Honda Accord - 2003 Redesign

joeandcarol2

I for one am glad of the availability of the 6 speed. It may be dumb buisness wise. I was wondering if anyone knows just how much of a fortune it takes to certify a particular configuration? This seems to be the big obsticle in the USA that limits many choices for consumers.

fasterthanu

Like Machiavelli said, why spend gobs of money to satisfy a truly meager number of potential sales of a manual version? If it's for image purposes, Honda already has the NSX, S2000 and Acura S variants. Besides, Honda is selling its cars just fine on merit and performance.

If you want a manual, don't complain about Honda. Buy that precious Altima. Nissan needs your money anyway - they were (and are) billions of dollars in the debt hole and got bought up by Renault, a company that didn't even sell a single car in the U.S. since pulling out decades ago.

And now they wanna sell the ugly-butt M45, that has the same dashboard as the Q45, in the same showroom. Good luck, Nissan. The Stratus Coupe may have the same dash as the Eclipse, but at least they're not under the same brand for goodness sake. I've never seen such a dumb move before.

jud95accord

I went to my local Honda dealership yesterday and put my name down to hold a 2003 V-6 Accord in Silver. They are only getting about 12 in (in the various colors) for Sept. The one I picked is being finished 8/27 at the factory. The salesman is going to call me once the pricing comes in and I've heard I'll probably have to pay MSRP.

peteinmpls

Hi all...just chiming into this discussion. I wanted to put some thoughts out there relative to the styling of both the new Accord and the recently updated Camry, since both of these cars are such huge sellers.

Like everyone else, I haven't yet seen the new Accord in the flesh or driven one, but I have to count myself among those that find the styling extremely disappointing. Since the early 90's, it seems as though Honda and Toyota have progressively lost their styling verve, at least where cars are concerned. Generally though, it would be hard to argue that any of their designs were unattractive...usually, it was a debate between whether they were overly mainstream/sedate or whether they were clean/timeless.

The 2003 Accord and, to a much lesser degree, the 2002 Camry seem to cross a new line. For the first time, the styling of both of these cars is polarizing. IMHO, the 2003 Accord is every bit as jarring a redesign as the jellybean Taurus of the mid-90's. The only review I've read in detail so far is from Edmunds which, according to this board, is about the only one that's hinting that the styling is a failure. But I'd be willing to bet that a disturbingly large number of buyers are really going to be turned off by the new Accord's looks...particularly 30 and 40 somethings. Granted, it's just my hunch, but this car literally screams "BUICK!" to me...and I see it pushing the buyer demographics higher by another 5-7 years.

Question is, will it matter? Unlike the mid-90's Taurus, the Accord is probably a lock to be stellar mechanically, from the 4 cylinder DX to a loaded V6 EX. But today (as opposed to the mid-90's) a lot of cars are bullet-proof. When it comes right down to it, virtually anything you can buy these days is at least acceptably reliable. The gap between average to above average reliability becomes smaller each year and is almost to the point of becoming statistically meaningless. So if you can go to Honda, Toyota, VW, Mazda, Nissan, Ford, GM and Chrysler dealerships and be assured of getting a reliable vehicle, what's going to sway your buying decision?

When you think of what else you'll be able to choose from in coming years, the new Accord looks really vulnerable. Consider the current Passat and Altima. Consider upcoming models, like the the '03 Mazda 6 and the '04 Ford 500 and decladded Pontiac Gran Prix. Do an internet search on the 2003 Opel Vectra...it's widely rumored that the next Chevrolet Malibu will be virtually identical to this slick German sedan. If these models can soothe concerns about reliability, they seem to stand a great chance to win buyers' hearts. It will be interesting to see if the Accord (and Camry) are in the same place on the sales charts in 5 years.

silverk21

Does anyone out there like the new styling of the Accord? I cannot say much for the sedan styling, since I would never consider a four door. However, so far from the pictures, I love the new coupe. It is not a ground breaking design change (as stated by Honda) but overall is appealing to me and should endure all the trendy design changes out there.

As far as closing the gap, show me a car with the same quality, reliability, features, performance, and interior finishes in its class. The gap, in my opinion, has not been closed. I guess we will all have to wait and see how this new generation Accord will do. My money is on the Accord.

shado4

I love the styling of the new coupe as well. It looks really good in darker colors (that burgundy red is gorgeous!)

I'm a strong believer, though, in waiting to see the car in person before I pass final judgement. I won't automatically disqualify a car's styling based on a few 3" x 5" photos. I need to get up close and personal with it...judge it based on "real world" perspective.

fasterthanu

When the last Prelude came out, I was like .. what happened?! I was not crazy about it at all. I thought the lines didn't flow well, it was too rectangular, and I was not crazy about the trapezoidal headlights. Fast-forward a year or so, and I was loving the design. It really is both sleek and classy. In fact I saw one tonight, and I just stood around admiring it.

That's Honda to me. They are ahead of their time, at times. The Prelude, now gone, today looks better than much of the crap coming out new. Of course, the Accord will sell in large numbers and when we see them everywhere, they will engrain themselves into the automotive landscape. It is hard to judge from pictures but I really think the Accord looks awesome, and the coupe incredibly so.

The Altima does look good. I can't say otherwise. But its styling is derivative. Headlights are derivative of Toyota / Honda. Tail lights are a blatant rip-off of Toyota. The C-pillar is derivative of VW. The entire car does not embody a great design, but it looks good. But it also looks common. The Camry and Accord strike bold new looks.

peteinmpls: If you're in the market for a new car, or soon to be, you owe it to yourself to read many other reviews and see the car in person. The Edmunds review was so patently skewed because the reviewer (Chris Wardlaw) bought into Honda's PR and ran along those lines, rather than viewing the Accord purged of pre-conceptions and biases.

vooch

peteinmpls: "The Edmunds review was so patently skewed because the reviewer (Chris Wardlaw) bought into Honda's PR and ran along those lines, rather than viewing the Accord purged of pre-conceptions and biases."

The Honda Accord does nothing but scream of preconceptions and biases. And the guy really wasn't all that hard if you really read the article. Just about every post on this board is biased in some way, almost always towards Honda(naturally of course since this is a Honda board ). But, you can't be much more biased when you buy a car without shopping the competition... Works both ways it seems.

inky4

I too preorderd a V-6. My experience is that your car shows up 10-14 days after the build date. So you will get early production but not that early as about 25,000 cars will be built by that date. Where do they put all those cars? With the hot deals on 02 Accords I would not be surprised for many of us to see the Accord in about two weeks at various dealers. They started with 4 bangers in first few weeks of production in late July. I really would not want one of the first 5000 cars made. After the first week and especially the first month big glitches are resolved. My 94 Accord EX was very early prodution and never went back to dealer for any work--was made in Japan.
INKY

crv16

I have to disagree. I've only driven manual transmission Accords up to now, mainly because of the performance sapping nature of automatic transmissions. But now, with a 240 hp engine available with a 5 speed auto trans, I would consider one, since it obviously gives you adequate performance.

Sad to say, but I think manual transmissions will become a thing of the past in 10 years. Right now, less than 10% of new cars sold have manual transmissions, and that number is decreasing every year.

inky4

Several have asked about my preordering of a 2003 Accord. I got a great deal in writing of $316 over invoice ($2000+ discount based on 02 pricing--they have sold Accords for that price the past 5 or 6 years that I know of).From this Oklahoma dealer I have bought 3 cars in the past--they are ethical and forthright. Since I do not want to get beat up for selling or promoting a business here, you can email me at jcro3717@aol.com for details. My salesman told me that they would reevaluate pricing on Septbember 8th once they see market demand upon actual release of the car or if they presell an extraordinary amount at this price.
INKY

machiavelli

Sounds like you got a good deal, INKY.

There is NO WAY I would pay MSRP for a car just to have the "first on the block", when you know it will be discounted in a few months after production ramps up to full speed.

whotheman

I believe the Altima is the freshest design in the segment since the 99 Passat! And it shares an overall them with the Passat, but is MUCH more aggressive and alluring. Makes the Passat lok very boring in comparison, and makes me question the ability of it to hold up, stylistically, as a $40k V8 model! It is pure, masculine, and unedited. It looks like RWD! Hard to believe NISSAN came up with it on it's own!?!

About the manual tranny and the 240Hp engine, the car will not lose much with the 5-speed auto. That is definitely a good transmission, but POWER IS NOTHING WITHOUT CONTROL. So my eyes are squarely on the new Mazda 6 and the Altima for fun to drive sport sedans under $25k.

maxpower02

Manual transmissions are becoming rarer every year. My wife and I have been driving manuals for 25 years, people are so surprised when they get in my car and see a 5-speed stick.
However, I am looking to buy a 03'Accord Sedan EXV6 with an automatic. Too much shifting around the city. I'm sure all of the people posting on this board who want a standard trans on the new Accord do not live in major metro areas. I have a number of friends who bought sport models for the 5-speed tranny, only to sell the car a year later because they couldn't deal with the constant shifting.
Another thing, resale value goes way down when a manual tranny is involved--check out the TH Real Trade in Value board.

whotheman

I live in the heart of New York City for over 25 years. Drive 5th Avenue 3 times a week. Driving doesn't get more Hardcore than NYC. Won't buy Auto. Not dead yet. Not lazy, either!

Kirstie_H

I live in a major- (tho not NYC) sized city, and got auto for that reason alone -- not always laziness, who. But some folks, as they age, find that ailing knees become a problem. Not me, of course, as I'm ageless

kirstie_h
Roving Host & Future Vehicles Host

pda97

Machiavelli, your argument is pure fiction and makes me giggle. Honda would have to spend next to nothing to put the 6-sp in the V6 sedan. Since when does a transmission dependent on a car's body style ? Especially in this case when the chassis is the same with the exception of 2 additional doors. Do you think the 6-sp cares whether or not it resides in the coupe or sedan ? Care to enlighten all of us on what it would take for Honda to "certify" the 6-sp with the sedan ???

Honda can easily find more than 1500 takers (out of the 400K plus) for the 6-sp plus V6 combo. (In reality, this number is somewhere between 5-10%). But let just assume that your figure of 1500 is correct. Still, why would Honda spend a fortune "certifying" the 6-sp with the coupe when all they could hope to sell is 1500 copies ??? Further more, in general, the market share for coupes is small and shrinking. Is the Solara doing well ? Why is Acura thinking about cancelling the CL ? Tell me, out of the 400K+ Accords Honda sold, how many were coupes ? I don't see a lot of Accord coupes on the roads. Do you ?

The fortune was spent DESIGNING the 6-sp, NOT putting it in the car ! And since they already spend the $$ to develop the 6-sp, why not get more sales by offering it with the sedan ? Why offer it with a coupe, a body style that does not sell well ? Where is the logic ? This is because Honda likes to "dictate" what consumers will buy. I'll give you one example (since I don't want to tie up server space here)...take the Odyssey, if you want the DVD Entertainment System, you'll have to buy the EX w/Leather, which is the top of line model. The DVD is not available with the LX or EX. You think LX and EX buyers aren't interested in the DVD for their families ??? Each Honda trim (regardless of model) has a fixed set of features installed. There are no options to choose. This is because Honda already decided for you. Honda knows people will buy a Honda just because it's a Honda. Again, this is what I meant when I said that Honda is arrogant (in my previous post).

I think your enthusiasm for Honda has seriously clouded your judgment.

machiavelli

The car has to be emissions certified by the government - the goverment doesn't care if it's a coupe or a sedan. Each model of the car has to be certified. That costs a certain amount of money. Sorry, I don't know the exact figures of how much it costs. I'm glad that made you giggle.

The point is, if there was a valid business case, i.e. if Honda would sell more cars and make more money by offering the 6-speed in a V6 sedan, then I'm sure they would do it.

As it stands, it's probably not worth the trouble for the limited number of buyers it would attract.

