2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan

elroy5 · April 2007

What does hp have to do with being competitive and building the best vehicles? It is one variable - just a silly numbers game. What about handling, reliability, craftsmanship, durability, safety, comfort, feel, ride etc. These are the things that hurt the American car not the HP numbers.

The 08 Accord will also have to be competitive in these areas. Things like active head restraints, Bluetooth, torso airbags, will likely be added. Honda does not have to beat the competition in the HP & fuel economy wars, just stay in the same ball park. As always, the Accords quality, and attention to detail, will be what sets them apart from the others.

I also feel the 4 is plenty quick and should be the mileage champ.

The 4cyl version should be the mileage champ. And if it's also the HP champ, it will only improve it's status. I have always felt the Hybrid should have been the 4cyl, not the V6. The Diesel Accord (if there is one) may raise the bar to an all new level of efficiency. Who knows? I don't think the Accord is ever going to be outdone, when it comes to fuel economy. Honda prides itself on being the most fuel efficient car company. I don't think that will change.

dudleyr · April 2007

Diesel Accord - Drool!

augsopinion · April 2007

This looks great, but as a driver of front and rear wheel drive vehicles, I disgust with front wheel drive. My recomendation to Honda is make this baby a rear wheel drive. There has been so much advancement in traction control that front wheel drive is truly needless. Make this mother hum and give her RWD!!!!!

topgun7 · April 2007

"What does hp have to do with being competitive and building the best vehicles?"

Yes, it has everything to do with building a competitive products. If my choice is a V6 Aura, Camry, Altima and the 08 Malibu with somewhere between 265 to 275 HP, why would I want to settle on another car that may be equally as good but only has 230HP? The truth is that most car in this segment is very competitive, purchase decision can be as simply as the finance rate, the resale value, the mileage, safety feature, option package, there is simply no reason for any car manufacturer to eliiminate themselves from a segment of the buying public. I think Chrysler is going to learn a hard lesson from their top engine at 235 hp (they already has 750 rebate a few months after introduction). It is point well taken that you don't think 270 hp is necessary for a family sedan, bu there is no reason that other don't want it. And I would love to get my hand on one if the new accord can do better than the current version of TL (which I test drove and love it) in handling/power/braking. It just get me a better car than TL for 5-6K less...

elroy5 · April 2007

My recomendation to Honda is make this baby a rear wheel drive.

Not a chance of that happening. RWD would add weight, decrease fuel efficiency, and reduce power. Notice how many RWD cars are in this segment. Heck, even the Honda truck is mostly FWD.

dudleyr · April 2007

"why would I want to settle on another car that may be equally as good but only has 230HP"

What if the car with 230 hp is faster?

elroy5 · April 2007

What if the car with 230 hp is faster?

That would be a neat trick. That would require a 10 speed tranny (to spread the power out), or a body made of all aluminum (to improve the power to weight ratio). The tranny would cost a bundle to develop, and the aluminum body would cost a bundle to build. Either way, not cost effective.

dolfan1 · April 2007

It's still comes down to competition. The Accord's main competitor (Camry) went from 210hp to 268. That is really a huge leap, and Honda knows, necessary or not, they must respond, at least to 260.

Apparently turbos aren't always the answer either. The Subaru WRX 4 banger turbo only gets 20 mpg in the city with less hp than the current Accord V6.

jchan2 · April 2007

to see whether the Accord Hybrid will be dropped, remade into a 4-cylinder mileage champ, or continue as the "premium" Accord.

The 4 Cylinder is plenty for me

jaxs1 · April 2007

The cars at not so similar that HP would be the major deciding factor unless one was underpowered and really "needed" more power.
You can take the car on a test drive and see if it feels like it has enough power regardless of the actual horsepower ratings.
When the Nissan Altima V6 had significantly more power than the Camry and Accord, it didn't make it the top seller.
If they put a 290HP engine in the new Chrysler Sebring so they could say it had the most power, it wouldn't make much difference.

elroy5 · April 2007

It is apparent that Honda has many many choices to make about the Accord's future. I trust they know what's best, and will make the right decisions.

jchan2 · April 2007

Then again Honda has had its share of mistakes in the past- the current Accord Hybrid being one of them...

benjaminh · April 2007

This post below is from www.thetruthaboutcars.com. It apparently was written by an engineer whose company supplies parts for different auto makers. Overall, it seems like an argument to buy a Honda:

"Some of the automakers do not reimburse us for our research, so any advance we may make during the development of their product is one that we will use for all future products (if applicable). If we are reimbursed for our engineering time, usually the contract with the OEM stipulates what is done in that situation - generally we still preserve the right to use it in future products, but after a certain period of time.

However, with that said there really isnt much overlap - we generally cant share much between Honda/Toyota designs and Ford/GM/DCX designs because the Honda/Toyota designs cost too much and the big 2.5? arent willing to pay enough to get the benefit of that technology. The number one thing with Honda is the function of the assembly, whereas the number one thing with the domestics is costand it is rare to find something that both functions better and is cheaper to produce. All the automakers claim to be concerned about quality, but in reality the domestics are willing to sacrifice quality for lower cost - while they never openly say that, its pretty obvious in how they act.

So, there isnt much danger of GM wanting to copy a Honda Accord part to put in a Malibu - because theyll only pay half as much as Honda for the same part, and for that price they get something less complicated made out of cheaper materials. In a bit of irony, the Ford/GM assemblies we produce are likely to use more imported subcomponents - because we cant afford to buy parts in the U.S. and meet their pricing. However, the Honda assemblies use more American subcomponentsbecause theyre willing to pay for them. Of the parts we produce, the average Honda actually has more domestic content than the average GM product. On a GM/Ford/DCX assembly, most of the tooling is made in Korea and a large percentage of the subcomponents are made in China. We usually have our Honda tooling done in the United States, which is *much* better from my point of viewit costs more, but you can work much more closely with the tool shop and you get a better finished product. On the Korean tools, we have the plastic parts shot over there and then shipped to the US to do layouts - and then we analyse the data and send instructions back to Korea on how to modify the tool. This is not a fast process, and often we end up rushing the tools into production before theyre fully matured (which causes quality issues)."

elroy5 · April 2007

Honda has had its share of mistakes in the past

The Passport(Isuzu), and the V6 Hybrid are the only ones I can think of, and neither were what I consider big mistakes. What other mistakes are you talking about?

jeffyscott · April 2007

the big 2.5? arent willing to pay enough

Perhaps this is because the customers are not willing to pay enough for their products. Given that the consumer is willing to pay $2000-3000 more for an Accord over similar models from US manufacturers, it would be easy for Honda to spend more while still raking in bigger profits.

Assuming any of those claims are even true...

blufz1 · April 2007

I think the RDX is a mistake. There's no replacement for displacement.

elroy5 · April 2007

Perhaps this is because the customers are not willing to pay enough for their products.

If the domestics had not dug themselves into this hole, they would not have to worry about how to dig themselves out. How many quality cars will it take, to win back consumer confidence? How much more will they have to spend, to improve quality, before they see a return on the investment? It will be a long hard road back, IMO. Will they run out of gas, on the long trip from mediocrity, back to respectability.

I think the RDX is a mistake.

I think more time is needed to decide that one, and Honda is more willing to take chances with relatively low volume vehicles. They don't normally take chances with the Accord.

There's no replacement for displacement.

Honda is pretty good at disproving that theory. They know how to do more with less.

thegraduate · April 2007

There's no replacement for displacement.

Honda is pretty good at disproving that theory. They know how to do more with less.

I tend to agree with elroy on this, although often times the original statement can hold true. Consider the current Accord 2.4 liter 4-cylinder (166 horsepower, 24/34 MPG). It had more power than the Ford Taurus, which had a 3.0 liter 6-cylinder (153 horsepower, 19/28 MPG). Sure, the Taurus had slightly higher peak torque, but without a VTEC/VVT type system, it was not spread over a broad rev range like the Accord's is, making the power less usable.

dudleyr · April 2007

Honda can and does do more with less, but the RDX is an anomoly. It uses a ton of gas. You can get an AWD Sienna that has 260+ hp, has much more space and weighs more, that gets similar mpg. (I know they are diff vehicles - just showing the inefficiency)

I don't get the RDX.

thegraduate · April 2007

I don't get the RDX.

