Midsize Sedans 2.0

benjaminh

As stick predicted, the 2.0 Sport gets a couple of things beyond the 1.5 Sport, including moonroof and blis, but that's about it. No upgraded stereo or anything else of importance. Of course the engine and 10AT transmission on the 2.0 Sport are the biggest items. This one will cost more than the EX, but should still be a good price for what you get.

stickguy

good find. The other big addition on the EX and above (including sport 2.0) is the smart entry, another must have for us!

Looking at this, for me, it would be the EX I guess. Assuming I just take the easy road, and stay with an AT. If I want the manual, would have to be the 2.0T sport (and I wouldn't get that I don't think with the AT, especially if it cost a lot more than an EX).

only item I would miss is the homelink, kind of an odd thing to leave off at that trim level. But, I have clickers, and does not bother me to stick them up on the visor. So if they are going to leave off one nicety, for me, that is a good one to pick!

surprised this posted early, but I assume the build page launches Monday, including pricing.

Michaell

benjaminh said:

sda said:

It puzzles me that Honda insists on not making a leather wrapped steering wheel standard on the EX, yet the less expensive Sport has it. Looks like the EX loses Homelink, and turn signal repeaters on the door mirrors but picks up heated front seats and a lot of safety equipment. Looks impressive overall.

I know you know this, but it's because they want you to buy a higher trim. If you want leather, you need EXL.

PS In 10th gear at 60 mph the auto for the 2.0 runs at 1400 rpm.

My Jetta 1.4T has only a 6-speed automatic. I was noticing today that at a steady 55 MPH, the tach is at 1600 RPM.

Not sure why I would need 66% more gears ...

stickguy

in theory so would always be in the right gear, and help MPG. in reality, usually means even more hunting.

My RDX has 6 speeds, and it really does seem like plenty to me.

Michaell

stickguy said:

in theory so would always be in the right gear, and help MPG. in reality, usually means even more hunting.

My RDX has 6 speeds, and it really does seem like plenty to me.

Yeah, I really like the CVT in the Outback, with the 3.6 engine. Software programming makes it 'feel' like a traditional automatic, and there are shift paddles to manually "swap cogs", as well.

benjaminh

stickguy said:

good find. The other big addition on the EX and above (including sport 2.0) is the smart entry, another must have for us!

Looking at this, for me, it would be the EX I guess. Assuming I just take the easy road, and stay with an AT. If I want the manual, would have to be the 2.0T sport (and I wouldn't get that I don't think with the AT, especially if it cost a lot more than an EX).

only item I would miss is the homelink, kind of an odd thing to leave off at that trim level. But, I have clickers, and does not bother me to stick them up on the visor. So if they are going to leave off one nicety, for me, that is a good one to pick!

surprised this posted early, but I assume the build page launches Monday, including pricing.

A 2017 Accord EX does have a few things that the 2018 lacks, including HomeLink. It's useful for me, as I can open my garage door with it. Kinda neat. Although we have a one car garage that I let my wife use 99% of the time....Anyway, the 2017 EX also has turn indicators built into the side mirrors, a nice little feature imho that's been moved up to the EXL for 2018.

sda

After looking at the standard equipment list again the Sport 2.0 has my attention with the more powerful, sportier drivetrain. It has sunroof, same audio (6 speaker 180 w) thou less sub inputs. One thing I like about my current EX is it has a/c vents for the backseat passengers. I don't see that feature listed for any model yet I would bet the EXL and Touring will, what about the others?

sda

I wonder if the Sport will be limited to a black interior. Not a deal killer but I hope not.

benjaminh

sda said:

After looking at the standard equipment list again the Sport 2.0 has my attention with the more powerful, sportier drivetrain. It has sunroof, same audio (6 speaker 180 w) thou less sub inputs. One thing I like about my current EX is it has a/c vents for the backseat passengers. I don't see that feature listed for any model yet I would bet the EXL and Touring will, what about the others?

Yes, I think the Sport 2.0 does get rear AC vents. Iirc I saw it in one of the videos. But, I think for some reason they limit the Sport interiors to the black.

