|
|
|
|
 |
SH-AWD10
 |
|
benbess wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
DCR wrote:
I keep reading "HONDA IS BACK!!!"
Bullshit. Where did they ever go away in the Accord segment? They aren't back to anything yet, until we see improvements in the areas they are weak, and not where they are already strong. |
Ironic, that you, who seems to complain about everything, does not see the deficiencies in the 8G Accord! It is not a bad car, but it is not a great one either. Why?
- Too big. Trying to split the difference between a mid-sizer and a full-size meant that the Accord had trouble fitting into some garages. One of the Accord's engineers could not fit his own 8G Accord into his garage in Ohio.
- Powertrain. The K24+5AT did not have enough punch to make the 8G Accord as responsive as the 7G. Jeff commented that the 8G K24+5AT often felt flat-footed at times. Fuel economy also did not improve much until the MMC, because of the extra weight and bulk of the 8G.
- Interior. Materials not as nice as the 7G. Center stack was visually not great. The lower trims like LX were ok, but throw in the dual zone climate control, and throw in the Navi, and it was a mess.
- Electronics. Accord was far behind the competition here. Dealers complained that the Accord's electronics feature set seemed like it was from the dinosaur age.
- NVH. Again.
The 9G Accord fixes virtually all of these problems. The powertrain is snappy and efficient. The car has a more compact exterior. Interior design and electronics are top-notch. Reviewers finally say that Accord is as quiet as the Camry, while still retaining good handling. So hell yes, Honda is back.
Everyone from Fox News to the New York Times is impressed.
The Times just published their review: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/automobiles/autoreviews/accord-once-more-with-no-nonsense.html?pagewanted=2&ref=automobiles
"The basic designs of midsize sedans are so similar that it’s tempting to lump them together and assume that each is as good as the others — just go with the one that has the most features you like. And almost all of the cars in this market segment are very good. But this new Accord is excellent."
Pretty much says it all.
|
atomiclightbulb: Well said. Outstanding summary, in fact.
I own a 2008 EXL sedan, and it's a very good car. But like many Accord fans I think it's a little too big, the handling is a little sloppy, the road noise is a bit loud, the acceleration is a bit slow, etc.
It's still by far the best car I've ever owned! It's so far beyond my 2002 Accord LX that I'm still amazed and pleased when I sit in it and drive it. And I'm one of the few that actually likes the controls.
But really, every area of weakness that the 8G Accord has seems to have been aggressively worked on by Honda's team of engineers.
I'm thrilled that I'm going to get a faster, sleeker, more efficient, more luxurious, better handling, etc., etc. car. Can't wait!
The 8G Accord was a very good car. I still think for many reasons it was the best in its class, but in some areas the competition had equaled or passed it
I'm thrilled Honda went all out on this car and decided to be the best in the class in as many areas as possible.
|
I'm hoping Honda truly addressed the 8G issues noted above. On the thought that we might pick up an end of year deal on a '12 EX 5MT to replace our similar '03, we test drove a '12 over the weekend. It handled well and was responsive driving, but in almost nearly every other respect it was a step down from our current 7G. Engine noise was very apparent (no sound insulation under the hood? - C'mon) and wind and tire noise were quite a bit louder than our well-used 7G. The quality of the interior, from materials, design, seat cushion, etc., were all step down from our 7G and reflected a level of cost-cutting and/or indifference that is truly surprising from Honda. At the end, we all felt better to be back in our 7G. We've discarded thoughts of buying an end of year '12 and are hoping the 9G is, as tests seem to indicate, a reversal of the trends seen on the 8G.
|
SH-AWD10
|
|
benbess wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
DCR wrote:
I keep reading "HONDA IS BACK!!!"
Bullshit. Where did they ever go away in the Accord segment? They aren't back to anything yet, until we see improvements in the areas they are weak, and not where they are already strong. |
Ironic, that you, who seems to complain about everything, does not see the deficiencies in the 8G Accord! It is not a bad car, but it is not a great one either. Why?
- Too big. Trying to split the difference between a mid-sizer and a full-size meant that the Accord had trouble fitting into some garages. One of the Accord's engineers could not fit his own 8G Accord into his garage in Ohio.
- Powertrain. The K24+5AT did not have enough punch to make the 8G Accord as responsive as the 7G. Jeff commented that the 8G K24+5AT often felt flat-footed at times. Fuel economy also did not improve much until the MMC, because of the extra weight and bulk of the 8G.
- Interior. Materials not as nice as the 7G. Center stack was visually not great. The lower trims like LX were ok, but throw in the dual zone climate control, and throw in the Navi, and it was a mess.
- Electronics. Accord was far behind the competition here. Dealers complained that the Accord's electronics feature set seemed like it was from the dinosaur age.
- NVH. Again.
The 9G Accord fixes virtually all of these problems. The powertrain is snappy and efficient. The car has a more compact exterior. Interior design and electronics are top-notch. Reviewers finally say that Accord is as quiet as the Camry, while still retaining good handling. So hell yes, Honda is back.
Everyone from Fox News to the New York Times is impressed.
The Times just published their review: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/automobiles/autoreviews/accord-once-more-with-no-nonsense.html?pagewanted=2&ref=automobiles
"The basic designs of midsize sedans are so similar that it’s tempting to lump them together and assume that each is as good as the others — just go with the one that has the most features you like. And almost all of the cars in this market segment are very good. But this new Accord is excellent."
Pretty much says it all.
|
atomiclightbulb: Well said. Outstanding summary, in fact.
I own a 2008 EXL sedan, and it's a very good car. But like many Accord fans I think it's a little too big, the handling is a little sloppy, the road noise is a bit loud, the acceleration is a bit slow, etc.
It's still by far the best car I've ever owned! It's so far beyond my 2002 Accord LX that I'm still amazed and pleased when I sit in it and drive it. And I'm one of the few that actually likes the controls.
But really, every area of weakness that the 8G Accord has seems to have been aggressively worked on by Honda's team of engineers.
