Also, for what it's worth, the current generation Mazda 6 designers hit one out of the park with it's styling.
OT: Honda Accord Thread
- Thread starter RUSK97
- Start date
Also, for what it's worth, the current generation Mazda 6 designers hit one out of the park with it's styling.
Mazda used to be cheap gimmick crap, but they have really change the last few years. Mazda 6 is almost a different category.
A fully loaded Accord cost as much as a luxury performance car, so why not just get that?
A fully loaded Accord cost as much as a luxury performance car, so why not just get that?
Because a fully-loaded Accord costs as much as an entry-level luxury performance car. If you want to add some of the same features, the luxury performance car prices up from the Accord.
A few years ago, my wife was in the market for a family sedan, but she wanted some luxury amenities in the car. She looked at the Accord (not quite fully-loaded, but close) as well as some performance sedans. But when she got the performance sedans equipped the way she wanted, they were considerably more expensive than the loaded Accord, or other loaded mid-range sedans.
(For the record, she did not buy the Accord because she wanted more performance than it offered. When she test drove the Accord, and pulled out of the dealership on Rt 1, she almost got rear-ended because the Accord couldn't accelerate quickly enough. She asked the salesman if the Accord had an option for a bigger engine, and he told her that she was already driving the bigger engine.)
All that, and Honda will sell 5x as many Accords as Mazda 6's sold and A3 sold. Not everyone makes their decision based on performance. I just don't know why you're so eager to run down the Accord. We get it, you don't like it. But there are many who LOVE their Honda Accord, which is why Honda's Brand Loyalty is pretty high as it has a good number of repeat customers.
When OP said, "but seriously", it invited serious comment, so many have responded in a serious manner
Finally, the A3 example you provided is bare bones, while the Honda Touring Model is top of the line filled with every bell and whistle. Quick research reveals that the Audi will likely sell for north of 35K if popular options are added. ( before negotiating for the best price of course)
That's about right.
And for sake of comparison, I went to Honda's configurator and loaded up an Accord Touring with "all the bells and whistles" that you say it already comes with.
Guess what? It's over $37 grand.
I don't hate the Accord. What I hate is people who say it's the greatest car in the world. It's not. And frankly, for what you're getting, it's overpriced.
Another case in point - I just got my daughter a 2015 Jetta. It's got a 1.8 turbo, fully loaded with everything. It runs circles around a comparably priced Accord, gets better gas mileage, handles so much better that they're not even close and has better crash scores, to boot.
My point is that if you're looking to spend $24k on a car there are better cars out there than an Accord and if you're looking to spend $35k on a car there are better cars out there than an Accord.
They sell 400,000 of them a year because there are that many people who don't know anything about cars and buy solely on perception. But if you actually go to the trouble to evaluate all the offerings in a particular price range then the Accord loses.
It's the ideal car for people who have to buy a car but don't actually care about driving.
You pay a premium for the name. With that name comes certain expectations, particularly those of reliability, low maintenance, & low cost of ownership. Even if something is covered under warranty, there is still the hassle of taking the car in (either lose 1/4 of your weekend or an entire work day -- pick your poison).
I agree with your sentiment though -- they are for those who want to get from A to B without much fuss but without much flair as well.
I agree with your sentiment though -- they are for those who want to get from A to B without much fuss but without much flair as well.
Actually, that would be the Camry. The Accord is better driving that that pig.
The thing about the Accord and all the models in that line is that most people don't buy the loaded model with all the bells and whistles. If you price out a mid-range in any mid-size to full size sedan, it will run roughly 28-30k. That's about 10k less than what you could get into a premium brand compact sedan for. And the Jetta, while bigger now, doesn't offer the same type of space that the general public is looking for. My 2 door Accord has better trunk space and rear legroom than my G37 4 door sedan. Low maintenance costs, reliability, coupled with price and size all factor into that equation. Also, you have to figure that our nominal salaries in NJ trend higher than most of the country. $38k for a household that makes $100-150k in NJ is easier to swallow (as a % of income) than the family in Indiana making $80k. Whenever I'm traveling for work to cities outside the Northeast and Cali, I never see as many luxury brand vehicles as I do in NJ. In fact, the Chevy Cruze seems to be super super popular in the midwest.
I've got the 2014 hybrid; it's definitely a great car! Don't be too surprised though if you only average about mid-30s mpg during the long cold winter months. The batteries aren't as efficient once you dip below 50*, plus having the heat on adds to the drain. On a positive note, I averaged about 90 mpg last week (~30 miles of street driving). As an aggressive driver, I still average 45-50mpg, which is still great. Anyways, welcome to the club and good luck with the car!
