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
You can't say VCM has no advantage by comparing the mileage of the 08 Accord with the 07. IF (and that's a big IF) the 08 was the same size, same weight, with the same engine as the 07, it would be a fair comparison. It's not the same car. If Honda had added VCM to the 07 Accord (same size as the 06), then you would have a fair comparison of the same car with and without VCM. That's not the case. To expect the bigger 08 to get better mileage than the 07 is expecting too much, IMO.
It can probably be safely said you really don't need more than 5 speeds in a AT, but because of the competition & the ever increasing technology curve it would appear the 6AT is the wave of the future - good or bad. In the long run, it will probably work out to be beneficial. I suppose they just need to fine tune it better.
Your post is offensive. 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...""
No, please cite documented actual numbers to support your claim - "The non VCM Accord Coupe has a large drop in mileage" Otherwise it is again merely hot air from you.
I do have a small case of buyer's remorse. . . but . . . I'll get over it. Not like I don't like my little 4 banger because I love it. . .
So how is disagreeing with someone, and stateing their own point of view offensive? Because we don't agree with your point of view, you are offended. Please! If Honda can get a larger, heavier, more powerful car to attain the same mileage as the smaller, lighter car, I call that progress. The 7th gen Accord was a hard car to beat, even for Honda. I think the 7th gen Accord is still better than most of the competition made today.
You claim to be an attorney, but I assure you, the VAST majority of posters on these forums are here to learn, or help inform; everyone's not out to get you or try and pull the wool over your eyes, or anyone else's for that matter. For the most part, it is a bunch of car enthusiasts who like to shoot the breeze about cars. I wish we could be treated that way. The "bridge to sell you" comment was very tongue-in-cheek, but golly, I'll keep my sarcasm out of my future posts to you (if there are, in fact, future posts to you).
http://www.truedelta.com. This site is gathering data from actual owners concerning not just fuel economy but also repair frequency. It won't give you an absolute definitive answer because to arrive at such an answer would require the two vehicles in question to be driven over the exact same terrain and driven in the exact same manner. The site does have important details when reporting your fuel economy such as type of terrain etc. I go back to my previous post about my former V6 mid size sedan, I can only realistically report how I feel VCM has effected my fuel economy compared to that car and I am seeing a benefit. While at that site look at how poor the fuel economy is for the I4 08 Accords when driven in a lot of stop and go traffic. Never thought I'd see the day that owners of 4 cyl Accords would have to settle for high teens and low 20's for fuel economy. Size does matter, particularly when increased size carries the burden of increased weight. This is my first Accord and after more than 10,000 miles I still feel I got the car I wanted. I feel bad for previous Accord owners that just wanted to buy another Accord and ended up with something so different from their previous vehicles that they feel cheated. Blind loyalty, beware of it.
"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."
THAT is insulting and offensive. On the other hand a post that read, " Well, I respect your opinion but have to disagree - the fuel economy of the larger heavier car will always be less..." or something to that effect.
If you cannot see the difference I am sorry.
"Size does matter, particularly when increased size carries the burden of increased weight"
My comment about VCM was that there was no comparative proof of its being a fuel saving success. And I have yet to have anyone refute that with facts - lots of claimes - but no facts. The ONLY legitimate comparison that can be made is between a VCM AT equipped coupe and a 6 speed manual NON-VCM coupe. You cannot compare a sedan with a coupe - different weights. Cites to the I4 are totally irrelevant.
I never compared my '08 to my son's '07 - I merely indicated that he got 30 without VCM, and my car needs a very complicated VCM to get 30. Yes I have 24 more HP and 300 lbs more weight - the performance effect is nil. But I also have a much more complicated drivertrain to achieve the prior model's same results.
Others here have totally missed my point and continue to miss it with cites to irrelevant facts. The only answer to the effectiveness of VCM can come from comparing '08 coupes, with and without.
This statement above was ignored previously. If someone is just looking for a fight, please just say so. I, for one, am not. I tried to help in #498 and my post elicited no response. I posted something similar later, with a tongue-in-cheek comment (one that I recently read right here on the forums from one poster to another which was sluffed off and laughed about), and I ended up getting blasted for a comment taken the wrong way; my intention, as other fellow posters who have been around for years will tell you (try any sedan board, I frequent many of them), is to try and help, and maybe make you smile once-in-a-while. Shoot, post number two in this forum was me.
I post this to show I tried posting in one manner the first time and felt it must have been looked over, and that I'm NOT attempting to cause you a problem. If I was, a host would've kicked me out a looong time ago. Considering you've been here awhile, I never thought simple kidding would get blown so out-of-proportion. I shared where you can find the actual tested numbers at www.fueleconomy.gov. Guess that was overlooked, as is a lot of information I posted. Another poster put it up, and you found it there, so be it. I guess these days, as educated about the Honda as you seem to be, you'd have looked up the non-VCM Accord's mileage by now.
I won't bother responding again to posts like that; I just wanted to try and explain and hopefully make peace. I still don't appreciate the demeaning "sorry you don't understand that" comments; it simply hides an insult in an apology. The VAST majority of people in this forum are light-hearted people with whom I've conversed, joked, argued, and debated over the past three years in various forums... we all jest, and chances are it will happen again, so don't be too surprised to get it from someone else. It most likely will be in jest since people are used to that here at Edmunds; even hosts will kid and pick on each other around here once in awhile. This is meant to be fun and informative. I'll be sure to put lots of
TheGraduate
See, now THAT is what I was talking about - not hollow unsupported claims
http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php
I think we can now put that one to rest - thanks dpmeersman. As an attorney, I need facts to support an argument - not just claims.
And I was not looking for a fight graduate - but be careful what you say and to whom - your remark is generally considered an intended insult. I am sorry for you that you do not understand that. By its very nature it impugns the intelligence of the party to whom it is directed.
Now who is being condescending? As a fellow attorney (I'm not really sure why you had to point this out...other than to pat yourself on the back) I apologize to the rest of the posters for your futile attempts to form an argument based on obtaining the "facts".
To keep on topic...I've driven both I4 and V6 w VCM...very nice cars!
Did you get one? I'm not sold on the new Accord completely. The 4-cyl wasn't as quick off the line as my older 166hp model, and the V6 is just plain expensive. I really want to like them, its just taking me some time since I'm so used to the previous Accords, which were always a little smaller, a little tauter, and a little more fuel-efficient than the competition.
Mrs. Satforn just wants a new car period...LOL
The deal with the 4-cyl is it has to be revved up to really scoot. That's fine with me, as I don't mind using something to its full potential. I'd likely be wasting money on a 6-cyl since I'd not use it to its full capability. They are smoother and typically a little quieter though, something the Missus might enjoy.
I too, went and test drove the 08 Accord 4cyl, and noticed it wasn't as quick, but with more miles, I am sure it would get a bit better. I like the way it drove though. Even the new TSX perhaps lost a bit that sporty compact appeal due to its size. Maybe that is why people love the Jetta so much, but even that car has grown some.
I vividly remember the new 1989 Maxima 4dsc (4door sports car) that was raved about in all the mags. They universally praised is handling and its powerfull 3.0 liter V-6 as one of the fastest reasonably priced sedans on the market.
That car had about the same weight as the 2008 Accord I4 (with quite a bit less room inside). It had 160 hp and went to 60 in 9.0 seconds (less with the MT).
So why is a car that is faster than this Maxima not fast enough? Has the human perception of speed changed in 20 years? :confuse:
And if we do require faster and faster cars all the time, then be prepared for the car that seems fast now to be just as behind the times as that Maxima. I, long ago, gave up the go fast mentality, and am now more than satisfied with my 07 Accord that can double the speed limit in most states (not my state though).
I also firmly believe that it is more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow. I loved zipping around town in my old '90 Corolla wagon with a stick - winding it up when needed. My Sienna minivan is much faster, but not nearly as fun because it is so effortless and detached.
I'd agree. I like zipping around in my '96 Accord (alas, it does have an auto), even going faster than I normally would in the other car. I don't know why!
Usually we are quite particular about facts - that was my point - somewhat of an excuse for my behavior rather than a pat on the back as you see it. Anal even - more so than most - consider it a flaw or an asset - it is often a double edged sword.
I agree with you - I think the thing I dislike most about our new car was something I had reservations about from the get go and should have gotten a new 2007 in December last year because of it - its size. It is simply NOT as taut, tidy, neat, smart handling as all our Accords in the past. They were all so efficiently packaged and almost a sport sedan. This car feels to "Buick -like".
Consider your options carefully - you may want a used TL instead.
Yes, what was considered fast 20 years ago, is not considered fast now. We expect things to get better/faster with each redesign. Computers that were considered fast, 20 years ago, are now considered slow too. That's progress. Of course, if you are of the mindset that what was good 20 years ago, is still good enough today, you can save a lot of dough.
On a 9 hour road trip, you get a good feel for the car. It handled well. Was comfortable and a great companion to take a long trip with. If there was one very slight note, it was that the steering got slightly "light" at elevated speeds (80 MPH). Nothing to knock the car. Just something I noticed.
From a performance perspective, no doubt the V6 would be the way to go. But, if you consider all the other parameters (like fuel economy, comfort, handling, etc), the 190 HP I4 Accord is very nice, mated well to the automatic. Honda did a nice job with the grade logic on this transmission. It's always willing to kick down a gear when I punched it. And, it did so quickly.
