Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Midsize Sedans 2.0

1328329331333334544

Comments

  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,311
    nycarguy: That Prelude must be fun to drive! Now that's a rare car. It's almost a collector car, I'd say, at least at this point....
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Anybody considering a 2013 Fusion other than me?

    I really wanted the 1.6L ecoboost auto start/stop engine but with Intelligent Access and push button start but alas the 1.6L is only offered in the SE and IA is only on the Titanium which only offers the 2.0. Even the hybrid doesn't get push button start which I don't understand. So it will be a 2.0 Titanium for me fully loaded. Or maybe a MKZ but I'm not sure I can justify the added cost.

    The 1.6L ecoboost with auto start/stop gets 26 city/37 highway on regular fuel. The hybrid gets 47/44. And the plug in hybrid version should be out in a few months.
  • nyccarguynyccarguy Member Posts: 16,359
    In reality, the ONLY reason to buy a car with a manual transmission is because you truly LOVE the connection it gives you with the car. Years ago when most autos were 3 & 4 speeds, then a similarly equipped car with a stick would be faster & get better mileage. We've all got significant others & traffic issues to deal with.

    2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2022 Wrangler Sahara 4Xe, 2023 Toyota Tacoma SR 4WD

  • rayainswrayainsw Member Posts: 3,191
    Hi AKirby!
    I like the styling of the new Fusion.
    No dealer near me has one in stock,
    but I may drive a Titanium before choosing...
    Wish they offered a V6...
    - Ray
    Say a truck load of 2013 Accords this AM -
    lok to me as good as they did in pictures & vids...
    [ And a V6 option is offered.]
    2022 X3 M40i
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Hey Ray - long time no type.

    The 2013s haven't started shipping yet - should be any day now. The 2.0L Ecoboost should be very close to the same performance as the current 3.5L - maybe even a bit better.

    The MKZ will get the 3.7L V6 if you just have to have the extra power.

    At least you can still get the manual with the 1.6L EB. But not the 2.0L EB or the 3.7L in the MKZ.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    edited September 2012
    But even in 6th with the manual you'd be running at maybe 2400 rpm.

    Not if Honda designed the Accord's 6MT for fuel efficiency. For example, on a Mazda3 Skyactiv 6MT I tested, it was turning at only ~2000 rpm @ 65 mph in 6th. And it's a smaller, lower-power engine than the Accord has, so I expect the Accord would do better... if 6th is truly an overdrive on the Accord.

    If the Accord's MT really does rev that high, then yeah, no way I'd go with that, would have to get the CVT. That's the problem I have with the new Impreza--MT is way too noisy/high revving compared to the CVT. But it's only a 5MT.
  • nyccarguynyccarguy Member Posts: 16,359
    My Prelude is LOADS of fun to drive. It was featured here on inside line's Readers Rides segment a few months back. I bought it brand new as a leftover on 4/27/02. It was my daily driver for the 1st 9 years of its life. I only drive it on beautiful, sunny, days & it still brings a smile to my face. Current mileage is over 147,000.

    2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2022 Wrangler Sahara 4Xe, 2023 Toyota Tacoma SR 4WD

  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,311
    nycarguy: I didn't even know about the Readers Rides section. Thanks. Found your page. That is a very nice 'lude!

    One of my first Honda memories is from 1979. I was a freshman in hs, and a senior I knew with some money had a Prelude of that year and we went for a ride. Wow. Tiny, but the precision of the engineering floored me. At that moment I realized that Hondas could be something special...
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,311
    backy: From what I've read the 6MT on the new 2013 Accord is not geared for super efficiency. In other words, I think it is closer to 2400 rpm at 60 than 2000, but I'm not completely sure. I think they wanted it so that if you're in 6th and floor it something happens, even if you really should be in 5th or 4th or even 3rd to accelerate.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • nyccarguynyccarguy Member Posts: 16,359
    Thanks for your kind words about my Prelude. It truly is a very special car;)

    2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2022 Wrangler Sahara 4Xe, 2023 Toyota Tacoma SR 4WD

  • Thanks Ben....
    I lifted the info on pillar size out of a couple of different articles in C/D and M/T but I don't have the actual quotes. I think going back and forth about structural stiffness, high strength steel, aluminum, and magnesium is gonna bore everyone too tears, so I will bow to your post on safety standard particulars. :)

    I just feel less confident on my lane changes in the Optima than I think any other car I have ever owned, and it affects my overall driving enjoyment.

    Maybe I should look into and aftermarket camera system. Anything is better than crashing!!!
  • 2013 Fusion is gonna be HOT. There has not been much TV press on it so Ford can sell the remaining outgoing model. I would like the 2.0 Eco Boost (Turbo) 240HP model.

    I already love the nod to Aston Martin with the grill design(even though Ford sold it's interest in Aston a couple years ago). I can't wait to start seeing them on the road.

    I wonder how smooth the start/stop system on the 1.6 is in heavy traffic. Will it be smooth enough?
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Why not just adjust your mirrors properly and then you won't have a blindspot.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,311
    edited September 2012
    I know what you mean. I feel the same way about passing in my Mazda5, which is one of the main reasons I'm thinking of trading it in on a new Accord. I carefully use my mirrors in the Mazda5, and my neck is on a swivel looking around like you said. I do it and it works, but my driving enjoyment is definitely a lot lower in the Mazda5 in that situation than in our Accord. And otherwise, like with your Optima, it's a fun car to drive and I like it. But since I'm someone who likes driving most of the time, I really want both of our cars to be in that camp of fun to drive pretty much all the time....
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • Maybe I should bolt on those giant mirrors from an old F350 dually.

    My car will look like dumbo... but then I can finally adjust out that blind spot.....or take flight....lol.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
  • nomoreford2nomoreford2 Member Posts: 50
    I have seen on many sites that the 2.0L Ecoboost will require premium gas. Is this car really going to require premium gas and only make 237hp? I know torque matters more and that engine does look like its has a good torque band, but this car should get 250hp at-least with premium.
  • rayainswrayainsw Member Posts: 3,191
    According to Ford - it is rated for both Premium
    and Regular gasoline:

    240 @ 5,500 (premium fuel) 231@5,500 (regular fuel)
    [ NO difference in peak TQ ]

    http://www.ford.com/cars/fusion/specifications/engine/
    2022 X3 M40i
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited September 2012
    I just went to the Ford site and took a good look.

    Really, really nice looking car, good spec's, nice interior. Great selection of power-train's as well, although I think there may be one too many, made necessary by the EPA.

    Why would I want the 1.6? On roads around here I would be on the turbo a lot, and a mid-size Fusion, not to mention the Escape, is a LOT of car to get moving with such a small engine.

    Can anyone tell me why all three are offered in the states? Wouldn't it be better to just offer the 2.5 and the 2.0T and not have a third engine to worry about?
    Maybe it would be better to offer the 1.6T and the 2.0T and ditch the 2.5?
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Because the 1.6L has optional start/stop capability and it yields significantly better EPA ratings (26/37) than the 2.0L (22/33). I'm guessing on those numbers but they're close.

    The 2.5L is a boat anchor and is basically just there for fleet sales and to take some of the volume pressure off the new EB engines.

    In Europe the new Mondeo (same as the 2013 Fusion) gets the 1.0L EB so that makes the 1.6L sporty by comparison.

    If they offered the 1.6L auto start/stop in Titanium trim I'd probably be ordering one.
  • Lmaooooooooo.

    Yes, I remember the old GM 2.5 pig "iron duke" workhorse from the 80's.

    Boat Anchor. Hahaha. Oh, BTW I adopted your mirror settings. Will let you know how that goes. Made sense to me.

    Back on topic. Yes, I am aware that in Europe a 1.6 is considered a nice size 4 cyl. 1.4 liters are common as well, and I am aware of the 1.4 turbo in Chevy's Cruse. (138hp).

    I have to mention that my 2.4 GDI puts out 25 more horses and 11 more lb ft than Ford's 2.5, is rated at 35mpg (I observe 24 real life mixed) and sounds great doing it. I test drove the outgoing Fusion model prior to purchasing my Kia. The 2.5 was rough over 3500.

    With the A/C on (at 99 to 103 degrees for a month solid) my Optima was still really sluggish off the line. This is why I asked about the 1.6 in the Fusion. It just seems needlessly expensive and complex that for only a 3 hp gain.

    I know that you know your stuff Kirby. Just a counter point.

    -Chris
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    It's not about power. The 1.6 gets 26/37 whereas your Optima only gets 24-35. 2 mpg is a lot when you're looking at CAFE compliance.
  • jvbeattiejvbeattie Member Posts: 5
    I'll tell you why
    1. hwy + 1.6 = 37mpg
    2. 1.6 is the one I will buy because it is the only one with a mt. though, if the 2.0 came with mt I would buy it.
    1.6 + mt = more fun then 2.0 + auto.
    Wish they had a diesel engine choice w/ mt.
  • Yes. I understand the CAFE compliance reason for this engine, and the availability of a MT with the engine.

    So, you guys wanna have fun while saving gas? Well, if your foot is in the turbo a lot in order to have fun then your MPG is not going to be 37....ever.

    In the kind of traffic we have around here it would not be fun to drive most of the time, and you will still have to mash the throttle to:

    1) activate start/stop to keep lag minimal off the line
    2) to accelerate and keep up with traffic.
    3)merge onto highway at 65/70 speeds.
    4) you will have to stay in higher gears to keep the turbo on point, and once you slip down to 2000 RPM you end up with 3500lb driven by a 1.6.

    Look, I LOVE THE FUSION....I just don't think the 1.6 makes sense in the real world here in America, land of Nascar LOL.

    Also, my Optima get 24/35mpg. I am very pleased with that on a 200hp 2.4 GDI and a 6 speed auto with sport-tronic shift mode. I don't have to worry about turbo complexity and later on repairs associated with a force-fed engine having to survive at very high tolerances of heat.

    I am gonna stop there. I want to go drive one with the 1.6 Eco-tech. I am really curious how it will perform, and I do NOT want to make things up. I would still have the 2.0 Ecotech 6spd auto. That's why I have a similar drivetrain on my Optima.
  • drjjjjdrjjjj Member Posts: 25
    Was looking at 13 Fusion and what a pig with the 2.5-3600 lbs! The turbos I'm sure are fun to drive but require premium and I don't trust a turbo past 100k! Direct injection in the new rigs is noisy and requires a very high pressure fuel system and CVTs are sloppy and belt driven! I'm lookin for an SE camry because of engine drivetrain precison/simplicity and the looks are growing on me-wind tunnel car! Like the 10 air bags and reliabilyt/resale track record too! Looks aren't worth a hole lot to me-I'm a practical Engineer! I don't like the direction these sky high MPG standards are taking manufacturers-reliability and repair will be sky high too I'm afraid!
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Ford's ecoboost engines do not require premium and they test all their engines to 150K in extreme conditions. The turbos will not fail at 100K. It's not the 1980s any more.

    The auto start/stop starts the engine when you lift off the brake - not when you touch the throttle so there is no lag.

    Maybe you guys should actually wait and drive one before bashing it to death.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    I don't mind a manual in any kind of traffic. I used to routinely drive a manual (SVT Contour in stop and go Chicago traffic and it never bothered me), but I just thoroughly enjoy driving a manual and miss it as I haven't owned a manual trans vehicle in a while.

    A test drive would definitely be in order to determine how good the 1.6/manual combo is.

    I know many of the same claims were made about the ecoboost f150 and after I test drove one I was more than impressed. I'm willing to bet the 1.6 will have some boost and torque available under 2krpm, but frankly few engines have much power under 2k rpm. My wife's 3.5 v6 powered Taurus doesn't have much power under 2k rpm either, basically enough to maintain highway speeds in 6th gear.

    To bad Ford isn't offering the 2.0 turbo with a manual. I still wish they'd offer a v6.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,311
    I would tend to agree that Ford's ecoboost engines are thoroughly tested and durable.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    probably more thoroughly than their transmissions if history reveals anything
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited September 2012
    In the Escape it it going to be a bit under-powered. In the Fusion it will be adequate and I am sure it will return good fuel economy to some. Note I didn't say "all".

    Lets put it this way.

    Would you buy this car with this 1.6 engine but without the turbocharger?

    Do you plan on driving it just like your old car and plan to get 30 MPG city?

    There is no way I would have this motor in my car. It would be under-powered and overworked. The engine will have to work so hard that after 5 years it will have problems.

    The mid size cars that I see on the road around me here in the Mid-Atlantic are mostly 1.8/ 2.0 to 2.5 non turbo's on entry level cars.

