Older Honda Accords

alpha01

Is highly suspect and personally, I think it borders on unnecessary in this segment ESPECIALLY if it is at the expense of fuel economy.
~alpha

venus537

are you trying to be funny? 270 hp!

cokane5227

if the new accord is going to have 270hp it only means that honda is trying to kill their own upper product - TL.

bodydouble

stranger things have happened, but I would say it is highly highly unlikely any version of the next generation Accord will see 270 hp. Maybe the next generation TL might have 270 hp.

The more I look at those "spy" photos of the new Accord sedan, the more it looks like a taller version of the '94 - '97 Accord.

diploid

You'll be surprised at how much more we might actually know about the 03 Accord than the dealers themselves. 270hp? He's probably talking about the TL.

blueskies

diploid -- The "Monday" ahossa mentions refers to the first day of a week-long (or maybe longer)media event to introduce the 2003 Accords to the automotive press, which starts this Monday, June 17. It's being held out West somewhere, I believe. Presumably, we may have some people on this thread who could take some photos and post them for us. Somewhere way back in this thread is more specific information about the event. Looks like our first chance to see the real car. The automotive journalists will be able to drive the cars and report on their findings.

jimmyj1945

Is 240HP. And that's plenty.

ickes_mobile

The webmaster of Temple of VTEC promises to be at the hotel where the press preview is being held, digital camera in hand. The itinerary for the event was posted on the web several weeks ago.

TOV and other sources report that the V-6 will be close to the current 200hp. An upgrade in the future would be possible, but I doubt it will happen until the TL is upgraded.

robertsmx

that Honda will launch regular Accords, with V6 power at 200-220 HP and five speed auto. Six months later (Spring 2003), they will launch a Type-S with 240-260 HP with 6-speed. This could also be the time when the TL gets a complete makeover.

Let us see how close I'm to making a real prediction on Honda. ;-)

BTW, that Mag-X sketch (white/rear) is extremely close to the spy pictures of the Accord.

dardson1

It seems the HP war of earlier days is back. There is a gratification in pushing the gas pedal and zooming to 60 in 6 seconds; however, I just bought an LX with the 150hp 4. It's not a rocket but it is plenty powerful even with 3 or 4 aboard and the AC on. I've no idea where Honda is headed but the 02 is typical old Honda philosophy.....no more or less than is needed. Plenty quick for all practical purposes.

th83

Will the '02's resale value really be hurt that bad? Look at the '96-'97 Accords, they're still worth a lot despite their age and generation. Some '97 EX V6s sell for around $15k, so I can't imagine the resale of the current car being too bad 5 years down the road.

mseals

Hey guys, I am the owner of a 2000 Civic Si and I am planning on upgrading to another car either this fall or next spring. The Accord is a front runner in that segment now that I have eliminated the Jetta due to reliability problems and rattles. But I truly believe that the new Accord will not have 270 nor 240 HP, that makes it a really cheap alternative to the CL Type S. I don't believe that this new V6 will be offered with the Sedan in a stick either, which is really what I was hoping for. Here is what I do believe will happen in typical Honda fashion.

Accord Sedan:
4 cyl. w/160-170 hp and 160-170 ft/lbs of torque
V6 w/ 200-220 hp and 205-220 ft/lbs of torque

4 cyl. avail. w/ 5 sp man or auto
V6 avail. w/5 sp man or 5 sp auto

Accord Coupe:
engines same as above

trans: same as above except V6 w/ 6 sp man.

fedlawman

FWIW, here is my $0.02.

4 vs. 6: I have driven the current generation V-6 Accord and found it's acceleration disapointing. That said, the 4 cylinder Accord feels quick enough. Drive them back-to-back, and the difference is not too dramatic.

The V-6 is smoother and quieter, and it rides a little better due to the increased weight. On the other hand, the 4 cylinder is also smooth, and somewhat more nimble than it's bigger brother.

2002 vs. 2003: It depends on how long you keep your cars. If you trade every 2 or 3 years, the '02 is a better buy because it costs thousands less than an '03, and will not depreciate as quickly. If you keep your cars for 7+ years, go with the '03...the few thousand more up front cost will level out over the long haul, you'll have a "current model" for much of the time, and you'll have a "newer generation" model when it's time to trade in.

