More like the over-caffeinated teen driver and his or her cronies. I love the Touring model. Dual exhaust tucked up under the fairing is a classy departure from giant exhaust pipes on 130 hp (avg) Civics of yore with a hole cut in the fairing, then enlarged for giant exhaust tip and low restriction muffler that made the engine sound like a swarm of bees/wasps/angry horseflies.
So I got to ask, what makes a horsefly angry? What makes them happy?
@stickguy, Not sure if your wife is going to like going form an RDX to a CR-V. My wife has only gone up the ladder, 2004 Escape Limited, 2009 Limited, 2013 Titanium, 2016 Lincoln MKC. When she got the 2009, the 2004 was passed on to our oldest. When she got the 2013, 2004 went from #1 to #2 and #1 got the 2009. When she got the 2016, the 2013 went to #2.
My 12 and 15 year old want a Ball Python for X-Mas, and how come "Python" or "Anaconda" have not been scooped up by Lambo or Kia??? Can you imagine? Kia Anaconda??advert: "Quickly slithers around EPA guidelines". Same would go for the Volkswagen Viper TDI. LOL.
My car has never obtained anywhere near EPA claims, even with my 79 year old mother in the car on a relatively empty, flat interstate (I-40 in NC) where any throttle input would bring forth a tongue-lashing.
More like the over-caffeinated teen driver and his or her cronies. I love the Touring model. Dual exhaust tucked up under the fairing is a classy departure from giant exhaust pipes on 130 hp (avg) Civics of yore with a hole cut in the fairing, then enlarged for giant exhaust tip and low restriction muffler that made the engine sound like a swarm of bees/wasps/angry horseflies.
So I got to ask, what makes a horsefly angry? What makes them happy?
I did grow up next to a Horse farm, and worked tere to buy my Diamond Back 20" BMX bike. Horse flies are like F-22 Raptors, as swatting/shooting and missing is not recommended, just cars and jets. Also, NO GIANT WINGS ON CIVICS.
Bingo! They bite every mammal with eager anger, but they are normally found around horses...and due to their size in addition, the Horsefly name stuck.
More like the over-caffeinated teen driver and his or her cronies. I love the Touring model. Dual exhaust tucked up under the fairing is a classy departure from giant exhaust pipes on 130 hp (avg) Civics of yore with a hole cut in the fairing, then enlarged for giant exhaust tip and low restriction muffler that made the engine sound like a swarm of bees/wasps/angry horseflies.
So I got to ask, what makes a horsefly angry? What makes them happy?
I did grow up next to a Horse farm, and worked tere to buy my Diamond Back 20" BMX bike. Horse flies are like F-22 Raptors, as swatting/shooting and missing is not recommended, just cars and jets. Also, NO GIANT WINGS ON CIVICS.
Bingo! They bite every mammal with eager anger, but they are normally found around horses...and due to their size in addition, the Horsefly name stuck.
More like the over-caffeinated teen driver and his or her cronies. I love the Touring model. Dual exhaust tucked up under the fairing is a classy departure from giant exhaust pipes on 130 hp (avg) Civics of yore with a hole cut in the fairing, then enlarged for giant exhaust tip and low restriction muffler that made the engine sound like a swarm of bees/wasps/angry horseflies.
So I got to ask, what makes a horsefly angry? What makes them happy?
I did grow up next to a Horse farm, and worked tere to buy my Diamond Back 20" BMX bike. Horse flies are like F-22 Raptors, as swatting/shooting and missing is not recommended, just cars and jets. Also, NO GIANT WINGS ON CIVICS.
Bingo! They bite every mammal with eager anger, but they are normally found around horses (and large Swimming Pools near Horse Farms too). With their size considered as well, the Horsefly name stuck.
More like the over-caffeinated teen driver and his or her cronies. I love the Touring model. Dual exhaust tucked up under the fairing is a classy departure from giant exhaust pipes on 130 hp (avg) Civics of yore with a hole cut in the fairing, then enlarged for giant exhaust tip and low restriction muffler that made the engine sound like a swarm of bees/wasps/angry horseflies.
So I got to ask, what makes a horsefly angry? What makes them happy?
I did grow up next to a Horse farm, and worked tere to buy my Diamond Back 20" BMX bike. Horse flies are like F-22 Raptors, as swatting/shooting and missing is not recommended, just cars and jets. Also, NO GIANT WINGS ON CIVICS.
