2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan

thegraduate

Because you're only looking at the sedan. The coupe version of the EX-L V6 comes with a 6MT option.

rog2867

AH, thanks for the claification.

thegraduate

No problem. Interestingly, that is the only V6 Accord available WITHOUT VCM.

apple47

Placed a deposit for a V6 6MT coupe w/ navi a few weeks ago. The dealer told me today that it could be built as early as next week, but I'm not holding my breath.

In the past few weeks they have sold at least two black V6 coupes (automatic), and another red V6 coupe (automatic). Incidentally, they also had three 4-cylinder model coupes on their lot, so they are getting out there.

ezshift5

....Placed a deposit for a V6 6MT coupe w/ navi a few weeks ago.

....should be a great experience ('05 6M coupe here).....

We look forward to your frank impressions. With no VCM to worry about, please talk about your 6M clutch - and in time - clue us in on your fuel use.....

...again, should be a great car (I'm on the fence here)...

best, ez....

mark_wny

Just curious: has anyone here dropped his or her BMW 3 or 5 series, MB C-class, Audi A4 or Passat V-6 in favor of the Accord - especially the new 2008 Accord? I would be very interested in your stories.

robertsmx

I have a friend who is wanting to replace his 2003 325i with an Accord, but needs a sedan. Currently waiting to see if Honda will offer 6MT eventually. He wants something more fuel efficient and practical without giving up much in driving experience. I've also told him about potential arrival of Accord Diesel sometime within a year, as with second vehicle being an Expedition, he is very keen on saving as much fuel costs as he can. So, it is unlikely to happen for at least a year. If you want to wait until then. :P

black_08_v6

I have a 2002 BMW 540 6MT that I installed a supercharger on (435+ HP). It has w/59k miles and I love this car so much that I decided not to put another New England winter on it. I started looking for a winter beater (<$10k). I soon found myself looking at $14k-$17k Kia and Hyundai 4x4s. Then I went to $22k-$27k used Infinity G35X all wheel drives.

At that point, I decided to look at new cars. I scrapped the 4x4/all wheel criteria and decided front wheel drive was good enough. I also wanted an every-day driver to reduce the BMW mileage during the good weather seasons. I also wanted better mileage (BMW = 17 MPG). I ended up with the 2008 Accord EX-L V6 with all but Nav.

The car is still fairly new (250 miles), so I have not really put it through its paces. I have punched it a few times and pickup is pretty good. The handling is no where near the BMW's handling. The Accord is well appointed and it looks like a good choice for my main car.

BMWs (E39) are notorious for bad cooling systems and mine is no exception. I've replaced all of the main parts at 50-55k miles. The suspensions are very finicky as well. I'll rebuild the suspension over the winter (correct the bad points and make it handle better). I hope to have a very trouble-free experience with this Accord (much like everything I've heard about with Hondas).

So, for the price, gas mileage, acceleration, and luxury features, I picked the 2008 Accord EX-L V6. The looks aren't bad either.

jans57

Recently purchased a 08 Honda Accord. Beautiful car, dark red, love the lines and roominess inside. After about 2 weeks I began to hear a slight noise in the engine, a kind of ticking noise which increases as the rpms increase. Sounds a little like a lifter noise. The first visual inspection by a service rep could mean a noisy fuel injector as it seems to be coming from that area. Car is currently at the dealer being further evaluated. Has anyone experienced this same ticking noise that I am hearing? Would appreciate any feedback.

hpowders

I have a 2005 545i coming off lease in July. The Accord EX-L V6 sedan is on my replacement list. I would buy it.

I don't like how dreadfully complex BMW machines are becoming.

Also, when I bring the car in for maintenance, instead of a BMW loaner, they have a Hertz concession I must deal with. Impala or Grand Prix is not the choice I expect. Very shabby treatment for an upscale dealership.

An Accord or MDX would be a refreshing change, IMO.

jet10000

Since there are 10 different coupe variations to choose from (LX vs EX and I-4 vs V6 and Leather vs Cloth and so on), not to mention color variations, it would seem nearly impossible to get exactly what you're looking for.

