Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Honda Accord Future Models
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
My cousin's Jetta Diesel gets the same mileage you predicted, so I'd be surprised if this next iteration fails to surpass that. My point was that the lighter and presumably more aerodynamic Accord could be expected to at least match the Jetta. Honda, bring it on!
Although the new Volkswagen diesel is more efficient, it is also larger and far more powerful than the old 1.9 so I think any small improvement in mpg will be a good feat. I hope with the new version of the Honda diesel we will see similar fuel efficiency gains over their present 2.2.
Those claims by Volkswagen remind of the claims by Nissan that the Versa would get 38 mpg combined. In the end it was really 33.
Hey, if it was 60/40 for the 2008 EPA numbers that would blow away the Prius 45/48 for 2008. There would be a long line at the VW dealers if it turns out to be the case especially for drivers that do a lot of highway miles.
Yes the Lexus is a luxurious SUV, but as far as driving is concerned, and getting your monies worth, their is nothing like an Accord. So what do I do? :confuse:
~alpha
I have read that the SE Camry is a much closer competitor to the Accord than it used to be. The LE/XLE models are the ones that make most of the sales though, so the majority of Camrys (Camries?) are worse handlers and better "riders" than the Accord.
I haven't driven a 2007 Camry (they weren't out when I was car shopping, just the 2006 were), only a 2006 LE model. It didn't take long to figure out that I'd be asleep at the wheel before I got home from the dealer if I bought that car. Great interstate cruiser, no doubt, but it was NO FUN. I'm hoping the reviews are true, and the new SE is a real sport-edition Camry.
Double wishbone=>machpherson struts.
and the accord comes with it standard. no se trim required.
the 1.9 tdi 2005 jetta under the 2008 estimates are as follows:
30/38 for the auto
and 32/41
there are many who routinely surpass these numbers with ease; and while the 2.0's numbers seem optimistic, i figure they would at least get around this.
if the new accord does come with the 2.2 diesel, there should be no reason for it not get similar numbers and AT LEAST 28mpg in the city. 35 mpg on the highway should be attainable too.
1996 Accord LX 4-cylinder, 4-sp Auto, 173,000 miles
EPA 23/31
Average in commute (5 miles of 40 MPH with 9 traffic lights, 10 miles of interstate at 70-75 MPH) of about 27-28MPG. Filled up today and was over 28 MPG. I average just UNDER 28 MPG in that car, but since gas has been so high, I've reduced my interstate cruising speed.
2006 Accord EX 4-cylinder, 5-sp Auto, 20,700 miles
EPA 24/34
Average in commute (same as commute listed previously) is between 29 and 30 MPG, with MUCH higher numbers when I go strictly highway. If I limit myself to staying under 75 MPH, I get 37-41 MPG depending on conditions, load, and A/C. The longest trip I took was over 1,500 miles to Oklahoma City (From Birmingham, AL). For the trip, we got 35.43 MPG. Three people, constant A/C usage, and fluctuating speeds from 75-80 MPH, with some traffic in Memphis. I'm convinced ANYONE who doesn't drive like a fool will get at least EPA highway figures. The tall fifth gear is really helpful in the automatic particularly.
On the highway in my 1996, at 75 MPH, I have averaged 30 MPG (3,000 RPM). At that same speed, my '06 is running at 2,500 RPM, a substantial amount lower.
I don't take trips in the old car anymore. There's really no point when the newer one is more comfy, roomy, powerful, and MUCH MUCH better on fuel.
ok we better stop before we get kicked to a mpg forum!
Seriously bad news if this is true.
If I wanted an automatic diesel I could have bought a Passat - and in the much more practical wagon body.
Dream car - Accord diesel stick wagon. Space of an SUV, efficiency of a hybrid, and drives like an Accord.
Yes the Lexus is a luxurious SUV, but as far as driving is concerned, and getting your monies worth, their is nothing like an Accord. So what do I do?
You can wait for a BMW diesel that's affordable or hope Lexus makes one or you can buy a custom drivers seat for your Accord. Maybe a Recaro and you can always put softer springs in the car which will give it a more pliable ride but in the end you have to buy a car that really is comfortable to drive. It doesn't make much sense to buy a car you hate to drive to save on fuel. I know as I also have back problems and chronic sciatica. But I'm only driving about 6,000 miles a year right now. I do not like gassers but when I get back to the US about June-August 2008, I will need a car within a week of getting there. So if the Accord diesel isn't available then whatever is a diesel will be high on my list. My Toyota Hi-Lux diesel 4 door pickup truck easily gets 45 mpg on the highway.
This doesn't mean a softer, floatier ride...just better isolation of the forces to the subframe i.e. rubber mounts.
Honda dramatically improved the road shock in the '05+ Odyssey by adding the rubber isolation subframe mounts. However, the road noise is still excessive.
I am hoping the '08 Accord has more sound insulation & less road shock transfer noise into the cabin.
