Accord comes in 1st place in Car and Driver 7 way shootout

[daavo]

From the March issue

1. Accord EX
2. Altima 2.5s
3. Malibu LT
4. '09 Sonata Limited
5. Camry LE
6. Fusion SEL
7. Dodge Avenger SXT

All the cars were four cylinder models.

"Highs: Telepathic interplay among chassis, engine and transmission."

"Lows: Needlessly complex center stack, could use more steering feel."

"The Verdict: Another Accord? We've pretty much run out of nice things to say."

Performance #'s
0-60: 8.2
1/4: 16.4 @ 86mph
Rolling 5-60: 8.7
Skidpad .81g
Braking 70-0: 169 feet

The biggest surprise for me was the braking. I can't remember an Accord ever cracking in the 170 foot range for 70-0 let alone be in the 160 foot range. It was also fastest in the slalom.

[Hondaboy9602]

That's how I would rate them.

[RDS]

The Accord is pretty consistently at the top of these tests, but I find it EXTREMELY interesting how wildly varied the reviews for these cars have been, especially between the Accord, the Altima and the Malibu. The Malibu is a HUGE improvement for GM. Big fat kudos to them. :thmsup:

I suppose Honda and Toyota can no longer rest on their laurels. Which means better products (hopefully) all around for the consumer.

[Edaccord08]

I assume those tests were all MT versions ?

[Jay1335]

Yeah man its great to se the american companies getting their act together....nw all they need to do is build their cars in the US!!!

[talon95]

I assume those tests were all MT versions ?

Nope... all ATs.

[daavo]

The Accord is pretty consistently at the top of these tests, but I find it EXTREMELY interesting how wildly varied the reviews for these cars have been, especially between the Accord, the Altima and the Malibu. The Malibu is a HUGE improvement for GM. Big fat kudos to them. :thmsup:

I suppose Honda and Toyota can no longer rest on their laurels. Which means better products (hopefully) all around for the consumer.

Sometimes these tests just boil down to personal preference on the side of the people testing the cars. But in my years of reading car magazines I have found C and D to have the most objective reviews.

And yeah, the Malibu is a first class car from GM. It's nice to see GM turning it around and I hope it sells well.

I assume those tests were all MT versions ?

Nope, all automatics and a CVT in the Nissan.

[Edaccord08]

Nope... all ATs.

Thats pretty good time IMO for AT 2.4L.
I have to agree on steering, I would of liked a little less assist in it to give more feedback to driver.
though I have gotten used to it now, my XR4Ti had alot of feedback through steering by comparison.

[sjlee]

I assume those tests were all MT versions ?

Nope... ATs/CVTs.

[sjlee]

Yeah man its great to se the american companies getting their act together....nw all they need to do is build their cars in the US!!!

Well, Honda and Toyota have been building vehicles in the US for a while now, so it kind of evens out.

[sjlee]

And yeah, the Malibu is a first class car from GM. It's nice to see GM turning it around and I hope it sells well.


Yes, it is nice to see domestic car makers starting to actually make better cars. Now all they need to do is work on their designs. I think the front of the Malibu has one too many openings. From the side, it looks great, but something about that grille doesn't look right. The rear isn't as bad, but those tail lights look really blah.

[daavo]

Yeah man its great to se the american companies getting their act together....nw all they need to do is build their cars in the US!!!

:yes:
Most think American car=American built .... nope .... the Fusion is built in Mexico.

Yes, it is nice to see domestic car makers starting to actually make better cars. Now all they need to do is work on their designs. I think the front of the Malibu has one too many openings. From the side, it looks great, but something about that grille doesn't look right. The rear isn't as bad, but those tail lights look really blah.

I like the exterior design but the interior is not that nice despite all the praise. The car is essentially a jazzed up Saturn Aura with new marketing. Still like it though, just wouldn't be my top pick.

