(first posted 2/17/2017) In production for over 40 years now, the Honda Accord ranks high among the world’s most influential, best-selling, and equitable automobile nameplates of all time. Now spanning nine generations, the Accord has been featured numerous times here at CC over the years, however we have yet to receive a non-wagon-specific full-length article on the fifth-generation (1994-1997) North American market Accord. Until now that is.
Creating a worthy follow-up act to the fourth generation Accords’s success was no easy feat for Honda. After all, it was the best-selling Accord yet, and more significantly, the best-selling passenger car in the United States for its first two years (1990 and 1991). The fourth generation Accord was also the roomiest, most powerful, and most luxurious Accord yet, bringing with it numerous advancements and refinements, adding a wagon bodystyle for the first time, and commonly regarded as offering the best handling characteristics of any affordable front-wheel drive family sedan.
But for all its positive virtues, praise, and attention, the 1990-1993 Honda Accord did have several key weaknesses that were critical to its success in the midsize market. While considerably longer and roomier than its third generation predecessor, it quickly became evident that this was not enough, as the Accord still lacked the spaciousness of key rivals such as the Taurus and redesigned 1992 Camry, both of which were still longer and 3-4 inches wider.
Equally detrimental to the Accord were both its lack of an available V6, something becoming more important to consumers as the car kept getting larger, and the fact that its pricing was always on the higher end of the segment.
The latter is something one might make a case of justification for, as the Accord typically offered interiors that were better screwed together and used better materials than most American competitors. However to the value-conscious consumer, size, power, and price are what most loudly spoke to him or her, and based strictly on that criteria, the Accord was smaller, less powerful, and more expensive than many rivals.
For the Accord’s upcoming fifth generation, Honda sought to address these weaknesses, resulting in a move not unlike what Toyota had recently done with the Camry. Rather than continuing with one single Accord for all markets, Honda elected to develop two, very different Accords to better serve the needs and conditions of the different global markets it was sold in.
While the European-targeted “CB” Accord retained similar dimensions to its predecessor, the North American-targeted “CD” Accord was allowed to grow larger, particularly in width, to make it more competitive in the midsize segment.
Both versions of these cars were sold in Japan, with the CB body being sold in 4-door hardtop form as the Ascot Innova (above, left), while the CD body carried on the Accord name. The smaller fourth generation Accord sedan’s role in Japan was now taken over by the CE body Ascot and Rafaga (above, right), which remained in the favorable compact tax bracket.
But back to our featured car, the fifth generation “CD” Honda Accord. Wider (by some three inches) and taller than its predecessor, the 1994 Accord was actually shorter with smaller overhangs than 1993 models, and offered a more spacious cabin, more cavernous trunk, and somewhat brawnier stance.
From a styling standpoint, designers applied much of the same design language the automaker began introducing two model years prior on cars such as the Civic, Prelude, and Domani. This meant a much more fluid shape, with sleek nose, a wedge-shaped silhouette, convex body sides, rakish roofline, and a taut, upright rear-end with integrated spoiler. Though hardly groundbreaking in design, the overall appearance exuded greater sportiness, elegance, and expressiveness when compared to the conservatively-styled car it replaced.
The inside was given a similar makeover, with softer angles, more curves, and greater fluidity in the design and fit of interior components. Unlike concurrent Toyotas and Nissans of Japan’s “Lost Decade”, Honda products seemed less likely to fall victim to noticeable cost-cutting, with interiors boasting the materials of the same high quality or even better than cars that preceded them.
The dash, center stack, and center console flowed seamlessly into one other, offering greater storage and improved ergonomics, with climate and radio controls placed higher on the instrument panel for easier reach and view. Instead of sliding out from the center stack, cup holders were moved to the center console for greater stability and less obstruction of other controls.
Regardless of interior color, upper dash and door panels were of a darker shade, with instrument panel control surrounds in black, providing for some much needed contrast, as compared to the sleep-inducing interiors of most competitors.
Door panels now boasted fully-integrated armrests, upholstered in either cloth or leather-and-vinyl to match seating surfaces, and front map pockets for a smoother appearance. Likewise, the wider center armrest with larger storage compartment was also covered in matching upholstery for a premium feel. Along with solid-feeling, no-nonsense switchgear and controls, the Accord’s interior could be summed up as a model for sophisticated simplicity.
