1st impressions of eighth gen Accord

[Hokiefyd]

The K24 is an excellent engine. Still at or near the top of its class, 11 years after it was introduced. Most Hondas still have very good chassis tuning. This generation Accord has wishbone front suspension and multilink rear; a good foundation for good dynamics.

Enjoy the new car. It should treat you well for many years to come.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Friend of mine has a 2012 3.5 ... that car is effing fast!


Comments like this always make me laugh. A Honda Accord is not fast. I'm sure it is quick and responsive but a lot of people here even think their Corolla S models are fast.

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Friend of mine has a 2012 3.5 ... that car is effing fast!


Comments like this always make me laugh. A Honda Accord is not fast. I'm sure it is quick and responsive but a lot of people here even think their Corolla S models are fast.



0-60 in the low sixes is pretty darn fast, no matter what vehicle it is.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The V-6 is fast.
The V-6 6 spd is awesome to drive, and is way faster than what I need.


Hard to find the manual V6. That's a shame because I hate that cheap plasticky gear selector in the automatic. It feels like a videogame controller.

I got to drive a V6 Accord EX-L coupe recently and I gotta' admit, it has considerably more power than my Mazda's Duratec30.
It's quick.
I love the body style. Rear seat room is acceptable for a coupe.
But then put it on the cloverleaf to get on the freeway and it gets embarrassed by an 8 year old 130,000+ mile Mazda on $100 Dunlop Direzzas.

The biggest sin is the price. They wanted $29,000 for a pre-owned V6 Accord EX-L Coupe. That's brand new Mustang Premium with performance package or 1LT RS Camaro money.
It's cool but not that cool.
It's an overpriced but pretty and quick coupe that is no better than any of the mainstream sedans in a corner.

 

[SLCraig]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Friend of mine has a 2012 3.5 ... that car is effing fast!


Comments like this always make me laugh. A Honda Accord is not fast. I'm sure it is quick and responsive but a lot of people here even think their Corolla S models are fast.



What are you talking about man any of the V6 midsize sedans thesedays pull like crazy. I have had a Maxima and Altima both with V6 and manual trans and they both had way more power than most people would ever need. The Altima would go 145MPH..

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Friend of mine has a 2012 3.5 ... that car is effing fast!


Comments like this always make me laugh. A Honda Accord is not fast. I'm sure it is quick and responsive but a lot of people here even think their Corolla S models are fast.




1969 SS396 Camaro

0-60 mph, sec: 6.8

1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 14.7 @ 98.7

2013 Accord 3.5

0-60 mph, sec: 6.1

1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 14.3 @ 98.1

 

[Spazdog]

Let's add insult to injury:
2013 Nissan Altima four cylinder 2.5 S CVT
0-60 MPH 7.4 sec
1972 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
0-60 MPH 7.4 sec

One has to wonder what the difference would be if the Camaro wasn't wearing bias-belted tires.

Okay, let's go to a radial shod car:

2011 Kia Optima SX Turbo
0-60 mph 6.1
1984 Ford Mustang SVO
0-60 mph 7.8

Ouch.

I like the SVO....I really like the SVO and Turbo T-bird.

The rather heavy AWD Legacy 2.5i with automatic will get to 60 in about 9 seconds. Right up there with a 1973 Chevelle Laguna.

But that's not that big of a deal. All of the midsize cars will get to sixty mph in a reasonable amount of time. All the current V6 cars are pretty darn quick. (HO-6 in Subaru's case - turbo 4 in Kia, Hyundai, and Subaru's case)

The real difference is that a 2013 Altima 2.5 driver is not going to significantly better that 0-60 time without forced induction, and that will probably kill the CVT. The Camaro driver can easily better his 0-60 and TH350s are cheap and plentiful.

 

[GMBoy]

I was not comparing a new V6 sedan to old day muscle cars with my comment of being amused by folks thinking an Accord is fast. I know todays cars are faster than the old muscle cars of the 60's and 70's.

My daily driver is an 08 Cadillac CTS with the 304hp 3.6DI. It pulls about a 6.0sec 0-60. But is this fast to me me? Not reall and it is just above average amongst many other sedans today. When I want fast - I drive my 87 Buick Grand National or my Corvette. That was my point, those cars are fast while my CTS (or the Accord in this topic) is merely quick or peppy.

I remember getting my GN in 1987 and blowing the doors off SS Chevelles and other 1960's/70's era muscle cars. It took a few years for people to wake up and see you could have a faster car in 1987 then they were used to in their youths. Today's sedans are quick but I, myself, refuse to catagorize them as truly something fast.

Just my opinion as whacked as it may be. I just hear so many people think their sedans are so fast then find out they never have driven anything else to even know better.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Friend of mine has a 2012 3.5 ... that car is effing fast!


Comments like this always make me laugh. A Honda Accord is not fast. I'm sure it is quick and responsive but a lot of people here even think their Corolla S models are fast.




