It could easily be titled, "Accord strikes a chord." Still haven't figured out why Honda enlarged the dimensions to the point where it's no longer a mid-size sedan.
Maybe more people will read it now that you've posted it.
So far the only negatives I've seen mentioned in reviews are lower quality interior materials on the "base" model (whatever that is--LX?) and some carping on size. Looks like another winner for Honda. It will be interesting to see how sales do at first with no incentives--that will make the '08 Accords much more OTD than the '07s and $5000+ more than some competitors. But there's probably a lot of Honda fans who've been waiting to grab a next-gen Accord.
Further I really don't think any car in this class really qualifies as a "land yacht" and I have yet to be flung off the road by anything I have driven in this class. You are participating in the "nit-picking" contest I spoke of.
It may be "nit-picking" to you, but when it involves over $20K of MY hard-earned cash to purchase a vehicle, it's not "nit-picking" to me, or anyone else that values handling.
OK if a Mazda 6 is the only thing that will satisfy your perhaps overinflated need for being "one with the road" then have at it but don't presume to call everything else a "land yacht"..it isn't the only thing that won't fall on its side in a corner.
If you think that my needs are "overinflated" (which is obviously YOUR opinion), then why can't I call the others in this class "land yachts", which is clearly MY opinion?
I looked back in previous posts and didn't see it, else I wouldn't have reposted it. Once the sedan is readily available the "real truth" will come out.
So the Accord grew 3" longer and 1" wider, and that makes it a land yacht? So if the interior volume moves a fraction of an inch above Midsize, all of a sudden it's huge. :confuse: Honda has simply built the car they think Americans want. Are they right, or wrong? The sales numbers will tell the tale. I think it will do at least as well as the 7th gen did.
Honda is probably spot-on as far as what most Americans want, i.e., bigger is better (see: Suburban). There's just some of us who don't equate sheer size with goodness, unless there's a benefit to the size other than helping the steel companies sell more of it. Honda did add more interior volume for 2008, but that doesn't impress me given some of their competitors have already done that, but with more efficient packaging.
But Honda is smart, and it's all probably part of their plan to make the next Fit compact-class, and the next Civic mid-sized class. Then they can introduce a car under the Fit.
Honda is probably spot-on as far as what most Americans want, i.e., bigger is better (see: Suburban). There's just some of us who don't equate sheer size with goodness
Truth be told, I'm one of those who wants all the size I can afford (how American of me, right?) I'm 6'4" and have never found a car other than a TRUCK that had enough legroom for me (I have LONG legs and short torso). My Accord is a 2006, and my knees are never able to straighten out as much as I'd physically want, but that was true for any car, not just Accord. I couldn't afford 15 MPG of a pickup or large SUV, so the midsize MPG was the best compromise I could find. Since the Accord has added power, has same/better MPG, and larger interior/exterior, I wouldn't have a problem swapping mine for a new one. I think my Accord's interior is classier looking though.
When the 2003 Accord first came out, I thought the car looked ugly, but the look slowly growed on me and I think the 03-07 Accord looks just fine. Hell, I thought my wife was ugly when I married her but she is looking better everyday. Same analogy can be applied to the 08 Accord. For those of you who don't like the look, look at it upfront instead of the pics and you might actually like it. (Thank god my wife doesn't visit Edmund's forum, otherwise I would be sleeping in the doghouse tonight)
Did you try the Elantra at the time you got your Accord? More front leg room than the 2006 Accord (43.2 vs. 42.6 inches, although the new-for-2007 Elantra has 43.5"). Since the old Accord fits you, the Elantra might also.
So, leg room isn't necessarily a function of vehicle size. Another example is the Versa. The 5-door is only 169" long, or over two feet shorter than the 2008 Accord. But I found it has more stretch-out rear leg room (including lots of toe space) than the two-classes-bigger Altima, when I had the driver's seats adjusted for comfort. It felt like a limosine in back! Definitely one of those "try before you buy" things.
There were other factors that caused me to want a car the Accord's size; including a pretty amazing power-to-economy ratio, plenty of room all-around, and a bit of a heavier car made the parents happy. I was coming from a 1996 Accord (which I still drive some), so stepping into an Elantra would probably feel like I was going backwards (not a 07 of course, but the 2001-2006 model). Honestly, I never set foot in an Elantra because the dated looks turned me off. Lots of car for the money, but if it is a car you don't want, you've wasted your money good deal or not, right?
