By on December 11, 2015

2016 Honda Accord Touring

“Very little to dislike,” I found myself responding day after day during my week with the 2016 Honda Accord.

Rarely does a visiting test car generate as many questions and compliments. But the slightly restyled Accord, riding on the Touring’s eye catching, wheel-arch-filling 19-inch wheels, was deemed by friends, family, and neighbours to be quite the looker. And because it’s a car that’s squarely positioned in the affordable realm, they didn’t just compliment the Accord the way they did the $85,000 Audi A6 I drove earlier this fall. Rather, they’d ask, “Would I like it?”

And indeed, there’s very little to dislike about Honda’s refreshed Accord. Perhaps the ride on low-profile 19-inch rubber is too firm for some midsize buyers. The continuously variable transmission, though not nearly as offensive as some examples of the breed, can cause tiresome droning from the engine when accelerating rapidly from rest. And outside of the wonderful Apple CarPlay and Android Auto systems, the touchscreen — with its flush-mounted “buttons” — is not the most intuitive.

Yet sharp handling, an impressive four-cylinder powerplant, decent interior space, and classy exterior styling make the Accord feel like a proper amount of car for the money.

2016 Honda Accord Touring 24L front

This, however, is not your normal TTAC Accord review. We’re trying something different, and you’re experiencing the experiment in beta guise. My job is to bring you the vital figures and to put those figures in context.

(Keep in mind, this is a Canadian-spec car. Accord Tourings in the U.S. are top-tier Accords with the V-6 engine. In Canada, Touring is similarly the top-end Accord, but it’s available with the four-cylinder engine, a 6-speed manual transmission and is in many ways the Accord Sport with more equipment: same quick steering, same big wheels, but four fewer ponies. Our tester was optioned up with the CVT.)

Horsepower
With 185 horsepower at 6,400 rpm (and 181 lb-ft of torque at 3,900 rpm), the Accord’s standard 2.4-liter four cylinder generates seven more horsepower than the Toyota Camry’s 2.5-liter four cylinder; three more than the Nissan Altima’s 2.5-liter four; and 10 and four more horsepower than the Ford Fusion’s two entry level, four-cylinder powerplants. The Hyundai Sonata/Kia Optima 2.4-liter mill matches the Accord’s output, which tops all other midsize competitors’ base engines.
Verdict: Tied For First Place

Optional Horsepower
In the one trim level in which American Honda allows an Accord engine upgrade, EX-L, the 3.5-liter V-6 adds 93 horsepower for a total of 278. The extra cost? $2,075, or $22.31 for each extra horse. Only the Chrysler 200’s 295-horsepower 3.6-liter Pentastar V-6 and the Volkswagen Passat’s 280-horsepower 3.6-liter V-6 provide more powerful engine upgrades.
Verdict: Third Place

Fuel Economy
Rated at 27 mpg in the city and 37 on the highway with 2.4-liter engine and continuously variable transmission, the Accord’s most efficient (non-hybrid) form is four mpg better in the city and three better on the highway than the 2.4-liter/six-speed manual combo. Opting for the V-6/six-speed automatic drags city economy down to 21 mpg in the city. The highway impact is less noteworthy, with the 3.5-liter V-6 rated at 34 mpg. There are, however, non-hybrid four-cylinder versions of the Mazda6, Kia Optima, and Hyundai Sonata expected to consume less fuel. The 2016 Nissan Altima 2.5-liter/CVT and 2016 Chevrolet Malibu 1.5-liter turbo/six-speed automatic have the same combined rating as the most efficient 2.4-liter-equipped Accord.
Verdict: Tied For Fourth Place

Cargo Volume
Different versions of the same car often possess different levels of cargo volume. With this Accord being the finest four-cylinder example you can buy, we graded it against the finest base-engine equivalents from rival manufacturers. Accord cargo volume in this case, at 15.5 cubic feet, is 2 percent smaller than the biggest Accord trunk. The size of the body TTAC readers can squeeze in may vary, as such specifications are shape and measurement methodology dependant. Incidentally, the two smallest trunks in the category belong to the two lowest-volume cars: Legacy and Mazda6. The Hyundai Sonata’s 16.3-cubic-foot trunk is largest.
Verdict: Seventh Place

