While enjoying the Cutlass, I got to check out a new Accord sedan, among a few other vehicles, last week. I'll start off by saying it exceeded my expectations. It looks great in person, all the body's lines and surfacing really set it off nicely. The proportions were nearly perfect and the detailing was nice. The only aspects of it I disliked were the bulging headlights and the rather plain trunk panel. Otherwise, the exterior had no faults in my eyes. As well, the interior looked quite elegant with its flowing dash and door panels. Packaging seemed to be top notch with it being very roomy inside. Interior quality was decidedly good except for the plastic south of the wood trim, which was hard, but pleasantly grained and finished. All the controls seemed well placed and easy to use, despite the amount of buttons it has. Everything was clearly marked, so you would have to have preconceived notions to not be able to learn the controls. Until I see the Malibu and new Mazda6 in person, I can't say for sure where it will rank, but it's certainly top among all others currently on sale from my experience.

More pictures.

well definitively yours (usa version) honda accord is much better than the european one, the european one is more retro, i don't like it... this one is very nice

droopy Sonata butt....

otherwise... decent looking.

ick.

Even more of an ugly pug on the outside than the last Accord. Yuck. I fail to understand the need for such a large ass bumper.

It looks great in person, all the body's lines and surfacing really set it off nicely. The proportions were nearly perfect and the detailing was nice. The only aspects of it I disliked were the bulging headlights and the rather plain trunk panel. Otherwise, the exterior had no faults in my eyes.

Lasik is an affordable solution to your lack of visual acuity.

Its a mishmash of cribbed and unusual styling cues haphazardly thrown onto a chunky body. The blocky grille structure has no business being on a smooth front fascia. What's up with the caved-in rear quarters, the flat decklid with a protruding tumor of a bumper, and the overplayed door handle crease? There is way too much surfacing added to front and rear of this car that the absence of it on the sides is glaring. Its all done in an empty attempt to be 'exciting' and fails.

Fix the grille, get rid of that funky ass, smooth out EV-ER-RY-THING, do away with the creases-to-nowhere, and you may have an upscale vehicle.

As is, it looks so much like a Hyundai or Kia that I can already see the headlamps discoloring and the clearcoat pealing off like all chintzy Korean boxes.

Reminds me of an Infiniti from that angle.

I'd have t say it looks alright from what I can see so far...but i have yet to see one in person. The coupe is definitely the looker of the two (no surprise) interior looks great...I'll have to see it in person.

Do all dealers let you take photos?

30K for an Accord? :rotflmao: People are morons!

Edited September 17, 200717 yr by Pontiac Custom-S

I have less gripe with the interior after seeing these photos... still not digging the exterior.

What annoys the living $h! out of me is who designed the damn tail lamps?! I'm referring specifically to the backup lights/directionals... Why the little bump at the edge of the backup lights? Why not just have it be a straight line across? It just seems like a pointless attempt to add yet another styling element.

I had exactly the opposite impressions looking some over yesterday. While it looks more upscale due to lots of detailing, that doesn't mean it's good looking.

First, the bulging headlights are gross. The grill, while not very offensive, looks like it belongs on a truck. The front end as a whole looks quite square and blunt.

While I like the taillights, the rest of the rear was a huge turnoff. I first saw it from behind as I walked up to it, and I thought "oh, that looks quite nice" until I realized the trunk lid is bangled and the rest is just a big bumper and very boring.

Then, I looked at it in profile. The first thing I noticed was that the headlights go nearly a third of the way up the length of the hood. How gross. Then the greenhouse, what a joke: It tries to be BMW-like, but it forgets that being BMW-like means form before function, and Honda put function before form, in this case. A smart move probably, but not when you're trying to make a sporty-looking greenhouse. The end result looks quite bad, almost like an 300lb offensive lineman trying to make cutback moves like a fleet-footed running back. Obviously trying to be something that it's not. The Malibu is much better in this respect.

The interior on the EX-L NV looked quite nice, but the base models made me say "Meh."

Great pics. The '08 Accord is one of the fresher and more substantial looking midsize sedans. I particularly like the front and rear 3/4 view.

I'll tell you one thing, I've driven the past 3 generations of Accords... they're solid cars. This one looks just as solid (granted I haven't seen it in person or driven it yet). But just by looking, I expect just as nice a ride.