My whole point was to say that not everyone feels that more room is bad, just like not everyone feels like a bigger car is good. To each their own. In my case, more room = better.
Round'n round it goes. OK you love your "6" good for you. I don't dislike them particularly or like them either. I am neutral but probably wouldn't consider one when buying my next new sedan. So, in the end you are correct of course..your money...your priorities...your decision. Enjoy!!!!
I would not have bought a car that had inadequate legroom, in the first place. Being comfortable sitting in the car is mandatory for me to consider buying. However, I understand that you have extreme leg room needs...
It's weird, but in all the press for the 2008 Accord, all I see is mention of the extra 0.4" legroom in the back compared to 2007, and the extra width up front (and back). No mention of more legroom in front. I'd think if there were improvements there, it would be mentioned prominently, just like they did for the rear legroom increase (a whole 4/10 of an inch there!). So maybe you don't get at least 2" more legroom overall from the 3" extra length?
I am not uncomfortable in my current vehicles, a 1996 Accord (compact) and a 2006 Accord (midsize). Would I welcome more legroom? Whole heartedly. Am I cramped or uncomfortable though? Nah. I like the idea of having stretch out space, but I have never had a problem traveling in my Accord, driving for long periods of time (10 hours at a time, only stopping for lunch/gas/pee breaks).
Second of all, I would welcome larger exterior size if it bought me more legroom (I don't have a need for a wider or taller car, as I have plenty of hip, head, and shoulder room in my sunroof-equipped Accord as it is. The only thing that would make a good thing better in my case is legroom (I have enough to be comfortable, but more spread-out/stretch-out room never hurts at 6'4", ya know? I didn't know the actual specs on legroom, I was doing more "wishful thinking" than anything.
I know I'm rambling, but car companies should put more front-seat travel in their seat tracks. I sit with the seat all the way back, and anyone under 6' has plenty of room behind me. I could go an extra inch or two and have a typical 5'4" person comfortable. I'm regularly driving my friends around (it happens when you've got a roomy car), and extra travel would be appreciated for my guy friends (my three best guy friends are 6'4" 190, 6'4" 320, and 6'3" 250) in the front seat!
Ah, no wonder they don't mention the front leg room specs! Although I can swear I saw multiple reviews mentioning "more front leg room" for 2008.
IMO that is pretty poor that in a 194" car, Honda has managed to increase rear legroom by only 4/10 of an inch while decreasing front leg room and making the trunk only 14 cubic feet. In comparison, the 177" Elantra has more front leg room and about the same trunk space. I thought Honda was good on intelligent packaging. Maybe the Accord engineering team should take some pointers from the Fit team.
How its packaged may make it feel larger than it is. I know my 1996 actually has tight legroom, but it is very open and airy (moreso than my 06) so it doesn't feel too compact.
I'm not making an excuse, but it may be why some reviewers may have mentioned more front-seat room - it may well seem that way.
The front seat room they commented on seems to be related to extra width--which is mentioned in the various press releases and articles. Maybe a testament to the ever-increasing girth of Americans. :sick:
Doesn't help me much then. I'm just tall (6'4", 190). Good thing I've got an 06; I plan to keep it a long time. Maybe my 2013 the Civic will be as big as an old Accord (1998-2006) and I'll just get one of those. It's already as roomy as my 1996.
If thegraduate is so happy with his 2 Accords why would he consider anything else but Hondas? Of course, unless if his criteria changes and Honda no longer offers anything that suits his needs...
If I am happy with my current car I'll be more than likely to consider the same brand again over any others.
Louiswei is right. I really did look at other automakers before deciding on my 2006; for me, Honda has two MAJOR things in their pocket - interior quality and ride/handling balance. The power/economy ratio was an extra bonus. If Honda starts slacking on one of these MAJOR points (major to me) I'll look much harder elsewhere. For now, having a dealer close by (walking distance, actually), and Honda doing nothing but give me good service (referring to both vehicles and personnel), I don't have a reason not to give them my loyalty.
Of course I'll look at other makes each time, but I'm starting with a well-earned Honda bias.