Bingo! They bite every mammal with eager anger, but they are normally found around horses...and due to their size in addition, the Horsefly name stuck.
More like the over-caffeinated teen driver and his or her cronies. I love the Touring model. Dual exhaust tucked up under the fairing is a classy departure from giant exhaust pipes on 130 hp (avg) Civics of yore with a hole cut in the fairing, then enlarged for giant exhaust tip and low restriction muffler that made the engine sound like a swarm of bees/wasps/angry horseflies.
So I got to ask, what makes a horsefly angry? What makes them happy?
I did grow up next to a Horse farm, and worked tere to buy my Diamond Back 20" BMX bike. Horse flies are like F-22 Raptors, as swatting/shooting and missing is not recommended, just cars and jets. Also, NO GIANT WINGS ON CIVICS.
Bingo! They bite every mammal with eager anger, but they are normally found around horses...and due to their size in addition, the Horsefly name stuck.
More like the over-caffeinated teen driver and his or her cronies. I love the Touring model. Dual exhaust tucked up under the fairing is a classy departure from giant exhaust pipes on 130 hp (avg) Civics of yore with a hole cut in the fairing, then enlarged for giant exhaust tip and low restriction muffler that made the engine sound like a swarm of bees/wasps/angry horseflies.
So I got to ask, what makes a horsefly angry? What makes them happy?
I did grow up next to a Horse farm, and worked tere to buy my Diamond Back 20" BMX bike. Horse flies are like F-22 Raptors, as swatting/shooting and missing is not recommended, just cars and jets. Also, NO GIANT WINGS ON CIVICS.
Bingo! They bite every mammal with equal anger, but they are normally found around horses (and large Swimming Pools near Horse Farms too. I can personally attest to that). With their size considered as well, the Horsefly name stuck.
Hey the next tiny Honda with a 1.2 liter turbo should be called the HHF, or Honda Horsefly due mainly to the high revving and pitched engine, etc. Built on Fit platform w/no backseat, stick only in Europe, CVT available in NorthAmerica. LOL
I got a big envelope in the mail today from Honda. Thought it must have something to do with the RDX. Turns out it was an Accord brochure, because I had signed up way back when to get updates on the Accord before it came out. They included a pretty cool poster with pictures of every generation of the Accord. Man that thing grew since the 70s!
I got a big envelope in the mail today from Honda. Thought it must have something to do with the RDX. Turns out it was an Accord brochure, because I had signed up way back when to get updates on the Accord before it came out. They included a pretty cool poster with pictures of every generation of the Accord. Man that thing grew since the 70s!
I received the same. Too bad they didn't show the first generation Accord hatchback, as that was the first Accord '76. It snickered at $3995, a/c about $500 extra. I'm amazed that I have yet to see a new '18 Accord in the wild and the Charlotte area likes its cars.
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
that is plenty for a relatively lightweight midsize sedan running FWD. Plus it is the torque that you will really notice most of the time. It is going to be quite speedy. But certainly seems they tuned it for low end grunt not high end speed.
The Fusion must have a pretty good structure because you can get an MKZ with a 400 HP twin turbo. Saw a new Camry while walking yesterday. Had 2 exhaust pipes on the right side, and a black filler piece on the left. Looks kind a cheap, but not awful, as it is tucked in a bit.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
The Fusion must have a pretty good structure because you can get an MKZ with a 400 HP twin turbo. Saw a new Camry while walking yesterday. Had 2 exhaust pipes on the right side, and a black filler piece on the left. Looks kind a cheap, but not awful, as it is tucked in a bit.
That is EXACTLY what I saw on an Auto Carrier Truck on the highway. It had two exhaust pipes on the right side, and empty holes on the left side fairing. I hate that too. It is also a permanent reminder for the buyer that you didn't get the V6. You know, even the lowly Nissan Altima has dual pipes on the 2.5, and it used to have dual pipes on the right only, but the fairing wasn't cut for imaginary pipes on the left.
@nyccarguy not an fan of the new Acord interior felt nice tho! camory is ok but not crazy about that one to as whell! best looking one to me would have to be the Ford Fuzian now and that one has bin out since 2013!
I just sat in the Accord briefly. The interior looked fine to me. Typical modern style. Would have to drive it to see how the ergonomics worked in real life.
And I agree that the Fusion has always been a sharp looking car with a well done interior. And simple/class/timeless is actually something I prefer, over flashy/gimmicky. As long as the right features and tech are built in!