Passenger Volume
Compared with the class-leading Sonata’s 106.1 cubic feet of interior volume, the Accord’s available space for passengers is 5 percent smaller. And it feels about five percent smaller, a deficit sufficient to merit notice, but not nearly so much as to cause the Accord to feel cramped inside.
Verdict: Tenth Place

Rear Legroom
Manufacturer-supplied legroom dimensions don’t hold a candle to hopping into the rear seat of a car to explore the surroundings for yourself. While few would argue with the sensation of expansive rear legroom in the class-leading Volkswagen Passat – officially 39.1 inches – most would have trouble believing that the Mazda6’s rear legroom is even a hair more substantial than the Accord’s 38.5 inches, let alone two-tenths of an inch superior.
Verdict: Fifth Place

Sales
Not since 2001, prior to what will become a 14-year streak for the Toyota Camry this year, has the Accord been America’s best-selling midsize car — and consequently the best-selling car overall. It is a perennial podium finisher, however, and despite a 10-percent drop to 320,501 sales through the first 11 months of 2015, the Accord will end this year as the Camry’s runner-up.
Verdict: Second Place

Length x Width x Height
With the tenth-generation Civic newly expanded, consider the Accord’s position in the Honda lineup. At 192.5 inches long, the Accord is 10 inches longer than the new Civic. The Civic is 70.8 inches wide; the Accord is two inches wider. From road to roof, the Accord is 57.7 inches tall, two inches taller than the Civic. The Civic’s 106.3-inch wheelbase is three inches shorter than the Accord’s. The third-gen Pilot is two inches longer, bumper-to-bumper, than the Accord; the Odyssey minivan is slightly more than 10 inches longer. Nose to tail, the Accord’s Acura relative, the TLX, isn’t quite as long, but the TLX is a little wider and not quite as tall.

Curb Weight
A basic four-cylinder Accord LX with the manual transmission weighs 3,170 pounds. The heaviest Accord, according to American Honda, is the Touring V-6 at 3,605 pounds. This four-cylinder, Canadian-spec Touring, is a 3,435-pound car. True midsize heft is seen in the 3,802-pound Chrysler 200C V-6 AWD. Mazda says their lightest 6 weighs 3,179 pounds. Chevrolet claims the basic 2016 Malibu L and Malibu LS will each weigh less than 3,100 pounds.

Observed Fuel Economy
As cold temperatures set in and I began enjoying the Accord’s excellent chassis, the big wheels and enthusiastic driving manner didn’t help fuel economy during our week with the Honda in early December. Yet in a mix of urban and suburban driving, and with very little highway mileage, we averaged 27.4 mpg on the U.S. scale, on par with the Accord’s city rating. Many potential real-world comparisons aren’t applicable, because at GCBC we’ve mostly tested non-standard midsize cars: V-6s and diesels and hybrids. The last 2.4-liter Sonata we tested did achieved 30.9 mpg, but in less spirited and much warmer conditions.

Steering and Tires
Like the Accord Sport, this Canadian-spec Accord Touring four cylinder uses quicker steering: lock-to-lock is 2.46 turns, not the 2.54 of other four-cylinder Accords. With bigger rubber — 235/40R19 Continental ContiProContacts, not the 205/65R16s or 215/55R17s of lesser Accords — turn-in is markedly aided.

Money
Destination included, Accord pricing starts at $22,940 in America, with an extra $800 required for the optional CVT. Adding Honda’s batch of safety kit, Honda Sensing, adds $1,000. EX pricing begins at $26,315. The CVT Sport is $26,800. The least costly Accord V-6 is the EX-L V-6 at $31,480. Accords top out at $35,415. The basic version of America’s best-selling car, the Camry, is $23,905, but that price includes an automatic transmission. The least costly Accord CVT is $165 less.

Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcar and on Facebook.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

86 Comments on “2016 Honda Accord Touring Review, By The Numbers...”


  • avatar
    Ltd1983

    Those wheels look great, but who is buying an Accord and also wants the ride, handling, and cost tradeoff of 19’s?

    • 0 avatar
      sproc

      When will any sanity be restored to factory wheel choices? 19″ and 40-series tires seems absurd in this application.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        Right? My GSW has 18″ wheels and I think that even those are too big. If I lived further north, I’d have a set of 16s for the winter.

