[Baldeagle]

The Accord has always been a bit of an enigma to me. With the previous V6 and current 2.0T, the Accord has as much if not more acceleration than several other cars with clear sport intentions (GTI, A4, 330, IS350, WRX, etc.) I can understand those who might want the suspension to better match that level of power.

But I would question anyone who wants to transform the Accord into a WRX. The WRX’s semi-rally suspension and harsh boxer engine make that car unrefined as hell. Sport cars are great for about an hour, and then they old really fast. To me the Accord's balance between refinement and "enough sport" is what makes it so desirable.

 

[Guest]

But I would question anyone who wants to transform the Accord into a WRX. The WRX’s semi-rally suspension and harsh boxer engine make that car unrefined as hell. Sport cars are great for about an hour, and then they old really fast. To me the Accord's balance between refinement and "enough sport" is what makes it so desirable.

I think this is the difference between me in my early 20s and me now (36, married with 2 kids). I used to LOVE sporty cars, and never cared a shred about long highway trips in noisy, bumpy, spine-twisting discomfort. Now?ty enough for the odd shennanigans here and there and I'm happy. The Accord Touring 2.0T with Adaptive dampers felt like it hit the nail DIRECTLY on the head. I love the idea of a proper Sport mode because while it may not emulate a truly sporty ride, it somewhat lets you have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[DAV0320]

100% me as well. VW's tuned with all bolt-ons, lowered, (not stupidly slammed) on Coilovers, dampers set to full stiff....because racecar. Forget that noise now, I want to be able to simply enter a parking lot with out having to crawl over the transition so I didn't smash my bumper on the ground, or break my passengers' back, (front only, I didn't want anyone in the back seats).

 

[railduke1]

I've owned a 16 WRX. The WRX has a modern direct injection 2.0 motor as opposed to the old tech STI engine. It also gets decent mileage ... 30 mpg highway, but it is premium fuel. Handling was great and the ride wasn't bad for the performance. The interior isn't as nice as the Honda and the entertainment/radio sucks on the WRX. The STI has more HP but the mileage is horrible.

I now have a Accord 2.0 sport 10 speed. The Accord is actually faster in a straight line, but not even close in handling. The Accord is quieter, but not a lot. In sport mode the throttle response is great. The brakes are good but too touchy as opposed to a good progressive bite. Even though the Honda is quicker and nicer inside, I miss the driving experience of the Subaru. So much in fact that I'm considering trading the Accord for the gas guzzling STI.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[chef_32]

I had shortlisted the WRX STI and Accord 2.0 Touring. I have 2 small kids, clients, drive mostly on freeways with few 'fun' turns, and traffic to think about so I decided the accord was a better fit for my lifestyle. The novelty of the WRX would have worn off quickly or I would have done something stupid to test its limits like I used to do in my cars 10 years ago.

Also, if I were considering the regular WRX, I would have landed with a GTI instead.

 

[maxdriver]

I would think that most who are considering these 2 cars would be shopping the Sport Accord with the 6-speed, not an automatic. I would be anyways!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[NH Guy]

Why not both?

Until a week ago, my wife had a 2013 Civic Si and I had a 2017 Base Subaru WRX.
She's been eyeing my WRX for some time. She doesn't want an automatic of any kind.
Also, we've had a couple instances where owning something with an automatic transmission would have been very helpful (arm in sling, wrapped ankle, etc.)
I had a Ford F350 pickup with an auto, but sold that, so we were an all-manual household.
We sold my wife's Civic and I bought a 2018 Accord EX-L 2.0T with the 10-speed auto.
I've not yet done a stopwatch compare of 0-60, 20-70, 30-80 times between the two cars. I will once the Accord gets some miles on it.

Based on only a week's worth of driving I can make a few observations.

The Accord is much quieter. No surprise there. The WRX was never intended to be quiet.
The Accord is very quick in a straight line, even on 87 octane gas. I won't be at all surprised if it turns out to be quicker than the WRX.
The WRX handles better. I think that's mostly because of the lower profile (235/45-17) summer tires on the WRX vs. the (225/50-17) all-weather tires on the Accord. Also, the WRX is the Base model that has the stiffest springs of the three (Base, Premium, Limited) WRX models.
The stock engine tune seems smoother in the Accord. There are fewer peaks and valleys in the torque curve.
The Accord engine is much less busy on the highway. 80 MPH looks like about 1900 RPM in 10th.

And, cops pay a lot less attention to Accords vs WRXs.

 

[outersquare]

The 2.0T accord might actually be faster than the WRX in straights. I've noticed over the years published numbers for the WRX/STI might even be getting slower. Subaru had lots of problems over the years with blown engines and probably started detuning engines. I test drove the WRX a couple years ago at the LA autoshow, although it was quick, it was not the fastest car for test drive there, but did have great brakes and suspension.


2018 WRX
0-60: 6.2s
1/4: 14.5 sec @ 94.2 mph

2018 Accord 2.0T 10AT
0-60: 5.7s
1/4: 14.3 sec @ 99.3 mph

2018 Accord 2.0T 6MT
0-60: 6.2s
1/4: 14.8 sec @ 96.2 mph


https://www.motortrend.com/cars/subaru/wrx/2018/2018-subaru-wrx-first-test-review/
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/accord/2018/2018-honda-accord-first-test/

 

[LXCLEXEXLGuy]

I'm gonna guess that the WRX is going to beat the Accord around any closed track, even with the base engine. So the question is, how many hours a week are you going to spend racing around a closed track?

And anyone with a three-liter turbo anything is going to beat the WRX around the same track, anyway, even if it handles like a goose.

What's the weight distribution on a WRX anyway? I'm not sure anything is much of a "sports" car until that gets pretty close to 50/50. Yeah sure Porsche 911, but that's why the 718 gets the better reviews.

 

[UnknownJinX]

I'm gonna guess that the WRX is going to beat the Accord around any closed track, even with the base engine. So the question is, how many hours a week are you going to spend racing around a closed track?

And anyone with a three-liter turbo anything is going to beat the WRX around the same track, anyway, even if it handles like a goose.

What's the weight distribution on a WRX anyway? I'm not sure anything is much of a "sports" car until that gets pretty close to 50/50. Yeah sure Porsche 911, but that's why the 718 gets the better reviews.

WRX isn't designed to be a roadster(which is the "sports" car you are referring to). Subaru has the BRZ for that. WRX was more designed to be a rally car.

I have talked to a WRX owner and he said when he AutoXed one time, the turbo would kick in at the wrong time and upset the balance of the car in a corner. That's why I personally would prefer a NA roadster: no surprise boost, only predictability.

Sent via MHA-L29. Whatever.

 

[DougNuts]

These two vehicles are certainly similar enough to be cross shopped, I know I have and will in the future.

A lot changed with the 2015 WRX and again with the 2018. For starters, all non-STI variants got the FA20DIT engine, which is somewhat fuel efficient. It also doesn't sound like the previous rumbly and inefficient EJ25 because it has equal length primaries. Note: The EJ25 has stuck around in the STI.

The 2015-2017 are a bit noisy, but they got quieter for 2018. They have also been available with an automatic (high torque CVT) since 2015, which is very similar to the one in my 3.6R Outback. It's not that bad.

I know that Subaru had some minor tuning issues with the 2.0T early on, but I assume those were eventually ironed out. The newer WRX's have improved interiors and infotainment systems, similar to our Outback, which has been acceptable over the last 3 years.

With all that said, as I'm nearing 40, I think an Accord Sport with manual, or a Touring if I get the auto, will be my next choice. The Accord is a bit softer, for sure, but so am I.

 

[UnknownJinX]

I mean, that new, regular, bone stock WRX of the guy I talked a couple of months ago to wasn't awfully loud. It was idling the whole time during our conversation.

Just seems like every other WRX I come across is a really loud, as in that every time I think my RX-8 is loud, a WRX comes up and I think "Darn, I must be driving a Prius - it's so quiet."

Maybe most WRX owners(among with maybe half of the BRZ owners) like modding their exhaust systems to bring out that Subbie rumble? Not that I hate it, but just an observation.

Sent via MHA-L29. Whatever.

 

[SirCamelot]

Maybe most WRX owners(among with maybe half of the BRZ owners) like modding their exhaust systems to bring out that Subbie rumble? Not that I hate it, but just an observation.

Sent via MHA-L29. Whatever.

Definitely an enthusiast car. I drove a new model for a while, and while I didn't make any performance mods, I know a lot who did. Much happier with the accord. Sometimes miss the 6MT and AWD, but really like everything the accord has to offer.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[tracerit]

The seating position in the WRX is really bad for me. Coming from a BRZ though. THe seat doesn't get low enough. Feels like a bus, but it doesn't handle like one lol. The Accord 2.0T Touring sits nicer IMO. Maybe because the doors and front are a bit taller?