Topic: CD Article: 2008 Honda Accord EX-L V6

[Leatherface]

Actually Bangle butt was first invented on the first gen Cirrus and Avenger.  I just realized that about 2 weeks ago seeing a 7 series parked beside one, I could not believe it!! What the heck?  Anyways. I love the look of the 7 and its been copied by every single car maker right now.

[random006]

The Accord is truly a study in "bigger is better":

According to Wikipedia, here are the lengths of the various generations.  NOTE:  The second generation's length is missing but it can be interpolated.  All data are for the sedan for comparison's purposes:

1st generation:    162.0 in (4115 mm)
2nd generation:    missing
3rd generation:    179.7 in (4564 mm)
4th generation:    184.8 in (4694 mm)    185.2 in (4704 mm)     (2 different versions from 1990 - 1993)
5th generation:    184.0 in (4674 mm)    185.6 in (4714 mm)     188.4 in (4785 mm)  (3 different versions from 1994 - 1997)
6th generation:    188.8 in (4796 mm)    189.4 in (4811 mm)     (2 different versions from 1998 - 2002)
7th generation:    189.5 in (4813 mm)    191.1 in (4854 mm)     (2 different versions from 2003 - 2007)

Current generation:    194.1 in (4930 mm)    194.3 in (4935 mm)     (2 different versions - 4 cyl, 6 cyl)

In other words, the Accord has grown over 2 and half feet from 1976 to now, a 31 year period.

[2JDM]

My 1986 Accord EX-i > all Accords to date.

 

[Diesel Advocate]

Wonder which designed penned the Accord and that BMW? Anyone know the names???

Chris Bangle designed the BMW and Chitoshi Yokota was the chief designer for the Accord.

If you look around, you will see Bangle's influence on many, many cars today. Like it or not, many of the makers have copied it. Bangle's original BMW designs (the 2002 745i being among the earliest of pure Bangle) have been softened a bit over the past 5 years. I like the look now, although many continue to harp about it. Whatever, styling is subjective. Buy what appeals to you.

I too like the styling on most of the BMW range especially the E60 5 Series. The 2002 7 Series was IMO very awkward looking from all angles and a shocking departure from the Traditional Teutonic design of cars such as the BMW E38 7-Series or E39 5-Series.

The current 3-series was not actually penned by Chris Bangle but by now Chief Designer Adrian van Hooydonk who also penned the current 6-Series. Chris Bangle is now the Chief of Design for the whole BMW Group and was supposedly moved to that position to stop him from getting his hands on the E90, BMW's Bread and butter car. It was reported that BMW bosses were worried that a Bangle designed E90 would deter traditional 3-Series buyers.

Believe it or not. The "Bangle Butt" design seen on 08, Accord, BMW 5-7 Series, Toyota Camry  was actually first seen on the 2001 Hyundai Elantra Sedan, 1 year prior to the release of the Bangled BMW 7-Series.

[Diesel Advocate]

Has anybody realized that this thing looks exactly like a 2007 Hyundai Sonata on the outside?  The front end and rear end is almost a carbon copy!!!  Let me know what you guys think!  I think Honda has really run out of ideas here.  The new 2009 Fit looks like a Mazda B class, at least thats what all the euro mags are saying!! 

[

I was thinking the same thing! 

[ovr50]

The Accord is truly a study in "bigger is better":

According to Wikipedia, here are the lengths of the various generations.  NOTE:  The second generation's length is missing but it can be interpolated.  All data are for the sedan for comparison's purposes:

1st generation:    162.0 in (4115 mm)
2nd generation:    missing
3rd generation:    179.7 in (4564 mm)
4th generation:    184.8 in (4694 mm)    185.2 in (4704 mm)     (2 different versions from 1990 - 1993)
5th generation:    184.0 in (4674 mm)    185.6 in (4714 mm)     188.4 in (4785 mm)  (3 different versions from 1994 - 1997)
6th generation:    188.8 in (4796 mm)    189.4 in (4811 mm)     (2 different versions from 1998 - 2002)
7th generation:    189.5 in (4813 mm)    191.1 in (4854 mm)     (2 different versions from 2003 - 2007)

Current generation:    194.1 in (4930 mm)    194.3 in (4935 mm)     (2 different versions - 4 cyl, 6 cyl)

In other words, the Accord has grown over 2 and half feet from 1976 to now, a 31 year period.

No doubt about it, the Accord has grown enormously over the past decades. The new one, at 194.1" is 3" longer than my upcoming 535. It is only 4" short of the current 7 Series, which no one can call a small car. The Accord is now a "big car" in today's world. I think the new Accord design is one that will grow familiar and more favorable as time passes. Too many ppl rush to judgement on new designs, and start hating them before they even see one in the "real". I have not yet seen a new Accord on the roads here. Next time I'm over at the BMW shop, I'll down 2 doors to the Honda shop and check out the new Accord in the real.

[Jaeger]

Things I don't like:

1) Too big.
2) Too heavy.
3) Too slow.
4) Exterior design is at best boring and at worst truly ugly.
5) BIGGEST car in its class, but with the SMALLEST trunk... what the...?
6) No stick with the V6 in the sedan.  (C'mon Honda - you have one for the Coupe - not like you'd have to design one from the ground-up specifically for the sedan.
7) 5 speed auto?  How retro.
8  No manumatic shift feature for the auto?  How retro and how boring.
9)  No split-fold for the rear seats?  Great - need to carry a long item?  Better not have any rear seat passengers.
10) Gimmicky VCM that doesn't yield significantly better fuel economy than its competitors.  Personally, I never wanted to drive a 3 cyinder.
11) Can't stand the deeply-recessed bat-cave in the dash where the nav screen lurks.

What do I like?

1) Interior quality looks good.
2) Mazda 6 looks very promising.
3) There's still a chance they WON'T turn the new TSX into a bloated lux-barge.

Bottom line:  they have deliberately sucked the very last traces of sportiness out of the Accord and given us a great alternative to the Avalon.  No doubt it will appeal to their increasingly aged buyer base (IIRC, average age is now 50 - meaning a heck of a lot of buyers wll over that number) but it's not a car for me.  Too bad - I have owned and liked past models.

[johngenx]

At one time long ago, we had a 1976 Civic and a 1981 Accord.  The Civic was 139.8" long, which is dramatically shorter then the 150.6" long two door Yaris and , but still longer than the 99" long Smart.  Our Accord was the last year of Gen I and more than met our needs space wise.  Three people could go on a serious vacation in it.  How our "needs" have changed!

Today, both our C230 and Forester are about the same size as the current Civic, and both seem pretty "big" in relative terms to me.  The trunk in the MB is a good size and the cabin has easily transported four adults on long trips.  The Forester seems cavernous inside!

We've had some bigger cars (E300 and 528) but they didn't really seem to offer much more room despite their larger dimensions.  The E-Class had a slightly larger trunk than the C and slightly more leg room in the back, but given the similar interior materials (actually a bit better in the C, no cracking dash!) and marginal size difference, the E seemed pretty poor value (over $20K more!).

I remember clearly driving our 81 Accord on a long vaction back in 1983.  We almost always got exactly 10L/100km on the highway.  Great mileage 24 years ago, but not so good today!  Well, good for many vehicles (like the current crop of mini-vans and SUVs) but for a sub-compact sedan, not great.  It also had much less than 100hp and not a lot of passing power.  Only exotic cars had more than 200hp, or massive V-8's from a previous era (by 81 the V-8's were all done, power-wise).

Why do we "need" an Accord that is now larger than large luxury cars and nearly as big as the monster 7-series and S-Class models?  Crazy!  Are people really getting that much bigger?  One of my climbing partners has a 2003 Accord and it's MASSIVE inside.  He sold a Civic for it and now plans on going back to a Civic, the Accord being just plain too big.  Personally I hope he buys a Fit, as it would make a great heading to the mountains car.

I was in traffic next to an older Suburban today.  I could barely believe how small it looked!  They were huge and now I bet the new Yukon XXXXL (or whatever it's called) is FEET bigger, not inches.

[Ex-airbalancer]

"Personally I hope he buys a Fit, as it would make a great heading to the mountains car."
From what I am told the Fit would not make up the hills never mind mountains

Suburban had grow only 3 inches since 91, up to 222 inches

[mmret]

Suburban had grow only 3 inches since 91, up to 222 inches

Any bigger and it wouldn't fit in parking spaces

Sat in my girlfriends parents Accord (Chinese version same thing as NA version), it had so much legroom in the back it was shocking. Much bigger than the TSX seems to be (but I usually have my front seats moved way back so its hard to say for sure).

[Sir Osis of Liver]

At one time long ago, we had a 1976 Civic and a 1981 Accord.  The Civic was 139.8" long, which is dramatically shorter then the 150.6" long two door Yaris and , but still longer than the 99" long Smart.  Our Accord was the last year of Gen I and more than met our needs space wise.  Three people could go on a serious vacation in it.  How our "needs" have changed!

Today, both our C230 and Forester are about the same size as the current Civic, and both seem pretty "big" in relative terms to me.  The trunk in the MB is a good size and the cabin has easily transported four adults on long trips.  The Forester seems cavernous inside!

We've had some bigger cars (E300 and 528) but they didn't really seem to offer much more room despite their larger dimensions.  The E-Class had a slightly larger trunk than the C and slightly more leg room in the back, but given the similar interior materials (actually a bit better in the C, no cracking dash!) and marginal size difference, the E seemed pretty poor value (over $20K more!).

I remember clearly driving our 81 Accord on a long vaction back in 1983.  We almost always got exactly 10L/100km on the highway.  Great mileage 24 years ago, but not so good today!  Well, good for many vehicles (like the current crop of mini-vans and SUVs) but for a sub-compact sedan, not great.  It also had much less than 100hp and not a lot of passing power.  Only exotic cars had more than 200hp, or massive V-8's from a previous era (by 81 the V-8's were all done, power-wise).

