Honda Accord vs. Honda Accord Comparo

"Brewman15" (brewman15)
10/04/2013 at 12:05 • Filed to: Honda Accord Comparison

This should fit nicely into FWD Friday.

As I have mentioned !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! before, I am in the unique situation of owning two identical Accords. My wife and I both drive black, manual Honda Accords. However, the only thing that really makes them identical is their name. They are separated by 19 years, 4 generations, 270,000 miles, 2 doors, an EPA size class, an extra gear, .2L of displacement, and an italicized i in front of the acronym VTEC.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

So, I thought it would be fun to compare the two head-to-head and see how much one of the best selling cars has changed in 19 years. I figure it would be best to split it up into different segments for engine, exterior, interior, suspension, drivetrain, features and amenities, and miscealleous

First up today: Engine! Both cars come with a 4-cylinder transverse mounted gas engine. However, that is about where the similarities end. My '94 Accord features Honda's old-school F-series engine, where as my wife's '13 Accord Sport features Honda's latest and greatest K-series engine,which debuted in 2001 but adds direct-injection, higher compression ratio, and integrated exhaust manifolds for 2013. The sport model also receives an additional 5 hp and 1 ft-lb or torque over other new Accords thanks to a free-flowing exhaust and tweaked ECU.

The Numbers

Below shows the specs for both engines, the difference between them, and the percent increase or decrease of each spec from the '94 Accord to the '13 Accord.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

I must admit when I was crunching numbers in my head I was thinking how little progress our new Accord has made on the tried-and-true EX coupe. In my mind I was thinking, "It only has 44 extra horsepower but it needs .2L of displacement to get it" and, "sure it has more power, but I know the power-to-weight ratio must be worse than my lightweight coupe."

However, once I got the numbers down on paper, I was surprised. Even though it is 'only' 44 horsepower, it still is a 30% jump in power with only a 9% jump in displacement. I was also shocked the difference in weight, despite all the extra safety requirements, 2 extra doors and EPA size class, is only one corn-fed Indiana farm boy.

Driving Impressions

I have owned my '94 Acccord for 10 years, and my brother used it to teach me to drive stick when he owned it before me. So, clearly I am very attached to my little ol' Accord and, therefore, biased. The engine in the car is great. Yes, it is underpowered, but that is part of what makes it fun. It is such an easy car to drive. You can just throw it in a taller gear while in traffic, and it is happy to just lug around. Then, once you get it above about 3500 RPM it wakes up and will gladly rev to redline all day. I know it is such a cliche, but you can feel the VTEC engage. It is not a throw you in the back of the seat feeling like Honda fan boys claim, but rather once it engages the revs build so much quicker. Despite having 280,000 miles on the clock, it has been absolutely reliable and has exceeded it's EPA highway estimate for the last 40,000 miles of mixed driving. It is not the best car I have ever driven, but it is one of my favorite cars to drive. Well, at least it was...

Yes, I will admit the new Accord Sport is much better to drive than my Accord classic. I never drove the 6th, 7th, or 8th generation Accords. So I cannot speak on the blandness of them or how Honda infamously lost it's roots as the most fun family oriented reasonably priced cars on the road. I jumped straight from my 5th gen into the 9th gen, and everything I love about my 5th gen is turned up to 11 on the 9th gen. There is an uncharacteristic amount of torque available at all points in the rev band, and it will very surprisingly chirp the tires going into 2nd gear. The direct-injection gives amazing throttle response. However, my only real complaint with it is there is a slight clatter from the engine when it's being lugged at low RPM much like a diesel engine. As easy as the coupe is to drive, the Sport blows it away with the added bonus of the best snick-snick manual transmission I have ever driven (more on that later). The only thing I have been moderately disappointed in is the fuel economy. The 30.5 mpg my wife and I have averaged is by no means bad, but with the addition of direct-injection, a 6th gear, i-VTEC, friction reduction, higher compression ratio, and extremely low oil viscosity (0W-20) I expected it to be much better than the 19 year old car with 280,000 miles.