Both the 350 hp Fusion sport and 400 hp MKZ are AWD. They offered the 2015 Edge sport on the same platform with the 350 hp 2.7L ecoboost in FWD form but only for one year. Without AWD it requires a lot of torque management.
You know, our cars (mostly 2010 to present) had a revolution of styling like for example the 2011 Sonata 2.0 turbo w/274 hp was on the cover of Car and Driver and other mainstream mags did too. Then my car came out in December 2010 and also had many accolades for its styling and available options.
Now the new edgy styling cars are awesome, and our cars are relegated to cabs. It is how the market works. No one says NICE CAR anymore except me. My car runs awesome,is paid for. Has low miles, and is still under b2b warranty. I still look at it, and when I detail it and drive around the block some folks nod their heads as I go by. That Feels Great!
I posted this a few days ago on C&C. My wife's 2017 Civic (EX-T) just passed it's 6 month anniversary with the mileage above. She does a lot of really short trips, so I've got to get it out on the highway occasionally to get it up to temp and let it gallop. I'm guessing she will have this car for quite a while. So far, she loves it and I'm pleasantly surprised at how well it drives and rides. Huge improvement over my old 2002 Civic.
I think you are low on 2.0 sport, since rumor was that it would come loaded so might price like an EXL. I hope you are right on the 1.5 EX.
Really need at least equipment levels released so I can figure out which ones fit my needs. Though pricing will certainly come in handy.
And, since you're as obsessed with seats as I am with visibility, I have to tell you that Honda's leather seats are better. It's not just that they are covered with different material, it's that they are more comfortable and more precisely contoured. So, because of your understandable focus on seats, I think you're going to need to try the EXL.
My wife's 2013 EXL Accord is more comfortable than my 2016 Accord EX. Don't get me wrong, the 2016 Accord EX is comfortable, with good seats covered in nice fabric, but the EXL is the next level.
Ditto, I'm afraid, with the sound systems. My 2016 Accord EX sound system is adequate, but....My wife's 2013 Accord EXL's sound system is actually nice. Easy for me to tell the difference. EX=sometimes slightly tinny and harsh EXL=richer and nicer sound, with much better bass.
The bottom line is that while an EX Accord is a good car for the money, and drives just as well, when it comes to seat comfort and sound, the Accord EXL is just better. But, obviously, you pay for that.
And, since you're as obsessed with seats as I am with visibility, I have to tell you that Honda's leather seats are better. It's not just that they are covered with different material, it's that they are more comfortable and more precisely contoured. So, because of your understandable focus on seats, I think you're going to need to try the EXL.
My wife's 2013 EXL Accord is more comfortable than my 2016 Accord EX. Don't get me wrong, the 2016 Accord EX is comfortable, with good seats covered in nice fabric, but the EXL is the next level.
Ditto, I'm afraid, with the sound systems. My 2016 Accord EX sound system is adequate, but....My wife's 2013 Accord EXL's sound system is actually nice. Easy for me to tell the difference. EX=sometimes slightly tinny and harsh EXL=richer and nicer sound, with much better bass.
The bottom line is that while an EX Accord is a good car for the money, and drives just as well, when it comes to seat comfort and sound, the Accord EXL is just better. But, obviously, you pay for that.
And, since you're as obsessed with seats as I am with visibility, I have to tell you that Honda's leather seats are better. It's not just that they are covered with different material, it's that they are more comfortable and more precisely contoured. So, because of your understandable focus on seats, I think you're going to need to try the EXL.
My wife's 2013 EXL Accord is more comfortable than my 2016 Accord EX. Don't get me wrong, the 2016 Accord EX is comfortable, with good seats covered in nice fabric, but the EXL is the next level.
Ditto, I'm afraid, with the sound systems. My 2016 Accord EX sound system is adequate, but....My wife's 2013 Accord EXL's sound system is actually nice. Easy for me to tell the difference. EX=sometimes slightly tinny and harsh EXL=richer and nicer sound, with much better bass.
The bottom line is that while an EX Accord is a good car for the money, and drives just as well, when it comes to seat comfort and sound, the Accord EXL is just better. But, obviously, you pay for that.
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 mpg with some drivers in some conditions.
Well, as I got the oil changed on my wife's 2013 Accord today, and the tired rotated and balanced, I took a brief look at a 2018 Accord LX, inside and out.
In terms of the looks on the outside, I guess I'd give it a B+ overall. It's a little weird, and a little edgy from all angles, but that's probably better for sales than sticking with something that looks like past Accords. It definitely looks "all new," and goes right up to looking freaky without quite getting there imho. Even though it's only about half an inch wider, and about half an inch lower, the proportions are a little bit different—and in a good way. The front, as many have said, is blunt. If form is supposed to follow function in good design, maybe it tried to do that to some degree, with lots of air for the engine, and clear sight lines for the standard Sensing.
This was an LX, and so I was prepared for the interior to be a letdown, but overall I'd say it was impressive for the c. $24k list price. It didn't seem cheap anywhere. Not necessarily expensive, but not cheap. My parents own a 2013 Accord LX, and I'd say it was a step up almost everywhere from that car. For instance, the seats were nicer and more comfortable, the steering wheel and dash seemed nicer, more functional, and felt better, and in terms of standard features it seemed better.
Everyone has gone on and on to a silly degree about Honda putting the volume knob back, but actually that's just one of five high-quality silver-colored metal knobs on the dash. They do seem more functional an intuitive. Honda has gone from last place in knobs (my 2016 Accord doesn't have any knobs) to first place, and I think it works. The knobs have a quality feel. A few pages ago I was writing about that book about the 1996 Ford Taurus, and how they put extra quality in that car, including in the little features. This is another car that has that kind of attention to detail.
As with the Camry, Fusion, etc. I think c. 40%+ of all 2018 Accords sold are going to be the base LX model. And in terms of that, I think Honda probably has a winner, although the styling still might flop, as it did with the 96 Taurus. But in terms of the quality and performance of the car, it's got one of the biggest bangs for the buck out there.
It used to be that if you got the Accord LX, as with my parents' 2013, or my 2002 LX, that it was a nice car, but had obvious cost cutting. You have to start with the wheels and tires, where previous LXs have had H-rated 16-inch tires that are rather narrow. But the new LX gets V-rated 225/50R17 tires with alloy wheels, the same turbo engine as the EXL or even the 1.5 Touring, etc.
Trunk space was very big, as mentioned, and back seat legroom was noticeably larger.
I know this is a controversial point even to mention, but rear visibility behind the driver is a little better than I thought it would be (looks like you can kinda use that rear quarter window if you need to), but obviously it's not as good as past Accords.
The salesperson talked up the power of the new turbo, but from tests it doesn't seem to be any faster than the engine of my 2016, and so I took that with the grain of salt. On the other hand, I think my 2016 is quite peppy, and so I'm sure it's good enough. And maybe in terms of "feel" it is better.
It did seem clear that Honda spent a fortune on this car. I'm still not sure if it'll be a success or not. But my guess is yes....
Well, as I got the oil changed on my wife's 2013 Accord today, and the tired rotated and balanced, I took a brief look at a 2018 Accord LX, inside and out.
In terms of the looks on the outside, I guess I'd give it a B+ overall. It's a little weird, and a little edgy from all angles, but that's probably better for sales than sticking with something that looks like past Accords. It definitely looks "all new," and goes right up to looking freaky without quite getting there imho. Even though it's only about half an inch wider, and about half an inch lower, the proportions are a little bit different—and in a good way. The front, as many have said, is blunt. If form is supposed to follow function in good design, maybe it tried to do that to some degree, with lots of air for the engine, and clear sight lines for the standard Sensing.
This was an LX, and so I was prepared for the interior to be a letdown, but overall I'd say it was impressive for the c. $24k list price. It didn't seem cheap anywhere. Not necessarily expensive, but not cheap. My parents own a 2013 Accord LX, and I'd say it was a step up almost everywhere from that car. For instance, the seats were nicer and more comfortable, the steering wheel and dash seemed nicer, more functional, and felt better, and in terms of standard features it seemed better.
Everyone has gone on and on to a silly degree about Honda putting the volume knob back, but actually that's just one of five high-quality silver-colored metal knobs on the dash. They do seem more functional an intuitive. Honda has gone from last place in knobs (my 2016 Accord doesn't have any knobs) to first place, and I think it works. The knobs have a quality feel. A few pages ago I was writing about that book about the 1996 Ford Taurus, and how they put extra quality in that car, including in the little features. This is another car that has that kind of attention to detail.
