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
-MiKe
We differ in that I think all the sedans in this range are at least adequately capable at everything, whereas I suspect you're standards in all categories are higher than merely adequate but never as demanding in others.
So long as the car is merely 'adequate' in regards to something I don't care about, it's well worth the sacrifice for greatness elsewhere.
But I totally see where you're coming from. Just a different point of view.
I understand the added weight of the V6 (as in any car) takes away some of the handling aspects, but whatever it loses there, it gains on the "luxury" side for quietness and smoothness. Still a balanced car, though.
Now, what are the chances of Honda offering the 6-speed manual from the V6 coupe on the V6 sedan? I'll own one of the first ones if they do it.
2025 BMW i5 - 2017 911 C4S - 2025 BRZ - 2025 MB GLE450e - 2024 Genesis GV60 - 2019 Cayman
If you mix them both, Accord wins. ;-)
The Accord is good overall, but is not great at anything (except resale). And yes, there are better choices for specific buyers (power or cushy or handling type of buyers), but if the buyers actually knows what is most important to him/her, then the Accord cannot be the first choice.
Wrong. To a buyer, like me, who values balance and the best combination of attributes (read: the balance) from a both ends of the spectrum, Accord is bound to be the first choice. It may sit squarely in the middle of the handling and soft ride ends of the scale. It may not be the largest car in its class, but it is not the smallest either. However, it also offers a fine touch of excellence in terms of interior, fit and finish, features, power train, manual transmission, safety and the solidity of the chassis.
It has more than enough handling capabilities that anyone would ever need outside of a racetrack. And speaking of racetrack, it comes with a solid chassis making use of a fantastic suspension setup, with double wishbone front suspension and 5-link modified (Watt Link) double wishbone rear.
What it lacks is a boy-racer styling, catchy commercials and to top it off, not many commercials with small letter words reading "Professional Driver in a Closed Track. Do Not Attempt". I guess these are the small things that seem to deliver passion, and Honda doesn't do much in that regard.
I have owned a Mazda and a Nissan before the Honda/Acura and neither could even compare to the overall quality I have been getting with Honda. I started with a 95 Integra and since have bought a 2000 Accord and a 2002 CR-V. They all have been flawless cars with NO mechanical problems outside of routine wear and tear. I can not say the same of my Nissan or Mazda experiences.
As long as Honda keeps this up, I will never spend my money on another brand.
However, for most of us, it's based on very real, personal experience. My wife and I have owned an Acura and two Hondas; my brother also had an Acura. All four cars were superb in their reliability and overall satisfaction. It's that kind of consistent delivery of quality and satisfaction that brings us back.
2025 BMW i5 - 2017 911 C4S - 2025 BRZ - 2025 MB GLE450e - 2024 Genesis GV60 - 2019 Cayman
Miata=S2000 (But costs way less)
MPV=Odyssey (But costs less)
6 and Accord? I prefer the 6's looks and since we all agree that the 6 handles better, and handling in more imporant than passneger room to me, the 6 is at least equal in my eyes.
So the only real Honda advantage? Resale. But when you keep a car for more than a few years, it's all even on that too.
Cheers!
Dinu
Particularly Toyota. Consumer Reports will consistantly rate Lexus (and even Infiniti) above Acura. Historically, Toyota's seem to never be worse than Honda, and often better. Nissan seems to have some gems too. Mazda has made a few Ford duds, but their others are consistant with other Japanese makes.
Everybody has had a car that lasted forever. My friend's dad has a 1993 Taurus SHO (Yamaha engine) with over half a MILLION miles on it. It just had its first unscheduled repair- the head gasket started leaking. That same friend has a '95 Chevy Corsica with 275,000 miles running strong. The latter is traditionally unreliable, but it's worked for him. I wouldn't hold too much faith in a personal experience.
What this says to me is only that Japanese made cars are reliable. All my good experiences have been with Toyota's, but I'm not close minded to Honda (or Nissan, Mazda) because of it. Then again, maybe I am slightly hypocritical, because I'll never buy a Chrysler product anytime soon. Bad experience.
