Accord not COTY

Why not Accord? Granted, Caddies have a LOT of bells and whistles, but it's STILL a GM.................:dunno:

COTY because that's how long it's good for, one year and then problems galore start happening, even under warranty...caddy owners get pissed at having to take them in so much/the inconvenience

Granted, I do really like the aggressive front end on the new CTS's and the side vent aesthetic touch/accents ...but it only really look nice with the higher end CTS's that have the fogs and other exterior cladding.

Why not Accord? Granted, Caddies have a LOT of bells and whistles, but it's STILL a GM.................:dunno:

The CTS is by far a better car in every way....except for reliability. I can easily see how it made COTY. That is probably the best looking GM product in a long time...and the interior is much better than the Accord's.

The CTS is by far a better car in every way....except for reliability. I can easily see how it made COTY. That is probably the best looking GM product in a long time...and the interior is much better than the Accord's.

+1:thmsup:

Very disappointed. Motortrend COTY goes to the Cadillac CTS.

I merged your thread Piper...

I don't want 15 threads about the same topic.

Be consistent people... if the Accord had won, everyone here would be saying: "See! The 2008 Accord is a megahit and the greatest!!" and "MT knows their stuff!". Now, to dismiss the CTS and MT as not worthy is just sour grapes. My 2003 Accord lost out to the Infiniti G35, and I had no problem with that result. I can appreciate anything that is good, and I don't worship Honda ONLY, like a fanboy.

BTW... the Accord scored lower than the Malibu in the COTY. Testers comments on the Accord stated that the Accord's interior is cold and busy... a step back from the 2003-2007. They were turned off by bland, uninspired styling. They praised rear seat room and acceleration, but hated the big car driving "feel"... very unlike any Accord before it. They miss how Accords have always felt like you were driving a smaller car. The 2008 gives no such impression.

As far as the CTS, it seems quite impressive. Reliability on the current model is average to above. Also, retained value is on par with the Accord (above average). At least be intellectually honest about the CTS's strengths.

The old CTS did nothing for me, the new one is intriguing.

Give GM it's due, or become nothing more than a Honda Kool-Aid drinker.

I'm fine with the CTS winning. I think it's a pretty sweet car and is one of the few domestic cars that I would actually want to own.

It seems that, besides the Corvette (and trucks), the Cadillac CTS and STS are the only GM vehicles that can actually go toe to toe with their European and Japanese competition. They've come a long way the past few years. Cadillac in particular has improved vastly over the last 5 years or so, and their current line-up (with the exception of the front-drive DTS land yacht) is actually quite impressive.

[QUOTE=accordexlv6;185244
Give GM it's due, or become nothing more than a Honda Kool-Aid drinker.[/QUOTE]


I bought SIX new GM cars in 25 years, so I'm "new" to Honda. However, I remember Cadillacs selling in the mid to late 90's for $45,000 NEW that you could pick up at auction ONE year later for $22,000..............:thumbsdow

Until I see some long-term reliability studies,I have a hard time believing Cadillac is in the same league as Acura, Lexus, or Infiniti, or even Honda or Toyota for that matter........:wave:

COTY has nothing to do with reliability (perceived or otherwise).

ugh, i hate those commercials, well noteably the one with the chick from grey's anatomy/private practice. her voice grates at me every time that thing comes on tv.

anywho, never driven a cts and wouldn't want to based on styling alone. it looks sorta like a squat suv. the front end is way too boxy imho. there are tons of cars that are too blunt/boxy on the front now and the huge grills are borrowing looks from suvs/trucks. i know it's for pedestrian safety, but for crying out loud could someone design a smooth/sleek looking front end? the accord coupe did a decent job, but with there being more metal between the grill and hood, it bothers me too.

the side from the door back is ok though.

the malibu scored higher??? the interior looks pretty cheapily made in there.... the design is much better than past chevy's, but the quality of materials look cheap. but i'm sure this has alot to do with expectations too. they don't expect as much from chevy, so when they do better than expected praise goes their way regardless of how it compares to others.

at least to anyone here.... what difference does it make which car is car of the year, per a magazine? does it really influence your decision to buy either a honda or a cadillac?????? seems silly to care too much about what a magazine says.... magazine that recieves alot of advertising money, etc........

Just as I've been pushing to get enough 2008 owners involved here for a result in February, I've been doing the same at the main Cadillac forum. Not as likely, though, because fewer are sold. 19 of those enrolled so far, vs. 26 2008 Accords.

My father just ordered a new CTS, his first GM car since a 1983 Pontiac 6000 STE. The styling made him do it.

A few more observations about the COTY articles...

In those articles, they mentioned the "cold appearance" of the Accord's interior. Of course, that's dependent on color choices, as many people have commented that the ivory interior looks warmer. Unlike Cadillac, Honda doesn't use woodgrain in grey interiors. So how would the choice of the warmer Accord interior rate on that rather arbitrary scale? Guess we'll never know.

