Can Honda get its mojo back?

hpmctorque

You should check out the 2013 Olds 98 before you commit to annother Accord.

benjaminh

"You should check out the 2013 Olds 98 before you commit to annother Accord."

!lol....Yeah, I'm still a little sad about the death of Oldsmobile. That Olds 98 was actually a very good car, and well build and engineered for the most part. When we got it it was already 10 years old, and so we kept having to fix and replace things on it, but that's true with all cars that are that old. After my Hondas it was by far my favorite. Comfortable (luxurious, really), powerful, great visibility, decent mpg. That was a very nice car. Our kids loved it so much they had a 8 x 10 picture taken with it before we donated it to charity that's still on the mantle. It was before we got a dog, and that car was like their dog. After that picture my wife said, rightly, that we had to get a dog because they had an unnatural fixation on that car. We now have a little white poodle who is a great replacement for our old white Oldsmobile....

hpmctorque

I had a '72 98 with the 455 V8, bought in '75 with 31,something miles, and a '85 98 Brougham with the 3.8 V6, bought in '88, by coincidence also with 31,something miles. Yes, Olds 98s had the attributes that you mentioned, but also things that had to be repaired and replaced, some prematurely. Overall, though, they were good cars for their time. Before the Japanese car invasion Oldsmobiles were considered quality cars.

I donated my '72 with ~127,000 miles and scrapped my '85 with 156,000. They didn't owe me anything. My '99 Acura TL, which I bought new and still drive, has been excellent.

lemko

I had your car's sister - a 1988 Buick Park Avenue. It too was an excellent car I drove up until the end of March 2009. The fuel economy was phenomenal and the car was no slouch despite only 165 hp.

benjaminh

Yeah, that 3.8 engine GM that year was excellent. Wonderful torque.

There were lots of quality details in that Olds 98 throughout. For instance, the hood was counter balanced and had shocks. And there was a strong under hood light that came on when you opened the hood. The seats and carpets were just soft and comfortable and looked very luxe. The suspension was somewhat soft, but still a bit sporty. The headroom was about the best I've had in any car. Legroom was also outstanding. And I've posted elsewhere about the wall of cold AC that I've never experienced on any other car. But, the AC eventually need $1000 of work....Old cars, even Hondas and Olds 98s get so things have to be fixed.

victor23

I owned Olds Cutlass Supreme'96 at some point, and I loved it too. It was one of the most comfortable cars I ever owned. I don't mean style or driving dynamics here, just comfort. The problem was, this Olds (as well as a 1999 Olds Silhouette minivan) started falling apart at about 45-50 k miles, and that is why I became fed up and switched to Hondas and Toyotas. Over the last several years, however, the reliability of all cars improved dramatically. I very well trust you (and this was my experience too) that recent Hondas were more reliable than older cars of other brands. Not so sure if they were better than older Hondas, though. And if recent statistics and owners' experience are any guide, it doesn't look like recent Hondas are any more reliable than many other new vehicles. In 2010, I stopped to be loyal to the Honda brand; I returned, of all things, to VW, and so far I don't regret a bit.

benjaminh

Do you own a Passat? Those are very good cars from what I've read. And I know VW is making a very serious effort at making its cars more reliable. Hope it pays off! I like the VW sense of style and performance, and yet at a price a lot of people can afford.

I once owned a VW Jetta, and, well, although that was a long time ago I probably won't own another VW again, unless somehow Honda lets me down.

But in a way those two—VW and Honda—go for the same kind of customer. And I actually think that's a good thing.

fezo

If it reached the point where VWs were considered generally reliable I'd consider one again. I generally love what they are but my ownership experience with an 80 Rabbit and VW's lack of cooperation keeps me away. I very nearly bought a Passat wagon at the end of 1999 but couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger. Bought an Accord that I still have. Not as much fun but it's still going.

By the time my dad had an Olds it was maybe a mid-80s Cutlass Ciera. Might as well have been a Chevy. Nothing particularly Olds about it. On a trip up to my brother's they rented an 88. That was one nice car. If you could make 88s with modern reliability it would be worth restarting Ols (yeah, like there's a chance of that!).

hpmctorque

Come on Fezo, you had a bad experience with a '80 Rabbit and you won't consider a new VW 32 years later?

fezo

Every negative review and comment on VW that I've read since then always brings up the same issues I had with that car - electrical gremlins. Since tha car I've had a number of utterly reliable cars of several different makes - one a dud Ford.