I didn't say it before, but me neither! Why not just give it the 3.2 from the TL?

I also think the 3.0L from the Accord would be a fine option on the CR-V, but they don't pay me the big bucks, so I'll keep my mouth shut. I chose a 4-cylinder anyway!

elroy5 · April 2007

The RDX is the same size as the CRV, which does not have a V6 option, so I guess it was more cost effective to just add the turbo than to jam a larger V6 into it. Honda didn't want to mess with success, because the CRV (small and agile) sold very well. Substantially more than the Rav4 which grew much larger, and now seats 7 with a third row seat. I guess as long as the CRV sells at this size, Honda will not change it. The RDX handles very well also, so many people will buy it because it's easy to drive (for an SUV). I guess if you have the $$$ for the luxury of an Acura, you're not really worried about fuel economy too much. If the RDX sells half as well as the CRV has, I think Honda will consider it a success.

poorcruzer · April 2007

It's not just the perceived quality of the domestic product that G.M, Ford and Chrysler have to address with consumers. Some of the domestic product is on par with "import" product, it's the service and support at the domestic dealerships that turns me off. All I hear from the domestic dealers is " they all do that" to any complaint. This is the reason I am considering Honda or Nissan. They have their problems too, but from what I have heard they do a better job of listening to the consumers complaint instead of dismissing it.

blackexv6 · April 2007

it's the service and support at the domestic dealerships that turns me off. All I hear from the domestic dealers is " they all do that" to any complaint. This is the reason I am considering Honda or Nissan.

Believe it or not but lately Honda has been telling their customers the same thing. Our '06 Odyssey has a droning defect that Honda refuses to repair 100%. There is a partial repair TSB that reduces the noise by a marginal amount. Honda's final resolution..."The noise is a normal operating characteristic of all Honda Odysseys"

That being said...I will still only buy Honda or Toyota.

gpk · April 2007

I am really hoping that Honda looks at fuel economy with this model. My Accord did fine on the highway but in town it can be a bit of a pig.

Honda's at there worst are above GM at there worst. I have owned both. Honda builds there vehicles to last 100,000+
GM thinks if it hits 50,000 its a lot.

obie · April 2007

I have enjoyed reading many of your posts over the last several days, but very few have anything to do with the 2008 Accord. Maybe we could move these other discussions to more appropriate threads, so when people come here looking for 2008 model info, there won't be so much other stuff to sift through. What do you think?

jchan2 · April 2007

That pretty much constitutes my list, although one could add the first generation (1995-1998) Honda Odyssey to that list, along with the Acura SLX. (rebadged Isuzu Trooper)

rockylee · April 2007

Honda builds there vehicles to last 100,000+
GM thinks if it hits 50,000 its a lot.

That's a laughable comment. :confuse:

Rocky

gpk · April 2007

Be that as it may.

I forgot to add to my post I hope that the Accord doesnt bulk up a lot. I know that the weight will go up because of the ACE structure but I do not want a huge weight gain.

rockylee · April 2007

Well it will probably go up a little in weight as you say because of ACE, but it will be a more solid car and it looks like the weight might be distributed a little better.

Rocky

benjaminh · April 2007

Does ACE use more steel, or just distribute it in different ways? I honestly don't know. 20 years ago a Volvo 740 was much safer than an Accord. The next generation Accord will, I think, be at least as safe as a Volvo S60, and maybe safer.

carfanatic007 · April 2007

That is crazy. All American automobiles will hit 100,000+ miles easily. The gap has narrowed. Remember, the accords you buy are mostly made in Ohio. This is a global economy. And getting the 4 cylinder accord is probably the wise choice. How many people actually go over 90mph? The 4 cylinder will easily reach 90 plus. No need for mega hp. :shades:

rockylee · April 2007

All American automobiles will hit 100,000+ miles easily.

Well I know that some are living in the stone ages.

The problem with the 4 banger is it takes a long time to get to 90 mph. I'd rather have the power under my right foot and anything less than 270hp in the new Accord V6 will be a failure.

