I’m a bit of a contrarian by nature. I’ll propose counterpoints just for the exercise of it, and by default I am skeptical of trends for reasons inexplicable even to me. Why go with the flow and be happy when you can be miserable swimming against the current to no effect? One extension of this is that I tend to favor Toyotas over Hondas. Why? Who knows. Honda has a far more impressive history of building driver’s cars. Seems like a no-brainer. But then a smug fanbase and slavish automotive press arrive, provoking the contrarian in me. It’s not like the cars are perfect, they’ve tended to be more crashy, loud, and high-strung. Tiresome on road trips. The Accord is the poster child for this, earning accolade after accolade, even over the last decade when they were bloated and cheapened. Well, the new generation seems to address those things and is certainly receiving praise with nary a fault to be found.
What does Debbie Downer think of the new king of the hill? I just had a chance to drive an in-law’s 2018 Accord, so I’m going to tell you. My father-in-law was suffering at the 8000-foot elevation of my sister-in-law’s wedding and needed a ride home to lower elevation pronto. I volunteered so no one in the immediate family would miss the ceremony, and was thereby able to drive their Accord there-and-back for 80 miles of mixed highway, suburban traffic, and high elevation mountain tarmac under gentle conditions (father in-law riding shotgun) and more assertively (solo return back up the mountain).
And I’m going to dump on this press darling because no one else is willing to do it.
“They call him Flipper, Flipper…”
So let’s do this thing! First, which super-duper Accord do we have here? An EX with the new 192hp L-Series 1.5-liter direct injection turbo paired to a CVT. Zowee. Nicely equipped as the parlance goes, with 17-inch alloys, sunroof, dual auto climate control, and irritating lanewatch nannies that became confused four times and tried to adjust the car’s course. $28K MSRP, identical to the competing 2018 Camry SE and my 2016 Camry XSE which I will use as reference points from here on out. It’s a grandma car, both literally (a grandmother owns it) and figuratively: this is the powertrain combo and non-enthusiast buyer that accounts for the lion’s share of units moved.
This is a quantum leap over the prior generation
As with the Camry, it’s ugly. Hunchbacked and swollen in profile, uninspired and droopy from the stern, and with a chrome unibrow across the tall face. The rooftop antenna is weirdly large, resembling a dorsal fin and making this cetacean-grey car look like a breaching dolphin. There are some quality lapses: three noticeable uneven panel gaps and orange-peel paint that, if the prior car is any indicator, will chip easily. That doesn’t bother me, but it is the type of miss the brand’s more ardent fans like to think does not exist.
If you’re done using it, the 2014 Mazda3 would like its dashboard back now
Once you reach the car and open the door, you’ll immediately notice it closes with a far more solid sound than the 2018 Camry and the inner door panel is made of nicer materials. That makes a big difference in initial perceived quality and Toyota was foolish to not recognize this. The new dashboard is far nicer than the prior Accord and just edges out the 2018 Camry. The Toyota is more stylish and unusual, the Accord more derivative and traditional. Take your pick.
Sloppy. Look at the poorly-done black level on the digital side of the cluster.
Reviewers have been rightly wowed by the attractive infotainment graphics, convincing imitation wood, and excellent climate control knobs that provide solid tactile feedback and glow blue or red depending on the direction you turn them. So wowed that they failed to notice the misalignment of the door handles with their surrounding trim. Or that Honda cut pennies on the rear door panels by replacing soft touch materials with hard plastic look-alikes. Or that this $28K car still has a stiff plastic steering wheel instead of leather and the 2018 Camry’s shift lever feels more solid and expensive moving through the detents. Or the sloppy integration of the digital screen into the gauge cluster. I bring this up mainly because we’ve been told only competing cars have cheap aspects, yet I’m finding them in the Accord without much effort.
Not aligned, and it isn’t the perspective
Not that the OCD scrutiny of every interior piece is worth much. One cheeky British journalist had some good fun opening the Camry’s center armrest to vertical and harshly wobbling it side to side to demonstrate its apparent cheapness. This was illuminating to me. I’ve never had the need to do this before, but apparently I’ve been neglecting a critical quality metric so I tried it out on this Accord and guess what? It does the same thing.
Feeling newly informed and empowered, I began poking and prodding at more irrelevant materials. The woven headliner is kind of hard and scratchy. The plastic A-pillar shrouds don’t line up perfectly with it, either. How on earth is a guy supposed to feel good about his car if the ceiling isn’t nice to caress? If the armrest has play when I force it in a direction it was never meant to go? When you stop being silly, this is a nice interior. Nicer than the 2018 Camry? To use another British reference: aside from the door panels, they’re as near as makes no difference.
Except for this: the absolutely revolting seat fabrics. I miss velour and this is why. The fabric looks and feels as if it were woven from re-dyed Barbie hair. It’s slick, it’s shiny, it’s thin, it’s plasticy. It glistens in the sunlight. You’ve crossed over to the wrong side of the tracks when going from the dashboard to seats. Since you do touch this part of the car, it matters. Mazda has far nicer fabrics. The faux-suede in my 2016 is leagues ahead. The 2018 Camry restricts the slick fabric to the central panels of the seat and places a decent vinyl on the bolsters. The Accord, however, is covered in acres of this fabric kudzu.
Look at ’em shine!
I’ve picked all the interior nits that I can, so on to driving impressions. The little engine starts so quietly that I needed to look at the tach to ensure it had done so. That’s a premium touch compared to the harsh Bruh-zzaaaaah! of my 2016 coming to life. Outward visibility is quite good to the forward and sides, but the raked roofline puts a lot of pillar and ceiling into your rear view. Road noise is well suppressed for an Accord, although I think the 2018 Camry is quieter still. The steering is excellent. Turn-in is sharp but not nervous, and there is good front end response to steering input. It’s a big car but feels quite agile. The steering has a more natural feel than my 2016 Camry, although the gap with the 2018 is much smaller.
The Accord’s suspension tune is also largely impressive. It corners flatly and generally rides very well, without much of the thrumming, thumping and thwacking of some prior Hondas, but some of that still exists over certain surfaces. Put the Sport’s 19-inch rubber band tires on it, though, and I’ll bet that all returns. The 2018 Camry SE has ironed out that remaining harshness at only minimal expense to handling and steering response. I think it’s a better tradeoff, and I also don’t think the Camry and Accord have ever been closer in handling. The Accord was a very confident car to drive down the mountain from 8000 feet of elevation to 4500 and back up again. There was, however, some brake judder through the pedal on a grandma-driven car with only 17K miles. Honda rotors haven’t had the best reputation.
Visibility suffers compared to the prior Accord. More gross seat fabrics.
The hood flutters above 50mph, sheet metal wobbling in the wind. Another auto journalist omission that would have been noticed in a Ford or Chevy or Toyota. Just go ahead and lower that power seat to the point where you can’t see it. Unlike the prior generation, those seats are supportive but a bit stiff for someone without a lot of built-in body padding. The seats in both Camrys are more comfortable to me because they provide similar support and better cushioning. YMMV.
How about that hot-pot little turbo engine? As a slightly detuned version of the Civic Si engine, one would expect good things. It certainly is potent and it will nudge you back into your seat when running full steam in a way that completely belies its displacement. It charged up the canyon road effortlessly. It destroys the Ford 1.5T while returning better fuel economy. At my elevation, it feels noticeably quicker than the new Camry 2.5 despite the modest dearth in rated power. At sea level, their performance is identical. The 1.5 has no Honda personality, though, mooooing its way up the tachometer in an inoffensive but bland manner more befitting a Toyota.
