So, I'll either bite the bullet with mandatory equipment I neither desire nor will ever use (had a sunroof once - trust me on that),
The moonroof on Accords do not leak, or have other problems (I've had them now for 15 years without one problem). When I bought my first Accord I also was worried about the moonroof leaking. I don't feel that way anymore, and I actually use it from time to time. On a day with mild temperatures, the moonroof can be nice.
I'm six foot two an half and have no problem with the sunroof. I am amazed at the room for your feet in the Accord. It is better than the AVALON. Leather is great and very beneficial if you have a problem entering because of surgery.
Fortunately for me, I see the '07 Accord SE V6 is supplied sans sunroof. (Factory leather availability would've been a cherished option, though...) Between this and the new generation Sonata's rear suspension noise issues, a migration back to an Accord comfortably ensconced in my garage becomes an increasingly likely event.
Nothing original to offer, just that I'm a recent Honda enthusiast. I liked the new '04 Civic my son bought, and was sick of the expenses I was incurring with our '94 C280 so I also bought an '04 Civic, EX automatic. My wife and I have loved it.
I plan to buy an '08 Accord 4-cylinder EX-L auto if the new one is as great as I think it will be. If it isn't, I'll buy an '07, black with black leather. We also don't use the sliding roof, but I'll take a chance it won't leak. I don't think you can base any decisions about the '08 on anything you've seen yet. Honda is too secretive.
I've said it before, but the Accord Moonroofs do not leak. I've had them since 91, and not a drop. They are not designed to seal out the water with the glass part.
(I'm not too encourage by the mileage on my 2007 SE V6).
Did you ever answer the questions I asked you about your SE-V6 on the mileage forum? I didn't know if you saw my response, and hoped you read it. Here is the link to my response.
Hopefully the new Accord won't have the VCM technology. The VCM Odysseys are having problems with the active engine mounts that compensate for the added engine vibrations. The result is vibrations transmitted through the steering wheel/column. Also a BOSE noise cancellation system reduces airborne vibrations (doesn't cancel 100%).
Do a search & you will see many complaints about the VCM/bad engine mounts. There is a TSB but doesn't work.
The extra 1-2mpg savings is not worth the headache!
On the concept, it is not unusual that they show the top configuration.
I would imagine that like the current Accord it will be available with a 6 cylinder or a 4 cylinder to accomodate customer preference for power versus cost (fuel and initial purchase price).
If you look at the front, it has an S2000 look (the way the fenders flare). It will be intimidating the competition. The honeycomb grill is the only part that's not quite right. Everything else is very nice. I am dying to see the Sedan, however.
ME TOO!! The thing that ups my ante is that honda is going to make the next s2000 a 4 seat... That gives me hope the the accord has a .1% chance of having RWD! Its a downer because they're toning the s2000 down... again.... Convertible accord: With no more solara, Honda has that segment to itself to only share with the G6 and Eos.
TOO MUCH EXCITEMENT!! HEART CANT TAKE IT ALL IN!! :sick:
That gives me hope the the accord has a .1% chance of having RWD!
Trust me, they aren't going to go with a RWD Accord. They have no reason to do so. If they do anything, they'll give it a SH-AWD option somewhere down the road, but not RWD. They don't have the platform to do it - I mean, their pickup truck is FWD based.
Please tell me what is so great about RWD that you would be willing to give up some horsepower, torque, and fuel economy for it? Unless you're drag racing, or drifting, you don't need rwd, IMO.
It RWD will make the accord more like a sports car. It'll take some more weight rearwards and thus improve handling and braking. Yes I know thats not what it is intended to be but hey you cant blame a guy for wanting! The up side is that honda is know for good handling FWD vehicles.
Thegraduate: In your opinion, would you prefer the accord to use sh-awd or atts? I know 4WS(4 wheel steering) is WAYY out the question but will make the accord sportier. 4WS isn't needed for the accord. All three have been proven to make FWS cars great handlers! Hondas SH-AWD system is more expensive and with the accord already being FWD, snow traction won't be as big a problem without it.
ATTS(Active Torque Transfer System) OTOH made the last prelude a great handler and almost feel like a RWD car and still get decent MPG without the weigh of the Sh-awd system.
A system like that in the Civic Si (I guess ATTS?) would be great, but I still like the idea of a SH-AWD option. These likely won't all come to market though, if any. It isn't cost effective to offer that many choices.
Regular AWD systems send power back and forth from front to rear only. SH-AWD also modulates power from wheel to wheel in order to improve cornering/handling.
For example, if you were taking a fast left-hand curve, the outside rear-wheel would be given much more power than the inside rear-wheel, because it would more accurately power you through the corner. Is it making any sense?
If you prefer, go to Acura's Website and scroll over the RL model. Then, under the "Learn" column, click on "Features and Options." From this page, you should see a paragraph about the RL on the left (with a picture on the right). Within the paragraph is a clickable link about Super-Handling AWD. Follow that link for more info.
or read around the early pages of the acura rdx forum. Just scroll around seif, "Acura RDX" #1136, 24 Apr 2006 3:37 pm">this page or feel free to go on. If you see a lot of 70/30 torque split, you've found the page.
I hope honda does release an AWD accord. That'll be one less commercial on tv al la fusion. But since they had ATTS and the Cr-v awd system is new, ATTS could save a few $$$ without a decrease in performance. Just wanted to throw ATTS into the equation.
After a stiff talk with my dad, he convinced me to give american car a chance. Thus i came across the GM owned Saab 9-3. Its funny because the saab 9-3 incorporates a type of rear steering. So i guess it isn't dead afterall...
So your dad told you it's better to buy a Swedish car, because Saab is owned by an American company.
I previously looked at the Pontiac G6. Looks like a nice car. It's made in Canada. I think the Ford Fusion is made in Mexico. My Accord is made in Ohio. Honda even exports engines to Japan from that plant. I have no feelings of guilt over buying a "Japanese" car.
My other wish for the next Accord is Bluetooth accross the board.
The G6 is not made in Canada, its made in Michigan. The Impala/Grand Prix/Lacrosse are made in Canada as is the Equinox.
I just want to know how much hp the Accord is going to have. I hate how Honda wont release model info until the produc is on sale. That is annoying. I cant imagine them giving the Accord more hp than the TL but the Camry and Altima already outpower the TL so HOnda is going to have to do something.
I think Honda will either stay with the 3.0/V6 or go up to 3.2/V6 and regardless of the displacement, the targeted peak power may be 250-260 HP. That may not be a bad idea. At this point, Honda doesn’t need to prove that it can get more power than either Toyota or Nissan. Its old engine still beats Camry’s and Altima’s new V6 engines in terms of specific power output. In fact, simply moving to 3.5/V6 by using the same design criteria as the current 3.0/V6 would give us a 280 HP Accord.
I would rather see continued improvement in real life fuel economy as well as the chase to achieve perfection in overall refinement. So far, and while Honda representatives keep talking about improving performance, they have emphasized on these two far more important aspects. A second generation VCM (variable cylinder management) is expected to show up as standard feature with the V6, and this time, it might involve an additional stage (instead of V6 reverting to I-3 and vice versa, now the engine may be capable of running as a V4 as well which might actually improve fuel economy since switching to V6 may be avoidable under several circumstances).
As for TL, that car would be due for redesign soon after the 2008 Accord is launched. I think 3.5/V6 will become standard with 280-300 HP.
I'd look for HP numbers going up just enough to offset the probable increase in weight. So a 170HP I4 and a 250HP V6. Mileage increases at this point are going to be hard to come by - the engines are so efficient already it's hard to squeeze much more out of them. Only two things on the horizon that might increase HP or milage significantly - DI and/or cam less valve train. We won't be seeing either of those in this class for a long time.
I didn't know the Camry and Altima have over 286hp. The Accord, if I had to guess, will have the 3.2 liter engine with about 260 or so hp. The 3.5 liter will probably be TL's standard engine.
Besides, Altima and Camry already outpower BMW 330/530 but nobody would say they are better car to put those horses to use. The HP race is utterly non-sensical.