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        Agreed. Most people buy these cars with the “upgraded” wheels. They are then into sticker shock when they find out what a tire costs. They are also replaced more often in areas like Michigan, because they keep blowing out tires.

        With modern tire technology where it is today, there isn’t a reason to go to these ultrawide, ultra low profile tires. On this car, you could probably turn better lap times with a 17″ wheel and tires package as long as you keep the 235mm width.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          Strut cars benefit a lot from short sidewalls (and short travel), if you fit sticky tires and drive aggressively. There’s just not enough camber control available to properly deal with even zero sidewall flex over any length of travel, much less tall, squishy, sidewalls on a comparatively long travel family sedan.

        • 0 avatar

          My 2014 Accord Sport came with the 18” wheels GoodYear LS2, they cost $86 each to replace, my old Mazda with 17″ was more than $200 each to replace.

          • 0 avatar
            Jacob

            You’re probably comparing apples to oranges. I have never seen a 17 inch rim tire cost so much unless you’re being skinned by a dishonest tire shop or you’re buying some kind of specialist tires.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Jacob, 4) 17″ Michelins for my best friend’s 2012 Grand Cherokee $235/ea plus tax and recycling fee.

            4) 20″ H-rated for our Grand Cherokee almost $2K, all in.

      • 0 avatar
        sirwired

        I know in a Prius review a few weeks back, C&D scolded Toyota for shipping it with “undersized” 15″ wheels.

        Apparently even green-mobiles are supposed to START at 17″ these days or something, Because Reasons.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Because you can barely get any good 15″ tires anymore. Next time I have to replace the tires on my Legend I’m going to buy a set of OEM 16s to go with the new tires, because that extra inch unlocks a far greater tire selection.

          The remaining 15″ options are all LRR for Priuses or touring tires for old people.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            dal, you can still get nice Michelin tires in 15 inch sizes, along with many other brands. Perhaps you speak moreso of high performance summer tires? I had a plethora of choices when shopping tires for my Civic this spring.

          • 0 avatar
            JuniperBug

            That seems like a bit of an overstatement, although I don’t know the specific size your Legend takes. NA/NB Miata owners have no trouble finding suitable rubber in that car’s 15″ size. In fact, track guys will often swap out their optional factory 16 and 17s for 15″ wheels, because that’s what works best on that car when lap times matter.

            All seasons, winters, high-performance street, and track tires are all readily available. I have V-rated, ultra-high-performance classed BF Goodrich Comp 2s on mine for about $90/tire. Life’s not bad in 15″.

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            I don’t know your exact year, but searching for a 93 Legend sedan came up with a limited list of options in 205/60R15. When I searched by size there were plenty of options.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            The only Michelins I’ve found in the Legend 15″ size are Premier A/S, which are durable but not high-performance in the least. There are a couple of other high-quality options, but none in a performance category. I want a tire with some grip, that doesn’t howl like a wolf every time I take a corner at a remotely enthusiastic speed.

            By contrast, in the Legend 16″ size you can get pretty much any modern performance tire, whether summer or all-season.

            I’m sure there are plenty of options in the NA Miata size.

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            No Michelins, but they list a high performance Yokohama and Sumitomo. Your point is valid though. There is also performance to be gained going up to a 16″ or 17″ in your size.

          • 0 avatar
            Jacob

            There are plenty of good and affordable 15 inch tires in a typical compact car form factor. For the Prius, I like getting ordinary Yokohamas for $90 a pop (Avid TRZ all season or something like that). LRR tires are actually significantly more expensive and don’t last long.

        • 0 avatar
          JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

          15″ to 17″ is a bit of a jump, wouldnt you say? You skip right over 16″ which is what most cars sold today come equipped with. They are far easier to find than 15″ in new OR used, because of their popularity. One of the first things I did to my 95 Taurus was upgrade it to 16″ alloys from a 2006 car.

          15″ is undersized for a new car. 17″ is too big for a Prius or other gas-saver type car. The 16″ that you skipped is a “just right” tire size for a compact-to-midsize car (or some full sizers). I even put 16″ wheels on my Aerostar and Isuzu Trooper because I was sick of trying to find 14″ and 15″ tires, respectively.

          If I buy an 80s-90s compact-midsize, like a Tempo, Corolla, Contour, Escort, Camry, Civic/CRX, Accord, Prelude, etc., the first thing Im doing is looking for a set of 16″ wheels/tires that will fit off a newer model from the same manufacturer. Same goes for earlier larger cars with 14″ or 15″ wheels. You can usually find a set of factory wheels to fit an older car in the same lug pattern, just larger wheel size (sometimes requires a spacer). I have put 2001 Cougar wheels on a Tempo, Focus wheels on a Tempo, Explorer wheels on an Aerostar, Jeep Cherokee alloys on an Aerostar, countless newer Taurus alloys to upgrade from 14″ steelies on older cars, etc.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N, going to larger wheels reduces the amount of sidewall on the tire to achieve the same diameter and circumference of the factory-spec wheel.

            It’s a personal preference when it comes to ride and handling.

            Our 2012 Grand Cherokee came with 20″ rims standard. Our 2015 Sequoia has 18″ rims. My 2011 Tundra has 18″ rims. Our 2008 Highlander had 17″ rims. My 1989 Camry V6 has 15″ rims.

            My buddy’s JGC Laredo came with 17″ rims. My Silverado and F150 both had 15″ rims.

            I prefer the ride that 20″ wheel and tire combo gives a vehicle I drive.

          • 0 avatar
            Jacob

            Honestly, 15 inch rims should be fine for a light compact car something like Corolla, Lancer, or Prius. I can leave tire marks on the ground driving even an ABS equipped compact with those wheel. However, 15 inch rim is definitely inadequate for a midsize sedan, and the issue is not with the tire itself but with the fact that you can’t fit a decently sized brake rotor with that small rim. I have driven the G3 Taurus with 15 inch rims, and its brakes were truly crap. You had to literally stand on brake pedal in emergency situations and even a moderately aggressive driver can just “lose” his brakes due to overheating. I did the experiment, and replaced with rims with 16 inch ones and then installed bigger rotors and brake pads from 2001 car, leaving the old calipers, and that was a HUGE improvement. Hence, my belief that you need at least a 16 inch rim in a midsize car. Granted, no auto manufacturer is foolish enough to sell a midsize car with 14-15 inch rims any more.

      • 0 avatar
        jammyjo

        Performance in snow can’t be great either. Some will find they have buy a set of snow tires which are not only expensive, but hard to find in these sizes.

        • 0 avatar
          sproc

          On the flip side, if it encourages the owner to buy a set of 16″ steelies and proper winter tires, I suppose it’s better for everyone. But we know that rarely happens (at least in the U.S.)

    • 0 avatar
      turf3

      You guys have it all wrong. The wheels aren’t big enough. Need 36″ wheels with 1 series tires. At that sidewall height, we won’t need air (eliminating all those pesky flats), so we can replace the rubber tire with a steel strip, shrink fitted onto the select hardwood multi-spoke wheel.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    This is good. I’ve wanted Honda to do an upscale Sport-trim of the Accord for some time in the ‘States. Some of us want the sportier feel and looks, but want to keep the four cylinder and have more features, like leather and nav…something like the Camry’a new XSE trim. I think I would downgrade to 18″ wheels, if possible. I drove a Mazda6 Grand Touring with 19″ wheels and it was dreadful, although that car is poorly-insulated from road noise and impacts.

    There’s a real solidity in the Accord that you just don’t feel with a lot of its competitors, including the Altima, Fusion and Camry. The Malibu feels like it will last; it’ll just look like hell after five years.

    • 0 avatar
      mike978

      What made the Mazda 6 so “dreadful”? The recent upgrades targetted NVH in partr and reviews of the car from TTAC to magazines have liked it – there may be things you don`t like but “dreadful” seems extreme.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        My impression of it is that it was dreadful. It’s got gorgeous styling—especially in that Soul Red color—but the Fusion and Accord do a better job of being sporty, yet balanced. The Accord also had NVH complaints until the 2016 refresh, but it was still better than the Mazda6 was.

  • avatar
    rehposolihp

    I recognize you said this was “beta” attempt at a new format – but it is definitely a bit buggy.

    First, prose is easier and more enjoyable to read, after all I am a human, not a google-analytics robot hellbent on absorbing all of the facts.

    Second, some of the facts you’ve chosen to report are just odd. Length x width x height? Really?

    And whats with the ‘verdict: xth place?’ Is this relative to the market? It appears so with the Accord finishing second in sales, but 10th place in passenger volume?

