2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

The recent Consumer's Report review of the 08 Accord was a little surprising
to me. While they liked the car, they rated it below the Altima. Comments
were that the new Accord "is not as quick" as the old Accord and that the
gas mileage is down. They tested the 177 hp LX - P and a V6 model. I
suppose the bigger car weighs more hence the degradation is performance and
handling. Of course, I have no reason to trade my 06 coupe I4.

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

Yes, I was surprised at that. I also read the Motor Trend comparison
test of Camry, Chevy Malibu, Accord and Altima (all with V6 engine).
They ranked the Camry and Malibu better than the Accord. The Altima
ranked below the Accord because its fit, finish and comfort wasn't as
good, BUT the Altima had better performance and gas mileage according to
their tests. See
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...test_data.html

tww1491 wrote:
> The recent Consumer's Report review of the 08 Accord was a little surprising
> to me. While they liked the car, they rated it below the Altima. Comments
> were that the new Accord "is not as quick" as the old Accord and that the
> gas mileage is down. They tested the 177 hp LX - P and a V6 model. I
> suppose the bigger car weighs more hence the degradation is performance and
> handling. Of course, I have no reason to trade my 06 coupe I4.
>
>

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

"Kenneth J. Harris" <kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote in message
news:bnNfj.1$4x2.0@newsfe11.lga...
> Yes, I was surprised at that. I also read the Motor Trend comparison test
> of Camry, Chevy Malibu, Accord and Altima (all with V6 engine). They
> ranked the Camry and Malibu better than the Accord. The Altima ranked
> below the Accord because its fit, finish and comfort wasn't as good, BUT
> the Altima had better performance and gas mileage according to their
> tests. See
> http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...test_data.html

While the V6 Malibu may be a winner, the 4 cyl version with the 4 spd auto I
daresay is not. The I4 Accord would be a better selection. What bothers me
is Honda's apparent move away from handling. The comment that the V6 Accord
is Honda's version of a Buick is almost insulting -- but perhaps indicative
of change in company policy.

>> The recent Consumer's Report review of the 08 Accord was a little
>> surprising to me. While they liked the car, they rated it below the
>> Altima. Comments were that the new Accord "is not as quick" as the old
>> Accord and that the gas mileage is down. They tested the 177 hp LX - P
>> and a V6 model. I suppose the bigger car weighs more hence the
>> degradation is performance and handling. Of course, I have no reason to
>> trade my 06 coupe I4.

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

Are you reading a different Consumer reports than I am? I see the Accord
received an overall rating of 88, the Altima 85......how is that better? it
does mention the Accord gets slightly worse gas mileage than the Altima but
that is not the total rating....
Don't get me wrong, I still think the new Accord is just about the ugliest
car Honda has produced in recent memory and the Altima is better looking
but, in MY opinion I would not buy either of the gas guzzliers cause I like
my Civic Hybrid too much to consider either.

"tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote in message
news:cbAfj.5522$R55.1923@newsfe13.lga...
> The recent Consumer's Report review of the 08 Accord was a little
> surprising to me. While they liked the car, they rated it below the
> Altima. Comments were that the new Accord "is not as quick" as the old
> Accord and that the gas mileage is down. They tested the 177 hp LX - P
> and a V6 model. I suppose the bigger car weighs more hence the
> degradation is performance and handling. Of course, I have no reason to
> trade my 06 coupe I4.
>

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:41:40 -0500, "tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote:

>While the V6 Malibu may be a winner, the 4 cyl version with the 4 spd auto I
>daresay is not. The I4 Accord would be a better selection. What bothers me
>is Honda's apparent move away from handling. The comment that the V6 Accord
>is Honda's version of a Buick is almost insulting -- but perhaps indicative
>of change in company policy.

Yah, it's been forty years since GM had a car with the kind of good,
solid reputation they mean to imply.

I see what Honda is attempting with the 08 Accord, but, I dunno.
OTOH, maybe it just takes time. I like the "visual excitement" from
the front quarters, but Honda has had styling issues with the tail for
a long time. Took me until the end of the lease, before I appreciated
the 04 styling, but I finally bought into it by then.

I have to say, making the Accord ever larger and heavier is NOT a good
idea. I may go TSX next time, or even Civic (or even - gasp! -
non-Honda!). And even at the same weight, I still don't get the
mileage on my Accord I4 07 that I got on the 04, I attribute it to
engine and computer changes. Maybe it does drive a little better, but
it shouldn't cost 10% in mileage, and it seems to.

