By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
My preference is the 1.8 T 4 cylinder which is lighter and it can be modified to almost any performance level you want for very little money. Audi uses the 1.8T in the TT Roadster with a different chip. It produces 225 HP and is still covered under the full factory warranty. I have read of people getting up to 400 HP out of a 1.8T engine but I would never even consider going that high. The Accord will not outperform even a slightly modified 1.8T, and you could not gain similar improvements on the Accord without spending a lot more than the cost of an Audi chip.
The Accord soundly trounced the Passat in the Road and Track comparison, placed 2 places above the Passat in the Car and Driver comparison, and was the car that finally unseated the Passat as CR's top rated sedan. The last was admittedly close, but the R&T comparison was unquestionably decisive, and the C&D was arguably decisive. So to say that anon's statement is a distortion of the facts is at the least as extreme a statement. The Passat fan may be able to rationalize its losses, as you obviously have, but to Accord fans, these victories over the Passat are hardly trivial.
"I would rather have a ugly car that's reliable and fun-to-drive than a pretty car with a "German feel" that stays in the shop."
Well, looks are very subjective, and I never "got" all the uproar over the Passat's styling. And I don't consider the Accord to be ugly.
I would rather have a great design that also has the fun-to-drive German feel.
Well, there are differing feelings about how "German" the cars drive... don't forget Road and Track's quote:
"It's a strange world we live in; the Accord feels like a German car, and the Passat doesn't."
Hey, the Passat is still a good car, but it is really showing its age. And I have my doubts that the next upgraded version will be as formidable with the design approach that VW intends to use.
talon: I personally find the Accord to be a good-looking car. It's not the best looking on the planet but neither is the Passat, the Camry, or the other cars in it's class.
"It's (the Passat is ) still the segment benchmark..."
or more correctly:
"It's (the Accord is) still the segment benchmark..."
That way people know that you modified the original quote... in this case, giving it an incorrect (or at the very least, highly suspect) interpretation. Not quite on the up and up when you're "quoting".
As for the inspiration, they were talking mostly about the Passat's intangible German cachet, not any specific performance benchmarks. Re-read the full quote that you posted... does the previous paragraph say ANYTHING about Honda using the Passat as an inspiration in any specific physical measure? No, they don't. That's why Honda can use the Passat as inspiration for its "appealing aura" while the Accord can still be the benchmark for those specific qualities.
They were talking about the Accord, so can we please move on?
Since when is C&D the gospel? They put the G35 in the top ten cars yet it finished fourth in a C&D comparo. The second{A4} and third{TLS} place finishers were nowhere to be found in the top ten cars.
Edmunds still ranks the "ageing" passat over the "brand new" accord.
P.S Have you polished your fake wood today?
Honda is always placed among the top cars in attention to detail and engineering performance benchmarks. I don't think that's what they're talking about. These things are measurable and repeatable, and as such don't fit in a description of "beyond pure logic", as Edmunds termed it.
Driving my Infiniti, I didn't understand the mystique associated with German cars until I owned one and now I'm a convert. I know from driving my daughter's Honda and my Infinti that that the mysterious driver/car connection with German cars is still not there. And this is based on long term everyday driving experience, not a one day test. Have any of you Honda or Toyota drivers owned a German car? My opinions are based on actual experience. Enough said, I'm not going to convince anyone who hasn't driven one for more time than a test drive.
I didn't understand all the uproar about the Accord until I owned one. I didn't get the same feeling at all driving an Altima. I'm sure you feel much the same about your Passat, and rightfully so. I do think, however, that the Accord is much closer to the Passat in driving feel, refinement, etc. than Passat owners will admit.
Maybe the connection to the road is the one that Passat owners have when their feet touch the road after another coil failure.
No doubt the Passat is built with great attention to detail and most magazines rate VW/Audi interiors above others, but currently Passat owners are wishing they had paid as much attention to quality.
Regarding modifying the 1.8T engine with a chip and getting more performance, I don't see many people doing it because it voids the warranty and makes the car prone to failure. Being the segment these cars are in, i.e. family sedans, it is diffucult to see a majority of buyers using chips. And when we do compare cars, we compare stock cars, not modified cars. And 400 HP with the 1.8T is hearsay, though you can get 225HP. Wonder of wonders, that still gets you a car that will get creamed by a cheaper V6 Altima or V6 Accord.
