Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But with the redesigned civic a couple years ago sales took off like a rocket and stayed that way for a year and a half
Compare for yourself:
http://www.weathertech.com/store/mvproduct.aspx?ItemGroupId=3&VehId=274&Year=200- 8
http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-coupe/accessory-detail.aspx?Accessory=ACCOR0- 8122
Looking at the picture on Honda's web site it looks like the all season mats are small. They don't look like they cover the whole area like they should. I think they are rather high for the money. Looking at weathertech.com their mats as a set are just under $100 f/r. Anyone checked out these mats?
I think it takes a lot of guts and confidence for an automaker to make a move like that in its best selling vehicle. For that reason alone, I would put faith in Honda’s design. Besides, they have plenty of experience already with VTEC (seventeen years) and the VTEC driven VCM system (five years).
Keep us posted on your experiences. What kind of mileage are you getting?
The best part is that I can use this in any car (I've used it in a Maxima, a Civic, an Odyssey, and two different Accords all within the last year!).
I say go portable and pocket use the extra money to buy 35 tanks of gas. Some portable ones even have built-in bluetooth connectivity, by the way.
I paid for a vehicle with carpets because that's part of the ambiance and luxurious feeling. If I wanted an industrial look and smell, I could have bought a truck.
My twice a year vacuuming works wonders.
However, the Accord's does many more things for the driver without your having to take your hands off the steering wheel or your eyes off the road. It reacts to your voice commands to control, in addition to navigation functions, the climate control system, the audio system, trip computer, etc. In fact there are hundreds of voice commands at my disposal. The 2008 Accords have about 750 such commands that you speak to control the various systems.
http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan/features.aspx?feature=interiornavigati- on
You asked if you have to purchase an upgrade. Well, I haven't felt the need to purchase a replacement DVD since I've been driving the car. Perhaps one every five years might be worth considering if you drive regularly in areas where there are lots of new developments being built. They cost about $185.
Only you can decide if you want to purchase either system. But I highly recommend the built-in unit's convenience.
The 2008 is supposed to have the ability to enter addresses by voice commands. That could be very nice if it works well without a lot of repeating and correcting.
Entering addresses with voice commands would be nice. However, for safety sake, it isn't something you would normally do while driving. So the manual method while parked has never been an issue for me.
Of course, there's no longer a touch screen for the 2008's. That's disappointing.
Without excellent voice command control for entering addresses, I'd much rather use a portable and save the money.
I'll have to try it out. If the voice commands are flakey, I'll use a portable GPS.
I was debating between the oem all weather and the weathertechs for my 07 crv. I already have the beige rear cargo from weathertech. Now your experience makes it easy. thanks.
My phone has voice recognition, and it is faster to dial the number.
Now we'll see just how long it takes. DEaler told me December.
In my opinion, if you want one of these relatively rare cars you're going to pay, and wait. Holding out til near the end of the model year probably means you'll have to compromise on color, or just won't get the car you want.
I had an 04 exl v6 coupe with nav that I loved. I'm buying this one without a test drive and just based on pics and seeing one in person. You just can't go wrong with a Honda, based on about 8 in my family over the past 10 years.
Thanks!!
Don't other car manufacturers do it?
"Make no mistake: the Honda Accord is a terrific automobile no matter how it comes, but it also compels us to consider something we don’t think about too often: at what point does horsepower become truly superfluous? Especially as fuel efficiency and low emissions, both longstanding hallmarks of the Honda brand, become more important than ever before, we are looking for cars that are both fun to drive and easy on the earth.
We just found one."
It then says that the Accord is the cheapest car classified as large, and compares the lowest priced "stripper" MSRP with that of much better equipped Buicks and Azeras, avoiding a true apples-to-apples comparison. And somehow forgets that the Sonata is also classified as a 'large car.' Finally, it forgets that customers don't necessarily pay MSRP for any car, they pay with hard-earned bucks, and edmunds.com itself can give a level comparison of real world pricing.
As I read between the lines of the review, it seems there was little substantive that was unique or something to be excited about, despite sincere attempts to find something. This is unfortunate, as I'm sure the new Accord is a very fine car, and despite the review would not mind considering one myself.
Now, I have seen a few with liners on the 06-07 models, but I wonder if they had that as an accessory. It would give it a well finished look.
Zero to 60 mph: 7.9 sec
This is in the 4 cylinder with the 5 speed manual. That's the model I'm getting. I believe the last Accord was around 8-8.5 0-60 with the 5 speed manual, and so it looks like it's just a tad faster. That's good....
Looking into the '08 190hp 4 cyl EX-L w/Nav as a 4 door for my use (I will have a 2 door coupe, not so good for driving the father-in-law and mother)and to have my 16 yr old son drive.
I have not seen any authoritative test times for the 4 cyl; just a 7.1 0-60 test for the 6 cyl.
I am going to a dealer now to try to test drive the 4. Any opinions on performance vs. a 4 cyl Camry SE?
Thanks for your thoughts.
BobP7
No, in fact, its bad. The last Accord, in the same magazine (which means similar launch procedures, less likelihood for error between the two), ran 0-60 in 8.1 seconds with an Automatic(C&D Article - Familial Four-Doors 1st Place), it did it in 7.5s with a manual C&D Article - Fastest Cars under $20k). So the new 190hp is slower than the old 166hp Accord. That's not good.
