There’s no danger of discontinuation, but customers aren’t beating a path to the Honda Accord’s door in the kind of numbers the automaker hoped for. Sales of the revamped-for-2018 midsize sedan fell 9.9 percent in the U.S. last month, with volume over the first three months of 2018 down 11.8 percent. That’s a problem.
What to do? If you’re Honda, the time-honored tradition of piling cash on the hood doesn’t seem all that attractive. Better to make those in the mood for a lease happy.
According to CarsDirect, the month of April brings a better deal for drivers who like getting into a new car every three years. By lowering the model’s money factor and slashing due-at-signing payments, Honda allows Accord aficionados to drive the sedan of their dreams for considerably less cash.
Starting on April 3rd, Honda rejigged the car’s money factor to the equivalent of 3 percent APR, down from March’s 5.5 percent, thus lowering monthly payments. That means a 2018 Accord LX, equipped with the 1.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder, now leases for $249 a month for 36 months with $800 less due at signing. This works out to $22 less a month over the term of the lease.
Move up to a 1.5T EX and the amount due at signing drops $1,100. That trim now leases for $289 over a 36-month term, saving a customer $31 each month. The 2.0T Sport model sees a reduction in both payment and down payment, however — Honda lists the monthly payment at $10 less than before, with cash due at signing falling $900. While a better deal for lessees, there’s lower payments to be found with many of the Accord’s competitors, including the Toyota Camry, Mazda 6, and Ford Fusion.
It’s not just lessees getting a break in April. A new financing promotion means all Accord models are eligible for 1.9 percent APR for 36 months, or 2.9 percent if you want to stretch it to 60 months.
On a year-over-year basis, Accord sales have fallen for the last five months. In comparison, the Accord’s main challenger, the Camry, has done a good job of maintaining sales volume in the face of an overall segment decline. You can’t, however, get a Camry with a stick shift.
[Images: Honda]
This makes me sad, because I think it’s the best looking Accord in years…much better looking than the 2013 Accord my parents own. If you forced me at gunpoint to buy a new vehicle today, this would be the one.
I say, it is worst looking
Worst looking front end, for sure. The rest of the new Accord looks terrific to me.
But as we all know, looks don’t necessarily move cars in this class.
(Somewhere at Mazda headquarters, someone’s nodding in agreement.)
I haven’t wanted to be that guy, because the love has been strong for this Accord on TTAC, but I am also of the opinion that this is the worst looking accord, front AND end. That said, it does not mean i want it to fail.
Did you take off your glasses again …. go take a look at the grill on the Camry and tell me it looks great :=)
Most agree the Accord is good looking. Most agree the Accord is easily best in class.
>>On a year-over-year basis, Accord sales have fallen for the last five months. In comparison, the Accord’s main challenger, the Camry, has done a good job of maintaining sales volume in the face of an overall segment decline. You can’t, however, get a Camry with a stick shift.<<
Omit the fact the the Camry has been on fire sale – the Camry is a fleet driven model that is heavily discounted and that's the only reason for its big sales – virtually every year the Accord outsells the Camry to individual buyers.
That’s
Clearly
Nuts.
2013 Accord is the best looking accord in 20 years.
The 2018 the Fugliest.
redapple – exactly. + if you replace rear lights on ’13 with ones from ’17, it will be even better
I’m a ’15 Accord Sport owner and like my car. I admit I was initially critical of the styling of the new one. I felt it looked too much like a Malibu, which was disappointing considering how bold and interesting the new Civic is.
But upon seeing it live, I’ve changed my mind. I think it’s a very attractive design, particularly from the rear. The mainstream magazines who reviewed it did it no photographic favours. If my ’15 wasn’t being so good to me I’d buy a 2.0t with a 6-speed in a second, if i could get over my irrational attraction to the Civic Type-R.
Agreed on this one – in person they are much better looking, and the 2.0T with a 6 speed is an amazing combination.
Agreed on this one – in person they are much better looking, and the 2.0T with a 6 speed is an amazing combination.
Agreed on this one – in person they are much better looking, and the 2.0T with a 6 speed is an amazing combination.
dat chrome unibrow is keeping em away. But other than that it’s a great looking car. Esp the profile.
As I recall, Honda doesn’t typically start the real giveaway leases until late in the year.
“As I recall, Honda doesn’t typically start the real giveaway leases until late in the year.”
Unless their brand spankin’ new Accord is losing horribly to the Camry.
Which is what drove this behavior.
not giveaway – the Camry leases are giveaway
Honda dealers won’t deal …….Toyota dealers will
That one reason Honda sales are down
Best Toyota dealer for deals?
Vescovo Toyota in Las Cruces, NM.
Know several people who are repeat customers. They keep coming back because of the fair prices and excellent service.
Many buyers travel from out of state because of the selection and pricing on the website.
Another good Toyota Dealer- McCord’s Vancouver Toyota in Vancouver, Wa (just across the river from Portland). Prices about equal to NM dealer, great Service Dept. Bought two cars and a truck from them, every deal was done in under and hour from start to finish.
I think cost is a big factor, as is the fact that the new Camry looks really good too. It doesn’t drive as well, but the average consumer cares more about cost and style than that, so it’ll be tough for Honda to beat Toyota unless it plays the same game.
It’s huge, it’s expensive. My minivan lease is less than this thing, and for a whole lot more vehicle. And they wonder why they can’t sell them. You want to sell these things, knock 10 grand off price. No one wants to pay SUV prices for a car, which is why they take one look at that thing and buy an SUV instead.
Agree on the huge part. When my wife was looking for a new car we looked at the Accord Coupe – it was massive. The specs say its the same size as the Q60 we got, but it sure felt like way bigger. Strange but if your not feeling it then it ain’t happening. Part of it might have been the dash, as Honda’s have become button filled messes of late. Back in the 80s/90s Honda’s had some of the best dash layouts in the industry, simple and efficient with logic and purpose.
“It’s huge, it’s expensive. My minivan lease is less than this thing”
Your Dodge minivan lease is less than a Honda push mower lease…
And here we see the ultimate effect of the SUV craze.
The normal size is now the truck. The Car is small.
The size embargo has finally failed.
I took a 2.0T one out for a test drive, seems a nice car but there was little to elevate it ‘above the herd’. I don’t object to turbo’s in the slightest but I do have an issue with direct only injection. If it was a combined direct & port injection system then the fears of carbon build-up would be allayed.
Caddy is making the same design error with the new turbo V8 that everyone is drooling over. So far it’s mostly been glossed over, but it’ll be an expensive maintenance timebomb for second or third owners.
Bazza, GM has been doing DI since 2006 Ecotec days and with over a decade behind them do not have a chronic carbon build up problem.
Carbon deposits, while most cars with DI can carbon up, was mostly a VAG issue.
Honda doesn’t have that problem w/ direct injection
I though that the horrible, oil diluting 1.5l engine was only offered in the CR-V and Civic. They stuck it in the Accord now. I guess they must have an excess since China put a production hold for Honda.
People avoiding this car are unknowingly doing themselves a huge favor.
Do you have a link to CR-V or Civic with oil in thr gas?
Here is the link the recall in China.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-autos-honda/japans-honda-to-recall-350000-cars-in-china-over-engine-issue-idUSKBN1FW124
First off, I own a ’14 Accord, easily the best car I’ve owned. Why I don’t like the new Accord. The front is awful. (Deal breaker bad) Side is boring and the back reminds me of a Civic. I’d rather have the proven 2.4 engine, who knows how the turbo’s will hold up. What is the point go the turbo’s? The mpg’s really isn’t any better from what I can tell. That’s why I’m not on my way to get one. Also, just give me the cash, not everyone wants a lease. What ever $$$ you subsidize the lease with, take it off the cash price. Drop the manual and I will never buy another Accord.
With manual transmissions dropping like Flys you may find yourself driving a golf cart before you know it.
So I bought a ’17 Ford Fusion 2.0 Ecoboost SE last year and I don’t regret it. Yeah, I’m a bit of a Ford guy but I would not hesitate to buy an Accord. However, I’m frugal and since I plan to keep this car a while I’m not worried about resale value. No way I could get a comparable Accord for what I paid.
Now, having said that, if I were going to lease a vehicle (never have) it would have been the Accord all the way. Not a huge fan of the rear end, though. I do think they look better in person.
No matter 1.5t or 2.0T thr Accord is $5,000-6,000 more than a Malibu equivalent. In 3 or 5 years they will be for sale for the same price.
Wise choice!
the Malibu is rental car – like all Buicks
I am totally a “Ford Guy”, but last August I leased a 2017 Accord-$0 down, $219/mo. Would have much rather had a Fusion, but with that Honda deal, I couldn’t resist. Best Ford deal at the time was $239/mo with $2k down, plus license fees.
I don’t agree about not caring about resale value. If you got into a car accident, even if your the best driver and it’s not your fault, you could lose big if you didn’t have gap coverage. You’d be screwed.
This is what happens when you replace your naturally aspirated engines with turbos.
This is what happens when you replace your V-6 with me too turbo fours.
This is what happens when you replace your normal transmission with CVTs.
This is what happens when you base your flagship on Civic.
To me, these reasons are valid, but enthusiast fodder only. Nearly every Accord sold is to a mainstream customer and they don’t seem opposed to CVTs, turbos, or basing a midsizer on a compact. If they are like my inlaw, they don’t even know what any of this means–they see the H badge, they trust the H badge, it drives well enough, the seats are comfortable, and the big multicolor infotainment screen reminds them of their smartphone and makes it feel very trendy and modern.
The Civic and CR-V are selling well with turbo + CVT. If the Accord isn’t, it’s most likely due to our regret du jour: crossover dominance. That the Camry has a similar quality and resale reputation while selling for less probably isn’t helping either.
This is what happens when your main competitor is a MAJOR fleet queen with giveaway pricing for the general public.
It’s also what happens when hyperbolic car magazine reviews important to a sliver of the customer base blind you into thinking you can price it like something special in the face of changing market tastes.
Many commenters and articles told me the last CVT Accord was really awesome compared to the last Camry, and when it came time to actually decide between the two with our money…it wasn’t.
The press was also quite impressed with the new Camry, as I recall.
The Accord is great but the lease sucks. The Sonata was leasing for $165/month, zero down until a few weeks ago. The RDX was leasing for $318/month with zero down as well.
Honda overplayed the hype they likely paid for, but the demand for a great sedan isn’t so great when the lease isn’t competitively priced.
Hyundai leases are getting silly cheap – I saw an Elantra Sport for like $275/mo, sign and drive. Now, that assumes you qualify for all the incentives.
Toyota is giving away the Camry – it’s a fleet driven model
Ugly SOB and Honda seats just don’t work for me. One of the kids is driving the ’14 Accord LX, and nobody fought her for it, it’s bad sign when people in the household would rather drive an ’06 Kia Sportage with 170xxx miles than a ’14 Accord in a better color with 50xxx miles.
Well this settles it. An old garbage Kia is the reason Honda has trouble selling new Accords.
The Camry is being sold with massive discounts. And that’s the only way the Accord will sell. Without massive discounts on the Accord, people will upsell themselves to CR-Vs. A small adjustment to uncompetitive lease terms isn’t going to do it.
Non-luxury brand sedans are now perceived as cheap vehicles, and they only sell when cheap.
…and they were doing total giveaway leases on Accords for the last couple of years of the old body style, so the new model probably amounted to something of a sticker shock, even though it’s not all that different price-wise.
Honda probably thought the new model would sell at less of a discount, but they were wrong.
Newly launched sedans (aside from certain luxury models) no longer sell at a premium.
Toyota has long learned that lesson, but for some reason, Honda still hasn’t.
I also get the impression that Honda was willing, to a point to allow sales to slip if they could get better margins while Toyota piles on the cash and dumps the new Camry into fleets from the start to maintain their precious #1 slot, 1990s Taurus-style.
The bigger issue is that dealers saw it differently. Fewer zero-profit Accord LX sales means fewer trade ins and fewer warranty upsells. The all b!tched until Honda finally threw some incentives at them.
