Honda Accord Crosstour



  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 43,060
    it is not an "suv", whatever that means today. It is a hatchback car.

    Only problem is, it is butt ugly.

    I personally love hatchbacks. I had a 1991 mazda 626 5 door once, and it was a great car. Amazing what it could hold with that big opening.

    I would love to see a more traditional wagon style on it, since it is much more space efficient. Having seen pictures of the Euro accord touring, that is what they should have over here (TSX wagon maybe?)

    I predict this Accord thingee will be a dud in the market place.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD

  • hondagyutoohondagyutoo Member Posts: 1
    Honda please hide this car from the media. The looks of this thing are appalling. Accept the mistake you have made and pull this car out of the market before it's too late.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Member Posts: 1,724
    Well, I do think the Accord had made a mistake with the styling on the sedan. I am not sure why they did not carry the coupe design to the sedan. The Accord could fall a bit short in appeal when compared in design. This is when company's are going all out in design. People want something appealing and attractive. The Accord sedan looks pretty bland when others are looking modern.

    Though it is weird to see that Acura is taking there cars to the other extreme, with perhaps too modern, especially the TL. Same company, but 2 names completely the opposite.

    I find the crosstour to be weird looking too. Its just odd. But, you know, the Toyota/Lexus brands are looking really odd too!

    So, I am not sure what Honda is doing in the design room, but its confusing.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I think a lot of stuff out there today is either weird or unattractive. I doubt a lot of this styling will hold up over time.
  • drr98drr98 Member Posts: 80
    By looking at the ACT pics I am not overly impressed. But I won't cross it off my list just yet. See it in person and drive it first. It is now November, is it here yet?

    I will compare ACT to the others on my list...Venza V6 awd is nicer looking imo, but I drove it and it and came away wanting more power/torque to weight, more steering feel and less body roll. The back seat is very roomy, a big plus.

    For some buyers looks are only one part of the package. The last car on my list is the RDX. Nicer looking than the Venza, not imo. But it has things that make it somewhat more attractive. Real awd, boost, a little more luxury, and it is said to handle very well. I have not driven it yet, so we will see.

    Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. Tastes vary. Performance counts for more than looks imo.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Everyone's a critic. Honda has never won any "Style" awards that I know of, but that's not what Honda is about. How the car drives, how reliable it is expected to be, and if the car fits my needs, are more important than looks, imo. The Venza is certainly no styling award winner either imo.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 43,060
    yeah, honda was traditionally not known for exotic or sexy styling, so that might not be a big change.

    too bad they got away from what they were known for. dead reliable, light weight cars that had good visibility, were fun to drive, technologically advanced but yet still simple.

    too many overweight barges coming from them now.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD

  • drr98drr98 Member Posts: 80
    While sexy styling may not be what Honda is known for... they did build a few cars that look nice. The 5th gen Prelude and ~ '00 - '02 Accord Coupe, imo both look quite nice.

    This thread is about the ACT. Are you refering to the ACT as an overweight barge? If so, what do you base this statement on?

    My wife and I are looking to replace our '00 Prelude we bought new in '99. It looks quite new and has only 90k mi. The only reason we are willing to give up our beloved Prelude is we need something with a real back seat to comfortably haul friends and family around. We also own a pickup and a roadster, both with no back seat.

    So we are looking at a short list of the following...ACT, RDX, and Venza.

    I strive to be an educated buyer, that is looking at all the facts to come to a conclusion based on which vehicle fit the most of our needs.

    I have seen published weights for Venza and RDX, but not for the ACT. My wild guess for ACT weight is ~ 3750 - 3900lbs.

    Power/torque to weight equals performance, more or less.

    Weight... Power/Torque... Lbs/HP... Lbs/Tq...

    Venza... 4045... 268/246... 15.093... 16.443...

    RDX... 3931... 240/260... 16.379... 15.119...

    ACT... ~3750... 271/254... ~13.837 ... ~14.76...

    If my wild guess is correct the ACT may be the strongest performer on my short list. Only time and the facts will tell.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I'm not trying to be critical, I'm just curious:

    Why would you shop these more expensive crossover vehicles instead of their less-expesive, better-performing sedan counterparts? You mention a desire for passenger space; the Accord, TL, and Camry all have plenty of interior space and comfort, and get better mileage than their Crossove counterparts you mention looking at.

    Seems like coming from a Prelude, a sedan would still suit your cargo needs, and AWD doesn't appear to be a necessity. I'm just trying to figure it out! :)
  • drr98drr98 Member Posts: 80
    Thanks for making me think the reasons through.