I guess if I don't bash Honda, that must mean my judgement is seriously clouded? Now it's my turn to giggle.

pda97

Sorry, Machiavelli....now those giggles are turning into laughters. Picture this....same engine, same transmission, just different skins. How is it that the emission is different between the coupe and sedan ? Honda can easily emission-certified the sedan based on similarities with the coupe. Your explanation doesn't hold water.

Using your own words, if it's "not worth the trouble for the limited number of buyers it would attract", why offer it at all (in the coupe) ?

I've owned a Honda, a Toyota, and a couple of Nissans. My next car would probably be a VW. I'm a car enthusiast, that's all. Unlike some poeple, I'm not loyal to any one brand. I buy whichever brand/model I find appealing. I will call it as I see it. Tell me, is every person who bad-mouths Honda labeled a "Honda basher" ? Besides, if we, as consumers, don't voice our displeasure about a make or model, then how is the manufacturer going to know if any improvements are needed ?

I think you've had such a rough day defending Honda's reputation all by yourself that you've become paranoid. Get some rest

jud95accord

Inky - what color did you order and did you check into a spoiler on the new model? My dealership would not give me a price until they get further info. They said the new cars stay at the Port of Houston covered up until delivery to the dealership. I also checked into buying through the internet and the one person said there probably won't be any discounts.

maxhonda99

pda97, YOu didn't read machiavelli's post real well. The emissions are going to be basically identical in the 4-door Accord and 2-door Accord with 6-speed manual and V6. But the 4-door Accord V6 auto and the 2-door Accord V6 auto are certified separately by the gov't(I Believe the EPA). The same holds true if Honda wanted to produce a 4-door Accord with 6-speed manual & V6 engine. Even though the Accord V6 COUPE with a 6-speed is certified by the EPA for sale, doesn't automatically mean the Accord V6 SEDAN with a 6-speed would be certified. Both of these cars are certified separately. And certifying the cars costs in the millions of dollars I believe. Therefore, Honda essentially has about 7 cars to certify by the EPA:

1. Accord sdn 4-cylinder auto
2. Accord sdn 4-cylinder manual
3. Accord coupe 4-cylinder auto
4. Accord coupe 4-cylinder manual
5. Accord sedan V6 Auto
6. Accord Coupe V6 auto
7. Accord Coupe V6 auto

Now at the end of the day, a Accord sedan with a V6 and 6-speed manual is probably going to account for less than 500 units per month. Obviously it doesn't make a whole lot of sense from their standpoint. To you it may make sense to build it, but you're not the one crunching numbers at Honda.

maxhonda99

pda97, If that doesn't click for you, think about what Nissan did back when the Altima first appeared in the early 90s. To save money, because Nissan wasn't so sure about how the Altima would sell, they certified the original Altima and by all legal means the car was still called the Stanza(the car the Altima replaced). And if you read on the back of the first model years cars, it said "stanza" in stickers and "Altima" next to it in chrome letters. See, to save money on certifying just the name of the Altima, they called it the Stanza. But used the marketing name of Altima to sell the car. A year later, when the Altima was selling like hotcakes, they went back and re-certifed the car as a Altima with the gov't.

inky

Noble Green. So So color but hey. I will get spoiler later if needed from discount parts place.
INKY

vooch

That doesn't make sense though. The way you put it in your second post I would think they are certifying the name "Altima" not the actual car model with respect to emissions. Do you mean the model name or emissions?

Also, the Passat is available with V6 manual, as is the Jetta, 626, Maxima, and Altima. I'm sure they could afford to do it, these guys have. And it probably would have helped the sporty image they are attempting to convey with this new Accord. It may not directly help sales in the now, but if they are trying to change their image and attract new people, it would probably go a long way.

I personally wouldn't consider the Accord sedan until they put a stick in it. But then I guess I'm one of the 5-10%. Like someone said before, the people who would buy the 6sp sedan would probably be *new* Honda customers, not repeat customers that need no incentive to buy a Honda.

fasterthanu

Why should Machiavelli have to defend the Accord? What's to defend? It's the best selling car in America. This new model is as fast as an Altima and the 6-Speed coupe will bring in SUB-6 Second 0-60 times. Not to mention it TRAMPLES the Altima in quality, fit and finish, and reliability. And years down the road it will have a resale value that puts the Altimas to shame.

