Ah !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Honda what are you doing!

[Law Grandeur]

ford fusion has a 1.6? and 2.0 turbo motor? looks nicer, reliable (hate to say it), boss interior. yea fuck the accord lol

[owequitit]

I like it. The more I look at it and work out what is concept car bling vs what is actually there, the more I like it.

The current gen Accord coupe is absolutely a great looking car, and the fact that this one builds on it is a plus. Not every car needs revolutionary styling to get attention. When companies like Kia, Hyundai, Ford and GM have been building crap midsize cars for 20+ years, they have to offer something tangible. They use glitzy styling to get you in the showroom, then tell you how their cars are "equal" to Toyota and Honda even though many statistics don't bear that out.

The glitz on this car that won't make it to production is the the front and rear bumpers, the wheels, and most likely the lights will be different front and rear. Once the ridiculous chrome pieces are removed and more conventional bumpers are installed, it will look fantastic. Funny that you have to remind people that like a boring boxy CB7 that simple designs age well, which is precisely why the CB7 still looks good compared to the more adventurous competitors of the time. Also remember that the 8th gen coupe concept was not well received and many details of the car were changed between the concept and production.

As for the guy who posted the interior of the Fusion, how do you know it is better than this car? They haven't shown the interior yet, and frankly, the square gauge cluster on the Fusion is going to look dated in a few years, as will likely be the case with the many creases and cutlines on the dash. Hopefully Honda keeps it simple in that regard. I also suspect it is likely that much of Honda's redesign will go to improving interior quality, just like the new Camry which, oh by the way, is already showing up everywhere in public.

Smaller size but equal room, more power, less weight, more economy,more gears, more optional powertrains, a bunch of new features and technology, and they didn't fuck up the styling. I really don't see the problem. P.S. Honda already claims this car will get best in class MPG, and it will offer a significant amount of power above most of the competition. P.S.S. They are apparently bringing 6MT's to the 4 bangers and they are reviving the 6MT V6 sedan, which will make this among the sportiest options on the market.

P.S. the current Fusion was probably the best looking car in class, but the new one is horrible. I haven't seen such a horrendous ripoff of styling since Fauxkley's in the 1980's. Too bad people won't really believe it is an Aston, and I want to know what it is with Ford thinking gaping catfish mouths are good ideas on EVERY car they make.

[Biggz92]

Im not selling out Honda for anything. Its been the most reliable car forever a little change is a good thing, many people are not going to like the change but that is a personal opinion.

[s2cmpugh]

I like it. The more I look at it and work out what is concept car bling vs what is actually there, the more I like it.

The current gen Accord coupe is absolutely a great looking car, and the fact that this one builds on it is a plus. Not every car needs revolutionary styling to get attention. When companies like Kia, Hyundai, Ford and GM have been building crap midsize cars for 20+ years, they have to offer something tangible. They use glitzy styling to get you in the showroom, then tell you how their cars are "equal" to Toyota and Honda even though many statistics don't bear that out.

The glitz on this car that won't make it to production is the the front and rear bumpers, the wheels, and most likely the lights will be different front and rear. Once the ridiculous chrome pieces are removed and more conventional bumpers are installed, it will look fantastic. Funny that you have to remind people that like a boring boxy CB7 that simple designs age well, which is precisely why the CB7 still looks good compared to the more adventurous competitors of the time. Also remember that the 8th gen coupe concept was not well received and many details of the car were changed between the concept and production.

As for the guy who posted the interior of the Fusion, how do you know it is better than this car? They haven't shown the interior yet, and frankly, the square gauge cluster on the Fusion is going to look dated in a few years, as will likely be the case with the many creases and cutlines on the dash. Hopefully Honda keeps it simple in that regard. I also suspect it is likely that much of Honda's redesign will go to improving interior quality, just like the new Camry which, oh by the way, is already showing up everywhere in public.

