Older Honda Accords

condoriole · February 2003

"I did everything right" Okay, if you say so.
I'm happy to hear about your research techniques before buying a used car, we all should be so diligent.
However as you have learned the hard way, it's not an exact science. Do those records tell you what kind of gas they put in every time? Do they tell you if they warmed the car up ever or just turned the key and jump on the gas every time? Do they tell you if they drove it like Mario Andretti or Aunt B? Do those records show that this person lives in a house with 5 other people and there's not enough space in the driveway so they have to climb over a small curb at least twice a day with the car? Ok that's a reach but you get the idea. These are some of the reasons I will never buy used again, at least not for me.

If I was thinking of buying a used car and found out that the previous owner bought it to the dealer for everything including routine things I would move on, but that's just me.

own4h · February 2003

It was a major factor for me. I also wanted to get back to a manual transmission. I got 31 mpg on a 900 mile trip @ 80 mph +. 2.4 I4 engine handled the mountain passes with ease, & as the engine breaks in, the ease at which it performs impresses me to no end. In town milage seem to be 20% better than the V6, and I don't think I've seen the best milage yet because it only has 7,000 miles on it.
I had a 2000 EX V6, and find the 2003 EX-L better in every respect but 2, sure miss that homelink for my garage and my aftermarket stereo beat most in home unit (new factory system is much improved though).
BTW, for those sportiness proponents, the manual transmission does impart much more driving pleasure. I do think the tires are conservative so agressive tires would definately tilt the handling scale.

robertsmx · February 2003

Jfavour
Hybrid Accord can be thought of as a possibility some time in the future, but in the near future it could be one or more of the light trucks (Odyssey/Pilot/CRV) as Honda has mentioned it a few times.

As for mileage stagnancy/decline over the decade is concerned, much of it may have to do with a few things that don't help in that area. Cars have gained weight as they received new features from comfort point of view as well as safety. Power, in general, has been the thing as well, however, not always applicable. My 1988 Corolla GT-S delivered about 30 mpg under the same circumstances that our 2000 Civic EX (with more power and features) is delivering, about 31 mpg. And in fact, EPA estimates are higher for 2001+ Civic EX (32/38 mpg) than they were for 1996-2000 Civic EX (28/35 mpg). Accord is another example of getting better in every regard while not giving up on fuel consumption. Accord I-4 w/manual is rated at 26-mpg/34 mpg, which is better than many sub-compact/compact cars with less power.

I spend about $60 per month in gasoline alone with my 98 Accord averaging 24-25 mpg in mostly city driving. OTOH, with V6, assuming that I got 21 mpg, I would have been paying $10 per month more, and over 77K miles that I have added to my car, the approximate savings has been over $800! With Accord (and Camry), I don't really feel the need of V6 engine, probably a lot of people don't, and could be the reason why more than 80% of those cars sold are equipped with four cylinder engines.

stretchsje · February 2003

own4h & robertsmx: Glad to hear about fuel economy- I'd really love Honda to introduce more Hybrids. They have the brand recognition to convince buyers the technology is worth having, and their AWD sporty hybrid concept is downright neat (but probably heavy)!

I too am hoping the best is yet to come. It seems small displacement vehicles I've driven in the past have not met, but exceeded their EPA estimates, while larger displacement engines have not. I attribute a lot of this to the smaller engines being older and running their best. For reference, the car I came from was an automatic Celica with a 1.6l engine- rated at 31mpg highway and I'd get a whopping 40mpg!

For example, robert, if your Civic was rated 4/3mpg better than the Corolla, yet only resulted in 1mpg improvement- are we seeing diminishing returns? Whats going on here? I'd like to hear from more owners. I'm a fairly large proponent of good gas mileage, but am skeptical of certain claims of modern cars. own4h, isn't the Accord rated at 34mpg highway? Subarus, for example, can get dismal gas mileage despite average EPA claims.

