2010 Honda Accord Crosstour: Apples and Kiwis?

"What do you think? Should Honda ditch the crossover/hatchback idea and bring out a more conventional (and space efficient) wagon? Something like the new TSX Sport Wagon perhaps?"

YES!

That Crosstour is ugly all day long and my money is that it will suffer the same fate as the equally ugly Ridgeline... death.

So if the car was 700 lbs lighter, would it be possible to get a combined fuel economy average of 25MPG?

Cars need to stop getting so big and heavy.

If my choices were to be limited with Honda and Acura offerings, my choice would have to be the FWD-only TSX Wagon. Otherwise, I would choose between (not in any specific order): Audi A4 Avant, BMW 328xi Touring 6MT or a used Subaru Outback (before it got all bloated up).

I know my needs and preferences are only my own and do not reflect other's, but in my opinion: Sports Wagon > Cross-over > SUV if I wanted a utility vehicle.

The photo is not flattering, but that generation Accord wagon is very attractive in person. Of course, Honda based it on one of the best styled Accord sedans. The Accords from '86 to '97 were attractive and had a light, sporty feel. Honda has lost its way with products like Crosstour, as many here have noted.

I would take the older wagon all day long and twice on Saturday's.

I think that Accord wagon looks great. Clean and classic in an understated way.

Far better then the overly massive, awkwardly shaped, excessively styled Crosstour.

Likely only about 100 lbs goes into improved safety, the rest is just to make it bigger for the sake of being bigger.

Bring back the wagon and stop with the oversized, overweight mutant car/suv things.

BTW: real world mileage of Accords back then was in the high 20's. Even better with a manual (tough to find in a wagon).

"Sorry but that Accord wagon is a major dorkmobile."

And a 328 Wagon is not? Wagons do not look as good as any sedan and dont get me wrong I love wagons but stylish they are not.

Bimmerjay, I love you man, but that old Accord wagon was pretty sexy. Nice job with the taillights especially.

Also, to the author of this post, you probably got that 22MPG number from the EPA's estimates for older vehicles, right? IMHO those are not even close to accurate in many cases. Basically they lopped off some percentage of the old numbers to account for the EPA's new stricter testing procedure and called it good. In reality many of those old Japanese cars for example, exceeded even the old generous EPA ratings, so the "revised" ratings are just funny.

At a glance- 1994 Camry 4cyl...21MPG?! No way Jose. Same for this Accord, I bet real world is 25MPG at least.

Long story short, I can't believe Americans killed wagons like this by not buying them. They deserve the fugly Crosstour.

-Rod

You guys already did this post back in September....

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2010/09/2010-honda-accord-crosstour-is-13-years-long-enough.html

Why don't we drive 'em both around for a few weeks and THEN decide which one we prefer.

I wouldn't be so sure that the old Accord wagon has more space than the Crosstour. The Crosstour's seat-down volume is the same as your A4 Avant, which is much larger than the 90s Accord. The larger still CTS Wagon has only 7 more cubic feet. OTOH, the Elantra Touring has 14 more--but it doesn't have the raked Kammback favored by the others. And the more expensive cars probably have cushier but bulkier seats.

The Mazda6 wagon and 5-door, essentially identical in size except the cargo area, differed by 2 cubic feet with the seats down (8 seats up).

The wagons can hold a larger rectangular box, if that's your need. The Crosstour does have a reasonably large underfloor well with a removable tub.

"Why don't we drive 'em both around for a few weeks and THEN decide which one we prefer."

I actually like that idea. Let's see a comparison test between mid-90s Accord and Camry wagons and their Crosstour/Venza successors.

@93aero,

Actually it's a strange coincidence as I wasn't aware of that post and happened to choose the same Honda archival photo off of creativecommons.org (you'll note that mine is cropped more).

That said, I elaborated on a few more things in this old versus new comparison and judging by most of the comments here, folks who didn't see Chris' post on this topic have seen this one. Besides, it lends credence to that old "great minds think alike" expression ; )

I had one of those. I don't miss it.

