2008 Accord

On Oct 4, 8:44 pm, AZ Nomad > wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:09:32 -0400, alfred > wrote:
> >Has anyone tried driving the new 2008 Accord?
>
> No, it's amazing. Not one person anywhere, including honda has ever
> tried to drive it.

Sounds more like a new GM car.

"Dano58" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 4, 8:09 pm, "alfred" > wrote:
>> Has anyone tried driving the new 2008 Accord? I was just wondering if its
>> a
>> real noticible improvement for the ride, comfort and power, handling etc.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Al
>
> Gosh, I hope so because they certainly didn't improve the looks.....
>
> Dan D
> '07 Ody EX
> Central NJ USA
>

It looks like an Acura TL and a Hyundai Sonata mashed together. The
dashboard is an improvement over the old one which is real ugly and cheap
looking.

"Dick" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:10:42 -0500, "Pszemol" >
> wrote:
>> I had a chance to see 2008 coupe and sedans yesterday at the dealership.
>>They were both black. I know that taste is something very personal, but
>>I have to agree with you: compared to 2007 new accord looks much worse.
>>Very "aggressive", much smaller-looking car.
>
> That is interesting. I noticed the same thing when driving by a
> dealership yesterday. Car looks smaller, but is in fact much larger.
> It's even moved up a class in size.

Accord EX-L Coupe, AT 2008 2007 2004
(data from MSN Autos website)
Engine:
2.4L I4 (hp) 190 160 160
3.0L V6 (hp) 268 244 240

Exterior:
Curb Weight (lb) 3366 3177 3104
Wheelbase (in.) 107.90 105.10 105.10
Length (in.) 190.90 187.80 187.60
Width (in.) 72.80 71.30 71.30
Track Front (in.) 62.20 61.10 61.10

I can understand the width change since 2008 model has
its ugly, ugly looking door handles sticking out of the body :-)
How terrible it looks compared to flush handles in older models!

Interior:
Front Headroom (in.) 37.40 37.50 37.50
Rear Headroom (in.) 35.10 36.10 36.10
Front Legroom (in.) 42.20 43.10 43.10
Rear Legroom (in.) 33.10 31.90 31.90
Front Shoulder Room (in.) 58.40 56.10 56.10
Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 54.50 55.40 55.40
Front Hip Room (in.) 56.40 54.20 54.20
Rear Hip Room (in.) 46.30 46.10 46.10

You are right, to my surprise, that the exterior of the car is bigger.
However interior is not bigger, and in most categories smaller.
The 2008 is also almost 200 pounds heavier, so it makes it
like you are carrying one extra passenger all the time...
Stronger engine compesates this, but the fact stays true that
you are moving more steel to travel from point A to point B.
This has to have a negative impact on the fuel economy.

BTW - what category makes it go up in the class in size?

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 15:00:34 -0500, "Pszemol" >
wrote:

>"Dick" > wrote in message ...

>>
>> That is interesting. I noticed the same thing when driving by a
>> dealership yesterday. Car looks smaller, but is in fact much larger.
>> It's even moved up a class in size.
>

>You are right, to my surprise, that the exterior of the car is bigger.
>However interior is not bigger, and in most categories smaller.
>The 2008 is also almost 200 pounds heavier, so it makes it
>like you are carrying one extra passenger all the time...
>Stronger engine compesates this, but the fact stays true that
>you are moving more steel to travel from point A to point B.
>This has to have a negative impact on the fuel economy.
>
>BTW - what category makes it go up in the class in size?

According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#sizeclasses
class is based on interior passenger and cargo volume. A mid-size car
is defined as one with 110 to less than 120 cubic feet. A large car
has 120 and over. Edmunds still shows the 2008 Accord as an EPA rated
mid-size car, however, I cannot find it yet on the EPA website. I
have read other reviews that state the Accord is now a large car.
Can't give you a reference right now.

Dick

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Dick" > wrote in message ...
> According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#sizeclasses
> class is based on interior passenger and cargo volume. A mid-size car
> is defined as one with 110 to less than 120 cubic feet. A large car
> has 120 and over. Edmunds still shows the 2008 Accord as an EPA rated
> mid-size car, however, I cannot find it yet on the EPA website. I
> have read other reviews that state the Accord is now a large car.
> Can't give you a reference right now.

Coupe:
http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-...group=interior
Cargo Volume (cu. ft.) 11.9
Passenger Volume (cu. ft.) 92.1 (for LX-S) or 89.7 (for the rest of trims)

The sum will be 104 for LX-S or 101.7 for the rest.

Both coupes fit Compact range 100 - 109.

