Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
heh...same dimensions and location I hate sunroofs...just another way to bake in the heat. Head room...try driving a veloster with a sun roof my seat was leaned WAY back and my head was tilted horizontal. Neat little car (horribly under powered engine).
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.f11c910/780
It's not exactly an "auto part," but it's definitely a bargain at "free," and you never know when someone else might be in a similar situation and want/need it.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
Great idea, and in fact GWB & BO did that, before the bailouts were even fully implemented or "official" yet.
One should wonder why we didn't just do that, instead of the more expensive company wide bailouts. Same wonderment I have when someone says bailing out GM saved the suppliers. Wouldn't it have been much cheaper to let GM go under and simply bailout the little guys (suppliers) that needed it?
You should wonder. Brings to mind the word outrageous again.
I have the pink unicorn of Sonatas; V6, cloth, popular equip package + moonroof. It's everything that's a must-have (moonroof, audio-controls on the wheel, leather-wheel, power seat, usb audio interface) and nothing that wasn't (navi, automatic climate controls, leather). Plus, it's really roomy for my 6'5" frame.
I will probably drive it for a while. I've got 107k on it with no complaints. The other vehicle that really rings my bell right now is the Ram 1500 with Pentastar, 8-speed, and UConnect 8.4. Could I be any more scattered in my vehicle preferences?
That was the problem with the transmissions, people who drove using all 240 horses from the 3.0 V6 in 2003 wore out transmissions that probably worked perfectly with the little 4-bangers of Honda's past. In fact, the 4-cylinder models did rate better than the V6 transmissions.
Us "spirited" drivers prefer that term to the maniac label. I'm a spirited driver, and I understand that with that comes extra maintenance costs in the form of brake and tire wear. Wear items, and completely normal. Of course, if your driving style doesn't change and all of a sudden your brake pad life is halved; people are going to notice (Honda are you listening?).
Added to that, Honda's don't really inspire spirited driving. They are great cars, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't until I got my Audi that I became an enthusiastic driver.
I would hope most maniacs, OOPS, I mean spirited drivers would know this, and not complain. Also, if you car stops from 60 MPH to 0 MPH in 110 feet instead of 130 feet performance wise, you should expect that the pad might not last as long in exchange for that performance gain.
Since your Sonata has been so good to you why aren't you shopping that car? Ready for a change? I'm a big Honda fan, and think that the Accord is better than the Sonata in at least a few ways (visibility, handling, mpg, crash safety, etc.), but still I'm curious.
Here's the discounted price of an 2013 EXL Accord at Crest Honda in Nashville. Looks like $25.4 + TTL
Bodystyle:SedanDrivetrain:FWDEngine:2.4L I-4 cylTransmission:Continuously VariableCity MPG: 27.0 Hwy MPG: 36.0Ext. Color:Basque Red Pear Int. Color:IvoryVIN:1HGCR2F8XDA196235Stock Number:DA196235Location: Crest Honda
MSRP$28,785
Dealer Discount$3,394
True Price$25,391
That was the problem with the transmissions, people who drove using all 240 horses from the 3.0 V6 in 2003 wore out transmissions that probably worked perfectly with the little 4-bangers of Honda's past. In fact, the 4-cylinder models did rate better than the V6 transmissions.
If Honda was the only company with a 3,600 pound car today or the only car with a V6 I would say you have a point.
After getting my hands on a leather wrapped steering wheel, I know that I can never go back to hard plastic.
I'm not even a fan of leather, or leather seats, but a leather steering wheel is a must. I'm saddened by the fact the bean counters managed to get such a basic item left out on a top of the line EX model Accord.
You have a point about the weight, but the point your trying to make about the V6 is falling on deaf ears. Not all V6's were created equal. Back in 2003, Honda's V6 was so far superior to other V6's at the time, it's not even funny. Even Honda's own V6 got upped by 20% more HP in 2003.
'17 Chevy Volt Premiere
A very minor issue in the grand scheme of things. I'd rather replace my Honda's brakes at 40K miles rather than my Dodge's head gaskets, for example.