Ford was on my do not touch list but their reputation has improved. From where I sit Volkswagen's has not. I keep cars for a long time so just keeping it while in warranty isn't an option. Of course my VW issues happened in warranty and they'd try to slip out of it. The only car I ever dumped before paying it off.

bpizzuti

When I bought my Mazda3 a few years ago, it was at a Mazda/VW dealer (still is, but the name has changed). The salesman actually talked me OUT of test driving a Golf, said they aren't reliable, and he didn't like selling them. The service adviser said they drove real nice but were always coming in for electrical issues. NONE of the dealership employees were driving VWs, they all drove Mazdas or other brands. They still do more Mazda than VW sales from what I hear through the grapevine.

Probably a mistake for VW to be co-located with another brand, too many opportunities for comparison. Yeah, putting a bunch of brands under one rooftop is convenient for the customer, but unless you put the RIGHT ones together, you risk putting some of your products in a bad light.

keystonecarfan

Oldsmobile tried to improve build quality and reliability in the late 1960s and early 1970s at the same time the rest of the industry was getting quite sloppy in those regards.

Oldsmobile had a very good reputation through the late 1970s. The 442, for example, was more refined than the other muscle cars, and made at least some attempt to improve handling, which was largely ignored by competitors. The Ninety-Eight was equal to the Cadillacs in many ways, but sold for less money. GM later thoroughly trashed Oldsmobile with shared drivetrains, the underdeveloped Oldsmobile Diesel and the X-car fiasco.

Oldsmobile benefitted from the inspired leadership of John Beltz in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Unfortunately, he died from cancer in 1972 at the age of 46. Many felt that he had John DeLorean's smarts and product savvy without the huge ego, which meant that he could have gone to the top at GM. One wonders how subsequent GM history would have played out if he had achieved that goal.

The interesting part is that many of the people who today drive Honda Accords, Odysseys and Pilots are the equivalent of those who, in the 1970s, were driving Cutlass Supremes and Delta 88s.

victor23

Do you own a Passat?

We test-drove just about everything and opted for a CC. Other contenders on my shortlist were Altima, Camry, and, yes, Accord. I hoped to get a Malibu (I like GM creature comforts in general, their nice balance of “fun-to-drive” vs. “pleasure-to-ride”, and Malibu interiors in particular), but it didn’t make our shortlist. I think that for many buyers, Sonata should be a first choice. It looks like Fusion is currently at the top of the reliability rankings.

I owned a 95 VW Golf, which was a very nice car. It had its spate of problems, but not more than my previous Fords or other cars, and only one of the Golf problems was electrical. Accords felt like improvement over Golf in all aspects except for the “fun”-factor. Now, the CC feels superior over Accords in almost every aspect. CCs were not very popular so far because they were 4-seaters (starting 2013, not anymore) and have a low roof at the rear. Given how I use a car, these factors were not at all a disadvantage to me.

Not to say that I haven’t had any issues during the last 2.5 years, but I still haven’t visited a dealer for reliability-related problems (although I might need to fix a cupholder). I assumed the reliability risks keeping in mind significant recent improvements in reliability across the board, and also the “excellent (or well above-average)” rating of the 09’CC by CR (as far as I know, not anymore). I understand that for guys here who keep their cars for 10+ years it is not enough of an argument; well, that’s a fair concern, I agree. We, however, tend not to keep our cars for that long, or, at least, keeping it long-term is never a purpose. We do intend to keep a Toyota Sienna minivan though (which is 7.5 years old at this point already), mostly because it serves our purposes better than new Siennas and Odysseys.

benjaminh

Congrats on your CC! Those are very nice cars. I sat in one at our local Mazda/VW dealer, and I was very impressed at the seeming BMW-esque level of quality and refinement. It's a very, very nice car. The only thing that bugged me is that I'm only 5'10", but in the back seat my head brushed the roof. Still, a really beautiful car, imho, and kind of special because you don't see too many on the road.

My guess is that VW has changed its ways the last few years when it comes to quality. I think they saw the formula Toyota and Honda had for success—quality for the masses at a good price—and decided to do their own version of that.

Motor Trend just ranked the Passat as still number 1 in their midsize comparison test, even against the 2013 Accord, and so they must be doing something right.

