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
I personally would rather buy a loaded used car than a basic new car! You're saving money on the depreciated value(we bought an 04explorer for 23k. A week later, the value dropped to 18k...) and most of the new car things like engine time ect are completed.
On autotrader.com, i saw a 2006 accord ex(4cyl) with nav for $21k and it had 12kmiles. Plus you may keep the car longer because there are more goodies to keep you entertained IMHO.
-Cj
Find a buying service. Check out carbargains.com, Costco's cars buying service and carsdirect.com.
-Cj
2007 Accord EX sedan auto trans (MSRP $23,945)............................$19,399
2007 Accord EXL sedan auto trans (MSRP $25,645)..........................$20,899
2007 Accord SE V6 sedan auto trans (MSRP $23,945........................$19,399
2007 Accord EXL V6 sedan auto trans (MSRP $27,995).....................$22,899
If you see invoice SE V6 is 19,399 and if you compare that to 2006 accord exv6 with 22k milage , not even 100 dollar price difference, thats why I was saying in last post that if you buy one year old car you dont get more than 1000-2000 difference, so I am not sure, if buying one year old would be right decision, maybe go for lower version from EX to SE and u pay same price for new car. Anyhow I wanted to buy value pack with invoice around 16.3-16.5 but they are not giving discount in base model quoting 18k invoice than telling it would be better if i take EX one by additional 1000, since in EX or V6 they giving huge discount
If is the about the same price as the exact same model Honda is new, then it will not sell even if KBB lists it at that value.
Dealers often have them listed at high prices on their lots, but you can negotiate their asking prices. You don't just pay whatever price they put on their price tag.
I don't really bargain. I bought two new cars in the last few years. In one case I found the exact car my wife wanted and emailed the dealer something like: "how much do you want for this car?". In the other, for my car, I figured out what I thought a good price would be and I emailed dealers something like: "will you sell this car for $X?".
I just hope honda doesn't use the 3.5. the 3.5 uses more gas and makes more hp but it is heavy and the accord may loose its good handling. Whichever they use, i hope it will have an LSD because 260+ hp through the front wheels just screams torque steer. That was a problem editors had with the 04 TL.
If honda uses the 3.5 then they are trying to win the hp wars. But didn't they prove they didn't need to with the Cr-v? IMO, the 3.2 v6 just makes more sense.
-Cj
..OTOH, everyone likes a deal.
..$580 bought the HC 80k; $23.4k the AV6 6M 23 months back. I've become much more tolerant of the intolerant clutch.....
Maybe this no longer young sailor will just lay in the weeds while other folks chase the 2008 Honda.........
But, better fuel efficiency (VCM), more crashworthiness, and the improved factory warranty plus the clutch is probably improved by now........
And that narcotic new car smell.............maybe a test drive when the dust settles.......
.......those Honda engineers.....I'd go to sea with them.
best, ez..
http://www.answers.com/topic/law-of-diminishing-returns?cat=biz-fin
In other news, what's wrong with a 5 speed automatic? I have a 4 speed in my daily driver and a 5 speed in the Odyssey, and I don't miss that 5th gear.
The more speeds, the better. As far as power and fuel economy. The same way a 10speed bike makes things easier on you, a 10speed transmission would make things easier on your engine.
Just because the 5AT in the accord is so good i can understand why they aren't rushing. Honda is already ahead on many things that maybe we don't see yet. Still, i hope for an accord cabrio as it would be a hot seller.
-Cj
You wrote "maybe they can use half the 16speed and make an 8AT. If thats the case, They should really bump the RL up to LS460, S, and 7 levels, and use it there."
The original post was just my poor attempt at humor.
The 2006s probably are not "selling for" those prices even if those are the marked asking prices for the used 2006 models.
Obviously, you are not the only one who can see what the new 2007 Accords can be purchased for, so the the sellers have to accept what buyers are willing to pay for a 2006 of the same model and trim.
Most the time the Kelly Blue Retail value of a 1 year old Accord is higher than what you can buy a brand new one for.
