I just bought a 2014 Accord EX L without navigation. My thought is if I need navigation, use my I phone. Also, I find the blind spot monitor not a distraction. I check traffic as usual, then take a glance at the blind spot view before crossing over. The lane departure warning and front crash warning have paid off and saved me from potential accidents already. This accord is quiet, smooth, and even though I can hear some engine noise when I rev the 4 cyl, it is a very good choice and has plenty of get up where I don't find the need for a 6.
I have a 2013 EX-L V6 w/ Navi and paid 30,500. I agree with Dave, the lane watch is a very nice feature. I've never found it distracting. Their are only two negatives I have about the car. The first is the stereo, it's weak. Secondly, if you live in a State that has poor roads, the ride can get rough and one can suffer from driver fatigue on long trips. The noise cancelation has significantly improved quietness inside the cabin. I hear a lot of people complain about the center stack. Perhaps if one is only able to do one test drive or demo the car for few hrs, the stack may seem complicated. However, once you have actually own the car for about a week, the center stack becomes very intuitive. Additionally, Honda has a lot of voice commands that really mitigate how much you have to mess with the buttons.
I agree with everything you have said here. I have a 2014 EX-L with Nav (4 cyl) and I paid 27,500. My parents recently got a Passat and it does ride more smoothly than my Accord, however it drives like a much bigger car as a result. My car feels really sporty and smaller than it is, but the trade off is the stiff ride, especially on rough roads. I do like that I am regularly getting 38 mpg on the highway. I am not a voice command person, which is why I appreciate the center stack with the wheel so much. It works amazingly well, especially when scrolling songs from my iPhone, but the stereo is definitely lacking in sound quality. All in all though, I am very happy with my purchase.
If you compare the the 9th gen vs the 8th gen Accord, it's obvious that Honda tried hard to reduce button clutter. At first, the new center stack looks odd because of the touchscreen, but if you think about it, it's far easier to use. I think Honda did a tremendous job with the new Accord.
It's inexplicable that laws have been enacted to forbid texting while driving, while at the same time automakers are rushing to feature touch screens with multiple levels of information right in the middle of the friggin' dashboard.
I understand the whole gas mileage issue when choosing an engine, but in my case keeping a car for so long the V6 continues to run so much smoother as it ages. My current '97 Camry with 195,000 miles on it, the engine is still so smooth even tho the struts mounts rattle like hell and the interior is falling apart. That's why I definitely want to stick with a V6 even for slightly less gas mileage. I really want a Honda next!
@ 6:50-ish . . . I agree. Simple. Is. Better. Less to break. Less to fix. And yes, less to become antiquated. One reason the Ford systems have absolutely NO draw for me, besides the problems they have had with them.
My 2003 accord i traded in for a 2014 accord. The navi on my 10 year old accord is just as good and as fast as the newer one. Huge touchscreen and never seem dated, i actually miss it. And it was 2 years older than the BMW he was talking about.
The pre-2013 Acura RDX with SH-AWD is a prime example of what the commenter was referring to. Though it was quick, agile and powerful, the RDX turbo 4 is not smooth, nor did it achieve acceptable gas mileage (on the required premium fuel). The decision to go turbo 4 over V6 was motivated by the need to reduce weight as the AWD system was fairly heavy. Ultimately, the decision to go turbo 4 proved to be less desirable by consumers and hurt RDX sales. The new V6 doesn't have that problem.
Your answer to Carlos was very dumb. He was saying that I4 turbo's aren't as good as V6 and he is is right. Look at the numbers. Malibu with turbo gets 21 city and 30 highway. The Accord with V6 gets same in city and 34 MPG on the highway. Malibu is also way slower than Accord. In 0-60 the difference isn't all that big but the Accord is still faster. In 0-100 Malibu loses that torque at low RPM advantage and by the time they're at 100 the Accord is several car lengths ahead. I've seen the race, that's how I know.
I agree Rizwan; Also one thing about small 4 cylinders with turbos is that until you step on it and the turbo kicks in, they feel weak and anemic. Whereas the Honda V6 feels more satisfying and powerful even when you are only giving it 1/4 or 1/2 throttle.
Blind spot cameras are one thing, but iPad-size NAV/infotainment touch screens stuck right in the middle of a dashboard are like having a TV monitor right in your main field of vision. At the very least it is highly distracting, not to mention shortly bound for obsolescence when the next gen handheld devices start using 3-D holographic technology ;)
With the use of direct injection in gasoline engines, the advantage in fuel economy between gas and diesel is shrinking. The Passat has a 10% better EPA rating than the accord for example. You can choose beetween an engine that requires more expensive fuel that gives you more range per tank or one that runs cheaper fuel that gives you better acceleration times.
Sacrificing visibility is what causes crashes. I sat in a couple of new Subarus at the auto show and they had great outward visibility -- along with good crash test ratings. So it is not necessary to sit people down in a bathtub, as too many modern designs do. They try to look like a raked coupe, meaning the angle of the front window is so steep you're left with tiny side windows, shoving people down into a virtual hole. The new Lexus IS has terrible outward vision. It's totally claustrophobic.
The touchscreen may be easier to use when the car is parked, but when driving I prefer hard buttons that I can feel for without taking my eyes off the road. Buttons can last for decades and are cheap to replace, how many years will a touch screen last?
isn't touch screen similar to fooling around with a smart phone? this could be a dangerous distraction. unlike a physical button/knob you can feel the button vs having to look at the touchscreen. what are your thoughts? thx
I agree with you Alex about too much add on,s I have a 2009 accord with navi,and we must have taken the accord back because of the navi so many time,s I lost count, some times is just good to keep it simple
I wish Honda would bring their Diesel motor in to the USA!! Mazda has it here. Come on Honda. I may jump off the Honda ship to a Mazda CX5 Diesel. In my opinion an Accord or CR-V Deisel would be a very nice idea.
Well, I dunno about you, but I don't primp & preen while driving. Tapping a steering wheel mounted button to adjust the music, etc., still keeps my hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road. But touch-interacting with layers of information on what is purposely designed to be an eye-catching screen in the middle of the dash while driving is a whole 'nother matter. Any such screen will soon be outdated anyway. Already, far too many people are texting while driving, so it's just a plain bad idea.
I don't care how many cameras and screens they throw on this thing - I'm always gonna check my blind spot myself. BTW - I hear that when it's raining, the camera's are useless.
![KSI - Thick Of It (feat. Trippie Redd) [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tXEPbotEjZE/mqdefault.jpg)
I just bought a 2014 Accord EX L without navigation. My thought is if I need navigation, use my I phone. Also, I find the blind spot monitor not a distraction. I check traffic as usual, then take a glance at the blind spot view before crossing over. The lane departure warning and front crash warning have paid off and saved me from potential accidents already. This accord is quiet, smooth, and even though I can hear some engine noise when I rev the 4 cyl, it is a very good choice and has plenty of get up where I don't find the need for a 6.
You get a V6 Accord because it is a bit of a below the radar rocket...
I have a 2013 EX-L V6 w/ Navi and paid 30,500. I agree with Dave, the lane watch is a very nice feature. I've never found it distracting. Their are only two negatives I have about the car. The first is the stereo, it's weak. Secondly, if you live in a State that has poor roads, the ride can get rough and one can suffer from driver fatigue on long trips. The noise cancelation has significantly improved quietness inside the cabin.
I hear a lot of people complain about the center stack. Perhaps if one is only able to do one test drive or demo the car for few hrs, the stack may seem complicated. However, once you have actually own the car for about a week, the center stack becomes very intuitive. Additionally, Honda has a lot of voice commands that really mitigate how much you have to mess with the buttons.
I agree with everything you have said here. I have a 2014 EX-L with Nav (4 cyl) and I paid 27,500. My parents recently got a Passat and it does ride more smoothly than my Accord, however it drives like a much bigger car as a result. My car feels really sporty and smaller than it is, but the trade off is the stiff ride, especially on rough roads. I do like that I am regularly getting 38 mpg on the highway. I am not a voice command person, which is why I appreciate the center stack with the wheel so much. It works amazingly well, especially when scrolling songs from my iPhone, but the stereo is definitely lacking in sound quality. All in all though, I am very happy with my purchase.
My 2003 accord touch screen lasted 10 years and was still going when i sold it.
If you compare the the 9th gen vs the 8th gen Accord, it's obvious that Honda tried hard to reduce button clutter. At first, the new center stack looks odd because of the touchscreen, but if you think about it, it's far easier to use. I think Honda did a tremendous job with the new Accord.
It's inexplicable that laws have been enacted to forbid texting while driving, while at the same time automakers are rushing to feature touch screens with multiple levels of information right in the middle of the friggin' dashboard.
I understand the whole gas mileage issue when choosing an engine, but in my case keeping a car for so long the V6 continues to run so much smoother as it ages. My current '97 Camry with 195,000 miles on it, the engine is still so smooth even tho the struts mounts rattle like hell and the interior is falling apart. That's why I definitely want to stick with a V6 even for slightly less gas mileage. I really want a Honda next!
@ 6:50-ish . . . I agree. Simple. Is. Better. Less to break. Less to fix. And yes, less to become antiquated. One reason the Ford systems have absolutely NO draw for me, besides the problems they have had with them.
My 2003 accord i traded in for a 2014 accord. The navi on my 10 year old accord is just as good and as fast as the newer one. Huge touchscreen and never seem dated, i actually miss it. And it was 2 years older than the BMW he was talking about.
Had Honda combined some of the screens, consumers would probably say it was too complex to use.
I looked at both. But bought the accord for reliability and resale value. The Cadenza was an amazing car though and had awesome features on it.
The pre-2013 Acura RDX with SH-AWD is a prime example of what the commenter was referring to. Though it was quick, agile and powerful, the RDX turbo 4 is not smooth, nor did it achieve acceptable gas mileage (on the required premium fuel). The decision to go turbo 4 over V6 was motivated by the need to reduce weight as the AWD system was fairly heavy. Ultimately, the decision to go turbo 4 proved to be less desirable by consumers and hurt RDX sales. The new V6 doesn't have that problem.
Your answer to Carlos was very dumb. He was saying that I4 turbo's aren't as good as V6 and he is is right. Look at the numbers. Malibu with turbo gets 21 city and 30 highway. The Accord with V6 gets same in city and 34 MPG on the highway. Malibu is also way slower than Accord. In 0-60 the difference isn't all that big but the Accord is still faster. In 0-100 Malibu loses that torque at low RPM advantage and by the time they're at 100 the Accord is several car lengths ahead. I've seen the race, that's how I know.
I agree Rizwan; Also one thing about small 4 cylinders with turbos is that until you step on it and the turbo kicks in, they feel weak and anemic. Whereas the Honda V6 feels more satisfying and powerful even when you are only giving it 1/4 or 1/2 throttle.
Blind spot cameras are one thing, but iPad-size NAV/infotainment touch screens stuck right in the middle of a dashboard are like having a TV monitor right in your main field of vision. At the very least it is highly distracting, not to mention shortly bound for obsolescence when the next gen handheld devices start using 3-D holographic technology ;)
Thanks, guys. Keep up the good work. ☺
You are disturbed by the "center stack"? You're really reaching dude. This is an all-around excellent car...especially for the price.
With the use of direct injection in gasoline engines, the advantage in fuel economy between gas and diesel is shrinking. The Passat has a 10% better EPA rating than the accord for example. You can choose beetween an engine that requires more expensive fuel that gives you more range per tank or one that runs cheaper fuel that gives you better acceleration times.
Sacrificing visibility is what causes crashes. I sat in a couple of new Subarus at the auto show and they had great outward visibility -- along with good crash test ratings. So it is not necessary to sit people down in a bathtub, as too many modern designs do. They try to look like a raked coupe, meaning the angle of the front window is so steep you're left with tiny side windows, shoving people down into a virtual hole. The new Lexus IS has terrible outward vision. It's totally claustrophobic.
The touchscreen may be easier to use when the car is parked, but when driving I prefer hard buttons that I can feel for without taking my eyes off the road. Buttons can last for decades and are cheap to replace, how many years will a touch screen last?
Looks like Alex needs to work on signing some sponsorship deals - so he can get some stickers :P
Hi Guys, nice RVM episode. One thing to be care of saying is, "Hi Folks, have you seen my hangar yet"?
isn't touch screen similar to fooling around with a smart phone? this could be a dangerous distraction. unlike a physical button/knob you can feel the button vs having to look at the touchscreen. what are your thoughts? thx
Saving 10 grand? I got my 2014 exl v6 for 30k OTD.. My friend got the ex 4 cylinders for 27500 OTD.
I agree with you Alex about too much add on,s I have a 2009 accord with navi,and we must have taken the accord back because of the navi so many time,s I lost count, some times is just good to keep it simple
Damn that was very informative thanks.
Accord Touring. Lasts longer and looks ages better
The guy on the right is annoying.
.stop comparing an Accord to a BMW. He seemed like he wanted to ball at some point.😢
I wish Honda would bring their Diesel motor in to the USA!! Mazda has it here. Come on Honda. I may jump off the Honda ship to a Mazda CX5 Diesel. In my opinion an Accord or CR-V Deisel would be a very nice idea.
Its near perfect except:
1. no cooled seats (only heated)
2. no paddle shifters
3. 05:00 , about which Alex is right
Paddle shifters 😢
Well, I dunno about you, but I don't primp & preen while driving. Tapping a steering wheel mounted button to adjust the music, etc., still keeps my hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road. But touch-interacting with layers of information on what is purposely designed to be an eye-catching screen in the middle of the dash while driving is a whole 'nother matter. Any such screen will soon be outdated anyway. Already, far too many people are texting while driving, so it's just a plain bad idea.
I don't care how many cameras and screens they throw on this thing - I'm always gonna check my blind spot myself. BTW - I hear that when it's raining, the camera's are useless.
Nice job, guys.
Anyone planning to use the iPhone for GPS for long periods of time should Google iPhone, GPS, overheating.
this blond guy is giving bad advice v6's sound much better and smoother
does his lazy eye drive anyone else nuts?
Not cool dude.
Peter Ho You must have a sad life