We own two cars--a 1988 Olds 98 and a 2002 Accord LX 5-speed manual. When we bought the Accord in the summer of 02 I knew that the next generation was just around the corner, but I bought a 6th generation for the lower price (paid $15,700) and for the greater reliability (I think the last year of a design they've usually worked out almost all of the bugs--and our Accord has been very reliable).

Not surprisingly, our 88 Olds is due--in fact way overdue--for replacement. And I've previously posted here asking for suggestions about model (4 cylinder or 6), etc. We have the money to pay cash for the thing, which is great, but I've held off even though the radio in the Olds is mostly kaput, and the electronic HVAC is going on and off. The reason is that the 8th generation seems worth waiting for--even though it will cost more and probably have some reliability issues. But, I'm also tempted by the great deals on the 7th generation, and I think they've fixed the styling on it.

My wife really wants stability control (antiskid, or whatever it's called), which is only available on the 6 cylinder now. I really want a manual, which means the 6 MT, which may be hard to find. But although I crave the power a bit, I'm interested in the higher economy and lower emissions of the 4.

Anyway, I'm still torn between buying the 7th generation in the next few months, and buying the 8th generation perhaps in the summer of 2008 (if we can wait that long, so that they get out at least some of the bugs). I've been thinking about the pros and cons of each generation. It seems like there are more pros with the 8th, but hard to say:

Reasons to wait for 8th generation 2008 Accord:
rumored to have new Advanced A-VTEC engine-more power and higher mpg
probably will have stability control across the line (so could get 4 cylinder)
I think I like the new styling
New ACE body structure should be even safer than 7th gen

Reasons to avoid the 8th generation
It will cost more
Probably will have some reliability issues

Reasons to get 7th generation
I might be able to get a 6 cylinder for about the price of a 4 on the 8th
Should be dead reliable
Like the styling of the 7th

Cons
Doesn't have A-VTEC, stability on 4, or new ACE body structure

We plan to live with this car a long time, so I want to get it right. Can't go wrong, really, since either way we're getting an Accord. Right now I'm leaning toward limping along with the old Olds if possible, and then being one of the first on the block with one of the nifty new 8th generations. Want XM on the next car, and so may need to go for the EX, which would be pricey. Any thoughts?

Usually I tried to avoid buying cars at the first or last year of production.. (I bought my 2003 used)

There are so many uncertainty about the first year car and maybe tons of minor, if not major, problem also. So I would suggest you to wait if you plan to buy a brand new one. Also, I think you might need to pay MSRP for the 8th gen if you plan to get one this year...

The problem of getting a 7th gen right now is the resell value problem. You don't wanna see the new Accord parking next to you while yours is still with the dealer sticker.

If I were you, I might just look at other cars at this time. But it's just my .2 and in fact we don't know much about the 8th gen yet... :)

Well, I think the safer bet is the 7th gen. As far as your concerns of economy go, there is really very little difference between the i4 and the v6. I get about 32mpg on the highway and average 26-27mpg with about a 60/40 split of city/highway driving (not sure what I get exactly in the city these days), and this is on winter gas. The emissions are another issue of course as the I4 wins hands down in this dept. As far as stability control goes, I think it's fantastic, though I could live without it as well. If you get some good tires it makes the stability control sort of irrelevant. When I had the oem mxm4's on, vsa seemed like the best thing since sliced bread in slick conditions, but after I put my snows on it just doesn't seem important at all in slick conditions, and I turn it off the majority of the time anyway. If you are a really hardcore environmentalist and care about the slight difference in emissions then the I4 is a better bet, but if VSA and a little more power is more important to you then the V6 is more up your alley. When I got mine, I was coming from a 2000 4runner which was a huge gas hog as I got about 16-17mpg on the highway, so 32mpg highway seemed great to me (and it still does). You might want to look at the Acura TSX as well as it seems like the best of both words for what you are looking for. I think VSA is standard in the TSX, it's a 4cyl (though it runs on premium, not sure about actual mpg numbers though), and it has a slick manual transmission. If I were looking for a 4cyl sedan with a mt, this is what I would be looking to get. The downside is that it will cost as much as the 6mt accord does before a generation transition, though you can probably still get a very good deal on one if you wait till the end of summer or later.

