Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
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
I have a 17" widescreen laptop set to 1680x1050 so they looked fine to me.
I'm not so sure they will. not because of anything honda did in the redesign, but midsize car sales have been dropping for nearly a decade now. And now, more than ever, people want smaller, more fuel efficent cars, and or hybrids. For the last decade, the asian car companies have been doing alright by taking away from the domestics, but how much lower can they drive them?
I think honda took a pretty big gamble with making it bigger, less fuel efficent. That seems to be contray to where the market is heading. It could pay off big if people (after a test drive) decide they want the bigger car. But it could also go the other way.
Truer words were never spoken. While all mid-size sedan owners would like to think that their transportation vehicles are "sporty" or "luxurious," the truth is that they are "moving appliances," not unlike a fine washing machine or nifty clothes dryer. Some are better than others at what they do, of course.
Have a great day!
Note their negative comments were really nits, e.g. picks on the dash styling and the fact that the car is bigger. And did I mention that they carped about the Accord being bigger?
I think the Accord will remain a good mix of performance, size, and fuel efficiency.
As others have posted, there really isn't a drop in mileage with the revised EPA estimates. Bigger, more HP and about the same mileage. Not bad.
feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I interpret most of what I've read is, the thing that keeps it's fuel numbers the same is the cylinder deactivation. But, how many people will buy that option? and how many people do enough highway driving to take advantage of it?
I still think its a gamble. most other car companies market their large cars separately, the maxima for nissan, taurus for ford, the impalla (which I think honda is targeting with the redesign)for GM, the avalon for toyota, the 300 for chrysler and so on. the only one of those cars that sell in signifacant numbers is the impala. and its sales numbers are still a good bit lower than the accord.
Getting a bit trigger happy over there?
To me a true appliance car are those which are rental grade, such as the Taurus, Impala, Malibu, Fit, Aveo and the like. Those are bought for transportation, point A-B.
Loren
That's why Honda opted not to make it a "dumb" cylinder turn off system, but a "smart" one that can use not only half its cylinders or all, but also 2/3 of them as well; for low speed cruising, for high speed cruising, and for leaving Aura XR's in the rear view mirror when the time comes.
I don't see Honda targeting the Impala for anything.
I think with the size Honda is making a play for those who are stepping out of SUVs but still want room.
Also, we should keep in mind that the Accord barely makes it into 'full-size' territory. If you buy it with a sunroof, it's back into mid-size range (interior + trunk = >120 cu sq ft).
On the mileage, all their engines are either more efficient than the previous generation or equally as efficient. Regardless of how they achieve that, that's the situation.
L
Fun is good for the soul!
Also, if your only concern is being locked in city traffic then there is no reason to opt for the engine with cylinder deactivation in the first place!!!!
Also, if your only concern is being locked in city traffic then there is no reason to opt for the engine with cylinder deactivation in the first place!!!!
Thats my point. I don't think many people will, and thus, the milage estimates will not bear out. As I said, I could be wrong, but from what I've read, the epa estimates are bassed on the V6 with the cylinder deactivation feature. I'm betting less than 15% of the accords will have it, and even less will bennifit from it.
Even then, since only the V6 has cylinder deactivation, most people will opt for the 4 banger, which gets better fuel economy than the V6, even w/o cylinder deactivation.
SO EPA estimates for the 4 cylinder are great!
That's only in the V6. The I4 does not have VCM but the EPA estimates are about same as the 07 models.
Um, ahem, no no, we had some, um, technical difficulties. That's what happened!
Um, all V6 models of the sedan will have vcm STANDARD. You are talking about it like its optional, so just clarifying.
If you don't want cylinder de-activation, then just get one without (I4). You are still getting mileage as good or better than previous.
The I4's are the majority of Accords sold so you are correct that most people will not get the VCM. Those who buy the V6 probably will.
It's not a bad car; it just doesn't stand out. I think the interior is particularly cheap-looking and feeling--not even competitive with cars at the low end of the price scale such as Optima and Sonata.
Bottom line is: what is the compelling reason to buy a Galant vs. one of the other cars in this class?
as always IMHO, your results may vary,
Loren
L
Very well. The Passat 2.0T is CR's top-ranked 4-cylinder Family Sedan, by a nose over the Altima 2.5S. The Passat is tied with the Accord EX and Altima SE for top-ranked V6 Family Sedans. The Passat V6, which btw has the distinction of being the most expensive as-tested Family Sedan CR has tested, is Recommended by CR, and has above-average predicted reliability. The 2.0T has below-average reliability and thus is not recommended by CR. Also, the 2.0T is (as tested) about $5000 more than the 2nd-ranked Altima. Based on price, I'd say the Passat competes more with cars like the Avalon, Azera, Maxima, Taurus/Sable, LaCrosse, Lucerne, and 300 than cars like the Accord, Altima, Camry, Sonata etc.
I can see why some may like the car, and the value is there too!
