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
If someone is interested in buying inferior things, to each of their own. A normal person would pick what they think is the best choice among all selections. I don't think Accord will sell much if it has a 200hp V6 and 4 speed auto today, and is that not enough for a family sedan?? EVERY maker needs to keep up with the competitions (well, some might said "oh, you don't need those features that we don't have"
fascinations... LOL, whose?
Aah, the fascination with all the wrong things in the world... "the best launch for best 0-60", the "need" to have 6-speed without actually understanding how it actually helps, EPA rating comparisons for real world fuel economy... just the things we need to compare when getting a family sedan.
I'm assuming you're one of those normal people. Let us start with you.
What advantage does a 6AT hold over 5AT? Let us begin there.
The same reason a 5AT is better than a 4AT. Closer gear ratios allow quicker acceleration, and having more to choose from allows a taller top gear for better mileage.
2008 Sedans look like Saturns indeed. I am a firm believer now. Thanks Mackabee! (despite Host's sincerest objections!)
I'll agree, they share some taillight design, but it is really more derivative of Honda's own taillamp design from 2003-2004 Accord Sedans to me. They chopped off the trunklid lamps, but otherwise, the same basic style is there.
If you hold your hand over the trunklid portion of the taillamp of the picture of the 2003 or 2001 Accord, maybe you'll see the similarities.
Styling is subjective, so I'm not trying to convince anybody in anyway, just pointing out how I think Honda is following some of their own design language from past Accords.
The biggest improvement that a “proper” 6AT brings over 5AT (that 5AT doesn’t bring over 4AT, or 7AT doesn’t bring over 6AT) is gear span. And gear span can be determined by dividing first gear ratio by top gear ratio. If you do that, most 6ATs have the span around 6.0:1, which is something that used to be CVT territory. In case of CVT, you divide the shortest possible ratio by tallest possible ratio.
Since I have the numbers handy for Civic Hybrid which uses a CVT... the numbers are 2.526 and 0.421 respectively for a gear span that is exactly 6.0:1. This transmission has final drive ratio of 4.945:1. So, in case of Civic Hybrid, the overall drive ratio ranges (continuously) from 12.49:1 to 2.08:1. A typical 5AT might have a gear span of 4.5-5.0:1, that a 4AT could as well (Civic 5AT has it at 5.08:1).
What does all that mean? A 6AT works very well if you want very short low gears and a relaxed top gear. Let us apply that logic to Accord V6/AT, and assume that we want to have the same top gear for cruising speeds (which, is a lot shorter now than it was for 07). The overall drive ratio in top gear is 2.64:1.
Now, I said a proper 6AT should offer a nice wide span of about 6:1, right? We multiply that number to arrive at overall drive ratio (ODR) in first of 15.84:1. What does this mean?
As it is now, Accord V6’s first gear (AT) has an ODR of 11.63:1. Combined that with the curb weight, assume 15% drive train loss and impact on overall gearing by wheel size (etc), the Accord V6 will deliver about 0.61g maximum thrust in first gear (previous Accord V6/AT topped out at 0.55g). Now, if Honda used the wide span 6AT in Accord, with an ODR of 15.84 as calculated above, the maximum thrust would be 0.83g. And that will spell trouble (think major torque steer). That is actually muscle car territory, and a lot higher than any of Accord’s immediate competitors (most will register in low 0.60s, and I calculated Camry V6’s to be 0.64:1). This is the point largely missed.
A solution would be to have 6AT with reduced span (which, in a way, defeats the purpose). Toyota has done that with Camry. While Camry and ES350 use 6AT (Interestingly enough, RX350 still uses 5AT despite of sharing engine with RAV4 which gets 6AT), the front drive 6AT uses a 5AT-like span while the rear drive 6AT (in IS250/350, GS350 etc) utilizes the wide span gearing that truly makes the 6th speed meaningful.
When I first saw the new Accord’s specifications, I was disappointed with the ratios. I compared the numbers and their impact between a few of Honda’s own 5AT, and the Toyota 6AT against the new Accord’s ratios, the Toyota 6AT ratios would have been my second choice, behind a 5AT that Honda already has in its stable but not in Accord.
The Conclusion: 6AT isn’t better choice by default. It depends largely on the application. And one reason Accord’s top gear is geared short, is to help the economy mode hold longer than it would otherwise (a shortcoming of first generation VCM). Honda could have done a little better by shortening the first gear a little bit (by about 7-8%) but that wouldn’t require a 6th speed.