My going theory is that modern engines are built to a higher precision, and therefore don't change as much during break-in. That's why older cars seem to exceed their EPA rating after a few years and modern cars only seem to match it.

Either that, or the EPA's testing is flawed. How do they test, anyway?

spleck · February 2003

Fuel efficiency does not directly relate to the amount of emissions. Cars are held to stricter emissions requirements every year. I saw an article about how cars today put out 1/10th the emissions of cars 15 years ago. The world running out of oil isn't as important as all of us choking to death on CO, NO, etc.

So if the new Accord puts out 1/10th of the garbage of a 88 Accord, then unless your old car can get 300 MPG, the world's better off.

stretchsje · February 2003

Not what I was thinking about, but true nonetheless. Speaking of, I bought the ULEV equipment on my vehicle just in anticipation of lower sulfer fuel- it's not yet required in my area. I hope these stricter regulations go nationwide.

And even more so, I hope SUVs are forced to meet the same requirements. It was just posted on the SUV's board that the average SUV is driven farther every year than the average car. What a waste.

I still can't believe I'm getting 34mpg CITY in my current car- 500+ miles on a tank (three weeks worth) is unbelievable. Never underestimate a manual tranny!

jfavour · February 2003

I am glad that emissions have improved significantly. It seems to be (at least partially) attributable to the fact that California has forced manufacturers to clean up their cars. It is a shame we haven't also seen the feds force fuel consumption numbers up as aggressively.

I am not going to complain about the current state of autos, though, because we clearly have as choices the most reliable, best performing and cleanest vehicles available ever today. I simply want more and think there is definite room for improvement. It may cost more at first, but competition among manufacturers will bring down those costs in the long run.

In a world where organic grocery stores are thriving, it seems people could be convinced to pay a bit more for a cleaner AND more fuel efficient vehicle, like the hybrids from Honda and Toyota.

dinu01 · February 2003

I think the 2001+ MPV figures (with the 3.0 V6) are much closer to the Ody than what you showed. Regardless of this, this is the Accord forum so let's discuss this car. The 98-02 versions were my favourite and my preferred family sedan (especially with the sweet 5spd).

Dinu
PS: But now the 6 is the #1 family sedan for myself, with the Accord at #2.

own4h · February 2003

Yes, Accord i4 manual is rated at 34 mpg, but from California to Home (1400 mile) I averaged 80 mpg, passed thousands of cars but was passed only twice, had some icy roads, went through 4 mountain passes, had 5 Adults and a full trunk. And the engine is not fully broken in.
31 mpg is not good, its great. In two weeks, I'll go on a 400 mile trip with 2 people in the car, over flat and hopefully clear roads and will try to keep it around 70 mph. I think an extra 3 mpg should be possible.

gee35coupe · February 2003

Really don't know what the mileage was. But I love my EX-L. I listen mostly to pop or techno so my stereo is fine. I actually have it flat with +3 on the treble. We filled up once in Ocala. Fla and came all the way to NW Atlanta on that one tank of gas. Not bad. And that's averaging 85 or so with a quick top speed test against some guy in a Grand Am. By the way EX-L sticks will do 125 at a reasonable RPM too.

talon95 · February 2003

Hey, I like the Accord, but even I don't think that's possible. Unless you did a LOT of coasting... <g>

stretchsje · February 2003

Just to confirm, you drive a manual, correct? I look forward to hearing your results. That's pretty good for five people and hills.

I still keep a log of every fuel-up. Does anybody else still do that?

own4h · February 2003

I wish.
My goof I averaged 80 mph and got 31 mpg. EPA numbers are at lower highway speeds & not fully loaded. The average driver drives much faster, usually at a huge reduction in fuel efficiency. This engine like 80 mph as much as I do, and will take the mountain passes and wind like a V6.
I also run a log but around town I usually part fill($1 off for 8 gal) so can only calculate milage when I fill up.

spleck · February 2003

I am glad that emissions have improved significantly. It seems to be (at least partially) attributable to the fact that California has forced manufacturers to clean up their cars. It is a shame we haven't also seen the feds force fuel consumption numbers up as aggressively.

I would definitely thank California for the improvements that brought about LEV, ULEV, SULEV standards, etc. I think emissions control is more important than MPG improvement though because emissions have no benefit--they just pollute; oil though runs much of the economy... I don't think the government will control fuel efficiency too soon--until hybrids/hydrogen fuels are more common, we don't know what the economic implications will be if fuel sales drop (fuel taxes will be heavier on people with older cars that can't afford newer cars, gas will be "worth" more and prices will go up--hurting poorer people with older cars, etc...).

Personally, I would push for cleaner diesel before hybrid technology. If US diesel was cleaner/purer, then all the semis would be less polluting and run better, and we could use some of the advanced diesel technology out there capable of getting us 50-60 mpg with more power than the Civic hybrid.

I prefer cars like the Accord that are near luxurious, but are still capable performers. A hybrid Accord would add weight and take away power. I would like to see an option like the Civic Hybrid, but not an all sweeping hybrid movement like some want. And again, I would like us to get clean diesel and a diesel Honda.

own4h: hah hah... took me a minute to realize your typo! Thought maybe you parked on a flatbed truck...

talon95 · February 2003

"Tsk, tsk... Stop using old performance numbers for the MPV. Those numbers look like they are from the 2000 model year, and with such slow times for both vehicles, I'm guessing Consumer Reports. The 2.5L V6 with 170HP and 4 speed tranny was replaced in the 2002 model year with a 3.0L 200HP and 5 speed automatic. Certainly a bit faster, even in the hands of Consumer Reports.

"

Yes, those were the numbers from Consumer Reports... they listed them under the 2002 model. But since both sets of numbers came from the same source, the relative performance difference is still valid. Since your new set of numbers is from a different source, it doesn't have any bearing on the Odyssey numbers.

Check Consumers Guide for ratings of both vans with their upgraded engines. Odyssey acceleration still beats MPV quite handily, although MPV mileage has improved to best Odyssey. Handling is at best a wash (MPV LX scores lower, but ES matches Odyssey), so the earlier statement about MPV's handling advantage is still inaccurate. Of course, middle and rear space and cargo room is no contest, with the Odyssey coming out on top. Overall scores for best model - MPV 61, Odyssey 69 (out of 100).

'Nuff said... back to the Accord discussion.

chillenhonda · February 2003

Honda's are amazing on gas. I owned a 1991 Accord LX 5-speed for two years, from 140,000 miles through 202,000 miles. I believe the EPA numbers were 24/30 for the manual. I mostly only did long distance highway driving. Averaging 75-80mph easily returned around 33-34mpg. Numerous times the low fuel light would come on (immediately getting gas would show that I could put in 14 gallons of gas, indicating the light went on with 3 gallons left in the 17.1 gallon tank) with 475-500 miles, meaning around 35mpg. The 94-97 Accord manual with the VTEC 2.2-liter improved those EPA numbers to 25/31, as did the 98-02 2.3-liter VTEC engine. I can only imagine the numbers you could attain with the 26/34 from the new Accord. Cruising ranges of 600 miles seem attainable.
Fuel mileage is a very varying thing tho. Before the 1991 Accord I owned a 1994 Nissan Sentra automatic with the 1.6-liter engine. Even tho its EPA numbers were 28/35, driving the same roads at the same speeds as the Accord I would average barely any better mpg, around 35-37. You would think with significantly better numbers (versus 24/30 in a engine .6-liters smaller and much less powerful) that gas mileage would be a lot better. I guess it wasnt due to the fact that at 80mph the 1.6-liter engine was revving its guts out on the highway, and around town you'd have to rev it much higher just to move quickly. With my latest car, a 99 Prelude, its the same. Its rated at 22/27, and i was expecting around 31-32mpg on the highway (based on the numbers from the Accord). No such luck. The Prelude will average 29-30 on the highway, and if you include some around town driving, it drops much quicker than the Accord. Overall I probably average 27mpg, which is good for the type of car it is, but still lower than I expected. The i-Vtec 2.4-liter in the current Accord seems like an amazing engine, given its power, low-end torque yet ability to rev freely, its clean burning emissions, and its exceptional mileage. Go Honda.

