Older Honda Accords

ronfar

Just call them....I forget what the procedure is, but there is a way...simple really too...that you can get rid of the check engine light. It will take you less than a minute. Anyway, just call your dealer/service place, and they can tell you.

sobers

which is ok but you can do better (may be 500-600) but 350 as a dealer fees is as rip-off !!

$50-60 documentation fees should be the only dealer charge (a bit more in Calif)

usfbull

I'll get the $350 dealer fee waived or I'll look elsewhere.

canadiancl

I'm just wondering if the way you re-started your car did something to the electrical system to cause the light to come on. Is there anything in the manual that says you can or cannot push-start the car? But in any case, if you take it in, the dealer can scan the OBD which would tell you what caused the light to come on.

usfbull

In the Miami area I found a 2002 Accord EX V-6 Sedan in silver for $23,700 and no dealer fee other than $75 for documents.Sale price includes a $499 appearance package.

rxm

Hi-

I have a 2000 Accord LX V6 and I am interested in buying the HondaCare extended warranty (7yr/100K). What is the best rate for this?

I remember last year there was this Honda dealership from Connecticut that was mentioned here for good deals. I cannot find the thread any more...

Many thanks in advance.

Sincerely,
RXM.

kalabaw222

Hi everyone,
What tires would you suggest for my Honda Accord EX 1999? I live where there is snow in the winters, but really I'm looking for a tire that will help with the road noise that is so obvious in the Accord. I guess this question is for anyone with an Accord Ex from 1998-2002....

diploid

http://www.vtec.net/news/items/849.html

twistinmelon

I recommend you contact Tracy Dalton at Alton Blakley Honda of Somerset, Kentucky.

See http://www.altonblakley.com/abhonda/finance.html

She's the Finance Manager, and she's given folks (including me) some very competitive prices on HondaCare contracts for our Odyssey minivans.

twist

hawks1

I've heard numerous reports that Honda is considering moving up the release date for the redesigned 2003 Accord. Does anyone know if it may be coming out in March or April of 2002? Also, does anyone know what the specs will be on this car - i.e., engine size, wheelbase & overall length, etc? Honda is obviously feeling that they're at a market disadvantage considering the already released new designs for the 2002 Camry and Altima. I'd like to consider the 2003 Accord before buying next year.

robr2

I presume you have the 4 cyl with 195/65HR15. I replaced the Michelins MXV4's with the Sumitomo HTR4 from the tirerack.com They were reasonably priced and the reviews say they work pretty well in the snow. I haven't tried them yet under those conditions but we had flurries 2 days ago so it'll be soon!! :-) I felt the Michelins were adequate in the snow but not confidence inspiring.

I haven't noticed and discernable change in road noise. The Michelins never bothered me.

IMHO, the Sumitomo's far outhandle the Michelins and at 1/2 the price are a worthy consideration. I only got 36K out the Michelins before they were shot - the Sumitomo's are rated for 50K - we'll see how they do.

Good luck with your decision.

canadiancl

Where have you heard this? It would be great if the new Accord comes out in March or April, 2002.

jrct9454

Yeah, this is the first I've heard of a possible early release, and I try to read the big auto trades daily. I'd personally bet against it, but stranger things have happened...

s852

I don't think Honda feels like they are at such a disadvantage when the Accord prices are so much better than the prices on the competition.
look at the prices of the 2002 Passat, Altima or Camry.
For $23-$24K you can get the top EXV6 model Accord. Take the same money to the other dealers and see what you can get with it. Maybe an Altima 2.5SL, Passat 1.8 GL or four cylinder Camry LE with an options package or two.
If Honda was trying to sell the current Accord for about the same price as the all-new designed cars, it would be different, but they are not.

maxamillion1

Honda probably will not push up the release of their new Accord, though I wish they would. The Accord right now might look dated, but it is still selling surpisingly well, and I bet it will continue to sell well. It's funny that Honda is now the best selling car in America, because they have very few fleet sales, while Toyota and Ford sell many more cars to the fleets.

