Jump to content

Talk:Honda Accord

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives of past discussion

[edit]

Archive 1

Japanese translation of "Accord"

[edit]

69.65.224.246, twice over the last couple of days I have reverted your removal of the Japanese translation of Honda Accord in the article's lead [1][2]. As was stated in the edit summary of the first removal, there is a discussion ongoing as to whether and when Japanese name translations are appropriate. Because no consensus yet exists, it'd be better and more productive to please drop by that conversation and help build consensus rather than summarily removing the translation. Thanks for editing coöperatively! —Scheinwerfermann T·C01:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honda produces Spirior(Accord Euro) in Wuhan China

[edit]

Honda has been producing Accord Euro in Wuhan China. Spirior is the name of Accord Euro in China. more info http://www.wdhac.com.cn/index/index.html http://www.spirior.com.cn/spirior_index —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenwml (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate generation articles

[edit]

Has there been any thought about splitting the article into multiple sub-articles by generation, in the same manner as Honda Civic (and some other models)? This article has grown in size to the point where we may want to consider such a split, if a split by Japan/Euro/NA market has been decided against. --Vossanova o< 19:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broke out the Eighth Generation sections into separate articles. Let's see how this works. Atarivideomusic (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this structure could use further review. It would make better sense if this arrangement could be modified to be more consistent with other WP vehicle model pages. I realize the "geographic-based disambiguation" like the Ford Focus article uses may not work for the Accord (...right?), but the disambiguation method is a better solution: less duplication of information & a far more reader-friendly page hierarchy -- I'll bet most people reading the current Accord article overlook the "main article" links at the top of the 7th & 8th gen sections. With the Focus page, there's no information duplication & no way for the public to overlook the detailed generation-specific information. I'd also like to point out the current Accord "main article" links are inconsistent in & of themselves, as separate articles are only available for two out of the eight Accord generations. Jmathis555 (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism regarding brakes

[edit]

There has been a sort of slow motion edit war on this item. I feel that there are insufficient reliable sources to warrant any mention of this issue. CarComplaints is not a reliable source as it consists only of user submitted items and contains no editorial oversight. The Edmunds source is also insufficient as they themselves refer to the issues as "minor." Picking up one minor complaint from a long article is cherry picking. In order to add this material the editor who wishes to submit it must first attain consensus here on the talk page, --Leivick (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, criticisms must be well backed - without reliable and prominent sourcing, the mention shouldn't be in this article. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 05:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on two points. Firstly, all complaints submitted through CarComplaints.com are reviewed before posting & are at least as accurate as complaints logged by the NHTSA, which has no editorial review. However NHTSA complaints appear to be an attributable reference. I think further explanation with your assertion is warranted there. Secondly the brakes issue has blown up into a class action lawsuit with a settlement with Honda pending. With these larger developments, I think it should be clear by now that the brakes issue deserves mention. Jmathis555 (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has already been discussed; I removed two related paragraphs without seeing this discussion first. Neither complaints logged by the NHTSA nor websites like CarComplaints.com are reliable sources, since they are comparable to forum posts where anyone can share their opinion, and they are not always correct or accurate. There needs to be either a reliable news media source about the defect/recall, or a press release from the car company itself. At this point, the paragraphs come off as a vendetta against Honda by Wikipedia editors -- this is not a soapbox or a place to vent frustration. I'm not saying you have to remove all criticism and negative aspects of the car, but, you should make it shorter, stick to verifiable facts, remain neutral, and consider moving it into the more detailed 7th/8th generation Honda Accord articles. --Vossanova o< 16:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is wrong to try to pass off the Accord brakes issue as venting/vendetta etc. It's a large class action affecting 2 years worth of Honda Accord production, & Honda has accepted the proposed settlement which also has preliminary court approval. This has all been covered in the media.
Regarding reliable sources, sounds like you missed what I posted on your own Talk page, so I'll copy it here: ...in your edit you also removed a section I had written on the brakes class action for which I had provided three sources that were not CarComplaints.com or HondaProblems.com: the official circuit court settlement website, the website of the class action plaintiff's law firm, & a New York Times article. However for that particular paragraph's removal, you provided no explanation. I believe the paragraph you deleted & the sources I provided are acceptable. Let me know why apparently they are not, so I can try to work around your concerns. If it was a mistake, please restore the content you inadvertently deleted. Thanks!
Since what you wrote about sources specifically contradicts the sources I provided for the class action paragraph, sounds to me like your blanket reversion of my edit was in error. The text I wrote is NPOV, contains only verifiable facts about the class action, & has verifiable references (court website, NYT article, etc). If you'd like to make it shorter, please feel free! For now I'll restore what I had before (regarding the class action -- I'll leave out the HondaProblems.com etc references) and again please edit rather than delete it. Thanks! Jmathis555 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not delete them in error. Not all of the sources were CarComplaints.com or HondaProblems.com, but enough were to cause my concern. At the very least, the sections should be moved to the seventh and eighth generation (North America) articles since most of the other info on those generations was moved out. I can do that in the near future. --Vossanova o< 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly I am surprised that (2) invalid sources in a separate paragraph meant you felt the entire class action paragraph with all (4) legitimate sources also had to be axed. Thanks for letting it stay the 2nd time around. I'll start a new add to the existing topic about the generation article pages. Thanks! Jmathis555 (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to us to decide the importance of a class action lawsuit, or its validity. We can only incorporate citations to these cases through other reliable sources (or it is original research; yes, citing a court filing is original research). Anyone any time can file an action; no validity is lent to a reliability issue by such an action. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 06:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are preaching to the choir! One of the 4 sources I gave is a New York Times article (footnote #12 on this edit). The remaining references I gave to court documents support only a very specific context, for instance in quoting the original filing, or that a specific hearing will occur on a certain date, etc. Regarding the validity issue you mention (major media coverage aside, as one could argue it should be!), I think the class action settlement speaks to that issue. Your point is well-taken, but does it apply to this particular section/discussion, or just something to keep in mind in general? Jmathis555 (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the section being discussed has since been moved off to the North American 8th gen page Jmathis555 (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chassis Codes?