Much like the debate between midsize cars, reliability is too close automatically dismiss another brand.
The suspension designs between the two car appear to be very similar but the base tuning is noticeably different. Changing sway bars is usually pretty easy thing to do and will tighten up handling without any real detriment to the ride. I would follow the bars with tires. At that point the additional go power of the Accord would shine even more.
The surveys and reports may say otherwise, but our personal experiences with Hondas have been nothing but good. That doesn't make us close minded.
Look at the 3 comparison tests...the Accord is ranked ahead of the 6. Some of you Mazda fans are saying that your personal experiences with the 6 and Accord were different...I guess that makes you close minded.
If it makes you happy, go with it. Honda reliability is traditionally stellar. Just don't dismiss other brands on account of that, especially when isolated personal experiences happen to all makes.
Uh huh...I'm sure you use that argument on calling people fat or ugly.
j/k :-)
Really, if it's a touchy subject, I'll drop it. I was looking for insight and got insult. I just don't understand where the loyalty comes from when other companies have an equally proven track record.
Not to mention they have sold over 400,000 of these cars for the past 10 years. No other make can boast that kind of demonstrated reliability.
Yes, people are always willing to cooperate when you call them names in your search for insight.
"I just don't understand where the loyalty comes from when other companies have an equally proven track record."
There's the problem. You're looking at "proven" track records when we're here telling you our personal experiences, contrary to those proven track records, paint a different picture. Hence my example of the 6 - 3 comparisons ranked it behind the Accord, but your experience with the 6 left a different impression of the car. By the "close-minded" example you were using, that would make you close-minded for using your own judgment while disagreeing (not ignoring) with the reviews.
Seriously though it's not just my experiences I'm basing it on. I know many people who have owned trouble free Hondas. I know a few people who have had trouble free Toyotas as well but I also know of three Toys in particular that were nothing but problems. Can't say I have ever heard of a Honda that was as much of a problem as those three toys. 2 Camrys and a Corolla.
Nissan engines can't even compare to Hondas. I'll give you the Toyota thing but not Nissan, no way. Great cars but the engine isn't even close.
In my case I had some expensive problems with a 1990 Nissan Sentra and then major catastrophic problems with a 1995 Mazda Protege. Why would I want to reward those manufacturers by considering their cars again?
I am not saying everyone should expect those problems from Nissan and Mazda, nor am I saying their cars are unreliable in general. I am also not naive enough to think that all Honda Acura products are infallible. I am simply rewarding them with providing me a quality product by returning to them for my next car purchase. If you think that is close-minded, fine. I think I am making a smart decision based on my personal experiences.
If I do run into a major problem with my Honda, I will probably rethink things and look at another brand, but until then I will stick with Honda for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.
As a rebuttal to those who like to claim we only buy Honda's for resale value, I would like to point out that I am also fond of supporting a company that is producing new technology to save fuel, cut emissions, and reduce pollution during the manufacturing process. My Accord may not be much more fuel efficient than other midsize cars, but my purchase helps Honda produce cars like the Civic Hybrid and hopefully broader applications of that powertrain in the future. I hope the next midsize car I purchase is an Accord hybrid.
If you can't make your point without being insulting, it appears to the readers that you don't have much of a point at all.
If a person won't consider ANY other options, aren't they close-minded? It's an observation not even necessarily directed at any one person, and not an insult. If you took it as such, then please accept my apology.
jfavour- I totally agree, I hope my next car (10 years to go!) is a sporty hybrid.
That said, I recognize your apology, will take it at face value and request that others do the same.
Some of you need to recognize that this is a discussion dedicated to the Accord, and not a discussion where we compare the relative merits and demerits of the Accord to other vehicles. We have an entire Comparisons board for that purpose.
This line of argumentative exchanges needs to be stopped. Now.
Holy Moly! We agree?
Bought it didn't like the engine though. Not a problem mechanically with it.
Did the same with an 01' Accord EX-V6. Bought one. Hated the transmission. Sold it. Not a problem at all with the car itself though.
So last summer I tested every midsized car except the Sonata and Kia (didn't want a cheapo) and even some higher end including BMW, G35, A4, and Volvo. I read up on all tests 2002 & 2003.
One by one I eliminated the choices, and ended up with another Accord. Why? Not because Car & Driver and Road & Track liked it best. Not because my old Accords were the best in their day. But because the 2003 Accord has improved so much over the 1998, in small but countless ways.
IMHO, it is the best car in its class not only on an overall basis, but in most categories. Best milage, best engine, best manual trasmission, best auto (5 speed), best interior, best crash rating, best environmental(emissions/milage).
In other categories where it wasn't best, it was close. I expect it to be reliable and have great resale. I don't expect it to be a sports car, nor is the Mazda 6 or the Altima. If I wanted more sportiness, I would either put on better tires or buy the TSX or a true sports car.
Should you buy an Accord also? Perhaps, but you'll first decide your needs and priorites. Chances are you won't buy one vs the other because a) your a sheep b) you want 5 more HP c) you've always liked the expression "zoom, Zoom" d) it costs $500 less e) the salesmans demo CD was country f) you want a yellow car g) the sales manager gave you his pen h) the Mazda internet guys like the 6 better i) Car & Driver said it had the biggest ashtray
Honda got the Accord right from day one, and the 2003 is the best ever. By next Sept, another 400,000 sheep will have a 2003 Accords. And 150,000 Altima and 150,000 Mazda 6 owners will tell you theirs is better, till they go to sell them. Cause them damn sheep don't want used ones either.
first of all, the mpv and ody have the same general function, but can you max out its capacity COMFORTABLY? didnt think so.
second...and most importantly...you have obviously never driven a miata OR s2000, because the s2k is in an ENTIRELY different class of cars. can the miata hang with a boxster s? or a z3/z4? not a chance. the ONLY similarities between the 2 have to do with the number of wheels and seats....oh yeah, and they both have a steering wheel too.
That said, I still consider Honda to be one of the most reliable brands, with Toyota certainly its equal.
~alpha
You can't compare used with new. When babied from "New" our Hondas were flawless and our Toyotas were flawed. All but the pickups, strangly enough. Those Toyota pickups wouldn't stop running.
I agree that Honda and Toyota are at the top of the list.
I now have an '01 V6 Accord, loaded. I love it but I agree with a post that I read a couple of pages back, the Transmission leaves a lot to be desired. I had to sell my Acura because the wife refused to drive stick and I still can't get used to this automatic stuff.
No, they are not. It means that they've had nothing but good experience with brand X and don't feel the need to look elsewhere. I don't see how that can be negatively viewed.
I wish the Accord v. Mazda6 thread worked.
I'd report that I'm getting 34mpg in D.C. city traffic, that the engine has transformed after break-in, I'd give you the manual, don't care about the auto, and the '6 is projected for 5 stars also. I like the interior better (love those vents) and personally think the Accord's interior looks like the Camry's. I'd argue that the '6 not only handles better in corners, but it has a nicer highway ride as well. It's just as quiet, cost me less, and isn't beige. I'd also mention that the '6 has already won comparisongs in Europe against the Euro Accord (TSX).
But that thread was closed down, so I can't argue those things :-)
See, this is why neither of us will ever convice the other. I think my car is near perfect. You think your car is near perfect. We have different priorities.
If it doesn't come accross in my posts, I really do respect your choice, despite my questioning it. I hope you respect my choice, too, but I don't detect that. The only reason I'm here is to get some insight into the mind of an Accord owner. After discussion with Gee35, I wanted to know what other Accord owners thought- what made them 'click' with their cars. It's curiosity, that's all. I can read all the reviews I want, but it doesn't make up for your personal experiences.
I know the Honda Accord advocate Gee35coupe also digs the '6, but he really gets under my skin (congrats man) bashing it. Are you all bad people?