    • 0 avatar
      rehposolihp

      Oh…and I forgot to add: Why are there no opinions about ride quality beyond “large wheels make a stiffer ride?” No NVH levels mentioned, no real world performance numbers outside of fuel economy…

      Yawn. Bring back the old style of reviews.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      I agree. Providing a list of dubious metrics (hp means little if weight isn’t considered; tell me how comfortable the backseat is, not a manufacturer’s legroom spec) with rank-in-segment means nothing to me.

      This dry beyond dry. I’d much rather read his prose with some sales stats thrown in for context if he feels the need to put his goodcarbadcar quantitative analysis hat on.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      Thirded. If I just want the stats, I can get them from Edmunds. What I want to know from a car review is how it actually drives, works, feels, and makes the driver (and, for a car like the Accord, the passengers) feel.

  • avatar
    sirwired

    While spec-sheet stuff can be useful, I’m not sure I’d call it a “Review”

    Perhaps this info could be attached to a regular prose-style review as another page?

  • avatar
    kvndoom

    I would grumble about the American-built 6MT Touring only being sold in Canadia, but I won’t this time…

    Damn it, I just did…

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I like the format.

    Obviously, people purchase vehicles for reasons that go beyond the numbers, so the numbers actually help to drive that point home.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    This “beta format” review style should be taken back of the barn & quickly put down.

    Awful review as it relates very little desirable information (ride quality on RELATIVE basis, noise levels on RELATIVE basis, handling on RELATIVE basis, transmission behavior on RELATIVE basis, powertrain refinement on RELATIVE basis, exterior paint and metal finish quality on RELATIVE basis, interior materials and fit/finish quality on RELATIVE basis, ergonomics and interior design on RELATIVE basis) to the reader.

    Also, where are detailed photos of front seats, rear seats, gauges, center console and stack, dashboard across, trunk space and ling, etc.,etc?

    Do not try to salvage this format. End it.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      I really like Tim’s usual statistical analysis, but I have to agree with DW on this one – this review style isn’t working.

      My main issue with car reviews is that most tend to focus on what’s easy to measure, rather than what really matters. Acceleration times, trunk space and MPG are all easy to measure. In fact, the manufacturers are happy to supply you with those numbers. I can compare them myself on Edmunds if I want to.

      What I want to know about are the things that actually matter to buyers. How comfortable are the seats? What does the engine sound like? How quiet is the car in heavy traffic? What does the steering wheel feel like? How intrusive or well calibrated are the electronic nannies? Will it be safe when my wife has to drive home in a snowstorm?

      Yes, all very subjective criteria. But that’s the point of car ownership – our experiences are all subjective.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      I agree. This was really hard to read and didn’t tell me much beyond what I already knew.

    • 0 avatar
      slance66

      Dear Lord, I’m agreeing with DeadWeight. Anyone can look up specs. What matters in a review are the little things. Road noise, irritating tunnel that crowds the driver’s right knee (several Fords, the LR2), crappy short seat cushions (Tacoma review), low seating position for rear passenger, zero rear visibility (3 series GT). Those are the things that matter. I’m not talking about subjective (fake) opinions on the amount of understeer in a Mustang GT vs Camaro (yes you C&D) but fairly objective points that just aren’t noticeable from the specs.

    • 0 avatar
      Scott_314

      Agreed. Don’t use this format, even if you have seven other non-statistic reviews of the same car. It’s not TTAC.

    • 0 avatar
      philadlj

      What DW said.

    • 0 avatar
      dantes_inferno

      It’s unanimous – BURN THE FORMAT!!!

  • avatar
    Der_Kommissar

    Per the review: I like the comparisons (i.e. context), as that’s exactly what I like to do with my free time, but I want the opinion too. I value the your opinion- don’t be afraid to give it. At least wrap things up at the end with some summary/insight.

    Per the car: I owned a 2005 EX-L at one point, sold it for an e90. It was both the smartest and dumbest decision of my car owing career. It was the best car that provided no inspiration whatsoever that I’ve ever owned. If I wanted to forget about owning a car in comfort, that would have been the car to own. I can never go Accord again since I burned that bridge, but I understand why people buy them. If the “sport” version in the US could be ordered with at least a sunroof, they might convince me otherwise, but I’d generally rather have a CPO BMW that a fully decked out Accord. I guess I like my cars to require thought and attention.