As with the Camry, Fusion, etc. I think c. 40%+ of all 2018 Accords sold are going to be the base LX model. And in terms of that, I think Honda probably has a winner, although the styling still might flop, as it did with the 96 Taurus. But in terms of the quality and performance of the car, it's got one of the biggest bangs for the buck out there.
It used to be that if you got the Accord LX, as with my parents' 2013, or my 2002 LX, that it was a nice car, but had obvious cost cutting. You have to start with the wheels and tires, where previous LXs have had H-rated 16-inch tires that are rather narrow. But the new LX gets V-rated 225/50R17 tires with alloy wheels, the same turbo engine as the EXL or even the 1.5 Touring, etc.
Trunk space was very big, as mentioned, and back seat legroom was noticeably larger.
I know this is a controversial point even to mention, but rear visibility behind the driver is a little better than I thought it would be (looks like you can kinda use that rear quarter window if you need to), but obviously it's not as good as past Accords.
The salesperson talked up the power of the new turbo, but from tests it doesn't seem to be any faster than the engine of my 2016, and so I took that with the grain of salt. On the other hand, I think my 2016 is quite peppy, and so I'm sure it's good enough. And maybe in terms of "feel" it is better.
It did seem clear that Honda spent a fortune on this car. I'm still not sure if it'll be a success or not. But my guess is yes....
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 mpg with some drivers in some conditions.
The EPA regularly audits vehicles and performs their own testing and compares it to what the mfr reported. The mfrs results have to be very very close to what the EPA gets in their audit tests - I think it's within a 1/2 mpg or so. It's very strict. There is no way a mfr can sandbag a test and report significantly lower mpg. The test parameters are just too strict. And that's the point of the tests - to make them as repeatable as possible regardless of who is doing the testing.
The difference comes from some cars being optimized for the test, and others better for real world use.
People say that all the time, but there really isn't a way to "optimize" a car for the test that doesn't also translate to real world performance (legally).
What happens with small turbo engines is that they have a wider range of mpg than NA engines. When driven the right way (like the EPA test) they can return higher mpg (in the real world as well). But if you drive them hard you can get worse mpg. So a 2.0 ecoboost might have a range of 17-25 whereas a NA 3.5 might be 19-23. They're more sensitive to driving style, fuel octane/quality, etc.
But that's not a case of optimizing it for the EPA test - that's the way the engine operates all the time.
The Fusion must have a pretty good structure because you can get an MKZ with a 400 HP twin turbo. Saw a new Camry while walking yesterday. Had 2 exhaust pipes on the right side, and a black filler piece on the left. Looks kind a cheap, but not awful, as it is tucked in a bit.
Even with the same base chassis, the MKZ could have upgraded:
sway bars
cross members
stiffeners
and more....
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The difference comes from some cars being optimized for the test, and others better for real world use.
People say that all the time, but there really isn't a way to "optimize" a car for the test that doesn't also translate to real world performance (legally).
What happens with small turbo engines is that they have a wider range of mpg than NA engines. When driven the right way (like the EPA test) they can return higher mpg (in the real world as well). But if you drive them hard you can get worse mpg. So a 2.0 ecoboost might have a range of 17-25 whereas a NA 3.5 might be 19-23. They're more sensitive to driving style, fuel octane/quality, etc.
But that's not a case of optimizing it for the EPA test - that's the way the engine operates all the time.
What about the TDI optimization by VW for the EPA tests
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Well, as I got the oil changed on my wife's 2013 Accord today, and the tired rotated and balanced, I took a brief look at a 2018 Accord LX, inside and out.
In terms of the looks on the outside, I guess I'd give it a B+ overall. It's a little weird, and a little edgy from all angles, but that's probably better for sales than sticking with something that looks like past Accords. It definitely looks "all new," and goes right up to looking freaky without quite getting there imho. Even though it's only about half an inch wider, and about half an inch lower, the proportions are a little bit different—and in a good way. The front, as many have said, is blunt. If form is supposed to follow function in good design, maybe it tried to do that to some degree, with lots of air for the engine, and clear sight lines for the standard Sensing.
This was an LX, and so I was prepared for the interior to be a letdown, but overall I'd say it was impressive for the c. $24k list price. It didn't seem cheap anywhere. Not necessarily expensive, but not cheap. My parents own a 2013 Accord LX, and I'd say it was a step up almost everywhere from that car. For instance, the seats were nicer and more comfortable, the steering wheel and dash seemed nicer, more functional, and felt better, and in terms of standard features it seemed better.
