Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan

11617192122178

Comments

  • kiawahkiawah Posts: 3,666
    And the odds are pretty good that we won't be around either..........or if we are, we certainly won't care (will be lucky to be breathing, let alone driving).
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,989
    I think they could be baught by Toyota, or somebody else by then....... ;)

    Rocky
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    best post i've ever read!!

    yes honda will still be around.
  • gpkgpk Posts: 38
    Gas mileage at 30/36 for I-4
    tech pkg like the Altima
    I-4 hybrid
    200# weight increase
    6 spd AT/MT
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "200# weight increase "

    Increase? INCREASE???
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Posts: 992
    An accord diesel should get 32/42

    The accord already offers the NAV and there should be bluetooth next year! 200lbs is reasonable. But i think that a diesel accord is more likely. The 5sp auto should be ok for a diesel engine as it loves to keep revs low and thats a diesels favorite place! Still, a 6sp auto would be nice!!

    I hope honda doesn't get desperate for bigger autos and just throws in a CVT... Unless its the Altimas, i'd be depressed... :cry:

    -Cj
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Posts: 992
    I agree 99.99%

    I dont agree with the 230hp thing as HP isn't a very important number because most companies record it at an unusable range.

    TORQUE is that all important number! Thats why so many people are beginning to switch to diesels. The m5 has 500hp but the E320CDI has 400lb ft of torque and gets 35mpg. Which sounds more appealing to the AVERAGE (non-rockylee j/k) consumer? Not to mention Diesels lower price than regular in some areas.

    The Accord is most likely to get the TL's engine. Hondas rarely get new engines before Acuras. The TL has had the same engine since 1995 in the 3.2 TL. Sure this old v6 is ok for the TL but it would be perfect for an accord. The specs of the current accord v6 and acura TL are very similar and shows the 3.2l v6's advantages.

    The 3.2l v6 in the TL has to carry more weight and has more power but it has the exact same results as the 3l v6 in the accord. I'm sure honda could make a few changes and bump this up to 265hp and 240lb ft of torque with the same or similar MPG.

    As with the Cr-v honda doesn't have to have a v6 more powerful than the competition to win. As long as it stays competitive and refined it will do great. 258hp and 233lb ft of torque will be great for the accord.

    -Cj
  • gpkgpk Posts: 38
    200# is an estimate of how much ACE will add to the weight on the frame.
    I would also like to see a diesel option as well. Ideally I would like to see a diesel hybrid.
    I can see the 3.2 or the 3.5 being in the Accord v-6. There are arguments for both engines. I would assume that they will pick the engine that does the least damage to the scale.
    A 6spd auto and mt allows Honda to lead the pack for F/E with the new 2008 epa guidelines.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    a six speed auto

    a more powerful 4 cyl (similar to the tsx, but with better fuel economy and no req for premium.)

    and a v-6 that will result in passing camry's easily. :P

    A diesel will be great...

    but the one thing i would love? A wagon version. Bring it back!!

    Honda, it is possible to have a more utilitarian vehicle then all the sedans being offered. We want a hatch that isn't the fit, and a large capacity car that isn't the element. (although i love both those cars!)
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Honda, it is possible to have a more utilitarian vehicle then all the sedans being offered. We want a hatch that isn't the fit, and a large capacity car that isn't the element.

    Your answer is the Mazda6 5-door (hatch) and wagon.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,456
    Mazda 6 :confuse:

    Smaller than my Accord and uses as much gas as my Sienna. :surprise:

    Now if they would put a 4-cyl in the Mazda 6 that would make it palatable, but still smaller and less efficient than an Accord wagon would be.

    I like wagons (prefer them to sedans), but the Mazda 6 misses the point.
  • bamacarbamacar Posts: 749
    Also I think 2007 is the last year for the 6 Wagon. It seems that wagons are still not selling well enough to justify the cost of a different bodystyle (excluding Subaru and the European makes).
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,456
    That is because wagons are not marketed. Subaru markets their wagons and sells 10 for every 1 sedan.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The closest thing to an Accord wagon is the C-RV. Same 4cyl engine, and built on a car platform. The chances of the Accord wagon making another appearance are very very slim. The C-RV sells like hotcakes.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Blame your fellow Americans. I believe that in the rest of the world the 6 does not even have a V6 available in any version of it.

    You may not like it but at least tiny Mazda, with a measly 3% of the US market, sells a conventional wagon and hatchback in the US. Even if it is smaller and less efficient than the non-existant Accord wagon.
  • dolfan1dolfan1 Posts: 216
    Put the V6 in the CRV and they'd probably sell a whole bunch more. I'd love to have a CRV over the Accord, but I won't settle for less than the V6.

