Honda Hates Me So Much They Gave Raphael Orlove My Car, But Nicer


I don’t know how I didn’t know about this one — Jalopnik‘s Raphael Orlove took out the heavy-duty trowel and laid on the irony pretty thick in a March article about the Accord Coupe. The point he makes is one I’ve been hammering for a while now — I called it the “Descolada” theory.

In my review of the Accord Ex-L I wrote that

The Accord made headway in the Seventies as a dynamic proposition, a little low-cowled race car in a vast field of 204-inch personal luxury coupes. It was so good at replacing those bigger American cars that it eventually became a bigger American car. (See: “The Descolada”, Speaker For The Dead by Card, Orson Scott.) In a perfect world, the 2014 Accord would combine the thrift of the 1976 original with the effortless thrust of a 403-powered ’77 Cutlass Supreme Brougham.

Raphael notes the same thing in his Accord review. I also like his photographs much better than I like any shots I’ve ever taken of my Accord. The funny thing is that his review car has the one option you can get on an Accord EX-L V6 manual: the navigation system. I refused to pay nearly two thousand dollars for something that comes free with a phone. Insofar as this is the first daily-driven car without navigation I’ve had since I put an Alpine IVA-D900 in my Disco 4.6 in 2003, however, I’m annoyed every single freaking time I can’t get an instant map of my surroundings by pressing a button.

Anyway, if you want to see some nice pictures of an Accord and read one of the better writers in the business all at once, check R.O. out.

3 Replies to “Honda Hates Me So Much They Gave Raphael Orlove My Car, But Nicer”

  1. Avatarmnm4ever

    The Oldsmobile joke got old quick.

    The only thing your Accord has in common with a 76 Cutlass is that it carries the #2 sales spot 40 yrs later. It has more in common with today’s Buick, but then again today’s Buick has nothing in common with Buick of 40 yrs ago either.

    It’s better to compare it to a 328 coupe or A5 and then ask “why spend $20k+ more?”

  2. Avatarjz78817

    y’know, the “aftermarket is way better than OEM” argument might have been true 10 years ago. Back then, when I worked for Alpine, they truly had aftermarket touchscreen/navi systems which for the most part didn’t even exist in the OE world.

    But now, most OE systems are- if not great- at least a lot better than any of the garbage in the aftermarket. People love to bitch about MyFord Touch or CUE, but the aftermarket stuff out there now is absolute filth. I wanted to put something better in my Ranger than the 1-CD radio it was built with, so I tried some aftermarket 2-DIN touchscreen head units. Pioneer? trash. Tiny on-screen controls which demanded precise touch placement. Alpine? offal. misinterpreting taps as swipes, missing/ignoring taps, and just all-around crappy sluggish performance. Kenwood? more of the same.

    aftermarket car audio is for people who think the quality of a speaker depends on how shiny and sparkly its cone is.

    • AvatarRonnie Schreiber

      What a reversal from the 1970s and 1980s. Back then if you wanted quality sound in a car you had to go to the aftermarket. OEM sound systems were dreck. With a good head unit and some drivers from Madisound you could easily surpass the audio quality of just about any factory system.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.