The Sport 2.0T is going to be a good performance car for the money. Speed and handling should be as good as an Audi A6 for about $20k less. Not as fancy as an Audi, of course, but for performance probably just as good. In fact, since it weighs c. 400 pounds less than an A6, it might be faster.

sda

It's a bit premature but the Sport 2.0 is on my list for my next car. Everything that I see and read about it is giving me positive vibes. The timing will be good as I have less than a year to payoff my Accord and my daughter will need a car in that timeframe. As I've mentioned before we may give the Accord to my in laws and give their '03 Camry to my daughter. No promises yet as the plan can change.

benjaminh

For a little bit more money, the EXL 2.0 10AT is going to be nice. That one has the 10-speaker 450 watt sound system. But I don't need the power of the 2.0. I'm sure the 1.5 will be enough for me, since the 2.4 DI is enough for me now.

stickguy

I agree that the 1.5l is going to be plenty of engine for me most likely. The only reason I would need the Sport is if I wanted the manual, but the 1.5 sport is missing too many features, and the 2.0t sport is likely to be too expensive. But we shall see.'

good news, the EX 1.5l should be the volume model, so easy to find at least.

benjaminh

Yes. Starting the first day they go on sale, there should be lots of LX, EX, and EXL CVTs. If you like the CVT well enough, that is, and can live without a manual for a while.

stickguy

I get it in my head to go back to the manual, but at this point, not sure if I should. Might just wimp out, do the AT, and at some point get a toy that would be a manual. We shall see.

sda

benjaminh said:

For a little bit more money, the EXL 2.0 10AT is going to be nice. That one has the 10-speaker 450 watt sound system. But I don't need the power of the 2.0. I'm sure the 1.5 will be enough for me, since the 2.4 DI is enough for me now.

Good point as I find the 2.4 not lacking, love the mpg and only rarely wish I had the V6.
The 1.5 has better hp/torque than the 2.4 so that should be fine.

benjaminh

Hondaprojason on 2018 Accord...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KVrCdvRd30

stickguy

Honda certainly did go all in on the little tricks and stuff. Looks nice. Still think the 19" wheels are overkill!

benjaminh

That jason guy certainly is enthusiastic. A bit much maybe, but he knows his stuff. I agree on the 19" wheels. Way too much for me. I'm also mixed on the designs of almost all of Honda's wheels in the last few years, and esp. the Touring/Sport Wheels in this generation. They are ok, I guess, but....I actually like the LX and EX/EXL wheels better. But I like VW's wheels more. Or Acura's. But, with all the good stuff going on with the Accord, I'm not going to let some slightly weird wheels get in my way, that is, when the time comes to buy—which is probably a few years off for me. But just maybe, next summer, if the deal is amazing....

benjaminh

Hmmm. I guess the Sport and Touring wheels are different this time around. I don't need 19" tires, but I do like the design of the Sport wheels, but the Touring I'm so-so on at this point.

benjaminh

KBB's full report on the Accord....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDMuK_9KtaE&feature=push-u&attr_tag=QqKSVMdsCxaKDFNt-6

benjaminh

msrp for 2018 Accord EX Sensing CVT $27,470
msrp for 2017 Accord EX Sensing CVT $27,630

So a small price drop of $160. I was guessing there would be an increase of $500-$700 on this model.

The Accord Sport 1.5 with the 6 speed manual comes in at $25,780. Interesting is that now the Sport CVT is exactly the same price. Used to be that there was an $800 upcharge for the auto. That's a good deal, although only if you want large tires that will be expensive to replace someday.

This means that one of the other good deals in the lineup is the Sport 2.0T 10AT, which comes in at 30,310.

benjaminh

Edmunds itself likes the 2018 Accord....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk64Yt4tD7M

benjaminh

Motor Trend....

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/accord/2018/2018-honda-accord-first-test/

"The richness of the interior materials, the Audi-esque feel of the switchgear, and the open airiness afforded by the thinner A-pillars and dramatically lowered instrument panel mass hark back to the days of the go-kart-like Hondas. Seabaugh cautioned; “Way to go Honda—you just made Acura irrelevant.” Senior features editor Lieberman summed up our consensus view: “The new Accord feels like Hondas of old when Honda’s gave you that special something, that little extra, that secret sauce, that X factor. I have no qualms declaring the new Accord the best car in its class—the best in some other classes, too.”

But, also According to MT, the brakes of the new Accord aren't as good as the current generation. And acceleration with the 1.5 is the same as the new Camry with the 2.4. And the Camry's brakes are better....

"the 1.5-liter turbo was tasked with matching the naturally aspirated 2.4-liter’s performance while improving its fuel economy, and danged if the team didn’t dart the tiny circle once again: 0-60 mph in 7.6 seconds, with the quarter falling 15.9 seconds at 89.3 mph versus our 2013 2.4-liter CVT’s performance of 7.6 and 15.9 at 90.2. That’s greater precision than we can reasonably expect from successive cars rolling off the same assembly line. But the new base car clearly eclipses the old one in handling, with lateral grip of 0.81g versus 0.78 and a figure-eight time of 27.7 seconds at 0.61g versus 28.1 and 0.60. Braking from 60 mph inexplicably trails the 166-pound heavier 2013 car, 135 to 124 feet. And as if to prove these guys are all copying off each other’s papers, the new (315-pound heavier) Camry 2.5-liter’s performance specs are an almost perfect overlay of the Accord’s: 7.6 and 15.9 seconds at 90.2 mph, 0.81g, 27.3 seconds at 0.62g, and 122 ft."

benjaminh

Motor Trend says that the 2018 Accord 2.0T 10AT goes 0-60 in 5.7 seconds.

benjaminh

My guess is that Honda is underestimating the highway mpg of the new Accord, as they did with the new Civic a couple of years ago. The Civic is rated at 42 on the highway, but there are people over at CivicX who are reporting as much as 46 mpg on the highway....

http://www.civicx.com/threads/what-is-your-best-mpg-on-a-full-tank-of-gas.15886/#post-292279

The Accord weighs about 300 pounds more than the Civic, but the engine basically is a stronger turbo version of the 1.5 found in the Civic. And at highway speeds wouldn't the turbo pretty much be shut off in most situations. Then you'll be driving down the highway with a 1.5 compared to the 2.4 in the current Accord. And yet they say the mpg is only up by 2. I usually beat by 1-4 mpg the 36 mpg rating in my 2016 Accord, and I think the same will be true for the 2018 Accord, which is rated at 38 on the highway, but will probably get at least 40 in most situations.

ab348

Interesting takes, even with the typical auto journo ebullience of a new model introduction. It is disappointing that the Edmunds review is so unfailingly positive in all respects - surely there is something not totally praise-worthy. At least MT of all people noted some chassis tweaks needed and road noise issues. I personally do not like the Ninja-style wheels though they seem to be commonplace these days with some makes. Still, it is a good-looking car except for the largely open lower front air intake and what I find to be an off-looking character line that starts in the front of the rocker panel. And if the noise issues are not too intrusive it seems to be a very strong offering. Hopefully a full test will be forthcoming soon.

benjaminh

Car and Driver mentioned one of my concerns for the 2018 Accord—reduced rear visibility. It's supposed to be ok, but not as good as the current generation.

Acceleration with the 1.5T is also a bit of a letdown. I figured that with the turbo + the weight loss of more than 100 pounds that the new Accord would be slightly faster than the old one. But it's just the same 0-60. And the brakes for the 2018 apparently aren't quite as good. Hmmm. Well, can't win em all...

akirby

benjaminh said:

My guess is that Honda is underestimating the highway mpg of the new Accord, as they did with the new Civic a couple of years ago. The Civic is rated at 42 on the highway, but there are people over at CivicX who are reporting as much as 46 mpg on the highway....

Except Honda doesn't "estimate" mpg - it's based on EPA testing. Sometimes the real world mpg for some drivers turns out better than the EPA test but it's not an estimate.

akirby

benjaminh said:

Car and Driver mentioned one of my concerns for the 2018 Accord—reduced rear visibility. It's supposed to be ok, but not as good as the current generation.

Ok, please explain why rear visibility is such an issue? You can clearly see cars behind you from the inside rear view mirror and you can clearly see behind you and to the side using the side mirrors. As long as you properly adjust your mirrors there is no such thing as a blind spot.

I don't get it.

stickguy

Brakes is more likely a tire issue. But overall sounds positive. The performance is fine by me, especially with the fantastic MPG. Looks like the driving experience is going to be good too, a nice change over my sonata (aka Korean Buick).

Pretty good pricing on the EX at least. By Christmas, will be able to roll one of them for $25k and .9% financing most likely!

ab348

TTAC of all places posted what comes across as a more balanced review:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/10/2018-honda-accord-first-drive-like-not-honda-will-sell-lot/

benjaminh

akirby said:

benjaminh said:

My guess is that Honda is underestimating the highway mpg of the new Accord, as they did with the new Civic a couple of years ago. The Civic is rated at 42 on the highway, but there are people over at CivicX who are reporting as much as 46 mpg on the highway....