I'm thrilled that I'm going to get a faster, sleeker, more efficient, more luxurious, better handling, etc., etc. car. Can't wait!
The 8G Accord was a very good car. I still think for many reasons it was the best in its class, but in some areas the competition had equaled or passed it
I'm thrilled Honda went all out on this car and decided to be the best in the class in as many areas as possible.
|
I'm hoping Honda truly addressed the 8G issues noted above. On the thought that we might pick up an end of year deal on a '12 EX 5MT to replace our similar '03, we test drove a '12 over the weekend. It handled well and was responsive driving, but in almost nearly every other respect it was a step down from our current 7G. Engine noise was very apparent (no sound insulation under the hood? - C'mon) and wind and tire noise were quite a bit louder than our well-used 7G. The quality of the interior, from materials, design, seat cushion, etc., were all step down from our 7G and reflected a level of cost-cutting and/or indifference that is truly surprising from Honda. At the end, we all felt better to be back in our 7G. We've discarded thoughts of buying an end of year '12 and are hoping the 9G is, as tests seem to indicate, a reversal of the trends seen on the 8G.
|
Husker
|
|
Drove a Sport today...
((( STEERING )))
It's so sensitive, that the slightest movement makes the car react instantly, kind of reminds me of Playing on a PS3.
I like to rest my hand at the 12:00 position, with zero play, the car goes left or right at the slightest movement...It will be very hard for me to get used to.
|
DCR
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Ironic, that you, who seems to complain about everything, does not see the deficiencies in the 8G Accord! It is not a bad car, but it is not a great one either. Why?
|
Ironic, that you, couldn't leave out a cheap shot.
- Too big. Trying to split the difference between a mid-sizer and a full-size meant that the Accord had trouble fitting into some garages. One of the Accord's engineers could not fit his own 8G Accord into his garage in Ohio.
|
Maybe he needs to get paid more so he can afford a bigger garage. I didn't have trouble fitting my Accord coupe in my garage.
You make it sound like the Accord has now been diminished to Civic sizing.
It lost, what 3.5 inches? Amazing.
- Powertrain. The K24+5AT did not have enough punch to make the 8G Accord as responsive as the 7G. Jeff commented that the 8G K24+5AT often felt flat-footed at times. Fuel economy also did not improve much until the MMC, because of the extra weight and bulk of the 8G.
|
I think you are forgetting the whole VCM thing there. Even in the V6 version, it felt terribly slow and lethargic. The only engine configuration worth driving was the coupe paired with the 6MT.
- Interior. Materials not as nice as the 7G. Center stack was visually not great. The lower trims like LX were ok, but throw in the dual zone climate control, and throw in the Navi, and it was a mess.
|
I can't really agree here either. The new Accord center stack looks equally as bad, but now with more silver and if you are really lucky, you can get some glittery plastic.
- Electronics. Accord was far behind the competition here. Dealers complained that the Accord's electronics feature set seemed like it was from the dinosaur age.
|
This has been a problem before, and not alone in the Accord when it comes to Honda. They threw the kitchen sink at this one gadget wise, and I have been saying for a very long time that they need to start giving away features to sell against the check boxes. I am not surprised.
Better.
The 9G Accord fixes virtually all of these problems. The powertrain is snappy and efficient. The car has a more compact exterior. Interior design and electronics are top-notch. Reviewers finally say that Accord is as quiet as the Camry, while still retaining good handling. So hell yes, Honda is back.
|
Honda did the obvious and expected thing by improving the Accord. Seems pretty simple to me. If that means they "are back", then I'd question where they went in the first place regarding the Accord.
We'll see.
|
DCR
|
|
Potenza wrote:
Introduced to the Honda line in the 2012 CR-V, the 2013 Accord's Expanded View Driver's Mirror is integrated into the driver's side mirror. Standard equipment on all 2013 Accord models and trim levels, the mirror increases the driver's field of vision by 4.2 degrees to provide a better view of objects to the back and side of the vehicle.
|
Have you seen this in person?
It doesn't work very well at all and I would love to change it out.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
DCR wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Ironic, that you, who seems to complain about everything, does not see the deficiencies in the 8G Accord! It is not a bad car, but it is not a great one either. Why?
|
Ironic, that you, couldn't leave out a cheap shot. |
You're irritated because I told the truth? Don't be unrealistically negative or trolling if you can't take the heat.
DCR wrote:Maybe he needs to get paid more so he can afford a bigger garage. I didn't have trouble fitting my Accord coupe in my garage.
You make it sound like the Accord has now been diminished to Civic sizing.
It lost, what 3.5 inches? Amazing. |
You're talking about the coupe, while I am talking about the sedan. Making the car smaller does make a difference for people who own homes that do not have large garages. Building the 9G Sedan close to the dimensions of the 7G Sedan helps.
- Powertrain. The K24+5AT did not have enough punch to make the 8G Accord as responsive as the 7G. Jeff commented that the 8G K24+5AT often felt flat-footed at times. Fuel economy also did not improve much until the MMC, because of the extra weight and bulk of the 8G.
|
I think you are forgetting the whole VCM thing there. Even in the V6 version, it felt terribly slow and lethargic. The only engine configuration worth driving was the coupe paired with the 6MT. |
True. But my point still stands: the 9G's powertrains are by and large a huge improvement over the 8G's powertrains.
- Interior. Materials not as nice as the 7G. Center stack was visually not great. The lower trims like LX were ok, but throw in the dual zone climate control, and throw in the Navi, and it was a mess.
|
I can't really agree here either. The new Accord center stack looks equally as bad, but now with more silver and if you are really lucky, you can get some glittery plastic. |
The 8G's controls were not well separated, especially on the Navi models. Having the HVAC controls on the same tier as the Navi was confusing for people. Honda tried to fix this in the MMC by repositioning some buttons but it didn't really solve the problem IMO.
The 9G has clear segmentation of controls by function.
Where the non-Navi models are concerned, several people here complained that the odd geometry of the button placement in the 8G was visually annoying. The 9G is more traditional in its layout.