    1. Performance - The V6 Camry ~$29k (fwd), Accord ~$29k (fwd) and the IS350 ~$37k (rwd) are all one wheel drive cars(no lsd). All 3 are within about 100lbs of each other and also about equal hp/tq.
    Good power (like all 3 make) in a fwd one legger will generate lots of tq steer, leave one black stripe and/or cause crazy wheel hop, but not so much performance.

    The TL can be had w/ SH-AWD-`$37.6k (lsd).

    ACT (awd/diff type? not sure yet)

    RDX H-AWD (w/a crazy f & r diff that can drive the o/s wheel 1.7 over)

    2. Rear leg room...TL - Not enough r. leg rm.- 36.2 (Compare to Venza-39.1, Camry 38.3, Accord-37.1, IS-30.6)

    3. Cargo space - sedans and cuv's are not comparable (seats down) in useable cargo space due to the deck lid in a sedan.
    Trunk space in Accord sedan same as our roadster...14 cf. Crazy?

    4. We bike ride and back pack in some places we could not get to in a sedan. For now we go there in our truck. I look forward to getting to the same places in more comfort in a cuv with a roof rack for our bikes.

    Fuel economy is not as important as performance to me. Hence the 4cyl turbo RDX (<20mpg) at the top of my list so far.
  • curvecurve Member Posts: 20 rt_take_road_test

    You'll see all the specifications. Bottom line they don't love it.
  • drr98drr98 Member Posts: 80
    Well not exactly "all the specifications" as it is a Short Take Road Test.
    And I'll take this short take test with a short take (grain) of salt.

    Thanks for sharing, but it looks like we may still be waiting for the truth.
    There are some very conflicting and confusing numbers within this article.

    Text quote:
    "And its not light; about 300 pounds more than a V-6 Accord to start and an additional couple hundred pounds for all-wheel drive, which overtaxes th CR-V size brakes under heavy use."

    Well an Accord sedan wt is - 3445 plus the ~500lbs mentioned in the above quote = ACT ~3945lbs.

    C&D side bar specs
    Qoute " Curb weight: 4068 lb" (ACT somehow gained ~100lbs?)
    Note: Venza published wt = 4045 (also not light)

    Next they list 2 different 1/4 mi times in the text vs the side bar specs...

    Text quote:
    "We recorded a 7.2-second 0-60 dash and a 15.4-second quarter-mile run at 92mph with the Honda, which are respectable numbers but only slightly quicker than those of the lighter Outback with the optional 256-hp, 3.6-liter flat-six (7.4 and 15.7 seconds respectively). A Venza with the 3.5-liter V-6, all-wheel drive, and an additional 127 pounds to lug around, however is more than a half-second quicker in both measures and can stop from 70 mph in 18 fewer feet (169 versus the Honda's 187)."

    So they are saying the Venza will do the 1/4 mi in less than 14.9 sec?
    (15.4 - .5 = 14.9) Cough, really? I have driven the Venza.
    How can the Venza with 3 less hp and 8 less tq, with the above claimed additional 127lbs out perform the ACT in the 1/4 mi?

    So when they claim the Venza outweighs the ACT by 127lbs, and claim the ACT wt at 4068, that should mean the Venza wt is 4195? (4068+127=4195)
    This makes the Venza .5 sec 1/4 win even less likely.

    Wait, What? Am I the only one confused?

    Then they conflict the above text quote re: perf vs their side bar specs quote...
    C/D Test Results:
    ...Standing 1/4-mile: 15.6 sec @ 92 mph

    Which is it C&D 15.4 or 15.6?

    The weak braking numbers (if true) would be a deal breaker for me though.

    Is this whole thing ACT just a case of infectious viral negative opinion about something different due to popular or prevailing opinion via the internet?

    Or is the ACT truly unworthy of love?

    Car And Driver please do some editing and sort out the confusing and conflicting facts.
  • toledo73toledo73 Member Posts: 174

    After reading the specs and viewing the various images, I may reconsider. With the V6 and Honda engineering, it may be smooth, crisp and fun to drive.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 43,060
    that thing is only about 5-6" shorter than our whal of an Odyssey. Better have a really big cargo area!

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD

  • drr98drr98 Member Posts: 80
    Thanks for sharing.

    EX-L AWD `$34k...Quick first impressions based on real info...

