1997 was the last year you could have bought an Accord Wagon here in the states (that's a '96 pictured above). Now that it's called a Crosstour, do you still think it's a wagon or has shaving the square bit off the roof magically transformed it into something more like an SUV? Even with the addition of all-wheel drive and more ground clearance, I still consider the Crosstour a wagon.
Funny thing, when I looked up what the luggage and cargo capacity differences might be, there wasn't much difference:
- 1996 Accord Wagon: Luggage = 25.7 cu-ft, maximum cargo = 63.0 cu-ft
- 2010 Accord Crosstour: Luggage = 25.7 cu-ft; maximum cargo = 51.0 cu-ft
Chris Walton, Chief Road Test Editor @ 12,055 miles
automaton says:
08:28 AM, 09/ 8/10
12 cubic feet of max space = "not much difference"? I would call that a significant difference, and one reason that a real wagon would be better than that abomination called "Crosstour."
bankerdanny says:
08:36 AM, 09/ 8/10
The Accord wagon above was always a favorite of mine. The narrow C pillar gave it a light airy look and I'm sure 100x better visibility from the inside. The more verticle back window also makes for a far more usefull way back.
That said, I don't blame Honda for not building a true wagon. It is not an urban myth that station wagons don't sell in the US these days. But it is a shame since a true wagon would be far more practical.
ed124c says:
08:41 AM, 09/ 8/10
I agree. 12 cubic feet is 1 foot high by 3 feet wide by 4 feet long. That is a lot of extra storage space.
Of course, the listed numbers of 51 vs. 53 might have been measured with different parameters. Trunks used to be measured by the actual volume-- as if the trunk were filled with water and then drained into a measured bucket. I doubt that method is used any more.
By the way, that is not a very flattering photo of the '96 Honda. Is the greenhouse really that tall in relation to the body? Then again, the wheels look round and not elongated in any direction, so maybe cars did look kinda strange back then. Visibility must have been phenomenal. (Well, they fixed that, didn't they.)
actualsize says:
09:17 AM, 09/ 8/10
I agree that the number is significantly larger, but for me that upper corner of a wagon's cargo bay represents so much wasted space. I never pile stuff that high.
hybris says:
09:35 AM, 09/ 8/10
12 cubic is a considerable difference unless the crosstour overall is a smaller vehicle then its understandable.
throwback says:
09:44 AM, 09/ 8/10
It's a shame we don't buy more wagons in this country. My uncle had a wagon like that and that thing handled great! It also rode very well, but the cloth interior got filthy as he worked on subway trains. He gave it to my cousin who I think still has it.
7driver says:
09:47 AM, 09/ 8/10
"I never pile stuff that high."
I wouldn't say "never". I could foresee a box that would fit in the wagon but not the hatch and going just a short distance from the store to home. Or an inverted table or something that would require the additional clearance yet still provide viewing space.
maxedoutmax says:
09:56 AM, 09/ 8/10
And the crosstour is a MONSTER compared to the original accord which is the size of the current civic. Cars have gotten way to fat over the years.
misterfusion says:
09:57 AM, 09/ 8/10
So, why can't we call the Crosstour a hatchback again? Has the word been removed from the lexicon?
old_volvo says:
10:05 AM, 09/ 8/10
I am eagerly awaiting the tsx sportswagon. Probably smaller, but a definite sign that wagons are back.
1487 says:
10:49 AM, 09/ 8/10
the crosstour is incredibly space inefficient. This thing is 8" longer than the equinox and some have called that vehicle "too big" considering its cargo capacity. The accord wagon probably weighs 1000lbs less than the crosstour with far smaller exterior dimensions.
ptcdawg says:
10:53 AM, 09/ 8/10
Yeah , the Crosstour is as wagon...a VERY POOR wagon.
vvk says:
11:17 AM, 09/ 8/10
I would add that a Honda Fit would be more practical than Crosstour, at least in terms of storage. It really has amazing amount of usable cargo capacity and terrific flexibility.
bimmerjay says:
01:16 PM, 09/ 8/10
That Accord wagon is hideous, I don't blame people for not buying it.
bodyblue says:
01:35 PM, 09/ 8/10
"It's a shame we don't buy more wagons in this country."
Why...who cares?
Oh and Jay, the Accord wagon was far from hideous......it is just really boring......like most wagons.
automaton says:
02:19 PM, 09/ 8/10
""It's a shame we don't buy more wagons in this country."
Why...who cares?"
Well, I care, because I rarely buy new vehicles. A few years back I searched and searched for a wagon just like this, but could not find one locally for sale. I had to settle for something else. So, all you folks buying new cars, get out there and buy and depreciate some wagons for me, would ya?!
ptcdawg says:
02:36 PM, 09/ 8/10
The Accord Wagon pictured looks like a wagon, the Crosstour looks like someone puked on the drawing board.
firstwagon says:
03:11 PM, 09/ 8/10
"do you still think it's a wagon or has shaving the square bit off the roof magically transformed it into something more like an SUV?"
Ummm, since when is a shaved roof a styling feature from an suv? The Crosstour is a 5 door version of the Accord sedan. It's a hatchback.
I think it's amazing how much better the Accord wagon looks over the crossover. A nice clean design from the days when Accord had a good reason to be at the top of the sales chart.
As 1487 mentioned it's likely 1000 lighter, has more cargo space and it's more useful space too. Try putting a large box in a fastback like the Crosstour.
I like big vehicles like minivans and truck based SUVs where you get something for your money. The Crosstour is big, heaavy and the only thing you gain is "style".... which most people agree is ugly.
I miss the 90's.
kingfish4 says:
03:48 PM, 09/ 8/10
As I recall, my 94 Ford Escort wagon had 66 cubic feet of cargo space, and the wagon version of the Escort was the biggest seller. In contrast, my 05 Chevy Malibu Maxx had 44 cubic feet of cargo space, but the rear seats reclined, and it had limo space for leg room 41". It also consistantly returned 30 + mpg with a V6 and auto. The Escort was a manual with no power accessories and it got 36-38 mpg.
davicho says:
04:05 PM, 09/ 8/10
@firstwagon...
"The Crosstour is a 5 door version of the Accord sedan. It's a hatchback"
Are you serious??
This is an Accord Hatchback!!
http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2008/12/13/03/19/1988_honda_accord_hatchback_lx-pic-61586.jpeg
The Accord Hatch was only made up until 1989 and it only had 3-doors, it then was transformed to a "5-door" wagon in 1990 and killed in 1997.
The Crosstour is, as mentioned previously, an abomination and a very poor excuse for a true wagon or CUV as they call it now.
firstwagon says:
05:16 PM, 09/ 8/10
davicho
I didn't say it was a good hatchback, just that it is indeed a hatchback
Check your picture... the sloping rear window is clearly more hatchback then a wagon or CUV.
moparbad says:
05:51 PM, 09/ 8/10
What is better than an Accord Crosstour?
Answer = http://www.acura.com/FutureVehiclesTSX.aspx#/section1
Acura TSX Sport Wagon is an Accord Wagon with an Acura nameplate.
lucien4 says:
06:03 PM, 09/ 8/10
As being mentioned it's not a wagon but hatchback (and Edmunds should really know...).
More specifically a liftback like the 5 door Integra from the mid 80's (or in Europe they also had a Concerto). Since liftbacks slope in the back you do get little bit less cargo space.
But kudo's you didn't get fooled calling it crossover just because of it's increased clearance:-).
bimmerjay says:
07:45 PM, 09/ 8/10
"Oh and Jay, the Accord wagon was far from hideous......it is just really boring......like most wagons."
You say tomato... I think it's really ugly. The front half looks fine. The Camry wagon of the same era was equally awkward and hideous.
stephen987 says:
08:32 PM, 09/ 8/10
Honda no longer seems capable of building a car as purposefully designed as those old Accords. The closest they can come is the Fit, and even the Fit doesn't have "it."
stephen987 says:
08:33 PM, 09/ 8/10
That 12 cubic foot difference is roughly equal to the total trunk space in a Civic.
leokbelo says:
09:09 AM, 09/10/10
The reason americans in general prefer SUVs instead of wagons, is purely marketing. The fantasy of going OFF-ROADING on a tuesday afternoon, weekend kayaking, etc, all those comercials got to the heart of the average consumer who flocked to their dealers demanding that piece of FANTASY called SUVs. Most of them never got to see any "off-road", but that didn't matter. The POSSIBILITY of OFF ROADING was there! WILD ADVENTURES! NATURE! blah blah blah....
Now, more than a decade later, that mindset is very hard to be broken. Now the excuse is " Oh, I like to be sitting a bit higher, it gives me a better view of traffic!"
Now, on to this Accord Crossblargh...blargh, urgh never in a million years I would buy / lease one...
Ok, that's done.
I am indeed very glad that Honda is bringing the REAL accord touring as the TSX wagon and, even though I won't be able to afford it as a new car, I for sure will be able to buy a used one in a few years!
Oh, and by the way, is it official?? Inside Line has really been bought by HONDA??
geez....