hawks1

Yesterday (11th) I had posted that I had read somewhere that Honda was considering moving up the release date of the 2003 Accord. I can't remember specifically where I read this - most likely a car magazine while waiting for my oil change. Which magazine, I can't recall. However, here is a brief paragraph given by Edmunds in the review section (future news) on this very web site:
It states:
2003 Accord (Midsize Car)
"With sales still strong, Honda is expected to field a slightly larger, more powerful Accord by 2003. Looking to counter Toyota's new Camry and Nissan's redesigned Altima, Honda officials have hinted that the new Accord will boast upwards of 240 horsepower. Contrary to earlier reports, Honda will not release the Accord this fall. Look for a mid-2002 launch."
Does this mid-2002 release mean an April-June '02 timeframe? Guess I would really like to see this car before I consider an '02 Camry or Altima - both newly redesigned.

diploid

But if the new Accord is going to have 240hp, it would be more powerful than the Acura TL!!

bolivar

My guess - the prices will be increased to the level of the new, redesigned Camry.

If your closest competitor can do it, why can't you.

canadiancl

Reading the Edmunds excerpt, it doesn't sound like the writer is trying to say the release date will be earlier than the previously scheduled September release. Could "mid-2002" have meant middle of the 2002 model year, which would mean around March, 2003? That, however, would mean the current Accord would have spanned 5 & 1/2 years. Would Honda risk letting the Camry and Altima have that much lead time to gather momemtum??

If Acura phases out the base TL then that would solve the hp discrepancy with the new Accord. The TL and the TL-S are so similar anyways (other than for the motor)

canadiancl

But even the old Camry was more expensive than comparably equipped Accords. I just think Toyota's got a bit of an attitude with their pricing. Just look down their entire lineup. Almost $47,000 (Canadian) for the top-of-the-line Highlander! Almost 50 grand (Canadian) for the top 4runner (a dated truckish SUV with marginal power)!! Is their supposedly superior build quality worth that much?

maxamillion1

...Honda did release the new CL in the beginning of 2000 as a 2001 model didn't they, they facelifted the new Acura TL and Type S and Acura RL in the beginning of 2001 as 2002 models, it could happen, and really I hope it does, because I am ready to see what it will look like, and I don't like any of the Camrys except the SE model, all the other models are ugly to me. (IMO) Also, it is reported that only the sporty Accord Coupe will receive the 240 or more hp, but I heard on another forum that Honda backed down from that claim now, I don't know if it's true though. I know one thing, if it looks as good as the new Altima(which I doubt) and has comparable power 210-230 hp, I will surely consider it. Until it is released though, my choices are:

Altima 2.5SL or 3.5SE (both 5 speed)
Camry SEI4 5-spd or SEV6
Maxima SE 6 spd. or Maxima GLE
Accord EXL 5 spd. or EXV6

diploid

May have a sweet engine, but from what I'm reading lately, the interior is not even up to par with the CURRENT Accord.

canadiancl

I may be in the minority on this one, but I don't even care much for its styling.

talon95

Screams "cheap" to me... the materials seem more suited to a Sentra than an Accord/Camry class competitor. The odd and graceless dashboard styling looks like it was inspired by a Suzuki Grand Vitara. It seems that after all of the development dollars that went into the powertrain, there wasn't much left for the interior.

OTOH, I must admit I like the exterior styling. They obviously went for "kinda edgy" for both the interior and the exterior. While the dashboard is edgy and homely, the exterior is edgy and attractive.

That being said, my negative reaction to the interior would strike the Altima off of my list immediately. My preference for the Accord interior was a major factor in my choice of the Accord over the Camry in 2000. The 2002 Camry makes up some ground, but I still prefer my Accord's interior and dashboard even to the new Camry's.

BTW, has anyone checked out the orange-tinged woodgrain on the Camry XLE? I guess we now know what Paramount did with all of the "alien planet" set materials when "Star Trek: Voyager" finished its run. The Accord's woodgrain is nothing spectacular, but the Camry's is downright weird.

jfavour

They have been doing more non-traditional release dates for their new models lately, like the 2002 Acura TL-S, RL, and RSX. In addition, the new Civic Si is scheduled for a mid-year launch. It is possible the next Accord could be available in June - July, but that is still a ways off if your planning to get a new car now.

IMHO the new Altima's design is an ungraceful copy of the Passat. I also really hate the tail light and rear end design.

It is interesting to note that the new Camry did not try to compete with the HP in the Altima. I wonder if Honda will do the same? If the new CR-V is any indication, Honda is not always willing to engage in HP wars. They seem to prefer the balance of HP and fuel efficiency.

robr2

I think Nissan had to do something with the Altima to distinguish from the others - hence the HP boost and flashy ads touting that. The Altima has always lagged in sales compared to the Accord and Camry.

IMHO, most Accord and Camry buyers are not HP freaks. The target audience for these are typically families who want a reliable car. You don't get to be #1 and #2 by targeting enthusiasts. They aim for the middle of the road with reasonable performance, MPG, non-controversial styling. Hey, I on my second Accord and would love something more exciting, but I carry the kiddies around in this thing.

Will the Altima be able to reach Accord/Camry sales numbers now? Who knows, though I tend to doubt it. Just my opinion.

timadams

Early 2002, mid 2002 or late 2002, I don't care. I just want Honda to match a stick shift with the V6 engine on the next generation! Are my hopes unrealistic?

markz2k

One of the things I like best about Honda is how they don't screw you over options. You pick the trim line you like, and you're done. There are very minimal options to drive the price sky-high. Especially with the EX-V6, you get a lot of features for little money. When I bought my Accord in June 2000, an XLE-V6 Camry with comparable equipment was nearly $3000 more. I still liked the Accord better even if they had been the same price.

I went to the Anaheim Auto show yesterday, and the Camry pricing was again substantially higher than an equivalantly equiped EX-V6 Accord. (Besides, the Camry looks way too much like a taurus for my tastes.) Even the Altima can add up to nearly $30K if you equip it similarly to the Accord. (Yes, it will have some stuff you can't get on the Accord like Xenon's.) But all the good features are optional, or in a package. For that kind of dough, I'd spend a bit extra on the CL/TL.

Given all that, I still intend to drive an Altima some day, just to see how the extra .5 liter feels.

piceno

Don't look now, Nissan, but you are pricing yourself out of the SEDAN market. Anyone who is willing to dish out $30K for the Altima SE is
not thinking clearly. I've seen the Altima interior, and it is not even close to being as
classy, ergonomic, and very high in quality as the Accord (I have an EX V6, 2000). I will give the Altima high marks for exterior design,
however.

Marz2k: the new CAMRY looks a clone of the Avalon. It will NOT win any design awards.

markz2k

Yeah, it does look like the Avalon. I didn't like the look of the last gen Camry, I was thinking this gen would be better - nope! But, I do like the looks of the last gen ('01) ES300. (The side and rear, especially) Just not worth the price.

I'm not a big fan of the Altima's looks either; Nissan just can't design an attractive rear end. The interior is pretty blah too. The Maxima was okay until they broke it with the new taillights a couple years ago.

diploid

Looks almost identical to the new ES300. And with the way they're pricing it, you might as well get the ES300.

robr2

I recently read a review of the Accord LX 4Cyl Auto. The writer felt that in all of the industry, there was not a greater value avaiable. The writer felt that for just over $20K MSRP you couldn't beat the combination of price, reliability, resale value, features, mechanical design, and simplicity of purchasing (options, etc).

True, there are other less expensive, better looking, higher performance sedans out there. But, I agree the LX is a great value. Mind you I have an EX, but I can't live without a sunroof!!

hawks1

I've recently looked at various cars including the new Camry and Altima. The Camry didn't impress me a bit - the styling looked like a remake of last year's Avalon. Also, the price was too high. I was however impressed with the Altima. I drove the 4 cylinder auto and this car was very impressive. The new design was very sharp and this car is bigger than the '01 Altima (103 cubic ft in the interior). The 175 horsepower four banger is terrific and has some real punch, and the 4-speed auto is buttery smooth both up and down. The interior though was a disappointment - not so much the layout but the chintzy materials used. The SL I drove had just about everything - leather, sixteen inch alloy wheels, four-wheel disc brakes, 6-disc CD, etc. The MSRP on this one was around $23K. I would imagine it could be had in the $22.5 range. I haven't looked at the '02 Accords to price for a similar model, but I will soon. However, I'd really like to wait for the '03 Accords and compare their new design with the Altima.

redtrain65

my two cents would be the Altima from the back is horrible looking, tailights and what happended to a bumper? You cannot miss one in a parking lot from the back end that is for sure. The trunk looks so small from the outside too. I like the front end but thats about it. I also read that the new ALtima is slightly bigger than the current Maxima...so they are going to be fighting for sales against each other until '04 when the Maxima moves up a notch. I agree from an earlier post that people in this class of vehicle are not looking for HP, look how successful the Accord was with only a 4 banger for all those years...

hawks1

You're right, most Accord owners of 4-cylinders aren't too concerned with HP anyway. The Accord 4 banger is quality. I first bought one in 1980 - the MSRP back then was $6150 with dealer-installed air. There was no bargaining with the salesman either. You paid MSRP and had to get on a waiting list to get one (it cost $200 to get on the list). I waited 65 days to get mine and it was worth it. What a jewel - red, with red interior, and a five-speed. The Accord only offered three exterior colors back then (red, silver, green). I drove this car 160,000 miles before selling it.

jrct9454

The new Accord 4 will be in the 160-165 hp range [see new CR-V...same engine]; the V6 is going to be the same 3.2 block and heads used in the base TL, but with some tweaks to the timing, and other mods to get something like 220 hp on regular gas.

What needs attention in the new car much more than hp is refinement; our '01 EX V6 is a noticeable improvement over our '98, but the car needs one more layer of work to get road noise under control, especially in the back seat. I think Honda knows this, and if they succeed in addressing this issue, no one will care much about 15 horsepower one way or the other. This is the area in which Toyota excels, and is the principal difference right now separating the Camry from its competition. If we can get Honda's traditionally great drivetrains and better handling with a bit more silence, no one needs to go to the competition.

Styling issues are very personal, but I find nothing especially off-putting about any of the current competitors: the Altima is very nice, and the new Camry has only a belt line that looks too high to me as a strike against it. The new Accord will no doubt once again be criticized for being "too bland", but I couldn't care less...too often, when the Japanese try to get "out there", the result is really bad...the new ES comes very close to crossing the line, with all of the creases and twists to try to give it more "character" compared with the Camry. Spare me...

canadiancl

Japanese car manufacturers should hire Chrysler stylists.

jrct9454

...just as long as they DON'T hire anyone else from Chrysler...especially whomever is responsible for production engineering. All those swoopy lines are wasted when the car can't give you 80,000 trouble-free miles before something major happens...

Canyoncrest

Personally, I agree that Chrysler does have some very good designs.I am sure that techinically there is no problem for Cam/cords to come up with some fancy looking styling. However, styling is a very subjective thing. For example, I love the 2002 Altima tail while I saw some else here said that it is horrible. As high-volume vehicles, Accord and Camry are doing everything possible to maintain their positions. How? They are not trying to make the cars that everyone loves (which is a impossible goal), but they try to design some cars that make most people don't hate it.

That is why all those high volume cars are all bland looking. Boringness is the key to profitibility.

Ford made a huge mistake to have an avard-garde looking Tautus, and ended with a pathetic sales record. Now, they changed it to a more modestly looking one. They learned their lesson.

jims55

Keep up the good work people. This discussion has been very interesting. This is the way this board should work. Remenber all the finger pointing and name calling that went on last month.

maxamillion1

Does it really cost more to design cars that look better, I doubt it, personally before the new Altima came out, I thought the Galant was the best looking Japanese car in it's class, the Accord nor the Camry have to try to look good to be excepted and to sell, just about everyone that is sold is sold because of their refinement, reliablity, and reputation, not styling. Although the new Camry in LE trim with those little wheels is uglier to me than any other car. SE models with their sportier looking rims look the best IMO.

