It doesn't have to drive up MSRP. Just reducing discounts is a large additional cost to the purchase. If in 2009, the 4 cylinder Accords are commonly going for $500 over invoice and the diesels are selling for either MSRP or even $500 below MSRP, the net purchase price difference will be huge even before the higher MSRP is included.
People were paying premiums for the Accord Hybrid in the excitement of the first year even though it turned out to be a failure years later.
even if the accord does have hid's (which from the spy shots it looks like its a least going to offer the cool looking bulb), what car would it fit on?
you must live in an awful neighborhood, or be totally paranoid.(does nothing seem to satisfy? )
i'd have to agree. specially if it's a manual. i do appreciate the acceleration of our V6 in our ODY vs. the I4 Accord I drive, but I don't *need* that in the Accord.
Very low volume????????????? Diesel is a proven,practical technology unlike the relatively new hybrid technology. The only impediment to sales will be Honda keeping up with staggering product demand!!!!
I am not even sure that I will even get the 08 accord, I will wait til I see it, but I am actually entertaining the idea of trading for a acura tsx, that car has everything that I could possibly want and its standard. Sure its a little more in actual price, but I think you can get a really nice lease deal on it, therefore would not really matter if the price is higher when the lease deal is so good for me. I am not sure yet though, the 08 will be priced fairly high, and I am not sure I want to trade for something so bland.
Also anyone actually looking for a 07 camry let me know. perhaps take over a lease. Laf, IN
Very true, but I would never say the '96 accord was a fast or even reasonably quick car. Most 4 cylinder midsize cars with autos are probably doing 0-60 in the 8.5-9 second range which isnt all that fast.
Most 4 cylinder midsize cars with autos are probably doing 0-60 in the 8.5-9 second range which isnt all that fast
Well, not all that slow either and it is certainly fast enough. Rarely does my foot go to the floor in my 3000 pound, 150 HP, 4 cylinder car...and I am typically the fastest accelerating vehicle when the light turns green.
Too much power in a FWD car creates problems too and the extra weight of a V6 detracts a little bit from handling.
I am gonna date myself, but I still vividly remember Brock Yates testing the Mercedes Benz 450SEL 6.9 (with a 6.9 liter V-8 engine) and proclaiming it the fastest 4 door sedan ever built. He went on and on about the power and speed that this car possesed. The 0-60 time was 7.2 seconds.
The current Accord I4 with a stick shift goes to 60 in 7.5 seconds - not too terribly far off.
The I4 is not lacking for oomph. And yes the V-6 has even more.
How fast do we need to go? If you need more power than the 4 has you are not driving correctly (merging/passing innapropriatly etc.). Of course wanting more power is a different matter.
Can't wait for the diesel. I usually keep my cars forever, but I am actually thinking of getting the 2009 or 10 diesel and selling my 2007. I really am loathe to send any more money to OPEC and terrorist supporting countries than I absolutely need to.
We can grow our own diesel and really cut our imports.
CArs of a decade ago were lighter so 170hp today wont get you as far as it would in a ten year old accord. NO one NEEDS a V6, but I would surely like the acceleration associated with a 250hp+ V6. If the Accord 4 is as fast as the Altima 4 then it will be acceptable, if not exciting.
Don't forget we now have an extra gear in the transmission, making a BIG difference, effectively offsetting the 200-300 pounds gained.
Everything is relative, I guess. I find my 1996 Accord 4-cylinder Automatic (130 hp) plenty adequate for my needs. I can merge up to 70 MPH on a modest on-ramp without breaking the 3,500 RPM barrier .The 166 hp 2006 Accord I have is much quicker, although it affords me no real advantage due to the way I drive (conservatively).
What do you mean what car would it fit in? There is no way it would be standard in all levels, so the stolen HIDs in an EXV6 could be put in an lower model Accords. It has already been proven an extremely high theft item for the Nissan Maxima, so there is no debate to this.
It doesn't matter what neighborhood you live in, because the purpose of a car is to go places other than your own neighborhood. Mall, airport, other visiting other neighborhood etc..
Everyone knows aftermaket stereos are commonly stolen, so there is no debating that either.
same here, I found my old 97 accord (130 hp)with stick plenty fast for me and family riding around. And even without really pushing the gas pedal, I'm usually the first one out of the gate among the mid size V6's, suv's and big trucks.... The discrepancy is even bigger when I'm going on ramp into the highway. The only time I'm at the higher rpm is when I heel and toe downshift before i go into a corner. you know, wannabes.
