Older Honda Accords

strager

The '94-97 Accord to my eyes had a European look, the most recent generation was probably designed around a '92 Ford Taurus theme, and the 03 Accord feels like different designers (Japanese and American) were each responsible for the front and rear.

There is nothing wrong with the 03 Accord being designed with a bulky look for middle aged Americans, except that by doing so it significantly reduces the Accord's appeal to the younger buyer, IMO. It's always easier to attract older buyers to a car designed for younger buyers, rather than vice-versa. Like many Honda owners, I was hoping the '03 Accord would grow on me. But the bulky look makes me feel about 15 years older, so I'll probably end up getting the the Honda Stream or the Acura TSX.

ivan_99

I recently drove the Accord I4 LX 5sp vs the Camry LE 5spd and there was no comparison.

The Accord did everything MUCH better, from interior layout and materials to the drive train.

I do like the Camry exterior styling...probably on par with the Accord, but everything else made the Accord feel like it should cost about 5K more than the Camry.

0.02C

anonymousposts

Went in search of a 5-speed Accord to drive so we went to one of the largest Honda dealers in the southeast and they only had one LX 5-speed, no EX 5-speed models, and still no coupes. Gwinnett Place Honda had plenty of everything else in seemingly every color so if you are in the Atlanta area in search of an Accord I would try them out. I was also VERY satisfied with them when I bought my 01 Accord V6 back in Oct. 2000. Was in and out within a couple of hours, got a loaner while they prepped my car, and I even got a container full of gourmet cookies.

ghecko: If you go to honda.com and look at vehicle specification it will say whether each engine is LEV or ULEV or in some cases SULEV. It may also be worth a shot to call the DOT and see if they have a list of vehicles that are approved for the HOV lane.

strager: The 98-02 Accord looks NOTHING like a 92 Ford Taurus. It looks more like a 90-93 Accord than anything else. But yet again, looks are subjective. Shortly after the 98 Accords came out we happened to be at a Toyota dealer and the Toyo salesman tried to tell us Honda had copied the 97+ Toyota Camry's design. While I will agree that the sedan front end from 2001-2002 did resemble a camry from some angles the overall design of the car was not Camry-like.

Same with the Accord being bulky. I guess that's a relative term because to me there is nothing bulky about the new Accord. And most of the people we observed looking at the new Accord seemed to be in their late 20's to 30's. I am sure some older people will buy the Accord but when was the last time you saw a 20-something behind the wheel of a Vette, M5, or Porsche. Are those "old people" cars?

bklynguy

When I sit in the 03 Accord, I have the preception of a more expensive vehicle than the Camry ( and the Camry itself doesn't feel cheap )

I also think the new accord looks better in person, I really like the redondo red pearl ( my choice early next year ) EX V6, it looked good on the dealer's lot.

I know with the Camry it took about 3-4 months before I started seeing a large number of them on the streets & highways in my area ( some people waited until prices came down )

strager

The rear end of the previous Accord did seemed to have drawn inspiration from the '92 Taurus and the '90 Accord. But overall, to me it became more American than Japanese.

I have no doubt that some younger drivers find the 03 Accord stylish. It's not a bad looking car, but the big and bulky (subjective) look is not my style. What I am focusing on is the demographics of the 400K buyers, which is likely to show a big jump in the proportion of older buyers. Time will tell.