I don't like the grill too much, or the way the head lights bulge. Otherwise it looks top notch. i think the front end could be refined a bit more. This is based on my own observations in person.

I find a lot of people look at cars with preconceived biases.

I think the Accord is a good looking car, and even though it's a bit polarizing I don't see any reason for sales to decline if not shoot up.

The rear trunk sure has a big gap where it meets up with the bumper.

I don't like the grill too much, or the way the head lights bulge. Otherwise it looks top notch. i think the front end could be refined a bit more. This is based on my own observations in person.

I find a lot of people look at cars with preconceived biases.

You are probably right with your assessment. Before stopping by later in the day, I just drove past and I thought, "wow, that looks pretty good" -- I was quite surprised that I thought it was good looking since the pictures have done nothing for me so far. However, I was very disappointed when I returned and got to take a closer look at it. I went away with a bad feeling about the vehicle. Then, when I drove by later again on the way home, I thought they looked pretty good again. It seems to me that when you can't see many of the ugly details, it looks pretty good, but when you get up close, the ugly details are visible and it gives you a bad feeling about the vehicle, IMO.

Looks good...I like that berry red color...I esp. like the interior.... price seems reasonable also (plenty of equipment for the price).

seeing a bunch of them this weekend. .....

the front overhang is HUGE.

the headlights are YUCK.

i can live with the rest on the outside, i guess.

the interior still underwhelms, despite obvious assembly quality. the whole thing has a creepy dated look to it and really is a step down luxury wise compared to the last gen. The plastics all look sort of rich but have a cheesy 90's texture and gloss to them. The console and center stack is bargain basement. matte black? the hooded display looks like an afterthought. shifter and brake look cheap.

normally i prefer beige interiors but the accord beige was repellant. in gray it actually looked better but it was still the creepy 90's cool gray.

the accords with leather and light dashes present a lot better than the ones with cloth and drab dark gray dash. The cloth sedans in dark look like hell inside and the whole car looks very cheap. with leather and better color combos it does ok.

Even more of an ugly pug on the outside than the last Accord. Yuck. I fail to understand the need for such a large ass bumper.

Lasik is an affordable solution to your lack of visual acuity.

Its a mishmash of cribbed and unusual styling cues haphazardly thrown onto a chunky body. The blocky grille structure has no business being on a smooth front fascia. What's up with the caved-in rear quarters, the flat decklid with a protruding tumor of a bumper, and the overplayed door handle crease? There is way too much surfacing added to front and rear of this car that the absence of it on the sides is glaring. Its all done in an empty attempt to be 'exciting' and fails.

Haha... I'm not the one that needs Lasik.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Have you seen it in person? Did you take your blinders off? Seriously. You sound like Reg.

While I like the taillights, the rest of the rear was a huge turnoff. I first saw it from behind as I walked up to it, and I thought "oh, that looks quite nice" until I realized the trunk lid is bangled and the rest is just a big bumper and very boring.

I fail to see how the trunk lid is "Bangled".

Haha... I'm not the one that needs Lasik.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Have you seen it in person? Did you take your blinders off? Seriously. You sound like Reg.

I've seen it in person. The detailing sucks. Simple. Interior is attractive enough, but the outside needs serious work.

Color is nice, but I am with Fly, I don't like the styling.

Chris

I recently stopped by the local dealer to check one out. Too much Sonata in it, and why did they not keep the LEDs and take a step back to traditional bulbs? It also reeks of old ladydom. I wonder if the new car smell is similar to the moth balls that all old people's houses have.

I fail to see how the trunk lid is "Bangled".

Perhaps "bangled" was a bad term to use. The hump in the middle of the trunklid ruins an otherwise decent-looking rear end.

I also looked at them this weekend.

The exterior does look better in person than it does in pictures. I still like the exterior design of the 2008 Malibu and 2009 Mazda6 better (as well as the 2007 Nissan Altima). The exterior pretty much left me with the same impression that the 2007 Camry did; it's o.k. for what it is and nothing more. I think it does look better and more upscale in darker colors and with the upper trim level decor add-ons.

The interior looks nice and well made.

As far as sales; we all know this thing will be as successful (or likely even more successful) than the last generation. To me Hondas have never really been lookers, but no one can deny that they sure are sellers.

