2008 Honda Accord EX-L V6: Fuel Economy Update

your claiming victory because your more powerfull accord got .4mpg better combined then the old on? WOW. new level of fanboyism.
 
 That VCM sure is doing alot. In fact, I would claim the oppsite,the system appears to be a complete failure. turning off all those cylinders and killing all that mid range torque for what? a 2% improvement in gas milage?

Amazing how that works. I am surprised that you said not too shabby. If I recall the Aura was also at 21.4 at one point and the Altima 22. Both are faster, and don't have the cylinder deactivation. It appears that for now, the system is not worth the loss of midrange torque. It also appears that either a CVT or a 6 speed auto are a better choice. This will be a very tough one to spin. Good Luck.

Who's spinning what. The 21.4 the Aura achieved was all highway miles on a road trip and it was reported by the car's computer. In the same post the 6 speed tranny was also faulted for not being able to always find the right gear. Look it up:
http://66.160.188.111/roadtests/1709

Not too shabby... but didn't the Long Term Camry V6 average about 24.5 MPG? I know it was an LE and edmunds.com wasn't a fan of the handling dynamics, but three MPG is nothing to shake a stick at.... and it's as quick or quicker than the Accord.

benson2175
 
I say this with all sincerity. Learn the vehicles you are criticizing. The XR averages its mileage from day one. The 21.4 was its overall mileage. In that case, the 21.4 is the same as the Accord.
 
Here we go again. It is just killing some that a Honda is not the mileage champ. That Honda might not be the engineering kings all their followers think. Oh well, life goes on

The meager hp gains over the L4 aren't worth the decrease in mileage.
 
The V6 coupe with the 6-speed is much better.

This is kind of off topic, but it puts things in perspective for me. I always keep track of the gas mileage of my cars; over 30,000 miles I have averaged right around 20.5mpg in my 382-hp, 2.5 ton S550.
 
I realize this is a little abnormal and I do a fair amount of highway driving, but the Accord numbers just don't impress me that much. It seems a modestly powerful V6 family sedan should be acheiving much better. This is not a shot at the Accord which I think is a terrific car, I just feel this way about all mid-size sedans.

The 4-cylinder Accord is 24-25 mpg combined. I think the modern 4-cylinders (almost all brands) would be good enough to allow me to pass on the V6 option. They're more powerful than the V6's of not too long ago, and cheaper to purchase and fill up. I appreciate Honda's trim levels that allow you to get all the goodies you could want (leather, navigation, etc.) with a 4-cylinder, and even a manual transmission. Pretty cool.

seems about the same as non VCM V6 cars to me.

I'll have to add this:
 
People wonder why posters here think edmunds bloggers are heads over heals over a honda?
 
This blog post is proof postive.

I think the "Not too shabby" was in reference to the fact that the 2008 model has a larger engine with more power driving a heavier, larger car yet it gets slightly better mileage than the 2007, even with lead-footed staffers behind the wheel. No comparison was made to any other car. How is it possible to show bias when comparing a Honda to a Honda?
 
On a side note: Wow, how many Aura owners do we have on these boards?

I think the "Not too shabby" was in reference to the fact that the 2008 model has a larger engine with more power driving a heavier, larger car yet it gets slightly better mileage than the 2007, even with lead-footed staffers behind the wheel. No comparison was made to any other car. How is it possible to show bias when comparing a Honda to a Honda?
"
 
I think his point is that mileage that wasnt praised on a similar car is praised for this car. 21mpg is about the norm for a 2008 V6 sedan in mixed driving. Sure the Accord has more power, but its no faster than the Altima, Camry or Aura so its power is really just par for the course in the segment.

Gotta agree with 1487 - 21's about the norm for a 2008 V6 sedan. And for those Camry fans out there, that car might've averaged 24.9 with Edmunds, but remember that includes a trip to Detroit & back. None of the other midsize sedans around have bene on such a long trip.
 
Interestingly enough, some much smaller cars are barely doing better than these guys - namely, the xB and the Rondo. Oh, and the old Edmunds Jetta wasn't so hot either. Neither is the Lancer.

I agree-
 
I'm disappointed in these averages. In theory, it makes sense. But are those #'s really worth the technology or the possibility of one more thing breaking?
 
Does anyone know MPG improvements made when GM came out with cylinder deactivation a few years ago?

1487 - You know, I realized something the other day. Edmunds tends to have positive reviews of German and Japanese cars (and, for that matter, South Korean, although not in comparison to the germans they are aiming at...)
 
So really, when someone on here claims bias, they are saying that Edmunds likes a car manufactured by any other company than American. Except for some American cars. And, of course, more recently American cars have been getting better, agreed upon by almost all sources, and reflected in Edmunds reviews.
 
So really, with this information, how can you cast aspersions of institutional bias?
 
That being said, I'm not with Bryan (Bryn?) MacKinnon on this post. Sure the Accord has more max power on paper....but it's a paper-tiger only. The Accord V6's mid-range, i.e. where driver's spend 99% of their time accelerating, is weaker than any other in it's class due to the addition of VCM. As a car, the new Accord V6 matches or is slightly worse in acceleration testing than the 2003-2007 Accord V6 (albeit a 6-speed manual variety).
 
This despite having a 5 year newer engine with 16.6% more displacement than the old.
 
And with all that, it's not getting any better mileage. You can say not too shabby, sure, but you can also say
 
"This is a slight dissapointment for an engine with the promising technology of cylinder deactivation. This car does not exhibit statistically significant improvements in fuel economy over it's modern competitors in the Aura, Altima, Camry, and Malibu. How much did Honda spend on this VCM technology instead of developing a class-leading 6-speed transmission, which would have given better fuel economy and acceleration."
 
That's my thoughts when I first read the EPA averages, and those are my thoughts not, reading this blog (and owner reports). Honda is supposed to be a powertrain innovator...
 
Joe

Excellent points, Joe. Twenty-one is pretty poor for a family sedan with supposedly fuel-saving technology. Remember, most family sedan buyers have fuel economy as a high priority. I'll state again, however, that this Accord was only compared to the previous Accord, and not 1487's beloved Aura. It's tough to show bias when comparing one car to itself.

VCM and similar techs seem to yield minimum benefits in real world driving. You cant expect more than 1 or 2mpg over a regular engine in a best case scenario. reviews have found little improvement in GM's AFM equipped trucks in spite of the EPA ratings.
 
Bottom line is accord needed VCM because without it EPA mileage is 17/25 and Honda knows that looks BAD. The downside is that the Accord is somewhat slower than it would be otherwise.
 
"Except for some American cars. And, of course, more recently American cars have been getting better, agreed upon by almost all sources, and reflected in Edmunds reviews. "
 
I would say the road test reviews are somewhat more positive than what we see here. I have a problem with any reviewer who continually acts like every competent domestic vehicle is the first one they have seen in 40 years. We just had that type of sentiment displayed here in a blog entry on the Enclave. The author indicated the Enclave was the first sign that GM could compete with the imports as if nothing that preceeded it was worth noting. Although some are loathe to admit it, GM has been turning out decent (and sometimes class leading) vehicles for 3-4 years now.

"I'll state again, however, that this Accord was only compared to the previous Accord, and not 1487's beloved Aura. It's tough to show bias when comparing one car to itself."
 
as stated previously, the bias statement is related to the praise for the Accord's mileage vs the indifference towards similar mileage from the Aura. It has nothiing to do with them comparing this to the old car. Who cares about the old car at this point? The 2008 Accord competes with the Aura and Camry, not the 2007 Accord.

I'm gonna chime in here on one more thing. I'm going purely off memory right now and don't have the time to look it up: Look at the long-term tests of the 2006 BMW 330i and the 2005.5 Audi A4 2.0T Quattro 6-speed manual. Those are as-heavy entry-luxury sport sedans. They utilize a 3.0 liter inline six producing 255 hp (BMW) and a 2.0 liter turbocharged, direct-injected 4 cyl producing 200 hp (Audi).
 
The long-term fuel averages for both were ABOVE the Accord's thus far. The Audi by a fair amount, and I think the BMW by 1-2 MPG.
 
The whole class....that is, family sedans, is grossly out of whack as far as "fuel economy" goes. These car should be about 10-15% below an economy car average. I.e. If the Honda Civic averages 32mpg, these should be averaging 27-29mpg. Maybe knock another 10% off for the V6 version. Yet the entire class is around 21-22mpg right now. That's approaching early 90's truck levels (you know, when trucks were sized like trucks and not semi's, and they ran off of v6 engines and had lockable front hubs).
 
The automakers are pitiful in this regard. And I am harshest on Honda, as an automaker that puts it's emphasis on powertrain technology, design, and efficiency and fuel economy. I'm happy that the inside of your car is gigantic. But you've sacrificed your soul to the devil to get it, and it'll be a hard climb back out of the pit of "bigger es bettre" (remember the pontiac commercials with the ice fishers saying "wider est bettre" (sp?)?)
 
Joe

For everyone saying how disappointing these numbers are (and I'm right there with you, 21 mpg for an Accord doesn't cut it), this will be the last generation of family sedans whose mpg can look like this. If the automakers want to get anywhere close to the new CAFE standards for 2020 we're going to see some significant changes in the next go-around of Accords and Camrys.

"The automakers are pitiful in this regard. And I am harshest on Honda, as an automaker that puts it's emphasis on powertrain technology, design, and efficiency and fuel economy. "
 
The public expects big power to be available and this is what you get. Dont blame automakers. If anything the mileage of these cars is impressive considering their hp ratings. 10 years ago most V6 cars made around 200hp and yet got similar mileage to these cars.
 
"If the automakers want to get anywhere close to the new CAFE standards for 2020 we're going to see some significant changes in the next go-around of Accords and Camrys."
 
yeah, changes like fewer V6 models sold and more high output I-4 engines. One way to reduce the penetration of V6 cars is to make them even more expensive and I bet that's what we will see going forward. For CAFE purposes its only important to control what you sell, not what you offer since the average is sales weighted.

i'm just going to say, all of the v6's mpg numbers are pretty crappy. shame on everyone to put their money into making more power that only increases performance by a little when they probably could have invested the same amount of money to make more efficiency
 
i hope cafe kicks all of their @sses

Maybe I don't get it because I am not an engineer, but it seems like today's V6 engines are not dramatically worse in the MPG department then the 4 cylinder options offered in the same car? If using the same technology and transmissions of today, Do you think a 200HP V6 engine would get dramatically more MPG then a 268HP engine?

Praising the Accord for being merely at par with the class fuel economy, despite the “innovative” VCM that in fact negatively impacts the power delivery, tells the story. Using the previous generation Accord for comparison instead the current models from its competitors tells even more.
I read this blog as one somewhat disappointing characteristic of the new Accord and Honda: fuel saving technology that doesn’t really deliver in the real world. Nissan and Toyota managed to deliver fuel economy AND performance in the same time, and GM is almost there too.
On the same note, every CRV review praises its fuel economy, but in fact its fuel economy is just at par with the other 4 bangers SUVs in the class – RAV4, Outlander, Rogue (source: 2008 EPA).

Wow, Bryn's been here on staff for about 5 seconds and apparently we've already biased her toward Honda. Our brainwashing department is really doing one hell of a job. I'll have to send them a box of cookies.

"I think the "Not too shabby" was in reference to the fact that the 2008 model has a larger engine with more power driving a heavier, larger car yet it gets slightly better mileage than the 2007, even with lead-footed staffers behind the wheel. No comparison was made to any other car. How is it possible to show bias when comparing a Honda to a Honda?
  
On a side note: Wow, how many Aura owners do we have on these boards?" -sabastian
 
Yep, that's pretty much it. Though I don't think we're any more lead-footed than the average enthusiast.

LOL....
 
What about being a Honda/Toyota fan is a prerequisite for getting the job at Edmunds.com?

Aren't you guys "lead-footed" with ALL the cars you test?
One other observation is that the 2008 Accord V6 real-world average (as observer by Edmunds) is below the EPA estimate for this car so again, you are not even “beating” the relevant estimate.
No one seems to care, other than Edmunds editors, about how it compares to the old Accord anyway.

"I'm disappointed in these averages."
 
How does it stand up to other V6 sedans in Edmunds fleet?
We've seen a lot of 120 mph 'test drives' and cruising at 90 mph for long stretches (the cylinder deactivation wouldn't kick in at those speeds) so if the car is pulling in an average of 21 with that driving syle it is pretty good.
 
I'd think with any car review the reviewers are going to be adjusting the throttle and making more high speed starts than a lot of drivers would in their day to day driving. Didn't I read a review of the Mazdaspeed3 where it got airborn for a bit. I wonder what kind of MPG it got on that run.
 
It would be great to see a real world 4-cylinder -vs- V6 MPG comparision. But then they'd have to buy 2 of each car. A flogged 4 cylinder would likely get worse than a calmly driven V6. So if you can drive the V6 with a lighter foot and still go as fast which one would be better for MPG?

dodo2- Consumer Reports cared, they found both the Accord 4 and V6 returned lower MPG than the previous version in their testing, and lower than the Camry and Altima 4 and V6s.....

"It would be great to see a real world 4-cylinder -vs- V6 MPG comparision. But then they'd have to buy 2 of each car. A flogged 4 cylinder would likely get worse than a calmly driven V6. So if you can drive the V6 with a lighter foot and still go as fast which one would be better for MPG?"
 
Interesting comment about lead-footedness. I remember a myth-busters a while back that tested fuel-saving myths. Their final conclusion was that your mood has the largest bearing on fuel economy. Moral of the story: Drive calmly and ye shall be rewarded.

21mpg in LA traffic is in line with the other sedans Edmunds has tested and considering the Accord's size and power is really pretty good.
 
Expecting better is a fault of ignorant expectations, not the car. It isn't a 2700lb compact, it isn't seeing much highway time, and LA defines stop and go.

alpha01 - OK. CR compared the fuel economy of the old and new Accord, but I wouldn’t think they did that because the new car buyers care. Of course, it is interesting to know how does it compare to understand if the VCM compensates for the increase in displacement and power and it seems like it doesn't.
One other thing, as you said, the CR compared the TESTED fuel economy, not the estimated 2007 EPA converted to 2008 like this blog does. If we would go by what the CR observed, it seems like the new Accord’s fuel economy is quite shabby in fact compared to the old model and more importantly to the current models from the competition.
Don’t get me wrong, the Accord is a perfectly fine vehicle for what it is, but the fuel economy, while good, is just on par at best with the other cars in the class. If you try to suggest otherwise, against the facts and numbers, you risk to be seen as biased.

"On the same note, every CRV review praises its fuel economy, but in fact its fuel economy is just at par with the other 4 bangers SUVs in the class – RAV4, Outlander, Rogue (source: 2008 EPA). "
 
I've been waiting for someone to point out you might as well get the RAV V6 over the CR-V since it gets the same mileage while making 103 more hp. The mileage of the CR-V is hardly impressive considering its slowness.
 
jriz,
 
You can keep offering smart aleck retorts but the truth of the matter is your staff is full of people partial to imports and smaller/sporty vehicles and you are based in one of the most import loving states in the nation. CA is not reality for the other 49 states and I think being based out there has a profound affect on your vehicle preferences and perceptions. Its quite apparent that most of your import long term cars are accepted with a presumption of excellence while your domestic entries are brought on board with a "lets see if this vehicle can win us over after a year" attitude.

1487 - I disagree with your comment to jriz.
 
Again this whole bias thing rear's it's ugly head. GM/Ford/Chrysler have been having problems now for awhile, losing alot of market share among other things. At the same time, import brands from Japan, Germany, and South Korea have either A. Produced products that captured more market share or B. Produced so few products that didn't gain market share that it did not effect the overall brand.
 
Meanwhile, the U.S. was producing products that slowly but surely lost market share.
 
These truths are reflected in reviews of the products named. You can blame it on poor product (Pontiac Aztek, Dodge Nitro, etc.) or poor management (the ridiculously extended launch of the solstice/sky that led to it being introduced in the colder months after enthusiasm had already started declining, the lack of market support for the Freestyle/Taurus X and brand crisis caused by constantly changing names). Either poor product or bad management, these manufacturers and their products have suffered grievously. The same can not be sad for their foreign competitors.
 
