Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2009 Honda Accord



  • I never experienced this problem on my 2008 EX 4, nor has my mother on her 2008 LXP 4. Needless to say I traded my 08 4 for an 09 V6 during the height of the great recession for the deals were too good to pass up
  • yongseokyongseok Posts: 7
    Thank you for all the answers! Accord l4, it's indeed slow car.....

    Is there any car which is slower than this in this mid-size segment?
    I suppose my old civic and elentra should be quicker than this.

    Don't need to mention "VW rabbit 09".

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    edited June 2010
    Accord l4, it's indeed slow car.....

    The 190 hp Accord runs the 0-60 in 8.2 seconds, with an automatic transmission. That time would closely rival a V6 Camry from 10 years ago. Hard to believe that some people now think of that as "slow."

    I suppose my old civic and elentra should be quicker than this.

    Not even the current Civic or Elantra can keep up with this... not even close. The current Civic with an automatic runs in the mid 9 second range (and it's the fastest standard-engined Civic Honda has ever produced), the automatic Elantra allows 10 seconds to pass before it can achieve 60 MPH.
  • yongseokyongseok Posts: 7
    I'm not talking about EX-l4. As the title says, it's about LX-P.

    According to consumer report /, LX-P 0-60 speed
    is 9.8 sec (CR) / 9.1 sec (

    Also, I don't believe that EX-P's 0-60 time can be in mid of 8 sec
    since it has only 162 torque and the flat torque graph may be
    very similar to LX-P's.

    EX-l4 is most expensive l4 sedan in its segment and I would go
    with Altima + other option since it's faster than that.

    I agree to your opinion in regard of Elentara and Civic, but what I'm
    saying is "it feels slower than that". Also, I didn't mean 0-60 mph
    at all in my posting. My problem is mainly happening around 80mph.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Edmunds consistently gets slower acceleration times than Motor Trend, so I was sticking with one source so we'd have a consistent "launch style" for measuring acceleration.

    13 horsepower shouldn't make a big difference when the torque peak is the same, roughly. I agree, these heavy Accords would be better served with lower peak horsepower and better torque, but if your problem is at 80 miles an hour, I don't really know what to tell you, except that a V6 may have been your better option. I have a 166 horse Accord and find it quite quick!
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    With the hesitation issue, I suggest trying different acceleration techniques. I find the transmission downshifts and accelerates better if you push the pedal down in a smooth motion, as opposed to slamming it down. At certain speeds, the transmission can hesitate, deciding which gear to shift into, then making a decision. Practice makes perfect in this case. You need to learn exactly what to tell your car, to get it to do what you want. If you know what you're going to get at a certain speed, from pushing the accelerator down a certain way, there are no surprises/disappointments. Personally, I think the Accord has grown too big for 4 cylinder engines, which is why there is a V6 option. Back in 92, when I bought my first Accord, there was no V6 option. Of course it was a much smaller car at that time.
  • dlitedlite Posts: 12
    I don't see anything slower than accord I4 in the segment. Even the Camry felt better. V6 is slightly in better shape but its just about average in its class.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    edited June 2010
    These are not sports/luxury sedans, so performance is not their main objective. My 03 V6 has plenty of power for my needs. I drove my niece's 2010 V6 Accord coupe, and it has plenty of get-up-and-go, but performance is relative. Depends what you're comparing it to.
  • yongseokyongseok Posts: 7

    I have one more question on regards of Engine start RPM. I didn't recognize
    it for a long time (my milege is around 12,000 and it's 2009 model). However
    I suddenly found that my Accord LX-P RPM is 1,500 when I start an engine
    in the morning.

    Also, I could see it takes more than 1 miutes for the RPM gauge to go down

    Is it normal? You guys have the same behavior on your LX-P? Please share
    your advice.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    That's normal for the 2.4L Accord. By running a little high, the engine reaches operating temperature quicker. Lower emissions and better efficiency overall is the outcome.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,724
    Though, I have only test driven thew new model accord. I do think there is truth to the engine being slightly too small for its bigger body. The previous generation seemed to have gotten a perfect match in my opinion. The issue with sedans now, its all the rage and people are buying bigger cars rather than a big SUV.