    Wt - 4070(awd) 25lbs more than Venza(awd), 139lbs more than RDX(awd).
    VCM - I don't want it or understand it.
    Fob window controls.
    Memory position x 2.
    R. leg rm 37", Venza 39", RDX 37.6"
    Pass vol. 100.8 cu', Venza 108, RDX 101.4
    AWD system- non lsd, Venza- non lsd, RDX- lsd f/r.
    Paddle or sequential shift mode-no, Venza- s/s, RDX- p & s/s- holds to red line.
    Trans or engine oil cooler - no, Venza-engine oil cooler (opt), RDX-trans fluid cooler.
    Ground clearence- 8.1", Venza-8.1, RDX-6.25
    Ht- 65.7" Venza-63.4, RDX-65.1
    Second-Row Climate Control Vents-yes, Venza-?, RDX-no
  • ldislerldisler Member Posts: 83
    This thing is UGLY. It's not a SUV. It's not a wagon. And it's not sporty. What is HONDA
    thinking ? It's 1 step up from a Pontiac AZTEK.
    Honda should have just made a wagon.
  • drr98drr98 Member Posts: 80
    ^ Low 15's in the 1/4, and you say it is not sporty?
    Don't confuse a sporty CUV and a Sports Car.
    Ugly? Have you seen one in person?
    Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. Go behold one and get back to us.
    (Ugly? Wish I had a nickle for every time I read that)

    Oops, did I type that. My bad.

    Back to the facts,
    Textured rocker panels, anyone like them?

    I have seen the new Outback with black plastic rockers like an older Avalanche, not as nice as this approach.
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    Textured rocker panels, anyone like them?


    I like them and think the ACT looks okay - not great but certainly not bad. The mass hysteria about this car's looks is humorous. Reminds me of the guy standing on a busy street corner staring skyward. All of a sudden everybody walking by is looking skyward.

    The car is fine, very quiet and refined and should sell well. It's a big, sporty looking wagon that resembles the original Accord 3-door hatchback from the 70s. I like it.
  • curvecurve Member Posts: 20 ex.html

    "the Crosstour corners commendably, especially when compared to the Venza. Steering in the Honda, though, is quite lifeless."

    They think it's too pricey despite the goodies (compared to the Murano and Edge)
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    They think it's too pricey despite the goodies (compared to the Murano and Edge)


    2010 Ford Edge SEL FWD starts at $29,920.

    2010 Nissan Murano SL FWD starts at $29,600.

    2009 Toyota Venza V6 FWD starts at $27,800.

    The Honda may seem a touch high in price but remember that EX trim and the V6 are standard for $29,670.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Doesn't seem too out of line to me. There are three Hondas in my driveway, but I have to admit, the Crosstour wouldn't be at the top of my list; too pricey and impractical when compared to a CR-V. The only thing it offers to me that would matter is more power (the CR-V isn't slow, but its noticeably off-pace compared to my 166-horse Accord). But $30k for the cheapest version? I'd rather get a $25k sedan and a used pickup for $5k!
  • drr98drr98 Member Posts: 80
    I love my truck but it has its limits. As for a sedan, (as I said before) it has it limits as well. A rally sedan might work though, ha.

    They nailed my segment with this type of vehicle as it can and will serve many purposes...commuter, grocery getter, airport shuttle, stylish night on the town with friends, mountain adventure transporter for five, etc.

    And make mine handle well and be able to get out of its own way and I'm good.

    Back to the textured rockers- they should help hide rock chips well.
  • drr98drr98 Member Posts: 80
    Thanks for sharing.

    "the Crosstour corners commendably, especially when compared to the Venza. Steering in the Honda, though, is quite lifeless."

    I am confused by that statement.

    I drove the Venza and felt it lacked feedback, and he fails to mention this.

    He likes the handling (corners commendably, especially when compared to the Venza) but says the Honda steering is numb.

    So it maybe they both lack feedback. We will see in about 1 week when the ACT gets here.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I saw some more pix of the CT on the Detroit paper website and it didn't look as bad, still not a beauty IMO though. I don't usually get into hatchbacks because they have the rattles and stuff of a station wagon without the space.
  • drr98drr98 Member Posts: 80
    On PBS this week. (Saturday locally) Here is a link to their review...
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I wonder of that CT pricing isn't a bit aggressive?
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    The Crosstour has been the hit of the show and none of us have yet to hear anyone complain about it's looks. Quite the opposite.

    Of course there will always be a few people who won't like any car!

    Now, if only we can get a bunch of them here in a hurry!
  • bearcrkrdbearcrkrd Member Posts: 167
    I talked my sister into going the first day. She had never been to an auto show before. Am trying hard to get her to buy a new car. Had her in your silver Accord LX at least three times. The size scared her off, after I mentioned it, I have to add. I hadn't sat in it myself. I went back the next day on my own. Of the various "4 doors and a truck w/plastic hubcaps" cars that we had checked out extensively the day before, the Accord was the best in my book. She liked the Camry and Jetta (SE trim on the Jetta, not plastic hubcap stripper).
    I think the Crosstour and it's ilk are a terrible idea. Think it stinks. Or thought so?Honda really nailed it. That was quite a vehicle. Not as fine as the Cadillac CTS wagon, but that's apples to oranges.... From the teal color to the buttoned down look of it to the big 6 to the way the size is (or looks) not too big, it was fine. I am looking at a little tiny picture of a Red one as I type this. The vehicle at the show looked much more elegant than this little picture here.
  • drr98drr98 Member Posts: 80
    Good on you. You saw it in person. And you liked it. I can't wait to see it. Soon I hope.

    Like I said before to all those haters who posted as to how ugly it is...

    "ugly is in the eye of the beholder, so go behold one and get back to us"
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I "beheld" a Crosstour last Friday at the Auto Show; I was with six people I knew. One loved it, the other five couldn't have cared less about it. Me? I felt about like I feel about the current Accord sedan. I wasn't put-off by the design, but it didn't make me want one either.

    I was surprised to sit in a Venza and find touches of cheapness here and there (flimsy plastic covers, etc). I had higher hopes for that vehicle.
  • nmctownernmctowner Member Posts: 9
    We are now in the possession of a 2010 CT. The critics are wrong. it looks great, drives great and was just what we had in mind. White, EX-L AWD. Sticker price, no hassle, great experience. More when we get some miles on it. It is larger than we expected. Wife's car - drives more like a car than her Murano which was traded in. She really liked the heated seats this moring as it was cold.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Well, glad to hear it drives great, but its hard to argue with someone's idea of the vehicle's looks - they're in the eye of the beholder. In exterior style, I like the looks of my '96 Accord over my '06 Accord, but find the interior of my 06 to be unmatched by any midsizer past or present. A lot of people would disagree to one or both statements, but it really doesn't matter - we all have different perceptions of what "looks great."

  • bearcrkrdbearcrkrd Member Posts: 167
    My brother has an '05 Accord EX 4cyl he bought new. The interior is light colored cloth, and is perfect.
    When I get an oil change for my '08 Civic I always walk the lot rather than sit in the waiting room. The Accord 4 dr doesn't look so good. I find it odd that if I see one by itself on the road, and not a whole line of 'em on a lot, it looks ok. They even look slighly raked, due to the beltline mold (or whatever you call it).
    Again, as I type this there is a picture to the Right of a Red Crosstour. Little picture, and it's ugly. The one at the Seattle Auto Show looked better! I'm still not sold on the whole concept, but I'm not smart enough to argue either way. :D
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I'm still not sold on the whole concept, but I'm not smart enough to argue either way.

    You don't have to be smart enough to argue (although I don't doubt you could hold your own), because there's no argument here - simply "lively discussion." :)
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 43,060
    Ihappen to be sitting at the honda dealer at the moment, waiting for an oil change on my accord. I will have to wander up front and see if they have a CT to scope out.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD

  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 43,060
    saw one on the showroom floor. I actually like the style of it. sort of bold, and makes an impression. Nicer looking than the 4 door accord sitting next to it (although I really don't care for the looks of that car).

    anyway, this thing is really just a 5 door accord hatchback that rides a little higher.

    interior was OK. Basic accord up front, but very roomy and comfy back seat.

    The cargo area was small, at least with the rear seats up. Fairly high floor combined with the sloped rear end leads to very little height to work with. Did have good room though with the rear seats folded (also noted that the rear seats dont slide, a poor move IMO).

    also, terrible blind spots out the back, to the rear quarters and directly back. In the dark or rain, probably no rear vision other than the mirrors. You could lose a tank back there.

    I know that it is all about style, and americans wont buy a wagon unless it pretends to be a truck, but if Honda made this a true wagon, with a functionally designed rear end, I would be all over it as a replacement for our odyssey.

    As it is, the pilot gives up a little in MPG and handling (probably) but is way more user friendly. Unless, of course, you don't need rear passenger + cargo together.

    sadly? I like the CRV EX-L better! although of course this was just sitting, not driving.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD

  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    sadly? I like the CRV EX-L better! although of course this was just sitting, not driving.

    I'm with you. I struggle when looking at them side-by-side. Why wouldn't I get the CR-V for a lot less money, better economy, and more practical packaging? It its not obvious by now, I'm really practical-minded. The CR-V interior even seems better laid-out to my eyes. Sure, the Crosstour is a V6, but I doubt anyone's doing major hot-rodding in their family cars. I could be wrong though!