  • avatar
    Nellakwah

    Not trying to hate, but this format is not very useful. If I wanted the numbers, there’s a ton of other places I can get them. And even then, just present it in a tabular format.

    TTAC provides value by reviewing cars objectively through the insightful lens of folks that are passionate about all types of cars. This new format is more CR or US News & World Report.

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    Echo some of the comments about wanting a loaded (or at least loadedish leather/sunroof/decent stereo/etc) 6MT 4cyl sedan, if only to escape the CVT.

    Also, Accord was ranked 4th on fuel economy, but for at least two of those, the H/K “twins” they’re known to be somewhat optimistic with their mileage ratings. The Accord (and other Hondas in my experience) tend to be a little underrated with fuel economy, whereas there are lots of people who claim they can’t hit the numbers H/K is rated at except when they’re specifically trying to (speed limit on the highways, etc). This is where things like C/D’s “observed” fuel economy is valuable, even though it is only relative because you have to credit back the performance testing and general hooning they’re doing with the cars.

  • avatar
    andyinatl

    The continuously variable transmission, though not nearly as offensive as some examples of the breed, can cause tiresome droning from the engine when accelerating rapidly from rest.
    **********************************************
    Good thing the US Touring models get the 6AT transmission and V6… Would prefer the manual option, but 6AT is miles better than any CVT transmission, so it’ll do.

  • avatar
    carguy

    I like your writing Tim but I am not so sure about about this new format. Spec comparisons is something you can easily do at a number of websites with the click of a mouse and thus don’t add much value. I prefer the old style reviews.

  • avatar
    RetroGrouch

    My eyes saw “2016 Honda Accord Touring” and for two glorious seconds, my brain thought we were getting and Accord wagon again.

  • avatar
    ktm_525

    Living in Canada the Accord for me would be the V6 EX-L. For $2 grand I get the V6, proper 6 sp auto instead of the CVT and best of all 17″ wheels.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      ktm_525, my grandson bought a 2013 Accord V6 EX-L for his wife. They are very happy with it. When they came to visit and took us for a spin in it, I could not find anything wrong. It was an excellent vehicle!

      Were I to buy an Accord, I would opt for the V6 with step-automatic, in any trim I could find one in. They are scarce.

  • avatar
    meefer

    If this is going to be a thing, please break it out into a separate non-reviews section of the site so I can skip it. Or have the regular review and this spreadsheet condensed at the end.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    @ Timothy:

    Not a fan of this format.

    Also, the Accord Sport is CVT only? Not according to their website…maybe that needs a correction? Looks like the LX and EX also have manuals available.

    http://automobiles.honda.com/tools/build-price/colors.aspx?ModelName=Accord%20Sedan&ModelYear=2016&ModelID=CR2E5GEW&EColor=R-94&IColor=BK

  • avatar

    Okay, I’ve heard you on the format. We’ll either drop this in its entirety or tweak it to make it better in the future.

  • avatar
    Zoom

    This is not a review.

    “…most would have trouble believing that the Mazda6’s rear legroom is even a hair more substantial than the Accord’s 38.5 inches, let alone two-tenths of an inch superior.”

    What does that mean?

  • avatar
    ZCD2.7T

    Worst. Review. Format. Ever.

  • avatar
    turf3

    Although the poorly chosen short-focal-length photos make it hard to see, it appears that this car has actual rear and rear side windows, that one could actually see out of. Seems like that would refute the excuse-makers’ statements that cars have to have massive blind spots for whatever made-up reason they wish to claim this week. I would humbly propose to you that the 2016 Honda Accord meets all relevant safety standards and also gets darn good gas mileage.

    Give me my freakin’ windows back!

  • avatar
    Hudzen-10

    So this review is quite interesting in that it lines up with something I’ve been wondering recently.

    From a number perspective, there only seems to be about a 3% interior size differential between the Civic and the Accord (aside from the hip room in the back seats of the Accord).

    This leads me to my question. What are the reasons would one buy an Accord over a Civic (if a V6 is discounted as a reason). They’re almost the same size interior wise, have very similar features, the Civic gets better gas milage, similar horsepower numbers if you go with the turbo, has a smaller overall footprint and is cheaper.