It's not easy for the coupe. As was explained earlier either in this forum or the prices paid forum, Honda does a production run for a car for a minimum of 30 exactly configured cars (trim level, transmission, exterior color, interior color).

So the dealer can apparently send in your selection as a part of their allocation. However, the factory won't run it, until they are ready to make 30 of the same vehicle. So that's what makes it hard to predict when you'll get the coupe you want.

You just need to find a dealer who's willing to work with you and have the time to wait for what you want. Once they give you a VIN number, you should be good to go.

mark_wny

Thanks all for addressing my question.
More and more, the Accord LX I-4 strikes me as the perfect car -
the most perfect expression of what a car should be. It's a bit like
the Classic Coke bottle, the black dress worn by Audrey Hepburn,
the Brooks Brothers shirt; all the elements are there in perfect proportion;
there's no room for improvement.

jsgntulok

In Mar 2005 I traded my 2003 VW Passat V6 wagon for and Accord EX-L, 4 cyl. I have never looked back or regreted that decision. I am very happy to no longer have to tolerate expensive VW service and frequent issues relating to the VW's electronics. The Honda is much more comfortable than the VW. I am now looking at the 08 Accord 4 cyl with next summer in mind to purchase. If only Honda would give us an Accord wagon again, I would think I am in heaven.

bvdj84

WOW, I really like the White and the Bold Beige on the 08 Accord. It has some major BLING BLING! Very nice and classy. It looks like a BMW. I want my 4cyl loaded with navi!! I am very impressed!

Although the black looks sharp with black leather, the tan leather looks very upscale!

My next lease!! :shades:

I like the coupes too!! RED!

robertsmx

Accord versus Altima is on Edmunds. It appeared to be a no-contest.

gotoyota

Interesting comparo. Check the stats - the Accord weighs roughly 140-150 lbs more, reaches max HP and torque at 200 and 600 rpm's later than the Altima, yet bests the Altima in the 1/4 mile. Does the Honda simply have better optimization of gearing or is the power understated? The 1/4 mile speed of 101.6 mph is pretty impressive, given the claimed output of 268 ponies. Too bad they don't offer the sedan with the same transmission.

rog2867

I dont see that comparison anywhere. Where is it?

robertsmx

Well, there is a speculation (with facts to back it up) that the Accord V6/6MT is underrated by quite a bit. Last week, an Accord was put on dynapack and couple of days later, another Accord was put on dynojet. The results were very interesting. The owner of the dynapack also owns a 2005 Infiniti G35 Coupe/6MT which was rated 298 HP (under new standard: 286 HP), so he had something to compare the Accord against, besides also having TL-S/6MT plot on hand. Here are the readings from the dynapack:
Accord: 268.1 HP/248.4 lb-ft
G35C: 267.7 HP/247.5 lb-ft

He had another run with a G35, and got 262 HP. Dynapack measures output at the hubs so it doesn&#146;t account for additional losses that happen at the wheels. But something interesting here is that Accord&#146;s V6 not only got 100% of its rating at the crank, it also matched 286 HP G35. This points towards Honda underrating the engine. On dynojet, another Accord (with only 1000 miles on the odo) returned 240 HP at the wheels.

The speculation is that the Accord V6 is actually producing 280-285 HP but is rated at only 268 HP either to simply match the output numbers to automatic transmission equipped V6, or as a measure to keep Accord V6 under Acura TL-S (which is rated 286 HP, and also believed to be underrated by a bit to make RL look better).

The second car was also taken on a drag strip. 0-60 was 6.2s, but what is more interesting is that 5-60 (rolling acceleration) was also 6.2s. Usually, cars will take 0.5s to 0.8s more time to do 5-60 compared to 0-60.

