Article Comments - 2008 Honda Accord First Drive, Full Test and Long Term Test

309 messages, Last post on May 02, 2009 at 8:03 PM

You are in the Honda Accord Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Honda Accord, Coupe, Sedan

First Drive: 2008 Honda Accord Sedan - The '08 Accord strikes a familiar balance of performance, value and efficiency. But this time it's not bland. (more)

First Drive: 2008 Honda Accord Coupe - An oddly sexy Honda Accord with the heart of, well, a Honda Accord. (more)

Full Test: 2008 Honda Accord EX V6 - At the test track, the new Accord hit 60 mph in 7.1 seconds and ran the quarter-mile in 15.5 seconds at 91.8 mph. That's a solid improvement over the Accord in our last V6 Family Sedan Comparison Test, but it's still well behind the Camry V6 that whomped to 60 in just 6.5 seconds and scorched the quarter in 14.6 seconds at 97.3 mph. (more)

Long-Term Test: 2008 Honda Accord EX-L V6 - With every new generation of a vehicle as popular as this, questions are raised, even more so in a segment as fiercely competitive as the family sedan market. Has Honda gone too far in an effort to spice up its volume offering, aspired to too much sophistication? (more)

Outline

Messages Page 31 of 32: 1; ...; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32; Prev; Next; Last

#294 of 309 Re: [bodble2] by th83 Dec 02, 2008 (1:06 pm)
Replying to: bodble2 (Dec 02, 2008 12:35 pm) Edmunds launches their cars just as aggressively as the other guys do. In fact, they often mention their launch methods on the results page of a road test, and their methods usually include brake-torquing and clutch-abusing techniques. Replies to this message: bodble2 (Dec 02, 2008 5:06 pm) thegraduate (Dec 02, 2008 8:22 pm) ctl (Dec 03, 2008 10:28 am) and 11 more...
#295 of 309 Re: [th83] by bodble2 Dec 02, 2008 (5:06 pm)
Replying to: th83 (Dec 02, 2008 1:06 pm) Then it's strange that there would be such big discrepancies in acceleration times. Replies to this message: thegraduate (Dec 02, 2008 8:22 pm) ctl (Dec 03, 2008 10:28 am) szer (Dec 03, 2008 3:42 pm) and 9 more... elroy5 (Dec 03, 2008 3:52 pm)
#296 of 309 Re: [bodble2] by thegraduate Dec 02, 2008 (8:22 pm)
Replying to: bodble2 (Dec 02, 2008 5:06 pm) Something is definitely different. Maybe the combination of a surface less conducive for quick launches combined with the fact that perhaps the magazines allow the "1-foot rollout" while Edmunds does not. Whatever the reasoning, Edmunds' times come out consistently slower, nearly EVERY time. Replies to this message: ctl (Dec 03, 2008 10:28 am) szer (Dec 03, 2008 3:42 pm) carzzz (Dec 03, 2008 4:20 pm) and 7 more... hondalvr1 (Jan 27, 2009 10:20 am) elroy5 (Dec 03, 2008 3:52 pm)
#297 of 309 0-60, 1/4 miles by ctl Dec 03, 2008 (10:28 am)
Replying to: thegraduate (Dec 02, 2008 8:22 pm) Comparing results from different sources is probably not quite meaningful. Here are edmunds numbers in a comparison test (same time/place, same method, same tester). I think at current generation, Accord V6 drive train (old timing belt engine, old 5 speed auto) are falling quite behind the competitors. Camry V6: 6.6, 14.9 Altima V6: 6.8, 15.2 Accord V6: 7.0, 15.3 (BTW, Accord V6 2006 model: 7.6) Malibu V6: 6.6, 15.1 Replies to this message: szer (Dec 03, 2008 3:42 pm) carzzz (Dec 03, 2008 4:20 pm) szer (Dec 03, 2008 4:57 pm) and 5 more... elroy5 (Dec 03, 2008 9:10 pm) hondalvr1 (Jan 27, 2009 10:20 am) elroy5 (Dec 03, 2008 3:52 pm)
#298 of 309 Re: 0-60, 1/4 miles [ctl] by szer Dec 03, 2008 (3:42 pm)
Replying to: ctl (Dec 03, 2008 10:28 am) FYI, Accord is using a timing chain and you don't need to go 0-60 every time you drive so your argument about which car goes faster in 0-60 is ridiculous. Last but not least to say that the 5spd auto is inferior to other 6spd auto in the competitors' car is BS because the 5spd in the Accord is rated as one of the best, or say even better than Malibu's with its superior grade logic control. The best way to gauge is to test drive each one of the cars by yourself before buying. For me, I hated the Malibu and the Altima the most during the test drives and Camry and accord was the consideration for me. I got myself a 09 V6 accord ex-l w/ nav and I am under the age of 30 Replies to this message: carzzz (Dec 03, 2008 4:20 pm) szer (Dec 03, 2008 4:57 pm) ctl (Dec 04, 2008 4:43 pm) and 4 more... elroy5 (Dec 03, 2008 9:10 pm) hondalvr1 (Jan 27, 2009 10:20 am)
#299 of 309 Re: 0-60, 1/4 miles [ctl] by elroy5 Dec 03, 2008 (3:52 pm)
Replying to: ctl (Dec 03, 2008 10:28 am) Considering the Accord is the biggest, and one of the heaviest cars in the midsize segment, I don't think .4 seconds slower than the fastest car is that bad. This is a family car, not a racing car. 1/4 mile times are not important to me, since I will probably never keep the pedal to the floor that long (from a stop). From 60mph, to the end of the quarter mile, it is only .1 second off the fastest time. When it comes to passing power 55mph and up, the Accord is pretty good, and that's the only time I need quick acceleration for passing. The Accord has never been the fastest, but I love it anyway.
#300 of 309 Re: 0-60, 1/4 miles [szer] by carzzz Dec 03, 2008 (4:20 pm)
Replying to: szer (Dec 03, 2008 3:42 pm) "'Accord is using a timing chain" FYI, your accord V6 has timing belt. Accord I4 with K series engine (03+) uses timing chain! Replies to this message: szer (Dec 03, 2008 4:57 pm) ctl (Dec 04, 2008 4:43 pm) szer (Dec 04, 2008 4:51 pm) elroy5 (Dec 04, 2008 8:01 pm) and 2 more... elroy5 (Dec 03, 2008 9:10 pm)
#301 of 309 Re: 0-60, 1/4 miles [carzzz] by szer Dec 03, 2008 (4:57 pm)
Replying to: carzzz (Dec 03, 2008 4:20 pm) sorry for my mistake. I thought it was using the timing chain like my K24 series 08 CR-V. pardon my ignorance , but it is an overstatement that using a timing belt is old technology and is bad. After reading through some information I googled out timing chain vs timing belt, aside from the longevity standpoint, quoted "While chains and gears may be more durable, rubber belts are quieter in their operation (in most modern engines the noise difference is negligible), are less expensive and are mechanically more efficient, by dint of being considerably lighter, when compared with a gear or chain system. Also, timing belts do not require lubrication, which is essential with a timing chain or gears. A timing belt is a specific application of a synchronous belt used to transmit rotational power synchronously." So, overall, it's not like the world is going to end and it's not going to make me regret my purchase. Replies to this message: ctl (Dec 04, 2008 4:43 pm) szer (Dec 04, 2008 4:51 pm) elroy5 (Dec 04, 2008 8:01 pm) bvdj84 (Dec 05, 2008 5:05 am) ctl (Dec 11, 2008 11:02 am)
#302 of 309 Re: 0-60, 1/4 miles [carzzz] by elroy5 Dec 03, 2008 (9:10 pm)
Replying to: carzzz (Dec 03, 2008 4:20 pm) I have no problem with my timing belt. It's the reason I only hear the fuel injectors clicking when I start the engine. Timing chains do go bad. I had to change the timing chain on my Chevy truck. Not because of the chain, but the tensioner, but it's the same amount of work either way. I will probably change the belt myself, when the time comes, and I'm looking forward to it.
#303 of 309 Re: 0-60, 1/4 miles [szer] by ctl Dec 04, 2008 (4:43 pm)
Replying to: szer (Dec 03, 2008 4:57 pm) Well, talk about being defensive... I didn't say if I am in the family sedan market, those factors will cause me to write Accord V6 off, as it has its advantages over others. It is just plain fact that the current Accord V6 is a pretty old design, enlarged from that 3.0 V6 from... 1998? Timing chain... let's just say that there is a reason everyone is moving to it (including Honda itself). Like to change your belt? go for it, it is your car I just think that among the family sedans, if I can pick and choose, I will probably take some major parts from Accord (body, chasis, suspension...), but two things for sure not will be that V6 (give me Nissan or Toyota GR) and that 5AT. Replies to this message: szer (Dec 04, 2008 4:51 pm) elroy5 (Dec 04, 2008 8:01 pm) bvdj84 (Dec 05, 2008 5:05 am) ctl (Dec 11, 2008 11:02 am)