2008 Honda Accord EX-L V6: Midsize Excellence, But Hold the "L" and the V6

The V6 in the Accord Sedan is nearly as fuel efficient (and much quicker) than either the 177HP or 190HP 4-Cylinder options. It's actually startling to look at the EPA mileage figures for the 6-Speed V6 coupe to see what a difference VCM makes in the V6 Sedan/auto-equipped coupe.
 
Loading up an Accord does take it away from it's target market, but keep in mind the volume seller is the 4-Cylinder LX model, so I guess the majority of Accord buyers agree with you! =)
 
I will say that, at roughly $26k, the V6 EX-L (sans navigation) is a screaming value for anyone looking to get copious amounts of luxury features at a bargain price, without sacrificing too much fuel economy.

Wow, the cabin layout between the old Accord and the new one is night and day.

daytona: Yeah, I know the center stack controls are all funky in the new Accord, and the nav system is obviously no longer a touchscreen... But I see similarities between old and new when it comes to seating position, placement/logic of the storage areas, the design of the gauges and the actual materials used. Even without the "H" badges, I would know these 2 cars are related. -ER

"the amazing feeling of spaciousness when you're seated in the cockpit"
 
One reason: it's a big car.

I've test-driven Accord with the both engines. I was not impressed with power of new V6, but it's more quiet and comes with a better looking front bumper than the 4 cydr model. Not a big fan of leather, but auto A/C is only comes with leather trim.

"The V6 in the Accord Sedan is nearly as fuel efficient (and much quicker) than either the 177HP or 190HP 4-Cylinder options. It's actually startling to look at the EPA mileage figures for the 6-Speed V6 coupe to see what a difference VCM makes in the V6 Sedan/auto-equipped coupe"
 
The gearing in the 6MT coupe is MUCH tighter than the 5AT, add in the torque sucking VCM and you have a huge difference in performance. So expect the 5AT V6 to be more efficient.
 
Ive seen published acceleration numbers for the 08 Accord 6MT V6 coupe, the fastest to date was 14.0 @ 102 MPH. The Honda 3.5 w/6MT without the VCM system is simply a beast!

Right now configuring an EX Accord with the 190 hp engine costs $24k, and the EX-V6 is only $26k. While the higher-output 4-cylinder sounds like a nice happy medium, that small difference would make the V6 too tempting. No leather? I could see doing that, but, again, only another $2k to add it! Pretty soon I'll be into a G35.
 
I'm still waiting for the look to grow on me though. Still looks too big and weird.

why would anyone buy a 177HP accord when the 190HP EX has the same consumption and almost a second faster 0-60mph (8.4sec)? I am sure there is a difference in price, but remember that the new Accord is a big heavy car. The LX engine hardly manages to move the car around.
I bought an EX-L 4cyl with nav. and I feel pretty satisfied. Best interior quality in the class makes it a bargain if you want to save money buying an Accord than a more luxurious category car with minimal trade offs.

To John Marco, the EX I4 is the volume seller. With the way car sales are tanking you can name your own price on this model.
 
The negotiating room on the V6s and Ls is much less because there are less of them. Coupes even worse so.
 
With the help of Edmunds, I was able to name my own price on an EX I4, far from the sticker.
 
http://weakonomics.com/2008/03/10/the-weakonomist-buys-a-car/
 
I agree with the post, and got the EX I4 because thats what an Accord is. If wanted to drop $30 large on a Honda, I would have bought a TSX.

"My favorite detail is the amazing feeling of spaciousness when you're seated in the cockpit -- something that no other manufacturer has quite managed to copy over the years.'
 
Have you been in the Taurus/Sable? The old Accord wasn't even that big. The new one is the first Accord that is substantially larger than its counterparts from other brands. Until recently Asian midsize cars were typically on the small side of the spectrum. The Accord and Sonata have started moving in the opposite direction.
 
Honda's USED to have low dashes. The current Accord actually has one of the highest dashes in the segment and the open feeling found in old Hondas is long gone.
 
As for the V6- there is no point in sacrificing hp to gain a mere 2mpg in efficiency. I would skip the I-4 and the sluggish acceleration times that come with it.

I see one of these every day parked in my work parking lot, and I still think its hideous - especially the back end. If the car is as good as everyone says, its a shame it looks so ugly.
 
The coupe is better, though.

banhugh - +1 on the EX I-4. Even if the V-6 is faster and almost economical, it's not worth the price premium. And an EX I4 w/cloth has all of the features you'd need, realistically. It's the value spot in this lineup by far.
 
