pull technique and significant effort. Even an average-size male has to lean far into the van and pull the seats upright, which is a bit of a balancing act. Still, only about 4 seconds are required to drop one side of the seat into the floor.

The Sienna's power-operated third row deploys in 18 seconds, although you have to reach up to the top of the hatch where the button is and then hold it down. It takes just 11 seconds to stow one side of the split seat, and double that time or use both hands if you want both sides stowed. Anyone dealing with children will likely prefer this power-operated feature over the Honda's manual operation, so score one for Toyota.

Other back-of-the van observations? Both the Odyssey and the Sienna have a power-operated hatch that opens in about 7 seconds and closes in about 10 seconds, both have 12-volt outlets in the rear cargo area and both offer six grocery bag hooks in the seat-well cargo hold.

Practical Matters
If you don't like beeps, then stay as far from the 2011 Toyota Sienna as possible. It beeps any time a power-operated door is opened or closed. It beeps when the seats are stowed or deployed. And it beeps should its driver dare to maneuver remotely near anything while parking. There's also a delay when you remotely open its side and hatch doors, as if it's asking, "Are you sure?" We were sure every time.

Meanwhile, the Sienna's modern interior design is welcome. Large, easy-to-read and intuitively arranged buttons scored points over the Odyssey's older design.
Both vans offer an immense amount of interior storage. The Odyssey's dual door pockets seem like an ideal design in a vehicle with such vast interior space and the possibility of carrying so many people and their stuff. The Odyssey also scores for its storage bin in the second-row footwell, a concealed compartment that can keep large items (like a purse) out of sight. But the Sienna fought back with massive glovebox space, something the Odyssey lacks.

By virtue of an exterior design that has a lower waistline, the 2010 Honda Odyssey offers better visibility front and rear. Its materials look slightly dated, but they compare well with the Toyota Limited's use of fake wood trim. We doubt it's a coincidence that the small fitment defects we saw in this pre-production Sienna were the same as those we've seen in production Toyotas.

Behind the WheelToyota has changed its approach to ride quality in the Sienna compared to the other family-oriented vehicles in its product lineup. It doesn't float down the highway and instead stays settled on the road, and the result inspires far more confidence. But don't get us wrong, there's still a huge emphasis on comfort, something we found agreeable except when rolling across the sort of choppy concrete slabs you find on overused freeways, especially here in California. Despite its long wheelbase, the Sienna's ride is too busy over such surfaces.

For all the Sienna's newfound emphasis on driving dynamics, the Honda Odyssey remains the leader when it comes to the way a minivan should drive. Though the Odyssey is massive, it still drives like a car in a way that no other manufacturer can achieve. There's a sublime balance between comfort and just enough control to feel safe and reassured. Honda has nailed the subtleties.

Of these two minivans, only the 2011 Toyota Sienna has a gated lever for its six-speed transmission, something that lets you more precisely control engine braking, which is very useful in a vehicle that's likely to be driven while heavily loaded.

PerformanceThe Sienna V6's extra 20 ponies turn up in full force in acceleration tests, where Toyota's minivan scoots to 60 mph from a standstill in only 7.9 seconds (7.6 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip). The quarter-mile is also dispatched quickly, some 15.8 seconds at 90.5 mph. This performance is considerably quicker than that of the Odyssey, which requires 8.8 seconds to reach 60 mph (8.5 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) and goes through the quarter-mile in 16.6 seconds at 84.8 mph.

The braking distance required to stop from 60 mph is much the same for these two minivans, with the Toyota coming to a stop in 127 feet, some 3 feet shorter than the Odyssey. The real story, however, isn't that the Sienna stopped shorter. Rather, it's that after only four stops the Odyssey's brake pedal went soft and stopping distances began to increase. In fact, the Odyssey's brake pedal action subsequently became so soft that it dramatically compromised effectiveness. If driving on mountain roads is a common experience for you, the Toyota Sienna's braking performance should sway you.

