Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1569570572574575738

Comments

  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,785
    edited February 2013
    Very good reviews! Thanks for sharing your excellent points here.

    The Mazda6 does seem impressive.

    I personally slightly prefer made in USA to Mexico (Fusion) or Japan (Mazda6).

    I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that the Mazda6 has the best visibility. Can you explain that? The reviews I've seen give the Accord the best visibility both for its thin rear pillars made of ultra-high grade steel, as well as for its side camera. The visibility cameras are optional on both the Honda and the Mazda, and so I guess to me what's more important is the standard of visibility on even the base model.

    The Honda Accord Coupe actually got a perfect score from the NHTSA:

    http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/2011-Newer+Vehicl- - - es/Vehicle-Detail?vehicleId=7522

    The Accord sedan got perfect on everything except for one 4/5, as you said. 5 stars overall. Can't figure that out one....? But the Accord is still the tops in the IIHS test, joined only by the Acura TL and Volvo.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,785
    edited February 2013
    Good points!

    And you got that I meant the glove box thing a bit as a joke. But I disagree with you a bit here:

    "I got a chuckle out of the best glove box light question. Regardless of how much so-called content Honda may have re-inserted back into the car, I still consider this penny-pinching tactic, a glaring omission. In my mind that type of cost-cutting makes me wonder where else Honda has crunched such ridiculousness. Just think of the possibilities..."If we chop 3/8" of length off every wire on every harness we can save x $ on our production. No matter that harnesses pulled and stressed to their limit..for the few failures we may have to wty, we'll clean up on this move in the end. Plus, just think of the quick go-to fixes our service shops can do well outta wty, since we'll already have a shortcut to the problem areas".

    Honda has taken a few things out (like the glove box light, ski pass through, and double wishbone front suspension), but what they've added is much more and more important. And I feel 100% confident that all that remains is top quality in the Honda Accord. Can't tell if you were joking, but they aren't going to skimp on the wiring in the car....

    The Accord's quality and ability to last a long time is quite well known in the auto world, and Honda wouldn't mess with that. Normally a "halo car" is a rare model (like a Corvette or S2000) that brings prestige to the brand even if they don't sell that many of them. I read somewhere that some of Honda's engineers and execs think of the Accord as a "halo car." Even though it's a mainstream sedan, with this generation they pulled out all the stops to make it something special too. But even Honda has to deal with economics and dollars and cents, and so while they were adding the equivalent of thousands of dollars of stuff to the base model, they simply had to save a few hundred bucks here and there too.

    The base Accord LX still adds a huge amount of stuff compared to the last generation of Accord LX. In the last generation you got a VTEC engine in the LX, but it was a lower level, less sophisticated, and less powerful engine than you got on the EX and above. Now even the LX gets the same advanced and now directed injected VTEC as is found in the EX. Some might say no big deal, but it is a big deal.

    To state the obvious, the engine is the most expensive part of the car by far, and some brands cheap out when it comes to the engine of the base model. In particular, the new Ford Fusion has a thrashy, unpleasant, and unsophisticated 2.5L 4 cylinder engine in the base model (I had it on a rental car. Yuck). You have to buy yourself with options the better 1.6 ecotec. And the Passat has an old tech, not very powerful, and not very efficient 5 cylinder in its base model car.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,785
    Don't have a smart phone myself, but Honda seems to be the first to integrate a Siri "eyes free" mode into a midsize mainstream car:

    http://blog.caranddriver.com/honda-introducing-dealer-installed-siri-eyes-free-i- ntegration-on-2013-accord-acura-ilx-and-rdx/

    As one person said, however, you might say to Siri...

    "Where's Joe's Saloon?"

    Siri might answer: "Yes, I will drive you into the Lagoon!"

    lol!
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,785
    The list in alphabetical order: Audi A6, BMW 3 series, Ford Focus, Ford Mustang, Honda Accord, Honda Fit, Mazda MX-5 Miata, Porsche Boxter, Scion FR-S, VW Golf/GTI....

