Howdy, Stranger!

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

Midsize Sedans 2.0



  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,623
    edited September 2012
    That is a nice lease deal on the Passat. They are definitely blowing the 2012s out the door to make way for the 2013s....

    In terms rear leg room, the 2013 Accord and Passat are pretty close in terms of numbers, at least according to

    Accord Passat
    Rear leg room
    38.5 in. 39.1 in

    So there's a about half an inch difference there, but maybe the seat design on the Passat let's you put your toes underneath the seat more? Don't know.

    But anyway, both seem pretty good on this measure, and quite a lot roomier than a Sonata, which I think has about 35 inches of rear leg room.

    My bitter experience experience with a Jetta from long, long ago has lead me to write off the VW brand forever, I think, although I'm sure that today's VWs are much, much better. I'm actually quite happy with VWs success with their factory in TN.

    The 2013 Accord CVT gets 5 more mpg than a 2013 Passat auto (30 combined mpg for Accord vs. 25 mpg for the Passat). That's about a $400-$500 a year difference in what you're going to pay for gas for these two cars. I think in about a year the lease differences between these two cars will get closer, but no doubt there will still be a gap.

    I may be biased, but right now it looks to me like the 2013 Accord is the top of the midsize class overall, and if you want the best you can expect to pay just a little bit more....
  • ...Styling is a huge improvement (although when I first saw the rear end I wondered to myself why there was a new Genesis parked outside the front door).

    I think may be it's just me because no one else mentions this. I don't need to go to see a optometrist after all. ;)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,624
    I've found you can't go by just the numbers on leg room, they can be very misleading re rear seat comfort. Best way to test that is to go sit in the car with the driver's seat adjusted as it will be for the main driver(s). That's how I always test rear seat room. And by that test, the Passat is simply cavernous compared to the Accord. Also the toe space was tight on the Accord (that's for the EX-L with two power seats, maybe it's better with non-power front seats). Even the smaller Jetta has lots more usable leg room by my testing. Actually, even the subcompact Versa hatchback is much roomier than the Accord in back, at least for leg room. But the Versa hatch is roomier in that regard than most mid-sized cars... it's an anomaly.

    A big factor in usable rear leg room is how the driver's seat adjusts. If it can go forward and high, and still provide good thigh support, then that opens up the rear seat more. That may be why rear seats appear similar "by the numbers" but in reality are much different. That's one reason the Versa, for example, has so much rear leg room.

    Re gas, that's more important for some people than me, as I only put about 7,500 miles a year on my car (as my wife does on her car). So that's only about $200 a year at $4 a gallon. That would be made up for within about 4 months of car payments, comparing 2012 Passat S to 2012 Accord LX leases in my area. Also consider the Passat has 3 years of free maintenance, so you save a few bucks there.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,623
    I believe you re the Passat and legroom. It looks like it has huge amounts of legroom. I guess that's one place where the Passat wins against the Accord. And the free maintenance too. Plus the low payments.

    There are some good choices in midsize cars, and I'd say the Passat is one of the better ones. How is the visibility from the driver's seat? It looks ok from the outside, but I'm guessing that from the inside it's only so so. Those small rear windows are questionable functionally. Or, at least the one immediately in back of the driver usually is.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,624
    I haven't driven the Passat but the windows look plenty big to me, and the C pillar isn't that big. I do like the fact the Accord has a backup camera standard. But I think those have to be standard in general pretty soon, don't they?

    185 hp on the Accord LX with the 6MT would be pretty lively, I bet. Plus if it's like typical Honda sticks it will be fun to drive. Finding one of those could be tough, though.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,623
    If your really want an Accord manual you could probably order one. I did that for my 2008 Accord EXL navi manual in white. There basically wasn't a single one in the country in Oct. of 2007 when I went into the dealer, and so he took a deposit, they built it in Ohio, and by early Jan. I was driving the car. I haven't regretted that at all.

    But through dealer trades you should be able to get, say, a manual EX, Sport, or LX....

    Yeah, the Passat looks good from the outside in terms of visibility, but inside the little window right behind the driver is just not usable. Yes, you can adjust your mirror, etc. But I just prefer better visibility...
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,623
    edited September 2012
    According to Motor Trend:

    2013 Ford Fusion SE
    1.6L turbo I-4 and 6M with 178 hp and 184 lb-ft
    0-60 mph: 8.0 seconds
    Quarter Mile: 16.1 seconds at 88.1 mph

    Read more: - rus-265285.html#ixzz27QPb3H4j

    2013 Accord Sport 6MT
    0-60: 6.8 sec
    Quarter Mile: 15.3 sec @ 92.3 mph

    Read more: - wall.html#ixzz27QVPn4za
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,624
    For the record, the Accord has 189 hp and 181 ft-lbs of torque. Not sure about relative weights, but I'll bet the Accord has the advantage there also.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    The Fusion gets better mpg though - 25/37 vs. 24/34.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,623
    edited September 2012
    True...But, for the autos (probably c. 97% of these cars) the 2013 Accord tops the Fusion in mpg and (I think) in acceleration....

    "The Fusion's most efficient engine — the 1.6-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder — is rated at 25/37/29 mpg city/highway/combined with a manual transmission and at 23/36/26 mpg with an automatic. Most Fusions will be sold with automatics."

    The manual Accords are rated 24/34/28, which is a 1 mpg difference in combined mpg. To me 1 mpg is not much, but 1.2 seconds faster acceleration to 60 is significant.

    The 2013 Fusion 1.6 auto is rated 26 combined. The 2013 Fusion 2.5 auto is also rated 26 combined.

    The 2013 Accord 2.4 auto is rated 30 combined.

    That's probably about $300-$400 a year. And so it's not a lot, but it's something....
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,623
    edited September 2012
    In top line trim, a Fusion Titantium 2.0 turbo gets from 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. Surprising, but a 4 cylinder Accord Sport manual is equal to that acceleration (but is otherwise much less lavishly optioned) for about $12,000 less.

    The Fusion Titanium that Motor Trend tested priced out at $37,670.

    The new top-of-the-line Touring 6 cylinder Accord lists for $34,220.

    A 2013 Accord 3.5 V-6 coupe 6 mt goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, which is seriously fast.

    Inside Line says that the 6 cylinder auto sedan gets to 60 in 6.1 seconds. - ssan-altima-3-5-sl-track-test.html
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,052
    Those are realistic numbers, and indicative of the entire mid-size sedan 4 cyl performance range.

    The Fusion has indeed matched or bettered every car in it's segment with a significantly smaller, turbocharged engine; therefore improving fuel economy while doing it.

    I am just defending the naturally aspirated 2.4 liter, 200hp and 186lb-ft engine in my car. I believe that this is the correct engine for it's application. (24/35 mpg).

    The turbocharged, SX version of my car was too expensive for my needs. (274HP, 22/34 mpg).

    I would not buy the 2.5 or the 1.6 liter Fusion. If I was going to pay for a turbo on my insurance then I want ALL of the benefits. Namely strong, powerful performance and reasonable fuel economy figures. The 2.0 liter choice felt right when I drove it and on paper.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    27 city and 30 combined is pretty impressive. CVTs are fuel efficient for sure.

    But the Fusion Hybrid gets 47/47/47. I don't think Accord can touch that even with a CVT.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,623
    Yeah, if you want a hybrid the Ford Fusion seems to be on top at this point. I'm a Honda fan, but if the competition can beat you then I say so be it. At this point it looks like Ford has the best hybrid 4 door sedan on the market. Hats off to them! And even the regular gas models are fairly close in terms of price. I still think the Honda Accord is the best-in-class, but the Fusion is giving them a run for their money...
  • akumaakuma Posts: 70
    well, the C-Max also supposedly gets 47 combined mpg as well, but Inside Line could only get 33 mpg over 393 miles. i'm not sure if they spent many of those miles flogging a boxy hybrid, but those numbers seem underwhelming like the Sonata hybrid (nowhere near 40 in real life, although the guys at cleanmpg seem to get close to 60 mpg somehow).

    also TTAC (thetruthaboutcars) was able to get mid 40s mpg from the plug-in Accord hybrid which is estimated to get 100mpge (like the Fusion Energi) when driven in purely electric mode, so i think that the regular Accord hybrid might get similar if not better real world fuel economy than the Fusion hybrid.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    If they only got mid-30s in a car rated at 47/47 then something is seriously wrong.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,624
    Why the surprise? These car mags often get mid-20s in cars rated upper 30s to 40 mpg. They flog their test cars. Unless they are specifically driving for high FE, their FE usually sucks. So getting mid-30s on a car rated 47 isn't abnormal.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    I wasn't questioning the report - I already read it. I'm saying there had to be something wrong with the Cmax they tested which was obviously a pre-production model.
  • ctlctl Posts: 123
    I hope some Altima owners can comment about the CVT. Seems like Nissan recommend CVT service for every 30K miles (see sources quote 100K miles too), and each would cost around $300 (oil plus labor). Is that true?

    I would think Honda's CVT would probably be the same story. If so, the extra savings from MPG advantage of a CVT wouldn't sound so appealing anymore? this is disregarding whether one prefer CVT or not, or whether CVT is as durable as conventional auto -> pure cost consideration.
Sign In or Register to comment.