    Given this, what are the advantages of purchasing an Accord over a Civic?

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Haven’t seen the new Civic’s interior yet, but the Accord has a far nicer and more refined interior than the old Civic. It also has a number of features not available on the Civic in its higher trims.

      I also expect I’d rather have a K24 with its wide, flat torque curve than a little turbo that prefers a narrow rev range.

      • 0 avatar
        Hudzen-10

        So with the 2016 trim of the Honda Civic, the pictures make it look similar to the 2016 Accord, but I haven’t seen one in the skin myself. I would hope that the Accord is more upscale, but the pictures of each don’t see to reflect that. Hopefully I’ll be getting into both this weekend so I can see what the difference is. (I agree that older Civic interiors are quite … unrefined).

        As for options, again for 2016, at least for the Canadian side of things, I didn’t see any real differences, but then again, I might have missed them. Do you know what features are not offered on the Civic that are on the Accord?

        Good to know about the engine. Didn’t think of that. How would the flatter torque curve feel in comparison to the turbo? Would the additional weight of the Accord negate or enhance it in comparison?

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Looking at the specs, Honda has really closed the feature gap between the two by adding the Civic Touring. I didn’t realize they were so close now in terms of equipment level. But there are still a few little things:

          Parking sensors
          Gas hood struts
          HomeLink
          Overhead sunglasses holder
          Auto high beams

          As far as the engines, I doubt a K24 Accord is any faster than a turbo Civic. I just like the flat torque curve. No turbo lag, and real power in the top of the rev range, rather than the feeling you get with small turbos that the midrange is very strong but there’s nothing extra available when you really want it. I also haven’t driven the Honda turbo yet, so it might be different.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          I’m guessing that the new Civic, as good as it may be, may still be down to the Accord in overall refinement and interior fitment, etc.

          Even if only just, until the 10th-Gen Accord bows for 2018.

          • 0 avatar
            Hudzen-10

            sgeffe – You are correct. I was able to get into both the 2016 Accord and Civic and the Accord definitely feels a full step up even with the Civic’s updated interior.

            Also, from the numbers you would assume the cabin space inside to be very similar, but I don’t know if is the extra width, but it feels HUGE inside in comparison to the Civic. I think it’s how they’ve configured the dash and door panels, but the sense of space inside the Accord is that you could get lost in there, or at least, have to lean in quite a bit to get closer to your passengers.

            The Accord on the outside looks substantially bigger than the Civic (duh, it’s almost a foot longer).

            The only disappointment I had was with the trunk of the Accord. While it is bigger than the Civic, it’s a bit more oddly proportioned and I could see myself being able to fit not as many larger objects in there compared to the Civic’s trunk.

            So now I get what the differences are. But I went ahead and bought the Civic. :-) Accord was too big for what I wanted and the Civic was in the perfect size/price point for what I needed.

  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    Ironically enough, Car & Driver just went live with their Accord review, with the heading and lede:

    “2016 Honda Accord CVT Tested: Character Counts
    This is why you shouldn’t buy a car based on a spreadsheet.”

  • avatar
    Corollaman

    Do your sales figures count fleet sales as well?

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      Honda doesn’t do fleet sales to rental car agencies. Every now and again a local dealer will sell one to a small rental outfit. It has always been my understanding the factory frowns on that behavior.

      In order to sell to rental car firms from the factory you need to discount your wares, Honda is not known for extravagant discounting,

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    This Accord really is looking sleek and sharp. Much improved.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    This style should appeal to the crowd that loves over using terms like “Objectively, “Subjectively”.

    I like how its pretty much to the point, but it is a bit robotic really. Credit to Mark for reading/responding to comments above.

  • avatar
    richmich7

    The Accord has always been a compromise. I don’t mean that in a negative way. It is not the sportiest driving car in the segment, but it is not old school Buick either. It doesn’t sacrifice performance for the absolute best fuel economy. The Accord is usually not the best at anything, It is very close in everything. Competitors can best in one segment, but no other company has made a car that people can live with and a few sacrifices. Honda engineers are geniuses.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      I remember reading, in a Motor Trend article about the 1990 Civic EX Sedan (the year of the 4th-Gen’s MMC), the author’s opinion that “Honda’s aren’t perfect; they’re ideal.”