As far as 7th gen vs 8th gen...

You will undoubtedly see lower reliability as you almost always will with the first year of a generation. The 8th generation suspension is going to most likely be a downgrade from the current one which is still pretty lame. The motor may or may not be better depending. It will certainly have more power and better economy, however how much better is yet to be seen. Also, cylinder deactivation isn't always all it's cracked up to be, so that could be something to consider. The 8th gen does look very unique though, and I love those projector headlights.

Chanke wrote: "The 8th generation suspension is going to most likely be a downgrade from the current one..."

Oh no. Is that true? Where did you hear that? Do you have a link? The suspension is quite important to me. I like the sporty suspension of the Accord, which is one of the big reasons why I think it is superior to the Camry and every other car that it competes with.

If they are degrading the suspension, I might be more tempted by the 7th gen.

Chanke wrote: "The 8th generation suspension is going to most likely be a downgrade from the current one..."

Oh no. Is that true? Where did you hear that? Do you have a link? The suspension is quite important to me. I like the sporty suspension of the Accord, which is one of the big reasons why I think it is superior to the Camry and every other car that it competes with.

If they are degrading the suspension, I might be more tempted by the 7th gen.

Doubt it. If anything it'll handle better to compete with Mazda 6, Altima, Camry SE, and Fusion. :yes:

Ride quality should be better, and when chanke used the word "downgrade", I think it would've been smart to state how he meant that, downgrade means many things for different people. Just my $.02.

I say wait until the 08 is here, that way you can score again with a bottom dollar price on a new Accord!

We have two kids, and find that when we take family trips we need all the room that we currently have in the 6th generation Accord. The Acura TSX is tempting, but since it's smaller I don't think it would be enough car for us. Also, the thrifty part of me says that I could get an Accord EX V6 6MT for about the same price as a TSX. Getting a bigger car with a bigger engine seems worth it, although no doubt an Acura is a higher level experience in many ways. Also, as a humble art historian, I'm not sure how I'd feel being seen by my colleagues at the university in an Acura (although one of them drives a brand new Volvo S60--which is I think a 30k-40k car).

Giving the very sporty look of the 8th generation, I somewhat doubt that they would downgrade the famous "double wishbone" suspension. I could be wrong, but it seems like they are aiming for the more sporting driver in terms of the styling, and I assume they would keep the hardware to back up that look.

It does seem like the 8th generation may have a rather sporty roof line, which to me is a mixed blessing. It may look good, but I hate to sacrifice headroom. Overall I'd rather have more room inside than have it look more like a race car. If the 8th generation is smaller inside than the 7th or 6th generation, I'd be tempted to get a 7th generation car.

My wife actually prefers an automatic. I'm not sure I could live with that (and she's ok with going manual), but the current SE V6 seems like a great deal. It has VSA and all the rest of the safety stuff, plus the power of that great 6. And I think they may be going at retail for only a little more than 22k at this point. I wish that model had the 6 MT.

If you plan on keeping the car for 6-7 years or longer, go with the 7th gen unless the 8th gen has something that you GOT to have. After 6-7 years, resale values aren't as much of an issue anymore since the depreciated amount should be the same. You'll save more money on everything with the 7th gen vs the 8th gen.

There should be some great deals on the 7th just before or after
the 8th comes out.The 7th gen,where its priced at is simply the best
bang for your $.If you decide to go for the 8th,you might want to
compare to a 2007 tl,or a few other cars in the same price range.
For the money,this is the best time to purchase that accord.
Unless $ is no object.And the styling of the 7th unlike other
cars seems to grow on you.

But what will the 8th gen. sedan actually look like? Unlike the coupe that had a real model at the auto show, I've only seen renderings of what the sedan *may* look like. If it's anything like the Civic's last redesign, I will probably love the coupe and just be so-so on the sedan.

My point, benjaminh, is are you willing to wait and take that chance too?

If I'm remembering right, we saw actual pix of the 7th generation sedan a few months before it was at the dealers. At that point, I think most of the tech info (about engines, abs, etc.) came out too.

So, there will probably be a couple of months in the late summer before the new model is introduced when we'll probably know a good deal about the 8th generation, while at the same time the last of the 7th generations should be available at a very good price. If I get worried about something related to the 8th generation this summer--regarding room, styling, price, or something else--I could still buy one of the last of the 2007 Accords. Although if I wait too long it could be hard to find one with the manual transmission I want.

But right now I'm thinking that the 8th generation is going to be great. It'll probably have that A-VTEC engine (some people have guessed an 8-10% increase in hp and mpg), VSA across the line, ACE body structure, nice styling (a little aggressive perhaps, but I think I can get used to it).

When I bought our 2002 Accord it was really important for me to get the lowest possible price. Our economic situation is a bit bit better now, and it's less necessary for me to get a bargain this time. We can afford to spend a bit more to get the dream car. The question is which model of which generation fits the bill. I'm still on the fence, which is kind of annoying (to me, and perhaps to others too)...

By downgrade I meant that they will be using a macpherson strut setup like they did in the RSX and the current Civic which is generally worse than a double-wishbone setup, though also cheap for honda to manufacture. I cannot remember where I read that however, but I remember that it wasn't just someone spouting off rumors (I think it was an article previewing the 8th gen coupe). I will try to find it again and post a link. As far as honda making the accord's handling better to compete with the competition, that's not really going to be that difficult considering the competitors regardless of what setup the 8th gen uses due to the fact that the camry, fusion, m6, etc are all pretty mediocre in the handling department. There are a few exceptions to the "cars with macpherson struts suck in terms of handling and ride quality" rule, but not many. Unless honda miraculously perfects their macpherson struts like bmw, this will be my last honda (though admitedly my favorite one).

I haven't been keeping up with auto news as much the last month or two. For the 8th generation, when are they saying the diesel will hit? If they have a hybrid will it still be the 6 or will it be the i4?

A downgrade is not ungeard of. Honda did it before with the Civic, "dumbing down" the suspension between the 1992-1995 generation and the 1996-2000 generation. Not sure exactly what the changes consisted of, but I know there were changes, and I had both generations and noticed more Buick-ness in my '98... :thumbsdow

well, at least the civic has it's small size to help in the handling department. the accord is much bigger and heavier and suspension changes for the worst will be more easily noticed. Though, it's still a wait and see sort of thing.

No double wishbone all around for the new Accord, say it ain't so. Please, say it ain't so.

I thought the Civic lost it's front wishbone suspension in the '01 MY.

No double wishbone all around for the new Accord, say it ain't so. Please, say it ain't so.It ain't so! :D At least, I hope it ain't so, too. The Accord is most likely going to retain it's double wishbones all around since it's bigger than the Civic.


I thought the Civic lost it's front wishbone suspension in the '01 MY.Honda decided to use the McPherson Struts on the Civic starting in '01 because there was no room for double wishbones. But then again, no one (but Honda) knows what kind of changes there will be in the specs for the 8th gen. Anything you hear right now is pure speculation.

Does anyone have any links to the sure-enough generation 8?

I've plenty of the renderings floating around numerously posted, and I've also seen the coupe concept, but is there anything official etc on the real-deal for the new sedan version?

Does anyone have any links to the sure-enough generation 8? Nope. Not yet, but I'm sure something will come up by the end of May.

These are what I have found.

http://www.mobilemag.com/content/images/11135_super.jpg
http://www.mobilemag.com/content/images/11251_large.jpg
http://www.htlounge.net/content_images/2/8105_large.jpg

It ain't so! :D At least, I hope it ain't so, too. The Accord is most likely going to retain it's double wishbones all around since it's bigger than the Civic.


Honda decided to use the McPherson Struts on the Civic starting in '01 because there was no room for double wishbones. But then again, no one (but Honda) knows what kind of changes there will be in the specs for the 8th gen. Anything you hear right now is pure speculation.

