2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan

skinnytony

robr2, if you buy something to sell for $100, sell it for $100, and get $3 back from the party you bought if from, aren't you coming out $3 ahead? How would this $3 not be "profit"? I think the only debate about Honda's holdback is whether it's 2% or 3% of base msrp.

jb_turner

The way I understand hold back is that if you buy something to sell for $103, sell it for $100, and get $3 back from the party you bought if from.

robr2

robr2, if you buy something to sell for $100, sell it for $100, and get $3 back from the party you bought if from, aren't you coming out $3 ahead? How would this $3 not be "profit"?

Let's say you bought it for $100. You paid for it before selling it so your investment is $100. The $3 you get back after you sell it is a return of money you've already spent. If I have to spend it, I don't consider it profit.

Now if they gave me an extra $3 beyond the $100 I spent, I'd consider it profit.

It all semantics anyways because dealers typically finance their inventory and holdback goes towards paying that. If a car sells quickly, they net more. If a car sits for months, they net less.

thegraduate

The top two pictures are 2006-2007 models. The 3rd down is 2003-2004, and the bottom one is 2005. The redesigned LED taillamps (as seen in top pics) came out in 2006, not 2007. Just ask me, I have a 2006 that I got in Nov. 2005!

gja

robr2, if you buy something to sell for $100, sell it for $100, and get $3 back from the party you bought if from, aren't you coming out $3 ahead? How would this $3 not be "profit"?

Let's say you bought it for $100. You paid for it before selling it so your investment is $100. The $3 you get back after you sell it is a return of money you've already spent. If I have to spend it, I don't consider it profit.

Now if they gave me an extra $3 beyond the $100 I spent, I'd consider it profit.

It all semantics anyways because dealers typically finance their inventory and holdback goes towards paying that. If a car sells quickly, they net more. If a car sits for months, they net less.

You've got to be kidding. Of course it's profit. The dealer spends $100 for the car. Sells it at invoice for $100 to the customer and claims no profit. Later gets $3 holdback from Honda. The $3 is profit. The dealer got a total of $103 from Honda and the customer after spending $100 to initially buy the car.

jb_turner

Why are some people concerned about the profit the dealer makes?... it seems that the bottom line price is what we should be concerned about because at the end of the day the price of the car is what it is.

robertsmx

Honda will typically revise exterior design elements in its cars in the third year of the design cycle. So, for 2003-2007 Accord, some changes were expected in 2006. However, generally, these changes are minor. But, 2003-2005 Accord wasn't well received in terms of styling. So, a minor MMC (mid-model change) arrived in 2005 with an all-red lens, while they bought some time to revise the rear even more. And so came the 2006. A claim has been made that this drastic change also marked Accord's 30th anniversary (but I tend to believe in the other story).

carbuyer11

Personally, I loved the '06-07's LED tailights and 3rd brake light integrated into the trunklid. LED's are found on many high end vehicles. I thought Honda would keep them with the new generation. It looks like they cut corners on these kinds of advanced features in order to grow the Accord and give it a more powerful lineup of engines while keeping the cost reasonable relative to the competition.

robertsmx

Not really. The idea is to use the moral of the story... "goose that laid golden egg". Main competition isn't doing it. There are near luxury sedans that don't either. So, it makes little sense to do those things when you can sell cars without using frills like that. Those frills can come in handy when sales slow down... as around MMC (MY2011?).

I won't call anything cutting corners. Automakers have to engineer vehicles around the fact that cars have to be competitive on cost too. You can't put everything in plus add new features and expect them to not add to the cost. My 1998 Accord EX-L cost $23.1K. In terms of features, 2008 Accord LX-P puts it to shame for a grand less (it does lack moon roof and leather, but even then, considering extra features and inflation over ten years, the new Accord is offering a lot more).

colloquor

Exactly, after all the dealership has to make a reasonable profit on every unit sold, otherwise they can't stay in business. Most dealers, regardless of marque of vehicle sold, do not really make most of their money on the sales floor anyway, the bulk of profits come from the Service Department. At least this is my personal experience having worked at some new car dealers.