This indicates that in a 0-60 run, the engine is overpowering the wheels which might be yearning for traction. This becomes much less of an issue once rolling (and this might be reflected in the quarter mile run to some extent).

robertsmx

link

gotoyota

Thanks for the reply. It seems reasonable that this is the heart of the TLS, the numbers just seem too good for the claimed HP and torque rating. I pay a lot more attention these days to the rolling start, which is a much better real world indicator of how quickly a car will pull away from plastic tigers or storm up a freeway onramp. 6.2s is really quite good. If I remember correctly, the Mazdaspeed 3 in the Nov C&D did 6.7s 5-60 and the WRX was 7-ish? I am glad mags like C&D started publishing those numbers. Most people do not subject their cars to the 5000 rpm clutch drops required for the best 0-60 times and the 5-60 is very useful.

I'm going to be in the market within a year (or maybe sooner if I decide to trade in the wifes '04 Odyssey that can't seem to find a new owner) and the Accord coupe is high on my list. I really like the sedan, but I think I want the manual. If the power is really higher in the coupe, that makes it all the more compelling. Too bad they don't offer HID headlights...

robertsmx

Yep. Unfortunately, rolling acceleration tests are virtually non-existent in America. C&D is the only one that does 5-60. They also do 30-50 and 50-70 but then mess it up by leaving MT transmission cars in their top gear. For those reasons, I really like the approach taken by many European magazines. They will include several runs to consider elasticity (a 30-50 run may involve running the car in second/third and in third or in fourth gear and so on, with time posted for all of them).

That renders 0-60 utterly useless for anywhere but on a drag strip. I vaguely remember C&D getting MazdaSpeed6 to do 0-60 in an impressive 5.3 seconds. But a look at 5-60 was another story. The car took 6.9s for it, while still good it is a whopping 1.6s slower compared to 0-60. Most powerful cars will get the job done in an additional 0.5s-0.8s.

We can only wish automotive sources like Edmunds can also include more realistic tests, and also make observed fuel economy a part of the test. More often than not, too much emphasis is placed on EPA ratings.

viet

Honda/ Acura King Robertsmx:

How's about 5 - 60 for the '08 sedan V6 EX-L PZEP ? Thanks.

robertsmx

I haven't seen those numbers, but my guess will be about 7.5s.

jrkfla

Will i be happy with the 190 HP engine? Would rather not pay the money for the V6, but will drive this car on family trips (wife's otherwise). Want to make sure it has enough juice to keep me out of trouble, not trying to win any races.

jack47

Will i be happy with the 190 HP engine?

Can't see why not.

My '95 Camry I4 is rated at 125 HP and I've had no problem going over 90 on I 95 (absent any traffic) on my trips to Florida.

Well, I did have one problem once.

Met a nice state trooper in North Carolina.

bvdj84

Yes! You will totally be fine with the 4cyl. I have an 06 Accord with the 4cyl, and we took it to Florida with 5 family members, and a full trunk load, and it did great on power, and mileage. It didn't feel like it was bogged down at all. In fact, my mother said, man, this thing has some power! Its no race car, but you'll certainly be just fine. You will love the gas mileage savings, and be very impressed with the 4cyl. Save your cash, and get the 4cyl, With gas prices going up, do you want to give you $$ away.

thegraduate

I think it probably depends on what you are used to. I have the 166hp 2006 model and LOVE it. Never under 35MPG on highway trips, and a zing to 85MPH is just a few seconds away to pass a dump truck dropping gravel!

I would suggest test-driving them and forming your own opinion, however. If you're coming from a 240hp V6 or something, you may feel it underpowered relatively. Personally, I'm coming from a 130hp Accord and just LOVE the power of the 2.4L engine.

bug4

Your happiness with the 4cyl. will depend on what cars/suv's you customarily drive. If you have only driven other 4cyl vehicles, I think you will be very happy with the 08 Accord I4. It is very peppy. I just gave up a 1998 Accord with a 4 cyl. It was rated at 150hp. My 08 Accord certainly is better -- but, until you get into the RPMs, not by much. To feel the potential of the higher output engine, you really do have to have your foot in the gas and allow the engine to race. When it does kick in, it is quite impressive! My 08 has the automatic transmission. At 80mph, it is running at something like 2700rpm. Consequently, even at 80 (about as fast as most people drive --and where the RPMs are about as high as they will get during sustained driving), the tranny has to shift down to get much ooomf. I guess the point is that the I4 is great, but the transmission will have to shift for you to realize it. I would hope the v6 has more reserve power and, as a result, does not have to shift down as often.