Except Honda doesn't "estimate" mpg - it's based on EPA testing. Sometimes the real world mpg for some drivers turns out better than the EPA test but it's not an estimate.

EPA only tests a small percentage of cars for mpg. Mostly this is left to the manufacturers under epa guidelines. But as you may recall, some years ago Hyundai "cheated" on their epa tests, and had to revise mpg numbers downward. Similar things happened with BMW, Mini, etc. Honda seems to be more conservative in the way they do the epa tests, meaning that people are maybe more likely to exceed the tests. Some Civics are getting close to 50 on the highway. And the new Camry got 45 on the highway by one test, and so it is also getting higher than its epa rating with some drivers in some conditions.

benjaminh

akirby said:

benjaminh said:

Car and Driver mentioned one of my concerns for the 2018 Accord—reduced rear visibility. It's supposed to be ok, but not as good as the current generation.

Ok, please explain why rear visibility is such an issue? You can clearly see cars behind you from the inside rear view mirror and you can clearly see behind you and to the side using the side mirrors. As long as you properly adjust your mirrors there is no such thing as a blind spot.

I don't get it.

Obviously we'll agree to disagree on this one. Are you the one who once drove the truck? Great. I didn't. Just a preference. Car and Driver mentioned it too.

explorerx4

Just back from a 1650 mile weekend in the Fusion.
It has the softest suspension of any vehicle I've owned in while, but it made driving over some of the bad interstate roads in PA/NY easier. There is a lot of progress being made on them, though.
Averaged 32 mpg for the whole trip, trunk was full for 3/4 of the trip and had 4 people in the car for a 1/3 of it.
Most of the trip @70-75 mph.
A week ago Sunday, I had just over 5K on the car, now at 7K+.

benjaminh

EPA only tests a small percentage of cars for mpg. Mostly this is left to the manufacturers under epa guidelines. But as you may recall, some years ago Hyundai "cheated" on their epa tests, and had to revise mpg numbers downward. Similar things happened with BMW, Mini, etc. Honda seems to be more conservative in the way they do the epa tests, meaning that people are maybe more likely to exceed the tests. Some Civics are getting close to 50 on the highway. And the new Camry got 45 on the highway by one test, and so it is also getting higher than its epa numbers with some drivers in some conditions.

akirby

benjaminh said:

EPA only tests a small percentage of cars for mpg. Mostly this is left to the manufacturers under epa guidelines. But as you may recall, some years ago Hyundai "cheated" on their epa tests, and had to revise mpg numbers downward. Similar things happened with BMW, Mini, etc. Honda seems to be more conservative in the way they do the epa tests, meaning that people are maybe more likely to exceed the tests. Some Civics are getting close to 50 on the highway. And the new Camry got 45 on the highway by one test, and so it is also getting higher than its epa numbers with some drivers in some conditions.

Have you seen the EPA test procedure? There isn't much room for variation by the driver. Maybe 0.5 mpg at the most. The issue with Hyundai is they used the wrong constant value for either aero drag and/or weight (can't remember exactly) and for Ford they (legally) used the values from another vehicle. So unless Honda is using the wrong constant value to produce a lower mpg (which doesn't make sense) the variation in MPG is not on purpose.

roadburner

akirby said:

benjaminh said:

Car and Driver mentioned one of my concerns for the 2018 Accord—reduced rear visibility. It's supposed to be ok, but not as good as the current generation.

Ok, please explain why rear visibility is such an issue? You can clearly see cars behind you from the inside rear view mirror and you can clearly see behind you and to the side using the side mirrors. As long as you properly adjust your mirrors there is no such thing as a blind spot.

I don't get it.

I agree 100%; I try to teach my clients how to adjust their mirrors properly during either the first or second delivery- but most would rather not have to deal with it. Much like te brain-dead moron who told me that when he gets into a car he doesn't wan to have to do anything.

akirby

benjaminh said:

Just a preference. Car and Driver mentioned it too.

I get that it's something you notice, but I still don't understand why people say it's a safety issue unless they actually believe that you can have a car in your "blind spot" and not be able to see it leading to an accident. Which is complete nonsense.

stickguy

Cars often vary in real world MPG, because people drive differently than in The test loop. Some cars a tuned to that test, others may not be. Plus the conditions are artificial.

suydam

akirby said:

benjaminh said:

Just a preference. Car and Driver mentioned it too.

I get that it's something you notice, but I still don't understand why people say it's a safety issue unless they actually believe that you can have a car in your "blind spot" and not be able to see it leading to an accident. Which is complete nonsense.

Don't see why you need to insult people who think differently than you. It's a safety issue with me and I don't think I'm the only one. If it's not an issue for you, fine. People look for different features in the cars they drive.

nyccarguy

I regularly get 19.5 mpg and am damn proud of it!

@explorerx4 - glad to see your Fusion did so well for the long haul trip.

As I've said before, there isn't a "bad" car in this segment. As hype continues to build for the ALL NEW 2018 Accord and 2018 Camry, the other cars in this segment can be fantastic values. Just as an example (I know it's not everybody's cup of tea), my local dealer has a 2017 Fusion Sport with an MSRP of $35,685 listed with a sale price of $30,585 ($1,500 dealer discount, $500 retail NY Bonus cash, $2,150 Retail Customer Cash, $500 EcoBoost Cash, $500 Ford Credit Red Carpet Cash).

stickguy

And a year from now, can buy it for $20k!

akirby

suydam said:

Don't see why you need to insult people who think differently than you. It's a safety issue with me and I don't think I'm the only one. If it's not an issue for you, fine. People look for different features in the cars they drive.

Where did I insult anyone? I simply said the IDEA that you can't see a car in your "blind spot" is nonsense.

I understand that you may have a preference for a particular vehicle based on what you see in the cockpit (or any other features, styles, designs, etc.) and that's perfectly fine.

I just can't find any scientific basis to say that it's a safety issue. I think it's a common misconception because people don't understand how to properly adjust their mirrors.

nyccarguy

stickguy said:

And a year from now, can buy it for $20k!

(still brand new on the dealer's lot)

stickguy

It goes beyond that, which IMO over simplifies. Of course you can do without (and I have a car with and one without). But BLIS is a fantastic extra "set of eyes". Especially in the dark, rain, and when on a road with lots of lane changes. You also get warning if someone is coming up really fast on you.

I like that you don't have to check mirrors as often to know if a car is coming up, so can focus on what's ahead, but you get peripheral vision notice that something is out there. And there have been times in low visibility conditions some dope is running without lights, and nearly impossible to see.

I think of it as the next evolution of the mirror. You could eliminate convex (concave?) drivers side ones, and "objects closer" passenger ones too.

Not sure if you every really drove with the feature, but I know plenty of people that once they get used to it, never want to go back. And if it is too "on my lawn" for anyone, there is a switch to turn it off!

ab348

nyccarguy said:

stickguy said:

And a year from now, can buy it for $20k!

(still brand new on the dealer's lot)

If only... remember the new 2015 Mustang GT someone posted here a while back. The price seems to go UP...

I quite liked the Fusion based on the one I test drive. I imagine the Sport would be lots of fun.

akirby

stickguy said:

Not sure if you every really drove with the feature, but I know plenty of people that once they get used to it, never want to go back. And if it is too "on my lawn" for anyone, there is a switch to turn it off!

Not sure if that was directed at me or not, but I never implied BLIS wasn't necessary. I think it's a great feature. Would not want a vehicle without it. Ford's cross traffic alert is even more useful as it tells you when vehicles are coming that you can't see when backing out of a parking spot.

My point is simply that while rear visibility may be an aesthetic preference it really doesn't impact actual driver safety.

stickguy

yes, the cross path is great. Got use out of that yesterday. Was parked next to a tall car that was too close, and when I started backing out, someone came around a blind corner, and the alert went off before I could possibly see the car. Usually that and blind spot are packaged together (not always though).

berri

It will be interesting to see how the Camry v Accord thing turns out. Can't just go by specs and reviews. Need to actually drive them to see how they work for you and how efficiently the space specs are utilized. Personally, I'm guessing the Camry and Accord sales ratio will probably stay similar. Different cars for different driver preferences. However, they may both take share from other competitors like Fusion or Malibu depending on how aggressively competitor's deal offers respond. Looking forward to how it all plays out in the marketplace.

explorerx4

Also from Motortrend for you Accord geeks.
http://www.motortrend.com/news/4-cool-2018-honda-accord-features/