Everyone has gone on and on to a silly degree about Honda putting the volume knob back, but actually that's just one of five high-quality silver-colored metal knobs on the dash. They do seem more functional an intuitive. Honda has gone from last place in knobs (my 2016 Accord doesn't have any knobs) to first place, and I think it works. The knobs have a quality feel. A few pages ago I was writing about that book about the 1996 Ford Taurus, and how they put extra quality in that car, including in the little features. This is another car that has that kind of attention to detail.
As with the Camry, Fusion, etc. I think c. 40%+ of all 2018 Accords sold are going to be the base LX model. And in terms of that, I think Honda probably has a winner, although the styling still might flop, as it did with the 96 Taurus. But in terms of the quality and performance of the car, it's got one of the biggest bangs for the buck out there.
It used to be that if you got the Accord LX, as with my parents' 2013, or my 2002 LX, that it was a nice car, but had obvious cost cutting. You have to start with the wheels and tires, where previous LXs have had H-rated 16-inch tires that are rather narrow. But the new LX gets V-rated 225/50R17 tires with alloy wheels, the same turbo engine as the EXL or even the 1.5 Touring, etc.
Trunk space was very big, as mentioned, and back seat legroom was noticeably larger.
I know this is a controversial point even to mention, but rear visibility behind the driver is a little better than I thought it would be (looks like you can kinda use that rear quarter window if you need to), but obviously it's not as good as past Accords.
The salesperson talked up the power of the new turbo, but from tests it doesn't seem to be any faster than the engine of my 2016, and so I took that with the grain of salt. On the other hand, I think my 2016 is quite peppy, and so I'm sure it's good enough. And maybe in terms of "feel" it is better.
It did seem clear that Honda spent a fortune on this car. I'm still not sure if it'll be a success or not. But my guess is yes....
I had a 1996 Taurus totally decked out with the 200HP V6 (vs the base model 160HP) It had dual exhaust (My thing) and the brown leather interior was BEAUTIFUL. I actually believe it would still look great in another car today, and no one would ever know....(with LED everything and modern features of course). Hmm. Funny you mentioned that.The 1986 Taurus received accolades too. There was even a walk on of the car in "The Cone Heads" movie that a boy was not going to take their daughter to prom in the boys late 70's "s%$tbox" and let him take their "safer alloy superstructure" modern car instead.
The difference comes from some cars being optimized for the test, and others better for real world use.
People say that all the time, but there really isn't a way to "optimize" a car for the test that doesn't also translate to real world performance (legally).
What happens with small turbo engines is that they have a wider range of mpg than NA engines. When driven the right way (like the EPA test) they can return higher mpg (in the real world as well). But if you drive them hard you can get worse mpg. So a 2.0 ecoboost might have a range of 17-25 whereas a NA 3.5 might be 19-23. They're more sensitive to driving style, fuel octane/quality, etc.
But that's not a case of optimizing it for the EPA test - that's the way the engine operates all the time.
What about the TDI optimization by VW for the EPA tests
I mentioned both Hyundai and VW "EPA Optimizations" a couple of texts back.
I mentioned both Hyundai and VW "EPA Optimizations" a couple of texts back.
That was cheating on emissions and a math error.
Of course the mfrs do things to get better EPA MPG ratings. But anything they do will also translate to better mpg on the street as long as the vehicle is driven the same way as the EPA test.
The fact that most people don't drive that way is a different issue altogether. The point is it's almost impossible to game the test to get better or worse mpg without outright cheating.
Comments
My car has never obtained anywhere near EPA claims, even with my 79 year old mother in the car on a relatively empty, flat interstate (I-40 in NC) where any throttle input would bring forth a tongue-lashing.
The kids are NOT getting a snake.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
https://mazdausa.com/vehicles/2018-mazda6
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Saw a new Camry while walking yesterday. Had 2 exhaust pipes on the right side, and a black filler piece on the left. Looks kind a cheap, but not awful, as it is tucked in a bit.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
And I agree that the Fusion has always been a sharp looking car with a well done interior. And simple/class/timeless is actually something I prefer, over flashy/gimmicky. As long as the right features and tech are built in!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Now the new edgy styling cars are awesome, and our cars are relegated to cabs. It is how the market works. No one says NICE CAR anymore except me. My car runs awesome,is paid for. Has low miles, and is still under b2b warranty. I still look at it, and when I detail it and drive around the block some folks nod their heads as I go by. That Feels Great!