Here's one thing to consider. The '90 - '93 Accord is more desireable on the used market than the '94 - '97 model because of styling. The '90 body style, like the current generation, is simply "traditional Accord". Once or twice a month, someone will ask me if I'm interested in selling my '93 EX. I actually have a waiting list of sorts, which consists of co-workers, neighbors, and family that want first crack at it when I'm ready to sell.

bodydouble

Honda resale values have traditionally been excellent even after a model changeover. Reasons being that Honda is a middle-of-the-road company. Their cars don't cater to the extremes. The changes are always evolutionary and their designs stand the test of time.

I would lean towards robertmx's and mseals' projections on the new Accord.

fedlawman made some valid points although I wouldn't necessarily say the V6's acceleration is disappointing. When I hop into one after driving my CL-S, then yeah, I notice the difference. I think part of the "problem" is actually with the tranny. It's shifting is a little erratic. You really have to get to know the car and know how to find the "sweet spot". The tranny really seems to underperform in decelerate/accelerate, on/off situation. It also upshifts to 2nd too quickly in moderate throttle situations. Actually if they mated the exact same engine to a 5-speed auto, it would seem peppier because there would be less flat spots in the acceleration curve.

It's very true what fedlawman said about the '90-'93 Accord vs. the '94 - '97 although I wish Honda would have kept the gas struts for the trunk from the '94 - '97 model.

talon95

When I first test drove a 2000 Accord, I had told the salesman that I wanted to drive a V6. At the time, I didn't know enough about Accords to be able to recognize the external cues that tell you it has a V6. Anyway, after driving it for about 15 minutes in the city, on the freeway, etc., I remember thinking that while the acceleration wasn't bad, I expected a little more punch out of a V6. I got out and was looking at the car, and finally glanced at the sticker. I was not completely surprised when I saw that the salesman had inadvertantly given me a 4-cyl to drive.

I went back to the dealership and exchanged it for a V6, and I was sold. Big difference, IMO.

My only observation about the V6 is that the VTEC can only do so much to compensate for the torque characteristics of an SOHC design at low RPMs. So sometimes it feels a bit anemic off the line. But get into 3000+ RPM and the punch is most satisfying.

My test drive experience showed me that the 4 has nothing to be ashamed about performance-wise. But my point is that the difference with the V6 is very apparent, again IMO.

tiger8

In post #4051 above there are pictures of the new Accord. In the shot of the rear end with the trunk open, who has sharp enough eyes to tell whether the hinges on the trunk lid are the old-fashioned ones that crush your luggage when you close the trunk or the new fashioned, technologically advanced expensive ones that are outside the trunk? That says a lot about Honda's willingness to spend a few extra bucks on something sophisticated that most people probably wouldn't notice.

fedlawman

Good idea! I copied the picture and blew it up...it has the same old luggage crushers.

npkb

Looks like the dealer incentive is very high right now. I was quoted 17K for LX with side air bags.
What do you guys think about 7yr/100K Extended warranty for $1000?????????
Warrantybynet.com also quoted about the same.

Comments please!

tiger8

Thanks. It's disappointing Honda is staying with the same old luggage crushers. The new Camry has a compromise--the trunk hinges are encased in stationary sleeves so the luggage doesn't get crushed, but it's a much cheaper design than the exterior hinges found in other cars today.

tiger8

Shop around. Contact every dealer in your area and get the best price for the warranty. If it's like Toyota, you don't have to buy the warranty from the dealer who sold you the car. Check the Camry site here for a recent post by "cliffy1" who works for a Toyota dealer and who gives some inside information on how these warranties are sold. In short, buying the warranty from a dealer other than the one who sold you the car actually gives you leverage. Cliffy1 explains.

mjb56

Having driven the 4 and 6, pretty much back to back I can tell you that the big difference is when you want to accelerate from highway speed to change lanes or pass. The 4 bogs down while the 6 takes off. To me this is where you really need the power, not taking off from a stoplight. Yeah, the 6 has some wierd tranny quirks that take getting used to but once you do, it's almost like working a clutch. Thereafter, it's no problem.

th83

The V6 is 2 seconds quicker to 60 compared to an automatic 4 but you can't really feel all of the difference. The 4 is actually pretty strong considering its power ratings. I noticed during my drives with the 4 that it is sluggish off the line but it actually gets stronger as the speeds increase. 0-90 is actually not too bad and between 70 and 90 it feels more powerful than it is.