Rocky

P.S. I do drive well past 90 mph in my former high performance autombiles.

dudleyr · April 2007

The 4 won't just go 90 easily it will go 120 easily. I said before it is noticeably faster than my 130 mph Integra - have not tried it out yet though.

BTW glad to see another MT owner - at least that is what I assume since speed is so important.

pgx · April 2007

I own two Hondas a 2000 accord lx and a 2000 civic ex. I drove the 2007 honda lx 4 cly. accord over the weekend and didn't think that it was that much better than my 2000 accord. Maybe I was expecting too much out of the car thinking that after 7 years it would so much better. I went to the dealer with the intent of buying one that day but never bothered to talk price. So I will wait until the 2008 accord rolls out and then give them a look and if not the Saturn aura will be my pick. I drove one and liked it better than the 2007 accord but I like my hondas too. So I am in no hurry I can wait a bit and see what the 2008 accord is like. Come on honda step up.

2000 civic 227000 miles (commuter car)
2000 accord 132000 miles
1995 chevy truck 278000 miles (totaled r.i.p)
2006 chevy 2500 hd 17000 miles
If you take care of them most cars they will last. I think I put more money into my civic than I did my 95 chevy but that might be because the parts cost more.

thegraduate · April 2007

The LX-SE Accord tested in Car and Driver's 6-car midsize comparo was "limited to" 130 MPH, which indicates it would go higher. It is likely limited to that speed because that is the maximum speed the V-rated tires allow for.

The 4-cylinder climbs to 90 easily, the V6 just does it MORE easily.

thegraduate · April 2007

If you are comparing a 4-cylinder Accord (which has 24/34 MPG and 166 hp, and a common transaction price of around $18,000 to a Saturn Aura (which comes standard with a V6 and a non-negotiable price starting at 20,595), I'd love to know your criteria for shopping sedans.

What is it that you want Honda to "step up" and do, if I may ask?

What needs improvement over your 2000 that the 2007 didn't deliver on? What else have you driven?

My grandmother (whom I now live with and drive her car regularly) has a 2002 Accord, which is basically the same as your 2000 Accord. I have a 2006 Accord. My car is noticeably quieter, with a lot more mid-range power (4-cylinders on both), a smoother automatic, a roomier back seat, and the same great handling. Not to mention a MUCH snazzier interior than the 1998-2002 Accords.

I only say that to say I have my share of driving both, and may can answer some questions about the differences.

Just curious!

dudleyr · April 2007

I figured it might be limited, but had not read it anywhere. Funny though - H rated tires go 130. V rated go 149.

I think it will get close to 140 (the British Accord/TSX goes 141), but they need to reserve the higher speeds for more expensive vehicles.

Not that is does much good in the U.S.

The V-6 should top 150.

Any modern Accord is fast enough to get you in serious trouble.

gwinbear · April 2007

If we think under a slippery slope, what will the Accord become in 2108?

2.0 Four cylinder, 500 horsepower natural aspiration, fully utilizing the revolutionary Hamster-VTEC Technology, providing 250 hp/liter with flat torque across the entire rpm range?

Safety features include 150 dB air horns to compensate with the near-deaf ipod listeners , 300 airbags, synthetic diamond doors (non-scratchable, non-dentable) and weighs 7000 pounds?

Fully compatible with hydrogen, ethanol, and green gold?

Still be able to maintain its reliability Honda has been known for?

I don't know.

blufz1 · April 2007

I think you will have to get it on one of your 80 degree downhills to get to 150!

rockylee · May 2007

I doubt honda, is around in 2108.

Rocky

kiawah · May 2007

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).

rockylee · May 2007

I think they could be baught by Toyota, or somebody else by then.......

Rocky

eldaino · May 2007

best post i've ever read!!

yes honda will still be around.

gpk · May 2007

Gas mileage at 30/36 for I-4
tech pkg like the Altima
I-4 hybrid
200# weight increase
6 spd AT/MT

rorr · May 2007

"200# weight increase "

Increase? INCREASE???

autoboy16 · May 2007

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...

-Cj

autoboy16 · May 2007

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

gpk · May 2007

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.

eldaino · May 2007

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!)

jeffyscott · May 2007

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.

2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles