New Accord EX - third impressions

2010 EX 4 auto sedan, first tank of gas: 28mpg.

I think the first tank on my 2007 was about 29mpg,
and after it was broken in, it got about 31mpg on the same
kind of driving (mostly freeway, but often congested).

Driving the new car almost all below 3000rpm, mostly
below 2000rpm, only had it over 4000rpm a couple of times.
It really, really is optimized for low RPM torque, it
seems to me. Astounding for a 2.4 liter engine. Doesn't
seem to really kick at 5000rpm on the cam, like some
older Hondas did. Maybe this is progress. I guess if
I want to rev for power I can get the Civic Si or something.

I'm still trying to learn where the nose of the
car is, to get close to the garage wall when parking.
Can't really see it very well, and I keep thinking the
hood is longer - I keep leaving a foot or two between
the nose and the wall.

Which leads me to a peeve - no bumpers! The foremost
point on my car is - the license plate! And in any
kind of even low-speed collision, looks like the emblem
and hood go very quickly. Looking around at traffic,
a LOT of cars are designed this way - Lexus/Toyota seems
to be better, their fenders and bumpers preceed the
nose by at least a couple of inches. But some Mercedes
seem to lead with the grill, also, and it's practically
a Chrysler design element.

I managed to finish the 2007 lease with the original
hood undented but I'm not above a few little bumps and ouches
when driving a car over several years, maybe Honda
should offer a cowcatcher option for the likes of me.

J.

 

september.org:

It's my understanding that this front-end design is on account of safety
regulations, both American and European.

The regulations are intended to make the front end of the car as roundy and
puffy and smooth as possible so as not to damage any pedesterians you might
wallop. I'm not kidding.

 

More brilliant government regulations.

Cowcatcher would be much more humane than stamping
a big H in a pedestrian!

My other peeve is that Accord fender has trouble
reaching up to those on common SUVs. My 2004 I crunched
into the back of a Land Rover at about 4mph - much to their
undamaged amusement, and my $3,000 repair bill. Maybe that's
a problem with the SUV not reaching *down* far enough, but
it's me that seemed to suffer.

J.

 

If it's the Eeevil government's fault, then why do Toyotas not have
the Eeevil design?

 

They do. They ALL do these days.

Exact interpretation of the Eeevil laws is up to the designers of course,
but all cars are blimpily safety-fied these days.

 

They don't have to build cars that crumple even in low-speed
crashes. That's just the cheaper way to do it.

 

Then why do they build them with no bumper in the rear? Everywhere I
look I see new cars with some sort of mat hung on the back to keep the
back from getting all scratched up.

 

Yes they do. That's the /whole point/ of the regulations.

When the regulations were being discussed, Jaguar even experimented with
small airbag-type explosive charges that elevated the hood above the engine
on a frontal impact in order to perform the cushioning effect the
regulations demanded. This would have enabled Jaguar to retain a sleeker
frontal design. They eventually discarded that idea on account of cost.

It's the /legal/ way to do it, and automakers didn't do it until forced.

I've read interviews with automotive designers where they've said thay hate
the regulations because they result in bulbous and ungraceful front-ends.

 

Bumpers are ugly. Automakers since the early '60s have strived to make them
as unobtrusive as possible. It's the plastic skin that's so utterly and
annoyingly fragile, and that skin is there for at least two reasons besides
styling.

Since CAFE regulations started to bite, automakers have sought to fair-in
the bumpers as much as possible to avoid disturbances to the airstream,
which would cause drag and lower CAFE test results. This is best done with
a plastic skin that can be carefully molded to the body in a way that bare
steel can't.
CAFE also dictates /lighter/ bumpers, which automakers achieve by cloaking
a small rebar with styrofoam and that awful plastic skin.

Plus, the ostensible legal purpose of the bumpers (in Canada and the US,
the only two countries in the world with bumper regulations) is to protect
the "safety systems" of the car, which specifically means the headlights
and taillights. If those are mounted far back or high up, bumper impacts
won't result in damage to those lamps in the official tests even if the
bumper itself gets totally mangled.

 

Remember a few years ago when Honda was actually advertising such a
design on the Civic?

I've seen three low speed "pedestrian encounters front bumper"
patients in the ER. If you've ever seen an episode of any of the CSI
shows where they talk about it, those are pretty much the injuries
you'll see. Broken femoral head on impact side, either tib-fib or
tri-mallalor on the opposide side and three to four anterior rib
fractures on the impact side. Usually some sort of C3-C4 injury.

Speeds over about 10 mph usually involve windsheild consumption.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

"Get a shot off fast. This upsets him long enough to
let you make your second shot perfect."

-- Lazurus Long

 

A guy I used to work with once got hit by a Mercedes. Not an S-class,
but the one down from that.

He was crossing on a green and had the right-of-way. The Mercedes driver
was turning left (on the same green) and struck him in such a way that
he was thrown into the concrete median. Forearm fractured in several
places, elbow fractured, jaw fractured. Some teeth knocked out, others
loosened. Broken cheekbone. Something happened to his shoulder too, but
I forget what. He looked absolutely awful, like he'd been...hit by a car
or something.

I saw his X-rays. Lots of pins and screws. I imagine he has some trouble
at the airport that he didn't have before. Plus he's Iranian and looks
it.

Oddly, there were no fractures below the rib cage, so he was mobile
right away.

 

Er, no.

So then, the design is working like a charm?


J.

 

I suppose that would explain the ugly new Acura TL.