However, you negotiate prices on used cars just like you do the same on the new cars.
This diesel received much hype because it does away with the MBZ-like urea tank and uses a load of catalyst to be even cleaner than the Benz unit, something like 3ppm, way cleaner than Honda's cleanest SULEV engine.
I sure hope they've kept this engine in the plans. I know it may not be available off the bat, but within 2 years of the car's existance, I surely hope that it appears. I also hear they'll fit in the CR-V too. And with it being the best selling SUV of any kind, it will keep that title for sure and distance itself from the competition even better with their gas-guzzling V6's(sorry RAV-4, but I'm sure Toyota will make a Hybrid version).
And here:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.ef28c16/214
The newest 8th generation Accords will apparently be gassers for the 2008 model year.
What a relief. I currently own an '06 Accord V6 6MT. While certainly not lacking for anything, getting better gas mileage and driving a cleaner vehicle all the while not missing much performance is a very good thing. And that is why on my next Accord purchase, I'll be definitely scoping out the diesel models.
An argument can be made both ways (6-speed might be more complex and bulkier than a comparable 5-speed and so on). But here is a point often missed.
I think most people look at 5-speed versus 6-speed versus 7-speed versus 8-speed versus 12-speed versus 18-speed as a statement around bragging rights. It should not be that, and as someone else pointed out at the law of diminishing returns. However...
One advantage a 6-speed generally offers over 5-speed is gear ratio span, something we almost never talk about. A gear ratio span is first gear ratio divided by top gear ratio. A typical four or five speed auto transmission offers a span of about 4.5 to 5.0. A CVT can be expected to offer a span of about 6 (lowest gear ratio being about six times shorter than the tallest gear ratio possible in the transmission). The new 6-speed development is about making that span be close to about 6. Now, don’t ask me why we can’t have 5-speed automatic with a span of 6. Theoretically, it seems possible, but at least I have not seen a 5-speed transmission with that kind of span. The closest might be the 5-speed in RL, which has it at 5.4.
The advantages of larger span
Consider two identical cars, both equipped with 5-speed transmissions. The only difference:
Car A: 10.00:1 Overall Drive Ratio (ODR) in first gear
Car B: 12.00:1 ODR in first gear
ODR determines the thrust during acceleration in that gear. So, car B will offer 20% greater thrust than car A, hence better acceleration, in first gear. Now, gear span being limited to 5, here is how the fifth gear ODR for the two cars would look:
Car A: 2.00:1
Car B: 2.40:1
While car B offered better acceleration (by 20%) its cruising RPM will be 20% higher in the fifth gear. If car A cruised at 60 mph at 2000 rpm, car B will do so with 2400 rpm. This will result in worse fuel economy.
Now, using a 6-speed transmission in car B might help bringing down that cruising RPM. If this transmission allowed a span of 6, while having 12.00:1 ODR in first, we would have 2.00:1 ODR in the cruising gear! It offers better of both worlds. And this is where 6-speed transmission primarily helps.
Unless a 7-speed (or more) transmission were improving the span, it is doing virtually nothing extra. It would apply even to 6-speed transmissions if it didn’t have a wider span than a 5. Hence the law of diminishing returns.
Now, Honda could use a 6-speed transmission for these same reasons. I am sure Honda engineers can match their engine with 5-speed transmission and meet or beat the mileage from competitions’ combo with 6-speed or more, they could do even better with 6-sp. There must be a reason why Honda Civic in Europe is offered only with 6-speed transmission (in manual as well as automatic forms). My argument above applies largely to automatic transmission.
I hope Honda finally makes a move to 6-speed auto transmission in Accord. It is not a make or break deal, or that it has to be anything about bragging rights. But it will help improve a lot of perception of lack of power in vehicles like MDX and RL despite of them having plenty of power from the engine. And 2008 Accord would be a fine starting point.
If you have a 7-speed and a 5-speed, and 1st and 7th gears are the same size as the 1st and 5th gears (same ratio), the 7-speed would still give you better acceleration, and better mileage. Look at it like a flight of stairs. The more steps there are, the shorter each step has to be. Thus requiring less effort.
There might be some gain in fuel economy, but negligible, and certainly not worth the added complexity and bulk when compared to a 5 or 6 speed transmission with same design.
What I found interesting however, is that the larger Avalon, with the V6 and a 5AT, was rated at the same mpg as the Camry.
Also, all of the current 5 spd manuals have a spacer in place where the 6th gear would reside. A handful of Element and at least one CR-V owner have added the 6th gear from the TSX/RSX-S to their vehicles. Since the original tranny had the 5 spd taller final drive, their highway cruising RPM's dropped significantly.
As to 6 spd in auto, who cares!?! It is a slush box!
6MT First Gear ODR- 15.50:1
6MT Span- 4.96:1 (First gear is 4.96 times shorter than sixth gear)
6MT Top Gear ODR- 3.13:1
5AT First Gear ODR- 11.77:1
5AT Span- 4.69:1 (First gear is 4.69 times shorter than fiftth gear)
5AT Top Gear ODR- 2.51:1
6MT clearly has more aggressive gearing. Assuming identical drive train loss at the wheels, 6MT actually would deliver 32% more thrust than 5AT (a reason the car feels more powerful with manual, besides the fact that manual should result in lower drive train loss too). Assuming 15% drive train loss from both set ups, and 3500 lb total weight including a driver, we are looking at 0.62g and 0.47g maximum thrust from 6MT and 5AT respectively.
Besides greater thrust, the 6MT also offers a wider span but not by a lot. The sixth gear is still very short. And that shows up, especially, in highway fuel economy rating.
6MT: 22/30 mpg
5AT: 22/31 mpg
MT is generally more efficient and if ratios weren’t much different, one could expect about 10% better fuel economy ratings compared to AT version. So, it would not be far fetched to assume that with a less aggressive set of ratios, 6MT would have been rated at something like 24/34 mpg (the fact that Accord 5MT with same but slightly less powerful engine was rated 26/34 mpg supports that assumption). This same argument can be made for Accord and TL, both of which have V6 mated to 5AT or 6MT.
But 6MT isn’t something the masses buy. It is about time Honda went 6AT. I couldn’t care less for more gears beyond that as they seem to do nothing more (the law of diminishing returns). In case of TSX above (and can be applied to Accord or any other car), a wide span (6.00:1) 6AT could afford the best of both worlds, the short lower gears like the 6MT and more relaxed top gears as in the 5AT.
In other words, the 6AT could have 14.50:1 first gear ODR and a 2.40:1 sixth gear ODR, an improvement in performance AND fuel economy. Remember people complaining about “lack of power” in RL and MDX despite of their advertised 290-300 HP engines? There is the problem. Both of those vehicles require relaxed top gear but use of 5AT provides no room to be more aggressive in the lower gears (equals poorer performance).
Consider this:
A well designed 5AT provides a gear span (first gear/top gear) of 5.00:1
A well designed 6AT provides a gear span (first gear/top gear) of 6.00:1
Let us assume identical first gear overall drive ratio for both transmissions: 13.50:1.
5AT with its span will provide us with a final gear drive ratio of 2.70:1. The 6AT will provide us with 2.25:1. If the car with 5AT cruises with 2000 rpm at 60 mph, identical car with 6AT would cruise at under 1700 rpm.
Additionally, 6AT would allow for shorter low gears (for improved performance/acceleration) and yet have room to provide a more relaxed highway cruising (for improved fuel economy). This is why I want to see Honda finally couple inherently fuel efficient engine to a transmission that furthers the efficiency.
They seem to be able to design cars faster than the transmission then. That said, Honda didn't take much time to offer 6AT in European Civic.
I do like this rear 3/4 view.
http://www.vtec.net/news/news-image?image=689703/sedan_rear.jpg
-Cj
Also my fingers are still crossed for the 3.2!!
-Cj
Still just adding a 6AT gives the engine moving room and it can oerform better like elroy5 said.
-Cj
The dark blue sedan looks nice too, but I see a little bit of Kia Optima in the side profile...