But, this is on V6. I would, however, say that the 190 HP/I-4 in Accord should have a "proper" 6AT (as should every Acura with SH-AWD). That is where the engine could really take advantage of the sixth speed (not the “namesake” kind).
Here's a simple reason, applied in everyday life, of why I prefer the extra gear.
In my 1996 Accord (4-speed), at 72 or so MPH, if I floor the pedal, it will drop to 3rd gear (not far from 4k RPM). Power peak in these 4-cyl Accords are close to 5,500 RPM. In my 2006 Accord (5-speed), at 72, if I floor the pedal, I can drop two gear changes, taking me right to about 5,500 or so RPM.
In the 4-speed, at highway speeds, I'm usually going too fast to get to second gear (it would be too close to redline), while third gear doesn't get me close enough to the meat of the powerband which I often times need in a car of only 130 hp.
The extra 400 RPMs the 4-speed runs at 60 MPH hurts fuel economy vs. the 5-speed Auto, also.
On a neat sidebar, I like the fact that my owner's manual in my 1996 shows me the top speeds available in the gears for both manual and autos. IIRC, It is
1st Gear - 39 MPH
2nd Gear - 78 MPH
3rd Gear - 103 MPH
4th Gear - Top Speed (Drag Limited, I presume - it doesn't list a number)
Believe it or not, Civic's 5AT actually revs about 100 rpm lower than Accord's 5AT (I-4), but thats gearing. In fact, you don't need 6AT to hold a lower cruising rpm. For example, compare the following overall drive ratios in Acura's 5AT (RL) to the same in Lexus 6AT (ES350). I will also throw in new Accord's ODR as well as the one from previous generation:
First Gear
Acura- 12.41:1
Lexus- 12.16:1
07 Accord- 11.36:1
08 Accord- 11.63:1
Top Gear
Acura- 2.21:1
Lexus- 2.24:1
07 Accord- 2.30:1
08 Accord- 2.64:1
Note that I have highlighted the shortest first gear and the tallest top gear above. And it isn't in the 6AT. The Acura transmission has a span of 5.6:1, while the Lexus transmission has 5.4:1. If they were put in cars with identical wheel size, the Acura transmission will provide greater off the line performance, and it will also provide lower cruising rpm, despite of having one less cog.
The downside to that fact is that 5 cogs are spread over a span of 5.6, while 6 are spread over 5.4 (the ratios are closer). BUT, when I look at the intermediate ratios too, and use this Acura transmission ratios in Accord (as is, without changing anything else), here is what I find (max thrust by the gear, with maximum speed possible at redline):
1: 0.64 (42 mph)
2: 0.37 (72 mph)
3: 0.25 (106 mph)
4: 0.16 (insane)
5: 0.11 (beyond insane)
Cruising RPM: 1725 rpm @ 60 mph
And here are the equivalent numbers for Camry with its set up and transmission:
1: 0.63 (41 mph)
2: 0.37 (71 mph)
3: 0.27 (95 mph)
4: 0.19 (too much)
5: 0.14 (worse)
6: 0.12 (do you care?)
Cruising RPM: 1727 rpm @ 60 mph
Now, Accord with that 5AT actually provides slightly better max thrust in first, same thrust in second and slightly worse thrust in third and that is beyond legal speed limits. This is also the gear where 5AT shortcoming over a wider span shows up. However, there is another side to it, and very interesting.
Imagine, you're cruising on highway and want to accelerate quickly. A typical Honda transmission logic will drop down two gears (fifth to third) depending on demand. So, the car will surge forward with a potential max thrust of 0.25g which will be good from 72 mph to insane levels.
With six speeds, the Camry will have to drop three gears down to get the same effect. If its logic does two, it will be at a major disadvantage. Toyota has, in the past, seriously limited shifts at highway speeds, and if the same is still true, I expect Camry to go down to fourth instead of third. But, no magazine (other than CR, and C&D's 50-70 run) actually cares about these gear ratios. They are generally overlooked.
And that analysis brings my point back, that I would have loved to see Honda put Acura RL's ratios in the new Accord (the top gear could be shorter to allow the engine to use V4 mode even in high speed cruising mode).
Well DUH!
The further you spread out the ratios, the wider the span has to be between them. As for the Civic having such low RPM at cruising, I've found that it needs a kickdown to get any kind of foward progress over 60 MPH. There's not enough torque for gearing like that. It would be better with top-end gearing similar to my 1996 (2,400 @ 60MPH).
Why waste gas revving higher cruising along just so that you can accelerate without kicking down?