This car continues to baffle me. I'm not student of honda, but the last gen & the civic pointed a clear style direction of chiseled, areodynamic shapes; sleek (if a bit weird). This car is festooned with lines & gouges & spats & buldges- WTH?? It clearly says 'we don't know where to go next, so we threw in a handful from the "1990s" bin'.

• I do not understand a 2-piece trunklid on a purportedly 'class-leading' car costing over $30K- what is so difficult about stamping it from one piece? While we're back here- what's with the 'liftgate cut' in the rear bumper? It's flexible plastic- it's not like you can rest anything there when loading the trunk.

• Interior is certainly nothing special. What's with the protruding e-brake on the console in a family sedan?? Why is the dead pedal so large and the brake pedal so small?

Is the next gen civic going to likewise go all chunky & derivative to match with this one?

I see merit in all of Fly's observations, too.

Blech.

I took a spin through the local Honda lot today at lunchtime. This car is not pretty at all. It is an unfortunate mishmash going off in too many directions. Ugly. The interior is decent, however, and looks like a natural big sister to the Civic. The '08 Civic sedan sitting next to it is a much more handsome car. The Accord looks big, but there are no really flattering angles on the thing. Also, I noticed a wide range of gaps on each of the 4 Accords in a row I looked at, where the rear bumper butts up to the quarter panel toward the rear, at the taillight on the side. Nice, consistent fit and finish there, Honda!

It just doesn't look like a Honda to me. The front is just hideous, and the rest is blah. The interior looks ok to me though.

Personally, sans the lights, I think it's front end is segment-leading. Care to explain Camino?

I saw one at a stoplight and took a long hard look, and as far as exteriors go, I think the Accord is good enough. Better than Camry, at least. The Accord has nothing to prove to anybody but Toyota. The rest are vying for #3.

A theory of Accord sedan design I have is that they alternate bolder designs w/ conservative designs generation by generation, starting w/ the 2nd gen.

2nd gen--conservative (mid 80s)

3rd gen--more radical (late 80s, pop-up headlights, low nose)

4th gen--conservative, early 90s, squared-off, exposed headlights

5th gen--more radical, more rounded (mid '90s)

6th gen--more conservative, angular (late 90s, early noughts)

7th gen--more radical (mid noughts, pointy headlights, unusual quarter panel shape)

8th gen--more conservative--more upright grille, headlights (late noughts)

Edited September 19, 200717 yr by moltar

• I do not understand a 2-piece trunklid on a purportedly 'class-leading' car costing over $30K- what is so difficult about stamping it from one piece? While we're back here- what's with the 'liftgate cut' in the rear bumper? It's flexible plastic- it's not like you can rest anything there when loading the trunk.

Perhaps the new model will be sold outside NA and they need to be able to use a wider licence plate pocket, and didn't want to tool up two complete decklids..

• Interior is certainly nothing special. What's with the protruding e-brake on the console in a family sedan??

Why is the dead pedal so large and the brake pedal so small?

A console e-brake is nicer than a foot pedal style...and the dead pedal is large to accomodate large American male feet..

Back looks like a last gen base Saturn L Series. Bad grill and too many buttons but otherwise very nice.

>>"A console e-brake is nicer than a foot pedal style..."<<

I'll never get this: it's a parking/service brake, not an iPod jack. It's a honda, not a Viper. In automatics, it's seldom, if ever, used. Tuck it out of the way instead of sticking it up in the air in the center of the car, further crowding an already crowded interior. I have the same opinion of the hazard lamp button: seldom used, utilitarian, hide it. Why do I need to look at these all the time??

>>"...and the dead pedal is large to accomodate large American male feet."<<

Then why is the brake pedal the size of half a slice of bread? The disparity between the two, assumedly designed for the same size feet, is illogical. The snap impression is that 'resting' is far more important than stopping.

>>"A console e-brake is nicer than a foot pedal style..."<<

I'll never get this: it's a parking/service brake, not an iPod jack. It's a honda, not a Viper. In automatics, it's seldom, if ever, used. Tuck it out of the way instead of sticking it up in the air in the center of the car, further crowding an already crowded interior. I have the same opinion of the hazard lamp button: seldom used, utilitarian, hide it. Why do I need to look at these all the time??

>>"...and the dead pedal is large to accomodate large American male feet."<<

Then why is the brake pedal the size of half a slice of bread? The disparity between the two, assumedly designed for the same size feet, is illogical. The snap impression is that 'resting' is far more important than stopping.

How are you supposed to do a 180 in a FWD car with a foot e-brake??

How are you supposed to do a 180 in a FWD car with a foot e-brake??

Good point..

i still think they were going after a 'premium korean car' look with a 'new millenium interpretation of a 90's interior'.

overall, better than Cahmlee, maybe. will still sell.

i was thinking about this the other day. the 98 passat redefined style in the midsize segment and really injected design into mid size cars.

but since then, there hasn't been much if anything from anyone. so even though this honda does nothing great stylistically, i think it will still do ok in the market.

i was thinking about this the other day. the 98 passat redefined style in the midsize segment and really injected design into mid size cars.

but since then, there hasn't been much if anything from anyone. so even though this honda does nothing great stylistically, i think it will still do ok in the market.

That era Passat was an impressive car, esp. after it's facelift w/ more chrome and the revised front end. I really liked the style of those cars. I was dissapointed by the current Passat, some aspects of the design inside and out I like, other aspects, less so...

>>"A console e-brake is nicer than a foot pedal style..."<<

I'll never get this: it's a parking/service brake, not an iPod jack. It's a honda, not a Viper. In automatics, it's seldom, if ever, used. Tuck it out of the way instead of sticking it up in the air in the center of the car, further crowding an already crowded interior. I have the same opinion of the hazard lamp button: seldom used, utilitarian, hide it. Why do I need to look at these all the time??

The Accord offers a manual transmission, hence the console e-brake. I wish GM would learn this *cough* CTS *cough*...

The interior looks very nice but I'm not a fan of the exterior. The front looks alright but it goes downhill from there, IMO. Just a mashup of different styling cues.

Edit: spelling.

Edited September 19, 200717 yr by sciguy_0504

From the bloated pig nosed 07 Camry to the Saturn L-series like 2008 Subaru Imprezza/WRX and now the BMW rip off 08 Accords, i'm getting a vibe from the Asian manufacturers that they are clearly out of ideas on how to style cars. The sad part is that we are copying some this crap on to our new models and mirroring the blandness.

That era Passat was an impressive car, esp. after it's facelift w/ more chrome and the revised front end. I really liked the style of those cars. I was dissapointed by the current Passat, some aspects of the design inside and out I like, other aspects, less so...

The rear wheel arch of the current Passat seems so much smaller than the front from some angles, its a real disappointment to me and the car look average at best. The 2001.5 redesign is a very handsome car.

The seats look comfy, and the steering wheel looks nice. Everything else is crap, crap, crap. I'll take my G6 or a Saturn Aura over it any day of the week.

Perhaps, I'm just weird. I look at everyone's comments here and don't relate one bit of it to what I saw.

come on now, look at that side profile and try and say they aren't trying to copy the 5-series.....

i sat in a new accord for quite a bit at the dealer yesterday. I'll chime in on a few things here when i get a chance.

I'm going to get flamed for this, but there is nothing WRONG with the new Accord. Just like there is nothing wrong with the Camry or the Sonata. All are decent cars. I think this is probably the tightest packed market segment. Whether one likes the Aura, G6 or Accord would largely depend on one's preference toward an 'American' look or a 'Japanese' look.

I drove a Sonata for a couple days while my car was in the body shop and it was decent enough. I can see why people would like these cars, but they just aren't my taste.

There is somewhat a resemblence to the 5 series in the side profile in pictures... But better to aim upmarket then resemble a Stratus like the Aura?

too tired to type tonight. i can say quickly i thought the interior was a bit too snug considering the hype, the seats are narrow, and that it is not aspirational. however, it is nice enough...nicer than nearly all other midsize. seemed both fresh and dated, and cheap and expensive, all at the same time. trunk is miniscule. its deep, but not very wide or tall in useful space. a very disappointing trunk.

There is somewhat a resemblence to the 5 series in the side profile in pictures... But better to aim upmarket then resemble a Stratus like the Aura?

No... make your own look.

from Frogger

There is somewhat a resemblence to the 5 series in the side profile in pictures... But better to aim upmarket then resemble a Stratus like the Aura?

I see zero resemblance between the Stratus and the Aura. Where'd you get that comparison from?

Edited September 28, 200717 yr by K.C.

I see zero resemblance between the Stratus and the Aura. Where'd you get that comparison from?

where the hell did i ever compare the stratus and the accord?