2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan

robertsmx

link

elroy5

I think the new CRV looks much much better than the old one did. Look at the shape of the rear windows, and tell me the new one doesn't look better. People are always saying how Honda needs to be more daring with their designs, then when they do something different, they hate it. I love the new CRV's look, and I'm obviously not alone. The magazine reviewers seem to like it too. The old CRV was just too square. It had no shape at all. Just proves styling is subjective, huh?

texases

In the eye...the new rear windows are perhaps the worst part of it to me - they reduce visibility, and the curved line reduces rear entry room slightly. Finally, the curved line is unrelated to the roof lin, unlike with the FX35, where the two compliment one another. IMHO, of course

robertsmx

I actually like the new CR-V, but for that overly bold grill.

dolfan1

That of course is correct, technically the Accord is more powerful but the WRX is indeed quicker. When I looked at the Subaru I thought man, that thing would be a hoot to drive! But my more practical side took over. For the average person the Honda would probably make more sense as an everyday people mover, grocery getter, all around performance (power/mpg) etc.

robertsmx

Upward visibility isn't as important (the theme is basically from a car). Now, in vehicles like Murano where they compromised downward visibility for style.

the curved line is unrelated to the roof line

Actually, it is very much related. The idea with curving (down) window line is to provide a perception of roof line sloping down, without actually bringing down the roof line and compromise utility (which is a problem in FX where form over function is the dominant theme).

CR-V got that design element from previous generation of Honda Stream (sold in Japanese market). The idea was the same. Make a boxy vehicle looks less boxy.

ahsanman99

for your info current 6speed accord coupe run 5.9 0 to 60 and 14.5 quarter mile which is fast enough for a family car.hondas goal is not to make 1000hp accord,which if they want iam sure they can.considering the biggest engine maker in the world.2008 accord will have enough guns for fun.

andysd

I just bought an '07 Accord sedan. Should I have waited a bit longer? Am interested in views on pricing, styling, technical. Free rein. :shades:

thegraduate

With a 2008, you would have paid a lot more than you likely got your 2007 for. It (2008) will be more powerful, and likely, generally better. BUT, first year models typically are more problematic than models that have been out for awhile (such as your 2007). So, you're probably going to have a VERY trouble free 2007 Accord. You'll be able to buy the upcoming Accord for the next five years, so you didn't miss your chance!

bristol2

If you are the type that always wants the latest thing, you may be kicking yourself in 6 months.

If you are the type that loves the idea of getting a great deal on a great product, regardless of the 'fashion', you'll be happy as a clam.

There are enough spy shots out there to know what the '08 exterior is like. The real question is whether the interior is radically (or even substantially) different to the existing model. I am more interested in how the interior of my car feels than how the exterior looks so if the interior is not much of an improvement, for me getting a great deal on an '07 is a no-brainer.

andysd

I hope it's permitted to "reply" to your own posting!

I paid $8,400 difference out the door trading in an '04 Civic EX auto sedan for the '07 Accord SE 4-cylinder auto sedan (silver/gray).

Usually I keep cars a long time but this seemed pretty good with no haggling, and I do like my new Accord very much.

With that kind of a deal, I can always get the debugged new model Accord in about three years - if it appeals that much more to me.

As to power, the only way to see the power is to wind up the engine to high revs, and I doubt whether I'll ever see the need. For passing situations, the smooth shift from fifth to fourth takes care of matters very nicely.

Technically, maybe there'll be some good advances, like cylinder cut-out to improve gas mileage.

As to appearance, I met a friend yesterday who has a new Camry. Walking around both, I was so glad I have an Accord. He does have one great feature, though, a knee airbag.

stevecebu

for your info current 6speed accord coupe run 5.9 0 to 60 and 14.5 quarter mile which is fast enough for a family car. hondas goal is not to make 1000hp accord,which if they want iam sure they can.considering the biggest engine maker in the world.2008 accord will have enough guns for fun.

I think for everyday driving and fuel economy and the fact that the accord runs on regular makes it a much better buy than the WRX. The WRX has totally lost it's edge and the Accord is such a good value. Just don't try and say that in the WRX forum tho.
The Accord either Coupe of sedan is not at the top of my list although I'd rather have the diesel. But that is coming soon also.
I don't honestly see the need for 1,000HP in any car unless you are really going to race it on a track. A Porsche 911 isn't over 500HP and it's still faster than most cars. Sure Honda can make faster and more HP cars but I doubt they'd be as good for all around use as an Accord is.

robertsmx

Speaking of fuel economy, I don’t have enough experience with Accord V6 but Acura TL’s 3.2/V6 has been incredibly impressive when it comes to observed fuel economy. That V6 is basically a larger version of Accord’s but requires premium grade while Accord's is rated at regular. However, over last three tanks, I have managed to get almost 27 mpg in mixed driving (50-50) over about 1250 miles including part of the fourth tank, which is in progress. The key has been a light foot and sensible driving keeping speed between 40 and 70 mph as much as possible.

