might be that it's trying to become TOO mainstream and family-car oriented, and that might be turning off some of the former Accord fans. In the past, I always viewed the Accord to be a sportier car than the Camry, as well as various iterations of the Stanza and Altima...at least up until the '02 Altima hit the streets. But now, of the three, the Altima seems to be definitely the sportiest, whereas the Accord and Camry just seem to be mainstream family cars.
I'm not crazy about the Accord's style, but I love the interior. Seems like it's still pretty nicely put together, and reasonably plush, by today's standards. I don't like the Camry's interior at all, though.
As for the Altima, I've seen a few of the '05 models, and they do seem to have improved interiors. Less Playskool/Fisher Price/GM looking plastic. Still probably a few notches below an Accord's interior, though.
"Anytime something gets changed there are those who will like the changes and those who won't."
True, but I think the latest Accord redesign is more polarizing than previous redesigns. My brother doesn't even like it, and he won't buy anything but Honda.
If Honda had both versions of the Accord (TSX version and Buick version) available in their showrooms with the same powertrains and same prices, it'd be interesting to see which one sold better. It'd be a no-brainer for me as far as which one I'd pick, but I'm not sure about the average person.
...as an Accord here in the US, it's a safe bet that it would've sunk Honda sales. While it might be a great little car, it's just too small to make it as a mainstream family car. And that's what the likes of the Accord, Camry, and Altima have become. They're the Chevelles, Tempests, Fairlanes, Coronets, and Satellites of 2004. The TSX is closer in side to something like the Mazda6. Now, maybe 10 years ago, when most cars in this class were about TSX/Mazda6 size, it would've sold great. But like the "true" full-sized car has died out for the most part, it also seems that the "compact", that size of car that's in between "mid-size" and "subcompact" seems just about dead, as well.
The Accord, Camry, and Altima grew out of that class, and Chevy pretty much left it when it ditched the Corsica for the Malibu. Ford left it when they cancelled the Contour. Maybe the Chrysler Sebring could still be considered borderline compact?
And with small cars getting bigger, as the Corolla, Civic, Neon, Focus, Mazda3, etc are all bigger than cars they've replaced (I guess they're still considered subcompacts, maybe some of them aren't anymore) it just seems like there isn't much room anymore for a size class between them and the midsizers.
The things that would kill the TSX as a mainstream car is the shoulder room, skimpy back seat legroom, and small trunk. Those are things that most sport sedan drivers don't care about, but in mainstream family cars, they take more precedence.
When I sat in one though, it just felt cramped to me. And I'd LOVE to know how, exactly, they measure legroom. A Mazda6 with 42.3" of legroom feels cramped to me, but a Chrysler 300 with 41.8" feels comfy? Odd...
I think they simply measure from the seat to the fire wall. So seating position has a lot to do with it. A taller more upright seat will feel like you have more room because your legs aren't stretched out so much.
Good point about cars getting bigger. I think the Civic is as big if not bigger than an old Accord. Civics are still considered compacts. Sub Compacts aren't big sellers here so they get bigger if they are to survive.
The reason for no V6 is not because it couldn't be done, it's because it'd be stepping on the TL's toes in the Acura lineup.
I just wish the TSX was not an Acura. I'd love it if we were given the choice between the TSX version and the Buick version. In some parts of the world, you have your choice between the two at the same Honda dealer. The Accord would be covering all bases that way, but I guess Honda knows best and figures it's in their best interest to do it the way they do it now.
Civic is said to be a little larger than the Accord from the 80s. With the redesign, Civic moved from Sub-Compact classification to Compact (about 92 cu. ft cabin volume, which is just a tad shy of about 94 cu. ft offered in 94-97 Accord).
Civic offers a combined (front + rear) legroom of 78.8 inch which is a little less than Accord’s (79.4”), more than TSX’s (76.6 inch) and as much as Mazda6 (78.8 inch).
is another car where, even though the legroom looks good on paper, sitting in the car I just felt cramped! In contrast, I had a '91 Civic sedan for a rental years ago, and, unless my mind is playing tricks on me (or I've grown since then!), I swear it felt a bit more generous in the legroom department!
I think that as we get older cars start feeling smaller. I used to be very happy driving Integras, a 2 door RAV4, and Civics. I even longed for a Miata for a couple of minutes. Now I feel like I am in a go-cart when I am in our 03 Si. The 04 Accord is just the right size without being too big like the Camry and Altima are IMO. However, I sure do love driving our 04 Odyssey so who knows what I will want in 3 years when the Accord goes back.
IMO, Accord has been just the right size since 1998 redesign for the purpose it is supposed to serve. 94-97 and earlier Accords were small! I’ve quoted my Altima/Maxima test drive experience (going back to Fall 1997) when a sales person made it a point to tell me that Altima is “larger than Accord” (I told him, “yeah right” since new Accord had just grown in size and he was comparing data from a year ago).
It almost appears that Honda made it a point to keep Accord’s length under 190-inch, and compared to the Nissans (Altima and Maxima) and domestic offerings, that is several inches shorter. I hope it stays where it is, in terms of size.
Americans travel with stuff. We have coffee cup holders for our special coffee cups. We have CD caddys for our CDs even if we had a multi-disk player. We have more that one set of Sun glasses and a cell phone or two. I keep a book in the car in case I get stuck somewhere. I also have a small set of tools and a fire Extinguisher(5 or 10 pound) and a first aid kit in the back of the car. Add a amp and your little compact car begins to feel a bit cramped.
And it's amazing the amount of room car seats, diaper bags, and strollers take up. I thought my Accord sedan was plenty roomy until I put all of the above in it and had almost no room left for our weekly Wal-mart trip.
I don't know what it is, but the 2003 Accord looks like a much bigger car than the previous generation, and it's not. The higher cowl on the 2003 must have a lot to do with that. I really liked the 98-02 Accord sedans, I liked that design right away when I first saw it. Good looking all around, nothing really ugly about it. Some people thought it was bland, but IMO it was definately the best looking in it's class back then.
is the first one that I'd seriously consider buying. I think the '98-02 models were better looking, but just too small. Likewise the generation before that (I really liked the '96-97, with their cleaner grilles and larger taillights). I think I liked the '90-93 the best, with their open, airy greenhouses and proportioning and C-pillar kick that was vaguely BMW-ish. But just too small for my tastes. The old '86-89, with the hidden headlights (something I've always loved) were also way cool, but heck, back then the thing was practically a subcompact!
I think there are several reasons the current Accord might look a lot bulkier than the previous model. First, the aforementioned high cowl/beltline and high decklid, with smallish windows, give it more visual mass. Also, overall length inclusde the bumpers, but the current model seems like it has smaller bumpers. That is, the nose and tail of the car stick out further. That also adds more visual bulk than, say, if the car had a 5 inch shorter body but then made it up in the bumpers, which would net you the same overall length.
In contrast, the Camry felt big enough for my tastes back in the '92-96 generation. Somehow they screwed up for '97 though, giving it some of the most uncomfortable seats my hiney has ever graced! And somehow it felt like it lost legroom as well. Maybe not however they might measure it, but how I feel it! And now the current Camry is even worse. The seat feels like it sits a little higher, but it's still uncomfortable. Feels about the same as a Gran Fury copcar (a feeling know only too well), minus the legroom.
I think the Altima is still my favorite in this class though. Feels like it has some of the best front legroom of any car I've been in, at least in recent memory. I love its looks, too. Only the cheapish interior hurts it, IMO. Now if they could get the Altima up to the Accord's reliability and refinement (or just find a way to clean up the Accord's looks a bit and give it a bigger trunk) I think they'd have a car that's darn near perfect!
I know this is old information to some people here, but not to everyone...
The TSX (minus some of the luxury, though there is a Type R version) is sold as the Accord in Europe and Japan. It's the size that's defined as "midsized" in most of the world, and the Mazda6 is in the same size class. Strangely, the Japan/Europe Accord (TSX) looks more like the progeny of the previous American Accord than the new American Accord does.
And in Japan, the American-market Accord (with a few cosmetic differences) is sold as the Inspire.
Maybe they read forums like this one, where everyone complained that the Accord was too bland. But they were only bold on the front styling, and there's nothing special about the rest of the car. And since the front end is unconservative, it's not going to be universally accepted.
Can't speak for its other qualities though... not my market. And in compacts, Honda has been a bit disappointing. The current Civic is a great passenger car, but the value is disappearing and so is the fun. Just my luck... the generation that they bring back an Si hatchback, the steering and deftness disappoint...
"The TSX (minus some of the luxury, though there is a Type R version) is sold as the Accord in Europe and Japan. It's the size that's defined as "midsized" in most of the world, and the Mazda6 is in the same size class."
It's the same story with the Subaru Legacy also. It's a "World Midsize" car as opposed to a specialty model for the US. The thing is, it's also very popular, as is the Mazda6. Seems like Americans are really starting to go for that sort of car, and Honda may be well-advised to bring the Euro Accord here and sell it alongside the US Accord. Maybe call it the "Accord Sport" or something like that. See how the sales stack up. THe Euro version IS more true to Honda's roots, after all.
kinda cool if they sold the TSX with the Accord's 160hp 4-cyl as a Honda, and maybe available with the Accord's V-6 too. Lots of people don't need a car as big as the Accord has become, and of course the TSX would be the sporty one of the pair. And of course, give the TSX V-6 the Accord coupe's 6-speed manual.
Then you call the base RSX a Civic SI, and the RSX-S a Civic Type-R. That would make the TL the entry model for Acura, and the sky's the limit for them! Not to mention, it would give the Honda line back a sport coupe priced less than $30K.
They need to bump the line up if they are ever going to place Acura with the big boys of the premium world.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I used to think Honda should bring over the "Torneo" (a Japanese 1998-02 Accord's twin) and place it between Civic and the Accord. Many thought Honda did wrong by increasing the size of the Accord with 1998 redesign. I didn't, because IMO, size plays a crucial role in market acceptance. And Accord is still on the smaller side of the midsize market.
It is only logical to design a vehicle to fit the needs of the market. There is a reason Accord and Camry sell at a pace of 375-400K units/year each in an extremely competitive class.
I had an '89 Accord. It was the Hatchback. I think the length was 174.x". Certainly similar in size to a current Civic.
I've read for years that Honda will slot in a subcompact to capture that bit of the market they lost when they moved the Civic up. With the success of Scion and some of the other small vehicles I bet they do it soon. And since that vehicle will most likely be made in Japan I would probably consider it (getting harder to find a Japanese built Honda).
I guess I'm in the minority. In addition to that generation of Accord (3G) my favorite is the 5G ('94-'97). I also had an '01 Accord. Liked the styling of that gen also. The current Accord didn't thrill me initially but it's growing on me.
I'd love it if we were given the choice between the TSX version and the Buick version.
Is that a misprint or am I to understand that Honda builds cars for Buick? I thought someplace else I read that the Saturn VUE uses a Honda V6. Hard to tell anymore who builds what.
or sarcasm, poking fun at cars like the Accord and Camry which, of late have "grown up", and cater more to a Buick-y type of clientele. AT least, that's my take on it!
FWIW, there's an old lady at work who had a '93 Regal. Recently bought a new car...a Camry. So it must be working. But I also still see plenty of younger people driving Accords and Camrys, so they haven't totally degenerated into an old people's car. I guess they're still kind of in the same category as what the likes of Buick and Olds were in the 70's...cars that still had a broad appeal. They just have to be careful though, not to alienate the younger buying base as Buick and Olds did.
I call the NA Accord “the Buick version” of the platform because it’s bigger and cushier than the TSX and the tail lights are kind of Buick-y. I suppose I could call it “the Toyota version” instead if Buick is too offensive.
No, Buick is fine now that I understand. It just seemed like strange bedfellows. I was looking at the two on line and could see some resemblence. I thought maybe GM bought into Honda to get a bigger market share. That's how the big companies do things.
has gone to so much trouble to have two different versions of the Accord globally, they might as well maximize their investment by expanding the ways they sell the Euro Accord (TSX) here, I figure. Lots of people remember when the Accord was on the sporty side of the midsize segment, which wasn't recent, and which spot is currently occupied by the Mazda 6 and the Legacy GT.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I call the NA Accord “the Buick version” of the platform because it’s bigger and cushier than the TSX and the tail lights are kind of Buick-y.
If TSX were to be used as a baseline to draw a line between “Buick-y” orientation or not (in terms of size and ride quality), all family sedans will fall on the “wrong side”. I don’t see how anybody could compare ride quality of an Accord to a typical Buick. Camry yes, Accord NO. I see more people complaining about Accords riding “hard” than calling it cushy. But then, exaggeration is the way of discussing things anyway. Speaking of exaggeration, numbers should help (cars listed by length since they differ minimally in width and height)
I am really sorry that you do not like the rear end styling of the Accord. Especially since it is what you will see the most of considering that a lowly 4cylinder 5-speed Accord is faster than all but the 6s 5-speed.
As much as I like the Accord, I do acknowledge that the shape of the tail lamp is its (only) weak point. But, I don't buy cars for the shape of the tail lamp.
The rest of the Accord styling is nice, IMO. A mix of muscularity, and grace. 2003+ Accord is the best Accord, IMO.
I called it the Buick version because it's Buick-y compared to the TSX, not necessarily Buick-y in size. It's just a softer version of the the platform.
"I am really sorry that you do not like the rear end styling of the Accord. Especially since it is what you will see the most of considering that a lowly 4cylinder 5-speed Accord is faster than all but the 6s 5-speed."
Who cares? I don't like the way it looks and that's my opinion. Tenths of second aren't enough to make up for the styling for me. Car and Driver tested both of them at the same time.
IIRC, the Accord 4 cyl 0-60 was 7.5 seconds, the 6i was 7.9. Big deal.
At least on that straightway. But once you come up to those curves, you get to enjoy the verious styles of the Mazda6 sedan, hatch, and wagon rearends.
Hey, maybe an Accord hatch or wagon's taillights would look better? If they made any...oh, wait, Honda only makes sedans. After all, no one wants wagons, right? Those guys in Legacy and Outback wagons aren't REALLY buying wagons, they just couldn't find a sedan and got confused, right? Right?
At least on that straightway. But once you come up to those curves, you get to enjoy the verious styles of the Mazda6 sedan, hatch, and wagon rearends.
Probably. But like one of the reviews quoted in favor of Accord along the lines...
"Mazda6 feels faster around a corner, but the Accord goes faster"
Now, I will try to dig up find out comparison if I can, but it is one statement I always remember when I see statements like you just made above.
That's a nice statement, but "feeling" like you're going fast, and having to be told you're going fast are 2 very different things. Given the choice, most people will prefer to feel like they're going faster over going faster and not feeling it as much. it's all well and good to actually be faster, but if you don't feel it, what's the point?
like gearing, engine and road noise, steering dampening, and even how close you sit to the front wheels of the car have an effect on how a car's handling and performance "feels".
For instance, my roommate's '98 Tracker feels like reckless driving at 45 mph, but my '79 NYer feels like it's about to stall out!
I don't know how the Mazda6 is geared, and the only new Accord I've ridden in is Grbeck's 4-cylinder automatic, but his is really quiet and low-revving at highway speeds. I think it's comfortable and smooth riding, too. In some ways I think it is kind of Buick-y, but in a good way. And if only some Buicks could be this Buick-y! My Dad's '03 Regal isn't as nicely, plushy trimmed, and the only reason the Regal rides so smoothly is that it rides on archaic 70-series tires!
I called it the Buick version because it's Buick-y compared to the TSX, not necessarily Buick-y in size. It's just a softer version of the the platform.
It is softer because it has to be, to balance the ingredients that is necessary, but calling it Buick-y in that regard is an indicator of being too biased against it, or being misinformed.
Tenths of second aren't enough to make up for the styling for me. Car and Driver tested both of them at the same time.
Obviously, styling didn't end up being a determining factor in the Car and Driver test either. The following sums it all pretty well (from the same test that you mention)...
"If superiority in the mid-size family-sedan market is about sweeping excellence — and we think it is — then the Accord has come through once again. This is a vehicle that can reconcile conflicting requirements — seamlessly"
“What else can we say? If car design is a compromise, Honda has achieved a nearly perfect compromise with this Accord.”
And while C&D may have tested Mazda 6i to be only half second slower in 0-60 run, there is more to a car and its drive train than that. Here is an excerpt from the same test
“The Honda's i-VTEC four puts out the same power as the Mazda's engine, but it feels much more flexible at low revs, with immediate throttle response. It revs smoothly to the redline and then picks up the next gear without missing a beat.”
There we go. I couldn't disagree more, a good reason for me to have liked Accords over any other car in its class.
"Obviously, styling didn't end up being a determining factor in the Car and Driver test either. The following sums it all pretty well (from the same test that you mention)..."
And obviously I was talking about me, not Car and Driver's comparison conclusion. I just needed their test numbers. Did you read what I wrote? Apparantly not. I'll repeat it for you:
Tenths of second aren't enough to make up for the styling for me.
With emphasis on ME.
The Accord may be a few tenths quicker, but it is light years uglier IMO. In MY OPINION. I've already said that I know the Accord has best in class powertrains. I'm not sure why you're trying to make that point as if it's something that I am debating.
BTW, thanks for regurgitating pieces of that article, but I have the magazine at home.
Emphasis is always on "me" for each of us here. I don't think anybody speaks for others. Including those reviews, which happen to reflect preference of the individuals involved.
Well, if Accord's styling works for 30-35K people every month, the "me" aspect becomes pretty much useless.
perceptions seem to count far more than most anything else. I used to post Slalom times, skid pad Gs and 0-60 times till I was blue in the face. If someones favorite car doesn't do well in those areas they will simply ignore them. A simple example is one of my complaints of the xB and xA performance wise. All the magazines list them as being almost as slow as a Prius and yet owners all say they feel sporty.
To me the Accord Feels like it is a better car than the Camry. To the consumer the Camry seems to prove me wrong.
What a crock - if a certain group of people, or persons individually, have worse credit than another group of people, they're going to pay more interest.
Car loans are based on beacon scores and pre-agreed charts developed by the lender - if you have a 600 beacon and have 5 derogatory accounts, you'll pay a higher down payment (less risk for the lender), a higher interest rate (for taking the risk), and a shorter term (less risk for the lender)...
Ironically, Honda Finance is very picky and doesn't do "C" and "D" level paper (loans)....how can a lending company discriminate in that manner? They don't do "sub-prime" lending.
They set their standards, indicating that if you have a 700 beacon, you get great rates and terms, because you're not a credit risk, and if you have a 575 beacon, you get a high rate and short term, because you ARE a credit risk, easily read and understood in your credit bureau report(s) because you've failed to meet previous obligations that you promised to meet.
I don't car if you're purple with pink polka dots, or your name is Smith, Rodriguez, Washington, or Patel - your credit score sets all of the parameters for how you get a loan.
That "professor" needs to talk to someone with car business and auto loan experience, instead of jumping on the "I'm a victim" bandwagon.
"Emphasis is always on "me" for each of us here. I don't think anybody speaks for others."
Then why did you chose to counter my obviously opinionated statement with comments from Car and Driver? Trying to prove my opinion "wrong"? I was only responding to anonymousposts stupid comment about seeing the Accord's tailights in a race. Yeah, because I line up against manual transmission 4 cyl Accords at stoplights all the time and challenge them to race. Matter of fact, that's why I bought a Mazda6 with the 4cyl, because speed is my main priority.
"Well, if Accord's styling works for 30-35K people every month, the "me" aspect becomes pretty much useless."
What 30-35K people chose to buy is pretty useless to me.
I was basically going to say what drift already said .... but I'll still post anyways.
Here's a quote from the article ..
"American Honda Finance Corp. discriminated against African American and Latino car buyers from 1999 to 2003 by letting Honda dealers charge them higher car-loan costs than they charged comparable white buyers, according to a study by a Vanderbilt University business professor."
American Honda will "let" the dealers mark up the interest rate, as will every other finance company in the US. Why the emphasis on Honda? Mark Cohen must drive a Mazda 6.
"They say the rate increases are subjective and used disproportionately against blacks, Hispanics, people with limited education, and those with bad credit."
If someone's own inexperience causes them to pay more is it the finance company's fault? Is it even the dealerships fault? They are in it to make money. If someone in the socioeconomic groups above pays more for a TV at an electronics store does that mean they should be able to sue the store just because they didn't know better? An uneducated person is the US economy's best friend.
If anything, the people in the groups listed above should be insulted at the suggestion that they are uneducated and have bad credit.
I suggest that Mr. Cohen target the buy here/pay here lots, the check cashing shops, credit card companies, rent-to-own furniture shops, and title pawn places cause they all exist to make money off of poor, uneducated people regardless of race. And I am sure the penalty is much greater than the $400 over 6 years he is claiming the Honda dealerships made.
Especially the part about the title/loan shops, pawn shops, and check cashing places.
The "payday loan" shops were the ones that really got me laughing and worrying - you take someone who is already short on cash and can't handle a budget, loan them money based on their post-dated check, then charge them 30-40% interest!
Comments
I'm not crazy about the Accord's style, but I love the interior. Seems like it's still pretty nicely put together, and reasonably plush, by today's standards. I don't like the Camry's interior at all, though.
As for the Altima, I've seen a few of the '05 models, and they do seem to have improved interiors. Less Playskool/Fisher Price/GM looking plastic. Still probably a few notches below an Accord's interior, though.
The Accords still outsell the Mazda6's by a wide margin and will command much higher resale values down the road.
Still, for those who just don't like the Accords, the Mazda is a good alternative in my book.
True, but I think the latest Accord redesign is more polarizing than previous redesigns. My brother doesn't even like it, and he won't buy anything but Honda.
If Honda had both versions of the Accord (TSX version and Buick version) available in their showrooms with the same powertrains and same prices, it'd be interesting to see which one sold better. It'd be a no-brainer for me as far as which one I'd pick, but I'm not sure about the average person.
The Accord, Camry, and Altima grew out of that class, and Chevy pretty much left it when it ditched the Corsica for the Malibu. Ford left it when they cancelled the Contour. Maybe the Chrysler Sebring could still be considered borderline compact?
And with small cars getting bigger, as the Corolla, Civic, Neon, Focus, Mazda3, etc are all bigger than cars they've replaced (I guess they're still considered subcompacts, maybe some of them aren't anymore) it just seems like there isn't much room anymore for a size class between them and the midsizers.
Length: 183.3"
Wheelbase: 105.1"
Height: 57.3"
Width: 69.4"
Legroom F/R: 42.4"/34.2"
Shoulder Room F/R: 55.4"/53.5"
Headroom F/R: 37.8"/37.3"
Trunk volume: 13 cubic feet.
Accord...
Length: 189.5"
Wheelbase: 107.9"
Height: 57.1"
Width: 71.5"
Legroom F/R: 42.6"/36.8"
Shoulder Room F/R: 56.9/56.1"
Headroom F/R: 38.3"/36.8"
Trunk volume: 14 cubic feet.
The things that would kill the TSX as a mainstream car is the shoulder room, skimpy back seat legroom, and small trunk. Those are things that most sport sedan drivers don't care about, but in mainstream family cars, they take more precedence.
Length: 186.8"
Wheelbase: 105.3"
Height: 56.7"
Width: 70.1"
Legroom F/R: 42.3"/36.5"
Shoulder Room F/R: 56.1/54.9"
Headroom F/R: 38.7"/37.1"
Trunk volume: 15.2 cubic feet.
When I sat in one though, it just felt cramped to me. And I'd LOVE to know how, exactly, they measure legroom. A Mazda6 with 42.3" of legroom feels cramped to me, but a Chrysler 300 with 41.8" feels comfy? Odd...
Good point about cars getting bigger. I think the Civic is as big if not bigger than an old Accord. Civics are still considered compacts. Sub Compacts aren't big sellers here so they get bigger if they are to survive.
I just wish the TSX was not an Acura. I'd love it if we were given the choice between the TSX version and the Buick version. In some parts of the world, you have your choice between the two at the same Honda dealer. The Accord would be covering all bases that way, but I guess Honda knows best and figures it's in their best interest to do it the way they do it now.
Length: 175.4"
Wheelbase: 103.1"
Height: 56.7"
Width: 67.5"
Legroom F/R: 42.3"/36.5"
Shoulder Room F/R: 52.6/52.0"
Headroom F/R: 39.8"/37.2"
Trunk volume: 13 cubic feet.
Civic offers a combined (front + rear) legroom of 78.8 inch which is a little less than Accord’s (79.4”), more than TSX’s (76.6 inch) and as much as Mazda6 (78.8 inch).
It almost appears that Honda made it a point to keep Accord’s length under 190-inch, and compared to the Nissans (Altima and Maxima) and domestic offerings, that is several inches shorter. I hope it stays where it is, in terms of size.
I think there are several reasons the current Accord might look a lot bulkier than the previous model. First, the aforementioned high cowl/beltline and high decklid, with smallish windows, give it more visual mass. Also, overall length inclusde the bumpers, but the current model seems like it has smaller bumpers. That is, the nose and tail of the car stick out further. That also adds more visual bulk than, say, if the car had a 5 inch shorter body but then made it up in the bumpers, which would net you the same overall length.
In contrast, the Camry felt big enough for my tastes back in the '92-96 generation. Somehow they screwed up for '97 though, giving it some of the most uncomfortable seats my hiney has ever graced! And somehow it felt like it lost legroom as well. Maybe not however they might measure it, but how I feel it! And now the current Camry is even worse. The seat feels like it sits a little higher, but it's still uncomfortable. Feels about the same as a Gran Fury copcar (a feeling know only too well), minus the legroom.
I think the Altima is still my favorite in this class though. Feels like it has some of the best front legroom of any car I've been in, at least in recent memory. I love its looks, too. Only the cheapish interior hurts it, IMO. Now if they could get the Altima up to the Accord's reliability and refinement (or just find a way to clean up the Accord's looks a bit and give it a bigger trunk) I think they'd have a car that's darn near perfect!
The TSX (minus some of the luxury, though there is a Type R version) is sold as the Accord in Europe and Japan. It's the size that's defined as "midsized" in most of the world, and the Mazda6 is in the same size class. Strangely, the Japan/Europe Accord (TSX) looks more like the progeny of the previous American Accord than the new American Accord does.
And in Japan, the American-market Accord (with a few cosmetic differences) is sold as the Inspire.
Maybe they read forums like this one, where everyone complained that the Accord was too bland. But they were only bold on the front styling, and there's nothing special about the rest of the car. And since the front end is unconservative, it's not going to be universally accepted.
Can't speak for its other qualities though... not my market. And in compacts, Honda has been a bit disappointing. The current Civic is a great passenger car, but the value is disappearing and so is the fun. Just my luck... the generation that they bring back an Si hatchback, the steering and deftness disappoint...
It's the same story with the Subaru Legacy also. It's a "World Midsize" car as opposed to a specialty model for the US. The thing is, it's also very popular, as is the Mazda6. Seems like Americans are really starting to go for that sort of car, and Honda may be well-advised to bring the Euro Accord here and sell it alongside the US Accord. Maybe call it the "Accord Sport" or something like that. See how the sales stack up. THe Euro version IS more true to Honda's roots, after all.
Then you call the base RSX a Civic SI, and the RSX-S a Civic Type-R. That would make the TL the entry model for Acura, and the sky's the limit for them! Not to mention, it would give the Honda line back a sport coupe priced less than $30K.
They need to bump the line up if they are ever going to place Acura with the big boys of the premium world.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It is only logical to design a vehicle to fit the needs of the market. There is a reason Accord and Camry sell at a pace of 375-400K units/year each in an extremely competitive class.
I've read for years that Honda will slot in a subcompact to capture that bit of the market they lost when they moved the Civic up. With the success of Scion and some of the other small vehicles I bet they do it soon. And since that vehicle will most likely be made in Japan I would probably consider it (getting harder to find a Japanese built Honda).
I guess I'm in the minority. In addition to that generation of Accord (3G) my favorite is the 5G ('94-'97). I also had an '01 Accord. Liked the styling of that gen also. The current Accord didn't thrill me initially but it's growing on me.
Is that a misprint or am I to understand that Honda builds cars for Buick? I thought someplace else I read that the Saturn VUE uses a Honda V6. Hard to tell anymore who builds what.
FWIW, there's an old lady at work who had a '93 Regal. Recently bought a new car...a Camry. So it must be working. But I also still see plenty of younger people driving Accords and Camrys, so they haven't totally degenerated into an old people's car. I guess they're still kind of in the same category as what the likes of Buick and Olds were in the 70's...cars that still had a broad appeal. They just have to be careful though, not to alienate the younger buying base as Buick and Olds did.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If TSX were to be used as a baseline to draw a line between “Buick-y” orientation or not (in terms of size and ride quality), all family sedans will fall on the “wrong side”. I don’t see how anybody could compare ride quality of an Accord to a typical Buick. Camry yes, Accord NO. I see more people complaining about Accords riding “hard” than calling it cushy. But then, exaggeration is the way of discussing things anyway. Speaking of exaggeration, numbers should help (cars listed by length since they differ minimally in width and height)
Buick Regal
Length: 197"
Width: 73"
Height: 57"
Wheelbase: 109"
Nissan Maxima
Length: 194"
Width: 72"
Height: 58"
Wheelbase: 111"
Nissan Altima
Length: 192"
Width: 70"
Height: 58"
Wheelbase: 110"
Honda Accord
Length: 189"
Width: 71"
Height: 57"
Wheelbase: 108"
Toyota Camry
Length: 189"
Width: 71"
Height: 58"
Wheelbase: 107"
Mazda6
Length: 187"
Width: 70"
Height: 57"
Wheelbase: 105"
Acura TSX
Length: 183"
Width: 70"
Height: 58"
Wheelbase: 105"
So newcar31, Mazda6 is Buick-y in size, eh? It is almost as big as Accord and a “whopping” 4” longer than TSX.
Regarding tail lamps, however, if they are stretched across the width, it is Buick-y. If it is at the corners, it would be Cavalier-ish, right?
The rest of the Accord styling is nice, IMO. A mix of muscularity, and grace. 2003+ Accord is the best Accord, IMO.
I called it the Buick version because it's Buick-y compared to the TSX, not necessarily Buick-y in size. It's just a softer version of the the platform.
"I am really sorry that you do not like the rear end styling of the Accord. Especially since it is what you will see the most of considering that a lowly 4cylinder 5-speed Accord is faster than all but the 6s 5-speed."
Who cares? I don't like the way it looks and that's my opinion. Tenths of second aren't enough to make up for the styling for me. Car and Driver tested both of them at the same time.
IIRC, the Accord 4 cyl 0-60 was 7.5 seconds, the 6i was 7.9. Big deal.
Hey, maybe an Accord hatch or wagon's taillights would look better? If they made any...oh, wait, Honda only makes sedans. After all, no one wants wagons, right? Those guys in Legacy and Outback wagons aren't REALLY buying wagons, they just couldn't find a sedan and got confused, right? Right?
From the Philadelphia newspaper:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/9257999.htm
Probably. But like one of the reviews quoted in favor of Accord along the lines...
"Mazda6 feels faster around a corner, but the Accord goes faster"
Now, I will try to dig up find out comparison if I can, but it is one statement I always remember when I see statements like you just made above.
For instance, my roommate's '98 Tracker feels like reckless driving at 45 mph, but my '79 NYer feels like it's about to stall out!
I don't know how the Mazda6 is geared, and the only new Accord I've ridden in is Grbeck's 4-cylinder automatic, but his is really quiet and low-revving at highway speeds. I think it's comfortable and smooth riding, too. In some ways I think it is kind of Buick-y, but in a good way. And if only some Buicks could be this Buick-y! My Dad's '03 Regal isn't as nicely, plushy trimmed, and the only reason the Regal rides so smoothly is that it rides on archaic 70-series tires!
It is softer because it has to be, to balance the ingredients that is necessary, but calling it Buick-y in that regard is an indicator of being too biased against it, or being misinformed.
Tenths of second aren't enough to make up for the styling for me. Car and Driver tested both of them at the same time.
Obviously, styling didn't end up being a determining factor in the Car and Driver test either. The following sums it all pretty well (from the same test that you mention)...
"If superiority in the mid-size family-sedan market is about sweeping excellence — and we think it is — then the Accord has come through once again. This is a vehicle that can reconcile conflicting requirements — seamlessly"
“What else can we say? If car design is a compromise, Honda has achieved a nearly perfect compromise with this Accord.”
And while C&D may have tested Mazda 6i to be only half second slower in 0-60 run, there is more to a car and its drive train than that. Here is an excerpt from the same test
“The Honda's i-VTEC four puts out the same power as the Mazda's engine, but it feels much more flexible at low revs, with immediate throttle response. It revs smoothly to the redline and then picks up the next gear without missing a beat.”
There we go. I couldn't disagree more, a good reason for me to have liked Accords over any other car in its class.
And obviously I was talking about me, not Car and Driver's comparison conclusion. I just needed their test numbers. Did you read what I wrote? Apparantly not. I'll repeat it for you:
Tenths of second aren't enough to make up for the styling for me.
With emphasis on ME.
The Accord may be a few tenths quicker, but it is light years uglier IMO. In MY OPINION. I've already said that I know the Accord has best in class powertrains. I'm not sure why you're trying to make that point as if it's something that I am debating.
BTW, thanks for regurgitating pieces of that article, but I have the magazine at home.
Well, if Accord's styling works for 30-35K people every month, the "me" aspect becomes pretty much useless.
To me the Accord Feels like it is a better car than the Camry. To the consumer the Camry seems to prove me wrong.
What a crock - if a certain group of people, or persons individually, have worse credit than another group of people, they're going to pay more interest.
Car loans are based on beacon scores and pre-agreed charts developed by the lender - if you have a 600 beacon and have 5 derogatory accounts, you'll pay a higher down payment (less risk for the lender), a higher interest rate (for taking the risk), and a shorter term (less risk for the lender)...
Ironically, Honda Finance is very picky and doesn't do "C" and "D" level paper (loans)....how can a lending company discriminate in that manner? They don't do "sub-prime" lending.
They set their standards, indicating that if you have a 700 beacon, you get great rates and terms, because you're not a credit risk, and if you have a 575 beacon, you get a high rate and short term, because you ARE a credit risk, easily read and understood in your credit bureau report(s) because you've failed to meet previous obligations that you promised to meet.
I don't car if you're purple with pink polka dots, or your name is Smith, Rodriguez, Washington, or Patel - your credit score sets all of the parameters for how you get a loan.
That "professor" needs to talk to someone with car business and auto loan experience, instead of jumping on the "I'm a victim" bandwagon.
Honda Finance indeed.....
soapbox mode - off
Then why did you chose to counter my obviously opinionated statement with comments from Car and Driver? Trying to prove my opinion "wrong"? I was only responding to anonymousposts stupid comment about seeing the Accord's tailights in a race. Yeah, because I line up against manual transmission 4 cyl Accords at stoplights all the time and challenge them to race. Matter of fact, that's why I bought a Mazda6 with the 4cyl, because speed is my main priority.
"Well, if Accord's styling works for 30-35K people every month, the "me" aspect becomes pretty much useless."
What 30-35K people chose to buy is pretty useless to me.
Here's a quote from the article ..
"American Honda Finance Corp. discriminated against African American and Latino car buyers from 1999 to 2003 by letting Honda dealers charge them higher car-loan costs than they charged comparable white buyers, according to a study by a Vanderbilt University business professor."
American Honda will "let" the dealers mark up the interest rate, as will every other finance company in the US. Why the emphasis on Honda? Mark Cohen must drive a Mazda 6.
"They say the rate increases are subjective and used disproportionately against blacks, Hispanics, people with limited education, and those with bad credit."
If someone's own inexperience causes them to pay more is it the finance company's fault? Is it even the dealerships fault? They are in it to make money. If someone in the socioeconomic groups above pays more for a TV at an electronics store does that mean they should be able to sue the store just because they didn't know better? An uneducated person is the US economy's best friend.
If anything, the people in the groups listed above should be insulted at the suggestion that they are uneducated and have bad credit.
I suggest that Mr. Cohen target the buy here/pay here lots, the check cashing shops, credit card companies, rent-to-own furniture shops, and title pawn places cause they all exist to make money off of poor, uneducated people regardless of race. And I am sure the penalty is much greater than the $400 over 6 years he is claiming the Honda dealerships made.
The "payday loan" shops were the ones that really got me laughing and worrying - you take someone who is already short on cash and can't handle a budget, loan them money based on their post-dated check, then charge them 30-40% interest!
Perhaps. But not to Honda (or any automaker for that matter).