L
L
Let's revisit the sales numbers in a few months and see who's right.
The Sonata is full size, but is competitive with midsizers, as is the Accord.
Sorry, but I could not disagree more. I don't have any particular affection for my drier, stove, or microwave. Yeah they keep me fed and leaving my clothes smelling like an Irish spring morning (whatever that is...), but if they were to get dirty, dented, or even if they would break, I don't think I'd give a rip. But a car is so much more than these appliances... there is something visceral about how a car accelerates, corners and moves. For me, driving is almost therapy... it lets me forget about all the other things that may be happening and for that moment when I commit to taking that corner rated for 20 mph at 45 mph, there is faith, exhilaration, maybe even a little doubt, but my mind is focused on the car, on every little twitch, the tension of the steering wheel, remembering how much force my backside is being forced into the seat bolsters, and making sure that I know where the brake pedal is... just in case. Then I hit the apex, the tires are screeching, my heart is racing, but the car is still in my control... a small smile starts to appear on my face and all in the world is glorious! I take a deep breath and think, "I love this car! I am soooo lucky to have made this choice!"
Never in a million years would I ever get the same emotions and level of satisfaction from a clothes washer. Yeah, it is still a way to get from point a to b, but if that's all it was, I'd get a corolla. But cars mean more to me than that, especially when it comes down to MY car. It's an expression, an amusement ride, my therapist, my tour guide, my hobby, my addiction, my means to an end... There's a reason I, and dare I say "we", spend a good part of our day reading, writing, and even arguing about cars and not about refrigerators: we use appliances because we have to, and yes, in my current condition I have to drive my car, but I also do it because I like to.
Fun CAN be good for the soul...but hard on the wallet if you get caught!!
Main Entry: tongue-in-cheek
Function: adjective
: characterized by insincerity, irony, or whimsical exaggeration
Not if it's done right. There are plenty of opportunities to have "fun" without even being close to breaking the law. It's all in how you look at it.
Zzzoom is right. All of us spend a fair amount of time reading, talking, and debating about cars, more than the average joe (and MUCH more than my wife!) That's why we're passionate about our cars, because they're much more than just "moving appliances" to us. I'm proud of that, and you should be as well. If not, I don't think this board is right for you.
Just because the majority of us drives midsize sedans, doesn't mean that we CAN'T enjoy what (and how) we drive. I'd LOVE to have a two-door, two-seat supercar, but it's not practical for me and my life. Why can't we have our cake and eat it too?
Yes, the typical industry standard is that up to 1 quart per 1000 miles is okay. So this is not a VW thing. Our VW has not used a detectible amount in 20,000+ miles.
I think the actual reliability differences are a lot less than many think. When my wife bought the brand new model Jetta in 2005, a no deductible extended warranty to 7 years/100,000 miles was about $1500. For an Accord, the exact same warranty from the same source (our credit union) would have cost about $1000.
VW's are ususally highly rated by CR in terms of quality and drivability. They only complain about the reliability, based on data from their flawed survey.
I'm no fan of CR by any means, but VW reliability (or lack of) goes beyond their surveys.
Ask the dozen or so people I know that have owned a VW over the past decade, with their flawed electrical systems (constantly burning out bulbs, faulty door locks/alarm system, windshield wipers, dash gauges, etc.), transmissions (both manual and auto) failing after 25K-30K miles, faulty ECMs, faulty turbos on the TDIs, etc.
Their lack of reliability is no isolated incident.
With the new engine Ford fixed the major "flaw" in the Five Hundred. Since everyone knew that the engine in the Five Hundred was grossly inadequate from the onset, why did Ford even release the Five Hundred with that engine?
I wrote what I did for the many people that may pop in to read, and then try to look for the Accord in the full-size room, since the host said we get a lot of reader traffic as opposed to a very small fraction of those readers that post (a lot of people may likely be first timers).
You don't have to be reckless to have fun. I guess I'm lucky I'm not the drag racer type since that kind of driving is much more likely to result in tickets. And before I decide to take a corner at "fun" speeds, I always make sure I can see far enough ahead to make sure that there aren't any surprises in front of me. If there are things in the way where it's difficult to see, it's not worth the risk.
Also, I prefer the upright seating position akin to a SAAB, Volvo, or many European cars, compared to the "legs out" position of other cars. After miles and miles of interstate driving, I'm still comfortable, unlike when I'm driving a car without that seating position. In some respects, the Five Hundred/New Taurus is a more affordable Volvo anyway, since it's built on the Volvo S80 platform - not a bad thing.
And the 3.5L engine was at least 2 years later than anticipated so they would have had to postpone the Five Hundred, Freestyle and Montego for 2 years if they waited for the engine. The 3.0L was simply a stopgap measure. Same is true for the Zephyr - it was supposed to debut as the MKZ with the 3.5L but they needed something for Lincoln/Mercury dealers to sell last year after they killed the LS.