Dual-front airbags were now a standard feature on all Accords, with anti-lock brakes available on all trims (standard on EX; optional on LX and DX). Only the EX models boasted standard four-wheel disc brakes, with lesser trims employing rear drums as standard and rear discs as optional equipment.
As typical of many Honda products but atypical for an affordable family-oriented sedan, wagon or even coupe, the Accord utilized a double-wishbone suspension for both the front and rear, something that gave it superior “sporty” driving dynamics than most of its competitors.
Both four cylinder engines were carryover from the previous generation, though minor revisions gave each of them five additional horsepower. The base F22B2 2.2L found in the DX and LX now made 130 horsepower and 139 lb-ft torque, while the EX’s F22B1 2.2L VTEC (variable valve timing and lift electronic control) now made 145 horsepower and 147 lb-ft torque. Both were of single overhead camshaft design.
The big news, however, was the much-anticipated addition of an available V6, something that did not arrive until the car’s second model year of 1995. Producing a healthy 170 horsepower and 165 lb-ft torque, the non-VTEC C27A4 2.7L V6 originally debuted in the 1988 Legend coupe and sedan, itself an upgraded version of the original C25A (Honda’s first production V6) that premiered with the Legend in 1986.
Rather interestingly, due to the V6’s larger physical size, Honda was required to redesign the engine bay and give V6-equipped cars longer and taller front fenders and hoods, resulting in an increased overall length of nearly three-inches versus four cylinder Accords. The visual difference was indiscernible, though V6 models were prominently distinguished by their unique chrome-surround grille, which along with the existing headlights, created a vaguely reminiscent look of the original Legend’s front end.
1996 updates were minimal, but nonetheless appreciated, especially after only two years on the market. Front and rear fascias were each given a nip/tuck, with new bumpers at each end, new taillights, and all models gaining the V6’s chrome grille. For better or worse, this mid-cycle facelift gave the Accord a slightly softer, less aggressive look. Larger taillights in particular, contributed to this, giving the car greater visual width.
In terms of its sales success, the 1994-1997 Accord fell short of regaining the title of Best Selling Car in America, a title not held since the second year of its previous generation (1991). Ford’s Taurus overtook the Accord in 1992, helped by a redesign and sharp uptick in fleet sales (something which rather unfairly inflated sales figures with regards to “success”), and held this title through 1996, upon which both were overtaken by the Toyota Camry.
Despite this, Accord sales held strong for its fifth generation. Holding steady between the 341K-384K mark and actually seeing its best year of sales in its final 1997 year, the Accord remained the second best-selling passenger car in America (to either the Taurus or Camry) for each of these four years. Although trailing its predecessor by about 90,000 units in total sales, the fifth generation Accord was nonetheless a highly successful, highly acclaimed vehicle.
Honda successfully improved on the previous Accord’s key weaknesses, by giving it more space, an available V6, and adding refinement to all its predecessor’s positive strengths while still keeping costs down. In conclusion, the fifth generation Honda Accord can best be summed up by the Honda principle of “Every organizational unit must break old habits, even good ones”. Rather than cutting costs and corners, Honda delivered the most advanced, most thoughtfully-designed Accord yet with no noticeable backtracking. And I think that’s something we are all in accord with.
Related Reading:
Yes we have US Accords here, why I do not know but both Euro and the US models are on the roads in NZ, not bad cars, they dont handle very well in reality, but they seem to keep plugging along until multiple problems emerge all at once and repairs exceed the value of the car, my mates sisters US accord wagon went that way brakes first then electrical problems, she bought a used 4wd Corona instead.
The Honda handled much better than the sloppy Toyota. Same as today.
My sister had one in the same forest green as the featured car. Even with 550k on the clock it was a beautiful car to drive and supremely economical with the 2.2L engine. The high trunk lid was its one fault, made the rear view difficult and she kept bumping things. In the end she swapped it for a Honda Rafaga 2.0l 5 Cylinder model. Shes had that for years now too, I’d hate to see the mileage on it!
You’re correct. Here in the US you still see them all over while similar era cars have long been scrapped.
In America they just keep plugging away: I just had a chance to pick one up for $800.00 with a manual. It had something like 225,000 miles on it, was in good mechanical shape but showing some rust at the rear wheel wells.