Same for sedans:
Cargo Volume (cu. ft.) 14
Passenger Volume (cu. ft.) 106 (for LX / LX-P) 101 (rest of the trims)

The sum will be 120 for LX or 115 for the rest.
So all sedans will be mid-size except LX which barely slip out to large.


When I was looking at the 2008 accord at the dealership I was
comparing coupe to my 2004, and it *looked* smaller than mine.

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 15:00:34 -0500, "Pszemol" >
wrote:

>"Dick" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:10:42 -0500, "Pszemol" >
>> wrote:
>>> I had a chance to see 2008 coupe and sedans yesterday at the dealership.
>>>They were both black. I know that taste is something very personal, but
>>>I have to agree with you: compared to 2007 new accord looks much worse.
>>>Very "aggressive", much smaller-looking car.
>>
>> That is interesting. I noticed the same thing when driving by a
>> dealership yesterday. Car looks smaller, but is in fact much larger.
>> It's even moved up a class in size.
>
>Accord EX-L Coupe, AT 2008 2007 2004
>(data from MSN Autos website)
>Engine:
>2.4L I4 (hp) 190 160 160
>3.0L V6 (hp) 268 244 240
>
>Exterior:
>Curb Weight (lb) 3366 3177 3104
>Wheelbase (in.) 107.90 105.10 105.10
>Length (in.) 190.90 187.80 187.60
>Width (in.) 72.80 71.30 71.30
>Track Front (in.) 62.20 61.10 61.10
>
>I can understand the width change since 2008 model has
>its ugly, ugly looking door handles sticking out of the body :-)
>How terrible it looks compared to flush handles in older models!
>
>Interior:
>Front Headroom (in.) 37.40 37.50 37.50
>Rear Headroom (in.) 35.10 36.10 36.10
>Front Legroom (in.) 42.20 43.10 43.10
>Rear Legroom (in.) 33.10 31.90 31.90
>Front Shoulder Room (in.) 58.40 56.10 56.10
>Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 54.50 55.40 55.40
>Front Hip Room (in.) 56.40 54.20 54.20
>Rear Hip Room (in.) 46.30 46.10 46.10
>
>You are right, to my surprise, that the exterior of the car is bigger.
>However interior is not bigger, and in most categories smaller.
>The 2008 is also almost 200 pounds heavier, so it makes it
>like you are carrying one extra passenger all the time...
>Stronger engine compesates this, but the fact stays true that
>you are moving more steel to travel from point A to point B.
>This has to have a negative impact on the fuel economy.
>
>BTW - what category makes it go up in the class in size?


If it matters I read the 2008 is 3 cu. ft larger inside than the older
Accords. Most of it from my inspection is in head height.

<dhouston> wrote in message ...
>>> That is interesting. I noticed the same thing when driving by a
>>> dealership yesterday. Car looks smaller, but is in fact much larger.
>>> It's even moved up a class in size.
>>
>>Accord EX-L Coupe, AT 2008 2007 2004
>>(data from MSN Autos website)
>>Engine:
>>2.4L I4 (hp) 190 160 160
>>3.0L V6 (hp) 268 244 240
>>
>>Exterior:
>>Curb Weight (lb) 3366 3177 3104
>>Wheelbase (in.) 107.90 105.10 105.10
>>Length (in.) 190.90 187.80 187.60
>>Width (in.) 72.80 71.30 71.30
>>Track Front (in.) 62.20 61.10 61.10
>>
>>I can understand the width change since 2008 model has
>>its ugly, ugly looking door handles sticking out of the body :-)
>>How terrible it looks compared to flush handles in older models!
>>
>>Interior:
>>Front Headroom (in.) 37.40 37.50 37.50
>>Rear Headroom (in.) 35.10 36.10 36.10
>>Front Legroom (in.) 42.20 43.10 43.10
>>Rear Legroom (in.) 33.10 31.90 31.90
>>Front Shoulder Room (in.) 58.40 56.10 56.10
>>Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 54.50 55.40 55.40
>>Front Hip Room (in.) 56.40 54.20 54.20
>>Rear Hip Room (in.) 46.30 46.10 46.10
>>
>>You are right, to my surprise, that the exterior of the car is bigger.
>>However interior is not bigger, and in most categories smaller.
>>The 2008 is also almost 200 pounds heavier, so it makes it
>>like you are carrying one extra passenger all the time...
>>Stronger engine compesates this, but the fact stays true that
>>you are moving more steel to travel from point A to point B.
>>This has to have a negative impact on the fuel economy.
>>
>>BTW - what category makes it go up in the class in size?
>
>
> If it matters I read the 2008 is 3 cu. ft larger inside than the older
> Accords. Most of it from my inspection is in head height.

Well, it must be sedan then, because coupe has smaller headroom.

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:37:32 -0500, "Pszemol" >
wrote:

><dhouston> wrote in message ...
>>>> That is interesting. I noticed the same thing when driving by a
>>>> dealership yesterday. Car looks smaller, but is in fact much larger.
>>>> It's even moved up a class in size.
>>>
>>>Accord EX-L Coupe, AT 2008 2007 2004
>>>(data from MSN Autos website)
>>>Engine:
>>>2.4L I4 (hp) 190 160 160
>>>3.0L V6 (hp) 268 244 240
>>>
>>>Exterior:
>>>Curb Weight (lb) 3366 3177 3104
>>>Wheelbase (in.) 107.90 105.10 105.10
>>>Length (in.) 190.90 187.80 187.60
>>>Width (in.) 72.80 71.30 71.30
>>>Track Front (in.) 62.20 61.10 61.10
>>>
>>>I can understand the width change since 2008 model has
>>>its ugly, ugly looking door handles sticking out of the body :-)
>>>How terrible it looks compared to flush handles in older models!
>>>
>>>Interior:
>>>Front Headroom (in.) 37.40 37.50 37.50
>>>Rear Headroom (in.) 35.10 36.10 36.10
>>>Front Legroom (in.) 42.20 43.10 43.10
>>>Rear Legroom (in.) 33.10 31.90 31.90
>>>Front Shoulder Room (in.) 58.40 56.10 56.10
>>>Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 54.50 55.40 55.40
>>>Front Hip Room (in.) 56.40 54.20 54.20
>>>Rear Hip Room (in.) 46.30 46.10 46.10
>>>
>>>You are right, to my surprise, that the exterior of the car is bigger.
>>>However interior is not bigger, and in most categories smaller.
>>>The 2008 is also almost 200 pounds heavier, so it makes it
>>>like you are carrying one extra passenger all the time...
>>>Stronger engine compesates this, but the fact stays true that
>>>you are moving more steel to travel from point A to point B.
>>>This has to have a negative impact on the fuel economy.
>>>
>>>BTW - what category makes it go up in the class in size?
>>
>>
>> If it matters I read the 2008 is 3 cu. ft larger inside than the older
>> Accords. Most of it from my inspection is in head height.
>
>Well, it must be sedan then, because coupe has smaller headroom.

Correct. I did not look at the coupe's specs.

Yes the car is bigger, and its in the full size category instead of a mid
sized car. It has alot more HP and is supposed to have better handling and
braking and ride. Its already in my dealerships where I am. I personally
like the looks of the new accord. I don't think its ugly at all.I was
thinking about dark gray for a color, but still not sure if I want this car.
Maybe.



>>>>
>>>>You are right, to my surprise, that the exterior of the car is bigger.
>>>>However interior is not bigger, and in most categories smaller.
>>>>The 2008 is also almost 200 pounds heavier, so it makes it
>>>>like you are carrying one extra passenger all the time...
>>>>Stronger engine compesates this, but the fact stays true that
>>>>you are moving more steel to travel from point A to point B.
>>>>This has to have a negative impact on the fuel economy.
>>>>
>>>>BTW - what category makes it go up in the class in size?
>>>
>>>
>>> If it matters I read the 2008 is 3 cu. ft larger inside than the older
>>> Accords. Most of it from my inspection is in head height.
>>
>>Well, it must be sedan then, because coupe has smaller headroom.
>
> Correct. I did not look at the coupe's specs.

On Oct 8, 2:19 pm, "alfred" > wrote:
> Yes the car is bigger, and its in the full size category instead of a mid
> sized car. It has alot more HP and is supposed to have better handling and
> braking and ride. Its already in my dealerships where I am. I personally
> like the looks of the new accord. I don't think its ugly at all.I was
> thinking about dark gray for a color, but still not sure if I want this car.
> Maybe.
>
>
I sat in a couple of 2008 sedans yesterday but didn't bother with a
test drive. (No 5-speeds in stock.)

Size: Accord isn't a full sized car by Buick standards. The back seat
is now more comfortable in terms of leg room and I think the two front
seats are a bit wider.

Seats: IMHO, the cloth seats in the 2008 EX are very comfortable, FAR
better than those in the last Accord (which I thought were lousy).
However, the 2008 leather seats are awful. You sit on top of the
leather seat, not in it. The leather is pretty hard which only makes
the poor seat design that much worse.

Exterior styling: IMHO, no contest, the 2008 is *far* nicer than the
previous Accord.
Dashboard: If I were to buy a sedan based on the dash design, I
wouldn't buy an Accord. Toyota does a much better job.

YMMV