Incidentally, I also find the Altima and Camry too big. Statistics show that around 75% of these so-called family cars are NOT bought by families, but by individual drivers or couples. As I see it, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have gotten needlessly caught up in the American habit of supersizing everything, regardless of actual need. European family cars like the Passat are smaller (and comfortable), but Europeans are not physically smaller than Americans.

anonymousposts

And in the US market the Passat is often knocked for it's lack of room. I think you are forgetting that we are in America and that since Honda is trying to sell cars in America that the car will have to suit American tastes. The Passat is German and only garners sales of around 100,000 units a year. The Accord is a family sedan and people buying the Accord are looking for a roomy, comfortable car .. which the Accord is.

apatia

I looked at a 2003 coupe at the honda dealer today. My initial impressions is that the windows behind the driver are rather small and the back window and windshield have a low angle. Is anyone concerned about glare bouncing off the dash (or back window area) being a problem? Oh, and I thought the rear end of the coupe has the same chopped off look as the sedan. It's definately a departure from the longer rear end the previous generation had.

anonymousposts

A shorter rear end is good in my book on the coupe. I always though that the trunk area of the Accord looked a little too long on it's side profile. But nonetheless the 98-02's were good looking cars.

peter85

peter85

I cannot make up my mind about the Color for 03 Accord. Silver or Red. I know silver is easier to keep clean, but red is nice looking. Anyone with a red car please let me know. Does it stay clean? Also does it show chips, marks, etc??

maxamillion1

One is Red and the other is Silver. Yes, the Silver Accord is much easier to keep clean, and doesn't show dirt, but when my red one is clean up and shinning, it looks so much better than my silver one. The car is actually burgandy, but it looks very nice when clean. The car does show dirt some, but it's not bad as black or dark blue. The silver one even shows dirt sometimes though. The only vehicle that my family has that doesn't show dirt is the Sandstone Honda Odyssey we just brought.

accordexv6

Black is a high-maintenance color. Honda's Satin Silver may not show the dirt as much but it is b-o-r-i-n-g. I have a San Marino Red 2002 EXV6 coupe. The color is sensational and always looks super-shiny. The silver never looks shiny, even when brand-new. Noble Green is a nice color, particularly in the sun, but it may be hard to find. It's a bit lighter than the 1998-2001 Dark Emerald Pearl.

robertsmx

The '94-97 Accord to my eyes had a European look, the most recent generation was probably designed around a '92 Ford Taurus theme, and the 03 Accord feels like different designers (Japanese and American) were each responsible for the front and rear.
I don't recall hearing about 94-97 as stylish, often dubbed as stodgy, bland or attractive. Different strokes, that suggests nothing but how individuals perceive styling. A problem with 94-97 was its size, to fit the V6, something Accord had to get. In 1996, Accord got a V6, but the chassis had to be stretched for the V6 versions.

When 1998 Accords arrived, I saw people competing to spell Buick referring to the tail lamp treatment. I don't recall parallel drawn to 1992 Taurus though. To my eyes, the rear was a revival of 1980s Prelude's rear. All full width taillamps don't look alike to me. I can differentiate between them. ;-)

As far as 2003 Accord goes, the traditional debate goes on. May be Honda should have made the rear end larger to please you? Wait, you're against bulk, right? To me, 2003 Accord's rear provides a glimpse of 1992 Accord (the way taillamp separates from the license plate area) and 1992-95 Civic sedan (the shortened rear end look). May be, I can see things, others don't.

As I see it, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have gotten needlessly caught up in the American habit of supersizing everything, regardless of actual need.
Most people think they offer the right size for American market. You just can't draw a blatant comparison between different markets. In Japan and Europe, people have to live with a few things, that includes downsized engines and cars. And those attributes are a no-no to be successful in America. Given a choice, do you think people in Europe still love to drive around in Ford Festiva?

Its all about compromises. To do business, you have to deliver what people want, not what you want to sell. If your fascination is with smaller cars, why bother, aren't there plenty of choices available? Or is it that you have to buy a Honda?

bklynguy

In Europe, when you own a large car, you are at a disadvantage. Fewer parking spaces, more hassle to drive through narrow villages & towns,you pay higher gas bills, you have to "plan" your route & stops, you "stick out" more in the crowd, etc. Whenever one of my relatives visits us, they always comment on the widespread availability of parking in this country. They also comment on the extra pollution, but life is a compromise & I'm sure things will improve on that front.

I have more relatives than I can count ( Germany & Denmark ), and those relatives (not many) who own a "larger" car also own a smaller car which they use alot more often ( usually not to commute, since even small villages have a railway station, by the way I always enjoy taking the train in Europe, gets you almost anywhere ) I have rented a car a couple of times, usually a Mercedes C200 since smaller cars are only available with manual trans, and I have to be really careful in some towns, watching out for cars that are badly parked ( not really their fault, narrow streets and not enough public parking )

I'm sure if Europe didn't have an efficient public transit system ( rail mostly in my case ),a lot more parking for larger cars, lower gas costs, wider streets, more Europeans would buy "larger" cars.

The Accord in my American eyes is not bulky, doesn't feel bulky inside ( great interior by the way ), if you want a smaller car , buy a smaller car or wait for the new Acura TSX, don't complain about the "bulky" Accord.

webrooks

When the moon roof in my 2003 Accord EX is in the tilt-open position I can hear a "whistling" noise when the car is traveling above 45MPH. Has anyone else experienced this problem?

inky4

I have seen 5 noble greens including mine. I have seen 5 Accords on the road. 25,000 sold is not that many per state. You know when you see a 98-2002 accord --remember there were about 2 million of them sold over five years so density is quite high and chance of seeing one is 80 times greater!
I still see few MDX, just not that many.
INKY

ickes_mobile

I don't know about 2003s, but our 2001 does the same thing. Really annoying and the reason why I never use the tilt feature. Doesn't seem to do much anyway. I ususally just open the roof partially.

ronald17

just purchased one graphite colored oct 2nd been through rain still looks as clean as day of purchased. mpg on highway has been super 38+ at 60-65 miles per hr and 27 around town. love the 5 speed automatic

cohenmr

don't forget that the interior will be different. The silver has black interior and the red has the grey.

I have the dark grey outside and it doesn't show dirt at all. I think grey interior looks better than black.

fredvh

How many miles on the '03? You actually got 38 mpg? That sounds too good to be true? Is yours an EX? When you are out on the open road I would really like to know the RPM at exactly 70 mph. Thanks

dodgerfan

I recently went to a local dealer to buy a 2003 4-cyl. auto LX and was told that they wouldn't go below $200 to $300 below sticker.

I'm glad I didn't fall for that.

Carsdirect.com is selling them for $19,362 (Sticker is $20,460).

webrooks

Ickes, Thanks for your input on the whistling problem, much appreciated.

jbg12

After lurking on the Accord, Camry, Altima, etc. boards for a few months, it's time to go public and say thanks. I picked up my silver EXV6 this afternoon - 1,400 below MSRP. Although some have seemed to do better, in the DC/Baltimore market it was the best I could manage. After testing many vehicles (multiple times), I tend to agree with most of the "pros" and "cons" noted here in significant detail. For me it was the seat position/comfort in the Accord that finally made the difference. I wish it had heated mirrors, as does the Canadian model, but otherwise I am very happy with my choice. Thanks for sharing your perspectives and opinions. It made a real difference for me.

robertsmx

Had seen only 3 on road until yesterday. Saw two more today. One noble green, and a white.

bklynguy

Why didn't Honda make xenons an option on the 03 Accord ?

In Germany, you can get the Ford Mondeo, Passat ( all versions ) VW Golf & Jetta with xenons. Could it be Honda needs something to make the new 04 TL "special" ?

ronald17

I got 38+mpg when i had under 100 miles i now have 500+ miles 3 times i have check the mpg and all have been 38+. As far as rpm at 70mph not sure but it pulls 2500 at 75.That should be a help to you. Will try at 70 today

ohiopanther99

The new Accord is the smoothest Accord I have ever been in. Road noise is nonexistent, and the engine has ample power. I love the graphite color and have already received several complements on it. I couldn't be happier with my purchase.

aming

Found a scanned image of C&D from the internet and thought that I would post it for everyone.

http://aming.freeservers.com/photo.html

crv16

Keep us updated regarding your MPG. I've found that when new, my past (and present) Accords have not achieved their maximum MPG until after it has approx 3,000 miles racked up. The best mileage I've got with my '01 Accord 4 cyl 5 speed is 34.5mpg. Typically I get around 32mpg, but that's with a lot of 75-80 mph speeds.

I can believe 38 mpg, since the '03 Accord automatic is revving less on the highway than my 01 Accord and has a lower coefficient of drag.

anonymousposts

Even my 99 sedan EX would get in the low 30's on the highway with 4 people in the car and the AC on cruising at around 90 so 38MPG is far from unbelievable in what is probably a more efficient and advanced engine.

preludexl

Anyone driven the 2 vehicles yet? What's your thoughts on it? I test drove the Passat and it was sweet all around. I dont know how the new accord drives, havent driven it yet.

ronald17

The mpg on my 03 5 speed automatic LX is even better at 65mph drove 93.8 miles. Filled up as much as possible. Went back to same station same pump put in as much as possible. took 2.198 gal that works out to 42.67 mpg. I don't take off like jack rabbit that has a lot to do with my mpg

seaf

Wow, very impressive mpg figures on the 03 accord so far. They're better than some of the mpg figures for the civic, even though it has a 40% larger engine and weight about 12% more.



I always thought to get good mileage, you need tiny engines, but the 03 accord is throwing that theory out the window. Probably due to a combination of low rpm at cruising speeds and a more aerodynamic body.



I wonder what would happen if we take this design philosophy it to an extreme, such as put a sports car V6/V8 engine in a super aerodynamic body with coefficient of drag 0.15 and design it so the engine turns at 1000 rpm or lower at 70mph...wonder what kind of mpg that kind of machine would get. Anyone got a supercomputer handy to simulate this kind of design?

rogcheng

I've driven both cars. I actually drove two Passats, a 2000 GLX V6 manual and a 2002 GLS Automatic. I just bought a 2003 Accord EX-L manual.

The deciding factor for me came down to the engines and long term reliability. The Passat V6 manual was sweet, lots of power in the low to mid-range and the car feels very fast. The 1.8 Auto seemed very unresponsive. The car will bare move if you mash the accelerator until past 3000rpms. I think this is consistent with all VW/Audi automatics. I was really close to buying a 2002/2003 Passat GLX manual, but because Audi has a new V6 and the Passat's V6 is already 3 years old, I was afraid that VW going to give the Passat an engine upgrade soon. Also, the fuel economy on the Passat doesn't come close to the Accords.

Although the Passat has greatly improved reliability, I'd still choose the Accord. I'm not sure why, but I hold a high regard for Hondas. My old Honda, a 91 Accord, is currently at 214000 with few problems along the way.

The steering and the suspension goes to the Passat. The steering in the Passat feels more substantial and balanced and the Passat is more nimble than the Accord. This is probably due to the increased size and weight of the Accord.

I think that if you want an automatic, the Accord is probably a better bet and less expensive. You can get the EXV6 for the price of a 1.8t with luxery package and the cold weather package (still no power seats in the 1.8 in any option package!).

Roger

welst10

Today I test drove a EX V6 coupe. The car looks great, I like the look better than Acura 3.2CL which I test drove yesterday. The interior is also very good with a big LCD screen displaying audio, time, and climate info. Again I like its interior better than Acura CL's. The power is great and it felt faster than the CL, not surprising considering CL is 180lbs heavier and 15HP less. Now the price. The saleman and his manager talked with me for 20 minutes. Their final offer: $26000. I of course didn't buy the car. I mean I got an offer of $26600 for '03 Acura CL. Under no circumstance should Accord sell at almost the same price as an Acura. Where is the gap here? It's ridiculous, Honda! Look at Lexus, and infiniti.

bodydouble

But then you may have to consider that aside from the brand prestige, the '03 Coupe may be superior to the CL. The CL may have a couple of features not on the Accord, such as memory seat, auto-dim mirror, SS. But going the other way, the Accord has telescoping steering wheel, redesigned auto tranny, dual-zone climate control.

Now, the CL-S may be a different matter...

welst10

I test drove a 03 Passat GLS V6 automatic last week. I was offered $100 over invoice which is $24800 (base model). But ultimately I didn't take the offer after an overall comparison with Accord EX-V6.

Passat GLS V6 auto's pros:
1. Sexiest looking sedan around or below $25K
2. Tighter handling
3. "It's a german car" (selling point for many)
Two useful features that Accord doesn't have: (note to Honda: really bad decision here)
4. daytime running lights
5. heated mirrors

Accord EX-v6 auto's pros:
1. More power
2. More fuel efficient
3. uses regular gas
4. Leather
5. Dual-zone climate control
6. Power seats
7. heated seats
8. 6-CD changer
9. 16" wheel
10. Honda's reputation for reliability

I guess it all depends which ones will do for you.

welst10

welst10

then the decision would be easy and i'd be driving a passat v6 (or maybe an acura CL) now. The sedan is too ugly to compete with passat. But then again most people buying honda don't care much about looks anyway. Before the saleman served me, a pretty lady in her early 30s bought an EX sedan quick.

diploid

Well looks are subjective. Just because you don't like its looks doesn't mean the buyers are aesthetically challenged.

welst10

Betwee silver and red? Easy. Get red. why? It's a sea of silver (and desert mist) out there. Mom and dad's are all doing these colors nowadays.

robertsmx

Accord does not have DRL (here in America), but I can't remember when I switched the lights off the last time. May be couple of weeks ago. :-)

bodydouble

As I said before somewhere, you gotta move to Canada. We've got both the DRl and heated mirrors! (Not to mention universal healthcare)

welst10

I didn't know that. Even so, keeping headlights constantly on uses more gas than DRL. Now I am not sure whether Honda's idea of putting everything into standard feature list is that wise. Some features like heated seats and mirrors are better off as options. DRL should be standard, just like in Toyota's.

ickes_mobile

Heated mirrors would be great to have here in MN (its very close to Canada you know).

I had heard that Silver actually replaced white as the most popular vehicle color. I saw the blue color on an EX-V6 sedan yesterday, pretty sharp.

robertsmx

Auto-off headlights have been standard on EX/EXV6 atleast since 1998.

welst10

oh man, none of the honda dealers in north NJ I talked to are willing to sell EX-V6 coupe for less than $25K now. I guess I have to either wait and drive my old slow 92 corolla for 3 months (my friend told me price will most likely drop in late dec and jan-feb) or get another car. Tough decision.

seaf

Daytime running lights use slightly less than the typical 55 W of power per bulb, more like 30 W per bulb so they last longer since they're on all the time. But they make a miniscule impact on your mileage, probably 0.01 mpg. I installed a DRL module on my civic since 1999 and have not replaced any bulbs yet. It's a simple $35 device you can order and wire through the fuse box under the dashboard, it turns on the high-beams on low intensity when the ignition is on, except when I turn on low-beam headlights at night. Regular low-beam lights are aligned to face the ground whereas DRLs are like high-beams with lower intensity so they're easier to spot from a distance than low-beams during daytime. Turning on regular low-beam during daytime will mean you have to replace bulbs more frequently though. But I'd still use it versus nothing for safety reasons. I agree Honda should put them in just like Toyota, VW, GM cars, BMW, Volvo...etc.

inemer

Red color is more stands up in traffic. Police stop more often red cars than any other colors. And in my personal opinion, red - is a female color. Maybe I am wrong.

superman5

does anyone else get horrible gas milege? it is mostly local but 21mpg avg? it is seem little too low for 2001 lx (4 cylinder) 4dr auto...