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
If so, please post them.
What you're experiencing is that the tranny is trying to be in the best gear for the kind of acceleration you demand. I had similar experiences when my car had less than 10K miles on it, and when I was quite abrupt on the gas pedal. Since then, the tranny seems to have 'learned' my habits. You will probably notice it too.
I believe Honda likes to take a middle of the road approach: enough hp so that owners don't [non-permissible content removed] about it, yet not too much to keep cost and gas guzzling in check. I'm pretty sure that this is what we'll see in the next iteration of the Accord. Furthermore, if they increase the hp in the 4 cyl, I believe that more people will opt for the 4 banger as 170-180hp would make the vast majority of owners content.
Just my $0.02.
for? Also...'BTO'
Quote:"Furthermore, if they increase the hp in the 4 cyl, I believe that more people will opt for the 4 banger as 170-180hp would make the vast majority of owners content."
-------------------------------------------------
I completely agree with you on the HP war. My "01 Millenia has a 2.5liter V-6 rated at 170HP. I have not found a situation underwhich I needed more power. I have driven it from sea level to the highest points in Georgia and Kentucky. It cruises effortlessly, and occasionally downshifts under extreme hill climbing.
My only caveat concerning a four cylinder engine is smoothness. Maybe Honda has conquered that, but from my experience, a Japanese V-6 can't be beaten for sewing machine smoothness. Mine feels dead at idle, and at all other speeds is totally smooth.
Pat
Host
Sedans Message Board
BT0 = ? (Bachman Turner Overdrive...hehehe)
I doubt that Honda will release 2003 models in spring '02. If that were to happen, we would be hearing more about the next generation Accord right now. Usually the Japanese market gets fresher designs earlier than we do. And although Japanese Accord is slightly different than ours, I have not read anything about the possibilities. I'd think that we will start to see rumors and/or spy pictures of 2003 Accord around spring, and the production version reaching dealerships no earlier than September 2002. If I could wait until then, I would.
Zorglub:
You bring up some very good points about horsepower race. To me, it is just marketing gimmick in a family sedan. If people bought by horsepower rating on their family sedans, we'd see Honda & Toyota selling more V6s than four bangers. For either company, I believe, the V6 share is like 15% or so. But low 'base' MSRP, and highest horsepower rating often make for a fine recipe to advertise, especially when coupled to some electrifying music.
With 2003 Accord, I still think that Honda will take the middle ground. Their focus will likely be on further improving the comfort (cabin room, NVH etc.), safety, emissions and gas mileage. The regular Accords (DX, LX, EX) would continue to do what they have been. The base engine would be 2.4 liter I-4 (2002 CRV), perhaps with the same 160 HP output, and a 3.0 liter DOHC I-VTEC V6, still with 200 HP. Either engines might be mated to five speed automatic transmission. Honda can easily get 240 HP from its 3.0-liter V6 with minimal changes and cost. And that gives a good possibility for a 'sport (Si?)' model (finally in America!), mated to a manual transmission.
As for 270 HP, it would be sheer waste on a FWD family sedan, that squarely targets 'value'.
It will surely be improved and will probably have more power and maybe some new features.
The styling might better or it might be worse.
Even if the MSRP is close to the 2002s, it will cost a lot more because there will be little discounting at first.
It is likely it will have some minor flaws and quality/design issues that will not ironed out until at least the 2nd year of production.
Service will be slower at first because parts are often back ordered on new models and the technicians are not used to working on the cars.
Or Bachman Turner Overdrive (B-b-b-baby you just ain't seen nothin' yet!)
I believe that this hesitation is a Honda QUIRK, and nothing much can be done about it, except
replacing the transmission. I don't have the
'KLUNK', however...
My Civic has been great, 135k miles and no break downs whatsoever, and I'm wondering if I can expect the same from the Accord. Also, what does the 100k miles maintenance free encompass? Does it mean that if anything breaks down, it's under warranty by Honda?
Thanks for all the help.
I don't think there will be any difference between 2001 and 2002 models.
Reliability:
I've a 1998 Accord EX/I-4 (auto) with little over 62K extra-trip-to-the-shop-free miles. The only problem had been with squeaky moonroof (especially during summer), and can be fixed at home by lubricating the rubber seals every six months or so.
Replaced the original tires, a headlamp bulb and battery between 50-55K miles. Brakes are still original, and anticipated to be good for ~70K miles (front) and ~90K (rear discs).
105K miles Scheduled Maintenance:
My car didn't have it (I believe this started with 2000 model), but it covers only a few things. You still have to get other maintenance work done on a regular basis (5000-7500 miles depending on your driving conditions).
And no, 105K miles service does not guarantee an 'extended warranty'. However, I believe Hondas do come with 8 year warranty on emission systems, but I could be wrong.
I hope this helps.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
(2000), possibly being caused by Hood deflectors? I am not
sure if this is the case, but it seems to happen at speeds
over 85MPH.
twist
I think it should be every 3000 miles. Even though you have synthetic oil, you still need to change it for every 5000 miles. I don't think Honda will even give you expensive oil. Any idea ?
Traditionally the Accord wagons have been called the "Aerodeck":
http://www.honda.co.jp/ACCORDwagon/
for winter, my stock rims and turanza's will go back on, until they wear out, then i'll replace them with jfavour's recommendation: Dunlop SP Sport 5000's. i've read many a good thing about them and have been planning on getting those for a while.
http://thehollywoodextra.com/accord/accord.html
http://thehollywoodextra.com/accord/accord.html
http://thehollywoodextra.com/accord/accord.html
http://thehollywoodextra.com/accord/accord.html
Yes, there are lots of alternatives out there, but Michelin is the only tire I put on any of my cars, for a variety of reasons. Won't argue with someone who wants to save money and go with something else, but Michelin's ability to produce them consistently round and straight is more important to me.
I have put Michelin X Radial Plus's (Same as X-One) on both my 91 and 97 Accord Sedans, and they are great. Smooth ride, good grip, very little squeal in the corners and an 88K mile warranty.
thorn- thanks for the clarification. But the Aerobeck is just plain ugly.
I agree. The MXV4 is a good tire. When I replaced the stock set (~51K miles), I continued with Michelin, but with X-One (although it is T-rated) at about $80/piece. The MXV4 were 1.5 times as expensive ($127/tire)! I've been happy with the X-ones too (seem to be quieter on concrete/broken pavement which MXV4 didn't like, otherwise with more rolling noise).
Accord Spy Picture:
Is guaranteed to be fake. We should start getting hints of the next Accord some time early next year.
I'd like more power/torque from the V6, and a 5-speed auto. (And available 6-speed manual.)
The new V6 will make more hp, but my expectation is that they will continue to reserve the 5 spd automatic for the Acuras. I also expect that to change sometime in the middle of the next Accord model cycle [say MY 2004-5], as a mid-life kicker that Honda is fond of, but not right at the beginning. As long as Nissan and Toyota are not pushing them on the 5-spd automatic in this class of car, don't look for them to take the lead.
The new Mazda 6 is supposed to have a 5-spd automatic for the Japanese market, but the press seems to think we will get a 4-spd for the NA market. If that changes, that could push Honda to offering it here sooner.
(My previous car was a '95 626 before I bought the Accord in 2000.)
I like the idea of the sportshift too, the Prelude had it so the Accord should get it since it's partly replacing the Prelude.