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
~alpha
Whew. Thanks.
And, we all know these type speed rating are for CONTINOUS speeds at these levels, right?
How do we get Honda to mate a stick shift with the V6 engine?
Horsepower is just one of many factors effecting acceleration. Others would include, but not be limited to.
Weight
Tranny type
Tranny shift points
Number of gears
Number of shifts required to hit measured speed/distance.
Torque
Useable power/torque (available at low rpm)
Aerodynamics - drag coeffecient and frontal area.(mostly for 1/4 mile with higher speeds)
Tire model
Tire pressure
Traction Control
Limited slip differential
4wd or Awd
Temperature
Humidity
Altitude
Wind speed and direction
etc. etc.
Also Consumer Reports recalibrates their ratings from time to time. In the 70's a car that went to 60 in about 12 seconds was rated excellent.
So what the matter with Consumer Reports. I can see only one reason for their slow time for Accord I4. the VTEC point !!
If I am not mistaken Accord I4 Vtec point is at 4000RPM, to get the best time out of this engine you need to revv it past 4000 RPM. (Accord holds first gear right upto redline mind you!) So Consumer reports doesnot know how to drive Honda Vtec engine! Prob'ly they will like I-Vtec more in the next gen Accord I4(with atleast 165+hp)
Also CS values smooth ride over the sportyness. They found accord suspension too firm!!
Surprisingly both Accord & Camry got the same number of CS cricles (red, part red etc). Also Accord had better equipement level than others.
Consumer Reports tends to be on the conservative, practical side with their reviews but they do know what they are talking about. Very knowledgable staff. I do agree their 0-60 time for the Accord is on the slow side. I remember the 1994 Accord with the 135 hp engine did 0-60 in 10.1 according to them. I thnk 9.2-9.6 range is more accurate.
http://www.tirechains.com/
You must be planning to drive through some pretty bad snow, however. Usually, front wheel drive and a decent set of all-season radials is all that you need for most snow conditions. I've driven through 9 inches of unplowed snow in my Accord and have never gotten stuck. Plus, chains can kinda be a pain to put on the car and there are some cities/counties that don't allow them except for emergency vehicles.
Maybe snow tires would be a better option (although more expensive than chains). Bridgestone Blizzaks are supposed to be very good, but are about $70/each at www.tirerack.com
Good luck and drive safe.
2003 Accord might make it more interesting, with atleast 10 HP more, and possibility of a five speed auto to go with it.
CR probably just sits the car on the start line and then stomps the accelerator.
And you know the other 'hot rod' car mags try to get all out of it they can.
They don't pre-load the torque converter on automatic transmissions, and don't drop the clutch from 3000 rpm on manuals, when testing their cars. They accelerate from rest and from idle just like almost all drivers in the real world do, so their 0-60 times are actually results that real people can replicate. And common sense tells you the other cars in this test will be marginally quicker. Chill out, folks.
As to how quick is quick enough, CU's standards change over time just like the rest of us. 10 seconds to 60 in a 4 cyl automatic 10 years ago was considered hot stuff; now, the standard is gradually moving downward into the 8.5-9.0 second range. As pointed out repeatedly, the new '03 4 cyl Accord will be plenty competitive and plenty quick enough.
Of all the sources on new car tests, AND I READ THEM ALL [R&T, C&D, Autoweek, Automobile, CU, etc.], the one I trust the most is CU. If they say a car is quiet, it will be. If they say the ride leaves something to be desired, I know that my butt will usually agree. And when they compare such things as ride and handling between cars, their comparisons are much more consistent and objective than any other source.
The current Accord, ESPECIALLY IN 4 CYL FORM, has weaknesses of ride, noise, and performance compared with the newly revised competition. I think the V6 remains much more competitive in these areas, but even a 6 cyl Accord is going to ride more firmly and be noisier on the road than either a Passat or Camry. I traded a '98 Accord 4 for an '01 Accord V6, and have driven all of the others, so I know what I'm talking about.
The CU results were perfectly fair and right on. That doesn't mean I find either the new Camry or the Passat a car I would prefer over my '01 EX V6, because I value the better handling [vs the Camry] and the better reliability [vs the Passat] more strongly than I devalue the ride/noise question. That's why you have competition. But find something else to fret over - the results of the CU test exactly mirror my own experience - I just value the individual characteristics differently than they do.
I look forward to the progress that Honda will undoubtedly make in the '03 car - I too want it to ride more quietly and calmly, and I want the 4 to be quicker. I think all of those things will happen. Until then, I find nothing at all to object to about the CU tests.
I agree that the Passat was the best car of this group (but at over $25k, the V6 version of the other three cars for the same amount of money would be a better value). The Passat is a very quiet car unless your on the interstate going 75+ mph. At those speeds, the 1.8t gets quite audible and becomes noisier than the Accord I4 would be.
I find CR road tests to be very useful for anybody in a market for a vehicle. Like you, I may have different priorities than CR in their analysis of the data.
In fact, I think I would be much happier in an Audi A4 if I had that much money for a new car.
All that being said, I have noticed something a bit odd with my Accord, that maybe you guys can verify for me. When I open or close the windows, the door panel seems to shift/move slightly. Is this normal? Should I have the dealer check this out? It does this on BOTH the driver side and passenger side front windows (haven't check the back windows yet). Is a little bit of shift movement in the door panel normal when you operate the windows?
~alpha
I read EVERY car magazine sold in USA (have yearly subscriptions) & have driven every car except new Altima SEVERAL times & chose my accord because I liked it better. Drive what YOU like. I cannot understand how CR can 'best pick' Passat which costs thousands more than Camry/Accord/Altima. It goes into TL/ES300 price range with the V6. If I was looking to buy passat I4 for $22-23K, I would rather buy Accord EX V6 which is a tremendous VALUE than others (even over V6 Camry)
~alpha
- Yes, the Accord "only" has side airbags instead of side air curtains. Equipment "bragging rights" aside, the Accord still matched the Passat's ranking in the NHTSA test for side impact for both front and rear.
- As for roadside assistance... years ago when I used the Amoco Motor Club, I called them when my car died and was told that they had no facilities in the area. I could make my own arrangements and submit them for reimbursement. After that, I decided that nothing but AAA would do. So VW's program is no advantage, IMO.
- Better handling? Not everybody thinks so. The last time that the Accord EX V-6 and Passat GLX V-6 went head to head in Car and Driver, they both got 9 out of 10 for handling.
- Upgraded interior? Neither car has anything to apologize for. When CU last tested the Passat V-6 against the Accord EX V-6, they described the Passat's interior as entry-level Audi, and the Accord's as entry-level Acura.
- OTOH, CU ranks the Accord higher for reliability than the Passat (although the Passat has a good score here, as well).
So let's not start another tiresome "vs." thread over items that differ by a matter of a degree or two. For the most part, these two cars are very well matched.
Other than that, its turbocharged 4-banger offers 20 more horses and roughly ~16 more lb-ft of torque. Both 6 cylinders are very close in numbers (Accord more hp, less torque).
The Accord is clearly the better value. I just can't see myself paying so much for a VW when I could spend it on an Audi. Badge snobbery? You bet.
First of all, I've had no mechanical or electrical problems with this car. It gives me 34-35 mpg on 50-60 miles per day commute. On a bad day I get about 26 mpg and on a very good day I get 38-40 mpg. Handling wise, the soft suspension does not show up until you drive into strong crosswinds. It compares well enough with my BOL's TL if not better. The acceleration is fantastic especially in the mid range. I do not have to downshift like I used to on my integra. Also, the quality of construction and materials compares well with my BOL's TL. I do not regret buying this car over Accord which was the first car I looked at 1-1/2 years ago.
To conclude, I think that Passat's reliability, perceived or actual, is pretty close to the Japanese big 3.
Note:
The reasons I did not buy the Accord:
1. Bad dealerships
2. No TCS (this was very useful last winter)
3. No rear disc brakes on the LX at the time of purchase
4. Seating not so good compared to the Passat
5. The 1.8T had a better powerband compared to the Accord
And I don't regret buying an Accord over Passat in Fall 1997. I'll probably go back to Honda dealership again if I limit my budget to under $25K next time.
For $22.5K, I can get EXV6, which comes with everything, from excellent dealership/service department (read my post in MDX thread) to TCS, disc brakes, and much more powerful engine than the 1.8T (and without the lag). It also comes with moonroof, homelink transmitter, floor mats, six disc in-dash CD changer...
Well, I could go on, but then, you could also get these things in Passat for a few thousand more, but my (test drive) experience with VW dealership is nothing to brag about either. I've heard of similar stories from my colleague who dropped the Passat in favor of Accord, but went with Altima 3.5SE with manual transmission.
Big mistake -- it turned out to be the most frustrating aspect of our car, and still is. Around town in low-speed driving, this unit is programmed to downshift as the slightest hint of pedal movement. It's not possible to summon even moderate acceleration without the car shifting gears. This habit is annoying since it gives the impression of the car stalling (because of the pause to change gears), gives more acceleration than you asked for, wears out the transmission faster, and wastes gas from revving higher. So much for Honda efficiency.
I don't understand why no automotive publication picked up on it (have you?), but my only question is: can it be fixed? Transmissions are basically controlled by a computer chip, right? Can I just yank a chip out of a much-more-logically-programmed Toyota or Nissan and plug it right in?
Also, where does one find more comfort-oriented shock absorbers? Ride quality is distinctly lacking compared to the Camry. I'm not interested in quick fixes like downsizing to 14-inch wheels or throwing out a stabilizer bar. According to Edmund's tech center, shocks affect ride quality more than anything else.
Sure, I think you can just find a new chip with different gearing, just call any of the dealers you mentioned and they'll pop a new one in.....LMAO.
Also, I 'd like to have some inputs about what are general steps for purchasing a car ( I know something about: research -> negociate -> set up price and finance APR) Can I get lower interest rate say 3%, from dealer financing instead of Credit Union?
Please help asap. I would go for one tomorrow. Big thanks,moron3
0% apr financing on ALL Honda models in stock (which basically means NO Odyssey/S2000/new CR-V, I assume).
I don't know if you have to bring the postcard there to receive the offer.
Just as a minor point, moron3, no automaker sells a V4 at the current time in the states. Its an Inline four, so you can just call it the EX 4 or EX 4cyl, and everyone will know which Accord you are talking about.
~alpha
You don't want to use V-4 to describe the Accord's 4-cyl, because V-4 describes an actual engine design that's different from the Accord's. As alpha01 said, no V-4 engines are currently sold in the US, but it is a known configuration, and I believe some V-4's are marketed in Europe, perhaps elsewhere.
However, with 6-cylinder engines, the V configuration has become by far the most common. But there are also inline 6-cylinder engines available, such as those in the Jeep Wrangler and Chevy TrailBlazer. Those are designated as inline 6's, to differentiate them from the more common V-6 designs. At any rate, the nomenclature between 4 and 6 cyl engines may be inconsistent, but nobody said it *had* to be logical.
~alpha