2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan

bamacar

Your auto saved your life? Strange. My manual would save it even better. It actually has a brain operating it. The auto is usually in the wrong gear and it takes more time to change gears. It accelerates more slowly and uses more gas in general. It is also less reliable. Now how does it save your life compared to a manual used by a capable driver???

How many lives are lost in Europe due to the high rate of drivers with manual transmissions? I thought I had heard everything.

bamacar

You should also be in the proper gear at all times, but the automatic many times is one gear off. I call that an impediment to my ability to drive. The auto is sort of like BMW Idrive. It makes driving less precise and inefficient, but it is an engineering feat.

thegraduate

Your auto saved your life? Strange.
The auto is usually in the wrong gear and it takes more time to change gears.

That's just it... the automatic in my Accord has never been "confused" or in the wrong gear. It changes gears when I floor the gas pedal quicker than I could do it in an emergency situation.

You don't have to mock me, buddy. I wasn't doing the same to you.

I can drive a manual capably. I learned to drive in a manual transmission vehicle as a matter of fact. When I need to really MOVE though, there's no wondering "could I drop to second without redlining? It might be a close call, I better make it third" only to find out that third was too tall of a gear. In some situations, the automatic's computer programming can think faster than the driver.

An automatic means I don't have to be left wondering. Sure, automatics "dumb down" the driving experience. I'll be the first person in line to tell ya that. No argument from me. it is a "safe" option though, in my opinion. If the driver is not thinking clearly, the automatic is.

My point wasn't that an automatic was a necessity, but it isn't so frivolous as a seat heater, since it actually has something to do with getting you to your destination.

bamacar

BMW makes a nice 335 sedan. Ew Yes!!!

Okay enough let's talk about the 2008 Accord. Honda is obviously going to make capable but boring autos for 2008. Are they really going to delete the 6 speed manual for the V6 sedan? I would hope they would add it back in the coming years. An Accord Si would be a good addition to differentiate the Accord from the competition.

thegraduate

You should also be in the proper gear at all times, but the automatic many times is one gear off. I call that an impediment to my ability to drive.

Hmm, then what are all those gear choices in my automatic for? I can select my automatic to be in 1, 2, or to limit it to only the 1st three gears. By doing that, I can

A.) Drop to third from fifth by selecting "D3" on the highway to "prepare" for a quick pass, also using 3rd for engine braking
B.) Start of in second gear for slick situations, engine braking, or low-speed crawling situations
C.) Lock into 1st gear

thegraduate

An Accord Si would be a good addition to differentiate the Accord from the competition.

I agree. The Altima V6 6-speed is Nissan's midsize "Halo Car," much like the Accord 6-speed. I bet they bring it back again by the MMC for 2011, much like Nissan brought out the Altima SE-R late in the model run.

bamacar

How many people regularly pull the lever out of "D" to decelerate for maximum efficiency or shift to D3 to pass? Many automatic drivers don't even know what anything but the D, P, and R are for?

Truce, let's get back to the Accord before we are all tossed.

I sure hope the diesel Accord comes with a manual transmission and not just an auto or CVT.

dudleyr

The diesel better have a manual - with nice tall gearing so it can be their halo car for mpg.

thegraduate

Well, if someone "needed" to shift before they gunned the gas pedal, or "needed" to lock in to 2nd gear, they could. I use "D3" often enough when coming down Shades Mountain on Hwy 31 in Birmingham (those from here know it's a long, slow hill (speed limit 40).

The thing is, with the automatic (the Accord's is particularly good, as many professional testers have noted) you don't have to use those functions.

goodegg

Well, if someone "needed" to shift before they gunned the gas pedal, or "needed" to lock in to 2nd gear, they could. I use "D3" often enough when coming down Shades Mountain on Hwy 31 in Birmingham

Exactly.

lweiss

Since 90% of the cars around here are automatic, a sedan with a manual limits your resale options, and often results in lower resale prices. Maybe not sports cars, but 4 door sedans are almost all automatics. And way back when, I had a Ford where I had to replace the clutch every couple of years (who knows, maybe I am too un-co-ordinated to drive a manual, haha. But whatever, if you like a manual, go for it.
And when I sprained my left ankle some years ago, it was nice not to have to use both hands and feet to drive. Besides, between driving, looking at my smartphone, drinking coffee, who has the time to shift (ha- true though)

Funny that in Europe, almost all vehicles are manual, even high end sedans like Mercedes and Volvos.

blueiedgod

Before batteries were invented, people used to have to crank the engine over by hand to start it. Automatic transmissions were invented as an improvement. If you don't mind shifting, maybe you wouldn't mind cranking.

Electric starters, choke, and fuel injection were all improvments. Automatics were not.

