F23A4

With all due respect to the TL SH-AWD and the TSX V6, it seems as though this just may be quickest automatic Honda to date. That it doesn't give up much performance to the 6MT version just as impressive.

F23A4

Changing gears slightly, I meant to mention that I saw my first Accord Touring on the road yesterday. Aside from the LED headlamps and 'Touring' badge there's almost no distinguishing it from the regular V6. Although it's "only" about $1,300 more than a V6 Navi, I wonder if that trim will make it past the next MMC.

dom

Nothing solid about that CVT. The 6 speed in the V6 was far better IMO so I hope the CVT never makes it to the V6 although I fear it eventually will.

Legend2TL

The only H/A product I like today is the Accord, if I needed a DD it's be a 6MT Sport sedan.

I was at the dealer yesterday getting tires mounted on my wife's Pilot and was looking over the Accords, I also don't care for the silver interior trim. Looks very GM, didn't see one 6MT Sport sedan out of dozens of new Accords.

dom

Already the case in Canada. We don't have a EX-L Navi. Then again we don't have a EX sedan either. The trim I'd love to see is a Sport V6 and according to the couple of salespeople I've spoken with, I wasn't the only one making that request.

F23A4

cmschmie

New Accord is one of a few cars on my list. Thinking EX-L, either I4 or V6. Would go with the I4 if it didn't have the CVT, can't stand them.

Other cars on list include the VW Jetta (or Jetta SportWagen) TDI (6-spd manual ), Passat TDI, and potentially the Subaru Outback (but CVT )

Ken1997TL

Most likely they'll just upgrade the content level of the V6 trim.

Hapa DC5

Have you driven the new Accord with a CVT?

Ken1997TL

+1

I HATE CVT's and the rubber band effect, but the Accord does NOT have that.

dom

Not much experience with CVT's so maybe what I experienced in my Accord test drives was not the rubber band effect but the CVT was IMO nowhere near as good as the 6AT in the V6. The main issue I had was when you came off the throttle the car felt as though it wanted to come to a stop.

And starting out it felt jerky, which I'm presuming is the rubber band effect. It was the same thing I felt in the Civic loaner I had a few months ago but to a lesser extent. I was able to replicate the behavior over and over. It was bad enough that I had to cross the I4 Accord off my shopping list. Not an easy thing to do since it was the clear front runner.

cmschmie

Not yet test driven, but will.

I will say that my only experience with a CVT has been a Dodge Caliber rental. Hence my dislike.

TSX69

2013 Honda Accord Sport vs Toyota Camry SE vs Mazda6 GrandTouring

Believe it or not, some midsize sedan buyers view these 4- doors as exciting signs of hope, evidence that the fun isn’t over just because kids and jobs now consume 23 hours of the day. Despite their prevalence—at least that of the Accord and Camry, which sold more than 300,000 and 400,000 units in 2012, respectively—the 3 family sedans here are injected with a shot of sport aimed at enlivening the daily doldrums of commuting, errand running, and passenger hauling. If you can zip from light to light a little quicker or take the freeway on-ramp a bit more aggressively—anything to brighten your day—why not, right?

With that in mind, we gathered the all-new Mazda6 and Honda Accord Sport, as well as the best-selling veteran, the Toyota Camry SE, to see which 1 delivered the most effective spoonful of sport medicine. Each boasts a stout 4-cylinder, a seamless automatic, an athletic body kit, and a sport-tuned chassis, designed to collectively stimulate the senses and soothe the soul. We tried to get a Fusion SE, but Ford claimed it couldn’t source 1.

And the top-dog VW Passat? With the new EA888 turbo I-4 poised for 2014 duty and a dedicated sport trim still a distinct possibility (see the Passat Performance Concept from this year’s Detroit auto show), the Chattanooga champ was relegated to Round 2 and a face-off with this test’s winner. But let’s focus on Round 1…

Toyota Camry SE

The SE accounts for about 40% of Camry sales, which equates to around 160,000 units annually. That’s nearly 5 times as many 6s as Mazda sold last year. SE drivers are treated to the same 2.5-liter, 178-hp, 170-lb-ft I-4 that powers most Camrys not wearing V-6 or Hybrid badging, but the 6-speed automatic (the only tranny offered) comes with paddle shifters and an S mode that delivers quicker shifts and downshift throttle blips. Nice. The chassis receives firmer springs and dampers, stiffer lower front-control arms, strut tower and trunk-mounted braces, and 17-inch alloys wearing 215/55 rubber. Outside, there are SE-specific side skirts, mesh upper grille, black headlamp bezels, and rear spoiler. Inside, a 3-spoke steering wheel and thicker bolstered sport seats round out the package. Problem is, the aesthetic parts are more appealing than the finished product. Styling, inside and out, was deemed dated, with the slab-sided exterior and ’80s-esque interior drawing criticism. And this Camry is only two years old.

At the track, the SE put down the slowest acceleration numbers of the group, despite being the lightest car at 3207 pounds. 0 to 60 mph came in 8.1 seconds, with another 8.1 required to reach the quarter mile (16.2 at 87.0 mph). At 0.81 g, lateral acceleration, was acceptable, certainly in light of the modest rubber, and the figure-8 run of 27.6 at 0.61 g was back of the pack, but solid nonetheless. The 1 objective performance test in which the Camry didn’t play the caboose was 60-to-0 braking—it stopped 1 foot shorter than the Mazda.

Over our evaluation loop in Tehachapi, California, the Camry revealed more faults than strengths, notably a stiff ride, numb steering, and a confidence-detracting chassis. Says associate editor Rory Jurnecka, “From the 1st dip coming out of the parking lot, the Camry makes its stiff ride known. Unfortunately, it’s all for naught—a stiff ride alone does not a sporty car make. It’s amazing that the Mazda rides better on 19s.” Associate editor Scott Evans: “The body rolls much more than the other 2, and the suspension doesn’t handle the inertia well. Even a moderately quick steering input gets you thrown around in your seat. Steering is a little too slow to be fun on the back roads and has little feel in it whatsoever.”

On the plus side, the Toyota offers a big back seat, an attractive price tag, excellent visibility, and the best observed fuel economy during our 270-mile trip by 0.1 mpg. The Camry SE has a lot going for it, no doubt, but sporty, engaging, and fun aren’t 3 of its attributes.

Honda Accord Sport

Now, I could just tell you the Accord Sport is a furlong ahead of the Camry and a nose behind the Mazda, but what fun is that? With a 2.4-liter “Earth Dreams” I-4 (Take that, Mazda “Skyactiv”) and the group’s only CVT automatic, the Honda entered the arena as the most powerful (189 hp), but also the heaviest (3324 pounds), the widest (72.8 inches), and the most cavernous (103.6 cubic feet of passenger volume and 15.8 cubic feet of cargo volume). Inside and out, the Accord is a sizable sedan, though it’s still a smidge shorter in length and height than the Mazda and Toyota, respectively. That’s surprising, given that the Honda feels the biggest. But that’s only when it’s standing still.

Floor the throttle, and the CVT quickly pushes the revs into the VTEC sweet spot, propelling the Sport from 0 to 60 in 7.6 seconds and through the quarter mile in 15.9 at 89.8 mph. Unlike the Camry, which always feels its size, the Accord shrinks when the rolling gets brisk, a sense that holds especially true on a winding road, where the Honda’s 0.87 g of lateral grip and 117-foot 60-0 stopping power give it the at-the-limit edge. Evans: “Body is well-controlled, with no abrupt movements. Good grip and good control on rebound; keeps the movements in check.” Further, the electric power steering, while a tad artificial compared with the Mazda’s, serves up a linear helm, and the CVT’s S mode and standard paddle shifters make optimum use of the 2.4’s lively corral. And with an EPA combined rating of 29 mpg, the Accord trails the tops-in-test ’6 by 1 mpg.

Nits? Navigation and satellite radio aren’t on the Sport model’s options list. In D mode, the CVT can feel lethargic under moderate throttle. Wind and tire noise still aren’t as hushed as we’d like, though this is easly the quietest Accord to date. And the cabin could be a little snazzier. “The seat material looks cheap, and the layout is bland,” says Jurnecka. More than that, the Honda trails the Mazda’s class-leading virtues—the ride, steering, and handling all fall subjectively short. That said, if space is a priority— and for many families, it’s number 1 —the Accord and its “limo back seat,” per Evans, is tough to beat, as is its $24,980 as-tested price, which includes 18-inch alloys, rear decklid spoiler, Bluetooth, Pandora radio, backup camera, leather-wrapped steering wheel, and a 10-way power driver seat. Then there’s the Accord’s Top Safety Pick+ from IIHS, a badge of honor for passing the ominous small-offset test. (BTW, the ’6 also received “+” status. The Camry did not.) Evans said it best: “The Accord is really good, but the Mazda’s just a little better.”

Mazda6

OK, let’s address the elephant in the room: the Mazda6 GT's hefty $31,190 as-tested price. Had we had our druthers, we would have gotten a $25,290 Touring fitted with a $350 rear lip spoiler. Truth is, none of the GT’s exclusives—leather, bi-xenon headlamps, paddle shifters, et al.—gave it an advantage on the scorecard. And since the Touring and GT are dynamically identical, we were willing to overlook the GT’s hefty price tag.

The Mazda’s performance stats, however, were completely relevant. Outpacing the Accord’s acceleration numbers by a couple tenths (0-60 in 7.4, quarter mile in 15.7 at 88.6) and splitting the others’ handling figures (0.84 g lat accel, 27.1 at 0.63 figure eight), the Mazda’s objective results placed at or near the top. Subjectively? It quickly earned reserved parking on the pinnacle. Evans: “Engine’s got plenty of zip. Never had to floor it, and it never felt weak or made the car feel heavy. Everything about this car is smooth and fluid. The way the steering comes off center, the way the suspension eases the chassis into corners, the way the throttle picks up, the way the brakes engage, the way it handles transitions. It’s perfect.” Jurnecka: “The steering is sublime, especially for this class. Weighting is just spot-on, and there’s a great amount of feel and precision. ‘Little’ things like this really make a huge difference in how a car feels.” The Mazda imparts a sense of gracefulness and driver-connectedness that is deficient in the others.

Some of that uncanny sense can be attributed to the intimate feel from behind the wheel. The ’6 proved the most comfortable and ergonomically sound, providing the preferred command center whether sitting still and fiddling with the controls or weaving aggressively through a twisty road. The Mazda fits you, not vice versa. The dash layout and interior materials are straightforward and understated, and the 5.8-inch nav screen (standard on GT, optional on Touring) is small by modern standards, but it’s cleanly presented and easy to operate. The back seat, too, was judged tops in comfort and support, though there’s no denying it trails the Camry and Accord in overall roominess.

Nevertheless, the made-in-Japan Mazda6 is the best driver’s car here. To us, there’s no better dose of sport medicine.

3rd Place: Toyota Camry SE
Dated styling, numb steering, and a stiff ride undermine this best-seller’s attributes.

2nd Place: Honda Accord Sport
Dreamy engine, cavernous cabin, and composed chassis make this a close call.

1st Place: Mazda6 Grand Touring
Graceful and athletic, the ’6 is a dynamic doozy—a driver’s car that’s easy on the eyes.

PHP Code:

      2013 Honda Accord Sport     2014 Mazda6 (i Grand Touring)    2013 Toyota Camry SE
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT     Front engine, FWD     Front engine, FWD     Front engine, FWD
ENGINE TYPE     I-4, aluminum block/head     I-4, aluminum block/head     I-4, aluminum block/head
VALVETRAIN     DOHC, 4 valves/cyl     DOHC, 4 valves/cyl     DOHC, 4 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT     143.8 cu in/2356 cc     151.8 cu in/2488 cc     152.2 cu in/2494 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO     11.1:1     13.0:1     10.4:1
POWER (SAE NET)     189 hp @ 6400 rpm     184 hp @ 5700 rpm     178 hp @ 6000 rpm
TORQUE (SAE NET)     182 lb-ft @ 3900 rpm     185 lb-ft @ 3250 rpm     170 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm
REDLINE     6800 rpm     6500 rpm     6500 rpm
WEIGHT TO POWER     17.6 lb/hp     17.8 lb/hp     18.0 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION     Cont variable auto     6-speed automatic     6-speed automatic
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO     3.24:1/2.04:1     3.81:1/2.28:1     3.63:1/2.21:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR     Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar     Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar     Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO     13.4:1     15.5:1     14.8:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK     2.4     2.8     2.9
BRAKES, F;R     11.5-in vented disc; 11.1-in disc, ABS     11.7-in vented disc; 10.9-in disc, ABS     11.7-in vented disc; 11.1-in disc, ABS
WHEELS     8.0 x 18-in, cast aluminum     7.5 x 19-in, cast aluminum     7.0 x 17-in, cast aluminum
TIRES     235/45R18 94V M+S Michelin Primacy MXM4     225/45R19 92W M+S Dunlop SP Sport 5000     215/55R17 93V M+S Bridgestone Turanza EL400
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE     109.3 in     111.4 in     109.3 in
TRACK, F/R     62.4/62.4 in     62.8/62.4 in     62.0/61.6 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT     191.4 x 72.8 x 57.7 in     191.5 x 72.4 x 57.1 in     189.2 x 71.7 x 57.9 in
TURNING CIRCLE     39.6 ft     36.7 ft     36.7 ft
CURB WEIGHT     3324 lb     3275 lb     3207 lb
WEIGHT DIST, F/R     60/40%     59/41%     61/39%
SEATING CAPACITY     5     5     5
HEADROOM, F/R     39.1/37.5 in     37.4/37.1 in     37.9/38.0 in
LEGROOM, F/R     42.5/38.5 in     42.2/38.7 in     41.6/38.9 in
SHOULDER ROOM, F/R     58.6/56.5 in     57.1/55.5 in     58.0/56.6 in
CARGO VOLUME     15.8 cu-ft     14.8 cu-ft     15.4 cu-ft
TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30     2.9 sec     2.5 sec     2.8 sec
0-40     4.2     3.9     4.2
0-50     5.7     5.5     6.1
0-60     7.6     7.4     8.1
0-70     9.8     9.9     10.7
0-80     12.6     12.7     13.8
0-90     15.9     16.3     17.7
0-100     19.9     -     —
PASSING, 45-65 MPH     3.7     3.9     4.2
QUARTER MILE     15.9 sec @ 89.8 mph     15.7 sec @ 88.6 mph     16.2 sec @ 87.0 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH     117 ft     121 ft     120 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION     0.87 g (avg)     0.84 g (avg)     0.81 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT     26.9 sec @ 0.64 g (avg)     27.1 sec @ 0.63 g (avg)     27.6 sec @ 0.61 g (avg)
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH     1700 rpm     1800 rpm     1750 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE     $24,180     $30,290     $24,195
PRICE AS TESTED     $24,980     $31,190     $28,055
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL     Yes/yes     Yes/yes     Yes/yes
AIRBAGS     Dual front, front side, f/r curtain     Dual front, front side, f/r curtain     Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee
BASIC WARRANTY     3 yrs/36,000 mi     3 yrs/36,000 mi     3 yrs/36,000 mi
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY     5 yrs/60,000 mi     5 yrs/60,000 mi     5 yrs/60,000 mi
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE     N/A     3 yrs/36,000 mi     2 yrs/25,000 mi
FUEL CAPACITY     17.2 gal     16.4 gal     17.0 gal
EPA CITY/HWY ECON     26/35 mpg     26/38 mpg     25/35 mpg
ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY     130/96 kW-hrs/100 mi     130/89 kW-hrs/100 mi     135/96 kW-hrs/100 mi
CO2 EMISSIONS     0.66 lb/mi     0.64 lb/mi     0.68 lb/mi
MT FUEL ECONOMY     30.9 mpg     32.6 mpg     32.7 mpg
RECOMMENDED FUEL     Unleaded regular     Unleaded regular     Unleaded regular 


biker

I just hope good showings like this translate to some increase in 6 sales. The USD-Yen exchange rate is moving in Mazda's favor.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Aside from the above factors, I am actually wondering if the 6AT would downshift automatically if you brake hard. Perhaps that might help a bit with slowing the car down?

You want the CVT in the V6? The new CVT is one of the best, if not the best of its type in the market right now. But I don't think it can handle the power and torque of the V6 yet. The CVT is also a bit soft off the line.

You know, I actually wonder how fast the TL SH-AWD 6AT is. I have seen numbers for TL SH-AWD 5AT and TL SH-AWD 6MT only.

I think main thing is the ACC system but that can't be seen from the outside.

I think it's great if there's a sport apperance package available on all trims.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I really like the styling of the new 6, and as always, it seems like its driving feel is top class.

However, that Motor Trend article seems to have a few flaws.

1.) Other than being softer off the line, the K24W1 in the Accord is the stronger mill as shown by its higher 1/4 mile trap speed. The Accord is actually faster for 0 to any speed above 70 mph. Its 0-30mph time is the culprit. Honda should tune the CVT more aggressive off the line IMO, at least in S mode.

2.) Although Mazda6 feels better according to Motor Trend, objectively, the numbers suggest the Accord is better in every way - braking, skidpad, and figure 8.

3.) Testers at Motor Trend claim that the extra features in its $31k Mazda6 GT test car has no effect on the scoreboard. But then they complain about the cheap seat material in the $25k Accord Sport and the bland layout. They also complain about the lack of navigation and satellite radio in the Accord. Sorry Motor Trend, but for $31k, you can get an Accord with leather interior. You will also get a different layout, navigation, and a lot more in a higher trim Accord. We are talking about Accord EX-L with navi, or Accord EX-L V6. Let's compare apples to apples, shall we?

MDXAccord

I was looking at the Mazda 6 myself, but the Accord has more rear seat space if that's important to you.

fsttyms1

Couldnt agree more. its like comparing a base model to a fully loaded model. MT seems to test cars without the same options a lot and uses that against the model in the test. .

F23A4

I suppose you could use an 07 Acura MDX vs 10 Acura MDX comparison as a guide, where the latter seems to be substantially quicker than the former.

The latter is .6 sec quicker to 60mph and 1.7 sec quicker to 100mph, with a 3mph advantage in the 1/4 mile. So, it's a pretty major performance improvement in the MDX.*

*using Car & Driver numbers.

F23A4

Going back to the Mazda6, IMHO it (and it's 626 predecessor) has always been the "driver's car" of the segment. I still recall my old 164hp 94 626 V6 5MT being far more sporty than the equivalent Accord and Camry. (It could have been a different case if Honda would have mated an MT to the C27A4 but, I doubt it.)

IMHO, Mazda's problem is its pricing. I was on a Mazda lot a few months ago and recall a 2013 Mazda6 V6 (not sure whether Touring or Grand Touring) stickering @ $37k...which was a solid $5k+ over a loaded 8G EX-L V6 Navi.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Yea, the way they are doing it, it seems like they are trying hard to force a winner.....

Found it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review

Pretty slow still....

I agree. I'm not too sure about the 626 or anything before it, but both 1g and 2g Mazda 6 were known for their relatively good handling (vs Accord, Camry, Altima, Fusion, etc). I also like the styling of both previous generations.

I looked at the Mazda 6 pricing in the US, it doesn't seem too out of place. However, in Canada, it's quite pricey.

GX 6MT $24,495
GX 6AT $25,695
GS 6MT $28,395
GS 6AT with paddle shifters $28,395
GT 6MT $32,195
GT 6AT with paddle shifters $32,195

Options:

Color: $200-$300 extra for some colors
Luxury Pkg: $1800 (available for GS only)
Tech Pkg: $2000 (available for GT only)

If you decide to have the top of the line GT in red with the tech pkg, you will pay $34.5k + $1700 destination charge = $36.2k + tax.

Here are the prices for the Accord in Canada:

LX 6MT $23,990
LX CVT $25,190
SPORT 6MT $25,490
SPORT CVT $26,690
EX-L CVT $29,090
TOURING 6MT $30,390
TOURING CVT $31,590
EX-L V6 6AT $32,790
V6 TOURING 6AT $35,290

Destination charge is $1640.

For instance, an Accord I4 Touring with destination is $32k with 6MT and $33.2k with CVT. That's $3k than a comparably equipped Mazda 6 GT tech. The top of the line Accord V6 Touring with destination is $36.9k, just $700 more than the top of the line Mazda 6. And that's 278hp vs 185hp, 0-60mph in 7.4s vs 5.5s.

F23A4

Not particularly but still quicker than the 5AT: LINK...with similar 0-100mph and 1/4 mile margins to the MDX reference.

That said, the they'll all stare at fading AV6 coupe tail lights.

SSFTSX

Accord has 235 width tire. MT didnot publish 0-100 mph time for the other two. it means Accord would have gain more advantage.

TSX69

2013 Honda Accord Sport
Just the Basics

As part of the team responsible for evaluating the latest troupe of midsize sedans (see comparison story: “Battle of the Best-Sellers”), I had some experience with a nicely equipped $30,785 2013 Honda Accord EX-L.The truth about the car review game is that it’s flush with high-content test vehicles — after all, how does 1 test massaging seats, Bang & Olufsen sound systems, or Honda’s own LaneWatch blind spot display if they’re not physically there?

Occasionally, though, more restrained examples slip into the fleet, like the Accord Sport featured in our sport-oriented midsize sedan comparison. Our test car was exactly 1 trim higher than the base LX. It added a power driver’s seat, locking glovebox (gloves are important), steering-wheel-mounted paddle shifters for the CVT, and 18-inch alloy wheels. Forget navigation, satellite radio, hands-free keyless entry, or a moonroof. There are also no more than 4 speakers for the sound system (6 to 7 are present for EX and up).

As we already know, the Accord Sport is excellent basic transportation. From a cabin materials and driving perspective, the refinement level is high. I’d need test equipment to qualify and quantify changes to the ride quality — the Sport’s 235/45-18 Michelin Primacy MXM4 loses nearly an inch of insulating sidewall height to our 1st EX-L tester’s 215/55-17 Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max — as the Accord Sport doesn’t feel noticeably harsher than its smaller-tire counterpart. Read the 2014 Mazda6 i GT, 2013 Toyota Camry SE, and 2013 Honda Accord Sport comparison test right here.

Nor does the undoubtedly heavier wheel and tire package seem to affect fuel economy much. After putting nearly 400 miles of easygoing, mixed city and highway driving on the clock, the car achieved 31.2 mpg. The Accord Sport with CVT’s EPA rating is 26/35/29 mpg city/highway/combined, whereas the non-Sport with CVT is 27/36/30 mpg. I was even more impressed when comparing the calculated mpg against the 31.8-mpg readout in the gauge cluster. While this is just one (and some would say statistically insignificant) data point, it’s generally a good sign if the 2 numbers are close. From observing other vehicles, the discrepancy can be several mpg and is rarely less than 1 (or 0.6 mpg in this case). The accuracy of onboard figures is often disputed. Ultimately, your personal mpg will be derived from the pumped gallons you pay for.

But back to basics. Since there won’t be any remarks about adaptive cruise control or multi-angle backup cameras, have a look at the storage cubby above the Sport center stack’s lower bin. What would you put in it? An iPhone? Air freshener? Aftermarket CD-changer control panel circa 1993? You can put anything in it because it exists. Stepping up to the Accord EX-L or Touring relocates the Intelligent Multi-Information Display control buttons and knob (to accommodate their new audio-control touch screen) to where the cubby would normally reside. Just don’t leave the cubby door open all the time, as its flipped-up position messes with the stack’s aesthetic and flow.

Even the most basic of features gets attention today. Check out the gauge cluster. It looks like any old cluster right? Well, my front passengers immediately picked up on the speedometer’s multi-level design. The outer halo with the big mph numbers appears to be floating above the center Multi-Information Display and the kph-marking ring. Sit in the passenger seat, look to your left, and the gauge’s depth becomes obvious thanks to the cluster’s backlighting.

My passengers and I may be easily amused, but it’s clear that even on the Accord Sport trim, Honda pays attention to the details.

00TL-P3.2

I'm seriously torn between the ILX 6MT & the Accord Sport 6MT.

Those are the top 2 on my short list right now, need to go drive them both again.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Yea, hopefully the AV6 coupe will be staring at the tail lights of the upcoming TLX.

Actually, anything after 0-70mph, the Accord is noticeably faster.

I'd go for the Accord as it's $5-$6k cheaper.

Actually, I would go with the Accord EX 6MT, and spend some money on some nicer wheels, a slight drop, and may be a lip kit.

oonowindoo

How do you paddle shift CVT?

EL19

iTrader: (4)

Saw a V6 EXL coupe the other day on the hwy kitted out. Looked pretty dam good minus those scoops on the rear bumper. Not too crazy about the interior though. I'm kinda neutral on it. The performance #s on all of the models are impressive though.

00TL-P3.2

I believe, that the paddles force the trans to hold one gear ratio, rather than being constantly variable.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Same way as how you's paddle shift in a conventional AT. Each "virtual" gear in the CVT has a pre-assigned ratio.

TSX69

2013 Honda Accord vs 2014 Mazda 6 vs 2013 Nissan Altima

Thirty-nine point-seven. As in 39.7 mpg.

That's what the 2013 Nissan Altima 2.5 SV averaged over the course of our 116-mile Edmunds test loop, a route that includes slogging through downtown Santa Monica, ocean-view cruising on Pacific Coast Highway, semi-spirited running on Mulholland Drive and a steady 70 mph drone on Highway 101.

But it's not just the Altima's 39.7 mpg number that's remarkable. What stands out even more is that the 2014 Mazda 6i Grand Touring and 2013 Honda Accord EX-L Navi averaged 5.1 and 5.4 mpg less, respectively, over the exact same route, on the same day, at exactly the same time, driven in exactly the same fashion. That, fuel-sipping friends, is big-time mileage.

But it takes more than an mpg spanking to win an Edmunds midsize 4-cylinder sedan test.

Let's find out what it does take.

Fresh Faces
We chose the Accord, Mazda 6 and Altima because they're the freshest designs in the segment and, with 4 cylinders and automatic transmissions — continuously variable transmissions (CVTs) in the case of the Accord and Altima — they're representative of the cars Americans buy.

The Accord EX-L Navi and Mazda 6i Grand Touring represent the top 4-cylinder trim levels available, while the Altima 2.5 SV Nissan supplied us with is 1 rung down from the top SL. As such, the Nissan Altima 2.5 SV came in the cheapest at $27,005, even with its $1,350 Convenience package (1-touch auto up/down windows, sunroof, foglights). It's got just about all the goodies the other 2 have, including push-button start, navigation, rear A/C vents, rearview camera, a USB port and Bluetooth. But the Altima does without the latest active safety systems such as lane departure warning and active cruise control.

The $30,785 2013 Honda Accord EX-L Navi comes fully stocked with, yes, navigation (hence the name), leather seats as opposed to the Altima's cloth and a 360-watt stereo system, which makes the best sounds of the bunch. It also comes standard with forward collision and lane departure warning systems.

The brand-spanking-newest of the group, the 2014 Mazda 6i Grand Touring, was also the most expensive at $31,190. It sported leather seats (heated up front), TomTom navigation and a rearview camera, as well as blind-spot monitoring, rear cross-traffic alert and optional radar cruise control ($900).

4-Cylinders Are the New Normal
Admit it. You're still pondering the Altima's fuel mileage. It baffled us, too. So how does it do it? Well, it's not through direct injection, as it's the only 1 of the 3 to still use old-school multiport fuel injection. Regardless of fuel delivery, the power outputs from this trio of 4-cylinder engines are nearly identical.

The Altima's 2.5-liter puts out 182 horsepower and 180 pound-feet of torque. The Accord's 2.4-liter makes 185 hp and 181 lb-ft. And the Mazda 6's 2.5-liter manages 184 hp and 185 lb-ft. There's not a thrashy 1 in the bunch, but the Mazda 6 was the loudest at wide-open throttle (73.8 decibels) and the Altima the quietest (70.7).