So .. what is there to defend? It has no weaknesses.

benjaminh

inky: 2000 off of list price! What a deal. Let us know as soon as you get your car...

I just bought an 02 LX 5-speed. I like the feeling of interaction that you get with a manual trans. It's more sporty, you get better gas mileage, and the car costs 800 less to begin with. But, as people have noted, it's a dying breed, because so few young people learn how to shift. And some of the last holdouts finally throw in the towel. I learned on a VW bus 4-speed, and it has made everything since (esp. my Honda) seem like a smooth dream. Of course on days when I don't feel like shifting, I can drive my old Olds 98 land yacht with auto.

chryslervan1

Nissan, Volkswagen, Subaru, Kia, Hyundai, Daewoo, etc. need all the gimmicks in the book to try to increase sales. The Accord has high sales using the tried and proven Honda system of quality with Honda vehicles including only the items considered important by the majority of the population.

joeandcarol2

I dont think manuals will go away anytime soon. In europe about 90% of all vehicles are manuals. They are not lazy americans... opppss sorry for the attitude.. I just get frustrated at the lack of manuals available over here.

hydrogeek

Butt Ugly! Honda does one thing well. Produce reliable, bland cars for the masses. I own a '92 Accord 5spd and it was one of the best styled cars of the time. Now it is just another sedan in a sea of vanilla flavored cars.

Now Mazda with the 220 hp 6 with the style and handling package and the 240 hp Altima is what the midsize sedan market needs. If you do not want the hp's you can opt for the four banger and still get a great looking car.

Honda spent a lot of money on a re-design that looks like it was designed by the Buick design team. I take back that Buick reference, it looks more like the Taurus team met the Saturn L Series people half way.

Sorry folks, no new Accord in my garage.

jguo

Isn't it funny that what the market doesn't need out sales the the Altima. The 2002 Accord, A five years old design on its last leg still manages to trounce the Altima sales, day in and day out.

fasterthanu

"Honda spent a lot of money on a re-design that looks like it was designed by the Buick design team. I take back that Buick reference, it looks more like the Taurus team met the Saturn L Series people half way."

Funny how you "take back" that reference instead of just backspacing through it. Oh, wait. You were trying to be clever, weren't you? Nope, the new Accord looks nothing like a Buick, Taurus or Saturn. Not at all. That's your own, um, opinion.

"Sorry folks, no new Accord in my garage."

That's okay. Like jguo just said, the Accord in its 5th year outsells the Altima in its 1st year as if nothing has changed. Have fun in the service department and good luck at resale time. Smart used car buyers don't get Nissans. They get Hondas.

chryslervan1

Honda quality vs Nissan tricks.

pda97

Maxhonda99, I'm trying hard to understand your explanation....I really am. Unfortunately, you've brought me no closer to the light than Machiavelli. Let's talk EPA.....we're talking about emission and fuel economy rating here, correct ? I expect both the 6-sp V6 coupe and sedan to have identical fuel economy. At most, they differ from each other by 100 lbs of weight (and 2 doors). Now, if the gov't makes such a big deal about certifying a couple of cars whose only differences are as such, and charging millions of $ in the process, then we seriously need to get a new gov't. I mean, this is what we call a rip-off ! Heck, certifying a derivative jumbo jet is less complicated than this.

As for your Altima example, if I understand you correctly, Nissan certified the Altima twice, once as a Stanza Altima, and again as an Altima. So Nissan paid twice the big bucks for certification ? Sounds like a dumb thing to do. The Altima and Stanza are 2 completely different cars, different yr, different engines, etc. The Accord coupe and sedan are practically twins born the same yr. I'm afraid your example does not fit this situation.

And man, did I step on a hornet's nest or what ? Honda sure has a lot of "defenders" out there. And you know who you are. Tell me, are you on Honda's payroll ? You all sound like you personally have something at stake. It's quite comical, actually You really should thank Nissan for the new Accord's power growth. If not for the V6 Altima, you'd still be driving the Japanese's equivalent of "your grandfather's Oldsmobile"

But hey, a wise man once said, "if you float a bogey out there long enough, eventually, some one is gonna hit it !". Example ? Check out the comparison Motor Trend did between the G35 and the 330i. Sure, the G35's looks may be controversial. But its performance is equal to if not better than the 330i at $7k less ! Not bad for a 1st yr model. Enuf said. Over and out.

machiavelli

pda - read it again - "The car has to be emissions certified by the government - the goverment doesn't care if it's a coupe or a sedan. Each model of the car has to be certified." Like it or not, that's the way it is. It costs 'x' dollars to do that. That is the EPA, your tax dollars at work.

The return on investment for Honda probably doesn't make it worthwhile for the limited number of sales they would make. Honda, like any company, is in business to make MONEY. IMO, it would probably be a dumb business decision to offer a 6-speed with the V6 sedan, for the limited number of people who want to buy one.

I'm certainly not 'defending' Honda. I'm not a cheerleader for any brand. I don't own an Accord, and I'm not buying one anytime soon. I try to be objective as possible.

talon95

>> You really should thank Nissan for the new Accord's power growth. If not for the V6 Altima, you'd still be driving the Japanese's equivalent of "your grandfather's Oldsmobile" <<

Isn't it ironic, though, that a five-year old "lame duck" design, the one that you refer to as "your grandfather's Oldsmobile", was deemed by Car and Driver to be better than the all new, supposedly "revolutionary" Altima? And that includes matching scores in "Fun to Drive". The gee-whiz, media darling Altima is outscored by the so-called "grandfather's Oldsmobile". Yes, it was by the slimmest of margins, but the old design still beat the new design. Interesting outcome.

And as someone said elsewhere, despite all the uproar from the media and fanboys for the new Altima, this Accord with the 5-year-old design continues to sell as if nothing has changed. As if Nissan was still selling the Altima's notoriously lackluster predecessor. The overall balance and refinement of the Accord still has lots of appeal in the face of the glitz and glitter of the Altima.

mazdamike1

The reason everyone is buying the "5-year old design" is because they want to buy it before that new ugly accord comes out. I agree the styling is horrible. It looks like fat prelude mixed with a kia.

Plus...Why is everyone talking about sales. Just because the accord kills everything in sales doesnt make it a better car. A new M3 will never sell as much as a accord but that doesnt make it worse. The new 6 will handle better than the accord and i'm willing to bet the aftermarket parts that the 6 gets will spank the accord in acceleration. Turbo here we go!! The accord will have little to no after market appeal. Who wants to street race a 2003 accord???!?!

jguo

"Tell me, are you on Honda's payroll ? "
No. I don't even own Honda stock. I am just here to point out the obvious.

"It's quite comical, actually "

Actually what's really comical is a few Nissan owners, who never intended to buy the Accord, feel the need to keep coming here and tell the rest of us how Honda had screw up the new Accord. They have neither seen (in person) nor driven the car, but they just convinced it's not good. Now that's comical

jguo

"The reason everyone is buying the "5-year old design" is because they want to buy it before that new ugly accord comes out"

Well then, how do you explain the 4 year old design Accord was the best seller last year? Sells were even better than this year. But nobody back then knew about the "ugly" new accord.

When M3 cost around 25K, interior is more family friendly by enlarging 20%, it will be a best seller too. Of course, when there is M3 on every block, people is going to complain that they look too boring too.

"The new 6 will handle better than the accord "

Here we go again, neither car is out, but you just KNEW the new 6 will be handle better. While the rest of us "honda-defenders" are just too biased to realize that.

"Turbo here we go!! "

Unm forget about the turbo, too much trouble. When I feel urge to be a BIG man, I just pick on the Tercels or Yugos (hard to find these days). Make sure no cops are around of course. I spank them every time.

maxhonda99

Vooch, Yes. Manufacturers also pay to have to pay for naming the car. In Nissans case, I believe because they
Weren’t originally expecting the Altima to sell any better than the outgoing Stanza, they were looking for ways to conserve cash. Where they found they could save costs was to simply use the old Stanza name for all paperwork. This saved them money because they don’t have to pay to certify a new name “Altima”. But for marketing purposes, they can, I guess call it whatever they want, so in ads and on the car they called it the “Altima”. This keeps people from associating with the old Stanza. But of course since legally it was a Stanza, they did have to put a Stanza name on the car, so they stuck stanza in little letters before the Altima in big bold chrome letters. Anyway, I remember this information from a few years back. I read it in one of the automobile magazines back when the second generation Altima came out.

On your second point, I’m pretty sure Honda could also afford to put a manual in the V6 sedan. Even if they sell a few hundred Accord V6 manual sedans a month, that’s quite a bit. But I am also theorizing that Honda thought about it from different angles. I’m guessing, bigger than costs to certify a V6 manual sedan, they figured that by not offering a manual in the V6 sedan, they will sell more coupes, which helps decrease per unit R&D costs for the coupe. And remember VW, Mazda, Nissan doesn’t have that liberty since all the cars you mentioned above only come in 4-door body styles.

dirkdaddy

The high cost of epa certification of engine transmission combinations is a big reason why domestic mfgs have gone almost exclusively to automatic transmissions. Well, that and the fact the vast majority of Americans prefer autos. From a marketing perspective, a guy like me who prefers manuals most of the time (traffic is not one of those times) will begrudingly buy a automatic equipped car, whereas a person who cannot drive or doesn't like manuals won't touch a manual car with a ten foot pole.

On powertrain certification, I was under the impression that it is engine/transmission packages that certified, not every different iteration (such as 2 door, 4 door, reg cab pickup, ex cab pickup, that sort of thing), but I could be wrong.

The Honda Accord is a good car, we almost bought one but I prefered the handling and manual v6, as well as more comfortable seats and more interior room of the Maxima. There's nothing wrong with being middle of the road and "uninspired", look at how many cars GM sells, like the Grand Am. Sales figures folks are not really a great measure of how good a car is. The Camery also sells a lot but to me they are like reliable mini-Buicks complete with buick-like soft suspension and floppy handling. Its also highly rated, like the highly rated Accord the posters have touted. McDonalds sells a lot of hamburgers to the masses, and they will keep you alive but people with advanced taste usually don't usually enjoy eating them.

Enough rambling,

DD

DD

maxpower02

all of the posters here who say the new Accord is "butt ugly" will go to their nearest dealer to check out the "butt ugly" Accord and will walk out a new Accord owner. IMO of course!

inky4

You are correct! I peeled that puppy off my 93 Altima. Great car but smallish at the time.
INKY

bravedave

There is one reason why the Accord is so conservatively styled--- to differentiate it from the Acura brand. Granted, both are very conservative when it comes to styling, but Honda tends to be moreso. This helps preserve the perceived brand difference between say an Accord EX-V6 sedan and an Acura TL Type S. Frankly, I would be quite happy with either one. Conservative designs tend to age well. Once things get too trendy, they look out of date as trends change. I'll take an Accord EX 4 cylinder with the 5 speed auto-- in red or eternal blue-- tan cloth interior. When those bombs start dropping in Iraq, I'll appreciate the fuel efficiency of the 4 banger when those gas prices surge

pjdonnelly

bravo, bravedave. except I don't need to wait for the bombs to start falling to appreciate my 31-35 mpg on my '95 EX 5-speed coupe. First and only major expense was having all the belts and water pump replaced at 95,000. I'm now at 125,000 and intend to go to 200K and beyond. I'd love a new 2003, but I don't expect to need a new car for another 5 years!

fasterthanu

"As for your Altima example, if I understand you correctly, Nissan certified the Altima twice, once as a Stanza Altima, and again as an Altima. So Nissan paid twice the big bucks for certification ? Sounds like a dumb thing to do. "

Yes, and perhaps that kind of dumb thing put them billions of dollars in debt and caused the Renault takeover?

I like that the Accord and Civic are bestsellers but I don't care if Honda doesn't make the top 10 in every category due to supply limitations, as long as they sell everything they make (and they do) but remain independent without leveraging themselves over the top like Nissan did.

I like Honda to remain Honda.

talon95

>> The reason everyone is buying the "5-year old design" is because they want to buy it before that new ugly accord comes out. I agree the styling is horrible. It looks like fat prelude mixed with a kia. <<

Styling has only been hinted at and/or known for maybe 1 1/2 or 2 months, so the general public hasn't known if the new Accord is beautiful or ugly for the majority of the model year. And I don't agree with your perceptions about the styling at all. But anyway, your "cause and effect" scenario clearly doesn't work out. Nice try though... clever way to get in yet another shot at the Accord's styling.

As for styling, let me just say that the 6 has its good angles and bad angles as well. I've seen some pictures in which it's astonishingly ugly, IMO. But I don't plan on going into Mazda forums to harp on this.

>> Plus...Why is everyone talking about sales. Just because the accord kills everything in sales doesnt make it a better car. A new M3 will never sell as much as a accord but that doesnt make it worse. <<

That's true... if sales volume equalled quality, McDonald's would be the best food in the world.

First, my point about quality wasn't the sales part, it was the "5 year old design Accord beats the all new gee whiz Altima" auto test.

The sales point was not anything about high sales = quality... rather, it was an observation that the car that so many fans say revolutionized this market segment (the Altima) has had little or no effect on the market leaders so far. That doesn't say anything about quality, but it does tell you that being the darling of the media like the Altima doesn't necessarily take it into the big time.

mazdamike1

jguo,
Actually, I have havent heard 1 person saying the old accord is boring. I actually like the styling on the older accord. Even though its on every block doesnt mean the styling is boring. This new styling on the 2003 accord I think is boring. This is only because I am a fan of sports sedans. I'm not saying its really that bad styling. Its actually very nice for a sedan. But honda wasnt trying to make a brand new sports sedan. They wanted to keep with the conservative image. Stop trying to tell me the accords styling is the best thing you've ever seen. Your trying to make the accord into something it wasnt designed for.

"Objectively, if you're looking for things like comfort, quiet, refinement, resale value... get the Honda. If you're looking for something a little sportier, more fun to drive, get the Mazda. "

...I couldnt have said it better myself. This was said by a guy in another forum.

Plus with your comment of better handling. The 6 is already out in Asia and Europe and its gotten impressive reviews for handling. All the reviewers i've read have said the mazda 6 could outcorner any accord. Once again...the accord was not made to be an impressive sports sedan. Stop making it into something its not. However, I hear the accords engine is suppose to have great acceleration. Very impressive for a sedan. The Altima better watch out.

bravedave

Good luck on your car!! For the record, I have a 98 Olds Intrigue with almost 100K miles. So far-- no problems. Plus, she's cheap to maintain. I would like to get 50K more miles on it before I trade. My wife's 96 Stratus V6 sedan croaked this past Christmas-- we replaced it with a Civic EX sedan-- which has turned me into a Honda fan. With Honda, it is the little things-- attention to detail-- thoughtful USEFUL engineering that shines through that lasts & endures-- not simply the flavour of the month--like an Altima. It has yet to prove itself long term to equal an Accord. It is not a bad car--- but its predecessors certainly do not have the same reputation as the Accord. When my Olds croaks-- I want an Accord.

machiavelli

mazdamike - I should have copyrighted that saying! LOL!

I didn't mean it as a "knock" on either car. They both have their strengths. Like I said, if fun-to-drive is your number 1 criteria, then get the Mazda. If you want more "practicality", comfort, space, quiet, resale, etc.. then the Honda is probably the better choice. Both seem like good cars.

machiavelli

I agree with bravedave, too. The Altima styling is just too trendy for me, especially the clear tail-lights, which have "fad" written all over them. The Accord may be conservative, but it won't look "faddish" 10 years from now, either. Remember the "monochromatic" look from the late 80s? The wheels, grille, etc.. all painted body color? Looks ridiculous today, same a the clear tail-lights will look 10 years from now.