This thread is, more or less, in violent agreement with itself.
Nobody's bashing the Accord (not seriously, at least) and nobody's saying that it's God's gift to the automotive world. I doubt anybody would disagree much with the conclusion that an Accord is a fine, reasonably priced car for people whose priority is getting from point A to point B in reasonable comfort with reasonable gas mileage and good reliability.
For people who view cars as something more than mere transportation, there are obviously better choices, even at the same price point (and, arguably, at lower price points) and certainly at higher prices.
Having said that, the Honda Accord is the greatest car in the world. @RU4Real [winking]
Nobody's bashing the Accord (not seriously, at least) and nobody's saying that it's God's gift to the automotive world. I doubt anybody would disagree much with the conclusion that an Accord is a fine, reasonably priced car for people whose priority is getting from point A to point B in reasonable comfort with reasonable gas mileage and good reliability.
For people who view cars as something more than mere transportation, there are obviously better choices, even at the same price point (and, arguably, at lower price points) and certainly at higher prices.
Having said that, the Honda Accord is the greatest car in the world. @RU4Real [winking]
It's not faster than anything else. From what I could tell, the VW has a non-stock engine and aftermarket twin turbos which means an aftermarket intake and exhaust, almost certainly aftermarket engine internals, aftermarket clutch, suspension and motor mounts, etc. And I would be surprised if it isn't using an alternative fueling system to deal with the heat generated by the turbos.
There are plenty of modded and tuned cars (including BMWs, Lamborghinis and Mercedes, even Honda Accords) that would beat it, if they were likewise built and tuned to do so. Also, the BMW and Mercedes in that video needed a driver mod.
What would be interesting is to see how many engine blocks that Golf went through on it's way to that kind of performance.
Conclusion:After RU FB,sex ,booze and golf,cars are the most important thing to most American males.
I guess mom was right when she said I was unique because I'd list it more like this: sex, RUFB, cars, sex, soccer, sex, sex, sex, booze, sex, internet porn, sex and Formula 1, as being the most important things.
Why? Is there a problem with her wanting a safe car that has enough pep that she can safely accelerate onto a busy highway?
Upstream: I think he means that maybe your wife should have allowed for a bit more space in her attempt to merge into traffic.
There are a whole lot of people whose cars don't have amazing torque or horsepower that somehow manage to accelerate onto a busy highway without nearly causing an accident.
There are a whole lot of people whose cars don't have amazing torque or horsepower that somehow manage to accelerate onto a busy highway without nearly causing an accident.
I may have been exaggerating when I said that she was almost rear ended. But coming from a peppier car, she found the Accord incredibly sluggish. During the test drive, when she pulled onto Rt 1, she (and I) thought it took way too long to get up to highway speed, which is why she asked if a larger engine was available. Certainly if she bought an Accord, she would adjust her driving habits to account for the sluggishness. I guess other Accord owners do the same, waiting for long breaks in traffic (which is why I sit behind some cars at stop signs and wonder if they are ever going to go through the intersection).
Upstream: Unless I'm by myself with nothing in the trunk, my '04 Civic is underpowered. My dad's '88 Accord with 4 people and bags in the back was similar. His '94 Accord was an improvement, but still was sluggish with a full complement. Now his '03 V6 Accord had no issues whatsoever merging into traffic or overtaking, even with a full ride. Same with my wife's '13 CRV. They aren't winning any light-to-light confrontations anytime soon, but the perception that they have difficulty getting into and around traffic is greatly overstated. Now if you lived in a hilly area like Hawaii or Vermont, I definitely would not recommend a Honda.
Ironically, it's often high torque, two wheel drive (either front or rear) cars that have problems merging into traffic. Because it's ridiculously easy to break traction in the first couple/few gears. It causes problems ranging from spinning the tires w/out actually moving to actually spinning the entire car.
Here's a recent illustration of what I mean. It lacks the traffic part, but you can extrapolate what would've happened if there was traffic. Note that the driver was apparently attempting to use launch control and still got it all wrong.
Warning: contains some naughty words, so turn down your sound if at work or around kids you're raising to be veal:
Here's a recent illustration of what I mean. It lacks the traffic part, but you can extrapolate what would've happened if there was traffic. Note that the driver was apparently attempting to use launch control and still got it all wrong.
Warning: contains some naughty words, so turn down your sound if at work or around kids you're raising to be veal:
Agree with this. My 2004 V6 Accord has no problem with power. In fact, its too much power for the standard tire size. The new Accord V6 is capable of a 0-60 run in the 6 second range. By no means a barnburner, but no slouch either. If you want to get under 6 second 0-60 runs or 5-60mph runs that are quicker, you're going to need to get to the sports sedan category. One thing about driving Hondas...the power band is very steep...low end power is pretty bleh. Need to get the revs up to get all the pull. A quick squirt and go is not what you'll get with a Honda...its more of a stomp and go.
evo36: Stomp and go is right. If you need power now, it's there but you literally have to "floor it."
Want a real eye-opener? Go for a Tesla Model S 85D test-drive. After driving Hondas for decades, the amount of sheer power immediately available with just a light touch is insane. Careful pulling out of the lot, LOL
Want a real eye-opener? Go for a Tesla Model S 85D test-drive. After driving Hondas for decades, the amount of sheer power immediately available with just a light touch is insane. Careful pulling out of the lot, LOL
well yes. according to the on-board display, my 328 HP G37 has averaged like 24mph since my wife and I have had the car. Thank you Rt. 1 traffic.
LOL. Well, on the bright side, at least it isn't NYC. I seen people with super cars in NYC... they must average 5MPH tops. Not bad for a $250,000 car....
I don't understand people who would drive their super car in NYC, although I see it all the time. Driving a car like that on roads like that in NYC traffic is a great way to turn your super car into junk. And it would be incredibly expensive what with all the body work and re-alignments.
I also find it astonishing to see them parked curbside, say on the upper west side, bumper to bumper with all manner of much less expensive cars, where you know people are using the bump and grind method to squeeze into rare available spaces.
A super car is like a boat. Buying them is no big deal. It's the cost of actually using them regularly that makes them prohibitive to own.
Given that the vast majority of supercar owners have the means to afford an alternate daily driver, putting such cars in harm's way seems illogical.
Back to Honda and the acceleration discussion.
Honda uses fairly basic technology in the K series engines. There's no turbocharging, other than on the upcoming Civic Type R. They use port injection. They're very low specific output (generally under 200 hp from 2.4 liters of displacement). There's variable valve timing, but only on the intake side, and no variable lift.
The common argument is "well, it contributes to their reliability!" Except that on the whole, Honda engines don't fail any less often than other engines with more sophisticated, edgier technology. Frankly, the concept of a mechanical engine failure is pretty much obsolete, regardless of the manufacturer.
The reality is that Honda uses basic engine technology to keep production costs down. It also keeps performance down. And in spite of what they love to say in their TV ads, Honda spends less money, as a percentage of revenue, on R&D than any other manufacturer except Toyota.
The miracle of modern marketing has much of America convinced that Honda is some sort of technology giant in the car industry. That's very, very untrue.
So to me, as a car guy, Honda comes off as lazy, non-innovative and just a tad deceitful.
Back to Honda and the acceleration discussion.
Honda uses fairly basic technology in the K series engines. There's no turbocharging, other than on the upcoming Civic Type R. They use port injection. They're very low specific output (generally under 200 hp from 2.4 liters of displacement). There's variable valve timing, but only on the intake side, and no variable lift.
The common argument is "well, it contributes to their reliability!" Except that on the whole, Honda engines don't fail any less often than other engines with more sophisticated, edgier technology. Frankly, the concept of a mechanical engine failure is pretty much obsolete, regardless of the manufacturer.
The reality is that Honda uses basic engine technology to keep production costs down. It also keeps performance down. And in spite of what they love to say in their TV ads, Honda spends less money, as a percentage of revenue, on R&D than any other manufacturer except Toyota.
The miracle of modern marketing has much of America convinced that Honda is some sort of technology giant in the car industry. That's very, very untrue.
So to me, as a car guy, Honda comes off as lazy, non-innovative and just a tad deceitful.
Would you consider the money they are pouring into Formula 1 "R&D"? Innovations like ABS, "launch" sequencing, traction control, and paddle shifting were all perfected in F1. I believe a lot of engine/fuel management systems are rooted in F1 as well.
Do people really think of Honda as a tech-forward auto company? They've done some pioneering with CNG and fuel cells, but those have yet to gain traction enough to create a credible tech rep. The NSX is nice, but it's not the rule changer that the original was.
Toyota gets credit for opening up the hybrid market. Nissan has arguably the best pound-for-pound sports car on the planet, plus the first mainstream electric vehicle. GM has the series hybrid and trickle-down tech. The Germans lead in luxury cars and autonomous tech, Volvo for safety and autonomous tech, Ford for infotainment, VW has the XL1 plus greater group work (Lambo) in composites, and on and on. Honda and Chrysler are the companies that have seemed more reactionary and/or sluggish than innovative in the modern era. Hyundai and Kia have shown more original tech in recent years.
Honda now has more of a reputation for non-car tech than car tech. Things like its jet, robotics program and personal mobility devices are more interesting breakthroughs than anything it's done with cars lately.
Toyota gets credit for opening up the hybrid market. Nissan has arguably the best pound-for-pound sports car on the planet, plus the first mainstream electric vehicle. GM has the series hybrid and trickle-down tech. The Germans lead in luxury cars and autonomous tech, Volvo for safety and autonomous tech, Ford for infotainment, VW has the XL1 plus greater group work (Lambo) in composites, and on and on. Honda and Chrysler are the companies that have seemed more reactionary and/or sluggish than innovative in the modern era. Hyundai and Kia have shown more original tech in recent years.
Honda now has more of a reputation for non-car tech than car tech. Things like its jet, robotics program and personal mobility devices are more interesting breakthroughs than anything it's done with cars lately.
I would guess the average guy on the street (not auto enthusiasts) think Honda is tech-forward, especially when it comes to fit & trim, reliability, and safety features. Even in this thread, someone commented on "lane-watch cameras" and wondered if they were unique to Honda.
While those innovations may have been pioneered or perfected by other teams, McLaren/Honda needed to develop their own versions. Ferrari & Williams etc. obviously didn't open source their tech. Both McLaren and Honda had to ante up to keep up.
F1 cars do not have launch control or traction control - they're illegal. They do not have anti-lock brakes because all brake control must be mechanical, again, by rule. The cars are equipped with hydraulic bias adjuster that controls braking force fore and aft to account for track conditions and tire wear.
"Paddle shifting" isn't actually a thing, from an R&D perspective. The semi-automatic transmission is a thing, of course, but they existed long before any race cars dumped their clutch pedals.
ECUs in F1 racing are all made my McLaren, developed jointly with Microsoft. ECUs in race cars are actually much simpler from a programming perspective than the ECU in most street cars, because they're doing a great deal less actual work. There is no code allocated to emissions control or collision mitigation or, as noted previously, traction or stability control.
Many of the above, while illegal now, were once legal. All were developed and all needed funding. LINK
I remember reading all about those "innovations" in F1 mags before they eventually trickled down to street cars.
You still haven't discredited my point: If you consider F1 investment "R&D", then Honda has and now continues to pour a lot of resources into it.
Now if you don't consider that R&D, well then I can't comment on comparative spending amounts because I don't have a clue.
I remember reading all about those "innovations" in F1 mags before they eventually trickled down to street cars.
You still haven't discredited my point: If you consider F1 investment "R&D", then Honda has and now continues to pour a lot of resources into it.
Now if you don't consider that R&D, well then I can't comment on comparative spending amounts because I don't have a clue.
Last edited:
That Wikipedia article doesn't actually credit F1 racing with innovation in any of the areas you mentioned.
Semi-auto transmissions were first implemented in street cars by General Motors in the 60s. Anti-lock brakes were implemented on the Chrysler Imperial in 1971. The first traction control systems went into production in the 80s, developed independently by Mercedes, Toyota and Mitsubishi.
None of these technologies were developed by, or for, racing.
Honda's own F1 expenditures are not significant - the only thing they provide to F1 are engines. Because FIA rules specific absolutely every aspect of the car, including the engines, there's not a whole lot of innovation there.
And you can make a battery out of a potato. Those technologies were advanced by their application to F1 racing much like battery tech was advanced by their use in cell and laptops and the similar never ending quest for increased performance.
I can understand your secondary argument - that Honda just provides the engines. In that regard we can simply disagree about their level of involvement in other respects of the car and just how much of what is learned on the track actually translates into useful street tech.
I can understand your secondary argument - that Honda just provides the engines. In that regard we can simply disagree about their level of involvement in other respects of the car and just how much of what is learned on the track actually translates into useful street tech.
Some do, some don't. The term "race car" covers a pretty broad spectrum.
F1 cars have a clutch (a tiny little thing, considering the load it's put under), but not a clutch pedal. A slightly over-simplified explanation is that the clutch is automatically triggered via sequential paddle shifters and operated electro-hydraulically.
Latest posts
-
-
Podcast Rutgers Re-Hires Robb Smith as Co-DC and We Have....Thoughts- Latest: greenknight
-
