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
Since then I've had:
'92 Accord EX Coupe
'95 Accord LX Sedan
'01 Accord EX Sedan
Soon:
'03 Accord EX-V6 Sedan
When you said, "I think both cars look pretty nice. ", I thought ... why not get one of them? Accords and Camrys are sensible cars, and to me that means they are for sensible people regardless of age. If you prefer a sports car, then there are many to choose from, but that should be your choice and preference, not based on someone else's opinion ... but then again, this is also my opinion :-)
Good luck!
;-)
I actually had an Accord in my early 20's also. Drive an Intrigue now.
With all these Accords, why are you named CRV?
have mixed feelings:
1) Front end - I like the front end treatment;
The headlights are bigger and in keeping with
the current industry standards. These lights
re also very sporty looking.
2) Back end - I DON'T like the rear re-design.
Why not? First of all, the rear lights are too
narrow, and look like the previous generation
Camry.
Second, the rear lights seem to have that
"DROOPING DOWN" look and as a result, Honda
missed a golden opportunity to give the
re-design that coveted "WEDGE" look, so
popular today. cars like the BMW, Legacy, and
others all have that beautiful and sporty
WEDGE look. Too bad...
Honda....you should fire your whole design team
except the members who re-designed the front
end.
PS...I have a 2000 Accord EX V6, and prefer it's looks to the '03 design.
Piceno
I've strayed from the Honda path a few times:
'87 Camry (for insurance reasons - it was one of the few cars I could afford insurance for as a 21 year old).
'98 Ford Windstar - J U N K
'00 Nissan Quest - Went to buy an Odyssey, but this was $6,000 cheaper. Now I'm kicking myself. Not a bad van, but lacking the refinement found in a Honda.
Future cars:
'03 Accord EX-V6 - I really want the side curtain airbags, and the 5 spd auto trans.
'03 or '04 Pilot EX - Will trade the Quest for this as soon as the trade-in value is more than what I owe on it.
I've converted my parents too: '89 Civic, '92 Accord and an '01 Odyssey!
The nice thing about owning Honda's is that they keep their value so well, it's easy to trade up frequently.
Now about that Pilot. I looked at one last week. To me, it rocks. It is very spacious, the quality, fit and finish are amazing. Great design inside. Outside, I can see how people can say it's a larger CR-V, but that ain't a bad thing, it's a good thing. I can see why they did it that way - it adheres to more traditional SUV designs but also distances itself from the MDX. That way the people who shelled out more green for the MDX don't feel cheated.
I would love to get a Pilot but the RX300 lease doesn't expire for another 3 years and I really do love it - I probably will buy it off.
Eventually I'll be replacing my 90 Acura Legend Coupe and for that I'm considering the 03 Accord Coupe. I'm really liking the style. I agree about the Honda resale value.
I previously had an 86 Legend but got into an accident so I got a 90 Legend coupe for almost 2 years now. Still looks and drives like new with 110K miles.
Funny thing is I picked it up for $4200, put in $1000 in repairs and maintenance (timing belt, etc) but today I could still probably get $4000 for it easily (or more). That means, other than gas and insurance, it only cost me about $1200 to drive it for 2 years. That's 2 months of lease payments on my RX! God bless Honda ...
;-)
I guess the reason I've stuck with Honda for so many years comes down to this:
1) Bulletproof reliability. Aside from routine maintenance/wear items, I've had exactly two (2) problems with the six current and past Honda's I've owned. Replaced a starter on the '95 Accord, and had warped brake rotors corrected on my '01 Accord. And I suspect the warped rotors were caused by the local grease monkeys who rotated my tires, by over torquing the lug nuts. This is over a total of 400k miles on these cars.
2) Low cost of operation. My current Accord EX 4 cyl 5 spd averages 33 mpg I can get 34.5 mpg if I keep it under 70mph. Insurance is cheap. Maintenance is cheap. I have never, repeat, NEVER brought any of my cars to the dealer for the so called "scheduled" maintenances. Not that I don't maintain my cars, that's the farthest from the truth. I have the dealer perform tasks I am unwilling or unable to do myself, like change the fuel filter, adjust valve clearances, flush brake fluid, and replace timing belts. Every thing else, I do myself. I change my oil every 4k miles, Trans oil & coolant every 30k. Air filter every 15k. Etc. I'm guessing I save $1,000 to $2,000 on every car I own. At trade in time, NEVER has a dealer asked about my maintenance.
The newer Honda's are even more maintenance free - timing belts that last over 100k, or a no replace timing chain on the new '03 Accord 4 cyl engines. Plat. tip spark plugs, longer oil change requirements, etc.
3) Quality & Refinement.
4) Resale Value. I am continually amazed at how much I get for my Honda's at trade-in time. Best was when we traded in the 92 Civic in fall of 1994, with 45k, got 9800, paid $13k. Unbelievable.
As long as it's not your mom's used minivan. That would be decidedly uncool.
And remember, this was the 86 Legend which was the first model ever for this make and model. That really amazes me.
I don't know if you are going to opt for the entertainment system, but here's a way to save a few bucks.
I bought a portable DVD player (Panasonic) with a 5" screen. You can also get them larger, with 7 to 9" screens. All I do is place the unit on the dash, connect it to the stereo using one of those cassette adapters you can get anywhere, and I have an awesome entertainment system in whatever I happen to be driving! Of course you can't drive and watch at the same time - but that's illegal anyway right? I especially love using it in the RX because the sound is unreal.
Best thing is is that it's far cheaper than anything the manufacturer puts in, and I can use the player anywhere - at home or away. Just a suggestion - it really works out well for me.
The more info you hear from other sources, the more it sounds like Edmunds accidentally tested the wrong car. Just as I predicted... just like in MY 2000, Edmunds is way out in left field. History repeats itself.
"...it fails to delight with any eagerness or urgency to rush to speed the way the Altima's V6 does."
So exactly how does this happen with a car that can turn sub-15 second quarter mile times? The '95 Eagle Talon turbo that I owned (hence my username) tested in the mags at about 15.3 for the quarter mile, and it definitely had truckloads of eagerness and urgency to rush to speed. I don't believe for a second that a car that turns the kind of quarter mile time reported by MT feels "sedate".
FYI, Mr. Wardlaw, the new V6 does NOT have iVTEC, as you stated. It has an updated version of "standard" VTEC.
My old Accord had lots of rust and a clunky auto-transmission, but I guess it was fairly reliable. Not as good as my Intrigue. I'm sure newer Hondas are better though.
btw, the superior torque of the altima (comparing v6 to v6) would likely show itself if both cars are fully loaded with people and luggage. it would be intresting to see an acceleration test under these conditions...
That statement appears rather arrogant to me, given the Accords historical appeal as an efficient family sedan. Maybe if you are looking for panache, you should be looking somewhere other than A MAINSTREAM VOLUME SELLING 4 DOOR. Your comment borders on absurd, especially since Honda built its bulletproof reputation on 4clyinders in the 70s and 80s.
~alpha
Dindak is just baiting people, or perhaps he knows little about Honda's vision.
No baiting, no games, just my opinion.
Performance <----------------->Comfort
My rankings based purely on speculation of two cars no one has driven would be:
Altima<->Mazda6<->Passat<->Accord<->Camry
I actually wish Honda would not make 6 cylinder cars. I don't want to be lumped in the same category with hot rod kids and gas guzzlers. ;^)
I also don't want to be seen in a car that looks just like a car that costs $6,000 more. People would think I wasn't very smart with my money. ;^)
I find it amazing that people are concerned about how expensive their car looks.
That's a very un-American thing to say.
;-)
Bought a new 02 Accord about 3 weeks ago. I've seen a fair bit of discussion about using the standard leather front covers (bras) but not much on the pros and cons of using the clear plastic version. Do the clear ones have any downsides aside from the cost of having it installed? Just looking at them it seems as if proper installation is key to prevent air bubbles.
Comments welcomed.
Best Regards,
Bob
Imagine though, the people who buy the Mercedes S500 or V12 S600. Their cars have very little cosmetic difference from the S320 or S430 but they are paying tens of thousands of dollars more! That's why I would buy the AMG version instead - gotta show the masses who's the king .. heh.
You know, I've been wanting to go up to someone with an S320 or S430 and say, "whatsamatta, can't afford an S500?" heh ...
As for the same styling for cars with different price, Porch had the same issues. Many of their more expensive 911 (?) owners complained about similar nose to less expensive (still expensive though) Boxter. Guess what? Porch listened and changed just that. Image is everything, that's why people spend a lot of money just to get the names, like Rolex.
Considering the current trend of Honda's recent introductions there is good reason to expect this Accord to be just as unreliable.