I was looking at getting it for the wife who was doing a 120 mile a day commute half the week to a distant retail outlet for the company she works for. And neither of us wanted to pile up the major mileage on her ’15 Dart GT, as she’s expected to keep that car for the next 5-7 years.
Happily, that assignment is going to end by the end of the month, so we can pass on the purchase.
But still not quite big enough. With the birth of twins, we needed a car that would take three car seats in the back seat. We weren’t ready to concede to a minivan. We tried the Accord, couldn’t get the doors closed. Ended up buying a first year Outback. Which turned out to be a pretty good choice.
I guess you didn’t try the Accord wagon. It was much bigger inside than the Outback. The first year Outback was a subcompact inside, closer to the Civic than the larger Accord and noticeably narrower inside than the Accord.
I owned 2 of the 4th gen Accords, excellent cars. Never had a 5th gen.
The main thing that struck me is the quality of the carpet and carpeted floor mats Honda used in that era, compared to what they use now. The carpeted floor mats in my wife’s ’16 CR-V look like crap already…the carpeted mats in the 92 Accord I used to have didn’t show visible wear, even after 100k miles.
They truly don’t build ’em like they used to, for better or worse.
From someone who works in the industry, I can say that the low-durability of carpeted floor mats drives accessory sales of OEM all-weather floor mats. It was the first thing I bought right after I got my BMW last summer. We automatically add them to every single MINI we order for inventory.
I HATE all weather mats…the ones we have in the company cars at work have really deep ribs and feel really weird under foot while I am driving. They also trap a bunch of water which my pants cuff soaks up.
Get shorter pants? 🙂
Yes, the great floor covering arms race. First there were rubber mats. Then carpet. Then rubber mats to protect the carpet. Then carpet in the rubber mats that protected the carpet. Then all weather rubber mats to cover the nice carpet in the mats that protect the carpet. I look for carpeted all-weather mats any time now.
You know Brendan, I think you’re right about all weather mats. My Focus SE, if I were to have purchased it without the winter package, would have only come with front cloth mats, so right off the bat there is a built in lack of protection for the rear floor.
That being said, its pretty much a necessity to have all weather mats in your car if you live in the snowbelt, and I’m glad that Ford makes good quality OEM rubber mats.
I have noticed the cheapening of carpet and other details too. I have been using Husky Liners or Weather Tech mats. They are expensive, but they really do save the carpet. My carpets look like new even after many winters, but I am also pretty diligent at car care.
Go look at an HR-V. The first thing I noticed when I climbed into the passenger seat was…some kind of fuzzy exposed fiberboard. Like a thin black, molded, fuzzy material to cover the HR-V’s weird-shaped fuel-tank-under-the-seats floor. You can put a floor mat on it, but it’ll never cover the whole thing.
It’s very rough by Honda standards, even though I liked the rest of that car.
Yes, also the Fit. I looked inside an Impreza and I think I saw the same crap, so probably also in other cheap cars. It appears to be a molded thin plastic-fiberboard sort of shell with spray on black mouse fur pretending to be carpet. Not only is it awful and screaming cheapo like black rubber and around the windshield and dog dish hub caps on a 1950’s cheapo car, but that stuff is not going to add anything to sound deadening.
Honda (and I suppose others) cuts corners in odd areas. The mid level Fit has keyless entry and merging camera and a touch screen and a sunroof. The highest end model adds leather and other stuff. None of them come with a rear shelf. You can get one from parts for something over $200 or the same thing elsewhere for under $200. Seems like a normal bit for a hatchback other than a stripper model, offering trunk security and also reducing road and exhaust noise transmitted to the cabin. But no.
I noticed the same thing when checking out the latest-generation Odyssey. Carpet in back was fraying straight from the factory. Not a good first impression, however capable the vehicle might be overall.
A very nice car, but the pic of the interior aptly illustrates the cramped rear seat, which was the one real flaw these cars had. North America would have to wait until 1998 for an Accord with a spacious back seat.
Exactly what I have noticed when riding the back seat of one unless the driver was very short. No room for normal adult legs, far short of that offered in Taurus, Camry and Intrepid.
Unless it was a regression from the 4th gen, the rear seat room wasn’t actually that bad. We fit five college students in a 4th gen (’93 EX) to travel from North Carolina to Ohio, and while there was a lack of elbow/hip room due to the narrowness of the car, I don’t remember leg room being all that bad. Of course only one of the five was over 6′ tall, and maybe I wasn’t the one sitting behind him at any point!
very blah looking car. design by committee. reliable as heck though. reliable is a high priority for anyone. interiors are nicely laid out and quality assembly and materials.
many hondas are made in north america. so we can build good cars if we want to. at my age now i still think of the big 3 makers as sub-par in comparison to toyota or honda. nissan i always thought of a bit behind T and H. and the korean cars…. wow. since 2006 have really upped their game in reliability and quality.
I always thought the four-door Accord of this gen was a step backward in looks from the previous gen, but that this-gen coupe was gorgeous. If I needed a cheap used car fast, I’d love to buy one of the coupes.
I agree with JG – I always preferred the looks of either the prior or the subsequent generation. No arguing that they were great cars, though.
“Though hardly groundbreaking in design, the overall appearance exuded greater sportiness, elegance, and expressiveness when compared to the conservatively-styled car it replaced.”
JG and JPC, you’re both right. The concealed headlamps of the 3rd gen gave it a distinctive look for the time. It was hardly conservative and much sportier and more expressive than the 4th gen car that replaced it. It was kind of sad to see the end of the hatchback and aerodeck (shooting brake) bodystyles that disappeared with the intro of the 4th gen.
We never got the aerodeck here, sadly. I knew nothing of its existence until I saw a photo of one on the internet sometime in the mid 00’s.
The 3rd-gen is still my favorite visually as well. It’s the only sedan ever sold in the American market with pop-up lamps, just a nice touch, and I enjoy the angular wedginess of the design. 4th-gen was a more elegant and rounded version of the same, replacing the pop-ups with very uncommon for the time clear glass covered composites. These 5th-gen cars, while still attractive, lose a bit in sedan form compared to their predecessors.
My 7th grade math teacher had a ’94-’95 in that light, minty green color, which I thought looked sharp.
I always felt the early 2000s Camry rear was cribbed from thee ’94-’95, same taillights even.
The taillights of the 1999 Volvo S80 and 2001 S60 resemble the Accord’s as well.
Very nice piece, Brendan. I had forgotten that the V6 came out in this generation, and never knew that there were significant sheetmetal differences between the 4 and the 6. Did the “fragile transmission syndrome” affect these early V6 cars the way they did in the next generations?
A friend of one of my kids drove one of these all through high school, college, and nearly through grad school. The family picked it up as an inexpensive used car for the kids and it racked up some impressive low cost miles for them. They bought a second, but it was for some reason never as good as the first one and they did not keep it as long.
It finally died last year – in the area of the Grand Canyon, as I recall. What other car from the mid 90s with high miles would entice someone to take it on a transcontinental trip? I still suspect that something was done wrong on the pre-trip service that caused the fairly sudden coolant loss that killed it.
Thanks James. Numerous people in my family drove versions of this generation Accord as well over the years, including my cousin, whose green ’96 EX manual coupe was stolen from the Natick Mall parking lot in the early ’00s.
I believe the transmission fiasco only affected the next 6th generation Accords, and other Hondas of similar vintage.
Thanks Brendan, glad to see this generation Accord get its due here on CC. It was yet another winner in the Accord hit parade, though it was no longer head-and-shoulders above other cars in the class. My brother had a ’94 EX sedan, finished in the then-popular dark green (Sherwood Green Pearl) with Ivory interior. It was the fourth Accord he bought (he’d also had an ’84, ’86 and ’90), and in many ways it exemplified the continuous improvement Honda was famous for at the time. The interior, in particular, was really nicely finished, and the car felt as nimble and fun-to-drive as ever (in the context of a family car). Also, like all my brother’s previous Accords, the ’94 was completely, totally, utterly reliable and well built.
There were some downsides, however. Though the car was bigger in some dimensions, overall it felt/looked small, perhaps due to the more rounded styling. For my brother, that was a plus, as he liked the sleeker looks and wanted something that seemed slightly sporty/agile. But for people wanting a bigger, more substantial looking car, this Accord fell short. Likewise, the 4-cylinder was smooth, refined and offered enough power for the car, but this market segment demanded an optional V6, and Honda was forced to comply, even though I doubt that was part of the original game plan for this generation of Accord.
The ’98 Accord tried to address those size and power shortcomings, but unfortunately started the Accord-as-appliance trend that has pretty much dogged the car ever since.