Road shock? The Accord isn't even the firmest midsize sedan out there. If you want something even less sporty, maybe look at Sonata, or Camry. PLEASE Honda, don't take away my road feel and firm suspension. I enjoy the driving experience!
I am only 19, so I don't remember cars before the 1990s really, but my '06 is so much quieter than my 1996 Accord, that there is no way I'd need it any quieter, if it was, then I would just be too isolated from the driving experience.
Seriously (and not sarcastically), it sounds like a Camry is a perfect fit for you. Quiet, smooth, not very involving, but fast.
If true they will lose 3 sales just from my family. Others will make a diesel though. Altima for one, and VW will have a slew of them. Less concerned about VW reliability with a diesel.
Would have really loved the Accord though - especially with the 2.2. Of course this is the land of too much is never enough, so what is considered excellent in Europe would be panned here - mostly by people who have never driven one. Silly of me to think 250 ft/lbs of torque was enough.
It has been proven time and again and automakers reduce production of manual transmissions over time in response.
I think Honda, BMW and maybe Mazda probably attract more manual transmission buyers than Toyota, Mercedes or Ford, but the numbers are low and resale is difficult except for sports cars/roadsters.
I wonder if the same is true for diesels? I keep seeing people posting how they want diesels in this car and that car, but I wonder if they will really sell.
Automakers are dragging their feet with release of diesels. I thought many manufacturers would have new diesel cars ready to be released as soon as the low sulfur diesel became available, but it isn't happening despite many years advance notice that the new, cleaner fuel was coming to the US.
Even VW that had previous mass market diesels in all 50 states before the emissions standards become too strict, has nothing 50 state compliant available now or in the very near future.
People still buy cars beyond what they need. They are not blinking at $3 a gallon gas since is still cheap compared to Europe. The extra 4-5 or more mpg or so between an Accord V6 and and 4 cylinder is often dismissed as "only a few extra dollars a month," so I don't think diesels will catch on at these fuel prices.
When the US has $6 or $7 per gallon gas is when the US will flock to diesels and much smaller cars. Maybe even mass transit.
man i hate being a honda AND vw guy.
what are you saying? that because its an auto it wont achieve high mileage, or as high as a manual could? Don't most automatics today get better mpg than their manual transmissioned bretheren?
the fact that its a 2.2 and not a 1.9 or 2.0 like in vw is valid, but i dunno about the auto tranny part of it.
Even though I believe they are currently rated the same, the Accord's 5th gear in the automatic revs at lower rpms than the manual (to allow for the fear that us stick people who use cruise control might make the engine lug). So for strictly highway mileage, the auto can do the same or better than the stick. City mileage is another story... the stick wins there.
The gap in price between here and Europe makes no differnce at all on the decisions buyers make. The impact they perceive in their pockets as costs go up makes the difference. It's all relative, gas is relatively 33% more expensive than 2 years ago, that's a huge gap regardless of cost elsewhere.
Being able to get compact car mileage with family sedan size will be a great selling point.
BTW a sudden need to accelerate to get out of trouble is required very rarely. On top of that I (and the vast majority of MT drivers) can shift in the gear I want as fast as an automatic can decide what gear it needs and then downshift (lots of cars hesitate badly here - the Camry comes to mind) Maybe automatics should be illegal to drive because of the hesitation.
Braking and/or turning is what almost always gets you out of trouble. Coasting can also be done in gear. The whole point is not to give the car gas if you are approaching a red light or stop sign. A car will glide quite well in top gear - it does not have to be in neutral.
The MT has the advantage of letting you chose the gear as it will not use engine braking to slow you down unless you want it to. An MT also is not fighting a torque converter at idle, and uses less gas there.
Anyway - I hope Honda continues to offer the MT. Freedom of choice is a nice thing to have.
I hope Honda puts more "distance" between Civic and Accord. The initial cost (overlap of various versions exist), fuel economy (real world, end of the month pocketbook), and interior space (with Accord's overstuffed seating) are nearly the same. Perhaps a lighter hatchback version of the Fit would answer this need as I really don't want to see Accord get bigger.
My dream car would be a Fit sized car (tall, narrow for elder access and ease of parking) that's built to Accord level of solidity (is that a word?) with a bigger engine (like the Civic's 1.8L) that still gets good fuel economy.
On a side note, I really hope Honda improves the looks of the Accord. To me, except for the recent mid-model redesign, they've gotten uglier with each new generation since the early 80s. Even if I never own another at least I don't have to look at them.
the civic now is as big (or at least almost) as the prev. gen accord.
1994-1997 Accords had an interior volume of 94 cu ft (qualifies for compact), which grew to 103 cu ft with MY1998 (qualifies for midsize). Civic is about 91 cu ft right now (probably was about 87-88 cu ft in the 1980s). 2003 Accord stayed at 103 cu ft.
It was kind of funny; when I lived with them, and we went out as a family, we took my car (the '06 Accord) because the "family" car, the Civic, was too small for me to ride in back. I was happy to oblige my car though, it meant I got to drive my baby!
its not my fault you are so damn big grad!