What do you mean what car would it fit in? There is no way it would be standard in all levels, so the stolen HIDs in an EXV6 could be put in an lower model Accords.
byahhhaahaaahaa! That was wonderful! yes i'm sure that all the folks with dx and lx 08 accords will just be on the look out for those hids! :P
yeah aftermarket stereos are stolen, but it also depends on the kind of car its put into.
There is no way it would be standard in all levels, so the stolen HIDs in an EXV6 could be put in an lower model Accords. It has already been proven an extremely high theft item for the Nissan Maxima, so there is no debate to this.
Well there is a debate to this. The 2003 Nissan Maxima had a design flaw so that the HID's could be popped out in seconds without even opening the hood. This was repaired in later models. It is not easy nor prevalent for HID's to be stolen in other car models.
I have a neighbor with an I4, auto '06 Accord and I have a v6, m6 '06 Accord.
I was driving to meet him with my wife and his wife in the car. As we were merging in traffic, his wife commented continually on the extra get-up-and-go in the v6. She mentioned to him that his was 'gutless' when we met him! Poor guy.
For what it's worth, I would be just as happy in an I4 with manual (I think).
For what it's worth, I would be just as happy in an I4 with manual (I think).
There is a big difference between the I4 automatic and the manual, IMHO. I thought it was amazing how much quicker the stick was when I drove them back to back.
exactly right. The 4cyl is awesome, I own a 06, and its great, very smooth, I get suprised alot on how it handles getting up to speed. It runs great even with the A/c running full blast. Best of all, I get amazing gas mileage with anything I throw at it. Honda 4cyl is one of the best engines out on the road.
yeah, some people have no idea or concept of engine displacement. I would never call a 2.4 cyl gutless, especially a k24 like in the accord. But then again it depends on what you compare it to. Some people just have a mentality that everything needs to be ultra fast, therefore making decent engines sound not so great.
I don't know about not being a speed demon. Like all Honda engines it doesn't have much at low revs but when you get past 4000rpm it is a rocket. 0-60 is something like 6seconds with change.
I like the fact that it looks like a pretty conservative car but has great get up and go.
In terms of mileage, it is great. I probably get around 28 mpg with mixed driving (mostly highway). My previous vehicle was an SUV so my comparative viewpoint is a little skewed.
We're getting into this my outlook on automobile life (msrp/mpg/hp)is better than your outlook.....again. There is no right or wrong / good or bad to this stuff. It's a matter of personal preference. That's why they build them with different engine & option level choices. Different strokes. Every V6 owner knows they'll pay more in fuel costs than if they had purchased a I4. Thank goodness we have the choice.
Every V6 owner knows they'll pay more in fuel costs than if they had purchased a I4
Exactly. But I've owned both Accords - 6 and 4 - and have found the 6 cyl gets darn good mileage. The cost for the extra giddy-up isn't that much IMO. The latest Honda/Acura 6s are fantastic and worth the upgrade.
I have read the news release by Honda that 2008 Accord line up will lose the Hybrid and get Diesel instead. Does anyone know if that will be done right at the model change over (Aug/Sept) or later in the model year? What about trickle down to other models, like CR-V?
I've got a '04 accord ex with auto and I must say I've never ever been in a situation where I felt I needed more power. I've driven a previous generation 6 cyl accord auto and it was responsive and sweet but when it came buy time I opted for the 4 cyl auto and haven't regretted it. If I drove everywhere with four passengers and a full trunk with a small trailer maybe the 6 would make sense but c'mon, honda fours are smooth, torque laden and strong enough to do most anything.
Now if you really want to go fast get on a honda cbr1000rr....I've got an '06 model and it will make the 'almighty' v-6 accord feel like it's in reverse. 150 hp pushing 450lbs ....that's all that needs to be said about the nature of the cbr.
I just traded an 2005 Accord V4 for a 2007 V6 and the ride and handling, let alone the acceleration, are light years better. I love the pick-up with the V6 and the stability control makes the ride and handling much better also. Difference in gas shouldn't be more than $100/year for 4 times the fun. I'll never go back to a 4 cyl. - unless gas goes to $5/gal then I'll get a hybrid!
Handling and acceleration are "light years better?"
Would you mind elaborating? The 4-cylinder has always been the better balnaced car due to it having less weight over the front end. It also rides a little better due to the 16" tires vs. 17". Stability control won't make your ride any better, it just saves you when you get yourself into trouble, and applies the brakes/cuts power/cuts down on high-speed fun if you know what you're doing. Magazine testers typically get much better numbers with stability control off.
I know the V6 is a lot faster on the highway, and a a real sweetheart of an engine. I'm trying to dispute that fact that it is a great car, so PLEASE don't take all of this the wrong way. It just goes against anything I've ever read about it, or anything I've experienced firsthand with the V6 vs the Inline-4 (the 4-cylinder isn't a "Vee" configuration).
It really is nice to have the choice of a I4 or V6, and both are excellent for differing reasons.
When coming out of a turn at a low speed and my '04 I4 automatic downshifts to second gear, it's at a very low RPM and for a couple of seconds the car just has no torque and it can't gain any speed. The air-conditioning drag makes it worse. That's one of the few places where I miss the V6s (and V8s, but that's an earlier era) I have driven over the years. Those engines have decent torque just about everywhere.
I give my Accord I4 high marks for peppiness in just about every situation except for the one mentioned above, but I believe I'll head back for the V6 this fall when I trade for an '08. Provided the cylinder shut-off system has no issues.
It also rides a little better due to the 16" tires vs. 17".
I didn't see where he said it rode better? The larger 17" wheels actually help with handling (less sidewall flex), which is the part you quoted. I don't remember seeing much comparison between the I4 and V6 Accords. I can tell you the V6 handles very well, even with 16" wheels.
I love the pick-up with the V6 and the stability control makes the ride and handling much better also.
The 17" wheels do help offset the handling difference, but less sidewall flex, as you mentioned, will degrade the ride. (I believe the V6s have 50-series tires now, as opposed to the 60 series on the 4-cylinder EX, and the 2003-2005 V6 models).
2.2L? Man, that sounds like a slow mover! I was hoping for something with a little more oomph. I remember back in the 80's I test drove a Camry with a turbo diesel, and I was VERY impressed. I understand diesel buyers aren't interested in drag racing, but I'd like to be able to pass on a two lane highway without sweating buckets hoping I can make it around.
The 2007 Accord V6 seems to ride and handle better than the 2005 Accord 4 cyl. Maybe it's just because it's new. I'm not sure. It does corner better and handle the sharp curves easier, probably due to the stability control. And the V6 takes several very steep Pittsburgh hills that I drive to work every day in D and with ease. I'd have to shift manually (with the auto shift) to first gear to get up them with the 4 cyl. I even blew away a young snot in a Jetta today! What a thrill!
Um, your tranny should go to first gear with enough throttle application, assuming speeds are low enough.
The V6 using the wider tires may be what you are feeling, but I haven't heard an instance of it riding better.
About Vehicle Stability Assist: Unless you are taking decreasing radii off-ramps at twice the posted speed, I doubt your Stability Control is making your handling better. You'll know if it is by the light illuminating on the dashboard when it activates.
I've only sensed the VSA (Honda-speak for Stability Control) kicking in once, in my aunt's Odyssey. A hailstorm hit, covering the road in the icy pellets. The stability control kept me from spinning out or losing control, and the light illuminated occasionally.
In driving that 98% of drivers will do, the stability control will only intervene in emergency/foul weather situations, to prevent a spin or loss of control.
At 2.5 liters the torque from the diesel would be about like the chevy pickup 4.8 V8 but it's in a 1000 lb lighter car. I don't think you will be bored. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
Unless/Until California changes their laws prohibiting diesels under 7500 lbs, there won't be an oil burner Accord. The market is too big to ignore. The tree huggers up here in Washington State adopted the same standards. This will kill the diesel Accord in the USA.
But just as they have done in the past CA (and other states) could change the emission limits so that they are effectively banning them. The E320CDI is such a victim. A perfectly good sedan that gets as much as 40MPG, but because it's not "clean enough" CA would rather have people buy the gas E350 instead and use more crude that necessary.
I don't think California is going to stop the upcoming diesels. The train has finally picked up speed, and I don't think there is any stopping it except very cheap gas prices. I wouldn't doubt as Biker stated that California will change the rules again to limit the new superclean diesels when the vehicles are about to hit the showrooms.