Good thing for Honda and Toyota that lots of GM, Ford, and Chrysler owners didn't follow that advice starting in the '70s.
Because they were not satisfied owning GM, Ford, or Chrysler cars. Honda owners are usually satisfied with what they have, and will buy another one when the time comes. Only problem for Honda is, I keep my cars a long time, so they have to wait a while for this repeat customer.
Looks like Honda's done fine on the ride/handling balance for the '08 Accord, but the interior quality could be another story, based on the comment re the quality (or lack thereof) of the base trim's interior. But the higher-end trims seem to have impressive quality. That's too bad if true; one of the great things about getting the Accord DX, VP, or LX in the past is that you were getting basically the same car, interior and all, as in the higher trims (no leather or fancy doo-dads, but the materials were the same). Looks like some de-contenting occuring to keep the price reasonable.
I guess I am a dis-loyal car buyer. I buy whatever fits my needs best at the time, for the lowest price. If that's a Honda, I'll gladly buy a Honda such as the Accord. But I'm not going to give Honda or any other manufacturer brownie points because one or more of their cars worked for me in the past. I don't see Honda offering me any financial incentive to be loyal to them--a loyalty rebate, for example. So let the best car, at the best price, win my business.
Well I guess my Honda Accord V6 may last a good long time, though I am less than impressed with a couple of noises. First the engine got noisy, as in a rubbing sort of sound to the belts after about a couple thousand miles on her. Had it in twice to be repaired. Makes the same sound. Ask the dealership about it again during the last oil change, and the mechanic said it sounds normal. Well it may for a 1970's American V6, but certainly not by Japan, or Honda standards. I may try another dealership. The other noise, which is only heard when things are really quiet, is the right fender which makes a few ticks or creaks sounds when turning the car. You only hear that in a parking lot or entering a driveway. They repositioned the fender. It makes the same sound.
The car performs 100% on the road for handling and comfort. The gas mileage is good. Will I buy another one, not sure. The noise thing gives me a little pause. Will see how the car rates over time.
Feature wise, I like everything except auto-express down and up windows, which drive me crazy. Oh add the re-locking of doors after you hit the open in about 30 seconds - kinda crazy thing. Now the auto opening of windows before entry is pretty neat idea to cool the car down and is a real plus. Being a person which has owned lots of different cars, some being Japanese, I am kinda tough on rating my car, so at the present time, I am giving it an 85 to 90% due to engine and fender noises. I did have an independent repairman say he thought the engine sounded OK, but then again, he may have listened to lots of rock n' roll over the years, at volume = full. Loren
That's too bad if true; one of the great things about getting the Accord DX, VP, or LX in the past is that you were getting basically the same car, interior and all, as in the higher trims (no leather or fancy doo-dads, but the materials were the same). Looks like some de-contenting occuring to keep the price reasonable.
I know in 92 the interior seat and trim fabric was different from LX to EX. It was the same color, but not the same quality material. I think the floor mats were stronger in the EX also.
What about those saying the New Civic is much the size of the Old Accord and thus for 2008 it may be time to consider a downsizing? Is the Civic large enough? I have the '07 Accord, and see absolutely no need for it to be larger, as it is slightly larger than the Cadillac CTS right now. I think I am drawing the line at this size now.
Oh what do I know, when I had a Miata, I also had "my bigger car", the Corolla. I think the '98 Corolla was a bit too small. Actually the Miata is like getting into a glove, but then again, it is a sports car -- different game ya know. As a side note, the new Miata could have been made with a little more hip room and the seats got more narrow than the previous models, which was in my mind a big mistake, in a SUPER-SIZED America. L
Its not so much loyalty as peace of mind. With Hondas I feel like I know what I am getting. If I felt differently after sitting in and driving the vehicle, I wouldn't be so quick to buy it.
I can get a vibe about a car pretty early on (how the doors close, how it handles, how the controls feel).
I guess the tech was too lazy to figure out what was causing the noise. The loudest sounds I hear from my V6 are the fuel injectors clicking, and that's not very loud.
