‘99 Stang GT: 0.86
‘06 SE-R: 0.86
‘08 Accord V6: 0.78
‘08 Altima V6: 0.83
‘07 Camry V6: 0.78
‘08 Malibu LTZ: 0.79
‘07 BMW 335i: 0.84
‘08 G37S: 0.83
‘04 TL: 0.81

And yes, I realize that there’s more to handling than skidpad #s, but as a comparative tool, they’re useful. But good try anyways.

Non-sporting? Have you ever driven an SE-R? As fast as and handles as well as my 2000 Mustang GT, but with a bigger trunk, 2 more doors, nicer interior, and 1 more gear, for the same sticker. Oh, and the same gas mileage; my combined is 24-25, and on long highway trips I get 29, on mid-grade.

So no, I don't think an 260(+/-10)HP FWD $30k sedan is in an awkward position in the market, since everyone offers one.

Granted, this article is about a coupe, but they're comparing it to sedans, and inevitably over half the people that walk into a Honda showroom looking for a V6 4dr Accord will be dragged into looking at the coupe. What I'm saying is, its for someone like me, that for whatever reason (family, work), wants/needs a relatively large vehicle but refuses to drive a mind-numbingly boring sedan with no personality…and doesn't want to pay BMW-premiums, be it for price, service, or insurance.

If I could have gotten away with a coupe, I would have, but the sedan gives you 90% of what the coupe gives, with far more versatility, and lower insurance premiums. So I'm incredibly happy that Honda (and Nissan) offer a choice: a frugal 4 or a whallop of a 6.

I just wish more manufacturers would put a stick in a big engine sedan. Offering it for only 4's, or in this case only the coupe, shuts me out. You hear that Ford, GM, and Chrysler? I may be a minority, but I'm a minority that the Japanese go looking for.

Gimmeamanual: YES, it does matter what we think because we are all prospective consumers!

Putting 270hp in a $30k FWD non-sporting coupe/family sedan puts it in an awkward position relative to the market. Far more power and too thirsty for most families’ needs. Not a sporty enough chassis for the prospective coupe buyer.

The slow-selling Solara has the same exact problem. It has a gem of an engine and gorgeous interior, but with pricing in the high-20’s the competition offers sportiness that the Solara’s underlying platform simply can’t match.

So you say it’s not for us, then I ask you this: Who IS it for???

As far as Tbird prices, I have a 94 T-bird with the V8 and 152k miles, online for $1695. I sold a 95 model a few months back for $1795 with similar miles. T-birds don’t go for anything these days and I have yet to see one sell for more than $2500 around here. Perhaps if you got a 1997 with leather and low miles (under 100k), I could see it. Even if it were mint though, I wouldn’t see it retailing for more than $3500.

Once sedans became sporty instead of square (think the 1st gen Maxima and LH sedans), the market for luxury coupes went into a downward spiral. It simply isn’t worth it to lose the two doors in exchange for slightly better ergonomics, less space, and in the case of most of these vehicles, more heft.

One more thing… this Accord’s design bring back memories of the 2nd generation Legend coupe (mid-90’s model). I loved that car (and the name) but the car wasn’t built with a sport focus. It’s not a bad thing. Just that most luxury car owners prefer to have four doors instead of two.

Steven: good points, but even the online junkyards will have a hard time locating parts (that work) like the HID bulbs, power tilt wheel, ashtray assembly (that isn’t broken), LED side mirrors and other parts unique to the 97-98 Mark. And if they got them, they will go for serious coin. Side note: the less complicated, more common 93-96 models are easier on the checkbook and have more performance to boot.

gimmeamanual: forget about the marketers, the corporations don’t care. Japan Inc spent the better part of 30 years refining a FWD chassis, and aren’t about to dump that because they have outgrown their skeletons. Compared to the domestics and Toyota, look how long it took Honda to introduce a V6 to the Accord! (about 4 years after the Camry, 10+ after Detroit)

For those of you who think 270HP in FWD is too much, the guys who market this car don’t care what you think. Thats why they offer 4-cyls. Its not for you. No, not yours, can’t has.

As far as other replacement parts that are rare… that’s what the local recycling center and car-part.com are for.

The Accord coupe does have good resale value. However it stands out as one that does, amongst the overwhelming majority that don’t.

I did have to rebuild the motor around 100K and the transmission a couple years later. I knew about the motor issue going in, and given what I paid for the car (and what they’re going for now), it wasn’t that big a deal. The transmission failure annoyed me because it came without warning, but at least I managed to limp the car home.