Now, the fact of the existence of ongoing struggles at GM/Ford/Chrysler are exhibit A. of their chronic product problems. If they made consistent (note I say consistent, they do make some good products) fantastic products, they would not be in nearly the bind they find themselves in. If they had been well-managed the past 15-25 years, they would have a different reputation.
 
But here we are. There is a reason GM's branding is "An American Revolution". They want to show people they are American, and that they are turning a corner. Their own execs admit to the product, production, and management problems they have had. They are improving, which has resulted in products like the Aura, Vue, Corvette, CTS.
 
If I were to get into a Hyundai Sonata and be pleasantly surprised by the solid design and execution, does that make me biased because of my past experiences? If I were to get into a BMW 3-seriesand be surprised by it's mouse-fur headliners, does that make me biased because in the past they have used much richer materials?
 
Your suggestion of bias is based upon a false impression. Everytime anyone gets into a car we benchmark it against our previous knowledge of that car and others. That's not bias....that's experience.
 
That's why a 9 year old says "wow" the first time they get into an 82 corvette. Because it's cool and different from what they've seen. But me? I say "Wow this is cheap and poorly put together". Because it was. And God bless them for improving.
 
I've seen irrational bias. I own a Honda Civic, and there are tons of 18-22 year old Honda Civic lovers who are irrational. I've also seen acquantaines of mine, including a close friend, curse out someone at an auto show looking at the Tundra. They didn't know them. That's bias.
 
Joe

Good points, Joe. And for the record, the 3-Series has a very nice woven headliner. :-)

Bravo, Joe.
 
The important thing is for everyone to remain rational. Look at me, I own a Saab. I will never try to convince anyone that a Saab is the best car for the money, because it isn't. BMW, Audi, and Mercedes were miles ahead of Saab when my car was made. If my Saab was a long-term car, I can think of many things for the editors to bash and rightly so. I may not agree with some of it, (Center console ignition is cool!) but people are entitled to their opinion. That's what this blog is about, by the way.
 
Here's my opinion on the Accord vs. Aura debate. The Accord is too big and too slow. The Aura looks better, has a more interesting interior, and a shiftable automatic. It's the one I'd go for. It's obviously a good car, and so is the Malibu. Just read Edmunds' tests of them. I realize, however, that there are faults. The interior has some cheap bits, and Edmunds example has had a few (minor) problems. Still, it's the one I'd go for. Here's the part where being rational comes into play: Even though I've made my decision, I still keep an open mind. Remember when Kurt blogged about the remote start. I disagreed, but that was his opinion (Remember, this blog is about the editors' real world impressions).
 
Folks here seem to be quick to point the finger of bias at the editors when they disagree with a review, but I wonder if those people actually stopped and thought about the products currently offered by Ford/GM/Chrysler. Is the Sebring really on par with the class leaders? What about the Focus? Or the Impala? Do those who accuse Edmunds of an import bias truely believe that Ford/GM/Chrysler each have an entire lineup of cars that are capable of being best in the world? Like Joe said, there are exceptions. The new Malibu, CTS, and Corvette come to mind, and these products have subsequently been praised by press.
 
1487-Your comment about "lets see if this vehicle can win us over after a year" isn't an entirely surprising attitude for the press to have given Ford/GM/Chrysler's past performance. These companies need to prove to the public that they can make world class cars again. This isn't bias. This something that needs to happen. Ford and Chryslyer's respective financial situations are proof of that. GM, to its credit, has made leaps and bounds (again, CTS, Malibu, Corvette).
 
And one last comment: This blog entry was about the fuel economy of the new Accord vs. the old one, and it was made by a new staffer. No mention was made about any other car made by any other company, "import" or "domestic." Everyone just needs to go get some ice cream and chill out a little. They're just cars, people.

Joe:
There are different ways to be bias. Some are irrational as you mentioned, but some are hidden behind interpretations, omissions, context, ignorance, etc.

Just so everybody is properly informed. The Nissan Altima's V6 uses premium gas, so those who make excuses about bad honda engineering just know that the accord makes the same power with regular gas. Also the Nissan is rated for 2008 with 19cty/26hwy, and its also a smaller and therefore lighter car (193 lbs lighter). And current EPA estimates are very acurate. Driving in LA is not best place to get mileage since its all stop and go. People should know the facts before they mouth off.

Dodo -
 
I agree, to a point. My wife has become somewhat biased against american cars because she owns a 2003 Saturn Ion, among other reasons (I'm slowly teaching her that not all American made cars are crap). That's not a preference for imports. It's a learned response.
 
I've been in various Ford Foci over the years. It was a great car in 2000. Now it's a really ugly, really out-dated car in 2008. I was depressed by the "refresh" Ford offered. I don't have high hopes for the next one, unless it is the "european Ford Focus" and it is not Hecho en Mexico. Is that bias? If I'm pleasantly surprised by a new made in US version, is that bias?
 
Bias is an irrational prejudice against something. But when a common trend emerges, is that bias?
 
Is it bias to say that I would not recommend a VW to a friend based upon their reliability record? That's a common theme, although there are many outliers who say they've had spotless VW ownership.
 
If you can't make a substantive argument, and just go off a "gut feeling" that bias exists, then you show your own willingness to give into the very prejudice you point to.
 
These threads should be filled with substantive arguments, and not gut feelings.
 
Joe

Pman -
 
The altima actually makes more power than the Accord. It's mid-range and area-under-the-curve power is much broader than the Accord's.
 