My wife's 2013 EXL Accord is more comfortable than my 2016 Accord EX. Don't get me wrong, the 2016 Accord EX is comfortable, with good seats covered in nice fabric, but the EXL is the next level.
Ditto, I'm afraid, with the sound systems. My 2016 Accord EX sound system is adequate, but....My wife's 2013 Accord EXL's sound system is actually nice. Easy for me to tell the difference. EX=sometimes slightly tinny and harsh EXL=richer and nicer sound, with much better bass.
The bottom line is that while an EX Accord is a good car for the money, and drives just as well, when it comes to seat comfort and sound, the Accord EXL is just better. But, obviously, you pay for that.
And, since you're as obsessed with seats as I am with visibility, I have to tell you that Honda's leather seats are better. It's not just that they are covered with different material, it's that they are more comfortable and more precisely contoured. So, because of your understandable focus on seats, I think you're going to need to try the EXL.
My wife's 2013 EXL Accord is more comfortable than my 2016 Accord EX. Don't get me wrong, the 2016 Accord EX is comfortable, with good seats covered in nice fabric, but the EXL is the next level.
Ditto, I'm afraid, with the sound systems. My 2016 Accord EX sound system is adequate, but....My wife's 2013 Accord EXL's sound system is actually nice. Easy for me to tell the difference. EX=sometimes slightly tinny and harsh EXL=richer and nicer sound, with much better bass.
The bottom line is that while an EX Accord is a good car for the money, and drives just as well, when it comes to seat comfort and sound, the Accord EXL is just better. But, obviously, you pay for that.
And, since you're as obsessed with seats as I am with visibility, I have to tell you that Honda's leather seats are better. It's not just that they are covered with different material, it's that they are more comfortable and more precisely contoured. So, because of your understandable focus on seats, I think you're going to need to try the EXL.
My wife's 2013 EXL Accord is more comfortable than my 2016 Accord EX. Don't get me wrong, the 2016 Accord EX is comfortable, with good seats covered in nice fabric, but the EXL is the next level.
Ditto, I'm afraid, with the sound systems. My 2016 Accord EX sound system is adequate, but....My wife's 2013 Accord EXL's sound system is actually nice. Easy for me to tell the difference. EX=sometimes slightly tinny and harsh EXL=richer and nicer sound, with much better bass.
The bottom line is that while an EX Accord is a good car for the money, and drives just as well, when it comes to seat comfort and sound, the Accord EXL is just better. But, obviously, you pay for that.
In terms of the looks on the outside, I guess I'd give it a B+ overall. It's a little weird, and a little edgy from all angles, but that's probably better for sales than sticking with something that looks like past Accords. It definitely looks "all new," and goes right up to looking freaky without quite getting there imho. Even though it's only about half an inch wider, and about half an inch lower, the proportions are a little bit different—and in a good way. The front, as many have said, is blunt. If form is supposed to follow function in good design, maybe it tried to do that to some degree, with lots of air for the engine, and clear sight lines for the standard Sensing.
This was an LX, and so I was prepared for the interior to be a letdown, but overall I'd say it was impressive for the c. $24k list price. It didn't seem cheap anywhere. Not necessarily expensive, but not cheap. My parents own a 2013 Accord LX, and I'd say it was a step up almost everywhere from that car. For instance, the seats were nicer and more comfortable, the steering wheel and dash seemed nicer, more functional, and felt better, and in terms of standard features it seemed better.
Everyone has gone on and on to a silly degree about Honda putting the volume knob back, but actually that's just one of five high-quality silver-colored metal knobs on the dash. They do seem more functional an intuitive. Honda has gone from last place in knobs (my 2016 Accord doesn't have any knobs) to first place, and I think it works. The knobs have a quality feel. A few pages ago I was writing about that book about the 1996 Ford Taurus, and how they put extra quality in that car, including in the little features. This is another car that has that kind of attention to detail.
As with the Camry, Fusion, etc. I think c. 40%+ of all 2018 Accords sold are going to be the base LX model. And in terms of that, I think Honda probably has a winner, although the styling still might flop, as it did with the 96 Taurus. But in terms of the quality and performance of the car, it's got one of the biggest bangs for the buck out there.
