A little off-topic:
While I appreciate the capital cost/apparent value difference between a Honda and a Ford, I find it irrelevant. What matters to me is the TCO (total cost of ownership) and that I enjoy owning/driving/using Hondas more, and that I feel safer on the road in a nimble vehicle.
The latter two may be just perception or taste, fine, but can a '92 escort take .85 lateral G’s? That was a base model Civic hatchback in '92. I read that the Corvette ZR1 had the same rating in '92. When I plow through a giant puddle that I didn’t see, even at highway speeds, my steering stays true; hardly perceptible. I would have paid a fortune for options on an escort to match what came on my LX in '92. The Civic is still fun to drive. Fords have always annoyed me, although the Euro Focus was passable.
The first item is the $$$ difference carried to a logical conclusion. I spent good money on the Civic, for sure, but then my unscheduled maintenance has been ~$1000 in all of 15 years. All that time I got 40 MPG instead of 28: at only $1 per gallon average that’s $4625 for 185,000 miles vs. $6607. so there’s another $2g. The differences will be a lot less with an Accord automatic, but there will still be many.
I had an '83 Cressida for a while, at 170k it still had perfect engine and transmission, even after I deliberately abused it. This lousy little Geo is also still perfect at 97k. Hmmm… maybe I’ll look for a Cressida.