This is one great reason to match the I4 engine with a manual transmission. RPM control is really the key to these smaller engines! Although I am VERY impressed with the quality of the auto transmission in my Accord, the car absolutely would be better utilized with a manual. . . particularly since there is no way to hold the 5-speed automatic in 4th gear. the grade-logic technology works well and prevents the engine from constantly searching between 4th and overdrive. But, sometimes I would love to just leave it in 4th. I love my new Accord, but I do lots of highway driving and the inability to hold the tranny in 4th is a bit of a bummer

carzzz

What's your current car? If you are no racer, 190 hp is more than adequate. I feel that the Gen7.5 (166 hp) has more off-line punch than a Gen 8 EX with 190 hp at low rpm. Anyone find it true too?

thegraduate

My dad drove the 2008 (I rode along) and said it didn't feel any faster than my 2006 model. He didn't mention off-the-line power, but I did notice engine noise. I know its because the engine was cold probably, but if anything, it seemed louder than my 2006.

blufz1

"There's no replacement for displacement", get the V6 for easier passing with passengers.

thegraduate

I have to say that it really IS relative blufz. With my 166 hp Accord, 550 pounds of people plus luggage for those people for 6 days (Probably 650 pounds total), I had no problem passing at 70-80 MPH going along the high-speed Interstate 40 between Memphis and Oklahoma City. Do you need to rev to find power to really accelerate quickly? Sure, the power peak is above 5,000 RPM. But, my thought is "why have an engine if you aren't going to use all of it?" I know others don't like taking their vehicles past 3,500 RPM and prefer the more relaxed abilities of a V6 with its extra torque and high-speed power. But, the 4-cylinder isn't necesasrily inadequate, instead, the V6 is more than adequate! The bonus of that trip is that with all that weight and average interstate speeds averaging closer to 80MPH than 70MPH, we got an average for the whole trip of 35MPG (and that's with my friend driving as well, so no skill was involved in getting that mileage).

My suggestion to shoppers: Go test drive the car with your family or friends (two people preferably) and take it on the highway, try passing and hill climbing if possible. See if it meets your needs.

That's my take on things, anyway. To each his or her own, right blufz? I feel like I haven't talked to ya in awhile. Still fishing much?

sr1945

I have had my new 08 Accord EX-L I-4 sedan Automatic NAV just a few weeks now, drove across Florida and back once and have had no issues with passing other vehicles. Smooth ride and got about 31.4 mpg with about 95 % highway and 5% city driving and no air turned on.

Hope this helps some

blufz1

Grad,always better to have "too much" than "not enough."

royalty

Driving is the only way to tell. I did not drive the Honda V6. I only drove the 190HP 4-cyl and found it adequate. Would I like a V6? Sure if the price was the same but they cost a few thousand more. They also have a lot of added items: VCM, Active engine mounts, Active noise control. Not sure if I would want the added problems those additions might bring about after several years of use. The Honda 4-cyl is pretty bullet proof, easy to work on (once the warranty ends) and is fine for most needs. I am happy with mine.

P.S. My previous car had a 263 HP V6 which was almost too much - when I would floor it to get on the highway or pass a car I would find myself having to back way off the gas as it was almost too much power.

blufz1

Why would you "floor it"? You gotta be smooth,man.

robertsmx

Aren't you looking forward to getting the diesel?

robertsmx

You got Actrive Noise Control with Accord EX-L anyway. :P

I think it is standard in EX and above, with I-4 or V6 (except in Accord Coupe V6 with manual transmission).

blane

You wrote "I have had my new 08 Accord EX-L I-4 sedan Automatic NAV just a few weeks now, drove across Florida and back once and have had no issues with passing other vehicles. Smooth ride and got about 31.4 mpg with about 95 % highway and 5% city driving and no air turned on."

