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 bought the 2003 Accord EX V6 Leather that came out (I assume it was Sep 02) at invoice after 6 months. I was reading the forums too at that time and if I listen to some that it will be difficult to buy below MSRP, I could have just bought the Camry SE V6 that came out a year earlier.
But I decided to try and solicit quotes through internet and 2 out of 5 replied at invoice. So I bought it.
I saw the 08 Accord and it is nice. It did not excite me that I want to trade and buy it now. It became bigger that will probably bring in the Camry crowd. It is definitely on top of my list when I buy in a few months (Accord's Camry’s are always on top of my list anyway lol).
I was talking to someone at the dealership that I am buying a Civic for my son (invoice is the quote) and asked him how much are the Accords and he said no way below MSRP and they will tell their customers to take a hike if they ask anything lower. I told him jokingly, that I will take a hike because I will never buy the accord at MSRP.
Since I am buying a Civic he mellowed down a bit and he told me that maybe in a few months from now, I should call him should I decide to buy an Accord. I told him I will. He is a good guy, did not offend a potential buyer.
As I posted earlier today in the Buying Experience forum, I went through the Honda web-site last night and sent out three quote request for an 2008 Accord EX Coupe.
One came back at MSRP and one came back at $600 UNDER MSRP. This is on the first day of sales with no negotiation. The third dealer claimed they didn't have pricing yet...
The point is, it wasn't the horrible prices that many people were predicting.
The Only thing I want to know from you is when you read my post did you surprised knowing that Accord Without Nav. can cost $44000.00?
Do the dealers think buyers are fool and will buy it?
now im hearing a new tl for 09 is in the works, the tl is bread & butter for accura. now he's my opinion, to justify its existance they gonna have to substantially increase hp, to at least 300hp to compete w/ infiniti, lexus & bmw, and that is way too much power to put on a front driver. now does neone agree on this with me? for the tl to survive they gonna have to have at least 300hp and with that they r certainly gonna need to convert to a rwd platform or use the SH AWD system they have on their RL and SUV's. im gonna guess the SH AWD is gonna add too much weight to the car, so the're probably gonna go for a rwd platform. And if all that happens im gonna trade my infinity fot the tl the minute it comes out. i konow this is kinda off topic but does ne one agrees w/me?
I had the same concern about it failing (I have an Odyssey EX-L with VCM), but I believe that the "fail safe" mode is normal operation. Basically, if it stops working, you just have a normal 6 cylinder all the time. If it failed with 2 or 3 shut down, that would be a problem!
I personally think it is a gimmic, and would be happy enough without it, but I don't think it hurts anything.
The 4 cyl on this car (190-200 HP? That should be enough!) is probably more than enough anyway!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I was impressed by the growth in size - with the seats all the way back there was plenty of leg room in the rear seat. The front and dashboard are Acura RL quality - very nice. I've always driven BMW and Mercedes, recently had a Chrysler 300C - but can see saving some good money and going with a nice loaded Accord.
Looking forward to hearing people's driving impressions....
http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan/videos.aspx
Mack
Not every dealer is selling at or above MSRP even in the first week of sales.
For the guy who questioned about the stereo for the V6 sedan. It is 270-watt unit, 7 speakers for V6 sedan not 160 watt unit.
You may be right about this, but the problem is, they have not been able to increase the torque. My '04 Accord 4 cyl. has 160 hp and about 160 torque. The '08 EX-L I would replace it with has 190 hp and 162 torque, an insignificant rise in torque. They have also made the car heavier -- the '08 EX-L is about 230 pounds heavier than my '04. More weight, more horsepower, but same torque.
I'll have to take a test drive to see if the horsepower alone gives the car a more powerful feel. I remember driving an Acura TSX with about 200 hp and 165 or so torque, and it didn't seem that much better than my '04 Accord.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Yep. I think most of us have a tendency to get tied up with peak numbers instead of realizing that it helps more to have a broader torque curve even if the peak number isn't any higher.
That said, the 190 HP motor deserves a 6AT/6MT combination to properly utilize its potential.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/09/2008-accord-wor.html
As with most folks on this forum, I had been anxiously awaiting the arrival of the 2008 Accords for months, devouring all of the spy shots, anticipated features, rumors, etc. That's because my Accord Coupe, my daily driver, is under used. My wife prefers to use our 4-door Subaru Legacy when we carry another couple. That way, nobody has to crawl into the coupe's back seat, even though the Accord's is quite spacious once you are seated.
The 2008 Accords appear to be fine vehicles. I visited a dealer today to finally have a touchy-feely session. Everything was as expected.
HOWEVER, I came away with less than a gotta-have-it feeling. Here are some random reasons:
The sedan is seven inches of valuable garage space longer than my already long Coupe. Yes, I know that its only three inches longer than seventh generation Accord sedans.
There's lots of foot room in the rear. But perhaps too much. I don't need Buick Roadmonster space.
The rear seats still don't have a split fold-down capability. Yes, I understand the structural stiffness argument. In this day and age there is no reason that a car can't be designed with that convenience.
My 2004 Accord with 3.0 liter V6 accelerates like a rocket when needed and is smooth and quiet. Why keep up this insane horsepower race with other companies? The Accord doesn't need a 3.5 liter engine except for bragging rights. The additional complexity of VCM has to presage the potential for future repairs. With all of the traffic on our roads today, a half second faster to 60 mph is meaningless.
The Navigation System screen is now further from the driver's eyes. That means that the perceived image is smaller. Does this make sense, except to keep it out of reach of fingers for safety (No more convenient touch screen).