This time though I think if the diesels do very well in the other states, Californians will be dumping on their politicians to "follow" the rest of the nation. Although California is a big market and is probably critical for luxury, hybrids, and convertibles, I don't think it will rule the future of diesels.
It won't be ignored, but it will not be the center of attention that it always thinks it is.
By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.
Comments
If in 2009, the 4 cylinder Accords are commonly going for $500 over invoice and the diesels are selling for either MSRP or even $500 below MSRP, the net purchase price difference will be huge even before the higher MSRP is included.
People were paying premiums for the Accord Hybrid in the excitement of the first year even though it turned out to be a failure years later.
even if the accord does have hid's (which from the spy shots it looks like its a least going to offer the cool looking bulb), what car would it fit on?
you must live in an awful neighborhood, or be totally paranoid.(does nothing seem to satisfy?
Also anyone actually looking for a 07 camry let me know. perhaps take over a lease. Laf, IN
Well, not all that slow either and it is certainly fast enough. Rarely does my foot go to the floor in my 3000 pound, 150 HP, 4 cylinder car...and I am typically the fastest accelerating vehicle when the light turns green.
Too much power in a FWD car creates problems too and the extra weight of a V6 detracts a little bit from handling.
The current Accord I4 with a stick shift goes to 60 in 7.5 seconds - not too terribly far off.
The I4 is not lacking for oomph. And yes the V-6 has even more.
How fast do we need to go? If you need more power than the 4 has you are not driving correctly (merging/passing innapropriatly etc.). Of course wanting more power is a different matter.
Can't wait for the diesel. I usually keep my cars forever, but I am actually thinking of getting the 2009 or 10 diesel and selling my 2007. I really am loathe to send any more money to OPEC and terrorist supporting countries than I absolutely need to.
We can grow our own diesel and really cut our imports.
Don't forget we now have an extra gear in the transmission, making a BIG difference, effectively offsetting the 200-300 pounds gained.
Everything is relative, I guess. I find my 1996 Accord 4-cylinder Automatic (130 hp) plenty adequate for my needs. I can merge up to 70 MPH on a modest on-ramp without breaking the 3,500 RPM barrier .The 166 hp 2006 Accord I have is much quicker, although it affords me no real advantage due to the way I drive (conservatively).
It has already been proven an extremely high theft item for the Nissan Maxima, so there is no debate to this.
It doesn't matter what neighborhood you live in, because the purpose of a car is to go places other than your own neighborhood. Mall, airport, other visiting other neighborhood etc..
Everyone knows aftermaket stereos are commonly stolen, so there is no debating that either.
man I missed that car
byahhhaahaaahaa! That was wonderful! yes i'm sure that all the folks with dx and lx 08 accords will just be on the look out for those hids! :P
yeah aftermarket stereos are stolen, but it also depends on the kind of car its put into.
It has already been proven an extremely high theft item for the Nissan Maxima, so there is no debate to this.
Well there is a debate to this. The 2003 Nissan Maxima had a design flaw so that the HID's could be popped out in seconds without even opening the hood. This was repaired in later models. It is not easy nor prevalent for HID's to be stolen in other car models.
I have a neighbor with an I4, auto '06 Accord and I have a v6, m6 '06 Accord.
I was driving to meet him with my wife and his wife in the car. As we were merging in traffic, his wife commented continually on the extra get-up-and-go in the v6. She mentioned to him that his was 'gutless' when we met him! Poor guy.
For what it's worth, I would be just as happy in an I4 with manual (I think).
There is a big difference between the I4 automatic and the manual, IMHO. I thought it was amazing how much quicker the stick was when I drove them back to back.
Do the math. We're probably talking about $25 a month, the cost of a good lunch for 2.
Does that break your budget?
Like all Honda engines it doesn't have much at low revs but when you get past 4000rpm it is a rocket.
0-60 is something like 6seconds with change.
I like the fact that it looks like a pretty conservative car but has great get up and go.
In terms of mileage, it is great. I probably get around 28 mpg with mixed driving (mostly highway). My previous vehicle was an SUV so my comparative viewpoint is a little skewed.
There is no right or wrong / good or bad to this stuff. It's a matter of personal preference. That's why they build them with different engine & option level choices. Different strokes. Every V6 owner knows they'll pay more in fuel costs than if they had purchased a I4. Thank goodness we have the choice.
Exactly. But I've owned both Accords - 6 and 4 - and have found the 6 cyl gets darn good mileage. The cost for the extra giddy-up isn't that much IMO. The latest Honda/Acura 6s are fantastic and worth the upgrade.
0-60 is something like 6seconds with change.
VTEC + 6M (per Feb06 C/D) = sub six seconds to sixty.....
My 6M coupe averages 27-28 around the state capital........
...but on the Interstate: 34 is routine...(now and then, I get 35 and 36;rarely 37, 38; twice I got 39)
..best, ez...
Thanks.
Is that known for a fact, or just speculation? I have heard that rumor about CR-V for 2 years now...
Now if you really want to go fast get on a honda cbr1000rr....I've got an '06 model and it will make the 'almighty' v-6 accord feel like it's in reverse. 150 hp pushing 450lbs ....that's all that needs to be said about the nature of the cbr.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/07/2009-honda-accord-diesel-to-hit-52-mpg/
52 mpg is conversion from imperial gallons used in UK to US MPG.
It may be highway miles, but that still leave 45MPG comined or so, which is 5 mpg better than Hybid Camry, and on cheaper fuel no less!
GO HONDA! LET THE DIESEL REVOLUTION BEGIN!
Happy in Pittsburgh
Your six has great mileage potential also - granted: about 15% down from the four... 6M really shines on the Interstate.
But just TASTE that excelleration.
best, ez..
Would you mind elaborating? The 4-cylinder has always been the better balnaced car due to it having less weight over the front end. It also rides a little better due to the 16" tires vs. 17". Stability control won't make your ride any better, it just saves you when you get yourself into trouble, and applies the brakes/cuts power/cuts down on high-speed fun if you know what you're doing. Magazine testers typically get much better numbers with stability control off.
I know the V6 is a lot faster on the highway, and a a real sweetheart of an engine. I'm trying to dispute that fact that it is a great car, so PLEASE don't take all of this the wrong way. It just goes against anything I've ever read about it, or anything I've experienced firsthand with the V6 vs the Inline-4 (the 4-cylinder isn't a "Vee" configuration).
When coming out of a turn at a low speed and my '04 I4 automatic downshifts to second gear, it's at a very low RPM and for a couple of seconds the car just has no torque and it can't gain any speed. The air-conditioning drag makes it worse. That's one of the few places where I miss the V6s (and V8s, but that's an earlier era) I have driven over the years. Those engines have decent torque just about everywhere.
I give my Accord I4 high marks for peppiness in just about every situation except for the one mentioned above, but I believe I'll head back for the V6 this fall when I trade for an '08. Provided the cylinder shut-off system has no issues.
I didn't see where he said it rode better? The larger 17" wheels actually help with handling (less sidewall flex), which is the part you quoted. I don't remember seeing much comparison between the I4 and V6 Accords. I can tell you the V6 handles very well, even with 16" wheels.
This is straight out of the post in question:
I love the pick-up with the V6 and the stability control makes the ride and handling much better also.
The 17" wheels do help offset the handling difference, but less sidewall flex, as you mentioned, will degrade the ride. (I believe the V6s have 50-series tires now, as opposed to the 60 series on the 4-cylinder EX, and the 2003-2005 V6 models).
Reliving my youth in the 'Burgh.
The V6 using the wider tires may be what you are feeling, but I haven't heard an instance of it riding better.
About Vehicle Stability Assist:
Unless you are taking decreasing radii off-ramps at twice the posted speed, I doubt your Stability Control is making your handling better. You'll know if it is by the light illuminating on the dashboard when it activates.
I've only sensed the VSA (Honda-speak for Stability Control) kicking in once, in my aunt's Odyssey. A hailstorm hit, covering the road in the icy pellets. The stability control kept me from spinning out or losing control, and the light illuminated occasionally.
In driving that 98% of drivers will do, the stability control will only intervene in emergency/foul weather situations, to prevent a spin or loss of control.
The new diesel meets those regs.
This time though I think if the diesels do very well in the other states, Californians will be dumping on their politicians to "follow" the rest of the nation. Although California is a big market and is probably critical for luxury, hybrids, and convertibles, I don't think it will rule the future of diesels.
It won't be ignored, but it will not be the center of attention that it always thinks it is.