I won't beat Seabiscuit, here.
The lack of a folding rear seat and optional AWD do turn me off. With that being said, only the Fusion and the Legacy do offer AWD, so it's not really necessary in this segment.
I will say this again, though:
Automobile manufacturers have to keep in mind the purpose of the vehicle they are building. If (and note that I say IF, not THAT) Jeep built a Wrangler with 4" of ground clearance for better fuel economy, it'd be a dud. What good is an off-road vehicle without ground clearance?
So, too, is my argument for the Accord. If a
Corolla or a Civic can have a flat floor for the rear passengers, and if a
Corolla or a Civic can have a 60/40 rear split seatback, THEN WHY THE
WOULD A MID-SIZE SEDAN, SOMETHING LARGER THAN A COMPACT (i.e. purchased because of its size and expected interior volumes) OMIT CARGO AND PASSENGER CAPACITY FEATURES?!
I love the look of the Accord. I think those LEDs on the touring make this thing look like an Audi at night and something far more expensive than its price would suggest. I think the powertrains and fuel efficiency are outstanding. I really, really want to like this car.
...but like Tom, here (speaking of his article and his chocolate milk addiction, which I share - and love the square cupholders in the Forester for the same reason), the sheer amount of small nit-picks culminate in too much of a reason for me not to buy an Accord.
It's for this reason and this reason alone that I like CUVs and Compacts - the massive competition and demand for value has brought ample attention to detail to the car. These mid-size sedans continue to sell well to Americans, and therefore, auto makers don't want to change the formula. Sad. Very, very sad.
Note: This isn't solely an issue with the Accord - I find a lot of the same with other models, most notably is the Mazda 6 and its cramped-feeling interior space and poor outward visibility.