From the February 1990 issue of Car and Driver.
Uh-oh. Red alert in Detroit. While the industry’s sentries were sleeping, Honda snuck up into the heart of the market. The new Accord sure looks like a mid-size contender to us.
This is more than merely serious. This could be the last act of a debacle.
Detroit has long viewed low-priced cars as unprofitable and high-priced cars as too limited in volume to be worth the trouble. Consequently, it has all but given those markets to the foreigners. The Detroit plan has been to hunker down in the vast middle, where it could take advantage of mass-production economies and its God-given knowledge of what Americans really want in a new car.
Meanwhile, Honda has been a hardworking international car company, sticking to its business, building a reputation, inching into new markets. It introduced a little hatchback called the Accord in 1976. Customers liked it. For the 1979 model year, Honda added a four-door to the line, and customers liked that version a lot. In 1981, a second-generation Accord came along—bigger than the first—and customers liked it even more. In 1985, a third-generation Accord arrived—bigger still—and customers really liked that one. In fact, over the last few years the Accord has occasionally been the best-selling car in the U.S. industry’s monthly tally. Last model year, Accord sales numbered about 360,000.
Now we have a fourth-generation Accord. Once again, it’s bigger than the model it replaces: wheelbase is up 4.7 inches, overall length is up 5.1 inches, width is up half an inch, height (for the four-door) is up 1.4 inches. The height increase is significant, because Hondas usually get lower, not taller.
Hmmmmm. Comparing these dimensions with those of other brands, we notice a similarity to the Pontiac 6000/Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera/Buick Century line of GM cars. The Honda’s wheelbase is 2.2 inches longer, although its overall length and width are less by roughly five and two inches, respectively (depending on the specific model). Inside, the Accord is actually larger in some critical dimensions.
GM can (and did when we called) easily defend against our dimensional comparison by saying, “Sure, the Accord may be close to our old A-body, but we’re phasing that one out. The Chevrolet Celebrity has been gone for a year. You should be comparing with our new four-door Lumina/Grand Prix/Cutlass Supreme/Regal line of cars.”
Maybe. But remember: the old A-body was introduced in 1982, and it’s still on the market. In 1988, the last year it was offered by four divisions, 720,167 were sold. To a huge number of Americans, that is a mid-size car. GM thinks bigger on the outside is better, and the new GM10 four-door is approximately six inches longer, 1.5 inches wider, and 200 pounds heavier (depending upon which brand you measure). But we see no evidence that the customers are aching to replace their old A-bodies with something that takes up more space.
Nonetheless, we compared the Accord with two of the new GM models, a Buick Regal SE Limited and a Pontiac Grand Prix STE. These new cars look and feel bigger than the Accord, and they are marginally roomier in most interior dimensions. But their trunks are half a cubic foot smaller than the old A-body’s, which narrows one advantage they have over the Accord to only 1.2 cubic feet, and they’re still shy of the Accord in certain measurements—front headroom, for example, and front and rear legroom.
Still, sometimes the impartial laboratory measurements of interior room don’t tell the same story as real people sitting in cars. So we parked the Accord, the Regal, the Grand Prix, and a Ford Taurus all in a row and compared the rear seats. We judged the Taurus and the Accord about equal in comfort, both superior to the GM cars. The Taurus has a chair-height cushion in back that positions the body nicely, and the fat bench easily allows three-across seating. The Honda has a low cushion sculptured to give excellent support for two rear passengers, but its narrower width and its shape are not so hospitable for three. Because the two cars position the legs so differently, it’s hard to make good comparisons of knee clearance and ankleroom. So we’ll skirt that issue by saying that they felt equally comfortable for two passengers in back.
The Buick’s cushion, which is even lower than the Accord’s—too low for comfort—felt limp and unsupportive. Kneeroom seemed in shorter supply. The STE had a firmer seat, shaped for two only. It, too, was tight around the knees, but it was more agreeable overall than the Regal.
This comparison convinced us that the Accord is a real mid-size car, a little tight in width and in trunk space but long on efficiency. Rather than striving for impressive exterior bulk, as GM has apparently done, Honda has made every pound of material count. The Accord gives the sense of a lean, purposeful sedan that’s ideal for four passengers, acceptable for five.
Unlike the usual Detroit intermediate, which offers a wide choice of equipment and several entirely different powertrains, the Accord is a tightly configured package. There’s only one engine, a 2.2-liter four-cylinder (the extra five horsepower in the EX comes from a more efficient exhaust system). You can choose a five-speed manual or a four-speed automatic transmission. Body choices include a two-door coupe, a four-door sedan, and, next year, a five-door station wagon, all based on the same platform with virtually the same exterior dimensions.
Most of the new Accord’s extra wheelbase came from pushing the front wheels forward. Honda sought less weight on the front tires for better handling balance. An additional benefit is that the front wheel no longer intrudes on the driver’s foot space.
With a four-cylinder as the only engine choice, Honda was able to package all the accessories in a compact space, leaving more room for passengers. By adding balance shafts instead of extra cylinders—which Honda has done—a four can have the general smoothness of a six without the accompanying bulk, cost, and loss of economy.
The Accord still has drum brakes in back. Honda says discs add too much weight and that they wouldn’t be helpful anyway, because a front-drive car does most of its braking in front.
Honda didn’t always have the right answer. For years we’ve complained of limp shocks and grossly inadequate suspension travel. The new shocks eliminate all the usual Honda floatiness without killing the ride. And the suspension never bottomed during our driving. The new Accord has about an inch more travel in front and 1.4 inches more in back. This car feels decidedly European now, and the revised steering has a fine instinct for arrowing straight down the road. This is a very poised car, very satisfying for those who enjoy driving.
Actually, the EX model may have gone too far in the sporting-response direction. It comes with 195/60HR-15 tires on 5.5-inch-wide wheels (compared with 185/70R-14s on 5.0-inch rims for the DX and the LX) and a rear anti-roll bar. It rides more harshly than the others, yet the handling benefits are so small as to be insignificant in a four-door. Skidpad cornering, at 0.79 g, is excellent—tied with the sport-tuned Chevy Lumina Euro and substantially better than the Taurus.
When a sedan achieves the level of roominess, sure-footedness, and price of this new Accord, we begin to wish for a six-cylinder engine. Sixes sound more grown up and they usually displace more than 2.2 liters, so they have more power. But Honda is sticking to four-cylinders for the U.S. market, although a similar Honda in Japan is offered with a five. Is four enough? Reluctantly, we say yes. The Accord’s 9.7-second 0-to-60-mph time and 119-mph top speed are quick for an intermediate sedan, and its EPA fuel-economy figures, particularly in the city (24 mpg for the five-speed, 22 for the automatic), are excellent.
The four-cylinder nature of the engine is not particularly noticeable when cruising, but you hear it at full throttle. In the automatic version, there are also certain moments when it’s very distinct. We admire the general efficiency of the Accord, though, and just have to accept the engine as an integral part of the deal.
And that deal is overwhelmingly a pleasing one. This Accord has the solid, purposeful, high-quality feel we’ve enjoyed so much in the lofty German brands, yet the price makes it competitive with normal family cars. And our roominess comparisons show that, finally, the Accord has achieved family-room interior dimensions. Honda has changed the way it packages people, too: the higher seating position allowed by the new taller roofline is a definite improvement.
Honda is planning yet another metamorphosis. The new Accord is assembled in Ohio with about 72 percent American content. At 75 percent, our government changes the classification from import car to domestic. Honda expects to reach the 75 percent level in 1992.
Very interesting. Just as the American industry loses its lock on the middle market, the invader becomes an American.
Counterpoint
Here’s my synopsis of the 1990 Honda Accord EX: it looks bland compared with the 1989 Accord, but it runs better.
The new Accord is state-of-the-art. Amazingly, its doors close with a thunk more satisfying than the old Accord’s. The interior controls all work with little clicks, not the wholly unpleasant ker-chunk or krak sounds of many loose-fitting General Motors and Chrysler components.
Of the Accord’s cultivated driving qualities, I say enough development already. I’m happy with the Accord’s level of refinement. Some of the things I want the Accord to do for me now are: (1) keep me from getting bored in heavy traffic, (2) inspire lane discipline in surrounding cars, (3) wake me up earlier, (4) feed me, (5) keep my jacket from wrinkling, (6) provide a nook for my briefcase so I can access it easily and not spill it with the Accord’s quick moves.
The Accord is so good at solving everyday car problems, I’m surprised it doesn’t soothe more of the trials of living. —Phil Berg
Allow me to digress from the Accord for a moment. Everyone at C/D, myself included, has heaped praise on Honda’s Acura Division since its successful launch nearly four years ago. But the new Accord makes me think that the bright Acura cloud has developed a sinister lining.
That sinister lining is the rise of the Committee for the Prevention of Excessive Automotive Goodness (COPREAG). Although the new Accord has more interior space and a higher level of refinement than its predecessor, I suspect COPREAG vetoed other potential improvements to keep the Accord from infringing on Acura Legend sales. Why else would the Accord still lack such features as an optional six-cylinder engine, antilock brakes, and an air bag—all of which can be found on lower-priced competitors?
Honda products in general enjoy a well-earned reputation for excellence and value—largely because they provide more sophistication and refinement than you’d expect in cars so reasonably priced. But Honda’s COPREAG should tread lightly, lest this sterling reputation be squandered. —Csaba Csere
It would be easy to criticize the new Accord for not being The Next Big Step—something we’ve come to expect of every new Honda. After all, its sheetmetal is conservative and its engine fails to emit lusty cries. But to those who bemoan the Accord’s loss of competitiveness, I say, “Show me a better sedan in this class.”
Consider what the Accord name stands for: quality. Accords have always been premium sedans that deliver more refinement and better attention to detail than the competition. It’s all here again, from the handsomely tailored sheetmetal to the smooth hum of the engine. There’s not another sedan in this price range that makes me feel so all-over good.
Well, maybe there is one other, and it’s significantly less expensive: the mid-level Accord LX. Its engine is down five horses, and you give up the sunroof, the gas shocks, the big tires, and the alloy wheels. But the rest is the same—which is to say, all the pure motoring honey that fifteen grand can buy. Let the naysayers chew on that for a while. —Rich Ceppos
Specifications
Specifications
1990 Honda Accord
Vehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $16,840/$16,920
Options: floor mats, $80
ENGINE
SOHC 8-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 132 in3, 2156 cm3
Power: 130 hp @ 5200 rpm
Torque: 142 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
5-speed manual
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: control arms/multilink
Brakes, F/R: 10.2-in vented disc/8.7-in drum
Tires: Michelin MXV3
195/60/HR-15
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 107.1 in
Length: 184.8 in
Width: 67.9 in
Height: 54.7 in
Passenger Volume, F/R: 52/40 ft3
Trunk Volume: 14 ft3
Curb Weight: 2955 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 9.7 sec
1/4-Mile: 17.1 sec @ 80 mph
100 mph: 32.7 sec
Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 14.3 sec
Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 14.4 sec
Top Speed: 119 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 196 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.79 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 19 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
City/Highway: 24/30 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED