2008 Honda Accord: Not as Impressive as I Expected

Ed, Ed, Ed.

Quick say something negative about the Aura, G8, Enclave, Focus or the CTS. I don't want you to lose your job, especially in this economy.

A serious question.

Is it because the editors can drive the R8, M3, etc, that otherwise fine sedans like the Accord, Camry and yes Aura, seem to become bland, boring, etc, to the editors?

@aurakr: No. When I said the Accord wasn't particularly impressive, I meant "not impressive for a $30K family sedan." It's all relative.

@lazyhater: Our 2003 four-cylinder Accord only cost $23K. It had cloth seating and no nav, yet it never felt cheap. The plastics looked expensive and even the fake wood looked decent.

Of course this is not impressive.
What's impressive is the 2009 Mazda MAZDA6... Mazda. Even its name is impressively capital cased and repetitive.

What IS the deal with those doorhandles? They are obscenely large and ugly too.

Ya the new Mazda6 is pretty cool looking, at least in the pictures. I hope EIL picks one up.

"@lazyhater: Our 2003 four-cylinder Accord only cost $23K. It had cloth seating and no nav, yet it never felt cheap. The plastics looked expensive and even the fake wood looked decent."

Thank you, that make sense, relative to the price.

Like how I am attacking the Audi R8, it is not impressive for the price at all.

From the photos I have seen, the 2009 Mazda6 appears to be the best looking midsize sedan.

Nice job by Mazda.

Can't understand why the only write-ups are complaints? The ECO light bothers me, the seats are too hard, blah blah blah. The Accord is being driven more than 2000 miles a month, yet no one seems to like driving it???

The accord needs better looking alloys, although it does look good in that pic.

The IL members have spoken...PLEASE add an '09 MAZDA6 to the fleet!

98accordex

Yes.. just like the silverado.

and MAZDA6 PLZ

GT with navi!!!!

The Accord looks better in lower trims as it looses those ridiculous chrome door handles. The rims need to be destroyed while your at it. A loaded Accord only makes since if you're down grading from a more expensive model- say a TL or ES350. Otherwise, cheaper versions seem much more appealing.

The new Mazda6 V6 gets the worst EPA mileage of any mid size V6 family sedan which is not smart in this new fuel conscious climate. I don't see why any mainstream family sedan needs to be faster than the Altima and Aura/Malibu so Mazda would've been wise to offer the 3.5L as opposed to the 3.7L. The V6 in the Taurus returns excellent mileage in a heavier car so it seems Mazda was a bit aloof in their powertrain decision. The I-4 Grand Touring makes a much better case for itself than the V6 version as it gives you all of the high tech features with class competitive fuel economy. The interior is still too dark and full of Mazda's same boring black plastic but at least you can get tons of bells and whistles for the dollar. The Malibu still looks better inside and out- the Mazda6 still has an ungainly front overhang much like the Accord. The Malibu (and Aura) are the only front wheel drive cars that have nice short front overhangs.

This is how I'd rank the cars of the class:

Ext Styling: Malibu, Altima, Mazda6, Sonata/Camry, Accord

Int Styling: Malibu, Sonata, Altima, Mazda6, Camry, Accord

Hi-Tech Features: Mazda6, Altima, Camry/Accord, Sonata, Malibu

The Mazda6 will have a Sand interior. Even then, how can you compare plastics, you're still convinced Mazda always uses the same exact pebble grain that they have in the Mazad3/5. They DON'T have that pebble in any other Mazda's(maybe the MX-5/RX-8, not sure), the CX-7 has a higher grade pebble and it's only used on the upper trim pieces, it's much richer than the stuff in the 3. And the CX-9 has NO pebble patterns in it.

http://i38.tinypic.com/10d757d.jpg MZ6
http://i36.tinypic.com/24b67wy.jpg CX-9
http://i34.tinypic.com/2l1jxi.jpg CX-7 & MZ3

Do the plastics look the same to you, of course right! Mazda uses the same grade of plastics in all their cars and manage to get away with it(please!), they're not GM, so they don't cheap out like that.