Why do we "need" an Accord that is now larger than large luxury cars and nearly as big as the monster 7-series and S-Class models?  Crazy!  Are people really getting that much bigger?  One of my climbing partners has a 2003 Accord and it's MASSIVE inside.  He sold a Civic for it and now plans on going back to a Civic, the Accord being just plain too big.  Personally I hope he buys a Fit, as it would make a great heading to the mountains car.

I was in traffic next to an older Suburban today.  I could barely believe how small it looked!  They were huge and now I bet the new Yukon XXXXL (or whatever it's called) is FEET bigger, not inches.

Well said John, as usual.

Why don't manufacturers add larger models at the top of the range instead of migrating all of their existing models up in size and adding a new small car at the bottom?

[Julie]

Things I don't like:

1) Too big.
2) Too heavy.
3) Too slow.
4) Exterior design is at best boring and at worst truly ugly.
5) BIGGEST car in its class, but with the SMALLEST trunk... what the...?
6) No stick with the V6 in the sedan.  (C'mon Honda - you have one for the Coupe - not like you'd have to design one from the ground-up specifically for the sedan.
7) 5 speed auto?  How retro.
8  No manumatic shift feature for the auto?  How retro and how boring.
9)  No split-fold for the rear seats?  Great - need to carry a long item?  Better not have any rear seat passengers.
10) Gimmicky VCM that doesn't yield significantly better fuel economy than its competitors.  Personally, I never wanted to drive a 3 cyinder.
11) Can't stand the deeply-recessed bat-cave in the dash where the nav screen lurks.

What do I like?

1) Interior quality looks good.
2) Mazda 6 looks very promising.
3) There's still a chance they WON'T turn the new TSX into a bloated lux-barge.

Bottom line:  they have deliberately sucked the very last traces of sportiness out of the Accord and given us a great alternative to the Avalon.  No doubt it will appeal to their increasingly aged buyer base (IIRC, average age is now 50 - meaning a heck of a lot of buyers wll over that number) but it's not a car for me.  Too bad - I have owned and liked past models.

Haha, this was funny to read. 

[johngenx]

"Personally I hope he buys a Fit, as it would make a great heading to the mountains car."
From what I am told the Fit would not make up the hills never mind mountains

Suburban had grow only 3 inches since 91, up to 222 inches

It might have only grown 3", but it sure looks bigger.  A Fit can't make it up a hill?  huh?  Twenty years ago that forementioned 76 Civic made it up the Sunwapta Pass on the Icefields Parkway.  Sure, it disn't rocket up the big hill, but it just chugged along at the 50km/h posted limit.  We forget that there was a time when people drove 60hp cars on most of the roads we drive today.

[The Mighty Duck]

OTOH, that 60hp probably weighed a third or less of what a modern car does.    I'm all for safety, but when an economy car starts tipping the scales at 3000lbs, well...

[avtoller]

If it ain't got 200+ hp, it ain't a REAL car. 

[random006]

If the Accord gets any bigger, they could an Accord version of the CR-V ad showing how it seems big compared to all those cement, fire and garbage trucks, only without the video trickery because it WILL be bigger than those trucks.

[MKII]

Why do we "need" an Accord that is now larger than large luxury cars and nearly as big as the monster 7-series and S-Class models?  Crazy!  Are people really getting that much bigger? 

American market. Midsize segment is the hot spot and Honda will increase its sales with this larger Accord.

Yes Americans are getting bigger.

Honda is not concerned with Accord sales in Canada, that is the Civic's arena.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that the new Accord will surpass Camry sales in the U.S.A.

[cubcadet]

Has anybody realized that this thing looks exactly like a 2007 Hyundai Sonata on the outside?  The front end and rear end is almost a carbon copy!!!  Let me know what you guys think!  I think Honda has really run out of ideas here.  The new 2009 Fit looks like a Mazda B class, at least thats what all the euro mags are saying!! 

[

What?  Not even close!  Having seen the Accord up close, it is leaps and bounds ahead of a Sonata with it's cheap crappy interior.

[Jaeger]

Has anybody realized that this thing looks exactly like a 2007 Hyundai Sonata on the outside?  The front end and rear end is almost a carbon copy!!!  Let me know what you guys think!  I think Honda has really run out of ideas here.  The new 2009 Fit looks like a Mazda B class, at least thats what all the euro mags are saying!! 

[

What?  Not even close!  Having seen the Accord up close, it is leaps and bounds ahead of a Sonata with it's cheap crappy interior.

What?  Not even responsive!  Having read the original post, he was comparing the exterior styling of the Sonata and Accord - not the interiors.  I see a LOT of Sonanta styling cues in the new Accord.  Oh, the irony of that...

Jaeger

[UmroAyyar]

The styling tips are going around in circle. When Sonata was launched on this very forum it was pointed out that it took major styling cues from the Accord, some termed it as a copy of Accord.

Still Sonata wasn't a bad looking car at all, has done pretty good. Now the new Accord is being termed copy of Sonata.

This is going around in circles.
Accord --> Sonata --> Accord.