For all of the well put together - not just well, damn near perfect - and practical, that car was pretty miserable. The road noise, as well as all other kinds of noise, never stopped. The motor was torqueless and the transmission stupid. The drivers seat was practically in the floor pan. The back seat was a joke. More than two hours at a crack left me aching with a headache.

I don't think much of the Crosstour but at least it's not a poverty wagon.

All of my Accords were stick shifts. I never had the wagon, so I can't say anything about its gas mileage, but I do know that each successive 4 cyl. manual Honda that I had got lower mileage than the previous. Our '81 3 door got 40 on the highway-- I do remember that. I have seen a lot of the old Accord wagons on the road, and there really seems to be something wrong with that photo above-- the greenhouse is not really that tall.

The new Outback may look bloated-- compared to the previous '09 model, but it is basically the same size and weight-- maybe an inch or so in various dimensions. The wheelbase is longer, but not the length, so there is less of the long rear overhang that defines station wagons. It is obvious that Subaru wants the new Outback to look like a CUV and not a wagon. Also, the Outback with the amazing Subaru-designed CVT gets better EPA numbers than any AWD CUV its size. I think. If I am wrong, correct me.

The Crosstour is miles better than the Accord wagon from the 90s. Engine, transmission, AWD drivetrain, comfort, refinement, interior design, etc. are all much improved. The looks are a toss-up. The Accord wagon wins on price and weight.

@ed124c,

You are right. The current Outback only grew about 2" in height and width, 3" in wheelbase, but lost about 3/4" in overall length compared to the previous generation. To me, the new sheet metal and lines make it look more bloated than it really is, not to mention that the previous generation looked smaller than it really is.

Either way, I still prefer the previous generations's styling over the current one, but I still like the idea of the Outback. I just wish Subaru would give the Forester a bit more attention (the new engine is a good step forward and freshen up the interior), as I like it a lot more than an Escape, CR-V or RAV4.

bodyblue said... "And a 328 Wagon is not? Wagons do not look as good as any sedan and dont get me wrong I love wagons but stylish they are not."

I respectfully disagree. We have a 2010 Audi A6 Avant (wagon) which I think is better looking than the sedan. I also think the current Audi A4 looks better as a wagon than a sedan. Finally the last Subaru Legacy looked better as a wagon than a sedan.

But opinions differ.

Right now, the A4 and A6 Avants look better than their sedan counterparts and have a bit better utility as well. That's why I really, really wished Audi would have brought the S4 Avant over for 2011. Instead, I opted to order the S5 coupe, even though I would lose some of the utility in order to get the good looks.

The 328i/xi Touring looks just a better than the sedan version, but not by a whole lot. I'm not a fan of the way they did the rear passenger windows.

What I don't like are the crossovers that look like wagons on steroids and growth hormone; such as, the Ford Flex, Ford Edge, Toyota Venza to name a few.

I want to see IL get a real station wagon like a '78 Ford Country Spire with the 460 CI Big Block V8.

I like wagons, I own a Saab wagon, but the reality is that most folks hate wagons and an Accord wagon would sell much fewer units than the Crosstour. Honda's problem is they tried for something that is clearly not a wagon, nor a SUV. The result is a stylistic nightmare.

"The drivers seat was practically in the floor pan"

I drove a 90's Accord a while back and was amazed how low the driving position was...I hated it after getting out of my Dodge with its height adjustable seat.

"I respectfully disagree. We have a 2010 Audi A6 Avant (wagon) which I think is better looking than the sedan"

OK I give you that one....but only because the A6 is kinda bland to me. :)

"I want to see IL get a real station wagon like a '78 Ford Country Spire with the 460 CI Big Block V8."

I had a 77 LTD wagon (not a Squire though) when I first got married...I bought it for $200 from a lady I worked with.....it had a zillion miles on it but that damn thing just ran and ran....never doubt the reliability of a 70s low compression big block! Man it was slow even with the 460....almost 6000 lbs and a 2.53 rear end and 200 net horsepower do not a drag car make. BUt man did the kids love that rear facing seat!

had a 5mt sedan version of that gen accord. sitting on the floor pan and toss it into a corner provides a ton of entertainment on boring commutes. Even 3ers sit so high now, where is the fun?