I averaged 31.8 mpg on a 950 mile round trip between NY and VA with my 2004 Accord V6 A/T recently. If our new 2008 Accord I4 A/T doesn't do much better than your 31.4 mpg under similar conditions I won't be a happy camper.

elroy5

From what you said in your post, you could be satisfied with the 4 cylinder. Be sure to drive the V6 though, because the extra smoothness and quietness is also very nice with the V6 engine. It's not all about power. I was completely satisfied with my 4 cylinder Accord for 12 years. But now that I've gotten used to a V6 Accord for 4 years, I would be hard pressed to go back to the relatively noisy 4 cylinder now. You have to push the accelerator so much further down, to get the same result.

viet

I agreed 100% with Blane. The V6 Accord is very silky smooth. Days ago, I just drove one of my oldie V6 '02 200HP on a non-stop trip of 120 miles and I enjoyed it very much for it smoothness. It just ran effortlessly in the quiet night like a big powerful boat cruising in the ocean. That's my exact feeling. I have 2 other V6 Accord and they are even much better in every aspect.

I plan to buy a top of the line '08 V6 sedan EX-L to enjoy the super beauty of the state of the art and also the great engineering sophistication of the Accord. I do not feel quite comfortable to buy an Acura as it is a little bit pricey unless I win a big lottery.

blufz1

V....I also have an '02 exl V6. Curious as too what mileage you get city/hwy?

viet

I got 23 MPG City and 25 - 27 MPG highway. I drove 7 hours non-stop trip to Southern California and it ran good, effortlessly up to 4,000 ft hills close to Los Angeles.

mackabee

"I plan to buy a top of the line '08 V6 sedan EX-L to enjoy the super beauty of the state of the art and also the great engineering sophistication of the Accord. "

blufz1

Thanks. I get 20-22 around town. My highway is pulling a small 700# bass boat. Highway best was 26 pulling my boat at 50-55. So we are getting roughly the same. Thanks a lot!

blufz1

For me, yes. I like torque. The problem w/the 190 hp 4 is it's still just 2.4 liters and the hp is @7200! I just prefer more torque at lower rpms.

viet

On same V6 '02 EX 200HP, my 18 year old son gets only 18 - 19 MPG mixed. My MPG 23 - 27 is equal to that of my 1982 Chevrolet Celebrity 4 engines I bought a long time ago.

MPG depends on how one drives. The best method is imagining there is a little egg under the accelerator pedal and try best not to break that egg.

thegraduate

The HP is at 7,200 RPM? I don't think that's right. Redline is 7,000 in the 190hp version, 6,500 in the 177hp version.

bug4

I think he is simply pointing out that the maximum HP doesn't come until the engine is racing pretty good . . . .

(I wish we could see a horse power chart for the I4 190hp engine! It charts HP and torque as RPM goes from 0 to red-line. I think it is useful information and someone has to have it???)

bvdj84

See, I have an 06 accord 4cyl, I have noticed that it doesn't rev to high to get going, but it runs through the rpms real smooth, it sometimes feels like something kicked in, I really don't even push the accelerator down that far, and it runs to 60 really smooth. I don't like to race it, I don't run it hard at all, I am almost afraid to let it loose. But, if you had a manual, you would essentially let is run through the RPM's. So, in a way the automatic is much more gentle on the engine. If I did have a manual, it would be even more amazing. I hardly ever see my car go past 3-4 rpms, Even my dad said, that it constantly keeps low rpms. I have been very impressed with the 4cyl engine, many that have rode with me, have thought I had a 6cyl. I am like no, this is a 4cyl. In fact, I drove the V6 accord and found it not as torque in the low range from start, but I really didn't push it though. Anyone that gets the 4cyl on the 08, will be more than happy, but like others have said, its what your used to. Form your own opinion.