You can buy an Accord Sport with this engine paired to a manual transmission and you should probably do so, because when paired to the CVT the 1.5 manages to be awful in a way the magazines refuse to address. It is completely lifeless and inert when pulling away from a stop. In some unholy alliance of lazy CVT response and glacial turbo lag, this car will not step off from the light with any enthusiasm or linearity. Progressively roll into the throttle? Nothing. The speed creeps up through the single digits until the turbo can finally blow some fuel into the cylinders and then it jerks forward. Poke the throttle quickly? Still nothing, just a bigger jolt when the turbo hits. Stop and go traffic is infuriating because this delay leads to big gaps between you and the car in front, and once the turbo wakes up you have put on the brakes again. You must carefully time how you pull into traffic or make a left against it.
Shunting the gear lever into Sport does little to rectify the launch, it just holds onto low ratios for way too long when you’re finally underway. The response is better when on the move, but if you let that tachometer fall into the sub-2000rpm torque well, it doesn’t like to climb back out of it unless you’re in Sport mode. Motortrend pussy-footed around this and Car and Driver didn’t even mention it. Not surprising since “Our love for the new Honda Accord knows no bounds. We’ve squealed in delight…” is the opening line to their review of a 1.5 CVT Accord.
Look at how small the block is! You’d never guess it is so quick.
I had the same problem with the Jetta 1.4T and automatic. Perhaps this is just how heavy cars with tiny turbo engines behave, but it had me running right back to natural aspiration. Both Camrys walk all over this in driveability even if they lose the drag race. I complained about the low-speed throttle response in the new Toyota but the Accord is worse. I’m being intentionally negative by pointing out the Accord’s little overlooked deficiencies above, but in truth I could live with those. I could not, however, live with this powertrain.
It does not make me squeal in delight.
It does not set my heart alight.
I do not like it here or there.
I do not like it anywhere.
Honda put the excellent 2.4 liter K24 out to pasture for this turbo engine and that is a shame, because even with the CVT it was a strong and linear combination that delivered good mileage. It also has a great reliability reputation. This new turbo, however, is refilling its own oil pan with gasoline in some CR-Vs. Caveat emptor, folks. You may want to consider leasing this Accord, much as you would the A7 it is aping.
The trunk is enormous but the aperture is a bit small
I returned the keys to my mother-in-law and told the truth that it is a very nice and roomy car which handles well. No need to break manners and be a Debbie Downer by bringing up imperfections that the auto media should have noticed during their breathless praise. She likes this car. She bought it because a trouble-free 2007 Civic earned her loyalty to the big H, and this Accord was roomier and didn’t roar and resonate like a tin can on the highway. I haven’t had the heart to tell her that her Civic, with its bomb-proof 1.8L engine and 5 speed transmission, was the scrappy and tough old Honda and this Accord may well be different animal. She has no idea how substantive the powertrain differences are, she just knows it has the same H on the hood.
Avoid ones equipped with this shift lever. Where is my manual ratio selector, anyway?
When the enthusiast press is done fixating on their narrow short-term criteria, they should realize that a family sedan needs to be more to most people. This is a near-stellar car brought right back to earth by some real faults that the magazines have ignored in their zeal to declare this Accord the biggest moonshot since Apollo 11. The high-end 2.0T seems to have blinded them to the deficiencies at the lower end of the spectrum, and they’ve wrongly assumed every Accord is brilliant in every way. That doesn’t serve anyone well. I think this 1.5/CVT combo is subpar for any type of owner and any type of driving, the seats cheapen the interior significantly, and I don’t think the gee-whiz interior flourishes and slightly-better-than-Camry handling make up for this. If we’re talking stick-shift family conveyances, then that’s another matter altogether. It’s the only game in town and divorcing the engine from the CVT just might wake it up. But in the realm of base-engined automatics? The Accord is bad enough that this contrarian would be looking elsewhere for his squeals of delight.
You’re not wrong a bit. People use “tiresome” to describe something that gets on their nerves and annoys them, but my ’07 Accord is literally tiresome in that it is dangerously boring—soporifically boring—on long drives. The nearest comparison I can make is the middle of a very long flight when there’s nothing but grey-white nothingness outside the window, there’s nothing worth watching or reading or hearing, there’s nothing to snack on, and you can’t go to sleep. It’s also several kinds of the regular kind of tiresome: it’s noisy, the transmission’s shift behaviour is sloppy and drunkenly clumsy, the controls and displays are thoughtlessly designed and poorly configured, and the sightlines suck because the pillars are too thick and angled just wrong. It’s been plenty dependable, but I look forward to trying something else (RAV4…?) once I can spare the cycles.
So I have zero trouble believing your gripes about the ’18 Accord. What’s that on the “Passenger Airbag: OFF” indicator visible in the № 3 and 7 photographs here? Looks like a piece of scotch tape.
“What’s that on the “Passenger Airbag: OFF” indicator visible in the № 3 and 7 photographs here? Looks like a piece of scotch tape.”
I think it is the protective shipping plastic that has still not been removed. Seems like something that should have been removed prior to delivery.
“What’s that on the “Passenger Airbag: OFF” indicator visible in the № 3 and 7 photographs here? Looks like a piece of scotch tape.”
Ack, Stern, you got me started on a rant…
On my 2G Prius, there is an amber warning light for the passenger airbag that exists in 3 possible states:
“Passenger Airbag ON”: seat is occupied, belt buckled, airbag normal
“Passenger Airbag OFF”: seat is occupied, belt not buckled, airbag disabled
“Passenger Airbag”: seat is unoccupied
Now, we’ve all been trained to know that an amber warning light means “be concerned, but not alarmed”. So why in the name of all that is holy is this amber light continuously lit?? For the first six months of owning my Prius, I would catch a glimpse out of the corner of my eye of an amber light lit up and think, “Oh no! What’s wrong??”.
That light really needs a bit of black tape, but I’m afraid of gooey residue.
Gaff tape leaves no residue and it has a Matte finish. Of course it isn’t cheap.
In my line of work, gaffer’s tape is free… but tell me, what brand leaves no residue after being taped for a month to a 140 degree F dashboard?
Gaffers/duct/duck tape is the worst for that. Electrical tape gum can easily be removed with Goof Off, stuff that everyone should have. Ungoos anything, and doesn’t eat any plastic or your hands.
Oy vey. Yeah, proper design would have that light only ever illuminating in an abnormal condition worthy of warning (Passenger Airbag OFF). I guess ya gotta have one of these (no gooey residue, even in hot Las Vegas!), or perhaps a pair of wire cutters.
In all seriousness, one of the first things I did after buying the Accord 3-1/2 years ago was to fetch a bottle of Testors matte black and a small brush. I applied it to the chromey “H” steering wheel ornament so it would stop glinting in the sun, and to the chromey trim bands on the dashboard air duct adjuster handles so they’d stop making distracting reflections in the side windows.
The Honda Fit has a thick matte chromey strip around the center vents at the top of the dashboard which could use that treatment. On the other hand, although it is extremely space efficient and practical, the legroom on the driver’s side is short and shorter on the passenger side, and the NVH and ride are nowhere near modern standards, resulting in annoying and tiring touring.
The 7th, 8th and 9th generation Accords were all dispointing and non drove as well as my 6 th gen manual. The 9 th and new tenth are a return to form. The interior materials not up to the Dynamics.
Hmm. I fell in love with Honda’s with the first Civic, and spent many fun hours thrashing friends’ Civic hatches, as well as my own 1982 Civic DX. I even eagerly test drove the VW GTI when it first appeared here, and preferred my Civic. I somehow missed most of the rise of the Accord era, and similar transformation of the Civic into a ubiquitous 4 door sedan. In late 2007 when we were shopping for a hybrid, we tried the 2nd gen Civic Hybrid as well as the Gen2 Prius. Both my wife and I hated it. Drivability, interior design, and more … and the steering/handling were no better, despite all I had read. We bought the Prius, and a small I posted recently, still like it. Fast forward to 2015, and we tried a Fit Sport before buying our current Golf. Again, disappointing. Not a bad car, but nowhere the paragon of precision handling and sporty performance that the enthusiast press crowed about. Glad I’m not the only Honda skeptic out there.
I’ve owned a string of Accords. 2005, 2010, 2013, 2016. I thought all of them gave excellent service. When it was time for a new car this past January, I bought another Honda but not an Accord. For exactly the reason brought up here, the drivetrain.
Growing up in the 70’s and 80’s, I just don’t trust small displacement turbo engines in a larger car. I know times and technology have changed but I’m still wary.
What Honda did you buy?
I think the stick-shift naturally aspirated 2.0L Civic looks like a great little car that is more in line with the old Honda.
I took a chance on an Insight, something different,…love it so far!
You have hit upon my biggest complaint with many modern cars: small displacement turbo engines and CVTs. These powertrains are not there because they improve the driving experience. They are there so that the manufacturers can score higher on the CAFE exam.
I have sensed the bloating of Honda from afar. I feel like my 2007 Fit is kind of the end of Honda’s golden era, as it was a fairly old (2002 or so) design when it finally made it to the US. I really don’t know if much of their newer stuff does much for me. I know that I have never been wowed by their minivans that came after the 1995-98 Oddity.
I have not driven one of these, but I now know what to look for if I do.
Counsellor Cavanaugh, I really must object. With engines like this one, CAFE society is not from whence it was borne, but in overseas societies concerned about choking on their own exhaust. A smaller motor weighs less, as well as using less fuel in many conditions (conditions not including towing or WOT!), and the lesser use of fuel means less nasty pongy things out the back to choke on. The low consumption numbers are nearly just a happy by-product of that aim.
These small turbo direct-injected engines pollute far more than the larger port-injected engines they replaced. For the first time, gasoline cars have particulate emissions like diesels do. Stay tuned for the other shoe to fall when the bureaucrats execute the second half of their plan after forcing us into using these miserable engines.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2016_10_Gasoline_particulate_emissions_briefing_0.pdf
They made this mess to justify future actions.
The focus on reducing carbon dioxide emissions by maximizing fuel economy has certainly led to unintended consequences of particulate emissions. That’s serious, and there is a lot to be learned from it.
But you don’t get to levy accusations of gleeful murder based on that, OK? BTW, your linked report doesn’t support that, as it argues that a private industry is lobbying politicians to endanger public health in order to save a few pounds.
People knew about diesel particulates over forty years ago, but European politicians social engineered their markets into diesel adoption anyway.
Edited again until you can learn to be civil and make your points without rhetoric worthy of 8chan, Henrik.
Wow, this is the first I have heard of this. I have been reading about direct injection for awhile but have not really engaged with the details as it is irrelevant to my current situation as one with no immediate plans to upgrade my (aging) fleet.
I don’t pretend to understand this issue, as I am not in any way a scientist or engineer. I was merely alerting our esteemed Counsellor JPC to the fact that littlie turbo jobs are largely a response to very different things than CAFE. But I can say that the linked report above is from a (doubtless well-motivated) environment lobby group, and doesn’t pretend to be objective. Thus, I can’t take what’s set out in it as gospel, any more than I would a paper from the oil lobby.
Having said that, the VW scandal reminds me that I’m sure I recall that direct injection petrol long had problems meeting emissions rules, and the fact that it suddenly seemed ok does seem a bit suss. I assumed the tech had caught up and solved the problem, and who knows, it may well be that it did, but the VW experience MIGHT hint that smooth cheating solved it.
My gripe with the current fashion of small engines and turbos is far simpler, and it concerns reliability. Some of these engines now approach the same displacement/hp ratios which are not unlike those of motorbikes from only few years ago. There is a limit to how reliable such highly-strung units can be and I’ve already heard from my contacts in the motor trade about things going “bang” at 100K on some of those engines. I shall stick with my Mazda for a bit longer before jumping on this bandwagon.
Direct injection has nothing to do with small turbo engines besides the fact that some come with it. DI is used with plenty of larger and non-turbo engines as well. I’m not arguing anything anyone is saying but this thread seems to be directly linking DI and small turbos, i.e. one can’t exist without the other, not the case at all.
Without well-timed direct fuel injection, avoiding pre-ignition and engine damage in turbocharged gasoline engines requires low compression ratios. This is what was done before DI, but it doesn’t result in superior fuel consumption compared to naturally aspirated engines of similar power outputs, which can use their fuel much more efficiently when not under load via high compression ratios.
You can say that it is the DI and not the turbo that causes the particulates and be telling the truth, but the turbos are not any sort of plausible solution to reducing CO2 release/fuel consumption without direct injection.
” Fit is kind of the end of Honda’s golden era”
Funny how perspectives change: after our ’90 Civic Wagon with its fantastically flat-handling doublewishbone suspension, informative steering, fishbowl visibility, and awesome tweed cloth and chrome door pulls, I thought my family’s then new ’07 Fit was a big step back in many ways, but at least it was a stick shift where the Wagon was an auto so that made it better by default. Totally dead “video game” steering, higher center of gravity with a lot moer body lean, notably worse visibility, cheaper interior.
Within the context of the current automotive landscape however the Fit now seems like a fun chuckable little runabout with excellent visibility! I always have fun driving my dad’s ’07 around Ithaca’s twisty hilly roads.
Not a good looking car in my opinion, that schnoz is just weird looking, though I have to admit this is one of those cases where the non-color of the car has a big impact on just how bad it looks. In black or grey it doesn’t look as bad as it does in white or silver.
I also agree it looks droopy, like it was left in the sun too long and the ends have started to sag.
I think once one becomes more knowledgeable about a particular subject, one tends to become a little more contrarian and explore outside the well trodden paths of Camry/Accord. One begins to mine one’s automotive knowledge for what might be a better driving car, better outfitted, at a better value, than just “that’s what everyone else is doing.” It’s similar to trying to find out where the locals eat in an unfamiliar city rather than just there’s an Applebee’s or Chili’s near the hotel and that’s good enough.
Honda and Toyota styling has become very polarising in the current design cycle. The Civic looks like a wrecked TIE fighter. The Accord looks like an A8ish and is the least bad of the bunch. The Fit has gotten uglier and uglier with each succeeding generation. The Odyssey is lie down and cry ugly. The Camry is just weird with lots of weird and unnecessary plastic accents and styling flourishes and “surface excitement.” The new Corolla is misshapen. The Prius took all the weirdness from the 1959 Chevrolet with none of the grace, elegance, or proportions.
Honda/Toyota fanboidom seems to reach a level unprecedented. People who buy them will generally consider nothing else. What about a Hyundai/Kia? They’re very solid cars, and generally considerably less expensive, a CPO Genesis with factory warranty is . . . and they look at you like you told them to eat moldy bread. Every Chrysler ever made goes 5 miles from the dealer and self immolates, according to them, shedding parts like a striptease dancer. Ford is still shoving Tempos on a witless public under a new name and GM is still cranking out Citations rebadged as Malibus or impalas which never move a mile under their own power after they leave the dealer.
I’d recommend a lot of cars over an Accord because of price/value. For 28k, you can definitely get some great CPO cars with better than new car warranties, like this Lincoln https://cpo.lincoln.com/Detail?VIN=3LN6L5C95HR657599&PaCode=10188&ZIPCode=30030
Or a hyundai, or a kia, or a Chrysler 300. But an Accord is a “safe” choice. Known reputation, generally good durability/reliability, good resale, and respectability with the neighbours.
“But an Accord is a “safe” choice. Known reputation, generally good durability/reliability, good resale, and respectability with the neighbours.”
General Motors made a lot of money from this phenomenon over a good number of years. Somewhere they got on the wrong side of things and nave never made it back.
And I start wondering, when does this same attitude finally catch up with Honda?
Don’t think that will happen as the culture of Honda (and Toyota) is quite different from GM back in its heyday. Honda and Toyota make a variety of reliable vehicles that fill the public’s wants and needs. They spend millions on research to understand their customers and generally deliver products that satisfy them. It’s a continual process and crucial if one is to successful in today’s market. When GM ruled the auto world it was more like “here’s what we’re making this year” and the public had little choice but to buy it. This worked for a long time, but when the Asian upstarts changed the landscape GM was caught flat footed and things were never the same.
I agree that brand fandom can be irrational, lemming-ish, sometimes incorrect, and therefore alternatives should be explored. However, the alternatives in this segment really aren’t any better. The local diner vs. chain restaurant analogy doesn’t hold here. Chevy’s Malibu is also 1.5T + CVT. Ford’s given up, but the Fusion was mostly small-displacement turbo and not nearly as roomy or efficient as this Accord (and look at the pall Ford’s DCT fiasco has cast upon their car division–may as well re-launch the Tempo), FCA offers only RWD-biased V6/V8 bruisers with high MSRPs, and the Hyundai is as exciting as dry cornflakes. The Kia Optima looks very promising, but even then–the 2.4L naturally-aspirated Theta engine had a run of fatal manufacturing flaws. In this segment, Honda and Toyota probably still deserve to be considered the de-facto leaders.
I absolutely agree that the lightly-used CPO route should be explored, but that’s a whole different discussion!
IMO the current Optima and Mazda6 are the best looking midsizers, with the Optima offering a more Camry-like amount of interior room and ease of entry, except for some lost rear headroom. Mazda’s interiors feel fantastic these days and the NVH is as good as anyone else (or better). I got an easy 41 mpg in a rental Optima LX-FE and came away very impressed with the whole package, ride quality in particular. The current Camry in LE guise rides better yet I suppose, but I’ve still not acclimated to the styling (I suppose I’m getting there though). The one to buy is the Camry Hybrid LE and swap over some non-hybrid LE 17″ alloys.
Verrry interesting review.
I have long been a big fan (more of a recommender than a buyer) of straight up H cars (not the italic H vehicles from Korea). I bought a used 2002 Accord for my son and it was just as solid and quiet as my bought new rose-glassed 1982 Accord (documented in a July 3, 2016 issued CC COAL report).
My real Debbie (not a downer) loves her 2005 Element, her son loves his 2016 Civic sedan, and her daughter is one of many local young women who zoom around Northern NJ in their fully loaded and identical 1.5T Civic hatchbacks.
So far, so good.
However, I admit to being somewhat skeptical of turbos in general. I [somewhat] understand the earlier and flatter torque curve of a T’d engine as well as the available power on hand once that T-thing is up and spinning.
But, anything that hot (it runs on exhaust gasses) and that spins at such high rates (not sure here but probably [much] more than 20,000 rpm), troubles my admittedly aging mind from a longevity, reliability, and maintenance perspective.
Turbo vehicles are the CAFE oriented road Honda has chosen to take.
So far, Toyota has chosen to go with the larger and naturally aspirated route.
I must admit to a prejudice toward the latter; simpler, cooler, and bigger has always seemed like a safer choice to me.
Petrichor, thank you for a review that seems to be clean and clear of rose colored glasses and baked in assumptions. Of course, because this review reaches conclusions that align with my own less informed beliefs, these accolades should be viewed with just a little bit of side eye.
But then again, anyone who likes 4-Runners knows what they are talking about.
I like the direction CC is taking with regard to such realistic and well written reviews.
Thank you, sir. I won’t claim I’m writing from a neutral standpoint either. I approached this car with a bit of the “So you’re the automotive perfection I’ve been reading so much about, eh? Prove it” attitude and it definitely colored the review. If paid reviewers and brand fans had tempered their enthusiasm a bit, I’d have been less focused on the negatives here. I do think the powertrain is a real weakness from multiple angles, though.
I instinctively share your view, rl, but we’re probably wrong. Turbos spin at about 150,000 rpm, yet live long and gusty lives. The big thing is materials and production engineering: I reckon a small car turbo could not have been made long-lasting in, say, the ’60’s. The materials can take it. Also, I have a perception of 150K revs as being outrageous, and for a car engine, it’s not even possible. But all a turbine has to do is go around. Manufacturing advances mean that each turbine made will be to blueprint standards of balance, so the only wear it really faces is from heat – and modern oils bear little resemblance to old stuff, and do not break down. In short, what seems like a highly stressed, delicate outfit, isn’t really. More complex, for sure, but if serviced in the way the maker says it should be, it will last the distance that the bigger unturboed job will do if similarly serviced.
My last two cars have been turbo charged both have clocked up big mileages with no turbo problems, as long as oil changes are performed regularly they will last the life of the engine, Turbines are very old technology I used to overhaul them for a living, steam turbines though with multi stage rotors powered by wet geothermal steam, scrape the bearings reblade as required and they go for ever.
Just let your engine idle for a minute or two to let the oil cool before you shut it off. Supposedly this prevents coking of the turbo, where residual oil is baked onto the internal bits by the heat.
Of course letting your engine idle for a minute or two cancels out some of the emissions benefits…
Hi MarcKyle64, That is one scary picture (above) and it brings up a related question about the care and feeding of a turbo engined vehicle with an active Start / Stop system.
In such a case the engine would be turned off at every stop and restarted once the foot was taken off the brake. This could happen many times an hour in stop and go driving.
Do manufacturers take this type of situation into consideration when programming Start / Stop systems on turbo equipped vehicles?
I have wondered exactly the same thing when driving a couple of such cars. But again, the tech: of materials, of tolerances, of the oils, and likely, the very precise fueling used means that such stuff is indeed part of design parameters, and – no disrespect intended – but MK’s photo seems to be of a turbo in which oil seals have failed, rather than the millions in European diesel service which have not.
My understanding was that the coking issue had to do with the oil pump shutting down before the turbine speed had a chance to drop to idle, which dumped a bunch of residual heat into oil that was no longer circulating.
At least some modern turbo engines are set up to manage the shutoff spooldown automatically — the TSI engine in the old Passat CC would do that, I think by continuing to run the oil pump for a bit after the engine was shut down. I haven’t investigated how commonly that’s done or if there are other approaches, but I imagine NOT providing for that with stop/start would end up incurring lots of warranty repairs and emissions durability issues.
I have mixed feelings about Honda and their current products.
In 2010 I bought an Odyssey, which was my first Honda. Upon buying it, I was looking forward to that vaunted Honda reliability that I’d heard so much about for decades. But in reality, I wasn’t all that impressed. Yes, it’s lasted well – we still have it, with 138,000 miles and it’s my daily driver – but I can’t say it’s been exactly trouble-free. Numerous small- to medium hassles: bent axles that needed to be replaced, heat shields jiggling loose, problems with the steering rack, interior trim pieces that don’t fit well, etc… nothing fatal or exceptionally atrocious, but not what I expected, and not why people pay a premium for Honda Reliability. And it hasn’t instilled brand loyalty to make be run out and unquestioningly buy another Honda.
