I've been enjoying the EX-L V6 Sedan for a couple of weeks. Only have about 600 miles on it but I don't find the variable cylinder system to be that noticeable. Unlike most reviewers that say it’s completely un-noticeable I can feel a little more going on then just the transmission shifting. When you consider the frequency that the ECO light on the dash comes on, this system is constantly making adjustments based on the terrain and attitude your right foot has with the accelerator, and anything that is activated as often as this is, based on my driving style, Honda better have gotten it right or it could be a big headache for both Honda and myself. I previously drove a 2003 Taurus and I'm amazed at the size of the new Accord. With 4 adults conversing while traveling @ 70 MPH on an interstate the Eco light tells me I'm getting a reasonable return on a gallon of gas, no one is shouting as the cabin is quiet and when you look in the rear view mirror and see your rear passengers seemingly in another zip code I smile and feel I made the right choice and I've got a lot of car for what I paid.
I bought a set of weathertechs for my then new 2001 Accord. I kept them for my 2005 Accord and only in the past year has my right heal finally warn through the material. Having bought nearly every plastic floor mat made I can tell you they are the best at keeping spills and trapping dirt. The ridge design is perfect for containing melting snow. The OEM all weather floormats in my CRV are nice but really thin & flimsy compared to the weathertechs. They cover the area like they should but they don't hold and trap spills or dirt like the weathertechs do.
Looking at the picture on Honda's web site it looks like the all season mats are small. They don't look like they cover the whole area like they should. I think they are rather high for the money. Looking at weathertech.com their mats as a set are just under $100 f/r. Anyone checked out these mats?
I think it takes a lot of guts and confidence for an automaker to make a move like that in its best selling vehicle. For that reason alone, I would put faith in Honda’s design. Besides, they have plenty of experience already with VTEC (seventeen years) and the VTEC driven VCM system (five years).
Keep us posted on your experiences. What kind of mileage are you getting?
I've only checked it once and it was 20 MPG. Had about 300 miles on the tank, 250 miles of trips under 10 miles & cold starts and about 50 miles of highway. I'll be checking again at around 1,000 miles of mixed trips and at the end of the month when I have a true Interstate trip planned. I'll update my mileage then. Got to break it in.
Can anyone tell me if the navigation system is worth the extra dollars? With the navigation system do you have to purchase an upgrade? How easy is it to operate?
I have been looking at the new accords, but I live in a small town and dealership is not willing to offer any deals right now. I am thinking about looking elsewhere, but I am planning to wait at least 6 months. Will prices be better as more accords come out?
Personally, I wanted a cloth interior (no NAV avail) and instead got a portable nav system. New models for $400 or less give voice-guided directions, and even say particular street names. My NAV system is a Garmin StreetPilot c330, and can be had for around $250 now (it was $329 last year). It doesn't say street names, but does do voice prompts for turns, merges, and which lane to stay in ("bear right, then turn left). New ones that say the street names may say for example: "Turn left on to Baker Street, then merge left on to Highway Fifty-Nine." It also has a built in trip computer with travel times, an odometer, average speed including stops AND an average speed excluding them, max speed, etc.
The best part is that I can use this in any car (I've used it in a Maxima, a Civic, an Odyssey, and two different Accords all within the last year!).
I say go portable and pocket use the extra money to buy 35 tanks of gas. Some portable ones even have built-in bluetooth connectivity, by the way.
It's anyone's guess but more than likely someone looking for a great deal on a '08 will probably have to wait until the '09's hit the lot next fall. Since you're planning to wait several months anyway, going after a leftover '08 might be the best bet. I've bought a few cars this way, and have had pretty good results.
Kinda like back in the late '50's and early '60's when people put those disgusting plastic seat covers on chairs, sofas and car seats.
I paid for a vehicle with carpets because that's part of the ambiance and luxurious feeling. If I wanted an industrial look and smell, I could have bought a truck.
I own a 2004 Accord with built-in Navigation System and a Garmin nüvi 350 portable unit that fits in my shirt pocket. That one is used in my wife's car and in rental vehicles when I'm a plane ride away. Both are great systems.
However, the Accord's does many more things for the driver without your having to take your hands off the steering wheel or your eyes off the road. It reacts to your voice commands to control, in addition to navigation functions, the climate control system, the audio system, trip computer, etc. In fact there are hundreds of voice commands at my disposal. The 2008 Accords have about 750 such commands that you speak to control the various systems.
You asked if you have to purchase an upgrade. Well, I haven't felt the need to purchase a replacement DVD since I've been driving the car. Perhaps one every five years might be worth considering if you drive regularly in areas where there are lots of new developments being built. They cost about $185.
Only you can decide if you want to purchase either system. But I highly recommend the built-in unit's convenience.
The 2004 didn't have a lot of really useful voice commands. It's much easier and faster to use the steering wheel controls for most of the radio and HVAC voice commands and you still had to use the touch screen to enter addresses.
The 2008 is supposed to have the ability to enter addresses by voice commands. That could be very nice if it works well without a lot of repeating and correcting.
You wrote "The 2008 is supposed to have the ability to enter addresses by voice commands. That could be very nice if it works well without a lot of repeating and correcting."
Entering addresses with voice commands would be nice. However, for safety sake, it isn't something you would normally do while driving. So the manual method while parked has never been an issue for me.
Of course, there's no longer a touch screen for the 2008's. That's disappointing.
If it worked well, I'd rather use the voice commands to enter addresses rather than fiddling with a touch screen or joystick. Without excellent voice command control for entering addresses, I'd much rather use a portable and save the money. I'll have to try it out. If the voice commands are flakey, I'll use a portable GPS.
Thanks for your post I was debating between the oem all weather and the weathertechs for my 07 crv. I already have the beige rear cargo from weathertech. Now your experience makes it easy. thanks.
Once you have the places you go most often in the GPS they are just a few buttons away. Also they have predictive text, so you rarely have to type a whole street name. I doubt even a good voice recognition system is much (if any) faster.
My phone has voice recognition, and it is faster to dial the number.
That's a good deal compared to most places. I put my time in got myself the best deal I've heard of on the coupe. $29,507.00 on an EX-L, V6, 6-speed, with Navi OTD (MSRP $31,145.00 before tax and tags). I got one offer $40.00 less but 200 miles away. The other closest was $29,800.00 OTD. The car arrives in 6-7 weeks, and I've already got the paperwork in hand, so no tricks.
Thanks, it's always good to hear that someone else thinks you've gotten a good deal.
In my opinion, if you want one of these relatively rare cars you're going to pay, and wait. Holding out til near the end of the model year probably means you'll have to compromise on color, or just won't get the car you want.
I had an 04 exl v6 coupe with nav that I loved. I'm buying this one without a test drive and just based on pics and seeing one in person. You just can't go wrong with a Honda, based on about 8 in my family over the past 10 years.
Can anyone with the new 08 Accord who has heated seats tell me if the passenger side "Seat Back" is heated. In my 03 EXL, the driver's back and seat bottom is heated but only the seat bottom on the passenger side is due to an air bag sensor.
Not if it interferes with safety in any way. They probably couldn't find a solution to have the sensors and heating element be friendly to each other within cost limitations.
"Make no mistake: the Honda Accord is a terrific automobile no matter how it comes, but it also compels us to consider something we don’t think about too often: at what point does horsepower become truly superfluous? Especially as fuel efficiency and low emissions, both longstanding hallmarks of the Honda brand, become more important than ever before, we are looking for cars that are both fun to drive and easy on the earth.
Interesting article. The new Accord is a blast to drive, although it's slalom numbers are equal to that of the Ridgeline pickup, its stopping distance is admittedly long, and it is not as quick as before, but this lack of acceleration, although slower than the competition, is a good thing, because after all, how fast does a car need to be (the article answers its own question, in that no car needs to be faster than the 08 accord).
It then says that the Accord is the cheapest car classified as large, and compares the lowest priced "stripper" MSRP with that of much better equipped Buicks and Azeras, avoiding a true apples-to-apples comparison. And somehow forgets that the Sonata is also classified as a 'large car.' Finally, it forgets that customers don't necessarily pay MSRP for any car, they pay with hard-earned bucks, and edmunds.com itself can give a level comparison of real world pricing.
As I read between the lines of the review, it seems there was little substantive that was unique or something to be excited about, despite sincere attempts to find something. This is unfortunate, as I'm sure the new Accord is a very fine car, and despite the review would not mind considering one myself.
Has anyone noticed that the new 08 does not have a trunk lid liner, rather its just bare painted metal. How much more expensive would it be to have a liner to give it a finished look. Even the EX-L model does not have it. This is just a small detail, and its just the trunk, and not a big deal, but noticed it does not have one, like other cars.
Now, I have seen a few with liners on the 06-07 models, but I wonder if they had that as an accessory. It would give it a well finished look.
This is in the 4 cylinder with the 5 speed manual. That's the model I'm getting. I believe the last Accord was around 8-8.5 0-60 with the 5 speed manual, and so it looks like it's just a tad faster. That's good....
Hi; Looking into the '08 190hp 4 cyl EX-L w/Nav as a 4 door for my use (I will have a 2 door coupe, not so good for driving the father-in-law and mother)and to have my 16 yr old son drive. I have not seen any authoritative test times for the 4 cyl; just a 7.1 0-60 test for the 6 cyl. I am going to a dealer now to try to test drive the 4. Any opinions on performance vs. a 4 cyl Camry SE? Thanks for your thoughts. BobP7
I believe the last Accord was around 8-8.5 0-60 with the 5 speed manual, and so it looks like it's just a tad faster. That's good....
No, in fact, its bad. The last Accord, in the same magazine (which means similar launch procedures, less likelihood for error between the two), ran 0-60 in 8.1 seconds with an Automatic(C&D Article - Familial Four-Doors 1st Place), it did it in 7.5s with a manual C&D Article - Fastest Cars under $20k). So the new 190hp is slower than the old 166hp Accord. That's not good.
Personally, I feel like my 2006 Accord is better in nearly every way than the 2008s. If I had to shop right now, the Accord wouldn't be at the tip-top of my list due to the fact that it has taken a step backwards in many ways (interior design and quality, supposedly lesser handling [ haven't tested one yet], speed/economy tradeoff for 4-cyl, etc...
Yes, I love my 06 accord too, though I love Honda, so on my next lease, it'll be an accord. I test drove the new accord, it felt nearly the same, although felt maybe a bit more substantial. I never got a chance to run the engine hard to see its performance, but seemed adequate. The inside seemed cozy, yet roomy, there is a bit more plastic. The car is bigger, therefore were not really gaining any more power. I have noticed that my 4cyl is always running for full economy, meaning it always aims for low RPM's, but yet still gets great performance, and it will simply move when you want it to. Many have thought that I have a 6cyl. I drove the 6cyl, and it didn't seem like it had as much torque in the lower gears than the 4cyl. I am in no hurry for the 08, but look forward to the new lease.
What's quick enough is subjective. You are going to test drive it, so you will know soon. There was a post just before your's to a Car and Driver article that gave their opinion.
It's funny that people would even ask if 190HP enough for a family sedan. Not that many years ago, that would have been the power of a very sporty car.
In a few more years, people will be questioning whether 200HP is enough for a Civic sedan.
It's funny that people would even ask if 190HP enough for a family sedan. Not that many years ago, that would have been the power of a very sporty car.
It has also gained some significant weight over a few years ago. A 2002 Accord 4-cyl weighed, what, 2900 lbs? What does a 190hp Accord weigh?
Yes, peak hp has climbed a good 40 or so in 10 years, but torque has only gone up about 10 lb-ft, so the cars don't feel too much quicker around town until you get the engines wound up.
Well, my ~145 HP (using new SAE standard as the benchmark, assuming 4-5% drop from old) 1998 Accord EX-L was said to tip the scale around 3150 lb (V6 was 3300 lb). So, technically, 8-10% increase in weight almost negates the 10-12% improvement in low-mid range power for most practical purposes. However, around the top end, the improvement is substantial.
Now here is the fun part. New SAE output rating system essentially resulted in 4-5% lower ratings for most Honda cars (non-EPS). If we were to re-rate the new Accord EX to use old standard, we would see ~200 HP/~170 lb-ft. While this car weighs 3400 lb, I think it makes for a good comparison against 1997 Accord V6 (3285 lb, 170 HP/178 lb-ft). It seems, for most of the useful operating range, the new Accord EX is at least as good as the old V6, even considering the gain in weight, and demolishes it beyond 5000 rpm. So I think the point raised by C&D about superfluous power in cars is valid.
I don’t take my cars for drag racing, but I do care for good highway merging abilities. And my ~145 HP/~147 lb-ft, 3150 lb (1998) Accord EX-L has enough of it, so much that I usually end up either speeding by the end of a short ramp or braking behind a slower vehicle in front of me. And since I drive two cars regularly (the Accord and a 2006 TL), I fail to see the thirst behind insane power ratings other than for bragging rights (which translates to marketing gimmickery).