[RDS]

Yes, it is nice to see domestic car makers starting to actually make better cars. Now all they need to do is work on their designs. I think the front of the Malibu has one too many openings. From the side, it looks great, but something about that grille doesn't look right. The rear isn't as bad, but those tail lights look really blah.

I'm still not impressed by anything from Ford, other than the Lincoln MKZ (?) or whatever is based on the Fusion. Other than the odd looking tail lights, which looks just a tad too large, it's teh sex :thmsup:. And shame on Chrysler for trying to put chrome and 19s on everything to make up for the lack of anything remotely good-looking. While the Malibu, Aura and G6 still can't quite match the fit and finish of the Japanese (I'm really only speaking about the Aura cuz whoever toned down the showcar interior at Saturn should be shot) they're leaps and bounds better than the Fusion, Milan (which I think looks better than the Fusion, personally), Avenger and Sebring. Of all the domestic makes, only GM seems to actually care what happens with their cars. I'm sure that's partly the reason they saw an actual increase in sales last year, while the entire industry had losses.

And I agree, the Malibu's rear end is blah. But it's got a bit more character than the Accord's rear end. The Accord looks weird with the tail lights not completely horizontal.

[krazyfiend]

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/4742/sedan1zh9.th.jpg (http://img523.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sedan1zh9.jpg) http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/5902/sedan2iz1.th.jpg (http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sedan2iz1.jpg)

[RDS]

I do seriously hate that stupid "Gotta have it" category. *rolls eyes*

[sjlee]

I'm still not impressed by anything from Ford, other than the Lincoln MKZ (?) or whatever is based on the Fusion. Other than the odd looking tail lights, which looks just a tad too large, it's teh sex :thmsup:. And shame on Chrysler for trying to put chrome and 19s on everything to make up for the lack of anything remotely good-looking. While the Malibu, Aura and G6 still can't quite match the fit and finish of the Japanese (I'm really only speaking about the Aura cuz whoever toned down the showcar interior at Saturn should be shot) they're leaps and bounds better than the Fusion, Milan (which I think looks better than the Fusion, personally), Avenger and Sebring. Of all the domestic makes, only GM seems to actually care what happens with their cars. I'm sure that's partly the reason they saw an actual increase in sales last year, while the entire industry had losses.

And I agree, the Malibu's rear end is blah. But it's got a bit more character than the Accord's rear end. The Accord looks weird with the tail lights not completely horizontal.

I actually think the Fusion is a decent looking car... except for that Gillette-designed grille. The Aura and G6 aren't bad either... I think they're better than the Malibu. Dodge is a mess. Their vehicles share the same "window" grille... but they are hideous and have horrible reliability.

[Sporin]

The 0-60 in 8.2 for the auto EX makes me think that number is possible for a 5spd LX as well.

Not that I really care that much about 0-60 times, but it's nice to know. ;)

[HondaPOD]

The 0-60 in 8.2 for the auto EX makes me think that number is possible for a 5spd LX as well.

Not that I really care that much about 0-60 times, but it's nice to know. ;)

I dont think that the LX can do it...
The EX has 13 more HP..
It could, but the EX driver would have to be uncoordinated and the LX driver would have to be a pro.

[Edaccord08]

I dont think that the LX can do it...
The EX has 13 more HP..
It could, but the EX driver would have to be uncoordinated and the LX driver would have to be a pro.
Don't believe market hype, that 13hp is only way up powerband, its not really going to show up much, (the max hp is 190@7k vs 177@6500 , I bet below 6k there practically the same)
just look at the torque outputs of each version, there both 161 -162ft/lbs@4300-4400rpm.

I doubt there be much difference between them times wise and the LX is like 120 Lb lighter, I say that would affect times more than 13 hp probably way up above 6k.

[98AccordEX]

The Edmunds comparo used a Accord LX-P with the 177hp engine and only got 9.3 in 0-60. That test also featured 4cyl Malibu and CamryLE. The Camry got the same 0-60 in both comparos and the Malibu did 0-60 in 8.7 for C&D and 9.5 for Edmunds. Of course different tests from different sources will vary

Besides the 13hp, the LX & LX-P use a smaller 215/16 tire which may limit the car acceleration, handling, braking compared to the EX. Front brakes are also slightly smaller (11.1 vs 11.8) and it does not have a front shock tower bar.

http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14658

[termigator]

I do seriously hate that stupid "Gotta have it" category. *rolls eyes*

They have that category to make sure the BMW 3's will always get enough points to win their comparo's:thumbsdow

I do like the Malibu, but I think it would look better if it had the Saturn Aura's rear. I'm glad that GM finally has an everyday car that seems as nice as it's Japanese counterparts (Although Jury is still out on reliability). I just wish they could do it and also make it as light. Anyone who gets Car & Driver and read last month's comparo with the CTS will know what I'm talking about.

Just my opinion, but I think the Avenger is a good indication of why Daimler dumped Chrysler. Bad enough they're suffering from reliability problems with their own cars, but to keep pumping money into a company that's willing to sell a car like the Avenger?!

Did anybody see the interior of the Sonata? I was really impressed. I hate to say it, but I think it's much better than the Accord's.

[RDS]

They have that category to make sure the BMW 3's will always get enough points to win their comparo's:thumbsdow

I do like the Malibu, but I think it would look better if it had the Saturn Aura's rear. I'm glad that GM finally has an everyday car that seems as nice as it's Japanese counterparts (Although Jury is still out on reliability). I just wish they could do it and also make it as light. Anyone who gets Car & Driver and read last month's comparo with the CTS will know what I'm talking about.

Just my opinion, but I think the Avenger is a good indication of why Daimler dumped Chrysler. Bad enough they're suffering from reliability problems with their own cars, but to keep pumping money into a company that's willing to sell a car like the Avenger?!

Did anybody see the interior of the Sonata? I was really impressed. I hate to say it, but I think it's much better than the Accord's.

Meh...once you sit inside both of them, your tune may change. The Sonata's interior is well-designed, but the materials still can't quite match the Accord or the Camry. I think the Malibu has better materials as well, but I prefer the Sonata's to the Malibu's design. I can't think of the word for it, but the dual cowl looks a bit odd to me. Other than, :thmsup:

[sjlee]

The 0-60 in 8.2 for the auto EX makes me think that number is possible for a 5spd LX as well.

Not that I really care that much about 0-60 times, but it's nice to know. ;)

Actually, you should be able to get to 60 mph faster with the 5spd (both have the same engine). I think mid-7s would be possible with a good launch.

Remember, 0-60mph times will vary with a MT, since it is so dependent on the driver's skill (i.e. launch). With an AT, because there aren't as many variables (i.e. you simply have to stomp on the gas), your acceleration times are fairly consistent.

[sjlee]

The Edmunds comparo used a Accord LX-P with the 177hp engine and only got 9.3 in 0-60. That test also featured 4cyl Malibu and CamryLE. The Camry got the same 0-60 in both comparos and the Malibu did 0-60 in 8.7 for C&D and 9.5 for Edmunds. Of course different tests from different sources will vary

Besides the 13hp, the LX & LX-P use a smaller 215/16 tire which may limit the car acceleration, handling, braking compared to the EX. Front brakes are also slightly smaller (11.1 vs 11.8) and it does not have a front shock tower bar.

http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14658

All else being equal, a smaller tire will not negatively impact acceleration.

[98AccordEX]

All else being equal, a smaller tire will not negatively impact acceleration.

A smaller contact patch will affect your grip for acceleration, that is assuming the LX can break the tires free on launch. Perhaps its a bigger problem for the V6 and not the 4???

[jang859]

Actually, you should be able to get to 60 mph faster with the 5spd (both have the same engine). I think mid-7s would be possible with a good launch.

Remember, 0-60mph times will vary with a MT, since it is so dependent on the driver's skill (i.e. launch). With an AT, because there aren't as many variables (i.e. you simply have to stomp on the gas), your acceleration times are fairly consistent.

can someone please test a 4 cylinder coupe MT? I have one of those, i want to know do you think it gets 8.0 seconds or as low as 7.5 like (not just someone here predicted) but somewhere else i saw that prediction once.

[sjlee]

A smaller contact patch will affect your grip for acceleration, that is assuming the LX can break the tires free on launch. Perhaps its a bigger problem for the V6 and not the 4???

I don't think traction is an issue with the Accord on launch. A larger tire size means that there is more weight... which would negatively affect acceleration.

[sjlee]

can someone please test a 4 cylinder coupe MT? I have one of those, i want to know do you think it gets 8.0 seconds or as low as 7.5 like (not just someone here predicted) but somewhere else i saw that prediction once.

Did some searching... C&D tested the EX sedan MT (I4)...

"Part of this, frankly, comes from the four-cylinder engine’s modest torque, which rarely challenges front-axle grip even as it rushes the sedan to 60 mph in a surprisingly swift 7.9 seconds."

http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/14194/tested-2008-honda-accord-ex-sedan-bigger-than-before-page3.html

The sedan is a little heavier than the coupe, so getting 7.5 would not be a huge stretch.

[2006EXL]

Actually, you should be able to get to 60 mph faster with the 5spd (both have the same engine). I think mid-7s would be possible with a good launch.

Remember, 0-60mph times will vary with a MT, since it is so dependent on the driver's skill (i.e. launch). With an AT, because there aren't as many variables (i.e. you simply have to stomp on the gas), your acceleration times are fairly consistent.


Car and Driver already posted an online only article testing a 2008 Honda Accord EX manual sedan. Here are the numbers:

Zero to 60 mph: 7.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.8 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 35.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 8.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.1 sec @ 88 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 130 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 185 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g

And the link: http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/14194/tested-2008-honda-accord-ex-sedan-specs-page5.html

I am frankly surprised that the Accord lost so little acceleration with the automatic. I think that with the Accord's increased weight and the innate lack of immediate low-rpm torque in a four-banger, a manual is overall less advantageous right off the line. Alas, I think the coupe would probably reach the mid-7's.

Plus, Honda usually gears their manuals lower, thus exaggerating the performance benefit of the manual in measured acceleration tests. I wonder if that's the case with 2008 Accords.

[jang859]

Ok, I had my girlfriend run my cellphones stopwatch tonight. It was on an uneven slightly hilly asphalt country road.

My first run I chirped the tires and got about 8.3 seconds.

Second run I spun the tires for maybe a half a second, a pretty long time and had a bad launch, got 8.6 seconds.

I bet a skilled driver could do much better than me. Also the conditions...lets see, it was about 39 degrees F and I think the ground may have been a little slick and very cold.

I do have the EX-L which is what, 50 to 100 pounds or something heavier than the EX.

[sjlee]

Ok, I had my girlfriend run my cellphones stopwatch tonight. It was on an uneven slightly hilly asphalt country road.

My first run I chirped the tires and got about 8.3 seconds.

Second run I spun the tires for maybe a half a second, a pretty long time and had a bad launch, got 8.6 seconds.

I bet a skilled driver could do much better than me. Also the conditions...lets see, it was about 39 degrees F and I think the ground may have been a little slick and very cold.

I do have the EX-L which is what, 50 to 100 pounds or something heavier than the EX.

That's far from being an accurate way of measuring your acceleration times... too many variables could affect the results, including your girlfriend's reaction time.

That being said, you're right... the conditions are definitely not conducive to getting a good acceleration time. Because the temp was that cold, your tires may not have been warmed up, so less than ideal traction... that's not even considering if the ground was wet.