  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 43,060
    The CT is roomier by far in the passenger compartment, although the CRV probably has a more useful cargo area. And is quite a bit cheaper.

    I imagine though the CRV is a bit of a dog if you get a decent load in it and have to pull some hills with the AC on. Gonna be a lot of downshifting going on.

    Totally different target markets too I assume.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD

  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    The CT should ride/handle much better, be more comfortable, and quieter than the CRV. I would not consider a CRV, because loaded down I'm sure it doesn't have much get up and go on the highway (no V6 option). I also like the idea of having an Accord, that doesn't look like every other Accord on the road. That would be a refreshing change. When we evacuated for hurricanes, we wanted to take as much stuff with us as we could, The CT would probably carry considerably more than our 03 Accord's trunk does. If the CT is still around, when I'm looking for a new car, it will have a good shot at being our next ride.
  • zdogszdogs Member Posts: 18
    I was in the dealership for an oil change on my '09 Pilot and went into the showroom to see if they had a CT. They did and I must say, it looked much better than I thought it would based on the pictures I had seen. It was a white EX-L and as I approached it from the me crazy, but it reminded me a little of a BMW X6. It's hard to explain, but the CT just looks "cooler" than I thought it would based on my impressions of the Venza (which I consider somewhat "uncool"). My wife will be turning in her Murano in about 6 months and the CT is something we'll probably consider.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    it looked much better than I thought it would based on the pictures I had seen.

    Seems to be the general concensus. It goes from "bad" in pictures to somewhere between "iffy" and "sharp" in person.
  • drr98drr98 Member Posts: 80
    I finally checked out an ACT yesterday. It was silver with black leather, AWD, and looked sweet. Went to test drive it and found the tank to be on empty. The salesman went back in and got some petty cash and I drove it right to Chevron and put in $10 worth of regular. Right, the cheap stuff. Very strange for a Honda.

    When I went to fuel it I noticed the fuel door is not lockable, only a push in and it pops open. I do not like that. I also do not like the step protruding above the bumper and below the hatch.

    I set the drivers seat up for my 6' 2" needs and then hopped in the back seat on the drivers side to see how much room a passenger behind me would have. There was plenty of space for my long legs, and only very slightly less than the Venza I had previously driven.

    I liked the styling inside and out. And driving it, you feel very connected to the road. I opened it up fully when getting on the freeway and it has plenty of power to weight and get up and go.
  • tallman1tallman1 Member Posts: 1,874
    I drove it right to Chevron and put in $10 worth of regular. Right, the cheap stuff. Very strange for a Honda.

    What's "cheap"? Chevron or regular??? Sarcasm perhaps??

    Chevron is supposed to be a top tier gasoline and I thought even the V6 Accords ran on regular. :confuse:
  • drr98drr98 Member Posts: 80
    Ha, sorry for causing any confusion...I use Chevron premium in each and every one of our vehicles, as required by the mfg.

    So in saying..."I drove it right to Chevron and put in $10 worth of regular. Right, the cheap stuff. Very strange for a Honda"; I only mean using regular grade fuel in a Honda seems strange to me.

    Chevron is top tier in both quality and price, and not cheap, but as I said before, all I use.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I only mean using regular grade fuel in a Honda seems strange to me.

    The only mainstream Hondas I can think of that have ever called for something other than regular were the 1999-2001 Honda Odyssey. What else was it?
  • robr2robr2 BostonMember Posts: 8,863
    The only mainstream Hondas I can think of that have ever called for something other than regular were the 1999-2001 Honda Odyssey. What else was it?

    Even then it wasn't required. If used, the HP would bump from 205 to 210 IIRC.

    The only Honda that might require premium may be the S2000.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Right; it called for it but didn't require it.
  • robr2robr2 BostonMember Posts: 8,863
    I saw one this AM in Boston and I have to say, it did look good.

    I had seen a couple at a dealer over the weekend but in the dark, it was hard to really see.
  • drr98drr98 Member Posts: 80
    We own an '00 Prelude base, mfg. requires 91 octane premium unleaded or better fuel.

    I'm sure there are at least a few others...and some Acura's...ITR and RDX come to mind. Yes required. Any others?

    High compression motors are prone to detonation and high octane fuel helps prevent this.

    And now back to our sponser...The ACT.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I'm thinking the biggest hurdle for the CT once its newness wears off will be price points rather than looks. You can get a Highlander for its pricing and get a lot more vehicle for the money with similar gas mileage in AWD. The Venza seems to have died down once its newness wore off. I'm actually seeing a lot of ads for it with discounted prices (and its significantly cheaper than the CT). Ford seems to be moving a fair number of Edge's at quite attractive promotional prices as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.