Might also help if people looked up history and saw how many VWs used to be sold before the 1998 or so, versions of the Passat and Jetta were launched. In fact VW was almost driven out ofthe market in the early nineties due to poor sales resulting from poor reliability.
Edmunds,CR and C&D say otherwise.
anonymousposts which issue of MT compares the passat and the accord?
"Actually, the Accord keeps pace with the segment's fastest sedans in terms of straight-line acceleration, but when it comes to outright handling prowess, the Passat, Altima and new Mazda 6 have it beat".
They also said:
"Overall, only the current Camry equals the Accord in terms of high-quality materials, but the Passat still beats them both for pure "premium-ness."
and:
"There have even been industry trade stories reporting that Honda used Volkswagen's Passat as inspiration on how to give the company's volume sedan an appealing aura that goes beyond pure logic."
It depends on which review you read, and we could beat this to death, or maybe we already have. Obviously everyone is pleased with their choice and wants to justify it. I've driven both for extended drives and I'm extremely happy with the Passat. I've heard that the 1.8T with the Audi chip will run circles around the Accord and the Altima. I think it's great that we have such difficult choices.
Check out clubb5.com or vwvortex.com if you want to see some enthusiastic Passat owners. VWVortex said "Volkswagen of America July 2002 Sales Report
August 3, 23:00 - NEWS: Volkswagen of America, Inc. today reported July sales of 32,100, representing a slight gain of 0.3 percent versus last year's total of 32,011.
Through seven months, Volkswagen's year-to-date sales stand at 202,119 versus 2001's mark of 205,037.
Volkswagen remains the nation's top-selling European brand.
Happy driving!
Well, C&D doesn't count, since you personally dismissed them before.
Couldn't restrain myself... not fair dissing them in one message, and then quoting them to support your position in another. <g>
Overall, it seems more like they're pretty close to equal, since some say one handles better and others say the other. Edmunds claims the Accord's handling falls short of the Passat, and Road and Track rates the Passat's handling significantly lower. C&D and CR show the cars as almost even, and both praise both cars' handling, even though the Passat gets a marginally higher score.
I don't believe Motor Trend has compared an Accord and a Passat, but they had high praise for the Accord's handling:
"Tires are easily changed, though, and modest traction aside, the Accord's new chassis is delightful. Lithe, communicative, and tossable, it'll take an enthusiastic flogging with poise and amazing neutrality, but still deliver a comfortably isolated cruise on a rough freeway."
Finally, Automobile Magazine weighed in for the Accord, saying:
"The new Accord's handling... remains sportier than some, a bit more buttoned down than the Camry and the unnaturally, unnecessarily bilious Passat."
I didn't know the definition for bilious, so I looked it up on the Merriam-Webster site:
"of or indicative of a peevish ill-natured disposition"
So they obviously had some less than pleasant experience with the Passat.
So again, I think it's fair to say that these cars are pretty evenly matched in handling. Seems to depend on who you talk to.
Finally, regarding refinement, Road and Track says:
"First, the (Accord's) chassis is billet-solid, and everything that opens, closes or latches does so with refinement and precision. Detail and finish, both inside and out, are first-rate. It has an appealing two-tone interior with, as one tester put it, "some of the best fake wood going," in a light birch tone."
And you don't even have to polish it, in case Leif was wondering. <g> Or you can go with brushed aluminum accents if wood grain isn't your thing.
At any rate, the Passat squeezed by the Accord in interior styling (1/2), while the Accord squeezed by the Passat in ergonomics (again 1/2, with the positions reversed). As with handling, both cars tend to get high marks for fit and finish and material quality.
I subscribe to MT, and I don't recall an issue where they tested the Passat and Accord. I think I would have remembered it.
I did not buy the Passat for its looks, performance or interior space. The Passat was fun to drive then and it is fun to drive now. In comparison, the Accord had a yucky interior, sloppy handling and the poor trunk space.
The Passat has impressed me so much with its space, practicality and reliability that I would not hesitate to buy another one.
"No doubt the Passat is built with great attention to detail and most magazines rate VW/Audi interiors above others, but currently Passat owners are wishing they had paid as much attention to quality."