I quibble with their test because the Accord got from 0-60 quite a bit faster (7.7 seconds compared to 8.8), and the Accord gets significantly higher mpg.....But, clearly Motor Trend loves the Passat for the quality and fun to drive factor.

victor23

Thanks, Ben! Yes, CC is 'special' indeed, and that was one of the selling points that tipped the scale over a fully loaded Altima: there are just too many Altimas on the road. Bad for VW, good for me. And that is what I said earlier about the low roof and my intended uses: 1. I am shorter than you, and 2. I don't drive in the back seat. I sat there maybe only once, so far.

Good luck with your future purchase. It looks like 2013 Accord is indeed a great step forward compared to the previous model.

benjaminh

Another good thing about the CC is that it has the 2.0 turbo, right? That's a special engine from what I hear, and erases one of the weak points of the Passat. The Passat has the not as good 2.5 as standard.

But the 2.0 turbo is probably quick! Probably just as fast as the 2013 Accord....Maybe even faster? Don't know.

benjaminh

keystone wrote: "The interesting part is that many of the people who today drive Honda Accords, Odysseys and Pilots are the equivalent of those who, in the 1970s, were driving Cutlass Supremes and Delta 88s."

I think you're right!

My top of the line 2008 Accord EXL was the direct replacement for our 1988 Olds 98. And not only that they were in some ways similar—luxo barges of somewhat reduced size. And both cars were/are white. The Honda is just a little smaller, more nimble, and handles better than the Olds 98 did, but in some ways they are more similar than you might think! Well, not than you might think, because you've figured it out. The old Oldsmobile people are buying Accords, Passats, Camrys, Altimas, Sonatas, etc. Of course mostly there are whole new generations who started to drive long after Oldsmobile was relevant who buy those cars too.

hpmctorque

I equate the Accord EX-L V6 with the Impala/Caprice, Ford LTD and Plymouth Fury III (?) of yesteryear, while the Acura TL is more the counterpart of the Olds 98, Buick Electra/Park Avenue, Mercury Grand Marquis and Chrysler New Yorker. In other words, the EX-L corresponds to the full size Detroit offerings I mentioned, whereas the TL and its equivalent Detroit barges represent what we now call near luxury. No?

As I see it, then, the Cadillac, Lincoln and Imperial were approximately the spiritual predecessors to the Mercedes E and S Classes, BMW 5 and 7, Audi A6 and A8, and Lexus GS and LS. Or, maybe just the MB S-Class, BMW 7er, Audi A8 and Lexus LS.

benjaminh

Funny but true!

victor23

But the 2.0 turbo is probably quick! Probably just as fast as the 2013 Accord...

Oh yes, this is a beast... Not only 2.0T, but also a DSG transmission. It delivers power like V-6, but feels much more powerful. IIRC, it is rated somewhere around 6.2 s for 0-60, but I am not sure how relevant is this number itself: we are not taking it to drag races. In normal street driving, the most striking feature of turbo is that you get vast amount of power when you need it, starting at below 2000 rpm, while you have to rev up to almost 4000 rpm (Toyota) or well above that (Honda) to get to power. It feels reluctant at first (below 1700 rpm), but is very eager if you shift to the S-mode. But then, in S-mode, it is much thirstier. Overall, when you go for the V-6-type power, you are getting a V-6-type fuel efficiency (mpg numbers are better, but premium fuel is needed). If you keep within speed limits, mpg is much better (I got 38.5 mpg hwy with a/c turned on recently; we were transporting kids and were afraid to be seen as irresponsible drivers by their parents).

As far as I know, you can get turbo also on Buick Regal, Volvos, and higher-end Tauruses and Sonatas, of non-luxury rides. Maybe more now: it rapidly becomes a new industry standard.

andre1969

Or, maybe just the MB S-Class, BMW 7er, Audi A8 and Lexus LS.

Funny you'd mention that, because the last time I sat in a BMW 7-series at one of the auto shows, it was a long wheelbase model, and it made me think that about the only old Detroit model that would compete with this would be something like a Caddy Fleetwood 75!

Going purely on size, most of what we call midsized today would've been compact back in the 60's. But, in terms of market status, comfort, etc, I'd say you're right that they pretty much fill the same market that your typical Detroit mass-market full-sizer did back in the day.

hpmctorque

I think interior space, and how it's configured, are more significant than exterior dimensions. Such things as FWD and space efficiency in general, seats that are much more adjustable, and greater attention to interior configuration has compensated for smaller exterior dimensions and three abreast front seat capability.