    Yes, yes, I know the 4 provides enough power for almost all situations, and gets better mileage. Its neither right or wrong, it's just a personal preference = some folks like more power.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,456
    The problem with the CRV is that it can't touch the Accord for efficiency.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Toyota's Rav4 has gone up in size, has a V6 and a third row seat. Since the CR-V sells more than the Rav4, Honda wasn't going to change what works. People obviously like it the way it is, light and nimble. The mileage may not be as good as the Accord (the CR-V is heavier) but I'm sure the extra weight of an Accord wagon would mean lower mileage too.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,456
    A wagon typically weighs less than 100 lbs more than a sedan. The difference is negligable.

    The big reason for the CRV using more gas is aerodynamics and shorter gearing.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    It's not just the weight. It's also the aerodynamics that reduce mpg.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    If you don't like the CR-V, just say so. ;)
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,456
    I don't like the CRV. :P

    Actually the CRV is quite practical and certainly better than almost every other SUV. It is just that the Accord wagon would offer all of that and so much more.

    Wagons are quite close to sedans for aerodynamics. What kills SUV's is not just the high coefficient of drag, but the large frontal area that their upright posture gives them. The Accord sedan and wagon would have identical frontal areas.

    Typically EPA numbers for sedans and wagons are the same.

    I remain convinced that the only reason we don't have roads full of wagons and Hatches(like in Europe) is that car manufacturers can get away with selling SUV's to people here, and they (SUV's) are much more profitable (translation of more profit for car companies is less value for consumers).

    Off soapbox.

    Diesel Accord wagon - never happen, it just makes too much sense.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    Good points but the lack of buyers killed the wagon.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I think you have it backwards, SUVs are profitable only because people are willing to pay high prices for them. I've never understood the attraction myself...to me they are just wagons on stilts, but it is what people seem to want to buy.

    I would think the CRV is more of a civic wagon than Accord. The length is about the same as a civic and the wheelbase is shorter than a civic. I don't think the price would be as high as it is if most buyers viewed it as a Civic wagon.

    I think the Pilot is more like the size that an Accord wagon would be and again, if most viewed it as an Accord wagon, I bet the price they would be willing to pay would be a lot lower.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,456
    Yes - as Andre Agassi put it so eloquently in his commercials for Cannon.

    Image is everything! :(

    Funny because wagons have changed so much. There are some gorgeous wagons now. VW/Audi, Mazda6 and even the Subaru Legacy (not the Outback) and Volvo.

    http://www.cardata.com/images/2007/Volvo%20V50.jpg

    Just look at the lines on the wagon above - they just flow.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    I do think the wagons are poised to come back for the reasons pointed out. Actually, I have more cargo length in my Accord w/ the back seat down than in the CRV. It just doesn't look as cool towing my little bass boat. CRV buyers could save some bucks, if they could wait a year or 2 to buy.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Image is everything!

    Yes, for my generation the wagon was your parent's car...the definition of the mom-mobile. Then the minivan was the next mom-mobile. For younger people today the SUV is the mom-mobile...even though their dads' thought they were buying a tough, manly truck ;) .

    Now we have the "new" concept called the "cross-over"...seems to me the Subaru Outback actually invented this quite some time ago, though. These are just a teensy bit higher than a conventional wagon.
  • kamdogkamdog Posts: 28
    Accord vs. CRV. I have both, both of them 2003. They are two vastly different cars. Even though they have the same engine, they feel different in engine response. The Accord I have is a manual, and its gearing (similar to the 5 speed auto, btw) allows it both good acceleration and high mileage on the highway. I average about 28 mpg in the Accord and 22 in the CRV. Unfortunately, as I got older, my back started giving me problems and the low Accord became more and more uncomfortable. More people are now wanting to sit higher up, and that gives a better view of the road and is easier on the body. Not to mention the AWD.

    So, an Accord wagon would be nothing like a CRV except perhaps in the number of shopping bags it would carry.
  • vcarrerasvcarreras Posts: 247
    I totally agree with your statement of the low sitting position in the Accord. I just traded my 95 Accord for a 07 CR-V EX-L because both my wife and I were finding it more difficult getting in and out of the Accord. The new Accord and Civic models were no different. My wife now has the CR-V and I drive an 07 Honda FIT Sport, again higher driving position then the Accord. The CR-V will not give me the mpg of the Accord, but being in our 60's probably will save our backs.. by the way, the FIT is a blast and I'm averaging 31-33 mpg in town, 40-42 on the road.. :)
This discussion has been closed.