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
Granted it had more scoot than the Ody when floored, but the Ody weighed 300 lbs more and had a 2.2 liter engine.
I don't consider the I4 AT to be underpowered especially when pushed hard, but the MT just feels like it is a larger more powerful engine when cruising around town. Direct connection to the gears (no torque converter), 100 lbs lighter and shorter gearing all help. BTW I never ever have to downshift on the highway. I am always in 5th gear even up steep hills.
Heh-heh... I couldn't agree more. But everyone already knows that. :shades:
Yes you have, and that is for an automatic transmission. I think it is pretty reasonable too, but what do I know - my 130hp '96 model with a 4-speed Auto seems perfectly adequate to me, and runs 90 mph without hesitation
It's not a drag racer; it is a family car, and serves its purpose well. The new 4-cylinder sedans from Honda and its competitors are all more than adequate. Some want more than "more than adequate" though, and there's nothing wrong with that. I drove my folks new ride, a sedan from a competing brand with 263hp; the power was NICE, but they get about 30 hwy; I'd rather have my 4-cyl Accord which still has plenty of pep, but much better mileage.
Personal choice/different strokes/yadda yadda yadda...
Exactly and I see no need for anyone to be denigrating the choice of another for those differences. I remember our 4 cyl. '83 Accord (I didn't and don't even know the HP) and cruising across PA on I-81 in the middle of the night en route from VA to Syracuse, NY at Christmas time with the cruise set at 85. It had plenty of power and it was perfectly fine.
My '80 Scirocco had 76 hp and was quite peppy. Very fun to drive.
My, how things change.
Also funny how people don't consider weight and just look at hp. I still have coworkers who think their 250 to 300hp V-8 trucks with 4 speed automatics and 6,000 lbs of weight are quicker than my 166hp (170+ by old numbers) Accord with a 5 speed stick and just over 3,100 lbs of weight. They literally think my car is underpowered and their trucks are powerful beasts - despite my car being quicker.
Unfortunately many people share these thoughts.
It's about perception.
Yes - our standards have changed.
If I was going to get the Coupe, I would probably opt for the V6 though, with the 6spd manual. In red!
I'm not sure how big a difference the automatic would make, but with the stick shift the LX-P was fun to drive and very smooth.
the 190hp engine is far and away the better engine IMO.
In my mind these are 2 completly different cars designed for 2 different purposes. Trying to make do with a 4 cyl engine when in reality you need a stronger V-6 is unfair to both engines.
Personally I like both cars but chose the 2.4 (08 EX-L Coupe, Red) because to me it is more suited to what I need. I could have bought the V-6 if that was what I wanted but I chose the 4 instead. I like the V-6 just fine.
To me its kinda like comparing a small block V-8 to a big block V-8. Both do the job but you have to lean on the small block more which can be great fun in itself. Of course it is effortless in the big block but in reality both do just fine depending on their purpose.
I have only around 600 miles on my Accord right now. I've jumped on it only a couple times and was impressed with her performance. Actually she is stronger than I thought she would be.
I don't mind working a little harder to get what I need plus its fun in its own right. Yes the V-6 is faster, stronger, easier etc. but it wasn't what I wanted. There is something to say about a well balanced 4 cylinder Honda that kinda reminds me of how far it has come since those first little Hondas of the early 70s.
Someone said the new "Fit" is actually larger than the first Accord. . .
Sooner or later, I see myself getting the new Accord, or the new TSX, But if I get the accord, I am going all out, and getting the V6, it has the VCM, so it will help on mileage. It will be my first V6 car. The TSX, would fun as well, very futuristic. The engine having the manual shift option would be fun.
I knew it would be adequate and right now that's all I was expecting. That said however I can see where this 'little sister' might turn out to be great fun as well as decent, reliable and inexpensive transportation.
I find myself grinning more now days. The V-6 is great, I know that but you expect it to be. This little girl has something to offer as well. . .
I have even noticed that when driving my 4cyl home from a 14hr trip, that it was more smooth and agile than it was when I drove it on the way there, as crazy as that sounds, but it totally felt that way. Its like running it out on the interstate and the hills, really broke it in, and is exactly what it needed. Its getting better and better with more miles.
I however, wish that it had a manual shift mode on it, to be able to control it even more, having this option on the automatic would make it more fun, and while keeping up with todays features on other competing models where most already have this feature standard. The sonta, has this standard on even the base models. Now of course this does not replace traditional manual, but is getting pretty close with its technology, that one wouldn't see much difference. This option would be excellent when I took my car on my trip in the hilly parts of the interstate, to control its gearing much better than the cruise control can. I feel the new 09 Accord needs to have this option! I personally would use it, maybe not all the time, but knowing that I can use it when I want, that would be nice. Having it on my mom's 08 Jetta SE, it so much fun, making it a like a little racer...lol. I am sure I would want a full manual transmission all the time, but I would certainly try to learn.
I agree wholeheartedly! (But you already knew that.) :shades:
Not "ideal" for me. The 4 cylinder doesn't have enough passing power on the highway, manual or not. I shift a manual every day, and it's no big thrill to me. A long looping on-ramp is all I need for fun. Playing with the "big dogs" out on the interstate can be fun too. The V6 is needed for that. From 70mph up, the 4 cylinder doesn't have much kick.
One was a little 60mph Honda 175 and the other a Suzuki RM-400 that would truly stomp you if you weren't careful. Of course it was a blast to ride but everyone fought over that little Honda simply because you could run that rascal flat out balls to the wall without wondering if you would be alive at the end of the day. It was easy and forgiving. On the other hand drive that Suzuki like that and you better be competent or it would hurt you.
Sometimes its more fun getting all the good out of something when you have to work a little to do it. . .
Yes for 99% of everything you do the V-6 is easier and we all know it will go faster, last longer, have more resale and be a hell of a lot easier but still it is great fun to do more with less. I think more rewarding to some extent.
Now if you are a driver that is on the interstate constantly, than you need to get the V6, its the only way you can smoothly, and comfortably handle the conditions of passing, hills, on ramps. That would be a big help. Now, a 4cyl can do this just fine, but the V6 would certainly be there for you more when you need it. The 4cyl downshifts too much, which is sorta annoying, seems a little lost.
I saw a Lexus pass on the interstate for miles and miles, and it was on hills, and it looked as though it took no effort to run the road with its power. I am sure it was a V6, not a V8.
Playing for me is a twisty back-road on the way to the Warrior River (look it up in AL Geography
There are plenty of roads where you can stay within the legal limits and have a ball doing it. . . I know the area you speak of well. I worked out of Cullman for years and lived in South Georgia.
In northern California when I-5 was not completed in the Yreka caynon it was 2 lane and many, many fast turns. Thinking I was doing something in those days with my Fiat 124 Sport Coupe and Triumph GT-6 and TR-4 plus a few factory hot rods (427 Fords) I had great fun in that caynon. My new 4 cyl Honda would outperform all those cars (except the Fords of course). Kinda wish that road was still there.
I do understand the desire to own the V-6. Had one been available with the 6 speed manual I might have brought it home.
Actually I traded the V-6 for a leather loaded 4cyl EX-L coupe. Not sure I could afford a V-6 EX-L and I'd rather have the leather than the big motor. . .
I own an '08 Sedan with VCM and I am not convinced the it really has any great effect on MPG. Yes I have gotten 30 on the highway - 5 MPG better than our 1990 Legend with 180,000 miles on it. But is it all that better than my son's 2007? Absolutely not. And its operation, if not "right" can cause you fits - just check the VCM board here and at Temple of VTEC.
You will want to REALLY do your homework on VCM before you decide, and DRIVE the actual car you will get - VCM operation seems to vary considerably among cars - not noticeable on some, and annoyingly noticeable on others.
Considering the 08 is larger, heavier, and has a larger engine than the 07, if it gets the same mileage as the 07, VCM must be doing something right. I also don't agree that more gears in the transmission is necessarily better. The Camry's 6 speed automatic has problems (flaring issues), and the Malibu's transmission according to reviews is reluctant to downshift (probably designed more for fuel mileage than responsiveness). The grass is not always greener on the other side. As the number of gears increases, the benefit decreases.
EDIT: Elroy, I just saw your post above this one. Looks like we're on the same page.
The V-6 just looked like my car's big brother. Boy was it gorgeous. Still they strike me as two totally different cars, both being something of interest to me. Both something I'd buy in a heart beat and be overjoyed with whichever one I took home. Different reasons but both very desirable.
The little differences like chrome door handles and bigger tires and wheels give it a different, bigger look to me.
I'll admit that there was a brief moment of buyer's remorse after looking at that bad boy but it passed just as soon as I drove out of the parking lot. Kinda like looking at something nice then moving on.
If I had bought the V-6 it would have had to be a 6spd manual without ECM. In the long haul I like the automatic set on cruise within legal limits and trying to stay comfortable or trying to get comfortable while the miles click by as they do on a long ride. Mine does just fine doing that and in reality that's probally 99% of what I do in this car.
I believe dpmeersman was referring to the 6 speed with a taller OD - THAT would certianly reduce hwy RPMs and improve mpg without all the complicaitons of VCM .
But if his car weighed as much as yours, had as much displacement as yours creating 30+ more lb-ft of torque, and has as much frontal area to move, you can be sure it wouldn't get mileage as good as yours without VCM, therefore the comparison isn't apples to apples.
What would be interesting is for more coupe owners to chime in - comparing VCM with AT and 6 speed manual w/o VCM. That would be a truer comparison although final drive ratios may be different.
But it IS a gas savings application; without it, your mileage would be worse. Honda doesn't tout it as getting drastically better mileage than the competition (although with EPA regs it does do darn good). I've interpreted it to mean VCM helps the Accord have good mileage. And it does.
How can you say that? What do you have to compare it to? That is a conclusion without evidence. Which is why I said it would be nice for coupe owners to chime in - it is the only basis to compare VCM against a V6 w/o VCM. Only then, if the non VCm engines are lower MPG can you say what you did.
The non VCM Accord Coupe has a large drop in mileage, and the current VCM Accord which weighs notably more, is larger in area, and still manages to be just as fast. If you think that the larger, heavier, larger displacement, more powerful non-VCM Accord would match that of the smaller, lighter 3.0L Accord, I've got a bridge to sell you...
Empircal evidence from owners would be nice, but you can't make a scientific evaluation from a handful of owners without VCM and a handful with it.