For the longest time automatics were 3 spd, while manuals were 5 spd. For the longest time automatics have been getting much worse fuel economy compared to manuals. Recent changes to the final drive on the automs made them get close to the manuals in fuel economy, but then they can't compete in acceleration. And the city fuel economy for automatics is still horrendous compared to manuals.

Hardly an improvement, more like a trick to get the lazy and incapable to buy a vehicle.

I would bet you that if all over sudden the governement banned all automatics, we would not have the traffic jams we have now.

blueiedgod

You should always have both hands on the wheel while driving (10 & 2), which is impossible when you have to shift a manual. So that would make a manual more of a driving impedement, as you put it. What would make an automatic an impedement?

Most automatic drivers choose automatics because it allows them to drink their coffee and talk on the cell phone while driving.

I would like to see the statistcis, and I would bet that there are more automatic drivers involved in accidents than manual. Manual makes you a better driver. There is just no way of escaping it, you have to be in total control at all times.

benderofbows

A few comments...

Resale value: Sure, you *might* not get as much money as an automatic, but remember manuals are usually less expensive to begin with (commonly $600-$800 cheaper). Also, manuals often get a couple extra MPG, which adds up over the time you own the vehicle (24 vs. 26 mpg over 100k miles at $3/gal is $1,000). Thus they probably offset one another. As stated earlier, some drivers seek out manuals and so it is possible you can come out ahead, as was the case with the last manual midsize sedan I sold.

Reliability: Manuals *may* require more frequent servicing (you may have to replace a clutch before you have to do anything but regular maintenance on an automatic), but manuals are less expensive when they do need major servicing, so again I feel this is a wash (you can probably replace two or three clutches for the cost of one automatic trasmission overhaul). I've been lucky enough to never have to do major work on either transmission, however.

Driving experience: Bumper-to-bumper traffic *can* be easier in an automatic. However, when the road is clear, manuals are usually considerably quicker (almost a second in the quarter mile in my case). Plus they are lighter, meaning in most midsize sedans the weight distribution and thus the handling is improved (in my case, 60 less pounds in the front).

An old line I remember hearing somewhere is: "I'll start driving automatics when they are cheaper, faster, lighter, easier to work on, and more reliable."

robr2

You should always have both hands on the wheel while driving (10 & 2)...

Actually today people are taught 8 & 4. 10 & 2 force the arms in front of the airbag which can lead to fractures of the wrist and face in the event of airbag deployment.

qbrozen

manuals are usually less expensive to begin with (commonly $600-$800 cheaper). Also, manuals often get a couple extra MPG, which adds up over the time you own the vehicle (24 vs. 26 mpg over 100k miles at $3/gal is $1,000).

Not for the V6 Accord. Same price when new, yet the manual is currently worth $1k less as a trade-in. I MIGHT get 1 mpg with my 6-speed vs the automatic. I won't be driving this 200k miles to make up the difference.

thankfully I leased.

elroy5

I would like to see the statistcis, and I would bet that there are more automatic drivers involved in accidents than manual. Manual makes you a better driver. There is just no way of escaping it, you have to be in total control at all times.

I would really like to hear how a manual makes you a better driver? With an automatic you don't have to take one hand off the wheel.

benderofbows

That is one rare instance where the automatic transmission option doesn't cost any more than a manual.

Are you saying that if you were going to purchase a brand new 2007 Accord EX-L V6, you wouldn't buy a manual just because the resale is less? What about the other advantages of the manual? Quicker, better weight distribution (EX-L V6 AT Sedan 3,435 lbs vs. EX-L V6 6-speed Sedan 3,371 lbs, a difference of 64 lbs over the front axle).

When my Dad bought me my first car in 1996, the 1991 626 DX, a manual was mandatory for him as he wanted me to learn to drive on a stick, just in case I ever needed (or wanted) to know how. We found the car sitting in the parking lot of a grocery store in Raleigh, NC with 100k miles for $4,500. My dad tried to negotiate with the seller, but there were two other people right there who had seen the car, stopped and become very interested, so the man wouldn't lower his price but we bought anyway.

In 2003, I listed my 1998 626 ES-V6 5-speed manual sedan with 100k miles for sale in the local paper in Wilmington, NC, for the KBB Private Party "Excellent" value of $6,000. At around 10AM on the morning the ad ran, I got a call. That man came right over and ended up buying it from me the next day for $5,700. No one else called, but I had listed it high intending to lower if necessary.

Buyers for manual transmission cars are out there, and they aren't as hard to find as you think. I know I wouldn't think twice about paying the same amout for a used manual transmission car as for the exact same used car with a slushbox. In other words, you wouldn't have any trouble selling me your Accord V6 6-spd for the same price as a similiar automatic, just because I wasn't ever able to find a used one.

Kirstie_H

Let's stick closer to the new Accord here, OK? There's at least one manual v automatic discussion on the Auto News board. Genuine Accord-related questions are going to get lost in this debate.

qbrozen

That is one rare instance where the automatic transmission option doesn't cost any more than a manual.

Actually, when you are talking about a 6-speed vs. a regular old 4 or 5 speed auto, this business of costing the same has become pretty common. It seems to be the 5-speed manuals that continue to hold the "cheaper" line, or the more expensive auto options like CVT or DSG that command an additional charge.

No, I probably wouldn't buy a new family sedan with a stick for this reason. But it is because I change cars so often, so resale is very important to me. I would lease again, as I did with the '06, and let honda finance take the hit instead of me. OR, I would get a car where the manual didn't hurt as much (BMW, for instance). OR, just buy used in general and let the person who bought it new take that $1k hit for me.

AND ... to relate to topic. ;b
This $1k hit is most likely the reason Honda is not offering the 6-speed sedan on the '08 model. If the demand was there, the depreciation wouldn't be this bad. So I can't necessarily blame them, although I do lament the decision.

master_ryu

Just curious, which do you prefer? Altima Coupe or the 08 Accord Coupe? Body style comparison only. I can't really decide. The Altima Coupe has a more graceful structure, but it looks like a number of other Nissan and Infiniti vehicles (not excluding the Altima Sedan itself). The 08 Accord coupe definitely has a refreshing look but the various parts don't flow together as well.

robertsmx

I haven't seen the new Accord Coupe yet (of course), and have seen one Altima Coupe on the road. Altima Coupe seems to be trying too hard to look good, but the rear end seems awkward with the hump in the middle. It also makes the rear end look "weak" from some angles and exactly the opposite feel that the nice looking G-coupe provides.

It doesn't look much different from Pontiac G6 coupe either but with some edges to it.

qbrozen

I haven't seen either in person. But the pics I've seen of the Altima from the side make me think of the 350z, which is a good thing since I think the Z is one of the prettiest cars on the road.

However, other than the Z, I'm not fond of Nissan's taillight treatments.

biker4

For quite some time in the past and for the foreseeable future Honda, thankfully, has offered an MT for a good reason - the kind of people that buy one may want an MT. Those kinds of folks don't buy a Camry nor the Ford, nor the Chrysler, nor the GM variety of mid sized sedan ( none of which offer an MT, I think). Mazda 6 still has an MT as does the Altima. And of course all the Germans. All the rest are vanilla commodity sedans.

BTW, I sold my 99 Accord 5 MT in a couple of hours via Craiglist at asking price. With so few MT choices, the Accord MT will keep its value and there won't be any shortage of buyers.

I just hope the new gen Accord keeps the MT as good as the past models.

angelus1

when is the press release again?

Kirstie_H

where they belong:
Accord - Manual or Automatic?

robertsmx

Honda will definitely offer MT on the Accord. Now whether V6 model(s) get it right away, is another question. Perhaps the coupe will, and sedan may join eventually. The bottom line is, MT is not a popular choice. Outside of magazine comparisons, few care. Based on my personal observation, finding a BMW with MT on the road is about as rare as finding road test of one with AT from reputable source. 5%? May be.

For Honda, going manual in a market that doesn't like one, isn't the best option. While, some of their cars come exclusively with MT (currently, Civic Si and S2000).

maddog11

The V-6 coupes will have 6MT model but the sedan will not. The model listings were posted about 5 to 6 weeks ago on the Honda intranet system.

eldaino

Recent changes to the final drive on the automs made them get close to the manuals in fuel economy, but then they can't compete in acceleration. And the city fuel economy for automatics is still horrendous compared to manuals.

horrendous? the new civics auto tranny is rated 1 mpg BETTER than the manual version.

unless the statement applies to everything, its not fact.

it would be nice if the accord included a manual shift gate, just so that its on par with the competition. i'm pretty sure nissan, vw, subaru and mazda all know its not really necessary, but how many people opt for higher trims for other 'unneccesary' items like a sunroof and rule out other models completely because of it?

robertsmx

I use moonroof virtually every day. But I don't find any use for the sportshift mode in my TL. I could do without it. I simply don't see its point. But I guess, offering it for namesake wouldn't hurt. Honda is doing it in Fit anyway.

rv65

Sorry for late response but August 21st. That applies to all other honda vehicles except. S2000 CR, Pilot, and Ridgeline.

eldaino

i agree, but in the same vein, i'm sure that there are plenty of people who use sportshits/tiptronics everyday as well.

i use mine in my rabbit quite often, and even though i didn't buy it because i wanted a 'substitution' for a manual, it did make me think about how i would not have minded it being on my civic.

i don't think its necessary, but since everyone else has it, why not?

skinny3

It really doesn't matter to me whether or not it's an AT or a MT, all I what to know is what's going to be under the hood. Is it going to be the same 3.0L V6, perhaps even the 3.5L V6 that's in their trucks, or will it be, as one article I read suggested, the 3.7L V6 that's in the MDX? That's all I want to know. No matter where I go or who I talk to, no one knows anything about the engine, except the number of cylinders. Does anyone here have any insight on engine size and/or power?

thegraduate

Most rumors I have seen point to 3.5L 273 hp

The 4-cyl will have 180 hp in the lower models, with something like 200 hp in the upper EX models.