Honda did the obvious and expected thing by improving the Accord. Seems pretty simple to me. If that means they "are back", then I'd question where they went in the first place regarding the Accord.
|
Reviewer response has been overwhelmingly positive. The only question mark in my mind is reliability -- the K24W and the CVT don't yet have street cred with me. The J35Y and its 6AT or 6MT I feel pretty confident about.
As a lifelong Accord sedan driver, the 8G just didn't work for me. It was not as "Honda" as the 7G, so I ended up buying a used 7G instead. That's why I say Honda is back. The 9G looks like a worthy successor in nearly every way, while the 8G did not feel like a big jump over the 7G. The 8G did some things right: visibility and ACE body structure, but it largely stagnated in powertrains, electronics, and NVH. It was worse in ergonomics, trunk geometry, and materials quality. The 9G doesn't disappoint like the 8G did. That's why I say Honda is back.
|
DCR
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
You're irritated because I told the truth? Don't be unrealistically negative or trolling if you can't take the heat.
|
To be irritated, I'd have to care. Let me know when you actually bring some heat.
Which trim are you buying tomorrow?
|
owequitit
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
DCR wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Ironic, that you, who seems to complain about everything, does not see the deficiencies in the 8G Accord! It is not a bad car, but it is not a great one either. Why?
|
Ironic, that you, couldn't leave out a cheap shot. |
You're irritated because I told the truth? Don't be unrealistically negative or trolling if you can't take the heat.
DCR wrote:Maybe he needs to get paid more so he can afford a bigger garage. I didn't have trouble fitting my Accord coupe in my garage.
You make it sound like the Accord has now been diminished to Civic sizing.
It lost, what 3.5 inches? Amazing. |
You're talking about the coupe, while I am talking about the sedan. Making the car smaller does make a difference for people who own homes that do not have large garages. Building the 9G Sedan close to the dimensions of the 7G Sedan helps.
- Powertrain. The K24+5AT did not have enough punch to make the 8G Accord as responsive as the 7G. Jeff commented that the 8G K24+5AT often felt flat-footed at times. Fuel economy also did not improve much until the MMC, because of the extra weight and bulk of the 8G.
|
I think you are forgetting the whole VCM thing there. Even in the V6 version, it felt terribly slow and lethargic. The only engine configuration worth driving was the coupe paired with the 6MT. |
True. But my point still stands: the 9G's powertrains are by and large a huge improvement over the 8G's powertrains.
- Interior. Materials not as nice as the 7G. Center stack was visually not great. The lower trims like LX were ok, but throw in the dual zone climate control, and throw in the Navi, and it was a mess.
|
I can't really agree here either. The new Accord center stack looks equally as bad, but now with more silver and if you are really lucky, you can get some glittery plastic. |
The 8G's controls were not well separated, especially on the Navi models. Having the HVAC controls on the same tier as the Navi was confusing for people. Honda tried to fix this in the MMC by repositioning some buttons but it didn't really solve the problem IMO.
The 9G has clear segmentation of controls by function.
Where the non-Navi models are concerned, several people here complained that the odd geometry of the button placement in the 8G was visually annoying. The 9G is more traditional in its layout.
Honda did the obvious and expected thing by improving the Accord. Seems pretty simple to me. If that means they "are back", then I'd question where they went in the first place regarding the Accord.
|
Reviewer response has been overwhelmingly positive. The only question mark in my mind is reliability -- the K24W and the CVT don't yet have street cred with me. The J35Y and its 6AT or 6MT I feel pretty confident about.
As a lifelong Accord sedan driver, the 8G just didn't work for me. It was not as "Honda" as the 7G, so I ended up buying a used 7G instead. That's why I say Honda is back. The 9G looks like a worthy successor in nearly every way, while the 8G did not feel like a big jump over the 7G. The 8G did some things right: visibility and ACE body structure, but it largely stagnated in powertrains, electronics, and NVH. It was worse in ergonomics, trunk geometry, and materials quality. The 9G doesn't disappoint like the 8G did. That's why I say Honda is back.
|
We've owned two 7th gen sedans, and an 8th gen, and I have to quite vehemently disagree with you in MANY ways. The main problem is that you present an OPINION as fact.
1) The 7th gen had at least as many hard touch plastics as the 8th gen, but Honda was just slightly better at hiding them. In the 7th gen the right 2/3 of the top of the dash were soft touch, while on the 8th gen it was the strip below the info screen binnacle. On the 8th gen you could feel it if you touched the top of the dash, but there was less color and contrast difference in the 8th gen. Not only could you see it in pictures on the 7th gen, but during certain intense sunlight situations, you could see it as well.
The dash graining on the 7th gen wasn't bad, but it was far from "better." It felt soft and slightly grippy to the touch, whereas the 8th gen felt the same way, but had a more uniform "vinyl" patter similar to Honda's older Accords like the 3rd and 4th gen (which IMO still sets the bar by which Honda interior quality should be judged). The 7th gen's in contrast had a more uneven graining, that was simultaneously smoother, but seemed like it had more molding flash (our 2004 is better than our 06 was in this regard). It didn't feel cheap, but it was noticeable from the first time I looked at the 8th gen.
However, one area where the 8th gen unquestionably BLOWS the 7th gen away is in all of the secondary plastics, like the door pillars, the lower dash, sides of the center console etc. Our 8th gen has suffered far less scuffing, scarring, and visible wear and tear than either our 6th gen, or our 7th gens. Even releasing the seatbelt and letting it hit the door pillars in our 7th gens has lead to scuffing of the plastics. Not so with the 8th gen.
Also, the center stack might not be well styled, but it was hardly a "mess." After no more than an hour and half of driving the car, I had no issues running any of the features. On navigation equipped cars, the button mess is way overblown, because voice commands can take place of much of that, which means with a little more practice, you don't need the center stack as much. However, even on our EX-L V6, it is NOT hard to operate. I spent more time eyes down with the 7th gen and its multi-mode buttons than I do in the 8th. However, I will agree that the 7th looked a lot more attractive to the eye in terms of center console layout.
