2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan

qbrozen

well, the thing about HP numbers is that they just don't tell the tale. Take a look at the new Altima. On paper, the 270 hp would seem to trump the Accord, yet the test numbers I have seen still have it trailing in acceleration (IIRC, somewhere around 6.2 secs to the accord's 5.9). So, for me, I don't care what the HP numbers state, its the performance that counts.

by the way, I LOVE the coupe ... but I'm not digging the sedan. The slanted taillights remind me of the fugly Camry.

blufz1

I like that gaping maw on the coupe. I bet it would ram some serious air at 150!

elroy5

Take a look at the new Altima. On paper, the 270 hp would seem to trump the Accord, yet the test numbers I have seen still have it trailing in acceleration (IIRC, somewhere around 6.2 secs to the accord's 5.9). So, for me, I don't care what the HP numbers state, its the performance that counts.

People are always heaping praise on the Nissan Altima's VQ engine. Seems to me this great, award winning, DOHC 3.5L 270hp engine, would blow by the Accord's smaller 3.0L SOHC 244hp engine. The Accord transmission must be an amazing piece of work, to make up for all this. I have read reviews stating that the Altima V6 was thrashy, and noisy. I just don't understand what's so great about this engine.

qbrozen

well, I've had both, so I think I can give a good assessment. The only difference was, mine was in a 350Z. I still think it is head and shoulders above the Accord's, to be honest. I can easily catch the Accord flat-footed, but the Z was never without power. It pulled from VERY low in the RPM band. And it did sing. HOWEVER, we are talking about a sportscar, so I LIKED hearing the engine. The Accord is definitely quieter. So, really, its a personal preference as far as the noise goes. I'm not sure if the FWD VQ series is any different than my Z. We know they definitely have less power, for one thing.

elroy5

Maybe it's the VQ versions in the 350Z, and other Nissan/Infinity cars that really deserve the praise, more than the VQ in the Altima. The 3.5L VQ obviously has a lot more potential, than is demonstrated in the Altima.

autoboy16

IMO, hondas 3.5 is better than nissans 3.5 and honda's 3.7 is even with nissans 3.7(Hard to tell because its a coupe vs an SUV).

I sat in the altima 2.5 cloth and i hated it. It felt like i was sitting on the seats rather than in them. My 12.5 year old car has much softer seats... The current accords seats are much better in cloth and leather.

The 3.2lv6 in the accord would be better than the Altima's because it is much more refined imo. Plus hondas 5AT seems better than the CVT in a nissan. If hondas 5AT had an automanual mode, it would be more engaging to drive... at least as far as manuals go.

-Cj

blufz1

Dude, lose the 3.2 obsession. It's the 3.5.

blufz1

I hope they have a good hood mechanism on that hood latch or that thing's gonna flap!

oldfarmer50

"...IIRC, somewhere around 6.2 secs to the accord's 5.9..."

Could you tell me the source of your figures? I haven't seen any numbers on the 2008 Accord. Edmunds lists the 2006 0-60 as 7.6. Can the 2008 really be that much faster?

maddog11

Car & Driver posted 5.9 0-60 on the 2003 V-6 Accord Coupe 6MT; Autoweek posted 6.1 on the same car. I believe with an 5AT usually posts at 6.5/6.6 0-60 in most tests. I have seen figures at 5.7 to 5.8 0-60 for the Altima V-6 with a manual transmission and in the low sixes with a an AT. I think people may be comparing or confusing MT tests to ones done with an AT. The Accord got a HP increase in 2006; while the figure on paper was small 244 vs. 240, the actual increase was about 10 or more HP due to changes in the way HP is now measured. I have not seen any 0-60 tests done on the Accord Coupe V-6 6MT since the HP increase but C&D did test the V-6 6MT 2006 Sedan and recorded 5.9; the Coupe may be a tad faster since it weighs a little less and has a lower coefficient of drag figure.

qbrozen

yup. those are the numbers i was referring to for the accord. i drive a 6-speed '06 sedan, so that's all i care about.

other than the altima. where did those come from? it SHOULD be that quick, so I'm not surprised, I just hadn't seen any that fast printed yet. heck, with the displacement and power advantages it supposedly has over the accord, I would expect it to run more like 5.6-5.7 range.

but, really, I'm being a bit too picky. a tenth or 2 could be explained in SO many ways (temperature, driver, etc). I was just surprised to see early numbers coming in SLOWER than the accord .... wish i could remember where i saw that, though. I do believe they were estimates and not real numbers.

