Like many of you, I often grumble when Car and Driver picks the Accord over newer, better-looking competitors with nicer interiors. But after having a chance to test-drive one, I must say that I "get it." The Accord may not be the best mid-size sedan, but it is by far the most fun to drive.

Everything about the driving experience in this car is just right. The steering feel, the solid, planted chassis, the spirited V6. I could not help grinning as I took an off-ramp at twice the legal limit and felt the rear end kick out ever so slightly and then plant at just the right moment. This is a front drive car!

If I were looking for a mid-size car right now, I might look past the cars' faults - its appearance, its lack of low-end torque (felt slower than my GTP up to 60 mph), the fact that it's a Honda - and take one of these with a 6-speed. And remember, this car is at the tail end of its life-cycle.

After driving the Accord, I'm convinced GM has a hole in its mid-size lineup. The Aura is a great car (my mom has one), and the new Malibu is supposedly even better, but neither are driver's cars.

I've read a lot about the plan to move Pontiac to a RWD lineup, and like the idea, but I'm less convinced than ever that there is no room for a FWD G6. If GM could make the G6 compete eye to eye, clutch for clutch with the Accord, it would be aiming at Honda's all important prestige, and might grab some of those performance oriented sedan customers who might pass up on the otherwise terrific GM mid-size line up.

What are the chances of a truly performance oriented mid-size, be it from Pontiac or any other brand?

 

While the American buying public wasn't paying attention, somewhere along the way, the Accord became a poor value for anyone wanting a performance sedan. A 2006 Accord has almost exactly the same total cost of ownership over 5 years, about $40k, as a 2006 Grand Prix GXP... a car that can run rings around it in the arena of performance. So I yawn when I see anyone fawning over the Accord. Then there's its lack of HUD, three folding seats and other niceties...

 

rearend kickout on a FWD car, after driving an accord for 5 years I still haven't been able to do that without the e-brake.

 

The lack of low-end torque just kills it for me. I agree, though, that GM should set their sights squarely on the Accord as far as steering feel, chassis composure, shifter feel, clutch feel, etc. I think G6 is the right place for the result, although I still don't care for the new G# naming scheme, and I'd be fine with a name change at the same time.

They must have changed something in the last five years.

 

I like the outgoing Accord but am even more interested in seeing what the new Accord is like. It should be at dealerships in only 8 more days or so...

 

Humm...I wonder why you don't lend the same weight to this "first-hand experience" intenet posting as you do those posting about the FJ Cruiser problems???

I'm sure it isn't because you don't like what it says...I'm sure it couldn't be that!

 

And the Accord is?

Quite frankly you named the two cars in GM's stable that have their sites dead aimed at the Accord (and Toyota Camry). Why can't a "sport" version of each be made into as much the "driver's cars" as Accord?

 

Aura pulls better skidpad #'s that the Accord V6

 

I dunno about 2006 but I just 2007 and the TCO on the GXP was almost 9000 dollars higher after 5 years of ownership than it was on the Accord, per Edmunds.com

Where did you get the 40k figure from?

 

This is a non-issue if there ever was one, IMO. I have an 06TL/6spd, with the 3.2 vs. 3.0 for the Accord, but the trans is the same, IIRC. The trans is geared short, so you never notice the torque deficiency. The rev-happy engine makes you forget any low-end torque issue.

I've never bench-raced the two, but how does the Accord compare to the Aura XR on a dyno sheet, through the mid-range and such? I liked the Aura XR, but the backseat seems smaller, and the "touch" apsect of the interior isn't as nice.

 

Here's the 2006 data from edmunds:

http://www.edmunds.com/used/2006/hon...40408/cto.html

http://www.edmunds.com/used/2006/pon...43802/cto.html

I would have provided numbers for both 2007 models... but TCO data is not available there for the Accord. I hope you're not comparing TCO data between different model years?

This 'first-hand' account is a sample of one, as opposed to a whole thread in the FJ forum, with many owners there chiming about their vehicles. Or maybe you hadn't noticed?

...Nonetheless. Of course the thread starter is entitled to his/her opinions. I've no reason to doubt them. But as far as the Grand Prix is concerned, I am an owner so I do have direct experience with that side of things too.

 

I test-drove a 2004 Accord EX 6-speed (in 2004; it was new at the time). It was an issue for me; I definitely noticed. My current car at the time was a 1993 Oldsmobile Achieva SC with the 3.3 V6 (160hp, 185tq) and a three-speed auto.

The Accord was definitely faster, but I just didn't like the way it felt in the bottom of the rev range.

They may have changed something since then, but that was my experience.

 

Agreed. I rented a Camry a few years back, and I just hated the low torque at takeoff. A car can have all the up-top power in the world, but will still feel weak if it doesn't have that 'punch' off the line.

 

That TCO data is on used 2006 models where the Grand Prix has already suffered a much greater level of first year depreciation.

There is new TCO data on edmunds for 2007/2008 models and that's where it said 41k compared to 49k or something roughly around there...

 

Hey, BigDarkNFast, please use the Quote button. It's really nice when we can see who posted something, and have the quick link to jump back to the whole quote.

If you are using the Quote button, please stop removing the name and post ID.