sinjin_dog · February 2003

Nice post 8816.
My 03 LX 5 speed manual is only 38 days old, so I do not have any mpg to share with.
If this i-VTEC 2.4 can return 34 mpg on highway, it really will be an amzing engine and car.
Only thing about 5speed manual is that they are rated LEV rather SULEV as found in automatic .It would been nice to brag about driving super clean car rather just LEV.
I wonder what made 5 speed manual LEV.

gee35coupe · February 2003

Even though it's a 5 speed coupe..It's still super clean. HAAAHHAAAH...Ahem.

philbert · February 2003

From the January 2003 Letters to the Editor:

"As for Passats and Accords, we like both (ergo their Most Wanted and Honorable Mention placement in the "Sedan Under $25,000" category). However, even a base Passat in the low 20s would be more desirable to most of our editors than a loaded Accord costing $24,000"

What is Edmunds smoking? With the redesigned 2003 Accord, Edmunds opinion clearly is in the minority relative to other car reviews comparing the Passat and Accord.

paulhuang · February 2003

I was at a Honda dealer a few weeks ago and if I remember correctly, here are the relative pollution numbers (.5 is the average amount of pollutants out of a new car)

Accord I4 Auto - 0.04
Accord V6 Auto - 0.19
Accord I4 Manual - 0.24

I was very surprised to see a 4 cylinder pollute more than the 6 cylinder. Do not remember EPA MPG estimates though.

robertsmx · February 2003

Stretchsje:
Conventional AWD systems can add about 200 lb. to the weight of any car. If an electric assist can deliver the same configuration and about as much, it would be still better for a few reasons, and a big one being that unlike conventional systems, it would be a source of additional power as well. And then, it would also provide the benefits of idle stop features found in Insight, Prius and Civic Hybrid.

robert, if your Civic was rated 4/3mpg better than the Corolla, yet only resulted in 1mpg improvement- are we seeing diminishing returns? Whats going on here?
2000 Civic EX was rated at 28 mpg/35 mpg and it yields 31 mpg in nearly 100% city driving conditions. I doubt the Corolla GT-S was rated worse than the Civic, although it developed less power and was a lighter car.
Our other car is 98 Accord EX (auto), rated at 23 mpg/30 mpg. I consistently get a shade better than 24 mpg in city driving which is mostly off freeways. Mileage did go up a little after few thousand miles. On highways, with me being lead footed, I average better than 30 mpg under any circumstances (mountain, heat, 75+ mph etc.). So, it does manage to deliver better than the EPA estimates. Can't say about the 2003 Accords though. The four cylinder rating has improved to 24/33 this time.

robertsmx · February 2003

Dinu01:
Since the power bump from 210 HP to 240 HP, Odyssey is capable of outrunning several family sedans with V6 power. 0-60 in 8.2s is pretty impressive for its heft (4400 lb.). It is matched by Honda Pilot as well, which weighs just as much and shares the drive train.

dinu01 · February 2003

8.2s is impressive indeed!

Speaking of wolves in sheeps' clothes:

Audi Avant Wagon
Audi S8
WRX Wagon
Volvo 850 Turbo Wagons (back in their days)

Dinu
PS: Power is nothing without control (as Pirelli says)

robertsmx · February 2003

Green Gas Emissions Estimate Per Year (mileage estimate)
2003 Accord I-4/manual: 6.6 tons (26/34)
2003 Accord I-4/auto: 6.9 tons (24/33)
2003 Accord V6/auto: 7.8 tons (21/30)

2002 Accord I-4/auto: 7.5 tons (23/30)

robertsmx · February 2003

Dinu01:
Speaking of control, you should read the latest C&D's article on its 5-best truck selection. Honda CRV, Honda Pilot and Honda Odyssey are three of the five. They seem to like Odyssey for its 'fun to drive for a minivan' factor.

dinu01 · February 2003

I don't know too much about trucks, except the fact that I would take a Toyota Tundra/Tacoma (for a pick-up), an Ody/MPV ES (for a minivan), a LandCruiser/Sequoia/Pilot (for a large SUV) and a CRV/Freelander (small SUV) over any domestic one. I'm more of a car guy and actually HATE trucks.

Dinu

robertsmx · February 2003

Correction: I should have said... Light Trucks, since minivans (and SUVs) are classified as such.

stretchsje · February 2003

What is Edmunds smoking? With the redesigned 2003 Accord, Edmunds opinion clearly is in the minority relative to other car reviews comparing the Passat and Accord.

I disagree with a lot of what they say at times, but they are one of the more unbiased and consistant publications. Edmunds is the first to tell you what's bad about a car, and I respect that.

So, it does manage to deliver better than the EPA estimates.

Traditionally, the saying was that gas mileage deteriorates after 45-55mph. I'd bet that on modern engines, peak mileage is attained around 65mph or better. Small engines are torquier at lower RPMs and cars are more aerodynamic than ever. What speed does the EPA test at? 55?

ghostbuster23 · February 2003

Want incredible mileage? My friend drove her Geo Metro from Boston to Cleveland on one tank of gas!

btinc2 · February 2003

would you buy a swap accord with 300 miles on it?

anonymousposts · February 2003

"Even though it's a 5 speed coupe..It's still super clean. HAAAHHAAAH...Ahem."

And I'm the corny one? Gee-z .....

rhard49 · February 2003

I wouldn't my swap had 40 miles did it really come from a dealer 300 miles away or was used as a demo, or worse they spent those miles corecting a problem.

rhard49 · February 2003

I thought only a lmited number of the vehicles sold in californai were ulev my EXL I4 Auto is LEV.

outrun · February 2003

I bought a swapped '02 Passat GLS 1.8T. Came from NJ, and purchased in MA. Exactly 300 miles. Still had all the packaging materials (white stickers on body panels, plastic on the seats, foam bumpers front and rear, etc). It was definitly NOT a demo.

I've had zero problems related to it being driven up from NJ. The dealership told me "who" drives them up (take this with a grain of salt). Older folks (retired men in the 60's usually) drive these things from a little extra income. Young kids typically don't do this kind of work, so the car is not beat on. Smoking is not allowed. Plus they get paid "by the hour", so there's no rush to get a car from point A to point B. It's actually beneficial to drive slower.

It also helps in the negotiations. A car with 300 miles vs. a car with 5 miles should sell for a little less (got mine for less than Edmunds TMV).

-Craig

pj23 · February 2003

I'd agree with outrun on the dealer swap issue. My '03 Accord, an EX-L manual, is rare and to get the color I wanted it had to come from about 100 miles away. I've had no problems, 2300 miles so far. And I'd confirm that in my experience the people who drive the cars are usually older retired guys, I've met a couple that do it for my dealer, and seen others from other dealers when I've been at my dealer for servicing.

stretchsje · February 2003

I did a dealer swap and was give the 'old retired man' story.

When I got the car, I put the key in the ignition and was treated to loud rap music. Now, an old man listening to this isn't impossible, but it is improbable.

That said, I don't think dealer swaps are bad. Despite my story, it didn't bother me once I was driving off the lot.

diploid · February 2003

Got you all beat...we got a demo Accord and it ran fine. Only one problem - after 3 years of ownership, the accelerator would be rock hard after pulling into Drive mode. Once you press hard enough, the problem doesn't return until the next time you start the car. Had the dealer fix it and the car runs normal again.

