I remember sitting in a park with my father a quarter-century ago, pointing at a nearby car. “What do you think that is?” “A BMW?” Nope, but his guess was not without reason. The second-generation Accord lifted more than a few design cues from the storied German marque. The 1982 sedan was also notable for its astounding attention to detail, compactness and efficiency. For those “in the know,” the Accord revealed Detroit’s sedans as over-sized, over-powered and indelicate. Now that Honda’s eighth-generation Accord faces a supposedly chastened Detroit, does the new model maintain the mechanical high ground?
The new Honda Accord is 20 inches longer, eight inches wider, four inches taller and 1,000 pounds heavier than the motor my father misidentified. In other words, it’s larger and heavier than the ‘80’s Detroit iron reviled by Honda’s early fans. And yet the Accord has come full circle. After years of increasingly bland styling, the ubiquitous sedan once again begs to be mistaken for a BMW.
Looking at the new Accord from the rear three-quarter perspective, clocking the C-pillar kink and the wrap-around taillights (that continue to the roofline’s down-sweep), it’s a dead ringer for the current BMW 5-Series. From other perspectives, the Honda’s design is less derivative– and less eye-catching. This despite a swage line slicing downwards from the rear and a bit of Bimmeresque flame surfacing. A distinctly un-Honda abundance of front overhang does nothing for the proportions.
Still, overall, mission accomplished. The new Honda Accord looks much more expensive than both its predecessor and its classmates.
Inside, the Accord’s instrument panel sweeps across the cabin like a 5-Series’ dash. Unfortunately, this aesthetic “homage” extends to the Accord’s ergonomics. The new controls are just as complex as any Bimmer’s, with more buttons than a professional seamstress AND a large iDrive-inspired eight-way knob. So much for “We make it simple.”
The Accord’s front seats are well shaped for both comfort and [a modicum of] lateral support, especially when clad with grippy cloth. Thanks to the supersized external dimensions, the enlarged cabin is roomy enough for four Big and Tall preferred customers. The Accord’s rear seat folds in a single section to expand a class-trailing trunk; unusually intrusive rear strut towers defeat the purpose of a 60/40 split.
The 1982 Accord was motivated by a mere 75 horsepower. For years Honda refused to offer a V6 as a matter of principle. Gen 8 Accord buyers can still opt for a four-cylinder engine, with either 177 horses ( LX) or 190hp (EX). That’s plenty of poke for a family runabout, right? Wrong. Pitted against the upsized Accord’s 3,433-pound curb weight (EX-L with autobox), the four pot must rev its little 16-Valve DOHC i-VTEC® heart out to get the job done. The resulting 21/31 EPA ratings aren’t class-leading.
Enter the new 268-horsepower, 3.5-liter V6. Hello cubes, goodbye revs. Needless to say, the extra displacement works wonders in the oomph department, with minimal torque steer. The six may not deliver neck-snapping thrills or sing a lusty song, but it’s a refined piece that engenders mindless merging and perspiration-free passing.
These powerplants deserve better partners. When hooked up to either engine, the still-five-speed automatics didn’t behave well. They occasionally held a gear too long, or refused to downshift, or bumped when going from gear to gear. Maybe the transmissions needed more miles to adapt to my driving style. Maybe not. Fancy manually shifting the recalcitrant slushbox instead? Buy an Acura.
Though the Accord’s steering feels nicely weighted and precise, the suspension is tuned for touring, not sport. Going around curves, the double wishbones deliver most of the solid, tightly damped and thoroughly composed feel of a BMW– without the Bavarian’s sporting edge. Many competitors offer the option of firmer suspension tuning, but Honda doesn’t believe in options. The Accord’s suspension settings are a deft compromise between comfort and control. They are, nevertheless, a compromise. Enthusiasts will not be well satisfied; everyone else will be.
The Accord’s soft-core suspension settings does have its advantages: banishing the bump-thump busyness that sometimes afflicted the previous Accord on patchy pavement. There’s still more road noise than you’ll find in some Accord alteratives, but it’s much less pronounced than in many past Hondas.