oldfarmer50

I guess it all depends on what source you look at. I have seen 0-60 times vary by a full second between reviews. Edmunds seems to have the slowest times (old fogey testers) while Car and Driver seems to be fastest (maybe they use teen-agers).

eldaino

i love the coupe and the sedan is suprisngly upscale looking; almost tuetonic in stance!

i like the way they both look, sure fire winners.

i can't remember who mentioned the passat; but thanks for doing so, i didn't realize it was more on par with the maxima and avalon (at least pricewise) it does offer 4 motion, but those models are pricey, and an optioned out 2.0t can be that way as well. Dimensions seem to be on par with the accord/camry though.

jeffyscott

i can't remember who mentioned the passat; but thanks for doing so, i didn't realize it was more on par with the maxima and avalon (at least pricewise) it does offer 4 motion, but those models are pricey, and an optioned out 2.0t can be that way as well. Dimensions seem to be on par with the accord/camry though.

But by the same token this same sort of thing can be said about the Accord, as well. The selling prices of midsize cars from GM, Ford, Mazda, and Hyundai are significantly lower...more comparable to the Civic than to the Accord.

qbrozen

also, i find the accord pretty tough to launch cleanly. many times it will either bog down or spin the wheels too much. so maybe that's part of the problem.

thenebean

IMO, hondas 3.5 is better than nissans 3.5 and honda's 3.7 is even with nissans 3.7(Hard to tell because its a coupe vs an SUV).

have you driven any of these to make a realistic comparison? considering the 3.7L VQ engine in the G37 isn't even available for you to drive yet, how can you even form an opinion?

Nissan's VQ has been on Ward's 10 best engines list since its inception...no other engine has (not honda, not BMW, not anyone). that's saying something.

-thene

eldaino

you are right it does; and its that wards' doesnt know crap. :P

no bmw silky smooth six cylinders?
no honda smooth high powered 4 cyl?

kinda weird that those engines would get left out.

no worries man i'm totally joking; vw's 2.t made it on that list and with good reason.

eldaino

excelent point. i guess depending on the discussion what compares to what is subjective. i usually go by dimensions and such before i get into which one costs more, hence why i still think the passat is their competitor on paper. (even vw claims that the jetta is their 'midsize' so go figure!)

jeffyscott

I agree the Passat competes with the Accord. I don't think it is that much pricier, if you compare comparably equipped models. The Passat starts with a turbo 4 and a lot of standard equipment. Some versions of the Passat likely compete more with the Acura TL than the Accord.

I think in some ways the Jetta also competes with the Accord, in others with the Civic. The trunk is certainly mid-size . Some versions of the Jetta (eg. GLI) also likely are competing with cars like the TSX.

stevecebu

I'm wondering if it will be fully made in Japan or if it will be made somewhere else? Has anyone heard?
Thanks

qbrozen

I don't see why. I mean, what would they do with the factories here if they moved all of the Accord manufacturing to Japan?

autoboy16

As far as i know, the accord has been manufactured in Honda's ohio plant since 1995. I know because my car has Honda's ohio seal on it(right when you open the hood) so i dont see any reason to stop that tradition. Remember, the accord is built in two factories; one in ohio and one in japan.

-Cj

autoboy16

1st off i said IMO(in my opinion) and i said the 3.7 because in both companies, the 3.7 isn't a new design, it is an expansion off the 3.5s.

Take it how you like, honda's engines are infact low on low down torque but are great up the rev range. Me, i like to rev more often thna not and prefer my engines to be silky smooth throught the range.

Dont take it as me bashing nissan, take it as me stating my preference. Nissan makes many vehicles that i like but in the midsize sedan equation, the accord has my vote. OMG I LOVE THE PICKUP ON THE 5.6! I wish it would have won an award!

-Cj

robertsmx

As far as i know, the accord has been manufactured in Honda's ohio plant since 1995.

Accord was first Japanese car to be manufactured in the USA, going back to 1982(?). Most Accords have been domestically manufactured since, with supplemental production in Japan.

autoboy16

I hate to say it but you're right on many points! The passat v6 is a screamer! Theres no way it can loose head to head against the 244unit in the accord. It must be against the TL(specifically the Type-s).

And the jetta GLI did beat out the TSX back in 2005 here on insideline. I bet that will change a bit when the next TSX arrives and they compare other competing cars like the volvo s40 T5(predicting an R here...), mazdaspeed3/6, and saab 9-3. For now, the jetta can wear its earned crown. It gets my seal of approval!