I do not.
BTW, if you do not mind could you post the specs of your car?
Your opinion. And yes, the coupe has poor trunk space... did you truly expect anything different.
I have a Y2K Accord EX V6 sedan, and frankly, the interior that you find so "yucky" is one of my favorite aspects of the car. And I'm not alone. From C&D, June 1998 comparison:
"The Accord's interior is dominated by an impeccable dashboard design."
"A well-designed interior."
Both the Accord and the Passat got 9 out of 10 points in ergonomics and fit and finish categories.
Over at Motor Trend, they said this:
"Inside, the Accord's well-finished and feature-rich passenger compartment has the look of an econo-oriented Acura."
I also appreciate the solid, precise, sporty handling of my Accord... never found it to be even the slightest bit sloppy. Again, C&D agrees. They gave both the Passat and the Accord equal scores for handling and ride... 9 points out of 10 in both categories. Motor Trend gave the Accord an A in handling, the top score in the test (vs. Camry and Maxima).
This certainly doesn't invalidate your opinion, but I can guarantee that research would yield many more opinions that disagree with you than agree. Because I did that research before I bought, and chose the Accord over the Passat. And similarly to your feelings about the Passat, I wouldn't hesitate to buy another Accord.
They are introducing improved interior space, suspension, handling, transmissions, electrically operated power steering, bigger brakes, stiffer lighter body, wider tires, stability control, and new engines. The engines include a 2.0 litre 16 valve turbo 4, 200hp. Also a 24 valve direct injection VR6, 240hp, all wheel drive, manual or twin clutch gearbox.
This doesen't sound like a Jetta derivative at all.
It sounds like raising the bar to another benchmark for the others to follow!
Doesn't sound like a Jetta derivative? Well, first, what is a Jetta? It's a 4-door Golf! Perhaps you missed these clips from that article:
"The new Passat's components set, which is closely related to that of the next Golf..."
"The new Passat will shed its compound rear axle for a new multi-link arrangement borrowed largely from the next Golf."
"In the front, the Passat gets a refined MacPherson strut arrangement..."
Traded the highly acclaimed Audi 4-link front suspension for a MacPherson strut setup.... hmmmm. When VW introduced the current Passat, they were certainly proud of the Audi-based suspension:
"A technically advanced German sports sedan, the new Passat GLS uses a revolutionary new four-link front suspension system that rewrites the rules on how well a front wheel-drive car can handle."
We'll see if their new MacPherson strut suspension will prove to be as revolutionary, and how many rules it will rewrite. It may be fine, but if I had my preferences, I'd much rather have the Audi setup. Or the Accord's double wishbone design.
And since the Audi front suspension is credited with keeping torque steer well under control, VW had best do their homework as they increase horsepower while dropping that advanced suspension design, or their FWD Passats could be a real handful. Can anyone say Nissan Altima?
Not to belabor this, but they keep mentioning how things in the next gen Passat are borrowed from or related to the next Golf. Since Golf = Jetta chassis-wise, the next Passat is a Jetta derivative, or chassis-mate, or whatever you want to call it.
I'm not saying that it won't be a great car... it may well be. In fact, it probably will be. But let's be completely honest... if you were looking for a car in the Passat's class, which family kinship sounds more compelling? A car whose chassis is based on the more prestigious, high end design of the Audi A6, or a car whose chassis is based on the less prestigious more econo-oriented design of the Golf? I know what my answer would be.
And I've also heard VW salespeople making a point of the current Passat's kinship to the Audi. Do you think they'll make a point of the next gen design's kinship to the Golf/Jetta?
As I said, it should be interesting.
Now based on my experience of driving both the TL and Passat (each more than once) I cannot fathom how anyone can seriously say or infer that the Accord handles better than the Passat. I'm willing to concede that the Accord may offer different characteristics that makes it in some person's minds an equal to the Passat in overall handling (although I personally don't see it).
All I can say is after driving the TL, I had this strange feeling of driving a 1970's American cruiser. (I realize that the lighter Accord may lessen that feeling.) When first driving a Passat, the feeling was of exhilaration.