The new Honda Accord is an impressive piece of automotive artistry. It’s well-built, roomy, properly-priced and (with the V6) powerful. It raises Honda’s trademark refinement to a new level, with much of the look and some of the feel of a base BMW 5-Series.
But part of the Accord’s appeal used to lie in Honda’s idiosyncratic insistence on engineering cars that followed the “man maximum, machine minimum” philosophy. The new Accord is large and in charge, but in seeking to provide a 5er for the masses Honda has forsaken much of the formula that earned the model its place in American automotive history.
83 Comments on “Honda Accord Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Had a chance to see one on a local dealer’s lot and it is a much larger car as mentioned. I expect the Honda faithful will purchase this current version of the Accord as though it was their “civic” duty.
You forgot to mention the sticker shock. This is a MUCH less affordable car than anything in the Honda tradition that has gone before.
I think it’s fairly attractive car in 2-door form, but the proportions are just plain odd in sedan form. the overhangs are just gigantic. Perhaps to meet pedestrian crash compliance?
I’ve yet to see one in real life, though, so i’ll reserve judgement for that.
It looks like despite have .5L more displacement and 30-odd more horses, the V6 version is slower than the current 244 horsepower V6 – Motor trend tested one against the new V6 Camry and got a 6.5 second 0-60 time (compared to the Camry’s 6.1… how odd that a Camry is the sportier in a comparison test, by the way!)
I wish that Honda had done the same thing they did with the CR-V – rather than growing it up and out and making it heavier, just keep it the same size and refine the design. I just don’t see this car doing will with so many other good choices in the market, which makes me sad! I love the current Accord; perfect size, silky powertrain, simple but beautiful interior. it’s the perfect daily driver. This new one is all huge and complicated and significantly uglier… It just doesn’t seem like an improvement and it certainly doesn’t have as huge of a leg up over competitors like Altima, Camry, Aura et al that the previous generation did.
/rant
I must say I don’t quite approve of the new bigness of the Accord – it just seems wrong and against the ethos Honda was built upon. Of course, everybody’s growing their cars, and plenty of people are asking for it, so what do I know?
I think if Honda does offer this in a diesel in the US, it could change the American automotive scene. It’s a good looking enough car, full size sedan, and the diesel is reported to give something on the order of 55 mpg. I know diesel isn’t the solution we’re all looking for, etc, but that would certainly get this new big Accord some attention from yours truly.
Two words for Honda: Diesel and Wagon
If they can manage these two in the same breath–without encumbering the buyer with a bunch of unnecessary frou-frou gadgets to help justify a bloated price–I will make my first foray into the brand for my wife’s next car.
Otherwise, the upcoming Jetta tdi wagon is looking might nice, quirks and all.
It looks A LOT better in person, from all angles.
I saw it parked in with a row of 2007’s and the additional size is unmistakable. Whereas the current Camry looks smaller than the previous generation, this new Accord is clearly 1/2 size bigger – closer to a Maxima or Avalon. Given the growth in the Civic, which is now about as big as our 2001 Accord, the size of the new car is not surprising. That the trunk didn’t seem to grow in proportion to the rest of the car is odd, however.
I didn’t get a chance to actually sit in the car, but the interior looked more “Honda” than the 2003-2007 version. The new car’s dash is low and away, sweeping across the front of the car making the interior look much more open and airy.
C/D’s intial review of the Accord was by Patrick Bedard, who has always been a big fan of the Accord. His comments echo those above wondering if Honda is loosing its way. I’m anxious to drive it an find out.
I wasn’t a huge fan of the pictures, but the car comes across quite stately in person. It has alot of road presence, and not just for it’s size. That being said, this is one big car.
Michael: you said the 21/31 EPA estimates for the four cylinder were not class leading. Are you sure? Are you sure they aren’t equivalent to offerings from the others? Are you comparing 2008 EPA vs 2008 EPA? I actually do think the 21/31 is equivalent to what other mfrs offer currently, in 2008 EPA format.
