IL Track Tested: 2009 Honda Accord LX-P

^ Agreed - I like Hondas but let's see how an Altima 2.5 checks out.

I agree ^ with both above. Accords used to be decently fun to drive until the last two generations. The styling (or lack thereof)on this newest gen is the real dealbreaker. I guess Honda is going more towards being a Buick than, well, a Honda now.

I knew there was a reason that I didn't care for the current Accord. It's a DTS underneath all those questionable styling choices.

Anyway, how about a test of the base Mini? Now there is a CAFE-friendly car that should feel pretty entertaining.

...Actually looking back at the tests, of the six times Coopers were included in articles, every one of them was an S model. Even more reason to check out the base car!

Not an Altima, but LT Mazda6i auto 4-cyl's #'s.

0-60: 9.4, 60-0: 122, Slalom: 64.1, skid: 0.79, Handling and Braking Feel: Good

rick8365, I've recently driven both and the Altima feels like a Ferrari compared to the new Accord. The problem is simple, 177 ponies (with low torque) moving a 3,263 lb. vehicle. The Altima has the same horsepower but 180 lb-ft of torqueat lower RPMs. Honda knows their customers and probably figured that as a family sedan, consumers wanted a big fuel efficient car at the sacrifice of power and thats what they built. The only thing that surprises me about the Honda is the terrible braking numbers.

how about testing the "good" four cylinder engine Accord with the 190HP instead of the 177HP one you picked?

Yeah, the P in LX-P stands for "PONEY up for the EX". IT is only 2-3 grand more.

The test wth the associated tester comments plus other commentarir crack me up. The LX-P is a perfect car for what it is. What other full size car with 4 cyl/auto gives spectacular performance? Why do testers feel it doesn't measure up when they KNOW it's 4 CYL, NOT a sports car, COMPLAIN when it doens't handle well without the stability control engaged, AND many people are perfectly happy with it? Yes, the Altima 4 cyl may be faster and handle better, but more people prefer the Accord to the Altima. And show me a family/commuter vehicle that handles better and more safely without it's stability control engaged. I for one won't have a car without it.

"only" 2-3 grand more?!! Are you kidding? $25k for this pile of crap?! 25k?!!

No, thanks.

Here are some Car & Driver test figures for a similarly-sized family sedan from an earlier fuel crisis:

1980 Volvo GL
2.1l I4, 107 hp@5250 rpm, 114 lb-ft@2500 rpm, 4-speed manual+OD, disc/disc, 5.5x14J, Michelin ZX 185/70SR-14, 3225 lb

0-30: 4.4 sec
0-60: 14.2 sec
0-80: 25.5 sec
1/4 mi: 19.6 sec @ 71.5 mph
60-0: 163 ft
slalom: 55.7 mph
skid pad: 0.673 g

53 dB idle, 73 dB @70 mph, 81 dB max

Why do you mention gas-guzzling performance cars before testing this car and then NOT show estimated or actual gas mileage. You complain about the performance of the accord 4-cylinder and then don't give an upside to this model which should be better gas mileage.

Stepping up to the EX is very much worth it. It gets slightly bigger brakes, bigger wheels and tires and the more powerful version of the engine not to mention a few more convenience features.

Just get a manual transmission! It's the way a Honda should be driven, especially a Honda 4. My 2007 Accord LX *Manual* gets 60 in 7.5 seconds according to Car and Driver. Like most family sedans, manual Hondas are usually about one second (or even more) quicker than their automatic counterparts.

Get the EX manual and see how that fares!

Just makes me think how expensive that $20K 'econo' Fit is...

ED Helwig track test an economy car. He mentions in the article that he is testing this vehicle rather than gas guzzlers, then never mentions anything anywhere about the economy of the vehicle!!!

Whey track test and economy car? granted these cars should handle well, but most people only use these cars for commuting and hauling the family around. I have never come across such a poorly scripted car test report than this.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. This just proves that Hondas are nothing but average products- just like most cars. The press laregly pretends that Hondas possess some esoteric magic that other cars can't match and most with an objective prespective and a hint of common sense no that is balderdash. I'd wager > than 80% of Accords are four cylinder LX automatic models and they are slow and handle poorly. Getting the bread and butter Accord model gets borderline unsafe-by-modern-standards braking figures and sloppy handling. Honda is surviving on it's laurels because the actual products they've been releasing are par for the course and nothing more.

PS- Revs and weight don't mix. Honda's needs to improve low-end torque on all of their engines. The EX's version doesn't really mitigate the torque deficit either because the additional output is located in the upper reaches of the operable range.

The Accord has lost its way somewhat as with this generation, its started heavily catering to a more mainstream (dare I say Toyota-like) audience.

However, Id like to see what other comparable family sedans would do under the same performance tests.

I'll agree the latest Accord is no track monkey, but it's certainly better than most of it's competition related to it's reflexed.

Check out the April C&D comparions between the Mazda6, Fusion and Accord. The Accord came out on top having the sharpest reflexes and providing the most involving driving experience.

So yes, the Accord might put most to sleep behind the wheel, but most of the competition is at least as boring.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/performance_files_tested_by_c_d/2010_ford_fusion_vs_mazda_6_honda_accord_comparison_test+page-4.html

Seems like Honda and Toyota are following a path the Detroit 3 laid out years ago. Make each successive generation of model bigger, more feature laden and softer. A '91 Accord was a compact, with 140 hp and a class leader in driving dynamics, fit finish and economy. Subsequent generations got bigger, added (underwhelming) V-6's and generally became Japanese Impala's and Taurus's. Toyota followed the same path with the Camry. Now however the Domestics are sharpening their tools (at least Ford and Chevy are) with the Fusion and Malibu, resulting in no clear advantage with the possible exception of resale value. The Altima is staying closer to it's roots and while I don't like the CVT transmission, it is a quick and economical car. At the end of the day, a 23K Fusion SEL or Malibu 2LT is the equal of the above mentioned Accord LX-P or a Camry LE. Too bad Chrysler missed the memo to get competitive with a midsize car and foisted the pathetic Sebring on the US motoring public. Really glad there are now fully competitive Domestic options to choose from!

@rick8365

I've been driving an Altima 2.5 for the past week while my dearly departed G8 has paperwork done.

It's just about the same as this Accord. Word for word. I loathe it. Terrible vehicle.

"@rick8365

I've been driving an Altima 2.5 for the past week while my dearly departed G8 has paperwork done.

It's just about the same as this Accord. Word for word. I loathe it. Terrible vehicle."

g8gtnorth,

unless your rental car was a Porsche 911 Turbo, I'm pretty sure you'd think it was boring. (;

Also, I don't know why people bash the Accord so much. My mom got her 08 Accord LX used (the owner returned after 3 months because they wanted the new Pilot instead) and she bought it for only $17K. I know she could have gotten a Fit or something like that, but we like having a bigger car and my mom is perfectly happy with her car. It's no hot-rod but it takes her comfortably to and from work every day, which is exactly what the Accord was made to do. Also, in black, with tinted windows and the Honda aftermarket wheels that came with the car, her car doesn't look half-bad. I'll try and post a picture later.

This test seems a bit odd. I can easily accept the 2009 Accord LX-P Edmunds tested didnt post the best performance numbers, however, if one investigates a bit, one may find an EDMUNDS comparison where the the exact same 2008 Accord LX-P won in an Edmunds family sedan comparison against the 2007 Toyota Camry LE and 2008 Malibu 2LT.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=124091

If the Accord LX-P is that bad of a performer, why did Edmunds give it a 1st place finish?

@carfreak8394,

Setting aside that it's a dirty puller, I read the comments and immediately thought of the Altima.

It's a similar product. Medium to fullsize, 4-banger, front wheel drive mainstream model. Mine has a CVT as opposed to a slushbox.

Disclaimer: I want to be very clear. It is NOT a quality issue.

It is a perfectly acceptable vehiclular appliance, well appointed and well put together. Just like the Accord. But like this Accord, it seems manufactured for people who don't really care about the cars they drive.

Understeers alot, and when pushed it feels like the front and the back want to trade places. No transition either, it goes directly from one to the other. No grip. Stopping is uninspiring. Word for word.

A word about CVT. Why Nissan decided it should be used in sporty models flabergasts me. Acceptable around town, terrible when pushed, frighteningly useless at highway speeds.

P.S. I agree that most rentals probably would bore me; I didn't buy an appliance. ;P

If you want a high performance 4 door family sedan and you are considering a 4 cylinder Accord, Camry, Altima etc. then you're retarded. If thats what you want I suggest you run (not walk) to your nearest Pontiac dealer an hope there is still a G8 on the lot. If you want a safe, reliable, comfortable, fuel efficient, low maintenance family hauler then I suggest one of the three above.

This entire post is stupid. This is like testing a Nissan GTR and complaining about how difficult it is to install a child safety seat or how bad the trunk space is. Maybe you see how well the BMW M3 can tow a boat. No car should be expected to perform well in a test it was never designed or engineered to compete in.

I am not so sure that the "P" stands for premium, but it does carry a few more standard features than the standard LX. In light of an earlier comment, I think I will take an EX over this, as it does perform better, and I would stick with a manual given its redline of 7000 rpm. As for this review, it is extremely stupid. Track testing? Come on, this is a Honda Accord not an M3 or M5. To be fair, it should not be expected to generate performance numbers like one. I have my own love for performance cars, but I do have a practical side as well. The Honda Accord does what it was designed to do very well, aside from some road noise. It may not win races, but it makes perfectly adequate power for its mission. Furthermore, most of its buyers will never, ever subject it to slalom testing or hustling down twisty roads. If you want to do this in a Honda vehicle and still have room for your friends, pony up for a TSX ("still the 4 door S-2000" Car and Driver, July 2008). If you don't need room for friends or luggage, get an S2000 (better hurry, this is the final year for them). The Accord is not, and never has been marketed as a sports sedan, so don't compare it to one! For the record, it does do better than a Toyota Camry in overall performance if you want to compare it to something. The Honda Accord, as it stands, is a benchmark family hauler and will likely keep that title for many years to come. I rest my case.

For those of you complaining that this test information is crap, I'm not quite sure what you're complaining about. It merely highlights (as a good test should) that you should pony up the extra chunk of change for the EX trim because the LX-P is barely satisfactory.

For those of you complaining that this test puts the car in a situation where it shouldn't be (i.e. in a performance-oriented setting), consider this: you're driving down the road and around a blind corner there's a stopped/wrecked vehicle. You've got to swerve or stop to avoid wrecking yourself. Judging by the numbers of the LX-P, the test again makes the case that the higher trim level would be the better choice.

Stop looking at this as an assault on the Accord name. This test isn't useless, track testing provides a way to see how a car performs at extreme situations (i.e. emergency situations, as well as enjoyment situations). So please, quit complaining that this is useless just because it shows the car in an unfavorable light, because this isn't the only car they've ever tested this way.

^ I think you've nailed it. This process exposes the limitations of the vehicles, no more, no less.

"you're driving down the road and around a blind corner there's a stopped/wrecked vehicle."

I'm all for better performance, but in a situation like that, it's more about knowing your car's limitations and driving accordingly. Five years ago 60-0 in 137 feet would've been close to top in class. The variation in performance of cars on the road today is dwarfed by the variation in how people drive them.

I'll take a cautious driver in an Accord over a "let me show you what this thing can do" Porsche driver any day of the week.

I think the current Hondas aren't like the old ones except for a few extreme models like the Civic Si or S2000. The best Accord generation I think was the 90-93 model. It was light, roomy, zippy motor, good handling, fun to drive, and probably the model that gave Honda it's great reputation to the masses. I've test driven the current Honda sedans and none are really as interesting as that one. Current Honda's are too "Toyota-like" in their blandness.

Yes, I agree that there's value to track testing, regardless of the type of car. What puzzles me so much about this particular one is that the car with handling that IL refers to as a "mess" matched or beat key competitors such as the 2010 Ford Fusion and Mazda 6i in the category of ride and handling in recent tests by major publications such as Car and Driver, Motor Trend and Consumer Reports. While the editors at IL certainly have the right to their opinion, it's difficult to understand how it can be so completely contrary to that of their peers.

So what do we make of this? Since IL didn't do a comparison while the others did, and the Accord was found to be well matched in handling to its competition in these other publications, are the Fusion and Mazda 6 also a "mess" when it comes to handling when using IL's standards?

Yes, the cars that did well in the Car and Driver and Motor Trend comparos were EX trim models. But there's frankly very little that distinguishes the LX-P and EX equipment-wise in areas that would dramatically affect handling (16" H rated tires vs. 17" V rated tires and a front shock tower bar in the EX). Certainly not enough of a difference to take the Accord from being a handling "mess" to being accomplished and fully competitive in its class. And in CR's tests, the LX-P outhandled the Mazda 6i Sport in their avoidance maneuver test.

So I don't know what to make of the IL results. I can't help being skeptical of them in the face of the dramatically different results achieved by their peers. Are IL's performance standards poorly conceived for testing of family sedans? Is it just that a diss of the very popular Accord is newsworthy and results in a spike in hits on their site? I tend to dismiss the latter, since I usually regard Edmunds as a credible source, but there must be some explanation for this disparity.

One more thing... one major automotive source said this about the 2008 Accord LX-P:

"Our 2008 Honda Accord LX-P proved to be the crispest handling car of the group by far. Its steering is precise and communicative, and body control is excellent even through tighter turns. Firm, linear brake pedal action added to the Honda's secure feel."

Who was this "major automotive source"? Why, it was Edmunds Inside Line! Explain to me how the Accord LX-P went from being "the crispest handling car of the group by far" to a "mess" when tested twice by the same organization. This track test is nothing short of laughable. Do the members of the Edmunds IL team ever take the time to talk to each other? Why did they even bother to do this track test when the exact same car (one model year older) had already been extensively tested? I guess they showed me that my remark about Edmunds being a credible source was woefully misguided. From this point on, I take everything that is published by IL with a HUGE grain of salt.

If this car were made by one of the big 3, the press would trash it. I had a rental Accord and found the styling to be awkward, the interior cheep and ugly and refinement sub-par…too much road noise. No comparison to my Saturn Aura. But the biased press just can't be fair.

I think Ed (who wrote the article) must be baised towards Honda, maybe he's the Mechanic =O

or he just can't drive for shit

granted, I don't jump into ANY 4 door family sedan and expect it to perform, except for g8, m3, etc...

i've driven the new accord, altima, and fusion and civic (not si) down the local backroads and all of them are completely incompetent except for the civic which was surprisingly decent even though it wasn't an si...

all of them had extreme body roll, extreme brake fade, junk steering ( I felt like I piloting boats around)

Not defending Honda, but actually bashing the performance of all these "family" sedans...You can't expect these cars to perform like evos and stis

Fire Ed, ridiculous for having ANY expectations at all, probably is a lowly peon there too since they got him track testing an accord...

The Accord is slow and unremarkable- so are most I-4 powered family sedans. Stop quoting C&D's comparo because anyone who reads the magazine knows they are biased towards Honda and typically rate ANY Honda #1 regardless of merit. In the test that so many have referenced the Fusion actually beat the Accord in several measures and yet they pronounced the Fusion "soft" and put it in 3rd place. Keep in mind C&D praised the last gen Fusion for above average handling. There is nothing wrong with the mediocre stats put up by the Accord LX-P, but it does show you how average Hondas really are in spite of what IL and C&D tell us. Anyone ever notice how the numbers always get disregarded when it comes to a Honda or some other preferred brand? The Accord has NEVER been able to demonstrate above average performance in instrumented testing and yet we are told repeatedly that it's one of the sportiest cars in class. Looking at the numbers above I have my doubts. Getting another model would only improved acceleration and braking performances- and the braking wouldn't even change that much. The suspension does not change regardless of model.

"If this car were made by one of the big 3, the press would trash it."

Exactly. A Buick puts up similar stats and yet Buicks are chastised for being too soft.

It's like asking an obese person to get up and run a marathon...the expectation just won't be fulfilled. The Accord is a fine and practical family car, like so many others out there. The Altima is a good car, as is the Camry and even the new Malibu. Sure, the Altima is quicker, however; I find that the engine is rather unrefined and is always growly. The Malibu's 4-cylinder is super quiet and vibration-free, yet, when you step on the gas, it seems like nobody is home. It isn't all about 0-60 times either...there is a perception about gaining speed. Let's look back 20 years ago when Honda and Toyota put some SERIOUS pressure on the American automakers. Honda and Toyota were making cars that didn't break and were easy on the wallet when it came to fillups. The American car manufacturers had to STRUGGLE to make a decent 4-cylinder that didn't self destruct on one trip to redline or just go up in flames all together. The American cars have gotten SO much better...but define "American". The Accord is made in Ohio, the Camry is made Stateside too...it seems as thought the "American" companies are going to places like...MEXICO and CHINA! Honda and Toyota built a solid reputation around building good cars that last...sadly, the Big 3 have finally started producing cars that can compete, however; their "loyal" customers have been shunned by these company's operational mistakes. Everyone has a reputation...if you don't like a certain car...don't buy it. If you like another car...then that's the one you write your check for. In the end...if that car makes you happy...then it's a good one.

Slow and ugly, just one of the reasons, after owning three Hondas over the years, I will never own another. The so called quality of these vehicles left me stranded on more than one occassion.

The only way these vehicles "improve" is when junior gets his moms hand me down and installs a fart can muffler and a big ole wing.

"Honda and Toyota were making cars that didn't break and were easy on the wallet when it came to fillups. "

Thats the perception, but not reality. Japanese cars have not been signficantly more efficient over the last 20 years. The 1997 Accord V6 got 17/23 with a 2.6L V6 making 170hp. Comapare that to American vehicles of that era and you may be shocked. The 1998 Intrigue got slightly better mileage with a 3.8L engine.

"Accord is made in Ohio, the Camry is made Stateside too...it seems as thought the "American" companies are going to places like...MEXICO and CHINA! Honda and Toyota built a solid reputation around building good cars that last"

You have no idea what you are talking about. Only the Fusion is made in Mexico. Also, some camrys are built in Japan. Malibu is built in Kansas City- thats in the US last time I checked. The 2010 Taurus, Lacrosse, Aura, Focus, CTS, MKS, etc. are built in the US. No American automakers imports cars from China. No Chinese made cars are sold in the US, period. Where you are getting your informationm?