Like most RWD machines, the car is not especially pleasant to drive in snow, unless you have a frozen lake at your disposal. Last March I went up an S-curved hill in a blizzard – on the second try, after letting the tires cool from the first run at it, pretty much sideways, with tires spinning and the wheel cranked over as far as it would go. When I finally got where I was going, I more or less spun the car into the driveway. But I did make it!

Thankfully, it doesn’t snow where I live.

And about all the love for the 10th gen TBird (1989-1997) forgets that these cars were overweight and underpowered, as well, especially in 3.8L V6 form. At 3700 lbs, these ’sporty’ coupes weighed in around the same as today’s CUVs and were powered by anemic engines (205 hp 4.6L V8, 140 hp/215 ft-lb 3.8L V6). Not to mention the 3.8L V6’s penchant for blown head gaskets.

Hah, didn’t click through to the astronomer story until you mentioned it. The rumor from this Autoweek article is that the vehicle, codenamed ACE, is coming in 2008 with a different name, V6 only, available AWD.

Steven: but from what I’ve seen, the Accord coupes hold their value pretty well. My friend got one of the older coupes (the real slick ones that looked like an NSX from the back) with 100,000 miles, 4cyl, auto, EX for $10,000. I thought that was excessive, but the market (retail) seems to like them. I donno, that’s just a random sampling of the market.

Agreed about the T-bird being a great used car value, plenty of style, comfort and respectable power with the 4.6L.

And you touched on the possibility of coupes making a comeback: but Detroit’s gotta start. They are the only ones with a mainstream history of good coupes. As soon as they have a good RWD chassis, low slung (Bill Mitchell!!!) proportions, and an interior better than the Mustangs…it will happen. And the market will respond.

Finaly, tell me how much money you spend on the LSC, they are huge money pits (by American car standards) unless you have a stack of receipts for replacement suspension components. And you don’t want to know how much an HID bulb or neon taillight goes for. Damn those coupes and their limited production nature!!!

You mentioned wagons. A friend just bought an early 90’s Roadmaster wagon–a nifty Interstate cruiser with gobs of space for stuff. My impression is that prices for those big GM wagons are picking up. Lots classier than minivans, and decent gas mileage on the open road.

I started here…

Hmmm…. I just bought a 1998 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC a week ago for $2600 that is in immaculate shape. At least on the used side, touring coupes are having a lot of difficulty in the marketplace.

And ended here…

“But then again, you can get a perfectly good T-Bird with low mileage, a V8 and all the options for around $1500 to $2500 these days.

This Accord may be a four star vehicle. But compared with the bang for the buck you can get in the used car market (which offers magna cum depreciation in this particular segment), it’s not really a good choice.”

I was affirming the steep depreciation that luxury coupes have experienced in the NA marketplace. The $45,000 Lincoln was bought for $2600. One owner, 104k, perfect interior. There is a little wear on the paint on the rear quarter panel and trunk lid, but that’s about it.

I drove a 94 Tbird today with a V8 that I bought for $650 at a sale a while back. What a great driver. I would upgrade the dash a bit with some wood and chrome accents, install high quality speakers and a Sirius satellite system, throw in a transmission cooler (the one weakness of the 1990’s RWD V8 platform is the transmission) and I would have a pretty neat commuter for the winding roads of North Georgia. This wouldn’t cost more than about $1000 to $1200 (if a good kit was available for the dash dress-up)… I honestly can’t see how this Accord would compare to a classic T-Bird that would cost about a tenth as much.

The depressing fact about the ‘mature’ coupe market is that it’s in dying mode. In very much the way that hatchbacks and Japanese sports cars struggled about ten years ago. It’ll bounce back. Perhaps. But I think that the breakthrough product won’t come from Toyota or Honda.

Then again, maybe sedans, hatchbacks and wagons are so well designed these days that a large coupe is simply not a worthy consideration. The Riviera, Mark VIII, T-Bird and Toronado all lost their way in the 1990’s and perhaps the Solara (dead) and Accord will follow. Keep in mind that Camry and Accord wagons are also no longer available in North America.

Who knows? We’ll see.

And a car this big needs to be RWD. I parked my ‘95 LSC next to a new Accord and the Honda was taller than me. Width and wheelbase was similar too. With this ride, Honda is making the modern equivalent of a ‘77 Olds Regency Coupe.

I parked my Crown Vic next to this (yes, apples to apples, 4 door to 4 door), and I’m sure less than a foot separated the lengths of the two. It was quite a bit taller as well.

If it weren’t for the classic Honda trunk it’d have been real close.

And a car this big needs to be RWD. I parked my ‘95 LSC next to a new Accord and the Honda was taller than me. Width and wheelbase was similar too. With this ride, Honda is making the modern equivalent of a ‘77 Olds Regency Coupe.

