Here's a statistic that might blow your mind. Honda sold more than a quarter-million Accord sedans in the U.S. last year. While that might not be news to you, what you might not know is that nine out of 10 of those Accords were sold with a four-cylinder engine, not a V6. Clearly it makes no sense any longer to compare $30,000 family sedans with V6 engines and a boatload of options. It's time to change priorities, so we've chosen to compare the best of America's large family sedans equipped with a four-cylinder engine, and that means the 2010 Honda Accord LX and the 2010 Mazda 6 i Touring, not to mention the 2011 Hyundai Sonata GLS.
The Honda Accord's place in such a comparison doesn't come by accident, as its perennial spot on top of the sales charts shows this car's powerful influence on the design of the American sedan. Meanwhile, what Inside Line comparison of mainstream sedans would be complete without the Mazda 6, which has won two such comparisons? Like we said last time when the Mazda 6 s triumphed in a comparison of V6-powered sedans, "We've always believed that a family sedan can still be fun to drive, and it's great to discover that Mazda thinks so, too."
The new 2011 Hyundai Sonata is here because it is leading the shift in priorities within the class of sedans, as it combines its customary affordable price with the choice of only one engine, a thrifty four-cylinder. It's an engine perfect for the times, setting a new benchmark for output and fuel consumption in its segment. Furthermore, the 2011 Sonata's stylish, flowing sheet metal and smart interior won't alert the neighbors that you settled for a low-budget alternative to the ubiquitous volume sellers.
Shifty Business
The stage was set for a pertinent comparison test of the cars everyone is actually buying, but we just couldn't pass up the opportunity to select test cars with manual transmissions.
First of all, there's no cheaper way to buy each of these cars. Adding an automatic transmission will run you an extra $800 in the Accord LX, $900 in the Mazda 6 i Touring and a cool $1,000 for the Sonata GLS. What's more, the EPA combined fuel consumption estimate for the manually shifted Sonata is 2 mpg better with its six-speed manual. For the Accord, combined mpg is the same with either a five-speed manual or a five-speed automatic, while the Mazda 6 actually ekes out 1 mpg better consumption with a five-speed automatic transmission over this car's six-speed manual.
(Besides all that, Inside Line is spearheading a campaign to diminish left-leg atrophy, which can cause drivers of these ordinary cars to walk in counterclockwise circles. We endeavor to return to these going-nowhere wanderers a newfound direction in life.)
So even though manual-transmission cars make up only about 2 percent of the mix of sales volume for these cars, there are savings to be had up front in purchase price and potential savings down the road in operational cost. So, you're welcome, Inside Line comparison-test readers. Go forth, you 2-percenters, and walk proud and walk straight.
Follow the Money
The base price of the base-model 2011 Hyundai Sonata GLS starts at just $19,915 and adding floor mats and a proprietary iPod cable brings the car's as-tested price to within a U.S. Grant of $20 grand at $20,050, making it the least expensive car in the test.
For that price, however, the base-model Sonata GLS offers a superior amount of standard equipment. For instance, things like a dedicated iPod cable, a six-speed transmission (whether manual or automatic), a trip computer and 60/40-split-folding rear seat cannot be had (or even ordered) on our four-cylinder Accord LX at $21,765. You can find satellite radio and Bluetooth connectivity on an Accord, but it requires stepping up to a top-tier EX-L at $26,740.
Nevertheless, the well-equipped Sonata GLS is not furnished with the aluminum wheels, foglamps, power driver seat or leather-wrapped shift knob and steering wheel that you can get in the Mazda 6 i Touring for $21,650. Granted, our Mazda 6 Touring is not a base model in the strictest sense, as it's found about midway up the lineup of Mazda 6 four-cylinders. You can find the desirable items listed above for both the Sonata and Accord, but you'll have to opt for a sport-tuned Sonata SE ($23,315) or jump clear up to an Accord EX V6 ($27,515) for the foglamps plus other equipment that the Mazda 6 offers for its price.
After we built a chart comparing an assortment of standard and optional equipment, you might have guessed the clear advantage went to the Hyundai Sonata, which scored 78.8 points compared to the Mazda's 72.2 points and the Honda Accord's 30.6 points. For a more detailed score card and explanation of the features we chose to compare and score against prices, see the "Top 12 Features" tab.
Subjective Evaluations
When it came time to evaluate in subjective terms things like dynamics, comfort, function and design/build quality, the gap between these three sedans proved far smaller than the feature-oriented evaluation. A spread of just 2.4 points among them is really close and speaks to the parity of the overall execution of the vehicles themselves. Even so, there were nuances we discovered.
We've already pointed to the feature content advantages of the Sonata, but the Hyundai also scores a strong 2nd place in the Comfort category and a resounding 1st place in the Function category.
Comfort
In terms of overall ride quality, we'd say the Sonata has the most luxurious ride. The way the Hyundai envelops road imperfections is what some people would characterize as "floaty," but not so much as to nauseate you. We've driven an SE model with its higher-rate springs, larger rear stabilizer bar and more rebound damping, and this sportier setup feels like the optimal one for the Sonata.
In comparison, the Accord feels lighter at times, but coarser most of the other time, and always more susceptible to impact harshness. In a way, the Accord feels as if there is too much air in the tires, but we verified the specification of 30 psi. We still think the Accord (and most Honda/Acura products for that matter) would benefit from more supple rubber.
Finally the Mazda 6's chassis proved to be the most buttoned-down of the bunch, with discernible rebound damping, although unfortunately the result is gut-jiggling unhappiness on a wider variety of surfaces. Yes, it's a European-style ride when the road is smooth, but even a wavy, undulating surface had us reaching for the cupholder to pick up the coffee lest we spill some. The Mazda 6 is recognized as offering the best driver's position of these three sedans.
While it is true that ride comfort, road noise and rear-seat accommodations were a strong suit for the Sonata, the center stack of instrumentation and controls proved intrusive on the driver's knee, and obvious wind noise emanating from the base of our car's windshield wipers knocked the car down a bit in scoring as well.
The Honda scored high marks with its utter lack of wind noise, but this asset was confounded by a high-frequency hiss from the tires (a behavior also exhibited by the Mazda, but less so). The Accord's useful rear seat helped it tie the equally capacious Sonata, though the Hyundai's seats themselves were slightly better contoured.
All three cars lacked rear power points and HVAC vents. The rear seat of the Mazda 6 (which is classified by the EPA as a midsize car, rather than the large car definition of the slightly larger Accord and Sonata) is noticeably tighter when it comes to perceived and actual scale, and it didn't have rear door pockets or a center head restraint.
Function
In terms of functionality, we pay particular attention to things like visibility, instrumentation, audio/HVAC layout and performance, in-cabin storage cleverness and trunk size (including an ability to accommodate oversized items).
Honda always manages to make cars with relatively low beltlines and slender pillars, and this Accord follows suit. Compared to the rakish Sonata, for instance, the Accord feels dramatically open and airy with easy sight lines, while the Mazda occupies the middle ground in this regard. You won't necessarily get this impression from the photos of the interior, where the two-tone cabin of the Sonata looks brighter than the darker-hued interiors of the Accord and Mazda 6.
Again, Honda has a way of presenting instrumentation in an unambiguous and legible manner and does so again with crisp white-on-black gauges. The Sonata also features legible white-on-gray gauges, but adds a bluish multipage trip computer/driver-coaching aid between the two main gauges. The Mazda 6 Touring also offers a trip computer, but the LED display is less prominent; it's in a slit at the base of the windshield. The Mazda's white needles against red numerals on a black background surrounded by a blue glow is certainly less legible.
When it comes to evaluating both the audio and HVAC layout and execution, we had difficulty reaching a consensus. Some liked the linear layout of Playskool toy-size buttons/knobs in the Accord, but others complained about the unintuitive choice of a giant volume knob surrounded by teeny tuning knobs.
Some preferred the unconventional layout (and pulsing blue glow) of the Mazda 6's instrumentation, calling it contemporary, while others criticized the mix of buttons. And that crowded multidisplay panel is in a different area code. Finally, those who liked the Sonata said it offered the most intuitive layout for both audio and HVAC controls in an economical space. This design also frees up room at the base of the center stack for small-item storage, a bordered perch for your iPod, and so on. The Mazda was particularly lacking in interior storage.
Trunks
Using one of these sedans as a family car necessitates a functional trunk. All three offer generously sized trunks, and ironically the Mazda's is technically the largest at 16.6 cubic feet. The Mazda 6 has scissor hinges and struts instead of the space-consuming gooseneck hinges of the Accord and Sonata, plus the rear seatbacks fold in a 60/40 split. The Sonata has a 16.4-cubic-foot trunk and its seatbacks also have a 60/40 split.
The Accord trunk measures 14 cubic feet, perhaps owing to intrusion from the rear-suspension shock towers. The Accord loses a fraction of a point for a one-piece fold-down rear seat, but gains some back for a ski pass-through that doesn't penalize occupants for a rare day at the slopes. Sadly, none of these cavernous cargo bays are equipped with a tie-down or cargo net to keep grapefruit or tennis balls from rolling to the far reaches of these vast trunks, but you can order a net from Mazda for $40.
Dynamically Speaking
There were other differences, too. With the exception of the Engine Performance category, all the editors agree the Mazda 6 is the driver's car of this group. The Mazda earns points for steering performance, brake performance, handling and just being fun to drive. Our track testing corroborates our impressions, as the Mazda outperforms the others with ease in the slalom and skid pad tests in particular. Where the Mazda dodged cones with a competence that is obviously engineered into the chassis, both the Hyundai and Honda endured the exercises as if we were asking them to do things they weren't designed to do. They are not, after all, sport sedans.
As mentioned in our Hyundai Sonata Full Test, the Sonata's steering suffers from two handicaps. There's a sense of inconsistency from the electric-assisted power steering, plus a tendency for the car to wander slightly on the open highway. There are examples of electric-assist steering done right, but the technology is clearly still evolving. Both the Accord and Mazda 6 currently use a traditional hydraulic-assisted steering system and as a result, perform more intuitively.
The Honda received some poor marks for its braking system. While the brakes for all these cars feel natural and progressive, all feature four-wheel disc brakes, ABS, electric brakeforce distribution and brake assist. Each car's shortest recorded distance to stop from 60 mph fell between 130 and 133 feet, but the Honda's brakes faded noticeably at our test facility, earning it a "Poor" rating from the test driver. After no more than three stops from 60 mph, the Accord requires 10-13 feet more in which to stop from 60 mph, and the scent of burning brake pads fills the air.
The only dynamic demerit earned by the Mazda 6 came because of engine performance, as what once was adequate has fallen behind in output and consumption. Relative to the Sonata's high-compression 2.4-liter inline-4, the Mazda's low-compression 2.5-liter inline-4 is slightly larger in displacement, yet less potent in both torque (what you feel at the bottom of an on-ramp) and horsepower (what you sense at the top of an on-ramp). This engine feels like the smoothest-running four-cylinder in the test, but it's also the least fuel-efficient engine in our test according to both our testing and EPA data.
The Hyundai Sonata's inline-4 features direct fuel injection, and if you can ignore the ticking under the hood, you'll definitely be impressed by an engine that delivers both the highest specific output in its class and also registers EPA fuel-economy estimates of 24 mpg city/35 mpg highway/28 mpg combined.
Having so much low and midrange grunt makes driving the Sonata a far less frenetic experience. Unlike with the Accord and Mazda 6, we rarely found ourselves in a gear that was too high when the circumstances required prompt engine response. This mill seems absolutely fine pushing tall gears at low rpm, much like a small-displacement turbocharged engine.