micro99

I was surfing some sites this morning and came across some recent test results that the NHTSA released after doing some crash testing of select 2008 vehicles. I was absolutely astonished to see that the 2008 Accord received only a "three star rating" for side impact testing for rear seat passengers ( normally where the kids are of course). Now this is something that Honda should be concerned about and should seek to rectify quickly. It is particularly troubling when one realizes that NHTSA testing is probably not as demanding or rigorous as others ( IIHS or EuroENCAP). Come on Honda - what`s happening here ?

jaxs1

IIHS shows side impact results as for good rear passengers. So, they must not be more demanding than NHTSA.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=866

micro99

Sorry, I really didn`t expect this to go in the direction of which test is more demanding! ( my opinion was based on the understanding that IIHS uses a somewhat higher, larger barrier but I certainly could be mistaken). Just as a little tidbit, there are some who even wonder how the Accord got a "Good" side rating from IIHS given the paint smear photos which show the head may actually strike unprotected parts of the roofline. Unfortunately, the NHTSA does not publish photos at all.
Irrespective of which test is more demanding, Honda needs to consider this further.

ttb

Dear All:
Does anyone know which trim level of the 08 sedan has speed sensitive auto volume adjustment?
Thanks.
TTB

getmeanewcar

I really love 2008 models except the noticeable gap on the front hood..
Hasn't anyone else noticed that yet?


it's visible and huge gap enough to see...
I don't think it's intentional part of design the designers made
The gap makes the car look much less solidly built
and kinda vulnerable to strong winds etc.

see here at autoshow there wasnt such a noticeable gap on the concept car,
rather the concept car looked better resembled than ones in market.



it even shown in the spy pic here



Should I buy 08 model now or wait till next year when they might fix the problem?

robertsmx

The gap isn't a problem. It happens to be there since the coupe has a different (stubbier) grill. You would see the same issue in many cars (including Camry, and even Lexus LF-A.

dpmeersman

Speed sensitive volume control is available as a standard feature across all trim levels.

rkurlander

Can we please define "profit". It is not the difference between the dealer cost and the selling price (plus holdback). It's what remains after all costs: salaries, commissions, benefits, utilities, rent/mortgage, etc.

elroy5

If you look at the third picture (white one) the seam at the front of the hood is no larger than the seams on the side of the hood. How the seam appears depends on lighting, the color of the car, and the angle you look at it.

carbuyer11

I'd hardly call LED tailights a "frill". How often have you been behind an '06/07 Accord at a stoplight? There's absolutely no doubt that an LED-equipped car is stopping or stopped. They are much brighter than traditional tailights. It would seem to me to also be a safety item.

elroy5

If the driver behind you is actually looking where he/she is going, they will see either tail lights. If they are not looking where they're going, they won't see either tail lights. Sure, when someone rear-ends you, they will say "I didn't see the tail lights", but that's just an excuse for not watching where he/she was going. Your not going to see brake lights (HID or not), if your eyes are looking at your cell phone, nav screen, or any of the other gadgets that the new cars seem to be adding every year. It seems cars are designed less to drive, than as entertainment centers. :confuse:

robertsmx

It IS a frill. How many cars have you rear ended for not being able to see the tail lamps?

carbuyer11

Never in good weather. However, last night I drove home from a holiday show in a torrential rainstorm. I could barely see the stripes on the road due to glare on the road from the standing water. Don't try to tell me LED tailights don't improve visibility when the weather is a challenge.

blane

Visibility concerns have not been apparent since a few vehicles using tiny bulbs in the early 1960's. VW Beetle taillamp bulbs were particularly weak back then.

I've driven hundreds of thousands of miles through lousy weather conditions and never considered visibility of taillights to be worth discussing.

LED lamps are probably going to become more common due to their lower power consumption, but they are more of a fad today. I presume that Honda dropped LED taillights for the 2008 Accord so that they can tweak them in a few years, just as they'll tweak a grille design or change exterior color choices. Gotta keep potential customers interested.

In my opinion, the 2008 Accord's taillamps are as bright and visible as necessary.

bvdj84

I really love the LED lights on my 06 Accord. It adds a modern look. I still look at the 06-07 Accords, and feel that they are really classy looking cars. When my Silver Accord is washed/detailed, it looks very nice, especially with my tinted windows. I wished they would have put them in the 08, I'll miss them when my 06 lease is up and I move to the 08. I saw an EX the other day with a spoiler, when I see them in person, it is one nice looking car too. At night, the headlights look nice.

But I will not overspend to get an 08 accord, I will go to Acura, since they are offering better deals.

carbuyer11

I agree with your comment on Acura. In my opinion, the current generation TL is a better looking vehicle (especially inside) than the '08 Accord Sedan.

bvdj84

Well, the TL, is one beautiful car!!! It truly is. It totally looks like a drivers car. I just wished that honda would have put the coupe front on the sedan accord, with the slimmer lights. It looks toooooo much like nissan from the front. I almost feel that the previous generation accord looks more classy than the current model. There are pros and cons to both.

Or perhaps put the whole design of the coupe into the sedan. That wouldn't be to outrageous, I don't think it would change the market for the accord. I don't think it would hurt anything.

Also, Think they could have kept the same type of design for the Tach, like on the previous design. Just re-arrange, change colors, just redo it, but keep the whole glowing dash design. It looks very retro, and classy,You put the key in, and it comes alive! The new 08 Tach, looks more traditional, and perhaps gone back in time a bit. I have an 06, and it looks awesome with the tach, and actually, saw one before I owned one, and I was like wow! Thats awesome.

colloquor

I have an off topic question for those who lease cars. Don't you ever get tired of car (lease) payments, and the fact that you never really own the car you're driving? I abhor car payments - that's why I alway pay cash for a car and drive it for many years. Just wondering . . .

jaxs1

It's not for people who don't want payments. It may be OK for people who like to keep trading one car in for another before their payments are done and are used to constant car payments anyway.

robertsmx

I have greater concerns in rainstorms than worry about LEDs versus traditional bulbs. IMO, either works just fine. It is all in execution. A few years ago, while driving under severe foggy conditions in central California, there were a few vehicles that stood out with their good tail lamp design. One of them happened to be CR-V. Its tail lamp were brighter and more visible than most cars on the road.

My concerns while driving under those (foggy/rain) conditions is around auto on/off and DRL systems now more prevalent in cars. With DRLs, the tail lamps are off. With auto on/off lights, if the ambient light is bright enough, tail lamps are off as well despite poor visibility. And folks driving these cars seem to have forgotten that there is a knob to turn on the lights when conditions require it. But, it seems, they are no smarter than the car's sensors (in some cases, worse).

LEDs? I see them more as a cosmetic thingy than anything. My TL has LEDs. And until a few months before getting it, I wasn't aware that TL did. Then there are cars like BMW 3-series etc, where it is hard to tell if it has LEDs or traditional bulbs. I don't think ES350 uses LEDs either. Things seem to work just fine.

As blane suggested, we can bet on LEDs becoming a norm in the near future, but more a result of lower power consumption. Its relationship to safety is a bit overrated. Besides, if you notice, most cars with LED tail lamps still have traditional bulbs for turn indicators.

robertsmx

Some folks prefer driving new cars every 3-4 years. Leasing also helps lower payments on pricier cars. Not all folks can afford to pay cash for a brand new car. But these folks can drive home a $40K-$50K car for lower monthly payments via lease than they would if they financed to own a $25K-$30K car. Leasing might also make sense to folks who, while reducing monthly payment, are wary of the car's reliability. So, instead of owning one for a long time, they change frequently.

I believe that percentage of cars leased (versus purchased) goes up with cars priced above $30K or so than under.

jaxs1

Sometimes lease payments are not cheaper even for people who like to trade cars frequently.
Several years ago I purchased a new Accord EXV6 at around invoice on a 5 year loan with $0 down (everything financed and the first payment not due until the following month) and after less than 24 months, the payoff was less than the trade-in value. I was able to to trade for a new car and even had a few dollars equity to apply to the next vehicle.

If I had leased using Honda's 24 month lease program for the same miles with no cap reduction at that time, I would have paid hundreds in lease fees and had higher payments.

Lease payments are not always cheaper in all circumstances.

robr2

You've got to be kidding. Of course it's profit.

As I said, IMHO.

...dealers typically finance their inventory and holdback goes towards paying that.

Let's say you spent that $3 financing the car until it was sold? Is it still profit? IMHO, I think not when it comes down to the net.

That's why I noted what is in italics above - holdback is designed to pay the finance arm of the manufacturer. Few dealers pay cash. If a car sells quickly they make out and they lose if it sits on the lot.

robertsmx

It makes more sense to lease for 36-48 months than for 24-months. To put that in perspective, using Honda's leasing calculator, an Accord LX/AT lease payment ($3K down) would be:
24 months: $372.36
36 months: $284.71
48 months: $274.01
60 months: $298.70

Financing for 48 months @ 6.0% would push the monthly payment to $441.40 with $3K down. Leasing makes for a lower payment/month on the same car by $170/month. In fact, for $434/month, the person could lease EXLV6/NAV. So, he/she may choose to save a few bucks/month or choose the highest trim for about the same monthly cost as owning the base trim.

I would say that cars like Accord would be borderline between leasing and owning. As we approach $40K and higher, leasing makes many cars more affordable. It is the way BMW makes a living (note their aggressiveness with leasing).

stickguy

should be affordable on an Accord if they have high resale. Higher residual % means lower payments. Although it would also mean higher trade in value on a purchase.

jaxs1

You are using $3K down in your example to reduce payments. I don't want to put $3K down.
$3K drops payments pretty drastically on a lease of 24-36 months, but putting so much down is not recommended since you will lose that money if the vehicle is stolen or totaled. Gap insurance does not apply to your lease cap reduction.
You are still spending that money and simply shifting it from the payments to the cap reduction.
Try zero down on a 24 month lease and see what kind of payments you get.
The loan was cheaper because I made 24 lower payments on the 60 month loan (despite having financed the sales tax) than if I had leased for 24 months and was not upside down at the end. On top of that I didn't spend the extra hundreds of dollars in lease inception and lease return junk fees.

blackexv6

We buy new cars every 3-4 years & never become upside down.

Here's how:

I bought a 2003 Accord EXV6 in Oct '02 for $24.5k +TTL & kept the car for 3.5 years.

Put down $8k & had a $350/mo payment on a 60 month loan.

Drove it 59k miles & traded the car for a new '06 Odyssey.

The dealer gave us $14.5k for the Accord & we bought the new one $500 under invoice.

Thus, we got our $8k back & essentially "leased" the car for $350/mo with 17k mi/yr. I doubt a lease deal can me made with the high miles. Also, we had the option to keep it with equity.

Now, this only works on cars that have high residual values. Honda being #1.

Lastly, my poor father-in-law is stuck in a '07 Pilot lease at 12k mi/year. The car is parked in the driveway because he is afraid overunning the miles.

jaxs1

I can see both sides of it. In my case, buying and trading in at 2 years was also cheaper than leasing, but I know sometimes there are hot manufacturer-subsidized lease deals with lots of incentive cash and ultra cheap money factors that are bargains. When I see those, I think more about leasing. I am not against leasing just to be against it. I will go with whatever is the better buy,
However, you just cannot make blanket statements saying, if you like to trade your car every few years, leasing is automatically better or cheaper.

networkguy

I'm on a different side of this argument. I don't need a new car every few years. My wife and I like to tote payments on only one vehicle at a time. Buying Honda seems to work perfectly for this arrangement. I put down a decent amount and never finance past 48 months. When the car is paid for, I know I have at least 4 more years of useable life in the vehicle. Even at that age there is some small resale value left.

blufz1

Agree. Buy the car,maintain it,keep it waxed,and drive it as long as you are man enough to drive it.

robertsmx

Like I said earlier, 24 months leases are expensive (and provided numbers to support that fact). 3-4 year leases make the most sense. $0 down won't make a difference either. But since you asked for it, with $0 down,
Finance/48 mos: $512
Lease/48 mos: $348

Both went up by $70. That said, I'm not suggesting that leasing is better than buying or vice versa (which is my preference), only that leasing makes for a lower monthly payment and increases "affordability" to many (not to be confused with better financial decision as there are way too many variables to figure that out).

stickguy

Robert, the payment difference over 4 years is ~$7,800 Assume lease costs (aquisition and return) of about 800, and you are lft with approx. 7K in pocket after 4 years.

Since I am doing this in my head, I will ignore the interest earned on the 7K as it accumulates! Won't be much though.

So in this case, the big question is what the car will be worth after 4 years/48K. I think this was on an LX, but I have to guess it will be worth more than that. Residual is probably about 48%, MSRP ~21.5K, so I assume residual is in the 10K range.

So, in this case, even if you know you are trading in 4 years, it is better to buy than lease. Although with leasing you do get lower payments, and cost certainty.

rick2456

Who the heck would want to drive a car that is more than 3 or 4 years old? To me, 3-4 hundred per month is chump change to drive a new vehicle.

robertsmx

Here is a good article on leasing versus buying. And one of my points is highlighted in this excerpt...

Perhaps the greatest benefit of leasing a car is the lower out-of-pocket costs when acquiring and maintaining the car. Leases require little or no down payment and there are no up-front sales-tax payments. Additionally, monthly payments are usually lower, and you get the pleasure of owning a new car every few years.

BTW, leasing is how most luxury brands find customers who would normally "buy" mainstream cars but want to drive something more exclusive for any number of reasons. Most of these folks believe that instead of spending $450/month on a $30K car, they might as well drive a $50K car. Savings give way to bragging rights.

texases

The article's OK, but it makes the common, and incorrect, statement that a disadvantage of buying is that you pay for the depreciation during the highest-depreciating period. That applies equally to both buying and leasing. Leasing cost is the sum of depreciation plus interest plus profit to the leasing company, while puchase cost is depreciation plus interest. Of course, if an outside party puts extra cash into the lease equation (say a manufacturer artificially lowering payments by using an unrealistically low depreciation cost) leasing can come out ahead. With the high reliability of modern cars, there's no problem owning one for, say, 10 years. Less than that is an emotional, not a financial, decision, nothing wrong with that. Of course needs can also change.

bnannini

Greetings,
Will be replacing my C230 MB Kompressor and am in love with the Accord Coupe.
Can't find one to test drive yet.
However, if I get the 190 HP Coupe how will highway acceleration compare to my MB.

Or, is there no comparison and should I probably go with the V6?

blane

"$0 down won't make a difference either"

It could make a big difference if you total a leased car with a thousand or more down. That would be lost money in any insurance settlement.

dpmeersman

As I've had no experience with your MB or driving the Accord Coupe I can only respond based on my experience with other turbo or boosted engines. Honda 4cyl engines are very rev happy and to feel what power they do deliver in any meaningful doses you will find yourself in the upper reaches of its rev band. Turbo engines I've driven usually have more torque available down low in their rev band. So the six might feel more comparable to your kompressor when driving leisurely, but if you don’t mind winding it up, the 4 could be all the engine you need. I think you’ll have to put yourself behind the wheel of both to decide for yourself. Honda engines were born to rev high so don’t worry about driving frequently in the 4-6,000RPM range as that is their comfort zone.

blane

If 0 to 60 on the way to the supermarket is your priority...

The C230 Kompressor (supercharger?) has been tested 0-60 in 7.2 seconds.

The 190 HP I4 MTX 2008 Accord Coupe has been tested 0-60 in 7.9 seconds.

The 190 HP I4 ATX 2008 Accord Coupe has been tested 0-60 in 9.1 seconds.

The 268 HP V6 MTX 2008 Accord Coupe has been tested 0-60 in 6.2 seconds.

bnannini

THANKS GUYS.