What the 2010 Honda Odyssey lacks in straight-line gusto it makes up for through our 600-foot slalom course. Its fastest run of 61.7 mph is 1.1 mph faster than the Sienna, which has a very aggressive calibration for its stability control system. More important, the Honda's conventional hydraulic-assist power steering proves well weighted in its effort level and offers intuitive action and feel, while the Sienna's electric-assist system makes the steering feel numb, particularly off-center where it lacks feedback.

Neither van allowed its stability control to be fully disabled — a trait that was most obvious on the skid pad. Here the Toyota's larger 18-inch tires helped it produce 0.77g in lateral acceleration versus the Odyssey's 0.74g performance.

Fuel consumption was a virtual wash between the two. Over the course of more than 1,000 miles, the Sienna nudged the Odyssey by an insignificant 0.1 mpg, 20.5 mpg versus 20.6 mpg.
You Can't LoseBoth these vans are immensely capable and neither exhibits any significant shortcomings. In other words, you'll be making a solid choice with either one. But there can only be one winner. And in this case, it's the 2011 Toyota Sienna.

There's no arguing with the Sienna Limited's high-value features when one considers the relatively minor $525 premium you'll pay for them. Most of these — like iPod integration, adaptive cruise control and keyless ignition/entry — are just examples of the latest convenience technology and will likely be available on the new 2011 Honda Odyssey next year. The quality of the Sienna's interior isn't as nice as we'd like, but what it lacks in materials quality it more than makes up for in design. Then there's the fact that the 2011 Toyota Sienna has a power advantage over the 2010 Honda Odyssey, yet still matches the Honda's fuel-efficiency.

Though it might not be the vehicle of every man's dreams, the 2011 Toyota Sienna is simply the best value in minivans sold today. At least until next year. (2011 redesigned Honda Odyssey!)

The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.

Source;
http://www.insideline.com/toyota/sienna/2011/2011-toyota-sienna-vs-2010-honda-odyssey-minivan-comparison.html

2010 Honda Insight vs. 2010 Toyota Prius

With its Prius, Toyota has dominated the hybrid scene for the last five years. The Prius has even been used to transport movie stars to the Oscars. But just in time for its 2010 model update, Honda comes along with a scrappy little competitor. Honda got in on the hybrid game early, too, but hasn't been as successful as Toyota. It's first Insight, a high mileage hybrid two-seater, was discontinued in 2006. For 2010, Honda comes out with a brand-new Insight that looks nothing like its namesake. Instead, it's a four-door hatchback, just like the Prius. At the starting gate, we know the Prius gets better mileage, while the Insight costs less, but how will these hybrids fare against each other through the entire course?

It's time for these contenders to raise their green gloves and come out fighting.



Here is where the article starts;
http://reviews.cnet.com/4370-10863_7-842-103.html?tag=mid_container;pf_left_nav

Winner: 2010 Honda Insight

The Honda Insight upsets the Toyota Prius in a tie-breaker decision. We knew this would be a close one, but we didn't expect it to get this close. For the tie-breaking vote, Antuan and Brian decided they just couldn't live with the Prius' anemic acceleration on a daily basis, and would rather live with the less economical Insight.

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

Alot of good things said about both makes;
A Product of Their Times
By Erin Riches, Senior Editor Email
Date posted: 07-20-2009

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.

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.

As crossovers promise everyone a whole row of seating to himself, families are fleeing even the roomiest of family sedans like these. So you might be driving around by yourself in a Ford Taurus or Honda Accord. And you might care about something besides shoulder room and legroom.

In its previous life, the Taurus couldn't stand up to such scrutiny. It was a big lug, a slobbery SUV shaped like a sedan. However, the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited reflects a serious change of heart at Ford. This is a smarter Taurus with crisper handling, quality interior bits, and up-to-date but easy-to-use technology.

This is also exactly the sort of Taurus that should be able to do battle with the smarty-pants of the family car class, the 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation.

Tuck in That TummyYou'll notice we call both the Taurus and the Accord large cars. We don't kid you, though. The truth is, these two have gotten fat together.