The Mazda6 is tuned for sporty driving, and it doesn't have the 6F GM/Ford transmissions(thank god). If you don't want a sporty engine in your sedan get the I4.
The 3.7L is MORE efficient than the 3.5L, the gearing for Mazda's AISIN is not, which is why it shows low EPA numbers. The 3.7L will undoubtedly be the best V6 in it's class, and the MPG ESTIMATES from the EPA will show that it's underrated.

Yes, GM set the standard for overhang, because they have the only FWD cars with little overhang.

Riiiiiiight.

And what I meant by cheap out is use same plastic grades among classes, like the Crossovers/Sedans and such.

"Yes, GM set the standard for overhang, because they have the only FWD cars with little overhang.

Riiiiiiight."

Um, the epsilon cars do have the shortest overhangs in the class due to the 112" wheelbase. Its not something open to debate. the Accord and 2009 6 have very pronounced front overhangs. One reason people prefer the stlying of RWD cars is because of the superior proportions.

The 6's hp gives it bragging rights but in the real world the actual hp number doesnt matter because all of these cars are very close in terms of acceleration. The Maxima has 290hp and is barely faster than the 252hp Malibu according to IL's testing. Having worst in class V6 fuel economy isnt a good thing but Mazda knows few people will buy the V6 anyway. I have no idea how you can say the 6 will have the best V6 in class when there are so many great V6s in this class already. I think its silly to say one can be called the best definitively.

Mazda uses hard plastics in every model I have seen so its interesting that you have such a problem with GM's "cheap" plastics. That said, I would take the 6 over the Accord any day.

I'm so glad someone else mentioned the ridiculous door handles on the Accord. They are huge and you should never notice door handles as a styling element.

I would like to see a 6 and a 2009 Malibu hybrid added to the fleet.

Who mentioned anything about pebble grain plastic? Mazda's interiors are chock full of black plastic. The new 6 interior looks just like any other Mazda interior and takes no risks. How exactly did you decipher the "quality" of black plastic? The CX-7 has higher quality plastic? Do you have a B.O.M or chemical analysis to prove this? Don't think so.

The Mazda6 V6 will be rated at 17/25, the LOWEST figure in the class, PERIOD. Save your transmission theories and excuses and work off the facts. The I4 is class competitive and makes more sense. I'm not exactly sure how you can deem this new engine as superior to all others when it's performance has not even been tested (in the 6). Unless 0-60 is significantly lower than 6 seconds, it's overkill given the current automotive climate and not worth the mileage sacrifice over other cars in the class.

Measure the wheelbase compared to overall length. The Aura/Malibu have longer wheelbases and shorter overall lengths- it's simple subtraction, not a differential equation.

I think Ed's comments reflect what many have been saying here for a while- most of these V6 family sedans are competent and offer similar performance and refinement. This is why some people get annoyed with all the Aura bashing posts. Its hard to take such posts seriously unless ALL V6 family sedans are going to be considered as dull and forgettable as the Aura. If the Aura is forgettable than the Accord most certainly is as well. The one major advantage (on paper) for the Accord V6 is mileage but RW mileage seems to be no better than the Aura/Malibu.

"The 3.7L will undoubtedly be the best V6 in it's class, "

Undoubtedly? I hope Mazda is paying you to be their #1 fanboy. Actually, you can thank Ford for that engine, as it is their design from the original Duratec.

"Undoubtedly? I hope Mazda is paying you to be their #1 fanboy. Actually, you can thank Ford for that engine, as it is their design from the original Duratec. "

Exactly.

it will interesting to see what engine Ford puts in the 2010 Fusion. If they are smart they will not use the the 3.7L and go for something with less power and more efficiency. The 2009 Escape has 230hp from an upgraded 3L V6.

1487 - Agree with your last comment. I've been saying Honda should've done the same with the 2008 Accord....instead of putting a big-arse 3.5 liter with a same-ol 5-speed automatic and crappy cylinder management depriving it's powerband, they should've gone with a more efficient 3.0 or 3.2 liter. Heck, their last 3.0 liter came out in 2002 and put out 240 HP on regular fuel....better than BMW managed through 2005.

These mid-size family cars should live in the 3.0-3.2 liter v6 range...and these cars should be equipped with direct injection, decoupling alternators, stop-start technology, electrical "on-demand" water pumps, and better aerodynamics (i.e. some of these don't yet have smoothing undertrays). Also, they should have more dynamic gearing for gears 1-4 or 1-5 and then a perfectly matched overdrive gear (i.e. the overdrive gear should be as tall as possible while sitting right at the bottom of the powerband at 65mph.

That's alot of engine technology, but some of it barely adds any cost....and it's coming no matter what, so why not be the leader of the pack? I'm willing to bet such an engine/car could achieve combined 30+ mpg.

Joe

"1487 - Agree with your last comment. I've been saying Honda should've done the same with the 2008 Accord....instead of putting a big-arse 3.5 liter with a same-ol 5-speed automatic and crappy cylinder management depriving it's powerband, they should've gone with a more efficient 3.0 or 3.2 liter. Heck, their last 3.0 liter came out in 2002 and put out 240 HP on regular fuel....better than BMW managed through 2005."

Joe,

Given the weight gain of the 2008 Accord vs the 2003-07, Id say Honda was correct with upping its displacement and torque. The VCM system is what I hate as it hurts peformance yet sees no real benefit in terms of fuel economy. The 5AT is another weak link in the Accord as a good 6AT would have helped fuel economy. The 3.5 is actually lighter than both the current 3.2 and former 3.0 and its just as... or more efficient.

The V6 in the 6 speed manual Accord is quite impressive and Honda should have used that engine with a good 6AT. That combination would have probably yielded the same (or maybe better) results than the current V6/5AT Accord in terms of fuel efficiency with no negative impact in performance.

If anyone has driven both Accord V6 models (5AT vs 6MT) the difference is night and day. Both V6s are super refined but the non VCM V6 is just on a whole different level when it comes to responsiveness, torque and power. This engine really impressed me.

To those who dont know, Hondas VCM system (puke) uses the VTEC system to close certain valves to certain cylinders during *ECO* mode and voids the high lift cam lobe associated with the performance oriented VTEC system. The VCM V6 only has 1 cam lobe profile throughout the whole RPM range whereas the non VCM V6 has 2 cam lobes, a low speed lobe and a higher RPM lobe. This is the reason why these engines feel so different from each other.

"Undoubtedly? I hope Mazda is paying you to be their #1 fanboy. Actually, you can thank Ford for that engine, as it is their design from the original Duratec. "

The first Duratec, was designed by someone else, the Cyclone V6, was all new, of course, you knew that right?

The 3.5L was retuned by Mazda for the CX-9 and other heavy FoMoCo cars. The engine feels down right sporty thanks to the transmission response and gearing, ONLY found in the CX-9. The engine programming as well is only tuned for sport-driving by Mazda for Mazda's. The MKS might be snappy with the 6F, who knows, but as it stands the AISIN is best matched to the V6.

Chsdfs10

It doesn't take a test to know what better feels like, if you want to deny it and say that they do, go right ahead. Just proves you're a hater.

And I mentioned it because you're so out of touch/Hater towards anything Mazda, and the fact that "duh it's so boring black plastic duh Mazda black plastic is so boring (as mentioned in other blogs) duh its cheap too they use the same plastics in everything duh" is totally ignorant, if you don't like the black, you don't have to get the black, SAND is an option, and Mazda interiors sporty and cut out all the nonsense while still looking good.

Transmission "theory's"? Clearly, you haven't driven any other Mazda besides your 3's, because Mazdas have short gearing, and with enough throttle they are quick to drop down a few gears. The fact that the manual gets worse MPG than the automatic (5-speed) is proof enough that Mazda tunes for SPORT when there is a time&place for it, LIKE the MS3/MS6, which shares the same transmission! What else could drop the MPG in a Mazda VS a Ford with the same engine? The fact that there is a Mazda badge up front? Maybe it's different transmission programming/gearing!!!

1487, just because it's hard, doesn't mean it has to be cheap. Take sit and feel the Aura's interior, then slide over to any MY08-09 Audi(even VW) interior, A3 especially, because that has the most hard plastic. Chavis also said ANY FWD car, which is a huge assumption.

+++ On the MPG arguement, the V6 is designed and makes ALL of it's power on regular, The Aura/Malibu is the same, but makes 20-less HP. The Camry, can run on 87, but will NOT get the same advertised power on 87. They state in the manual that the numbers published are on higher octane gas and is recommended for maximum performance.

The Honda sedan's V6 just makes me shrug, why????? VCM???? Torque sapping and does nothing that it claims to do.

The Nissan Altima, premium!

The Sonata, is the only respectable engine when it comes to power and fuel efficiency, although it's below others with power output, 19/29 is excellent. While the EPA numbers are the same for the Accord.. the Sonata is considerably cheaper than the Accord, and probably has a better Torque curve.

While I tend to disagree with you about some of your Mazda vs. GM posts cx7lover, I agree with you on this last post. However, my owner's manual for the 2008 Malibu tells me that I can run higher octane fuel, but that regular is recommended. This makes me wonder if the power increases with the higher octane fuel or not (as it does on Camry).

FWIW, while not as powerful as the hyundai, the 3500 pushrod engine w/4AT combo (available only as a fleet order car) in the Malibus are rated the same as the Hyundai's, and I can tell you from experience with the (less powerful) first non-VVT 3500 that they don't *feel* weak and they *do* return good fuel economy. Too bad the media and enthusiasts in general have GM scared to offer this as a mainstream option. I'm not saying I think GM should remove the either the current 2.4 or the 3.6 option, just make the 3.5 available for those who want a midway choice between frugal-but-weak 4's or powerful-but-relatively-thirsty 3.6's.

Another add- or GM could make a 2.8 / 3.0 liter version of the HF V6 available as a midlevel engine for the Malibu instead (silencing the pushrod voices), using DI on both it and the uplevel 3.6 (keep it to the LTZ or a future SS trim) to keep power and fuel economy where it needs to be.

The sonata for 09 makes 249HP, and 22XFT-LBS of torque, I don't think that old 3.5 V6 makes that much power right?

"Too bad the media and enthusiasts in general have GM scared to offer this as a mainstream option. I'm not saying I think GM should remove the either the current 2.4 or the 3.6 option, just make the 3.5 available for those who want a midway choice between frugal-but-weak 4's or powerful-but-relatively-thirsty 3.6's."

You are correct. The 3.5 coupled to a 6 speed would be great but GM is phasing out that engine.

cx7,

I am aware of the 6's hp numbers but the point is that it wont be significantly faster than the Malibu or Camry. R&T clocked 0-60 for the Aura at 5.9secs. All of these V6 cars are in the low to mid 6 sec range. The Malibu makes 251 lb-ft at a low 3200rpm which is one reason why its no slower than the Altima or Accord or Camry.

1487

I agree with you about the 3.5 VVT.

I currently drive for work a 2007 Chevrolet Impala LS with the 3.5/4 speed auto combo.

Although not as quick as my Aura XR, I have yet to ever feel the Impala lacks power. The 211 horsepower is more than sufficient. I would love to see how the 3.5 runs with the 6 speed.

In addition, I am averaging 26.7 mpg over 4300 miles. This is in San Diego Freeway traffic, which to be truthful, has diminished quite a bit since gas went ballistic. However, I previously had a 2006 Impala and I averaged 24 mpg with that one and I drove that one much harder over 20,000 miles.

The 3.5 is really fuel efficient, and I know GM has teamed it up in the Vue with the 6 speed. I would love to see it in a lighter vehicle like the Impala.

Even other car evaluators felt the sweet spot for the Vue was the 3.5/6 speed combo.

At least until the 3.6 two mode hybrid arrives this winter.