The Best for the Middle of the Road
It wasn't long into our three-car test before murmurs began circulating. "Have you driven that new Sonata?" people would ask. When we drove it home, it was unusual not to be asked questions by total strangers. Once we settled into the evaluation routine, the Sonata quickly rose to the occasion, impressing drivers first with its exterior and interior design, then later with its remarkable engine, not to mention its impressive amount of equipment. Mind you, all these accolades are based on the least expensive, base-model 2011 Hyundai Sonata GLS.
This is the kind of car that suits real people as well as engineers, because it offers must-have features (even ones that were once luxuries) as standard equipment even as it delivers an engine that has best-in-class output and fuel efficiency. Sure, there are more engaging cars to drive between cones at a test track, but do buyers of these mainstream American-style sedans really care?
The Sonata is a well calculated and exceptionally engineered entry into the heart of the biggest market in the United States. And the ambition for this car has been matched by its excellent execution and affordable price. That the Sonata — like both the Accord and Mazda 6 — is built right here in the U.S. of A. makes it even better, because those folks in Alabama are responsible for upholding their end of the best warranty in the business.
Overall, the 2011 Hyundai Sonata is a remarkable achievement. Not just because it does so well in a few ways what the Accord has done for so many years, but also because it delivers excellence in so many categories. The 2011 Hyundai Sonata is the new benchmark among mainstream large sedans. There, we said it.
The manufacturers provided Edmunds these vehicles for the purposes of evaluation.
Inside Line Senior Editor Erin Riches says:
I almost feel I owe this 2010 Mazda 6 an apology. I haven't given the 6 nearly enough credit. It isn't some middle-of-the-road family car. It's arguably the leader among the current batch of biggie-sized sedans.
When you drive a Mazda 6 back-to-back with the redesigned Hyundai Sonata and the current-generation Honda Accord, the differences among these cars are significant. For sure, the Mazda's 2.5-liter engine is down on torque compared to the others. But this is also the smoothest motor of the group and, when you're working through the gears yourself, smooth is a very good thing.
Ride quality is also far and away better than the others. Indeed, some might characterize the Mazda 6's ride as firm (even too firm) alongside a softy like the Sonata. But for me, the Mazda's high level of composure ultimately adds up to less drama and more comfort — especially compared to the Hyundai, where inadequate damping allows all kinds of unnecessary movement over freeway lumps and ruts.
The Mazda 6 is also the only one of these sedans that seems to enjoy taking a corner. Indeed, the Accord has good steering and the Sonata has decent roll control, but only the 6 integrates the various elements of good handling into a distinct and satisfying whole. Its steering weights up just like you expect it to, and the big sedan turns in crisply with a minimum of body roll.
Inside, our Mazda 6 has the most attractive and highest-quality interior of the group. In fact, the cloth upholstery in this car is arguably nicer than the leather upholstery we had in our long-term Mazda 6.
My only hesitation about the 6 is that its backseat is not quite as comfortable as the Accord's or Sonata's, but there's no less space back here, so even that wouldn't deter from buying one for family-of-four use.
With what are essentially the base-model versions of each of these cars (effectively entry-level models), two things stood out. First, each car is very well equipped, and second, "base model" means different things to each manufacturer.
For instance, Honda is historically a difficult case when it comes to model/style classification and it's often tricky to reconcile its trim levels with other manufacturers. For Honda, there are technically no options available, which means each "style" level is its own model with various features attached, so the LX, LX-P, EX and EX-L versions of the Accord sedan are unique. To make matters more complicated, there's the choice between inline-4 and V6 engines, plus the presence of sedan, coupe and now Crosstour bodies, and the amount of equipment increases as you move up the sophistication scale, some of which is not available on the four-cylinder Accord sedan.
Similarly, the 2010 Mazda 6 i has different levels of base equipment attached to each model — the SV, Sport, Touring, Touring Plus and Grand Touring. At the same time, there are available options for each of these trim levels. Our test vehicle is a midpack Mazda 6 i Touring with a base MSRP between $515 and $2,230 higher than the Accord and Sonata, but the Touring model adds a long list of equipment (see below). Meanwhile, the "s" style designates the presence of a V6.
As for the 2011 Hyundai Sonata, it is only available as a four-cylinder sedan. There are simply three models from which to choose: the GLS, SE and Limited. Each has an increasing amount of standard equipment and supplementary options.
To reconcile these incredible number of variables — which conspire against a direct comparison of price and features — we've scored the features of each vehicle that are available exclusively within the lineup of four-cylinder cars, regardless of model/style designation. If standard (or optional) equipment were available only after you jumped up to a V6, then we scored that feature "not available" on the four-cylinder car, just like foglamps for the Accord sedan.
Features
| 2010 Honda Accord LX | 2011 Hyundai Sonata GLS | 2010 Mazda 6 i Touring | |
| 50-state emissions compliance | S | S | O |
| 60/40-split-folding rear seats | N/A | S | S |
| Aluminum wheels | O* | O* | S |
| Bluetooth connectivity | O* | S | O* |
| Foglamps | N/A | O* | S |
| Head restraint, center-rear position | S | S | N/A |
| iPod/USB input | N/A | S | N/A |
| Leather steering wheel and shift knob | O* | O* | S |
| Power-adjusted driver seat | O* | O* | S |
| Satellite radio | O* | S | O |
| Six-speed transmission | N/A | S | S |
| Trip computer | N/A | S | S |
Key:
S: Standard
O: Optional and present on test vehicle
O*: Optional but absent on test vehicle
N/A: Not Available
50-state emissions compliance: Both the ULEV-2 Honda and ULEV Hyundai are 50-state compliant. As far as the Mazda 6 is concerned, you must purchase a $100 emissions option if you live in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont or Washington.
60/40-split-folding rear seats: Standard equipment for both the Hyundai and Mazda, but not available on the Accord. At the same time, the Accord's rear seatback folds as a single piece, while the center armrest conceals a ski pass-through.
Aluminum wheels: Standard on the Mazda 6 i Touring and optional on the Sonata and Accord.
Bluetooth connectivity: In the Sonata, this feature is standard for mobile phone connectivity and optional for streaming audio. On both the Accord and Mazda, Bluetooth phone connectivity is optional, and streaming audio is optional on the Mazda, but not currently available on the Accord.