1969 SS396 Camaro

0-60 mph, sec: 6.8

1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 14.7 @ 98.7

2013 Accord 3.5

0-60 mph, sec: 6.1

1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 14.3 @ 98.1

Compare a car made in 69 on Bias Ply tires to a car made in 2013...Awesome. Why not compare it to a top engine optioned Camaro made in 2013. Apples to Apples.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
I was not comparing a new V6 sedan to old day muscle cars with my comment of being amused by folks thinking an Accord is fast. I know todays cars are faster than the old muscle cars of the 60's and 70's.

My daily driver is an 08 Cadillac CTS with the 304hp 3.6DI. It pulls about a 6.0sec 0-60. But is this fast to me me? Not reall and it is just above average amongst many other sedans today. When I want fast - I drive my 87 Buick Grand National or my Corvette. That was my point, those cars are fast while my CTS (or the Accord in this topic) is merely quick or peppy.

I remember getting my GN in 1987 and blowing the doors off SS Chevelles and other 1960's/70's era muscle cars. It took a few years for people to wake up and see you could have a faster car in 1987 then they were used to in their youths. Today's sedans are quick but I, myself, refuse to catagorize them as truly something fast.

Just my opinion as whacked as it may be. I just hear so many people think their sedans are so fast then find out they never have driven anything else to even know better.


No you are correct, but this is BITOG, so that makes you wrong.

 

[fdcg27]

Oddly enough, I've driven really quick cars(that's what you're talking about, since fast means top speed, not acceleration) and I've always found four cylinder Accords really satisfactory where it counted, in the range between 50 mph and 100 mph.
I don't need a high bhp car to drive fast and pass anyone I want to pass on the two lanes.
Maybe some folks do.

 

[Blue_Goose]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Oddly enough, I've driven really quick cars(that's what you're talking about, since fast means top speed, not acceleration) and I've always found four cylinder Accords really satisfactory where it counted, in the range between 50 mph and 100 mph.
I don't need a high bhp car to drive fast and pass anyone I want to pass on the two lanes.
Maybe some folks do.


I agree..I was amazed at the pulling power in 5th gear for the Honda.


I have zero problem getting it up to speed to pass...no need to downshift either, just keep it in 5th


Goose

 

[Mr Nice]

Honda made 5th short enough that you don't have to downshift to 4th to pass on the highway. I wish 5th was much taller , like 1000 RPM's less at 80 MPH.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Friend of mine has a 2012 3.5 ... that car is effing fast!


Comments like this always make me laugh. A Honda Accord is not fast. I'm sure it is quick and responsive but a lot of people here even think their Corolla S models are fast.



That's kind of what I was thinking.

While a Honda Accord is all best selling and everything, a Nissan GTR it most certainly is not.

My last experience with an Accord is threw a guy who works for me. His 2007 is a royal POS. He can't keep brakes on it, and it rattles and bangs around like an old clapped out Chevy. I think Honda sells a lot on their name.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Oddly enough, I've driven really quick cars(that's what you're talking about, since fast means top speed, not acceleration) and I've always found four cylinder Accords really satisfactory where it counted, in the range between 50 mph and 100 mph.
I don't need a high bhp car to drive fast and pass anyone I want to pass on the two lanes.
Maybe some folks do.

I don't think you can pass me when I drive my S2000 on 2-lanes highway on straight or on curve.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Friend of mine has a 2012 3.5 ... that car is effing fast!


Comments like this always make me laugh. A Honda Accord is not fast. I'm sure it is quick and responsive but a lot of people here even think their Corolla S models are fast.


Fast is relative to what you are used to. My sig car used to feel fast...

But I chuckle too here sometimes, keep it going Gents!

 

[DuckRyder]

Six seconds to 60 is pretty fast/quick, and a good portion of those cars which are revered as performance icons were no faster. A 2013 Camaro SS is only about 1-1.5 seconds faster to 60 which is very quick.

Yes both of the old Camaros above would have done a bit better on modern tires with better traction. Look at the SS396 - even though the 1/4 time was a little slower the mph was a little faster.

Point (if there really is one) is that most of our cars today are excellent performers, even our family sedans.

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^Absolutely agreed. It is amazing how the straight line performance numbers have risen even on so-called 'economy' cars!

Just for reference, here's a Camaro SS test score:

PERFORMANCE:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.0 sec
Top speed: 157 mph

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Oddly enough, I've driven really quick cars(that's what you're talking about, since fast means top speed, not acceleration) and I've always found four cylinder Accords really satisfactory where it counted, in the range between 50 mph and 100 mph.
I don't need a high bhp car to drive fast and pass anyone I want to pass on the two lanes.
Maybe some folks do.

I don't think you can pass me when I drive my S2000 on 2-lanes highway on straight or on curve.

As long as you weren't driving way below a speed I'd be comfortable with, I'd have no reason to pass you in your S2000.
If you were driving really slowly, trust me, I'd find my way past you.
I've done two lane passes in a 123 diesel.
It's all in the planning and the technique and it helps if you know the road, or the road is straight and flat for a good distance.

 

[HTSS_TR]

I was kidding.

Usually when I was in unfamiliar road and especially at night and I didn't like to drive too fast, I usually go as far to the right with turn signal on to let faster traffic pass. I don't like to be the one who hold the traffic back.