'17 Chevy Volt Premiere
So the EX is the mid-level model. I don't think the EX has ever had a leather wrapped steering wheel, and so you can't blame the bean counters for that one. L stands, of course, for Leather, and that's where you get the leather steering wheel. The new model this year, the Sport, surprisingly has it too.
In any case, a good aftermarket leather steering wheel cover can always be added. Check Pep Boys. Top rated leather for steering wheel c. $25. No biggie.
Honda added thousands of dollars of equipment to the 2013 Accord compared to the 2012, but only raised the price by something like $150. In other words, for the most part the bean counters lost.
For instance, compared to the base 2012 Accord LX the 2013 Accord LX adds: alloy wheels, direct injected engine, more advanced transmission, Advanced Compatibility II body with super high grade steel (the only best selling car to ace the IIHS crash test), bluetooth, pandora/integration w/smart phone, back up camera, higher mpg, bigger trunk, much quieter/more sound insulation, etc.
In my opinion, the only thing we lost that's of any importance is the ski pass through in the back seat. The bean counters got that one, but I can easily live without it in trade for all the other stuff.
It's amazing to me how much power some people think they need in a family sedan. As if they spend all their time drag racing.
While I have noticed that my brakes wobble a tad under some conditions now that I have 164k miles on my 2007 Accord, I still am on my original front pads. Can't complain too much about that. I expect my '13 will do just as well.
Agree on power. My I4's are much faster than I ever need (stick shift helps a lot). Can't imagine a v-6.
That's because it has 270 ft-lbs of torque at low to midrange rpm. It actually has more torque than the 3.5 v6 used in the Taurus. If it had 240hp, with say only 200 ft-lbs of torque at over 4k rpm, it wouldn't feel nearly as powerful.
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/penalty-speeding-loss-fuel-economy-160000931.html
Model 55 mph 65 mph 75 mph
Accord CVT 49 mpg 42 mpg 35 mpg
Fusion Hybrid 49 41 36
My Fusion has the 2.0 and I don't think I've had the engine much over 4k rpm's yet, but I haven't felt the need to do it.
Other studies have been published on this point over the years, but I'll bet a lot of drivers will take the extra hour (for a 200 mile trip) and pay the extra $5 to $7. Imagine for example a business person driving to a customer meeting. That extra hour with the customer, or working on other business, would probably be worth far more than $5-7 to them.
Anyway, most major highways and freeways outside city limits in my state (MN) are posted at 65-70 mph. Certainly will use less gas driving the limit than, say, 75+, but 55 wouldn't be advisable. And if the limit is 55, driving 75 would be begging for a ticket, as well as unsafe if most traffic is near 55.
Even the V-6 Accord gets about the same mpg as the 1.6 liter Fusion on CR tests.
Very unimpressed with ecoboost.
A 2008 Accord (which I also own) gets about 5-8 miles per gallon less on the highway than the new model. On highway trips in my 2008 Accord we get about 29-31mpg. In similar highway trips in the 2013 Accord we get 37-39 mpg. That's a fairly good jump for one generation. That's esp. true considering that interior room in the 2013 is essentially the same, the trunk is larger, and acceleration is faster.
No news there either. Everyone knows the main advantage of hybrids wrt fuel economy is in city driving, not highway. On the highway, the hybrids are running on their ICE powerplants. And they have a weight disadvantage to a comparably-sized regular ICE vehicle.
Let's compare the Accord CVT driving through rush-hour city traffic to the Fusion hybrid. I bet the results will be different.
I saw an article a year ago saying that in 10 years something like 70-80% of engines would be turbos of various kinds. Given the added complexity and cost of these engines, I wonder if that's a good idea.
Honda Accord LX 4-cyl. 49 mpg 42 mpg 35 mpg
Ford Fusion 1.6 4-cyl. 41 mpg 36 mpg 30 mpg
I agree...going faster is better. Highway 130 here is 85...so you go a comfortable 90. I know it uses much more gas than going 55, but time is much more valuable.
To use your words: "Well duh."
I see a huge drop off in FE after 60-65 mph. I can only imagine what the FE would be at 90. But, I'll likely never know as the max speed limit within a 1000 mile radius of me is 70, and when I visit Central TX I plan to stay off 130.
mmmm...meat
We'll agree to disagree on that one. Though I haven't drove Honda's CVT yet. Let's see if they last longer than Nissans' CTV's known to have a life expectancy under 50K miles.
We'll agree to disagree on that one. Though I haven't drove Honda's CVT yet. Let's see if they last longer than Nissans' CTV's known to have a life expectancy under 50K miles."
As you say, we'll have to agree to disagree. Although until you've driven the Accord CVT I don't think you can really say whether you like it or not. Honda poured a lot of R & D into a the high tech composite material of the belt, which was the main weak point in terms of durability for Nissan's CVT. Honda also has much better sound and computer simulated "shift feel" than Nissan's CVT. Car magazines seem to confirm this.
For instance, here is Car and Driver from several months ago:
"The 2.4-liter is quieter at idle than some other direct-injection engines with their clattering high-pressure injectors, particularly Hyundai’s. And the Honda likes to rev, sounding healthy and full throated at its 6400-rpm power peak. But it’s the CVT’s tuning that makes the Accord feel fleet. The typical rubber-band delay has been minimized, and the throttle responds curtly when you ask for acceleration (although sometimes with some audible transmission whine at high revs). In mountain snakers as well as on city streets, the CVT works so efficiently that it all but disappears...."
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-sedan-first-drive-review
I did buy the extended 8 year 100k Honda Care bumper to bumper warranty from Honda for c.$1100 just in case. And so my faith isn't absolute. Time will tell, as you say, but I'm guessing right now that it'll work out.
That just pretty much seems to be the American way of designing things.
It is also a quiet car.
The Accord is lighter, but perceived quiet is obtained using active noise cancellation.
A different philosophy.
The biggest complainers about Ecoboost are those who don't own one.
My FWD Fusion with the 2.0 Ecoboost feels very light on it's feet power wise and returns excellent fuel mileage.
No company can afford to consistently put out products that fail at 50K miles. That is product suicide in more ways than one.
There soon will be no old tech transmissions left. Whether you are talking a 9 speed automatic, a DSG, a CVT or whatever, they are all very complex, and nothing like the three and four speed automatics that used to dominate. Like it or not, everything is becoming more complex. At the same time, thankfully, this complexity is becoming much more reliable than even the old simplicity. DI turbo engines, clean diesel and electrics are the way now. Maybe hydrogen soon. People and cars continue to multiply. New ideas are mandatory if we are going to supply this worldwide population explosion with what their forebears have come to expect. None of that is easy to do well, but do well is what is required.
Ford for example is at the cutting edge with its truly small Ecoboosts. Claims may somewhat exceed real world results. But that is a temporary thing as development continues. That a serviceable turbo 1.6 would be in a mainstream car as large as the current Fusion was almost unimaginable a even a couple years ago. If it is a bit slower and not any more frugal than a larger Accord engine belies the point that it exists at all, and does as well as it does, even after a couple initial kinks. Regular people are now driving it, finding it satisfactory, and are not even incredulous that a 1.6 or 1.5 liter (recently seen as a mini-compact engine at best) powers their family car.
We are living in the most interesting times. Technology is doing completely magical things every day, and it is not possible for most of us to keep up.
It's only in the past few years that the typical mid-sized car had that much power. Actually, many still don't. Then you have all those compacts and sub-compacts with far less than 200 hp.
There's a difference between NEEDING more than 200 hp in a mid-sized family car, and WANTING more than 200 hp. For those who WANT more power, there's options like the Sonata/Optima turbos and the Accord, Altima, Camry, and Passat V6s.
Long day, so I am going to omit the details for another time.
Could be.... or at least it'll be a less safe pass than if they had 700 HP.
Also, they may be able to pass, but then hold up other traffic behind them from doing the same.
Sure, more HP is a WANT, not a NEED....You can always just go 55 MPH as well in the right lane. You'll still get to point B eventually from point A.
Of course one could simply watch less TV and reclaim.....hours?