Comparison Test: 2010 Ford Taurus vs. 2009 Honda Accord
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,505
From: Charleston, WV
Comparison Test: 2010 Ford Taurus vs. 2009 Honda Accord
Taurus is getting some tough reviews....
More at the link...
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=153146
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 Tummy
You'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 Gadgets
At 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.
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 Tummy
You'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 Gadgets
At 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.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=153146
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,505
From: Charleston, WV
How about the new 2010 Ford Taurus SHO? I've driven one. Wasn't very impressed. I thought it would be faster. I also thought it would handle better. The steering is really bad. Electric assist? Kiss of death. Feels like video game steering, especially on-center. Funny thing is that our long-term Ford Flex has better steering. And why does the brake pedal have to feel like I'm pushing it into a bowl of mashed potatoes?
Then there's the packaging. The beltline and cowl are so high you feel like you're sitting down in a cave, while the rear seat is high enough to induce nosebleeds and acute vertigo.
I remember looking at the SHO at the Detroit auto show and telling everyone I could that it was going to be great. I stood there watching it spin on its turntable like the automotive version of our "Star-Spangled Banner." I remember thinking that this is the car that is going to show the world we can do it. It looks good, has a new high-tech turbocharged engine, and I love big cars with big power. A poor man's M5.
But now I've driven it and I've seen the price and I can think of a couple dozen sedans I'd rather have. Remember when I said Detroit's big problem is that its cars are never the best? Well, here we go again.
Then there's the packaging. The beltline and cowl are so high you feel like you're sitting down in a cave, while the rear seat is high enough to induce nosebleeds and acute vertigo.
I remember looking at the SHO at the Detroit auto show and telling everyone I could that it was going to be great. I stood there watching it spin on its turntable like the automotive version of our "Star-Spangled Banner." I remember thinking that this is the car that is going to show the world we can do it. It looks good, has a new high-tech turbocharged engine, and I love big cars with big power. A poor man's M5.
But now I've driven it and I've seen the price and I can think of a couple dozen sedans I'd rather have. Remember when I said Detroit's big problem is that its cars are never the best? Well, here we go again.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
While I'm not very interested in large cars and haven't driven the 2010 Taurus, I think I'd buy it over the 2009 Accord. I've test driven the new Accord twice now and both times came away unimpressed. It's just too big to be fun to drive and yet it's not very comfortable considering how big it is. I expect a smoother and quieter ride from a car that size. The Avalon does it the right way and presumably the Taurus does too. Honda tried to keep the same formula as the smaller/lighter Accords and just make it bigger, which doesn't work IMO.
Edmunds has already tested the SHO pretty thoroughly and declared it a bit of a failure when put next to cars like the Pontiac G8 or even BMW 335i. Too heavy, poor brakes, and mediocre steering. Basically they say it looks better on paper than it drives. They prefer the regular Taurus over it.
Edmunds has already tested the SHO pretty thoroughly and declared it a bit of a failure when put next to cars like the Pontiac G8 or even BMW 335i. Too heavy, poor brakes, and mediocre steering. Basically they say it looks better on paper than it drives. They prefer the regular Taurus over it.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
The new Taurus is Crown Victoria's replacement. It's Ford Division's flagship sedan.
This was a unfair comparison. The Honda Accord should have gone up against the nearly identical sized Ford Fusion. Edmunds throwing the Accord against the Taurus is akin to throwing the Accord against a Dodge Charger SXT or a Pontiac G8 V6, while ignoring the Dodge Avenger or Pontiac G6 sitting right next to them.
The new Taurus is also what would have been the RWD production version of the Ford Interceptor concept.
This car was initially due to come out next year on a modifided D2C chassis. That idea was killed off when for purposes of speed (it was a crash program initiated right around the same time the Camaro was approved). Although Ford went all out...Mulally made it a priority... it still had to be done within a tight budget.
Basing it on an existing structure (Five Hundred/last edition Taurus) is what saved Ford enough money in development to go all out in the details and high quality pieces that make the interior as well as the army of high tech options that make this car something you'd expect to see at Lincoln or Cadillac, not in a Ford.
Sure, the Ford Taurus has shortcomings......
..... until you look at it's most direct competition...
...the Chevrolet Impala.
Then suddenly, the game immediately ends in a shutout.
This was a unfair comparison. The Honda Accord should have gone up against the nearly identical sized Ford Fusion. Edmunds throwing the Accord against the Taurus is akin to throwing the Accord against a Dodge Charger SXT or a Pontiac G8 V6, while ignoring the Dodge Avenger or Pontiac G6 sitting right next to them.
The new Taurus is also what would have been the RWD production version of the Ford Interceptor concept.
This car was initially due to come out next year on a modifided D2C chassis. That idea was killed off when for purposes of speed (it was a crash program initiated right around the same time the Camaro was approved). Although Ford went all out...Mulally made it a priority... it still had to be done within a tight budget.
Basing it on an existing structure (Five Hundred/last edition Taurus) is what saved Ford enough money in development to go all out in the details and high quality pieces that make the interior as well as the army of high tech options that make this car something you'd expect to see at Lincoln or Cadillac, not in a Ford.
Sure, the Ford Taurus has shortcomings......
..... until you look at it's most direct competition...
...the Chevrolet Impala.
Then suddenly, the game immediately ends in a shutout.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 429
Did you even read that both of these cars cross the EPA's 120 cu ft of interior volume to fall into the "large car" category? The 2010 Fusion barely breaks the 100 cu ft barrier. How would that be a fair comparison?
I'm disappointed in the reviews that the Taurus is getting. It appeared to be a winner, but like the articles keep saying, that's on paper.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
Did you even read that both of these cars cross the EPA's 120 cu ft of interior volume to fall into the "large car" category? The 2010 Fusion barely breaks the 100 cu ft barrier. How would that be a fair comparison?
I'm disappointed in the reviews that the Taurus is getting. It appeared to be a winner, but like the articles keep saying, that's on paper.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,597
From: oshawa,ontario,canada
It's strange... the Accord is Fusion sized on the exterior, but Taurus sized on the inside. I don't know much about car design but this would seem to indicate to me that either Honda was skimping somewhere (where's the beef?) or they're just that much more efficient in their packaging.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Wasn't the Accord right on the edge of the midsize / fullsize line? I swear I remember reading it classified as a fullsize unless you got the sunroof. The reduced headroom caused by the sunroof's intrusion was enough of a drop in cubic feet to make it a large midsizer. 
I seem to recall the Ford Five Hundred being praised for HUGE interior room, especially compared to other cars' backseats. CandD compared it against the Avalon, 300, Maxima, Buick Lacrosse, and I think a Kia, several years ago. It was huge inside. Unless they really shrank the 2010 Taurus interior, I wonder how much is due to the perception of reduced room because of the high beltline and squashed windows (yet again), quite unlike that of the Five Hundred. The new Taurus probably loses some front seat space on paper thanks to that large, sweeping center console (whereas I think the Five Hundred could be ordered as a six seater, at least at first?).
I seem to recall the Ford Five Hundred being praised for HUGE interior room, especially compared to other cars' backseats. CandD compared it against the Avalon, 300, Maxima, Buick Lacrosse, and I think a Kia, several years ago. It was huge inside. Unless they really shrank the 2010 Taurus interior, I wonder how much is due to the perception of reduced room because of the high beltline and squashed windows (yet again), quite unlike that of the Five Hundred. The new Taurus probably loses some front seat space on paper thanks to that large, sweeping center console (whereas I think the Five Hundred could be ordered as a six seater, at least at first?).
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
Either the mags are confused or it doesn't seem like Ford is marketing this properly.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,178
From: Payson, AZ USA
Edmunds seems to be obsessed with the car.
When the Flex first came out, they panned it also, and tried to compare it to all kinds of vehicles that it didn't compare to................ so they could say how poor it was.
Now, they gush about the Flex, and say it is the best thing since buttered bread. One of their writers was even thinking of buying one (he ended up buying a Cx9 instead, as he probably couldn't be seen in a Domestic).
Now, they are doing comparison after comparison of the Taurus............ against all kinds of odd comparables............. like they are desperately trying to convince themselves that they really don't like it. It is like they are obsessed with the car.
Much like the Flex.
However, when you read into things further, in the article, you start to go hmmmm. It was optioned up much higher than the Accord, and they complain about the price. They say the interior of the Accord, which has been panned almost universally, is much better, because they feel more "familiar" in it. The Taurus is the much better car, if you want to drive any distance. Hmmm............ isn't that what you buy a car for???
In the end, the smaller, lighter car, handled a bit better, and was a little faster, but rode worse, and was a much worse long distance hauler. Well, I guess that will make all those people who drag race, and autoX their Accords, know they have made the right choice.
When the Flex first came out, they panned it also, and tried to compare it to all kinds of vehicles that it didn't compare to................ so they could say how poor it was.
Now, they gush about the Flex, and say it is the best thing since buttered bread. One of their writers was even thinking of buying one (he ended up buying a Cx9 instead, as he probably couldn't be seen in a Domestic).
Now, they are doing comparison after comparison of the Taurus............ against all kinds of odd comparables............. like they are desperately trying to convince themselves that they really don't like it. It is like they are obsessed with the car.
Much like the Flex.
However, when you read into things further, in the article, you start to go hmmmm. It was optioned up much higher than the Accord, and they complain about the price. They say the interior of the Accord, which has been panned almost universally, is much better, because they feel more "familiar" in it. The Taurus is the much better car, if you want to drive any distance. Hmmm............ isn't that what you buy a car for???
In the end, the smaller, lighter car, handled a bit better, and was a little faster, but rode worse, and was a much worse long distance hauler. Well, I guess that will make all those people who drag race, and autoX their Accords, know they have made the right choice.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
That puts Fusion 3 cu ft difference versus Taurus' 9. Even by that guideline, Fusion was the car that should have been there.
You can find this information direct from the EPA itself right here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
Now... about that "catagory" argument.
Ford's Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis have an interior volume index of 128 cu ft (that's 1 cu ft less than the Taurus!). I don't care how many head shots over the years someone took in a boxing ring, no one is going to equate one of them with a Honda Accord.
Here's the deal.
Ford Fusion is 190" long, 72.2" wide and 57" high.
Honda Accord is 194" long, 72.7 wide 57.5" high.
Taurus is 203 long, 76" wide, & 60" tall.
FWIW:
Impala is 200" long, 73" wide, & 59" tall.
Charger is 200" long, 74.5" wide, & 58.2" high.
The Taurus is nearly 10" longer than the Accord. Fusion is only 4" shorter.
The Taurus is 4" wider than the Accord. Fusion is roughly the same width and height as Accord.
The Accord has 14 cu ft of trunk space.
Ford's Fusion has 16.5.
The Taurus has 20 cu ft.
Recent comparison tests in both Car and Driver and Motor Trend included both the Fusion and Accord in the same tests.
I have yet to see any car rag compare the Accord to the former Taurus-Five Hundred (identical under the skin to the new Taurus). Real life car buyers who walk into a Ford showroom looking for something to compare to the Accord they just test drove is going straight to the Fusion, not the Taurus.
EPA interior volume as far as classifying cars is strictly for fuel economy comparisons.
Camaro has an epa interior volume of 104 cu ft.
Honda's Civic has an interior volume of 103 cu ft.
Is anyone going to SERIOUSLY going to call a Camaro a sub compact, and then write a supposedly serious article comparing the two?
IMO, Edmunds should know better.
BTW: I just came back from a week in Pittsburgh PA, where I just so happened to rent a new 2010 Ford Fusion for my entire time there. I can honestly say that Edmunds likely didn't put it against the Accord because the Fusion is far superior in every way while still costing the same or less than Accord.
Last edited by guionM; Jul 23, 2009 at 08:40 AM.
