The recent Consumer's Report review of the 08 Accord was a little surprising
to me. While they liked the car, they rated it below the Altima. Comments
were that the new Accord "is not as quick" as the old Accord and that the
gas mileage is down. They tested the 177 hp LX - P and a V6 model. I
suppose the bigger car weighs more hence the degradation is performance and
handling. Of course, I have no reason to trade my 06 coupe I4.
Yes, I was surprised at that. I also read the Motor Trend comparison
test of Camry, Chevy Malibu, Accord and Altima (all with V6 engine).
They ranked the Camry and Malibu better than the Accord. The Altima
ranked below the Accord because its fit, finish and comfort wasn't as
good, BUT the Altima had better performance and gas mileage according to
their tests. See
While the V6 Malibu may be a winner, the 4 cyl version with the 4 spd auto I
daresay is not. The I4 Accord would be a better selection. What bothers me
is Honda's apparent move away from handling. The comment that the V6 Accord
is Honda's version of a Buick is almost insulting -- but perhaps indicative
of change in company policy.
Yah, it's been forty years since GM had a car with the kind of good,
solid reputation they mean to imply.
I see what Honda is attempting with the 08 Accord, but, I dunno.
OTOH, maybe it just takes time. I like the "visual excitement" from
the front quarters, but Honda has had styling issues with the tail for
a long time. Took me until the end of the lease, before I appreciated
the 04 styling, but I finally bought into it by then.
I have to say, making the Accord ever larger and heavier is NOT a good
idea. I may go TSX next time, or even Civic (or even - gasp! -
non-Honda!). And even at the same weight, I still don't get the
mileage on my Accord I4 07 that I got on the 04, I attribute it to
engine and computer changes. Maybe it does drive a little better, but
it shouldn't cost 10% in mileage, and it seems to.
I have an '05 Accord and it was even larger that I would have liked. They
are getting too large and dare I say, less soul. Before I bought it
(practicality steered me to the Accord) - a friend also said the rear end
was ugly - looked like a Buick. IMHO, they've gotten too large and
conservative looking. I actually liked the design of some of the older
Accords, but I definately didn't buy this car based on its looks!
I know the '04 and '05 I4 Accord has 160hp, but I believe the '06 and '07
has a little more at 166hp. I assume this would contribute to the mgp drop.
Weight wise I haven't checked them out. Should be very minimal since it was
only minor other changes done...
I agree with you. Why does Honda think we need larger size sedans? I
have never heard anyone complaining about the size at least in the
past gen 6 and gen 7 Accords. The 08 is longer than a Honda Pilot and
Ford Explorer too big for me.
Honda has me in a dilemma at the moment. I really hate the two tiered
dash on the Civic but at the same time do not want a TSX because of
leather seating. Do I buy a Civic with a interior I don't like or a
TSX with everything that I like except the leather seats?
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 22:59:51 -0500, "Dave L"
Cars in general were getting bigger, especially with the SUVs. Guess Honda
wanted to keep up and give the general public what they wanted. All about
the (not so mighty) dollar. Some of us don't need or really want these
things getting bigger (and uglier). Unfortunately we're in the minority.
Everyone I know of who bought the new Civic loves it and quickly got used to
the tiered dash. I don't care for it either - but normally if someone is
looking at a Civic, they wouldn't be looking at a TSX! If cost wasn't an
issue I'd go TSX. It's a sharp looking car.
I was thinking of going with the leather seats for the Accord EX4, and
about a year ago when I was shopping, it turned out the lease price
for the TSX was within $10. But the TSX also drinks premium gas.
This is very true, but I was looking for size more than cost. I'll
hopefully find a car rental place that has the Civic and test it out
for the weekend. If I don't like the dash, I'll suck it up and buy the
TSX even though I really don't care for leather.
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:36:10 -0500, "Dave L"
focus on horsepower is meaningless without also correlating it to weight.
1989 civic dx, auto trans, 2,138lbs. engine output is 92hp iirc.
2000 civic dx, auto trans, 3,330lbs. engine output is 106hp iirc.
now, despite the fact that engine management on the 2000 is
significantly more advanced than on the 89, both return pretty much the
same economy cruising on the freeway. and off the line, the 89 is quite
a bit faster.
1989 = 0.043 hp/lb
2000 = 0.032 hp/lb
now, why not ask your congress-critter why they keep insisting on
stricter and stricter "crash protection" for cars that already perform
excellently, when all they're really doing is blunting the sword of fuel
efficiency. [and, coincidentally, ruining dynamic safety too - heavier
cars are harder to stop and steer out of collisions.]
I pulled my data from Edmunds.com, but I wouldn't doubt they were
wrong. But the 2008 model is direct from Honda's website. I think
there may be a typo in the factory manual. I wouldn't believe that the
2008 weighs less then a 2000.
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:08:50 -0800, jim beam
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.