Then they say that the Accord's interior is "not as well made" as the CTS'. Well, the MSRP for the base CTS is higher than the MSRP for a loaded Accord, and the as-tested price of the CTS is 50% higher than the as-tested price of the CTS. The CTS as tested is in RL territory, so it should be no surprise that the additional $$$ for the CTS over the Accord should buy some measure of better interior quality. IMO, their comment deserves a response of "well, duh!". I wonder if they made the same type of comment regarding a comparison of the Focus' or Scion's interiors to the CTS. Maybe even they recognized the stupidity of that comparison.

To me, this underscores the somewhat ludicrous nature of putting cars from all categories head-to-head in a competition to select the "best" of the bunch. It has to be extremely difficult to determine a level playing field when you're comparing economy cars to family sedans to minivans to luxury sports sedans. With their Accord vs. CTS interior comment, it's clear to me that even the reviewers have a hard time keeping the disparate nature of this assembly of test vehicles straight in their heads. If they can't manage the concept of materials and features commeasurate with the car's price, instead criticizing the cheaper car for not matching the much more expensive car's interior, it seems that they don't understand their own rules. After all, their primary goal is supposed to be comparing the nominees to their same category peers to determine the nominee's level of excellence in that comparison. The car that excels the most in its category should be the winner.

Anyway, I predicted a win by either the Malibu or the CTS. I think that "most improved" factors in to their decision to a much greater degree than they admit. And both the Malibu and CTS are significant improvements over their predecessors. More so than the Accord, but it helps to start with a low bar, particularly in Chevy's case. Are they the best cars in their respective classes? I think that once more comparison tests are available, I'm pretty sure that the consensus will be "no". I think the CTS won because it's a very good car, a big improvement over its predecessor, and a win by a domestic nameplate was overdue (as of 2007, Japanese models had won 4 out of 5 years). And this could also be an accolade to Cadillac for successfully reinventing itself over the past 5 years.

I'd like to see a comparison with the CTS to the new Acura RL..........at least the MSRPs would be close.....................:D

Thats it! I am trading my Accord VP in for the CTS VP.


Well, now that I get to looking, they dont make a CTS VP. I would probably have had trouble coming up with the extra 15 grand to get the base CTS...

Thats it! I am trading my Accord VP in for the CTS VP.


Well, now that I get to looking, they dont make a CTS VP. I would probably have had trouble coming up with the extra 15 grand to get the base CTS...

$20 says you need $3,000 less in maintenance costs keeping the Honda in the first 5 years...........:lmao:

and about 6k less for repairs not related to maintenance..... :deal:

honestly, it would have been nice to see the new accord wn the award, but at the end of the day, those so called "awards" hold no value to me whatsoever. i could really care less about a piece of chromed / gold painted piece of plastic.... :rolleyes:

what matters to me:

- good track record
- easy fixes that are well-documented
- longevity / reliability (goes back to #1)
- comfort
- performance
- simple, yet effective packaging (don't like luxury models due to too many gadgets that may break once the car ages)

...magazine that recieves alot of advertising money, etc........

That was pretty much my comment on a similar thread. :thmsup:

The CTS is a nice car. I am also a fan of the Lambda triplets and the new Malibu. I still wouldn't buy any of them. My Honda has given me over 70,000 trouble-free miles...far more than I can say for my last GM vehicle.

GM needs to prove to me that their new designs have *actual* quality instead of just *perceived* quality. A magazine may like the CTS enough to give it an award, but the magazine isn't the one who has to live with the car if it's a piece of junk.

The CTS is a nice car. I am also a fan of the Lambda triplets and the new Malibu. I still wouldn't buy any of them. My Honda has given me over 70,000 trouble-free miles...far more than I can say for my last GM vehicle.

GM needs to prove to me that their new designs have *actual* quality instead of just *perceived* quality. A magazine may like the CTS enough to give it an award, but the magazine isn't the one who has to live with the car if it's a piece of junk.

Here's some other COTY:

Plymouth Reliant (K car)
Renault Alliance
Chrysler Cirrus

You get the idea..........:)

Here's some other COTY:

Plymouth Reliant (K car)
Renault Alliance
Chrysler Cirrus

You get the idea..........:)

i think that what i stated above was enough, but this just proves my point even more.....

it also gives more weight to the whole car magazine / advertisers sleeping together than most anything else..... :yes:

Congratulations to the 2008 Cadillac CTS for winning Motor Trend's Car of the Year for 2008! It's a great car, much improved over its predecessor.

I test drove a new 2008 Cadillac CTS with the 258 horsepower engine, automatic transmission, leather/heated seats and stereo upgrade. What a surprisingly nice car. Fit and finish was exceptional, the car felt powerful and smooth, and the interior was very comfortable. I liked it a lot.

During this past summer I posted here (http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12240) that the 2008 Accord would win this award. I was wrong. After seeing the new CTS in person, I think Motor Trend made a good choice.

This award in no way diminishes the new 2008 Honda Accord. Ultimately people in the marketplace vote with their wallets for the best car. And while Cadillac will sell roughly 30k CTS cars, Honda will sell roughly 430k Accords.

And while Cadillac will sell roughly 30k CTS cars, Honda will sell roughly 430k Accords.


Agreed..............COTY has NO section for affordability................:lmao:


Wonder how many "average Joes" can afford a $50,000 car?