Additionally, folks I know who own more recent Hondas seem to have more serious problems. For example, a friend of mine just drove his 2016 Pilot to Florida for a vacation. It left him stranded in South Carolina with some sort of fuel system failure, and he had to leave it at a dealership there to have the fuel injectors and fuel rail replaced. On a 3-yr. old Honda with 30,000 miles?? Really?
It’s safe to say that Honda isn’t what it used to be. Just a few years ago, it would be considered dubious to give someone advice that Hondas aren’t worth paying a premium for… but right now that’s pretty much the case.
I see these current models as being a make-or-break period for Honda. If they continue to be a little bit sloppy with quality control, durability, etc., then the previous several decades of goodwill from the press and from customers will be wasted.
It has been my rule for quite a few years that when it comes to Honda, smaller = better.
That may be true JPC, as my 2016 Civic Coupe, with the same drive train as the featured car, does not seem to be plagued with the same driveability issues. The lag of which he speaks, and the CVT’s unresponsiveness, seem to be nearly non-existent in my car… I say nearly, because Petrichor is right about one thing… If you punch it and it’s below 2 grand, it takes some time to spool up. That is easily dealt with though. If you know you’re going to be in that traffic situation, pull it back into sport to get the engine up to the sweet spot in the power band, and merging onto a highway is as easy as if you were driving an M3 Bimmer.
But my Civic Coupe is lighter than the featured Accord Sedan, despite being on the same platform. This lag is likely even more noticeable on the CR-V, an even heavier platform mate.
As to reliability, yeah, I drank that Kool-Aid, but am hopeful for my car. So far, so good (as he knocks his desk)… 51,400 miles as of this morning with no real issues. It’s my DD, so we’re in this for the long haul, unless it becomes problematic. I just got my “notice of warranty extension” for that weird fuel in the oil situation I’ve read about and will be watching that very very closely.
Road noise is about my only other complaint. It does get a little old on a longer trip, that’s for sure. And while the cloth seats aren’t as nice as the old velour days of the Great Brougham Epoch, I don’t find them all THAT offensive. His issue with Honda hiding the hard plastics is spot on though. It has a nice touchy feely higher up (dash and steering wheel), but look down lower, and you’ll find those hard plastics (sides of the console, map pockets in to doors, etc.).
~ Rick
Hmmm… Here in Austria they stopped offering the Accord 3 years ago as sales were non-existent, and the current Civic is not doing too well against its direct competition (Mazda 3). Have heard about issues with the new engines also (head gaskets going at less than 100K). We’re not even sure where the 2020 models are going to come from is Honda will close its UK plant. Sad really as Honda was very strong here in Austria in the 80s and the 90s.
“There was, however, some brake judder through the pedal on a grandma-driven car with only 17K miles. Honda rotors haven’t had the best reputation.”
As a victim of Honda’s no-warranty warped rotors at 10k miles, it was all I needed to see. That brand-new 1985 Accord sedan was the one and only Honda I ever bought. Once I paid the exorbitant amount to have the rotors replaced, it was history.
As to Honda smugness, they’re just one rung away from the Acura crowd who, to me, seem like Tesla wannabes. I’m rather happy that Toyota finally got their act together with the latest Camry.
Have been leasing an 18 accord limited for last 1.5 yrs – 25000 mi to date. Impressive car for my 100+ mi daily commute The commute and graduating from hooning several decades ago precluded the bigger engine/manual trans use case for me. I am quite tall and as a result do not fit in either the Civic or the Camry. KIA and Hyundai left me cold. I once owned a Ford. The GM dealer managed to 4 square themselves out of a sale. My past ownership experiences with various Mercedes, BMW and VW ensure complete absinance from futher germanic automobile ownership.
The various electronic driver assistance ‘features’ are mildly annoying to dangerous. The inability to turn off the guidance voice is completely infuriating. The 19″ wheels and tyres do detract from ride quality on anything short of freshly paved roads.
I like how the car looks. It has the upscale leather interior. Paint and fit/finish is excellent. The car handles and stops well, although the car could IMO could do with a little more brake. The 1.5 turbo cvt works for me. Performance is more than adequate and fuel economy is very good.
The dealership experience has so far been great.
My use case for the car is a reliable, economical, comfortable, long distance commuter.
If I ever felt the need for speed I’d probably buy a corvette… if I could fit.
Thanks for your experience, James. I hope my intentionally negative review doesn’t feel aimed at satisfied owners. I simply wanted to push back a bit against that vocal minority of fans and the suspiciously ingratiating press who seem to change standards depending on the brand in review.
I really do mean this is a near-stellar car, a lot was done right with the chassis, interior, ergonomics, and passenger space.
The review was fine. I was just topping it up with my experience. I heartily agree with you about review bias.
This is the second Honda I have owned, the first being a 75 CVCC Civic back in the eighties.
My choice in cars is limited due to my height and build, tall and blocky. I was surprised the Camry was so small inside. I had to open the sunroof to fit. Sales unit suggested putting the seat back.
The Accord is far from perfect. The electronics are a time bomb ticking away. I’ve already had to replace the rotors and pads (90% highway driving.) The 19″ wheels reduce the ride quality. Not enough to really make a difference IMO. The shark fin is strange. The brakes are marginal.
The car handles quite well and when in sport mode is relatively quick. When you give it the stick, it doesn’t trip over itself. The bigger engine makes a significant difference based on my test drive. The Civic R drive train and brakes would make this a really fun car.
I’ve largely bought Hondas since purchasing a used 1982 Civic. What a terrific car. So was a 1989 Civic sedan and a 1991 tall wagon. A 2001 Civic has been much less impressive . . . and I have no desire to own one of the most recent Honda models. The clean, purposeful styling has long since disappeared. Road manners are nothing special. The stories told here about shaky reliability are reflective of what I’ve heard elsewhere.
A few years ago my family inherited a recent-model Kia Rio. It’s been a decidedly uninspiring car, but I’ve wondered whether this is now the best that I can do if I want small and simple. Honda has lost its soul.
I drove one of these earlier in the year and for around town and highway here at 5000’ elevation thought it drove just fine. The CVT was unobtrusive and the engine had decent pickup. Then again I wasn’t caning it but driving it as I would for probably 99% of the time in real life, I have other cars for other purposes. So for regular purposes, ie a commute or normal random trips, the Accord was fine. I drove both a base version as well as a hybrid version and if I had to choose one for the same price I’d probably take the hybrid. But of course the hybrid costs more so then the choice becomes harder again especially with gas being cheap.
What I did not like though was the seat material in either gray or tan as you mentioned. It was very cheap looking and feeling, and a surprise as Honda in the past has done very good cloth seat material in the Accord (I mean 90’s here, not just the last few years). I also disliked the very hard plastic dash material right around where the engine button is and across that swath of dash. I couldn’t stop touching it for some reason and never got over it….and I’m not a soft-dash fetishist like some here.
“So for regular purposes, ie a commute or normal random trips, the Accord was fine”
Interesting, I thought the powertrain was at its worst in normal driving. Caning it keeps it in the boost, particularly in Sport mode, and eliminates the turbo lag and dead throttle response. Except when launching with vigor, there’s still too much pause there before the turbo spools. And since it was a relative’s car I really didn’t do much of that–just one solid launch down the onramp and some deep throttle applications to make gaps in the busy freeway traffic.
In normal driving, I found the dead response and non-linearity very frustrating when marching along in slow traffic or when leaving the light. It was hard to keep the desired distance from the car in front. The CVT Altima we used to have was just fine in this situation. The 4Runner I daily drive has notoriously soft throttle mapping, but the response is still linear and predictable and can be adapted to quickly.