alpha01

Actually, I think the 0-60 margin between the 4 and the V6 is slightly narrower. Using Car and Driver as a reference, their quickest Accord V6 (a 99 EX model, tested June 1998), ran 7.6 to 60. Their quickest 4 clyinder auto model (in the Aug 99 issue, I think) ran 9.2 to 60, a very good showing. I have driven the Accord 4 and think it is very punchy and refined for a four cylinder, and since it can be had with the manual (at least for now), it'd be my choice. This is a great car is a great buy right now, and had my family been in the market now instead of last December when we chose the redesigned Camry (which has been OUTSTANDING....my parents continue to rave about it being a cut rate luxury car...), the choice would have been much tougher.
~alpha

km1a

After competing with the max for the past decade. I do not think that the exec at honda is sitting back, while nissan upgrade there model lineup, eg. altama from compact to midsize,and max to sub-luxury vehicles.
I do believe that honda will increse the hp to 270, and bring the accord up to acura quality.

alpha01

The Accord really doesn't compete with the Maxima so much as it competes with Altimas and Camrys. If competing with the Max were the case, the Accord would have had a V6 model with leather before the 1995 model year. Even so, the Accord kills the Maxima in sales (overall). And the exec at Honda doesnt really need to sell this vehicle based on a horsepower figure... the Accord is a well designed car with many virtues. I think you are completely wrong to say that Honda will bring the Accord to Acura quality levels... mainly because I dont understand how you seem to somehow make 270hp = quality, and because the Accord is already a very high quality vehicle. To put that much power in the Accord at a price lower than the TL's would likely kill the TL's sales, which has all but saved Acura (that and the MDX) from becoming another mishappen, indistinguished luxury make.
~alpha

qgu

Here is the link:

http://www.brianv.net/newmaxima/

brian claims it is the new Max but it might be the new Accord.

Just for fun

robertsmx

FYI,
Torque characteristics of an SOHC engine at low rpm can be impressive. It is all about how the engine itself is setup. Mercedes uses SOHC V6 engines, and they are tweaked for low end performance only. A good example,
3.2 liter V6 18-valve SOHC (E320): 221 HP @ 5600 rpm, 232 lb.-ft @ 3000 rpm

Honda uses SOHC quite extensively, and all its V6s are 24-valve SOHC designs (except NSX's). The Accord V6 is not an aggressively designed engine from Honda IMO. Here are the torque curves for the Accord engines,
Accord 2.3 liter I4 16-valve SOHC
Accord 3.0 liter V6 24-valve SOHC

However, Acura 3.2 liter V6 in TL/CL-S is a good example (and its 200 HP, 2.5 liter V6 brethren sold in Japan). Here is its torque curve,
Acura 3.2 liter V6 24-valve SOHC

The 3.2 V6 has an impressively flat torque curve. How about 95% of the peak torque from just 2200 rpm to a relatively high 6200 rpm with 100% of the peak between 3500 and 5500 rpm?

The 3.5 liter V6 used in MDX (a version of which is now used in Odyssey and Pilot) is also similar to the 3.2/V6 but this time designed to produce power much earlier (5250 rpm). It is rated at 240 HP @ 5250 rpm, 245 lb.-ft @ 3000-5000 rpm.

The 3.5 liter V6 in RL is the only V6 from Honda with no VTEC. It too has a very flat torque curve, with peak (231 lb.-ft) at 2800 rpm, and peak power (225 HP) at 5200 rpm.

coolguyky7

That HAS to be the new Maxima. It just looks way too much like the Altima to be anything but a Nissan.

diploid

OMG it looks retarded.

tiger8

The photos above are indeed of the '04 Nissan Maxima which will debut in March '03. It will be built in the U.S. on the Altima platform, front drive, a new rear suspension (presumably) and the same engine powering the current model.

ickes_mobile

as the car has a more chisled appearance than the spy photos of the Accord at TOV. As Tiger8 points out, its very similar to Altima overall, as well as the 350Z in the sidemarker lights...

Speaking of Maxima, its the only car I would have substituted for our '01 EX I-4/5spd. The cost of the car and preimium gas were the main negatives...

talon95

Don't really want to get into a debate about this... I was just posting my impressions of the V6, and they still stand, your facts and figures notwithstanding. However, this quote from Lee Cao's site expresses exactly what I mean (on a smaller scale, since I don't "drag race" my Accord...

" For a good launch off the line, such as at the start of a drag race, a certain amount of tire spin is desired. Muscle cars have torque peaks at low RPMs, and then taper off as the RPM builds. This is perfect for drag racing as the initial torque peak generates the desired tire spin, and then the lower torque at higher RPMs allow the tire to find and maintain grip. But DOHC VTEC's torque curve is very flat, so the initial tire slip is much harder to generate. And once the tire looses traction, the flat torque curve makes it hard for the spinning wheels to find traction. So to properly launch a DOHC VTEC car, the driver must slip the clutch at high RPMs to generate the initial tire spin, and then carefully modulate the clutch and gas to regain drive wheel traction while maintaining maximum acceleration."

Here's the link, if you're interested:

http://www.leecao.com/honda/vtec/whyvtec.html

I realize we're talking SOHC here as opposed to DOHC, but he says elsewhere that the behavior is similar.

Overall, flat torque curves are great, but as described in Lee's article (and reflected by my experience), they're not the optimum setup off the line, particularly with an automatic, which limits the driver's ability to control the RPMs. Which was my point exactly.

Anyway, I really do like the engine a lot... sorry that I can't say it's perfect. But after all, what is?

stansmith

I agree that fedlawman made some good points. Right on target with his assessment.

I drove both over the weekend, and was amazed at the difference in handling and feel.

With the 6, I noticed a deeper resonance in the engine sound, the freeway kick was smoother, and the ride felt firmly planted.

With the 4, the engine sang a slightly higher note, and freeway pick-up wasn't quite as silky smooth, but overall, it felt much lighter and tossable. It was especially nimble on city streets compared with the boulevard cruiser feel of the heavier model.

Taking ponies alone out of the equation, the 6 handled in a way that felt like walking in a nice solid pair of dress shoes while the 4 felt like walking in sneakers. At this point, it's no longer a question of which is better, more a question of which personality you want the vehicle to have. Moving up from a Civic, I think I'll be very happy with the LX-4.

bodydouble

In reference to what km1a posted, I think that Honda has always looked at the Camry as its main competitor, not Maxima, nor even Altima. Since the new Camry only has 192 HP, I doublt that Honda would deem it necessary to offer 270 hp in the new Accord. And of course the other reason as as alpha said -- if the Accord comes out with 270 hp, they may as well axe the TL right away.

crv16

If anyone has info about the new Accord, especially from the press launch today, please post info on where pictures can be found!

wenyue

For infomation about the 2003 Honda Accord press release, go to this website.

http://genesis.brinternet.com/honda/

ID is: honda

Password is: accord

The event info indicates that the car showing doesn't happen until 8:30 a.m 06/18/2002. So don't expect any pictures until later tomorrow.

Good luck.

scott_doe

I am considering buying a 95 Accord wagon. Its in beautiful shape, but has 205K miles on it. Reliablity is why we are looking for a Honda Wagon. The price is good, but how many miles is too many?

Anyone have good stories of high mileage? Horror stories?

crv16

When I bought my '01 Accord, I was told by my Honda salesman (so take it with a grain of salt) that Accords have been designed to last 200k miles without any major overhauls.

bodydouble

That's a high mileage car anyway you look at it. It must have been used for commercial/business purposes. Personally I would pass on it.

diploid

If that Accord is actually 7 years old, and dividing the mileage by the year, its previous owner was driving close to 30K miles a year.

Just for comparison, my Civic is 3 years old and it has roughly 33K miles on it, which means I did about 11K miles a year.

th83

The new Maxima looks huge next to the current Accord in that first photo. Too big if you ask me. Based on that photo the current Accord actually looks better while the '04 Maxima looks like a blown-up Altima, only much uglier than an Altima. I don't know how they managed to make what should have been a great design into something so hideous. Only my opinion.

th83

I'm getting my Accord tomorrow. I'm going to make my final decision between an EXL AT or an EX V6. The V6 does cost $2k more but the extra power/features are probably worth it. I currently drive a G2 Acura Legend which means I'm used to a V6 so I'll probably end up with the V6 Accord. IMO, if I going to keep a car for several years it might as well have everything I want on it for the price that I can afford.

tiger8

Any last minute bets on what the new Accord is going to have and is not going to have before its debut tomorrow (June 18). Actually, there aren't usually too many surprises with Honda. As everyone here has said, Honda is evolutionary, not revolutionary with the Accord. Incremental improvements. For that reason I'd give big odds that there ain't going to be no 270hp engine in any Accord any time soon. They would never leapfrog the Acura TL, and such a big engine just isn't what the Accord, as a family sedan, is all about. A 3.2 V6 with 220hp is the most we're likely to see, if that. They will undoubtedly try to match the Camry, feature for feature, and maybe go them one better. NAV, trip computer, like the Camry, but how about Xenon headlights. That would definitely put them one up on the Camry. Maximas already have them, so the groundwork is there.

blueskies

Here's what I'm hoping for in the new Accord:

A little more interior room, including head room, and a slighty higher seating position.