Well that's it for this section. I'm not going to tell which I would buy or which I like better because, well, I already bought both of them and love both of them. As an engineer, it's just fun for me to see how much cars have changed in a mere 20 years.

Sources:

DISCUSSION (61)

MonkeePuzzle > Brewman15
10/04/2013 at 12:11

F, not B-series in the 94 accord, I think. But the accord SOHC F, not the s2000's DOHC screamer F

FYI, I'd take the rusty '94 over that new boat in a heartbeat!

MonkeePuzzle > Brewman15
10/04/2013 at 12:18

you mentioned power to weight, but I didn't see it in your comparison, looks like

'94 is 96hp per ton

'13 is 116hp per ton

but I think the 0-60 times are probably the most telling, acceleration, not top speed, it really where you feel power in a daily commute.

Brewman15 > MonkeePuzzle
10/04/2013 at 12:22

Damn, you're right. Fixed!

I had it right in the chart but typed it wrong in the article.

Brewman15 > MonkeePuzzle
10/04/2013 at 12:24

I did pounds/hp instead of hp/ton. Slightly different way but same results.

I think you're right. The funny part is both cars sit around 3,000 RPM at 75 mph despite the extra gear in the new Accord. So, along with the bump in power the gearing seems to be much shorter to aid acceleration.

wbizarre - OEM fetishist > Brewman15
10/06/2013 at 17:28

"Engine Name - 'Engine'." This is fantastic.

alexdc > Brewman15
10/06/2013 at 18:20

These old Accords are shit. My mom had one with a h22a1 swap in it (with lowering springs... probably stock dampers though) and I drove a v6 recently. Floaty ride, the steering wheel needs a lot of angle for the car to actually turn. The seats are not comfy, you sit too high and the dash is too low. It definately feels american and not in a good way. The new Accord is an attractive car. I like it.

hotrodminivan > Brewman15
10/06/2013 at 19:11

Kinja'd!!!

I too have a 5th gen Accord (also black, EX, 5MT, 1997 sedan though). The 6th/7th/8th generations tried to be a Camry, but the 9th gen is the first Accord that interests me in a while. There's a lot of what was good about the 5th gen in the new one (minus the lack of double wishbones up front). I'd consider a '13 Sport 6MT but the limited paint colors and lack of a sunroof are a deal breakers.

Another similarity between the two generations is that for the first time since the 5th gen, the Japanese Accord and USA Accord share the same body. The previous two JDM Accords were sold as the TSX here, while we got a bigger and blander Accord. (Sometimes sold as the Honda Inspire in Japan)

fintail > Brewman15
10/06/2013 at 19:51

Those 5th (and 4th) generation Accords were so nicely styled, they still look decent today too - to go with their durability if maintained. Bonus points for a wagon.

Spasoje > Brewman15
10/06/2013 at 19:58

Nice post! How did you make that chart, BTW?

mnmrosen > Brewman15
10/06/2013 at 20:45

It's too bad that over 19 years of development your new Accord is only getting 1.5 mpg (observed) more than the old one. Unfortunately, the past 19 years has seen manufacturers in a race for more engine efficiency and more technology, but little of it has been devoted to fuel economy.

Brewman15 > wbizarre - OEM fetishist
10/06/2013 at 20:49

Glad you caught it. It was just my little subtle way of making fun of all the pointless names manufacturers give engines now like Earthdreams, Skyaktiv, etc..

Brewman15 > Spasoje
10/06/2013 at 20:50

Thanks! I made the chart in Excel then copied and pasted it over to Kinja. I was surprised how well it transferred. I didn't have to reformat anything.

Brewman15 > fintail
10/06/2013 at 20:54

I agree. I am biased, but I love my generation of Accord. The new Accord sedan looks great, but I think the 5th gen coupe is the best looking to date.

fintail > Brewman15
10/06/2013 at 20:56

Definitely the best since the 5th gen - the new Accord is one of the few new mainstream cars I'd consider. Loads of content and it looks more expensive than it is.

I have to admit I like the NSX rear end on the 98-02 coupe, too.

Brewman15 > hotrodminivan
10/06/2013 at 20:58

Yeah, we were disappointed of only being able to get silver or black with the 6-speed in the Accord Sport. My wife's previous Civic had a moonroof, so it was a step backwards with the Sport. However, a manual took precedence so we were willing to settle on the color and lack of moonroof.

Spasoje > Brewman15
10/06/2013 at 21:10

I'm surprised as well! Ah, all the things Excel can do hehe

Not too surprised to hear that you used it though, given you're a fellow business student. :P

Sky Captain Obvious > Brewman15
10/06/2013 at 21:32

I nominate changing FWD Friday to TGIFWD

That is all.

Tatanko > Brewman15
10/06/2013 at 21:38

Driving a new 6-6 would blow your mind.

colorfulyawn > Brewman15
10/06/2013 at 21:46

Fourth-, fifth- and sixth -generation Accords are some of my favorite cars on earth. They just do what they're intended to do so well, and they really are engaging to drive.

sadfasdf > mnmrosen
10/06/2013 at 22:47

A lot of that fuel economy has been traded for carrying our big fat asses in rolling living rooms; and some additional crash structures, as well.

designlife > Brewman15
10/06/2013 at 22:53

sorry for the amount of money for that accord you can buy an old 2000 540 bmw for 5000 and have a nice pretty reliable car thats a bad ass and fits your family

rabidcontent > fintail
10/07/2013 at 01:13

My favorite classic style was the 4th Gen. As with most late 80's/early 90's Hondas (and Toyota's for that matter) it's almost as if the design engineers new something everyone else didn't. Very few american cars can say that, and only a handful of euro's (can we say yummy beemer's and golfs?). My family friend mechanic had a nice white '90 Accord with some manner of alternate motor tucked in there that he let me use when my truck was being worked on, I'm not hip to all the engine codes but it was one of the better ones. That was honestly one of the most fun I've had in a car since. It was loud, and brutally fast (at that time) for something with an I-4. I swear I remember him saying something like B16 something or other...I wish I could go back in time and buy that car when I had the chance (he sold it manyyy moons ago)!

Shiftright > fintail
10/07/2013 at 02:44

I agree, one of the nicest, more interesting accords, right up there with the '86-'89 w the pop up headlights. Because pop up headlights on a sedan is awesome.

BlackLab > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 02:59

No wonder Honda is slumping. Before the DI stuff they basically were putting the same stuff in cars for 20 years. I used to own a '96 Civic. Not a bad car - but not that great if you think about it. If I had to do it over again I would have bought a used Mustang.

Honda's are criminally overrated because of their snicky snick gear box - which are basically very awesome. But besides that they aren't sporty at all, IMHO.

Alex87f > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 04:20

I have a very hard time believing that 6.6sec 0-60 time for the newer version.

This is a better that than a Golf 6 GTI which is torquier, more powerful and lighter.

MrAaro > Alex87f
10/07/2013 at 05:08

I was also wondering about this—the number seems incredibly optimistic. But then again, I guess the lower gear ratios really make a big difference.

Alex87f > MrAaro
10/07/2013 at 06:23

Well I've done a bit of google-ing, and found a dyno video where this 2013 accord puts out 178hp at the wheels.

Using a 12% drivetrain loss, we end up with a bit more than 200 engine hp. So the engine seems quite a bit underrated.

That being said, even with 200hp I have trouble believing the 6.6s 0-60. I've found videos of 0-60 times for the CVT versions, which clocked @7.8 second at the speedo though the brochure says 7.8s for a "real" 0-60. So I still think this is a bit optimistic.

Lars Vargas was hoping 2020 would be quieter > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 07:34

Is the newer car not a good deal heavier than the older one? I'd be interested to see those numbers. And then look at them compared to the better gas mileage. I'd bet the newer car is at least 10% heavier than the older one, but still manages to get better mileage, and with a more powerful engine.

The Gray Adder > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 07:45

In fact, you could have gotten a new Civic instead, and the numbers would pretty much match up with the old '94 Accord, except that you'd now get 40 MPG highway and 145 HP or so from just 1.8 liters. The Civic now occupies the EPA size class vacated by the Accord, comfortably so, and there's your big fat improvement for you. You've seen the Civic, right? The hood is so short, you think the engine sits under the dashboard ( a large portion of the works do, in fact reside under there).

Tom McParland > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 07:57

Nice write up! I really think the new Accord Sport is the most under-appreciated car on the market. If you are regular family man, or woman, and need a reliable, comfortable, stylish and fun to drive sedan...it really doesn't get much better. Yes, there is the Mazda6 but Accord 4cyl 6MT should not smoke the Mazda to 60

Brewman15 > Alex87f
10/07/2013 at 08:07

I don't know. I pulled that time off the Car and Driver's long-term test write-up. I trust their opinion, so I feel it is pretty accurate. We are living in the time when minivans can run to 60mph in <8 secs so I can believe even a 4-cyl economy can do it under 7.

Brewman15 > Lars Vargas was hoping 2020 would be quieter
10/07/2013 at 08:16

It's up in the chart. The newer car is about 250 lbs heavier than the old one.

Brewman15 > colorfulyawn
10/07/2013 at 08:17

I agree and it is why it's so hard to get rid of my ol' 94 coupe. It's reliable and efficient while still being a very fun car to drive.

Brewman15 > The Gray Adder
10/07/2013 at 08:21

That is true. My wife's old '05 Civic coupe was basically the same size as my '94 Accord coupe, but the whole reason we got the Accord is because we needed the space for a car seat. If you don't have kids that probably sounds like a dumb reason, but new car seats are HUGE. I finally understand why all these bloated SUVs are running around...it's to fit a car seat or two.

Brewman15 > Tatanko
10/07/2013 at 08:22

I did. I didn't care for it.

Don't get me wrong, it is a fantastic car! It looks great and has a marvelous interior. However, we drove it immediately after driving the Accord Sport, and to me it seemed like the shifter was a lot clunkier and you real had to put your foot in the throttle to make it go compared to the buttery shifter and rev happy engine in the Accord.

Brewman15 > designlife
10/07/2013 at 08:32

Yes, that is very true. However, the problem with that is you're not only driving a 13-year-old car, but you're driving a 13 year-old BMW. I originally wanted to get my wife a mid 90s 5-series wagon and fix all the known issues. The problem is our other cars are already 20 (Volvo), 19 (Accord), and 15 (Dakota) years old. There's nothing wrong with them, but they just require more maintenance and attention than a new car, so adding another teenage car to the fleet would have just added to that.

The Accord Sport is the first new car I have ever owned. It is very nice to be able to jump into it and have everything just work and have peace of mind about it. Is that worth $20k? That is debatable, but for us right now it is.

Brewman15 > Tom McParland
10/07/2013 at 08:38

Absolutely! The only thing I wish is since black and silver are the only colors available on the Sport 6-speed that they were exclusive to the manual car. I've been seeing a lot more Sports on the road lately, but all of them have been with the CVT. It would just be fun to identify the manual Accords right off the bat while driving around.

Lars Vargas was hoping 2020 would be quieter > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 08:46

D'oh! I definitely missed that first time through. So 8.48% heavier and better mileage, that's pretty good.

My current car is roughly 13% heavier than the car it replaced (they're different models entirely, 8 model years apart). It's 50% more powerful, with a smaller engine (3.5 liter V6 vs 4.6 V8), has more room (large crossover vs large sedan), all wheel drive, etc. It also manages to get an average of 10% better mileage. Despite the bloat of newer cars, I'm always impressed with the mileage they get.

Can you imagine the newer engines in the older, smaller, lighter cars?

Tom McParland > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 09:05

Like I said in a post a long time ago...if they made a 6mt in white I would own one.

designlife > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 09:19

well if practicality and peace of mind is worth it for you, but for 20k id just buy a 85 911 and a 540. i guess its because i sold cars i cant grap the idea of buying a car every 3-4 years. but if you bought it to drive it till it dies then this cars is great.

islanderxj > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 09:21

A 94 Accord EX coupe was my car as well; though mine was the dark bluish green. Still looked new on the day I sold it... to buy a truck. Mine was an automatic though; had it been a stick I might have kept it.

MrAaro > Alex87f
10/07/2013 at 09:33

That is an impressive horsepower number on the dyno! But as for the 6.6s 0-60, I've heard that some manufacturers tend to give C&D "massaged" cars for tests, so it wouldn't surprise me if that Accord was pushing more than the regular numbers (which would explain that incredible time). And I'm with ya, mid-7 to 8 seconds seems much more realistic.

Beju > mnmrosen
10/07/2013 at 09:41

The 2014 Accord is quite a bit more powerful and larger than the 1994 model. In fact, given Honda's more optimistic pre-2006 horsepower measurements (and some claim the new Accord's horsepower is under rated), the power deficit is even larger than the numbers suggest. It may only get 1.5 mpg better in the real world, but that's in a car that weighs over 250 lbs more and runs the quarter mile 1.5 seconds faster, which is pretty significant.

In terms of horsepower, interior volume, and exterior size, the current Honda Civic is a closer match. In fact, from the figures I've found, the Civic has more back seat room than the 1994 Accord (FWIU, there's no standard way to do interior measurements, so take that with a grain of salt). The 2013 Civic is EPA rated at 28 city, 36 highway, so that's a substantial increase from the 1994 Accord's 22/28.

jsinger1085 > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 09:54

The Accord Sport was on my list, but I called at least 5 dealers in LI and Queens and NO ONE had a stick shift...Closest I could find was all the way out in West NJ by the Water Gap. I don't believe that 0-60 time, but then again keep in mind they probably ran the test to 60 umteem times to find the best # possible. If you keep wheelspin down to a minimum and keep in VTAKKKK through the range I can see a high 7's time. I think the 6 second 0-60 might be for the V6.

If not, im pretty impressed. A car that heavy with less than 200hp and torque usually does mid-high 7's to 60.

That and no sunroof option...wtf!

Doug Nash > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 10:30

Very cool writeup. But Honda's lack of meaningful engine development is shocking. You addressed the limited increase in power in almost 20-years, but then somewhat mitigated that with a certain rationale. However, as a stunning comparison, I would consider the Ford 5.0 V8.

In 1993, that push-rod V8 pumped out just a hair over 200hp. Compare that to the now modern 2013 5.0 V8, and it's thrashing out, what, more than 400hp?

Now, I realize there was always more upside to the 5.0, being that it was such a horrible dinosaur already, back in 1993. But damn, you'd think that Honda would have pushed the envelope just a little harder in TWENTY YEARS!!!

AAygen > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 10:31

Accord EX
Engine Name: Engine

Very interesting.

Tatanko > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 10:59

Well, I will give you that (due to the extra weight up front) it isn't quite as well balanced as the 4-cyl. models. I haven't driven a '13 (9th gen) yet myself, but I have a '10 Coupe 6-6 and it's wonderful, with none of the throttle response lagginess that you're describing. The shifter in the V6 models is indeed a bit clunkier, but it's still a huge upgrade from the 6-speed that was in my '03 Maxima!

DoubleClutchingAutomatic > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 11:35

I'd still go for the 5th gen, which is what I currently DD.

4X > MrAaro
10/07/2013 at 12:03

The 6.6 number is wrong. Every test I found tells - 7,6.

Brewman15 > Doug Nash
10/07/2013 at 12:42

True, but I think that is more a testament to how truly ancient the 5.0l V8 used to be.

Look at it this way...my '94 Accord produces 67.25 hp/liter whereas a '94 Mustang GT produces 215hp out of the old 5.0L, which is a mere 43 hp/liter...a difference of 24.25 hp/liter.

My '13 Accord Sport produces 80.22 hp/liter whereas a '13 Mustang GT produces 420 hp out of the new 5.0L (on premium gas), which is 84 hp/liter...a difference of 3.78 hp/liter in favor of the Mustang.

So, I don't think Honda has been slacking...I just think the rest of the industry has finally caught up to them.

Brewman15 > jsinger1085
10/07/2013 at 12:43

We lucked out and found a manual on our 3rd attempt at a Honda dealer 70 miles away.

We looked for a manual Fusion but gave up after contacting six different Ford dealers.

And they the wonder why no one buys manuals...

Brewman15 > Lars Vargas was hoping 2020 would be quieter
10/07/2013 at 12:49

Oh, I have thought about it. My '98 Dakota has the old iron 5.2L V8 and 4-spd auto. A lot of guys have dropped in the newer 5.7L Hemi V8s and 5-spd autos. You gain ~100 hp, an extra gear, and several MPGs while dropping a decent amount of weight thanks to the aluminum architecture. It would make for a quick truck especially since my ol' Dakota weighs a couple 100 lbs less than a Charger or Challenger.

Doug Nash > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 13:08

Indeed. All good points. It's just SO sad that Honda has stepped so far out of the game, when it comes to true innovation. Don't get me wrong, I think the new Accord is one of the nicest versions of that car I've ever seen. Were I ever to buy another FWD sedan, there wouldn't even be a second option to that. But from a performance evolution? Sad. I remember when the original S2000 mill was the most powerful NA engine, per liter, in the world. Where did that Honda go, and can we have that back?

fintail > Shiftright
10/07/2013 at 14:02

I saw a mint 3rd generation LXi sedan just yesterday (still tons of that area on the road around Seattle). The lights did make the car. The oddball is the hatchback variant - when I was in grade school, I remember the principal had one.

fintail > rabidcontent
10/07/2013 at 14:06

The 90-93 was definitely the best Accord design. A good size, and styled so cleanly. When I was about 15 or so I guess, an old guy my dad knew bought a new Accord wagon (which amused me as he had "Pearl Harbor Survivor" plates). I remember that car idled and ran so smoothly, which was appreciated by the old guy, who bought it for the refinement. When I was in college, a friend of mine had a hand me down 92 Accord that his mother miled up to about 120K, then passed on to him 5 years later. He got it up to something like 210K when he sold it, it sold in a day, and he regretted it. He maintained it well, and it looked like a car with 30K on it.

The issues I do remember were a lack of acceleration, and a bad turning radius. Putting a built engine in one but keeping it stock looking, a LX with hubcaps especially, could be a fun sleeper.

Alex87f > 4X
10/07/2013 at 15:58

That seems much more realistic, and it's still a very good time. A BRZ does about the same.

4X > Alex87f
10/07/2013 at 16:16

My CTR does 6.6, for this accord it's just impossible

Harvey- > Brewman15
10/07/2013 at 16:44

I was shocked by the curb weight myself. One thing to consider... drag coefficient? Then again I doubt the '94 is much slipperier than the '13. Fuel economy is a great driver compared to even the '90's.

Maybe it's just because the Accord Sport is so damn fun.

Hi there > jsinger1085
06/21/2014 at 19:04

I know this is an old thread but I bought my '14 accord sport stick in November my local dealer didn't have one with a stick, but one did exist about 180 miles southwest of here and they retrieved it for me. I guess dealers over there suck?

Hi there > BlackLab
06/21/2014 at 19:07

Still if you need a brand new car and only have about 20k to spend and will part with precisely zero dollars for a slushbox or a cvt then accord sport is basically where it's at. That snickety snick is glorious, hell my old 91 civic hatch with 400k miles is still snickety snick.

MiniTitan > Alex87f
11/17/2014 at 21:49

I have the CVT and the 0-60 for that is in the mid 7 second range. Although the stick version of this same car is a second faster to 60 . I think it has something to do with the way the CVT behaves that makes it slower but yeah the stick is what he has.