2008 Honda Accord EX-L V6: Missing Mojo

In another 2 generations, the Accord will be as big as a TownCar.

Josh, you forgot to mention the shamefully outdated 5-speed autobox with no manual override.

Not surprised it lost its fun to drive factor since its as big as an Avalon now
but since when is the fusion so sporty?
and isn't the Malibu sportier than the accord also?

huh, wait, did honda forget their monthly check?

Toyota clearly sent theirs in with a bonus.

The V6 seems like a pile of bollocks.
The I4 would probably gain a few notches in a 4-cylinder comparison.

I drove a friend of mine's 1999 Accord 4 cylinder 5 speed. It was a sharp, fun car. I feel like if I wanted to recapture that kind of fun I'd have to go down to a Civic, and then have less room. I wish that Honda had kept the Accord the same and possibly come up with a larger sedan-- although I recognize that might have stepped on the RL's toes. That only furthers the idea that Acura needs to start separating itself from Honda the same way that Lexus has done with Toyota. Otherwise I think we're in for a death rattle from Acura.

You have to go back two generations for a decent Accord. The last generation was extraordinarily bland. This generation is bland and bloated, always a good combination.

The Accord is off my radar. You are right, it used to be the "go to" sedan. It was sporty, nice looking and a great value. Now it's a bloated Oldsmobile with weird styling like the headlights jutting out.

The Malibu looks like it's in a higher class and the only thing keeping it from being #1 is Honda's reputation... and Chevy's crappy rep. But if you really look at the cars, the Malibu is a clear winner.

Everyone that owns a new Accord says it's too big and realized it after the purchase, assuming Honda kept it the same size. That's how much faith people have in the big H- buy on assumption.

lol.. the Malibu is nice but not a clear winner. The Sonata would be my choice if I was looking at that kind of Sedan.

They still seem to be selling like hot cakes though, i seem to see them everywhere. Maybe its the styling that's driving sales? I know alot of people hate it, but I think it's miles ahead of altima, camry, mazda 6, etc.

I think the Altima's steering is also fantastic and well engineered, and I'm glad to see it echoed in the blog. What's funny is Motor Trend slammed the Altima's steering for being 'too communicative.' WTF? Not surprisingly, the Camry placed first....

I think the last gen Accord was the high note- roomy enough to be a family sedan, still quiet, and really luxurious- even in lower trim models. Some people might call it bland... but it's been bland ever since the 1998 restyle. This gen seems to be larger but less polished.

Also, how do you guys keep getting away without front plates!?

"They still seem to be selling like hot cakes though, i seem to see them everywhere"

The only place I see a lot of them is on Honda lots. I don't see many Fit's or Civcs wasting away on dealer lots but there are lots of Accords.

Only seen of couple of the latest version on the road.

The Fusion, except for steering that's too light for my taste, seems sporty enough. This Accord is just too big, period. Sitting in the back seat of my coworker's Accord on the one hour drive to a meeting I sure appreciated it, but I wouldn't want to drive it. If I wanted a family sedan in this size and price range, I'd go for the G8.

Hopefully this car will get projector headlights and a shiftable automatic at the refresh.

With the next accord, I hope Honda follows the Altima. Make the next car smaller(back to 7th generation size), sleeker, and a tad sportier. I wonder if people now see what I mean by honda currently having 4midsize sedans in similar pricing brackets(Accord, TSX, TL, and RL)

-Cj

"lol.. the Malibu is nice but not a clear winner. "

None of these cars is a clear winner which is a point I've been trying to make to Sadlier ever since he started bashing the MAlibu and Aura. All of these cars are quite good and it comes down to personal preference with regards to styling and options. I am sure the 2010 Fusion will be very competitive and give people yet another top notch option.

"They still seem to be selling like hot cakes though, i seem to see them everywhere. "

Its a default choice. Many Accord buyers dont even check out the competition outside of the Camry. The Accord doesnt need to be great to sell 400k copies a year. Neither does the camry or corolla. All are average cars that sell in droves based on their brand strength. I'd argue that the Accord was never a great car, it was just a reliable and efficient car. The Accord was slow as crap until the 1998 model debuted with 200hp. The previous generation car needed about 9 secs to get to 60 with its anemic V6. Ford sells a lot of F150s but that hardly means its the best pickup on the market.

The Accord has sucked since the 1994 model came out. The previous version was the perfect Accord.
Josh, one quote I will always remember from you, and it probably has a lot to do with how you feel about other cars, is what you said about the M3's motor -- "it is absolutely feral." You are now spoiled for anything else that doesn't meet that criteria. I'm sure there's nothing about the Accord that is "feral."

"I grew up on Accords -- my parents had a '94 EX and a '98 LX"

How young are you?

I'm getting old.

This is further proof that people don't buy Accords based on sporty rides, great steering or double wishbone front suspensions. They buy them because they are HONDA ACCORDS, that's it. If the economy was strong, Honda well sell just as many Accords as they have in the past. Buyers likely appreciate the larger size and won't even notice the change in handling behaviour. Try talking with the bread and butter car buyers out there and you'll see what I mean.

In the Accords defense, the LT Camry had a ton of highway miles back and forth from Detroit to California so I don't think the mileage comparison between the two is accurately representative.

So if the Accord has slipped so badly when compared to the competition, let me ask this:

How then did the Accord win both the V6 and the 4-cyl family comparisons on Edmunds (the V6, at least until the Mazda 6 "update")? There must have been something about those cars that impressed them that seem to have escaped Mr. Sadlier's notice.

You list the Accord as turning 0-60 of 7.5 seconds, the worst result by far in any test of the Accord I've seen. What happened to the 7.0 and 7.1 of the earlier tests? Did you give one of your grandmas a chance to play "race car driver" by letting her do the acceleration run that yielded the 7.5? Seriously, though, why wouldn't the best performance figures be used to describe your overall experience with the car, rather than its worst? If you were able to run a 7.0 and a 7.1 with the Accord, doesn't that demonstrate its actual potential? After all, the ~7.0 figures are apparently repeatable.

And BTW, the best Accord figures are right up there with the Altima tested with it, despite the Altima's 200 lb weight advantage, higher peak torque at lower RPM and more efficient CVT transmission. Pretty well matched given those Altima advantages. Yet the Altima is getting its ass handed to it by the Camry as well. So has the Altima lost its mojo too?