Smaller size but equal room, more power, less weight, more economy,more gears, more optional powertrains, a bunch of new features and technology, and they didn't fuck up the styling. I really don't see the problem. P.S. Honda already claims this car will get best in class MPG, and it will offer a significant amount of power above most of the competition. P.S.S. They are apparently bringing 6MT's to the 4 bangers and they are reviving the 6MT V6 sedan, which will make this among the sportiest options on the market.

P.S. the current Fusion was probably the best looking car in class, but the new one is horrible. I haven't seen such a horrendous ripoff of styling since Fauxkley's in the 1980's. Too bad people won't really believe it is an Aston, and I want to know what it is with Ford thinking gaping catfish mouths are good ideas on EVERY car they make.

I've had a slew of Fusions for rental cars over the past couple of years and their interiors are excellent! The fit and finish is great, the feel of the plastics is great, and the seats are badass! For me PERSONALLY, I wouldn't by a Honda today. Zero excitement, lazy styling updates/evolutions and known build quality issues. It's almost like the "other guys" are heading in the direction Honda took years ago, while Honda is behaving more like the "other guys" were years ago.


As far as the Fusion looking like an Aston, why is that a bad thing? If you criticize Ford for making the Fusion look like an Aston, then you need to criticize Honda for making the Prelude with pop-up headlights look like a Ferrari. And honestly, who cares dude? I don't know about you, but I can't afford an Aston Martin right now. It brings style, fashion, and some zing to an otherwise boring class of car. And for what it's worth, I've been up close and personal to an Aston DB9 Volante, and the only similiarity is in the grill. Everything else is completely different.

I'm not trying to say Honda produces bad cars, but it's obvious the people in charge seem to be steering the company in a direction that strays from it's roots. A reporter for R&T said it best, "Honda used to be an engineering company, but now they are becoming more and more a marketing company".

[oneoffaccord]

owequitit im with you 100%. i think this car is great looking. they pretty much just added a few touchs here and there to make it more of a hero. I really dont like any of the new cars Ford and Mazda with there big opening for the bumper. Catfish is the correct term. Seeing alot of new cars that come thru my job for maintenace and checking them in and out, i can honsetly say i dont like them.

The sonata and elantra are both ugly. what was hyundai thinking

The focus is disgusting. i dont get why they have to have a such a big opening.

The mazda 3 good lord, why is there also a big opening aswell in the bumper, for what?

the kia forte is another one, copying styles from a civic. i might aswell put a badge it and make it honda.

kia optima. i must say its a great looking car but damn its like a honda accord and toyota camry had sex.

please come out with your own styling. it disgust me to no end on how much designers cant come up with there own styles.

I must say i like the last generation odyssey was better looking than the current. I just wish honda would get there things together with how models are coming out., THEY SHOULDVE JUST LEFT THE HSV10 ALONE. That was a great car. As you can see Nissan and Toyota are coming out with sports car agian to compete with American cars. Honda should do the same. I do like the CR-Z but damn they should put some K-series in it. it would compete will with others. idk just my .02 cents

[C-Rod]

Anyone notice there's a woman driving the fusion?

[s2cmpugh]

Anyone notice there's a woman driving the fusion?

Soooo??? Maybe she's hot!

[Law Grandeur]

most of the new gen accord owners ive seen are women or mira miras. so umm....

[C-Rod]

It was just an observation
geez

[s2cmpugh]

most of the new gen accord owners ive seen are women or mira miras. so umm....

What is a mira mira?

It was just an observation
geez

That's why I said maybe she's hot. Or it could be a guy dressed as women while driving, especially since we all know men are better drivers (notice the sarcasm...kind of)

[C-Rod]

[QUOTE=s2cmpugh;2915458]What is a mira mira?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...rm=mira%20mira

I didn't know either until this haha

[HenRoc]

I like it. The more I look at it and work out what is concept car bling vs what is actually there, the more I like it.

The current gen Accord coupe is absolutely a great looking car, and the fact that this one builds on it is a plus.

Not every car needs revolutionary styling to get attention.

When companies like Kia, Hyundai, Ford and GM have been building crap midsize cars for 20+ years, they have to offer something tangible They use glitzy styling to get you in the showroom, then tell you how their cars are "equal" to Toyota and Honda even though many statistics don't bear that out..

1. It's still the same similiar design..no matter how much you give them credit.

2. Revolutionary styling? I agree. But then again the Civic has been so poorly compared to the last generation..that it's getting a refresh for the 2013 MY.

3. Latest reports is that Ford , GM and Chrysler actually made profit.

With Ford actually posting a strong sales margin from 2011, followed by GM and then Chrysler.

Both Kia and Hyundai offer a 10 year 100k mile powertrain warranty. What's 'crap' about that? And I see more Optimas and Sonatas on the road nowadays more than usual.

Think about it. All the ammenities for under 25k..where as a fully loaded Accord EX with a V6 and Nav would run you well into the 35k range.

The Hyundai Accent won Car of the Year at NAIAS, so that tells you they've stepped up their A game.

Face it : Honda needs to step it up

Nissan has 13 models 3 of which offer two different versions of those models.

Toyota has 20 models 5 of which are hybrids

You put out more models you also give the consumer more of a variety to choose from.

When it comes to the big Three of Japan : I compare:

Honda to being the Jap version of Ford
Nissan being the Jap version of Chrysler
Toyota being the Jap version of Chevrolet.

I think it's a great idea that Honda focuses on hybrid technology..but if you don't expand and stick with the same models..you're basically up shits creek without a paddle.

[ChIoVnIdCa]

ehh....

About the 8th gen Accord... I have one and it is disappointing...

I had a BMW and wanted something more reliable

I do not like the styling.. When I see the Coupes I almost vomit But I overlooked it because I wanted a reliable car that was "large" ... The Accord fit the bill

About reliability...
I am on my second VTC gear(Complete BS)
Rear pads last 25k miles
TOB is failing
The dash is six different shades of black
The glove box sags... (Basically every single 8th gen Accord has this, the car in the dealer brochure for the car has a sagging dash lol)
Every so often the response time from the DDM is slow

And to top it off the other day I shift into third and the shifter falls apart! Now I am shifting with jagged plastic until I get a new one.. Yeah... No big deal but come on ... My 20 year old Accord with 400k had a mint shift knob...




About the hybrid thing... Only way I would buy a hybrid is in a full size car that looks like the "normal" version... It would be great if Honda offered a Accord hybrid like the Altima/Fusion Hybrid..



Honda already did the mid gen up date on the Accord... 8.5 gen... This looks like a 8.75 gen Accord... At least resale on my car wont be killed because there are so few changes lol.

[Law Grandeur]

[QUOTE=C-Rod;2915467]

What is a mira mira?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...rm=mira%20mira

I didn't know either until this haha

fwahahahaha didnt know urbandictionary had it lol

[owequitit]

1. It's still the same similiar design..no matter how much you give them credit.

2. Revolutionary styling? I agree. But then again the Civic has been so poorly compared to the last generation..that it's getting a refresh for the 2013 MY.

3. Latest reports is that Ford , GM and Chrysler actually made profit.

I expected better from you. Perhaps a little reading comprehension is in order, as well as some basic fact checking. It is the unfortunate way of the world these days that the average person doesn't take the time to actually verify what they are regurgitating, but alas, that doesn't insulate them from reality.

First, go back and read my statement. I said that the new Accord is EVOLUTIONARY. Pretty much like every single Honda product on the planet has been styling wise. I can pull out reams of reviews from both the CB7, CD5, CG Accord, so and so forth that talk about the "bland" styling. Your particular generation was REALLY lambasted for being a safe and plain design. Let me know if you want links. I will do what I can. I will also be happy to reference you to several decades worth of mainstream media rags which I still have in paper copy. Evolutionary doesn't mean bad, as is evidenced by BMW, Merc and nearly every other continually successful car company (like Honda and Toyota). That said, your OPINION of the styling is no more valid than mine. I LOVE the 8th gen coupe, except that it is a bit bulky on the lower half because of the tumblehome and relatively plainly stamped sheet metal. This car addresses that. I am also wise enough to know that the front and rear bumper on this won't make production, and that the lights will probably be at least subtlely revised for production. The car still has the fantastic stance and proportions of the previous car, but gets rid of the one thing I didn't like, hence I LIKE it. You can attempt to slander me all you want, but pretty much every successful car in Honda's history has had "safe" styling. They age well. It is that simple. They also have addressed my primary complaint about the sedan, which is exterior size. Supposedly, it is ~5" shorter, which will make it similar to the 7th gen in dimension.

Second, you might want to go back and read the reviews of the new Civic. The interior is a letdown, but for the most part the rest of the car is actually very good. It has more chassis refinement than the previous car, which is good in 99% of all situations, and the powertrain handily outperforms or equals cars like the Elantra in ALL categories despite being technology "inferior." Not only does it have fewer gears, less power, and no fancy marginal technology (like DI), but it still equals/beats it in REAL WORLD MPG and outaccelerates it. It is slower than the Focus, but then the focus has a bigger engine with more power and the resulting lower MPG to boot. Rather than just spew internet drivel, I would highly recommend actually going to spend some time digging through results first, as it would help your case.

As for the Civic "refresh" I don't think they will be changing too much except for front bumper clips and the interior. At least it shows a willingness to update and improve, which ultimately will bode well for them. FYI, but the time Tsumami production issues were worked out, the Civic was back in the top 3 on the sales charts and remained there for the rest of the year. We won't get an accurate gauge of Civic sales until next year, because supply was apparently limited for about 9 months of this year. The fact that it recovered to near the top of the charts bodes well for the future, especially AFTER they update it. The only place I have seen bitching about styling is in internet forums, where every Honda thread is littered with the same people over and over and over who make it a point to go into each thread, bash Honda, and then praise their preferred "brand X." Ironcially, these same people give positive feedback on boring monstrosities like the Lincoln MKX, while simultaneously bashing everyone else. Insecurity knows no bounds I guess.

With Ford actually posting a strong sales margin from 2011, followed by GM and then Chrysler.

Honda has been consistently profitable for 40 years. Ford, GM and Chrysler can't say the same thing. They certainly can't say they did it without Bankruptcy (with the exception of Ford), so I am not sure what the point of this is. It is a lot easier to be "profitable" when you have driven wages through the floor, unloaded your pensions, fucked the US Taxpayers out of billions of dollars, been sold to foreign companies, and transferred large %'s of component production overseas. I know all about how GM and Chrysler make money because it is the same way airlines have been making money for decades (with a few notable exceptions). When GM and Chrysler haven't fallen back into stupid bureaucracy within 20 years and are still making good product, then I will be impressed. As it is, the ONLY one of the 3 companies that I would even consider buying is Ford because they did stuff the right way, without bankruptcy and without stealing billions in taxpayer money. Ford I have no real problem with, except that the number of average issues per car (a pure quality measure) is up significantly and has not at any point rivaled Honda or Toyota for any length of time. At best, they get a quarter here or a quarter there. Consistency is much harder than flash in the pan success. So when the domestics CONSISTENTLY lead each and every quality measure (as Honda and Toyota have for decades), THEN AND ONLY THEN, will I consider them to be equal or better.

Go take a look at Ford, GM and Chrysler quality study results for the last year. The numbers don't paint a picture of "equal" quality, no matter how you try to spin it.

Both Kia and Hyundai offer a 10 year 100k mile powertrain warranty. What's 'crap' about that? And I see more Optimas and Sonatas on the road nowadays more than usual.