Other people have griped about the hard dash plastic, particularly because that part of the dash/console seems to intrude on leg space. Must be how I sit, but it isn’t something that was an issue for me.
Perhaps it “learns” how the driver drives? And since it was your Aunt’s car it was attuned to her driving style? Weird though. I really did think it was fine, or as expected, if anything I liked it more than disliked it.
Perhaps so, Jim. Can’t rule it out, but I don’t know enough on the matter. The little I’ve seen on adaptive transmission programming suggests the software adapts within a few minutes and I was driving the car for nearly 2 hours.
Incidentally, that was the reason the salesman gave me on a test drive for why the DSG GTi had such horrible shift response in town. Since it came from a salesman, I’m immediately suspicious 🙂
The red 2.0T I see around town is a real knockout. As the owner of a recently acquired 2003 Accord EX, and a past owner of a nearly new 95 Prelude, I’m astounded that Honda dropped the 2.4. Even with 143k on my 2004, it still purrs and has plenty of umph. Purchased it from a neighbor and friend who drove nothing but for the last 30 years and replaced it with a Nissan Rogue. 16 years ago it exuded quality, and still shows. Sad that Honda lost it’s way.
@ JP Cavanaugh; GM made a ton of money when their products really were the best in the world. A 1955 Chevrolet, a 1965 Chevrolet, a 1975 Chevrolet were really the best in the world and head and shoulders above a Ford or Chrysler. But then a 1981 Citation was much worse than . . . well, ANYTHING else. The J car was expensive, sluggish, and unreliable. The Cadillac 8-6-4 got a somewhat unwarranted reputation for unreliability (it was fine if it stayed in V8 mode) but the diesel and 4100 earned their lousy reputations, as did the Metric 200 transmissions that were used in the late 70s and early 80s RWD cars. All of GM’s FWD cars had bad steering racks for several years. The FWD C/H bodies were hideously unreliable in their first year or two. The 83 Camaro and Firebird were horrible in quality and slow and expensive.
There was a great C/D review of the new ’86 Riviera in which C/D had to GIVE THE CAR BACK because it broke so much. That’s where GM went off the rails. I remember looking at the Lumina as a 12 year old when it debuted. As a devoted GM Fanboi, the Lumina felt old, stale, and cobbled together out of random parts like a 6th grade science project done by the 6th grader and not his parents. The materials inside seemed cheap and insubstantial, the car felt floppy and poorly designed, the interior was large but also uncomfortable and it had that bizarre gunslit dash.
Perhaps this Accord doesn’t really exceed expectations, but it’s in no way the sort of disasters that did GM in.
I am not suggesting that Honda (and/or Toyota) has taken the nasty turn GM took in the 80s. My only point was that GM sold a lot of cars in the 80s on the strength of an old reputation that had been fairly earned. If there is a parallel, it could be that Honda and Toyota are where GM was in, say, 1975 – still turning out good stuff, though not as good as it had been in the past. I will be very surprised if Honda goes Full-GM on us.
If it does, then Hyundai and KIA will be right there to turn out good stuff at a decent price. My automotive choice has always been a compact or subcompact with a manual transmission. The one exception (with a CVT) was traded at 44,000 with the beginning signs of CVT failure. I will never buy a car with one again. The stories here of lag and unresponsiveness mirror my experiences
Long story short: I’ve HAD two 2018 Accords, first a 1.5L turbo Sport and then a 2.0L turbo Accord Touring. The 10 spd search for a gear in the Touring irritated me along with the “nanny state” software that “protected” me. The driver’s seat in both was very comfortable and supportive despite the cheap “fabric” in the Sport and thin “leather” in the Touring.
The lack of exterior and interior COLOR choices is disgusting. The achromatic (NO color) choices that dominate the market now (thank you soooooooo very much CMG-NOT!) is pathetic.
All things considered the 2018/19 Accords have numerous positives and some negatives, IMO. Time and mileage will tell if the negatives grow.
My second Accord (the Touring) was down traded for a 50th Anniversary 2003 Corvette drop top. Overall a much more enjoyable car to drive; yes I know: apples and potatoes. However, my now everyday car is a 70k mile 2012 Civic EX, and yes I like the Civic overall with its 1.8L and 5 spd. auto much more given the driving I now do. The only real drawback is that the Civic driver’s seat is simply not near the comfort and support level of the Accord. It wasn’t any surprise given the number of Civics and Accords I have owned since my first Honda car purchase in 1988.
One other point. The IP assembly in the current Accord is a improvement over the 2013 Accord dash that I had; ergonomically and mostly visually. The nose on the Accord is not the smoothest styling, but looks great compared to the Camry…..damning with faint praise. DFO
Hondas have never been available in a wide variety of colors. When the Accord debuted in 1976, it was available in a whopping three colors – light metallic blue, metallic silver and metallic gold. And this was when the domestics offered an entire palatte of color choices for both the interiors and exteriors of their cars.
Despite what some say about the Sport model with manual transmission, especially with the V6 the Accord is not a enthusiasts car. It’s a car for those who want something reasonably comfortable, economical and reliable. My fault with the car was the lack of support for my legs. I have an Acura TSX which doesn’t have that problem so it’s not like Honda can’t do it for their regular cars. Guess it costs too much.
Well, it sounds like Honda have finally gotten rid of the incredibly touchy throttle that made it impossible to start off smoothly, by adding a bunch of lag so the snap-your-head-back-when-you-just-wanted-to-leave-the-stoplight occurs a few seconds later.
Seriously, every Honda I’ve driven, that has made me decide I don’t want the car, within about the first minute of the first test drive.
My two sons, and their ladies, all drove Hondas at one point or another. All have left the brand, possibly due to boring driving dynamics, or upon finding more attractive alternatives from Subaru, Hyundai, Kia, and Nissan. Price seems to be the major attractor to them to buy elsewhere than he Big H. However when one has to get testor’s paint to cover shiny bits, it seems the car magazines have left some things unsaid, or untested, or unnoticed.
I feel that Honda has had their brand somehow pulled or dragged upstream toward the Acura, and maybe the two are competing more now, for the same customer. Somewhat more upscale perhaps. When I consider my next Compact Light Truck, I doubt Honda will have a shot.
Cruising around in a 2000 Accord LX Sedan 4cyl 5 speed with 315k. Been unbelievably reliable. Even the original clutch still surviving! I can only hope my next Accord serves me as well…but. We’ve owned a ‘96 Accord 4cyl Auto, and the way the engine and the trans danced was just dismal. My wife drives an ‘11 CRV. The drive by wire throttle amplifies the disconnect even more. Always searching for the right gear and you never know what to expect accelerating from a standstill. A relative has an ‘18 Accord with the CVT. After driving it, I can only offer up that it shifts better than an Altima, which isn’t saying much. My next “new to me” car will still be an Accord, but only with the 6spd 2.0 combo
Longtime contrarian, and thank you for a well thought out review. Not trashing for trashing’s sake, but looking at flaws that the fawning set overlook regularly.
The joy of being a contrarian, or going against the norm, is that one can enjoy a lot of unexpected pleasures that get missed by the masses. The current craze of hating any Italian car not made by Ferrari comes to mind. Buy a Fiat, or Alfa, or Maserati, and others tell you how you will spend your days in the waiting room for the service department. But instead, you mainly find yourself driving something enjoyable, and something that the masses will never experience. That is not to say that there will never be problems, but there are problems that happen with any car, Toyota, Honda, Ford, or GM, as well. I will forsake boredom for joy every time.
This is probably irrelevant, but despite living in a pretty populous area my entire life, working in the heart of Silicon Valley, for large multinational tech companies for decades, I don’t think I’ve known anyone with an Accord since the ‘80’s.
I had a 2004 Honda Accord EX which I loved and now drive a 2013 Honda Accord V6 Touring which I like. Both have good performance and the 6 cylinder engine is excellent for acceleration (the 4 cylinder was no slouch either). However, the 2004 Accord had a richer looking interior. It was gray cloth and it had “brushed aluminum” accents on the doors where the power window controls were. The carpet was thicker and the package shelf was not hard plastic and the glove box had a light. It had a nice look and feel to it where Honda was competing against the VW Passat for a nice interior. The 2013 has thin carpet, no glove box light, and the rear package shelf is hard plastic. The plastic where the windows switches are is hard, black plastic and it just looks blah. Both have been equal in regard to upkeep but I don’t know if I’d buy another Accord. The things I don’t I like about my current Accord, I see in the new Accord, even in the Touring.
Your experience isn’t surprising, sadly. We (namely my spouse) has a 2012 Civic EX sedan,replacing a 2000 model. The 2012 has a bit more zip, a larger engine, and better fuel economy thanks to the 5 speed AT than the 2000 model. However, the interior materials, such as the dashboard, door panels and seat upholstery, just looks and feels cheaper than the older Civic. Hard plastics, as you experienced on your Accord of the same era.
Also, thanks to the higher beltline, the 2012 model feels more claustrophobic and seems to have less headroom than the 2000 one, which was more upright and had more visibility in all directions.
Feel the same about my 03 EX. Interior is very rich looking and nice to the touch. Seats are still in great shape and very comfy. Compared to my wife’s loaded 2010 CRV it’s a high end limousine! Even the fake wood looks like real wood- it shimmers and shows depth.
Honda is like Oldsmobile in 1976.
VanillaDude, I think you’ve nailed it.
Yep, this is the ’76 Olds Cutlass Supreme review. Still selling really well, but no “special feel” in that Oldsmobile.
Better than being like Oldsmobile in 2004 …
That goofy shaped antenna on the roof is for satellite reception. Low profile ikmmm purpose. The am fm antenna is in the rear window. I’ve premed a 1985, 1992, 2000,2012,2014and currently a 2017 Accord. Each one has been better then the last. Mutt 2017 is a ExL with Nav and Honda sensing.
Petrichor, I always appreciate the rich detail your articles go into. They’re always very substantial and I enjoy reading them.
I have always found it interesting how the Accord has been a permanent fixture on C&D’s 10Best. Here in Australia, the last few generations of US-market Accord have gotten only average reviews and are often criticized for being rather unexciting to drive. American outlets, however, praise the Accord for its dynamics, seemingly putting it on the same level as the Mazda6 — that’s one car that Aussies and Americans can both agree is the class benchmark for dynamics.
I’m not casting any aspersions on C&D but I am mildly surprised it has been included so often. Looking back at the past 10 years of 10Best winners, I can’t really pick fault with any of the others, though. And I will make clear, I’m not saying the Accord is a bad car.
Thanks William.
I’ll be more pessimistic than you, though. The 10 Best thing is an eyebrow-raiser. The Accord’s been on it for something like three decades now, and Honda uses that in their advertisements. That just fosters suspicions of an unhealthy relationship. Look at the 2008 Accord–savagely cheapened and enlarged, yet it stayed on every year of that generation, even though competing cars like the Malibu, Fusion, and Mazda6 were given only 1 or 2 year stays. Two midsize family sedans really needed to be on the 10 Best list those years? And the others were yanked off mid-cycle while the Accord stays every year? I can’t figure that nonsense out.
Oh well, Honda deserves something for continuing to offer manual transmissions on both the entry and higher output engines.
Ive owned accords for 30 years now. The 2005 4 door 160 hp I’ve had for 15 years….well put it this way everything in life should be this reliable! Outside of some pings I’ve put in and a few mother nature has I wouldnt sell this car if someone offered me a brand new one. U cant hear the engine after 94,000
miles, and i mean that in the best way. Dont know what all those blogs were about, but i love that car. A jewel, quiet, smooth dependable…..and i havnt even mentioned how it corner’s ridiculously or gas mileage. Not for sale.
Marty L.
Is that the spare tire that’s taking up so much space on the left side of the trunk? Eep.
Count me firmly among the “Honda has lost its mojo” crowd. The engine/drivetrain problems are the worst of it, but the detail flaws Petrichor notes are themselves quite symbolic of the manufacturer’s woes. Oh, how the mighty have fallen (at least since the glory days of the CB7.)
It may not compare in fuel economy, but this is probably one of the best sedans on the market, although not for much longer I imagine:
https://www.imperialcars.com/chevy-lease-deals/impala.htm?gclid=CjwKCAjwkenqBRBgEiwA-bZVthMfpjiFSkRc0_hpbiqY0FB3pOZqSsdqQaDJuub7R5kIa3X2hgyoxxoCq0gQAvD_BwE
You’re 100% correct about this generation of accord, especially the 1.5L engine. When I was shopping to replace my Grand Marquis back in 2018 I test drove the 1.5 sport CVT. The 1.5 cvt combo was laggy and lifeless when not in sport mode. The 19″ wheels made the ride punishing, the seating was too low, and drivers cabin too narrow. I ended up getting a 2015 EXL V6 and while I do really like it, but it doesn’t have that solid build feel and quality interior that hondas had back in the 80s 90s and early 2000s (the same goes for my 2016 Odyssey), and compared to my Grand Marquis the sheet metal feels thin..especially when you shut the trunk. The pannel fittings are also no better than my Grand Marquis and the press constantly gives Honda a pass on things like that. I can also honestly say the interior was no better than a Nissan Altima and Nissan gets shit on constantly for cheap interiors now.
You’re also correct about the press which is why I tell everyone don’t read car reviews. It’s all fanboy garbage. I test drove the camry too and passed it up cuz the back seat couldn’t fit 3 car seats.
I agree, i bought a new 2016 Honda accord and had the worst experiences with it..from plastics melting to motor oil leaking..on a brand new car,..dealership personal has been ao rude to me, contacted the customer aervice relations,..and everbody ignored me..so just left it alone..very disappointed..
I’m with Jim Klein. I do believe it “learns” how you drive. I’ve owned a 2015 CRV 2.4,
2018 & 2019 CRV’s with the 1.5 CVT. Non of the poor performance and driveability issues mentioned are present in my 2 vehicles mentioned. Yes, I’ve noticed some of the panel gaps, but I love the flat torque curve that starts about 2000 RPM. After owning both powertrains, I much prefer the 1.5T to the 2.4, which provides an increase in economy too.
Really excellent review, and necessary.
Must say, though, that even Ralph Nader understood the buff books enthusiasm for the Corvair, as it was sporty and different. That is, surely C & D is aimed at a very specific niche of enthusiast readers who are assumed to buy the manual and to value the slight handling edge the Honda has, in the same way that Nader knew enthusiasts buyers who’d read C& D (or whatever) understood the potential perils of the Corvair? I don’t disagree that a mag of (potentially) wider influence should make their caveats clear, (though they might well respond that the caveat is implicit in the buying of the mag in the first place!)
I have driven a recent model Mitsubishi turbo with CVT, and the plunge into nothing on taking off sounds exactly like what you describe in the Honda. Maybe there is a bit of an insoluble incompatibility in these two things?
“the absolutely revolting seat fabrics. I miss velour and this is why. The fabric looks and feels as if it were woven from re-dyed Barbie hair. It’s slick, it’s shiny, it’s thin, it’s plasticy. It glistens in the sunlight. ”
THANK YOU!
So many modern cars have horrible cloth, and Honda is among the worst with their current iteration of the slippery shiny crap. It’s enough to make me not consider their cars quite honestly.
“The 1.5 has no Honda personality, though, mooooing its way up the tachometer in an inoffensive but bland manner more befitting a Toyota.”
Agreed here as well. I’ve driven my friend’s Civic with the 1.5T+CVT and acceleration is certainly impressive in that car, as is MPG. But god is it an unsatisfying motor/drivetrain. Let’s just go to electric then! His old Mazda3 2.0L+4spd auto felt much more fun and responsive, regardless of numbers.
Electric would be an improvement, the car would actually respond to pedal input! I don’t get the nasty cloth thing, either. It’s everywhere now. I’m guessing it is cheaper or more conducive to meeting some mandated fire resistance.
As an aside, I read a Motortrend big SUV comparison test recently, and they listed the Sequoia’s cloth seats as a negative. Said it looked like the material came out of a 2005 Camry. I immediately perked up. That Camry still had nice cloth! And by golly, looking through the article’s pictures I see comparatively luxuriant plush matte fabric in that hulking outdated Toyota. Idiot reviewers. It’s like walking into a house and griping “what, real wood on the baseboards?! That’s so last century. Where’s the chic up-to-date MDF?”
My friend has a ’13 Tundra with the same era of interior and cloth as the current Sequoia (which was spared the ’14 Tundras update I gather), and it is indeed the very pleasant, very plush style of velour. I’ve mentioned it here before, but the Armada SV is another oddball to receive classic high quality J-car velour, with piping and a diamond stitch on the seats no less. Seems silly to many, but that sort of touch makes or breaks a car for me.
I dunno, maybe the problem with the shiny Honda seat fabrics is that they are not coming in the right colors. 🙂
I’m surprised that no one mentioned the speedometer’s 160 mph top reading.
While I’d never want to see us go back to the 85 mph top reading of speedometers we once had in the US, the silliness of having them read well above the vehicle’s top speed crowds the numbers within the range where most drivers actually tool along on a day-to-day basis.
My 2010 VW employed a brilliant solution to this; up to 100 mph, the tick marks were in 10mph increments, afterwards in 20 mph. The usable 0-90 mph range occupied most of the speedometer.
“I’m surprised that no one mentioned the speedometer’s 160 mph top reading.”
Maybe because that’s been the norm on hundreds of other cars for well over a decade? I don’t disagree with you, just that the Accord is hardly the first or worst offender in this regard.
Thank you. Ive complained about this for years. Mazda is also a big offender here. 160 mph…rediculous. 120 should be it.
I don’t see a unit of measure on the speedo’s face, i.e., MPH or KPH.
I wonder if it’s one of those dual range speedos like the ones on many GM cars. In software you can change the units of measure from MPH to KPH or vice versa, depending upon local needs.
It says MPH right under the “80” numeral. A tad blurry in the pic, perhaps, but it’s there.
Ugh. I see it now… I guess I’m officially blind…
Ummm… Maybe because the top spec model can hit 155 MPH?
I have a Honda accord 2018 Ex and I love it, I’m planning to have it many years. You go and buy whatever you like, but 10 years from now my Honda will run like new.. Your… I don’t know.
thanks
I’ll gladly put money on Petrichor’s Camry’s 2.5L port injected, naturally aspirated engine backed up with a traditional 6spd Aisin automatic outlasting Honda’s turbo+DI+CVT wondermill.
You’re very welcome, Nester, thank you for reading my review and taking the time to provide an informative comment.
I tried to make plain early in the review my bias and my intent to be disproportionately negative towards this car as a way of balancing the disproportionately positive press bias. Even so, I was sure to point out the numerous positive aspects of the car both within the text and in the concluding paragraph.
If you read my prior reviews, you’ll see that I’m willing to criticize my own vehicles even if I ultimately stand behind them. I encourage you to be open-minded about your own transportation device and recognize its faults as well. This is, after all, a mass-market commodity engineered to a price point and that always entails compromises.
If you truly have not found a single thing you dislike about your car, then I wish you many happy years of this elusive and harmonious relationship.
Eye-opening review, thanks. I’ve been happy with my 2012 Accord. It’s been impeccable so far, at only 81,000 miles. The K24 is a stout and fun motor. Maybe the K20 turbo would be best, but I agree the Accord has become cheapened over time. Our 2012 Honda, while good, is not like the 90s Honda products we had (Integra, Accord, 1st gen 3.2TL).
Our 2016 GX460 is eye opening in terms of great Japanese craftsmanship, like those old Hondas, but definitely a few notches above. The V8 is not a “fresh” design but it’s stout and will be around for the long haul (we just towed a trailer Louisiana-Idaho).
If I get a sedan when the kids get the Accord, I’m tempted to try out a used GS. And one of Honda’s last special rides, a CB1100EX. I want to want the new Accord Sport (2.0T and manual).
Thank you for the review. I’ve owned Hondas for decades now, and in June 2017 traded a 2003 Accord EX four-cylinder sedan for a 2017 Civic EX-T sedan. The Accord had 269,000 miles on the odometer when I traded it.
As a long-time Honda owner (since 1980, when I had a 1977 Civic CVCC hatchback in college), I can say that they have never been perfect from a reliability standpoint. It was just that the things that went wrong on the Honda at 120,000 miles went wrong at 70-80,000 miles on other makes.
Hondas aren’t perfect, and never have been, but, based on the experiences of friends and family members, everything else aside from a Toyota, Scion or Lexus is still likely to be worse. Then again, Toyota has been very conservative in rolling out new technology. Which makes sense, as Toyotas and Lexus customers are less concerned about cutting-edge technology than about reliability, refinement and comfort.
My Civic has been a good car so far. It is comfortable and offers decent chassis tuning. If anything, the car feels more expensive than it is. There is some cost-cutting mischief – as with the Accord, the rear door inserts are not cloth, unlike the front-door inserts. And the lack of a conventional volume-control knob for the radio still annoys me, after two years of ownership. (Honda rectified this on later models.)
The acceleration from a standing start is not quite as direct as I’d expected. No doubt this is because of the CVT. With the increasing pressure to lower fuel consumption, auto makers are going to have to adopt more technology, and there will be a learning curve (shades of the late 1970s and early 1980s for the domestics!). What can I say? It’s the times we live in.
The car cruises nicely at 80+ mph on the highway – the car itself remains planted, and the drivetrain is hardly straining.
As for the gas and oil mixing on the 1.5 turbos, it’s my understanding that this has only happened in cold weather when the car isn’t operated for a very long time. So far, I haven’t had a problem with mine. It was recalled for a software update to address the issue. I was given a 2019 Accord as a loaner. For the brief time I had it, the car struck me as very refined and roomy, particularly in relation to the price. I’m sure more time behind the wheel would have revealed the compromises in its design and engineering.
I’m glad someone brought up the oil dilution problem on this board. I’m probably old school but always wonder if this is partly cause/exacerbated by the use of 0W-20 motor oils? I’ve read all of the literature and understand why you want a thin oil on startup, but I honestly get a queezy feeling when I think about running such thin oil. I believe that a modern synthetic 5W-30 is a good blend of low temperature protection but also a little bit of “thickness” when operating at full temps. I know this is not “bob the oil man” or whatever that site is, but I don’t think the little bit of fuel savings is worth the risk. Especially if you are talking about a “hyper” small turbo.
FWIW, I think Honda still makes decent products. Although to be fair, the entire market has some really nice offerings right now.
Let’s see whether Consumer Reports complains about “hard plastics” found on Hondas, the way they did when found on American cars.