[edit]

Whatever these letter codes (SY/SZ/AC/AD, etc) are supposed to mean, they reduce readability and really don't belong in the main section headers. Atarivideomusic (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing the letters for the European 5th Gen: CC7, CE7/8/9 and with Diesel CF1. For the US the CE6 (V6 engine) is missing to. The Coupe is CD7,8,9.
There are also some types missing at Gen 4 (Sedan CB7,CC1; Aerodeck CB8,CB9,CC9; Coupe CB6,CB7,CC1) But a small problem is, that e.g. the Coupe was sold as CB7 in the US and the other way round was the CB7 the Sedan with 2.2 engine in Europe. Or the Coupe CC1 in Germany was sold as a Sedan in the Netherlands. Funny and strange.
And so on. It's not consistently done in the technical data and as younger the generation as less the information about the type.
Maybe you take a look to the German side for the Accord http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Accord. It's seperated for the generation and includes charts for the technical data. CWeitzer (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, this might help: http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=444956 It'd be very nice if someone worked it through. I've only edited European 6th gen's chassis codes. CL1/2/3 were listed but this doesn't seem correct, for CL1 is for sure JDM Euro R and CL2 is JDM SiR wagon.

First non-luxury vehicle with all aluminum powertrain ? (4G 90-93)

[edit]

"A first in the automotive industry for a non-luxury vehicle was its all aluminum power train (engine and transmission)." How true is the above statement? It was removed on Mar 12, 2010. Was Renault 16 TS the first? North wiki (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5G 1994-97

[edit]

"The engines offered also exceeded the maximum limit of 2000cc to remain in the favorable tax bracket as well." I think 5G Accord was offered in 2.2 VTEC sohc, 2.2 VTEC dohc, 2.0 sohc and 1.8 sohc in Japan. North wiki (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and the 2.7 V6 in the US (CE6)CWeitzer (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accord in video games and motorsports

[edit]

Can we add a section? There's been a significant presence of Accords in the Gran Turismo video game series (maybe a small presnce in Forza?) and a presence in motorsports as well.


Video Games

Gran Turismo 1: JDM 1996 Accord SiR sedan and wagon, JTCC Accord racecar, 1997(?) EDM (UK) Accord Type R

Gran Turismo 2: (in addition to the Accords in GT1) 1998-2001 JDM Accord SiR & SiR-T, Mugen SiR-T, some racing variant of 6th gen Accord.

Gran Turismo 3: JDM 2001 CL1 Accord Euro R only

Gran Turismo 4 & 5: JDM 2001 CL1 Accord Euro R, 1987 USDM Accord coupe, 2003(?) USDM Accord V6 6-speed coupe, JDM 2004 Accord CL7 Euro R (TSX chassis)



Motorsport:

-JTCC Accord (Castrol, JACCS)

-BTCC Accord (PIAA)




Aahmed5 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include this?