I think all the talk about the new Accord being a failure because of the styling, or the turbos, or whatever, is more than a bit premature.
I know why they don’t sell it. People come to the dealer, see it and say, I can’t buy a car with unfinished front. And look at that hideous gear shifter. What, 1.5L? Honey, lets go see Camry
And then honey gets to see a Camry with an ugly front end, stupid boy-racer styling touches, and tons of cheap-feeling details.
I’ll say this for the Accord: it doesn’t feel one bit cheap.
^^That comment. Making a bold fashion statement isn’t why most people buy a mainstream mid-sized sedan, especially a Honda Accord (or Camry).
Reliability, utility, value for money.
beyond the front, that c-pillar daylight opening mascara-effect bugs me to no end
And then they go buy an SUV somewhere because honey wants to feel big and tall in traffic, and because they have a couple of jerky kids, and because nobody wants to be seen in the pickup lane at school in a minivan.
A few weeks of the fake media’s tools and perceptions can change very quickly. This is the power of things like Facebook.
It’s the power of consumerism, really, 28. Facebook’s just one influencer. My old man was in the womens’ fashion business for a long, long time. Believe me, fortunes have been made and lost on betting on the next trend, and no one had a good handle on why.
At one point, station wagons with wood sides were fashionable. And who knows…maybe they will be again. But for now, it’s crossovers and SUVs.
Personally, I’m hoping for a comeback in the Duke Of New York ‘Hood Cruiser segment.
LOL slavuta & Mike, you’re simultaneously both right and both up in the night. Neither car is attractive–that’ll be up to personal taste (or gag reflex suppression). I don’t think “honey” knows what engine displacement is, and she’s more likely to be motivated by subjective personal preference of dash layout and interface than whatever molehill material quality differences we make into mountains here. Both cars feel more expensive inside than their predecessors.
Toyota needs to work on its door slam, though. It’s bad, has been for awhile, and it leaves an impression. And customers are more likely to notice it.
I actually like the general shape and styling direction of both cars, but both are let down badly by the details. On the Accord, it’s the front end, which looks like some Dali-esque interpretation of an angry bull. The Camry’s front end looks a bit better, but the “boy racer” stuff, like the fake air ducts and black-painted fake floating roof, are just ridiculous. Who are they trying to fool?
(Side note: at the Denver auto show last week, Toyota showed a lowered Camry in matte-finish gray with black-out wheels and low profile tires. At least they haven’t lost their sense of humor.)
Either way, the Accord definitely looks and feels like FAR higher quality goods than the Camry. It ain’t even close.
I’ve sat in both. I’m not seeing the delta you are. Repeated use of caps isn’t going to change that. But we’re both suffering from confirmation bias.
Mazda6 is the answer to the styling and interior issue, though.
Meh, I really don’t have a dog in that fight – I’m not a Toyota guy or a Honda guy. But I bet you that if you market tested a group of 100 people who didn’t know one car from the other, and covered up the badges on both cars, the majority would say the Accord’s the more expensive vehicle. In terms of things like panel gaps, feel of the switchgear, door slams, and so on, it feels FAR nicer than the Camry.
I’d bet you lunch on that one.The XSE/XLE Camry trims are right up there with lower Lexus levels. But anyone who thinks Camry’s are cheap hasn’t priced a high-end Camry. $40K is an easy number to hit.
I think the confirmation bias is there. You’ve been FAR too interested in commenting on fleet sales and your low opinion of the Camry for it not to be. As a Toyota partisan (go team!) I know I have my biases.
It’s not that I think you’re wrong, I just don’t agree the differences are as big as you claim.
30-mile, whatever bias you think I may have had coming in wasn’t helped by this: when the new Camry first came out, I checked one out, and the first time I closed the back door, it sounded hollow, and there was a sympathetic rattle from the trunk and back bumper. Panel gaps looked huge. When I touched those silly looking fake ducts on the back bumper, they rattled around.
Now, am I a Toyota fan? No. But I’m by no means a Toyota hater. And I’m definitely one to give credit where it’s due. For the record, I found the old model to be terrific when it came to that kind of stuff, and I’ve said so repeatedly. The old Camry was boring as hell, but it was clearly built from stern stuff, which I appreciated.
But I just wasn’t impressed by the new Camry’s build quality. I was impressed by the Accord’s.
I call ’em like I see ’em. Maybe I’ll drive it and fall in love with it, and overlook that stuff (hell, I drive a Jetta, so clearly I’m willing to overlook all kinds of stuff if a car drives sweetly).
That’s certainly fair, Mike, I’m trying to be more of a devil’s advocate/contrarian than a pest or combatant.
First impressions are hard to dispel and a wobbly fake vent (why are they even there?) and door rattle would stick with me as well. It’s why I still really like the Mk6 Jetta–the KERCHUNK of the doors is one of the very first things you notice. I’m also so critical of the outgoing Accord’s interior because the thin, bendable door cards and misaligned glovebox door were one of the first things I noticed climbing into that car. I love the Mazda6 because of the way the seats immediately felt when dropping into them, despite the MMI controller literally detaching and falling into the depth of the center console as the salesman dusted the interior down prior to starting the test drive. If the order of those two things had been reversed, who knows how I’d feel about the Mazda :)
I don’t know what you see. But with Accord exterior I see this – Hyundai circa 10 years back. I like previous generation body. In the rear it looked German to me, solid. The new one, inside, took after Mazda. Yea, are all steering wheels supplied by same company now? Definitely not fan of these split lights in the back. Front is ugly. Side – Chevy Malibu exact. Inside – Mazda… whats good? Bunch of turbo hell?
Reviews used to say for 2017, oh, it drives like mazda almost… No, not close. So may be I need to try it and see how it really drives before arguing here.
No one seems to care that the new 2006 Sonata looked just like a 2003-2005 Accord. Maybe you were too young to drive back then, but it forced Honda to update the 2006-2007 Accord.
Hyundai cannot do anything bad, Hyundai is so great everyone copies them. I get it dude.
I’m pretty sure none of these things matter to shoppers, because:
– Last year’s Accord had the same stupid chrome bar, which looked even more out of place on old body style. Civic has it too and sells like crazy. And all that black paint is the latest me-too trend in the industry…most competitors have front end affectations that are at least as cheesy.
– The 1.5L doesn’t seem to have impacted sales of the heavier CR-V one bit.
– The push button gear shifter doesn’t even come with the 1.5L.
“On a year-over-year basis, Accord sales have fallen for the last five months. In comparison, the Accord’s main challenger, the Camry, has done a good job of maintaining sales volume in the face of an overall segment decline. You can’t, however, get a Camry with a stick shift.”
Let’s rephrase that a bit, shall we. The Camry hasn’t “maintained” sales volumes, they’ve increased sales. The only Manufacturer, other than Buick, to do so in this segment. (At Buick’s numbers, even a miniscule increase would show good on paper). Right now, the Altima outsells the Accord. let that sink in for a moment. Decade old design, and not a necessarily brilliant one at that. The Camry outsells the Accord by a margin of about 1.5 to 1.
What went wrong?
1. Camry doesn’t offer a stick shift. Let’s clear the air on this right out of the gate- NO ONE CARES.
2. The Accord no longer offers a V6. A helluva lot more people care about this than the 50 people who bought Accord sticks last year.
3. The Accord looks like a Civic. It drives like a Civic. Honda customer’s solution? Save the cash, and actually buy the Civic.
4. Turbo. Many mainstream customers think “Turbo” is a German word that translates into “expensive to repair when the warranty runs out.”
#2 right on money.
#4 possible but doesn’t explain why turbo civics flying off the lots.
How many people really buy V6 midsize sedans though? When was the last time you saw a V6 Altima or Camry, for example?
I’d be willing to wager that Honda ends up selling more 2.0Ts than they did V6s.
I see these v6 CamCordIssans daily. But I also live in the area where Mazda3 is proliferating and Mazda6 that barely sold in general, is seen a lot too.
#2 right on money.
#4 possible but doesn’t explain why turbo civics flying off the lots.
Just a guess here. Folks who aren’t put off by the turbo and/or CVT buy the Civic… everyone else run’s to the Toyota showroom.
I consider Mazda sedans superior to Honda and Toyota
Maybe styling wise, but until I start seeing Mazda’s show up with 300,000-500,000 miles we cannot agree. I can go on cars.com and find plenty of Honda/Toyota specimen with high miles. I usually only see Mazda guys bragging of 195k miles. Big deal!
Accord was interesting as long as it had a coupe. Not anymore…
Who cares about stick shift on Accord or Camry? I would rather not have one. Mazda3, Focus or Civic might be a different story.
I think the main point people are missing here is Civic sales are gobbling up Accord sales. Honda made the Civic too nice, too big, too roomy inside, too well made, too many features, too refined, too quiet, the cargo hold is bigger than the Accord if you get the hatch model.
There isn’t a good reason to move up to an Accord for a lot of people, especially if there is a hefty price premium and/or the lease rates suck. The new Civic is the better value IMO, its about 90-95% of the Accord experience for about $4000-5000 less comparably equipped.
I’ve sat in the new Accord, and compared to the Civic, there is a clear distinction, as there always has been. The interior blows my 2013’s away as well.
But it’s the rest of the car that misses the mark.
As I’ve said ad nauseum, I’ll likely end up with a 2019 Accord Touring, just because after 25 years of nothing but Hondas, I’m just too change-averse to signing the paper for an unknown quantity; I’m familiar, as an enthusiast, with the “quirks” of the brand. But I’m still going to drop a few hundred dollars for a Honda accessory grille which cuts down on the “unibrow” look, as well as hope that Honda does an expedited nip/tuck on some of the other styling aspects of the vehicle.
The problem with Civic is that it’s a two person car. The rear seat works only for children, or a dog.
Is the back seat of the current one smaller than the ones made from 2006-2016? Those had more useful backseats in sedan trim than many mid-sized cars. I’ve happily ridden in the back seats of a 2007 and a 2012 4-door Civic, and I’m over 6’2″ and two hundred pounds.
I leased a 2014 accord sport for 36 month, then, after 26 month only, the dealer offered me a 2016 model for $50 dollar less per month with no money down so I took it.
Now, I am 10 month before the end of the 2016 lease, the dealer told me that the new Accord is way too expensive to offer any deal on.
Both cars have small problems that will never make me consider buying one, one is the audio system, 2 screens that sometimes go blank for a good 5 min, another is the CVT, as I always start my drive in reverse out of the garage, every few days, the car will move so slow as if the CVT is slipping, it will go away after a mile or 2 but it’s a problem they never fixed and very difficult to replicate at the dealer.
I think Toyota is doing a better job using only proven technology, the problem with the Camry is that it reminds you of a yellow cab or a rental car.
no-no. You already paid money down, then 10 months before end, you took on another lease for another 3 years on a model that being cleared wit great discounts. So, you’re doing ok but not free
When comparing car sales, there should be 2 categories, business fleet sales and consumer public sales. For example, Hyundai has been actively exiting fleet sales, while other manufacturers have not. When you compare all sales without separating them, it is an unfair apples and oranges comparison. How much bloated inventory would those fleet sales manufacturer have if the fleet sales diminished?
Honestly we should just look at a models profitability. Who cares who is buying them if they are turning a profit for the sale. Yes, fleet queens would hurt resale, but that would be reflected in future profitability as this tends to drive transaction prices down.
I wonder if technology will ever allow us to meet pedestrian safety standards with a low hoodline.
The Civic is too close in size and performance now. Most people likely can’t tell one form the other.
Too long, too low, too ugly. Honda also cheapened out on the lower front grille so not only do you get to look at the A/C condenser in all its silvery glory but you will get to replace it frequently to keep it new looking every time it gets punctured by road debris.
The front end, it has a unibrow styling that isn’t growing on me, it’s irritating me more every time I see a current Honda. Yet, I don’t think the offensive styling is driving people away, it’s the fact that the small turbo engine will be stressed and less reliable without providing any better mileage under acceleration than the engines they replace. A standard engine without a turbo might be an option of the CAFE requirements are relaxed.