It used to be that if you got the Accord LX, as with my parents' 2013, or my 2002 LX, that it was a nice car, but had obvious cost cutting. You have to start with the wheels and tires, where previous LXs have had H-rated 16-inch tires that are rather narrow. But the new LX gets V-rated 225/50R17 tires with alloy wheels, the same turbo engine as the EXL or even the 1.5 Touring, etc.
Trunk space was very big, as mentioned, and back seat legroom was noticeably larger.
I know this is a controversial point even to mention, but rear visibility behind the driver is a little better than I thought it would be (looks like you can kinda use that rear quarter window if you need to), but obviously it's not as good as past Accords.
The salesperson talked up the power of the new turbo, but from tests it doesn't seem to be any faster than the engine of my 2016, and so I took that with the grain of salt. On the other hand, I think my 2016 is quite peppy, and so I'm sure it's good enough. And maybe in terms of "feel" it is better.
It did seem clear that Honda spent a fortune on this car. I'm still not sure if it'll be a success or not. But my guess is yes....
In terms of the looks on the outside, I guess I'd give it a B+ overall. It's a little weird, and a little edgy from all angles, but that's probably better for sales than sticking with something that looks like past Accords. It definitely looks "all new," and goes right up to looking freaky without quite getting there imho. Even though it's only about half an inch wider, and about half an inch lower, the proportions are a little bit different—and in a good way. The front, as many have said, is blunt. If form is supposed to follow function in good design, maybe it tried to do that to some degree, with lots of air for the engine, and clear sight lines for the standard Sensing.
This was an LX, and so I was prepared for the interior to be a letdown, but overall I'd say it was impressive for the c. $24k list price. It didn't seem cheap anywhere. Not necessarily expensive, but not cheap. My parents own a 2013 Accord LX, and I'd say it was a step up almost everywhere from that car. For instance, the seats were nicer and more comfortable, the steering wheel and dash seemed nicer, more functional, and felt better, and in terms of standard features it seemed better.
Everyone has gone on and on to a silly degree about Honda putting the volume knob back, but actually that's just one of five high-quality silver-colored metal knobs on the dash. They do seem more functional an intuitive. Honda has gone from last place in knobs (my 2016 Accord doesn't have any knobs) to first place, and I think it works. The knobs have a quality feel. A few pages ago I was writing about that book about the 1996 Ford Taurus, and how they put extra quality in that car, including in the little features. This is another car that has that kind of attention to detail.
As with the Camry, Fusion, etc. I think c. 40%+ of all 2018 Accords sold are going to be the base LX model. And in terms of that, I think Honda probably has a winner, although the styling still might flop, as it did with the 96 Taurus. But in terms of the quality and performance of the car, it's got one of the biggest bangs for the buck out there.
It used to be that if you got the Accord LX, as with my parents' 2013, or my 2002 LX, that it was a nice car, but had obvious cost cutting. You have to start with the wheels and tires, where previous LXs have had H-rated 16-inch tires that are rather narrow. But the new LX gets V-rated 225/50R17 tires with alloy wheels, the same turbo engine as the EXL or even the 1.5 Touring, etc.
Trunk space was very big, as mentioned, and back seat legroom was noticeably larger.
I know this is a controversial point even to mention, but rear visibility behind the driver is a little better than I thought it would be (looks like you can kinda use that rear quarter window if you need to), but obviously it's not as good as past Accords.
The salesperson talked up the power of the new turbo, but from tests it doesn't seem to be any faster than the engine of my 2016, and so I took that with the grain of salt. On the other hand, I think my 2016 is quite peppy, and so I'm sure it's good enough. And maybe in terms of "feel" it is better.
It did seem clear that Honda spent a fortune on this car. I'm still not sure if it'll be a success or not. But my guess is yes....
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
What happens with small turbo engines is that they have a wider range of mpg than NA engines. When driven the right way (like the EPA test) they can return higher mpg (in the real world as well). But if you drive them hard you can get worse mpg. So a 2.0 ecoboost might have a range of 17-25 whereas a NA 3.5 might be 19-23. They're more sensitive to driving style, fuel octane/quality, etc.
But that's not a case of optimizing it for the EPA test - that's the way the engine operates all the time.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Of course the mfrs do things to get better EPA MPG ratings. But anything they do will also translate to better mpg on the street as long as the vehicle is driven the same way as the EPA test.
The fact that most people don't drive that way is a different issue altogether. The point is it's almost impossible to game the test to get better or worse mpg without outright cheating.