Good post & point, Erin.

This Accord impresses me in the same vein as Erin noted. It's a large car, but it drives like a medium mid-sized vehicle, with clear sightlines and a solid ability to know where the front bumper ends. The first time I got into it, I was impressed by my instant ability to navigate the car into a tight parking space. Something it took me 10k+ miles to master in my 06 Civic SI.
 
It's dash is definitely deeper/taller than the Accord of 2000, but the seating position has correspondingly risen.
 
In this way, it reminds me alot of driving a BMW 3-series. Somehow the driving position ensconces you AND puts you "on the road". I don't really know how, but I'm sure there is some magic measurement to it.
 
I haven't driven an automatic Accord 4-cyl, but I did driven the 5-speed manual. I would not consider it a slouch....I think it accelerates in about the same vein as a Civic 5-speed manual, which is "sprightly". But it's not engaging either. If you haven't driven an Accord 5-speed, you are missing out on an experience. The shifter/trans/clutch is just about idiot-proof....it's damn near impossible to stall, shift too fast or too slow, or let the clutch out in a jerk-inducing manner. At the same time, it's satisfying to operate. Eh :)
 
HondaAcura - The Accord Coupe 6mt has been timed at a 14 second quarter mile? I have a hard time believing that. Or I should say, I have a hard time believing that's repeatable. It's FWD, no LSD, and it's quite a heavy car. I'd think 14.4-14.5.
 
Regarding pricing: I agree with some other folks that have hit upon....TSX/G35 and other entry-level luxury cars.
 
For only a slight increase in price, you can get into a TSX (or, for a slight increase over an Accord v6 EX-L a G35).
 
Of course there are some trade-offs, but those entry-level luxos also have some very nice additional features, ride quality/handling, refinement in noise, owner care services, etc.
 
It's always up to personal choice, but there is no longer quite as much seperation there.
 
Joe
 
P.s. I wouldn't want to buy the new TSX....it's so hideous. A new front end and a diesel engine with a 6-speed manual could affect my decision....

Thanks picswim. I wasn't aware that there was so much room to negotiate on the EXs. That makes a delta of more like $6k instead of $2k.
 
Regarding a 4-cylinder being what an Accord really is: it doesn't matter what an Accord "really is." It only matters what you want and are willing to pay for.

Erin- I have to agree! Mostly. I get regular seat time in an EX I4, and it does have that "premium" feeling to it. The rides a little bumpy at times, but it still manages to be very composed and refined feeling. And it is undeniably huge, both inside and outside. I pulled up behind a newer DeVille in it at the stoplight the other night, and actually thought it looked small! But it's great that the car both feels huge and drives small at the same time. And, while it's not perfect, the I4 is definitely more than adequate, but then I don't drive overly powerful cars all the time. And while the cloth seats may be comfortable, I haven't gotten out of the car Once without getting shocked! Maybe it's because they're new and still "grippy" or something, but it's extremely aggravating.
 
Banhugh- Be careful comparing numbers from different publications. Car and Driver got a Malibu to 60 in 8.7 seconds- it took Edmunds 9.5 seconds. Same car, different testing procedures. Remember 13hp isn't that big of a deal, and torque is only up 1 lb/ft, so daily driving is indistinguishable between the two.
 
Louiswei- You've GOT to be smoking. Or at least you were when you had your '97 Accord. My '94 is about the smallest, most cramped thing I've ever been in. I can see out of it really well, but Out is exactly where I'd like to be! I honestly had more space in a Yaris, especially the back seat. And don't even try puting anything in the trunk.
 
And, per the Honda website, an EX I4 is $24,495, and an EX V6 is $26,595 (dest. included). NO WAY is a V6 worth over $2000. That's just ludicrous.
 
Edit: Forgot to add that it only feels relatively small/nimble until you turn your head. When I look left (to see see out of the window to merge into traffic) I feel like I'm peering tippy-toed over a tall wall, and I'm 6'-3''! And don't even Think about backing this beast anywhere.

The last generation I4 5MT was the perfect Accord. Anyone else agree?

"the amazing feeling of spaciousness"
I test drove one not long ago; this is a big car. It felt big, and looked big. I never thought I would say that about an Accord.
 
I liked the drive, the seats were comfortable, the V6 was strong.
The exterior is ok, nothing to write home about. The interior - well - it would take me, some considerable time to warm up to the dash.

sandcountry360, did I say my '97 Accord is a big car? All I said is that due to the big and deep windshield and ultra-low dash it appears to be more spacious FROM THE DRIVER SEAT than it really is.
 