Be consistent people... if the Accord had won, everyone here would be saying: "See! The 2008 Accord is a megahit and the greatest!!" and "MT knows their stuff!". Now, to dismiss the CTS and MT as not worthy is just sour grapes. My 2003 Accord lost out to the Infiniti G35, and I had no problem with that result. I can appreciate anything that is good, and I don't worship Honda ONLY, like a fanboy.

BTW... the Accord scored lower than the Malibu in the COTY. Testers comments on the Accord stated that the Accord's interior is cold and busy... a step back from the 2003-2007. They were turned off by bland, uninspired styling. They praised rear seat room and acceleration, but hated the big car driving "feel"... very unlike any Accord before it. They miss how Accords have always felt like you were driving a smaller car. The 2008 gives no such impression.

As far as the CTS, it seems quite impressive. Reliability on the current model is average to above. Also, retained value is on par with the Accord (above average). At least be intellectually honest about the CTS's strengths.

The old CTS did nothing for me, the new one is intriguing.

Give GM it's due, or become nothing more than a Honda Kool-Aid drinker.

Do you have to be so negative about the 2008 Accord in every thread? First of all the New CTS is impressive however you are incorrect about what the people at Motor Trend thought. First of all they didn't call it bland, they called it polarizing, meaning too futuristic or along those lines. Second they even mentioned that the tires were responsible for many of the negative things they saw. Just because people are saying that they can't believe the Accord didn't win doesen't mean they are fanboys that worship Honda. You spend too much time ranting on and on about the 2008 Accord. Get over it and just keep driving your current 03 Accord, it is a great car.

Has anyone been in the Malibu? The colors of the interior might be attractive but feel the panels and they are cheap. Even the Camry with hard panels looks good compared to the malibu. Yes the Malibu may look good from the outside (the rear is hideous IMO), but it lacks many features of a similarly priced accord and camry, and lacks more refinment. The 5AT VCM engine was bashed and bashed by many people as "underpowered" etc. Suprisingly it turned up a 0-60 run of 6.5 seconds and good fuel economy. If you want the best of both worlds the Accord still is the leader.

BTW... the Accord scored lower than the Malibu in the COTY. Testers comments on the Accord stated that the Accord's interior is cold and busy... a step back from the 2003-2007. They were turned off by bland, uninspired styling. They praised rear seat room and acceleration, but hated the big car driving "feel"... very unlike any Accord before it. They miss how Accords have always felt like you were driving a smaller car. The 2008 gives no such impression.

As far as the CTS, it seems quite impressive. Reliability on the current model is average to above. Also, retained value is on par with the Accord (above average). At least be intellectually honest about the CTS's strengths.

I would have been really surprised if the Accord had won. Testers' comments pretty much mirror my feelings about the current Accord: too big, bland styling (not sporty/aggressive enough), busy center console, cheap interior plastics, etc.

I saw the CTS at the L.A. Auto show and it was a very impressive looking car.

I bought SIX new GM cars in 25 years, so I'm "new" to Honda. However, I remember Cadillacs selling in the mid to late 90's for $45,000 NEW that you could pick up at auction ONE year later for $22,000..............:thumbsdow

Until I see some long-term reliability studies,I have a hard time believing Cadillac is in the same league as Acura, Lexus, or Infiniti, or even Honda or Toyota for that matter........:wave:

In the first paragraph, you're talking about resale value. In the second, reliability. Resale value =/= reliability.

COTY has nothing to do with reliability (perceived or otherwise).

Or resale value.

That was pretty much my comment on a similar thread. :thmsup:

and along the same line of thought.....

Camry won 2007, right? since then....... Toyota surpassed GM as largest carmaker in the world, yes? yes... so...... GM, and or US politically minded people involved(i.e. american magazine, etc...). probably forced a GM car of some sorts to win. make sense? the american car company that has been number 1 forever has to be boosted back to the top, whatever it takes.



Wonder how many "average Joes" can afford a $50,000 car?

the number of "average joes" that can, or the status of the "average joe" might be changing. you may be surprised. point in case..... 8 years ago when I started working on audis.... I was one of two techs. now we are 8. most of the cars we deal with are between $35K and $55K, so something is changing there...... people somehow are paying for higher dollar cars more often than ten years ago......

I personally think CTS's COTY designation is well deserved. I saw a CTS the other day when I was walking out of work, and it looked simply gorgeous. I haven't personally seen the interior, but from ALL the reviews I've read, the interior is as nice, if not nicer than its german and japanese counterparts (3 series, g35, etc). The only thing that suprised me about the car was how small the car's wheelbase looked in person.

As far as the new accord, no one, and I mean NO ONE can sit here and say that when they see an 08 accord drive in front of them, they stop and say "woa, what car is that, and how much is it????" But when the CTS drives by, you stop and turn. The new accord is nice, but it's certainly not revolutionary in terms of style and technology, it's not years ahead of the competition, and it's certainly not a head turner. It is cosmetically polarizing and owners of the 7th gen, and editors who get paid to drive and write about cars for the most part agree, that the 8th gen falls short of their expectations. The only people who talk about the 8th gen as if it's the best thing since the combustion engine was invented are the owners of the 8th gen. All I know is that Honda needs to come out with some fresh ideas and designs to stay ahead of the competition, because the 8th gen isn't offering me anything other than a bigger displacement engine, and a bigger interior volume. The bigger engine doesn't even result in better performance, unless you buy the 6 speed.

And for those of you who complain about cadillac's overall reliability need to put down the kool aid and check out recent reliability statistics, Cadillac's reliability isn't that much lower than the japanese car makers. I drive a 2006 accord 6sp sedan, and if Honda and Acura (for that matter) doesn't implement edgier, fresher ideas into their cars, they'll lose young buyers like me to Cadillac and Infiniti.

Do you have to be so negative about the 2008 Accord in every thread? First of all the New CTS is impressive however you are incorrect about what the people at Motor Trend thought. First of all they didn't call it bland, they called it polarizing, meaning too futuristic or along those lines.

And polarizing DOES NOT mean "too futuristic", rather it means people either hate it or love it, and there's not much in the middle. The new accord is not futuristic, it's disappointing.

Your statement about "editors who get paid to drive and write about cars for "the most part agree" is total bull. A few things for you to read:

The Edmund's first drive, the Edmund's full test, the Edmund's introduction to the long term fleet... all very positive, including styling.

"The 2008 Honda Accord seems more ambitious to us, as if it's aspiring to a new plateau of sedan goodness."

The MT comparison to the Camry... also all very positive, including styling.

"Sportier dress, ritzier cabin, and powertrain and chassis on par with any of its foes."

USA Today review... all very positive.

"The latest Accord feels so good to drive and generally is so nicely furnished that Honda's standing is in no jeopardy."

Consumer Guide... all very positive. EX-L V6 is their top rated car in the midsize class.

"This perennial benchmark for midsize value and performance is redesigned for 2008, gaining power and passenger space. Though Accord does not eclipse competitors like Toyota Camry or Saturn Aura, its rewarding balance of price, performance, and passenger accommodations make it a Best Buy for shoppers in this class."

Detroit News... extremely positive, including styling.

"But Honda found ways to improve an already excellent vehicle: It made it bigger, without dramatically increasing its size; it made it more powerful, without hurting its fuel efficiency; and it made it more dramatic looking than ever before."

New York Times... all very positive, including styling.

"With either engine, the new Accord proves to be that rarest of creatures, a family sedan with sporting abilities that go well beyond fancy trim or decals. The car is more practical, and safer, and yet a driving enthusiast can enjoy it."

There are more, so I could go on, but I think this is more than enough to prove my point. Read the full reviews and you'll see that the quotes are representative of each review's conclusions. I do realize that there are some reviews that are less positive (for example, Dan Neil and the MT COTY remarks). But contrary to your statements, there are plenty of very positive reviews. You have every right to be disappointed, but your claim of that only gen 8 owners think highly of the cars and that editors in general are disappointed is very much subject to dispute.

The quotes you conveniently plucked out of the reviews don't disprove anything that I said in my critique. The new accord is not revolutionary, it is definitely not a head turner, and it certainly is not inspiring. I am so disenchanted with the lack of products coming from honda/acura geared towards driving enthusiasts who want to spend under $40k for a car.

Well, "you're not going to win 'Queen of the Prom' wearing a dress like that."

I'm sorry, but I'm firmly in the camp that believes the new Accord just looks awful. "Derivative" at best, but in many ways "derivative" of some of the worst styling out there. The rear end looks just like a decades-old Saturn. That "fake BMW Hoffmeister kink" in the C pillar isn't elegant at all, especially in the way the chrome trim "fattens out" at the bottom. Bug-eye headlights around a truck grille that otherwise mimics a Hyundai Sonata isn't something I find attractive at all, either.

Then, there's the interior -- blah-boring instrument panel, along with the most cluttered-looking center stack in the market segment. Man, that sweet-looking two-tone Malibu dashboard beats the pants out of the Accord!

Anyway, not really trying to offend any 08 owners or wanna-be's, but that "styling" isn't spurring people like me to "drive over and drool over the new Accord." Gosh, in the end, I just don't see anyone asking for what Honda came up with for this generation -- I think it'll chase people away, instead of bringing them in.

Now then, note how Malibu beat Accord in the COY results -- that is going to be a very important car for GM. I expect it to steal especially Accord sales on style alone. Everyone get out to the auto shows this winter and see which car has the bigger crowds around it -- I expect Malibu will be one of the more popular cars on the circuit.

At any rate, the previous generation Accord had some neat stuff going on -- especially in the interior. I just don't see anything "better," inside or out, in the new generation -- unless maybe you're one of the few who wanted a "bigger" Accord.

Of course, there's the whole "reliability" issue, and you can rest assured that I'm not going to fork over that kind of dough to be a "new, improved GM guinea pig." But, I think lots of other folks will take that particular plunge.

In the end, I've really got just one thought about the new Accord, in the form of a question: "What were they thinking?" :dunno:

I pulled the quotes to give a summary of the conclusions of the reviews. They were not taken out of context or "conveniently plucked". If you contend that they are, please show me where the reviews disagreed with those quotes.

The points in your critique are your opinions... they can't be disproven. But the reviews certainly take positions contrary to yours. Consider these further quotes:

Edmunds:

"Actually, much like its Accord coupe brother, it's kinda cool-looking."
"We sampled the car in Boston and every passerby thought the car looked much more expensive than a Honda Accord. It is, no matter your aesthetic sensibilities, categorically not insipid."

Detroit News:

"Sharper lines along the side add a more dramatic look. More chiseled styling bodes well for the Accord."
"From the outside, the Accord looks more sophisticated than its predecessor. The new generation has more defining lines, with creases and sharp edges -- certainly more dramatic than the previous generation in which every corner was rounded like a toddler-proof toy."

Motor Trend:

"...the Accord's "sharp and strong" styling theme is just that in light of the Camry, giving it a richer, more distinguished body."

Sure, these statements don't "disprove" your critique, but they certainly show that many automotive editors disagree with your assessment that the Accord is unattractive. Again, if you feel that the quotes that I pulled misrepresent the reviews, please show me how they do so.

You can keep quoting the reviews, I never said the reviews disagreed with the your chosen quotes. I did however say that the editors who reviewed the 8th gen didn't herald it as the break away hit you and a few others in this thread claim it to be. The 8th gen is an improvement over the 7th gen, but certainly not inspiring for me to go out and throw down $31k for.

You can keep quoting the reviews, I never said the reviews disagreed with the your chosen quotes. I did however say that the editors who reviewed the 8th gen didn't herald it as the break away hit you and a few others in this thread claim it to be. The 8th gen is an improvement over the 7th gen, but certainly not inspiring for me to go out and throw down $31k for.

OK. I respect your opinion. But what new car IS worth your 31K?

Let's get real. No one was expecting the new Accord to be "revolutionary" or "groundbreaking." This is a 30K Honda Accord, for Christ sake's, not a freaking Lambourghini Gallardo.

Honestly, is there a car on the market for 28,450 (what I paid for a 08 Accord coupe V6 MT without nav) that offers the performance, reliability, build quality, resale value, and yes, looks, of the Accord coupe? If there is, please let me know what it is as obviously I've made a huge mistake in my purchase.

Most people who buy Hondas got exactly what they were expecting in '08--an evolutionary improvement in a car that's already regarded the world over as the benchmark in its price class. And sometimes, beyond.

And by the way, I'm not a blind worshiper of all things Honda; in fact, I'm 53, have owned more cars that the average guy will own in a lifetime, and this is the FIRST Honda I've ever owned. But the attributes of the Accord Coupe--FOR THE MONEY--were finally too overwhelming for me to ignore.

OK. I respect your opinion. But what new car IS worth your 31K?

Let's get real. No one was expecting the new Accord to be "revolutionary" or "groundbreaking." This is a 30K Honda Accord, for Christ sake's, not a freaking Lambourghini Gallardo.

Most people who buy Hondas got exactly what they were expecting in '08--an evolutionary improvement in a car that's already regarded the world over as the benchmark in its price class.


Nothing, absolutely nothing in the family sedan segment is worth its price tag. The camry isn't because it's got a sub-par interior with a floaty ride, the altima isn't because it has minor irritating reliability bugs, and the accord isn't because although it's a bigger car with a bigger engine, it's not a performance leap over the 7th gen. Moreover, it's not visually stunning, nor is it offering any "gotta have" features that I can't get with the competition nor the previous gen.

Overall, none of these cars are worth shelling out $30k for. I'm not going to resort to being a fanboy, I've owned Hondas my whole life, and I am utterly disappointed with the 8th gen. Honda spent 4 years redesigning and re-engineering the 8th gen accord, and this is the best they could come up with???

Honestly, is there a car on the market for 28,450 (what I paid for a 08 Accord coupe V6 MT without nav) that offers the performance, reliability, build quality, resale value, and yes, looks, of the Accord coupe? If there is, please let me know what it is as obviously I've made a huge mistake in my purchase.


The Accord coupe 6MT (and only the 6MT, and not the VCM garbage on the auto's) is actually an interesting car, the 8th gen sedan, sadly is not. The VCM is a gimmick to create an illusion that the Accord is ahead of the competition in my opinion. The gas mileage gain is not worth the decrease in performance. They should've used used a 6th gear and scrapped the VCM.

Whatever. If all of those very positive reviews prove nothing to you about how well received the new design is among many editors, there's nothing else that can be said.


You're that same guy who nearly hyper-ventilated in that thread where people were mocking the 8th gen's looks, aren't you??? You need constant affirmation that you made the right decision in buying the 8th gen....well you're not getting it from me.

What, exactly, would a "performance leap" look like?

To my mind, Honda manufactured a car that goes faster (probably marginally) than the previous model and also gets better gas milage.

What else would you ask for in a car in this price range?

I'm sure Honda is capable of producing a car that runs to 60mph as fast as a Bugatti Veyron, but then again it wouldn't cost 30K, would it?

Looks are subjective. I respect your opinion that the 08 Accord is not a styling breakthough. With that being said, though, when I parked my red Accord coupe with chromed wheels and tinted windows at work on Monday morning, my office just about had a collective coronary. Not to mention the looks and thumbs-up I've gotten from the general motoring public. This car has gotten more envious stares than my previous Corvette, yellow GTO and black Bimmer put together!

If the Accord coupe isn't a "revolutionary" design change from the old one, I don't know what would qualify.

Whatever. If all of those very positive reviews prove nothing to you about how well received the new design is among many editors, there's nothing else that can be said. And for the record, there's a difference between saying that the 2008 Accord is a nice car and a good design, and saying that it's a breakaway hit.

And no, I don't base my purchases on what a review says. I do however read a review to get acquainted with a car I'm interested in. If I were in the market for an 8th gen, the reviews, although they are overall favorable, would probably dissuade me from buying an 8th gen. I'm not interested in bigger, more expensive, marginally performance improved, sterile looking cars.

The only way I'd consider buying an 8th gen is if Honda releases a 6MT sedan with an improved suspension, and hopefully a decent MMC.

What, exactly, would a "performance leap" look like?

To my mind, Honda manufactured a car that goes faster (probably marginally) than the previous model and also gets better gas milage.

What else would you ask for in a car in this price range?

I'm sure Honda is capable of producing a car that runs to 60mph as fast as a Bugatti Veyron, but then again it wouldn't cost 30K, would it?

Looks are subjective. I respect your opinion that the 08 Accord is not a styling breakthough. With that being said, though, when I parked my red Accord coupe with chromed wheels and tinted windows at work on Monday morning, my office just about had a collective coronary. Not to mention the looks and thumbs-up I've gotten from the general motoring public.

If the Accord coupe isn't a "revolutionary" design change from the old one, I don't know what would qualify.

What's revolutionary??? When the 02 altima came out, it was revolutionary. Why was it revolutionary? Because it broke the mold of what a family sedan was.

The new CTS is revolutionary when compared to the outgoing CTS. They designed the car in such a way as if there was no previous generation CTS.

The new accord isn't any of the above. It's left me and probably countless others asking "Why would I want to buy this?"

Pssshhh......

:D

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e365/stevencrosbie/New%20Tundra/DSC00019.jpg

Spare me your bargain basement psychology. I get all the affirmation I'd ever want or need from the very positive reviews that I quoted... much more credible and meaningful feedback than anything you could possibly provide. This is just an exchange of opinions, nothing more, so don't flatter yourself. I certainly don't need any affirmation from you... that and a buck would get me a double cheeseburger from Mickey D's dollar menu.

I didn't provide you with any positive feedback, that's why you've got your knickers in a twist. So do yourself a huge favor, and quit quoting from online articles. I've already told you what I think about the car, and no cherry picked quote from a USA Today editor who probably doesn't even know the difference between a Hyundai and a Honda is going to change my mind, nor bolster your hollow argument.

...well, now its my turn to add some grease to the fire. Put me on the list of those who aren't the least bit surprised Accord didn't get it, they may not get C&D's 10 best either...
...lots of you said to me "wait and see, it will grow on you." I didn't have to let any other Honda product in their entire history "grow on me", I didn't like the sedan from the first spy shot that turned up, I kept hoping the tape was covering up more than was showing, alas, when I saw the final product in the shots from Boston I knew I wasn't destined to get an 8th gen Accord sedan...
...the 8th gen fan club won't tolerate much criticism, but I heartily agree with MT's comments, as well as those voiced in this thread that also have the temerity to voice their disapproval of the 08 sedan...
...in all fairness, you said to take another look, each time I'm in the dealership (we have four Honda products that get serviced there) I go over and look at it, and each time I walk away with a shudder. I hate the new dash, don't like the new size, really don't care for the front grill or rear styling, and I don't get off on the blatant copying of BMW styling cues. What happened to Honda being an originator of styling instead of a copyer? People talk about it now being more like the Acura RL, maybe in size only, as the RL is a beautifully styled car, I quite admire it, something I can't say about the new Accord sedan...
...my 05 EX-L has a lot of life left in it, easily another five years, and then we'll see what the 9th generation looks like, unless the next gen TSX sways me back over to the Acura side - something that has happened before...

cheers,

Lorne Miller
05 EX-L deep green pearl with ivory
96 Odyssey taffeta white with sage

I personally think CTS's COTY designation is well deserved. I saw a CTS the other day when I was walking out of work, and it looked simply gorgeous. I haven't personally seen the interior, but from ALL the reviews I've read, the interior is as nice, if not nicer than its german and japanese counterparts (3 series, g35, etc). The only thing that suprised me about the car was how small the car's wheelbase looked in person.

GM has had a LOT of GOOD-LOOKING cars over the years, but beauty fades.

As far as the new accord, no one, and I mean NO ONE can sit here and say that when they see an 08 accord drive in front of them, they stop and say "woa, what car is that, and how much is it????" But when the CTS drives by, you stop and turn. The new accord is nice, but it's certainly not revolutionary in terms of style and technology, it's not years ahead of the competition, and it's certainly not a head turner. It is cosmetically polarizing and owners of the 7th gen, and editors who get paid to drive and write about cars for the most part agree, that the 8th gen falls short of their expectations. The only people who talk about the 8th gen as if it's the best thing since the combustion engine was invented are the owners of the 8th gen. All I know is that Honda needs to come out with some fresh ideas and designs to stay ahead of the competition, because the 8th gen isn't offering me anything other than a bigger displacement engine, and a bigger interior volume. The bigger engine doesn't even result in better performance, unless you buy the 6 speed.[/quote] Accord is a volume car, not a niche car. Give me a GM car that's NOT a Cadillac you are tempted to buy right now.........:)

And for those of you who complain about cadillac's overall reliability need to put down the kool aid and check out recent reliability statistics, Cadillac's reliability isn't that much lower than the japanese car makers.
Yeah, initial quality studies......who cares? I am awaiting the THREE-YEAR studies on cars like the Fusion, then we'll know..........

I drive a 2006 accord 6sp sedan, and if Honda and Acura (for that matter) doesn't implement edgier, fresher ideas into their cars, they'll lose young buyers like me to Cadillac and Infiniti.

I think Buick is stepping up more than Cadillac. But, I think we are confusing a luxury car division with a non-luxury car division. I would take ANY Lexus or ANY Acura over ANY Cadillac.

Comparing an Accord to a CTS is like apples to oranges............:yes:

Mark, your comments about the styling are noted, but I still wonder what a "performance breakthrough" in a 30K car would look like.

I suspect that for most people, a car that's more powerful and faster than the previous model but somehow manages to get better gas mileage and costs just very minimally more (it at all...accounting for inflation...it's my first Honda so I don't know) would quality as a breakthough.

As I said earlier, the history of the Accord is that each new generation gets safer, larger, more powerful, more luxurious and more desirable than the last by increments in an already highly regarded car. Sure, Honda could've released something revolutionary, but let's face it..it would have been a NSX and not an Accord, and would have cost far more. The Accord is a car for the masses, and succeeds brilliantly in that mission--more so, arguably, than any car on the planet.

The 08 Cadillac IS derivative from the previous model! A new grill, some suspension tweaks and an option of a more powerful V6 does not make for a revolutionary change! There's far more differences between the old and new Honda Coupe than the 07 vs. 08 Cad!

There's far more differences between the old and new Honda Coupe than the 07 vs. 08 Cad!

Ya know...I'm not defending Honda or GM here...but that is a bad statement.


Direct Injection, completely new/improved interior, better styling, 5.1 bose surround w/ 40 gig HD, and etc.

The new Accord added....bluetooth.....VCM.....more power.....more weight (so probably neglected)....quieter inside.....nicer stereo....and that's about it for improvements.

I'd say the CTS is far more of an improvement than the Accord. (keeping them in their respective classes of course).

Ya know...I'm not defending Honda or GM here...but that is a bad statement.


Direct Injection, completely new/improved interior, better styling, 5.1 bose surround w/ 40 gig HD, and etc.

The new Accord added....bluetooth.....VCM.....more power.....more weight (so probably neglected)....quieter inside.....nicer stereo....and that's about it for improvements.

I'd say the CTS is far more of an improvement than the Accord. (keeping them in their respective classes of course).

Sorry; I disagree.

1) Direct injection...welcome to the club, GM

2) Improved interior...practically every new model of any maker in the world boats a a "new interior" on a yearly basis, and in GM's case, not a moment too soon. A cosmetic change at best.

3) Better styling. You want to argue with me that the 08 Cad looks more different than the 07 vs the new and old Coupe? If so, we're looking at different cars.

4) Sound system: another cosmetic upgrade that was sorely needed.

I'm talking about the Honda COUPE! It shares NO BODY PANELS with the old one (can you say that about the Caddy??), has a more powerful and efficient engine, is far more luxurious, has more safety features (again...the Caddy?) and countless more improvements, in addition to the ones you conceeded!

Sorry. The Cad is an improved model. The Accord Coupe is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CAR than its predecessor. It has a DIFFERENT BODY and a DIFFERENT ENGINE. How does a car get more DIFFERENT than that?

Sorry; I disagree.

1) Direct injection...welcome to the club, GM



What club? You must mean the one Honda isn't invited to join in? None of the J series V6s are Direct Injection....sorry...that 3.6 Direct Injected V6 looks like a real gem hooked up to the 6 speed tranny.

GM did their work on the CTS and deserves this award.

What club? You must mean the one Honda isn't invited to join in? None of the J series V6s are Direct Injection....sorry...that 3.6 Direct Injected V6 looks like a real gem hooked up to the 6 speed tranny.

GM did their work on the CTS and deserves this award.

I couldn't agree more. It's a great car and I'm overjoyed for the American auto industry that they were able to manufacture this car. It's about time that we're able to produce a car that takes on the best from Japan and Germany. I hope this signals a renaissance in the domestic car industry and Ford and Chrysler take notice and follow its lead. Nothing would make me happier than seeing Americans buying more American cars.

:lurk:

I couldn't agree more. As much as I love my Tundra...I'd much rather GM had built this amazing of a truck. Although I love the Japanese products; they sure don't invest in America like Ford and GM do.

Toyota is starting to really do some nice things in the U.S....but it is GM and Ford who are investing in America's youth (scholarships and such). I'd really like to give my money to GM/Ford....but not for an inferior product.

Fun discussion guys....glad it was kept civil too! These things make being a part of the forum fun. Have a great night y'all.

Ditto, Steven.

Accord is a volume car, not a niche car. Give me a GM car that's NOT a Cadillac you are tempted to buy right now.........:)

Who ever said that only niche cars can look desirable, and volume cars have to look as sterile as a hospital???


Yeah, initial quality studies......who cares? I am awaiting the THREE-YEAR studies on cars like the Fusion, then we'll know..........
Are you telling me that the CTS is only ranked high in initial quality, in not ranked high in ANY OTHER quality standard??


I think Buick is stepping up more than Cadillac. But, I think we are confusing a luxury car division with a non-luxury car division. I would take ANY Lexus or ANY Acura over ANY Cadillac.
I wouldn't. I wouldn't buy a TSX over a CTS, not in a million years (and don't even think about saying they're not in the same class, because they are.) Cadillac is premium luxury, Acura is entry level luxury.

Comparing an Accord to a CTS is like apples to oranges............:yes:
You're right, comparing a CTS today to today's Accord is like comparing apples to oranges, but you would've never said that 4 years ago with the previous generation CTS. The fully loaded previous generation CTS was pretty comparable in terms of power and luxury to a fully loaded Accord. Not anymore because Cadillac has unblurred the lines.

...well, now its my turn to add some grease to the fire. Put me on the list of those who aren't the least bit surprised Accord didn't get it, they may not get C&D's 10 best either...
...lots of you said to me "wait and see, it will grow on you." I didn't have to let any other Honda product in their entire history "grow on me", I didn't like the sedan from the first spy shot that turned up, I kept hoping the tape was covering up more than was showing, alas, when I saw the final product in the shots from Boston I knew I wasn't destined to get an 8th gen Accord sedan...
...the 8th gen fan club won't tolerate much criticism, but I heartily agree with MT's comments, as well as those voiced in this thread that also have the temerity to voice their disapproval of the 08 sedan...
...in all fairness, you said to take another look, each time I'm in the dealership (we have four Honda products that get serviced there) I go over and look at it, and each time I walk away with a shudder. I hate the new dash, don't like the new size, really don't care for the front grill or rear styling, and I don't get off on the blatant copying of BMW styling cues. What happened to Honda being an originator of styling instead of a copyer? People talk about it now being more like the Acura RL, maybe in size only, as the RL is a beautifully styled car, I quite admire it, something I can't say about the new Accord sedan...
...my 05 EX-L has a lot of life left in it, easily another five years, and then we'll see what the 9th generation looks like, unless the next gen TSX sways me back over to the Acura side - something that has happened before...

cheers,

Lorne Miller
05 EX-L deep green pearl with ivory
96 Odyssey taffeta white with sage

Why is everyone hating so much on the 8th gen, at least keep it in the 7th gen section, I think there is multiple threads that stem from jealousy there. There isn't anything wrong with the 8th gen, (esp the coupe :) ) but you can't compare it to the CTS. The CTS should be compared to the TL, and there is no way the CTS would have won if the next gen TL came out in 08.

As far as the new accord, no one, and I mean NO ONE can sit here and say that when they see an 08 accord drive in front of them, they stop and say "woa, what car is that, and how much is it????" But when the CTS drives by, you stop and turn. The new accord is nice, but it's certainly not revolutionary in terms of style and technology, it's not years ahead of the competition, and it's certainly not a head turner.

I purposely bought my new Accord in a low-key color so I don't attract attention (from cops, crooks & ricers). Yet when I park in parking lots far away from other cars, someone inevitably drives right over to my car and parks right next to it! Then when I come out, there are people in cars and/or walking by staring at it -- from young guys to old ladies -- probably trying to identify what it is.

The second night I owned it, an Infinity G35 coupe caught up to me and hovered around me like a bee hovering next to a flower -- behind me, even with me and then in front of me.

Then just last night while at the gas station, a young guy pulls up at the pump next to my car, gets out, walks over to my car, scrutinizes it and asks, "Is that the new Accord coupe?" I said yes and he replied, "Nice car!" I thanked him for the compliment.

As for the new CTS, I really do like it. However, it has some problems. As stated earlier in this thread, I test drove one and considered buying one. IMO the problems of the new CTS include:

* Too much mass/weight - 4000 lbs w/options and it feels huge
* Greenhouse visibility poor - especially reward visibility
* Sunroof doesn't come with a solid shade to eliminate all sun rays
* Pricey - my tester was $38k w/out options I wanted

I saw a new CTS today while on my run. It did turn my head, but it struck me as an old person's car. Not ugly, but not sporty. Just my opinion.

The quotes you conveniently plucked out of the reviews don't disprove anything that I said in my critique. The new accord is not revolutionary, it is definitely not a head turner, and it certainly is not inspiring. I am so disenchanted with the lack of products coming from honda/acura geared towards driving enthusiasts who want to spend under $40k for a car.

Honda is not a brand that is "Geared towards Driving Enthusiasts." They build and market dependable stylish cars that deliver great value to the masses.

Driving enthusiasts? Nah... Maybe people who love their cars, but overall, NOT driving enthusiasts.