J.

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

"Justbob30" <NoThank@you.com> wrote in message
news:QL6dnXgD5_OATeLanZ2dnUVZ_tSknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Are you reading a different Consumer reports than I am? I see the Accord
> received an overall rating of 88, the Altima 85......how is that better?
> it does mention the Accord gets slightly worse gas mileage than the Altima
> but that is not the total rating....
> Don't get me wrong, I still think the new Accord is just about the ugliest
> car Honda has produced in recent memory and the Altima is better looking
> but, in MY opinion I would not buy either of the gas guzzliers cause I
> like my Civic Hybrid too much to consider either.
>
Must be -- the Feb 08 CR rates the Altima as #1 and the Accord (LX P) as
2nd. Similarly, the Altima V6 is rated #1 and the Accord V6 #2.



> "tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:cbAfj.5522$R55.1923@newsfe13.lga...
>> The recent Consumer's Report review of the 08 Accord was a little
>> surprising to me. While they liked the car, they rated it below the
>> Altima. Comments were that the new Accord "is not as quick" as the old
>> Accord and that the gas mileage is down. They tested the 177 hp LX - P
>> and a V6 model. I suppose the bigger car weighs more hence the
>> degradation is performance and handling. Of course, I have no reason to
>> trade my 06 coupe I4.
>>

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

Did they mention that it was ugly?


"tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote in message
news:cbAfj.5522$R55.1923@newsfe13.lga...
> The recent Consumer's Report review of the 08 Accord was a little
> surprising to me. While they liked the car, they rated it below the
> Altima. Comments were that the new Accord "is not as quick" as the old
> Accord and that the gas mileage is down. They tested the 177 hp LX - P
> and a V6 model. I suppose the bigger car weighs more hence the
> degradation is performance and handling. Of course, I have no reason to
> trade my 06 coupe I4.
>

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
news:97svn3h53gk5envim8phrqnsa23uerl61d@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:41:40 -0500, "tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>While the V6 Malibu may be a winner, the 4 cyl version with the 4 spd auto
>>I
>>daresay is not. The I4 Accord would be a better selection. What bothers
>>me
>>is Honda's apparent move away from handling. The comment that the V6
>>Accord
>>is Honda's version of a Buick is almost insulting -- but perhaps
>>indicative
>>of change in company policy.
>
> Yah, it's been forty years since GM had a car with the kind of good,
> solid reputation they mean to imply.
>
> I see what Honda is attempting with the 08 Accord, but, I dunno.
> OTOH, maybe it just takes time. I like the "visual excitement" from
> the front quarters, but Honda has had styling issues with the tail for
> a long time. Took me until the end of the lease, before I appreciated
> the 04 styling, but I finally bought into it by then.
>
> I have to say, making the Accord ever larger and heavier is NOT a good
> idea. I may go TSX next time, or even Civic (or even - gasp! -
> non-Honda!). And even at the same weight, I still don't get the
> mileage on my Accord I4 07 that I got on the 04, I attribute it to
> engine and computer changes. Maybe it does drive a little better, but
> it shouldn't cost 10% in mileage, and it seems to.
>
> J.

I have an '05 Accord and it was even larger that I would have liked. They
are getting too large and dare I say, less soul. Before I bought it
(practicality steered me to the Accord) - a friend also said the rear end
was ugly - looked like a Buick. IMHO, they've gotten too large and
conservative looking. I actually liked the design of some of the older
Accords, but I definately didn't buy this car based on its looks!

I know the '04 and '05 I4 Accord has 160hp, but I believe the '06 and '07
has a little more at 166hp. I assume this would contribute to the mgp drop.
Weight wise I haven't checked them out. Should be very minimal since it was
only minor other changes done...

-Dave

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

I agree with you. Why does Honda think we need larger size sedans? I
have never heard anyone complaining about the size at least in the
past gen 6 and gen 7 Accords. The 08 is longer than a Honda Pilot and
Ford Explorer too big for me.

Honda has me in a dilemma at the moment. I really hate the two tiered
dash on the Civic but at the same time do not want a TSX because of
leather seating. Do I buy a Civic with a interior I don't like or a
TSX with everything that I like except the leather seats?