2) The seat cushion height/length is better in the 8th gen. I don't feel like I am sitting on the floor in the back, which makes it less fatiguing on my backside on longer trips. In the front, I appreciate the extra inch or so of additional cushion length, although the backrest is not as good (I haven't had the comfort complaints of others though). I also appreciate the added padding on the arm rests. Also, I would say the tan leather in the 08 is holding up better than the tan leather in our 04 at that mileage, but not quite as good as the gray leather in our 2006. However, the carpet in the 8th gen sucks. The sunvisors feel super cheap, and I personally prefer the plastic molded pillar trim (I have seen too many 7th gens with stains and fabric peel in AZ due to the heat releasing the glue).
3) As for powertrain, I certainly do not agree with the assessment that the car is less speedy than the 7th gen. I will agree that it doesn't feel as vigorous, engaged or fun to drive, but even with the horrendous implemenation of VCM in the 8th gen (my single least favorite feature), it is still as quick as the 7th gen was, it just feels lazier doing it. I got the same exact impression with the 4 bangers I have driven. To be honest, the 7th gen 4 banger was not a vigorous ride either.
4) My preference for ride and handling from the DRIVER's seat goes hands down to the 06-07 Accord. It just felt nice to drive, and had noticeably less understeer than the 04 does. However, that came with a ride penalty for everyone but the drive (noise too). The 04 is probably a better compromise in that regard, in that it is still taut, but not as harsh as the 06 was, and you had to be going at a pretty high speed, or on some relatively tight highway stretches (like I-40 between Kingman and Flagstaff, or I-17 between Phoenix and Flagstaff) to really notice the differences.
I hope that we find the EX-L/Touring to be more like the 04 or 06 because the only other complaint I really have about the 09 is that it feels a little disconnected by Honda standards.
4) As for size, IMO, the 8th gen has better sightlines than the 7th gen which makes it easier to maneuver despite the additional size. The VGR went a long way toward helping that too, although I have found a time or two where I expect the car to be smaller than it actually is due to it maneuvering like a smaller car in tight spaces. Certainly, it is easier to wield than the 7th gen was in tight spaces, size aside.
As for the assertions of size on this new car, puhlease. The most unwieldy dimension of the 8th gen was its width and I don't think this car will be any better (it is fractionally wider after all). The constant length complaints are silly. First, it is only ~3.5" longer than the 7th gen was, and this new car is about the same size as that 7th gen. We have a very slightly larger than average garage, and we have no problem fitting a 7th or 8th gen in. Again, width is the bigger issue here, because anything parked next to the 8th gen is a squeeze. Why do these cars need to be 6' wide? As for someone having a tiny garage, that is fine, but that doesn't necessarily mean the car is too big. I have seen garages in old parts of LA where my Civic would barely fit, and I don't at all consider it that to be "too big" of a car. People like to pretend that the Accord went from the size of the 4th gen in 1990 to the size of a Grand Marquis. That is just not true. It doesn't drive, feel, or look any bigger than the 7th gen after spending years with both, and as I said before, the only time it does, is when you are dealing with the width (which didn't shrink). Now, don't get me wrong, I am ECSTATIC that they made it smaller, but I just think the length is blown out of proportion (the new one still ends up longer than the 7th gen by just less than 1/2") when compared to the way the width is perceived.
|
TurkMan71
|
|
I can't believe you guys are defending the pregnant turd of a center stack the 8th gen had with, 'after an hour and half (!!) of driving the car, you know where all the controls are...yada yada yada!'
It was ugly, un-Honda-like, and marred with indistinguishably colored/sized/shaped/organized button vomit...come on now people!
|
DCR
|
|
I am not really defending it, but I think the perception that people just sat there and drooled in confusion while looking at it is a bit of a stretch.
It wasn't hard to use, and labels were clearly displayed. They went a little overboard on the amount of buttons, but again, it wasn't terrible when you actually lived with the car.
|
benbess
|
|
DCR wrote:
I am not really defending it, but I think the perception that people just sat there and drooled in confusion while looking at it is a bit of a stretch.
It wasn't hard to use, and labels were clearly displayed. They went a little overboard on the amount of buttons, but again, it wasn't terrible when you actually lived with the car.
|
I agree completely. I think the dash is busy, but once you get used to controls it works quite well for most people.
But, that having been said, the new dash looks to be an improvement.
|
98EX4cyl
|
|
Turk,
You may forget that different trim levels have different center stack configurations. While reviewers of the Navi models often found the buttons overwhelming. Those of us with more common models like EX-Ls (non-navi) look at a different stack that is easy to use and aesthetically pleasing. BTW, I rarely look at the center stack except in peripheral vision - as the driver you should be focused on the road. To that end I also minimize the dash lights at night for better night vision.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
owequitit wrote:
We've owned two 7th gen sedans, and an 8th gen, and I have to quite vehemently disagree with you in MANY ways. The main problem is that you present an OPINION as fact. |
Pot meet kettle.
1) The 7th gen had at least as many hard touch plastics as the 8th gen, but Honda was just slightly better at hiding them. In the 7th gen the right 2/3 of the top of the dash were soft touch, while on the 8th gen it was the strip below the info screen binnacle. On the 8th gen you could feel it if you touched the top of the dash, but there was less color and contrast difference in the 8th gen. Not only could you see it in pictures on the 7th gen, but during certain intense sunlight situations, you could see it as well.
The dash graining on the 7th gen wasn't bad, but it was far from "better." It felt soft and slightly grippy to the touch, whereas the 8th gen felt the same way, but had a more uniform "vinyl" patter similar to Honda's older Accords like the 3rd and 4th gen (which IMO still sets the bar by which Honda interior quality should be judged). The 7th gen's in contrast had a more uneven graining, that was simultaneously smoother, but seemed like it had more molding flash (our 2004 is better than our 06 was in this regard). It didn't feel cheap, but it was noticeable from the first time I looked at the 8th gen.