I never felt I needed the V6, although it would have been fun, I'm sure.
The V6 would be alot of fun! Now especially when getting the coupe.
The downside, I suspect it hurts the MPG by keeping the revs up. But, so far, even with a green engine, I'm pleased with the fuel economy....particularly for such a large and comfortable car. I've got no beefs with the handling. It's easy to dart around in a car this big. That too, is surprising.
Both are very fine automobiles in their own right. I just happened to have the 4 cyl version and each day I like it more as would have been the case if I had bought the V-6.
No arguement here both are great.
I had the urge to give my little 4 banger hell and see how she compared but we all know we can't do things like that.
That said I did have a delightful ride. . . Matter of fact I think my little 4 banger would skin all those cars back then. . . Ah for a time machine. . .
Best thing to do is to call up State Farm and ask them. I know when I call my insurance company, they're always happy to tell me what my rates would be given the car(s) I'm considering.
Although, many posters are saying the MPG in the new generation I4 isn't all that much to brag about either.
Also I set a 30mpg limit or better and while the V6 6MT is rated 25 or so while you could get close to 200 horses with the 4 combined with Honda's reputation building 4 cylinder wonders it was a no brainer for me.
Chances are that if I had bought the sedan I might have stretched for the V6 but in my coupe the 4 is not only just fine it's great.
Right off the showroom floor I was impressed but now about 1500 miles later I am over joyed with the 4 cyl. 99% of the time on the roads that I drive this car is a real treat to drive. I like how it sounds when you get on the pipe and it seems every day it gets stronger and stronger.
Yesterday going to lunch there were 4 car loads of us all going to the same place. The other guys were driving faster cars like the Altima 3.5 for one and another one drives a pumped up little Suburu(sp) WRX I think along with a big Silverado pickup bringing up the rear. . . Anyway long story short I ran right in the middle of them all the way there and back over a sweet little curvey road. Unknown to me at the time they were trying to leave me in their dust but found out it wasn't that easy. The rest of the day they were all over me commenting on how I must have been punishing my little 4 banger. They couldn't believe that I was just staying with the traffic. The only one having trouble keeping up was a 300+ horse power full size pickup.
We weren't racing but just making good use of our time. I have no doubts that if we were racing it would have been a different story.
I guess my only point is that in reality the 4 is still a very fine automobile with more than enough power. While not a V6 it wasn't intended to be.
I wish they had a smaller 4. I almost never need the power of my I4 MT, and less weight/engine would help handling and mpg.
As for smoothness. How many mattresses do you need over the pea? I like to feel what the engine is doing. When the car was new I occasionally left it in 4th on the highway because it was so smooth.
33.35 mpg over 41,000 miles including SD winters - the six cant touch that. Over 600 mles on a tank. 40 mpg and up on most highway trips. What gas prices?
2007 I4 MT 0w-20 synthetic 40 psi
Regarding power......EX I4 is a "zingy" engine. I've never felt the need for more power and dip into the upper rev ranges regularly. Still getting better MPG than the sticker says....about 22-23 in all stop and go traffic. 34 MPG was the highest I got on all highway. Better than expected considering the sticker said 21 MPG in town and 31 MPG on the highway. No complaints there.
All that said, do I wish I had sprung for the V6? That's a sweetheart of an engine, too. I gave up some power for a little MPG. But, I don't feel "cheated" at all with the I4. The transmission has a lot to do with it, too. It "kicks down" when I need it to (no waiting, and waiting like other cars I drove). And it gets the I4 into the power band quickly.
I would have been happy with either engine. As it is, I saved a thousand or two by going with the I4. No regrets.
Actually my insurance went down about 70 bucks when I had pretty good rates to begin with. My other car was an 07 Silverado pickup with the 4.3 V6. . . Now this 4 banger will eat that Silverado's lunch, breakfast, dinner and put a smile on your face while doing it. . . I bought the V6 pickup thinking gas mileage. . .WRONG. . .14-16 and maybe 18 hwy with a strong tail wind. . .
For all the ballywho about full size trucks and SUVs, particularly ones from GM and Ford, you'd be hard pressed to find better vehicles to use for towing and hauling stuff. On the road, they offer a very nice way to cover a lot of miles, too.
Mine doesn't do much better than yours in town as far as MPG. I have got it to get 19 MPG in highway use, though.
My I4 Accord will stomp it every which way, however. I wouldn't attempt towing a boat with it., though.
My Bass bost days are long gone too. If I still needed a 'truck' I guess I'd still have it or something like it. Now days my ride just hauls me. . .
I have been researching new cars that will be coming out soon, and most will have this as a standard option. There are going to be some really cool cars coming out within the next few years.
I second the motion. . . At least give us a 4th gear. . . to start.