A little less tire/road noise.

That's about it. The current Accord has so much going for it terms of responsiveness, fun to drive, etc. But it still feels slightly small to me, and a little noisy. I'm in the market and have shopped the new Camry, the Altima, Maxima, Intrigue, Passat, and a few others.

My seven-year-old current car is a Regal -- floaty, no fun to drive, but very quiet. I get to drive my son's '98 Accord coupe 5-speed every now and then, and it's like a go-kart in comparison. So if the Honda folks can make some nice incremental changes, but keep the driver's car attitude, and not bloat it up too much (as the Camry is, IMO), I think it would be my next car.

We'll see.

jimmyj1945

Accord will have a 240HP-6-cyl and a 190HP-4-cyl. A 6-speed available later on coupe-not sure about sedan-possible.

Let's see!

Jim

diploid

Is that the new Accord will look like a larger Civic, but yet it won't look bloaty like, say, a Corolla.

V-6 will be a carry-over, with only minor adjustments to make the engine more efficient with its power (hey, it worked with the Civic, didn't it?) and gas mileage. And if they do bump power, it'll probably be only up to 220hp.

Interior volume will grow by a few inches, and the sedan will have a flat rear floor (like in the Civic), but exterior dimensions will probably remain the same.

Quality of materials will increase, 0 tolerance for jagged plastic edges anywhere, seats will be firmer and more supple. Honda will now match Toyota in quality and fit & finish (i.e. from excellent to anal-retentive attention to details).

I'm hoping that they use the Camry's hidden gooseneck trunk lid (for those of you who has checked out the new Camry, you know what I mean), but from those spy pics that we've seen, it doesn't look likely.

bodydouble

V6 power up to 220; I4 up to 170; 4-speed auto with the I4; 5-speed auto with the 6; 6-speed manual with the V6 coupe (well, this one is already confirmed, right?); slightly wider, longer, heavier, but definitely taller; 16" wheels with V6 coupe and sedan; head curtain airbags available; nav system available; double wishbone gone; no Xenon.

pai7

Marginally larger outside but more spacious inside.Taller and wider than the 02. The new 4 cylinder engine displacing 2.4 liters with 170-180HP and 6cylinder with 240 HP.Slightly increased wheelbase with increased rear leg room.HID standard on V6 also traction and stability control.NAV and in dash 6disc changer in dash as option.4 cylinder car tuned for fuel economy but the 6 cylinder for performance.The next TL will be 3.5 liters with 290-300 HP

robertsmx

My bet on 2003 Accord (again!)
Styling: Spy pics have similarities with the front and rear sketches from Mag-X. IMO, this is closest depiction of what the next Accord will look like (until tomorrow!). BTW, the doors, the door handles and the roofline of the spy pic is almost identical to that of this JDM Accord. The front wheel fenders are very similar to current Accords as well.

Dimensions: Almost the same outside. Fractionally larger on the inside (possible addition of 1-2 cu. ft to the current 101 cu. ft. cabin volume). Trunk space will likely grow by a fraction to (~15-16 cu. ft).

Weight:
Curb weight will likely grow by 60-75 lb. on every model (which means the top of the line EXV6 may hit 3450 lb. mark, currently it is at 3329 lb.).

Engine:
2.4 liter I-4 DOHC iVTEC (LX, EX)
160 HP @ 6000 rpm, 162 lb.-ft @ 3600 rpm; 4-speed auto/5-speed manual; ULEV.

3.0 liter V6 DOHC iVTEC (LX, EX)
200 HP @ 5500 rpm, 205-210 lb.-ft @ 4000 rpm; 5-speed auto w/SportShift; ULEV.

3.0 liter V6 DOHC iVTEC (Si - a few months later)
240 HP @ 6000 rpm, 215-220 lb.-ft @ 3500-4000 rpm; 5-speed auto w/SportShift or 6-speed manual.

Equipment:
Electronic Brake Distribution (EBD) - perhaps standard on EX
Electric steering replaces pump based power steering
An inch and some width (205 - 4-cylinder, 215 - 6-cylinder) added to wheels
NAV may become an option
Curtain side airbags may be optional on EX.

bodydouble

Those are pretty specific engine specs and output predictions. Are you privy to insiders' info?

BTW, current V6 is SOHC design. You're predicting it'll go to a DOHC without increase in hp?