    Honda could up the specs on the engine power, however at the expense of less mileage. But, other company's seemed to have learned how to overcome this while getting slightly better mileage Just look at the VW, they have a 2.0T with most of their sedans and the small SUV. That is impressive! A V6 in their model's is almost overkill. Does the Accord need a turbo? No. The engine itself is awesome.

    Honda's next model debut it going to either make or break them at this point. They must go all out! or Take a step down. People want a flashier, quick, plush sedan.
    Go on a diet Honda, get some plastic surgery, and you could come out a winner.

    Either way, I do know that my old 06 Accord 4cyl could easily with no sweat out run my 08 G6 4cyl I have now. And the specs are pretty close. No sure what GM is missing.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Your G6 has the 4-speed, right? Every GM vehicle with a 4-speed I've ever experienced has gearing that's taller than I am. The 3.8L can almost get away with it; but a 2.4L doesn't have the gumption for a 1st gear that runs to 55+ mph.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,724
    Yes it has the 4 auto. Never realized it until later on. There are cars that love to rev and simply roll up and down the rpm band. The G6 is not one of them. You verified why many opt for a big V6 in a GM product. But, it really is all about the "brain" that controls the engine. Honda has been able to provide an engine that is very efficient in a 4cyl. I think Honda provide VCM on the V6 Accord in attempt to offset the hit in mileage for its extra bloat. Does it really need VCM? No. I think it is a bit overkill. Not to mention some have had issues with it. Lose that expense.
    Before adding more weight. Remember, how is this engine going to it?

    Though less efficient now with its current generation body style. Now, it is time either for a slimmer body or a tweaked engine to offset it. I think the previous generation got a very appealing 34mpg on its ratings. That rating has gone down a bit, and I am surprised Honda let this past the drawing board with taking a mpg hit. Since they are so big on this.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Under the current EPA testing regs, the previous-gen Accord garners 21/31. The new body style gets 21/30, so not hugely different.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    You keep talking about the Accord's "bloat", but did you know it weighs less than the smaller Malibu? Looks can be deceiving.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,724
    See, I would have never thought. It is really all about its curves I guess.

    I would still get the Accord. But, definitely in a V6. Only because I want the extra power this time. The 4cyl would totally suffice.
  • I owned a 2005 Accord 4cyl and would frequently average 33 to 34 mpg highway. My 09 Accord is lucky to get 29 to 30 mpg.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    With a change in tires on my '06 Accord and being unable to find no fuel without 10% ethanol, my mileage has dropped by a solid 4 MPG. Really disappointing, considering it used to be able to push 40 MPG on pure highway. Now I'm lucky to get sticker (old sticker, 24/34).
  • tallman1tallman1 Posts: 1,874
    That's why I'm never changing my OEM Bridgestones. :)

    (Yes, I know you had the Michelins, grad.) I'll bet your new tires are quieter though, right?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Quieter? Ehh, I'd say about the same in the noise department, but they are immensely gripper in both the dry and wet. I went with a high-performance all-season (Bridgestone Potenza G019) instead of a softer, more touring-oriented tire. They drive great, but are no-doubt worse with mileage than the Michelin Energy tires that came OEM.
  • temj12temj12 Posts: 450
    I live in Nashville, TN. I can't find any gas without the 10% ethanol. It definitely cuts your power and your gas mileage. You are so right.
  • I just had an opportunity to test drive my grandma and grandpa's 2009 Honda Accord LX-P. I've been reading about cars for the last several years, and I've considered replacing my Dodge Neon a few times with a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry but it always seemed to make more sense to wait. Until now.