      That says it all right there, and why the Accord is usually the ’70s/’80s Impala to Toyota’s Cutlass, in the form of the Camry.

  • avatar
    omer333

    I don’t care about the format, I’m more bummed that you can’t get a manual Accord sedan with the 6MT, Car Play/Android, a moonroof, and in actual colors in America.

    I love the blue that my Sport comes in and would love to have those things in my next Accord.

    • 0 avatar
      kit4

      I’ve seen blue 6MT Accord sedans before. Are those no longer available?

    • 0 avatar
      rocketrodeo

      We’ve driven Hondas and Acuras since the 1980s. When it came time to replace the 5MT Accord EX-L we drove an Accord Sport and decided it would be a great ride for a funeral director. We ended up with a 6MT CD4 Fusion in a unique shade of green, with a tan leather interior, sunroof, and full luxury, tech, and driver assist packages. It has enough power to hold 6th gear in the mountains while on cruise control, handles much better than expected, and is by far the quietest car in the segment. Sadly Ford has discontinued the availability of the 6MT. We’ll be hanging onto this car for a while, because there isn’t anything on the horizon that can replace it.

  • avatar
    Jack Baruth

    I thought the typical Accord review on TTAC was when some guy who looks like Gregg Allman takes it on the racetrack.

  • avatar
    baggins

    add me to the list of non-fans of this type of review. Many of these “facts” are irrelevant, and and all are easily looked up at Edmunds.

    Reviews are not just a listing of the spec sheet and options list.

  • avatar
    tekdemon

    Ah, you’re reviewing the Canadian model, I just helped negotiate buying a V6 EXL for the parents and I was really confused why you were talking about CVTs, because the Touring in the US is only the V6 that comes with a regular automatic.

    Lovely car, though my parents already thought the tech in the EXL was overwhelming and I figured the better ride would be more appreciated. It is nice that the 2016 has Carplay and Android Auto though.

  • avatar
    johnny_5.0

    It’s nice to see the price of the safety package stuff coming down to reasonable levels. A grand isn’t too bad for everything Honda Sensing includes.

  • avatar
    Halftruth

    I think the format can be tweaked. I like the quick hit style with the major points covered. While you can get similar stuff at Edmunds, nothing wrong with getting TTAC’s version of it. Tweak it and keep it.

  • avatar
    mchan1

    Anyone know if the Canadian Honda version allows either a sunroof or upgraded stereo system in the Sport version?

    Honda USA still refuses to allow ‘upgrade’ options to its models >:(

    LX -> EX/EX-L for sunroof or leather
    Sport -> no options

    • 0 avatar
      omer333

      Canadian versions of the Accord Sport have CarPlay/Android Audio, I think you can get leather, nav, and a moonroof.

      And I believe it comes in actual colors too if you want a 6MT.

      Bloody canucks.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    FWIW, I’m not liking the new review style at all. I want to read the story of a new car in a way which both informs and entertains. This style, on the other hand, has all the drama of a 1990s user’s manual.

    Life is too short to spend much of it on a “just the facts” style.

    BTW: Nice photo of an Accord before it rolled backwards into a river after the driver left it in neutral with the brake off :).

  • avatar
    VTECV6NYC

    Not among the favorites, as far as reviews I’ve read here; seems like a recap of Alex’s initial review, and not much else. I own a 2014 Touring and thoroughly enjoy it; upgraded to the 19″ HFPs, which actually made the ride smoother than on the stock 17s. It would have been nice to hear about some of the new features that came along with the refresh, i.e. the suspension dampers from Acura; LKAS and CMBS; the effect the larger wheels have on ride, handling, and fuel economy. Hell, a review of the V-6 6AT model would have been nice, considering Alex’s review was on the same trim and Jack’s was on the 6-6.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • stuki: Population will be controlled. Gaia will be fine. But control will be by external-to-humans factors. Any...
  • stuki: “Retro styling for the youths makes no sense to me.” Parents rebelled against grandparents by...
  • stuki: “They may not be able to use it very well,” At least they may be able to see it….. For old...
  • Goatshadow: The grille and the tailgate are both abominations, and the wheel arches are the usual Toyota truck...
  • rudiger: Well, there was the Fiero. I’m not sure if the Vega caught fire; it was more of an overheating issue...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber