-->
Believe it or not, some midsize sedan buyers view these four- 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 three 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 one delivered the most effective spoonful of sport medicine. Each
boasts a stout four-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 one.
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…
The SE accounts for about 40 percent of Camry sales, which equates to
around 160,000 units annually. That’s nearly five 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 six-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 three-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. Zero 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-eight run of
27.6 at 0.61 g was back of the pack, but solid nonetheless. The one
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 first 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 two, 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
three of its attributes.
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 one—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.”
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.
Believe it or not, some midsize sedan buyers view these four- 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 three 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 one delivered the most effective spoonful of sport medicine. Each
boasts a stout four-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 one.
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 percent of Camry sales, which equates to
around 160,000 units annually. That’s nearly five 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 six-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 three-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. Zero 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-eight run of
27.6 at 0.61 g was back of the pack, but solid nonetheless. The one
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.
A stiff ride does not a sporty car make.
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.
Feels like the biggest here, but it shrinks when the rolling gets brisk.
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.
Made-in-Japan ’6 is definitely the driver’s drive in this three-way.
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.
| 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 |
No comments:
Post a Comment