03accordman · February 2003

Have about 4000 miles on my car, and am getting 27 mpg in city traffic that inclides a lot of stop go traffic. On my Highway trips, I have got a best of 34.5 MPG and in the vicinity for the others. Isn't it fantastic that a car as big as this can get this MPG? That too with the buttery smooth engine/trans combo. I do have a concern with the Cruise control though. When I set cruise, it is not instantaneous and there is a lag, with the result that the set speed is lower that what I wanted in the first place. Does anyone have the same issue? I have a Nissan Altima too and that has instantaneous cruise control

outrun · February 2003

The swap drivers probably don't park the car in the lots. They usually drop them off at the front door, and some young kid will move it around, prep it, etc.

My guess is that he changed it. Would a dealership really want some young kid beating the crap and endangering the cars themselves over a 300 mile drive?

-Craig

robr2 · February 2003

...could it have been the prep crew that had the music on?? I doubt the dealer handed the car over to you without that.

As for dealer swap - I bought an Escort in Southern NH that they had to bring from their dealership in downeast ME - about 100 miles.

Car ran great for the 4 years and 80K I put on it.

gee35coupe · February 2003

Up to 700 mile drives. Never damaged a single car. Some others did though so they ended the program. I could get a car from Atlanta to Texas in two days tops. Now customers have to wait up to 2 weeks or more for a car.

chillenhonda · February 2003

does anyone have information about how to get a job as someone who drives the cars long distances? Im interested in it as a second job. thanks.

sinjin_dog · February 2003

I remember reading your posts last year.
It truly is fantastic to see 34.5 mpg for auto tranny. This really is great for a car that weights 3000 plus pounds. I anticipate better than 34.5 mpg for my LX 5 speeder.
Now, if you have already changed oil by yourself, did you use 5w-20?

stretchsje · February 2003

...thanks guys, I hadn't thought of that.

94acura · February 2003

I am thinking about buying an 03 EX auto in March and wondering what kind of deal can people get. I saw a post about EX auto in Bay Area and said they got 19255. Can I get a quote near that price in MA area? Anyone please drop me a line?

Thanks.

charliecar · February 2003

94acura,

www.autofair.com in Manchester, NH, has several '03 EX's in stock at prices posted on the web below $20,000.

mikefm58 · February 2003

Yeah, I'd like to get the same info. on how to get a 2nd job to drive cars the long distance. Anyone help?

s852 · February 2003

Just put your zip code in at Carsdirect.com.
If you like the price and you don't want to fight and haggle with dealership sales people and dealership finance managers, then just buy it from Carsdirect.
You can probably get the best possible price if you use Carbargains, but you have to put money up front and wait a week or two while they negotiate for you at various dealers in your area.

dwillia4 · February 2003

I'm about to purchase a V6-Navi in a few days. I would like to have a light tint installed on the windows. Does anyone know where the GPS antenna for the nav system is located? Is it embedded in the rear window like the AM/FM radio antenna? If it is, would tinting the rear window with a non-metallic film degrade the system?
Also, is there a listing somewhere that lists the metropolitan areas that are covered by the nav system? Is it in the manual? If it is, can someone with access to it please check to see if Palmdale/Lancaster CA (50 miles north of LA) is covered?

s852 · February 2003

The tint might not hurt anything, but there is another option.
A rear sunshade is now available as a dealer-installed option. It slides up and down manually similar to the factory-installed sunshades installed in VW Passats and some of the new Toyota Camrys.
The Accord rear sunshade is a little-known accessory that has been available on even the last generation Accord, but few salespeople knew it was available because the picture and description in the accessory book was so poor and vague.
It would not surprise me if less than 1% of all Accords ever had the rear sunshade installed.

Older Honda Accords

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles