Older Honda Accords

strager

Wonder what happened to the Euro Accord shown in MagX with the triangular headlights? MagX is usually very accurate.

I too am disappointed with the Euro Accord pictures, looks like an evolutionary Mazda Protege. Seems to me that Honda had decided as a corporate design strategy to stick to the conservative look in all their high volume vehicles.

diploid

As far as the TSX looks go, I like it a lot; that's about as radical as Honda can get.

stantont

Almost all of the discussion here in the last weeks has focused on the looks of the new 2003 Accord versus Acura/Mazda/Camry, et cetera ad nauseam. Frankly, I care very little about the styling of my car as long as it doesn't look positively ugly. In fact, a stealth car is pretty attractive to me. But I care a lot about how it drives. I've got a gold 2001 Accord Ex v6 (pretty stealthy - I can't find it in a large parking lot because it looks like every other midsize metallic gold car out there). It isn't really fast, but is very responsive, quiet, refined. The steering feel is very precise, but stock handling had a bit too much understeer. It turns out Neuspeed markets a rear sway bar kit for the Accord that matches the dimensions of the Acura TL Type S rear bar, and gives similar handling balance (both cars use the same front bar). Final grip is a bit less than the Type S because of the 15 inch wheels, but the change in handling is still quite dramatic. The swap involved 6 bolts and took less than an hour. The change in ride is almost undetectable except over really nasty one-wheel potholes, and it is invisible from outside the car.

Is anyone else out there interested in aspects of the Accord other than styling? What about increased horsepower without too much sacrifice of the Accord's virtues of smoothness and driveability? What tires have people tried, with what results?

Am I the only one who doesn't much care how it looks, but rather how it drives and how durable and reliable it is?

joeandcarol2

I agree with you completely. I am potentially interested in the new coupe with 6 speed. I dont see the car's exterior when i am driving. But I do care about steering, shifting, braking, handeling, the size of the fuel tank, gas mileage, etc etc etc. Much more important.

newcar31

Sounds like you guys are the perfect candidates for the purchase of a Pontiac Aztec. It drives nice, is a good value, and offers a lot of utility. Another appearance challenged vehicle that isn't a bad car is the Toyota Echo. I always wondered who bought these cars.

I guess I'm different than you two. I have always thought that Hondas and Acuras possesed clean, un-offensive styling. I've owned one Acura and one Honda. This new Accord looks like trash IMO. It's obvious that looks aren't everything, but they can't be completely ignored (in your cases, maybe they can). I think it's funny that as soon as the pics came out, many people started with the "looks aren't everything" lines. I like Hondas, but I'm not THAT Honda-centric. I swear that Honda could make the next Civic look identical to a piece of dog crap and you'd still have the Honda freaks talking about how nice it shifts and how well it steers. Incredible.

diploid

LOL newcar. I agree completely.

Looks can only get you so far. Besides, it's the only thing we know about the new Accord. If we knew what the interior looked like, or the engine options, or the handling, etc., I'm sure we'd talk about that ad nauseum, too. Some people just can't handle freedom of speech.

bunk

Do you have the V6 EX?
Isn't the V6 fast? I heard it did 0-60 in 7.9. That is not too bad.

zorglub

While I was driving yesterday with the AC full blast, I noticed that the driver side vent (next to the door) kept on closing itself off. I then turned the vent down to 3 and it stayed open.

Wondered if it's normal or just me. It's no big deal, but I found it funny.

For the record, the car sat in the sun for a few hours (glad I got silver), and it was a nice 95+ in the south SF bay area.

fwatson

All I can add to the performance vs looks discussion, is why do you think you can't have both? There are several extremely reliable, very good performing cars that also benefit from the manufacturer having the good sense to hire stylists who know how to make a good looking car.

I can't see the sense in trying to rationalize an ugly car. Of course styling is subjective. If it looks good to you it isn't ugly, that's just someone elses opinion.

joeandcarol2

Actually my short list is the Acura CL-S 6 speed or the G35 Sedan 6 speed. We will see how good the G35 manual tranny is.. I stand by what i said. I care more about the fact that the G35 is RWD and the fact that the trunk has struts and not hinges and the fact that the G35 has a 20 gallon tank much more than the way it looks. Maybe us honda/nissan freaks are more drivers than people who want to buy a good looking sofa that just takes you from A to B.
I've compared the new 6 speed CLS to a BMW 3 series 330i and I'll tell you that if you drive a manual tranny car the CL-S is much more pleasant (and almost, but not quite, as exciting to drive). I'll take the plain looking CL-S anytime. Do you drive a manual? ever drive an S-2000 or RSX or the new Civic SI manual? Much different than most of the crap out there today

jjman

MAN you people kill me! Beauty defintely is in the eye of the beholder cuz I think the TSX is gorgeous in a BMW sort of way and is the best looking car Honda has ever made. But there is still people willing to complain about the appearance of this car too! I guess whoever can make the perfect looking car for everybody will monopolize the car industry and never have to do a remodel again. well keep complaining while I enjoy the TSX's pictures untill it comes out

newcar31

I was talking about the new Accord, not the G35. By the tone of your last post, it seems that you yourself doesn't think the G35 is a good looking as it could be. I don't mind it, although I will have to get used to the back end.