On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 22:59:51 -0500, "Dave L"
<davelieuREMOVEME@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:97svn3h53gk5envim8phrqnsa23uerl61d@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:41:40 -0500, "tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>While the V6 Malibu may be a winner, the 4 cyl version with the 4 spd auto
>>>I
>>>daresay is not. The I4 Accord would be a better selection. What bothers
>>>me
>>>is Honda's apparent move away from handling. The comment that the V6
>>>Accord
>>>is Honda's version of a Buick is almost insulting -- but perhaps
>>>indicative
>>>of change in company policy.
>>
>> Yah, it's been forty years since GM had a car with the kind of good,
>> solid reputation they mean to imply.
>>
>> I see what Honda is attempting with the 08 Accord, but, I dunno.
>> OTOH, maybe it just takes time. I like the "visual excitement" from
>> the front quarters, but Honda has had styling issues with the tail for
>> a long time. Took me until the end of the lease, before I appreciated
>> the 04 styling, but I finally bought into it by then.
>>
>> I have to say, making the Accord ever larger and heavier is NOT a good
>> idea. I may go TSX next time, or even Civic (or even - gasp! -
>> non-Honda!). And even at the same weight, I still don't get the
>> mileage on my Accord I4 07 that I got on the 04, I attribute it to
>> engine and computer changes. Maybe it does drive a little better, but
>> it shouldn't cost 10% in mileage, and it seems to.
>>
>> J.
>
>I have an '05 Accord and it was even larger that I would have liked. They
>are getting too large and dare I say, less soul. Before I bought it
>(practicality steered me to the Accord) - a friend also said the rear end
>was ugly - looked like a Buick. IMHO, they've gotten too large and
>conservative looking. I actually liked the design of some of the older
>Accords, but I definately didn't buy this car based on its looks!
>
>I know the '04 and '05 I4 Accord has 160hp, but I believe the '06 and '07
>has a little more at 166hp. I assume this would contribute to the mgp drop.
>Weight wise I haven't checked them out. Should be very minimal since it was
>only minor other changes done...
>
>-Dave
>

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

Dave L wrote:
> "JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:97svn3h53gk5envim8phrqnsa23uerl61d@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:41:40 -0500, "tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> While the V6 Malibu may be a winner, the 4 cyl version with the 4 spd auto
>>> I
>>> daresay is not. The I4 Accord would be a better selection. What bothers
>>> me
>>> is Honda's apparent move away from handling. The comment that the V6
>>> Accord
>>> is Honda's version of a Buick is almost insulting -- but perhaps
>>> indicative
>>> of change in company policy.
>> Yah, it's been forty years since GM had a car with the kind of good,
>> solid reputation they mean to imply.
>>
>> I see what Honda is attempting with the 08 Accord, but, I dunno.
>> OTOH, maybe it just takes time. I like the "visual excitement" from
>> the front quarters, but Honda has had styling issues with the tail for
>> a long time. Took me until the end of the lease, before I appreciated
>> the 04 styling, but I finally bought into it by then.
>>
>> I have to say, making the Accord ever larger and heavier is NOT a good
>> idea. I may go TSX next time, or even Civic (or even - gasp! -
>> non-Honda!). And even at the same weight, I still don't get the
>> mileage on my Accord I4 07 that I got on the 04, I attribute it to
>> engine and computer changes. Maybe it does drive a little better, but
>> it shouldn't cost 10% in mileage, and it seems to.
>>
>> J.
>
> I have an '05 Accord and it was even larger that I would have liked. They
> are getting too large and dare I say, less soul. Before I bought it
> (practicality steered me to the Accord) - a friend also said the rear end
> was ugly - looked like a Buick. IMHO, they've gotten too large and
> conservative looking. I actually liked the design of some of the older
> Accords, but I definately didn't buy this car based on its looks!
>
> I know the '04 and '05 I4 Accord has 160hp, but I believe the '06 and '07
> has a little more at 166hp. I assume this would contribute to the mgp drop.
> Weight wise I haven't checked them out. Should be very minimal since it was
> only minor other changes done...
>
> -Dave
>
>

focus on horsepower is meaningless without also correlating it to weight.

example:
1989 civic dx, auto trans, 2,138lbs. engine output is 92hp iirc.
2000 civic dx, auto trans, 3,330lbs. engine output is 106hp iirc.

now, despite the fact that engine management on the 2000 is
significantly more advanced than on the 89, both return pretty much the
same economy cruising on the freeway. and off the line, the 89 is quite
a bit faster.

why?
1989 = 0.043 hp/lb
2000 = 0.032 hp/lb

now, why not ask your congress-critter why they keep insisting on
stricter and stricter "crash protection" for cars that already perform
excellently, when all they're really doing is blunting the sword of fuel
efficiency. [and, coincidentally, ruining dynamic safety too - heavier
cars are harder to stop and steer out of collisions.]

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

Cars in general were getting bigger, especially with the SUVs. Guess Honda
wanted to keep up and give the general public what they wanted. All about
the (not so mighty) dollar. Some of us don't need or really want these
things getting bigger (and uglier). Unfortunately we're in the minority.

Everyone I know of who bought the new Civic loves it and quickly got used to
the tiered dash. I don't care for it either - but normally if someone is
looking at a Civic, they wouldn't be looking at a TSX! If cost wasn't an
issue I'd go TSX. It's a sharp looking car.

-Dave


<nick@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:k2p0o3hlk06dif6fu3hanlbs0v2nil2mgq@4ax.com...
>I agree with you. Why does Honda think we need larger size sedans? I
> have never heard anyone complaining about the size at least in the
> past gen 6 and gen 7 Accords. The 08 is longer than a Honda Pilot and
> Ford Explorer too big for me.
>
> Honda has me in a dilemma at the moment. I really hate the two tiered
> dash on the Civic but at the same time do not want a TSX because of
> leather seating. Do I buy a Civic with a interior I don't like or a
> TSX with everything that I like except the leather seats?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 22:59:51 -0500, "Dave L"
> <davelieuREMOVEME@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
>>news:97svn3h53gk5envim8phrqnsa23uerl61d@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:41:40 -0500, "tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>While the V6 Malibu may be a winner, the 4 cyl version with the 4 spd
>>>>auto
>>>>I
>>>>daresay is not. The I4 Accord would be a better selection. What bothers
>>>>me
>>>>is Honda's apparent move away from handling. The comment that the V6
>>>>Accord
>>>>is Honda's version of a Buick is almost insulting -- but perhaps
>>>>indicative
>>>>of change in company policy.
>>>
>>> Yah, it's been forty years since GM had a car with the kind of good,
>>> solid reputation they mean to imply.
>>>
>>> I see what Honda is attempting with the 08 Accord, but, I dunno.
>>> OTOH, maybe it just takes time. I like the "visual excitement" from
>>> the front quarters, but Honda has had styling issues with the tail for
>>> a long time. Took me until the end of the lease, before I appreciated
>>> the 04 styling, but I finally bought into it by then.
>>>
>>> I have to say, making the Accord ever larger and heavier is NOT a good
>>> idea. I may go TSX next time, or even Civic (or even - gasp! -
>>> non-Honda!). And even at the same weight, I still don't get the
>>> mileage on my Accord I4 07 that I got on the 04, I attribute it to
>>> engine and computer changes. Maybe it does drive a little better, but
>>> it shouldn't cost 10% in mileage, and it seems to.
>>>
>>> J.
>>
>>I have an '05 Accord and it was even larger that I would have liked. They
>>are getting too large and dare I say, less soul. Before I bought it
>>(practicality steered me to the Accord) - a friend also said the rear end
>>was ugly - looked like a Buick. IMHO, they've gotten too large and
>>conservative looking. I actually liked the design of some of the older
>>Accords, but I definately didn't buy this car based on its looks!
>>
>>I know the '04 and '05 I4 Accord has 160hp, but I believe the '06 and '07
>>has a little more at 166hp. I assume this would contribute to the mgp
>>drop.
>>Weight wise I haven't checked them out. Should be very minimal since it
>>was
>>only minor other changes done...
>>
>>-Dave
>>