I'm sure the Accord will not be the smoothest riding, the fastest, most powerful, the best looking, or the best handling car in the mid-size segment. But you can consistantly count on the Accord to be a great overall package in 08, 09, and in 2015.
The Accord has NEVER been the smoothest, fastest, best looking, and best handling in the segment. The beauty of it is in the compromise that it makes between them all, it allows a family man to be an enthusiast without the car beating up the family!
It doesn't do one thing the best, but it does them all VERY WELL.
And for years, it's 4-cylinder economy was best in class (26/34). The Altima just topped it with 26/35. Still, the Accord kept that ranking for nearly 5 years (while still being competitive with the class in acceleration), not bad.
I was reading a bit of Honda history earlier today and came across an article on development of Honda's first sedan, H1300 (link).
Much of the article is about Soichiro Honda's stubbornness to use an air-cooled system but in the end when the car was finally showcased, an amusing situation came about:
Later that year, at the Tokyo Motor Show, the new car had Mr. Eiji Toyota, president of Toyota Motor Industries (now Toyota Motor Corp.), standing in front of the Honda exhibit for a full ten minutes. The story goes that he then called in his young engineers and dropped a bomb, shouting, "Honda's car produces 100 horsepower with a 1300-cc engine. Why can't we do the same thing?" This and other examples from the time evidence the high marks the H1300 received for its outstanding engineering.
He was comparing to Toyota's Corona MarkII which had a 1900 cc engine with about the same power. BTW, Honda ended up launching a sport version too, with 115 HP.
The tailights look like they came off the 02-05 Audi A4, 02-03 TL maybe too but they also look like the 06+ Civic Coupe's tailights too. The Roofline looks like it came off the Tiburon(03-06.) The hood looks like it came off the Dodge Charger.
And for years, it's 4-cylinder economy was best in class (26/34). The Altima just topped it with 26/35. Still, the Accord kept that ranking for nearly 5 years (while still being competitive with the class in acceleration), not bad.
And if the current Accord would be around in 08 it probably would be even or ahead of the Altima. I think the new 08 EPA millage rules will affect Honda the least (least drop in millage numbers).
When is the expected launch date for the 2008 Accord? When would we expect to start seeing them at the dealers? I'm thinking of buying a 2007 VP this summer and was interested in when the new model will have its debut.
If past history is a guide, I don't think youll see an Accord in dealers before September. You'll be lucky to have many details by July, I think. Honda is always really tight lipped about releasing details about its vehicles.
Those are mileage on papers. I drive a 06' I-4 Accord Auto and only get 22/23 miles/gallon on average with mixed highway and local driving( no ac, no heat on).
50% of the time I rev the engine between 2500-4000rpm. No really hard accelarations or braking. I don't quite trust the numbers given by the [non-permissible content removed]. :mad:
Still a smooth car but mileage is NOT as advertised. Sigh!
I don't quite trust the numbers given by the [non-permissible content removed]. Is this Jack Rousch speaking??
BTW, the numbers you don't trust are given by the EPA - not by the manufacturers. The EPA mpg test is run on a dyno under laboratory conditions. It has no real world component.
Starting in 2008, the EPA will change the test to reflect what real world results would be.
First of all, since you drive auto, EPA rating is 24/34 mpg. I drive 1998 Accord EX/auto which was rated at 23/30 mpg, and even with 168K miles on it, I still average about 26 mpg with about 55-60% city driving. Thats right about what is expected from EPA estimate too.
Besides driving style, time to idle (in my case, I rarely idle for more than 15 seconds) and distance/trip etc can play a huge role.
Here is a decent representation of people reporting mileage on 2006 Accord I-4/auto. Out of 18 cars, three have reported 20-21 mpg, but the rest are well within the EPA estimate.
Again, if you idle too much, or have excessive stop and go (doesn't matter if the distance is still 50% city), you will end up with lower mileage than if you didn't idle for long, and dealt with not too excessive stop/go.
On the Civic boards, someone complained about city mileage around 25 MPG. What they failed to mention at first was that their commute was two or three miles. With really short trips, a car never gets warmed up into optimum temperatures, and burns a lot of extra fuel than it would when running on a twenty-five miles.