It would be extra work to do this with a manual and you would have to keep resetting the cruise control every time you shifted, so that's why the manuals have shorter gearing and often get worse highway MPG than automatics nowadays.
I've really liked the moldings since I first saw them in pictures. I think they add a lot to the look of the car, and they actually stand out compared to most moldings.
I'm definitely going to get them. For those who are interested, college hills honda has posted an install video on their web-site:
http://www.collegehillshonda.com/artman2/publish/Accord_36/Podcast_Episode_79_-_- 2008_Accord_Sedan_Side_Moldings_Installation.shtml
Thanks for posting your early impressions, and congrats on your purchase. You mentioned a black interior -- what was your exterior choice? I was thinking that by now there would be more such posts from early owners, but I guess it is still a little early -- car hasn't been out quite a month yet.
I haven't purchased yet, but have been on two test drives, and I'm eyeing the EX-L V6. I'm driving an '04 four-cylinder. Was interested to hear that you liked the four-cylinder, 190 hp engine. Does it give you adequate pull from low and mid-range speeds around town, even with the air-conditioning on? I also feel very comfortable with the seating and overall interior. A nitpick -- I was surprised to see they did away with the extenders on the sunvisors, on a $28,685 car! Maybe the new visors are longer than the ones in my '04 and don't need extenders, but it didn't seem so. I find the extenders very helpful on my current Accord.
Try to slide the entire visor back and forth - that's the way it's done in my Passat.
What does matter is that this amount of thrust is not enough for holding speed thru inclines and definitely not for overtaking. With MT cars, C&D posts 30-50 and 50-70 acceleration in top gear only. While these cars have about the same maximum thrust, they take an eternity to gain that 20 mph (about 10 seconds on average). OTOH, AT equipped cars benefit with downshifts (some are geared more aggressively than others) and it shows in results. A 250-260 HP family sedan might be able to complete those runs in 3.5-4.0s.
By downshift logic, engineers are dictating power usage for acceleration. I don’t have gear ratios handy for my 1998 Accord EX-L at the moment, but it runs ~2300 rpm @ 60 mph. At WOT, and assuming 90% of peak torque at this rpm, that would be equivalent of only 60 HP.
Now, if I want to overtake at highway speeds, the transmission logic might select third or second, depending on the speed and throttle. For sake of simplicity, let us assume it does third, and that the revs jump to 3800 rpm (which will be starting point of hot cam zone with the VTEC in my car). It is not merely a jump in revs, it is a jump in power. Instead of 60 HP, now the car has 105 HP that would imply a 75% increase in thrust that helps complete the pass quicker.
Several automakers try to downplay the significance of shifting at higher rpm (this is not to be confused with gear hunting) as it provides for smoother ride. On the flip side, it doesn’t take advantage of the engine’s capabilities. I have the perfect example for you.
If you have subscription to CR (I don’t anymore), check out 45-65 mph acceleration numbers for 2003 Accord I-4 and compare it to 2003 Camry V6 as I vaguely remember seeing some interesting numbers.
You will be surprised at what doesn’t normally show on 0-60 time, shows up on 45-65 mph run. Accord I-4 is just as quick as Camry V6 despite of lacking power on the spec sheet as they both complete the run in about 5.5s (while Accord V6 does the run in less than 4.5s). Why did this happen? One theory is that Toyota programmed its transmission to go down one gear which provided not as much significant boost in power as Honda accomplished in a smaller engine by going down two gears.
When there is a choice to go 6AT over 5AT and vice versa, the same has to be taken into consideration. Note the maximum thrust (calculated) in 2008 Accord V6/5AT and 2008 Camry V6/6AT in last three gears, and these are taking into consideration the two cars’ curb weight etc:
Accord
3: 0.24
4: 0.17
5: 0.14
Camry
4: 0.19
5: 0.14
6: 0.12
The Accord V6 is geared very short in the top gear (comparable to second last in Camry) but that is also due to it being able to cruise in 2.2/V4 mode. But when you stomp on gas pedal, if Accord’s logic elects to go down two gears (third), and Camry’s logic elects to go with fifth, there will be a big difference in highway acceleration performance favoring the Accord. If Camry’s transmission goes down two as well, it will still be inferior.
Gear hunting happens when the car can’t find enough power in a given gear. In this situation, assuming both engines running in full blown mode, Accord actually has an advantage over Camry despite of having 5AT as opposed to 6AT.
Honda’s design seems to have a clever design element in it. Honda has offered grade logic control for a long time with the AT. It basically selects a shorter gear automatically on incline or keep the car in shorter gear during low speed cruising (as I mentioned, it does in my TL, going 30-35 mph will use only four gears).
