Seems fair to me. Both cars have their virtues......unless you ask a fanboy.

 

And both are ugly as sin. They're the perfect fat, ugly, American couple.

 

The fact that they say the Accords interior is more cohesive than the Taurus throws up a huge red flag for me.

 

Yes, no human orifice could sensibly say that. Review after review complains of the plethora of buttons on the Accord. They say they may be well laid out, but there are still far too many.

 

Probably semantics, but as they mentioned they're testing large cars and quoted the EPA classifications, they really tested a midsize Accord. Accords without the power moonroof are just barely large cars, so those with the moonroof lose a few cubic feet of interior volume and are are just shy of being large cars. It would seem the Taurus would be roomier since it is larger outside but the two are actually pretty close in interior volume, so all the difference is in the trunk, which Edmunds unfortunately didn't seem to mention except in the photo captions. IIRC it's passenger volume + cargo volume for the EPA classification.

Taurus: 102.2 + 20.1
Accord LX: 106 + 14
Accord EX: 101 + 14

 

Crap...the Taurus is 61" tall? That alone would get it crossed off my list. I hate super tall cars.

 

Uh oh, Edmunds is really going to hear it from the diehard Ford fanbois:

"...the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited is more refined and personable than any Taurus to date. Its nicely resolved ride is no small benefit if you take long road trips, and we really do like Sync. Yet it's tough to justify paying $35K for a 263-hp sedan that needs almost 8 seconds to hit 60 mph."

 

I like the new Taurus. Saw it on the road and it was pretty sharp..

As far as edmunds reporting that 35 grand for a sedan that needs 8 seconds to 60mph..?

Either order it up with less options like at the 28 grand mark or spend three grand more and get the SHO which should speed things up...

Whats the base taurus price in at? 26 grand? Thats a hell of a car...

The simple fact is...the options are what price it upward of 35 grand...

You can do that with any car..

Like I said..I wouldn't buy a taurus over a G8 GT but I would certainly buy it over a honda accord..or camry...

 

test a loaded up $35k Taurus and don't talk about the toys that where added on & then bash it on value.

that's Edmunds

 

Wasn't exactly a loaded Taurus -- it lacked a sunroof and navigation (both of which the Accord had, and are arguably more useful than blind-spot alerts etc.). That said, a more appropriate comparison would have been a Taurus with nav and sun-roof and without the other stuff not available in the Accord. That would have at least taken care of the pixelated display complaints against the Taurus.

 

Taurus gets to 60 in 7 seconds where did they get 7.8 seconds.

 

From their testing. Not every Taurus performs the same as another (or any car). Options can account for weight factors, and tire options could account for traction variables. Plus some engines aren't broken in at time of testing...and those tend to be slower.

 

That was a crap, biased review. The Accord won based on performance? Who in their right mind would buy an Accord if they were looking for performance? Taurus hits the target market far better than the stinky, boring looking Honda.

 

The bashing on price against the Ford is unfounded: From HONDA's own website
the Taurus comparably equipped price $32,785 for the Accord Sedan EX-L V-6 $31,615
(or 3% more)

Price..................Taurus is 3% more(comparably Equipped)
*The Taurus Has 18" wheels and a 6speed auto
Interior Room:......Esentially a wash
Cargo Room:........Taurus has 44% more cargo room
Fuel Economy...... Taurus get 6% worse fuel economy

They are pretty comparable. This comparison (if it were unbiased would come down to personal preferance and look, which I think the taurus has over the honda)

 

Nice post. I like this kind of thinking.

 

Wow. The Accord is much bigger than I had imagined. EDMUNDS COMPARISON

Actually scratch that. The Taurus (despite its bulk) is actually smaller than I had imagined. The G8 has it beat in all interior dimensions except for .3 of an inch extra head room. The Taurus also has an extra 3 cubic feet of luggage space. SO tell me again, is Taurus suppose to be a full size?

 

The Taurus (despite its bulk) is actually smaller than I had imagined. The G8 has it beat in all interior dimensions except for .3 of an inch extra head room. The Taurus also has an extra 3 cubic feet of luggage space. SO tell me again, is Taurus suppose to be a full size?

The Taurus has less interior space than a Falcon as well. But, such as against the G8, the Taurus has a little more trunk space.

 

Yes. Enough space for 1 carry on bag.