Spy Shots: 2008 Honda Accords—fully exposed!

you'd never know the sedan was a Honda unless you saw the badge.
The thing that the European mfgs do so well is maintain family styling continuity throughout the years.
The 4 doors really does look like a cross between a Saturn and a Hyundai.
On another topic, remember when 180 hp in a smallish sedan was great?! Seems to me that the 4 cylinder Accord with a manual transmission would be a nice fuel sipping car that still would have plenty of go.

Wow, I'm diggin the new look.

I think the sedan looks like a Kia Optima in the side profile view. Either way I think both coupe and sedan are an improvement over '07 editions.

I see a lot of Hyundai in the sedan, which isn't a bad thing. I think the overall design is leaps and bounds ahead of the last gen.
 
The coupe looks fantastic. The hood looks lower than the fenders, kinda like the S. It's such a great look. The old Ridgeline grille is a perfect match.

I've always thought of the C-pillar as an Accord giveaway, but they've changed that. Now it's mostly the front that's Hondaesque, though the rear of the coupe is Civic-like.
 
Overall I like it.

I'm not a fan of the chrome door handles. This goes for the TSX as well. Sorry, James and Wes.

Looks like a mix of a hyundai Sonate in the back and a lexus in the front.
 
I still looks nice.

I find it funny when people say the sedan resembles a Hyundai Sonata when Hyundai bascially copied the current Accord design. HMMM..... Another thing, Hondas ALWAYS look better in person.
 
Anyway, Ive heard the 2.4L got a significant power boost and the V6 got a repspectable power boost. Also I heard that Honda IS NOT playing second fiddle in the power department. Look out Altima!

IS ANYONE NOTICING THE REVISED ODYSSEY BEHIND THE ACCORD COUPE!!!
 
Still, the accord looks very good and i can't wait for the diesels to arrive!!
 
-Cj

Love the Coupe but the sedan look like it could use some help in the rear region of the car. I like this generations (07) tail lights better than the 08's

Yes, that is the revised Odyssey, with a different grille.

Only problem I have is why does EVERYONE have to copy BMW with the "Hofmeister kink" in the C-pillar? It's like the 70s when everyone was copying Mercedes' grilles complete with stand-up hood ornament.

Actually, that "Hofmeister kink" preceded BMW, with some Chrysler cars of the 1950s.
 
http://www.seriouswheels.com/images/a_1953_Chrysler_Four_Door.jpg

Is more power needed?
If the torque and horsepower remained the same, could Honda obtain even higher fuel economy?
If more power is better, why not just put a Formula one Honda motor in the Accord?

Looks like one of those ugly e92 3 series coupes. Hopefully in person it's not as flat and atrocious as the bimmer.

It looks good. There had been upgrades and improvement done on its parts like for instance its honda cold air intake and other accessories had been added. Enthusiasts would surely want to have a closer look and drive this one, to see hpw its performance and handling.

Hi Moparbad, I kinda agree with you. Unless the soon-to-be-released model has a huge weight gain over the current model, I also don't see the need for more power........I'd rather retain the same power levels and get better fuel economy in return. (If the new model is indeed a lot heavier then more power is needed.)
 
Apart from weight, I believe that another reason why manufacturers keep increasing power is competition. Firstly, they're scared of being outdone by the competition. Secondly, speed/power sells. Take the current Mazda6 V6 for example. It outputs about 215 hp and 199 lb-ft. With the 5-speed manual, the car does 0 to 60mph in 6.8s (according to CAR AND DRIVER). But both consumers and auto experts keep saying it's slow simply because the competition have more powerful engines and are faster (and not because the car is actually slow!). [To be fair to the consumers and auto experts, the Mazda V6 is not particularly economical.]
 
An F1 motor would not work because they're not reliable at all: reliability is typically a few races or so. Besides, F1 engines are too high revving to be practical. Can anybody make a comment on this?

Hmmm... I'm not a fan of this model's styling either! I think the current coupe's styling is better than this one! Fortunately, Honda sells cars because of their reputation for reliability and quality and not style.

Hmm...270 ponies all running out through the front wheels, eh? Does anyone else see a problem with that? I expect it's going to be a wild ride (for a Honda).

Mixed Reactions around.....
 
The coupe has always been the more emotional and aesthetically pleasing choice in the Accord lineup, and it doesn't look like that sentiment is changing for this generation.
 
The "peel back" headlamps on both cars look like TSX units that got a face-lift, stretching them back along the front fenders. This is more a production cost saver than anything, as it allows a manufacturer to incorporate turn signals, DRLs and main headlights (and sometimes foglights) into one molding. However, the design works much better with the coupe's silhouetter and rear end.
 
I'm disappointed with the sedan's rear end - it looks like Honda forgot about the 2003 Accord Sedan's mid-life butt lift that significantly improved the its mass appeal.
 
Overall, the two door looks slinky & sexy with the waistline crease giving it a racy, raked look. This coupe looks like it will fair well against it's main competitor - the Nissan Altima Coupe. The four door just looks awkward and anonymous, a characteristic common among mainstream sedans, but certainly not required. I foresee a sooner-than-expected mid life refresh for the sedan in the next few years.
 
The interior of both is rather tasteful though (from what I've seen on other websites) and should be an incremental upgrade in both materials and luxury-feel/design without loss of Honda's excellent overall ergonomics.

No worries Loren. I like my chrome-trimmed door handles :-) To each his own.
 
Was I right about white being a horrible color for the camo-ed vehicle, or was I right? The red looks soooo much better. The Acura-ish recessed detail down the side adds a lot to the car. I'm definitely diggin' the coupe!
 
The sedan... not so much actually. I think it's just too plain. But I guess that just sticks with Honda's history of the sedan's styling: conservative and practical. Not a bad philosophy to have, but I just see the Geritol generation picking up more and more of these over the course of this version. Kinda like how the Camry is now.
 
180HP in the base 2.4L is awesome. I'm predicting right now that the 4 cyl model will be a huge hit. If they'd offer it with a 6 spd it'd make it even sweeter. I just wish more of the coupes good looks had been carried over to its 4-door sister.

Sedan looks good, coupe looks great.

Blackadder/Mopar, both engines will gain more power and get even better fuel economy. Nothing wrong with more power as long as its controllable. The current 3.0 and 2.4 are already more than adequate but the power increase is mainly due to new technologies and strong competition.
 
Sabastian, Honda makes probably the most entertaining FWD platforms available so what makes you think 270hp is too much? The FWD Acura TL-S has 286hp and its actually fun to drive.

hondacura,
 
Agree with your statement about entertaining FWD platforms from Honda. Just about every review of Honda products will confirm this.
 
Going off that, the new Accord should outdo the Camry in almost every category. Even if the interior isn't better than the current generation, it'll still be better than the Camry's. What I'm more concerned about is how much it'll out-handle the Camry by. No one has said anything positive about the Camry's handling yet. My vote is for the Accord right now.

blackadder5639 -- Very good points and I completely agree with you. It seems that theoretically, fuel economy could be even better across the board if the horsepower wars cooled. Fuel efficiency may be up, but imagine what it would be if they didn't jack up the power too. And it's not like the outgoing Accord V6 was slow. Even the four-cylinder Camry isn't overburdened and provides decent acceleration.
 
I often wonder if there will be a ceiling on escalating horsepower. In 10 years are we going to be driving 350-hp Accords and 250-hp Civics, while entry-level luxury cars like the Infiniti G35 offer 500 hp? More power is great, but at what point does it get ridiculous -- particularly from an energy conservation standpoint? In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if new fuel efficiency requirements put the cooler on it.

I was hoping it'd take more styling cues from the latest Civic, which I like a good bit.
 
Disappointing.

Flicmod, you're actually concerned about the handling characteristics of the Accord compared to the Camry? Come on, give Honda some credit here. When has the Camry EVER outhandled the Accord? The Accords handling has always been more on the sporty side with good suspension damping and body control. Virtually no wasted motion like the Camrys softer suspension even if its a Camry SE. Throw a TL sway bar on the rear and it makes it even better.
 
Jriz I agree with you on power output to a point but I highly doubt we will ever see a 300+hp Accord, as the current is very quick especially in V6/ 6MT trim.
 
You stated something about energy conservation. I dont see anything wrong with sapping more power out of an engine while maintaining or bettering the previous fuel economy figures. That would make it even MORE efficient. A good comparison would be the 98-02 Accord 3.0 liter V6 which made 200hp and 195lbft of torque vs the current Accords 3.0 V6 which makes 244hp and 212lbft of torque. The revised J30 V6 made more power and torque (while making the powerband more accessable) while getting better fuel economy. Why would you want the same amount of power with an increase in fuel economy if you can have MORE power with an increase?
 
Edmunds after the Accord debutes PLEASE do a comparison of the Altima 3.5 6MT coupe and the Accord EX V6 6MT coupe.

Jriz - 500hp G35? That's called the GT-R, or Skyline if you prefer. ;-)
 
Hondacura - About that comparo GM is offering, do you think some dealerships will wait until the new Accord comes out? They don't offer it here yet. Also, I wouldn't count out a 300+ hp Accord so soon. I foresee an Accord Type-S at some point, especially as how the coupe has gotten more and more sporty each generation.
 
Noflash - Actually, I think that's one thing Honda has done well. The Taurus and the Fusion look nearly identical. In fact, many manufacturers produce similar lines for different vehicles. Honda has always made the Civic and the Accord blatantly dissimilar.

Estreka, Ive heard of the comparison Ford has with the Fusion, Camry, and Accord but Im not sure what GM's up to. I will say the Accord just like every past generation wont go down without a fight. On top of that the Accord has had a reputuable name in the marketplace for the last 25+ years and the "BOO LEE MAL" (Malibu) hasnt. I dont know if and when Chevy will plan this competition but neither the Accord or Malibu is out yet. I know the Accord will probably come out in Aug/Sept but Im not sure when the Malibu will start sales. It will be an interesting comparison though.
 
Also about the "Type-S" Accord.... I dont see that happening at least with the Type S moniker since thats what Acura uses. Another reason why it possibly wont happen just yet is that it would certainly step on the TL's toes which Acura doesnt want. Ive always said that Honda could bring the Accord up to TL and TL Type S levels of handling, performance and response ONLY if they made the TL RWD. That way the Accord would have more room to stretch its legs and not worry about stepping on the Acuras feet. Plus it would broaden the appeal of the Accord as it would have the more mainstream EX V6 as the more luxurious version and have the higher performing version for that crowd as well.
 
Its actually a simular formula Nissan/Infiniti used with getting rid of the FWD I35 replacing it with the RWD G35. That left the Altima room enough to be sporty while never having the possibility to hurt the G35s performance image. Hello Honda.....HELLO!.

Estreka, about that Skyline. I dont know if Nissan will continue to include "Skyline" with GT-R as the GT-R no longer shares a platform with the Skyline (G35). It now has its own dedicated LIGHTER chassis.

The Ford Fusion Challenge irritates me the same way the Saturn Aura side-by-side-by-side comparison does. They're both apples-to-oranges comparisons. The Fusion and Aura vehicles pitted against the Honda Accord and Camry are like bringing a gun to a knife fight.
 
Fusion Challenge: AWD Fusion against FWD Accord and Camry - probability people will enjoy driving it more = high
 
Saturn Aura side-by-side comparison: V6-equipped Saturn Aura XE (yeah, I know it's not a top-of-the-line XR) against inline-4-equipped Accord and Camry - what do you think most consumers will think after driving all three?

There have indeed been rumors to the effect that the GT-R will not be based on the sedan chassis, but despite claims of a lighter structure, it looks exactly the same. I imagine it'll be the equivalent of the Nismo Fairlady in comparison to the regular Z. I dunno though, for $65K (est), it had better be pretty light. The VQ37HRTT or -HRT, or whatever alone isn't going to command such a premium.
 
Despite what they call it, it'll always be a Skyline to me. I really wish they'd bring back that I6, though.

Suby
 
After seeing Karl's posting on the Aura's interior trim panels, I don't know... Maybe the FW accord is a better assembeled vehicle than the aura.
 
Whats also funny is how the fusion can't win a comparo against a FWD Accord LX.
 
I wonder what hyundai will do in response to this... They have a 270hp v6 also...
 
-Cj

hondacura,
 
I think I may have worded my last comment a little bad. I'm not concerned about the Accords handling being worse than the Camry. I know the Accord will outhandle the Camry. I'm a little more concerned with the presence of torque-steer in the new Accord. 270HP is a lot, even for a sporty suspension to handle through the front wheels. I chalk up massive front-wheel power to the Camrys lack of handling ability. I fear the same might be true for the Accord. But when you compare both of them, the Accord will still come out on top.

Suby - have you driven a Fusion (even a FWD)? I ask as I've had them as rentals and I've driven many, many Accords/Camrys (testing and rentals). I'd probably take a Fusion over either. It's much better in terms of driving dynamics. Heck it's the Mazda6 chassis and that is beyond the roadfeel in a Camcord. Sure it's not as quiet, refined or supple but in the end I'd rather enjoy my drive than sit in a quiet, bland vehicle (hence the reason I dumped my 2006 3 series).

Suby - don't they always hold those challenges in Detroit?

I don't know, Dan. http://www.fordvehicles.com/fordchallenge/fusion/ doesn't say anything about the locations the "challenge" was held. You just reminded me of the 2007 Consumers' Most Wanted Awards. I would really *love* to see the raw data from that survey, especially where voters were voting from.
 
blueguydotcom, I haven't driven a Fusion. What I was trying to get at is why not keep the playing field level - pit a FWD Fusion against the Accord and Camry. There's no need to bring a gun to a knife fight. Since it's based on the Mazda6 platform, which supposedly has superior driving dynamics compared to the Accord and Camry, why wouldn't Ford be confident in having the FWD Fusion go up toe-to-toe with the Accord and Camry? They could say our Fusion drives so much better and look at the money the consumer would save.
 
I don't see too many people calling the E90 bland, but you're totally entitled to your opinion. Did you have a 330i with the ZSP Sport Package and the 6-speed manual? You went to a Mini Cooper S, right? Both are awesome vehicles in my opinion! I don't think I would call the 330i w/ ZSP bland. I have driven an E90 330i with the Steptronic transmission without the Sport Package (this was back when I worked at a BMW dealership here in Southern California).