Hondas are getting much too big when they start to intimidate a Lincoln Mark VIII in the parking lot. A last-gen CPO Accord Coupe looks more appealing than this new porker.

In comparison, I am really surprised that the Lamborghini Gallardo got 5 stars. A ridiculously high mark for a car that can only transport two.

wsn: Seriously, you’re comparing the ratings of a FWD coupe-yacht to an exotic Super Car? The Gallardo has insane performance (without the E-gear), stunning fit and finish and remarkable city manners to boot.

I’m a survivor in the Mortgage Industry, but I’m thinking about selling my Cayman S (tear). I want something around $30k that’s fun to drive.

As much as the Accord Coupe looks good, I just don’t think I’ll enjoy it…altough your comment: “the view from behind the EX-L’s wheel is strangely… feminine” makes me reconsider :)

Thanks!
Jon

http://www.sportscardriven.com

The “PLAN” was not only to enjoy the car (which I do except for the lack of power), but also a strategic move/gamble for a favorable same make trade on the new one. After all, how could Honda screw it up? They had to introduce class competitive engines and, in keeping with modern reality, reduce weight. Almost the last to appear with a revamped modern version in this class of car (2 and 4 door). Surely they would know what we want, and NOT want. Right?

WRONG. Huh? Bloat city! They focus on the rear seating room/longer car (who ever seriously had that on top of their list, or even on it?). Added weight (significant, not a few pounds) in 2008?? Seriously?

So, Honda loses a customer due to their own stupidity. Like Louie in the old Budweiser commercial, “those frogs are gonna pay”. OR, “do the (weight) crime, do the time”.

No you’re not! I love my ‘99 Accord, and I love tossing it around corners. I don’t understand why Honda thinks they have to keep growing the thing. I’m not going to be getting one of those porkers.

And of course the ‘98-02 Accord was a porker compared to the ‘94-97 which surprisingly was about the same size as the ‘90-93 which was a huge porker compared to the ‘86-89. Having driven all of them, i’d bet an ‘88/89 LXI with a modern wheel/tire would leave any ‘98-02 in the dust on a twisty mountain road.

Point is, the only reason Honda is doing this is because the majority of their customer base expects a bigger car with every new model. Their trick is trying to wring similar performance and fuel econ. out of every “upsizing”. For that. I think Honda is doing a pretty good job.

No you’re not! I love my ‘99 Accord, and I love tossing it around corners. I don’t understand why Honda thinks they have to keep growing the thing. I’m not going to be getting one of those porkers.

As for the styling, I see Dodge Charger on the rear and Scion tC on the front. And check out that overhang over the front wheels.

As far as the understeer issues, every FWD car is going to have that issue. Its just that Honda mitigated that with small, lightweight engines that put out as much power as bigger engines from the competition. But with that hoggin’ 3.5L, that is out the window.

From experience, my TSX likes to be driven briskly, but not insanely at 10/10ths on public roads. Despite an excellent perfectly tuned and engineered suspension, it is still tuned for a soft ride somewhat, even if just a bit. On the other hand, my Toyota Matrix commuter, inspires fun like a group of Catholic nuns. But, still I try (and fail) at trying to defeat Toyota’s nannies. But compared to a little SUV or the Matrix’s terribly handling Corolla cousin, it does have its handling pluses. (I nearly flipped a CR-V (borrowed from my sister) avoiding a tire recap on the freeway and swore I’d never buy a SUV, even if it was a Honda) And there is where Honda still hasn’t capped the fun, for their nannies will let some not-mom-approved tire action happen before stepping in.

As for oversteer in any FWD car (yes-oversteer), it is possible if you have fresh tires on the front wheels, bald tires on the rear, and purposely charge into standing water on freeway loop ramps. The lack of weight on the rear wheels in conjunction with no tread causes them to hydroplain before the front wheels loose grip and cause understeer. Its sort of like driving on honey coated ice. But not suggested if you don’t want a wrecked car on your hands, since while you can acheive oversteer, you have no control, but hit the gas, and its back to understeer time and there’s no fun in that. If this works in a Toyota, I don’t know if it would work in a Honda Accord Coupe, but at nearly $30K brand new, I don’t think anyone would be trying this anytime soon. (Its just that I’ve still got some of my teenage tendancies still in me.) Just do the sensible and mature thing if hardcore pistonhead things really matter to you, and buy a Beamer 3 or G35/37 with RWD (and balanced weight distribution) and call it a day. This Accord is for Mom and Dad when the kids have finally gone off to college and graduated, allowing the minivan to be sent off packing.