    Here's the 1 minute video C & D made for the Accord:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXcdtdCy3Mo

    http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2013-10best-cars-feature-2013-honda-accord-- page-6

    Car and Driver 2013 10 Best list:

    "HONDA ACCORD
    The family sedan, elevated.
    Let us get this straight: The new Accord has ditched its control-arm front suspension for struts; a CVT has displaced its four-cylinder's step-gear automatic; and gasoline direct injection is new this year­—but only on the four—nine years after Audi first offered it in the U.S. So why is this car back on this list for a record 27th time? It's not because the Accord is a looker. What it has is inner beauty: Luxury-car big inside and yet smaller outside than before, this ninth-gen version fully delivers on Honda's "man-maximum, machine-minimum" philosophy. The Accord's greatness has always derived from its ability to disappear under its driver, but this new car verges on the ethereal—it is so easy to see out of, so easy to point into a corner, so elegant and light and forgiving in its responses that one big fluid loop develops between man and machine. This is true whether you're talking about the base four-cylinder sedan or the six-cylinder coupe with its clockwork manual. Its playful and graceful spirit makes taking grandma to the doctor and the kids to soccer and the boss to lunch no chore. You only think it's a driving appliance until you drive it. Then you understand."
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,785
    edited February 2013
    http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2013-ford-fusion-se-ecoboost-vs-2013-honda-a- - - - ccord-ex-2013-nissan-altima-25-sv-2012-volkswagen-passat-25-se-comparison-test-c- - - - ar-and-driver2013-ford-fusion-se-ecoboost-vs-2013-honda-accord-ex-2013-nissan-al- - - - tima-25-sv-2012-volkswagen-passat-25-se.pdf

    Best braking 70-0: Fusion 175 ft, Accord 184 ft, Altima 185 ft, Passat 185 ft

    Acceleration 0-60: Altima 7.6 seconds, Accord 7.7, Fusion 1.6 8.3, Passat 8.8

    Acceleration 0-100: Accord 19.8, Altima 20.5, Passat 23.9, Fusion 24.9

    Top Speed (all are limited by their internal computers): Accord 127 mph, Fusion 122 mph, Altima 119, Passat 114

    It's ridiculous that I think all of these cars have speedometers that go to 160. That's just silly. 140 is plenty as they will never get there....

    Sound level 70 mph: Fusion 67 dBA, Accord 68 dBA, Altima 69 dBA, Passat 69 dBA

    Roadholding: Fusion .87g, Accord .87g, Passat .84g, Altima .84g
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,785
    edited February 2013
    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-sedan-v-6-test-review

    C/D TEST RESULTS:
    Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: 13.9 sec
    Zero to 120 mph: 21.2 sec

    That's slightly faster than a BMW 328i:

    "With less weight to haul around—3552 pounds versus 3607 for the last V-6 sedan [2012] we tested—our Touring example sprinted to 60 mph in 5.6 seconds and tripped the quarter-mile lights in 14.1 seconds at 101 mph. Those figures put it solidly ahead of all its competitors and into sports-sedan territory; the Accord ties our long-term, six-speed-manual BMW 328i to 60 and trumps that car in the quarter by 0.2 second and 1 mph."
  • bb49bb49 Posts: 21
    I'd love to see this test done including the Mazda 6. Interestingly, the "family" picked the Optima. I agree wholeheartedly with the family. If I had rated the cars in this test, I would have rated the Optima 1st, the Fusion second. If the Mazda 6 was included in this test, I'm not sure where I would place it other than it would be in the top three of this group consisting of the Optima, Fusion and Mazda 6 and that the Accord would be placed in fifth place as I would put the Sonata slightly ahead of the Accord as the more I look at the Accord's derivative, generic and utterly forgettable styling I become increasingly disappointed that Honda had a chance to make stunningly attractive Accord that could have been competitive styling wise with the Fusion, Optima, Mazda 6 and instead decided to "play it safe" and produce a bland, dated design that leaves me completely cold.
  • bb49bb49 Posts: 21
    I own a 2001 Odyssey and have had to replace the transmission 3 times already. It is well documented that Honda designed transmissions prone to failure in my Odyssey and the 5 speed automatic that replaced it. Since the Accord's CVT is a new design for Honda, I would wait a few years to see if Honda has worked out any potential "bugs" in it given the fact that Honda does not have the best reputation with transmissions.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,785
    edited February 2013
    The style of the Optima may excite you, but it does come at a cost. There's a whole thread in the Optima Forums .com site about the blind spots bc of the huge rear pillars, "ghost cars" coming out of nowhere since you can't see them, adjusting your mirrors perfectly to minimize problems, etc. Here's one post from an Optima owner:

    "Today was the last straw regarding "ghost cars" appearing out of nowhere. I am aware that it is due to the wide C-pillars and the steeply raked rear window design, which makes the trunk taller, hiding even large cars. It is the price I pay for style I guess. However:

    It is so bad that I am getting paranoid. I must have looked three times before changing lanes this morning, but a Civic was there. This is the third time it has happened this month...."

    http://www.optimaforums.com/forum/5-optima-general-discussion/4964-blind-spot-da- - - - - - - nger.html

    The Accord V-6 also blows the Optima Turbo out of the water when it comes to acceleration. Does anyone need to go that fast? Probably not. But as Hans Solo once said about the Millenium Falcon, "She may not look like much, but she’s got it where it counts kid.”