Clearly, even you don't buy into this, since your previous post was obviously targeted towards defusing the "Jetta derivative" statements. You wouldn't have tried to dispel this notion if it was attractive to you. You just changed approaches when my post made it clear that it was indeed the truth. First, it was "no, it's not true", then it became "it's true, but it's OK."
Again, do you think VW and VW salespeople are going to tout the new Passat's relationship with the Golf? C'mon, get real. "Bargain Audi" evokes far more positive images than "Dressed up Golf".
It probably will be a very nice car... but will it be able to further and improve on the heritage of the current Passat when it trades the refinement and sophistication of the current upscale underpinnings for a more pedestrian design? Only time will tell.
As does Automobile Magazine and Road and Track Magazine. Different standards of excellence? Who knows? But it's right there in black and white. I have no doubt that they're being serious.
Just as the Edmunds report that criticized the Accord's handling is in black and white. I'm sure they were being serious, too.
My personal experience with my 2000 Accord is best described by this quote from Motor Trend (this is a quote about the 2003, but the previous gen handles similarly, and I've seen similar descriptions):
"Tires are easily changed, though, and modest traction aside, the Accord's new chassis is delightful. Lithe, communicative, and tossable, it'll take an enthusiastic flogging with poise and amazing neutrality, but still deliver a comfortably isolated cruise on a rough freeway."
Lithe, communicative, and tossable? Those are not terms that come to mind when discussing the handling of a 1970's American cruiser. I can certainly say without hesitation that my Accord in no way, shape or form even hints of the handling of a 1970's cruiser, lessened or otherwise. And I cannot fathom how anyone can seriously say or infer that it (or the Acura TL) handles in such a manner.
IMO, the Passat and Accord are too closely matched in ride and handling to say that one soundly trounces the other.
If you feel that my comment concerning a 1970s American cruiser was an inference of some kind, then I'm sorry. It was not meant to be a jab, it was simply my honest gut reaction. To set the record straight, it was actually after I drove the TL a couple of times and went back to drive the Passat again, did I truly appreciate the handling of the Passat.
All in all, our opinions are not that appreciably different.
Time for me to do a little clarification. Actually, I understood that point, although the American cruiser comments kinda muddied the message that you say you were trying to make. Anyway, my last statement about one not trouncing the other was not directed at you, but actually agreeing with you. It was directed at the statement that started this whole handling thread in the first place:
"the new Accord is head and shoulders above the passat in handling."
... a statement with which I do NOT agree. As I said in my post, I believe that the 2 cars are actually quite close overall in ride and handling.
All in all, our opinions are not that appreciably different.
You're probably right. You're also right about the fact that I took the American cruiser comment as a jab, because in my opinion those were not especially good handling cars. But it is your honest opinion, just as it is my honest opinion that my experience is nothing at all like yours.
Anyway, sorry if I was unclear.
These improvements are all something I would want in a family/entry level luxury car, a car which also has a dedicated following of performace enthusiasts( look at vwvortex.com.or clubb5.com) That's the beauty of the Passat. It's so versatile.
Heated seats
lumbar supports
Outside temp
Trip computer
Oil temp gauge
Engine oil cooler
Power heated door mirrors
Stability control
Standard fog lights
Speed sensitive wipers
Heated front windshield washers
Rear window blind
Overhead airbag
Front and rear seatbelt pretensioners
Overhead airbag
Sequential sportshift
Rear middle seat head restraint
Audio theft deterrant
Auto locking doors
Homelink
Refrigerated/cooled box
Manual transmission?
MSRP: $ 19,660
Volks Passat 1.8 base model
MSRP is $ 23,400.
For the extra four thousand dollars do you still think you are getting a great deal???
details: This is without options..
The base LX is $23,560 according to Edmunds.
The Passat IS a great deal.
And we'll see if that even pans out in actual testing... at this point, it's nothing more than a journalist quoting VW's marketspeak.
These improvements are all something I would want in a family/entry level luxury car... That's the beauty of the Passat. It's so versatile.
Assuming that these improvements really show up. But it still doesn't change the fact that the Passat will be losing something by going from an A6 base to a Golf base. That's the whole point of this exchange, a point that you seem to have lost with your going off on a "generic praise" tangent of the existing Passat. That car will no longer exist, so all of this rhetoric is a complete non sequitor.