I’m curious if you drove the 5-speed 4-cyl 190 HP version. It seems like this would be a great all-arounder….but that being said, the engine is basically the same as last year (in terms of part-throttle mid-range response and over-all displacement) while the car is up several hundred pounds.
As an owner of a 2006 Civic SI, i think Honda has begun to move away from their roots. At 29k miles I have alot of build quality issues and, as of this weekend, a very serious A/C issue (water appears to be building up inside of the A/C Drain container…I can hear it sloshing around and occasionally splashing onto the A/C coils with a nice hiss).
The new Accord also embodies this to me. Honda could’ve helped break the mold with this new car and offered something with the same or less overall weight, greater efficiency, more acceleration, more “sportness” (as Audi likes to say), or some combination thereof….
Instead, they followed the now tired and true path. Bigger, heavier, about the same efficiency, maybe a little better acceleration, a little less body roll.
And then they bragged….BRAGGED…about how the new Accord now falls within the ‘Large’ car class. Honda. Bragging about how big they’ve made their car.
Ridiculous.
Joe
Excellent review. It (fairly) lauds the Accord’s technical sophistication, and yet criticises the philosophy of building cars that get fatter, blunter and more Germanic in each generation.
In reply to
“ash78 :
September 24th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Two words for Honda: Diesel and Wagon”
Honda does offer in other parts of the world an Accord wagon and a 2.2L Diesel. Toyota sells the Fielder, a Camry wagon. Too bad that North Americans have such a small selection of wagons and must choose from SUVS, many of which are merely wagons on stilts.
I grew up right at the time the industry changed from what’s good for GM, et al. is good for america. That included the Olds Omega & the Dodge 600ES (all hand me down cars from my parents). Though each car was less than 10 years old they were so poorly made and unreliable that it was a major concern that my basic mode of transportion was questionable. My parents were teachers so they didn’t have a lot of money so they couldn’t afford to buy expensive cars even low mileage used ones to give to me.
I broke the mold and my father’s advice and bought my first Honda. An ‘85 Prelude DX (w/ sunroof) and 5 speed manual. $3,500 and with 100k on the clock (this was more miles than the 2 domestics that fatally broke down). My father scoffed the idea but wanted to teach me a lesson. Those tables turned so quickly and with such astonishment to my father. That Prelude lasted me from HS all the way through grad school – 275k miles and when I sold it – it had something called resale value. Funny thing was it was basic but pure transportation with a very nice sporting pretention – my friends had the camaros, stangs, celicas, etc. They have more straightline speed but in the corners this little Prelude ate them up. It also infected me with the passion for road racing (of which I can now afford to partake – on a budget of course).
Fast forward (and the fact that the 2 other Chrysler cars my parents owned – that Prelude become their main means of reliable transportation when I was at school and when their cars often and without notice broke down – they now only own Hondas) 20 years I grew up with light weight, fun, high revving Hondas. I’m now becoming disenfranchised with their movement to bigger is better – as pointed in this article. I feel that Sorichiro Honda’s concept of racing to bring technology to the average customer is slowly being muted by Honda’s goal to make cars for the fast food fatty, Big Gulp guzzling American customer.
I used to own an ‘89 Accord – great car and wonderful to drive. Now I won’t even consider them (and I’m 30 married with kid – their supposed target market). Instead we own what the Accord was to embody (a sensible passion for driving) and that is the TSX. The new Accord is too big and to sloppy now. It’s much too heavy and has only FWD option. I miss the older Accord’s brilliance (6th generation and older) as the 7th generation was so strangely styled that I never even considered it.
/rant
I hope you guys get a chance to test the coupe (with the 190hp and MT, hopefully) — from photos, it’s a car that I would have no problem being seen in, and its ergonomics seem spot-on (leg, shoulder, head room) for a 6′5, 225lb “Fat” American.
