Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Honda Accord Future Models



  • blaneblane Posts: 2,017
    Some drivers may choose to coast. But in my state, as probably in most states, coasting out of gear is against the law. Doing so precludes your ability to instantaneously accelerate to avoid a potential accident.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    Going over the speed limit is also against the law (I am sure nobody here does that ;) ), so is driving barefoot, or in sandals (depending on state), and in PA it is (or was recently) against the law to drive at night unless you fired a flare every 5 miles.

    BTW a sudden need to accelerate to get out of trouble is required very rarely. On top of that I (and the vast majority of MT drivers) can shift in the gear I want as fast as an automatic can decide what gear it needs and then downshift (lots of cars hesitate badly here - the Camry comes to mind) Maybe automatics should be illegal to drive because of the hesitation. ;)

    Braking and/or turning is what almost always gets you out of trouble. Coasting can also be done in gear. The whole point is not to give the car gas if you are approaching a red light or stop sign. A car will glide quite well in top gear - it does not have to be in neutral.

    The MT has the advantage of letting you chose the gear as it will not use engine braking to slow you down unless you want it to. An MT also is not fighting a torque converter at idle, and uses less gas there.

    Anyway - I hope Honda continues to offer the MT. Freedom of choice is a nice thing to have. :)
  • mcmanusmcmanus Posts: 121
    IME manuals are bought by folks who would be doing less stop and go driving, so all else being equal I'd expect users to report getting better mileage. As we research replacement vehicles, wifey will get the manual because her drive is primarily freeway with moderate traffic volumes, but I'll get an automatic because of my routine drives into Detroit with heavy freeway (stop and go) traffic and occasional arthritic bouts.

    I hope Honda puts more "distance" between Civic and Accord. The initial cost (overlap of various versions exist), fuel economy (real world, end of the month pocketbook), and interior space (with Accord's overstuffed seating) are nearly the same. Perhaps a lighter hatchback version of the Fit would answer this need as I really don't want to see Accord get bigger.

    My dream car would be a Fit sized car (tall, narrow for elder access and ease of parking) that's built to Accord level of solidity (is that a word?) with a bigger engine (like the Civic's 1.8L) that still gets good fuel economy.

    On a side note, I really hope Honda improves the looks of the Accord. To me, except for the recent mid-model redesign, they've gotten uglier with each new generation since the early 80s. Even if I never own another at least I don't have to look at them.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    I disagree with "distance" for seating. The Accord has 103 cubic ft. to 90 for the Civic. That is a huge difference.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    maybe on paper, but sitting down in both of them back to back is not a life changing experience.

    the civic now is as big (or at least almost) as the prev. gen accord.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Contrary to popular belief, Civic hasn't really grown much (has become taller, but length and width have been under control). It is still about 3 inch shorter than Accord from 20 years ago. The biggest change that 2006 redesign brought was a long wheelbase (comparable to 1998 Accord) but that is a benefit afforded by cab-forward design, resulting in shorter overhangs.

    1994-1997 Accords had an interior volume of 94 cu ft (qualifies for compact), which grew to 103 cu ft with MY1998 (qualifies for midsize). Civic is about 91 cu ft right now (probably was about 87-88 cu ft in the 1980s). 2003 Accord stayed at 103 cu ft.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Um, for me (6'4", 190), sitting in them back to back makes for a very obvious difference. My parents surprised me with a car as a reward for getting a scholarship to UAB (I'd eyed the Civic Coupe in blue since they came out in late '05), they brought home an Accord. Turns out it was a good thing they did. The Civic's lack of headroom leaves me a little claustrophobic, and sitting in the back seat of their 2007 Civic EX Sedan leaves me crouched over with my knees splayed, and this is sitting behind my 5'5" mom.

    It was kind of funny; when I lived with them, and we went out as a family, we took my car (the '06 Accord) because the "family" car, the Civic, was too small for me to ride in back. I was happy to oblige my car though, it meant I got to drive my baby!
  • sploarsploar Posts: 4
    I know that when MotorWeek did it's testing of the Civics the Si actually got better mileage than the EX in every day driving. I just traded my leased Civic in on a 07 Accord LX Coupe MT and I bet it gets better mileage than my 04 Civic. I never got better than 30mpg in the Civic in every day driving. Seemed to me the engine was always revving pretty high in all situations, although it could have been the way I drove it. BTW, my monthly lease payment on the Accord is $8 more than the 04 Civic was. It's $241 a month, nothing down, $12000 residual. I couldn't pass it up!
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Revving high doesn’t necessarily translate to worse fuel economy, considering that Civic has still got a considerably smaller engine. When I had a Civic (EX, MY2000, AT), it got me 31-32 mpg in mixed driving. At the time it was rated 28-35. Under same conditions, 1998 Accord (EX, MY1998, AT) got me 25-26 mpg.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    i know its more room grad, but for someone like me, it wasnt a deal breaker.

    its not my fault you are so damn big grad! ;)
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    Civics the Si actually got better mileage than the EX in every day driving.

    I never got better than 30mpg in the Civic in every day driving. Seemed to me the engine was always revving pretty high in all situations, although it could have been the way I drove it.

    the si revs freely to 8000rpms....

    going by your logic, it should get considerably worse than an ex civic. :confuse:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Hahaha, true enough!

    I'm all legs.

    In some other Accord forums, people are upset that they can't fit in an Accord with a sunroof. I have no problem with it because my torso is relatively short.
  • Taken from a Honda-UK site.

    Accord Diesel US-MPG numbers with a manual transmission.

    City - 33 US MPG
    Hwy - 52 US MPG

    Sounds good to me.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    Think you musta meant 42 US highway?
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    The mileage may not be accurate at all considering the are talking about UK cars since the US versions do not exist.
    However, 52 could be right considering 60+ was bandied about earlier. People will not be impressed by 42 MPG highway after looking at a big price premium.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    I think 52 was right. I just went to Honda UK and the combined mpg is 52 brit. So 52 x .8 apprx =42 US combined. But....their accord is smaller w/ a 2.2 diesel. Think our diesel will be 2.4 + the US Accord is larger. I think the diesel premium may be about $1500. I certainly plan to buy one. I'll just get it in the CRV. Don't want 194" in my garage.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    No use at guessing what pricing might be without facts.
    In addition, the pricing difference will be much bigger than MSRP shows if you can buy a 2009 LX gas 4 cylinder for $500 over invoice and have to pay around full sticker for a 2009 diesel that year if they are built in low numbers.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    I'll probably try to wait 'em out till I can get a reasonable deal.
This discussion has been closed.