On open flat highway keeping speed between 70-75 mph, I get 32-33 mpg. If Honda improves upon its V6 in Accord, the transmission, adds VCM, it won’t be a stretch to expect mileage in mid to upper 30s at those speeds.

ezshift5

....On open flat highway keeping speed between 70-75 mph, I get 32-33 mpg. If Honda improves upon its V6 in Accord, the transmission, adds VCM, it won’t be a stretch to expect mileage in mid to upper 30s at those speeds.

Point well taken. Enter our engine rpm vs. fuel efficiency curve: my 6M coupe at 2150/cc on long freeway jaunts turns in 34 almost guaranteed. Now and then 36-38. Twice we calc'd 39. Bring on that VCM.

best, ez....

eldaino

no, but then again the altima never sported them did it?

and the ride handling balance imo is superior in the accord.

funny you mention weight, as the double wishbone civics are still highly sought after for their awesome suspension and relatvie light weight.

blackexv6

Lets hope Honda worked out the bugs in the VCM system.

The '05+ Odyssey w/VCM has a bad engine vibration & drone problem. Engine mounts were thought to be the culprit but that didn't solve the problem.

Our neighbor's '06 Ody EX (non-VCM) has no problems to date. On the other hand, our +$35k EXL/NAV/RES idles like a mack truck at stop signs & drones to death.

I personally don't think an extra 1-2mpg is worth the added complexity & risk of future problems. KISS is the best motto...buy a 4cyl if you want good fuel economy & reliability.

thegraduate

Our neighbor's '06 Ody EX (non-VCM) has no problems to date. On the other hand, our +$35k EXL/NAV/RES idles like a mack truck at stop signs & drones to death.

My aunt's 2005 Odyssey EX cloth (no VCM) has the same drone (2,000-2,300 RPM or so). The drone is due to an exhaust system design flaw, as several have reported on the Odyssey forum.

autoboy16

I agree! KISS(Keep It Simple, Stupid!) works best lately. Honda knows that in terms of style. Form follows function! Honda's may not be the best looking thing on the road but its hard to confuse it for something else! Simple, Elegant, and sophisticated.

To bad that doesn't work for the TL. I thinks that is the BEST looking car on the road for less than $40k. 535i is best above 40.

-Cj

jchan2

Whether the EPA has rated the Accord and what they rated it for, MPG wise?

I remember someone posted that 35 MPG highway was the target, but that seems high due to the new '08 EPA formulas... (and the fact that the Camry Hybrid was re-rated at 33/34)

robertsmx

Double wishbone is indeed the best bet albeit it requires more space and is more costly. Both are a challenge in compact car segment, and to a lesser extent in a midsize family sedan. In a luxury car, it is almost taken for granted. In Civic, McPherson struts allowed Honda to shorten the nose, extend the wheel base and also increase safety. When it came to handling, the new Civic Si is no slouch.

But just having DWB suspension doesn't guarantee good handling. It does make things easier when one wants to improve that aspect, since it involves fewer compromises with ride quality etc. With Accord, especially in America, Honda has taken the middle ground and has not offered us a true sport version. But with help from DWB, it can comfortably stand right in the middle, without leaning one way or the other.

robertsmx

IMO, the new EPA rating is a mess. EPA took the approach of appeasing the whiners. For me, who had no trouble meeting or beating EPA estimates, the new standards require additional math. If they quote 30 mpg, I will take it as 33 mpg (i.e. add 10% to it). Just to give you an idea, in mixed driving (about 50-50 city/highway) in my cars:
2006 TL/AT
Old EPA: 23 mpg (IIRC)
New EPA: 21 mpg
I get: 24 mpg (my normal leadfooted driving)/ 26.6 mpg (over last 1200 miles or so, with lightfooted driving)

1998 Accord EX-L/AT
Old EPA: 26 mpg
New EPA: 22 mpg
I get: 26 mpg (leadfooted driving)

And this experience is no different for me in most other cars that I have driven (in some, I have had trouble meeting old EPA estimate, however, and, in recent times, them being a 2007 Camry LE, 2007 Altima 2.5S/CVT and 2006 Dodge Stratus).

But in general, if EPA now tells me to expect 18/26, I'm going to take it as 20/30, for an overall mileage of about 24-26 mpg.

qbrozen

But you are far from the norm.