The larger size/weight of the sedan is offset by its increase in interior volume to the next EPA class (large) — oddly enough, Honda can still claim “class-leading” fuel economy. That is, without the sunroof, which bumps it back down to the lower class (mid)
Excellent review, but I have one small quibble. “A distinctly un-Honda abundance of front overhang does nothing for the proportions.” As I gaze at the protruding schnozzle of the ’01 Accord parked my garage, I wouldn’t say there is anything new about this on the ’08. Both cars cantilever like a Frank Lloyd Wright.
I saw one recently at a dealership and momentarily mistook it for a Hyundai. The front end is a dead ringer for the Sonata and it shares that same awkward attempt at copying BMW with all the wrong proportions look. Even on a Bimmer this styling is challenged, in this application it is simply awful.
Michael, what can you say about the brakes? Cheap brakes have always been the bane of Accords.
I sincerely hope that the Asian car manufacturers begin to move back in the “other” direction with every car line replacement, and start shrinking cars.
Hyundai just made a cursory move in the direction of efficiency by making the 4 cylinder engine standard on ALL Sonata lines – not just the basic car, but even the luxury subseries. Just as the Accord is now “full sized” inside, our 2002 Sonata (which was “mid-sized” inside) was replaced with a (4 cylinder) 2007 Sonata, which is “full sized” inside. Actually, the trunk is noticeably massive, and significantly larger than the prior car’s was.
Perhaps Honda could simply use the global Accord as a basis the next time it makes a major change, since by then, gas may well be at the $4 range instead of $3 here in the USA. Going back to four cylinders only would not be bad – since once people start having to pay that magical $4 a gallon regularly, they’ll possibly start realizing that conservation is not a dirty word. Honda is also alienating it’s core clientele by growing their cars too big. Stop with the “Detroit think” Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, et al!
I note that buying behavior is changing locally (towards somewhat more economical cars), and also note that gas started out at $1.99 a gallon locally on January 1, 2007 – and is now at $3.06, which is a pretty significant increase over a (not quite) 10 month period.
I haven’t seen one of these in person either, but I’ll probably be stopping by the Honda dealer this Sunday to check it out. My parents had a ‘94 Honda Accord DX with a 4 speed automatic. It was a pretty decent car. I had to pay $33 to replace the gray plastic plate with a real cupholder, but other than that, it had decent power and lasted them until 2005, when they sold it to a commuter for something like $4000 with over 200000 kms on the odometer. They replaced it with a Jetta TDI. So as Ash78 said, if an Accord wagon with a diesel shows up over here, I’d probably line up to get one. Unless the diesel CR-V shows up first. Come on Honda, bring them over. You know you want to. :)
While I am surprised that the Accord grew, it does make sense. They made the Civic bigger and brought the Fit over to replace the slot the Civic used to occupy.
That said, I still prefer the Acura TSX as far as size for a 4 door sedan. I’m eager to see what its redesign turns out to be.
First-year cars often have first-year issues.
The 2007 Camry is certainly having some. Will the 2008 Accord have them as well?
Through TrueDelta's research, I hope to have some quick results for the new Accord.
If you know someone who buys one, please let them know about this research. Details here: http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
Joe O:
I did not drive a manual. I drove the automatics because this is what most people buy. I might try to find a manual in the future, but suspect this won’t be easy.
For my EPA statement, I compared the Accord 4-cylinder automatic to other family sedans with similar powertrains using the 2008 ratings, 21/31 for the Accord.
The Altima with the 4 and CVT earns ratings of 23/31. As far as I can tell, those are the current best for a non-hybrid. Honda might claim their car is in a different EPA size class, but the two cars clearly compete.
The Camry 4 and Malibu Classic tie the Accord. The G6 and new Malibu are rated a bit better, 22/30 (overall MPG gives more weight to city than highway). The Sonata (also rated a large car) does do a bit worse than the Accord, at 21/30. But remember when Hondas got much better fuel economy than Hyundais?
Overall, the Accord ties a bunch of competitors for third. It’s in the running, but it’s not out front the way Hondas once were. Competitive fuel economy rather than class-leading fuel economy seems to now be the goal, at least with the Accord.
Naturally, YMMV but the ‘08 Accord sedan looks a LOT better in person than in photos.
NOw that Honda has been copying the “Bigger is better” method since 1986 or so, can Detroit finally say “We told you so!”
William C. Montgomery:
Honda did begin to grow the nose with your generation Accord. With the generation before yours, they actually had to engineer an entirely new, longer front end to shoehorn in a V6 in the car’s second year. The 4-cylinder car’s nose was too small.
I just remember looking at Accords in the early 1990s and marveling that they managed to get such a tight front overhang with a front-drive powertrain. The 1990 Accord was specifically engineered with a “man maximum, machine minimum” philosophy, and its platform was largely carried over the for the 1994 car, which continues to be my aesthetic favorite. (Honda starts from scratch every other generation.)
All of this said, the new nose is considerably more massive than any Accord’s before it. Much of this growth is in height, perhaps for the Euro pedestrian safety standards. But are they even selling this car in Europe? Previously Europe got a different, smaller Accord (TSX here). Horizontally the overhang has only grown an inch or so.
With only 800 words to play with, there are limits to what I can include in the review. One thing I’d like to add is that the styling of the big schnoz doesn’t match the rest of the car. Partly this is because the visual mass-minimizing swage stops at the front wheel. But beyond this the front fender is fuller and less crisp than the rest of the car. The designers clearly did not enjoy having so much front overhang dumped in their laps.
I did not notice much special with the brakes one way or the other, but did not give them as thorough a workout as the powertrains.
I must question everyone’s judgment that this car is “big”. A BMW 5-Series isn’t big, more like obese midsize. If it ain’t in Chevy Caprice proportions, it ain’t big. Sorry.
It better look better in person… It looks like an ugly beastie in these pics.
+1 on the Sonata comment. The front view screams Sonata (which is a sharp looking sedan, so maybe it isn’t all bad).
Honda is a pretty smart company. I don’t think they would’ve grown the Accord so dramatically if their research didn’t tell them they were giving up market share because of size.
The new XXL Accord makes sense as full size sedans have always been popular in the US. Larger and softer than it’s Euro sibling it has wide appeal particularly with those who used to buy large domestic sedans. However, it does so at the expense of keeping their previous customer base happy who where attracted to the earlier generations less is more design philosophy. I’m sure Honda has done the numbers on this and found that wide appeal is more profitable.
For me the Euro Accord (TSX) or even the Civic are much more interesting and in keeping with the values that I always associated with Honda. I just wish they’d sell a stripped down TSX.
“I sincerely hope that the Asian car manufacturers begin to move back in the “other” direction with every car line replacement, and start shrinking cars.”
Honda seems to be growing each of it’s cars with each new version, perhaps to keep up with the tradein customers who also tend to get larger with age.
However, they also are bringing in a new small car which in many ways is the incarnation of what the Civic used to be, but it is called the Fit. The Fit is very much a modern version of the original Civic hatchbacks.
Typical Accord buyers are in their 40s or older and the new car seems perfectly targeted at that market much as an Avalon is.
I’m really curious to see where they take the Acura sedans as new version are spun off the 2008 Accord platform. Is there an updated rest-of-world Accord? The 2003-2007 generation had one car for North America and another Accord for just about everywhere else. North America gets the ROW Accord as a fully optioned out Acura TSX. I guess that the 2008 TSX isn’t going to change but might be revised for 2009.
The 2008 Accord also encroaches on Acura TL territory. Honda certainly is keeping busy.
It strikes me as a better looking car in person than in photos.
Funny, but every new generation of Accord makes me a little uncomfortable and long for the previous generation – but only for a little while…after 6 months the new model grows on me, aesthetically and otherwise.
I still think the 2007 Accord sedan with a 4 cylinder and a 5 speed manual transmission in an excellent all around car…I even love the exhaust snarl. I hope they didn’t lose that.
Though Ive never owned one, we have always had several in the family and Ive logged many hours behind the wheel of several hondas. The fourth generation accord being my favorite…and what defines a honda (to me).
At first glance, I think they nailed the transom of this design but the rest is, as Fletch says, “Oldsmo-buick”. The sonata is definitely at play here, though for the first time, visually I prefer the sonata to an accord.
What hasnt been mentioned is the new Mazda 6 redesign. I can quite easily imagine a great many trade-in accords on mazda lots in the future.
Look at the big picture. Yes, the Accord is now a ‘large’ car, but the civic is no longer a small car either — it has rapidly moved into the place the Accord used to hold, and the Fit has moved into where the Civic used to be. Granted, most people would have rather seen a new model introduced than to super-size the Accord, but apparently Honda saw it differently. They need a full-sized contender for the US market… one of the biggest complaints I see about Japanese cars is that they’re not ‘built’ for Americans (i.e. super-sized). This one is, and while purists may complain, the public will probably eat it up, and the new Accord will probably win more converts to the Honda brand than it did before.
Mazda is taking its sweet time getting that new Mazda6 to market. If it’s good, it could shake things up.
I’d say that Toyota has its work cut out for it maintaining Camry sales, but when you consider how well the 2002-2006 sold…I just don’t know.
Thought just occured to me, but I recall Johnny extoling the virtues of a Fusion as tossable not too long ago. Perhaps Ford deserves a little credit here for holding the line on its midsized offering?
Ugh, ugh, ugh. Chris Bangle, what have you done to us? A whole generation of unspeakable-looking cars.
I used to really like Hondas — I had an Accord and a Gen3 Prelude. I thought they were sensible, efficient, and good looking…not gorgeous or sexy, by any means, but crisp and tasteful. This bloated monstrosity says “late-model Buick.” No way.
I’m having a hard time getting around the frumpy styling. Accords used to be crisp, clean and even handsome vehicles. The last generation, which its overlarge headlights and weird rump, changed that, and this one, with its odd headlights, nasty swage line and large overhangs, just makes worse the perception that the car is overweight, Buick-ish and soft. The TSX is a better Accord, but with the headroom-free TSX Honda abandoned the vertical romminess that made them attractive cars for my 6′6″ frame.
Honda manual transmissions are to die for; I sincerely hope Honda offers the V6 with a manual. The diesel option sounds like the real winner here; pray it gets here soon.
SLLTTAC
I was very aware of Honda’s excellent 2.2 diesel in the European Accord (US Acura TSX…burdened with luxury for $30k+). I’d love to be able to buy that vehicle in standard Honda format, but the marketing gurus won’t have it.
It appears that Honda is really just sticking with the familiar name badge on a very different car, perhaps to drive more people towards the Civic…just like VW is doing with the Passat/Jetta combo.
If we look over the past 10-12 years, it seems like these days, the Fit is the new Civic, the Civic is the new Accord, and the Accord is the new “big fat American sedan” that just carries the old name for instant recognition purposes.
Kudos to Mr. Karesh for a fine review. However, I disagree with the contention that the car’s sizing is problematic, at least from a marketing standpoint.
Americans and Canadians want larger cars than what are demanded elsewhere. (You can attribute/ blame that on a variety of factors, cheaper gas being just one of them.) The Accord, Camry and Altima are all American-oriented designs, made with US consumers in mind.
The TSX is not branded as an Accord here, and it sells in much smaller numbers, for a reason — the back seat is too small for American tastes. Likewise, the Mazda 6 used to be a contender in this class, but has long been an also-ran — much of this is because its design is that of a “world” car with a smaller back seat. When properly equipped, the Ford Contour was actually quite a nice driver’s car and should have brought some buyers back into the fold, but it was ultimately a flop in large part because of that Euro-sized back seat that was considered to be too tight for a four-door mid-sized sedan.
Honda was probably wise to grow the car, for the sake of the majority of its audience. As Ms. Benoit points out, the Civic has also grown up, as it were, so the space filled by the Accords of yore has been taken up by the now-much-larger Civic. Those who mourn the passing of the old Civic will find its spiritual successor in the Fit/ Jazz.
The underlying issue here seems to be one of Honda’s conservatism. When Toyota wanted to reach out to the larger car audience, it did so by adding the Buickesque Avalon to the lineup. Here, Honda is trying to reach two somewhat different segments with one vehicle, which may alienate some buyers. Still, I’m not seeing much of a problem — enthusiast/ TTAC-types are few in number, and may well opt for the less popular TSX, anyway.
I agree with the author – Honda is moving away from its roots, at least in North America.
But you cannot blame Honda, only the consuming public in North America. I had a 6th gen. Accord coupe and THAT was just slightly too big (both size and weight) already. It was longer than a then-current BMW 5-series. Unsurprisingly, the 6th gen. was the first generation where Honda started to have two Accords, one for the North American market, one for Europe/Japan (which later became avail. here as the Acura TSX).
Honda should refine the turbo I-4 in the RDX and put it in the 8th gen. Accord as an option. And make the Accord (both coupe and sedan) no bigger than its 6th gen. forebears. Let the “all you can eat” crowd drive Camry’s.
The package (size) for this Accord was probably “locked in” three years ago, when gas was a lot cheaper and the trend was clearly to bigger cars. I predict this will be the biggest Accord (perhaps forever), as the trend is now shifting towards efficiency and lighter weight.
Regarding the “55 mpg” Honda Diesel. Modern diesels that will meet US emissions standards are 25% more efficient than a current gas engines. Honda does not have any black magic in this department. Yes, driving style will affect actual mileage, but EPA numbers for the diesel will probably come in at about 26/39. But it will probably cost about $2k more. The payback will be very slow at current gas prices.
Even in Europe with $6 gas, diesels generally only make economic sense with a high annual mileage. Unless you have other reasons to drive a diesel.
Come on, Mazda, don’t fall prey to the same old “bigger is better” mantra that seems to have ruined Honda. I think my Mazda 6 is the perfect size, but since I don’t have a family that opinion may be skewed to the wrong side.
I rented a last-gen Accord and thought it was a marvel of engineering. It was a silent and smooth driver, if ugly (this was before the taillamp fix, which still didn’t fix the awkward sheetmetal). At least Honda is consistent in making the new Accord ugly.
I don’t know what the numbers are, but whenever I sit in a Civic, it doesn’t feel like a 2002 Accord to me (randomly going back 5 years), it still feels like a bigger Civic. I think there’s a large enough gap between the 2 cars for a significant niche to appear. Maybe it’s already here with the TSX, as other people have mentioned.
Seems like a great opportunity for a Altima or Madza 6 to gain market share since they’re slightly smaller and sportier. Maybe someone from the 2.8 can take advantage too? Err… never mind. Just saw UAW are striking at GM…
I recently drove a new Accord. and like the review, thought it was too damn big. It has none of the feeling of Accords of old. I had one of those 1982s. And a few more over the years. there have been a lot of Accords in my family. This one just seems too damn big and heavy. And it gets about 10 miles MPG less than that 82. It is a very very nice car. Vastly better than the Camry I drove. Miles above Chevys Impala. But…3600lbs? Cmon Honda. Remember who you are
I expect the Honda faithful will purchase this current version of the Accord as though it was their “civic” duty.
Nope, I’ll be buying the CIVIC, just ACCORDing to plan. yukyuk
For folks that have been talking about the Fit, get ready…
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=122688?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.*#2
Honda is bringing a brand-new version of the fit over here, and it too is larger & more powerful than the current Fit…the review linked to above says that it only weighs an additional 22 lbs, but in tune with the discussion in this thread, the trend is certainly “up UP” and “more MORE”.
No word yet (that I can find) about MPG though.
Michael Karesh:
Mazda is taking its sweet time getting that new Mazda6 to market. If it’s good, it could shake things up.
I’d say that Toyota has its work cut out for it maintaining Camry sales, but when you consider how well the 2002-2006 sold…I just don’t know.
With the Camry, you have options in terms of sportiness and suspension setup. The Camry also has a hybrid option, getting far better mileage than a non-hybrid sedan. The Camry is still faster than the new Accord, and Toyota arguably has the better V6 than Honda. I don’t think Toyota has much to worry about.
Also, rumour has it that the Camry in a few years is going to get an all-new 4 cyl.
Wait, what?
Can you point out to me how this 82 Accord (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Accord82.jpg) looks very similar to this E28 BMW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E28-BMW-525i.jpg)? I can certainly see many striking similarities between current Accord and the 5/6 series, but the Accord from 82 doesn’t look that similar at all. It just looks like a generic sedan from that era. That’s like saying that a Taurus from 2000 and Mazda 626 from the same model year share many design cues – they do, but that was just the overall styling of the time.
Maybe it’s me, but this just doesn’t sound like a ‘4-star’ review. Your relatively unenthusiastic prose does not match with the starry conclusion.
With the Camry, you have options in terms of sportiness and suspension setup.
I don’t see Toyota worrying too much about their market share, but I’m not sure I would compare the Camry’s sportiness to much more than the Accord’s. Compared to Mazda, the Camry’s handling setups can be described as Vague, Even More Vague, and Borderline Dangerously Vague at best.
From a 30 year old Hondaphile with 2 Civics in the garage (’98 EX coupe and ‘05 Si hatch), I have very little interest in this behemoth. When I have a kid (soon) I’ll be looking at used TSX (teacher salary here), Civic Si four-door, the new Fit, and probably the WRX hatch (if its ugly looks grow on me at all–the new Civic’s sort of did). Anyway, I cringe at getting anything less than 30 mpg per tank. I can go over 450 miles per tank in my Si. Gas isn’t getting any cheaper (thinking long term). The Accord is just a monster now, and seems to be targeting old folks. No thanks.
danms6:
I don’t see Toyota worrying too much about their market share, but I’m not sure I would compare the Camry’s sportiness to much more than the Accord’s. Compared to Mazda, the Camry’s handling setups can be described as Vague, Even More Vague, and Borderline Dangerously Vague at best.
Mazda does make the sportiest sedan in this class, but Toyota is definitely not worried about Mazda. The Mazda 6 sells in small numbers and offers no real threat to the Accord and Camry in terms of sales numbers.
Also Motortrend compared the new Accord to a Camry SE V6, and they said the Camry was faster, handled better, and was overall the sportier car of the two.
Mazda, like Honda does not offer much of a choice. With the Mazda 6, you’re stuck with either a sporty firm ride, or no car at all. With the Accord, you’re stuck with a compromise. With the Camry, you can get sporty if you like (SE) or you can get a comfy soft ride if you want (LE, XLE).
On my first sighting of a 3/4-rear pic a few months ago, I click-ed through to read this article about the BMW 5-series. Looked like they smoothed out the clumsy lines and it looks great now!
A moment later I realized that this is the ‘08 Accord. This car looks spectacular. Stately, poised, confident.
Moreover, as a TSX owner anxiously awaiting the ‘09 TSX, I’m pleased to see the Accord taking on a larger, refined, “touring” persona. It gives further indication that the TSX is going to be the pure-sports choice in the Honda Corp lineup (akin to Lexus splitting their entry-luxury into IS350 / ES350 very-sporty/very-cushy)
This is good news.
I’ve never seen an auto interior that beat the simplicity, functionality, and calmness of the 2005 Civic Sedan. The ‘06 Civic obviously took a dramatic departure, and the Accord appears to be getting more complex. But despite my nostalgia for the simpler style, I can’t fault Honda. They will probably continue to hit the nail on the head market-wise. If I really need to have an ‘05 Civic, maybe a used (or shall I say pre-loved) car is in my future.