Just speculation, but its what the latest rumor mill has suggested.

ezshift5

...the Grad is onto something here....like 3.5 liters.......

...waiting quietly for a test drive, ez...

blufz1

It's the 3.5 w/vcm.

blueiedgod

It really doesn't matter to me whether or not it's an AT or a MT, all I what to know is what's going to be under the hood.

A Honda 4 cylnder engine mated to an MT will run circles around another manufacturer's V6 with auto. Compare the V6 powered Escape (Auto) and the I4 powered CR-V manual.

So, yes, transmission makes a HUGE difference.

bvdj84

Yes, I get amazed with my 06 accord 4cyl engine all the time, its amazing, and in some ways peppier than other cars with V6's. Its a truly amazing engine.

I am not sure I am going to get the 08 accord, I am approaching my mileage soon, so I'll be selling it out right, and get a new car, but lost on what to get! I love the 08 accord coupe, but don't want to pay the new car prices.
I am thinking of the CR-V, Ridgline, VW GLI, passat.

I really would like to stay with honda, so if I had to pick another honda, well I am lost. There all good.

bristol2

Just out of interest, with your appreciation of the Accord why would you not get the '08?
Your first 2 options look like you need more utility, but the VW is also a mid-size sedan.

bvdj84

I know, its really weird, I just like the CR-V, Ridgeline, and the VW's. There all nice, I would totally get the 08 accord, but don't want a dealer taking advantage, and overpricing them like crazy. It would be totally worth it though. I love my accord! I just can't wait to see them in person, and I will be testing both models of the accord!, but only worried about the overpricing and dealers being scum.

bristol2

I have an '06 v6 m6 and I am glad that I will be perfectly happy with it for the next 3 years, I am really hoping to hold on to it until the diesels start hitting the market. Not just the Accords, I would jump on a light-duty pick up that got 25+ mpg in a heart beat.

I think you said that you have an '06 also, why the rush? Yours will be running like a champ for years.

blufz1

If it's a lease car, you could buy it yourself, drive it a few years, then get a deal on an 08 style accord.

blufz1

Then, get ready to jump into a 3.0 diesel Ridgeline within 3 years.

eldaino

you really think that the ex will get a hp bump over the lx and lesser trims grad?

i know its just speculation, but if this was the case, it would suprise me.

I know that before the current gen accord, honda did this, as they did with the 7th gen and previous civics (115hp dx and lx's and a 127hp vtec ex.)

but with the new civics move to 140hp across the line (minus the si ofcourse) i figured they would follow this trend with the accord as well.

granted 180hp would be great, and even though some don't consider it a direct competitor, only the passat will have more standard hp/tq.

thegraduate

I honestly have no idea personally. I don't think a higher-performing EX model (with the TSX) engine would hurt, but it may just add some unncessary complexity.

blufz1

It seems a little unlike Honda to have 2 different powered 4's but they have done it previously. Maybe the more powerful 4 is AVTEC and they want you to pay for it by putting it only in the EX.

dudleyr

They used to make you pay for vtec on the top model, and before that you had to pay extra for fuel injection on the top model. The Current gen Accord is one of the few with the same I4 in all trims.

rv65

All 08 Accords will run on regular unleaded. Regardless of engine choice.

skinny3

I understand fully the differences between AT and MT in vehicles that offer both types and other comparable vehicles. The reason I typed that it doesn't matter what kind of transmission the car has, is because for me there is no choice. Two pedals bore me to no end. Maybe when I'm old and gray and don't feel like playing with three pedals, I might get an auto.

I can see a Honda 4 cyl go up against a V6 (i.e. Si vs. V6 Tiburon); however, I wouldn't even attepmt to put a MT Fit against a Speed6. And then there's Porsche. Their ATs are faster than their MTs, not by much, but still faster.

fxguy

I am starting to doubt this car will be in showrooms in Sept. Very few spy shots exist of the car and there is virtually no confirmation of any of the specs! For most other new cars at this stage, several spy shots would have been available by now. We don't even have the spy shots usually snagged during the filming of the commercial for new cars. Where exactly is Honda testing pre production models of these things? Underground??