2012 Honda Accord or 2013 Mazda 3?

I'm looking to get a new car and have narrowed it down to these two cars. They both are around the same mileage I want to know which car will I have longer with minimal maintenance? I know you have to keep up with the routine service that's fine is one better than the other. I want something reliable and economical.

The Honda Accord would be the better choice, they last without problems until 280k if driven normally even longer if taken proper care of. Also the Honda Accord is much larger and spacious then the Mazda 3, it's equivalent to an Avalon, 7 Series or similar. A Mazda 3 is around the same size as a Corolla and Mazdas tend to have frequent issues with the transmission and electronics after 150k which can cost thousands depending on your luck. Hondas are incredibly long lasting vehicles that are made with good materials and also are designed well. I would recommend the Honda it's much better.

My daughter's husband was going to trade in his Civic for an Accord. The Accord is a fine reliable boring car. Then my daughter bought a Mazda 3 and it is so much more fun to drive, he is planning on getting a Mazda 3 for himself now. He says you can just feel the Miata heritage in the greater Zoom-Zoom of the Mazda 3.

There's probably no "wrong" answer here. Both are good cars.

But they are different. The Mazda is a smaller / sportier car. More of a comparison to the Honda Civic.

The Accord is a larger car, probably rides better, more comfortable on a long trip and more back seat space etc. It compares with a Mazda 6.

So the question becomes, What suits YOU better. If it's just you commuting, the newer Mazda 3 is probably the best. A bit smaller and should use less gas. If you have teenage sons to cram in the back seat, the bigger Accord might suit better.