bd21

I have not been able to get more than 22.5 in the city and 28.5 on the highway in my 2001 Accord LX, 4 cyl(150hp)with automatic. I have 5,000 miles on the car. All my driving is on flat ground, with extremly conservative acceleration. On the interstate I had the cruise set at 78mph. I complained to the Honda dealer about the lousy gas mileage, so they changed the computer. I haven't really seen any improvement. I love the car, but my 92 Mercury Sable with a 6 cyl got 25 city and 30 Hwy. I think an Accord should at least get 25 in the city and 35 on highway. Honda should be embarassed with gas hog's performance. Is everyone else with this exact car seeing this kind of low mpg???

robr2

5K is a little early to be worrying about gas mileage. Around 15K is when you will get a better picture of that. Give it some time - it should improve.

With mixed driving I get about 25-26 with my 98 EX 4 - Auto @ 40K. Worst has been about 22, best around 30. I just pulled out the window sticker and it says 23 city, 30 hwy. So with my heavy foot, I feel 25 is pretty good.

I don't know what the 01 sticker says but I doubt it says 25/35. Compare it to that and remember that the EPA is the one who lists the gas mileage based on their testing, not Honda.

s852

Well, it really isn't a secret. It just seems like it is because hardly anyone knows you can order it. I went to a dealer that said there was no such thing and if I saw one on an Accord it must have been aftermarket.

Their little accessories booklet shows it, but the photo they use doesn't even show you what it is. ???!! The photo in the Honda accessories pamphlet makes it appear as if it is a partial window tint or something.

Anyway, I have photos from my new car. This is one thing you can get on an Accord that is not available on an Acural TL or CL.

 

http://tripkit1.tripod.com/2002accordex30v6/

Honda's suggested price is $99 plus labor and you can get it online for about $75.00. It is available for both coupe and sedan. It slides up and down manually.

jrct9454

We have covered this topic until the cows come home, but as noted above, you should not be looking for either optimal fuel consumption or full power until well after 8000 miles with this car. Having said that, our '98 LX automatic had a range of 22-24 around town and 28-30 on trips after it was fully broken in...I find that perfectly acceptable. If you don't, you've got the wrong car.

bd21

Your missing the point. Why does my 10 year old car which is heaviery with a six cyl get better MPG than my new 4 cyl Honda? This is suppossed to be the latest technology and Honda does control their car's performance. Yes the EPA rates this car at 23 city and 30 hwy, which is an average in the range. The full range is 19-27 city and 25-35 hwy. I have an extensive car maintenance background and have rebuilt an engine or two in my time. At 5000 miles a car is about as broke-in as it will ever be. After that you may as well call it wear. Again, I'm driving the car very conservatively, so I would expect to at least achieve 25 city 32 hwy. The Honda dealer agreed with me and that is why they changed the cars computer. I'm not Honda bashing, I love the car, but it ought to get better mileage than 22.5 city and 28.5 hwy under ideal driving conditions.

sobers

Also matters for the highway mileage. I dribe my car with a heavy foot & I get 20/21 City (high stopngo) & 30-32 on the highway. This has been the case from the FIRST TANK !!SO I do not agree that the car needs to be broken in etc except for the first two or three tanks. Your cars should give 20+ in City & 30 on the highway...make sure the tire pressure in 32 in al the wheels & test it.

diploid

That no two cars are exactly the same. Just like there are no two diamonds that are the same. Once in a while, there will be a bad one in the bunch. This is what happens when things are mass produced.

smithmd

BD,
In my '98 EX 4cyl auto, I've never gotten my best mileage at 78. I get better mileage at 73 and at 82. At either of those speeds, I'll get better than 30 mpg. My best trip was about 33 mpg average (1000 miles) with a significant majority of the time spent over 80 mph. I also run my tires at 34 psi.

My '00 Pathfinder is the same way...only more drastic differences on the speed. I get 19 mpg at 67, 16.5 mpg at 73, and 19 mpg at 82.

hawks1