Whats more interesting is that the new Civic has about same power as my 1998 Accord does, while weighing almost 500 lb less.
Numbers only tell a tiny part of the whole story. I know Accord can handle greater speeds around corners and over bumps better than several cars that out do it in slalom. When it comes to 0-60 runs, again, only if any car can return exact same number under varying conditions and the number is useful in real world outside of drag strips, I would put more value in it. Perhaps more than these car magazines do. But that is not the reality.
When 2007 Accord I-4/5MT did pull 0-60 in 7.5s, I thought it was exceptionally quick for having only 166 HP (and I believe it was SE trim which is lighter than EX trims for having fewer features, smaller wheels etc). Interestingly enough, the older Accord did the quarter mile (on that quick day) in 16.1s @ 87 mph. The new Accord did the same in 16.1s @ 88 mph. Stopping distance is exactly the same as before, despite added weight. But I attribute that largely to the tires. However, from a driver’s point of view, braking distance is not the end all. Some cars may have shorter stopping distances but they fail to do it with the same confidence and effort.
But did the car do it on a consistent basis? About 8 seconds was more logical (and more, if one considers real world conditions). I have a feeling the new Accord will be a few ticks quicker than the old on a consistent basis, in direct comparisons, if it matters.
The 1998 Accord I drive, took about 10s (MT took about 9 seconds) and yet it is quick enough to exceed legal speed limits. More importantly, it has guts to complete a quick pass even at 80 mph. So, how much quicker do cars need to be? But then, even EPA has resorted to drag racing in their tests (their new high-speed highway procedure involves getting up to 80 mph quickly with abrupt braking to a complete stop, in less than a mile).
I do think that C&D had couple of errors in the article (they quoted pre-PZEV power rating for the V6 and forgot to throw Sonata in the mix). Besides those, what exactly did you disagree with? What exactly were your expectations?
Before I visited the Honda dealer I had made my mind up on the 6 cyl. With only 3 mpg difference on the city cycle and 2 mpg difference on the hwy cycle I felt the 6 was the way to go. Cars have gotten considerably heavier so I felt that the 6 would have to perform with less effort to achieve the same rate of speed then the 4 would. Granted it comes at a price, just a slight one at the pump but a more considerable one in the purchase price. Having recently finished paying my mortgage off and having more money available each month, friends and relatives felt I would have gone a little more upscale then "just a Honda", a sentiment they soon abandoned once they had a chance to go for a ride in the 08 Accord. 4 or 6 I feel anyone that decides to purchase an 08 Accord will be happy they did, not just that good feeling most get when they purchase a new vehicle, but a long lasting one that comes from the knowledge that you've impressed yourself by getting a great reliable, roomy and if it does have the 6, spirited ride that should last for years.
I love the new 08, and can't wait to lease it. I still have an 06 accord, and its amazing. I am so proud of it. I have an SE model. On the 08, I am considering going all out and getting the 4cyl with Navi. It looks like alot of fun, now the trick is, getting a good price for one, Which I'll wait for that, and picking the best color. I am thinking Black! Spoiler, tinted windows! I have to be practical though, as I am still a student. So getting the right price, and payment will be tricky!
Also, when would be a good time to trade in my 06 SE with 25,200 miles on it, to get the best value, this is my first lease trade in?
This may be too hard to describe, but I'm wondering if you can give any idea of what you mean regarding the VCM performance when you say, "Unlike most reviewers that say it's completely unnoticeable, I can feel a litte more going on than just the transmission shifting."
Would be curious to know what that "little more" seems like. I was among those posting that I couldn't sense anything, but that was just on a brief test drive. As an owner, you're obviously getting a lot better feel for the car, and I would value your opinion.
It's not unlike the sensation you get when the auto transmission is shifting but far less noticeable and indeed at times it's not noticeable at all. I'm guessing it’s the active motor mounts responding at one point to the balancing act that’s needed to dampen the vibration characteristics of the 6 cyl switching to 4 cyl and at times to 3 cylinders. It’s never objectionable and if driving with an aggressive right foot it never occurs.
For what it is worth, my Suburban shifts back and forth from 8 cyl to 4 cylnder, and if I didn't have the information center set to that display, I wouldn't even know it was happening.
Now granted, I would expect the additional cylinders to potentially add in the smoothness.
Now granted, I would expect the additional cylinders to potentially add in the smoothness.
Plus the fact that the Suburban is likely designed to be more inherently quiet and removed from the driving experience than the Honda is (the Suburban is no sporty car ).
Road and Track got 5.9 seconds for the EX-L, V6, 6-speed coupe. It said that it was mostly limited by the Michelins causing them to shift in the 4000's. Heh heh. No word yet on the automatic's 0-60. Better tires and who knows what 0-60 time is.
I just purchased a 2008 Accord Coupe EX-L with Nav and am quite pleased with it so far. Very nice and aggressive styling. I get a LOT of compliments and looks on this car. The dealer had just 1 coupe and people were lined up to buy it. It has the added spoiler/wing on the trunk which I probably would not have ordered but it came with it (dealer add-on for profit - LOL). It came with the 190HP 4 cyl and so far I am pretty pleased. Its not a rocket like my previous 263HP V6 car but it's pretty good. I am especially enjoying the good mileage and we all know that gas won't stay under $3 forever. The Nav takes some getting used to. I doubt I will use it much unless I am taking a long trip. I like the audio system. Good bass and no buzzing. The rotary selector dial on the Nav/Audio takes getting used to. The seats are comfy but I dislike the intrusive headrests - Honda needs to dupe the ratcheting headrests used on Hyundai's. Much more comfortable and adjustable.
True... point is, off the lot, you aren't going to be any quicker than you were 5 years ago. Some people are going to find fault with that (especially since this is a non-VCM car so mileage is 17/25 vs. 19/29).
They saved a little weight through aluminum etc. (down to 2900 lbs for the MT I4)
They put the 190 hp 4-cyl in the vehicle.
They put in a six speed manual instead of a 5 speed and unlike the TSX they actually make the top gear taller than the 5 speed.
The end result would be a car that gets noticeably better mpg than the current car and noticeably better acceleration, all while providing the same amount of room.
Or better yet, do all of the above but use a smaller more efficient engine (2.2l) that gets smiliar power to the outgoing 2.4l but gets ever better mpg still.
Instead we have the status quo and a little more size - furthering the already huge gap between the Accord and Civic.
Hi, I test drove an Accord'08 EX-L cyl as soon as they hit the dealerships. My opinion ( I've had 4 Accords now) While the power in the upper ranges is good, you got to rev to get it. The car is 200 lbs heavier than my '04 EX-L, and while it has 30 more horses, it hasn't more torque, The engine is noisy at revs. Otherwise, the car rides and handles beautifully--really. Didn't try the 6 cyl.
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
But with the redesigned civic a couple years ago sales took off like a rocket and stayed that way for a year and a half
Compare for yourself:
http://www.weathertech.com/store/mvproduct.aspx?ItemGroupId=3&VehId=274&Year=200- 8
http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-coupe/accessory-detail.aspx?Accessory=ACCOR0- 8122
Looking at the picture on Honda's web site it looks like the all season mats are small. They don't look like they cover the whole area like they should. I think they are rather high for the money. Looking at weathertech.com their mats as a set are just under $100 f/r. Anyone checked out these mats?
I think it takes a lot of guts and confidence for an automaker to make a move like that in its best selling vehicle. For that reason alone, I would put faith in Honda’s design. Besides, they have plenty of experience already with VTEC (seventeen years) and the VTEC driven VCM system (five years).
Keep us posted on your experiences. What kind of mileage are you getting?
The best part is that I can use this in any car (I've used it in a Maxima, a Civic, an Odyssey, and two different Accords all within the last year!).
I say go portable and pocket use the extra money to buy 35 tanks of gas. Some portable ones even have built-in bluetooth connectivity, by the way.
I paid for a vehicle with carpets because that's part of the ambiance and luxurious feeling. If I wanted an industrial look and smell, I could have bought a truck.
My twice a year vacuuming works wonders.
However, the Accord's does many more things for the driver without your having to take your hands off the steering wheel or your eyes off the road. It reacts to your voice commands to control, in addition to navigation functions, the climate control system, the audio system, trip computer, etc. In fact there are hundreds of voice commands at my disposal. The 2008 Accords have about 750 such commands that you speak to control the various systems.
http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan/features.aspx?feature=interiornavigati- on
You asked if you have to purchase an upgrade. Well, I haven't felt the need to purchase a replacement DVD since I've been driving the car. Perhaps one every five years might be worth considering if you drive regularly in areas where there are lots of new developments being built. They cost about $185.
Only you can decide if you want to purchase either system. But I highly recommend the built-in unit's convenience.
The 2008 is supposed to have the ability to enter addresses by voice commands. That could be very nice if it works well without a lot of repeating and correcting.
Entering addresses with voice commands would be nice. However, for safety sake, it isn't something you would normally do while driving. So the manual method while parked has never been an issue for me.
Of course, there's no longer a touch screen for the 2008's. That's disappointing.
Without excellent voice command control for entering addresses, I'd much rather use a portable and save the money.
I'll have to try it out. If the voice commands are flakey, I'll use a portable GPS.
I was debating between the oem all weather and the weathertechs for my 07 crv. I already have the beige rear cargo from weathertech. Now your experience makes it easy. thanks.
My phone has voice recognition, and it is faster to dial the number.
Now we'll see just how long it takes. DEaler told me December.
In my opinion, if you want one of these relatively rare cars you're going to pay, and wait. Holding out til near the end of the model year probably means you'll have to compromise on color, or just won't get the car you want.
I had an 04 exl v6 coupe with nav that I loved. I'm buying this one without a test drive and just based on pics and seeing one in person. You just can't go wrong with a Honda, based on about 8 in my family over the past 10 years.
Thanks!!
Don't other car manufacturers do it?
"Make no mistake: the Honda Accord is a terrific automobile no matter how it comes, but it also compels us to consider something we don’t think about too often: at what point does horsepower become truly superfluous? Especially as fuel efficiency and low emissions, both longstanding hallmarks of the Honda brand, become more important than ever before, we are looking for cars that are both fun to drive and easy on the earth.
We just found one."
It then says that the Accord is the cheapest car classified as large, and compares the lowest priced "stripper" MSRP with that of much better equipped Buicks and Azeras, avoiding a true apples-to-apples comparison. And somehow forgets that the Sonata is also classified as a 'large car.' Finally, it forgets that customers don't necessarily pay MSRP for any car, they pay with hard-earned bucks, and edmunds.com itself can give a level comparison of real world pricing.
As I read between the lines of the review, it seems there was little substantive that was unique or something to be excited about, despite sincere attempts to find something. This is unfortunate, as I'm sure the new Accord is a very fine car, and despite the review would not mind considering one myself.
Now, I have seen a few with liners on the 06-07 models, but I wonder if they had that as an accessory. It would give it a well finished look.
Zero to 60 mph: 7.9 sec
This is in the 4 cylinder with the 5 speed manual. That's the model I'm getting. I believe the last Accord was around 8-8.5 0-60 with the 5 speed manual, and so it looks like it's just a tad faster. That's good....
Looking into the '08 190hp 4 cyl EX-L w/Nav as a 4 door for my use (I will have a 2 door coupe, not so good for driving the father-in-law and mother)and to have my 16 yr old son drive.
I have not seen any authoritative test times for the 4 cyl; just a 7.1 0-60 test for the 6 cyl.
I am going to a dealer now to try to test drive the 4. Any opinions on performance vs. a 4 cyl Camry SE?
Thanks for your thoughts.
BobP7
No, in fact, its bad. The last Accord, in the same magazine (which means similar launch procedures, less likelihood for error between the two), ran 0-60 in 8.1 seconds with an Automatic(C&D Article - Familial Four-Doors 1st Place), it did it in 7.5s with a manual C&D Article - Fastest Cars under $20k). So the new 190hp is slower than the old 166hp Accord. That's not good.
Personally, I feel like my 2006 Accord is better in nearly every way than the 2008s. If I had to shop right now, the Accord wouldn't be at the tip-top of my list due to the fact that it has taken a step backwards in many ways (interior design and quality, supposedly lesser handling [ haven't tested one yet], speed/economy tradeoff for 4-cyl, etc...
I have noticed that my 4cyl is always running for full economy, meaning it always aims for low RPM's, but yet still gets great performance, and it will simply move when you want it to. Many have thought that I have a 6cyl. I drove the 6cyl, and it didn't seem like it had as much torque in the lower gears than the 4cyl. I am in no hurry for the 08, but look forward to the new lease.
There was a post just before your's to a Car and Driver article that gave their opinion.
It's funny that people would even ask if 190HP enough for a family sedan. Not that many years ago, that would have been the power of a very sporty car.
In a few more years, people will be questioning whether 200HP is enough for a Civic sedan.
It has also gained some significant weight over a few years ago. A 2002 Accord 4-cyl weighed, what, 2900 lbs? What does a 190hp Accord weigh?
Yes, peak hp has climbed a good 40 or so in 10 years, but torque has only gone up about 10 lb-ft, so the cars don't feel too much quicker around town until you get the engines wound up.
Now here is the fun part. New SAE output rating system essentially resulted in 4-5% lower ratings for most Honda cars (non-EPS). If we were to re-rate the new Accord EX to use old standard, we would see ~200 HP/~170 lb-ft. While this car weighs 3400 lb, I think it makes for a good comparison against 1997 Accord V6 (3285 lb, 170 HP/178 lb-ft). It seems, for most of the useful operating range, the new Accord EX is at least as good as the old V6, even considering the gain in weight, and demolishes it beyond 5000 rpm. So I think the point raised by C&D about superfluous power in cars is valid.
I don’t take my cars for drag racing, but I do care for good highway merging abilities. And my ~145 HP/~147 lb-ft, 3150 lb (1998) Accord EX-L has enough of it, so much that I usually end up either speeding by the end of a short ramp or braking behind a slower vehicle in front of me. And since I drive two cars regularly (the Accord and a 2006 TL), I fail to see the thirst behind insane power ratings other than for bragging rights (which translates to marketing gimmickery).
Whats more interesting is that the new Civic has about same power as my 1998 Accord does, while weighing almost 500 lb less.
When 2007 Accord I-4/5MT did pull 0-60 in 7.5s, I thought it was exceptionally quick for having only 166 HP (and I believe it was SE trim which is lighter than EX trims for having fewer features, smaller wheels etc). Interestingly enough, the older Accord did the quarter mile (on that quick day) in 16.1s @ 87 mph. The new Accord did the same in 16.1s @ 88 mph. Stopping distance is exactly the same as before, despite added weight. But I attribute that largely to the tires. However, from a driver’s point of view, braking distance is not the end all. Some cars may have shorter stopping distances but they fail to do it with the same confidence and effort.
But did the car do it on a consistent basis? About 8 seconds was more logical (and more, if one considers real world conditions). I have a feeling the new Accord will be a few ticks quicker than the old on a consistent basis, in direct comparisons, if it matters.
The 1998 Accord I drive, took about 10s (MT took about 9 seconds) and yet it is quick enough to exceed legal speed limits. More importantly, it has guts to complete a quick pass even at 80 mph. So, how much quicker do cars need to be? But then, even EPA has resorted to drag racing in their tests (their new high-speed highway procedure involves getting up to 80 mph quickly with abrupt braking to a complete stop, in less than a mile).
I do think that C&D had couple of errors in the article (they quoted pre-PZEV power rating for the V6 and forgot to throw Sonata in the mix). Besides those, what exactly did you disagree with? What exactly were your expectations?
Also, when would be a good time to trade in my 06 SE with 25,200 miles on it, to get the best value, this is my first lease trade in?
This may be too hard to describe, but I'm wondering if you can give any idea of what you mean regarding the VCM performance when you say, "Unlike most reviewers that say it's completely unnoticeable, I can feel a litte more going on than just the transmission shifting."
Would be curious to know what that "little more" seems like. I was among those posting that I couldn't sense anything, but that was just on a brief test drive. As an owner, you're obviously getting a lot better feel for the car, and I would value your opinion.
Thanks.
Now granted, I would expect the additional cylinders to potentially add in the smoothness.
Plus the fact that the Suburban is likely designed to be more inherently quiet and removed from the driving experience than the Honda is (the Suburban is no sporty car
and even that could be greatly improved with better tires.
'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
They kept the size of the car the same for 2008.
They saved a little weight through aluminum etc. (down to 2900 lbs for the MT I4)
They put the 190 hp 4-cyl in the vehicle.
They put in a six speed manual instead of a 5 speed and unlike the TSX they actually make the top gear taller than the 5 speed.
The end result would be a car that gets noticeably better mpg than the current car and noticeably better acceleration, all while providing the same amount of room.
Or better yet, do all of the above but use a smaller more efficient engine (2.2l) that gets smiliar power to the outgoing 2.4l but gets ever better mpg still.
Instead we have the status quo and a little more size - furthering the already huge gap between the Accord and Civic.