(Joking, of course.)
The TSX and Euro Accord and Japanese Accord have several differences. Just as the Euro 6 vs. the Atenza vs. U.S. 6. Depends on the Market.
http://autozine.kyul.net/html/Honda3.htm
I agree with you Deminin. That's why I'm here for personal perspective (and perhaps debate), but certainly not magazine quotes or arguements.
I do like the Accord's much more, but I'm trying to be objective rather than subjective. I'm trying to analyze quality and design rather than looks.
Edit: ANON! You deleted your post and then duplicated it BELOW my response. Now everyone will think I'm nuts! They'll say, "That silly Mazda6 owner doesn't know where he is!"
Oh boy. I'm setting myself up here big time.
looks like this
then that would explain why you would think a noisy, good handling, decontented, rebadged Millenia is the way to go. Speaking of Millenias we might buy a 95 with 100k for $2000 so my Mom can keep the miles off of her lease.
~alpha
The law of averages has it for the Accord. Sure there will be those with problems but the broad majority won't.
They are really happy. Most Accord owners are coming out of a four-cylinder, and yet most buy the new four-cylinder even after they drive the V-6, because they are so happy with the way the four drives. There are so many features standard for a given trim level."
http://www.autonews.com/article.cms?articleId=42237
"With any model, not only are you getting what's arguably the best family sedan on the market today, you're also getting a real driver's car for those days when you're not playing chauffeur to the spouse and kids"
And a "driver's car" to boot.
'89 Firebird Formula 5.0
'94 Isuzu Rodeo LS
'96 Honda Accord EX (4 cyl)
'98 Volvo S70 T5
'99 Acura 3.2TL
'01 Lexus RX300 AWD
'02 VW Passat 1.8T
Supremely fun to drive. I traded it in because the lovely folks at the Valvoline quick oil change place put oil into the antifreeze and just about seized the engine. A mechanic got it going again, and I immediately got rid of it.
I have never gone to a quick lube place again.
-Craig
"To be sure, there is body roll, and the brakes had started to fade after the pounding they'd received"
So once again we have a good car that lacks the lack of body roll and brake fade the M car has (tongue twister anyone?).
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/L- ayout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035773878730&call_- - page=TS_Wheels&call_pageid=968867497088&call_pagepath=Wee- - kly/Wheels&col=969048871196
Ok we agree.
"first of all, the mpv and ody have the same general function, but can you max out its capacity COMFORTABLY? didnt think so."
Huh? The Ody is larger but for many larger is not better. This is a strict American (see US) perspective that larger cars are more desirable - an MPV is much easier to drive/park and handles better than the Ody (as much as a van car handle), although, like most Mazdas what it lacks in acceleration it makes up for it in better handling.
"second...and most importantly...you have obviously never driven a miata OR s2000, because the s2k is in an ENTIRELY different class of cars. can the miata hang with a boxster s? or a z3/z4? not a chance. the ONLY similarities between the 2 have to do with the number of wheels and seats....oh yeah, and they both have a steering wheel too."
I am talking roadsters that inspire the urge to drive. The Miata, S2000 and Boxster all qualify. I would take the S2000 ove a Boxter w/out a doubt (I'm not into image or prestige at all) and I would take the Miata over the S2000 b/c of a significant price difference ($15.000+ CAD!!!).
Dinu
We agree! As you know my experience w/Hondas hasn't been great yet I have known people that had Civics up to 290.000kms, so I know they are not bad cars by any means.
My experience w/Toyotas is limited to one car which was reliable but ugly!
My experience w/Nissan is not first-hand, although my aunt owned a Maxima from 91-02 and that car was ok (except for when it ran on 5cyl for a while, then self-diagnosed and corrected itself). She now has a 99 Maxima.
My experience w/Mazda is the Protege which is the 2nd car (the 93 Civic was the first one) that inspires me to drive and puts a smile on my face EVERYTIME I get behind the wheel.
That matters A LOT to me and since I think the M6 will be as good as a Honda in terms of reliability, the M6 provides for ***ME*** what I want/need more than the Accord. For others that have families and need more space and don't feel a need to have a smile on when they drive, the Accord is an excellent choice. Just not for me. No #s, comparos are gonna change my mind. Just like with the PRO, it was shut-down b/c of acceleration and a harsh ride, yet what reviewers called harsh I call firm and composed and this is why I now have a M instead of a H.
Cheers!
Dinu
And do we really know that for sure? Different testers have different standards... for example, Road and Track mentioned how flat the Accord remained while taking curves.
Let's not assume that this implies anything good or bad about the "M" car until the same tester/organization tests the "M" car.
And let's complete the quote that you conveniently snipped:
"...but the standard Michelins hung gamely onto the track surface, the double-wishbone suspension never let the chassis lapse into understeer, and the engine and transmission, even by the end of it, were still begging for more."
Can't let any compliments for the Accord slip in, can you?
Oh, really? Let's verify this. From Consumer Reports:
Routine handling:
Odyssey - better than average
MPV - average
As for maneuverability, the smaller MPV has a 1 foot LARGER turning circle than the larger Odyssey. So much for better manueverability for the "zoom zoom" contingent.
And, since maneuverability is not a win for the MPV, are there other advantages to its smaller size?
Doesn't seem so... how about these performance figures?
Odyssey:
0-30: 3.7 sec.
0-60: 9.9 sec.
1/4 mile: 17.6 sec @ 81 mph
45-65: 6.4 sec.
MPV:
0-30: 4.4 sec.
0-60: 12.5 sec.
1/4 mile: 19.1 sec @ 74 mph
45-65: 7.4 sec.
Soul of a sports car? I don't think so... guess the creepy little "zoom, zoom" kid was too busy with the 6 to bother with the MPV.
Well, with the poorer performance, the MPV at least beats the Odyssey in gas mileage, right? Guess again...
Odyssey:
Overall: 19 mpg
City/hwy: 12/30 mpg
150 mile trip: 24 mpg
MPV:
Overall: 18 mpg
City/hwy: 13/25 mpg
150 mile trip: 21 mpg
How about comfort?
Odyssey:
Middle seat: Much better than average
Rear seat: Better than average
MPV:
Middle seat: Better than average
Rear seat: Worse than average
So let's summarize. The Odyssey is more maneuverable, has better handling, is faster, gets better gas mileage, and is significantly more comfortable, as well as providing an additional 10 cu. ft. of storage. With the MPV trailing the Odyssey significantly in every major category, why would anyone buy one? Given the comparative sales, obviously many, many people have asked themselves the same question.
Sorry for the OT, but Dinu seems to be intent in making this forum "Mazda vs. the rest of the auto industry".
Wish we were hearing more from current owners of the new Accord, and less about the alleged virtues and vices of the competition. As our host has pointed out, there are other venues for those discussions.
Here's some other test results for the OLD MPV with the 2.5L
Acceleration (mph) 0-60
Elapsed time (secs) 9.9
Quarter mile 17.5 @ 79.3 mph
Slalom 59.1 mph
Lateral acceleration .80 g
What I don't completely understand is why my 1990 Nissan Sentra always got between 32-45 miles per gallon, yet today's small cars don't fair as well. How did we get to the point where fuel consumption of the average car has been either stagnant or gotten worse over the past decade? Couldn't they improve performance, safety, and fuel economy at the same time? I hope car companies start getting back on track with regards to fuel economy.
Wouldn't nearly every new car buyer find better fuel mileage desirable, as long as performance isn't sacrificed? I am sure someone will say people care more about HP. That may be true, but it is getting to the point that the current Accord's I-4 is as powerful as the V6's of the past decade. From what I have read here it seems a lot of new Accord owners are finding the 4-cyl. more than adequate. I currently have the Accord V6, but if I were to buy a new one today, I would pick the 4-cyl and get the improved fuel economy.
Did anyone buy the 4 over the 6 because of fuel economy?