Personally, I feel like my 2006 Accord is better in nearly every way than the 2008s. If I had to shop right now, the Accord wouldn't be at the tip-top of my list due to the fact that it has taken a step backwards in many ways (interior design and quality, supposedly lesser handling [ haven't tested one yet], speed/economy tradeoff for 4-cyl, etc...
I have noticed that my 4cyl is always running for full economy, meaning it always aims for low RPM's, but yet still gets great performance, and it will simply move when you want it to. Many have thought that I have a 6cyl. I drove the 6cyl, and it didn't seem like it had as much torque in the lower gears than the 4cyl. I am in no hurry for the 08, but look forward to the new lease.
There was a post just before your's to a Car and Driver article that gave their opinion.
It's funny that people would even ask if 190HP enough for a family sedan. Not that many years ago, that would have been the power of a very sporty car.
In a few more years, people will be questioning whether 200HP is enough for a Civic sedan.
It has also gained some significant weight over a few years ago. A 2002 Accord 4-cyl weighed, what, 2900 lbs? What does a 190hp Accord weigh?
Yes, peak hp has climbed a good 40 or so in 10 years, but torque has only gone up about 10 lb-ft, so the cars don't feel too much quicker around town until you get the engines wound up.
Now here is the fun part. New SAE output rating system essentially resulted in 4-5% lower ratings for most Honda cars (non-EPS). If we were to re-rate the new Accord EX to use old standard, we would see ~200 HP/~170 lb-ft. While this car weighs 3400 lb, I think it makes for a good comparison against 1997 Accord V6 (3285 lb, 170 HP/178 lb-ft). It seems, for most of the useful operating range, the new Accord EX is at least as good as the old V6, even considering the gain in weight, and demolishes it beyond 5000 rpm. So I think the point raised by C&D about superfluous power in cars is valid.
I don’t take my cars for drag racing, but I do care for good highway merging abilities. And my ~145 HP/~147 lb-ft, 3150 lb (1998) Accord EX-L has enough of it, so much that I usually end up either speeding by the end of a short ramp or braking behind a slower vehicle in front of me. And since I drive two cars regularly (the Accord and a 2006 TL), I fail to see the thirst behind insane power ratings other than for bragging rights (which translates to marketing gimmickery).
Whats more interesting is that the new Civic has about same power as my 1998 Accord does, while weighing almost 500 lb less.
When 2007 Accord I-4/5MT did pull 0-60 in 7.5s, I thought it was exceptionally quick for having only 166 HP (and I believe it was SE trim which is lighter than EX trims for having fewer features, smaller wheels etc). Interestingly enough, the older Accord did the quarter mile (on that quick day) in 16.1s @ 87 mph. The new Accord did the same in 16.1s @ 88 mph. Stopping distance is exactly the same as before, despite added weight. But I attribute that largely to the tires. However, from a driver’s point of view, braking distance is not the end all. Some cars may have shorter stopping distances but they fail to do it with the same confidence and effort.
But did the car do it on a consistent basis? About 8 seconds was more logical (and more, if one considers real world conditions). I have a feeling the new Accord will be a few ticks quicker than the old on a consistent basis, in direct comparisons, if it matters.
The 1998 Accord I drive, took about 10s (MT took about 9 seconds) and yet it is quick enough to exceed legal speed limits. More importantly, it has guts to complete a quick pass even at 80 mph. So, how much quicker do cars need to be? But then, even EPA has resorted to drag racing in their tests (their new high-speed highway procedure involves getting up to 80 mph quickly with abrupt braking to a complete stop, in less than a mile).
I do think that C&D had couple of errors in the article (they quoted pre-PZEV power rating for the V6 and forgot to throw Sonata in the mix). Besides those, what exactly did you disagree with? What exactly were your expectations?
Also, when would be a good time to trade in my 06 SE with 25,200 miles on it, to get the best value, this is my first lease trade in?
This may be too hard to describe, but I'm wondering if you can give any idea of what you mean regarding the VCM performance when you say, "Unlike most reviewers that say it's completely unnoticeable, I can feel a litte more going on than just the transmission shifting."
Would be curious to know what that "little more" seems like. I was among those posting that I couldn't sense anything, but that was just on a brief test drive. As an owner, you're obviously getting a lot better feel for the car, and I would value your opinion.
Thanks.
Now granted, I would expect the additional cylinders to potentially add in the smoothness.
Plus the fact that the Suburban is likely designed to be more inherently quiet and removed from the driving experience than the Honda is (the Suburban is no sporty car
and even that could be greatly improved with better tires.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
They kept the size of the car the same for 2008.
They saved a little weight through aluminum etc. (down to 2900 lbs for the MT I4)
They put the 190 hp 4-cyl in the vehicle.
They put in a six speed manual instead of a 5 speed and unlike the TSX they actually make the top gear taller than the 5 speed.
The end result would be a car that gets noticeably better mpg than the current car and noticeably better acceleration, all while providing the same amount of room.
Or better yet, do all of the above but use a smaller more efficient engine (2.2l) that gets smiliar power to the outgoing 2.4l but gets ever better mpg still.
Instead we have the status quo and a little more size - furthering the already huge gap between the Accord and Civic.