Why don't we call this exchange quits, since you seem to want to discuss everything BUT the topic?
The base LX is $23,560 according to Edmunds.
The Passat IS a great deal."
Try again... you quoted the price for the Accord LX V6, comparing it to the 4-cyl Passat.
The prices that mikek37 posted are correct. Try comparing apples to apples.
You should know what it is... you started it with your post that "The next generation Passat is NOT a Jetta derivative."
Well, now we know that it will be.
You are SO off base here, it's almost comical. For the record, I had NEVER owned a Honda prior to my current Accord. So when I was shopping, I had NO bias towards Honda whatsover. I had already decided to go with a Passat GLS, and I only test drove the Accord so that I could say to myself that I had driven all of the major contenders. It was my last test drive of the cars I might have considered, and I didn't really think that it was going to be a true contender, given the rave reviews on the Passat. I thought the test drive was going to be a formality.
Well, I was extremely surprised during the Accord test drive... I discovered that it was a much more viable competitor for the Passat than I gave it credit for. I felt that the ride and handling combination was right in the hunt with the Passat's. And although the Accord's dashboard is more, how do I describe it, sporty than the Passat's traditional German version, I still felt that the quality of the Accord's materials was the equal of the Passat's (I drove an Accord EX V6, so it had the Accord's highest end interior), and the Accord improved on the Passat's somewhat quirky controls in a number of areas (wipers, cruise control, etc.).
When I finally talked dollars, for the same dollars, I could get an Accord with its terrific V6 for the same dollars as a pretty much comparably equipped Passat GLS 1.8t. Yes, the Passat had more equipment, but few, if any, of the things the Passat had that the Accord didn't made much difference to me. And I did like the Accord's V6 alot better than the Passat's turbo 4. A similarly equipped Passat V6 was around $2500 more. I'm not a penny pincher, and if I had really liked the Passat a lot better, I would have gladly spent the extra money. But after I was so impressed with the Accord, it no longer seemed like money well spent. My perception was that I'd be paying $2500 more for a car that would give me no more real satisfaction than the more affordable Accord.
So, contrary to your interpretation of my remarks, I DID look at the Passat and the Accord with an unbiased eye... at least I had no bias whatsoever towards the Accord at that time, and I did have some degree of bias towards the Passat. In fact, I went into the Accord test drive with a clear expectation that my preference for the Passat would NOT change. However, in a very fair and even competition, I found that the Accord was, to me, a comparable performer and a better value than the Passat. And I thought I was being very fair to the Passat in my previous post. I didn't bash the Passat at all, I simply showed that in many tests from major publications, the Accord matched the Passat in several areas where you criticized it heavily. Your opinion, and you have every right to it, but by the same token I have every right to express mine and disagree with yours. Please point out where I bashed the Passat in my previous post or was unfair to it. Or even where I criticized the Passat at all. I'm struggling to understand what about my post to you exhibited any extreme bias.
At any rate, I'll thank you to keep your "unbiased eye" comments to yourself, because they're inappropriate. Frankly, you hardly come across as unbiased yourself.
"Clearly, it outhandles Accord (Y2K sedan or coupe)"
Clearly, to you, perhaps. Clearly, to me, it's a matter of opinion. I think they're very well matched handling-wise. And you can find report after report that agrees with me... far more reports than you'll find that say the opposite. I'm not suggesting that you change your opinion, just that there are other opinions on the subject, and many of them differ from yours. Mine doesn't come from bias, it comes from hands on experience.
Same thing with the interior. The Accord almost always gets compliments on the design and the material quality in its interiors. It may not be as "Audi-plushy" as the Passat's, but I also find the Passat's interior kinda stodgy. Again, different opinions. Neither is wrong.
Next, your Honda dealers might be bad, but mine has been great from day one. Certainly better than the VW dealers in my area, with whom I've had less than stellar experiences in the past.
Finally, while your response was to accordman, this is a public forum, so any post is subject to response by any other member. If you feel the need to keep it private, I suggest you take it offline.
Take it easy.
LOL! Thanks for the suggestion... I'll take it under advisement.
Your perception of Accord is vastly different from mine. Like the way you feel that there is no significant difference in the quality of interior between the two cars, I feel that the difference in difference in reliability between them is insignificant. Part of the reason that many of Passat's features appear quirky to you is because Passat, by design, is an international model and has to suit to a multitude of tastes and driving habits. Passats driven in USA, Europe, China and Australia are essentially the same. OTOH, the Accord you are driving is a model specific to the North America and is suited to American drivers. That's not to say that Accord is flawless. Its dash design could still be improved and by looking at the pictures, the '03 certainly looks much better. Also, Y2K Hondas have a low rent plasticky dash and the doors sound tinny when shut(I am not the first one to mention this in these forums).
You don't have to believe me when I say that Passat's interior is better than Accord's. You'll find that many reports mention that Audi/VW interiors are the benchmarks in their respective classes. You'll also find many reports that say that the VW turbo engine is excellent. These are nothing but the opinions by the writer(s) and are as objective/subjective as your opinion or mine.
Both of these cars are good. For every flaw you find in one, design or otherwise, you can find a flaw in the other. So, don't be perturbed if some one says Accords feel cheap. And don't butt in on other people's conversations.
Once again, take it easy.
My statement about "inappropriate" had nothing to do with your post #938, but rather your post #968, which was clearly directed at me. And it was to your statement of my "alleged" bias, which I believe I dismissed with my last post. I stand by my statement that that particular comment in that post addressed to me was unwarranted and inappropriate. And as I said, your posts clearly reveal your Passat bias, so while you seem to feel free to comment about the quality of other people's eyes, perhaps you should have your own checked as well.
Also, Y2K Hondas have a low rent plasticky dash
Well, once again, we disagree. And unlike you, who simply alludes to the fact that reports exist to support your positions, I go to the trouble of actually finding mine. Here are reports that show how many people disagree with your position about the Y2K (and other MY's of the same generation) Accord's "low rent, plasticky" dash.
Road and Track: "... a very sophisticated, Acura-level interior that's curiously antipodal to the plain-vanilla styling."
"Gauges are far and away the best - huge faces, big numerals and excellent definition - as is the presentation of the stereo and ventilation controls, big knobs and buttons that couldn't be easier to reach."
Car and Driver: "The Accord's interior is dominated by an impeccable dashboard design."
"Materials and details of assembly never raise questions."
Motor Trend: "Inside, the Accord's well-finished and feature-rich passenger compartment has the look of an econo-oriented Acura."
"Honda has done a masterful job of keeping the interior looking fresh in the Accord... it's hard to believe that Honda will introduce an all-new Accord for 2003."
(Scores: Interior fit and finish, A; Interior Ergonomics, A. These were the top scores in this test, beating even the 2002 Camry.)
Consumer Reports: "If the Passat could pass for an Audi, the Honda Accord could pass for an Acura TL. The Accord is roomy, refined..."
"The interior is laid out well, with high-quality materials."
"The well-finished interior looks and feels inviting..."
"Interior fit and finish are impressive."
Edmunds: "Like the five generations before it, the interior of the 2000 Accord is a mix of straightforward styling and excellent functionality... Although it was barely beaten out by the Passat for interior execution, it was still praised as an excellent package."
"Materials are first rate and, unlike in the Impala, the leather looks and feels like real animal hide."
Yes, I know that these are the writers' opinions, and just as subjective as yours or mine. However, it's hardly a coincidence that all of these disparate writers from all of these different sources happen to praise the Accord for its dashboard and interior design and material quality. You can call it "yucky", "low-rent" or anything you'd like... that's certainly your right. My point is that I disagree with that assessment, as do ALL of these publications and writers.
"You don't have to believe me when I say that Passat's interior is better than Accord's."
Well, if you'd spend a little less time giving me patronizing advice and berating me for rightfully participating in these forums, and a little more time actually reading my posts, you'd see that NOWHERE did I say that the Accord's interior is better than the Passat's. I think that for the most part, they are equal, and I stated that in my last post, as you would have seen if you had bothered to actually read it before responding. But you've proven yourself to be extremely defensive about the Passat... anything that I say in praise of the Accord, you twist into a criticism of the Passat. In fact, in my response to your first post to me, I asked you to show me where in my "butt in" post was I unfair to the Passat, or did I even criticize it at all. I notice that you ignored that request. I guess if you had done so (and failed to find anything, as you surely would have), your quest to prove me guilty of pro-Accord, anti-Passat bias would have fallen flat.
"the doors sound tinny when shut(I am not the first one to mention this in these forums)."
And my doors don't sound tinny in the slightest when I close them. Just a few quick notes on that, again from the press:
Motor Trend - Structural rigidity, A
Car and Driver: "The Accord, by contrast, is a precision tool. The structure is as tight as a harp string."
"Superb refinement..."
"Everything about the Accord feels finely sculpted and polished."
I could go on, but I know you'll brush all of this off with a wave of your hand. Again, my point is that while you have a right to your opinion, my opinion differs wildly, and I can produce a mountain of quotes from automotive journalists that support my opinion and refute yours. Doesn't make you wrong, but my opinion sure has a lot more support than yours.
"Both of these cars are good. For every flaw you find in one, design or otherwise, you can find a flaw in the other."
I agree with you 100%... after all, I was this close to buying a Passat when the Accord came out of the blue to impress me with its quality and value.
"And don't butt in on other people's conversations."
As I stated earlier, these are public forums, and anything you post is subject to response or comment by any other member. In other words, there's no such thing as "butting in" here. Even if you use someone's name in the title, the message is still there for everyone to read and to comment on if they wish. This is not e-mail. This is not IM. This is not postal mail. This is not a private conversation between the two of you in a closed room. Please check the Town Hall Member Agreement, particularly the Member Content section... you'll see that there is no admonition against responding to any message, whether it be targeted to someone else or not.
If this is truly an issue for you, perhaps you should find a different, more private way to express your opinions about cars. But if you choose to participate in these forums, you have to abide by the rules. You can't create a rule of your own just for your own preference or convenience. So please don't tell me to "butt out of other people's conversations", because you have no right whatsoever to do so. Because of the totally public nature of these forums, everyone here constitutes the "other people".
Have a nice day.
Go drive a maxed out 2003 Accord EX-L V6 (w/Navi)
Go drive a maxed out 2003 Passat GLX V6
It will be very obvious which car is better in terms of value and performance. (styling is personal)
Also, please note - if you want a subject dropped, the way to get that to happen is to DROP it yourself. Making a comment and then saying "now let's drop it" isn't going to get you what you want; it is an invitation for a response.
This running gear is designed for sporty, agile handling allied to high stability, and makes cornering a pleasure whether the car has front-wheel drive or the quattro system. The anti-roll bars are directly attached to the suspension strut in order to minimize body movement around the longitudinal axis. An additional bonus is a standard of ride comfort that would do credit to a car in a much higher category.
16- or 17-inch alloy wheels (the 17-inch wheels are standard in Ambition models) improve performance on the road and also contribute a sporty visual accent. The brake system, with discs of increased diameter, has been matched to the increased power of the engines.
Electro-mechanical steering with the amount of power assistance dependent on road speed is a new feature on the Audi A3. It combines optimum feedback from steering movements with a low level of sensitivity to vibration caused by the road surface, and also consumes much less energy than a conventional power steering system."
VW has made it known that they want Passat to compete with BMW, and Audi with Mercedes, hence the different chassis. One is more performance oriented (Golf, A3, Passat) and the larger Audi chassis will be more of a highway cruiser.
As for VW going after the BMW 3-series, etc., they're already doing that with the A4. And it doesn't require a change to a Golf-based platform to be very successful at it. The sophisticated and refined Audi chassis makes it very competitive. I don't see the A4 becoming a boulevard cruiser, since it's already made its reputation as a sports sedan.
Now, everybody has the right to post their opinions and I did. I never said that my opinions are objective, although the very fact that I checked out the Accord very first proves that I am not biased against Accord. I don't have a problem if talon95 (or any other Accord-phile) feels that Accord hangs in there with Passat in terms of handling but I don't understand the need to bash someone who has a not so good opinion about Accord. Like I said, this applies to all Passat hating Camcord driving masses.
mikek37, this is from a Mazda6 review at Autowek -
"We would have liked a Passat to try back-to-back runs to see how that compared, since the Passat has traditionally been the sportiest of these midsize sedans"
talon95, please do not bother to reply.