With our depleting natural resources and unpredictable fuel prices (oil just hit $80 per barrel), why not make cars a bit shorter, lighter and significantly more fuel efficient instead of longer heavier and less efficient? Yes, I understand that Honda would love to attract more disillusioned SUV owners who've been getting abysmal mileage.
Why in the world did Honda figure that they needed two different four-cylinder engines in 2008? They should have standardized and used the savings to keep the prices of all models lower.
Well, I guess that I'll wait another year to see if the rumors of a 2009 Diesel Accord are true. By then prices for non-Diesels will be at or below invoice and the inevitable first year bugs will have been worked out.
I can’t argue against size and style, neither is an issue for me, and I actually love the styling, inside and out. But engine choice is something I have given some thought about. While I don’t like Honda trying to match or beat competition in peak power race, there is a reason to 3.5/V6.
First of all, it is important for Honda to not only look good to people visiting dealership, but also to people who are comparing spec sheets. With virtually all competition moving to 3.5/V6 or larger engine, it makes no sense to stick with 3.0/V6, especially for torque reasons. Even if Honda could have matched peak power, they couldn’t have gotten more than 220 lb-ft out of the 3.0, a necessity in this age of heavier cars.
But here is, perhaps, the real reason. Honda wanted to get started on making the drive train more fuel efficient. And VCM is pretty simple approach, yet another variation of VTEC. In reality, it is no different than engines that operate with fewer valves at low rpm and finally switching over to operate all valves. Many Honda engines are designed to use only 2-valves out of 4 at low rpm (one intake, one exhaust). VCM is similar, except that instead of 2-valves, it shuts down all 4-valves (the firing still happens) on some cylinders (on one bank for I-3 mode which is good for slow speed cruising or one each from both banks for V4 mode which is good for higher speeds when firing all six cylinders is considered an overkill).
So, VCM is quite simple, and should be as reliable as VTEC has always been. The only concern might be from two additional features to ensure NVH characteristics. The engine mount is advanced, but something along the lines that has been used in RL and other (mostly) luxury cars. The other is Active Noise Cancellation, which is nothing but a radio system. So, it is actually a fundamentally sound design with minimum complexity using a prove design.
Having said all that, Honda hasn’t really focused on performance from the 3.5/V6 (except in Coupe with 6MT). It is actually designed to operate more like a 3.2/V6 below 3500 rpm. The reason is possibly some compromises to incorporate the three-mode VCM. Had they gone with a smaller engine with VCM, they would have compromised low end performance. Besides, 3.5/V6 uses the same block as the old 3.0, so there is no packaging advantage either, in fact, it might be lighter now.
With the updates and additions, Honda has managed to get the 268 HP rated at 22/32 mpg (using old standard for comparison) on regular grade gasoline. And if it translates well in real life, with people experiencing mid-30s on highway (I see that as a strong possibility, since even my TL can get 32 mpg at over 70 mph), even the V6 won’t be as much of a deterrent if gas prices keep going up. And with minor tweaks, and possibly a 6AT, Honda might further the mileage eventually.
So, it is not all about performance this time. I think 3.5/V6 actually provided greater flexibility to improve fuel economy than a smaller displacement version would have.
It has to do with reducing the amount of eye movement the driver uses to read the display. With the old Accord, while the display is closer, it requires more eye movement to see. Here's Honda's explanation:
"The center display provides an important advancement in usability and convenience. Its easy-to-see location at the top of the instrument stack allows the driver to quickly see information. In fact, the new 2008 Accord display requires just 17 degrees of driver eye movement - an improvement over the previous Accord."
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/812/releases/4107
It sounds like that's a souped up display model that dealers sometimes do to place in their showroom and attract attention. With all of those cost-adding modifications, I doubt that the dealership is seriously thinking it will be sold at the moment. It probably will sit there all year collecting dust and attention...
Also, you can get bluetooth with the navagation on the EX, just as you can on the EX-L.
There is no navigation on the EX. Only EX-L.
Factory bluetooth is only with the EX-L with navi.
The other bluetooth is a dealer installed unit you could get for much less money away from the dealership.
They just got them, so he could be wrong, but he sounded pretty confident in that.
Has IsellHondas commented on it. I'd pretty much take his word.
I've always favored the Alabaster Silver on the previous generation, but not on the 2008. It just doesn't look as good as the darker colors: blue, black, and gray.
My opinion is still out on the exterior styling. As with any new generation, it tends "to grow on you." I really don't like the rear end treatment however, but the side profile and front end are fine.
Mackabee
Mackabee
The EXV6 is not $34K MSRP even with nav.
$30,895 with destination.
Maybe with some dealer installed add-ons like chrome wheels which would also raise the price of the XLE Camry you compared and claimed it was $3K more than.
Of course Honda is not that incredibly stupid to price the Accord's MSRP $3K more than a similar trim level Camry.
With Camry, you won't find a 2008 Camry with VSC on a 4 cylinder and in most areas of the country you will have a hard time even finding a V6 with VSC unless it is a fully loaded XLE V6.
Well you didn't mention whether you were talking about the Coupe or the Sedan. The V6 coupe only comes as EX-L, so technically any V6 coupe could get nav.
The sedan EX V6 definitely does not have navigation available.
You don't need to go on what is said here. Check out Honda's own spec chart:
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/812/releases/4103
Here is a picture of Accord LX-P interior. it looks quite good to me. Here is a picture of inside of the door in a Civic, with similar texture (possibly, as the Accord LX/LX-P), and I like it.
BTW, Honda is expecting 50% of the sales on EX/EX-L trims (which may be based on previous years). So in reality, they are supposed to be bread and butter trims, not LX/LX-P.
Thanks!
There isn't an Accord which has an MSRP that high, though.
This forum is very much helpful. If you do your homework here that's gonna give you nearly expected result with your purchase.