What's that good thing you were smoking while reading my post?

I also like the Accord, but cannot figure for the life of me how they can offer this care without a trip computer, unless one pays for the nav system. Even Hyundai's Elantra has one.

"And an EX I4 w/cloth has all of the features you'd need, realistically."
 
I think you mean all the features YOU need. ONe thing I cant stand about Hondas is that you cannot customize your car. Honda fans and the media never complain about this but it stinks if you ask me.
 
Honda and Toyota have long charged huge premiums for V6 engines so the new Accord is no different.
 
I think people who believe the Accord is the only car that feels "premium" in this price segment should drive some other cars. Most 2008 midsize sedans have a level of quiet and ride damping that makes their predecessors seem unrefined by comparison. I have family members with a 2008 Impala and compared to their 1998 sedan the Chevy seems luxury car quiet and rides like a Cadillac.
 
"I also like the Accord, but cannot figure for the life of me how they can offer this care without a trip computer, unless one pays for the nav system. Even Hyundai's Elantra has one."
 
This is what Honda does. If you want such "luxuries" you better pony up money for the top model. Same goes for XM radio which is unavailable on the bottom three trims. XM is standard on Malibu and Aura and several other cars. Auto off lights arent even standard equipment on the Accord.
 
I agree with joefromPA about the TSX's styling. Not attractive.

Commenter #9 said: Why would anyone buy a 177HP accord when the 190HP EX has the same consumption and almost a second faster 0-60mph (8.4sec)?
 
The question should be how much faster is the 190hp engine in real world driving?
 
Another blog entry in the past month addressed this a bit.
 
What is the torque curve on the 190ho engine? VTEC's a well known for high hp and poor torque.
 
The older I get (I'm 43) the more important real world performance (stop and go traffic, short errand runs) becomes and the less valuable a fast 0-60 run and slalom time are.

"Honda's USED to have low dashes. The current Accord actually has one of the highest dashes in the segment and the open feeling found in old Hondas is long gone."
 
Wow...1487 and I finally agree on something and its related to a Honda product! =)
 
This is true, gone are the days of the low cowls in favor of the ACE body structure. If youve ever driven a 90's Honda or Acura the green houses were HUGE in a good way. Visibility was excellent and it made the cars feel airy and even more roomy than one would suggest. This is one reason why I still own an older Honda.
 
The NSX was probably the best example of that signature Honda low cowl design that Honda had as the cabin had that "fighter jet canopy" feeling.

"What is the torque curve on the 190ho engine? VTEC's a well known for high hp and poor torque."
 
Actually "VTEC's" have very flat torque curves but peak torque is usually delivered around 4500-5000RPM. Its not that thay have low torque they just deliver it in a different way.

And I'm just saying that it's impossible for anything to even Feel Spacious when the steering wheel's in my chest and my knees are shoved up into the dash. To me a low dash just makes it easier to see out of; doesn't really make it feel any more spacious but, obviously, that's just me. The new Accord has a high dash and a super high beltline, but it feels like I'm cruising around in the Titanic.
 
Danny- I'm pretty sure the torque curves are almost exactly the same. The EX has a 1 lb/ft advantage over the EX, but that's it. I think the EX gets most of its power from a few hundred extra RPM. It's mostly just a marketing ploy to get people to pay up for the higher trim.

"Its not that that [VTEC engines] have low torque they just deliver it in a different way."
 
My 190HP Accord has 172lb-ft peak torque I think. The problem is that all this torque is at 3k to 4k rpm. You have to wait the engine to reach that sweet spot where you get a nice surprise by the feel of boost of power and acceleration.
My point is that I wish the torque peak was at lower rpm.
 
"It's mostly just a marketing ploy to get people to pay up for the higher trim"
 
The EX has a bigger exhaust pipe that makes the engine to breathe better. I am sure that the HP gain wrt the LX is all over the rpm range not only at the peak.

Best value and looks in my opinion is the LX-S Coupe with the 190HP 4 banger and silky 5 speed manual for just over 20K. Sure the V6 is tempting, but I agree with Erin that you just don't need it. At that price point, it can compete very well against the Nissan Altima Coupe and lots of other vehicles.

I'll chime in here with HondaAcura....I have not at all found that "honda's lack torque"....in my experience, they have exactly the same torque as another optimized engine of the same displacement.
 
I.e. The 2.4 liter in the Accord makes the same torque as other 2.4 liters
 
My 2.0 liter Civic SI has 139 lb/ft of torque, about the same as any other 2.0 liter.
 
Now you might say but it peaks at ~5800 rpms. And you'd be right. But I have like 90% of peak torque at 3000 rpms (which is only 37.5% of the RPM range, similar to 2250 rpms on a 6000 RPM car). And I have gearing that acts as a huge torque multiplier and will get me more into that powerband.
 
So. Honda is known as a "torqueless engine", typically, but in fact they make the same torque as engines of similar displacement that don't utilize forced induction. And, at least in modern times with I-VTEC (their second generation of vtec), DOHC, and other tweaking they have a tremendous amount of torque available at a low rpm.
 
Further, alot of engines (an example would be my new Subaru Legacy GT) will produce peak torque much before peak HP. So you hit peak torque but torque is dropping as you continue to create more HP as your RPMs rise. In a Honda, you typically maintain a steady band of torque as your RPMs rise which, in turn, steadily increases power....
 
But the feel created by these powerbands is that the Honda wants to keep revving, higher and higher, while the Subaru (to use an example) feels like you've gotten a huge shove at 3500 rpms (which you have) and you don't NEED to keep revving.
 
But that's what it is, feel.
 
Personally, after owning a high revving 06 Civic SI for 2 years and 41k miles, I can't wait to own a torquey beast next :)
 
335i? Diesel 6-speed? New Audi A4 w/ ~260 lb/ft?
 
Who knows :)
 
Joe

From Honda's Website:
                  LX; EX; V6
 
Horsepower @ rpm: 177 @ 6500; 190 @ 7000; 268 @ 6200
 
Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm): 161 @ 4300; 162 @ 4400; 248 @ 5000
 
Redline: 6800; 7100; 6800
  
I'm not saying that the EX doesn't have a better exhaust (though I doubt it; don't confuse prettier tip with better exhaust), the numbers don't back it up. I do think it's funny that the V6 makes it's torque higher up than the 4's though. Guess it's just tuned differently.

I don't have any personal experience with current Honda's. The last Honda I owned was a mid 90's ('94 maybe) 3rd gen CRX, which I liked very much. Before that I had a '75 Civic (non CVCC), which I also liked very much.
 
I can however use my experience with my current vehicle, an '07 Subaru Forester to comment on real performance vs track performance. And the importance of a good transmission.
 
The Forester suffers from a combination of poor low end torque and bad transmission programming. I have seen 0-60 times of about 8 seconds for my car, not bad really. But in real life traffic when you need to be able to accelerate quickly to fill a gap, it functions very poorly. Around town I keep the shifter in 3 because in D it quickly moves to 4th and is loath to downshift unless I floor the accelerator.

sandcountry360,
thanks for the numbers and the advice about the exhaust tips. The EX does have a different exhaust system than the LX and I am not talking about cosmetic differences but the ability to flow the exhaust gas with less pressure difference between its two ends, therefore helping the engine to "push" exhaust gases easier, gaining some low end torque. It gets you up to 5% gain in HP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermarket_exhaust_parts
http://www.zercustoms.com/news/2008-Honda-Accord-Powertrain.html

Hey guys,
 
Remember, peak torque does not mean that the torque is "higher up" or "low down".

"Personally, after owning a high revving 06 Civic SI for 2 years and 41k miles, I can't wait to own a torquey beast next =).
  
Joe, a 335i 6MT with a Proceed upgrade, downpipe, and catback exhaust should do more than quell you thirst for torque. If only they made the 335i in a wagon.
  
"But the feel created by these powerbands is that the Honda wants to keep revving, higher and higher, while the Subaru (to use an example) feels like you've gotten a huge shove at 3500 rpms (which you have) and you don't NEED to keep revving."
  
Exactly! I guess Ive been a Honda fan too long as I believe the more an engine spins the harder it should pull and Honda delivers the goods using that logic. You have to give credit to any engine that can consistently, safely rev over 8 grand, remain refined throughout its ENTIRE rev range, yet be as reliable as a Maytag washer.

1487- "auto-off headlights aren't even standard equipment on the accord" . Says who? Every model accord has auto-off headlights on my lot.

If you're obssessed with torque a Honda is not for you! Honda's DNA ia based on high revving motorcycle engines from the late 60's on and wringing the last horse out of its engines at the expense of torque. Consequently, you have to love rowing through the gears to enjoy a Honda ride. My six cylinder Honda CBX bike loves to be run up and down through the gears and revved to the 9500 rpm limit. My BSA Thunderbolt, on the other hand, is a low revving torgue monster that can be run from 5MPH to top speed in 4th gear without any need to shift. Each experience has its charms.