Furthermore, on the Accord V6 Sedan (which is an automatic only) the powerband is even more choked off because the automatic will not often allow the engine to hit power peak. It will shift early.
 
Joe

Joe:
"If you can't make a substantive argument, and just go off a "gut feeling" that bias exists..."
 
This is one of the bias evidence I'm talking about and here it is an example for illustration:
In a given test, where the greater number is better, Car A measures "1" and Car B measures "2". In the end, Car A scores higher in the test because it "feels" better.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I call this bias.

"In a given test, where the greater number is better, Car A measures "1" and Car B measures "2". In the end, Car A scores higher in the test because it "feels" better.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I call this bias."
 
Preference, not bias, is the word you're looking for.

You don't drive numbers, dodo2. Objective measurements (numbers) are only one part of an evaluation.
  
Subjective impressions are crucial to a successful or pleasant driving experience. OEMs expend huge energies trying to nail down the subjective "feel" of a car. Sometimes they succeed. Often they don't.
  
So, no, "feel" does not equate to "bias."

"10 years ago most V6 cars made around 200hp and yet got similar mileage to these cars."
 
1487, the overall paper figures may be similar but todays cars are far heavier, far safer and have much more power than cars of 10 years ago. Yes, that makes them more efficient.
 
I wouldnt actually call the VCM system "high tech" as it further exploits various uses for Hondas i-VTEC technology. You also have to consider this engines architectures age as it dates back to 1996! The Honda J series V6 debuted in the 1997 Acura 3.0 CL coupe and the 1998 Honda Accord V6. Id certainly like to see a new Honda V6 as well as a 6AT as the VCM engines dont impress me in the least bit even though I own one.

upon reading that Bryn is a new editor, I will cut him some slack. However, the other editors should have warned him, so bad on them.
 
So far, with the Accord averaging 21.4, it appears that the VCM is not working in the real world any better than GM's system. It does however, allow Honda to game the test, so to speak. Honda can advertise that the Accord gets the best highway mileage. GM is able to do the same with its cylinder deactivation system for the Tahoe, Suburban and pickups.
 
The more I read about the Accord, the more I am surprised at either how the Accord has slipped, or how the others have improved. Not sure how to apportion each part.
 
I do feel better each day, knowing my mileage is comparable to the Accord. What I am more surprised is that the best mileage obtained was 26.3. That is actually quite low. Take the Accord to Vegas and see what you get. Then let us know.
 
For many of us, bias is 21.4 mpg Accord, good
21.4 mpg Aura, bad.

Well, Bryn, I think you've met most of the bunch now. Welcome aboard!

No, I don’t drive numbers, but numbers give me and indication that one car is faster than another just to use an example. I'm only talking about the characteristics that are measurable and usually appear in the performance sheet.
No, you cannot measure design for instance and this is why a certain percentage in any comparison is allocated for the reviewers’ personal preference. However, this percentage should be rather small, and usually it is, simply because is a very personal matter. I'm not talking about this component at all.
Just to give you an example, when car A hits 60 mph in 8 seconds and car B hits 60 mph in 10 seconds, you cannot be credible when you give car B a higher score in the acceleration test, regardless of "feel", "preference" or any other word you may come up with. This is called bias as far as the comparison is concerned. Sure, you may choose to rate the slower car higher in the subjective evaluation because it feels better to you or you have a preference for that car, but this doesn’t change the fact that the car A is faster than the car B and the acceleration section should reflect that.

For a dedicated fuel economy comparison test to be relevant, ideally, the cars should be driven precisely back-to-back. There are too many environmental factors to impact the fuel economy. The cars should also be prepared accordingly - tire pressure, full tank of gas, A/C or no A/C, etc. It would be interesting though.

"21.4 mpg Accord, good 21.4 mpg Aura, bad"
 
While I agree that the 21.4 mpg are not something to brag about, I would consider that the Accord offers more space (therefore more weight that drives mpg down), as a possible explanation of the above judgment.
If you need the space then the 21.4 mpg are welcome.
DISCLAIMER: I own an I4 EXL 2008 Accord and I am happy with it.

I don't know how by increasing fuel economy from 26hwy to 29hwy is "gaming the test". If you drive on the highway at reasonable speeds for a tank of gas, that tank will get 29mgp, there is no arguing that fact. Of course stop and go is going to kill mpg.
 
And the J series engine is impressive because its NVH is best in class, and its SOHC design may seem "low tech" but is much more ccmpact design than a DOHC V-6 while being less expensive to manufacture. And if you want to talk about engines, the Nissan VQ series V-6 debued back in 1994. And honestly many changes are made to the engines in every application, so the VQ series engine in the GT-R is very different than the one in the Altima, but they both VQ series engines.
Also, on paper yes, the Altima engine makes more power "under the curve", it should, running on premium, however paper doesnt mean real life, as shown here: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=123357/pageNumber=1
 
The VCM-less accord engine is far better than VQ series nissan engine, even with it running on regular versus premium, and that doesnt even mention the quality difference between honda and nissan. And don't give me that stuff about a "Friday ca"

Aurakr - The Accord has achieved 21.4mpg over the life of the car. The Aura's 21.4mpg figure was the result of a road trip made up of primarily highway driving. Here's the link: http://66.160.188.111/roadtests/1709

I'd love to see some real-world numbers comparing the VCM Accord V6 Sedan with its non-VCM 6 sp. Accord Coupe counterpart. I would be surprised - though pleasantly so - if the numbers were that different.
 
