I think this may be my first US-assembled Honda, I think my 1999 CL
3.0 may have been US assembled, too.

But the sheet metal tolerances on this one seem just a *bit* askew,
probably all within spec, but just barely. And there's this sort of
weird fold in the rear roof pillars where it meets the rear window, I
keep looking at that and wondering, "is that on purpose? does it help
the aerodynamics, or the assembly process, or what?"

Amd I wish the radio data display was just a few characters wider!
In fact, while it's a good idea for the LCD display to be shadowed
deep into the dashboard (unlike the 2007 model), it's farther away,
the characters are smaller if anything than on the 2007 display, and I
don't give it very high usability grades. The entire console is
pretty amateur in design, too wide, have to reach waaaay over for the
AC button or the radio's channel 6 button, etc.

But it still strikes me as the most sophisticated Accord ever, by a
wide margin over the 2007.

Still using up the first tank of gas to estimate mileage.

PS - wish they would include on the display options for instantaneous
mileage and other internal data, rather than making me go buy
aftermarket products if I want to see it. What's this with Ford, they
have something that draws a tree as you drive, to show you the mileage
you're getting?!?

J.

 

JRStern <JRStern@foobar.invalid> wrote in
news:rqd1f5d48u15iaf4iok3bni5c7kfmnng75@4ax.com:

> I think this may be my first US-assembled Honda, I think my 1999 CL
> 3.0 may have been US assembled, too.



Yup. Same plant in Ohio that made the Accord, on which the CL was heavily
based.


>
> But the sheet metal tolerances on this one seem just a *bit* askew,
> probably all within spec, but just barely.



Panel alignment that is "barely" to spec these days would have been
considered gold-medal quality just ten years ago.

Honda's panel alignment, even on US cars, is superb, although such
precision is rapidly becoming industry-standard. The days of mistake-hiding
3/16" panel gaps are WAY over.



> And there's this sort of weird fold in the rear roof pillars where it
> meets the rear window, I keep looking at that and wondering, "is that
> on purpose? does it help the aerodynamics, or the assembly process,
> or what?"



Got a pic? I don't see anything I'd consider "weird".



>
> Amd I wish the radio data display was just a few characters wider!
> In fact, while it's a good idea for the LCD display to be shadowed
> deep into the dashboard (unlike the 2007 model), it's farther away,
> the characters are smaller if anything than on the 2007 display, and I
> don't give it very high usability grades. The entire console is
> pretty amateur in design, too wide, have to reach waaaay over for the
> AC button or the radio's channel 6 button, etc.
>
> But it still strikes me as the most sophisticated Accord ever, by a
> wide margin over the 2007.
>
> Still using up the first tank of gas to estimate mileage.



You won't get anywhere close to the car's final mileage until you've run up
a couple of thousand miles.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:47:57 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv>
wrote:

>> And there's this sort of weird fold in the rear roof pillars where it
>> meets the rear window, I keep looking at that and wondering, "is that
>> on purpose? does it help the aerodynamics, or the assembly process,
>> or what?"
>
>Got a pic? I don't see anything I'd consider "weird".

I believe it's standard, find any 2009/10 sedan and look at the rear
window (across the rear) to pillar join, a little fold that goes from
about half an inch to zero ... I'd have to go out to the lot and
fondle the car to remind myself exactly what the deal is.

And I'm not sure of those tolerances, btw, Honda and most of the
Japanese have had super tolerances for twenty years now, and the
current model seems designed to allow for an extra millimeter or so
all over the place. One might never notice unless looking to check
upon the fit, but then it seems to be pretty obvious.

J.

.... walking outside to check on my car and any other 2009/10 Accords
on the block ...

 

"JRStern" <JRStern@foobar.invalid> wrote in message
news:rqd1f5d48u15iaf4iok3bni5c7kfmnng75@4ax.com...
>I think this may be my first US-assembled Honda, I think my 1999 CL
> 3.0 may have been US assembled, too.
>
> But the sheet metal tolerances on this one seem just a *bit* askew,
> probably all within spec, but just barely. And there's this sort of
> weird fold in the rear roof pillars where it meets the rear window, I
> keep looking at that and wondering, "is that on purpose? does it help
> the aerodynamics, or the assembly process, or what?"
>
> Amd I wish the radio data display was just a few characters wider!
> In fact, while it's a good idea for the LCD display to be shadowed
> deep into the dashboard (unlike the 2007 model), it's farther away,
> the characters are smaller if anything than on the 2007 display, and I
> don't give it very high usability grades. The entire console is
> pretty amateur in design, too wide, have to reach waaaay over for the
> AC button or the radio's channel 6 button, etc.
>
> But it still strikes me as the most sophisticated Accord ever, by a
> wide margin over the 2007.
>
> Still using up the first tank of gas to estimate mileage.
>
> PS - wish they would include on the display options for instantaneous
> mileage and other internal data, rather than making me go buy
> aftermarket products if I want to see it. What's this with Ford, they
> have something that draws a tree as you drive, to show you the mileage
> you're getting?!?

Be interested to hear if you have any premature brake wear. From what I have
seen from some posts, the rear brake pads wear out around 20k miles or so.
>
> J.
>

 

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:25:17 -0500, "tww1491" <twaugh5@***.net> wrote:

>Be interested to hear if you have any premature brake wear. From what I have
>seen from some posts, the rear brake pads wear out around 20k miles or so.

Had that on the 2007 - and 2004.

But I believe at least the 2004 had small (8"?) rears, and the new
model has 11".

J.

 

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:24:24 -0800, JRStern <JRStern@foobar.invalid>
wrote:

>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:47:57 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv>
>wrote:
>
>>> And there's this sort of weird fold in the rear roof pillars where it
>>> meets the rear window, I keep looking at that and wondering, "is that
>>> on purpose? does it help the aerodynamics, or the assembly process,
>>> or what?"
>>
>>Got a pic? I don't see anything I'd consider "weird".

OK, I see the same thing on 2009 Civic Sedan Hybrid, 2009 Accord
2-door, new-looking Volvo sedan, and newish Audi A6 has the entire
rear windshield half an inch below the pillars.

Look where the rear trunk lid meets the rear windshield, it's about a
half-inch below the end of the pillar, and it ramps to the top where
the top of the windshield is flush with the pillar.

Probably does reduce wind noise, trailing turbulence, by a tad.

J.

 

"JRStern" <JRStern@foobar.invalid> wrote in message
news:49j1f5d569lmma789eqhgdjl5ftcj620gj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:25:17 -0500, "tww1491" <twaugh5@***.net> wrote:
>
>>Be interested to hear if you have any premature brake wear. From what I
>>have
>>seen from some posts, the rear brake pads wear out around 20k miles or so.
>
> Had that on the 2007 - and 2004.
>
> But I believe at least the 2004 had small (8"?) rears, and the new
> model has 11".
>
> J.
>
>
No real problem with my 06 coupe -- rears went at 53k

 

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:29:08 -0500, "tww1491" <twaugh5@***.net> wrote:

>
>No real problem with my 06 coupe -- rears went at 53k

Do you brake hard?

Dealer said if you brake gently, that's when the rears are more used
now. I asked if I should just hammer it then, and he sort of mumbled.
But I guess using the rears more reduces dive, arguably increases
control - as long as they're sized properly!

J.

 

On 11/3/09 5:11 PM, in article rqd1f5d48u15iaf4iok3bni5c7kfmnng75@4ax.com,
"JRStern" <JRStern@foobar.invalid> wrote:

> I think this may be my first US-assembled Honda, I think my 1999 CL
> 3.0 may have been US assembled, too.
>
> But the sheet metal tolerances on this one seem just a *bit* askew,
> probably all within spec, but just barely.

My 2000 Acura TL came from that same plant in Ohio. Tolerances were clearly
less perfect than on my Japan built '96 Odyssey. I remember taking the
Acura back a couple of times to get a few panels re-aligned when it was new.

> And there's this sort of
> weird fold in the rear roof pillars where it meets the rear window, I
> keep looking at that and wondering, "is that on purpose? does it help
> the aerodynamics, or the assembly process, or what?"
>
> Amd I wish the radio data display was just a few characters wider!
> In fact, while it's a good idea for the LCD display to be shadowed
> deep into the dashboard (unlike the 2007 model), it's farther away,
> the characters are smaller if anything than on the 2007 display, and I
> don't give it very high usability grades. The entire console is
> pretty amateur in design, too wide, have to reach waaaay over for the
> AC button or the radio's channel 6 button, etc.
>
> But it still strikes me as the most sophisticated Accord ever, by a
> wide margin over the 2007.
>
> Still using up the first tank of gas to estimate mileage.
>
> PS - wish they would include on the display options for instantaneous
> mileage and other internal data, rather than making me go buy
> aftermarket products if I want to see it. What's this with Ford, they
> have something that draws a tree as you drive, to show you the mileage
> you're getting?!?
>
> J.
>

 

JRStern wrote:
> I think this may be my first US-assembled Honda, I think my 1999 CL
> 3.0 may have been US assembled, too.
>
> But the sheet metal tolerances on this one seem just a *bit* askew,
> probably all within spec, but just barely. And there's this sort of
> weird fold in the rear roof pillars where it meets the rear window, I
> keep looking at that and wondering, "is that on purpose? does it help
> the aerodynamics, or the assembly process, or what?"
>
> Amd I wish the radio data display was just a few characters wider!
> In fact, while it's a good idea for the LCD display to be shadowed
> deep into the dashboard (unlike the 2007 model), it's farther away,
> the characters are smaller if anything than on the 2007 display, and I
> don't give it very high usability grades. The entire console is
> pretty amateur in design, too wide, have to reach waaaay over for the
> AC button or the radio's channel 6 button, etc.
>
> But it still strikes me as the most sophisticated Accord ever, by a
> wide margin over the 2007.
>
> Still using up the first tank of gas to estimate mileage.
>
> PS - wish they would include on the display options for instantaneous
> mileage and other internal data, rather than making me go buy
> aftermarket products if I want to see it. What's this with Ford, they
> have something that draws a tree as you drive, to show you the mileage
> you're getting?!?
>
> J.
>
I have a 2005 Accord, and just hit 82,000 miles. So far, needed new
tires at 60,000 miles, and basic maintenance, but that's been it.
I would highly recommend any Hondas. My wife has a 2005 Civic that has
also been very reliable.