It depends on whether you need the warranty. There is nothing inherently wrong with a longer warranty, but let's use BMW as an example. In order to hide and reduce the cost of ownership on their cars, they started to include "routine maintenance" to make the vehicles more attractive when compared to their Japanese counterparts who didn't require the routine several hundred to several thousand dollar maintenance events. Does it make the cars more reliable? No. It simply transfers the cost to the upfront sticker. Now, the fact that Hyundai and Kia are absorbing that cost and still selling the cars for "cheaper" raises a red flag for me. Too schooled in reality I guess, but there is no such thing as something for free. That said, if you read much of the fine print on those super warranties, you would notice that it is actually pretty restrictive compared to other more "normal" warranties. That, and you can pay literally a couple hundred bucks from ANY company to get the same warranty. It simply is not a significant cost, although it is an effective advertising tool for those less informed. Finally, I don't care how long a warranty is, I would rather have a product that lasts forever and doesn't break. A good example is airplanes. I don't really judge based on how crashworthy they are, because I would rather work to not crash them in the first place. If you have ever dealt with warranty stuff, you would probably know that more often than not, it is a bigger pain in the ass that just having something that doesn't break. It costs me time, money and hassle to deal with a warranty. As of yet, I haven't had a Honda with a problem in anytime frame even approaching 150% of Kia/Hyundai's warranty, and thus, at present it is not a significant consideration.

Think about it. All the ammenities for under 25k..where as a fully loaded Accord EX with a V6 and Nav would run you well into the 35k range.

Think about it. Where are you getting your numbers?

The Accord starts at $21,380, the Optima at $21,000 and the Sonata at $19,695. That is about an 8% spread between Sonata and Accord and 2% between the Accord and Optima. However, that is for base models that nobody buys, so let's look at the price difference between a fully loaded 4 banger Accord and a fully loaded non-turbo Sonata and Optima (since those are top models) vs a V6 Accord and Sonata/Optima turbo.

Comparo 1:

Accord EX-L Navi 4 cylinder is $30,525 including destinaton charge.

Optima EX is $23,950 including destination. BUT. Here is where Honda's trim level packaging starts to pay off. If you want some of the features included in the EX-L Navi, you have to select the "Premium Package" which adds about $3,000 to the car, give or take. That brings you up to ~$27,000 which is still cheaper, but much less cheap than it would appear on the surface. You do get some extra feature content, but most of it I would not personally want (such as the panoramic roof which adds ~75-100lbs to the very top of the car). So you are back to the traditional Honda vs Korean contest of slightly more content for slightly less money, but likely inferior performance on reliability studies and residual/resale values. I say "likely" because the Optima is new for 2011 and the Accord is the only one that has any long term data. IMO, it would not be fair to compare an older Accord to an older Optima, although it would certainly be valid. History says the Honda will hold value longer, although Kia/Hyundai have seen gains in that department.

When you step up to the higher trim levels, the price gap narrows, significantly.

The price for a fully loaded EX-L V6 is $32,600 and the comparably equipped Optima SX is $31,600. So you have now narrowed the gap to about $1,000. Not only is the Accord EX-L V6 nowhere near $35K (I know first hand how much they cost, since we bought one) but your assertions of a $10K price gap are absolutely laughable. The Kia has a few more features, and is very modestly faster, but again, you are likely to have more mechanical issues (turbos have not yet proven their longevity to be equal to NA), you get inferior NVH) less room, and again, likely lower resale value. Also again, there isn't enough data about resale to draw any conclusions, but historically Honda has done better.

Now, that is all versus the OUTGOING Accord. They have already announced some of the new features for the 2013 Accord, and let's just say that it won't have any feature content issues versus comparably equipped Sonatas or Optimas. It will also be getting more power and torque (which will likely equal or better the two Koreans), more gears (equal to the Koreans), and less size/weight, which should give it a favorable performance advantage versus those two because it is already in the hunt with both of them. And, I get an NA V6 which is a beautifully smooth engine and trumps the turbo 4's in linear response and NVH any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Oh yeah, and I will get better MPG performance to boot.

Comparo 2:

I am not going to bother with the Sonata, as they are all over the price of the Optima. If you would like, I will make a seperate post about the volume selling models...

P.S. I draw your attention to the fact that while the Civic was a mis-step in the interior department, Honda has acknowledged it, and the CR-V does NOT follow suit.

The Hyundai Accent won Car of the Year at NAIAS, so that tells you they've stepped up their A game.

Face it : Honda needs to step it up

Nissan has 13 models 3 of which offer two different versions of those models.

Toyota has 20 models 5 of which are hybrids

You put out more models you also give the consumer more of a variety to choose from.

First, Hyundai won the car of the year not too long ago with the Genesis. It sells about 5,000 copies a year between the coupe and the sedan, while the lowly Acura TL manages to move about 70,000 a year. Pretty much every other car even remotely comparable outsells it by several orders of magnitude as well. Second, the Volt won it last year and it is horrendous pile of shit that catches fire at random times, so forgive me for not considering the small panel "Car of the Year" award to be the end all be all. Shall we talk about Honda's accolades? I mean if you want to compare award dick sizes, we certainly can...

Second of all, do you emphasize quality or quanity, because despite the plethora of models both of those companies produce, neither one has been on a quality tear as of late. If you want quantity, GM would probably be your preferred choice. Honda isn't about quantity of models and never should be. They have always offered a fraction of those companies (in 1990, they had 4 models total), so if you are going to substantiate your assertions that Honda better step it up to their old level, you sure as hell better have something better than the quantity of models.

Not to mention, more power, more MPG, more models, more hybrids, more features, more manual transmissions, and higher quality scores than competitors. How are they not stepping it up exactly? Do you need a fancy wrapper to convince you your car is good? P.S. I have news for you, I thought the 6th gen was the most boring and plain Honda ever. Best Honda Buick ever designed. But we bought one anyway. Why? It was a good car. In this segment, styling is low on the totem pole, which is why the Camry wins year after year. Also, I don't remeber where I saw it, but I have also seen Camrys and Accords of 2011-2012 all over the roads, so it isn't just Koreans that are flying off the lots. It is probably more a shift out of SUV's (thank god).

I think it's a great idea that Honda focuses on hybrid technology..but if you don't expand and stick with the same models..you're basically up shits creek without a paddle.

This statement makes no sense... In your previous statement about who you compare to what, you highlight Honda's lack of hybrids, but then apparently smash them here. Got news for you... Honda has several new hybrid systems debuting with this new Accord. Systems that won't make excuses versus anyone.

ehh....

About the 8th gen Accord... I have one and it is disappointing...

I had a BMW and wanted something more reliable

I do not like the styling.. When I see the Coupes I almost vomit But I overlooked it because I wanted a reliable car that was "large" ... The Accord fit the bill

About reliability...
I am on my second VTC gear(Complete BS)
Rear pads last 25k miles
TOB is failing
The dash is six different shades of black
The glove box sags... (Basically every single 8th gen Accord has this, the car in the dealer brochure for the car has a sagging dash lol)
Every so often the response time from the DDM is slow

And to top it off the other day I shift into third and the shifter falls apart! Now I am shifting with jagged plastic until I get a new one.. Yeah... No big deal but come on ... My 20 year old Accord with 400k had a mint shift knob...


About the hybrid thing... Only way I would buy a hybrid is in a full size car that looks like the "normal" version... It would be great if Honda offered a Accord hybrid like the Altima/Fusion Hybrid...

We have a 2009 with ZERO issues. No sagging glove box either, despite my father's efforts to store a library in there. Not a single one. Also, I remind you that the old Hondas also had sagging glove boxes, and Honda released TSB's for it.

P.S. On brake pads, did you make sure the TSB on caliper pins was complied with? That seems to fix the issue, although I will let you know if our gets to sufficient mileage.

As for an Accord hybrid, does anybody bother to read the releases, or do they just bitch about the photos?

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=1029531