However, one area where the 8th gen unquestionably BLOWS the 7th gen away is in all of the secondary plastics, like the door pillars, the lower dash, sides of the center console etc. Our 8th gen has suffered far less scuffing, scarring, and visible wear and tear than either our 6th gen, or our 7th gens. Even releasing the seatbelt and letting it hit the door pillars in our 7th gens has lead to scuffing of the plastics. Not so with the 8th gen.
Also, the center stack might not be well styled, but it was hardly a "mess." After no more than an hour and half of driving the car, I had no issues running any of the features. On navigation equipped cars, the button mess is way overblown, because voice commands can take place of much of that, which means with a little more practice, you don't need the center stack as much. However, even on our EX-L V6, it is NOT hard to operate. I spent more time eyes down with the 7th gen and its multi-mode buttons than I do in the 8th. However, I will agree that the 7th looked a lot more attractive to the eye in terms of center console layout.
2) The seat cushion height/length is better in the 8th gen. I don't feel like I am sitting on the floor in the back, which makes it less fatiguing on my backside on longer trips. In the front, I appreciate the extra inch or so of additional cushion length, although the backrest is not as good (I haven't had the comfort complaints of others though). I also appreciate the added padding on the arm rests. Also, I would say the tan leather in the 08 is holding up better than the tan leather in our 04 at that mileage, but not quite as good as the gray leather in our 2006. However, the carpet in the 8th gen sucks. The sunvisors feel super cheap, and I personally prefer the plastic molded pillar trim (I have seen too many 7th gens with stains and fabric peel in AZ due to the heat releasing the glue).
3) As for powertrain, I certainly do not agree with the assessment that the car is less speedy than the 7th gen. I will agree that it doesn't feel as vigorous, engaged or fun to drive, but even with the horrendous implemenation of VCM in the 8th gen (my single least favorite feature), it is still as quick as the 7th gen was, it just feels lazier doing it. I got the same exact impression with the 4 bangers I have driven. To be honest, the 7th gen 4 banger was not a vigorous ride either.
4) My preference for ride and handling from the DRIVER's seat goes hands down to the 06-07 Accord. It just felt nice to drive, and had noticeably less understeer than the 04 does. However, that came with a ride penalty for everyone but the drive (noise too). The 04 is probably a better compromise in that regard, in that it is still taut, but not as harsh as the 06 was, and you had to be going at a pretty high speed, or on some relatively tight highway stretches (like I-40 between Kingman and Flagstaff, or I-17 between Phoenix and Flagstaff) to really notice the differences.
I hope that we find the EX-L/Touring to be more like the 04 or 06 because the only other complaint I really have about the 09 is that it feels a little disconnected by Honda standards.
4) As for size, IMO, the 8th gen has better sightlines than the 7th gen which makes it easier to maneuver despite the additional size. The VGR went a long way toward helping that too, although I have found a time or two where I expect the car to be smaller than it actually is due to it maneuvering like a smaller car in tight spaces. Certainly, it is easier to wield than the 7th gen was in tight spaces, size aside.
As for the assertions of size on this new car, puhlease. The most unwieldy dimension of the 8th gen was its width and I don't think this car will be any better (it is fractionally wider after all). The constant length complaints are silly. First, it is only ~3.5" longer than the 7th gen was, and this new car is about the same size as that 7th gen. We have a very slightly larger than average garage, and we have no problem fitting a 7th or 8th gen in. Again, width is the bigger issue here, because anything parked next to the 8th gen is a squeeze. Why do these cars need to be 6' wide? As for someone having a tiny garage, that is fine, but that doesn't necessarily mean the car is too big. I have seen garages in old parts of LA where my Civic would barely fit, and I don't at all consider it that to be "too big" of a car. People like to pretend that the Accord went from the size of the 4th gen in 1990 to the size of a Grand Marquis. That is just not true. It doesn't drive, feel, or look any bigger than the 7th gen after spending years with both, and as I said before, the only time it does, is when you are dealing with the width (which didn't shrink). Now, don't get me wrong, I am ECSTATIC that they made it smaller, but I just think the length is blown out of proportion (the new one still ends up longer than the 7th gen by just less than 1/2") when compared to the way the width is perceived. |
Your writeup is very interesting, but it largely supports my conclusion: the 8G Accord was in some ways better than the 7G, but it some ways it took steps back, particularly in handling and driver engagement. We may disagree strongly on which aspects are better and worse, but I think it is fair to say that your evaluation of the 8G does not paint it as better than the 7G in all aspects.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
98EX4cyl wrote:
Turk,
You may forget that different trim levels have different center stack configurations. While reviewers of the Navi models often found the buttons overwhelming. Those of us with more common models like EX-Ls (non-navi) look at a different stack that is easy to use and aesthetically pleasing. BTW, I rarely look at the center stack except in peripheral vision - as the driver you should be focused on the road. To that end I also minimize the dash lights at night for better night vision. |
This is a good point. In a thread a couple years ago, I argued that the 8G LX's center stack (with rotating dials for temp control rather than clickup/down switches) was actually OK once the driver actually got to know it. Some of the people in that thread just could not get over the odd geometry of some of the audio controls, if I remember correctly.
|
benbess
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
98EX4cyl wrote:
Turk,
You may forget that different trim levels have different center stack configurations. While reviewers of the Navi models often found the buttons overwhelming. Those of us with more common models like EX-Ls (non-navi) look at a different stack that is easy to use and aesthetically pleasing. BTW, I rarely look at the center stack except in peripheral vision - as the driver you should be focused on the road. To that end I also minimize the dash lights at night for better night vision. |
This is a good point. In a thread a couple years ago, I argued that the 8G LX's center stack (with rotating dials for temp control rather than clickup/down switches) was actually OK once the driver actually got to know it. Some of the people in that thread just could not get over the odd geometry of some of the audio controls, if I remember correctly.
|
I have an 08 EXL navi and I like it. But it was a bit to learn for the first few days....Now it's almost second nature. Many buttons I don't have to look at to find.
|
TurkMan71
|
|
Haha, yea, I knew my colorful little diatribe would perk up some ears ...
I'm sure different trims were smacked less with the ugly button stick, but in my eyes the overall shape of the center stack, actually the upper dash as well, were aesthetically...uhhh, challenged.
The fact that it took more than a glance to figure out were things were makes it all the easier to hate! :-)
|
owequitit
|
|
TurkMan71 wrote:
I can't believe you guys are defending the pregnant turd of a center stack the 8th gen had with, 'after an hour and half (!!) of driving the car, you know where all the controls are...yada yada yada!'
It was ugly, un-Honda-like, and marred with indistinguishably colored/sized/shaped/organized button vomit...come on now people!
|
I didn't say anything about it being visually appealing, but the reality is that it works quite well once you adjust. They are not the same thing. Frankly, with as complex as cars are these days, there is ALWAYS an adjustment period. Compare that to the new Focus where I didn't adjust in HOURS of use, and I consider Honda's issues to be minor.
Ugly? probably. Functional? Yes.
|
owequitit
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
We've owned two 7th gen sedans, and an 8th gen, and I have to quite vehemently disagree with you in MANY ways. The main problem is that you present an OPINION as fact. |
Pot meet kettle.
1) The 7th gen had at least as many hard touch plastics as the 8th gen, but Honda was just slightly better at hiding them. In the 7th gen the right 2/3 of the top of the dash were soft touch, while on the 8th gen it was the strip below the info screen binnacle. On the 8th gen you could feel it if you touched the top of the dash, but there was less color and contrast difference in the 8th gen. Not only could you see it in pictures on the 7th gen, but during certain intense sunlight situations, you could see it as well.
The dash graining on the 7th gen wasn't bad, but it was far from "better." It felt soft and slightly grippy to the touch, whereas the 8th gen felt the same way, but had a more uniform "vinyl" patter similar to Honda's older Accords like the 3rd and 4th gen (which IMO still sets the bar by which Honda interior quality should be judged). The 7th gen's in contrast had a more uneven graining, that was simultaneously smoother, but seemed like it had more molding flash (our 2004 is better than our 06 was in this regard). It didn't feel cheap, but it was noticeable from the first time I looked at the 8th gen.
However, one area where the 8th gen unquestionably BLOWS the 7th gen away is in all of the secondary plastics, like the door pillars, the lower dash, sides of the center console etc. Our 8th gen has suffered far less scuffing, scarring, and visible wear and tear than either our 6th gen, or our 7th gens. Even releasing the seatbelt and letting it hit the door pillars in our 7th gens has lead to scuffing of the plastics. Not so with the 8th gen.
Also, the center stack might not be well styled, but it was hardly a "mess." After no more than an hour and half of driving the car, I had no issues running any of the features. On navigation equipped cars, the button mess is way overblown, because voice commands can take place of much of that, which means with a little more practice, you don't need the center stack as much. However, even on our EX-L V6, it is NOT hard to operate. I spent more time eyes down with the 7th gen and its multi-mode buttons than I do in the 8th. However, I will agree that the 7th looked a lot more attractive to the eye in terms of center console layout.
2) The seat cushion height/length is better in the 8th gen. I don't feel like I am sitting on the floor in the back, which makes it less fatiguing on my backside on longer trips. In the front, I appreciate the extra inch or so of additional cushion length, although the backrest is not as good (I haven't had the comfort complaints of others though). I also appreciate the added padding on the arm rests. Also, I would say the tan leather in the 08 is holding up better than the tan leather in our 04 at that mileage, but not quite as good as the gray leather in our 2006. However, the carpet in the 8th gen sucks. The sunvisors feel super cheap, and I personally prefer the plastic molded pillar trim (I have seen too many 7th gens with stains and fabric peel in AZ due to the heat releasing the glue).
3) As for powertrain, I certainly do not agree with the assessment that the car is less speedy than the 7th gen. I will agree that it doesn't feel as vigorous, engaged or fun to drive, but even with the horrendous implemenation of VCM in the 8th gen (my single least favorite feature), it is still as quick as the 7th gen was, it just feels lazier doing it. I got the same exact impression with the 4 bangers I have driven. To be honest, the 7th gen 4 banger was not a vigorous ride either.
4) My preference for ride and handling from the DRIVER's seat goes hands down to the 06-07 Accord. It just felt nice to drive, and had noticeably less understeer than the 04 does. However, that came with a ride penalty for everyone but the drive (noise too). The 04 is probably a better compromise in that regard, in that it is still taut, but not as harsh as the 06 was, and you had to be going at a pretty high speed, or on some relatively tight highway stretches (like I-40 between Kingman and Flagstaff, or I-17 between Phoenix and Flagstaff) to really notice the differences.
I hope that we find the EX-L/Touring to be more like the 04 or 06 because the only other complaint I really have about the 09 is that it feels a little disconnected by Honda standards.
4) As for size, IMO, the 8th gen has better sightlines than the 7th gen which makes it easier to maneuver despite the additional size. The VGR went a long way toward helping that too, although I have found a time or two where I expect the car to be smaller than it actually is due to it maneuvering like a smaller car in tight spaces. Certainly, it is easier to wield than the 7th gen was in tight spaces, size aside.
As for the assertions of size on this new car, puhlease. The most unwieldy dimension of the 8th gen was its width and I don't think this car will be any better (it is fractionally wider after all). The constant length complaints are silly. First, it is only ~3.5" longer than the 7th gen was, and this new car is about the same size as that 7th gen. We have a very slightly larger than average garage, and we have no problem fitting a 7th or 8th gen in. Again, width is the bigger issue here, because anything parked next to the 8th gen is a squeeze. Why do these cars need to be 6' wide? As for someone having a tiny garage, that is fine, but that doesn't necessarily mean the car is too big. I have seen garages in old parts of LA where my Civic would barely fit, and I don't at all consider it that to be "too big" of a car. People like to pretend that the Accord went from the size of the 4th gen in 1990 to the size of a Grand Marquis. That is just not true. It doesn't drive, feel, or look any bigger than the 7th gen after spending years with both, and as I said before, the only time it does, is when you are dealing with the width (which didn't shrink). Now, don't get me wrong, I am ECSTATIC that they made it smaller, but I just think the length is blown out of proportion (the new one still ends up longer than the 7th gen by just less than 1/2") when compared to the way the width is perceived. |
Your writeup is very interesting, but it largely supports my conclusion: the 8G Accord was in some ways better than the 7G, but it some ways it took steps back, particularly in handling and driver engagement. We may disagree strongly on which aspects are better and worse, but I think it is fair to say that your evaluation of the 8G does not paint it as better than the 7G in all aspects.
|
No, it doesn't support your conclusion that the 8th gen is a huge mess. You argue semantics, but it really isn't.
