Options
2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan
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
In the past few weeks they have sold at least two black V6 coupes (automatic), and another red V6 coupe (automatic). Incidentally, they also had three 4-cylinder model coupes on their lot, so they are getting out there.
....should be a great experience ('05 6M coupe here).....
We look forward to your frank impressions. With no VCM to worry about, please talk about your 6M clutch - and in time - clue us in on your fuel use.....
...again, should be a great car (I'm on the fence here)...
best, ez....
At that point, I decided to look at new cars. I scrapped the 4x4/all wheel criteria and decided front wheel drive was good enough. I also wanted an every-day driver to reduce the BMW mileage during the good weather seasons. I also wanted better mileage (BMW = 17 MPG). I ended up with the 2008 Accord EX-L V6 with all but Nav.
The car is still fairly new (250 miles), so I have not really put it through its paces. I have punched it a few times and pickup is pretty good. The handling is no where near the BMW's handling. The Accord is well appointed and it looks like a good choice for my main car.
BMWs (E39) are notorious for bad cooling systems and mine is no exception. I've replaced all of the main parts at 50-55k miles. The suspensions are very finicky as well. I'll rebuild the suspension over the winter (correct the bad points and make it handle better). I hope to have a very trouble-free experience with this Accord (much like everything I've heard about with Hondas).
So, for the price, gas mileage, acceleration, and luxury features, I picked the 2008 Accord EX-L V6. The looks aren't bad either.
I don't like how dreadfully complex BMW machines are becoming.
Also, when I bring the car in for maintenance, instead of a BMW loaner, they have a Hertz concession I must deal with. Impala or Grand Prix is not the choice I expect. Very shabby treatment for an upscale dealership.
An Accord or MDX would be a refreshing change, IMO.
It's not easy for the coupe. As was explained earlier either in this forum or the prices paid forum, Honda does a production run for a car for a minimum of 30 exactly configured cars (trim level, transmission, exterior color, interior color).
So the dealer can apparently send in your selection as a part of their allocation. However, the factory won't run it, until they are ready to make 30 of the same vehicle. So that's what makes it hard to predict when you'll get the coupe you want.
You just need to find a dealer who's willing to work with you and have the time to wait for what you want. Once they give you a VIN number, you should be good to go.
More and more, the Accord LX I-4 strikes me as the perfect car -
the most perfect expression of what a car should be. It's a bit like
the Classic Coke bottle, the black dress worn by Audrey Hepburn,
the Brooks Brothers shirt; all the elements are there in perfect proportion;
there's no room for improvement.
Although the black looks sharp with black leather, the tan leather looks very upscale!
My next lease!! :shades:
I like the coupes too!! RED!
Accord: 268.1 HP/248.4 lb-ft
G35C: 267.7 HP/247.5 lb-ft
He had another run with a G35, and got 262 HP. Dynapack measures output at the hubs so it doesn’t account for additional losses that happen at the wheels. But something interesting here is that Accord’s V6 not only got 100% of its rating at the crank, it also matched 286 HP G35. This points towards Honda underrating the engine. On dynojet, another Accord (with only 1000 miles on the odo) returned 240 HP at the wheels.
The speculation is that the Accord V6 is actually producing 280-285 HP but is rated at only 268 HP either to simply match the output numbers to automatic transmission equipped V6, or as a measure to keep Accord V6 under Acura TL-S (which is rated 286 HP, and also believed to be underrated by a bit to make RL look better).
The second car was also taken on a drag strip. 0-60 was 6.2s, but what is more interesting is that 5-60 (rolling acceleration) was also 6.2s. Usually, cars will take 0.5s to 0.8s more time to do 5-60 compared to 0-60.
This indicates that in a 0-60 run, the engine is overpowering the wheels which might be yearning for traction. This becomes much less of an issue once rolling (and this might be reflected in the quarter mile run to some extent).
I'm going to be in the market within a year (or maybe sooner if I decide to trade in the wifes '04 Odyssey that can't seem to find a new owner) and the Accord coupe is high on my list. I really like the sedan, but I think I want the manual. If the power is really higher in the coupe, that makes it all the more compelling. Too bad they don't offer HID headlights...
That renders 0-60 utterly useless for anywhere but on a drag strip. I vaguely remember C&D getting MazdaSpeed6 to do 0-60 in an impressive 5.3 seconds. But a look at 5-60 was another story. The car took 6.9s for it, while still good it is a whopping 1.6s slower compared to 0-60. Most powerful cars will get the job done in an additional 0.5s-0.8s.
We can only wish automotive sources like Edmunds can also include more realistic tests, and also make observed fuel economy a part of the test. More often than not, too much emphasis is placed on EPA ratings.
How's about 5 - 60 for the '08 sedan V6 EX-L PZEP ? Thanks.
Can't see why not.
My '95 Camry I4 is rated at 125 HP and I've had no problem going over 90 on I 95 (absent any traffic) on my trips to Florida.
Well, I did have one problem once.
Met a nice state trooper in North Carolina.
I would suggest test-driving them and forming your own opinion, however. If you're coming from a 240hp V6 or something, you may feel it underpowered relatively. Personally, I'm coming from a 130hp Accord and just LOVE the power of the 2.4L engine.
This is one great reason to match the I4 engine with a manual transmission. RPM control is really the key to these smaller engines! Although I am VERY impressed with the quality of the auto transmission in my Accord, the car absolutely would be better utilized with a manual. . . particularly since there is no way to hold the 5-speed automatic in 4th gear. the grade-logic technology works well and prevents the engine from constantly searching between 4th and overdrive. But, sometimes I would love to just leave it in 4th. I love my new Accord, but I do lots of highway driving and the inability to hold the tranny in 4th is a bit of a bummer
My suggestion to shoppers: Go test drive the car with your family or friends (two people preferably) and take it on the highway, try passing and hill climbing if possible. See if it meets your needs.
That's my take on things, anyway. To each his or her own, right blufz? I feel like I haven't talked to ya in awhile. Still fishing much?
Hope this helps some
P.S. My previous car had a 263 HP V6 which was almost too much - when I would floor it to get on the highway or pass a car I would find myself having to back way off the gas as it was almost too much power.
I think it is standard in EX and above, with I-4 or V6 (except in Accord Coupe V6 with manual transmission).
I averaged 31.8 mpg on a 950 mile round trip between NY and VA with my 2004 Accord V6 A/T recently. If our new 2008 Accord I4 A/T doesn't do much better than your 31.4 mpg under similar conditions I won't be a happy camper.
I plan to buy a top of the line '08 V6 sedan EX-L to enjoy the super beauty of the state of the art and also the great engineering sophistication of the Accord. I do not feel quite comfortable to buy an Acura as it is a little bit pricey unless I win a big lottery.
MPG depends on how one drives. The best method is imagining there is a little egg under the accelerator pedal and try best not to break that egg.
(I wish we could see a horse power chart for the I4 190hp engine! It charts HP and torque as RPM goes from 0 to red-line. I think it is useful information and someone has to have it???)