Honda Accord vs Mazda 6 (base models)

[pottymouth]

I'm deciding on a new job, and if I accept I lose my company car.

New company provides a pretty generous car allowance so it's not all that bad. Still, nothing beats a company car...

My initial instinct is a 2016 Accord. Sensible, reliable, will still be worth something in 5 years with 150K miles on it. Hard to go wrong.

My other personality likes the Mazda 6 better. Much better looking and likely better handling. A bit better on gas too. Not so sure on the reliability/resale part.

I would be looking for base models with 6 speed manual transmissions. Just looking for personal experiences with either car. Not going to waste the dealers' time at this point since I'm not sure I'm taking the job yet. I'd just like to have an idea of what to pay particular attention to if/when test driving these cars.

Thanks.

 

[BRZED]

Life is too short for a bland car. Get the Mazda.

 

[Noobie]

I'd go with the Mazda. Looks better both inside and outside and drives better.
Not sure about reliability but AFAIK i havent heard any recalls or serious design issues with their engines and transmissions so my guess would be that if you maintain it properly, it will be reliable. Oh, and at the end of the day, its a company car.

 

[LotI]

I love my '14 Accord. Great improvement over my '12 in nearly every way. I've had it a bit over a month now and almost 4k miles. Fuelly

Fuel mileage isn't that different in the real world as both cars are excellent. I drive 90% highway in my CVT Sport and am averaging 2.7g/100 miles.

The 6 is the sportier choice but for my driving of setting the cruise for two hours the Accord made more sense. It is very happy on back roads up to about 8/10 but then it runs out of tires and suspension. Consider the Accord Sport as its the next step up from the LX. I disliked the ride enough from the 18" wheels that I put on my 17"'s I had for my '12. The '16 Sport now comes with 19" wheels, yikes.

Reviews talk about more road and wind noise and less rear seat room from the 6. You mentioned 30k miles/ year so this is a big deal. I drive over 40k and I don't want a loud car.

Reliability is a wash. Insurance is most likely similar but the Accord is stolen more. Honda parts are cheap and there are plenty of aftermarket bits. The manual transmission may hurt your resale value. I tried to find a manual car but practically stole my car and couldn't pass up the deal.

Hope this helps.

 

[skyactiv]

I'd get a Buick Verano. The 2016 will have an optional 250HP engine with a six speed manual available to order. It will be ultra rare, quiet, fast and a conversation piece if you take clients rides in it.

 

[Mr Nice]

If Accord is redesigned for 2016 (lots of bugs) get the Mazda.

Why not a 2015 Accord LX with manual trans ?

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
If Accord is redesigned for 2016 (lots of bugs) get the Mazda.

Why not a 2015 Accord LX with manual trans ?


What's to say that a redesign will have lots of bugs? It seems like a mild refresh unless my recollection is wrong...

I agree on an LX MT, though at 30k/year, hybrid may be a good choice.

 

[sasilverbullet]

I own a 2014 Accord EX-L, 4 cyl, CVT with about 18K on it. I average about 34.4 mpg. (mixed highway/traffic)

Absolutely love the car, love everything about it.

I rented a Buick Verano for a week, the Accord is much better in many ways.

There are still 2015 Accords on dealers lots that they need to get rid of. Find a EX-L, 4 cyl with the CVT, no nav. You'll be happy you did.

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2


I agree on an LX MT, though at 30k/year, hybrid may be a good choice.


300k is likely the break even point for price premium for hybrid vs base model/stick and fuel savings. The risk is a bit higher for expensive drivetrain related repairs vs a simple 2.4L motor coupled to manual gear box.

 

[Danh]

Don't have personal experience with either. But keep in mind the Mazda is assembled in Japan with virtually 0% U.S./Canadian parts content. The Accord is assembled in the U.S. with about 70% domestic parts. Lots of complaining on this board about the plight of the middle class - here's something you can do about it.

Not saying you should buy an inferior car just for this reason, but things being about equal...

 

[Phishin]

Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: JHZR2


I agree on an LX MT, though at 30k/year, hybrid may be a good choice.


300k is likely the break even point for price premium for hybrid vs base model/stick and fuel savings. The risk is a bit higher for expensive drivetrain related repairs vs a simple 2.4L motor coupled to manual gear box.


I agree.

A new Honda Sport is $24,200. The Hybrid is $29,300. This is "stick" price for the base models. I assume you can "knock off" about the same amount for either vehicle at the dealership, which around here, isn't going to be much.

So, the different is $5,100. The Hybrid will get 48-50 mpg's all day. I have 3 good friends who have these and drive the wheels off them. I have several friends, including myself, who have base model Accords, and we get 28-32 mpg's with our non-hybrid Accords. So, giving you the biggest margin in your favor, the Hybrid will get 48 mpg's and the regular sedan will get 32. That's 16 mpg's difference.

Assume you drive in 100,000 miles, at $2.50/gallon, the hybrid fuel cost would be $5,208/100k miles. The non-hybrid would be: $7,813/100k. So, the cost savings would be: $2605/100k miles.

So, theoretically, it would take you about 200k miles to break even....but oh yeah, electricity isn't free. The cost of power here in Indiana is cheap. So, I suspect the break even point would be around 250k miles.

 

[BearZDefect]

I haven't driven the 2016 models, but when I was shopping two years ago I concluded:

- The Mazda6 was the best driver's car in this class without doubt, and I didn't find it noisy.
- The Accord would expect better resale and had more space, although I did not like the interior.

The winner depends on what is more important to you.

 

[Schmoe]

There is no generation change in 2016. Some minor cosmetic touches here and there, but basically the same car. Next gen would be '17 or '18. The transmission problem everybody seems to bring up is from the 6th to part of the 7th generation. About after 2003, Honda got it together finally. Hey, I had a 6th gen and lost the transmission at 125K, what did Honda do? Replace the trans for 500 bucks. Couldn't argue with that. One thing to remember, part of the reasoning I always buy Honda, is that they are comfortable for the long haul. Like you, I spend a lot of time commuting. Seats are comfortable, killer stereo system and great gas mileage. With as much butt mileage that your going to do, you dang well better be comfortable!!!!

 

[Mr Nice]

OK, I thought 2016 Accord was totally redesigned.

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted By: Phishin
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: JHZR2


I agree on an LX MT, though at 30k/year, hybrid may be a good choice.


300k is likely the break even point for price premium for hybrid vs base model/stick and fuel savings. The risk is a bit higher for expensive drivetrain related repairs vs a simple 2.4L motor coupled to manual gear box.


I agree.

A new Honda Sport is $24,200. The Hybrid is $29,300. ......
So, the different is $5,100. The Hybrid will get 48-50 mpg's all day. I have 3 good friends who have these and drive the wheels off them. I have several friends, including myself, who have base model Accords, and we get 28-32 mpg's with our non-hybrid Accords. So, giving you the biggest margin in your favor, the Hybrid will get 48 mpg's and the regular sedan will get 32. That's 16 mpg's difference.

Assume you drive in 100,000 miles, at $2.50/gallon, the hybrid fuel cost would be $5,208/100k miles. The non-hybrid would be: $7,813/100k. So, the cost savings would be: $2605/100k miles.

So, theoretically, it would take you about 200k miles to break even....but oh yeah, electricity isn't free. The cost of power here in Indiana is cheap. So, I suspect the break even point would be around 250k miles.



The base LX with manual is 2k cheaper then Sport. So the price difference between cars is actually $7100. 2k buys a lot of fuel!

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: JHZR2


I agree on an LX MT, though at 30k/year, hybrid may be a good choice.


300k is likely the break even point for price premium for hybrid vs base model/stick and fuel savings. The risk is a bit higher for expensive drivetrain related repairs vs a simple 2.4L motor coupled to manual gear box.


The OP is getting a car stipend and his company likely is not desiring to pay for a 300k car, regardless of the make and model or simplicity of its setup.

Im going in assuming that the OP has to pay his own fuel and turn over cars every few years. He stated 5 years 150k miles. So the car is paid for. Fuel?

Since the car is warranted for 150k miles for all the "high risk" electric stuff (which may not be that high risk when you consider all the high mileage Priii out there), the OP will be within the warranty range for the whole term of ownership.

 

[Mr Nice]

I think of Dave Ramsey when I hear the gas verses hybrid engine argument.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
I think of Dave Ramsey when I hear the gas verses hybrid engine argument.


I do too. And went from high 20s/low 30s with premium fuel, to just under 50 MPG with regular fuel that's a good 40-50c cheaper per gallon.

Works for me. OP may be different. But Im seeing car is paid for and 150k max mileage. Only OP knows the full situation and their numbers.

An LX or Sport MT or 6 MT would all be great choices.

 

[HTSS_TR]

There are many choices, Mazda 6 manual or Accord Sport manual or Accord Hybrid ..., none of them is bad, each choice has some advantages over the others. It is hard to choose, it is really up to OP to take into calculation how he uses daily to pick 1 that fits his needs.

 

[pottymouth]

Thanks for the input. To answer a few questions/comments:

1) The company requires that the car be 5 years old max. Buying a brand new 2015 means I can only use the car for 4 years (base on my usage, see below.) That will cost me a lot more than the potential savings of buying a leftover.

2) The Sport costs more and offers very little I care about, save the folding rear seat. That's not worth over 2 grand to me. Plus, the Sport comes with 19" wheels which I don't want. Harder ride, more expensive tires and higher propensity for damage due to the horrible roads around here.

3) Company allows max of 5 years old and 100K in mileage, whichever comes last. I'll blow through 100K in just under 3 years. It pains me to buy a brand new car for myself, but the best financial decision is this or a 15 year old estate vehicle with super low miles. I'm going to go with the former.

4) There is a gas allowance for the business miles, but I don't have the details on that yet. Based on past situations, I would expect the allowance will cover between 1/2 and 2/3 of my total gas usage. I will be using the car for personal use as well. I like hybrids, but the Accord is just way too much $ for my intended purpose. Maybe if the standard hybrid qualified for federal subsidy like the plug-in, but the plug in is crackpipe money.

5) My current company car is a '14 Equinox. It's the base LS model, absolutely not a single option. It is just fine for me. Today's base models have a ton of features. I just don't see any reason to move up to a higher priced model to get things I would rarely use anyway.

6) Assembled in the US does matter to me. I was not aware the Mazda is not screwed together here. It will factor into my decision, though it's not the overriding factor.

This car will be a tool to me. It's to make my living. I want it to be safe, comfortable, economical and reliable. If it's a little fun (the MT should help) then all the better. Fun is not a primary concern.

Something else I have to consider is the availability. I have found numerous Accord LX 6-MT's on local dealer websites, but very few Mazda6 Sport 6-MT's. Looks like the few Mazda dealers around here don't order them that way. There are Touring 6-MT's but I'm not looking to go that way.

Truthfully, my brain says go with the Accord but that Mazda is just so [censored] pretty. I should know in the next 2 weeks if I'm going to make this move or not.