OT: Honda Accord Thread
- Thread starter RUSK97
- Start date
Agree about the GT-R - it's an amazing car tucked into a not-so-pretty package. Not quite as much a sleeper as a Juke R, but it definitely doesn't have the smooth world-class supercar looks to match the performance.
That NSX is the production model, not the prototype. Acura revealed it (finally) at the Detroit Auto Show in January.
I'll take a stance right between you and 4Real - if it has the performance (I haven't seen official specs released, but with 550-hp and electric motors delivering immediate torque, it should be compelling), I think they'll meet their sales goal. The looks are definitely a step up from the GT-R, though I preferred the original, minus the too-large/flat rear deck. The original had more "it" factor among contemporaries than the new one, imo.
Yep, it came up in the past couple/few day in my twitter feed. Hilarious. Pretty amazing when you consider that that particular Golf could have been made in the 1970s.
As the former owner of a highly tuned GTI (MkV) I can tell you that hunting down expensive iron on the highway is a LOT of fun - but even at 10 lb / hp you take the occasional beating.
Just don't try it off the line. Trying to get 328 lb/ft of torque to the ground through the front wheels takes some practice. "Traction Control = Off" is your friend.
The MS3 being FWD, I'm all too painfully aware of the traction issues. I flashed an off-the-shelf tune that had an overly aggressive throttle map some time back and it took me a couple weeks before I relearned how to not spin the tires in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear. And this is with Pilot Super Sports which are really pretty sticky and with the suspension cranked up to full stiffness so there's virtually no acceleration squat at all.
FWD cars are fun from about 45mph upwards. Below that the traction issues (and torque steer) require so much throttle modulation that it robs the car of most of it's low-end fun.
In the 60's I had Muscle Cars. '65 Buick GS, '66 Mustang, '67 Buick GS.
Now that I'm in the late 60's I'm driving my first ever 'foreign' car.
A 2014 Honda Accord. :)
Now that I'm in the late 60's I'm driving my first ever 'foreign' car.
A 2014 Honda Accord. :)
Pay him no attention man he's an idiot 14 year old kid, he's not old enough to drive
Why can't Toyota just start making the Supra again. They don't have to make any changes or updates. Just start the presses again.
They plan to. It's being co-developed with BMW. Latest speculation is it might be called S-FR, though that seems lame, given the FR-S. It'll hopefully look something like this
To me, that car makes no sense unless it's going to be a mid-engine hybrid. Otherwise, either the front or rear intakes are superfluous. Also, for a car that would be expected to be an affordable daily driver, the prototype design is way too low w/nowhere near enough wheel well clearance for a road-comfy suspension.They plan to. It's being co-developed with BMW. Latest speculation is it might be called S-FR, though that seems lame, given the FR-S. It'll hopefully look something like this
Notwithstanding the aforementioned unrealistic prototype style issues, to me, that style looks more like an evolution of the Mazda RX8 than a Supra.
Not true. First off, the Accord will spend more time on the road then in the shop as it's reliability is legendary. Next it has a lower cost of ownership, because you probably won't have to spend on anything save for maintenance items. Next it takes regular gas which is a money saver, as opposed to premium gas required by more prestigious makes. While it may not offer BMW driving dynamics, it provides a driving experience that's good enough for most people. This is why it's appeared on Car and Drivers 10 best list for 29 years.
The placement of controls and interior design is logical and efficient. The engine will last forever as long as you maintain it. I bought mine in 2010, for 19K, 3 yrs and after 87K, was able to resell it for 10.2K.
The Accord will do 200K effortlessly, as long as it's been maintained, though I have many friends whose Accords have topped 300K.
The Accord is an appliance that just works.
The CRV is long on utility, reliability, and convenience. A small SUV i'd highly recommend.
Toyota has been redesigning their cars to give them a more modern look. Even the Corolla and Camry no longer look like plain Janes.
You can put three spoilers, 10 air scoops, 19-inch wheels and 30-series rubber on a Corolla or Camry and it'll still drive horribly. I'd argue they drive worse than anything in their respective segments.
Based on my experience I'd go for the gas engine Civic vs the hybrid. You will still get 30-35 mpg and won't have to worry about the battery failing and a huge replacement cost. I'm on my 2nd replacement battery and fortunately Honda covered the two battery replacements at 100%, avoiding a $ 3500 bill for each.
I bought my 09 Civic with 24K miles on it for 40% off the original MSRP when it was 2 years old in 2011. Definitely the most cost efficient car I've ever owned. It doesn't have Accord looks and performance but it is a well designed vehicle that offers lots of interior room for a small car. The trunk can fit my golf clubs, golf push cart and more. I will definitely consider the Civic for my next car purchase.
Yeah, I don't expect the production version to be so cut and slashed, if it even resembles that FT-1 concept at all. It may very well be a hybrid, though.
I hope they use that overall shape because I think it's actually an original design that looks the part of flagship sports car. Thing was quite easily the highlight of the 2014 NA Auto Show. Prefer it over the new NSX, which is nice, but not "new supercar" nice. Hopefully, they don't dumb it down into something like an FR-S+.
The old NSX was an amazing car. I was fortunate to learn to drive on one, back in the 90s, as that's what my dad was driving at the time. The aesthetics and speed were so-so by supercar standards, but it was simply a great car - especially in terms of handling, road feel, etc. I think the new one looks awesome.
Honda Accords are not expensive. When you go to sell it you get the premium you paid for it back in resale value as illustrated by the following example....
We have owned 4 hondas including 3 accords over the past 15 yrs. My 2033 accord Ex that went back and forth to Colorado and had over 170 k miles on it was involved in a collision that came to $3200.00 worth of damage . We took the check from the insurance company and decided not to fix the car as it had started to burn some oil (high mileage Accord common issue car will run forever just keep adding) and we did not want to have to fix the car and then invest in a ring job too.
We then put the wreck car on Craig's list at $1500. At 6 am my phone blows up with people wanting the wreck even telling them the car runs but burns oil in addition to the accident damage. People telling me they will be there in an hour with cash etc just take down the ad on CL.
I promptly raise the price on CL to $2000 for the wreck. My phone keeps ringnng one guy is coming after 5 all cash another says I will be there at 2pm and i will give you $2200. The 2pm guys shows up 22 $100 bills later h has bought a car with 170 k miles wrecked and oil problem and he is happy he got a car that will run for 2 years.
That is why you buy a Honda you get a great ride while you have it at at good price and when you want to sell it you get top dollar.
We have owned 4 hondas including 3 accords over the past 15 yrs. My 2033 accord Ex that went back and forth to Colorado and had over 170 k miles on it was involved in a collision that came to $3200.00 worth of damage . We took the check from the insurance company and decided not to fix the car as it had started to burn some oil (high mileage Accord common issue car will run forever just keep adding) and we did not want to have to fix the car and then invest in a ring job too.
We then put the wreck car on Craig's list at $1500. At 6 am my phone blows up with people wanting the wreck even telling them the car runs but burns oil in addition to the accident damage. People telling me they will be there in an hour with cash etc just take down the ad on CL.
I promptly raise the price on CL to $2000 for the wreck. My phone keeps ringnng one guy is coming after 5 all cash another says I will be there at 2pm and i will give you $2200. The 2pm guys shows up 22 $100 bills later h has bought a car with 170 k miles wrecked and oil problem and he is happy he got a car that will run for 2 years.
That is why you buy a Honda you get a great ride while you have it at at good price and when you want to sell it you get top dollar.
Great story. The reason why he was willing to pay so much is the individual parts are worth more than the car itself.
That article is not as meaningful as it appears.
- The list is the top ten cars most reported in the Consumer Reports survey as having hit 200K miles. That means top selling cars are more likely to be on this list than cars with lower volume sales, even if the top selling cars are less reliable, just because there are more of the top selling cars on the road and therefore more opportunities for them to hit 200K miles.
- The list only includes models that are currently in production. So reliable cars that hit 200K miles, which are no longer in production don't make the list. Likewise, newer models, which haven't been around long enough for average drivers to hit 200K miles, aren't on the list. The list favors brands that keep the same model names over long periods of time.
- Cars with 200K miles are likely older cars. It takes a while for most cars to hit 200K miles under typical use. The type of person who is likely to keep a car long enough to hit 200K miles is probably the type of person who is likely to be attracted to certain types of cars, which is why you see a lot of uniformity on the list.
Oh for the love of God...
That's true with any car. It's especially true with Accords because there are so many of them - which is also the reason why it's one of the most frequently stolen cars in the U.S.
Look - people who want reliable, inexpensive transportation tend to gravitate toward Accords and Civics. But that's their only redeeming quality. They're not "great cars", from a dynamics perspective. They don't have best in class performance, they're not particularly agile handlers. If somebody were to offer you, for free, your choice of an Accord or an Audi A3 2.0T Quattro, only a lunatic would pick the Accord.
Thats funny we just bought an A3 Quattro against my better judgement. I begged my wife to buy an accord she was not having it .The car is an incredible ride but I'm scared to death of having to fix anything on it. There is no room in the car for a second cell phone, the radio controls are in a stupid spot on the center console, you are supposed to use premium gas but we use regular as the ECM compensates for it, everything is tight trunk is smaller than a civic. The one redeeming quality that we love and you cant get from an Accord is the Quattro handling when you tap the gas the car almost leaps forward.
This was the point.
I don't think you've driven a recent Accord. While it may not be BMW fun, it's a fun car in its own right. This is what Car an Driver had to say:
"The Accord offers terrifically fluid and sporty handling, while functioning perfectly for everyday use," said Car and driver editor in chief Eddie Alterman. "It's light on its feet and very driver-oriented, even if many of its drivers will never explore the full range of its dynamic capabilities. The Accord is an undercover sports sedan and that's what resonates with our editors year after year."
I don't understand why you would be "scared to death of having to fix anything on it". It's under warranty. And Audi's warranty service is very, very good.
You'll get used to the center console MMI. Not having to reach for things is actually good. People who drive a lot of different cars will tell you that MMI is the best of the infotainment systems out there.
As for the cell phone... I don't know what to tell you about that. My 2013 Escape is the only car I've driven in the last couple of years that actually has 2 USB ports for phone docking / charging. Most manufacturers get by with a single device connection. It sucks, but it is what it is. When I took the A4 to Detroit for the bowl game I had to buy one of those lighter plug/USB charging adapters to handle the 3 devices we had in the car.
You'll get used to the center console MMI. Not having to reach for things is actually good. People who drive a lot of different cars will tell you that MMI is the best of the infotainment systems out there.
As for the cell phone... I don't know what to tell you about that. My 2013 Escape is the only car I've driven in the last couple of years that actually has 2 USB ports for phone docking / charging. Most manufacturers get by with a single device connection. It sucks, but it is what it is. When I took the A4 to Detroit for the bowl game I had to buy one of those lighter plug/USB charging adapters to handle the 3 devices we had in the car.
Actually, I have. And I assure you, the qualifier is the most important bit. It's all about context. The Accord offers an engaging driving experience for people who buy Accords.
No one. No one. Let me say that again - NO ONE - who is in the market for a true performance sedan buys a Honda Accord.
Honda's engines lack low-end torque and the 4 cyl. Accords are low on power. Stepping up to the v-6 gets you straight line performance - but you're now at a 30k+ price point.
The handling is better than a Camry. It's not better than a lot of other things on the market.
Last edited:
Dang, I would've paid a lot more than that for a car from the future! Did the wings retract to make it easier to park after landing?
No one buys an Accord for performance. They buy it for value & practicality.
The bigger your car budget, the more those two factors yield to fun-factor, which is not an Accord strong suit.
I honestly don't understand what the fuss is all about. These two brands aren't even marketed to the same segment. We are comparing apples to oranges.
No one compares a Focus to a Cadillac...
The bigger your car budget, the more those two factors yield to fun-factor, which is not an Accord strong suit.
I honestly don't understand what the fuss is all about. These two brands aren't even marketed to the same segment. We are comparing apples to oranges.
No one compares a Focus to a Cadillac...
The title of this thread is Honda Accord not performance sedans.
The Accord provides a driving experience that's engaging enough for most drivers. Sure there are vehicles which are more engaging, but they carry a significant price premium. For its combination of performance and price point, it's hard to top which is why so many of them are sold.
I own a 2004 Accord Coupe with a V6. It was my first car purchase on my own when I was out of college and got a great deal on it. My family has also owned 3 different Accords in the past 10-15 years. As a handling car, the Accord is best in its class, maybe 2nd best...but that class constitutes the Camry, Altima, Malibu, Fusion, 200, and Passat. None of these are exciting, and yes, I have driven them all (including all new iterations - I travel a lot for work and get all sorts of cars as rentals). My old trusty Accord has good low end power...almost too much, as any enthusiasm off the line will spin the front tires (no matter what kind of rubber she wears), plows heavily into turns, and is above average in fun factor.
That being said, it is nowhere close to being a sporty ride. My other car is a Infiniti G37x sedan. It's lighter, more responsive, faster, and handles significantly better. And I know that, in my experience, the Audi and BMW handle better than the G. To equate the Accord with any of the sports sedans is sheer folly. But when comparing with the options in its class, its a very good ride.
That being said, it is nowhere close to being a sporty ride. My other car is a Infiniti G37x sedan. It's lighter, more responsive, faster, and handles significantly better. And I know that, in my experience, the Audi and BMW handle better than the G. To equate the Accord with any of the sports sedans is sheer folly. But when comparing with the options in its class, its a very good ride.
First of all, the thread was meant as a joke. It was meant to make light of all the idiots who say "Honda Accord!" in every car thread, no matter what the OP in that thread is actually looking to buy.
Second, your last two sentences are Fail. That's why I introduced the A3 2.0T as an example a few posts up. An A3 2.0T lists for $33,795. An Accord V6 Touring lists for $33,630. The Audi is faster, handles better, has AWD, better electronics, is quieter on the highway and gets better gas mileage.
If you take the V6 out of the equation then you're left with a FWD car that weighs just shy of 3300 lbs., has 185 hp and 181 lb/ft torque that does 0-60 in a piss-poor 7.2 seconds and takes a tenth shy of 16 seconds to get through the quarter mile and understeers badly when pushed.
For the money, in the same class, there are quicker and better handling cars (the Mazda 6 comes immediately to mind).
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Podcast Rutgers Re-Hires Robb Smith as Co-DC and We Have....Thoughts- Latest: -RUFAN4LIFE-