"Wow...1487 and I finally agree on something and its related to a Honda product! "
 
I only tell the truth, if you think about it you will probbaly find you dont disagree with me too often.
 
"1487- "auto-off headlights aren't even standard equipment on the accord" . Says who? Every model accord has auto-off headlights on my lot."
 
When I saw the equipment list when the car was new they were not standard on the base model. it appears they are now according to Honda's site. I am glad they made this $50 feature standard like it is on other cars. Still, most of the good stuff is on the top model.

So saying the Pontiac G8 has folding rear seatbacks when it doesn't is "*only* telling the truth?" :scratches head:
 
http://66.160.188.111/roadtests/Comments/2044#cm

"So saying the Pontiac G8 has folding rear seatbacks when it doesn't is "*only* telling the truth?" :scratches head:"
 
I said "as far as I know" it had folding seat backs. I thought I read that in one of the reviews. Someone shortly after that (maybe it was you)informed me it only has pass through. Since i was mistaken on that I suppose EVERYTHING I've ever said is inaccurate. BTW, check out Mat. 5:48 in reference to what we were talking about a few blogs back when you found yourself "correcting" me earlier.
 
Since you had to go that far back to find my "lie" I think overall I'm doing pretty well from an accuracy standpoint. I do forget some things I read believe it or not. It is hard to remember facts about dozens of car models.

You can't say you "only tell the truth" if you're using statements such as "as far as I know." That's like me saying, "As far as I know, there are still weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
 
Using Scripture out of context isn't somewhere I want to go with you. Let it go.
 
I didn't accuse you of lying in any way. You can't go around saying things such as "I only tell the truth," if *absolutely everything* you say isn't true. You could have said, "I usually tell the truth here." Who can really say they *only* tell the truth? I know I can't.

My intention is to always tell the truth. What I was telling HondaAcura was that my statements are based on some reality. Sorry I didnt phrase it in manner that was acceptable to you. He said "Wow...1487 and I finally agree on something and its related to a Honda product! " as if it was such a stretch that he and I could agree. He seems pretty logical so I was merely pointing out that he could probably agree with much of what I'm saying.
 
I didnt ask for a debate: Just read the verse for yourself. There is nothing to debate on that matter. You found yourself correcting me and I wanted to provide you with something justifying my position. Thats all.
 
I see you are SUPER jumpy today. I guess you are picking up the mantle and will make it your personal mission to criticize anything I post.

Suby: Watch out, you are treading down a slippery slope, ha ha.
 
I love the scripture out of context comment, btw.

dougtheeng, it's okay because my 'Rex has Subaru's symmetrical all-wheel drive. :o) j/k
 
I'm "SUPER jumpy today?" I don't think I am, but if you say I am, it must be true.
 
Perhaps after work I should look around for G8s and CTSes to street race because I live my life a quarter-mile at a time.
 
Sorry for taking your blog entry OT, Erin. :(

Not a worry, Suby. This is a blog -- candid and raw.
-ER, the Accord lover

"Perhaps after work I should look around for G8s and CTSes to street race because I live my life a quarter-mile at a time. "
 
Too clever for me. I know you were being sarcastic but I didn't get it. One thing is for sure, you have made it quite clear that YOU don't make any mistakes. Say what you want about me, but I don't have a problem admitting when I was mistaken as seen by the G8 folding seat fiasco. HAve you ever been wrong about anything? I am noticing a common theme amongst some edmunds/IL staffers- any type of perspective other than the "official" one is not accepted. I can't imagine how its shocking to know that not everyone who has access to this site shares the EXACT same views as everyone who blogs for edmunds or IL. Blogs are about feedback and some seem to get that but others do not apparently.

You don't have a problem admitting when you're wrong? I remember someone said, "I guess I was thinking of the CTS (instead of something along the lines of "whoops I made a mistake"). (But hey) At least the [G8's] trunk is large."
 
I made it clear I don't make mistakes? That's not clear to me. :shrug: I'm wrong about a lot of things often. I am a human being after all.
 
Didn't I write this yesterday?
 
"Who can really say they *only* tell the truth? I know I can't."

totally agree with hondaacura and joefrompa: honda's love to rev, and the power delivery is very linear. (though i do crave GTI low end tq now and then, but again, i drive a fit.) ;)