Edmunds Inside Line recently did a comparison test of the brand new 2010 Ford Taurus and a 2009 Honda Accord, and let me begin by stating: what a terrible review! Can you make this shit any more biased? Keep reading to find out why.
The review starts out by listing off the features that each car has and finally naming the price of each vehicle. The Taurus has loads and loads of features; features that even the reviewer states are simply not available on the Accord. Those features include massaging seats, a blind spot information system, adaptive cruise control, Sony sound system, optional all-wheel drive and automatic high-beams. After listing all the features that the Taurus has and the Accord does not, the reviewer says that you can save $3,575 if you go with the Accord. Duh! I wonder why!? They optioned out the Taurus with items the Accord can only dream of having and then wonder why it’s so expensive. If you step down into a lower trim level on the Taurus, you still get more features than on the Accord and at a lower price, which would then make the Taurus the better buy, but the author fails to mention that of course!
A little more on the features discussion: the reviewer also states that the Accord has the Acura navigation system that has been stripped of various features!? Why? I don’t know if the reviewers test vehicle had the Ford navigation system, but from what many reviews state, the Ford navigation system is one of the best (if not, the best) in the industry, even amongst luxury brands. It has features like sync, Bluetooth, USB connectivity, etc. Again, word of advice, option the vehicles similarly, and then compare them OBJECTIVELY! That is my understanding of what a proper review should be like.
Oh and lets not forget the section where the author goes on to say that the Taurus rides better, stops shorter, and has a quieter cabin than the Accord, but that’s not important. What is important to the author is that the radio isn’t pixelated… If the author had an ounce of sense in his head he would understand why that is. The Accord had a navigation screen that is LCD based. The Taurus in this case did not have a navigation system, so it has a standard LED display. If they had bothered to get cars that were optioned similarly, the Taurus navigation system has a larger LCD screen, looks sharper, and is much more intuitive than that on the Accord. If I had a nickle for every time the author disregards the Taurus’ strong points, I’d be able to retire.
Here comes the performance comparison. I won’t discuss the exact number here (you can read the review for that), but ultimately, the performance characteristics (times, speeds, etc.) were very similar for both vehicles. The Accord was a little quicker, with a 7.2 second 0-60, compared to Taurus’ 7.8 seconds. But in the end, the reviewer boldly states “it has no hope of catching the Accord.” What!? Clearly, both of these cars are not speed-racers, and I didn’t realize that full-size sedans were designed to be weekend track cars. And if you really wanted to get a performance full-size sedan, you do have the option of getting a 2010 Taurus SHO that has significantly more power, AWD, and ultimately will kill the Accord; but then it wouldn’t be a fair comparison.
Alright, my head is about to explode from all the stupid crap in this review. Long story short, the reviewer found issues with the Taurus and could not leave them alone. Common themes include the weight of the Taurus, the size of the Taurus, the price of the Taurus, the Taurus having too many features, more complaints about the weight of the Taurus, and more complaints about the size of the Taurus. Ultimately, the Accord wins. And not just any Accord, but the “Honda Accord EX-L with Navigation!” BAM! It’s got a navigation system! Game over baby!
Read the full craptastic review at Edmunds.
Peace.
Alex
Tags: 2010 Ford Taurus, Comparison, Edmunds, Ford, Honda, Honda Accord, Inside Line
