Dave L wrote:
> "JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:97svn3h53gk5envim8phrqnsa23uerl61d@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:41:40 -0500, "tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> While the V6 Malibu may be a winner, the 4 cyl version with the 4 spd auto
>>> I
>>> daresay is not. The I4 Accord would be a better selection. What bothers
>>> me
>>> is Honda's apparent move away from handling. The comment that the V6
>>> Accord
>>> is Honda's version of a Buick is almost insulting -- but perhaps
>>> indicative
>>> of change in company policy.
>> Yah, it's been forty years since GM had a car with the kind of good,
>> solid reputation they mean to imply.
>>
>> I see what Honda is attempting with the 08 Accord, but, I dunno.
>> OTOH, maybe it just takes time. I like the "visual excitement" from
>> the front quarters, but Honda has had styling issues with the tail for
>> a long time. Took me until the end of the lease, before I appreciated
>> the 04 styling, but I finally bought into it by then.
>>
>> I have to say, making the Accord ever larger and heavier is NOT a good
>> idea. I may go TSX next time, or even Civic (or even - gasp! -
>> non-Honda!). And even at the same weight, I still don't get the
>> mileage on my Accord I4 07 that I got on the 04, I attribute it to
>> engine and computer changes. Maybe it does drive a little better, but
>> it shouldn't cost 10% in mileage, and it seems to.
>>
>> J.
>
> I have an '05 Accord and it was even larger that I would have liked. They
> are getting too large and dare I say, less soul. Before I bought it
> (practicality steered me to the Accord) - a friend also said the rear end
> was ugly - looked like a Buick. IMHO, they've gotten too large and
> conservative looking. I actually liked the design of some of the older
> Accords, but I definately didn't buy this car based on its looks!
>
> I know the '04 and '05 I4 Accord has 160hp, but I believe the '06 and '07
> has a little more at 166hp. I assume this would contribute to the mgp drop.
> Weight wise I haven't checked them out. Should be very minimal since it was
> only minor other changes done...
>
> -Dave
>
>

focus on horsepower is meaningless without also correlating it to weight.

example:
1989 civic dx, auto trans, 2,138lbs. engine output is 92hp iirc.
2000 civic dx, auto trans, 3,330lbs. engine output is 106hp iirc.

now, despite the fact that engine management on the 2000 is
significantly more advanced than on the 89, both return pretty much the
same economy cruising on the freeway. and off the line, the 89 is quite
a bit faster.

why?
1989 = 0.043 hp/lb
2000 = 0.032 hp/lb

now, why not ask your congress-critter why they keep insisting on
stricter and stricter "crash protection" for cars that already perform
excellently, when all they're really doing is blunting the sword of fuel
efficiency. [and, coincidentally, ruining dynamic safety too - heavier
cars are harder to stop and steer out of collisions.]