Also, I didn't present an opinion as fact. The location and texturing of materials is a fact. The seat cushion length and height are a fact. The extra padding, and extra cheapness are facts. The dimensional differences are facts. The time needed to learn the controls are facts, although individual ones.
The only OPINIONS were presented as such, and they were implied with "I" in there somewhere when made.
I swear, reading comprehension is really lacking these days.
|
TSX69
|
|
Honda Launches ComeBack Push with Redesigned Accord
Honda's planners said in some ways they tried to make the new model a throwback to previous generations that had a sporty feel and were thought of as a "driver's car."
|
TurkMan71
|
|
owequitit wrote:
TurkMan71 wrote:
I can't believe you guys are defending the pregnant turd of a center stack the 8th gen had with, 'after an hour and half (!!) of driving the car, you know where all the controls are...yada yada yada!'
It was ugly, un-Honda-like, and marred with indistinguishably colored/sized/shaped/organized button vomit...come on now people!
|
I didn't say anything about it being visually appealing, but the reality is that it works quite well once you adjust. They are not the same thing. Frankly, with as complex as cars are these days, there is ALWAYS an adjustment period. Compare that to the new Focus where I didn't adjust in HOURS of use, and I consider Honda's issues to be minor.
Ugly? probably. Functional? Yes.
|
I'm sure it IS fine after you adjust...like adjusting to bad acne :-p
...watch out for the scars! Don't pick at them!!
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
owequitit wrote:
No, it doesn't support your conclusion that the 8th gen is a huge mess. You argue semantics, but it really isn't.
...
I swear, reading comprehension is really lacking these days. |
Except I didn't say that. Re-read my post again @ 09-15-2012 16:14. My overall assessment of the 8G is that "It is not a bad car, but it is not a great one either."
It improved in some areas, did not improve in some areas, and got worse in some areas. This is NOT equivalent to saying the car is a "huge mess". If that was the case, the 8G would have been a sales flop, and it wasn't. I felt the center stack in some trims was a "mess", but that DOES NOT mean the whole car was a "huge mess".
What was that about reading comprehension again?
Also, I didn't present an opinion as fact. The location and texturing of materials is a fact. The seat cushion length and height are a fact. The extra padding, and extra cheapness are facts. The dimensional differences are facts. The time needed to learn the controls are facts, although individual ones.
The only OPINIONS were presented as such, and they were implied with "I" in there somewhere when made. |
No, these are opinions, because what you find agreeable, for example, seat cushion length and height, are specific to you. I test drove a 7G SE against an 8G EX, and I felt the 7G had more of the traditional Honda-ness than the 8G. Sure, I have strong opinions about this. If you're offended, tough.
|
TSX69
|
|
ConsumeGuide: Coupe
The main gauge cluster has big dials that are easy to read. Buttons are large and clearly marked. Climate controls are clearly separated from audio controls by a "step" in the dashboard design. The central-dashboard screen is shrouded, so it's less susceptible to washing out in bright sunlight. The redesigned dashboard has fewer buttons and a less-daunting control layout than previous Accords. The lane-departure warning, forward-collision alert, and LaneWatch systems all functioned well on our test drives.
|
TSX69
|
|
WSJ: Honda Accord Plug-In
I have yet to drive the regular Accord, so the plug-in was my first experience with the redesigned model. Because the car ran for just over 12 miles on electric power alone, I had an opportunity to test its “NVH,” which is autospeak for noise, vibration and harshness. These are all bad things in the car business — some of which have plagued Honda for years.
Noise from mechanical systems, wind and tires is a common complaint from Honda drivers. Compared with the top-selling Toyota Camry, the Accord has always been a bit buzzy. It drives some motorists to distraction — and, presumably, to other brands.
What stood out with the plug-in was its near-silent running in local driving and on the highway. Even without the engine masking other sounds, I didn’t notice the usual racket from wind or tires. Indeed, the car was so quiet that the engine caused a major disturbance when it kicked in. This suggests other versions will also be quieter than before.
Still, compared with other hybrids, plug-in or not, the Accord felt smoother and more solid, with the overall feel of a more-expensive car. Most of my drives were fairly short and didn’t require much use of the gasoline engines, which also kicks in for heavy acceleration. So my fuel economy was well over 100 miles per gallon for every outing.
|
benbess
|
|
5 Cool Things About the New 2013 Accord
http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2012/09/five-cool-things-about-the-new-- - 2013-honda-accord.html#more
Here's part of the story:
"....The manual transmission. Say what you will about Honda’s fall from enthusiast-driver grace, but one signal Honda’s serious again is the availability of 6-speed manual transmissions for both the 2.4-liter 4-cylinder (185 hp/181 pound-feet and 189 horses for the Accord Sport trim) and the snarly single-cam 3.5-liter V6 (278 hp) in the Accord Coupe when it launches Oct. 19.
That’s an honest-to-goodness 3-pedal manual; don’t go looking for one of those in the Nissan Altima or Hyundai Sonata and we figure given the general direction of the family-sedan market, it would’ve been all too easy for Honda to go all-automatic, too. The 6-speed manual is standard for all 4-cylinder versions of the 2013 Accord sedan and coupe. And we’ll throw this in for what it’s worth: Honda’s all-new automatic for all 4-cylinder Accords is a continuously variable job. But before you cringe, Honda’s CVT is, as of this moment, the best of the breed. It quasi-mimics shift points and imparts a decidedly more agreeable perception of engine speed and acceleration building in tandem.