Wouldn't four people, and especially the driver front seat passenger, be more comfortable in a new Accord than, say, a '60s or '70s Impala/Galaxie/Fury on a long trip?

lemko

I imagine that hood opened from the back like my Park Ave. It was the only car I had that did that. Ford products of the 1950s had hoods that opened fron the back as well.

lemko

I had a 1979 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency with the 403 V-8 that went 148K+ miles before being destroyed in an accident with a box truck.

fezo

My grandfather's old 49 Buick's hood opened from the side!

lemko

Those old Buicks had a setup where you could open the hood from either side. I imagine if you hit all four latches and had some help, you could take the entire hood off.

andre1969

Wouldn't four people, and especially the driver front seat passenger, be more comfortable in a new Accord than, say, a '60s or '70s Impala/Galaxie/Fury on a long trip?

They might just be. I know my '67 Catalina convertible, which is the same basic thing as an Impala, isn't that comfortable for me on long trips. Legroom is a bit tight, but worse, the steering wheel is too close to my chest, so I have to drive with my arms bent a little, and that gives me a touch of tennis elbow after awhile. And if I can't stretch my left leg from time to time, my knee gets a bit achy. Getting old is a B*tch! :P

The seats also aren't all that well padded and there's no side bolstering or contouring to speak of. However, one thing that it does well is give me some support in my lower back. Many newer cars seem to overdo it at the upper back, but not the lower, so it forces me into a bit of a slouching position and my back starts hurting. However, I dunno if a new Accord would do that or not. I'm sure a nicer model would have lumbar support, which would definitely help.

fezo

You may be right. He was gone by the time we hit the age where we would have thought of attempting such a thing - but indeed you could open it from either side. I remember him doing that.

keystonecarfan

GM cars of the 1960s weren't known for prioritizing passenger space over style. Judging by the sales figures, customers didn't seem to mind, although GM pushed it too far with the 1971 full-size cars and personal luxury cars and 1973 Colonnade intermediates.

To some extent, the growth in sales of Mercedes and Volvo at that time was a reaction to domestic cars that were huge outside and not very roomy inside.

It wasn't just the imports that were more space efficient. The 1965-68 Chrysler Corporation full-size cars felt HUGE inside compared to their GM counterparts.

benjaminh

Good observation. But by the 1980s this had changed, maybe for everybody. My 1988 Olds 98 was at least a foot shorter and about a thousand pounds lighter than a 1984 98, but it had almost the same amount of room inside as the previous generation. That 1988 Olds 98 (or really starting with the 1985's) was small on the outside and big on the inside. I think it was bigger on the inside than many of today's cars of the same size...

andre1969

Believe it or not, it was about TWO feet shorter! I think the 1984 Olds 98 was around 221" long, while the 1985 was around 196".

Compared to the 1984, the main thing the '85 gave up was trunk space and shoulder room. I think legroom was about the same. However, I sat in Lemko's '88 Park Ave once or twice, and it seemed like the seat sat up a bit higher, but didn't go back quite as far as the old RWD models did. I think headroom overall was increased, too.

The trunk got shrunk from around 20-21 cubic feet to maybe 15.5-16. And it probably lost a lot of towing capacity. However, I've always wondered...how much could an early 80's RWD B/C body tow, anyway? Somehow, I don't think an '84 Ninety-Eight, sporting a 140 hp 307 with 255 ft-lb of torque and mated to the lightweight THM200-R4 transmission would be all that capable. That transmission could be beefed up considerably...after all, it was used in the Buick Grand National. But, I still don't think a 140 hp engine is going to be all that great at trailering.

I think you're right, though. Nothing that small (~196 inches) is going to be nearly as roomy inside as those early FWD C-bodies.

benjaminh

Wow. Two feet. I like your in depth historical knowledge of car numbers. Amazing stuff.

Yeah, the trunk was about 16. Bigger than the one in my Honda Accord, which is more like 14. Width or shoulder room wasn't as much as a 1984, but legroom and headroom were pretty close. That was a was engineered car...

benjaminh

victor wrote: "Oh yes, this is a beast... Not only 2.0T, but also a DSG transmission. It delivers power like V-6, but feels much more powerful. IIRC, it is rated somewhere around 6.2 s for 0-60, but I am not sure how relevant is this number itself: we are not taking it to drag races..."

That's faster than I thought. (Cue Darth Vader voice): "Impressive! *Most* impressive."

I think the 0-60 number is very relevant, and I'm always puzzled when people say it wouldn't be. Almost every day when I get off of work I'm stopped at a light, and then it turns green and I have to get from 0-60 going up an uphill onramp as I merge onto the freeway. Heck yeah it's relevant. To me, at least.

victor23

I think the 0-60 number is very relevant

Well, I give numbers from Motor Trend (MT) or the sites like zeroto60times.com for the sake of consistency (looks like most people here quote MT, and the available numbers for Accord'13 are also from MT). Some dudes on youtube claim even faster times, while, for instance, CR gives much slower 0-to-60 than MT for all cars.

Anyway, I never had a slightest problem merging from the ramp, even without the S-mode. Effortless.

I've just read that yesterday's midsize comparo by MT. Quite illuminating. Looks like Honda did a good job; nice surprise to me. Not at all surprised by a poor Camry showing. Old 2.5 5-cyl (which wasn't adequate even for Jetta even years ago) for a new Passat is a joke, but maybe just OK with most "users". Pity they couldn't include Sonata, Legacy (these were too old) and Mazda (not launched yet).

keystonecarfan

GM's first-generation front-wheel-drive full-size cars were quite space efficient. They were, however, lower to the ground, so entry and exit were more difficult than before.

At least, that is what my parents said, as they had traded in a 1982 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale sedan for a 1988 version.

The big problem with those first front-wheel-drive full-size cars was that they felt less solid than the old rear-wheel-drive versions. The interior panels felt as though they were attached with paper clips, and there was a drumming noise that never went away.

The redone 1990s versions were a HUGE improvement. My parents bought a 1992 Delta 88 to replace the 1988 model, and it was a much better car in every way.

keystonecarfan

victor23: Looks like Honda did a good job; nice surprise to me.

Honda had to hit a home run. Another half-hearted effort like the Civic in a critical market segment, and the company would be in serious trouble.

The current Civic is getting an emergency makeover for 2013. It's supposed to debut in November-December. According to insiders on a site that shall not be named, the 2013 model will feature a dramatically improved interior and a slight exterior facelift.

andre1969

For some strange reason, I kinda like the 2012 Civic. I wonder if that should be an omen for Honda...that if Andre says he likes it, be ready for it to take some flak! :P

FWIW, I like the 2008-2012 as well, a car that gets criticized for being too big, losing touch with what a Honda "should" be, etc. And, as I recall, even the 2003-2007, which is when it finally got big enough that I'd consider one, was criticized.

I'm curious to see how the 2013 Accord compares.

benjaminh

The 2012 Civic is a very good car. In some areas I think it's been unfairly criticized. Compared to the previous version it has more room, it's faster, it gets significantly better mpg, etc. They did cut costs in some places (like the dash plastic), but it's not as bad as some people say. My brother-in-law has a 2012 Civic Si sedan, and it's an excellent car. Of course, that's a totally top of the line model...

As the owner of a 2008 Accord, I think the criticism of that generation (the 8th of the Accord) was a little overdone too. Compared to my 2002 Accord it was a major improvement in many ways. The doors of the 08 close like a bank vault compared to the rather tinny 02. The handling, however, is more sloppy and Buick-like (not *that* bad, but...) compared to the more crisp 2002.

Like you and many others, I'm curious about the 2013. Car and Driver has just named it the King of midsize sedans, beating out the new Fusion, Altima, etc. Although the 2013 is a bit smaller on the outside than the previous generation, the room inside is supposed to be almost the same. Acceleration to 60 mph is faster by about a second, which is huge. And mpg is up to 36 on the hwy, which is impressive for a sedan of this size and power.

I'm looking forward to buying one once supplies are up and prices ease a little...December maybe?

benjaminh

"In case you thought we were superficial, the dowdy Accord won our hearts with resurgent Honda mojo and unimpeachable chassis flow"
(+) Sweet to Drive, Big in the Back and the Boot, engine and CVT work harmoniously
(-) Anonymity on Wheels, CVT makes some noise
(=) A family sedan made out of recycled CRXs "

andre1969

I spotted a 2013 Accord up in Pennsylvania, Saturday evening. Nice, attractive car IMO. It's not going to set the automotive world on fire, but truth be told, I don't think any car is capable of that anymore. At this point in time I think that, style-wise, we've seen it all and done it all. So until they can make the damn things levitate, I don't think there's much they can do anymore to really wow me.

Still, it's enough that it's aroused my curiosity.

stever

"Thirty years ago, the first Accord rolled off the line at Honda's Marysville, Ohio, plant, the first car a Japanese automaker assembled in the U.S., changing the competitive landscape of American automaking forever.

Though its world headquarters remains in Japan, Honda makes and sells more cars in North America than in any other continent. The seven plants can produce 1.63 million vehicles a year now and will boost annual capacity to 1.92 million vehicles when a new$800-million plant in Celaya, Mexico, starts production in 2014."

Honda's Ohio plant changed competitive landscape in America (Detroit Free Press)

stickguy

I had a 2005, which was to me a nice size and a well balanced car. Not stylish, but not offensive either. The next (last now) generation, I did not like. Way too big, seemed bloated, and not at all interesting to me.

the new one though, I would consider if I needed a full sized mid size (what I consider these). Looks nice, and a bit trimmer. still barge like though, but most of these are now.

one thing that I like about the Accord, when you read the comparison tests, is visibility. One of the few with decent sized windows, reasonably low belt line, and a decent view out. Some of the other cars in the class are like looking out of a tank turret.

berri

What I found interesting in that CD article was that it was pretty high on the new Camry, but then Motor Trend came out very down on the Camry due to things like rattles and a light assembly falling out of the roof...hmm, sounded like "Old GM" disease. They also took opposite positions on the new VW Passat.

I'm thinking that Honda dropping the front end wishbone suspension won't be a big deal in the marketplace even though it may dismay a few Honda purists?

stickguy

those purists long since abandoned the Accord.

Or, they joined the 99% of the buyers that neither know nor car what kind of front suspension the car has. Or transmission, or any other dirty bit, as long as it is smooth, quiet, economical and reliable.

stever

Slower-than-expected sales and the yen's strength against other currencies forced Japan's third-biggest car maker to lower its net profit projection.

"Our earnings outlook has been affected by lower sales due to the situation in China" and other key markets, Finance chief Fumihiko Ike said at a news conference Monday. Honda also posted weak second-quarter results, which Mr. Ike blamed in part on higher spending on marketing and incentives in the U.S. to clear out older inventory that acted as a drag on profits."

Honda Chops Forecast WSJ

berri

That's kind of funny Steve, because when I look at the ads it seems Detroit is often priced higher than Japan these days because D3 seems to have inflated their sticker prices more.

victor23

those purists long since abandoned the Accord.
Or, they joined the 99% of the buyers that neither know nor car what kind of front suspension the car has. Or transmission, or any other dirty bit, as long as it is smooth, quiet, economical and reliable.

Probably I am one of those, because I don't really care as long as it is "fun-to-drive" AND "pleasure-to-ride" AND "low-maintenance" AND reliable. I did abandon, and one of the "deal-breakers" was the consistently high turning diameter in V6 Accords (among the highest in the class). It was a frustrating 39.6' in my 2007.

As concerns the style, I agree, I also liked 2003-2005 the most (elegant inside; not outstanding, but consistent outside; not too big for a personal transportation); 2006 redesign was "more inoffensive", but rather eclectic. 2008 was "noble", but not elegant, outside, and mostly disappointing inside, and its mid-cycle redesign was, again, "more inoffensive", but bland and eclectic. 2013 seems to be the most inoffensive of all on paper (have yet to see it "in person").

andre1969

its mid-cycle redesign was, again, "more inoffensive", but bland and eclectic. 2013 seems to be the most inoffensive of all on paper (have yet to see it "in person").

That mid cycle refresh must have been bland as heck, as I never even noticed that there was one!

I saw a 2013 Accord a couple weeks ago. I thought it was nice looking.

Sandman6472

Saw my 1st new Accord last night at the gas station and I like it! The rear end looks especially nice and since it had nice alloys, I'm assuming it was an EX model. I think this car will age nicely...looks much better than the last generation for some reason. Looks better than the new Camry overall...I would definitely buy one if in the market for a mid-sized sedan right now. Like it even better than the new Fusion, which is a very good looking new model...I'd choose the Fusion over the Camry if they were my two choices for my next ride and I'm not really a Ford person at all.
All I can say is...good job Honda!

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

victor23

That mid cycle refresh must have been bland as heck, as I never even noticed that there was one!

The too-much-chrome-too-rectangular grille was gone; I liked the new one at first, but very soon it became too much reminding of 1950s and lacking any (even if poor) personality. The rear lamps were added with horisontal strips looking like light-reflecting stickers stuck onto an antique car.