The 10th-generation Accord sedan has been thrust into a marketplace infatuated with crossovers and all-wheel-drive machines of every type and description. Lower, wider, and with more interior room than its predecessor, the Accord’s new clothes wear well, tapering to the rear with a fastback flair. You just know there’s at least one Honda sales person out there using the words “four-door coupe.”
Thing is, some folks are so brand loyal to the Honda marque that they’ll buy one simply because the word “Accord” is hammered onto the trunk lid. For the rest of us, let’s take a look at this year’s base model Accord and see if it measures up to our Ace of Base yardstick.
The base Accord comes standard with Honda’s suite of Sensing safety features, standing ready to cry foul if the driver puts a wheel wrong. The assistive technology helps one stay aware of their surroundings, bundling adaptive cruise control with lane keeping and road departure mitigation systems. For it to be included on a $23,570 sedan is nothing short of remarkable.
Under the hood is a direct-injection 1.5-liter turbocharged inline-four, making 192 horsepower and a like amount of torque. Peak twist is available nearly off idle (1,500 rpm) all the way up to five grand, making this mill a responsive little unit. The sole transmission in this base Accord is the CVT. Want to row your own? You’ll need to make the $2,200 walk to the Sport trim, sir.
In an incredible fit of largesse, Honda ladles on the $0 paint choices ranging from Radiant Red to the superb Kona Coffee hue shown here. Why didn’t I choose the look-at-me crimson like I normally do? Because it is only available with a beige interior, that’s why. Black cloth is far superior.
The Accord’s infotainment system now features a brace of knobs, one for volume and one for tuning, the way that nature and Soichiro Honda intended. A 7-inch color LCD screen features all manner of Bluetooth and audio options, plus it displays images from a multi-angle rearview camera. Vexingly, satellite radio doesn’t appear until the $27,470 EX trim.
Dual zone climate control assures that both front seat occupants are comfortable. There are no heated seats at this price, and the rear bench folds down as a single unit. Push button start, cruise control, and a tilt/telescope wheel are all shared with more expensive Accords.
Up front, the 2018 Accord LX sports expensive-looking LED headlights not unlike the ones found in Acuras, at least at first glance. They do a convincing job of portraying an upscale appearance, even on the base model. Some may take issue with the 2018’s proclivity to jut the top of its grille forward a bit, like a dog with an overbite. I do not find it offensive, yet. Check back with me in a couple of months.
LEDs adorn the base Accord’s brakelights on its tail, with a couple of snazzy integrated LED light bars thrown in for good measure. Door handles and mirrors are body color, so one needn’t worry about flat black trim advertising your base-model thriftiness to the neighbors. A 17-inch alloy wheel is found at each corner.
Does the 2018 Accord LX make the Ace of Base grade? Given its price of $23, 570 and laundry list of standard equipment, I think it does … even if one is forced to take the CVT rather than a manual. However, the base LX offers a remarkable feature-to-price ratio and, quite simply, it’s an Accord. To some, especially loyal owners who’ve bought multiple copies in the nameplate’s 40 years, that’s all that matters.
For the rest of us, it is simply a great family conveyance that’ll retain more than a shred of resale value and isn’t yet another milquetoast crossover. That by itself is worth an Ace of Base stamp of approval.
[Images: Honda]
Not every base model has aced it. The ones which have? They help make the automotive landscape a whole lot better. What do you think of this choice, B&B? Let us know in the comments. Naturally, feel free to eviscerate our selection.
The model above is shown with American options and is priced in Freedom Dollars. As always, your dealer may sell for less.
Something I wonder about that little engine is how “beefy” the block and other structure is?
I’m not put off by the small displacement and high boost *per se*; that doesn’t have to be a problem for long life if the bearings and other internals are sized for what would be appropriate for a naturally aspirated modern 3.0-4.0L engine- which nowadays is equivalent to a big block V8 from decades ago… think about that! Honda has traditionally made small weight savings in cylinder wall thickness, for example, although still producing quite durable engines.
Just wondering what the rest of the B&B thinks about this.
Some of the B&B will say that anything turbocharged should be killed with fire. Others will regale with tales of how turbos back in the 80’s had epic failures. Honda and Toyota are conservative companies from an engineering standpoint. VW has a much derided, in here, turbo engine. Heck, the world’s mostest, biggest BUICK fan had a GM 2.0 turbo. Oh, and check with the fleet users of the Ford Ecoboost. Turbos are here to stay in the CAFE challenged times. But Hey! My flamesuit has a slit for eating popcorn.
I’ve been driving VW diesels with turbos for about 15 years. No turbo failures so far. Just gotta do oil changes when you’re supposed to with the correct oil.
I know a guy who had a turbo failure on a TDI, but that was at 650,000 miles. Pretty reasonable I would say.
I test drove the Accord Touring with the 1.5t today, came away pretty impressed to be honest, a lot of feature content for 35k.
I have nothing but praise so far for the small displacement turbo in the car I own.
I’m thinking in terms of 200,000-300,000 miles of service from a variety of “real” owners. In all fairness, that’s a lot to ask of any engine, but there are plenty of NA engines that live that long and give relatively trouble-free service.
That is the question, and it’s probably valid.
But if turbo engines weren’t capable of long term reliability, Ford wouldn’t be putting them in pickup trucks.
It’ll be interesting to see how all this plays out.
“But if turbo engines weren’t capable of long term reliability, Ford wouldn’t be putting them in pickup trucks.”
Oh, I don’t know about *that*. There is such a thing as planned obsolescence, after all. You can’t sell a new truck if the old one is still good as new.
OTOH, failed turbos aren’t that hard or expensive to replace these days, and if it’s only those that are relatively problematic it won’t be much for the aftermarket to provide decent value replacements.
“But if turbo engines weren’t capable of long term reliability, Ford wouldn’t be putting them in pickup trucks.”
The Navistars that Ford recently put in their pickup trucks weren’t even capable of short term reliability.
Odd. No one derides Kenworth, Mack,Volvo, Freightliner, Cummins, Catepillar etc. for turbocharging their products!
200-300K miles of service is all the way at the tip of the tail end of typical ownership. That kind of mileage is well beyond even the most generous warranties, and even the age/mileage over which manufacturers would be worried about resale. Someone who buys or owns a car with that kind of mileage should expect major repairs.
I’m old enough to remember when 100-150K was wrung the hell out for a car. That we expect and demand a minimum of 200K miles is testament to the engineering prowess of today’s carmakers.
Although I dislike turbo-4 engines for subjective reasons, I’d be more worried about the CVT than the 1.5T over 200k.
The CVT is the primary reason I turned down the outgoing Accord after the CVT in our current car was showing signs of future problems. I trust Honda to implement this technology more effectively than Nissan…but then there’s the BYBA.
I must add, it seems a lot of companies say lifetime fluid in their CVTs, etc. I think changing fluids more often would definitely help a longer life.
Agreed, ajla & 30. A friend has an ’02 Volvo C70 with a turbo I5. Apart from replacing an engine mount, the drivetrain has been right as rain for 150,000+ miles. At this point, I’m reasonably convinced that advances since the 1980s (better cooling systems and metallurgy?) have made turbos pretty darn durable.
CVTs? I’m going to let my fellow consumers test those for me for a few more years, at least.
This!
I’m perfectly fine with turbos so long as they’re built to handle regular abuse.
My one and only turbo car, a ’91 Volvo 745, required one to wait half a minute before shutting it off to cool down. It also demanded premium fuel to get acceptable mpg, I’m sure that modern turbos are more forgiving.
As for reliability? Even with a radiator leak (thanks for the cheap plastic Volvo!) and 197k miles the turbo never caused a fuss nor did the car overheat, the rest of the car was crap at that point (headliner, transmission issues) but I’m convinced that turbos can be reliable.
@Ryoku75- Great example- and the old Volvo red block was the kind of thing I was talking about. Even though its displacement was 2-2.3L for most versions, the bottom end and commensurate weight was way out of proportion for a medium to large four cylinder engine, beefier than many popular American V8s from the 70s and 80s.
@sportyaccordy- when a manufacturer turns out millions of high quality, durable engines, 99.999% of which make it to 100k with regular oil changes, 99.9% of those engines will continue to 200-300k with basic maintenance. I don’t think major engine maintenance around 200k is *unreasonable* and it’s nothing a consumer should complain about, but at the same time it’s the exception nowadays because so many cars just keep on ticking past that mileage.
@Jeff Weimar- I was thinking the same thing and I laughed when reading your response. You saved me from saying it.
Thanks! The turbos typically fared well despite mechanical air fans and Volvos crude setup. If anything killed them it was water pump or radiator leaks (the former very common).
It will definitely affect the reliability of the vehicle. There isn’t a way around it. You will not see these going 200-300k miles with just the occasional oil change. People are also not used to providing German level maintenance to their Honda or Toyota. It will be interesting to see in 10 years how all these engines are doing.
No heated seats in the LX? The Canadian-spec 2018 has them, is this a US thing?
You’re right – the Canadian LX is quite different, adding a bunch of features (incl heated seats) and a manual transmission option.
I just checked the specs on the Honda Canada site. The Canadian LX model is available with a manual transmission, comes with a split fold down rear seat and heated front seats. The drivers seat is 10 way power.
Canadian spec cars seem to have more manual transmissions available.
From my research, it’s actually quite difficult to buy a Canadian spec brand new car in America. Somebody needs to start a special brokerage service to import Canadian new cars to American buyers that wants specific trims.
I know how you feel. My 1999 leather V6 did not have them, but the Canadian version did. I was also so jealous since Canada is only 5 hours from my home.
Just wait another 18 years and you’ll be able to import that 1999 leather V6 Canadian car of your dreams :)
No mention of power seats at this price point.
Do you need to step up in price to get them?
That’s one feature that I require.
Power seats don’t seem to appear until the Sport model, which is $2200 dearer than the LX.
The manual seats in the prior Accord LX were a weakpoint, not very supportive and bit fragile-feeling with nonexistent lumbar. Power adjustment would have helped mitigate some of that.
But I wouldn’t necessarily expect to see them in a base trim midsizer
So in Canada… the Accord LX STARTS at $26,490 (before fees), can be had with a manual or CVT, and comes in only TWO earth shattering colours… Black or White!!!! Canada must be a small demographic to only provide one or two colour options on base models. It really is sad that you need to spend Approx $3000 just for more colour choice. In order to get blue or red you have to step up to the $31657 sport model.
The only real advantage here is that Canadian Spec models all come with AT LEAST heated front seats.
$26,490 in Canadian Dollars is $20,535 in USD.
That’s not exactly a fair comparison. Car prices in Canada have never been directly tied to the exchange rate. It’s more about charging what the market will bear.
When the Canadian dollar was much stronger than it is now, there was was outcry that prices should be reduced due the exchange rate. Now, you don’t hear a peep because it’s much more in our favour now.
It’s to pay for all those extra u’s you guys use.
When the Acura TL was new to market they were sold out here in the States when we were car shopping. The dealer here in Houston had 3 Canadian-spec models in stock, complete with kph speedometer and a handful of equipment changes from US-spec models. Weird.
Looks like the Canadian LX comes in black or white with the manual, and you get the additional exciting option of silver if you choose the CVT. Either way, that’s awfully boring.
Honda has been severely limiting the color choices for manual models in the US as well. My 2017 Accord EX coupe 6MT was only available in black or blue with black interior, while the CVT was available in 7 exterior and 2 interior colors.
In pictures the new Accord looks boat like.
It is a boat,I have no idea how certain individuals hate on the Camry but can praise this Chevy Malibu look alike.The hate for Toyota is real I tell ya.
A face only a mother could love. And it’s lower teeth seem to have not yet come in.
Butt Ugly.
Wont drive an ugly car.
Period.
But they will still sell a ton of them….so you must be in the minority :=)
Most mainstream cars are butt ugly now with a few notable exceptions. It’s really a matter of picking your poison.
It has a bit of Charger hood/front end and droopy Mercedes butt. It doesn’t look too bad though, and certainly better than the Camry.
Better than the Camry? Lol,you need to become a Comedian or get your eyes checked.
I guess it depends on your demographic. If you want to put some neon lights under it and a big wing on the back it probably appeals to you.
It is not “ace of base”. It is packed with nannies but useful features are missing. “…rear bench folds down as a single unit” – this is an issue. A family of 3 ski trip – how? split folding seat makes it great. Passenger on one side, skis on another. Then, 1.5L… I mean, they have this in Europe. But still, this is 23K+ we talking about. To me, take away these nannies and dual zone climate control, this car should be $18K. I would like to hear, does it, at least, have folding mirrors?
I am trying to think when the Accord ever had a split folding rear sear….
In my recollection, Honda has always forced buyers to go up one trim level to get the split folding rear seat. I like Honda’s but that’s some annoyingly dirty tricks right there (plus the very limited paint choice colour in Canada).
This is exactly the reason why I have not bought any Honda. They force you into sunroof and other things because base models have so little to offer. I had to pay over $20K for Civic if I wanted Bluetooth. But Mazda3 ran me just over $16K. It didn’t have sunroof or larger wheels, but it had Bluetooth along other useful features that Civic LX was devoid of.
The nannies doesn’t really add much money to the car along with dual zone climate control. Economies of scale might actually cost Honda more money making multiple HVAC units. $23k is exactly where this car should be, look at Camry or Altima. TrueCar is advertising 2017 Accord LX at $3k under sticker with a similar MSRP. I expect to see the same when the 2018 gets a little older. $20-21k is a solid value for car like this.
Don’tcha know? Only the very elite, most expert internet car buyers use Cars.com to price their vehicles? ;)
Still, they can’t go lower. I paid under $18.5 for Mazda6 Sport which sports all the features I need and nothing I don’t. for example, I didn’t pay for dual zone AC and this is fine. At least I have split-folding seat. BTW, this LX, does it have lumbar support? I bet, it doesn’t have it. Base ‘6 does. How about 1-touch for all windows? I can open/close all windows in 2 clicks. And also wheels are much nicer on Mazda. I almost certain, fit and finish better too (I tested Accord). I get my regular non-turbo engine… Just installed last week nice fog lights that ran me a $100 including OEM column switch (no wiring required). That and turn signals in the mirrors, in the base Mazda6 make it even look like more than base. I mean, it is nice that you no longer have to deal with drum brakes in base Honda, but it is not yet the “ace”.
And the Accord will hold it’s value much more strongly, as well as not rust out*.
*old news regarding Mazda rust but still hearing of it in salt-usage states.
My state uses salt. Not like in MA but… My 98 Protege lasted 16.5 years in my hands. Than I sold it to someone else. More than enough. I had rear wheel wells rusted a bit after 13 years. Fixed it and kept on going. I see other brands with this kind rust every day. Resale value? This is arguable and conditional. I found that Accord Hybrid is only Accord that made 2016 top resale list, has 42.7% after 36 months and 31.7% after 60 months. So, how good is that? Accord/Camry is a commodity. I keep em long time. To me resale is meaningless.
I’m on the same page as Slavuta on resale value. I keep my cars a long time (10 years minimum is the goal) so resale value is meaningless to me. At 10 years, that value has long fallen off the cliff for all cars, regardless of manufacturer. Also, that’s why I only buy new as well.
We can take a family of four on a ski trip because behind the folding armrest there is another panel that fold down to let the skies through. Does the Accord not have this feature?
Dude, can you funnel 4 pairs of skis through that? Lets put it this way… with small kids, ok. But if your sons tall young men. Or if you just go with your friends to a shooting range with all the gear. Or some Ikea trips. Or whatever… Split folding seat is one of the most-useful features, and the biggest reason I have not purchased any Honda in the last 20+ years. I didn’t want to pay for EX where I have to pay for sunroof, etc. to get the split-folding seat.
Its not bad, as others mentioned, its much more handsome than the “trying WAY too hard” Camry. I’m sure it drives rather well, but ultimately, my ideal Accord is an LX coupe with a manual, a model which isn’t available anymore. That said, I would have to step up to the Sport for a manual if I were to buy new.
I’d rather just find a 4cyl/6MT coupe used and call it good.
Time for Honda to bring back the Prelude, since there is no longer an Accord coupe. No, it probably won’t happen, and who could blame them since the market for coupes has all but dried up, but I can still dream.
You know what is the problem in Manual Accord? – the shifter is too far from the driver. May be, this is not the case in ’18 but in the last one it was. I drove 2 times Accord Sport Manual sedan. One was 1 year old with 6K miles and another was hot San Marino red new… the used one definitely has something wrong because engine was so noisy. But new one had little bit of panel fitting issues. I still like the ride. But then I tested Mazda6. This is just made for a driver. Plus, I needed to pop $3K more for Accord even though, it might had some extra features, its the bottom line base price that mattered… and those 19″ wheels…
I haven’t had much time in a manual, close to none, but I’ll keep that in mind.
I was impressed with the new (at the time) 2016 LX coupe (automatic)’s smooth engine, it was a revelation compared to the tractor engine in the newer Altima I’ve had the misfortune of driving. Everything was better in the Honda, the seats, the materials, and especially the CVT’s performance. Not good enough to make me give up a manual, but night and day compared to Nissan’s atrocity.
Altima is a total junk in a view of someone who loves to drive.
Accord is acceptable if you don’t know better. I mean, it is near Mazda refinement in operation of steering, clutch and gear shifter. But brake pedal feels numb. May be less numb than Civic. Best brakes that I recently tested are definitely inside Elantra Sport. Mazda has very good brake feel. Accord (at least 2017) is just too big for manual trans driver. Seat is not as sporty, aforementioned operations are not as crisp. Not bad but not on that level.
I wonder, how much extra do those nannies cost on a TLX?
I’m once again impressed at the feature creep trickling down into base trims now. That’s a lot of equipment for a base level car. I’d rather they keep the driver nannies and give me power heated seats and a SPLIT FOLDING rear seat. My 1993 Civic had a single fold seat and it was annoying. Why this is a time-honored and treasured corporate tradition for Honda I don’t know.
Remember the days when the LX was the middle trim level?
(I remember when it was the *top* trim)
Good times, good times.
I remember too seeing early 90s Accords around the college campus during my bachelor’s degree. “Oh that professor popped for the LX package.”
No Sh**
I had a ’91 EX (used) and the only real upgrade was the 130 horse engine – which became the LX engine in the next (94-97) generation.
Yeah, I remember when LX in Taurus speak went from “top tier” to “rental grade” in one year (for the 1998 m/y).
“Thing is, some folks are so brand loyal to the Honda marque that they’ll buy one simply because the word “Accord” is hammered onto the trunk lid.”
This smacks of the pejorative. Honda owners are repeat buyers because they are impeccable sophisticates. Any other brand is repeatedly bought only by pathetic lemmings.
It’s because I have an Accord in my garage right now with 265,000 miles (2003), and one in the driveway with 189,000 miles low miles (2007). Very dependable.
I had other brands with these miles.
Most cars can achieve 200k miles with proper maintenance. The main difference I noticed with Honda compared to Ford, for example, is that lots of Honda OEM parts last the entire life of the car while Fords require more annoying unscheduled replacement of parts. The replacement Ford parts are fairly inexpensive, but the unexpected failures are a major inconvenience. My hypothesis is that both manufacturers are capable of engineering cars that would avoid this problem, but Ford has to compete while carrying the cost overhead of the UAW and retiree benefits. Ford hits the price points they need to be profitable by squeezing part suppliers harder and those lower cost parts don’t last as long.
Having many cars with lots of miles in the passed, I can tell you that (as best example), Protege vs Civic – Protege needs some exhaust parts but would have cv-boots last long time (over 200K). Civic – opposite. Both had alternator issue near 160K. So, this depends on part suppliers. And no one gets perfect. One of my mazda3 is now 80K, at 60K needed front rotors. OEM pads lasted more than rotors! Rotors suffered rust damage. But other than that so far no issues. Brother’s Accord with less miles needed trunk torsion rods, buddy’s Accord had issues with front seat, brakes.
Remembering old Ford, I remember it needed every part that could be replaced in the car. Every pump, every hydraulic piston, etc.
@ 30-mile, slips you an internet beverage of your choice
It’s 2017. Not having Sat radio on anything but an econobox base model is inexcusable.
This is one of those cars that is really color-dependent…black with black cloth looks nice, white with tan cloth just screams Enterprise Rent A Car.
I got 3 months of Sirius XM free in my ’17 VW and it was fine, but not worth spending money on every month. The trial expired in August and even now I get calls from Sirius XM almost daily, trying to get me to sign up. They even went so far as to stop calling from their 800# and allegedly calling from a local cell ph#. NO WAY on earth I’d ever give them a cent. If they can’t take no for an answer now, imagine trying to get them to cancel service once they have my AMEX number.
Amen. Didn’t renew after trial on either of my cars. So many mail pieces, phone calls, post cards etc…. The net is I don’t need to spend for another streaming service if I have spotify and podcasts anyway (where I control the content – and if I really want a good radio station there’s Iheartradio for free as well).
Also cancelling was a nightmare when I used to have it. Multiple phone calls after they didn’t actually cancel on my first request. Not worth it plus bad service equals no sale.
CincyDavid, I get Sirius XM for less than half price by signing up for 5 month for about $30 promotional deals and calling to cancel a day or two before it’s scheduled to go to full price. Every time I call to cancel, they offer to extend the promotion. Last time the bored call center employee followed the entire customer retention script in the deadpan to teen angst style of Popular by Nada Surf.
I’ve been a S-XM fan for 12 years – can’t imagine life without it. My kid and I can share stations on our daily commute. I HATE commercials and thus commercial radio. My old radio favorites, mostly college stations, are long gone. XMU and Alt fill that need. Morning Zoo chatter drives me nuts although we both loves Streets v. Nicole on Hits 1 on Fridays.
The key to S-XM is it only runs me around $9 a month when you get done negotiating with them.
You can also pay by check.
The last-gen looked great (before the plastichrome strip revision on the grille). It was actually something that I wouldn’t mind owning.
To me, this is regression, just like Mercedes-Benz and their 2010-era cars, which to me were a high point in their design. Still traditional with subtle modern touches. Now they all look like Hyundai/Kia prototypes with a Sprinter grille plastered on.
My thoughts exactly, in regards to both your Accord assessment and the Mercedes. Clean, uncluttered, handsome styling replaced with flame surfacing, fussy, melty nonsense.
Have they discovered rear disc brakes yet or is it still 1997 in Honda land?
I seem to recall Honda wanting to build “fun cars”, to get “back to their roots”, copying the Dodge Chargers styling is a really weird way of doing that.
Between the feature creep in this awfully well equipped base model and Honda’s discontinuation of their six compelling reasons to consider a higher trim, how do they intend to get more than $23,000 for an Accord?
This does to the rest of the Accord lineup what the Accord had already done to the TL.
I had high hopes for the 2018 Accord but I don’t think it’s for me.
I’m looking for a comfortable midsize sedan with three features: heated front seats, android auto and advanced safety features. The Accord LX has the latter but not the heated front seats and android auto – I’ll need to purchase the EX for those features. But for substantially less money I could get the Hyundai Sonata SEL with the Tech package. I’d love to buy the Accord but is it really worth it over the Sonata? I’ll have to do more investigating but right now I’m leaning towards the Sonata.
“Black cloth is far superior.”
The black cloth interior is the only aspect of my 2014 Accord EX that I can’t stand. Unlike beige, it shows everything and never looks clean.
Not to mention living on the gulf coast with a black interior.