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:2rKdnU9_Iu-s-x3anZ2dnUVZ_sKqnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Dave L wrote:
>> "JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
>> news:97svn3h53gk5envim8phrqnsa23uerl61d@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:41:40 -0500, "tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While the V6 Malibu may be a winner, the 4 cyl version with the 4 spd
>>>> auto I
>>>> daresay is not. The I4 Accord would be a better selection. What
>>>> bothers me
>>>> is Honda's apparent move away from handling. The comment that the V6
>>>> Accord
>>>> is Honda's version of a Buick is almost insulting -- but perhaps
>>>> indicative
>>>> of change in company policy.
>>> Yah, it's been forty years since GM had a car with the kind of good,
>>> solid reputation they mean to imply.
>>>
>>> I see what Honda is attempting with the 08 Accord, but, I dunno.
>>> OTOH, maybe it just takes time. I like the "visual excitement" from
>>> the front quarters, but Honda has had styling issues with the tail for
>>> a long time. Took me until the end of the lease, before I appreciated
>>> the 04 styling, but I finally bought into it by then.
>>>
>>> I have to say, making the Accord ever larger and heavier is NOT a good
>>> idea. I may go TSX next time, or even Civic (or even - gasp! -
>>> non-Honda!). And even at the same weight, I still don't get the
>>> mileage on my Accord I4 07 that I got on the 04, I attribute it to
>>> engine and computer changes. Maybe it does drive a little better, but
>>> it shouldn't cost 10% in mileage, and it seems to.
>>>
>>> J.
>>
>> I have an '05 Accord and it was even larger that I would have liked.
>> They are getting too large and dare I say, less soul. Before I bought it
>> (practicality steered me to the Accord) - a friend also said the rear end
>> was ugly - looked like a Buick. IMHO, they've gotten too large and
>> conservative looking. I actually liked the design of some of the older
>> Accords, but I definately didn't buy this car based on its looks!
>>
>> I know the '04 and '05 I4 Accord has 160hp, but I believe the '06 and '07
>> has a little more at 166hp. I assume this would contribute to the mgp
>> drop. Weight wise I haven't checked them out. Should be very minimal
>> since it was only minor other changes done...
>>
>> -Dave
>
> focus on horsepower is meaningless without also correlating it to weight.
>
> example:
> 1989 civic dx, auto trans, 2,138lbs. engine output is 92hp iirc.
> 2000 civic dx, auto trans, 3,330lbs. engine output is 106hp iirc.

Exactly why I mentioned weight, although I didn't realize the 2000 Civic's
have gotten so hefty! But isn't 3,330lbs more than an ACCORD???


> now, despite the fact that engine management on the 2000 is significantly
> more advanced than on the 89, both return pretty much the same economy
> cruising on the freeway. and off the line, the 89 is quite a bit faster.
>
> why?
> 1989 = 0.043 hp/lb
> 2000 = 0.032 hp/lb
>
> now, why not ask your congress-critter why they keep insisting on stricter
> and stricter "crash protection" for cars that already perform excellently,
> when all they're really doing is blunting the sword of fuel efficiency.
> [and, coincidentally, ruining dynamic safety too - heavier cars are harder
> to stop and steer out of collisions.]

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

"Dave L" <davelieuREMOVEME@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UtydnbuEttgRjBzanZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Cars in general were getting bigger, especially with the SUVs. Guess
> Honda wanted to keep up and give the general public what they wanted. All
> about the (not so mighty) dollar. Some of us don't need or really want
> these things getting bigger (and uglier). Unfortunately we're in the
> minority.
>
> Everyone I know of who bought the new Civic loves it and quickly got used
> to the tiered dash. I don't care for it either - but normally if someone
> is looking at a Civic, they wouldn't be looking at a TSX! If cost wasn't
> an issue I'd go TSX. It's a sharp looking car.
>
> -Dave
>
The TSX (Euro Honda) is the right size for me, but I sure don't want to pay
the 30k for the car. The old I4 EX ran around $22k -- . Even now, the 190
hp EX runs considerable less than the TSX.

>
> <nick@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:k2p0o3hlk06dif6fu3hanlbs0v2nil2mgq@4ax.com...
>>I agree with you. Why does Honda think we need larger size sedans? I
>> have never heard anyone complaining about the size at least in the
>> past gen 6 and gen 7 Accords. The 08 is longer than a Honda Pilot and
>> Ford Explorer too big for me.
>>
>> Honda has me in a dilemma at the moment. I really hate the two tiered
>> dash on the Civic but at the same time do not want a TSX because of
>> leather seating. Do I buy a Civic with a interior I don't like or a
>> TSX with everything that I like except the leather seats?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 22:59:51 -0500, "Dave L"
>> <davelieuREMOVEME@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
>>>news:97svn3h53gk5envim8phrqnsa23uerl61d@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:41:40 -0500, "tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>While the V6 Malibu may be a winner, the 4 cyl version with the 4 spd
>>>>>auto
>>>>>I
>>>>>daresay is not. The I4 Accord would be a better selection. What
>>>>>bothers
>>>>>me
>>>>>is Honda's apparent move away from handling. The comment that the V6
>>>>>Accord
>>>>>is Honda's version of a Buick is almost insulting -- but perhaps
>>>>>indicative
>>>>>of change in company policy.
>>>>
>>>> Yah, it's been forty years since GM had a car with the kind of good,
>>>> solid reputation they mean to imply.
>>>>
>>>> I see what Honda is attempting with the 08 Accord, but, I dunno.
>>>> OTOH, maybe it just takes time. I like the "visual excitement" from
>>>> the front quarters, but Honda has had styling issues with the tail for
>>>> a long time. Took me until the end of the lease, before I appreciated
>>>> the 04 styling, but I finally bought into it by then.
>>>>
>>>> I have to say, making the Accord ever larger and heavier is NOT a good
>>>> idea. I may go TSX next time, or even Civic (or even - gasp! -
>>>> non-Honda!). And even at the same weight, I still don't get the
>>>> mileage on my Accord I4 07 that I got on the 04, I attribute it to
>>>> engine and computer changes. Maybe it does drive a little better, but
>>>> it shouldn't cost 10% in mileage, and it seems to.
>>>>
>>>> J.
>>>
>>>I have an '05 Accord and it was even larger that I would have liked.
>>>They
>>>are getting too large and dare I say, less soul. Before I bought it
>>>(practicality steered me to the Accord) - a friend also said the rear end
>>>was ugly - looked like a Buick. IMHO, they've gotten too large and
>>>conservative looking. I actually liked the design of some of the older
>>>Accords, but I definately didn't buy this car based on its looks!
>>>
>>>I know the '04 and '05 I4 Accord has 160hp, but I believe the '06 and '07
>>>has a little more at 166hp. I assume this would contribute to the mgp
>>>drop.
>>>Weight wise I haven't checked them out. Should be very minimal since it
>>>was
>>>only minor other changes done...
>>>
>>>-Dave
>>>
>
>

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

Unless I am looking at this incorrectly, the 2000 Civic Sedan DX only
weighs 2339 lbs (I think that's for an auto). The 08 Civic auto weighs
2806.



On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:25:05 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Dave L wrote:
>> "JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
>> news:97svn3h53gk5envim8phrqnsa23uerl61d@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:41:40 -0500, "tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While the V6 Malibu may be a winner, the 4 cyl version with the 4 spd auto
>>>> I
>>>> daresay is not. The I4 Accord would be a better selection. What bothers
>>>> me
>>>> is Honda's apparent move away from handling. The comment that the V6
>>>> Accord
>>>> is Honda's version of a Buick is almost insulting -- but perhaps
>>>> indicative
>>>> of change in company policy.
>>> Yah, it's been forty years since GM had a car with the kind of good,
>>> solid reputation they mean to imply.
>>>
>>> I see what Honda is attempting with the 08 Accord, but, I dunno.
>>> OTOH, maybe it just takes time. I like the "visual excitement" from
>>> the front quarters, but Honda has had styling issues with the tail for
>>> a long time. Took me until the end of the lease, before I appreciated
>>> the 04 styling, but I finally bought into it by then.
>>>
>>> I have to say, making the Accord ever larger and heavier is NOT a good
>>> idea. I may go TSX next time, or even Civic (or even - gasp! -
>>> non-Honda!). And even at the same weight, I still don't get the
>>> mileage on my Accord I4 07 that I got on the 04, I attribute it to
>>> engine and computer changes. Maybe it does drive a little better, but
>>> it shouldn't cost 10% in mileage, and it seems to.
>>>
>>> J.
>>
>> I have an '05 Accord and it was even larger that I would have liked. They
>> are getting too large and dare I say, less soul. Before I bought it
>> (practicality steered me to the Accord) - a friend also said the rear end
>> was ugly - looked like a Buick. IMHO, they've gotten too large and
>> conservative looking. I actually liked the design of some of the older
>> Accords, but I definately didn't buy this car based on its looks!
>>
>> I know the '04 and '05 I4 Accord has 160hp, but I believe the '06 and '07
>> has a little more at 166hp. I assume this would contribute to the mgp drop.
>> Weight wise I haven't checked them out. Should be very minimal since it was
>> only minor other changes done...
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>>
>
>focus on horsepower is meaningless without also correlating it to weight.
>
>example:
>1989 civic dx, auto trans, 2,138lbs. engine output is 92hp iirc.
>2000 civic dx, auto trans, 3,330lbs. engine output is 106hp iirc.
>
>now, despite the fact that engine management on the 2000 is
>significantly more advanced than on the 89, both return pretty much the
>same economy cruising on the freeway. and off the line, the 89 is quite
>a bit faster.
>
>why?
>1989 = 0.043 hp/lb
>2000 = 0.032 hp/lb
>
>now, why not ask your congress-critter why they keep insisting on
>stricter and stricter "crash protection" for cars that already perform
>excellently, when all they're really doing is blunting the sword of fuel
>efficiency. [and, coincidentally, ruining dynamic safety too - heavier
>cars are harder to stop and steer out of collisions.]

