[jeffislouie]

Love, love, love my 7th gen.
Problem is, in October I start my next job, which includes a leased vehicle. So as I try and figure out what I should pick up, I come across the coverage of the new Accord coupe.
Like they did with the Civic, I am seriously concerned that Honda has chosen to be lazy and, as a result, has ruined the car.
Bear in mind, this is a very early observation based only on what I've read so far. And here's the problem:
Styling: Honda did the same stupid thing they did with the Civic (because, apparently, current Honda management doesn't learn from their mistakes, which were epic on the Civic). The new Accord coupe concept, which is supposed to be VERY close to what they plan on actually releasing, looks very much like the old one. The difference? Some silly styling flares that do very little to differentiate the 2013 from the 8th gen coupe.
Engine: Wow. Direct injection. Good for you (slow clap). Did we get more power? Sort of. A few HP and a few torque. Boring. Fuel efficiency? Negligible improvement. Waste of engineering talent.
Transmission: here's where Honda ruined the car. While every car magazine in the known world praised the 5 speed AT for being excellent, efficient, and almost telepathic in it's response, Honda didn't listen when they all begged Honda for a 6 speed automatic, which has become the standard for the segment. So what did Honda do? Maybe a 7 speed? Perhaps a dual clutch auto? Nope. Honda replaced their excellent transmission with one that no one asked for, no one wanted, and very few will find acceptable - a CVT. Nothing says sporty like a car that "moos", increasing revs until the engine is almost at red line and holding it there, like a boat. Know why I didn't buy an Altima? The CVT is arguably the most annoying transmission on the planet. Don't believe me? Check out this video of a typical CVT accelerating: http://youtu.be/OV4HD1gsw_M
Terrible. Unless you like the sound of a motor straining at nearly redline the entire time you are trying to accelerate.
So what did we get from the new Accord redesign? Lazy, boring, worse.
Good job Honda.
Sure, I'll still go test drive one before making my decision, but unless I decide to go with a manual transmission, I doubt that I'll be driving a 2013 Accord. Nothing is more disappointing than that.....
I didn't expect 300 hp, but I did expect more power. I didn't expect a dual clutch auto, but I couldn't be more upset over the choice to go to the CVT, a technology almost no one really likes. I didn't expect ferrari styling, but I did expect something more than what I used to expect from Pontiac - body cladding, some lighting changes, and chrome.
The 2013 Accord, I predict, will perform as well (which is to say poorly) as the 2012 Civic. Honda, apparently, doesn't listen to their customers, doesn't want to actually invest in a real redesign, and, I predict, will end up making the same costly changes to the new Accord that they are about to make on the Civic, which includes re-redesigning the exterior.
Who the heck is running Honda? Instead of revolution, we get evolution. Instead of excellent, we get mediocre. Instead of exciting, we get boring. Instead of improvement, we get a step back.
What a shame. My Honda converted me. This new one is pushing me away.

 

[Deity]

You need more spaces between paragraphs, easier to read that way. I do agree though, Honda shit the bed with the 9th gen design.

 

[jeffislouie]

You need more spaces between paragraphs, easier to read that way. I do agree though, Honda shit the bed with the 9th gen design.

Fair enough. I'm active in another forum and have eaten quite a bunch of sh*t over putting spaces between paragraphs.

The design is awful and god help those who were hoping to pick up an automatic, as it won't be offered anymore. If you don't want to drive stick, you get stuck with the worst transmission ever devised, the CVT.

It's a crap sandwich all the way around and Honda's stupidity is likely to cost them a customer (me), at least for now. I am facing a car purchase in the next year (October) and will not buy any car with a CVT, nor am I interested in spending new car money when Honda refuses to actually spend development money on a real redesign. More lazy engineering, which is completely contrary to what made Honda such a huge success.

As I said elsewhere, Honda needs to get rid of the executives who made decisions on the latest Civic redesign as well as everyone involved in pretending that the 2013 Accord Coupe is an actual redesign, from the marketing doofuses to the engineers. It's a refresh, at best.

 

[namegoeshere]

I'd be cautious about picking up a 1st gen CVT transmission. Worried it might turn into another tranny nightmare like with the 5AT on the V6's.

Wonder how long Honda's going to warranty them. 10 years/120,000 miles like Nissan?

 

[Markus]

I'd be cautious about picking up a 1st gen CVT transmission. Worried it might turn into another tranny nightmare like with the 5AT on the V6's.

Wonder how long Honda's going to warranty them. 10 years/120,000 miles like Nissan?

I imagine they'll do the same as they did with the early 5ATs. Warranty them for the standard powertrain warranty period and then if there are any problems wait until enough people and/or government bodies get pissed off before taking responsibility. Assuming they have problems, that is. And I think they will. Honda is not known for stellar transmissions.

 

[MikeyC]

Except for the horrid square led bumper lights I like it

 

[GoLowDrew]

Don't give up hope. What they showed was the 8th Gen. You guys are not fooled, are you?????

Or is this all what Honda's got....:dunno:

 

[glen e]

Don't give up hope. What they showed was the 8th Gen. You guys are not fooled, are you?????

Or is this all what Honda's got....:dunno:

this all what Honda's got....

 

[ezshift5]

this all what Honda's got....

....would it be a fair statement that dimensions Gen8/Gen9 coupe are identical?

ez

 

[glen e]

i think so

 

[Scott]

If you watch the video for the Accord Coupe Concept on the future cars section of the Hondacars website, John Mendel clearly states that the V6 cars are going to get a new 6 speed automatic transmission. The CVT is going to be mated to the 4 cylinder cars.

 

[Edaccord08]

If you watch the video for the Accord Coupe Concept on the future cars section of the Hondacars website, John Mendel clearly states that the V6 cars are going to get a new 6 speed automatic transmission. The CVT is going to be mated to the 4 cylinder cars.

right, it seems honda is going to use acura's 6 speed in the new Accord V6, but honda does have a CVT for the V6 . Not sure what models it will go into .

As far as the CVT, Honda is not making them , its well know company that makes CVT's (I forgot name but it was mentioned in one of PR info) .

I have a question, what features, changes do you want. It is easy to say, this and that in not up to grade, but tell us what you expect or want in new model .

The problem with Honda as I see it , is the competition is much more now . Other company's have more features and as good or better price . Honda has always been slow to change but this gave them leg up on durability .

 

[GoodGame]

The design is awful and god help those who were hoping to pick up an automatic, as it won't be offered anymore. If you don't want to drive stick, you get stuck with the worst transmission ever devised, the CVT.

Why exactly do you say the CVT is the worst transmission ever devised?

I did not know what a CVT was up until I read your post. Then I headed over to HowStuffWorks and read their article on CVTs. On paper it looks really good:

Additionally:

In theory, a car with a CVT should reach 60 mph (100 km/hr) 25-percent faster than the same car with the same engine and a manual transmission [ref]. That's because the CVT converts every point on the engine's operating curve to a corresponding point on its own operating curve.

So, a car with a CVT has better smoother acceleration and improved fuel efficiency. I don't see what the drawback is?

Source

 

[namegoeshere]

smoother acceleration - yes
improved fuel efficiency - no

For the majority of people, they won't know the difference between a CVT and an auto transmission unless it's pointed out.

With a CVT, gone is the beautiful sound of the gears changing. What you get now is a boring drone like a motor boat.

On paper a CVT looks good, but in reality it's not that great or reliable.

Mini stopped using a CVT in their Mini Cooper due to the high rate of failure. Nissan had to double their CVT transmission warranty on 2003-2010 model year vehicles to 10 years/120,000 miles because of the high failure rate.

A CVT transmission is also more expensive to repair/replace.

 

[jeffislouie]

Why exactly do you say the CVT is the worst transmission ever devised?

I did not know what a CVT was up until I read your post. Then I headed over to HowStuffWorks and read their article on CVTs. On paper it looks really good:

Additionally:



So, a car with a CVT has better smoother acceleration and improved fuel efficiency. I don't see what the drawback is?

Source

"In theory" are the key words. In practice, CVT's aren't faster or more fuel efficient, per se.
I've driven manual and CVT equipped versions of the same car. The advantage is smoother acceleration. The manual was more fuel efficient and quicker to acceleration.
Perhaps "worst ever devised" was a harsh wording. I'll walk that back a bit.
They are less reliable and produce more noise than standard automatic or manual transmissions. They are more complicated to design, build, and repair. That's why Nissan had to extend their warranties.
For drivers who view their vehicles as an appliance, they won't care. For people who love cars, engine noise, and spirited driving, the CVT is simply unacceptable for most. If you want to know what a CVT is like under acceleration, go rent a small scooter. Or look on youtube for acceleration runs in cars with CVT's. The engine revs to nearly redline and stays there until you get off the gas. When you pair the CVT to a smaller engine, you get the noises most people dislike - loud, coarse sounds endemic to small 4 cylinder engines. Add to that the sensation of acceleration that doesn't match up to the expectations that we've all come to appreciate, and you have a very unnerving experience.
Acceleration is smoother, but efficiency and acceleration on paper doesn't always translate to efficiency and acceleration in the real world. Furthermore, CVT's are limited in application in terms of how much power they can handle.
As I've attempted to point out before, if the CVT was a sporting transmission capable of higher fuel efficiency, power handling, and faster acceleration, I believe that NASCAR, Indy, Formula 1 and the like would be putting them in race cars. But they don't. And have no plans to do so. Hence, regardless of what the "on paper" advantages are, the real world applications are limited. Something isn't translating from the paper to the real world.

 

[GoodGame]

"In theory" are the key words. In practice, CVT's aren't faster or more fuel efficient, per se.
I've driven manual and CVT equipped versions of the same car. The advantage is smoother acceleration. The manual was more fuel efficient and quicker to acceleration.
Perhaps "worst ever devised" was a harsh wording. I'll walk that back a bit.
They are less reliable and produce more noise than standard automatic or manual transmissions. They are more complicated to design, build, and repair. That's why Nissan had to extend their warranties.
For drivers who view their vehicles as an appliance, they won't care. For people who love cars, engine noise, and spirited driving, the CVT is simply unacceptable for most. If you want to know what a CVT is like under acceleration, go rent a small scooter. Or look on youtube for acceleration runs in cars with CVT's. The engine revs to nearly redline and stays there until you get off the gas. When you pair the CVT to a smaller engine, you get the noises most people dislike - loud, coarse sounds endemic to small 4 cylinder engines. Add to that the sensation of acceleration that doesn't match up to the expectations that we've all come to appreciate, and you have a very unnerving experience.
Acceleration is smoother, but efficiency and acceleration on paper doesn't always translate to efficiency and acceleration in the real world. Furthermore, CVT's are limited in application in terms of how much power they can handle.
As I've attempted to point out before, if the CVT was a sporting transmission capable of higher fuel efficiency, power handling, and faster acceleration, I believe that NASCAR, Indy, Formula 1 and the like would be putting them in race cars. But they don't. And have no plans to do so. Hence, regardless of what the "on paper" advantages are, the real world applications are limited. Something isn't translating from the paper to the real world.

Perhaps it's a shame that they haven't done so already:

CVTs were banned from Formula 1 in 1994 due to concerns that the best-funded teams would dominate if they managed to create a viable F1 CVT transmission.[2]

I think your experience with CVTs is limited due to the fact that the technology is still in its infancy (referring to its use in performance vehicles). You should give it a chance to evolve. If in theory you get improved acceleration (smoother and faster) with a CVT, then let the engineering catch up to the theory so that we can have better cars on the roads of tomorrow. I'm not saying that you should go out and buy your next Accord with a CVT, but only that you approach this topic with an open mind. I mean, just because you're used to variable engine revs and a variable distribution of power or torque does not mean that that's the way cars should be designed.

The more I read about CVTs the more I compare them to the evolution of electric engines. I mean, electric engines are straight up better than combustion engines - both from a performance and an efficiency standpoint (the problem with electric cars is not in the engine, it's the batteries). But then you have people complaining that electric cars are too quiet, that they don't feel like real cars. The fck? Does 100% instant torque not satisfy you? I mean just because you grew up with and always drove cars that make low deep rumbling sounds does not that mean that that's the only way a car should be designed. Approaching a new invention like that with a closed mind is unacceptable. One hundred years from now people will look back and laugh at how noisy and inefficient cars were in 2012. My point is that technology is perpetually evolving and evolution implies change - you can either embrace these changes (which are usually for the better) or resist them and complain about the 'new' world every chance you get like an old grandpa. But you sound like a reasonable person; I am sure that if you will experience an improved CVT in the future (which actually translates paper theories to the pavement sometime within the next 5-30 years) you will not be reluctant to embrace it.

 

[jeffislouie]

Perhaps it's a shame that they haven't done so already:



I think your experience with CVTs is limited due to the fact that the technology is still in its infancy (referring to its use in performance vehicles). You should give it a chance to evolve. If in theory you get improved acceleration (smoother and faster) with a CVT, then let the engineering catch up to the theory so that we can have better cars on the roads of tomorrow. I'm not saying that you should go out and buy your next Accord with a CVT, but only that you approach this topic with an open mind. I mean, just because you're used to variable engine revs and a variable distribution of power or torque does not mean that that's the way cars should be designed.

The more I read about CVTs the more I compare them to the evolution of electric engines. I mean, electric engines are straight up better than combustion engines - both from a performance and an efficiency standpoint (the problem with electric cars is not in the engine, it's the batteries). But then you have people complaining that electric cars are too quiet, that they don't feel like real cars. The fck? Does 100% instant torque not satisfy you? I mean just because you grew up with and always drove cars that make low deep rumbling sounds does not that mean that that's the only way a car should be designed. Approaching a new invention like that with a closed mind is unacceptable. One hundred years from now people will look back and laugh at how noisy and inefficient cars were in 2012. My point is that technology is perpetually evolving and evolution implies change - you can either embrace these changes (which are usually for the better) or resist them and complain about the 'new' world every chance you get like an old grandpa. But you sound like a reasonable person; I am sure that if you will experience an improved CVT in the future (which actually translates paper theories to the pavement sometime within the next 5-30 years) you will not be reluctant to embrace it.

I certainly appreciate the points you've made, but the problem is that we aren't talking about where the technology might go in 5-10 years. The problem is that Honda is forcing buyers to make a choice. Forcing that choice, to me, seems extremely stupid. The choice is: live with a CVT or buy another car from another manufacturer. It's the same choice that has limited the Altima (as a side note: I am aware of the recent success the Altima has enjoyed, but it should be made clear that this success is not the result of the CVT. It is the result of incentives and shortages caused by the earthquake in Japan.). I was given that choice when I picked up my 05. I chose the Honda with the 5 speed auto.

While you may be correct that in time, the CVT may in fact be a faster transmission, the current vehicle just aren't meeting that expectation. I'm not so stupid as to assume my opinion will never change, but the CVT is not new technology. It's been in use for a long, long, long time. The original design goes back to Da Vinci and CVT's have been available in vehicles for longer than I've been alive. So what are we waiting for? I don't know. What I do know is that the current development stage of the CVT results in a vehicle that moos, groans, and wails while producing mediocre acceleration and economy.

So I'll stipulate to the idea that eventually, the CVT may in fact evolve into a top flight transmission. Right now though? It's just not for me.

To me, the problem is that I would rather have a 6 speed auto or a dual clutch unit than a CVT. I've driven the excellent Dual Clutch unit in the GTI and can report that it shifts super quick, is super smooth, and provides excellent control. It's one transmission that actually makes the choice between the auto and the stick GTI a difficult one. As good as the GTI manual transmission is, the dual clutch unit might even be better - especially if you drive in traffic.

So I should be clear in saying unequivocally that I am not afraid of change or technology. To the contrary, I appreciate tech. The problem is, the tech isn't that great. The 5 speed auto in my Accord is nearly telepathic, which makes me believe that Honda could have engineered a 6 speed auto with the same beautifully intelligent responses. Why move to a transmission that some folks plain old won't even consider?

Let me put that a better way: Absolutely no one looking for a car that doesn't have a clutch pedal would frown on a 6 speed auto or a dual clutch unit. SOME will simply not even check out the new Accord with a CVT. Since one of the pillars of business theory is to drive products with the MOST appeal, the decision to switch to a technology with limited appeal is nothing short of stupid (from a business analysis viewpoint).

It's the same reason Honda doesn't offer their car in Pink, or why a CD player is now standard in cars (as opposed to a tape deck). It's the same reason the Accord doesn't come standard with 24 inch wheels. The name of the game is mass appeal, not intentionally limiting appeal. The CVT in the Accord makes about the same sense as making a 2 stroke motor the standard engine or deciding that the Accord coupe should only come with a driver's door. Some folks would appreciate the potential efficiency and/or design, but most folks would skip the trip to the dealership.

I watched a video about the new Malibu Eco, and the brand manager was clear: the midsize sedan market is extremely competitive. You cannot compete unless you get folks into the dealership, excited to check out your product. Her point was that to succeed in the midsize sedan market, you have to appeal to the most people. To me, that means not making decisions that alienates buyers.

I'm all for the CVT developing into a faster, smoother, more efficient, more reliable transmission. But it isn't there yet. Honda shouldn't be pushing a guy like me away, they should be doing everything they can to appeal to the most people possible. I just don't see how a CVT accomplishes that, especially since it looks like the EPA says the car isn't getting much of a jump in efficiency. Adding to Honda's weirdness is the fact that the CVT is louder than an auto. Since Honda's are already louder inside than the competition, have they finally decided to be more liberal with their sound deadening materials? I doubt it. It sure isn't in the press materials.

 

[GoodGame]

Yeah I agree with you - it's wrong for Honda to push this transmission unnecessarily onto the consumers. Having said that, I will not be buying the new generation Honda anyway. When I do upgrade my vehicle (which will be in 4-5 years from now), I will get a more performance inclined one (like the Nissan 370Z for example). I don't like the idea of sticking to one brand anyway; it's more fun to switch around and experience different ones. Judging from your signature, I'm guessing that you feel the same way lol.

 

[8thsedan]

the accord never had a semi-automatic in the first place, so if u don't like using it, just put it on D and forget it. simple as that.

 

[Markus]

the accord never had a semi-automatic in the first place, so if u don't like using it, just put it on D and forget it. simple as that.

Yes it did have a semi-auto.