Jaeger

Jaeger, the milage would be different as the 6MT coupe has very short gear ratios compared to the wide ratio 5AT VCM V6.
 
Id certainly give up 1-3 miles per gallon for the non VCM V6 as it makes almost 30lbft MORE in the midrange. The V6 6MT car also traps in the 101+ range, so its MUCH faster.

hondacura4 - I agree completely would make the same choice. I'd still like to know how much better the fuel economy is for the VCM - particularly on the highway, where it would most make its presence felt.
 
I haven't checked the numbers, but is the 5th gear on the VCM Sedan actually taller than 6th on the ^MT Coupe?
 
Jaeger

sabastian
 
Do you own an XR? I do, the mileage is figured out over the life of the car, not just one tankful.
 
For example, before my wife and I went to Las Vegas, we were averaging just over 19 mpg. After that trip, and two tanfuls at 27-28 mpg, the overall average on the car's computer showed 21.3 mpg. Get it, it averages it over the LIFE of the car.
 
It is the same as my wife's 2000 Venture LT. The car has 81000 miles and it has averaged 20.4 miles per gallon over 81,000 miles, not the last tank.
 
Therefore, at that time, the XR had averaged 21.4 mpg. The editors are reporting the Accord as averaging 21.4 mpg.

Whoa! Easy there, aurakr. I don't own an Aura XR, but I do own a GM car. The mileage on my trip computer is able to be reset at any time, but like Aura, averages over a given time. Given GM's penchant for parts-bin scavenging, I figured the system in the Aura would be similar. The blog entry that I highlighted made it sounds to me like the 21.4mpg figure was just over that particular trip. If the 21.4mpg figure is indeed the lifetime fuel economy of the Aura, that is, frankly, a bit disappointing given that (A) the Aura is less powerful than the Accord, (B) lighter than the Accord, (C) smaller than the Accord, and has (D) one more cog in the gearbox than the Accord. That said 21.4mpg isn't exactly stellar for the Accord either, given its fancy-shmancy VCM system.

"Subjective impressions are crucial to a successful or pleasant driving experience. OEMs expend huge energies trying to nail down the subjective "feel" of a car. Sometimes they succeed. Often they don't. "
 
Yes this is the same refrain we hear from C&D when asked to explain why the often pick their favorite models over better performing and cheaper rivals. While numbers dont tell the whole story you have to understand why people get skeptical when auto writers sing the praises of a particular model that doesnt seem to offer any objective advantage over the competition. This seems to be happening more and more as the REAL differences between the long preferred imports and their challengers are minimized. So it doesn't matter if a Malibu or Aura can match an Accord in performance and price and build quality because at the end of the day the Honda just "feels' better in every way. Results that can't be quantified can be hard to accept at times, especially when those intagibles always seem to help out the usual suspects.
 
sebastian,
 
you can reset the trip computer whenever you want. Its pretty simple. If you dont reset it you will get an AVERAGE for the life of the vehicle.. It doesn't reset automatically just because you get gas. Also, the Aura isnt lighter than the Accord so you need to revisit the facts. GM's 3.6L engine isnt known for stellar gas mileage but it is known for decent torque and a broad torque curve. In the Aura peak torque comes on at 3200rpm which is low for a NA DOHC engine.

1487 - You're right on the weight thing. I had my figures reversed. It's pretty astonishing, however, that the smaller Aura is heavier than the Accord. I understand the workings of the trip computer, I was simply stating that the mileage update on the Aura that I was referring to made it sound like the mileage was taken just over that trip (ie that the computer had been reset prior to the trip). I figured that, had that particular update been a mileage update over the life of the Aura, it would have been presented in the format that this particular blog entry has been presented (ie best tank, worst tank, etc).

Comparing the Accord and Aura's mileage at all on this blog is nefarious. The two cars are driven to different places by different drivers at different times. The long-term blog cannot be scientific in this way. I recall that quite a few people here mentioned this fact quite rightly when one LT blog reported the Aura's mileage and compared it to the LT Camry.
 
However, many of our LT cars have managed to match the EPA combined number, which is why this blog simply mentioned the difference between the new V6 Accord versus the old V6 Accord.

Yes, the Accord has more peak horsepower, but it doesn't actually accelerate faster. Therefore, with the VCM, it is a statistical tie between the Aura and the Accord.
 
Various tests have revealed that most of the time the Aura is slightly quicker to 60 mph and through the quarter mile.
 
The best 0-60 time I have seen for the Accord is 6.3. The best for the Aura is 5.9.
 
The Aura is slightly heavier, most publications have it at around 3660 pounds. I have seen the Accord as high as 3600 pounds. Not a big difference.
 
The difference appears to be in sound deadening areas. The Aura is reported to be much quieter than the Accord.
 
The Accord is bigger on the inside, no question. However, for fuel efficiency, there appears to be no difference. The 6 speed appears to overcome the 16 horsepower deficiency plus. In addition, the 6 speed appears to negate the VCM or at least equalize it.
 
The question is now, why do we give Honda praise for their efficiency, when it appears they are no more efficient than GM, Toyota and Nissan?
 
The next test will come in April when GM matches the 2.4 with a 6 speed auto. Then it will time for another test, the Accord, Altima, Aura/Malibu and Camry with 4 cylinder/automatics. Should be very, very interesting.
 
Sabastian, I apologize. It just so frustrating, because this is what has, and is happening in the auto world. Foreign cars are painted as real fuel efficient, and domestics as not. Even when they average the same mpg. This was a good example. The editor is pleased with 21.4 with the Accord. When we point out the Aura is averaging the same, there is denial. No way a domestic can be the same, must be some kind of trick. As I pointed out before, the only reason the Camry was so high for Edmunds was the incredible amount of long trips it went on.

aurakr - I realize that you are frustrated, but there are a couple things to consider before calling "bias." First is that, as James restated, this entry only compared the new Accord to the old one. Second, is that, the "not too shabby" statement was made in reference to the fact that the new, heavier, more powerful Accord actually did better than the old one. Thirdly, the Aura was never mentioned in the blog entry. It was brought up in the first comment by (surprise!) an Aura owner.
 
I find it a little ridiculous that a blog that doesn't even mention the Aura has become yet another debate on its behalf.

"1487 - You're right on the weight thing. I had my figures reversed. It's pretty astonishing, however, that the smaller Aura is heavier than the Accord. "
 
First of all, the Aura's rear seat room is virtually identical to the Accord. Secondly the Aura/Malibu have larger trunks than the Accord. The Accord has more interior volume and that can best be seen in the rear headroom and shoulder room apparently. It's not like the Accord is MUCH bigger than the Aura. The epsilon cars are heavy because of sound deadening, exceptional rigidity and the fact they are based on Euro focused platform. American and European cars are typically heavier than their Japanese counterparts of similar size. I was in a camry this past weekend and I cant tell you the doors feel light and cheap compared to the Aura. There is no way you get a "premium" car feel by slamming those doors. I'm not sure why you are so determined to prove there is no bias when it comes to auto evaluation. You can deem the reaction to some of the Accord posts to be the works of an organized pro-Aura faction or you can just accept the fact that many people (including non Aura owners and some Honda fans) are not impressed with the Accord and yet the edmunds staff cant seem to find a single flaw. The WSJ just had an article about the Malibu that mentioned the Accord and they werent nearly as impressed.
 
"Comparing the Accord and Aura's mileage at all on this blog is nefarious. The two cars are driven to different places by different drivers at different times. The long-term blog cannot be scientific in this way. I recall that quite a few people here mentioned this fact quite rightly when one LT blog reported the Aura's mileage and compared it to the LT Camry. "
 
After enough miles have been racked up you can say that the mileage figures can be compared. I think you know this. If both cars only had 2000 miles on the odometer and one had been been driven exclusively on the highway then your point would be valid. I think its safe to assume after several months that both vehicles have seen a similar mix in drivers and driving conditions. Is your point that the Accord would really have better mileage if it had the exact same trip history as the Aura? The Aura/Camry issue came up because people noted the Camry had been on several long highway trips that would boost its overall mileage while the Aura hadn't been on any. Unless you have noted otherwise I would assume the Aura nor Accord have been on any major long distance highway runs.

"I'm not sure why you are so determined to prove there is no bias when it comes to auto evaluation."
 
First, the fact that I disagree should be reason enough. The comments section of these blogs are designed so that readers can give input on the blog entries. I do not question your right to post here. Don't question mine.
Second, There is bias in auto evaluation. It exists in your posts. I'm sure you would deny it, but I don't see the point in arguing with someone who sends a check to Saturn every month.

"Don't question mine. "
 
Never did, you need to relax. You keep saying there is no such things as bias but you haven't said why it's impossible. There is plenty of evidence and in spite of the fact that some positive comments have been posted about some american vehicles you can rest assured American vehicles are seen as inferior on edmunds. Its been like that since I've been around and I don't see it changing. You tell me the last time an American vehicle won or placed 2nd in a comparo test here that featured imports.
 
"Second, There is bias in auto evaluation. It exists in your posts. I'm sure you would deny it, but I don't see the point in arguing with someone who sends a check to Saturn every month."
 
LOL, thats a good one. I'm not biased, I just don't worship Toyota and Honda like you apparently do. It's that simple. You have never heard me say that the Aura or any other GM car is flawless (although CTS is pretty close) so your assertion that I am biased is a joke. I merely argue (with factual backing) that the best American cars are as good as the best imports. You disagree apparently because you are one of many who believes any cars built or designed here by a US company HAVE to be inferior because the Asians/Germans are just so much smarter. I disagree and my seat time in the Camry convinced me I am not mistaken. Its all about double standards and you are a chief proponent of them I see. YOu want flawless execution from a GM vehicle and have nothing but excuses when flaws are pointed out in supposedly superior imports. Again, just show me some examples of my rampant "bias". To be bias to have to favor one thing over another with no justification. I believe I have provided by justification for my opinions.

"You tell me the last time an American vehicle won or placed 2nd in a comparo test here that featured imports."
 
I'll give you something even better.
 
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12502/2007-chevrolet-silverado-vs-2007-dodge-ram-vs-2007-ford-f-150-vs-2007-nissan-titan-vs-2007-toyota-tundra.html
 
The CTS, Malibu, and Corvette also made it into the 10Best, and do you know why? I bet they deserved it.
 
You seem to love to make these debates about import vs domestic cars, but answer a few questions for me. 1) What would Edmunds motive be for such bias? Is it because they're in California? Car and Driver is in Michigan. What's their excuse? Is it some organized coup to bring down Ford/GM/Chrysler? That makes about as much sense as the pro-Aura faction that you mentioned before. Or could it be the simplest explanation: All of the mid-size offerings are so similar to each other that the smallest things set them apart. Look at the Edmunds and MT comparisons of the mid-sizers. Edmunds had the Camry last and the Altima second. MT had the Altima last and the Camry first. The argument could be made that Edmunds was biased against the Camry for being so boring. Don't believe me? It was bashed repeatedly in this very blog, but do you know what? It didn't have a single mechanical issue.
2) Look at the list of auto makers that sell cars in America. What percentage are domestic? It's not "us" and "them."
 
"I just don't worship Toyota and Honda like you apparently do."
 
Don't assume. I've stated repeatedly that I prefer the Aura to Accord, but frankly, I happen to believe that the only thing worse than a bad car is a boring one. I despise Toyota for that reason. I despise Honda slightly less (thanks to the S2000 and Civic Si).
 
"show me some examples of my rampant "bias"."
 
Show me a time when you came to the defense of an import car. A truely unbiased reader surely would have found something to mention.
 
"I believe I have provided by justification for my opinions."
 
You wrote a lot of words in your last post and not a single one pointed to a concrete example of bias. Joe mentioned something before that is very important, "If you can't make a substantive argument, and just go off a "gut feeling" that bias exists, then you show your own willingness to give into the very prejudice you point to."

sebastian,
 
you just dont get it. There is no reason for the bias. Edmunds staffers are from CA which is import crazy. My guess is they drive imports in their personal lives. My guess is most of them havent owned a newly purchased domestic model in the last 20 years. Its the same with CR. CR likes what Honda and Toyota do and if you do something different its deemed inferior and your car gets slammed in a review. Thats the way it is. This is why Hondas and BMWs win 90% of the C&D comparisons they enter. If you do something differently from BMW C&D isnt going to like it and you will lose. Its follow BMW and HOnda or lose, period.
 
You want bias? read the review of the Tahoe hybrid and then the Highlander hybrid. First of all they give an incorrect price differential between the tahoe hybrid and the base mode. Secondly, based on that false price gap they question whether or not the hybrid makes sense. Read the Highlander review and you will see no such concerns were mentioned in spite of the fact that the Highlander hybrid has a $6400 premium over the gas only model. The Tahoe Hybrid actually has a SMALLER price gap than that but they were skeptical about the Tahoe and effusive in their praise of the Toyota.
 
C&d makes it clear that while they are in michigan (the auto industry used to be based there so it makes sense) the best cars come from Germany and Japan. If you read C&D you know they spend lots of time rehashing how bad Detroit's products have been and in some cases still are today. They show absolutely no fondness for the majority of the domestic vehicles they review, especially if they are being compared to imports. The vette is really the only exception.
 
"Don't believe me? It was bashed repeatedly in this very blog, but do you know what? It didn't have a single mechanical issue. "
 
comparos are not tests of long term reliability. In direct comparison most professionals think the Malibu is better than the Camry. To say that anyone who suggests otherwise is biased because the Camry is reliably makes no sense. All the cars are close, but if thats the case why cant the domestic vehicle ever come out on top? C&D just ranked the Accord #1 for the umpteenth time in a comparo. No mention of its styling, no mention of its highest in test price, no mention of the fact that it was loudest at full throttle (Malibu was quietest), no mention of the fact it didnt win one single performance category, etc. It wins because its an Accord and they pretty much say as much. The Malibu beats the Accord in as many ways as the Accord tops the Malibu and yet you dont see the Malibu winning any comparos. CR's latest issue praises the Malibu but ranks it below all its Japanese competition just so you know its still inferior. Come on man, the writing is on the wall. The media is enamored with Asian cars and has little faith that the Big 3 can ever really compete. GM is starting to get some respect but the bottom line is generally speaking the press believes that cars engineered by foreign manufacturers are superior.
 
"Don't assume. I've stated repeatedly that I prefer the Aura to Accord,"
 
first I have heard of that.
 
"Show me a time when you came to the defense of an import car. A truely unbiased reader surely would have found something to mention."
 
why would I ever need to? What imports are under attack? What you are saying makes no sense. I am trying to point out inconsistencies in attitudes and comments about certain vehicles. I dont need to "defend" the Accord or Mini because they are loved by the staff at Edmunds. Most import cars (in fact most cars) today are more than adequate, but I want them to be scrutinized the same way domestics have been for years. I want dull styling and cheap plastics called out along with higher prices, lack of roadside assistance, lesser warranties, etc. I have seen numerous complaints about the Malibu lacking nav and BT. The Avenger/Sebring offer both plus exclusive MyGig system and have gotten no credit for any of it because everyone has bashed those cars. They are the best ever, but they have all the tech that the media supposedly likes and dont even get recognized for it because everyone is trying to come up with more ways to bash them. Any feature offered on imports (Nav, BT, pushbutton start) becomes a must have feature but when a domestic brand debuts something (sync, MyGig, Onstar) the reaction is totally different. No one will review aN Accord and say "it would be nice if Honda offered MyGig or Sync" because whatever Honda doesnt offer you dont need according to the press. Conversely the media acts like BT is a must have because all the Japanese cars offer it. NEver mind the fact you have to spend big bucks to get it and most buyers opt not to pay for it.
 
Please spare me the "whats a domestic these days?" stuff. I know all that but vehicles are judged based on where their manufacturers lie, not where they are built. Any US built BMW is going to be loved more than a US built Ford or Chrysler product. Where the vehicle is built doesn't matter at all.

"I find it a little ridiculous that a blog that doesn't even mention the Aura has become yet another debate on its behalf."
  
Amen to that. Amazing (and annoying) just how often this happens. Can anyone spell a-g-e-n-d-a?