Re: 2008 Accord Review - ConsRpt
 

nick@nowhere.com wrote:
> Unless I am looking at this incorrectly, the 2000 Civic Sedan DX only
> weighs 2339 lbs (I think that's for an auto). The 08 Civic auto weighs
> 2806.

i got those numbers from the honda factory service manual spec sheets.

they list for 2000, the lightest at 3290lbs for the 2 door hx coupe and
3460lbs for the 4 door ex.

>
>
>
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:25:05 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Dave L wrote:
>>> "JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
>>> news:97svn3h53gk5envim8phrqnsa23uerl61d@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:41:40 -0500, "tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> While the V6 Malibu may be a winner, the 4 cyl version with the 4 spd auto
>>>>> I
>>>>> daresay is not. The I4 Accord would be a better selection. What bothers
>>>>> me
>>>>> is Honda's apparent move away from handling. The comment that the V6
>>>>> Accord
>>>>> is Honda's version of a Buick is almost insulting -- but perhaps
>>>>> indicative
>>>>> of change in company policy.
>>>> Yah, it's been forty years since GM had a car with the kind of good,
>>>> solid reputation they mean to imply.
>>>>
>>>> I see what Honda is attempting with the 08 Accord, but, I dunno.
>>>> OTOH, maybe it just takes time. I like the "visual excitement" from
>>>> the front quarters, but Honda has had styling issues with the tail for
>>>> a long time. Took me until the end of the lease, before I appreciated
>>>> the 04 styling, but I finally bought into it by then.
>>>>
>>>> I have to say, making the Accord ever larger and heavier is NOT a good
>>>> idea. I may go TSX next time, or even Civic (or even - gasp! -
>>>> non-Honda!). And even at the same weight, I still don't get the
>>>> mileage on my Accord I4 07 that I got on the 04, I attribute it to
>>>> engine and computer changes. Maybe it does drive a little better, but
>>>> it shouldn't cost 10% in mileage, and it seems to.
>>>>
>>>> J.
>>> I have an '05 Accord and it was even larger that I would have liked. They
>>> are getting too large and dare I say, less soul. Before I bought it
>>> (practicality steered me to the Accord) - a friend also said the rear end
>>> was ugly - looked like a Buick. IMHO, they've gotten too large and
>>> conservative looking. I actually liked the design of some of the older
>>> Accords, but I definately didn't buy this car based on its looks!
>>>
>>> I know the '04 and '05 I4 Accord has 160hp, but I believe the '06 and '07
>>> has a little more at 166hp. I assume this would contribute to the mgp drop.
>>> Weight wise I haven't checked them out. Should be very minimal since it was
>>> only minor other changes done...
>>>
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>>
>> focus on horsepower is meaningless without also correlating it to weight.
>>
>> example:
>> 1989 civic dx, auto trans, 2,138lbs. engine output is 92hp iirc.
>> 2000 civic dx, auto trans, 3,330lbs. engine output is 106hp iirc.
>>
>> now, despite the fact that engine management on the 2000 is
>> significantly more advanced than on the 89, both return pretty much the
>> same economy cruising on the freeway. and off the line, the 89 is quite
>> a bit faster.
>>
>> why?
>> 1989 = 0.043 hp/lb
>> 2000 = 0.032 hp/lb
>>
>> now, why not ask your congress-critter why they keep insisting on
>> stricter and stricter "crash protection" for cars that already perform
>> excellently, when all they're really doing is blunting the sword of fuel
>> efficiency. [and, coincidentally, ruining dynamic safety too - heavier
>> cars are harder to stop and steer out of collisions.]