Oh and BTW #2, Motor Trend had the Accord V6 sedan turn a 6.5 0-60, which put it a mere .2 seconds behind the Camry. Yes, different testing procedures may explain the differences in specific times, but they use comparable procedures for all of their cars and were able to get the Accord to be right on the Camry's heels in acceleration, unlike your testers.

Yes, I will admit that the V6 VCM engine isn't one of Honda's most stellar accomplishments, but the engine isn't the only thing that makes an Accord an Accord. You think they're making it a Camry clone? Look at the spanking that the Accord gave the Camry in the lateral acceleration figures and slalom speed in YOUR OWN COMPARISON and then try to say that again with a straight face. Look at the thrashing your testers gave the Camry in their subjective handling evaluations and the very complimentary evaluation they gave the Accord. The Camry may have the lead in the engine department, but the other characteristics that have made the Accord such a winner in competitions are still in place. Your own comparison results are proof positive of that. The Accord's strength has been its overall goodness and either class leading or near class leading performance in all categories. Clearly based on your comparison, the testers there recognized that this is still the case, despite a less impressive engine than earlier models.

So I guess my final question is... how did the Accord go from "A car that has it all" in your V6 sedan comparo to "The car that's lost its mojo" here? I realize that your staff members aren't going to agree on everything, but you guys aren't only not on the same page, you're not even in the same book.

I think he is only referencing the sportiness of the Accord. I would assume that the comparos address more than just sportiness in their rankings.

The 0-60 times for the Accord and Altima in the last test were off for some reason but the new Accord has consistently been slower than the Malibu/Aura and Camry in spite of having class leading hp.

I would take IL's Accord rankings with a grain of salt because they are obviously huge Accord fans. They have had little to say about the car's styling, weight gain, 5 speed auto, lack of manumatic, small trunk, etc. The car hasnt fared quite as well in MT's comparos. C&D ranked the i-4 in first place but hasnt compared the V6 model yet.

I was very impressed overall of my test drive of an 08 Accord I4 5-speed...it had much of the feel of the 2000 Accord I4 5-speed I've driven before, except it was substantially larger. Loved the interior and it's functionality and layout (besides the scrabble board that they call a center stack).

I definitely think the Accord has lost it's mojo. That 2000 Accord I4 5-speed I drove had 120k miles on it with 2 boys growing up in it's back seat (they were about 6 and 8 when I drove it in early 2008). The interior looked brand-freaking-new. Leather, trim, everything. The car started and sounded brand new. The shifter operated like I couldn't stall it if I tried. The seats glided on their electric track as if they were in the showroom. The sightlines were un-freaking-believable in that car. And it was a compact overall shape with a ton of interior useful space.

It returned 30+mpg on average in suburban and highway commuting and errand-running.

It had great body control, feel, etc.....noise was well-controlled, but i'm not sure how much some new tires helped noise. Steering was first-rate.

It was the equivalent of a BMW in driving dynamics, in that everything just "clicked" for a FWD family sedan. And it had reliability and interior ergonomics.

I don't think the new Accord is the whole package. That's my take.

Joe

I grew up on Accords too... Dad had a '92 Accord LX and my college car was a '97 Accord LX. IMO the 6th gen Accord has the perfect size but its interior is the worst.

By the way, Altima has "spot on" steering? Give me a break, the one I drove the steering was so light and made me feel like I am driving in the air...

@Louiswei: Altima's rack > Accord's. And it's heavier than that of the Accord's and most cars in the class. IL -and- C/D even mentioned it was a bit heavy for their tastes. But there's a difference between steering weight and feel.

IMO C/D comparos tend to lean towards a certain 'ideal' - their sport sedan comparos tend to focus on "Who can build the best BMW 3 series?" For mid-size sedans, it goes the direction of the Honda Accord. That's their benchmark and a car equally as good- or better- isn't going to win unless it out-Accords-an-Accord.

I'd imagine the Camry's superior fuel economy probably was the result of the fact it's not a dynamically sporty vehicle. It has sloppy handling and makes no attempts to be anything close to fun to drive, so it probably saw less use of the throttle on its runs to Golden Corral...

"In the Accords defense, the LT Camry had a ton of highway miles back and forth from Detroit to California so I don't think the mileage comparison between the two is accurately representative."

Furthermore, it spent 5 months in free-flowing suburban Detroit rather than Los Angeles. That's a big difference.

"The only place I see a lot of them is on Honda lots. I don't see many Fit's or Civcs wasting away on dealer lots but there are lots of Accords.

Only seen of couple of the latest version on the road."

In California, you'll see practically 1-2 new Accords at every stoplight. They are everywhere. I see a lot of Smart cars around here too.

"Furthermore, it spent 5 months in free-flowing suburban Detroit rather than Los Angeles. That's a big difference."

I wouldn't characterize suburban Detroit traffic as "free flowing". Maybe by LA standards it is.

in case you weren't aware, the US Accord is not the same as what the rest of the world gets. the rest of the world gets the Acura TSX for an Accord. if you compared the TSX with old Accords, you will see it has not strayed far from the original formula.

Honda has sold almost 291,000 Accords in 2008, which is an 8.5% increase over the same timeframe in 2007. So they are selling a bunch of them, & probably with low incentives. I think lots of automakers would like to have this problem.

The new Accord doesn't bother me too much. I haven't driven one, but I've been in them enough where I feel it's fine.

"I'd imagine the Camry's superior fuel economy probably was the result of the fact it's not a dynamically sporty vehicle. It has sloppy handling and makes no attempts to be anything close to fun to drive, so it probably saw less use of the throttle on its runs to Golden Corral..."

Thanks alot... I just passed a mouthful of Coke Zero through my nose... ROFL!!!!

"That's their benchmark and a car equally as good- or better- isn't going to win unless it out-Accords-an-Accord."

Very true. with C&D its not about who makes the best midsize car, its about who can build a better Honda. The answer is always "no one" and the Accord wins. I think its comical that C&D used to ding american cars for "cost cutting" measures like gooseneck hinges in the trunk but they never mention the Accord has them. They also conveniently ignored the styling and mediocre performance.

"Honda has sold almost 291,000 Accords in 2008, which is an 8.5% increase over the same timeframe in 2007. So they are selling a bunch of them, & probably with low incentives. I think lots of automakers would like to have this problem."

There are incentives on virtually everything these days and the 2008 Accord is posting an increase in sales because the 2007 model was in its final model year and was slacking off in sales. Many midsize cars are seeing sales increases this year due to the shift away from large SUVs and luxury cars. Let's see how this generation of Accord holds up in sales over the next few years.

Huyracing - That's a good, and sad, point. The 2004-2008 Acura TSX (Rest of World Honda Accord) was a traditional Accord in many more senses of the word.

Joe

Josh - thanks for summing up EXACTLY what I have been feeling about this new Accord since its intoduction. And thanks for having the guts to tell it like it is. Mojo is GONE.

Unfortunatley I would have to agree as the Accord sedan has been subjected to Americanization among other things, however the coupe is still an Accord.

I remember a few months back reading some material from a few Honda engineers/product planners and them saying they wanted to make a better effort to keep existing Accord loyalist as their research showed a good percentage of them were moving up to larger cars, mainly the Toyota Avalon. After gathering the data Im guessing they saw it fit to blow up the Accord to near Avalon proportions to satisfy those consumers who wanted a larger, more luxurious car. The scary part is that Toyota may not be even offering a next generation Avalon as sales arent what they used to be. Where does that leave the Accord?

I do think Accord sedan is still a good car but its certainly lost a large amount of what made an Accord an Accord and thats the formula that alot of people (me included) prefered. It seems like the Accord is going after the older crowd and I really dont think thats a wise decision.

I actually consider the best overall Accord the 03-07 as it was efficient, powerful, affordable, the quality was there although the styling was somewhat bland...it was still an Accord. The 3.0L V6 matched the Altimas power and speed while bettering it in real world fuel economy and it retained the Accord formula as the chassis was playful and willing as well as the drivetrains. Honda even gave us a 6MT V6 sedan (06-07) to play with as the enthusiasts practically had to begging for it since the debut of the 03 Accord V6 6MT coupe. Personally I think the 09 TSX should have been the 08 Accord sedan as it pocesses that ...well more of the Accords goodness than the actual Accord Honda offered here.

Message to Honda, give the Accord back what you took as the competition is fierce. Give us that old Honda formula back.

@louiswei,

The Altima's steering is super-light around town, but it weights up wonderfully at speed and through corners, and there's significantly less play than in either the Accord's or Mazda 6's rack.

@sgude,

The Accord's driver seat lumbar support is pretty feral. Press the button on that thing and prepare for a lower-back attack.

-Sadlier

Say what you want about the new Accord but I know that GM, Ford, Hyundai, Mazda, and many other car makers have bought and currently buying Accords and reverse engineering them to figure out how to out Honda Honda. The suspension may not carve corners or have a cushy ride but put it on the interstate with the cruise set at 70 or 80 or more and the car feels planted and rock solid. The same setup Mercedes Benz chooses, it is a great all around setting. And as for the engine, no one in the business except BMW can make engines as refined and smooth as Honda. Honda 4 cylinders are usually as smooth as other car maker's V6s. Why do you think GM's new 3.6 V6 is so good. Remember when Honda agreed to supply their V6 engines for Saturn VUEs a while back. GM would have been stupid not to take advantage of that. Remember that Honda would also have to supply all the technical and design specs so dealers could service them. And I don't think a family of four going on a road trip will complain that the car is too big.

@AllthingsHonda - Honda's four cylinders are excellent, but their six cylinder engines are simply "above average." I think it's fairly accepted Nissan currently makes the "best" V6 engine (and have for... what.. 15 years?), and BMW is usually considered making the best inline 6. Honda's V6 engines lack too much torque in my opinion, in which case I'd rather have a four cylinder engine. They've been surpassed by GM in terms of isolation and have been surpassed by Nissan in terms of handling dynamics in the past year.

Almost every car in the class today feels planted and rock solid at 80mph. The Accord's strength was always offering honest handling, high quality, and great reliability in an efficient package (which I think the 03-07's embodied the best.) But Honda has lowered the quality of the interior and made the car larger and heavier. I think a family of four is going to notice the Accord's transmission can't keep up with GM's 6 speed or Nissan's CVT in the hills and that the car lacks torque for passing.

That's not to say the Accord is dynamically incompetent, nor to say it's not dead reliable. But when the last-gen Accord made its debut it was a major leap forward in terms of craftsmanship, refinement, power, and efficiency (5 speed auto when most offered only a four.) This new Accord just seems.... larger. And... cheaper.

"GM, Ford, Hyundai, Mazda, and many other car makers have bought and currently buying Accords and reverse engineering them "

Yep. Honda also buys GM, Ford, Hyundia, Mazda and many other makes to reverse engineer them.

"They also conveniently ignored the styling and mediocre performance."

Mediocre performance? You may want to read the review again. The Accord was second only to the Altima in acceleration, was top rated for fuel economy and it beat the Malibu in both measures. As for chassis performance, it turned the fastest speed in their lane change maneuver (spanking the Malibu by 3.3 mph, which ranked below average for the group in that test) and was in second place for braking, missing first by 1 foot.

They didn't ignore the styling... on the contrary, they ranked it in a tie for second (with the Malibu and Altima) after the Fusion . And they aren't alone. It's a simple matter to find numerous other reviews that have positive things to say about the Accord sedan's styling... I've already done so, but I won't bore you with a bunch of quotes. Since it's also clear that the styling has its detractors, I suggest it might be more accurate to call the styling polarizing.

"the 2008 Accord is posting an increase in sales because the 2007 model was in its final model year and was slacking off in sales."

According to the sales charts on Automotive News, YTD sales for the Accord through August 2007 were actually slightly ahead of the same period in 2006 (266,848 in 2007 vs. 250,663 for 2006). So the sales weren't slacking off at all. And with sales up to 290,857 units for the same period in 2008, the new Accord is showing some real sales strength.