Our 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 Navi tester weighs in at nearly 3,600 pounds. It outweighs the previous-generation Accord by 250 pounds. It outweighs a 1999 Accord EX V6 sedan by more than 300 pounds.

Although rivals like the Mazda 6 and Nissan Altima are close in size (and weight, in the case of the Mazda), only the Accord crosses the 120-cubic-foot interior volume threshold into the EPA's "large car" classification.

Built on a 112.9-inch wheelbase (2.7 inches longer than the Accord's), our 2010 Ford Taurus Limited stretches nearly 203 inches from nose to tail. It's 8.5 inches longer than the Accord, not to mention unnaturally tall (60.7 inches) and wide (76.2 inches) for a sedan.

The Taurus is certainly the hulk of the family sedan class. It draws fat jokes from strangers and outweighs the hefty Honda by 450 pounds. But at 122.3 cubic feet, its total interior volume only tops the Accord by a couple cubes.

Pounds of GadgetsAt least a few dozen of those pounds are accounted for by all the technology in our 2010 Ford Taurus Limited, which isn't even fully optioned. Notably, it lacks a sunroof, Ford's hard-drive-based navigation system and the multicontour seats that heat, cool and knead your backside. We'll live.

For a $31,995 base price, the front-wheel-drive Taurus Limited provides a leather interior, 10-way power front seats, dual-zone automatic climate control, a USB jack, the Sync hands-free interface, wood-grain interior accents that may or may not be to your taste, and 19-inch wheels that definitely will not be to your taste.

Our test car also has Package 302A ($2,000), which adds keyless ignition, a blind-spot information system (Volvo's BLIS), automatic high-beams and a very decent 12-speaker Sony audio system. The blind-spot radar supplements the car's standard rear-bumper sonar by providing useful warnings on the trip computer display like "vehicle approaching from the left" when you have the Taurus in reverse.

Adaptive cruise control adds an additional $1,195 to the Ford's bottom line for a total of $35,190.
Most of these features simply aren't available on the Accord. However, our 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 comes with the high-quality Acura navigation system (stripped of the nav weather and nav traffic features), as well as Bluetooth, heated leather-upholstered seats, dual-zone climate control, a sunroof, and an unassuming set of 17-inch wheels.

We don't mind the lack of wood-grain appliqués in the Accord, but this car needs an iPod-friendly USB jack. Aux alone doesn't cut it in 2009.

Still, this 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation can be yours for $31,615 — a savings of $3,575 over the 2010 Taurus Limited.

Different Personalities
You wouldn't know the 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 Navi is the cheaper of the two based on how it drives.

Right away, the Accord establishes itself as the sportier of the two sedans, which isn't terribly hard to do when your opponent weighs 2 tons. Still, we wonder if Honda has subtly recalibrated this car's drivetrain for 2009, because this Accord V6 doesn't feel as shortchanged on low-end torque as the 2008 models we tested. In addition, its five-speed automatic transmission shifts crisply right at the 3.5-liter V6's 6,800-rpm redline instead of short-shifting. Good thing, because there's still no manual shift gate.

Honda has rerated the V6 sedan's output at 271 horsepower at 6,200 rpm (from 268 hp) and 254 pound-feet of torque at 5,000 rpm (from 248 hp), but there's more here than meets the eye. Throttle response is downright snappy in the 2009 Honda Accord.

At the track, the Accord reaches 60 mph from a standstill in 7.2 seconds (or 6.9 seconds with 1 foot of rollout as on a drag strip) and hits the quarter-mile in 15.3 seconds at 93.1 mph.

The fact that our 2010 Taurus Limited breaks into the 15s at all borders is impressive considering its weight disadvantage. It runs a 7.8-second 0-60 time (7.5 seconds with rollout) and a 15.7-second quarter-mile. With a trap speed of just 88.9 mph, though, it has no hope of catching the Accord. The Ford's 3.5-liter V6 is rated at just 263 hp at 6,250 rpm, but its torque is accessible at lower rpm, with the peak 249 lb-ft available at 4,500 rpm.

Most of the time, our 2010 Ford Taurus Limited accelerates adequately in traffic. It's only when you hop into the Accord that you realize what you've been missing. Shifts from the Ford's six-speed automatic transmission often feel lackadaisical, too, even in manual mode. Plus, torque steer is an issue under full throttle.

Fuel economy ratings are close, with the V6 Accord earning a slight advantage with its 19 city/29 highway mpg figures versus a preliminary rating of 18 city/28 highway mpg for the front-drive 2010 Taurus. Both sedans return high teens in weekday traffic, though our Taurus test car's 2,500-mile road trip understandably pushes its two-week average above the Accord's, with its average during our test interval coming to 21.1 mpg versus 19.3 mpg.

Weight Management
Ordinarily, we don't give the current-generation Honda Accord a lot of credit in the handling department. Its steering is precise, but conservative suspension tuning, meek P225/50R17 Michelin Pilot HXMXM5 all-season tires and a few too many pounds rob it of it the usual Honda cornering character.

But it's all relative, and a 2-ton 2010 Ford Taurus makes the Accord look good on a back road.
It's not that the Taurus Limited is a terrible handler. There's just a lot of car to transition through corners, and Ford's legal team knows this, so the big sedan has a very aggressive and very non-defeatable stability control system. If it senses you're about to stuff the Taurus into a tight corner, it clamps down hard on that inside wheel. The steering ratio (17.0:1) also feels slower than it needs to be, and heavy inputs elicit moaning from the power steering pump.

At our test track, the 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 manages 0.83g on the skid pad and 64.1 mph through the slalom. With its stability control active, the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited can't do any better than 0.79g and 60.3 mph. When we run the Accord through these tests with stability control on, the numbers are closer: 0.79g on the skid pad and 62.2 mph in the slalom.

In braking tests, the Ford's wider P255/45R19 100Y Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires give it a slight advantage. The Taurus stops from 60 mph in 131 feet. This is 2 feet shorter than the Accord's best stop. Still, we prefer the Accord's firmer pedal. And notably, this is the first Honda we've tested in months — even years — that hasn't had an issue with brake fade (though there's still some smoke coming off the rotors after our testing).

The Comfort Argument
We're not sure how Ford's chassis engineers were able to get such a well-damped ride out of a car with a 19-by-8-inch wheel weighing down each corner, but they did. The 2010 Ford Taurus Limited has an exceptional ride quality. It's plush over most interstate freeways, yet highly controlled at all times. This is the family sedan you want to drive cross-country.

You could do the same in the 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6, but it wouldn't be quite so comfortable. In Honda tradition, the Accord's ride is all about firm control. You might be fine with this as a driver, but passengers often give a different opinion.

We measure a higher decibel level in the Accord at a 70-mph cruise, and we blame it on characteristic Honda road noise, which detracts from cabin calm even when you're just running errands around town.

Better Packaged Accord
Yet you might put up with the extra noise, because the smaller 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 has a subtly more spacious cabin. The beltline is lower, the seats are wider and, whether you're driving or riding in back, the cabin has an airier feel. Here we are back at the personal space argument again.

But there's also cohesion to the Accord's cabin design that makes the car easier to live with day-to-day. All the displays and controls have an ergonomic design that feels instantly familiar, and there's a unity to how everything works. You and the car and all its stuff are part of one Honda life form.

That's not to say you can't live well in the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited, which feels more upscale than the Accord and offers many more conveniences for iPod and BlackBerry users. But somehow the tall chairs, deeply recessed gauge pods, pixelated radio displays and sophisticated Sync interface in this Taurus Limited feel more like a collection of stuff than elements of a whole.

Critical Mass
Family sedans don't necessarily involve your family anymore, so most of us are looking for more than vast amounts of space on the cheap. We want quick acceleration; we'll take adroit handling if we can get it; and the cabin electronics had better play nice with our smart phone.

The 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation wins this test by 2.6 points, largely because it's faster and more agile, yet less expensive. It's hardly a sport sedan, but of these two, the Accord is the driver's pick. A more space-efficient cabin design is another big point in the Honda's favor.

At the same time, the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited is more refined and personable than any Taurus to date. Its nicely resolved ride is no small benefit if you take long road trips, and we really do like Sync. Yet it's tough to justify paying $35K for a 263-hp sedan that needs almost 8 seconds to hit 60 mph.

There's a larger issue here, too, as we'd like to have an intervention with both Ford and Honda to talk about weight. From the standpoint of acceleration, handling, braking and fuel economy, neither the Honda Accord nor the Ford Taurus can afford to get any larger. If anything, make them smaller.

Follow this link to find out what Inside Line Executive Editor Michael Jordan says:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=153146/pageId=173625

The Toughest Cars On The Road

Quick, guess which automakers produce the most affordable, long-lasting cars? If you said Honda and Toyota, you're right.

Our list of the toughest cars on the road includes four winners from Honda and two from Toyota--a veritable coup for the Tokyo-based companies.

"They just keep reinforcing that perception," says James Clark, the general manager of Automotive Lease Guide, a residual value data provider based in Santa Barbara, Calif. "It's a purchase you're never going to be questioned on--'Why did you buy a Honda?' It's very safe."
In Pictures: The Toughest Cars On The Road

Rounding out the "toughest" list, Subaru and Ford Motor earned two slots each, thanks to strong results from Subaru's rough 'n tumble Forester and Impreza and Ford's trusty Escape and Fusion. Hyundai, down just 7.9% in U.S. sales for the year to date, also grabbed a spot with its Santa Fe crossover.

Behind the NumbersTo determine this year's toughest cars on the road, we evaluated all 2009 models based on reliability, safety and quality, along with maintenance requirements. We narrowed the list by considering only candidates that received a better than average reliability rating from Consumer Reports, a top safety rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a score of at least four out of five stars from J.D. Power and Associates' quality survey, and a five-year maintenance cost of under $3,200, as estimated by Vincentric, an auto data firm in Bingham Farms, Mich.

Toughness--a combination of quality, durability and all-around staying power--is increasingly important to consumers anxious about credit problems and potential job loss, says Raffi Festekjian, senior manager of product research and analysis at J.D. Power and Associates. The average length of car ownership has increased from 5.5 years in 2006 to six years in 2009, according to J.D. Power data.

"What matters now to consumers is which car can I focus on that's not going to give me a headache and which is going to cost quite a bit as far as repairs are concerned," Festekjian says.
Honda's $21,245 CR-V fits that requirement to a T. The plucky crossover received a perfect five out of five overall quality rating score from J.D. Power, with perfect scores in the individual mechanical, powertrain, body and interior, and features and accessories categories.

The CR-V sold 14,550 units last month, down 27.1% from May 2008. But it outsold all other Honda crossovers and SUVs. Toyota's RAV-4 was down just 14.7%, and Ford's Edge suffered a passable 22.5% decline, although they each sold more than 2,000 units less than the CR-V. The CR-V comes in two- and four-wheel drive LX, EX and EX-L versions that all get a combined 23 miles per gallon and offer standard features including remote entry, chrome trim, halogen headlights and MP3 compatibility.

Sturdy StandoutsWhile Honda makes a strong showing on our list, drivers should check out the durability merits of Subaru and Hyundai. Consumer Reports named Subaru the second-best automaker (behind Honda) of 2009; Subaru was the only automaker with 100% of its tested vehicles earning the "recommended" distinction. Hyundai showed the most improvement of any automaker in reliability ratings over last year; its Genesis sedan topped Consumer Reports' "upscale-sedan" ratings.

The $21,695 Santa Fe is one example of Hyundai's fortitude. It received a perfect five out of five overall quality rating from J.D. Power and has estimated five-year maintenance costs of around $3,000, much less than the $3,500 required to maintain a larger SUV like the Dodge Durango.
Subaru's $17,495 Impreza, a favorite among videogame aficionados and street-racers, stands out for its 45% above-average reliability rating from Consumer Reports. It received perfect reliability scores on most of its components, including the engine, transmission, suspension, brakes and even audio system.

Focusing on Function, not Fantasy
Noticeably absent from our list? Large trucks and over-sized SUVs that talk a big game about being tough but rarely deliver. Most were left off because of poor reliability ratings and high maintenance costs. It just goes to show that towing capacity and a large truck bed do not a tough vehicle make.

Luxury rides like the $79,000 Land Rover Range Rover and $49,000 Lexus GX470 SUVs also failed to meet our "toughness" criteria. Upper echelon prices don't necessarily translate into increased durability; no vehicle on our list costs more than $23,500.

Jake Fisher, the senior automotive engineer for Consumer Reports, says it's partly because luxury autos often have the latest and greatest technology, which can sometimes pose a problem: It breaks.

"There are so many things that could go wrong," he says. "Sometimes luxury brands are too fixated on being the first to market with something as opposed to honing in and getting it right."

Source;
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/17/toughest-car-models-lifestyle-vehicles-toughest-models.html

2009 Honda Odyssey Comparison Chart

I stumbled upon a great chart over at the www.Odyclub.com by one of their members that compares the 2009 Honda Odyssey Touring to the following vehicles;

-2009 Toyota Sienna Limited FWD
-2009 Nissan Quest 3.5L SE
-2009 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT
-2009 VW Routan SEL Premium
-2009 Hyundai Entourage Limited

It compares pretty much everything, very comprehensive.

Anyway, here's the link;
http://www.urvi.net/2005odyfan/2009_6_Way_Van_Comparison.html

2009 Honda Accord: What's best for you? Four cylinders or six?

Do I really need the big engine?

It’s one of the serious questions a new-car buyer must answer because many models come with a choice. In the less expensive cars, it usually boils down to four-cylinders or six. In the premium brands, it’s a matter of six or eight and, sometimes, even 12.

Sales statistics show that when it’s time to sign, buyers most often choose the car with the smaller engine.

With that in mind, I spent some time behind the wheel of the latest Honda Accord EX-L sedan with leather upholstery, navigation system, automatic five-speed automatic transmission and a four-cylinder engine.

Although the top-of-the-line car I drove is not the biggest seller, it has essentially the same powertrain as the less expensive models that shoppers most often choose.

What did I learn? Simple answer: You don’t need a V-6 engine. Complicated answer: Nothing’s ever that simple. Before I explain, let’s take a look at what you get to go along with those four cylinders.

Using Honda’s tried and true growth formula, the new front-wheel-drive Accord sedan is three inches longer (194.1 inches), about an inch wider (72.7 inches), about an inch taller (58.1 inches, and about 160 pounds heavier than the previous model. The result is an extra three cubic feet of interior room, which translates to a bit more elbow room and a bit more leg room. It also moves the Accord, technically, into the large-sedan category.

Styling is a subjective matter, but I think it’s fair to say that the 2008 Accord has a bolder look than its predecessor, one that makes it stand out from, rather than disappear into a crowd. I give it a thumbs-up.

Inside, the Accord EX-L looks and feels more luxurious than its family-car mission would suggest. With bigger and more supportive seats covered in quality leather, upscale trim and a new sense of roominess, the Accord feels as if it has left its middle-class home and gone to live on an estate with the premium sedans.

The EX sedan’s upgraded 2.4-liter, four-cylinder engine generates 190 horsepower and 162 pound-feet of torque, an increase of 24 horses and 2 pound-feet over last year’s powerplant. The bottom line: 0-60 mph drops about a second to 8.2, EPA-estimated fuel mileage drops by 3 in both categories to 21 city/31 highway, and tailpipe emissions get a top PZEV rating. A less powerful, 177 horsepower engine is available only in the entry-level LX models.

Rounding out the 2008 Accord driver’s package are variable assist, power rack-and-pinion steering; four-wheel independent suspension; and antilock four-wheel disc brakes (vented in front, sold at rear).

Not surprisingly, this Accord retains the sporty demeanor that makes it more fun to drive than some of its competitors. The suspension is taut without being annoying, the steering is responsive and communicative and the brakes are strong. For those who are really into driving, it can be purchased with a six-speed manual transmission.

It also is a leader in safety features, with front and side airbags for front-seat passengers, side curtain airbags, active head restraints, automatic stability control, brake force distribution and emergency brake assist.

Now, let’s get back to the engine and why my simple answer might not be the right one for everybody.

The four-cylinder engine is more than adequate for around-town and highway travel. If that’s where you spend your time, it will suit your needs admirably. And, with an active noise-cancellation system, harsh engine vibrations will not be felt inside the passenger cabin.

But, if you live in hilly terrain or spend a lot of time in two-lane territory you will encounter its weak spot. The four-cylinder Accord simply cannot scoot around slower traffic the way the 268-horsepower V-6 sedan does. Passing maneuvers take more planning and more space and that can be maddening when you are stuck behind a Sunday driver or a big garbage truck cruising along 10 miles an hour below the speed limit.

Compounding the conundrum is the fuel mileage. The four-cylinder engine’s EPA estimate of 21 mpg city/30 mpg highway really isn’t a whole lot different from the 19/29 estimate for the V-6 engine. For the record, the four-cylinder Accord I drove averaged between 22 and 27 mpg in mostly suburban and highway driving.

There is, however, a $2,300 price difference between comparable models and that could be enough to teach you a little patience. Here, again, there are decisions to be made. Skip the navigation system and its built-in accessories and you can have a V-6 Accord for nearly the same price as the car I drove.

In the end, sad to say, there is no single right answer. You simply have to pick the model that best suits your personal needs.

I have driven all of the Honda Accord models since the first one arrived in 1976 and have actually owned a few. Each generation has improved on the one before it and each has maintained Honda’s reputation for solid engineering and quality construction.

But, this time it seems that Honda has crossed some invisible line – from very good to excellent. The top-of-the-line Accord is exceptionally well appointed, big-enough to feel like a premium mid size sedan and competent enough to return an engaging driving experience.

And – for $28,605 – the 2009 Accord EX-L comes with all of the expected convenience features plus a voice-activated navigation system, Bluetooth hands-free telephone link, trip computer, satellite radio, dual-zone climate control and a seven-speaker, 270-watt sound system with Ipod connection.

With American manufacturers now building family cars that stack up well against the competition, overseas manufacturers may have a fight on their hands to maintain American market dominance.

The guess here is that Honda’s long-time success will continue.

Source;
http://www.examiner.com/x-2270-New-York-Autos-Examiner~y2009m1d17-2009-Honda-Accord-Whats-best-for-you-Four-cylinders-or-six

Edmunds Comparison Test: 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid vs. 2009 Honda Fit Sport

Family Feud
By Josh Jacquot, Senior Road Test Editor Email Blog Date posted: 11-04-2008

They're not fast, they don't corner hard and they're certainly not the most pulse-quickening cars we've ever tested at Inside Line. But if fuel-efficiency and utility are priority items in your next car purchase, then the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid and 2009 Honda Fit Sport are unbelievable machines.

Combining economic operation and utility like few other cars sold today, either of these Hondas is a responsible choice for the buyer looking to save fuel, minimize emissions and haul the family. Each has its own unique qualities — important distinctions that can't be overlooked.

The question, then, is which is the better car? To figure it out, for two weeks we used the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid and the 2009 Honda Fit as they're designed to be used. We drove them to work, loaded our families in them, packed our groceries in them and took them to the track to measure their performance. We argued the merits of the Civic's superb fuel economy vs. the Fit's exceptional utility.

In doing so, we designed this test to suit the priorities of a buyer looking for reasonably priced utilitarian transportation. Accordingly, fuel economy and price make up the majority of each car's total score at 25 percent each. Performance, feature content and our 29-point evaluation score make up 15 percent each, while editors' personal and recommended picks combine for the remaining 5 percent.

The Distinctions
Both our test cars represent the very top of their respective model lines. In other words, you can't buy a more expensive Fit or Civic.

Our 2009 Honda Fit Sport test car included the new-for-2009 five-speed automatic transmission, which complements the Fit's 1.5-liter inline-4 engine rated at 117 horsepower and 106 pound-feet of torque. Including Honda's voice-recognition navigation system brings the Fit Sport's cost to $19,430 including destination.

The hybrid powertrain isn't the only feature jacking up the Civic's price. This car also has been equipped with a navigation system and leather seats, which pushed its sticker (including destination) to $27,420 — nearly an $8,000 premium beyond the Fit Sport. The combined power rating of its 1.3-liter, inline-4 gasoline engine and 20-kilowatt electric motor is 110 hp and 123 lb-ft of torque. A continuously variable transmission puts power to the ground.

If it's air emissions you're concerned with, the Civic is EPA-certified as a Tier 2, Bin 2 polluter, while the Fit earns a Tier 2, Bin 5 rating. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) classifies the Civic as an AT-PZEV and the Fit as a ULEV2. In case you're not familiar with the alphabet soup of emissions ratings, this means that the Civic emits roughly as many pollutants while running for a week as a 1976 Chevy Beauville Van does leaking oil in your driveway for a day. And the Fit emits only a little more.

Both cars are fitted with front, side and curtain airbags; stability control; and antilock brakes.

Living With Them
Unlike the Toyota Prius, the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid manages to look and act like a normal car. There's a conventional key to start the engine, and a conventional shifter. Short of its goofy wheels, there's very little giveaway visually that this is a hybrid. Start driving, however, and it's clear this is no normal car. Its electric-assisted power steering lacks the feel and response of a conventional Civic and it quickly becomes obvious that handling hasn't been a priority in the tuning of its chassis. If, like most hybrid owners, you're not one to be engaged by the way a car feels when you drive it, then there's little here to dislike.

Here's something funny. Jump out of a Civic Hybrid and into a Fit and you'll swear you're driving a sports car — even with the automatic tranny. The Fit's shift paddles on the steering wheel allow you to downshift for a corner and exercise precise control over engine braking — the Civic can't manage either of these tasks. There's better steering feel, a more responsive powertrain and relatively engaging handling in the Fit as well. Bottom line: It's a hell of a lot more fun.

But your extra money does get you more than a hybrid powertrain in the Civic. Its leather-upholstered seats and automatic climate control are worthwhile amenities that aren't available in the Fit. Plus, it's a just a nicer car, without the noticeable evidence of cost-cutting that's easy to find in the Fit.

Reality
The truth is, if you're willing to overlook the Civic's awkward control feel and miserably slow acceleration, both of these cars will serve you well for daily commuting and family hauling, which is really what they're for.

But you don't have to look far to realize how much more practical the 2009 Honda Fit is when it comes to moving cargo. Even with its rear seats in the upright position, it offers almost twice as much cargo space as the Civic (20.6 cubic feet vs. 10.4 cubic feet). Fold those seats flat and cargo volume expands to a massive 57.3 cubic feet. Plus, the Civic simply can't compete with the Fit's flexibility when it comes to configuring the cargo area.

With the ability to raise its split-folding seat bottoms against their seatbacks, the Fit is unmatched in this aspect of utility. The Civic, meanwhile, lacks even a simple pass-through into the trunk because its battery pack is in the way.

Fuel Consumption
We measured fuel economy using two sets of criteria. First, we performed a test in which both cars were driven twice in controlled conditions — one highway route totaling 83 miles and two city loops totaling 180 miles. Driving the cars together and using the same driving style and similar speeds ensured equal conditions for both cars. Air-conditioning was used during city testing and one driver refueled both cars at the same pump using the same fill technique.

We use the EPA's combined fuel economy number for fuel economy scoring in this test, but offer our own test results to demonstrate how each car performed in various conditions with our editors behind the wheel.

For the rest of the article (it's a good read);
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=135206#1