Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My fiancee owns a 2008 (current generation) Accord 4 cylinder sedan. After having read how great Accords are in the media for years, and their reputation around the net, I have to say I am greatly disappointed in this car.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good car IMO. It starts and drives fine, the ride is pretty good (not as good as my Volvo but that may not be a fair comparison), for a 4 cylinder it has decent acceleration. However, it is also a sea of boring black plastic inside, strange dash button layout, the rear door seals do not fit right (from the factory), it has a chronic rear brake squeel which Honda knows about and cannot fix.
I would not get rid of it due to these problems. However, the only thing I can see which would put it ahead of any number of other sedans is Honda's reputation for long term reliability. I cannot imagine cross shopping this car with rivals, and chosing it, unless I was fixed on that reputation. Now, having experienced the car, and seen the unfixable brake squeel, the door seals, and a tranny recall, it doesn't seem to be any more reliable at a young age than other cars either.
The biggest disappointment, however, is fuel mileage. It averages just at (or slightly under) 20 MPG. My turbo Volvo gets 23-24 in the same type of driving. I certainly expected it to be better on fuel!
I know, these are small issues. As I said, i do think it is a good car. I just do not see what makes this one of the best mid size sedans money can buy. It doesn't really stand out anywhere.
My fiancee owns a 2008 (current generation) Accord 4 cylinder sedan. After having read how great Accords are in the media for years, and their reputation around the net, I have to say I am greatly disappointed in this car.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good car IMO. It starts and drives fine, the ride is pretty good (not as good as my Volvo but that may not be a fair comparison), for a 4 cylinder it has decent acceleration. However, it is also a sea of boring black plastic inside, strange dash button layout, the rear door seals do not fit right (from the factory), it has a chronic rear brake squeel which Honda knows about and cannot fix.
I would not get rid of it due to these problems. However, the only thing I can see which would put it ahead of any number of other sedans is Honda's reputation for long term reliability. I cannot imagine cross shopping this car with rivals, and chosing it, unless I was fixed on that reputation. Now, having experienced the car, and seen the unfixable brake squeel, the door seals, and a tranny recall, it doesn't seem to be any more reliable at a young age than other cars either.
The biggest disappointment, however, is fuel mileage. It averages just at (or slightly under) 20 MPG. My turbo Volvo gets 23-24 in the same type of driving. I certainly expected it to be better on fuel!
I know, these are small issues. As I said, i do think it is a good car. I just do not see what makes this one of the best mid size sedans money can buy. It doesn't really stand out anywhere.
I owned a 2003 Accord V6 from 30-70k miles on the odometer. After owning the car for a while I did start to wonder why Car and Driver gives it such high marks on driving dynamics. I felt like the ride was too stiff for a family sedan and the handling just OK. The car was extremely reliable though and I still think Honda deserves high marks there. The maintenance amounted to one set of brakes, tires and 6k mile oil changes. I drove the 2008 Accord when it was released and felt like it was a pretty modest improvement on the 03-07's. BTW, I got 23mpg in mixed driving in the Accord which I thought was fine for a 240HP 6 cylinder car.
I rode in a brand new Pilot recently and it had too much hard plastic and road noise for a $35-40k vehicle. Honda needs to install softer interior plastics and start adding sound deadening in their cars to stay competitive.
I think the accord is living off its old reputation. There are a few better cars in that price range and type that I would probably buy before the accord.
I have had several Hondas over the years and found them good but not outstanding. We recently shopped for a new family sedan and drove the Accord as well as many others... we bought a Hyundai Sonata.
It all depends on the trim levels you are looking at. This was discussed recently in the Camry thread. Most of the magazines and other comparisons are always pitting the top-of-the-line models against each other. In those cases you can start to see the differences in the "sporting" intentions of the cars and the best efforts in terms of interior from each company. What they generally don't compare are the base model 4 cylinder cars, which are what most people buy and are very different from the often reviewed and loved models.
Some recent comparo's put the top model Accord at the top of the pack against the Fusion, Sonata, Camry, Altima, etc. Other ones that compared the more base model placed the Accord midpack. It all comes down to what you want out of the car. I think it's important to realize that the Accord EX-L V6 swathed in leather and high tech gadgets with a different suspension tune may be best in class against other similar trims, while the base model I4 with cloth and a radio, isn't necessarily the best when compared to others.
FWIW, Honda has seen a slip in quality and execution recently. I personally think they still make good cars, but they aren't the Honda they used to be. In their defense though, all cars have issues and nagging problems. Maybe people just expect more because it's a Honda Accord than they would if they were driving a Malibu.
Honda has excellent reliability but you tend to pay a bit of a premium for what you get.
With the current quality gains by the domestics, I would think hard about what is the best deal for the money and weigh my top priorities.
With that said, anyone making blanket statements across an entire brand in this day and age is likely to wind up disappointed. Be sure to comparison shop.
I test drove a 2010 and pretty much despised it. I think Honda's been trading on their name for the last 10 years at least. I remember loving the first, second and fourth-gen Accords.
My favorite Accord was the third generation 1989 Honda Accord LXi that was handed down to me by my dad. It was smooth and so reliable. The handling was great on that car because you were in tuned with the road. That Honda was the first Honda to have double-wishbones at the front and rear ends.
If you had the manual version it was even more fun to drive.That car was abused but just kept on going and was easy to work on too. The only drawback was, it lacked power. Now, the Accords are big and boring to drive, but still reliable as usual.
They have been riding the name.... I feel they are as similar as other cars. But they sell for a premium price making them not worth it imo....
Sent from my autocorrect butchering device.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has not been the same since Soichiro left.