[edit]

There recently has been a recall on most 2008+ Accords due to faulty airbags that could go off suddenly while driving. At least 2 deaths were reported from this. If anyone knows more about this, feel free to include it in the article (with a source).--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Chris[reply]

The new Accord Sedan gets the chassis of a Hyundai Genesis. lol

[edit]

Hahaha, the Hyundai Genesis is a Honda Accord--but with RWD instead of FWD. Same doors, same ALMOST EVERYTHING! --198.228.216.34 (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honda. Accord. İn 1997 jtcc okayama ken ti circuit aida round 3&4 second place in round 4 race 2 winner this first place jtcc 1997 first champion for. Nakako osamu

File:Mugenaccord
honda the snd more your

http://funspeed.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/mugenaccord.jpg

[edit]

Honda. Accord. İn 1997 jtcc okayama ken ti circuit aida round 3&4 second place in round 4 race 2 winner this first place jtcc 1997 first champion for. Nakako osamu

File:Mugenaccord
honda the snd more your

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Feyza erdol (talk • contribs) 20:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CA Accord Design

[edit]

Although I will no longer be adding new contributions to Wikipedia, one thing I will mention about the design process for the CA Accord from 1981 to 1983, is that I am dead certain that Honda was influenced by the W201 190 by Mercedes-Benz. Compare the greenhouse of its 1981-85 predecessor and the drastic revolutionary change, that previewed the Legend luxury sedan. Awkwardly enough, there are similarities to the W124 as well and W140 S-Class in similar colours for the CA Accord sedan. Toshi Oshika's design was approved at the beginning of 1983, for the final CA 4-door exterior. All the rage at the time, was none other than the 190 Mercedes. W124 was testing in public, but really too visible to know what it looked like until mid-1983.

A bit opinionated and probably hearsay, but just a thought.--Carmaker1 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

9th gen model still continues outside of USA - not being replaced until 2019

[edit]

Please do not change the heading of the 9th gen model Accord, which should read "2013-present" and not "2013-2017". Production of the 9th gen model will continue until 2019. Keep in mind that the Accord is a global model, and the US factory is just one of many around the world that build it. As far as I'm aware, the US factory is the only one that is currently building the 10th generation model. All other factories, including Japan, Thailand, etc. are still building the old model. Most countries around the world do not import their Accords from the US factory. Japan itself still continues to sell the 9th gen hybrid Accord, as of July 2018.MisterZed (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The heading of the 9th Generation Model Accord should be changed to read "2013-2017" because the 2018 Honda Accord is not a 9th Generation Model, but rather a 10th Generation Model. The fact that the 2017 Honda Accord is still being produced, while cool and a very neat factoid, doesn't change the fact that it is still a 9th generation model and that it is still the 2017 model. The years being presented in the headings are the model years, not the production years in which they were produced. Otherwise, the headings would look very different. Unless proof can be cited that the 2018 model Accord in Japan, Thailand and the other remaining countries that still sell the Honda Accord is of the 9th Generation, then the heading should change to be "2013-2017" and not "2013-Present". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yebubbleman (talk • contribs) 09:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the Japanese site. The ninth generation is still being sold there. But on no place on the Japanese site does it state that the model being sold is designated as a 2018 model. A 2017 model produced and sold in 2018 and 2019 is still a 2017 model. Please cite any proof that this is not the case. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yebubbleman (talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, but the problem is, most countries don't use "model years" - it's largely a US invention. In Japan, for example, they don't even use VIN numbers on their cars, so in no way are they using model years over there. By putting 2013-2017, it implies that production has ended, that the car is no longer made or sold. As a compromise, maybe we could put (2013-2017, 2013-present outside of North America)? MisterZed (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's split all the generations of Accord (including the current model) into their own articles.

[edit]

Hi all,

This article seems pretty long, and only a few generations of the Accord have their own articles. I propose that the rest of them should get their own articles. What say you? Kaio mh (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accord 1st Gen vs Scirocco I

[edit]

"A December 1975 issue of Motor Trend Magazine had a drawing of a new Honda automobile which was similar in shape to the Volkswagen Scirocco but powered with a CVCC engine used in the Civic. In reality, the design of the Accord was finalized in the fall of 1973 weeks prior to the debut of the Scirocco, which debuted in January 1974." (excerpt from the Accord article)

"Volkswagen began work on the car during the early 1970s as the replacement for the aging Karmann Ghia coupe, and designated it the Typ 53 internally." (excerpt from the Scirocco article)

Apart from the fact that "last minute design changes" are not uncommon in the automotive industry, almost every magazine of that time featuring the Accord noted the similarities to the VW Scirocco which was for two years on the markets at the introduction of the Honda. Also, the Japanese car makers were not shy of incorporating design elements of other (foreign) models into their designs, and industrial espionage was and is still common in this field. Since the Accord was also aimed at the US market prior to the EU markets, it's probably more likely that the Honda designers had taken a closer look at the Ford Pinto which was sold from 1971 on.

2A02:560:421D:4100:F129:51E6:5673:C9BA (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth generation (1993)

[edit]

Hello gentlemen,

I do not edit other people's page but I do post on their Talk page when I see something flagrant.

In the 1993 Fifth generation section, there is a picture of a beige Accord 2 door Coupe with the caption "Coupe (facelift)".

The car's hood... bonnet... is crooked as can be. That car got it and the hood is lifted enough that the fender gap is quite open. Not a flattering picture.

Hope someone can find a new one.

image4 = 1996-1997 Honda Accord coupe -- 03-21-2012.JPG

caption4 = Coupe (facelift)

Thank you and HF. Netweezurd (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What English variant should the article be written in?

[edit]

Pinging recent registered editors who seem to be interested in the article content from the last ~six months. No need to comment/contribute; thank you for your time.

The article creation contained the phrase "hatchback sedan" and "four door saloon". The article's creator: JohnT (talk · contribs · count) (last edit 2015) appears to be Australian. wp:New user log "I'm a resident of Adelaide in South Australia..." Should the article be written in Australian English or another variant? Do Australians use "sedan" and "saloon" to describe 4-door cars?

The article was converted to British English here complete with a {{Use British English}}. The edit summary suggests that the Japanese use British English. I suspect that any literature and websites are targeted to and written in the local English variant. My very brief, non-RS search on English in Japan seems to suggest that American English is preferred.wp:ENGVAR nor any policy I'm aware of supports this changing to British English. What variant should be used here? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Consistency within articles" MOS:CONSISTENT - this would not appear to be at issue here.
  2. "Opportunities for commonality" MOS:COMMONALITY ...using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable
  3. "Strong national ties to a topic" MOS:TIES - as there is no "Japanese English" standard, this would seem to be moot.
  4. "Retaining the existing variety" MOS:RETAIN When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. - this would appear to be Australian English given the article creator's nationality.

Given this, I would think the variant should be Australian unless consensus is reached otherwise. Adakiko (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • The following article may be a relevant read, but I believe for articles of Japanese interest, American English would be preferred, and thus "hatchback sedan" and not "four door saloon" would be or should be preferred for use in a Honda Accord article. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 13:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a link formatting error - fixed here article Adakiko (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment about Japan using BR-Eng, is probably biased because being a UK-native, that's what I've been exposed to. Those with an American bias may see more American usage - as I also pointed out japantoday.com may not be completely neutral as it uses the American .com domain, rather than the .jp domain.

I think the best answer may be to deal with each case individually - just a quick google for the Australian term is not enlightening:

  • Fleet care.au - describes medium family cars as sedan, but larger family cars as saloons...
  • Mercedes Benz .au describes them as sedans on their homepage, but saloons for each individual model. The .hmtl pages are called saloon as well.
  • Academic dictionary .au defines a saloon as a sedan, and a sedan as a saloon

Also - let's be clear, the article wasn't "converted" to BR-Eng per se, but as it was a mish-mash of both variants, I took a poll of the article and there seemed to be more BR-Eng terms than US-Eng terms, hence I decided to make it BR-Eng. Also, the article already contained the {{Use dmy dates|date=August 2019}} template, which was added back in August 2019. IF there had been a desire to move to American usage, this would be an MDY template, not DMY. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • My opinion is articles should typically be written in the version of English spoken in the nation of manufacture. For example, Jaguar and Aston Martin would be in British English while Ford and Chevrolet in American English. In the example of Japanese models where it's not that simple, I tend to lean towards the largest sales market for the vehicle being discussed. I don't know the global sales figures of the Accord but my guess would be the American market had greater sales as the Accord has typically been in the top 3 in sales in the US and would lean towards American English for the Accord article. Expandinglight5 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I vote for American English too. Plus, I've said on Wikipedia once before that Japan's English-derived car terminology leans toward American, such as "ガソリン" (gasoline) and "セダン". However, I am well-aware that Japan is not an English-speaking country. Oh, and it's okay to use DMY and American English at the same time. After all, the Mitsubishi Eclipse article is written like that. CarCrazedAlex586 (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think of the Accord as mainly an American car nowadays (forty years of production, main market by a comfortable margin). But it shouldn't really matter much, so perhaps WP:RETAIN takes preference. If sedan is an acceptable style in Aussie English then I think that counts as a good compromise.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have actually done this rather than BR-eng, but despite my time here - I didn't actually know there was an Australian template. I still think that the correct term is "saloon" though... Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now made a number of fixes to employ Australian English. StAnselm (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Markets for the eleventh-generation

[edit]

Should we put the markets for the eleventh generation model here? I realized that this model is discontinued for some markets. Guyrichtheman (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Honda_Accord&oldid=1207633470"