• Jul 22, 2009


When Honda decided to grow its bread-and-butter Accord sedan in every dimension, it entered into the large car segment. The press has been pretty well split on whether or not that was a good idea, but the car buying public continues to vote favorably with its pocket books.

Ford has had a large car entry since the 2005 model year when it unleashed the Five Hundred to the surprise and delight of just of... well... someone, presumably. After lackluster sales, Ford changed the name of its full-sized sedan to Taurus for 2008, but the end result remained the apathy of car buyers. Ford appears to have finally stepped up its game with the 2010 Taurus, however, as the Blue Oval has decided to take its super sized sedan upmarket, with an elegant interior and an exterior that people will actually notice.

Our friends over at Inside Line have brought the Accord and Taurus together in an epic battle of the big rigs. The Accord has a quality pedigree and the love of the car-buying public, while Ford counters with an upstart Taurus that has become the flagship of a vastly improved lineup. The battle was close, but only one large sedan could end up on top of this comparison. Hit the link below to head over to Inside Line to read the comparison for yourself.



Photos copyright ©2009 Chris Paukert/ Weblogs, Inc.


Photos copyright ©2008 Jonathon Ramsey/ Weblogs, Inc.

[Source: Inside Line | Image: Scott Jacobs]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 94 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      "Yet it's tough to justify paying $35K for a 263-hp sedan (Taurus) that needs almost 8 seconds to hit 60 mph. ($3,575 more than the Accord)"

      "It's hardly a sport sedan, but of these two, the Accord is the driver's pick. A more space-efficient cabin design is another big point in the Honda's favor."

      3k is too much to pay for more weight and more Wood trim. Of course you are paying for the "prestige" of the Taurus badge.

      A better comparo would be the Maxima but the acceleration would blow the doors off of the Taurus.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Prestige? Taurus? Sorry Ford, that doesn't quite work.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Why the hell does the Ford have to be so big? Why can't these idiots make smaller cars? The Accord is huge already. WTF does anyone need a car the size of a Taurus for?

      Do we really need living rooms on 4 wheels anymore?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Because some of us like having space, and a big trunk.

        Its called freedom of choice, and one of the freedoms that we still have in this country.

        For now.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Well Jim, you're creative but certainly not smart.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Other than the Focus, the other cars are still large.

        You're still the idiot.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "Why the hell does the Ford have to be so big? Why can't these idiots make smaller cars? "

        These "idiots" do make smaller cars. Ever heard of a Fusion, Milan, or Focus?

        Who's the idiot now?
        • 5 Years Ago
        If that's the kind of freedom you think is important, you need to get a life.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I'm guessing you're not even old enough to drive yet. I'll get a life once you grow up enough to stop getting off on trolling. Go back to 4chan.
      • 5 Years Ago
      So they're basically the same price if you subtract all of the gadgets they got on the Ford that you can't get on the Accord. So if they hadn't gotten the options on the Taurus, which they didn't base any of their review on (all of their concluding comments were on space, handling, and cost), it seems the outcome would have been different...
        • 5 Years Ago
        Conveniently missing out the fact that the Accord has real navigation. I would rather have that then whatever overprotecting features they added to the Taurus that I would never use. Basically anyway you add it up the Taurus is more expensive, the only way it wouldn't be is to remove features but then it wouldn't even match up. It comes down to large car price with large space and crappy driving dynamics(Taurus) or large car space without large car price, driving dynamics, and large car parking abilities or i should say lack there of.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Except the Accord's trunk is smaller than the trunk in my Focus sedan, and I could practically fit my Focus in the Taurus' trunk.