With VCM, Honda is probably taking advantage of the fact that it will get the impact of a lower gear without actually having the transmission shift. The top gear is very short, so on an incline, the first shift will be to engage all cylinders (instead of running all cylinders with a taller ratio and selecting fourth gear using grade control logic). If that isn’t enough, then grade control logic comes into play.
Not only is VCM to help improve fuel economy, it might also contribute towards a reduced need to shift.
With regard to the power train, I'm most impressed with the seamless work between the engine and transmission. The shifts are smooth and VERY predictable. The throttle-by-wire is more sensitive than in any car I have driven and provides an unusual level of control. Concerning acceleration, I find the engine to be adequate, maybe even a little more than adequate. The performance is certainly better than in the Camrys I test drove and I think its a strong performer in the 4 cyl. market. However, it is no race car. You might notice that the amount of torque is virtually the same as in the lower-output LX models-- and its torque that really counts when driving around town.
I bought my Accord after intending to buy a new Acura TL. So the price of the 6cyl Accord didn't scare me off. But, I drive my cars for 8-10 years before I trade them in - and I didn't like the complicated nature of the 6cyl. Variable cylinder use with active engine mounts signals to me a car that is complicated with engine computer modules that are likely very expensive to replace. On the other hand, 260+hp would be VERY nice!!
Finally, on the handling front, my Accord seems to achieve a nice balance. The variable assist power steering, while hardly new technology, seems to be better executed on this Accord. The car is very easy to maneuver in the parking lot but offers more road feel at speed. While the car does not provide the road feel of the Passat or Audi A4, the handling and ride is far superior to the Camry, in my opinion. Its nothing close to racy, but seems to respond better than expected when being pushed.
The car isn't perfect by any means, but for the price, I'm convinced you can't do better. Frankly, I'm not sure you can do better even when you step up into the low to mid 30's price range.
Anyone experience this on ANY car before let alone the new Accord? Heck, I used to own a very hold mini-van and sometimes the speedometer would fail, but I wouldn't expect something similar on the brand new 08 Accord with only 5 miles on the odometer! Leave it to the salesmen to spin everything.
Thanks!
I hope that doesn't occur on all of them, or worse yet, every time. I want the car but that could seriously push me away!
So far the best price is $707 under MSRP. Anyone received anything better? Right now, I suppose they are preying on guys like me who are the "impulse buyers" on such a new car.
"Active Noise Cancellation" (ANC)". MY undertanding is that anc is only on the v6 to counter the variable cylinder management thru the stereo system. The Chicago gentleman who got his for $2250 plus TL may read this and check his label to confirm this. Anyone else seen this?
My old 92 Accord cooling fan would run for a few minutes after the car was shut off when it was really hot outside (sometimes this is when the engine is hottest). I don't know what that would have to do with rpm though. I had not thought of remote start. That could explain it.
Funny story about the fan running after the car has been shut off though. Not long after we bought the 92 the wife drove over to the in-law's, and I get a phone call. It's the wife, and she is frantic "I turned the car off, and the engine is still running"? :surprise: I laughed for a few minutes, then told her what was really running.
BTW, in coupe, only V6/6MT trim doesn't have ANC, all other trims do.
Also, it is highly unlikely that it had remote start installed when the car still didn't even have the plastic removed from the door panel speaker grills and you can see that the protective film is still on the hood if you look through the windshield.
The sticking gauges are a problem with the 2008s since it has been posted more than once by different people within a few weeks..
I expected the 08s to be like the new model civics of a couple years ago- hot sellers flying out the doors, hardly any in stock. Instead, there seem to be a lot of Accords just sitting around the lot.
By contrast, when my wife went into the Buick store to look at their new SUV a last month, they had none available, and all were selling as they became available. Even though the Enclave had been out a couple months.
I like the styling, but I don't think it has quite the fully integrated look of some Honda designs, like the 06 Civic.
I think the new Accord is a great car, and I bought one myself, but sales may not be all that Honda expected. Time will tell...
From the 2008 Accord brochure: "During steady cruising, the Accord's V-6 shuts down the entire rear bank of cylinders. So the car is essentialy running on half an engine-with the accompanying savings on fuel use. In this mode, the audio system's Active Noise Cancellation (ANC) function generates out of phase sound waves to cancel out any undesireable noise that may be due to the harmonics of 3-cylinder operation." So what is ANC in a 4 cylinder? I am reading my entire owners manual and an close to the end. I see nothing about ANC so far. It also would seem that the stereo would have to be on to make it work.