"Say what you want about the new Accord but I know that GM, Ford, Hyundai, Mazda, and many other car makers have bought and currently buying Accords and reverse engineering them to figure out how to out Honda Honda. "

They all do that. As for claiming that the 3.6 is good because of the Vue using the Honda V6 I would say it's a stretch. The 3.6 has been in production since 2003 which around the time the Vue was using the Honda 3.5L. Trust me, the 3.6L was not developed based on the Honda engine.

If you think the Accord is the only car in this price range that feels solid at 80mph you havent been in many other types of vehicles.

"According to the sales charts on Automotive News, YTD sales for the Accord through August 2007 were actually slightly ahead of the same period in 2006 (266,848 in 2007 vs. 250,663 for 2006). So the sales weren't slacking off at all. "

Incentives were up at the end of the last car's run. I'm sure they moved a lot of units with low leases. I know 2007 wasnt the best year for the last gen Accord.

I was talking about the C&D comparo, BTW and not the IL comparo. I dont have it in front of me but I do know the numbers were very close and the Accord was one of the most expensive in the test. On the IL tests the Accord did not come in first in fuel economy, braking, noise levels or skidpad performance. Perhaps C&D's car did better but either way the car didnt dominate the testing and it wasn't the cheapest car. I see no way the Accord should be ranked close to the Malibu or Altima in terms of styling.

mikeolan - Honda's four cylinders are excellent, but their six cylinder engines are simply "above average."

I think ranking the six cylinder as even average now is a stretch, at least for the VCM edition in the sedans. It has worst in class low and midrange power, it doesn't get especially good mileage, it has a timing belt to replace, the rest of the field has caught up in NVH, what exactly is there to like about it?

The Toyota 3.5, Nissan 3.5, GM 3.6 are all hands down superior. The Hyundai 3.3 and Ford 3.0 aren't, but they don't even pretend to be in the 270 hp 6 second class and don't have 29K stickers either.

"I was talking about the C&D comparo, BTW and not the IL comparo. I dont have it in front of me but I do know the numbers were very close and the Accord was one of the most expensive in the test. On the IL tests the Accord did not come in first in fuel economy, braking, noise levels or skidpad performance. Perhaps C&D's car did better but either way the car didnt dominate the testing and it wasn't the cheapest car."

I know what test you were talking about... and while "dominating" is perhaps stretching it, it was the clear winner. It provided 2nd place acceleration, top fuel economy, top handling, top ride, top driver comfort, top ergonomics, top fit and finish, top interior styling, top engine NVH, top steering feel, top brake feel and top in fun to drive. Some of these rankings were ties, but several were the Accord's alone, and none of the cars in the test topped as many categories as the Accord. Sure, the top 3 cars were close, but that's the case in almost every comparison. As far as price, it wasn't the cheapest car, but it missed 3rd place there by $10 (by the Sonata, of all cars). And other than price leaders like the Malibu and Avenger, and the very expensive Fusion, all of the prices were in the range of high 23K to high 24K. Besides, they factor in the price into the score, so it's covered. Frankly, to call a winning test performance like this "mediocre" is nothing short of ludicrous.

"I see no way the Accord should be ranked close to the Malibu or Altima in terms of styling."

And I see that your subjective opinion is different than that of many others. It's your opinion and nothing more. Some others share it, some others disagree.

umm, while there are no 'offical' incentives on the accord, reading various forums about shopping experances, shows that the car is easy to get for invoice, and with just a bit of work easy to get under invoice.

IMHO, theres tons of hidden factory money on each accord, esspically the 4dr sedans.

Correction to my previous post...

The Accord actually got 2nd place fuel economy. However, it beat the faster (.2 sec in 1/4 mile) Altima by 2 mpg. Also, it beat the more economical (by 1 mpg for both) Avenger and Camry by .4 and .6 sec in 1/4 mile respectively. To the editors, that represented the best balance of power and economy of the tested cars.

Sorry about the second post, but I don't like to leave a mistaken figure uncorrected.

Josh Sadlier, I posted a link this morning to this Accord blog over at TOV (Temple of VTEC) and suprisingly someone actually posted some quotes from you (Josh Sadlier) from a previous thread about the Accord. He compared 2 blogs from you, the Sept 2008 blog and one from June 2008.

From your Sept 2008 Accord blog:

"A decade later, the Accord ranks a distant fourth in the fun-to-drive category, by my count, trailing the Altima, Mazda 6 and Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan, in that order. Shoot, if the Hyundai Sonata SE had less novocain in its steering, the Accord would fall to fifth."

From your June 2008 Accord blog:

"It's gotten way too big for my taste, but every time I drive it I'm impressed anew by its wonderful steering (as was Erin awhile back). Not too light, surprisingly communicative for a family sedan, effort builds nicely as cornering angles sharpen, and it tracks like the proverbial bloodhound on the highway. Here's a controversial claim for you -- having driven the Accord and the new Jag XF Supercharged back-to-back today, I think the Accord's steering gives up nothing to the Jag's."

Im somewhat perplexed as well as one minute you find the Accord steering/chassis to be above average and the next its mid pack at best. Which is it?

hondacura4,

Yeah, I thought of that earlier post when I was composing this one. Back then, I had driven the new supercharged XF and then hopped straight into the Accord to go to a golf tournament. I didn't like the XF's light/disconnected steering feel, and I thought it was noteworthy that the Accord's steering felt (to my hands) as good as the massively more expensive Jag's.

But, alright, I might have jumped the gun a bit with the adjective "wonderful." In my "Missing Mojo" post, here's what I said about the steering:

"the steering feel is above-average"

And I think that's more accurate. Since that golf tournament excursion, I've had the opportunity to drive the Altima/Camry/Accord/Mazda 6 back-to-back on challenging roads, and here's how I'd rank them on steering feel:

1. Altima
2. Accord
3. Mazda 6
4. Camry

The Accord's is good, but the Altima's is better (less play/slop, and better-weighted at speed and through corners). But the Accord's is still above-average.

As for the chassis, I didn't said anything about that in the older post. From my first drive in the current Accord, I've been unimpressed with its (1) uninspired handling relative to previous Accords, and (2) typically flinty/noisy Accord ride.

-Sadlier

Thanks for the clarification.

Well Sadlier, I thought you were off the hook but my "private invetigator" has found yet another somewhat positive Accord entry that yet again contradicts this entry. This quote is from the April blog you wrote.