    On the upper Mid-size sedan market are 2.0T to 3.7 L V6 engines. The V8 is dead in this once V8 dominated market. I think we are going the right way towards protecting the environment around us, but can't we have a WEE-bit little more fun while doing it!!

    -Chris
    Insufferable Knowitall
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Fords transmission issues are not durability related. They seem to be engineering/manufacturing or software issues.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,311
    edited September 2012
    cski: I doubt this is true....

    "The engine will have to work so hard that after 5 years it will have problems."

    I don't have a link, but I read an article in Auto News or maybe Wards Auto about a year ago about the engineering of Ford's Ecoboost engines. Ford's engine engineers know that these motors will have added strains placed on them, and they've designed them and built them accordingly. In other words, they've strengthened and made more tough and durable a lot of parts in them. That's why these Ecoboost engines cost more, because they cost Ford more to build.

    In the long run—at closer to maybe 12 years and 150,000+ miles—I think you are right that some of these engines might have problems, and they are likely to be quite expensive to fix. But Ford is definitely trying to build them to go way, way past 5 years without problems. Ford's engine warranty, like most other makers at this point, is for 5 years and 60,000 miles. No way are they going to build engines that are likely to need to be repaired under warranty. And the PR nightmare of engines conking out a few years out of warranty is not something they will accept either.

    I think Ford may be showing us a large part of the automotive future with small turbo engines in larger vehicles.

    Here's one of Ford's "torture test" videos for the Ecoboost on a truck.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epkCVPH1iRY

    The problem is not heavy use. These engines are built to take hard use. The problem with turbos with direct injection seems to be if people just do short stop and go city trips without some full power hwy miles to blow out the build up. There's a chance that driving it like that might eventually give you gunk build up that could lead to problems, but supposedly they've even taken that into account to some degree.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    it's an issue if any of those keep you off the road or opening your wallet prematurely

    My opinion on the capability of a properly turbo'd 1.6 gas in mid-sized vehicles is that if the engine has been built with sturdiness capable of the extra torque available (crank, rods, bearings, lube and cooling capacities, etc etc) then there is no reason they shouldn't last as long as a larger displacement NA engine. I don't know if they do the extras needed to help ensure this with the general public knowledge/ignorance as the real-world testers, but things like turbo bearing lubing/cooling features after the engine has shut down providing those necessities by the engines oil pump and coolant system, are crucial or there will be unexpected expense later on down the road.

    I also think that due to the huge advancements made in lubrication and metallurgy over the years, has helped enable the potential use of these smaller engines in heavier vehicles.

    As for lack of power under 2000 RPM, I doubt that will be an issue with the ECO 1.6 since it will be tuned to exploit its strengths at the lower revs..something turbos do by nature. Just as an example, the 1.4 Cruze turbo makes peak torque of apprx 145 ft lbs..forget exact figure, at about 1700 rpm I think it is. This, on a 3400 lb car give or take. In driving one, the torque is evident enough, you do not feel that the car is under-powered. Or most wouldn't, maybe I should say.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,311
    edited September 2012
    My problem with the Ford Fusion doesn't have to do with any of the engines. The engines are probably all fine (although if the base 2.5 now is anything like the 2.5 found in the rental Fusion I had a few years ago, it will be loud and unrefined compared to an Accord).

    My main problem with the Fusion is this from Automobile magazine:

    "...With its high beltline and steeply raked windshield and backlight, the Fusion can’t come close to matching the outward visibility of the new Honda Accord, but few can. Thick A-pillars and two-piece C-pillars compromise the driver’s view somewhat..."

    Read more: http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1209_2013_ford_fusion_first_drive/#i- - - - - - - - - xzz27EJhrkPn

    I would go beyond "few can" and say that no competing midsize car can match the Accord's best-in-class visibility.

    Rather than the bunker-like closed-in feel of many other midsize cars, the Accord is open and airy, and has great visibility. And you can roll your rear windows down almost all the way in an Accord. Try that in a Fusion, Altima, Sonata, Passat, etc.

    And yet the Accord also has best-in-class safety with the ACE II body structure.

    As some have said, you can just adjust and use your mirrors more carefully in these cars to help make up for the poor visibility. Fair enough.

    The styling on the Ford Fusion looks great, and Ford's Ecoboost engines are excellent. I understand that for many the car is a very good choice....
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    edited September 2012
    I saw the 2013 Accord up close today at my local Honda dealer. 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 like the dash treatment much better than on the previous generation also. Rear seat leg room was OK, but toe space was kind of tight. Much more room in the old Accord, and in cars like the Passat and even the Jetta.

    But the greatest thing about the Accord is the starting price: a bit over $23k for the well equipped LX with CVT that includes sharp-looking alloys, backup camera, Bluetooth, Pandora, auto headlamps, and all the basic power features. Consider that's less than $1000 more than a Sonata GLS with alloys, and that doesn't have a backup camera. Plus the LX can be had with a 6MT (in only two colors, however :mad: ) for less bucks than the Sonata. I think Honda will sell tons of LXes.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,311
    edited September 2012
    backy: Yeah, that's one of the surprises about this Accord—it has more standard features than any other non-premium midsize car. But I think you're the first to show that the 2013 Accord LX has an even lower price than a Sonata GLS when comparably equipped. Wow. Honda dealers are gonna sell a lot of them just on that basis alone.

    And I think in the next couple of months the IIHS will release its video of the small offset crash tests of midsize sedans. My guess is that the Accord is going to come through pretty well on that, because Honda designed it to help passengers survive that kind of crash. I don't think the other manufacturers have done that yet, but we'll soon see.... Anyway, if that turns out the way some people are guessing it might, it could give the Accord a significant advantage in safety for a year or two.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Well, I didn't say that the Accord LX has a lower price than the Sonata. I said that it's less than $1000 more than a comparable Sonata GLS. The Accord LX has some features at that price that the Sonata doesn't have, e.g. backup camera, but the Sonata has some features the Accord doesn't such as power driver's seat and heated seats.

    The Accord LX with a stick is about the same price as the Sonata GLS with automatic. But I expect Honda will make very few of those 6MTs. The Sonata used to be offered with a 6MT but as of 2013 that's been dropped--just not very popular in mid-sized family cars.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,311
    edited September 2012
    Sorry about that. I guess I read your post too fast and missed a word. But the prices are pretty close....

    2013 Sonata GLS w/alloys, etc.= 22495
    2013 Accord LX w/ cvt= 23270

    Giving us a difference of 775. Not much at all. And there are some things you get on the Accord, like dual climate control, back up camera, pandora, etc. that I don't think that Sonata has, although as you said the Sonata has heated cloth seats (!?).

    Here are some other comparisons.

    2013 Fusion 1.6 auto: 25,290

    That's obviously 2k more than the Accord. I think this is the engine that's comparable in performance and mpg to the Honda earth dreams DI engine. And the Accord still beats the Fusion for equipment in a lot of areas.

    2013 Passat w/alloys+ auto: 23,270. That's basically identical to the Accord, but the Passat has an old tech engine that gets only so so mpg and is said to be less refined.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    edited September 2012
    One area where the Passat has the Accord beat hands-down is in rear seat space. Also VW seems to be pushing the Passat with sweet lease deals. Saw one today for a Passat S automatic with Appearance Package for $199/month, 0 down. Accord leases are much higher, despite strong resale values. If I were in the market for a mid-sized car, I'd be tempted by that Passat deal even with the lower-tech engine. Passat has been top-rated by some car mags. Will be interesting to see if the Accord can knock it off that perch. I expect it will... unless the Fusion does.

    Ford will need to ante up some incentives to sell the Fusion that's $2k more than the Accord, $3k more than something like an Optima. And the Altima is no slouch either.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,311
    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 Edmunds.com

    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....
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • gooddeal2gooddeal2 Member Posts: 750
    ...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 Member Posts: 18,949
    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 Member Posts: 6,311
    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.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    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 Member Posts: 6,311
    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...
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,311
    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: http://wot.motortrend.com/by-the-numbers-2008-2013-ford-fusion-and-2002-ford-tau- - rus-265285.html#ixzz27QPb3H4j

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

    Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1209_2013_honda_accord_first_test/vie- - wall.html#ixzz27QVPn4za
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    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 Member Posts: 8,062
    The Fusion gets better mpg though - 25/37 vs. 24/34.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,311
    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....
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
Sign In or Register to comment.