All of the cars sold under the honda name in the states, except for the accord and s2000, now use macpherson struts in the front (including all of the vehicles that are larger than the accord). They've used the same accord platform for a number of years. Since then they have redone a number of cars, created a number of cars, and done some cost-cutting across the board. Now that it's the accord's turn for a platform redesign it's wishful thinking to assume they are going to keep the double-wishbone all-around on the accord. I also highly doubt that they switched the civic over to macpherson in the front because there was no room, unless there was also no room in the ridgeline, odyssey, crv, pilot and element for the double-wishbone fronts. That may be what was said, but I don't think I've ever heard someone from any car company say "we did this because it's cheaper, even if it does make your car suck a little more".

Looking at the front overhang on the Accord Coupe concept, it's looks like the front double-wishbone suspension is not going away.

Small overhang on a transverse-engine FWD car = MacStrut suspension.

These are what I have found.

http://www.mobilemag.com/content/images/11135_super.jpg
http://www.mobilemag.com/content/images/11251_large.jpg
http://www.htlounge.net/content_images/2/8105_large.jpg
These are all photochopped or artists' concept pics. They're not photos of the real thing.

Like I said before, give Honda a few months... ;)

i will never own a 1st year model or even a 2nd year model. my jetta was a 1st year mk4 and it had so many things that did not work right. the 2nd year models had so much changed on them and drove so smooth but the 3rd year was when they got everything right.
you will pay for being first and that dose not just apply to cars.
the movie theater i work at was the first carmike cinemas to ever get digital projectors that was fun :nuts: we had and still have so many problems in projection. :headbash:

I sold jettas... I mean no offense, but the veedubs don't work right regardless if they're 1st year or last year of a body style. sorry. The service guys and the used car manager loved 'em though. NAFTA and the inflood from Eastern to Western Germany bringing socialism with it.. Two of my theories with the demise of US market german cars.

If I were going to go with a 1st model-year new design, it would be either H or T.. But that's about it.. maybe subaru, but they do new designs about once a decade.. They just refresh refresh refresh.

On those concept pics, I have to say I lean more towards the red civic-styled concept over the acura-based above.. Looks sharp. I think H should keep it's character far removed from Ack or the perception of "rebadging cookie cutter cars" will hurt them.

The VW Jetta has been an overall reliability liability for decades. Like all cars, they may exhibit their worst reliability issues in their first redesign year, but they remain uniformly lousy along those lines at all times, otherwise. Quite sad, as VW builds superb cars in most other respects. But reliability? Until the data shows they've completely turned their products around I'll never, NEVER buy one of their patronizing products. In my opinion they can summarily kiss off until then. Poor reliability angers me greatly and I positively will not stand for it. Ever.

Consumer Reports compiled an extensive study of their reliability data several years ago that shows essentially all first year redesign vehicles as being troublesome. Even Toyota, who otherwise is known for stellar reliability, exhibited problems with their previous generation Camry when it was brand new. And to add insult to injury, first year redesign cars also tend to have more problems as they age--- So you start with a car that's rough, and it only continues. That blows, and I wouldn't drop 20+ thousand bucks on anything that likely to cause me problems.

The 8th generation Accord, so far, is looking excellent in its exterior appearance, but I wouldn't hazard to buy one until at least the 2nd year; more likely the 3rd year or later...

While rather boring in appearance, I'm at least glad to have a mature, reliable 2007 7th generation Accord-- The likelihood of problems in this car are as small as they're going to get.

vw's are not reliable at all, they brake down way to often, but they are very safe. i didn't have a single scratch when i totaled nine. :thmsup:

That's some great points about 1st year redesigns..

Makes me think it's a shame the carmakers have this race to make the slickest designs sell so the redesign frequency is so close..

I personally feel the same way.

I'd prefer a car company that created one fabulous reliable and solid design and just refreshed it tastefully until it absolutely just had to incorporate new technology, only after extensive de-bugging which occurred while the old design matures. Sounds good on paper huh..

Since the market drives redesign frequency butting up against the capability for redesign turnaround by the carmaker, only when the market changes and consumers see value in a solid proven reliable design moreso than the newest slickest body work, then reliability would be more affected by just maintaining supplier quality and costs and assembly quality, than in minimizing design faults.

whew.. Dang, that was a mouthful. :drink:

And to add insult to injury, first year redesign cars also tend to have more problems as they age--- So you start with a car that's rough, and it only continues. That blows, and I wouldn't drop 20+ thousand bucks on anything that likely to cause me problems.
I would HIGHLY dispute this finding because in my experience it's just false. Our 82 and 86 Accords were first years and neither of them had problems that were caused by the factory. The 86 made it to 240+K before we sold it. The 97 Camry made it to 188K not one single problem ever. Our 02 Camry is looking to go down the same path.

I also prefer 3rd or 4th year designs, but not so much because of reliability or build quality (after all, it's still a Honda), but because that's when significant upgrades and new features seem to get added to keep the car marketable. For example, the 2G Integra got VTEC in its 3rd year; the 6G Accord got VSA & Traction Control in its 4th year; and the 7G Accord got an improved engine, updated navi, and LED tails, as well as 6MT for the sedan in its 3rd year.

I might not be totally accurate with the things I just listed, but my point is that you get more bells and whistles if you wait. For some, that's probably not important; for me, it adds to my enjoyment of the car. I happen to like bells and whistles.... :)

I would HIGHLY dispute this finding because in my experience it's just false. Our 82 and 86 Accords were first years and neither of them had problems that were caused by the factory. The 86 made it to 240+K before we sold it. The 97 Camry made it to 188K not one single problem ever. Our 02 Camry is looking to go down the same path.

Regarding the ’82 (first of the 2nd gen) – My mother traded in her wonderful 1981 Accord sedan and got a brand-new 1982 5-speed beauty. As it turns out, that was the only “bad” Honda of the dozen the two of us have owned over the years. Apparently the tranny had to be replaced – twice – and that was a manual! To this day she proclaims that car as a "lemon".

On the other hand, the vehicle my wife drove prior to the Odyssey was a 1997 Ford Expedition, which was the 1st year for those, and – yikes – by an American manufacturer, even, but guess what? That was a wonderful vehicle that we drove to 177K miles and would have kept if not for gasoline prices and its 12 mpg. However, I will admit there were at least 5 recalls on the books for those things.

Similarly, compare the # of recalls of 2003-2005 Accords with the count for 2006+. I think there’s a sharp decline in recalls after 2005.

Yeah, I am pretty excited for the '08 Accord and in the market for a new car, but it doesn't seem smart to buy it the first year. My '94 has been pretty solid so far, but it does have bugs the same gen. the years after don't have.

But I must admit that I am getting a little bored with the current gen. already and it is missing some things that I like in a car (i.e. a factory CD/MP3 player, etc.), so I am kind of in a pickle here. :dunno:

Seems like your car is an argument for getting the first year after all (which is where I'm leaning at the moment). What bugs does your car have?

Pretty impressive that a car that old with that many miles is still doing ok!

My 02 Accord has 48k miles. I'm guessing we'll keep it until it's about 10-11 years old. By that time maybe we can get the 9th generation, due to come out in 2013 (?).

Seems like your car is an argument for getting the first year after all (which is where I'm leaning at the moment). What bugs does your car have?
-It EATS brakes and rotors for breakfast. Yes, this is a Honda issue, but it was especially bad for my year.

-Rust and paint issues! The 5th gen. is notorious for this in certain spots (i.e. the rear wheel wells) but it is really bad w/ my year.

-Ball joints going bad.

-Tranny issues on the 4 cyl. I've never had it replaced or anything, but it was never quite right (e.g. shift algorithm issues).

Don't get me wrong, all in all my car runs good and for having 163,000 miles, she's been darn good to me. But I know many people with the '95-'97 models who didn't have as many issues as those of us w/ the '94.

my 95 ex mt coupe had absolutely no problems up till when I sold it at 100k. I think I had my rotors resurfaced once, but that's about it. 100k isn't a whole lot though.

my 95 ex mt coupe had absolutely no problems up till when I sold it at 100k. I think I had my rotors resurfaced once, but that's about it. 100k isn't a whole lot though.
Yes, exactly my point, as you had a '95.