Foglamps: Not available on the four-cylinder Accord LX and optional on the Sonata. This feature is standard equipment on the Mazda 6 i as part of the Touring trim that also includes 17-inch cast-aluminum wheels, eight-way power-adjustable driver seat, leather-wrapped steering wheel and shift knob, trip computer and CD changer, among other things.
Head restraint, center-rear position: Granted, there are few occasions when you need to accommodate three-across rear seating, but it's nice to know the person riding the hump would have a head restraint. This is also handy if you were to fold down the 60/40-split rear seat to haul something in the trunk and still carry two rear-seat passengers.
iPod/USB input: You need to buy the $35 proprietary cord for the Sonata, but both iPod and USB jacks are standard, even on the base GLS model. You only get a generic aux mini-jack in the Mazda and the Accord.
Leather steering wheel and shift knob: Standard on the Mazda 6 i Touring and optional on the Sonata and Accord.
Power-adjusted driver seat: Standard on the Mazda 6 i Touring and optional on the Sonata and Accord.
Satellite radio: It's standard (XM) on the Sonata. You have the option of XM for the Accord and Sirius for the Mazda, though the antenna looks decidedly awkward sitting there on the trunk like a wart.
Six-speed transmission: More gears for more occasions would seem to be a sound rationale that would serve both performance and fuel economy, especially when a hard-working four-cylinder engine is involved. Both the Hyundai and Mazda test vehicles have six-speed manual transmissions, while the Accord gets by with a five-speed that incorporates overdrive ratios in 4th and 5th gears. Interesting that even the optional automatic transmissions for both the Accord sedan ($800) and Mazda 6 i ($900) have five speeds, not six.
Trip computer: You know, the digital display that can render miles-to-empty, average fuel economy, instantaneous fuel economy and so on. It's standard on the Sonata and Mazda 6 i Touring, but not available on the Accord.
Dimensions
Engine & Transmission Specifications
Warranty Information
Performance Information
Dimensions
Exterior Dimensions & Capacities
| 2010 Honda Accord LX | 2011 Hyundai Sonata GLS | 2010 Mazda 6 i Touring | |
| Length, in. | 194.1 | 189.8 | 193.7 |
| Width, in. | 72.7 | 72.2 | 72.4 |
| Height, in. | 58.1 | 57.9 | 57.9 |
| Wheelbase, in. | 110.2 | 110.0 | 109.8 |
| As tested curb weight, lb. | 3,185 | 3,199 | 3,254 |
| Turning Circle, ft. | 37.7 | 35.8 | 35.4 |
Interior Dimensions
| 2010 Honda Accord LX | 2011 Hyundai Sonata GLS | 2010 Mazda 6 i Touring | |
| Front headroom, in. | 41.4 | 40.0 | 39.4 |
| Rear headroom, in. | 38.5 | 37.8 | 37.3 |
| Front shoulder room, in. | 58.2 | 57.9 | 57.3 |
| Rear shoulder room, in. | 56.4 | 56.7 | 56.5 |
| Front legroom, in. | 42.5 | 45.5 | 42.5 |
| Rear legroom, in. | 37.2 | 34.6 | 38.0 |
| Cargo volume, (DIN) cu-ft. | 14.0 | 16.4 | 16.6 |
| Max cargo volume, cu-ft. | Standard one-piece or ski | Standard 60/40 split | Standard 60/40 split |
Engine & Transmission Specifications
Engine & Transmission
| 2010 Honda Accord LX | 2011 Hyundai Sonata GLS | 2010 Mazda 6 i Touring | |
| Displacement (cc / cu-in): |
2400 (146) | 2400 (146) | 2500 (153) |
| Engine Type | Port-injected inline-4 | Direct-injected inline-4 | Port-injected inline-4 |
| Horsepower (SAE) @ rpm | 177 @ 6,500 | 198 @ 6,300 | 170 @ 6,000 |
| Max. Torque, lb-ft @ rpm | 161 @ 4,300 | 184 @ 4,250 | 167 @ 4,000 |
| Transmission | Five-speed manual | Six-speed manual | Six-speed manual |
| EPA Fuel Economy City, mpg | 22.0 | 24.0 | 20.0 |
| EPA Fuel Economy Hwy, mpg | 31.0 | 35.0 | 29.0 |
| EPA Fuel Economy Combined, mpg | 25.0 | 28.0 | 23.0 |
| Observed Fuel Economy Average, mpg | 24.4 | 24.6 | 23.0 |
| 2010 Honda Accord LX | 2011 Hyundai Sonata GLS | 2010 Mazda 6 i Touring | |
| Basic Warranty | 3 years/36,000 miles | 5 years/60,000 miles | 3 years/36,000 miles |
| Powertrain | 5 years/60,000 miles | 10 years/100,000 miles | 5 years/60,000 miles |
| Roadside Assistance | Not available | 5 years/Unlimited | 3 years/36,000 miles |
| Corrosion Protection | 5 years/Unlimited | 7 years/Unlimited | 5 years/Unlimited |
Performance
Performance Information
| 2010 Honda Accord LX | 2011 Hyundai Sonata GLS | 2010 Mazda 6 i Touring | |
| 0-60 mph acceleration, sec. | 8.0 | 7.7 | 8.4 |
| Quarter-mile acceleration, sec. | 16.0 | 15.8 | 16.2 |
| Quarter-mile speed, mph | 86.8 | 90.6 | 86.7 |
| 60-0-mph braking, feet | 133 | 131 | 130 |
| Lateral Acceleration, g | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.83 |
| 600-ft slalom, mph | 62.3 | 62.5 | 64.0 |
Final Rankings
| Item | Weight | 2011 Hyundai Sonata GLS | 2010 Mazda 6 i Touring | 2010 Honda Accord LX |
| Personal Rating | 2.5% | 77.8 | 77.8 | 44.4 |
| Recommended Rating | 2.5% | 88.9 | 55.6 | 55.6 |
| Evaluation Score | 20% | 78.1 | 78.8 | 76.4 |
| Feature Content | 20% | 77.8 | 72.2 | 30.6 |
| Performance | 15% | 95.8 | 89.3 | 89.0 |
| Fuel Consumption | 20% | 100.0 | 79.6 | 88.9 |
| Price | 20% | 100.0 | 88.9 | 91.4 |
| Total Score | 100.0% | 89.7 | 80.6 | 73.3 |
| Final Ranking | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Personal Rating (2.5%): Purely subjective; after the test, each participating editor was asked to rank the vehicles in order of preference based on which he or she would buy himself/herself if money were no object.
Recommended Rating (2.5%): After the test, each participating editor was asked to rank the vehicles in order of preference based on which he or she thought would be best for the average consumer shopping in this segment.
28-Point Evaluation (20%): Each participating editor ranked the vehicles based on a comprehensive 28-point evaluation. The evaluation covered everything from ride comfort, steering response and brake performance, to cupholders and exterior design. Scoring was calculated on a point system, and the scores listed are averages based on all test participants' evaluations.
Feature Content (20%): For this category, the editors picked the top 12 features they thought would be most beneficial to the consumer shopping in this segment. For each vehicle, the score was based on the number of actual features it had versus the total possible (12). Standard and optional equipment were taken into consideration. (Weighted the same as Price to balance "what you get" with "how much you pay for it.")
Performance Testing (15%): All three cars were subjected to a comprehensive battery of instrumented tests, including 0-60 acceleration, quarter-mile runs and panic stops from 60 mph. Each was run through a 600-foot slalom course to test transitional handling and around a skid pad to determine ultimate grip. The vehicles were awarded points based on how closely each came to the better-performing vehicle's score in each category.
Fuel Consumption (20%): The numbers listed were the result of a simple percentage calculation based on the EPA's "combined" fuel-economy estimates for the cars in the comparison test. Assigning 100 to the most fuel-efficient vehicle, the less efficient vehicles received a resulting percentage value.
Price (20%): The numbers listed were the result of a simple percentage calculation based on the least expensive vehicle in the comparison test. Using the "as tested" prices of the actual evaluation vehicles, the least expensive vehicle received a score of 100, with the remaining vehicles receiving lesser scores based on how much each one costs. (Weighted the same as Feature Content to balance "what you get" with "how much you pay for it.")
| Vehicle | |
|---|---|
| Model year | 2011 |
| Make | Hyundai |
| Model | Sonata |
| Year Make Model | 2011 Hyundai Sonata GLS |
| Vehicle Type | FWD 4dr 5-passenger Sedan |
| Base MSRP | $19,915 |
| Options on test vehicle | Venetian Red, Carpeted Floor Mats ($100), iPod Cable ($35) |
| As-tested MSRP | $20,050 |
| As-tested Edmunds National TMV | $20,050 |
| Assembly location | Montgomery, Alabama, U.S.A. |
| North American parts content (%) | 41 |
| Drivetrain | |
|---|---|
| Configuration | Transverse, front-engine, front-wheel drive |
| Engine type | Naturally aspirated, direct-injected, inline-4 |
| Displacement (cc/cu-in) | 2,359cc (144 cu-in) |
| Block/head material | Aluminum/aluminum |
| Valvetrain | DOHC, four valves per cylinder, variable intake + exhaust-valve timing |
| Compression ratio (x:1) | 11.3 |
| Redline, indicated (rpm) | 6,500 |
| Fuel cutoff/rev limiter (rpm) | 6,500 |
| Horsepower (hp @ rpm) | 198 @ 6,300 |
| Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) | 184 @ 4,250 |
| Fuel type | 87-octane recommended |
| Transmission type | Six-speed manual |
| Transmission ratios (x:1) | 1st = 3.27; 2nd = 1.93; 3rd = 1.70; 4th = 1.28; 5th = 1.03; 6th = 0.83; R = 3.59 |
| Final-drive ratio (x:1) | FD = 4.33 (1, 2, R) / 3.25 (3, 4, 5, 6) |
| Chassis | |
|---|---|
| Suspension, front | Independent MacPherson struts, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar |
| Suspension, rear | Independent multilink, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar |
| Steering type | Electric-assist, speed-proportional rack-and-pinion power steering |
| Steering ratio (x:1) | 14.5 |
| Tire make and model | Kumho Solus KH25 |
| Tire type | All-season (33 psi cold front; 33 psi cold rear) |
| Tire size | P205/65R16 94H |
| Wheel size | 16-by-6.5 inches front and rear |
| Wheel material | Stamped steel with hubcaps |
| Brakes, front | 11.8-inch one-piece ventilated steel discs with single-piston sliding calipers |
| Brakes, rear | 11.2-inch one-piece solid steel discs with single-piston sliding calipers |
| Track Test Results | |
|---|---|
| Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.) | 2.9 |
| 0-45 mph (sec.) | 5.2 |
| 0-60 mph (sec.) | 7.7 |
| 0-75 mph (sec.) | 11.6 |
| 1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) | 15.8 @ 90.6 |
| 0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) | 7.4 |
| Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) | 33 |
| 60-0 mph (ft.) | 131 |
| Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) | 62.5 |
| Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON | 61.8 |
| Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) | 0.79 |
| Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON | 0.76 |
| Sound level @ idle (dB) | 42.8 |
| @ Full throttle (dB) | 72.9 |
| @ 70 mph cruise (dB) | 67.2 |
| Engine speed @ 70 mph (rpm) | 2,450 |
| Test Driver Ratings & Comments | |
|---|---|
| Acceleration comments | Traction control is fairly aggressive and the Sonata is obviously quicker with it off. Remarkable torque at low rpm, good midrange, but power wanes in upper revs. Infuriating throttle damping between upshifts kills pace, momentum and rhythm. Shifter is light and precise, but my guess is that the six-speed automatic would be quicker. |
| Braking comments | Rating: Average -- Consistently average stops with minimal fade; good anti-dive damping and a trustworthy pedal; ABS is unobtrusive and fast-cycling. |
| Handling comments | Rating: Average -- Slalom: Because the steering is so isolated from what's actually happening, the slalom becomes a "visual" exercise rather than one of feel. That said, yaw response is adequately quick, transitions are reasonably good and the rear follows the front. Skid pad: Aside from the isolated steering feel (more like winding a rubber spring than pushing hydraulic fluid) the Sonata is poised and mostly neutral, with minimal-to-moderate understeer. |
| Testing Conditions | |
|---|---|
| Test date | 3/2/2010 |
| Test location | Cal Speedway |
| Elevation (ft.) | 1,121 |
| Temperature (°F) | 59 |
| Relative humidity (%) | 63.12 |
| Barometric pressure (in. Hg) | 28.91 |
| Wind (mph, direction) | 1.5, Headwind |
| Odometer (mi.) | 2,160 |
| Fuel used for test | 87-octane gasoline |
| As-tested tire pressures, f/r (psi) | 33/33 |
| Fuel Consumption | |
|---|---|
| EPA fuel economy (mpg) | 24 city/35 highway/28 combined |
| Edmunds observed (mpg) | 22.4 worst/27.3 best/24.6 average over 902.8 miles |
| Fuel tank capacity (U.S. gal.) | 18.5 |
| Driving range (mi.) | 647 |
| Edmunds estimated monthly fuel cost ($) | $116 |
| Audio and Advanced Technology | |
|---|---|
| Stereo description | AM/FM/XM/CD/MP3 with six speakers |
| iPod/digital media compatibility | Standard iPod via propietary cable |
| Satellite radio | Standard XM |
| Hard-drive music storage capacity (Gb) | Not available |
| Rear seat video and entertainment | Not available |
| Bluetooth phone connectivity | Standard; optional audio streaming |
| Navigation system | Optional with traffic 6.5-inch display screen (measured diagonally) |
| Telematics (OnStar, etc.) | Optional weather, stock ticker, sports |
| Smart entry/Start | Optional ignition doors trunk/hatch |
| Parking aids | Optional back-up camera |
| Blind-spot detection | Not available |
| Adaptive cruise control | Not available |
| Lane-departure monitoring | Not available |
| Collision warning/avoidance | Not available |
| Night Vision | Not available |
| Driver coaching display | Standard (instantaneous/average fuel consumption) |
| Dimensions & Capacities | |
|---|---|
| Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) | 3,161 |
| Curb weight, as tested (lbs.) | 3,199 |
| Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%) | 60/40 |
| Length (in.) | 189.8 |
| Width (in.) | 72.2 |
| Height (in.) | 57.9 |
| Wheelbase (in.) | 110.0 |
| Track, front (in.) | 62.9 |
| Track, rear (in.) | 62.9 |
| Turning circle (ft.) | 35.8 |
| Legroom, front (in.) | 45.5 |
| Legroom, rear (in.) | 34.6 |
| Headroom, front (in.) | 40.0 |
| Headroom, rear (in.) | 37.8 |
| Shoulder room, front (in.) | 57.9 |
| Shoulder room, rear (in.) | 56.7 |
| Seating capacity | 5 |
| Trunk volume (cu-ft) | 16.4 |
| Max cargo volume behind 1st row (cu-ft) | 60/40 split-fold standard, no volume provided |
| Warranty | |
|---|---|
| Bumper-to-bumper | 5 years/60,000 miles |
| Powertrain | 10 years/100,000 miles |
| Corrosion | 7 years/unlimited miles |
| Roadside assistance | 5 years/unlimited miles |
| Free scheduled maintenance | Not available |
| Vehicle | |
|---|---|
| Model year | 2010 |
| Make | Mazda |
| Model | 6 |
| Year Make Model | 2010 Mazda 6 i Touring |
| Vehicle Type | FWD 4dr 5-passenger Sedan |
| Base MSRP | $21,650 |
| Options on test vehicle | Comet Gray Mica, Sirius Satellite Radio With Six-Month Subscription ($430 -- includes Sirius Satellite Radio receiver with six-month subscription: not available in Alaska or Hawaii); Floor Mats + Cargo Mat ($100 -- includes carpeted front and rear floor mats and cargo mat), California Emissions Equipment ($100 -- required in California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) |
| As-tested MSRP | $22,280 |
| As-tested Edmunds National TMV | $22,280 |
| Assembly location | Flat Rock, Michigan, U.S.A. |
| North American parts content (%) | 45 |
| Drivetrain | |
|---|---|
| Configuration | Transverse, front-engine, four-wheel drive |
| Engine type | Naturally aspirated, port-injected, inline-4, gasoline |
| Displacement (cc/cu-in) | 2,489cc (152 cu-in) |
| Block/head material | Aluminum/aluminum |
| Valvetrain | Four valves per cylinder, variable intake-valve timing |
| Compression ratio (x:1) | 9.7 |
| Redline, indicated (rpm) | 6,200 |
| Fuel cutoff/rev limiter (rpm) | 6,500 |
| Horsepower (hp @ rpm) | 170 @ 6,000 |
| Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) | 167 @ 4,000 |
| Fuel type | 87-octane recommended |
| Transmission type | Six-speed manual |
| Transmission ratios (x:1) | 1st = 3.454; 2nd = 1.842; 3rd = 1.310; 4th = 1.030; 5th = 0.837; 6th = 0.717; R = 3.198 |
| Final-drive ratio (x:1) | 4.388 |
| Chassis | |
|---|---|
| Suspension, front | Independent, double wishbones, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar |
| Suspension, rear | Independent multilink, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar |
| Steering type | Hydraulic-assist, speed-proportional rack-and-pinion power steering |
| Steering ratio (x:1) | 16.2 |
| Tire make and model | Michelin Energy MXV4 S8 |
| Tire type | All-season (33 psi cold front; 32 psi cold rear) |
| Tire size | P215/55R17 93V |
| Wheel size | 17-by-7 inches front and rear |
| Wheel material | Cast aluminum |
| Brakes, front | 11.8-inch one-piece ventilated steel discs with two-piston sliding calipers |
| Brakes, rear | 11.0-inch one-piece solid steel discs with single-piston sliding calipers |
| Track Test Results | |
|---|---|
| Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.) | 3.0 |
| 0-45 mph (sec.) | 5.4 |
| 0-60 mph (sec.) | 8.4 |
| 0-75 mph (sec.) | 12.3 |
| 1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) | 16.2 @ 86.7 |
| 0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) | 8.1 |
| 0-30 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 32 |
| 0-45 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 130 |
| Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) | 64.0 |
| Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON | 61.0 |
| Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) | 0.83 |
| Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON | 0.80 |
| Sound level @ idle (dB) | 40.2 |
| @ Full throttle (dB) | 72.6 |
| @ 70 mph cruise (dB) | 69.2 |
| Engine speed @ 70 mph (rpm) | 3,000 |
| Test Driver Ratings & Comments | |
|---|---|
| Acceleration comments | A lenient traction control allows a little spin, but there's not much more to be had by shutting it off. Shifter is reluctant in the last inch or two to go into the gate on fast upshifts. The engine feels torque-challenged, but it is very smooth running up to redline. |
| Braking comments | Rating: Average -- Consistently average effectivness and minimal fade. Pedal effort is slightly higher than those of Sonata/Accord, but it remains unchanged from first to last stop. |
| Handling comments | Rating: Very Good -- Slalom: A little difficult to judge where the corners of the car were, especially in the rear where I hit most of the cones. Crisp turn-in, neutral attitude and good yaw response. Very good results once I sorted out the challenges. Skid pad: Natural-feeling steering with linear build-up and good information, if just a tad heavy. Good grip with easily approached limits within a wide belt of understeer. |
| Testing Conditions | |
|---|---|
| Test date | 3/2/2010 |
| Test location | Cal Speedway |
| Elevation (ft.) | 1,121 |
| Temperature (°F) | 62.56 |
| Relative humidity (%) | 49.50 |
| Barometric pressure (in. Hg) | 28.89 |
| Wind (mph, direction) | 4.1, Headwind |
| Odometer (mi.) | 7,067 |
| Fuel used for test | 87-octane gasoline |
| As-tested tire pressures, f/r (psi) | 33/32 |
| Fuel Consumption | |
|---|---|
| EPA fuel economy (mpg) | 20 city/29 highway/23 combined |
| Edmunds observed (mpg) | 20.8 worst/25.2 best/23.0 average over 435.0 miles |
| Fuel tank capacity (U.S. gal.) | 18.5 |
| Driving range (mi.) | 536 |
| Edmunds estimated monthly fuel cost ($) | $103 |
| Audio and Advanced Technology | |
|---|---|
| Stereo description | AM/FM/CD/Sat with six speakers |
| iPod/digital media compatibility | Standard generic aux jack |
| Satellite radio | Optional Sirius (dealer/port installed) |
| Hard-drive music storage capacity (Gb) | Not available |
| Rear seat video and entertainment | Not available |
| Bluetooth phone connectivity | Optional |
| Navigation system | Optional DVD 7.0-inch display screen (measured diagonally) |
| Telematics (OnStar, etc.) | Not available |
| Smart entry/Start | Optional ignition, doors, trunk/hatch |
| Parking aids | Not available |
| Blind-spot detection | Optional |
| Adaptive cruise control | Not available |
| Lane-departure monitoring | Not available |
| Collision warning/avoidance | Not available |
| Night Vision | Not available |
| Driver coaching display | Standard instantaneous/average fuel consumption |
| Dimensions & Capacities | |
|---|---|
| Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) | 3,258 |
| Curb weight, as tested (lbs.) | 3,254 |
| Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%) | 60/40 |
| Length (in.) | 193.7 |
| Width (in.) | 72.4 |
| Height (in.) | 57.9 |
| Wheelbase (in.) | 109.8 |
| Track, front (in.) | 62.8 |
| Track, rear (in.) | 62.8 |
| Turning circle (ft.) | 35.4 |
| Legroom, front (in.) | 42.5 |
| Legroom, rear (in.) | 38.0 |
| Headroom, front (in.) | 39.4 |
| Headroom, rear (in.) | 37.3 |
| Shoulder room, front (in.) | 57.3 |
| Shoulder room, rear (in.) | 56.5 |
| Seating capacity | 5 (4 head restraints) |
| Trunk volume (cu-ft) | 16.6 |
| Max cargo volume behind 1st row (cu-ft) | Standard 60/40-split-fold rear seats, no volume provided |
| Warranty | |
|---|---|
| Bumper-to-bumper | 3 years/36,000 miles |
| Powertrain | 5 years/60,000 miles |
| Corrosion | 5 years/unlimited miles |
| Roadside assistance | 3 years/36,000 miles |
| Free scheduled maintenance | Not available |
| Vehicle | |
|---|---|
| Model year | 2010 |
| Make | Honda |
| Model | Accord |
| Year Make Model | 2010 Honda Accord LX |
| Vehicle Type | FWD 4dr 5-passenger Sedan |
| Base MSRP | $21,765 |
| Options on test vehicle | Royal Blue Pearl |
| As-tested MSRP | $21,765 |
| As-tested Edmunds National TMV | $21,765 |
| Assembly location | Marysville, Ohio, U.S.A. |
| North American parts content (%) | 75 |
| Drivetrain | |
|---|---|
| Configuration | Transverse, front-engine, front-wheel drive |
| Engine type | Naturally aspirated, port-injected, inline-4, gasoline |
| Displacement (cc/cu-in) | 2,354cc (144 cu-in) |
| Block/head material | Aluminum/aluminum |
| Valvetrain | DOHC, four valves per cylinder, variable intake + exhaust-valve timing and lift |
| Compression ratio (x:1) | 10.5 |
| Redline, indicated (rpm) | 6,750 |
| Fuel cutoff/rev limiter (rpm) | 6,800 |
| Horsepower (hp @ rpm) | 177 @ 6,500 |
| Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) | 161 @ 4,300 |
| Fuel type | 87-octane recommended |
| Transmission type | Five-speed manual |
| Transmission ratios (x:1) | 1st = 3.267; 2nd = 1.778; 3rd = 1.154; 4th = 0.870; 5th = 0.647; R = 3.583 |
| Final-drive ratio (x:1) | 4.39 |
| Chassis | |
|---|---|
| Suspension, front | Independent double wishbones, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar |
| Suspension, rear | Independent, multilink, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar |
| Steering type | Hydraulic-assist, speed-proportional, variable-ratio rack-and-pinion power steering |
| Steering ratio (x:1) | 13.08 |
| Tire make and model | Dunlop SP Sport 7000 |
| Tire type | Asymmetrical+Directional all-season (30 psi cold front; 30 psi cold rear) |
| Tire size | P215/60R16 94H |
| Wheel size | 16-by-6.5 inches front and rear |
| Wheel material | Stamped steel with hubcaps |
| Brakes, front | 11.1-inch one-piece ventilated steel discs with two-piston sliding calipers |
| Brakes, rear | 11.1-inch one-piece solid steel discs with single-piston sliding calipers |
| Track Test Results | |
|---|---|
| Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.) | 3.0 |
| 0-45 mph (sec.) | 5.2 |
| 0-60 mph (sec.) | 8.0 |
| 0-75 mph (sec.) | 12.1 |
| 1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) | 16.0 @ 86.8 |
| 0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) | 7.7 |
| Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) | 34 |
| 60-0 mph (ft.) | 133 |
| Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) | 62.3 |
| Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON | 59.9 |
| Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) | 0.81 |
| Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON | 0.79 |
| Sound level @ idle (dB) | 41.9 |
| @ Full throttle (dB) | 76.5 |
| @ 70 mph cruise (dB) | 67.4 |
| Engine speed @ 70 mph (rpm) | 2,600 |
| Test Driver Ratings & Comments | |
|---|---|
| Acceleration comments | Aggressive traction control needs to be defeated for a representative run. Gear ratios feel wide, but I like the "Honda" sound the engine produces (cam+intake). Shifter has long throws, but never balked when hurried. A little VTEC feeling in the upper revs where power seemed to remain strong or increase. |
| Braking comments | Rating: Poor -- First stop was 10 feet shorter than the second, and then distances grew even longer up to a max of 146 feet. Smelly pads and a soft pedal indicate pronounced fade characteristics. Slow, clunky ABS and gravelly tires didn't inspire confidence either. |
| Handling comments | Rating: Average -- Slalom: Shutting off ESP made the Accord very "loose" and prone to oversteer with anything but a perfect line and technique. Steering, however, is light and precise, but a little "distant." Yaw response can grow exaggerated by the wandering tail of the car. Skid pad: When left on, an aggressive ESP made circling the skid pad a non-event. Shutting it off only made the tires shriek with slightly improved results. Would benefit from tires with more grip. |
| Testing Conditions | |
|---|---|
| Test date | 3/2/2010 |
| Test location | Cal Speedway |
| Temperature (°F) | 62.75 |
| Relative humidity (%) | 52.50 |
| Barometric pressure (in. Hg) | 28.91 |
| Wind (mph, direction) | 5.4, Headwind |
| Odometer (mi.) | 776 |
| Fuel used for test | 87-octane gasoline |
| As-tested tire pressures, f/r (psi) | 30/30 |
| Fuel Consumption | |
|---|---|
| EPA fuel economy (mpg) | 22 city/31 highway/25 combined |
| Edmunds observed (mpg) | 23.4 worst/25.0 best/24.4 average over 539.9 miles |
| Fuel tank capacity (U.S. gal.) | 18.5 |
| Driving range (mi.) | 573 |
| Edmunds estimated monthly fuel cost ($) | $130 |
| Audio and Advanced Technology | |
|---|---|
| Stereo description | AM/FM/CD/MP3 with six speakers |
| iPod/digital media compatibility | Standard generic aux jack |
| Satellite radio | Optional XM |
| Hard-drive music storage capacity (Gb) | Not available |
| Rear seat video and entertainment | Not available |
| Bluetooth phone connectivity | Optional |
| Navigation system | Optional DVD 8.0-inch display screen (measured diagonally) with voice commands |
| Telematics (OnStar, etc.) | Not available |
| Smart entry/Start | Not available |
| Parking aids | Not available |
| Blind-spot detection | Not available |
| Adaptive cruise control | Not available |
| Lane-departure monitoring | Not available |
| Collision warning/avoidance | Not available |
| Night Vision | Not available |
| Driver coaching display | Not available |
| Dimensions & Capacities | |
|---|---|
| Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) | 3,204 |
| Curb weight, as tested (lbs.) | 3,185 |
| Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%) | 60/40 |
| Length (in.) | 194.1 |
| Width (in.) | 72.7 |
| Height (in.) | 58.1 |
| Wheelbase (in.) | 110.2 |
| Track, front (in.) | 62.6 |
| Track, rear (in.) | 62.6 |
| Turning circle (ft.) | 37.7 |
| Legroom, front (in.) | 42.5 |
| Legroom, rear (in.) | 37.2 |
| Headroom, front (in.) | 41.4 |
| Headroom, rear (in.) | 38.5 |
| Shoulder room, front (in.) | 58.2 |
| Shoulder room, rear (in.) | 56.4 |
| Seating capacity | 5 |
| Trunk volume (cu-ft) | 14.0 |
| Max cargo volume behind 1st row (cu-ft) | Standard one piece folding rear seatback with ski pass-through |
| Warranty | |
|---|---|
| Bumper-to-bumper | 3 year/36,000 miles |
| Powertrain | 5 year/60,000 miles |
| Corrosion | 5 year/unlimited miles |
| Roadside assistance | Not available |
| Free scheduled maintenance | Not available |