2008 Accord

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: televascular

By far, the Camry's interior was the most disappointing feature. The dashboard, lit up at night, looked like a cheap motel room alarm clock.


I was thinking it looked more like a cheap Wal-Mart boom box. My friend had one for a rental and couldn't find the dashboard dimmer control to turn it down.

Would someone please tell these product engineers that high-brightness LEDs *ARE* available in colors other than blue?

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Mike, again, you're stating personal opinions about the relative merits of the cars as facts. You've got to realize that others will see these subjective issues in their own terms, and there's no "right and wrong" about it, just what's important to them vs what's important to you. If a particular buyer values quiet and relaxed more than always listening to an engine or the wind, then they'll probably see the Camry as a better choice than the Accord.

I understand. I would also prefer a quieter environment than the Accord, but unfortunately, I just don't find the Camry's driving position to be satisfactory. I'll try to provide some differences in this additional room that I keep referring to (between my knee and the steering wheel) the next time that I have a chance to sit in a Camry and Accord. Can't guarantee when, but I'll make an effort to obtain some actual measurements.

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
One factual quasi-error in your statement, regarding sound deadening. According to the Honda site, the EX Accords, both V-6 and I-4 add the active noise cancellation feature, that the I-4 only LX cars do not have. So there is a difference, but it's not strictly I-4 vs V-6, but rather, LX vs EX (with the LX no longer being available as a V-6). Now, I could be reading the chart wrong, or it could be a mis-print, but again, from Honda, there is a difference in the Accord family re noise deadening capability.

Understood, I stand corrected.

 

[ekpolk]

Mike:

Cool. Again, no intent here to hassle you. Quite the opposite, actually. As I said above, you input is a valuable part of what keeps this a great forum. And now you've got me curious -- I may just have to go test drive one of those new Accords.

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Mike:

Cool. Again, no intent here to hassle you. Quite the opposite, actually. As I said above, you input is a valuable part of what keeps this a great forum. And now you've got me curious -- I may just have to go test drive one of those new Accords.

I've just been informed that the Camry SE has a completely different seat than the LE, and as a result may fit me better. I guess I owe the Camry another look.

 

[buster]

If a "Most disappointing car of the year" award existed, the 2008 Accord Coupe would get my vote. I think the car is ugly. Motor Trend was one of the few magazines that actually came out and critcized the looks of the new Accord. Car will still sell well due to it's name and mechanical reliability. The coupe though is a major disappointment. I saw one on the road yesterday. Not a fan.

 

[benjamming]

For a magazine to factor a very subjective "looks" score into the overall rating of a vehicle is pathetic. I reckon all the rags do that. Therefore, their overall ratings are useless for me. I do look at their performance/specification data though. However, they usually don't publish the torque curves which would be helpful.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: benjamming
For a magazine to factor a very subjective "looks" score into the overall rating of a vehicle is pathetic. I reckon all the rags do that. Therefore, their overall ratings are useless for me. I do look at their performance/specification data though. However, they usually don't publish the torque curves which would be helpful.


I couldn't agree more. I basically disregard all the "ratings" and "rankings" that the mag/rags offer, and look at the numbers, and then compare the vehicles on terms that are important to me. So if some car I'm interested in comes up in "third place" in some magazine comparison, that's virtually meaningless to me. Is an Accord "better" than a Camry (or an Altima, or Malibu)? All depends upon what an individual buyer is looking for. IMO, of course.

 

[buster]

Looks are subjective, but do hold some value. If this car looked better to me, it would be high on my list for possible next car.

 

[blueiedgod]

Originally Posted By: Warlord
Maybe the introduction of the fabled accord diesel engine would change my mind......


Add me to the list...

 

[Audi Junkie]

I'm starting like the new Sedan better than the Coupe.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Hey up there, let me know if/when that '05 CRV 5-sp goes up for sale.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I'm starting like the new Sedan better than the Coupe.


It's not bad. They copied BMW a bit. Coupe is ok looking but really should have been better IMO.

 

[CivicFan]

I examined the Accord a little more closely the other day - they had a display at the local mall. Nice interior, acceptable front and profile. The back is not as Saturny as my first impression. It's more like the Solara 5-6 years ago.

They had the new Malibu as well. It's a better looking car but GM still has a long way to catch up with Honda - you need to exert a lot of power to close the trunk while the Accord was much smoother.

 

[BuickGN]

Out of curiosity, what size tires come standard on the Accord? Most Honda products I've driven including my TL seem to be more sensitive to road noise from tire size and type than other cars.

 

[Auto-Union]

iirc, new Accord takes huge 215/60-16
My Accord takes 205/60-16, but I replaced them with 215/55-16

 

[buster]

Went by a local Honda dealer yesterday, the V6 Coupe looked better in person. Wasn't bad actually. Had a nice charcoal grey Coupe that looked nice.

 

[BrianWC]

The Aura is not bad. Much bigger up close than it seems it should be. As for the new Accord, wow.... I'm VERY impressed. I admired the last Accord for its reliability, ride, and quality. This one fills in the big "gotta have it" void that the last model had.

Bill, I commute 50 miles one way as well and just saw my first over the holiday. A white sedan. But I'm in love with the Mystic Green Metallic version. I got a glimpse of one of those in a parking lot recently... I have to say, Honda raised the bar on this one. I'm wishing my 2002 CR-V EX would mysteriously blow up so I could have an excuse to get one.

Folks, regardless of whether you are an American, Euro, or Asian car fan, you have to admit...we live in a great time for cars. Too bad this fuel economy bugaboo is lurking around the bend..

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: BrianWC
. . .Too bad this fuel economy bugaboo is lurking around the bend..


Maybe not. Look what's happened to mainstream sedans over the last 20 years or so. The V-6 sedans of that time typically had hp outputs in the 125-150 range. That puts them well below the output of the current 4-cyl versions of today's comparable cars, and at about one-half the output of the current crop of V-6 cars.

This evolution has been the happy result of a long, sustained time with very low-cost fuel. Now, if it happens that fuel goes up and stays up, perhaps, just perhaps, the ingenuity that got us cars with double the output of their 20 years ago predecessors can get us the improvements in fuel economy, while preserving good performance, that will allow us to enjoy driving without bankrupting ourselves.

 

[BrianWC]

Now, I know. The fuel economy issues of the 70's were great as far as tech development. But look how long it took us to get back to the pre-pollution control performance levels. If it takes just as long to respond to another round of environmental controls, I'll be able to enjoy today's performance about the time I retire.

Granted, the insurance industry was also to blame for the early 70's castration...

But I don't want to take this thread off track. Nice Accord!

 

[Bill in Utah]

Brian,

STILL have not seen one!

I guess if I want to see one in person, I'll need to get to the dealer.

Take care, bill