I have never seen numbers below 24 MPG in my 1996 Accord (EPA estimates 23/31) and nothing below 27 MPG in my 2006 Accord (24/34). I commute 14 miles, with right at 7 miles of each (60-70 MPH highway/0-40-0-40MPH stop and go). Usually, I average right at the EPA estimate; 27 MPG in the 1996 and 29 MPG in the 2006.
I've said it before.... I've had my 06 Accord I4 Manual for 18,000 miles and I've never had a tank below 30 mpg. I'm not sure about the revs in an automatic but regularly going beyond 3000 - 4000 rpms seems like a bit much to expect great fuel efficiency.
Comments
You can also get the LX-SE I-4 Accord (which is equipped nearly like the EX) for a lot less money than an EX, plus, no sunroof.
The moonroof on Accords do not leak, or have other problems (I've had them now for 15 years without one problem). When I bought my first Accord I also was worried about the moonroof leaking. I don't feel that way anymore, and I actually use it from time to time. On a day with mild temperatures, the moonroof can be nice.
I plan to buy an '08 Accord 4-cylinder EX-L auto if the new one is as great as I think it will be. If it isn't, I'll buy an '07, black with black leather. We also don't use the sliding roof, but I'll take a chance it won't leak. I don't think you can base any decisions about the '08 on anything you've seen yet. Honda is too secretive.
2 wishes:
1. A conventional dash.
2. 175+ hp on the 4 cyl engine (I'm not too encourage by the mileage on my 2007 SE V6).
Did you ever answer the questions I asked you about your SE-V6 on the mileage forum? I didn't know if you saw my response, and hoped you read it. Here is the link to my response.
Do a search & you will see many complaints about the VCM/bad engine mounts. There is a TSB but doesn't work.
The extra 1-2mpg savings is not worth the headache!
I would imagine that like the current Accord it will be available with a 6 cylinder or a 4 cylinder to accomodate customer preference for power versus cost (fuel and initial purchase price).
-Cj :P
TOO MUCH EXCITEMENT!! HEART CANT TAKE IT ALL IN!! :sick:
-Cj
Trust me, they aren't going to go with a RWD Accord. They have no reason to do so. If they do anything, they'll give it a SH-AWD option somewhere down the road, but not RWD. They don't have the platform to do it - I mean, their pickup truck is FWD based.
If Honda makes a RWD Accord, I'll eat my shifter.
Based on the problems you're citing with VCM Odysseys, I would hope so. That would at least give us a choice in the matter.
Thegraduate:
In your opinion, would you prefer the accord to use sh-awd or atts? I know 4WS(4 wheel steering) is WAYY out the question but will make the accord sportier. 4WS isn't needed for the accord. All three have been proven to make FWS cars great handlers! Hondas SH-AWD system is more expensive and with the accord already being FWD, snow traction won't be as big a problem without it.
ATTS(Active Torque Transfer System) OTOH made the last prelude a great handler and almost feel like a RWD car and still get decent MPG without the weigh of the Sh-awd system.
-Cj
Something has to differentiate the brands other than styling and features.
Regular AWD systems send power back and forth from front to rear only. SH-AWD also modulates power from wheel to wheel in order to improve cornering/handling.
For example, if you were taking a fast left-hand curve, the outside rear-wheel would be given much more power than the inside rear-wheel, because it would more accurately power you through the corner. Is it making any sense?
If you prefer, go to Acura's Website and scroll over the RL model. Then, under the "Learn" column, click on "Features and Options." From this page, you should see a paragraph about the RL on the left (with a picture on the right). Within the paragraph is a clickable link about Super-Handling AWD. Follow that link for more info.
I hope honda does release an AWD accord. That'll be one less commercial on tv al la fusion. But since they had ATTS and the Cr-v awd system is new, ATTS could save a few $$$ without a decrease in performance. Just wanted to throw ATTS into the equation.
-Cj
Watch this cool video!!
So much for the bad handling FWD cars right
I predict the 2008 accord to launch around my birthday. 9/30/07
-Cj
I previously looked at the Pontiac G6. Looks like a nice car. It's made in Canada. I think the Ford Fusion is made in Mexico. My Accord is made in Ohio. Honda even exports engines to Japan from that plant. I have no feelings of guilt over buying a "Japanese" car.
My other wish for the next Accord is Bluetooth accross the board.
I don't see that in the lower level LX.
That 9/30 launch is probably about right - just a bit later than usual due to the model change over.
I just want to know how much hp the Accord is going to have. I hate how Honda wont release model info until the produc is on sale. That is annoying. I cant imagine them giving the Accord more hp than the TL but the Camry and Altima already outpower the TL so HOnda is going to have to do something.
I would rather see continued improvement in real life fuel economy as well as the chase to achieve perfection in overall refinement. So far, and while Honda representatives keep talking about improving performance, they have emphasized on these two far more important aspects. A second generation VCM (variable cylinder management) is expected to show up as standard feature with the V6, and this time, it might involve an additional stage (instead of V6 reverting to I-3 and vice versa, now the engine may be capable of running as a V4 as well which might actually improve fuel economy since switching to V6 may be avoidable under several circumstances).
As for TL, that car would be due for redesign soon after the 2008 Accord is launched. I think 3.5/V6 will become standard with 280-300 HP.
I didn't know the Camry and Altima have over 286hp. The Accord, if I had to guess, will have the 3.2 liter engine with about 260 or so hp. The 3.5 liter will probably be TL's standard engine.
It doesn't do one thing the best, but it does them all VERY WELL.
And for years, it's 4-cylinder economy was best in class (26/34). The Altima just topped it with 26/35. Still, the Accord kept that ranking for nearly 5 years (while still being competitive with the class in acceleration), not bad.
Much of the article is about Soichiro Honda's stubbornness to use an air-cooled system but in the end when the car was finally showcased, an amusing situation came about:
Later that year, at the Tokyo Motor Show, the new car had Mr. Eiji Toyota, president of Toyota Motor Industries (now Toyota Motor Corp.), standing in front of the Honda exhibit for a full ten minutes. The story goes that he then called in his young engineers and dropped a bomb, shouting, "Honda's car produces 100 horsepower with a 1300-cc engine. Why can't we do the same thing?" This and other examples from the time evidence the high marks the H1300 received for its outstanding engineering.
He was comparing to Toyota's Corona MarkII which had a 1900 cc engine with about the same power. BTW, Honda ended up launching a sport version too, with 115 HP.
And if the current Accord would be around in 08 it probably would be even or ahead of the Altima. I think the new 08 EPA millage rules will affect Honda the least (least drop in millage numbers).
Why would it affect Honda less?
Thx
50% of the time I rev the engine between 2500-4000rpm. No really hard accelarations or braking. I don't quite trust the numbers given by the [non-permissible content removed]. :mad:
Still a smooth car but mileage is NOT as advertised. Sigh!
BTW, the numbers you don't trust are given by the EPA - not by the manufacturers. The EPA mpg test is run on a dyno under laboratory conditions. It has no real world component.
Starting in 2008, the EPA will change the test to reflect what real world results would be.
Besides driving style, time to idle (in my case, I rarely idle for more than 15 seconds) and distance/trip etc can play a huge role.
Here is a decent representation of people reporting mileage on 2006 Accord I-4/auto. Out of 18 cars, three have reported 20-21 mpg, but the rest are well within the EPA estimate.
Again, if you idle too much, or have excessive stop and go (doesn't matter if the distance is still 50% city), you will end up with lower mileage than if you didn't idle for long, and dealt with not too excessive stop/go.
I have never seen numbers below 24 MPG in my 1996 Accord (EPA estimates 23/31) and nothing below 27 MPG in my 2006 Accord (24/34). I commute 14 miles, with right at 7 miles of each (60-70 MPH highway/0-40-0-40MPH stop and go). Usually, I average right at the EPA estimate; 27 MPG in the 1996 and 29 MPG in the 2006.
I rarely crop up over 3,000 RPM in my driving.