-Cj

robertsmx

Nissan's VQ has been on Ward's 10 best engines list since its inception...no other engine has (not honda, not BMW, not anyone). that's saying something.

It does indeed tell me something... Ward is crap. They don't use a standard criteria, worsened by the fact that they don't reveal a word on what they use. They seem to babble about the output more than anything else. This was true in 2004 when Accord's 3.0 was in their list, and they were "impressed" with 240 HP from just 3-liters. A year later, that version of Accord V6 was replaced by the hybrid version of the engine. If you must rely on them to tell you the "best" engine, good luck!

I may be digressing from the topic here a bit (as if we haven't already), R&T had compared Lexus IS350, new Infiniti G35 and Acura TL-S. Among these, the Acura 3.5 was the least powerful, but they ranked it the best of the three engines, with the VQ ranking last. And unlike Ward's, they explained their choice.

125forest

Very disappointed about the sedan, just like an other Sonata on the street...

thenebean

you can say what you like - i just find it hard to make an opinion if you havent at least experienced it...that's all

i wasn't trying to start anything, just pointing that out!

I have not driven an accord - and I am sure it is a fantastic vehicle - I love nissans because i've had a great experience with them, and they are a heck of a lot of fun to drive! their styling is also very different from the other two big japanese makes.

but again, my preference - to each their own!

-thene

thenebean

i don't know about you, but i consider this to be an explanation of why the Nissan VQ engine won for the 13th year in a row...

don't be a poor sport just because your favorite engine isn't on there year after year. I can accept and declare that the accord is a great car - reliable, durable, non-offensive...its not for me...that's my personal preference.

so what about the above does not explain why the VQ has been a top 10 engine for 13 years running?

-thene

maddog11

The entry level Passat is comparably equiped to the LX 4 cylinder sedan and with the AT is $3300.00 more than the Honda. In fact its almost $1000.00 more than the Accord EX, which is better equiped and nearly as expensive as the much better equiped EX-L. The entry level Passat if comparably equiped to the Accord EX-L 4 is more than $5000.00 to the Honda and is about 2K more expensive than the Accord EX-L with a V-6.

blufz1

Then look at the resale.

elroy5

Before the 03 Accord came out, the Passat was winning many of the sedan comparisons. In 03 the Accord raised the bar, and the Passat lost because the difference in price, had become greater than the difference in quality.

blufz1

But then that's good,isn't it? You can just go buy a Sonata,save the money,and pretend it's an Accord.

robertsmx

But then, one could always get a used Accord (2003-2005) and tell everybody that he got a new Sonata which is what 2008 Accord is a copy of.

autoboy16

And same with me and nissans(except for the Armada and Altima 2.5 with the flat cloth seats). Then again, I did drive a maxima(04 pre CVT) and it was ok but the engine was kind of slow to react. Then again, it was the portly max...

Hey i guess its a truce! Karl and 1487 should take note of this... LOLOLOL!! :P

-Cj :shades:

autoboy16

Oh no... Not this again!! Its almost as annoying as those Regular vs Premium gasoline "conversations". Isn't that why Midsize Sedans "1.0" got closed?

If the new accord does have a 280hp v6(I'll try to avoid the 3.2/3.5 thing) will it compare with the passat?

-Cj

jeffyscott

The entry level Passat is comparably equiped to the LX 4 cylinder sedan

No it's not even close. For starters the Pasat is a turbo 4 with over 200 HP and over 200 ft-lbs torque. The Accord 4 cylinder is hardly comparable.

It has "leatherette" (which is a major negative to me but a positive to the vast majority of buyers), stability control, and 4 wheel disk brakes. The AT is a 6 speed in the passat.

Even with that, the price differentials you are citing are in the same range as the difference between the pricey Accord and cars like the Mazda6, Fusion, and Sonata.

blufz1

I like the Vw's. Nice comfortable interior,good handling, nice paint. I just would not buy one for reliability/resale reasons.

stevecebu

Ok thanks, so most likely if I were to buy one it would be made in Ohio. My concern is build quality. The cars built in Japan just feel tighter and better built.
Like a Type R Civic I drove. It was used but much tighter than my old civic hatchback.

blane

jeffyscott,

Of the VW you wrote, "It has "leatherette" (which is a major negative to me but a positive to the vast majority of buyers)".

leatherette = pleather
pleather = plastic

That's negative to me too...YEACHHH! Same disgusting stuff that turned me off to the lower priced Beemers. However, I'd beg to differ with you about it being a positive to the vast majority of buyers. That may have been true in the '60's through the '80's, but there hasn't been much of it in cars marketed in the US for a long time.

benderofbows

"Pasat is a turbo 4 with over 200 HP and over 200 ft-lbs torque. The Accord 4 cylinder is hardly comparable."

"Hardly comparable?" Can I have some of whatever you are smoking? Performance-wise, they are absolutely comparable.

There is only a 1/2 second difference between the 2.0T and the 2.4 in an Accord. (Edmunds tested a 2006 2.0T 6-speed automatic weighing roughly 3350 lbs from 0-60 in 7.7 seconds; an Accord 2.4 5-speed automatic weighing roughly 3200 lbs can go from 0-60 in 8.1 seconds.)

The only area where the 4-cylinders truly are "harldy comparable" is reliabilty. Concerning the Passat, CR states "reliabilty of the 6-cylinder is above average, however reliability of the four-cylinder turbo is much lower than average." Some problems are certainly liveable, however the engine is not something I'd like to have problems with in my new car.

qbrozen

That may have been true in the '60's through the '80's, but there hasn't been much of it in cars marketed in the US for a long time.

It is still the base material in Benzes and Bimmers. It has gotten better over the years. Many folks actually have a hard time telling the difference.

thenebean

some people just like to argue i s'pose! i can respect that different people like different cars, and that not everyone will think that nissans are great like i do. what i don't like is when people spread misinformation like its fact, and continously bash other brands to make themselves feel better. you (collectively) don't have to like nissan, and i don't have to like hondas. but we should be able to talk about it in a civil manner, instead of saying things like "nissans suck because they arent as good as honda!"

anyways, im sure the new accord will set sales records - people just love them! im waiting and saving my pennies for one of two cars - an infiniti G35, or the nissan GTR

-thene

qbrozen

you can talk to me in a civil manner, thene.
I'm a fan of all good cars.

an infiniti G35, or the nissan GTR

Wow! lots and lots of pennies separate those 2. You could get 2 G35s (i suggest the G37, however) for the projected price of the GTR.

I'm disappointed the GTR will be so pricey. But a G37 may ... may be in my future. Its one of MANY under consideration.

1487

did everyone see the pics here on Edmunds? They are completly uncovered. The sedan looks like a mix between the Optima and the Aura. it looks more substantial than the current car but nothing new in the styling department. The chrome trim on the door handles and around the windows reminds me of the Aura XR a lot.

thenebean

q - many pennies yes, but so much more car! projected 3.7L Twin Turbo engine?? *drool*

its only around $75k - which isn't terrible considering its numbers supposedly compare to or beat a Porche 911...it looks cool too

but, that's not a midsized sedan, and certainly not an accord...so enough about that!

-thene

bvdj84

Okay, I am thinking about getting the 08 accord coupe, the Coupe, especially with the Red, WOW, that is hot!! I would get red, with black leather interior, tinted windows.

I do like the sedan and I would rather have the 4 door, but the sedan looks a bit too tame, I guess because compared to the coupe it does. I'll have to see it in person. Looks classy, but takes on alot of lines from other cars.

Bring it on, I am going to try to make a deal on one when they come out. Hopefully, I'll be able to get a somewhat good deal. But I gotta be willing to walk away, and wait too, to get a better deal! Anyone else going to deal when the arrive???

from_fl

You must think F150 truck also HOT.
Both Coupe, Sedan got no WOW factor. Sorry.

maddog11

The 2008 Basque red Accord only comes with the ivory interior. I agree it would be nice with a black interior. I just hope the 2008 EX ivory interiors don't have the awful fake looking wood they have had from 2003-2007.

stevecebu

The Coupe looks a lot better than the sedan in those pictures and of course a red coupe shown from that angle will look better than the 4 door. My biggest gripe is no manual tranny in the 4 door and I really need 4 doors and a manual. Sadly all the 2008 models so far are disapointing. The new WRX dropped the LSD and has smaller brakes the Accord dropped the manual in the sedan and other cars I am looking at are very dissapointing in other ways. It's enough to make me want to spend an extra $10K and get a BMW. No diesels either which I really want.
But the Accord coupe looks far better than it did. It's no Porsche but it looks good to me.