: Car and driver-- Honda accord only 2nd best



M5eater
05-31-13, 03:11 PM
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-mazda-6-grand-touring-vs-2013-honda-accord-ex-l-comparison-test


Regular readers of this magazine may wonder why a “two” appears next to the Accord’s name above. Maybe you should sit down—breathe normally, through your nose. It has just lost.

so.. first the 3 series, now the accord.

the world as such is officially comming to an end.

Jesda
06-01-13, 03:05 AM
Mazda is churning out some fantastic cars and CUVs these days. In the same issue, the CX5 won C&Ds comparison of small-wheel-drive SUVs.


The Camry has been an overrated loser for the past decade.

MoistCabbage
06-01-13, 05:51 AM
My aunt has a 2013 EX-L, fantastic car. I think Honda should have offered an EX Sport (or 4 cylinder Touring), as the existing Sport is essentially an LX.

When the current Accord was introduced, one of the automotive magazines stated "Honda wants to be Honda again". Hopefully that trend continues, and the Accord moves back slightly towards the sportier side of the family sedan market.

M5eater
06-01-13, 09:53 AM
afaik, the 'sport' edition does have some extra sporting aspirations in the respect of a better exhaust and firmer spring rates?

MoistCabbage
06-01-13, 01:59 PM
It's an LX+

- A 6 speed manual, or the CVT with paddle shifters.
- 18's.
- Fog lights.
-A spoiler.
- Dual outlet exhaust.
- 4 more HP, 1 more FT/LB of torque.
- Leather wrapped steering wheel.
- 10 way power drivers seat.

thebigjimsho
06-03-13, 08:36 AM
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-mazda-6-grand-touring-vs-2013-honda-accord-ex-l-comparison-test

so.. first the 3 series, now the accord.

the world as such is officially comming to an end.

I really, really like the new Accord. It's a very good car and drives very well. And it looks great. But the 6 looks even better and has a very nice interior, albeit a little less room. But both have more than enough room. Alas, I have not driven a 6 yet.

No shame for either car.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-04-13, 11:20 AM
I saw this thread come up a few days ago and have not had time yet to put my two cents in.

The new Accord is a fantastic sedan, probably the best balanced offering in it's class. It drives well, it's very spacious inside, it's well equipped, it's comfortable and offers a smooth, compliant ride and it's handling still "bites". The exterior and interior was completely refreshed for 2013 and it's a much needed change from the 2008-12 Accord. It's a very elegant design that really echoes the Hyundai Genesis in the rear end, while keeping a unique look from the front and in profile. The interior is clean cut and handsome, with enough space to be classified as a full size.

The Mazda 6 is gorgeous, the best looking car in the class. It looks like it was designed in Turin, not Nagasaki. The 6 is not as quite as large as the Accord internally and it doesn't have the smooth ride like the Accord, but it's a little sportier and the design is a little more attention grabbing, which is why I understand it won that comparison. Also, having the traditional automatic against Accord's CVT won it some brownie points as well.

Speaking of CVT, working at a Nissan dealership, I hated the CVT they used. It was very noisy and felt like a rubber band, whereas the engine would rev way up to it's peak power, then it felt like the transmission would catch up. With Honda's CVT, it feels much more like a traditional automatic transmission, as the engine doesn't rev way up before the car starts accelerating. Under normal acceleration, it feels like a traditional automatic transmission, but only under heavier throttle does it start to show it's CVT genetics, but it's not as noisy as Nissan's CVT.

Honda's also has a Sport mode in the LX/EX/EX-L sedan four cylinder that will hold the RPM's in the 3000 range, which gives noticeably better acceleration. In the Accord Sport and 4 cylinder Coupe models, the CVT also includes paddle shifters which really make it feel like a traditional model.

I wouldn't buy a CVT in a Nissan, but I would in a Honda.

Speaking of which, I will be leasing an Accord LX Sedan soon. I've got my eyes set on a Basque Red Pearl II with the Ivory cloth interior. I thought about going to a Sport, but that would increase my payments about $25/mo. I can't justify that...the only things I really feel I gain are the paddle shifters, dual exhaust and power driver's seat. But, I don't like the fact that the Sport only comes with the black interior.

http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/11586180.jpg

Perhaps I could go to a Coupe as well, I've never had a coupe. But I wonder how much my payments would jump there. I really like the idea of a coupe with the six speed manual, but those only come in black/black and I swore I'd never own a black car....they're never clean.

ted tcb
06-04-13, 11:54 AM
Interesting thread.

I've owned multiple examples of Accords, also owned 2 Mazda 6's, and I've driven the new Mazda 6.

I thought Honda lost its way on interior design with the launch of the 2003 body on the Accord. Ridiculous HVAC controls and radio buttons and the sight lines had all risen, losing that glorious go kart experience. I owned an 03 and 02 side by side. The 03 was quieter, more luxurious, but I hated it.
The 02 seemed to use better materials and had much nicer, lower beltlines.

My Mazda 6's definitely used cheap materials .... too many hard materials, and rust was a problem. I own an 04, and also had an 09.

My friend owns the local Mazda store, so he gave me a new Mazda6 to drive. Much nicer car, incredibly tight, almost didn't miss the absence of a 6cyl motor.
Great looking car, too bad we require the front license plate up here, which kind of ruins that amazing front grill.

I haven't driven the new Accord yet, but until now, every magazine rates this car top of the class in driving experience.

Chad, you and Jesda would know better than anyone here, the long term cost of ownership of an Accord vs Mazda 6.
As good as the new 6 is, I wonder which car will retain its value better. Historically, Honda has always been the class leader in
resale value. You must love it when you're appraising the value of an Accord that has just come in on trade ... you know you won't be
insulting the car's owner.

Chad, I'm guessing you're getting the Accord to replace the beater LeSabre?

I thought you sold Kia's, which would make an Optima a logical purchase. Do you sell Hondas as well?

M5eater
06-04-13, 11:56 AM
The Accord's sucess has always been perplexing.
The design always evolutionary never revolutionary, and in a trend of swooping fastbacks and strong competition the Accord has held firm to a traditional 3 box design that can be best described as plain among such wonderful creations as the Fusion, or at the very least the Optima. if you find the accord preferable to an aston-martin ripoff, I really don't know where I should begin.


Honda's also has a Sport mode in the LX/EX/EX-L sedan four cylinder that will hold the RPM's in the 3000 range, which gives noticeably better acceleration. In the Accord Sport and 4 cylinder Coupe models, the CVT also includes paddle shifters which really make it feel like a traditional model
CVT and sport do not belong in the same sentence, ever. No matter what tinsel they dress it with it's underlying consideration will always be for fuel economy, and it will always fall short to a conventional transmission in all other circumstances except such. The problem is, the Accord traditionally has always been about excellent driving dynamics and of a car that also does it all.

Honda has clearly forgotten this, and it's loss proves it. The question is whether Honda will follow in the footsteps of GM and continue to worsen, relying on it's brand names rather than it's cars until one day, it'll find itself suddeny more than a few ticks from the top of the food-chain.

thebigjimsho
06-04-13, 01:18 PM
The Accord's sucess has always been perplexing.
The design always evolutionary never revolutionary, and in a trend of swooping fastbacks and strong competition the Accord has held firm to a traditional 3 box design that can be best described as plain among such wonderful creations as the Fusion, or at the very least the Optima. if you find the accord preferable to an aston-martin ripoff, I really don't know where I should begin.

CVT and sport do not belong in the same sentence, ever. No matter what tinsel they dress it with it's underlying consideration will always be for fuel economy, and it will always fall short to a conventional transmission in all other circumstances except such. The problem is, the Accord traditionally has always been about excellent driving dynamics and of a car that also does it all.

Honda has clearly forgotten this, and it's loss proves it. The question is whether Honda will follow in the footsteps of GM and continue to worsen, relying on it's brand names rather than it's cars until one day, it'll find itself suddeny more than a few ticks from the top of the food-chain.

Can't disagree more.

The Honda Sport is giving a little bit of oomph with a nicer, more muscular stance. If you're gonna complain about a CVT, complain about an automatic. The CVT in the Accord is at least as good. But, yet, they offer a manual.

As for looks, I think the Sport looks great, much nicer than the regular Accord, which I like as well. As for the Fusion, that is an awful pile of swill. The nose is fine...if you don't get a base model, but the rest is an afterthought. The profile is slabsided junk and the back end looks just like the Focus and Fiesta, except cheaper. And even though its got a monster wheelbase, it has poor rear seat room and lacking headroom.

Which all comes back to the point. Honda NAILS it. All the magazines love the car. It gets great economy but is still a pleasure to drive. It looks good, it has a ton of room, it is ergonomically excellent, it is a bargain and it has great resale. It has the broadest appeal of any car in the segment.

The 6 is certainly the best looking in its class and the best handling. The backseat room is good, not great. And its more expensive than the Accord.

----------

As for "loss", that's stupid. Honda likes to have a good showing in an enthusiast comparo, which it got. I doubt they're sweating losing to the 6 here. Mazda would be happy to sell 1/7 the number of 6s to Accords...

Jesda
06-06-13, 05:44 AM
For my money, I'd take a Mazda 6 or a Kia Optima, CPO because they do depreciate faster than Honda and Toyota. Let someone else take the initial hit. Mazda is planning a production facility in Mexico to avoid currency exchange and shipping costs which should also allow them to reduce MSRPs.

For everyone else, I'd recommend the new Accord. It's a well-balanced package that pleases 80% of the population. The manual Accord coupe is extremely charming.


Meanwhile at Chevrolet, the Malibu is quickly becoming a fleet queen, taking the Impala's former place as a fairly undesirable "bulk buy" automobile.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-06-13, 09:23 AM
Yeah, I'm disappointed how that new Malibu turned out. It had so much promise in 2007, but now it's diminished into the rental rocket it was before 2007.

I like the Manual Accord Coupe, I really considered leasing the entry level LX-S Manual transmission, but it's only available in Black/Black.

thebigjimsho
06-06-13, 05:14 PM
Maybe I can get a cheap lease on a '13 Malibu...

talismandave
06-06-13, 08:06 PM
Maybe I can get a cheap lease on a '13 Malibu...

Probably can, just read they are restyling it for 2014 due to bad reception of the '13 models styling.

CadillacLuke24
06-06-13, 09:55 PM
Probably can, just read they are restyling it for 2014 due to bad reception of the '13 models styling.

This for me, is a giant leap for GM. Responding as quickly as they did is new for them.

On top of that, it does look way better. More edgy like the previous generation, not octogenerian like the first half of the current one.

thebigjimsho
06-06-13, 10:49 PM
I actually like the styling of the '13. Especially in LTZ trim. But the backseat room is poor and if it does drive poorly, meh...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-07-13, 09:15 AM
Now, getting back to the CVT transmission.

I don't like how they act, compared to a traditional automatic transmission. I like hearing the RPMs rise and fall with the changing of the gears, BUT, the CVT is much quicker, smoother and better on fuel than a traditional automatic transmission. I drove a 2013 Accord LX back to back with a 2013 Civic EX that features a traditional five speed automatic. It was nice to hear the rpms change with the automatic, but it wasn't nearly as quick as the Accord, nor as smooth. I could get used to not having those shift points though.

77CDV
06-07-13, 03:37 PM
On top of that, it does look way better. More edgy like the previous generation, not octogenerian like the first half of the current one.

You have just insulted octogenerians everywhere. :lol:

CadillacLuke24
06-07-13, 05:33 PM
You have just insulted octogenerians everywhere. :lol:

I thought I already did that by buying one of their all time favorite cars :rolleyes:

The '13 'Bu in LTZ trim is sweet. I agree. The '14 just looks a ton better.

02603sec
06-10-13, 12:06 AM
Zzzzz

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-10-13, 12:10 AM
Honda restyled the Civic for 2012...big change from the 2011's, but it was a flop, so they went back to the drawing boards for 2013, cleaned it up a bit and it looks much, much better. Chevy is doing the same with the '14 Malibu.

Oh and Ted, I left Kia about a month ago for a Honda dealership. Didn't like the management at the Kia store, much happier here.

Jesda
06-10-13, 01:57 AM
The CVT was engineered by people who hate cars. Some are better than others, and Nissan's is among the worst.

ben.gators
06-10-13, 05:46 AM
Audi's CVT system is the weak point of those cars too! A lot of buyers prefer to buy the Quattro version just to get the regular automatic transmission or opt for manual transmission!

ben.gators
06-11-13, 05:17 AM
Not exactly the main topic of the thread, but Honda's 3.0L V-6 engine really surprised me! Last week I was in the mainland, and a friend of mine came to pick me up. Her car was a 2004 Accord, and it had a V-6 engine! That thing really scared the hell out of me! Imagine a very fancy, feminine girl sits behind the wheel, holding her red purse in her lap, and while she is checking her makeup in the mirror, she slams on the gas and the car goes like crazy! As a regular family sedan, that thing was crazy fast! It is hard for me to confess, but that thing can outrun my STS any day of the week!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-11-13, 07:02 AM
Yeah, those old 3.0 V6 Accords weren't slow by any means! Do you know what year hers was? The 2003 & newer models were 240hp and then in 2006, they bumped it to 244hp. Very quick, with a stout power band and 0-60 times in the mid 6 second range. If you can find one of the very rare Accord EX-V6 with the 6 speed manuals, they'll crack 60 off under 6 seconds, 5.8 to be exact. We've got one at work.....2006 EX-V6 6-speed sedan... black with the beige interior and navigation, what a fun car to drive! It's very fast, but also very quiet and smooth, deceptively smooth & quiet...


Heck, even with the CVT, the basic 2013 Accord LX gets from 0-60 in about 7.2 seconds, which was V6 territory 10-15 years ago. With the manual transmission, a brand new four cylinder Accord can crack 60 off under 7 seconds! I read an interesting editorial a few months ago from one of the major car magazines that said the four cylinder Accord coupe, with performance like that, is the modern day Prelude.

ben.gators
06-11-13, 07:31 AM
I think it was '04, the model year that has a chunky and funny rear end! Somehow I like those models! They are not necessarily the most elegant designs out there, but at least they are different from the mainstream family sedans because of that strange rear end!

As for the I-4 engines, I agree, especially if they are turbo and come with manual transmission! Believe it or not I had more fun driving a 2.0L Turbo Audi with manual transmission than driving a GTO with LS2 engine and automatic transmission!!!! It seems that things are changing pretty fast! The new 4 bangers are now faster than the 80s and 90s pony cars with V-8 engines!

orconn
06-11-13, 12:56 PM
I have always heard that the 4 cylinder Hondas were better handling cars than the ones equipped with the V-6. Is that still true, Chad?

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-11-13, 01:57 PM
Yes, I'm sure that's true. But, the current generation Accord is the only one to have a four cylinder that is really fun to drive!

AElayyat
06-11-13, 02:32 PM
I have always heard that the 4 cylinder Hondas were better handling cars than the ones equipped with the V-6. Is that still true, Chad?

I'm gonna jump in on this one.

Yes the i4 has slightly better handling than the v6 due to reduced engine weight.

I use to have a 2010 i4 ex sedan...not enough power though, I now got a 2010 ex v6 sedan for daily driving...that thing is nice all around.

thebigjimsho
06-11-13, 02:35 PM
I have always heard that the 4 cylinder Hondas were better handling cars than the ones equipped with the V-6. Is that still true, Chad?

As others have said, weight plays a part. I bought an '01 Accord coupe and got the 4 cyl to get the manual trans. It was easy to feel it as better balanced. And I don't think the V6 auto was all that much faster...

AElayyat
06-11-13, 02:36 PM
...We've got one at work.....2006 EX-V6 6-speed sedan... black with the beige interior and navigation, what a fun car to drive! It's very fast, but also very quiet and smooth, deceptively smooth & quiet...

I have been following your post here.

Dude you should pick that thing up, those 6spds are hard to find.

I'd recommend a v6 accord...if your budget allows. Those things move for what they are.

I chew up v6 chargers & 300's all the time!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-11-13, 05:07 PM
It's a great car, but if I'm to add an Accord to the fleet, I want to lease one. Full warranty coverage & low payment.