I bet the Accord is a much better car with just a fat rear swaybar.
I bet the Accord is a much better car with just a fat rear swaybar.
MattGent wrote: I bet the Accord is a much better car with just a fat rear swaybar.
If the annoying understeer of my Honda Fit is any indication, yes a big rear sway bar would help a lot.
I just went and test drove one. Very impressed. It didn't do anything that "rocked my world" but it felt like an extremely all around great car, something that would be super easy to live with. Deceptively quick. The engine is really smooth and exhaust is muted, so you don't get the sensation of speed. But when I looked at the speedo, I was glad there were no cops around. Very comfortable, nicely laid out controls. Steering is quick, but a bit light on feedback. Back seat is much bigger than I expected, though access is a bit of a pain. Now on to a few more test drives...
My 2011 LX Sedan is a toaster but it costs me minimum to run.
Just to bring this back up with an update. Nearly pulled the trigger on a Mazdaspeed3, but I just don't want to deal with a turbo DI. At my rate of use, I'm going to run into carbon issues quickly and likely a turbo replacement at some point. Those are huge repair bills, since I can't DIY. That and Mazda says it requires premium unleaded. The extra fuel costs, along with maintenance needs of the high strung motor just make me shy away.
Test drove a '12 G37 sedan. Liked the car, but it just didn't seem right for me. It felt like an old design. At $20k, it wasn't worth it to me.
Yesterday, back to back, I test drove a '12 Mustang GT and a '13 Accord EX-L V6 6spd coupe. Identical prices. It's clearly a sign of aging (maturity??) when I'm 50/50 split between them. It's a no brainer which one is faster and better handling. The Mustang was just awesome, stupid, crazy fun to drive. It had me giggling. BUT...I found the interior to be only so-so (and I was driving one with the Premium trim), the back seat was big enough for my kids to fit but it was tight, and I question what mpg I can get out of it even at 70mph in 6th gear. Then came the Honda. It's just a really "nice car" all around. Cleary doesn't have the power of the 'stang GT, but I'll bet it outruns a FoST or Mazdaspeed3. Much bigger back seat, super slick engine/trans, really nice inside, better mpg, Honda reliability. It's just a really slick car.
Listing it out, the Honda is more logical. It's not boring to drive, and you could easily put 200k miles on it. But it could never match the fun of the Mustang GT. That car is just bang-for-the-buck personified.
Would be interested to hear the results if the Mustang was a v6. Mustang would have been still fun but cheaper than the Accord.
Personally, if the Mustang had been a V6, then I think the answer for me would be a fairly easy, I'd go with the Accord. It's probably almost as quick as a V6 Mustang. But the Mustang GT is a beast.
In reply to Klayfish:
The Accord's calling card is that while it may not be the best at any one thing, it's so good at so many things. A very well rounded car for sure.
Not to mention the Accord Coupe is a good looking car.
MattGent wrote: I bet the Accord is a much better car with just a fat rear swaybar.
^This.
You'll need to log in to post.