They differ in the way they transfer power to the front wheels, however. The Accord and Altima use CVTs while the Mazda 6 uses a traditional 6-speed automatic, replete with paddle shifters and rev-matched downshifting.

Still, with such similar power levels, it comes as no shock that none of the 3 distinguished itself at the test track. The 2 CVT-equipped cars seemed initially baffled by a full-throttle launch, but once underway they quickly pinned the revs and held them through the quarter-mile on the way to 60 mph in 7.8 seconds for the Accord and 7.9 seconds for the Altima. The Mazda 6, on the other hand, was willing to spin the front tires, helping it get to 60 in just 7.6 seconds. (7.3 seconds with a 1-foot rollout as on a drag strip).

The 2014 Mazda 6 remained quickest through the quarter-mile at 15.7 seconds versus the Accord's 15.8 and the Altima's 15.9. But by this time the Mazda's launch meant little, the Accord achieving a higher trap speed of 89.6 mph against the Mazda's 88.1 and the Altima's 87.7.

An Automatic for the Enthusiast People
The Mazda's 6-speed is an excellent example of a true automatic. It offers smooth yet quick shifts, and it's not overly busy on long uphill grades. Plus it can be shifted manually via steering wheel paddles or the console lever and will hold gears right up to its redline. In Drive mode, however, the Mazda's gearbox is not as quick to react as the Altima's CVT.

And that CVT is key to the Altima's miserliness. 1 of its fuel-saving tricks is its constant attempts to drop the revs as low as possible as soon as possible, to the point that it often feels like it's lugging the engine. But Nissan's engineers also made this CVT highly responsive, so as soon as you dip into the throttle for a tad more power, it responds immediately. The downside is sometimes we don't want 5,000 rpm worth of CVT fury to get just a bit more acceleration.

The Accord's CVT, on the other hand, could easily be mistaken for a regular automatic. It's neither as "luggy" nor as responsive as the Altima, and therefore it's a wholeheartedly calmer experience. In short, it's the CVT for people who don't like CVTs.

At 3,170 pounds, the 2013 Nissan Altima is the most feathery of the group by 117 pounds over the Mazda 6 and 187 pounds over the Accord. This no doubt helped its fuel economy numbers, which paid off not only on our test route. The Altima managed 31.7 mpg over its entire stay with us, while the Mazda 6 averaged 27.1 and the Accord just 26.8 mpg.

Comparing the Cabins
It's fun to throw around acceleration and fuel economy numbers, but they mean little if a sedan can't fulfill its needs as basic, everyday transportation.

So let's start with the completely bewildering: the Mazda 6. Here's a car slathered with a complete redesign, yet its center stack is stale while its tiny, 5.8-inch TomTom navigation screen already looks dated. Other oddities include front door pockets only large enough for 1 water bottle, and air-conditioning vents that are positioned too low in the dashboard.

On the plus side, the Mazda 6 has snazzy and easy-to-read instruments, and the utter simplicity of the HVAC controls makes them easy to use. We also like the lateral support provided by the Mazda's seats.

Hop in the Accord and things look clearer. Particularly the superb 8-inch navigation screen, easily the largest and sharpest of the group (although it's also situated the farthest away). There's a pleasing mix of large buttons and knobs, and the controls exude the damped, quality feel we love.

Some editors found the smaller secondary screen an oddity, while others thought the tachometer was too small. The front seats are flat and wide and lack the lateral support found in the Mazda. The cushions get surprisingly uncomfortable after a couple hours of seat time, and the center and door armrests are woefully under padded.

The Altima splits the difference between the Accord and the Mazda 6 in terms of both style and utility. Its 7-inch nav screen is big enough to use easily, the controls are intuitive and while its center stack presentation isn't the most stylish, it just flat works. The tach-speedo combo is by far the largest and easiest to read quickly, and without question its cloth-covered seats are the most comfortable.

That said, the center and door armrest coverings feel cheap and we question their durability, though the Altima's center armrest bin gets points as the most cavernous. As far as ease-of-use, we set an all-time Edmunds speed record for pairing our iPhone.

Take a Backseat
If you took a glance at the Mazda 6's sexily aggressive roof line and guessed rear passengers would pay a price, you'd be wrong. Other than a slightly more difficult entry in the 6, headroom was similar for all 3 sedans, enough to fit a 6-foot, 2-inch adult. The Mazda's shorter side and rear windows make things more claustrophobic, and the Accord and Altima both have better elbow room.

It's a dead heat between the Accord and Altima for trunk capacity, the former at 15.5 cubic feet and the latter at 15.4. The Mazda's is the smallest at 14.8, but it's also the most uniformly shaped. Our own measurements showed the Altima had the lowest cargo loading height, the widest opening and the most width between the wheelwells, while the Accord was the worst in this category.

The 6 wins for overall utility, its split-folding rear seats lying down almost flat with by far the most generous trunk pass-through. The Altima's seats weren't quite as flat-folding, and its pass-through a bit tighter. Meanwhile, the Accord's 1-piece folding rear seat and miniscule pass-through seem more to satisfy a spec sheet than provide any real convenience.

What Can They Handle?
Even the most conscientious of us are late sometimes, so it doesn't hurt if your family sedan can handle a little giddyup. At our test track we found all 3 cars turned in similar, if mediocre, numbers. But they went about the task in very different ways.

The Mazda 6 easily felt the sportiest through the slalom, with the most precise steering and fluid handling. It would've easily notched a better number than 63.0 mph if not for the most intrusive stability control system of the group.

The Accord has quick initial turn-in, but the chassis allows lots of body roll, limiting it to 63.5 mph. The Altima benefited from the least intrusive stability system, and even with over-boosted steering, it garnered the fastest time at 63.8 mph.

Out on public roads, where you almost never invoke a stability control system, the Mazda 6 is in another world. And a fine world it is. The suspension feels properly snubbed down, yet there's plenty of damping for bumps. The precise steering makes it a joy to flick through corners. In contrast, the floppier, loose-steering Accord is more a chore than a pleasure in this setting. The Altima strikes a nice balance between the 2, not as tied down as the 6 but with steering that offers significantly more feedback than the Accord.

And the Mazda 6's shiftable automatic offers levels more driver control than the 2 CVTs on back roads.

When simply cruising along, the Altima offered the comfiest ride and the least road noise (62.2 dB at 70 mph). The Accord rode more firmly than its so-so handling would lead you to believe, and had the most road noise. The Mazda's oversized 19-inch wheels endowed it with the most jittery ride.

The New Champ
Although the 2013 Honda Accord topped the Toyota Camry in our last comparison, in this test the Accord just couldn't quite keep pace with the Altima. Its ride comfort, storage options, seat comfort and cargo flexibility are all a step behind the Nissan's. The Accord's excellent build quality, first-rate controls and superb nav screen just can't overcome these other foibles, and while there's nothing offensive about the Accord's driving demeanor, it's simply not as fun as the Altima or Mazda 6.

Now if you like driving simply for the sake of driving, the 2014 Mazda 6i Grand Touring is a standout choice. It's unquestionably the enthusiast choice here, and makes no bones about it with its aggressive 19-inch wheels and tires. This is the only 1 of the 3 that makes sweeper on-ramps worth attacking. It's the only 1 we'd hand wash just to fondle its fenders. But while its exterior is gorgeous, the interior is far less impressive.

That leaves the 2013 Nissan Altima 2.5 SV. Our winner is good at nearly everything, with only minor deficiencies. It drives well, has comfortable seats and remains quiet on the highway. It's no Mazda 6 in terms of handling, but it's at least somewhat entertaining on a twisty road. And even though it was the least expensive car here, it rarely felt like it.

The mileage figures only add to the Nissan's appeal. Delivering almost 5 mpg more than the Accord and Mazda 6 on our test loop was no small feat. Then it followed it up by surpassing the EPA's combined mileage rating in city and highway driving. That's a rare feat in any type of car. Sure, you could find a hybrid sedan that's more efficient, but none of them put together the complete package as well as the Nissan Altima.

The manufacturers provided Edmunds with the Mazda 6 and Nissan Altima for the purposes of evaluation. The Honda Accord was purchased by Edmunds.

oonowindoo

How big is the Navi screen in the M6? 5 inches? it seems my phone is bigger than that.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Whoa this review is so different than every other review, even the previous one from Edmunds....

Edmunds liked the Accord's handling much more in their earlier test of the EX:

In a previous test from Edmunds,

"The 2013 Honda Accord, however, does not. Its low-effort electrically assisted steering lacks the arbitrary weight of its predecessor but provides ample feel to guide the car prudently between the cones or down a rough back road. Damping, too, is tuned to return genuine body control. As a result we found ourselves hustling the Accord at a respectable pace in places we wouldn't bother with in much of its competition."

Weird.

dom

Yes, strange. Many other reviews had very different opinions regarding the Altima. But that 5MPG.....wow. Either way the styling of the Altima is so I would never consider it.

fsttyms1

WoW 5mpg greater is almost factory freakish

phile

There has to be a mistake there. 5mpg is a huge lead.

biker

Did Nissan give them some specially tuned model?

TSX69

Camry vs Accord

2013 Toyota Camry vs 2013 Honda Accord - YouTube

If the thought of a Camry versus Accord comparison test doesn’t get your heart racing, we understand. This is not exactly a battle of thoroughbred horses. Want speed, flair and style? Look elsewhere. What we have here, are 2 vehicles designed for the masses.

Both the Toyota and Honda mid-size sedans are built for people who aren't particularly interested in driving, but who need an easy to drive car, that is spacious, predictable, efficient and reliable. Built more for peoples’ needs than their wants, think of them as the sensible shoes of the automotive world.

Last year 3 of the top selling 6 vehicles in America were mid-size sedans with the Camry 3rd overall and the Accord 4th (The only models above them were trucks). The mid-size sedan segment is huge and these 2 vehicles represented nearly 3-quarters of a million vehicle sales last year in America alone. It goes without saying then that the stakes are high. So which is our pick between these two segment leaders?

NEW, BUT NOT DIFFERENT

All new for 2013, at first glance it may not appear that the Honda Accord has changed much since last year. With evolutionary styling not straying far from the 2012, a closer look is need to reveal subtle changes here and there. The LED daytime running lights, dual LED headlights (standard on our EX-L trimmed Accord) and LED taillights all give the Accord a little exterior flash. The rest of the vehicle lines have been sharpened up to give the Accord a fresh, modern look.

Compare Specs

PHP Code:

2013 Honda Accord
    vs     
2013 Toyota Camry
Vehicle     2013 Honda Accord     Advantage     2013 Toyota Camry
Engine     2.4 L Inline-4     -     2.5 L Inline-4
Horsepower     185 hp     Accord     178 hp
Max. Torque     181 lb-ft     Accord     170 lb-ft
Fuel Economy     27 MPG city / 36 MPG hwy     Accord     25 MPG city / 35 MPG hwy
Observed Fuel Economy     25.3 MPG     Accord     23.5 MPG
Weight     3,365 lbs     Camry     3,245 lbs
Front Legroom     42.5 in.     Accord     41.6 in.
Rear Legroom     38.5 in.     Camry     38.9 in.
Cargo Capacity     15.8 cu-ft     Accord     15.4 cu-ft
Starting Price     $22,470     Accord     $23,030
As Tested Price     $30,785     Camry     $28,520 


The Camry received its last significant overhaul just last year. Again, it was a case of evolving the styling cues opposed to reinventing the Camry. This is definitely the most dramatic looking Camry to date, but that is not saying much since the Camry has always been more conservative than a 1 piece bathing suit. The new Camry does feature some nice design cues like the sideways ‘L’ shaped taillights, chrome fog light bezels and sloping front grill. That said, the Accord looks more upscale on the outside and was voted the more stylish vehicle according to our staff.

Both of our test vehicles came equipped as fully loaded 4 cylinder models. The 2013 Toyota Camry XLE features a 2.5-liter engine producing 178 hp and 170 lb-ft of torque. It sends power to the front wheels through a 6-speed automatic transmission and is officially rated by the EPA at 25 MPG city and 35 MPG highway. The Accord features a similar setup by utilizing a slightly smaller 2.4-liter 4-cylinder engine that develops a peppier 184 hp and 181 lb-ft of torque. Power is sent to the front wheels via continuously variable transmission (CVT) and it also offers an edge in the fuel economy department at 27 MPG city and 36 MPG highway.

ENGAGING vs PREDICTABLE

Much has been made about the Accord switching to a CVT from a conventional automatic. The good news is, this is 1 of the better gear-less units on the market. It is quiet and constantly changing rpm speeds to avoid any of that dreaded CVT drone. Under hard acceleration it will simulate gear changes as well which helps break up the monotonous groaning associated with many CVTs.

Both vehicles offer a sport mode, but only the Toyota features a ‘manual’ mode that allows for driver selectable gearing. Despite a 105 lb. weight advantage, the Camry is not as fast as the Accord in a straight line; a result from slightly more power and the CVT. As well, the Accord achieved better fuel economy during our test period (during the cold winter months) by averaging 25.3 MPG compared to the Camry’s 23.5 MPG average.

Overall, the Accord is the more engaging car to drive of the 2. It does excel at throttle response, steering feel and chassis dynamics, but is missing that magical something that makes the Camry feel incredibly easy to drive. The Camry’s ride felt rougher on imperfect pavement and more noise protrudes into the cabin; but that could be due to winter tire choice more than anything else. Overall, the Accord ends up feeling more refined when plodding down the road.

COMFORTABLE vs LUXURIOUS

Inside, the Camry has the upper hand. Although the Accord features a well laid out dashboard design, it cannot match the Camry’s more premium feel. The cross-stitched multi-angled dashboard of the Camry and all the switch gear are crafted out of quality materials.

Both cars feature well thought-out center cluster designs that place all the controls where you would expect them to be. The Camry’s user interface is easier to use, but the Accord’s second infotainment screen, which is dedicated for audio use only, is a nice touch. It is refreshing not having to exit out of various menus just to change the radio station. Speaking of which, the Camry wins the audiophile competition with a nice, bassy sound system.

The Accord was rated as having the better front seats which are wide, squishy and comfortable. Both cars have nearly identical rear seat legroom, but the Accord trumps the Camry’s front seat legroom by roughly an inch with 42.5-inches total. In the trunk it is a similar story with the Accord’s 15.8 cu-ft of cargo space edging out the Camry’s 15.4 cu-ft space.

There is a major, albeit curable, downfall in the Accord; the Interface Dial Feedback. If you own a 2013 Accord, best to turn it off. Using a text to speech function it will read out every menu choice and/or radio station selection. If you’re at all quick through the controls it gets so far behind it will freeze the system for 10-15 seconds and lock out any inputs during that time. It is beyond infuriating; how could Honda design such a beautiful gauge cluster, but screw up the text to speech so much?

The base 2013 Honda Accord LX starts at a lower price of $22,470 post-delivery charges thanks to the availability of a 6-speed manual transmission. That under cuts the automatic-only base Toyota Camry L’s post-delivery charge price of $23,030. However, as tested, the Camry becomes the pricing champion with a favourable $28,520 for our loaded up XLE Camry compared to our Honda Satellite-Linked Navigation equipped Accord EX-L which topped out at $30,785.

THE VERDICT

Either of these vehicles are a great choice. If refinement, curb appeal and efficiency are important to you, pick the Accord. If a luxurious interior, ease of use and lower MSRP are your top priorities, take the Camry.

However, like with any comparison test, there can only be 1 winner. Just like the epic sales battle these 2 vanilla gladiators partake in year after year, it was a very close finish with the edge going to the Accord thanks to better exterior styling, a more comfortable interior and some trick features like the lane watch camera. The fact it's better to drive and more efficient in the real world are just an added bonus.

2013 Honda Accord
LOVE IT
Solid driving dynamics
Attractive exterior
Comfortable interior
Fuel efficient

LEAVE IT
Interface dial feedback
Less premium interior than Camry

2013 Toyota Camry
LOVE IT
Easy to operate
Luxurious interior
Attractive price
Well laid out controls

LEAVE IT
Bland styling
Somewhat rough suspension
Not as efficient as Accord
Dull to drive

oonowindoo

Just saw a new Mazda 6 last night.

It looks surprisingly long. It looked bigger and wider than any of its competitors.

Front looked good and rear looked "weak".

Picture > real life in this case.

00TL-P3.2

Something interesting I noticed today. Saw a white Accord Sport sedan on my drive to the office.
In my researching replacements for my '00 TL, I've looked at the 6MT Accord Sport sedan, but online (build your own) it's only available in 2 colors, black & gray, but with the CVT, 8 colors. Same with the other Accord models/trims. LX/EX 6MT sedan silver & gray only, but all colors available with the CVT.

Anyone know if this holds true at the dealer? Though I've never owned a white car, I like how the new Accord looks in white, but N/A with a 6MT.