I was not impressed with the New Camry interior. I would think Honda would not make the same mistake as Toyota after seeing the response from the press and public. It is far from the worst, but not up to Japan standards. What's up with fake silver aluminum, which looks like a cheap China radio boom box? I don't know what you think, but to me plastic aluminum ranks right up there with what is the worst for interiors. L
They have replaced the belt and wheels assembly thing. Seems to be louder once warmed and after using air conditioning. There is an another dealership to try and another repair shop which specializes in Hondas to have look at it. So your Honda makes no loud belt noise which can be heard without the hood open??? L
From my ownership experiences, I know what I think I'm getting with a Honda, but also a Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, Hyundai, Chrysler, Mitsubishi, and Ford. (Been too long since I owned a GM car.) But times change, cars change. As you implied, it depends on what the car is like now, and I will add how it compares to others, and at what cost.
I am sure the new Accord is a fantastic family sedan, maybe the best in the class right now. But having something that others consider "best in class" ceased to be important to me a long time ago, if I have to pay a lot extra to have it.
So your Honda makes no loud belt noise which can be heard without the hood open???
I can barely hear anything without the hood open. When it's open injectors, are the dominant sound. Even the clicking seems to quiet down after a few minutes.
Well if pure sales were a guide (and yes, including rentals), the Camry would be seen as "best-in-class" by most people's standards (it was best in class to them because they bought it!).
I completely disagreed; it was too soft, too numb, and too dull for me to consider it for very long.
You and I likely have a very different idea of best in class; basically, I agree with you though. Buying because others feel a car is "best-in-class" is like buying pants because they fit on someone else. Different people have different standards (some prefer big, some prefer small; some prefer soft, some prefer firm; etc...)
In that sense, we compeltely agree backy.
Whoulda thunk it? The slant H guy and the straight H guy can get along! :shades:
Ah, that's the deal. Honda is giving good discounts on the '07 model Accord, and thus I got mine for less than the Aura XR. And this is months ago. I bet another grand is taken off the price now. The Saturn Aura XR was fun to drive and all, but the price was higher -- they did not deal with me on the trade-in allowance. Net price out the door was gonna be a lot more with the Saturn. I got the best price at the second Honda dealership for a quote. The first one was crazy on the trade-in, while the second one got it right. And then I got another $1,500 off on the car. Anyway, the Honda prices are low -- find the right dealership.
If a person like the CVT, the Altima looks kinda interesting. I dislike the stange foot brake location though and the CVT. L
Oh no- not the chick car thing. Try to convince people the Miata is a track car compared to the BMWZ3, SLK, Solstice or Sky, and many just don't understand. And yes, it makes for a good little secretary or commuter car too. For handling, I am thinking Miata again, maybe the second gen, or Bimmer for a little more room, nice engine and roll bars and aggressive look the BMW Z3 is good, but can not match handling. The Solstice has the looks, but no roll bar - not a place to put a roll bar, and it is kinda a bathtub feel to the driving position with those too tall doors.
OK back to mid-sized cars. I guess something positive can be said for most all of these cars in this class. They all have something for someone. I may be what is the most important elements to an individual nowadays, more so than the old this is good car, and that one is a bad car, which did make life more simple For resale, we all know the leaders, so debate there is useless. If resale doesn't matter, the rest is all in what ya see a car as. - Loren
For resale, we all know the leaders, so debate there is useless.
Huh? Resale is very important to the guy that likes a new car every 3 years or less - like me. I like to buy cars somewhat under my wearwithall but dump 'em every 2-3 years, so resale value keeps me from having to pony up much money when I sign for the next one. I rarely lease.
After 6+ years or so resale values become moot (except for maybe trucks and some boutique type cars)
In a way, yeah, in 6 years resale value is less important. If you happen to own a Corolla or Civic though, you may be pleasantly surprised at the retained value even in 10 years, with higher miles. They will still buy them, at least in Ca. with high miles and many years. Much harder to sell an old domestic. I still think domestics make a good used car buy, or even a new car buy, if it is something special you really are after, and plan to keep it awhile. Old rule with me was Japan new, Domestics used. Problem is the rule was NOT old enough, and I bought a lot of NEW domestic cars which did not sell well. I must say the Mustang was a good enough trade-in value. Mustangs use to do well -- perhaps still do. L
Resale is very important to the guy that likes a new car every 3 years or less - like me. I like to buy cars somewhat under my wearwithall but dump 'em every 2-3 years, so resale value keeps me from having to pony up much money when I sign for the next one. I rarely lease.
Seems to me you are loosing a lot of $$$ on depreciation (on any car) in the first 3 years, and getting a car that hasn't really improved that much over the 3 year old model.
Comments
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=58887
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=58887
It could easily be titled, "Accord strikes a chord." Still haven't figured out why Honda enlarged the dimensions to the point where it's no longer a mid-size sedan.
backy, "Midsize Sedans 2.0" #4191, 21 Aug 2007 7:23 pm!keywords=allin%3Amsgtext%20limit%3A.f12d514%20FirstDrives
Maybe more people will read it now that you've posted it.
So far the only negatives I've seen mentioned in reviews are lower quality interior materials on the "base" model (whatever that is--LX?) and some carping on size. Looks like another winner for Honda. It will be interesting to see how sales do at first with no incentives--that will make the '08 Accords much more OTD than the '07s and $5000+ more than some competitors. But there's probably a lot of Honda fans who've been waiting to grab a next-gen Accord.
It may be "nit-picking" to you, but when it involves over $20K of MY hard-earned cash to purchase a vehicle, it's not "nit-picking" to me, or anyone else that values handling.
OK if a Mazda 6 is the only thing that will satisfy your perhaps overinflated need for being "one with the road" then have at it but don't presume to call everything else a "land yacht"..it isn't the only thing that won't fall on its side in a corner.
If you think that my needs are "overinflated" (which is obviously YOUR opinion), then why can't I call the others in this class "land yachts", which is clearly MY opinion?
With a V6? Used.
But Honda is smart, and it's all probably part of their plan to make the next Fit compact-class, and the next Civic mid-sized class. Then they can introduce a car under the Fit.
No doubt about it.
Truth be told, I'm one of those who wants all the size I can afford (how American of me, right?) I'm 6'4" and have never found a car other than a TRUCK that had enough legroom for me (I have LONG legs and short torso). My Accord is a 2006, and my knees are never able to straighten out as much as I'd physically want, but that was true for any car, not just Accord. I couldn't afford 15 MPG of a pickup or large SUV, so the midsize MPG was the best compromise I could find. Since the Accord has added power, has same/better MPG, and larger interior/exterior, I wouldn't have a problem swapping mine for a new one. I think my Accord's interior is classier looking though.
So, leg room isn't necessarily a function of vehicle size. Another example is the Versa. The 5-door is only 169" long, or over two feet shorter than the 2008 Accord. But I found it has more stretch-out rear leg room (including lots of toe space) than the two-classes-bigger Altima, when I had the driver's seats adjusted for comfort. It felt like a limosine in back! Definitely one of those "try before you buy" things.
My whole point was to say that not everyone feels that more room is bad, just like not everyone feels like a bigger car is good. To each their own. In my case, more room = better.
Does the 2008 Accord add 2 inches of leg room?
Have you tried the '07 Altima? I'm 6'-3", and I can't put the seat all the way back in my wifes Altima. I can tip-toe the pedals, but thats it.
According to the Spec sheets for each, front leg room for the 07 and the 08 Accord are:
07: 42.6
08: 42.5
I am not uncomfortable in my current vehicles, a 1996 Accord (compact) and a 2006 Accord (midsize). Would I welcome more legroom? Whole heartedly. Am I cramped or uncomfortable though? Nah. I like the idea of having stretch out space, but I have never had a problem traveling in my Accord, driving for long periods of time (10 hours at a time, only stopping for lunch/gas/pee breaks).
Second of all, I would welcome larger exterior size if it bought me more legroom (I don't have a need for a wider or taller car, as I have plenty of hip, head, and shoulder room in my sunroof-equipped Accord as it is. The only thing that would make a good thing better in my case is legroom (I have enough to be comfortable, but more spread-out/stretch-out room never hurts at 6'4", ya know? I didn't know the actual specs on legroom, I was doing more "wishful thinking" than anything.
I know I'm rambling, but car companies should put more front-seat travel in their seat tracks. I sit with the seat all the way back, and anyone under 6' has plenty of room behind me. I could go an extra inch or two and have a typical 5'4" person comfortable. I'm regularly driving my friends around (it happens when you've got a roomy car), and extra travel would be appreciated for my guy friends (my three best guy friends are 6'4" 190, 6'4" 320, and 6'3" 250) in the front seat!
IMO that is pretty poor that in a 194" car, Honda has managed to increase rear legroom by only 4/10 of an inch while decreasing front leg room and making the trunk only 14 cubic feet. In comparison, the 177" Elantra has more front leg room and about the same trunk space. I thought Honda was good on intelligent packaging. Maybe the Accord engineering team should take some pointers from the Fit team.
I'm not making an excuse, but it may be why some reviewers may have mentioned more front-seat room - it may well seem that way.
Who knows what will be available 6 years from now?
If I am happy with my current car I'll be more than likely to consider the same brand again over any others.
It's human nature, stick with what works.
Of course I'll look at other makes each time, but I'm starting with a well-earned Honda bias.
Because they were not satisfied owning GM, Ford, or Chrysler cars. Honda owners are usually satisfied with what they have, and will buy another one when the time comes. Only problem for Honda is, I keep my cars a long time, so they have to wait a while for this repeat customer.
I guess I am a dis-loyal car buyer. I buy whatever fits my needs best at the time, for the lowest price. If that's a Honda, I'll gladly buy a Honda such as the Accord. But I'm not going to give Honda or any other manufacturer brownie points because one or more of their cars worked for me in the past. I don't see Honda offering me any financial incentive to be loyal to them--a loyalty rebate, for example. So let the best car, at the best price, win my business.
The car performs 100% on the road for handling and comfort. The gas mileage is good. Will I buy another one, not sure. The noise thing gives me a little pause. Will see how the car rates over time.
Feature wise, I like everything except auto-express down and up windows, which drive me crazy. Oh add the re-locking of doors after you hit the open in about 30 seconds - kinda crazy thing. Now the auto opening of windows before entry is pretty neat idea to cool the car down and is a real plus. Being a person which has owned lots of different cars, some being Japanese, I am kinda tough on rating my car, so at the present time, I am giving it an 85 to 90% due to engine and fender noises. I did have an independent repairman say he thought the engine sounded OK, but then again, he may have listened to lots of rock n' roll over the years, at volume = full.
Loren
I know in 92 the interior seat and trim fabric was different from LX to EX. It was the same color, but not the same quality material. I think the floor mats were stronger in the EX also.
Oh what do I know, when I had a Miata, I also had "my bigger car", the Corolla.
L
I can get a vibe about a car pretty early on (how the doors close, how it handles, how the controls feel).
L
What's up with fake silver aluminum, which looks like a cheap China radio boom box?
I here you. The Harmon Kardon receiver and cassette deck I had back in 84 was that color. It's been out of style for a while now, I think.
L
I am sure the new Accord is a fantastic family sedan, maybe the best in the class right now. But having something that others consider "best in class" ceased to be important to me a long time ago, if I have to pay a lot extra to have it.
I can barely hear anything without the hood open. When it's open injectors, are the dominant sound. Even the clicking seems to quiet down after a few minutes.
I completely disagreed; it was too soft, too numb, and too dull for me to consider it for very long.
You and I likely have a very different idea of best in class; basically, I agree with you though. Buying because others feel a car is "best-in-class" is like buying pants because they fit on someone else. Different people have different standards (some prefer big, some prefer small; some prefer soft, some prefer firm; etc...)
In that sense, we compeltely agree backy.
Whoulda thunk it? The slant H guy and the straight H guy can get along! :shades:
Anyway, the Honda prices are low -- find the right dealership.
If a person like the CVT, the Altima looks kinda interesting. I dislike the stange foot brake location though and the CVT.
L
OK back to mid-sized cars. I guess something positive can be said for most all of these cars in this class. They all have something for someone. I may be what is the most important elements to an individual nowadays, more so than the old this is good car, and that one is a bad car, which did make life more simple
Huh? Resale is very important to the guy that likes a new car every 3 years or less - like me. I like to buy cars somewhat under my wearwithall but dump 'em every 2-3 years, so resale value keeps me from having to pony up much money when I sign for the next one. I rarely lease.
After 6+ years or so resale values become moot (except for maybe trucks and some boutique type cars)
L
Seems to me you are loosing a lot of $$$ on depreciation (on any car) in the first 3 years, and getting a car that hasn't really improved that much over the 3 year old model.