The old system did not work for the majority. You can't make everyone happy. The new system fixed the old whiners but has gained new whiners. I think fewer, however.

dudleyr

Yes he is far from the norm - I get much better than the old EPA, not merely the same.

I don't even have problems getting the real old EPA numbers - the ones that are 28% higher than the 2007 numbers for the highway.

I agree with robertsmx - a few vocal complainers that drive in very poor conditions assume somebody else is at fault. The EPA is the scapegoat.

robertsmx

I'm surprised. The way I normally drive my cars can be seen as an abuse. And I meet the old EPA estimates. When I go light footed, I have had no trouble exceeding it. Perhaps the "norm" is that people idle for 5 minutes before they take their car out? For me, it is ~15 seconds (a bit more on a cold day).

Although I will calculate miles traveled/volume to refill every time I refuel, here is a snapshot of what I get in my TL with a light foot (no abrupt acceleration, except couple of times exiting toll booths)


62 miles at ~75 mph
7 miles at ~65 mph
32 miles at 40-50 mph (with a few stops at traffic lights)

Mileage per trip computer: 30 mpg (Trip computer is fairly close to my calculations, estimated to be within 0.5-0.6 mpg so it would be fair to assume 29-30 mpg in that 101 mile trip on flat highway/city streets).

What would one expect considering new EPA ratings? (the new EPA rating on TL is 18/26, with 26 mpg being EPA's highway mode, which I am beating in mixed driving with an average speed of 36-37 mph).

eldaino

100%agree with you!

just interesting how the tables have turned.

eldaino

i love honda's form follows function approach..even the current accord is a very handsome, if a bit conservative, car.

the tl is one of the best looking roads on the car.

now if it were only rwd....or sh-awd with a small v-8...

robertsmx

I love the TL. Its styling (inside and out) was one of the major reasons I got it over (another) Accord and TSX, and would have picked it easily over any of its competitors if I were to consider simply based on that.

My dream TL would be a TL Type-S with 3.5/V6 delivering 350 HP, SH-AWD, 6MT and a curb weight under 3800 lb (being realistic) in low 40s. But thats a topic for another thread.

cybersavage

I'm waiting to see if a coupe with the diesel option arrives.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/07/2009-honda-accord-diesel-to-hit-52-mpg/

qbrozen

Location has ALOT to do with it. You'd be amazed at how greatly hills affect mileage. Our current Chrysler was always down near the city number UNTIL we took it on an out-of-state road trip. Where we went (LI) is very flat and we got better mileage there than ever before in the vehicle's life.

I've also found the vehicle matters alot. I don't know why, but I have no problem getting near the epa highway number in both hondas we have owned, but couldn't even touch the city number in the Dodge pickup I had.

I think this holds true with testers, too. If you watch magazine published numbers for road tests and long-term updates, you may notice that they consistently get below EPA numbers, yet not so much with Hondas. At least, that's what I have noticed.

Like I said, the EPA can't win. Yes, I saw lots of complaining abotu the old numbers, no doubt. But I have now seen just as much complaining about the new numbers.

eldaino

robertsmx is your tl the regular one or the more recenlty facelifted version with the revised interior? they both look good...and i agree, i do prefer its looks to the tsx (which i like a lot too) and to the accord.

Even a few years after its debut, its still a very original looking car.

honda being conservative...yeah whatev!

robertsmx

Some of that is wishful thinking (not getting diesel engine as an option, but getting 52 mpg). The blog is based on assumption that since Accord diesel is rated to get 52 mpg in UK, it would here as well. For starters, "imperial gallon" is used in UK, which is 20% bigger than US gallon. So, 52 mpg is really 43 mpg. Not bad. And perhaps a little lower still considering UK system is a little more "lenient" than EPA.

robertsmx

Its a 2006. I like some of the updates (front) to the TL, but prefer the simplistic tail lamps in 2004-06.

robertsmx

The freeway I had at my disposal during that 101 mile jaunt actually has a lot of ups and downs (it is raised for most part), but perhaps not quite as hilly as the hills (Yogi Berra influence).

After last fillup, I was disappointed to see my mileage dip down to 22 mpg on trip computer after about 60 miles. That was due to getting stuck in major traffic jams last week. My average speed had dipped down to 29 mph as well (which explains lower mileage). Normally, my average speed over a month is in upper 30s, so I was about 10 mph below at the time. Since then, and over about 100 miles, the mileage has crept back up to 25 mpg (and overall average speed is at 35 mph).

texases

I've just started seeing those - yes, they're overdone, out of character with the rest of the car.

rv65

BluFZ1 was pretty close on HP for the v6. 273 HP to be exact . 180 hp for the LX and LX-P. 200 for the EX i4 sedan. Also the 200 hp i4 maybe the only i4 in the coupe. Hope this helps.

robertsmx

That is very interesting piece of information. Are those 273 horses from 3.2?

cybersavage

What the US milage rating might ultimately be is still unclear although some impressive numbers are being speculated upon.

http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/06/06/next-generation-honda-accord-to-get-over-60- mpg/

I'm also interested in the upcoming VW Jetta and BMW 1 Series diesels that should be arriving here in the next couple of years.

thegraduate

Source?

ezshift5

...Are those 273 horses from 3.2?

....that's my wish. But with anticipated VCM, I reckon my wishes just won't happen.

...ez...

dolfan1

Don't know if this is old news but just looked at Sept issue of Motor Trend, 2008-2009 Buyers Guide. They said Honda gave scant details but according to what they had the 4cyl is rated @ 175hp and the V6 is 270-280. Don't know if that means Honda wouldn't be exact or whether one model will have more than another. I assume its the former. The V6 is a 3.5L and the trannies offered will be the 5M, 6M and 5AT. Apparently those wishing for a 6AT are out of luck. There was no mention of the '09 diesel.

drfill

Honda can't get to 6-speeds on the auto. That will proabably cost it 1 MPG, plus a little speed.

The diesel will be on the 2009, not at launch, right?

I think Honda really wants to have a more powerful 4 over Altima's 2.5 standard, and obviously a couple (literally) of extar horses over Camry and Altima V6.

So I'd expect 180 and 275, respectively.

DrFill

jaxs1

It might have around that horsepower, but it's not as if the current 4 and 6 cylinder engines were drawing complaints as being underpowered.
I think increasing fuel economy would be a bigger seller especially on the 4 cylinder models.
If it had 160HP and several MPG higher than a Camry and Altima would be better than having 181 HP and having about the same mileage as an Altima.
Just having more horsepower to match another manufacturer's HP numbers doesn't make sense unless you're racing.

drfill

The 2.4 is long overdue for a replacement, and I expect one for early 2010 with Toyota's Valvematic making a lid-gen power/economy upgrade.

Toyota would tell you people don't buy Camry's for HP.

I don't see the 3.5 getting any changes anytime soon, to "keep up".

I wonder how much the new Accord will hurt Camry sales. Camry is on pace to sell 480k this year (500k if they hustle), but 2008 will see a drop down to a more comfortable level. Camry usually does 420-430k.

Accord may get to #1 next year. I like the redesign, and following the Camry redesign doesn't hurt either.

DrFill

autoboy16

It seems as if honda is overshooting the Camry and accord or at least trying to match up with the IMO best car in the class, the Vw Passat(The Accord is my num2 but with the specs on this 08... ). The 2.0T with a 200hp, 0-60 7.7secs, 23C/32h mpg or the 3.6 with a 280hp, 0-60 6.2secs,19C/28H mpg.

Everyone here knows or should know the current accords specs so I'll just post my guesses for the 08.

A 2.4l I4 185hp, 0-60 in 8secs, 22C/33H mpg or
a 2.3l CTDI I4 145hp/260lbft, 0-60 in 8.5secs, 28C/44Hmpg 3.2+l v6 276hp, 0-60 in 6.5secs and 18C/25Hmpg

-Cj A guy can dream :shades:

jet10000

What's the difference between the LX and EXi4 that causes the hp to go from 180 to 200?

biker4

What's the difference between the LX and EXi4 that causes the hp to go from 180 to 200?

Probably a little tweaking and premium gas - basically a hand me down engine from the TSX.

maddog11

According to one of the writers at the TOV website all 2008 Accords will run on regular gas.

robertsmx

Potentially higher compression, slightly higher and broader torque curve. This doesn't guarantee need for premium grade however. It should be possible to get that rating using regular.

Or, potentially the first application of A-VTEC.

biker4

I would think that they'd have A-VTEC across the board on the I4. I wonder if this means that the EX premium will be more than before. The EX is sounding more and more like the TSX - the only thing missing will be the 6MT.

robertsmx

1994-97 Accord DX/LX didn't get VTEC, only EX did. With MY1998, DX didn't have it, LX/EX did. With MY2003, all got i-VTEC.

So, it is possible that Honda will put A-VTEC only on EX, while lesser trims get i-VTEC.

If EX does get 200 HP, I'm wondering what next TSX will be like. It currently gets 205 HP from 2.4/i-VTEC compared to 166 HP from current Accord 2.4 courtesy of higher compression and VTEC applied at both ends (Accord has it only at the intake).

Perhaps that difference will continue with the next TSX, and with all that plus premium grade gasoline, it could deliver 210-220 HP, unless Acura suddenly decided to make turbo standard (unlikely they will put V6 in TSX).