"Otherwise, I really like this car. Steering feel and accuracy are spot-on, body motions are nicely controlled, and the mandatory slushbox is smooth and responsive. This is a family sedan for people who like to drive."

Care to explain this one?

hondacura4,

Doh! Now that's a tough one.

Possible explanations:

(1) The new 6 didn't exist yet, and I hadn't driven the old one.

(2) I hadn't yet driven the current-gen Altima.

But nonetheless -- "body motions are nicely controlled"? I respectfully disagree with my former self, who was then in his second full month of employment. I think I just didn't have enough seat-time under my belt to know what's what. Having driven every family sedan under the sun since then, I'm totally Self Version 2.0 at this point.

-Sadlier

I have to disagree, the Altima's steering is too heavy.

I have to agree about the Altima's steering being the best, though I have yet to drive the new 6.

Wow I didn't know people hated Honda so much. Everyone is very critical of the V6 engine in the Accord. Since when is 7 sec to 60 in a family sedan slow. Think about it people, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota sell far more 4 cylinder versions of their cars than 6. In this class safety and reliability are the main factors not quarter mile times.

And for all those haters who say that Honda can only make an average V6 keep this in mind. Honda has a hierarchy which they stick to religiously. No Honda has ever had a V6 engine that makes as much power as an Acura. Toyota's V6 is the same as the one in Lexus vehicles and of course Nissan puts that VQ in every thing except the Versa and Sentra. Honda will never put the 305 horsepower TL engine in a Accord. And the TL only got the most powerful engine because you can bet the next RL is making room for that V10 the NSX will have. Notice that the 2009 V6 Accord suddenly has 270hp since the new TL's base engine has 280.

Remember that a V6 NSX out performed most V8s when it was introduced. Variable Valve Timing was introduced to the world in Honda's NSX V6 engine. And yes a lot of people can make a powerful V6 but no one can make one as refined as Honda. Say what you want but BMW makes the smoothest straight 6 and Honda makes the smoothest V6. Don't confuse smooth and refined with power. Remember that Mercedes usually always outran BMWs 0-60 and quarter mile until recently. Any one remember those old 325s and 525s that BMW couldn't make enough of. It was slow as syrup on a cold day but silky smooth in delivery. They sold cars because of how refined it was not powerful. My girl has a previous gen V6 Altima that is wicked fast but it is not nearly as smooth as my 98 V6 Accord. Really slow with only 200 hp compared with her Altima. But even at 10 years old and 163,000 miles you still can't tell when it hits redline unless you look at the tach. Not so with the Altima, it will push you in the seat at full throttle but you also feel and hear the roughness at those high engine speeds.

Refinement is why Accords out sell Nissans and BMW outsells Mercedes power. My old Accord has never needed an alignment, still has the original hoses and even when I hit potholes so hard that I can see the entire dash shake I still don't hear a rattle. And by the way that is the first year of production for that generation and the J30 engine. No first model year bugs. The Altima has a bullet proof engine and tranny, but the cupholder and sunglass holder don't fit correctly any more, the power windows are noticeably slower than before, needs an annual brake job and it has been towed in twice due to fuel system problems and of course there is the occasional Service Engine Soon light that comes and goes on its own. Her car is a 2004 with 71,000 miles on it. My Accord had a cooling fan fail at around 60,000 miles and the tranny needed replacing at 152,000 miles thats it. I don't think that is too bad and that is why Honda sells as many as it can make.

And while I'm at it I'll comment on the button issue with the new Accord's dash. Most of you are judging the car based on pictures or occasional drives. I own a 09 TSX with the same button happy dash with Navi. When you OWN the vehicle and drive it every day you appreciate all the buttons. All of the vehicle functions radio, climate, CD, Ipod, trip computer etc. can be accessed without ever having to go through the Navi screen or having to use the knob. The screen comes on at start and disappears neatly into the background a few seconds later when it turns off because you don't need it unless you WANT to. And I don't use the dash buttons that often because most of those functions are accessed with steering wheel controls or voice command. Isn't that why people hate Idrive, everything trough the screen. You complain about the buttons but when the buttons are removed then you complain about having to use the Navi system for simple adjustments. In the Accord if you want to use the CD you simply press the button marked CD! Not (push knob, twist knob, push knob again) menu, (push twist push) radio, (push twist push) CD.

I do agree that with limited experience your opinions may change when something new comes along but the Accord is still the same car you drove months ago. On that note why doesnt it still pocess the qualities you stated? Just because other cars do it better doesnt mean the Accord all of a sudden is sloppy.

I know the other sedans you tested after the Accord may appeal to you more but you made the Accord seem like Toyota Camry XLE or Buick LeSabre. Its far from both.

Us TOV members are watching you Sadlier....Muahahahahaha!

"Toyota's V6 is the same as the one in Lexus vehicles and of course Nissan puts that VQ in every thing except the Versa and Sentra."

AllthingsHonda, Honda/Acura V6s are from the same engine family, Lexus/Toyota V6's are from the same family and Nissan/Infinti V6's are all from the same engine family. Like Infinti and Lexus, Acura gets the higher powered versions of the V6's. Whats your point again?

"Notice that the 2009 V6 Accord suddenly has 270hp since the new TL's base engine has 280."

The 2008 Accord V6 had 268hp and the 2008 base TL had 258hp. Whats your point again?

"Everyone is very critical of the V6 engine in the Accord."

Im overly critical of the VCM V6 because its so unlike Honda to put so much compromise in an engine, especially one so underwhelming as this lump. The previous 3.0L V6 was a standout in its class as it could match the performance of the competitors larger V6's yet delivered better fuel economy. The VCM 3.5 is average at best when it comes to real world fuel economy figures. It cant match the 3.5L and larger V6 engines in its class when it comes to engine response, power delivery or performance. Whats special or "Honda" about it?

Drive the V6 6MT coupe and the VCM V6 back to back, its like they arent even from the same manufacturer or engine family. The VCM 3.5 is an underachiever while the previous 3.0 was an overacheiver. The non VCM 3.5 is simply outstanding. Great low/midrange torque while not sacrificing that VTEC top end. Thats the Honda I know and love.

As much as I love Honda/Acura products I WILL NOT excuse Honda when I know (and they know) they have strayed away from their own philosophy. Im not here to bash or offend anyone as I know people have different opinions and I respect that but its the so called "Honda enthusiasts" such as yourself who wear the Honda tinted sunglasses who refuse to acknowledge when Honda has executed something poorly or offers an average/mediocre product and that make us REAL Honda enthusiats look bad. The reality is HONDA IS NOT PERFECT!

Once again it seems to be all about power not overall refinement of the vehicle. If you want a high performance car to run low 6 high 5 0-60 times and 100+ mph quarter miles why in the world would you be shopping for a Accord, Altima or Camry? If you insist on tire smoking neck snapping power may I suggest a Pontiac G8, it does not try to pretend it was built to carry kids to daycare. It will but it won't like it. It was engineered from the beginning to deliver high performance driving and I doubt that even Nissan's mighty VQ V6 stands a chance against the General's 6.0 V8 for the same 30,000 price tag.

Sadlier -

Don't be too hard on yourself or defensive. I don't see any of your comments being contradictory....further, bear in mind that the Accord now has ~10,000 more miles on it's stock tires. These OEM tires tend to go from "ok" at 7500 miles to "crap" by 17500.

Others:

Honda made one of the best V6's in the business back in 2003-2005....their 3.0 liter used in the Accord. It produced pretty much best in class power, refinement, and economy for it's size. It did it on regular gas (compare to the BMW 3.0 liter of the time, which was down on power and ran on premium).

The current generation Honda V6 is significantly uprated in size and yet VCM (the only one available in the sedan) guts it's mid-range. It's fuel economy is not impressive. It's mid-pack, at best. I'd rather have the GM V6, Altima V6, Camry V6, or even the Honda V6 used in the Accord Coupe 6-speed.

Honda CAN make a world-class v6....but it's current iterations are not world-class.

Joe

allthingshonda - it is both ignorant and highly presumptive of you to assert that those who criticise Honda do so because they "hate" the brand.

I sure don't hate Honda - to the contrary, I am a fan of the brand and have owned multiple Civics and Accords over the years (including a '98 V6 Coupe - refined? Yes. Boring as beige paint? Yes.).

It is BECAUSE I am a fan of the brand and have high expecations of them that I refuse to stand up and applaud when I see such a mediocre effort put in to such an important model. This is what distinguishes a fan from a fan-boy - you know - the rah-rah my-brand-can-do-no-wrong type? For an example of the latter, just look in the mirror.

I am also a fan of Nissan and was VERY disappointed when the previous generation Maxima came out - large, bloated, bland, soft (remind you of anything)? Nissan fixed that with the new gen. I am hopeful Honda will do the same, but we are likely looking at 5 years worth of this land-yacht until they do.

On the bright side, there is the Accord Coupe, which addresses many of the sedan shortcomings, and while downsized compared to its bloated brother, is still larger than an Altima sedan.

"not impressive. It's mid-pack, at best"

There's nothing wrong with with Joe said, but many people consider mid-pack to be a bad thing. I disagree. Mid-pack usually means a compromise between performance (mpg or otherwise), cost, and durability. Go mid-pack!

allthingshonda,

I would love to know what modern Accord competitors you have driven lately. You are making sujective claims that cant be proven in any way. Saying Honda clearly makes the "smoothest" V6 is pretty silly because there is no way to quantify that. There are tons of quiet, powerful, easy revving V6s on the market today. Maybe Honda had an advantage at one time but those days are over. Any GM or Toyota DOHC V6 can stand up to Honda's SOHC V6.

You are mistaken if you think refinement is why Accord sell. They sell because of a reputation for resale and reliability. All cars in the $20k-$30k price range are relatively refined. Its funny that you would bring up refinement when many people note the Accord has more road noise than it's competitors and a relatively stiff ride for a family sedan. That's refinement?

The reason the Accord out-sells a lot of its competition is because Accords have a well-earned reputation for being reliable and inexpensive to maintain over the long run. The new version is big (too big for my tastes but I don't have kids) but not as heavy as a lot of its (domestic) competition. Honda usually hits the refinement nail pretty squarely on the head, and was doing so back when GM got sloppy and lazy. The last gen hit the nail on the head back when the Camry was too much like a Buick and the Altima was too unrefined.

That's not the case today. Nissan's Altima is way more refined and dynamically satisfying, and the Malibu offers far better attention to detail. Mazda's new 6 looks promising, we'll see. GM's problem is that right now customers are buying 'safe' cars given the uncertain times. That and many have been burned by GM's total lack of quality over the previous decade and grating cost cutting that made their poor reliability even less excusable. GM is going to have to wait 10 years from now when people are telling their friends "man, we had an '08 Malibu that got 200k miles on it with nary a problem!"

"Honda CAN make a world-class v6....but it's current iterations are not world-class."

I wouldnt go that far Joe. The 3.5 V6 in the 6MT Accord is a world class V6 while only using VVT on the intake valves unlike its DOHC dual VVT rivals. The 6MT coupe can run neck and neck with a V8 Mustang GT.

The TLs pair of V6's should be above average especially the dual VVT SOHC V6, first ever production application. However like the CTS, the TLs excess weight will hamper its acceleration.

In case of current V6's on the market.....Id have to go with the Toyota/Lexus V6 as its really a very nicely executed engine. When it comes to 6cyls overall Id have to go with BMW or Porsche as both offer really impressive 6's.

In case of the VCM V6, well we all know how I feel about that lump. Im not sure how this thing even got the green light.

1487

You stated "you are mistaken if you think refinement is why Accord sell. They sell because of a reputation for resale and reliability." Well if they aren't refined automobiles then why do they have such high resale value and a well earned reputation for reliability. You also said "All cars in the $20-$30k price range are relatively refined." Really, two words Saturn Aura.

jager1

Name calling? C'mon dude grow up.

Lastly, if you truly want to know who makes the best product then we should be discussing the mid level mid price 4 banger versions of all the cars in this segment. You know, the ones that actually are flying off dealer lots. When I was shopping for cars in this price segment a few months ago there were 2 V6 Altimas on the lot, no V6 Camrys, and 4 V6 Accords and one of the Accords had been there so long the window sticker was turning yellow. Keep in mind that each dealer had more than 20 cars of those respective models to choose from. Very few people in this segment are interested in high performance. So I'll ask again even though no one has answered my question. If you want power and performance why get an Altima, Camry or Accord when for the same money you can get a Pontiac G8.

And for the record I don't think Honda does all things perfect. Element, what the hell was that about, Ridgeline was not thought out well enough, RL should have had a V8 years ago and they took way to long to redesign the NSX. But you have to respect them for the reputation they have worked very hard for. And as much as you may hate VCM you have to respect that they are the only manufacturer to apply this to an OHC engine not a pushrod like Chrysler and GM. And although I'm not a engineer I understand that it was not easy to do in a OHC engine, which is why Ford does not offer it in their truck/SUV V8s like their American competition since they only have OHC engines. It works seamlessly and has not caused any problems even when it was first introduced in the Odyssey. Once again they are able to introduce all new technology like VCM and VTEC without having to use the please forgive the first year bugs excuse (see GTR blog). The ability to take on a difficult engineering job and make it work when no one else has shows their capability. Excellent engineering and quality workmanship is more than HP and torque curves, it took GM, Ford and Chrysler years to figure that out. Why are people buying those puny Japanese imports when they could have our big V8 power?

If VCM were truly a shining example of Honda's "ability to take on a difficult engineering job and make it work when no one else has" then it would be doing exactly what Honda's advertising claims it does: 1) deliver class-leading fuel economy 2) without any performance penalty.

Too bad it does neither.

Sorry, but that's yet another example of fanboy mentality at work. And "dude", I am sufficiently grown up to see when the Emporor is naked, thanks.

"The new version is big (too big for my tastes but I don't have kids) but not as heavy as a lot of its (domestic) competition."

The accord is over 3600lbs and weighs only slightly less than the Malibu. The Fusion is lighter as is the Camry and Altima. The Accord is one of the heaviest cars in this class.

You are spouting a lot of prototypical domestic bashing rhetoric that is short on facts. I love it when Honda/Toyota fans make proclomations about how GM cars were terrible until the Malibu came out. Many people have owned domestic vehicles that lasted well over 100k miles. In fact, I see tons of 90s era GM cars on the road every day and they all likely have 100k+ plus miles on the clock. GM's worst quality problems were in the 70s and 80s and that is a long time ago. Try telling the people who have owned domestic products that lasted 10 years or more that GM just started making products with decent quality. As for low ownership costs I would submit that maintenance and repairs on an import are typically higher than on a domestic car.

"Well if they aren't refined automobiles then why do they have such high resale value and a well earned reputation for reliability. You also said "All cars in the $20-$30k price range are relatively refined." Really, two words Saturn Aura."

refinement and reliability have nothing to do with each other. VWs are refined but are not always reliable. Honda arent known for isolation from road noise but they supposedly dont break down a lot. The #1 issue mentioned by the majority of Honda/Toyota owners is reliability. When in college I had the opportunity to ride in numerous 90s era small import vehicles with four cylinder engines and I assure you none were all that refined.

How is the Aura less refined than the Accord? It's quieter and rides at least as well, if not better. It also has doors that feel like the came off a Benz while the Accord's doors feel like they weigh 5 lbs and close with a faint, cheap sound. Where is the lack of refinement evident when driving or riding in the Aura? I doubt you have been been inside of one, much less driven one. I havent read any articles criticizing the Aura or MAlibu for having too much road noise or flinty rides.

"The 6MT coupe can run neck and neck with a V8 Mustang GT."

I wouldnt take it that far. The Mustand GT can get to 60 in 5.2secs and I'm sure the gap widens by the 1/4 mile.

"while the Accord's doors feel like they weigh 5 lbs and close with a faint, cheap sound."

Oh, really? Well, mine aren't like that at all, and clearly Edmunds agrees.

From Edmunds on the 2008 Accord EX-L V6:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=122825

"It also feels one rung up on the class ladder, a feeling heightened by its huge body-color door handles and THE HEFT OF ITS DOORS. THEY CLOSE WITH A GERMANIC THUNK and seal so well it's like opening Tupperware to get inside the car."

And yes, I realize that the "body-colored door handles" comment is inaccurate for that model.

"And yes, I realize that the "body-colored door handles" comment is inaccurate for that model."

Thats not the only thing that's inaccurate about that quote. The Accord's doors dont feel as insubstantial as the Altima's or Camrys but they still dont feel or sound like the Aura's.

Bull. I was tempted to keep quiet about the error in the quote, because I suspected it would prompt you to pull the cheap comeback that you did indeed employ. Sorry, try again. A minor error about an unrelated minor detail in no way invalidates their statement. At any rate, I checked the Aura at a recent auto show and the Accord's doors are every bit as solid, if not more so. And the Edmunds comments are dead nuts on. Since no similar comments were made in any Edmunds test of the Aura (or the Malibu, for that matter), it seems that they didn't consider the GM cars to be all that outstanding in that characteristic.

So drex2, I take it you accept ALL of the Edmunds comments about the Accord as gospel - not just the positive ones that happen to support some particular point you are advancing?

@1487

"You are spouting a lot of prototypical domestic bashing rhetoric that is short on facts. I love it when Honda/Toyota fans make proclomations about how GM cars were terrible until the Malibu came out. Many people have owned domestic vehicles that lasted well over 100k miles. In fact, I see tons of 90s era GM cars on the road every day and they all likely have 100k+ plus miles on the clock. GM's worst quality problems were in the 70s and 80s and that is a long time ago. "

Ok, here's a fact- my assumptions are based off of my ownership of an Intrigue which I owned and maintained for 6 years /112,000 miles. The initial quality impressions of the car were horrible, but I was willing to overlook things like door panel gaps or lazy panel fitments (and later on things like buttons falling into the door panels or dashboard, etc.) under the assumption it was a well engineered vehicle. By 100k, just about everything except the engine had failed and had been repaired. Not just obvious stuff like the transmission and power steering, but little obscure... expensive things, too (A/C compressor clutch and A/C headunits, starter motors, etc.) . And let's not get into the electrical problems! By 112k, the engine blew a head gasket (which a GM goodwrench dealer couldn't seem to find but an independent mechanic did) and the car was junked. So frankly, by my book, GM was making crap at LEAST as late as 2001. Google "Intrigue Turn Indicators." Need I say more?

Sitting in a Malibu or even an Aura today you get a sense that GM has really made strides to improve itself. The cut lines are flush, lids don't seem as prone to sticking, and the assembly is nowhere near as crude as it was 6 years ago. That's half of the battle, as it builds a lot of confidence in the product. But I'm sitting this current generation out and waiting for someone *else* to see if the gauge cluster is going to fail at around 80k, or if the entire climate control system is going to fail causing the compressor and compressor clutch to crap out prematurely, or if the engine is only good for 100k miles....

"So drex2, I take it you accept ALL of the Edmunds comments about the Accord as gospel - not just the positive ones that happen to support some particular point you are advancing?"

While I find your open and honest attempt to get to know me better to be quite refreshing, it goes against Edmunds' policies to discuss each other rather than the topic at hand. This is Edmunds, not Facebook. So let's follow the policy and get back to that topic.

There is simply no reason for people to buy the bloated Camry and Accord when the new Mazda6 and Passat exist.

I own 2008 Accord 2DR with the vcm motor. Working for a very large rent a car company I have driven the cars mentioned above. (except Altima v6 and 2009 Mazda6) Yes I agree the 2008 Mazda 6 is fun to drive but the other cars mentioned, let's just say me and the Editor disagree.

"I wouldnt take it that far. The Mustand GT can get to 60 in 5.2 secs and I'm sure the gap widens by the 1/4 mile"

1487, dont be so sure of yourself.

2008 Accord EX-L V6 6MT: 13.9 @ 101

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15vVdJzdhG4

2008 For Mustang Bullit 5MT: 13.7 @ 102

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuIAbvj0Te0

Keep in mind the Bullit Mustang in the video is faster than the regular GT. If the cars were to line up I would call it a "drivers race".

mike,

Sorry you had a lemon but that proves nothing> First of all I find it funny that you would buy a vehicle that felt was a POS in the showroom. That makes no sense but to each his own I guess. Have relatives that owned an Intrigue until this year. The car had about 3 out of warranty repairs in the last 7 years of ownership. There was a problem with the starter (it never failed however), the thermostat (year 8 or 9) and one other issue. The engine, HVAC, sound system and electrical systems have had no issues at all. One car doesnt prove the overall reliability record of any automaker. CR and JD Powers show you that GM quality is somewhere between average (which is good these days) and above average generally speaking. All cars will cost you money over the course of 10 years or so, even a Toyota. Even if you dont have major powertrain or electical issues you will spend money on wear and tear items once a car gets old. BTW, I see tons of Intrigues on the road and those cars are between 7-10 years old. I do find that those with an ax to grind over a specific bad vehicle are more likely to be vocal than those who have not had similar experiences. You are taking your experience with one car and assuming that every GM vehicle produced has the same issues even though you seem to have no basis for that belief. If you want to know how the Aura and 2008 Malibu are going to hold up you should check the record on the 2004 Malibu which is on the same platform nd likely share many of the same components.

Honda,

I dont have time to surf for YouTube peformance videos. In instrumented testing the Mustang GT has routinely turned in 5.2 sec 0-60 times and the best 0-60 time I have seen for the Accord coupe is 5.8secs. Not saying that a bad Mustang driver vs a great driver in the Accord wont yield different results but in the real world under similar conditions the Mustang GT is faster.

drex,

IL doenst mention a lot of stuff when talking about domestic cars. The Aura/Malibu are heavier than the camry/accord/altima and when you close the doors you can tell. I have never closed the door on a Honda product that leaves me with the impression of solidity or quality. Most Japanese cars have doors that feel light and hollow. That said, I dont believe any concrete details about the "unrefinement" of the Aura were ever presented.

@1487

I wouldn't call my vehicle a Lemon, as it performed fine its first few years of ownership (typically where CR and especially JD's voodoo metrics apply.) , but as time went on the vehicle's lack of quality control manifested itself. And since you didn't seem to catch this first hand, I overlooked the sloppy fit/finish due to 1) the good price 2) the car's dynamics, 3) the fact that sloppy fit/finish don't equate to an unreliable vehicle. (In this case, it managed to be both.)

You can argue ANY evidence or metrics of vehicle reliability prove nothing. JD Power doesn't disclose their formula (and tends to usually be fairly inaccurate... Chrysler products were winning awards not too long ago.. yeah, the engine-sludging ones) , and it doesn't count owners trying to pump up or discredit the brand. Even TrueDelta tends to poll in extremities and a vehicle's rating can be slammed for something completely trivial. It's likely there's a Honda owner that has gone through far worse with his or her Accord, but that's not the case for any of the Accord owners I know.

I'm sure you see a few Intrigues on the road, as that totally proves your point about GM reliability - and I'm sure almost all of them have the pushrod engine. Next time count the ones with malfunctioning driving lights (usually about 40% from my observations since getting rid of the car). Or the ones with warped dashboards (hell, just go on eBay right now, all but one of them has it) .

1487, as usual you look at just numbers and skip the impotant details. The YouTube vids that I posted are of authentic instrumented performance tests from MotorWeek and Edmunds.

Given the Mustang GTs significant power and torque advantage it should be significantly faster than a 3500lb family sedan based sporty V6 coupe but its not.

In case you didnt know 0-60 times give you little indication of a vehicles overall power as poor traction can hamper launches significantly especially in FWD applications. I use trap speeds as it tells me a lot about how powerful the car is and how it delivers its power. In this case the Accord V6 6MT gives up very very..... very little to the Mustang GT and nothing to ANY V6 car in its class in terms of overall speed. Yes this old simple SOHC V6 is that good and its original architecture is 12 years of age.

The accord is still a nice car. it may have lost some of its mojo because its bigger but its atill an accord. and those people that have a new one dont seem to be complaining on stying or anything else that everyone is finding fault with on the accord.And another thing: please stop saying which cars are better than the accord. there are some that are better looking like malibu or the new 6, but to say they're better might stretch it b/c the accord has been known for a long time as reliable. so until those cars have been out for as along a time as the accord and sells in accord numbers, please leave honda and the accord alone. i know honda wont loose any sleep b/c people are talking about the accord the way they are. honda has a loyal fanbase. they want hondas only. just like those who are loyal to just american made cars or to any other car brand.