Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Honda Accord vs Ford Fusion

1235721

Comments

  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Funny how people bash the Taurus. Yet, if you look under reliability data under MSN auto sight. The Taurus is a very, very reliable vehicle..

    Yes, it is a very reliable car. But if you think people are buying Accords and Camrys just because of reliability, that's only part of the picture. You have to keep up with the latest technology. More powerful and fuel efficient cars with updated styling and features have left the Taurus a dinosaur. You can hardly tell the difference between the 95 Taurus, and the 2005 Taurus. People don't want to buy the same exact car they bought 10 years ago. Which amounts to low numbers of repeat buyers. Ford really threw a good name out the window. It was a name with a good reputation, and Ford let it die of old age.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,614
    they don't want to drive what they did 10 years ago, but they do want to drive what they did 40 years ago, aka the new mustang. :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    they don't want to drive what they did 10 years ago, but they do want to drive what they did 40 years ago, aka the new mustang.

    I know, aren't we (the customer base) fickle? :)
  • bristol2bristol2 Posts: 736
    I look forward to seeing the Taurus revival in 2020.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    they don't want to drive what they did 10 years ago, but they do want to drive what they did 40 years ago, aka the new mustang.

    The 95 Taurus, and the 2005 Taurus, are basicly the same car. The Mustang of now, and 40 years ago, are only alike in nostalgic looks. People who owned a Mustang 40 years ago, are probably not still driving it, and looking to trade it for a new one either.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Perhaps, by then, the world will be ready for the 1996 Taurus' style?

    image

    Maybe not.
  • It's obvious, you did not own an Accord 15 years ago, and own one now. I owned a 92 Accord, and now own an 03 Accord. The Accord has grown much larger, and with "research and development" the car has been improved, with every new generation.

    Well no, you're wrong. I've either owned or driven every, and I do mean EVERY, generation of Accord every built. I've passed on several '96-'97 models to family members with at least 2 still on the road.

    Granted you can't parts swap a 92 with an '06, but purely from an engineering and assembly standpoint, there aren't too many fundamental design differences.

    There is a big difference between any change to a vehicle being revolutionary as opposed to being evolutionary. Mechanically, the parts of a Honda are pretty much the same way they were with the early 90's (3rd generation?) as they are with a 2003 (6th Gen?) Door hinges? Same. Under pinnings? A bit different but fundamentally... same. Brake design? Same. HVAC system design? Same (you still have to turn the A/C on to prevent your windows from fogging up). Engine management? Subtract VTEC and vacuum lines...same.

    Nothing really revolutionary. Everything has been evolutionary. Nothing out of the ordinary, unexpected, or in short, risky. You expect minor changes like interior design, and front/rear six. (for those of you who don't know, front/rear six is basically the front and rear six inches of the car. The headlights, grill, tail lights, and trunk lid) You can also expect wheelbase changes and interior volume changes. Even height and stance changes. But even though the engines from 3rd to 6th Gen are different, they are still based on the same design. Same for the interior. Honda has an interior 'formula' and they won't get away from it. I don't blame them. It works.

    Now you show me a Honda Accord that is absolutely nothing like anything that came before it, and I'd gladly and completely agree with you. The Fusion isn't like anything Ford has produced in about 9 to 12 years if at all.

    I would agree with you about the Taurus, although the 96 Taurus could be considered revolutionary since the building and assembly techniques were radically different than the previous 2 generations. Not to mention that silly overall oval design. I honestly don't doubt your perspective on a 92 Accord when compared to an '03 Accord, either. I just simply eyeball change a little differently.

    The only company these days that truly makes revolutionary changes in their vehicles is Chrysler. They don't build a single car (no, a minivan is NOT a car) that is anything like what they offered 15 years ago.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The only company these days that truly makes revolutionary changes in their vehicles is Chrysler. They don't build a single car (no, a minivan is NOT a car) that is anything like what they offered 15 years ago.

    It's a darn good thing. Our Chryslers of 10 years ago (LeBaron Convertible, based on the K-Car; Sebring Convertible) were total garbage from a reliability standpoint. Our Ford and Hondas always backed up, something both our Chrysler's seemed to hate (three transmission rebuilds between our two Chryslers - had each less than a year!)
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Now you show me a Honda Accord that is absolutely nothing like anything that came before it, and I'd gladly and completely agree with you.

    Ok, you got it. In 92 the Accord was much smaller (about the size of today's Civic). You could not get a 92 Accord with a V6 engine (would not fit under the hood). The 92 Accord 4cyl. had a distributor, and no V-tech. In the 03 Accord 4cyl. the engine is all electronic (even the throttle is drive by wire). But I guess both engines had pistons, so that makes them the same, please. In 92 the EX Accord had 140 hp. The 03 EX V6 has 240 hp. With Honda's technological advancements, the V6 engine gets better hwy mileage than the 4cyl. did in 92 (refinement at it's best). In 92 the auto transmission had 4 gears, the 03 has 5, and shifts much smoother. In 92 the Accord had one airbag (driver). The 03 Accord has 8 airbags. I could tell the difference with my eyes closed.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The 92 Accord 4cyl. had a distributor, and no V-tech. In the 03 Accord 4cyl. the engine is all electronic (even the throttle is drive by wire).

    The 140 hp Accord of 1992 did have VTEC, and Drive-by-Wire Throttle didn't come to Accords until the 2006 model year. Just a few minor corrections.

    A brief synopsis of VTEC engine application to Honda Accord Inline-4s:

    From 1991-1997, the top-of-the-line 4-cylinder Accord got VTEC (EX and SE traded spots as top-models from 1991-1993, though both models received the VTEC - 140 hp '91-'93; 145 hp '94-'97) and the DX and LX models made do without Variable Valve Timing (125-130 hp).

    In 1998-2002 models, all 4-cylinder engines except for DX and Value Package Accords got the 150 hp VTEC engine, while the DX/VP Accords got a 135 hp version of the engine, without VTEC.

    2003 was the first year that all models, DX included, got a VTEC engine (i-VTEC by then), with 160 hp.

    Accord V6 models since 1998- have had VTEC.

    Hope this little history helps.
  • pwaspwas Posts: 34
    Im thinking about trading our 06 Honda accord 4cyl exl for a Mercury Milan v6 fully loaded. I can save almost $200 per month with the 0% for 72 months with mercury. I have 11% with honda finance. Plus im getting a V6 with the milan. Please give me some feed back.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    have 11% with honda finance.

    11%!! :surprise: :mad: WOW, that's incredibly high.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The 140 hp Accord of 1992 did have VTEC, and Drive-by-Wire Throttle didn't come to Accords until the 2006 model year. Just a few minor corrections.

    Wrong, sorry but I had the "Top of the line" 92 EX Accord (there was no SE in 92) and there was no VTEC engine available in any Honda in 92 (maybe Prelude, but I doubt it). My 03 Accord has "Drive by wire" (it is also the "Top of the line" for 03 model year). I should know, I owned both cars.

    If you see a 4th gen Accord with a VTEC engine in it, it was swapped in. (Very common practice).
  • Since CR only collects data from their subscribers, it is unscientific. But the most unscientific?

    You're right, there are worse. Look at any political survey. But the effect their survey has is more than most others, which seems to demand they try to improve their methods. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be so inclined.

    The demographics of CR subscribers as a group is not that much different than the driving population as a whole.

    There are those that disagree with this assessment, especially when considering the very small percentage of those subscribers (6% or so) that respond to the CR survey questions, many of them more than willing to agree with CRs opinions. CR has always had some credibility problems, but IMHO, it reached a head in 1967 when Ralph Nader joined their board of directors, only 2 years after penning "Unsafe at Any Speed". Talk about the fox guarding the hen house! I don't think they've recovered since.

    I apologize to the HOST for discussing this so much in this forum, so I won't say anything else. You're welcome to have the last word if you choose!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Going by my father's 2005 Accord EX, it is definitely not drive-by-wire... there is now a little play in the throttle pedal. Not-electronic. You are referring to a V6, I presume?

    We have had a 90 LX, 92EX, 93EX, 96LX, 00LX, 01LX, 03EX, 05EX, and 06EX Accords (all sedans, I-4, Autos)in the last 16 years, so I'm pretty well acquainted with them myself. (I also drive two nearly everyday (at least one daily)). I don't know what apparently got into me today; I guess too much stress from school getting to me, b/c I RARELY post info without double-checking my facts. Of course, the day I choose to, I'm wrong! :blush: So it goes...

    As I checked for myself to respond to your claim about no VTEC, I am sorry for my false claim. I honestly believed the 140 hp models had VTEC (which is a logical thing to assume i guess, since it had the same size power bump (125-140 hp) as the 94 model (130-145) which DID have VTEC. I stand corrected. VTEC, according to Edmunds.com, debuted on 1994 Accord EX models, with its 2.2L 145 engine.

    Once again, sorry I doubted your info, and I'm quite surprised at myself for doing so without checking my own facts. Forgive me? :sick: :blush:

    best,

    thegrad
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    "Im thinking about trading our 06 Honda accord 4cyl exl for a Mercury Milan v6 fully loaded. I can save almost $200 per month with the 0% for 72 months with mercury. I have 11% with honda finance. Plus im getting a V6 with the milan. Please give me some feed back.
    Replies to this message:"

    You have hit it right on the money where Honda has fallen flat on its face.. VALUE for your hard earned dollar. Go get the Milan premium with the v6 its a great car for your hard earned dollar..If you get black leather, I recommend you get your windows tinted.. they get hot!.. :shades:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Shoot, at 11%, I'd be unloading that car and shopping for a lower rate. I can't believe ANY car maker would use a rate that high!... Do you (pwas) have decent credit (that's kinda personal, so I understand if you choose not to respond, but that rate is AWFUL!)
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Im thinking about trading our 06 Honda accord 4cyl exl for a Mercury Milan v6 fully loaded. I can save almost $200 per month with the 0% for 72 months with mercury. I have 11% with honda finance. Plus im getting a V6 with the milan. Please give me some feed back

    Consider this. You may be saving $200 per month, but paying an extra 12 months. And if you drive a lot of miles each year, some of that savings will go into spending on gas, if you switch from a 4cyl. Accord to a 6cyl. Milan.
  • 11%? Are you serious? No way...if the Milan works for you, get it. With the new powertrain warranty extended to 5/60000 there's little to worry about. I love my Fusion, excellent car. If you plan on keeping this car for 7 years, definetely get the Milan, but hurry as dealers are running out and they aren't as willing to haggle with limited inventory. Keep us posted.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    The Rules of the Road explain some things that were questioned in a couple of posts that seem to have been relocated to that great bit bucket in the sky. ;)
This discussion has been closed.