    This was my first time driving a Honda Accord, and after reading all the glowing reviews about them here, I can see why they receive so much praise. I found the ride to be very comfortable, and despite being a large car, it felt like a smaller car behind the wheel and had an almost a nimble feel to it. In comparison, my dad's 2000 Pontiac Grand Am was a smaller car yet drove like a larger car and just had a numb, heavy feel in general, which I didn't like. I was concerned about the base 177 hp engine because a couple reviews (like Consumer's Digest) said it could sound crude, but I found it very smooth and powerful.

    The interior was quite nice and had a very quality feel- the seats and controls in particular- but it did take me a while to figure out all the buttons for the air conditioning and whatnot, and I thought the door panels would have had more cloth, but all in all, it was great. I've read a lot of complaints about the seats in the 2008 and up Accords, but I found it firm and comfortable on my short trip and am not too concerned about long-haul comfort since I don't drive really long distances (yet).

    I'm going to look at some Accords tomorrow. I'm looking around the $15,000 range, so that about puts me in the 2007 or 2008 area. Hopefully within the next month or two, I'll be an Accord driver. :shades:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Go with an '07 model. They're the previous body-style. 2008 was the first year for the current body style, and they tend to have a few "teething" issues. I love my 2006 2.4L; they're faster than the 190hp 2008 model according to magazines who test acceleration.
  • jbam65jbam65 Posts: 5
    Hello All,

    I recently had somebody back into my car in a parking lot and the little bang took the paint off. A buffer does not look like it would help since the ding looks deep.

    My 2009 Accord looked nice until this mishap. My quesiton is does it matter what kind of paint goes on? The Honda dealership I went to does not do body work but they did recommend a shop to do this work. The auto body shop though makes there own paint. Does it matter if I have Honda manufactured paint as opposed to the paint that the auto body shop makes that matches the color?

    Thanks All.
  • temj12temj12 Posts: 450
    I have had my Honda fixed at a local body shop and at a Honda dealer. I can see no difference. They both go by the number of the paint which is listed somewhere on the car.
  • tallman1tallman1 Posts: 1,874
    You may want to post your question over in the Paint & Body Maintenance & Repair forum. A few professionals hang out there.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,724
    Yes, go with an 07. Great body, great engine. A nice solid car! Simply can't go wrong.
  • jimbo65jimbo65 South Central IllinoisPosts: 65
    Good Luck in your search! Just want you to know that I have owned the '89 LX, '96 LX, '03 LX, '05 LX, '07 SE, and currently a '09 EX-L. The '89 was my 2nd car and was well used with 120K and I continued loving it another four years. A real testimony to the Honda engineering quality. This one sold me on the Honda Accords. Ran the '96 six years having bought it brand new and it was also a super car. Not a thing wrong with the '03, '05, and '07; but did like the '07 the best of this series with its overall styling and handling. The current ride, '09 EX-L is simply the best car I have ever owned! At nearly 15K and 10 months old it is a true joy to drive. Its quality in every way is truly satisifing. A real solid car. Honda does keep making them better and better! Every one of my Accords have been the 4 cylinder engines. I find them to be economical and powerful enoungh for all situations. Best mpg on the '09 was 38 and with mixed driving is 30. Previous to my love affair with Honda I have driven Chevys, Fords, Chryslers, and Oldsmobiles. Yes, I've driven a lot of cars. I'm an old fart! Hope you too can find the Honda of your dreams! Cheers! :)
    2015 CR-V EX-L 2WD = One Sweet Ride :p
  • dj9dj9 Posts: 5
    I took my 2009 Honda Accord in for an oil change at 14,500 miles and they told me that the power steering fluid is contaminated and needs to be changed out ($169). They also said the cabin/HEPA micro filter is dirty and to replace it would be $120. Is this normal for only being at 14,500 miles? I live in Los Angeles. Thanks!
  • tallman1tallman1 Posts: 1,874
    2009 Honda Accord

    A couple of us replied at the other place you posted this.
This discussion has been closed.