        So basically the Accord is fine, as long as you don't have anything besides people to carry.
      • 5 Years Ago
      First, let's cut the crap about the prior 2009 Ford Taurus (the article insults). Having just spent considerable time in the product, I can assure you it is far better than any review has ever decided to acknowledge. It isn't a BMW or a Lexus - but it is roomy, accelerates better than you are told, rides better than you are told, has better construction and fit and finish than you are told, and it is priced remarkably inexpensively (even without incentives). Had I only paid attention to the reviews, I would have thought the Taurus was a terrible product. It is, in fact, superior in many ways to anything Honda or Toyota has in direct competition. And there is no domestic competitor to it - it is, perhaps, the last iteration of a true American full-sized vehicle. There is no want for interior space or trunk space with the 2009 Taurus. It has the room my old Lincoln Town Car had and is as quiet (or even quieter). It has better pickup and is better made.

      Unfortunately I don't think I'll find the new Taurus to be in the same league. The height has been reduced by 3 inches, the belt line pulled up to shoulder level, and the overall roominess perception will be ruined by the now in vogue "sit in a bathtub" interior mantra. Whereas the 2009 Taurus reeks of room and visibility and command seating, I fear the new Taurus will be just like the dreadful new Malibu and CTS - cramped, overly styled, form over function products whose only selling point is style and which compromise everything else.

      I'm never smitten with a Honda save for a self-propelled lawn mower which managed to make it so I wouldn't choke on small engine exhaust. It was a good product - started when I needed and was frugal with the gasoline. I'd buy another in a heart-beat. Not because of the reputation of what others say about Hondas, but because it was superior to anything else out there.

      Unfortunately, Honda automobiles aren't superior to anything. When you strip the aura of their "dependability" Hondas are merely average vehicles. They never excel at anything. They are dull, bland, and apathetically designed. And even the blandness is now being replaced by putridity with the new corporate Honda face that makes the blind the most likely to purchase a Honda if given a chance.

      I remember when Honda snobs (that is redundant) used to ridicule Detroit for constantly making their vehicles larger and larger with each redesign, but now, in the 21st century, no one does this with more cunning and deceit than Honda - they'd like to make you think that they still build small cars, but they don't - the Civic was once smaller than the Fit and the Accord was once the size of a Civic. But Honda realized, while their minions continued to mock, that Americans like larger products and reality hasn't yet set in with Honda owners who are the most obtuse, arrogant, and disgusting lot on the highways.

      Despite the spin of the article, the Honda is NOT a full-sized vehicle. Yes, due to the Federal Government classification, the Honda can claim what it isn't, but let's not believe for a minute that a car under 200 inches in length is a full-sized anything. I'm from the era when full-sized cars were full-sized cars and the Honda is a pretender, not a contender. This comparison is bogus since Honda makes no real full-sized car and is simply giving us a mid-sized tart made up to look like a Porker but is still racks of ribs short of the real oinker.

      We have to put this comparison in the proper context - the Honda should out accelerate the Taurus by a sizable amount and should kick the Taurus in the butt on actual fuel economy - afterall, even the authors of the bogus comparison note that the Taurus outweighs the fraudulent full-sized Honda by hundreds of pounds. Honda's never ride well - I've been enough of them (unfortunately) to notice the difference between a professional attempt at suspension and an under-engineered one and Hondas never mask imperfections. The Taurus, at least the 2009 one, managed to cloak the imperfections while doing so in bank vault like quietness - something that no Honda can ever claim.

      In the real world, the new Taurus is in a size-class by itself and no amount of unprofessional journalism comparing it to smaller "competitors" can diminish that the 2009 or the new 2010 are superior products for hauling real-sized Americans around instead of arrogant, blowhard Honda owners and journalist sycophants. Once again, if you simply base a decision on the unethical and biased press, you'd figure that Ford can't touch Honda (or Toyota) with any product. The real world suggests that Ford is equal with both on products and should start putting a scare into the brands of faux reputation.

      Competition is good. Now Ford will cause Honda and Toyota to either improve their products to Ford's new standards or face the conseq
        • 5 Years Ago
        Laser,

        I am glad to see that someone on this blog understands what the real consumer (read buyers) of these cars think.

        I own a 2008 Mercury Sable. Much like the 2009 Taurus you have driven. I had the chance to purchase at the time a brand new 2008 Honda Accord. I chose the Mercury because of all the reasons you listed...
        *Bigger in every way!
        *Quieter in every situation
        *Fuel economy that was comparable to a 4 cyl Accord!
        *A back seat I can sit in!!
        *A HUGE trunk!!!
        *Safer (you cannot escape physics folks!!)
        *Best Ride and Handling combined!!!
        *It has brisk acceleration!!!
        *Comfort, Comfort, Comfort
        *Quality of materials
        *Quality of fit
        *Quality of finish

        A lot of this has to do with the fact that I drive my car a lot. I purchased it last July and I have put over 40,000 miles on it!!! I am a tall guy, 6'4" tall. Even getting into and out of the Accord felt tight. I need comfort and room. I work in sales and travel in my vehicle daily. I carry customers to lunches and other outings. When comparing to the Accord this car just blew the Accord out of the water. I can not explain it but most things felt cheap in the Accord compared to the Mercury. The Accord has a hard plastic dash that everyone seems to complain about in every sedan except it. The Mercury has soft pliable materials everywhere. It just exudes class and luxury. The trunk space that you refer to is very important to me. I can take three to four clients and their golf clubs in easy comfort and still have room for all my sales stuff in the gracious trunk. When you close the door there is a positive and solid thunk. This is true with the trunk as well. I like to compare this car to a poor mans Lexus LS. It is really and truly an excellent vehicle. With the 3.5 and the 6 speed transmission this thing will go. The command seating position and having visibility above the beltline of the vehicle is absoulutely awesome! I can see everywhere! I am amazed to see how high I actually am when riding. I have noticed that I am very close to a Jeep Grand Cherokee in rider height! Check it out sometime. What it all boiled down to was in comparison to the Accord, everything else was a compromise.

        I drive with my family in it often. I am not one of those in the article that is just driving by myself most of the time. I drive with my 4'5" tall (who will grow to match his fathers height) 6 year old in the back and with another baby on the way I do not feel like I need to upgrade to a MiniVan. This car will accommodate both children when they are large adults and still ride in comfort. When we travel my wife packs every little thing (including spare and regular pillows) and we have plenty of storage space left in the trunk. Plus she keeps items that she must have like snacks and other things in a backpack along with her purse in the front passenger footwell and she has plenty of room for her legs as well.

        When Ford redid the 500 and changed the name to Taurus and Mercury the Montego to Sable they NEVER capitalized on the great improvements that were made and how they completed a great car that were the 500/Montego vehicles! If they would have marketed the upgraded engine in 2008 (from 203HP to 263HP) The Sync system. The new Taurus name. The new utility of the vehicles they would have sold more of these!!! Who needs a SUV with this kind of utility?

        I know the 2010 is a good car but I am concerned about the higher beltline that I see on this vehicle. I like a lot of the technology gadgets that have been added. The one thing I do not like is how this all new Taurus has become smaller than the one it replaces!!! Yes I said smaller! For all the hubub about how big this car is the rear seat head and leg room is SMALLER. The trunk is SMALLER. The interior room is SMALLER. The windows (and it appears views out of the vehicle) are SMALLER. So why would a guy like me want to up grade to the SMALLER new and improved Taurus?!? I am only attracted to the cooled as well as heated seats, SIRIUS satellite link for the Navigation system and the BLS. over my car. But guess what??? The only way to get the NAV system is to load up a 2010 Taurus Limited to around 36 to 37K. They should offer some of these features on a down market version of the Taurus. It seems that they should make the Navi available in all trim levels to me. I will have to test one of the new Tauruses as soon as they are available. Most likely I will wait a few years and get a loaded up Limited (with no sunroof) so that I can afford this great car. It looks very impressive to me. I cannot wait to drive one.
        JDM Life
        • 5 Years Ago
        "Now Ford will cause Honda and Toyota to either improve their products to Ford's new standards"


        LMAO stop taking CRACK. Its messing with your mind.

        and oh yea...I was watching a review of the Taurus and they stated the interior is crap and still does not have a better finish then the Toyota Camry. The review was on Motor Week.



        The car is better then the last car it replaces but its no where near a game winner and no one is going to sell there Accord or Camry to buy this. I can promise you that.
      • 5 Years Ago
      At the end of the day a Taurus is still a Taurus and should stay where it should be on the rental fleet lot.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Edmunds suggests everyone drive crossovers? Well - there goes all the legitimacy of reading those reviews...
        • 5 Years Ago
        Apparently all Edmunds readers:

        a.) own dogs

        b.) like to have complete rows of seats to themselves

        c.) Only use sedans for individual commutes
      • 5 Years Ago
      how can you compare cars with that much price difference... axxhole
      • 5 Years Ago
      I think that Brian might be a sequel to our Matt. Or does Matt have two profiles here?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Ok.My apologies.
        • 5 Years Ago
        For the love of God, I'm not that GM FanBoi Matt.

        As for the Fusion vs. Accord, I'm glad to see it took Ford using a Japanese platform to beat a Japanese car.

        You can have your Hecho en Mexico junk, because the Accord will still have stellar resale long after Ford goes into Chapter 11.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Some Accords are made in Mexico.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Brian, why I am replying to you, I have no idea................ other than the fact that I HATE when people spew BS as fact.

        The original Fusion platform, (CD3) was based on the a modified version of the Mazda platform, which was, itself, based on an older Mondeo (Ford) platform. However, it was longer, wider, stiffer, and got much better crash ratings.

        The current Mazda 6 is based on the Fusion platform. You know, the one that is wider, longer, much stiffer, and has much better crash ratings than their old Mazda 6 platform.

        Like I said, if you want to mindlessly bash, at least have a few of your facts correct.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Correction *were* - the last generation Accord, a portion came from Jalisco, Mexico. The point is, where they are built doesn't arbitrarily make them junk.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I don't know the article's point system, but I don't understand why it comes down to a difference of merely 2.6 points. They ultimately preferred the Accord in each and every category...
      • 5 Years Ago
      The gearing of the Taurus is too tall.
      3.16 should be the axle ratio of front wheel drive, 3.39 for Haldex.

      If Ford wants to put tall gearing 2.77 for front drive, 3.16 for Haldex, then put the 3.7 in it.

      Honda, get that 6 speed auto. Cylinder shutoff is a crutch that you can't rest on forever.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Isn't the accord still technically smaller though?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Taurus is even larger than Honda Legend.

        But this seems to be Edmunds trademark: Find a reason Taurus loses for, than pick a car that beats it because of that "reason".

        Coming soon on Edmunds: Ford Taurus vs. Honda S2000! :))
        • 5 Years Ago
        Tool,

        "It's interesting that the Toyota Camry wasn't included. This must mean that Edmund's thinks that the Accord is the king of the hill right now."

        A lot of outlets consider the Accord/Maxima/Mazda6 as the top three, and the Camry is slipping behind just about everything except the Avenger/Sebring, given how old the current-gen Camry is compared to basically everything else. I'd have to agree on that one, although I'm not a huge fan of the Accord (the coupe looks good, though)... if I were in the market (and the Chevy Malibu/2010 Fusion didn't exist) I'd pick up a Maxima over the Accord.

        The Camry is too old people-ish for my tastes, not to mention uglier than the devil's face. Why and how it sells so many God damned cars is beyond me, although I imagine if Consumer Reports didn't exist Toyota would unload quite a bit fewer of them. ;)
        • 5 Years Ago
        The accord is smaller but in the article the interior space is actually close 122.3 cu ft for the Taurus and 120 cu ft for the Accord.

        So yes the Taurus is bigger overall, but the Accord is more efficient with its space, smaller outside for nearly the same size inside. I think this is a valid comparison.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Judy Zik:

        "How about Fusion vs Accord or would they try to have us believe the Fusion and Civic compete?"

        The waters are muddy here, now. The Accord is now just into "D-segment" size, while the Taurus is bigger outside but about the same size inside. With Accord moving up into the D-class, there's nothing in the Honda line-up that directly competes with the Fusion (Fusion is an "in-between" size, thus the platform family name of CD3.)

        I don't think Honda really cares, though. They sell just fine.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Tool, they did one that included the Camery, Accord, Fusion, Mazda6, and Sonata:
        http://blogs.edmunds.com/strategies/2009/07/comparison-test-accord-vs-malibu-vs-fusion-vs-mazda6-vs-sonata.html

        This comparison actually makes a little sense. They're all mid-sized sedans.

        I'd brag about the winner, but this comparison is full of holes too.
        blue3874
        • 5 Years Ago
        The Taurus is eight inches longer, four inches wider and two inches taller than the Accord.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Wow...this is obvious: FORD TAURUS WINS!!!

        The Honda is a great brand, dont get me wrong. But the Accord is aging rapidly...I remember when it looked good for the first few months.

        The New 2010 Ford Taurus is one amazing looking car! A stern executive front fascia, a new edge look for rear ends, the interior is amazing...and the upcoming FORD Taurus SHO will RULE!!!


        FORD WINS.

        ALWAYS!

        'nuff said.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Such a BS comparison! - The Taurus is made to compete with luxury cars! Not Accords that are within a hair of being mid sized cars! These two cars should NOT be compared! EVER!

        Both are excellent!
        • 5 Years Ago
        wow, i didnt know we rated family sedans now the same as sports cars...

        Next truck review they decide to do, i hope they base the comparison between the ram and f-150 on drag times and road coarses... rather then their tow ability....

        and how do you DOWN PLAY all the nice gizmos and electronics the taurus has... most would consider this a plus, but i guess it doesnt make you feel like your in a "life form" then the honda...

        what a crock... the taurus is far better at being a comfy family sedan...
        • 5 Years Ago
        I am getting sick of the review sites.

        1) If I am buying a Sports Car I care about how fast it takes off. If I am buying a big family hauler I only care if it is too slow to be safe merging or passing and none of the modern vehicles have that problem. I wouldn't take either of these vehicles to a track so why the focus on sporty handling?

        2) They never option the vehicles that same and then complain about price differences or lack of features. Then to top it off they compare different classes. How about Fusion vs Accord or would they try to have us believe the Fusion and Civic compete?

        3) Reviewers use their own experiences too much. Oh wow the controls in the Honda seem familiar. Could it be he already drives one? The Ford controls would be familiar to people who have driven one previously. A previous Ford driver might find that lack of any kind of iPod integration let alone Sync to be a deal breaker for Honda.

        4) Where is the information that matters? Did they try putting three kids in the back? How are the seats on a road trip? Can you see out? What's it like to park or do a 3 point turn?
      • 5 Years Ago
      Please show me where the "new for 2010" Taurus, that is not even available in dealerships yet, has "ton of rebates."

      FYI, the car will be introduced with a $500 to $1000 rebate/incentive, because in this buying market, people expect that.

      However, if you want to talk about "ton of rebates," you have to look at the Accord. This is because the average rebate/incentive on the Accord, to keep it moving, is ABOVE $2400.

      Hondas incentives have gone way up, in the last few months, vs last year. Fords have gone way down.

      However, don't let reality/truth get in the way of your "facts."
        • 5 Years Ago
        Gloria, I just checked and there are no incentives for Honda other than lease offers and APR deals. No cash on the hood. I can not ever recall Honda having any rebates. I had to check since my wife wants a CRV and if there were rebates I might buy a little earlier than expected. You had me going there.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Did it ever occur to you that they are offering rebates to clear out the 09 models? Maybe Ford is dropping their incentives because their 2010 models ARE ALREADY HERE?
        • 5 Years Ago
        mact,

        The 2010 Taurus doesn't arrive in dealerships until early August. It's July. It's not out yet.
        • 5 Years Ago
        • 5 Years Ago
        IOMITT, check with the stealership. Honda is notorious for offering their incentives to the dealers, who can then divy them out, as they deem fit.

        This way, they can say "hey, look at us, we don't have any rebates."

        The incentives are still there, none the less.

        When incentive reports come out, they take into account all incentives, including manufacturer to dealer.
    • Load More Comments