2. The chassis. Don’t blubber about losing its double-wishbone front suspension (even though ditching same for the Civic indeed was a mistake): the new Accord handles a little. Rides great, too.
Credit a couple of new components. First, a special non-contact torque sensor for the electric power steering may sound arcane, but it does seem to have added a better degree of response – we’re not saying feel – to the Accord’s power steering. Even the current-best EPS out there can struggle to replicate the kind of response to steering input that decades of hydraulic power steering conditioned us all to expect.
Second, the 2013 Accord’s got serious front dampers. With an eye toward minimizing body roll and, the front dampers have an internal rebound spring and optimized fluid and valving. Besides impressive body control for the new Accord, what’s the takeaway from this shock talk? Expensive – Honda made a costly choice to help improve the Accord’s handling and ride. Although nobody’s saying it straight out, this basically is the shock Honda uses for many Acura applications...."
|
computernerd
|
|
You are never going to make everyone happy - especially on this forum -- but I had a chance to test drive the 2013 Accord and it truly is fantastic. I was all set to leave the Honda fold with my next ride, but this one has pulled me back. It looks better in person than it does in pictures, especially the rear quarter. Same goes for the interior. You have to see it in person to appreciate how much better the materials quality is than the previous car. But behind the wheel is where it really shines. The steering is a little light, but it feels great. It is super quiet and it rides and handles brilliantly. I was skeptical when it lost the double wishbones up front, but I must say, Honda has worked magic with those struts. I was also skeptical about the CVT, but I'm a believer now. There was no lag at step-off and really you just get the perception of an incredibly smooth automatic. The car also felt light and much smaller than the previous car even though it hasn't shrunk by much. I think it's the agility of the car and the low belt line. It's also a great value considering how feature packed it is. I was really blown away and my expectations were low! I still want to see how good the 2013 Ford Fusion is, but it's going to have to be really good to match this. I really only have two, related beefs with the car: (1) Why can't I get the Touring trim with the I4 and why can't I get the sport features (18 inch wheels, shift paddles, dual exhaust, etc...) with the EX or EX-L. The features on the Sport trim should just be a sports package that you can get with any trim. But other than that, great job Honda!
|
Jet Sitter
|
|
|
Personally, I wouldn't purchase a car with a CVT, especially a new one out of the box. If you look at the problems Nissan has had with their CVT's, you'd have to wonder why Honda would want to go the same direction. At least an automatic transmission can be repaired, a CVT is toast if it fails.
|
according2kev
|
|
Another positive review from Winding Road.
http://www.windingroad.com/articles/reviews/driven-2013-honda-accord-sedan/
"If you’re looking for a mid-sized family sedan that is high in quality, very comfortable, efficient, and (dare we say it?) actually fun to drive, this is the Accord you’ve been waiting for."
"Getting inside it feels markedly upscale, perhaps half a class above competition such as the new Nissan Altima. It offers a mature look and feel, and the interior is laid out in an organized way."
"we found the ride to be very comfortable, quiet and smooth, with very little noise from the engine, wind, or road making its way inside the vehicle."
"The V-6-powered sedan is a decidedly quick car. It takes off eagerly from the line and accelerates aggressively to highway speeds."
"if you want a capable, roomy, high-quality sedan with hardly any faults to be found, you’ll be doing just fine with this new Accord."
|
benbess
|
|
according2kev wrote:
Another positive review from Winding Road.
http://www.windingroad.com/articles/reviews/driven-2013-honda-accord-sedan/
"If you’re looking for a mid-sized family sedan that is high in quality, very comfortable, efficient, and (dare we say it?) actually fun to drive, this is the Accord you’ve been waiting for."
"Getting inside it feels markedly upscale, perhaps half a class above competition such as the new Nissan Altima. It offers a mature look and feel, and the interior is laid out in an organized way."
"we found the ride to be very comfortable, quiet and smooth, with very little noise from the engine, wind, or road making its way inside the vehicle."
"The V-6-powered sedan is a decidedly quick car. It takes off eagerly from the line and accelerates aggressively to highway speeds."
"if you want a capable, roomy, high-quality sedan with hardly any faults to be found, you’ll be doing just fine with this new Accord."
|
Another great review! Thanks for finding this according2kev...
|
TSX69
|
|
ConsumerGuide: Sedan
In the face of ever-improving midsize-sedan rivals, Honda redesigns the Accord for 2013 with an admirable focus on maintaining the car's individual character. The new Accord delivers tangible improvements on most every front, but also stays true to its traditional strengths: a fine ride/handling balance, a spacious back seat, and a solid, cohesive overall feel. Highlights of the redesign include worthwhile new technology features and improved fuel economy figures with no significant penalty in performance. Now more than ever, the hyper-competitive midsize-sedan segment is filled with excellent vehicles, but the Accord's redesign helps it keep pace with the best in the class.
|
RAdams
|
|
Jet Sitter wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't purchase a car with a CVT, especially a new one out of the box. If you look at the problems Nissan has had with their CVT's, you'd have to wonder why Honda would want to go the same direction. At least an automatic transmission can be repaired, a CVT is toast if it fails.
|
This isn't Honda's first foray into the CVT realm: A few USDM models have been CVT-equipped in the past, as have (and are) several models for markets abroad. Sure you can repair an automatic transmission, but Honda was simply swapping out failed V6 transmissions for remanufactured units during that debacle several years ago -- dealers didn't do anything but R&R on those units. Not sure why this would be any different.
How long ago did Nissan have widespread CVT problems? I've not read of any (though I've not been looking). They've invested heavily in CVT use across their lineup for quite a while now and I don't see scads of Nissans littering the highway shoulders.
My only CVT-related trepidation lies in how natural they feel. I rented an Altima several years ago that was smooth enough, but I remember it feeling a bit synthetic when reversing and when "creeping" forward. I wasn't in love with the drone of the engine sitting a few RPM shy of redline during WOT, either, but Honda I4's emit some of the best sounds in the business so I'm not sure it'd be as annoying.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