    The Optima is a great car—quality, style, value, made in usa, etc. But like other cars it's not perfect. The Honda Accord has its issues too. Some owners are reporting some software glitches sometimes with their electronics, although Honda has promised a fix soon. And the style of the Accord, which seems clean and functional to me, is dull to you and some other folks too.
  • otis12otis12 Posts: 160
    I see the Optima turbo requires an oil change every 3500 miles, per the owners manual. Not a super expensive cost but some of the competitors go for 10,000 miles before a required oil change with regular (not synthetic) oil.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,740
    I rented an Optima over Christmas and I just bought a 2013 Fusion. The Fusion has better materials, better controls and FAR better seats. I drove 3 hours in mine and it felt like I had been sitting in my recliner for a few minutes. 1 hour in the Optima and my legs and back were killing me.

    I'd put the Optima ahead of most of the others but not the Fusion or the Accord.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,326
    Ben, You are right about the Optima blind spot. 100%. "Ghost cars" appearing out of nowhere has happened to me at least 5 times. I will look, look again. and look a third time while SLOWLY merging and BAM!!...a car will be there. It's maddening. I guess those little round mirrors are in my future. Really, really near future.

    Anyone considering purchasing a 11-13 Optima, (and this info is coming from an owner), I would check out the Accord and it's improved sight lines if a family sedan is what you are after. The problem with the Accord is that with all of the options that I have in my car, a comparable Accord is close to $30,000. $6k more, and 40k less warranty.
    Also, on the performance issue: 2013 Accord V6 0-60 is 6.1.
    2012 Kia Optima Turbo 6.3.

    When my car is paid for, based on my current mileage, I will still have 40 thousand miles under full warranty!. (I did pay $900 to extend the basic 100k powertrain warranty to full bumper-to-bumper warranty).

    Anyway, to me, the contest is between the Accord, Mazda-6, Altima, Optima, Fusion.
    The Altima looks great from the side and the back, but the front end looks like it was stung by bees. It's all "puffy". A bit of a re-style in the front would be a slam dunk for Nissan.

    Chris Skalski: Network Engineer 2012 Kia Optima EX

  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,326
    Hey Kirby. The Optima you rented was an LX. It's interior materials are cheap compared to any other trim level. The EX has leather in all the door pockets and dark ebony wood everywhere you touch. The steering wheel and shifter are leather as well. Outside, the only diff is 16" rims instead of 17" with better tires.

    If my only exposure to the Optima was an LX rental, I would feel the same way . How are the sight lines on your Fusion? Also, how is the 1.6T EcoBoost in real world acceleration and passing? Curious.

    Chris Skalski: Network Engineer 2012 Kia Optima EX

  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,326
    Oh, Benjamin, the article you quoted was written by me on Optima forums. I get around. LOL.

    Chris Skalski: Network Engineer 2012 Kia Optima EX

  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,740
    I still think the Fusion SE is nicer on the inside than the Optima LX even though mine is a Titanium 2.0L EB.

    I'm used to the Fusion's higher trunk so I don't have any issues. The 2.0L EB has plenty of power - more than my old 3.0L - and is returning 2-3 mpg better fuel economy in the winter before it's broken in. I'm very happy.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,785
    Well C & D got an Accord to go 0-60 in....

    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-sedan-v-6-test-review

    C/D TEST RESULTS:
    Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec

    And so if that's true, it did blow the Optima Turbo's 6.3 out of the water.

    But was it a weird test? An error? Even they seemed amazed, and noted that the 2013 Accord V-6 was a shade faster than a brand new BMW 328i with a manual....!
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,769
    Yep, that's the most important thing in a mid-sized family sedan... being able to go 0-60 in 5.6 seconds. :P

    Remember what a great car the Accord from 25 years ago was... especially the Coupe? Everyone wanted one of those babies back then. How much horsepower did it have? Base models had 98! And the top-end LX-i had 122. Somehow we managed.
  • gogophers1gogophers1 Posts: 218
    edited February 2013
    A lot of good insights here, igo. Thank you.

    I'm in the market for a new midsizer right now and the three finalists for me are the Mazda 6, Honda Accord and Ford Fusion. Each has its pluses and minuses... I would've also considered the Altima, but since "sporty" Nissan decided to nix the manual transmission option, I responded, in turn, by crossing them off my shopping list. And therein lies the rub. Within the last 5 years, the entire midsize class has become enemy territory for manual tranny drivers to shop in. :mad:

    I had a chance to drive a 2014 Mazda 6 with a stick (my understanding is it's currently the only manual transmission 6 in the entire state of Minnesota) last week. All around it was a great ride. Not only is it stunning to look at (right on about Blue Reflex and Soul Red - Mazda presently has 2 of the nicest exterior colors in the midsize class), but the interior is excellent. My goodness, has anyone seen a new 6 with the 2-tone sand/black interior? It's absolutely gorgeous. And all the controls in the 6 are solid and easy to use. I felt immediately at home in the car. It seems like a car that would wear well - no gimmicks; just a solid driver's car that seemed day-to-day livable. That said, why no coolant temp gauge, Mazda? Oh well.

    Contrast that with the Ford. Unfortunately, the 2013 Fusion I drove was a 6 speed slushbox (the closest manual was in Kansas City, MO - about 400 miles from Minneapolis) so it wasn't a dollars for dollars comparison, but it gave me some good takeaways regardless.

    While I really like the looks of the Fusion too, Ford didn't seem to sweat all the details. First off, the 1.6 is freakin' LOUD. Maybe it's just that I had to have my foot to the floor in the thing the whole time to keep it moving in traffic, I don't know. But in all the reviews I've read, I never recall hearing a comment about engine noise. Anyone else notice this? Something tells me I'd be way off the mark with my MPGs too if I bought one of these tiny turbo Fords...

    Also, while the non-MFT Fusion models have less fussy controls than the uplevel versions, the center stack is still a disaster: a mess of buttons that must be studied before a station can be changed; the AC vent output selected. Furthermore, the miniscule 4 inch radio display has to compete with a bunch of superfluous information (the instrument binnacle already has a tiny outside temp display - so why the redundant, tiny read-out in the stack?). What was Ford thinking? :confuse: They build a very enjoyable [albeit school bus loud] driver's car (the Fusion's steering was super quick and the suspension/ride combo is about as good as it gets) and then throw in a bunch of ill-thought controls that constantly force you to take your eyes off the road. And seriously, whoever engineered that Futurama-style turn signal stalk needs to be forced into exile. It's like Ford tried to one-up VW with their lane change feature but failed miserably in its execution. Well, as these things start working their way into rental fleets and garages of the elderly, expect to see a lot of Fusions on the road with their turn signals engaged at all the wrong times (or perhaps never at all).

    As far as the Accord, I've yet to drive one (it's next on the list) but I have high hopes. I must prematurely congratulate Honda though for designing a modern sedan that appears to have excellent visibility without looking like it was hit with the same ugly stick that really did a number on Toyota's Yaris.

    So why consider a Fusion over a 6? If I was shopping for a slushbox, it would seem like the 6 would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, in Mazda's infinite wisdom, the 6 manual is available with absolutely zero factory installed options - no sunroof, no SiriusXM, no you-name-it. Granted, it already comes fairly well equipped (including dual exhaust), but I've seen Chevy Aveos with factory sunroofs (why, I don't know - but they exist). Mazda must think those who enjoy rowing their own gears hate sunshine and music.

    The Ford manual, on the other hand, can be equipped with a number of a la carte options (kudos, Ford) including back-up sensors and a sunroof. Satellite radio is standard on the SE trim (as is Ford's still clever - for those of us who like to leave the keys in the car when heading into the theme park or out to the beach - touch pad entry). Too bad you're forced to order the Fusion stick shift sight unseen (or drive across the country for a test drive) if you're in the market for one. Apparently, no Ford dealers order manuals for their own inventory anymore.

    All three cars are attractive in my eyes (w/top prize going to the 6). Mazda has the best color options in and out (although I do like Ford's Ginger Ale/Dune combo); Honda gives you various shades of mud as well as white and red (so long as you stick to the automatic - no pun intended). And I think it's safe to say that the Ford will have the worst resale (as it will very likely be in the shop most often) with the Honda being excellent and Mazda falling somewhere in between.

    Decisions, decisions...
  • scwmcanscwmcan Niagara, CanadaPosts: 394
    Guess if you want a Mazda6 with a manual and all the extras you need to see if you can import one from up here ( Canada). All models come with a manual as standard here. I guess they feel they are more likely to sell them that way here. It is a shame that you can't get them this way in the states.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,740
    I don't understand the issue with the turn stalk on the Fusion. As for dealers stocking manuals, don't blame them. For some unknown reason Ford only allows manuals to be ordered for retail customers not dealer stock. No idea why.
  • gogophers1gogophers1 Posts: 218
    edited February 2013
    That sounds like a hassle and a half to me. At that rate, I will settle for a Fusion (and remain envious of our friendly neighbors to the north).

    My hope - if my 3 year old, problem-riddled Focus doesn't completely implode in the meantime - is that Mazda will rejigger the options packaging on the trims when the diesel 6 arrives (not that I need an oil burner, but I would certainly consider one if they do hook it up to a manual transmission).

    Mazda is making a mistake if they throw roadblocks in front of drivers demanding manuals. They could own that market with this car if they wanted to. Is it huge? Probably not. But a few thousand extra units out the door certainly seems possible. Why continue to cede the sub-40 segment to VW?

    The same goes for any major manufacturer willing to put a midsize wagon on the road. Everyone fears cannibalizing their high-margin crossover sales w/wagons, but there is a market out there for them (before Subaru made its Outback uber ugly, I saw quite a few of them puttering about).
  • gogophers1gogophers1 Posts: 218
    edited February 2013
    Well, that's a poor decision on Ford's part (why even sell them if they... don't want to sell them?). Interestingly, the last time I was in the market for a midsize car was in late April of 2008 and the Fusion was at the top of my list. Of the Ford dealers in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, there were about 20 or so Fusions with manuals in inventory at the time (each dealer having 1 or 2). I finalized my decision on a Fusion after a Friday afternoon test drive, got bank financing on Saturday and by the time I got off work Monday afternoon, all 4 of the manual Fusion "finalists" I was considering (due to color, options, etc.) had been sold (e.g., I didn't want a white one with a camel interior and 18 inch wheels) - silly me for thinking Ford couldn't move that many midsize cars equipped with sticks in a single weekend. In retrospect, putting money down on that Moss Green beauty would've been a wise choice.

    I ended up buying a Chevy HHR LT with a manual instead [and spent what seemed like half of the next two years of my life driving around in Chevrolet Malibu service loaners]. My God, have I made some car buying mistakes in my life...
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,676
    Base models had 98! And the top-end LX-i had 122. Somehow we managed.

    yes, but the new car is significantly bigger and safer...which contributes to its 3300lbs; about 800 pounds more than the 88 accord.

    Image the 88 accord with 98hp and 4) 200 lb people in it :)
  • bb49bb49 Posts: 21
    The C/D 0-60 test is suspect as far as I can tell no one else has been able to duplicate this result. I also take any review from this publication on a Honda product with suspicion as it is clearly biased towards Honda products.
  • bb49bb49 Posts: 21
    The Optima blind spot (in fact all cars, except maybe a convertible with the top down, (even the Accord) has rear blind spots because of the C pillars) really is not a problem for me and for that matter any driver who properly adjust his or her side view mirrors and rear view mirror. Thus the Accord's better rear visibility really is no value to me and I would rather have a car with stunningly attractive styling that makes me happy when I looked at it.
  • bb49bb49 Posts: 21
    Right now Mazda only offers the manual in its lowest trim (Sport) but will soon be offering the manual with the better equipped Touring trim level. I have driven the Accord and overall I find the Mazda to be a better driver's car with more responsive handling and of course, there is really no contest when comparing the styling of the Mazda 6 to the bland Accord. If you have a chance you should also compare the fold down rear seats of the Accord to the superior Mazda 6 fold down seat. The Accord has a one piece fold down rear seat and to make matter worse the opening is small and rounded at the top corners making it even less useful. Whereas the Mazda is nice bigger rectangular opening and it is split 60/40 giving you the option of carrying a passenger. The Mazda also have a better rear trunk hinge design as it slides into housings on the top of the trunk shelf thereby avoiding any possibility of the hinges damaging any cargo in the trunk which could be damaged by the exposed hinges on the Accord.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,326
    edited February 2013
    Man, it sounds like you want a drivers car with controls that make sense. At least give the Optima Turbo a shot. 274hp with regular unleaded and paddle shift is very satisfying. The dealer will work with you on price, and you can get one 5 miles away, not 500. The controls and center stack is totally intuitive. 100k warranty and killer looks to seal the deal. Fyi. Lastly, every car I owned with a manual required more repairs and less value when the time came to sell. I would love a manual car.... Parked right next to my sensible daily driver sedan. :shades:

    Chris Skalski: Network Engineer 2012 Kia Optima EX

  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,785
    edited February 2013
    Thanks for your reviews as you decide which midsize sedan to get. Seems like each of us who own our particular car want to put in our 2 cents for our brand. Nothing wrong with that, and I'm going to do the same.

    Over the last 13 years I've owned one new Ford (a 2000 Focus ZTS 5 MT), one new Mazda (a 2010 Mazda5 5MT), and two new Hondas (a 2002 Accord LX 5 MT and a 2008 Accord EXL Navi 5 MT). They were all good cars from a performance perspective, and even in term of the "shift feel" of the manuals. I slightly prefer the Honda manuals, and generally reading reviews you'll find that most reviewers agree. Mazda is a close second or maybe equal. When you drive the new Accord manual I think you'll find what I think of as an almost "jewel-like precision" to the manual.

    For acceleration 0-60 with the manual the Accord seems to have a real advantage. Here are the times I've found with the site 0-60:

    2014 Mazda6 Sport 6MT: 7.3

    http://www.zeroto60times.com/Mazda-0-60-mph-Times.html

    2013 Ford Fusion 1.6 0-60: 7.9

    http://www.zeroto60times.com/Ford-0-60-mph-Times.html

    2013 Honda Accord Sport 6 MT 0-60: 6.7!

    http://www.zeroto60times.com/Honda-Vtech-0-60-mph-Times.html

    In other words, the 2013 Accord with the manual beats some of the competition by about a second. That's huge in my book, and about as fast as most 6 cylinders of just a few years ago.

    In terms of reliability my Hondas were equal to the Mazda—very reliable high-quality vehicles.

    My 2000 Ford Focus was a nightmare with literally two dozen recalls, including one for possible engine fire. I know Ford has improved, but the recalls and problems with the new Fusion (including a recall for engine fire) seem to show that Ford still has some work to do.

    Of the cars you're considering, the Honda is made right here in the USA at their factory in Ohio. They've recently released a factory tour video that shows step by step how your Accord is made:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBluTaWjPIU

    I've owned two Accords built at this factory, and am now in negotiations to try to get a third. Those Marysville Honda Associates do very good work imho.

    The Fusion is made in Mexico for now. Nothing against our good neighbors down south, but I personally prefer made in USA by relatively high wage workers.

    The Mazda is made in Japan. The yen has been quite high until recently, and that has hurt Mazda. I think they've had to cut costs by cheapening some things in their vehicles. Probably the Mazda6 has not been affected by this, since it's a new signature model to get them back in the game, but my 2010 Mazda5 does seem cheap in some areas (like dashboard plastics and standard tires) that I don't find on my Hondas.

    My experience with the Mazda, in other words, good though it's been, has convinced me to go back to Honda.

    Just my 2 cents. Hope you'll let us know how it goes and what you decide.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,785
    edited February 2013
    Yesterday I did a test drive on a loaded Accord EXL. Having owned two previous Accords from past generations I could immediately sense that Honda has upped its game for this generation. This leather model seemed almost Audi-like in refinement and luxury. The technology was not just amazing, but seemed useful too.

    The 2013 Accord seems significantly quieter than my 2008 EXL. The road noise, one of Hondas weak points for many years, has finally been addressed. The fit and finish was impressive, and all that I'd been expecting from the good reviews.

    Even though on the test drive I went on the Interstate and some winding two lane roads, I can't say for sure if the handling and steering were better or worse than the 2008 Accord (which has hydraulic steering and double wishbone front suspension).

    I would say for now it was just as good, if not better, but different in feel.

    Trying to negotiate now for a 2013 EXL navi in red. It's a very rare model, and so not sure how it will go. I'm not in a place where I have to buy a car, and so if we need to wait until summer for it to work we can do that....
Sign In or Register to comment.