I have driven V6 and 4 cyl versions of this version of the Accord and while the 4 cylinder was no rocket, it more then motivated the car on the highway and was probably perfect for 99% of all drivers of 94-97 Accords. The same went for the 4 cylinder versions of the Camry. I think Toyota and Honda felt they had to offer V6 engines in the cars in order to be up there with the Taurus. However the 86-91 Taurus was very heavy and an 88hp 4 cylinder(that was offered in the Taurus G) could barely move the car. The 92-95 Taurus was even heavier so a 4 cylinder was out on them. So I think adding a V6 to the mix in the Camry and Accord was a solution to a non existent problem. Most folks continued to buy 4 cylinder Accords and Camrys.
Plus I think the addition of a V6 in the Accord was poorly thought up and looked last minute. Instead of deciding on a v6 in the first place and thus designing the car to be longer for both 4 cyl and V6 from the get go. Honda halfassed it and had to offer a longer accord with longer fenders and hood and other things that were not the same as the 4 cyl version so there were 2 different sets of parts associated with the cars(I bet bodyshops loved working on these cars)
The CD Accord wagon was sold alongside the CB body (which was somehow related to the previous gen chassis, as Scott McPherson says in the article on his Magnificent Ascot FBX Limited!!! ) as the Accord Aerodeck. The 1999 euro Accord would make for a great Acura TSX if they had the idea before.
I can’t save the edited comment. I meant to say “somehow related to the previous gen chassis”
Lovely cars. Those rear hips were considered rather racy for the time. Friend had the V6. While it accelerated very smoothly and powerfully, like a Mercedes Benz I-6, that extra weight on the front seemed to upset the wonderful balance these cars had had. Previous Accords were always light on their feet, like a cat getting ready to scamper off in another direction. This car was not a cat.
My favorite Accord memory of that era was with the previous model. My son and I were in Athens, GA to visit his Grandpa Jim, whose early-onset Alzheimer’s was progressing all too rapidly. We took Grandpa and his “gardener” (actually a grad student employed to keep an eye on him) in his sedan out to a good Mexican restaurant on the north side of town. Wonderful times and talks ensued, continuing when we made the mistake of letting Jim give us directions home from the restaurant. We were almost to Tennessee (still not sure how I didn’t see that Interstate), lost in his wonderful stories, before we realized we were thoroughly headed in the wrong direction. No problem, this car had good space for four and a wonderful ride, and Jim had more good stories to get us home.
Superb cars, if somewhat anodyne stylistically. Personally, I’ve always liked its predecessor better; it was comparable to the glassy and compact BMW E30 series being replaced by the longer, lower E36.
But in terms of its quality, dynamics and unparalleled longevity , this generation is probably the peak Accord experience. We have two good friends who both had dark green wagons of this generation, and they just kept running forever, and even well north of 300k miles, the cars still looked great inside and out.
Thanks for a fine tribute to a very worthy car.
And yes, the V6 in these was not worth it, upsetting their balance. The EX four was the way to go. Plenty fast, especially with the stick. An Acura TSX in its time.
Agree, Paul.
Honda’s tight, low effort, slick shifting 5 speed manual transmission has been my personal “Reference Standard” for front wheel drive cars since my first 1984 Honda Civic S model.
I had an ’85 Civic S and absolutely loved the shifter and clutch. My previous car had been a Chevette. The Civic was a revelation in comparison.
As a 17 year owner of the 1996 wagon I learned a few things about it from the Honda dealer:
1) The wagon was longer than the sedan by 3-4 inches.
2) The wagon was the top model price-wise
3) The wagon had Acura brakes – different from the other Accords
4) The wagon had an Acura rear suspension that was more expensive than the other Accords and actually made it handle better than the sedan and coupe.
Just as Volvo borrowed this gen Accord’s styling so did the unsuccessful ovoid Taurus borrow elements – especially the swoopy wagon.
I agree this gen Accord was great but C&D says current gen is better than E Class:
Why the pedestrian Honda Accord out-achieves the new Mercedes-Benz E-class
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/honda-accord-2017-10best-cars-feature
I had a ’97 EX sedan with I4 and 5-sp., white with tan interior, and first car ever with FWD and the only leased car I ever had (2 years and 24K miles). I got it in Jan ’97 and spent two hours haggling and ended up with a lease instead because I really needed a new(er) as my ’82 Toyota SR-5 was rusting to death and was in no condition for long interstate travel anymore. I wanted a manual, but the dealer wouldn’t budge and I still don’t know if $330/mo was worth it in 1997-98. I really liked the sunroof, and while agile on the streets of Albany, NY, it was actually a good highway car. I could cruise at 90 without a care and it could reach 115 mph without being scared because it was stable (the folly of youth on the Mass Pike; I only had two tickets in those two years). I was ambivalent about the styling, but I wanted to stay with Japanese makes because my Toyota had lasted so long (12 years with 2 to go) and my dad still had his 1978 Datsun 810. The problem to me was that having an Accord was being common as dirt, they didn’t stand out. A Girl I knew had a V6/auto and it had better acceleration. Because I made frequent in state trips, occasional trips to Boston, at least one trip to NJ/VA, one long trip to Asheville NC and back, and my last sad trip back to Atlanta when it nearing time to return it, the real problem was keeping the mileage under 24K, so I made a lot of other trips and split DD time with my SR-5. When I got that Accord I was full of optimism about my future, and two years later when I turned it in (with 23 miles to spare in Jan ’99), I had given my SR-5 away (it wouldn’t have made the thousand mile journey back to Atlanta anyway), moved back home with my mom, and given by my dad (under duress) his ’78 Datsun which was designated for assignment (a car so worthy of a COAL). All of 1998 was spent looking for a job and I was nearing just plain broke. It was a very good and reliable car, but I remember so little of it now.
Count me as the outlier, but I miss the days when Japanese cars were actually… Japanese. My ’90 Integra fits me like a finely-tailored suit, while my GF’s ’10 Accord feels like I might as well be driving a Buick.
Someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Japanese law restricts the width of cars to a dimension narrower than allowed in the US. It was clearly a wise business decision for Honda, Toyota, etc. to Americanize their cars for this market, but I miss actual Japanese cars.
Japanese build quality is hard to go past, their suspension tune isnt always as good as local builds though, as it is set for comfort as opposed to roadholding, Some Japanese companies tailor cars to market road conditions or somehow manage to do a good job for all.
I’ve always found the 2 door coupe version of this car a most appealing car, inside and out, a car that fits my oversized American body “like a glove”.
Sometimes the older a car becomes the more attractive it becomes.
From a styling perspective I always thought these were a ripoff of the Cirrus and Stratus, at least in profile. Hindsight being 20/20, development cycles probably meant that they both approached the problem independently but in a similar way, particularly in the rear quarters.
It would be the other way around. The Cirrus and Stratus came out in 1995 model year and this generation Accord was in the 1994 model year. The Chryslers were indeed a cheap attempt to capture some of the Honda buzz. The Accord was superior though.
Great article, Brendan! These are great appliances, but were a big let-down over the previous generation in my opinion. My dad had a 90, and my father in law had a 97. Dad’s looked distinctive, handled great, was tons of fun to drive with the stick, and had a very comfortable, high quality interior. I’ve wanted one ever since. The only car that comes close as an overall package is the 92-96 Camry, which I prefer the interior on but not by much.
Getting in my father in law’s for the first time was a huge disappointment. Generic styling inside and out, interior seemed cheap by comparison. It didn’t help that it was a stripped automatic, but even if it’d had the same enjoyable driving dynamics of Dad’s the overall package would’ve been a letdown. Similar story to me with the 97-01 Camrys. Very popular cars and still a good package, but not for me, thanks.
It’s too bad we didn’t get this Accord generation;s wagon here in Canada, it looks lovely.
In 2005 we bought a ’96 2-door Accord, same color as the lead photo, for my then 15 year old daughter to drive through high school and college. It then got passed down to my son to drive during high school. Sold it in 2013 after my daughter had graduated college, and we purchased a newer car for my son to have at college (and for the 15 hour round trip drive between his school and home).
Anyway, our Accord served us/them well and faithfully even as it suffered the hard-knock life of teen/college-age drivers. Superbly engineered and built, super solid, reliable cars this generation of Accord, and I still see a lot of them in daily use around here.
Dull. This generation of Accord really doesn’t do much of anything for me. I can’t even finish reading the article my mind starts wandering so much. (Nothing to do with you Brendan, your writing is awesome as always — you should apply to Car and Driver etc. before they all vanish.) The prior generation, however, has character, in my opinion. What was it with the mid 90s Accords and 626’s that made them so boring? Among other things besides contrasting economies between countries etc, I’d say it’s like trying to follow class acts. The 4th generation Accord (and 4th gen. 626), I believe, was a home-run hit. I know others have said the 3rd gen. was NA Honda’s best Accord, but I feel the 4th gen. is the most well-rounded in all areas. I love the Honda Accord and would take one in a heartbeat no matter which generation of model was given to me. I know this generation of Accord is as good underneath as all the rest and so now I’m inspired to go back and read the article again — to the end.
…Okay so now I’ve read the article. Yes, a great automobile with more room, a V6 and no decontenting. Just as I suspected. Ahh, I dunno… I still like the 4th gen. The wagon in particular looks less awkward.
During the 1990s, I was driving Honda Civic sedans, but really wanted one of these. I was in law school at the time, and driving over 100 miles a day, six days a week, between work and school. So it was best to stick with a smaller car.
I loved the styling and the overall size. In my opinion, the styling of this generation was better than the styling of both its predecessor and its successor. They had a “just right” look – not too big, not too small.
Well-made, thoughtfully designed, lovely engines, reliable – but dull, dull, deadly dull.
Back in the late 1980s, a friend’s parents, who owned a Mercedes Benz, were looking to trade it in for a new car. They traded it in for two Honda Accords (his & hers) and since then became loyal Honda fans.
The Honda Accord always impressed me as a jewel of a car compared to the Camry or Taurus. No doubt Hondas were more sporty and loved to be driven and more fun to drive. There were just something about Accords.
In 1997 I was in the market for a new car, one of my friends who owned a automotive repair shop that specialized in Japanese cars told me that Hondas were more difficult to work on and costly to maintain compared to Toyota. Parts were more expensive and auto insurance was higher compared to Toyota Camry. Accords were also higher on the theft list.
So I bought the more conservative if not bland, Camry. The Camry was reliable and dependable, but on the other hand, wish it had the heart, soul and spirit of the Accord.
Had a Accord 96 wagon. Great car; I especially appreciated the visibility over the low cowl. (Remember those?) Just broken in with 125k when my wife wrecked it due to a blowout–unhappily on my birthday. The only remnant is a rear rubber mat now in our 97 Odyssey. It fits pretty well.
I bought one of these from a Honda dealer as a certified used car for my mother. It was a dark green 2-door with the 2.2 and the auto transmission. I ended up using it quite a bit to drive her around and take her on trips, and I enjoyed the car overall. The 2.2L had plenty of pep and I enjoyed spinning it to high RPM as it seemed to love to rev. For a Honda engine of this era it seemed to have decent low end horsepower/torque. It certainly a big step up from my wife’s ’99 Civic we had around that time. Like our Civic though it had good handling, great steering and was overall very enjoyable to drive. One thing I liked about Honda’s of this era was that they weren’t over geared on the highway. They revved much higher, but it sure made them much more peppy. I put lots of miles on later model Civics (06-11 generation) and found top gear was so steep, a mole hill caused them to downshift.
I know my mother really liked the car, and it was really the first car she ever owned that was truly hers (her cars before were shared cars). Unfortunately it ended up being the last car she owned before she passed. We kept the car in the family until a couple of years ago though. My kid brother being the last to own it. I ended up helping him get it all fixed up then he traded in on a new Prius. I was a little disappointed he sold it without telling me, I would have bought the car as a cheap commuter.
All that said, it wasn’t a perfect car. The A/C was weak and eventually died. The copper rad rotted out, the paint had the infamous Honda clear coat failure even after I waxed the car regularly. The exhaust didn’t last in the salty winters either. There were other little issues with the car as it aged like wheel bearings and eventually rust stated in the rear quarters even with Krown rust proofing. I found the front seat too cramped, not enough leg room (although all Hondas seem to be tight). I also really didn’t like the Honda captive rotors. So much extra work to change rotors. Overall, it was definitely one of the better cars anyone in my family has owned.
Volvo largely borrowed its styling from this generation Accord and kept it for decades until recently.
In retail sales, the Accord actually has been the best selling US passenger car for decades, with the exception of perhaps one or two years.
As for the latest Accord, C&D just judged it superior to the new E Class Merc. Better engines, better acceleration, better ride and handling and better mpg. The Accord is the driver’s car and the Merc is full of gadgets.
Why the pedestrian Honda Accord out-achieves the new Mercedes-Benz E-class.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/honda-accord-2017-10best-cars-feature
Great and as always informative article on what I consider the Honda counterpart to the 97-01 Camry. By the time this car was released, the recession was in effect in Japan and I feel that Honda, having spent considerable resources on the CB7 generation, felt to amortize the costs of the chassis in a newer, cheaper to manufacture package.
Everything looks like a 90-93 model with a blur layer over it, but the taillights on the 94-95’s always annoyed me, not stretching over into the trunklid, just like the ’12 vs ’13 Civic refresh. The 96-97’s fixed this (at the cost of compound trunk hinges.) I owned a 97 coupe and a 93 sedan and the older one gave me a feeling of being in a mini-Legend versus an enlarged Civic.
Did I forget to comment?
These were never very common here in Australia, being vastly outsold by the locally-built and cheaper Camry as well as the Diamante-derived Mitsubishi Magna. Honda here has, until recently, held a vaguely premium image compared to the other Japanese brands… Although maybe that’s just a charitable way of saying it was outsold by almost every other Japanese brand.
I much, much, much prefer the pre-facelift model of this generation. I remember seeing photos of the facelifted model when I was a kid in primary school and thinking it made the car look smaller. The pre-facelift model has a much stronger resemblance to the Prelude in terms of taillight shape and the crisper detailing of the front. The facelifted model is just bland.
The previous generation of Accord was conservative, too, but it has aged better, as Paul said.
Accords here always seem to be more commonly top-spec models with sunroofs and leather. This generation of Aerodeck was rare but quite a looker! (I didn’t care for the previous Aerodeck)
I remember the ’98 Accord copping a lot of flack here for being too “American-ized”. Aussie car magazines kept referring to the US-shape Accords as being “Seppo” Accords, stupid Cockney rhyming slang for American (“septic tank” = “yank”). Then we finally got the Euro Accord (1st gen Acura TSX), sold alongside the Thai-built US Accord. Production of that model recently ended, leaving us solely with the Thai-built US Accord.
I don’t know if I would’ve shelled out the cash for an Accord when I could’ve bought a ’92-96 626 hatchback with a V6. That’s more my style.
I had a 94 example of one of these, yes the interiors were pleaseent (less so after 20+ years), yet sadly Honda couldn’t afford decent corrosion protection.
Like previous models the brakes are a chore, timing belts a good weekends worth of work and skipping it means buying a new engine.
Some people have gotten absurd mileage these (though nowhere near what Panthers get up to), I ditched my Honda at 150k when the AC crapped out.
Coming from redblock Volvos I was impressed with the interior, too bad the car around it was a bit mediocre. I don’t get why people love these so much.
Another big hit for Honda, for many and well-deserved reasons. I personally still prefer the predecessor but I’ve actually never driven one of this generation, so maybe I’m not being totally fair in that assessment. And some of the thoughtful details of the time are just astounding–like the fabric-covered armrests and console cover. Imagine that today!
These also still don’t seem like a 20+ year old car, at least to me. Too many of them on the streets, and the 4th and even 3rd gen cars are not hard to find since rust isn’t a big issue in central/southern VA. A co-worker has a ’93 LX sedan with just shy of 250K miles on it, and he’s not planning on getting rid of it any time soon.
And, as another commenter mentioned, the low cowl on these cars (and pretty much all 80’s/90’s Hondas) is sorely missed these days. I recently had the chance to drive an ’11 Civic EX and, while not as low as these, the cowl seemed almost absurdly low and the windshield absolutely huge for a modern-era car. Honda held out longer than most I guess!
I think the interior cost cutting began with the 9th generation. I had a 6th gen 1998 Accord and it had thick carpet and real leather seating. My 2015 Accord, while still a very nice car, has much cheaper carpeting and floor mats and the “leather” seats are really a shadow of their former selves.
IMO and unfortunately, the 2023 Accord is a total loser…
The V6 is gone, the turbo 2.0L is gone, the manual transmission is gone.
You are left with the lame 1.5L turbo (192HP) with a CVT transmission in a heavy 3500+lb car.
Plus 2 hybrid options. If you research hybrid powertrains you would never buy one.
I wonder if the days are numbered for the Accord after all these years.
I have nothing original to say about this gen Accord except that I think it’s simply a great-looking car. That it happens to be excellent in any other way is just a bonus.