I do drive a manual. I have for 9 years with 6 different cars ranging from a 91 Mustang LX 5.0L to a 95 Acura Integra GS-R (which was regarded by many as having the best FWD manual trans shift quality). I've driven so many manual transmission cars that I couldn't even count them all. My friend has a 99 Civic Si and my brother has a 2002 Civic EX; I've driven them both. No need to lecture me on shift quality.

"Maybe us honda/nissan freaks are more drivers than people who want to buy a good looking sofa that just takes you from A to B."

Who says you can't have a good looking car that is also fun to drive?

yugoboy

Well I hate to break it to you jjman but the perfect LOOKING car does exist, and it will be out in a few months, it's called the 2003 Saab 9-3, maybe honda can steal a few of their design men/woman!!!!! Check out the site www.saabusa.com and click on the link.

fwatson

Well yugoboy,

You sure illustrate the point that styling is subjective.

bodydouble

You said the CL-S is more pleasant than the 330i. Can you elaborate on that? Are you referring specifically on the transmission? If so, what aspect(s) of the Bimmer transmission did you find objectionable? How about the overall feel of the cars? Thanks.

yugoboy

I dont know how you could disagree, im sure you know that it is a redesign for 2003, absoulutly smashing design, honda/acura could not hold a candle to it!!!!! But of course, styling is subjective, I guess that's why everyone in north america seem's to think suv's are sexy!!!! Go figure!!!!

diploid

They ARE sexy. Take a look at the Escalade...it just screams "Supermodel."

bigkahunafl

VERY funny. I almost snorted my coffee from that remark.

stantont

Hey, guys, don't try to paint me into a corner. Styling isn't nothing, but I just wanted to point out that it isn't everything. newcar31, diploid, The Pontiac Aztec is one of the two or three ugliest vehicles currently made; the only thing worse may be the new Chevy truck (Avalanche?). Both of them would give an old Citroen 2CV a run for ugliest EVER made.

I like the Accord because it is very reliable, very well-made with excellent fit and finish, pleasantly styled, drives and handles well, is very comfortable on long vacation trips, gets good fuel economy, and has pretty good performance. Before I bought it, I test drove (NOTE: actually drove, not just looked at web pictures) a Passat, a Maxima, a Taurus, a Camry, and a Subaru Legacy. In the end, I bought the Accord. All were nice cars, but the Accord had a precision feel that none of the others could match. bunk, I do have the V6, and it does get about 7.5-7.9 sec on 0-60, depending on whose road tests you read. But my previous car was a 1991 Taurus SHO, so 7.9 sec to 60 doesn't seem fast (the SHO did it in 6.6 sec, and more importantly, in a highway passing situation, there were few sedans that could stay with the SHO). The Accord, BTW, is a much more refined-feeling car than the SHO. Big surprise! The SHO handled more agressively (faster) than the Accord, though the Neuspeed rear bar brings the Accord pretty close; I suspect quicker tires will do the rest.

So back to my original question: show versus go. Has anyone tried different tires on a late-model Accord? What were the results?. BTW, I've already looked at TireRack's website; I hoped that this forum would give me a different perspective.

bodydouble

Yep, as stantont said, the Accord V6 is rated at about mid to high 7 sec for 0 - 60, which is a decent number. But it honestly doesn't feel that fast and powerful, especially in the 50 - 70 passing situations where the Nissan V6 seems to be more responsive.

bunk

what would you rather have a Nissan or a Honda. It just seems that Nissan's in general do not age as well as Honda's. I think the Altima will show wear and tear quicker than an accord. Just look at the Altima's interior.

amazing2u

Nissan!!!

From the looks of the "new" Accord, I would chose the Altima ('03 are "suppose" to have a better interior).

Now, if we had the Euro Accord that would be another story!

fwatson

Sorry yugoboy,

I find the front styling extremely busy, and not at all pretty. That is why I say styling is completely subjective. To paraphrase, "one mans treasure is another mans trash".

Seeing that you like it so well, you should pick up a copy of the August Motor Trend, and check page 36. It also gives you a little more info on it.

At least Sweden's other car manufacturer, Volvo, has finally figured out how to style a car. But then you probably think they are ugly. Oh well, there's that subjectivity again. :-)

bodydouble

I think the Maxima's interior (cloth or leather) is actually nicer than anything the Accord has to offer. But if you are referring to resale values, then you are right. Nissans will depreciate faster than Hondas.

maxamillion1

The Maxima has the superior interior over the Accord, but the Altima does not! The Maxima's materials seem better, and the seats seem more supportive, and just plain nicer looking. I have heard owners complain about those new seats in the new Maxima.

splitoe

I enjoy reading forums of many different types of cars, just as I enjoy reading all my 3 car magzines. Recently I purchase a 2002 Accord that I am qualified to comment on it, especially on STANTONT observations on Accord:
1. very reliable - I believe so
2. very well-made with excellent fit and finish - I believe so, but one of the 2002 Accord on the dealer lot has an uneven trunklid, well...
3. leasantly styled - everybody has his opinion
4. drives and handles well - yes
5. is very confortable on long vacation trips - really? It is the last car I'll take for a long drive, I like my 2001 E320 and 2000 Camry better.
6. gets good fuel economy - quite a few complaints with V6 fuel economy in this Edmunds review forum. My coworker get less than 20 mpg and my E320 get me 21 mpg. My wife got 25 mpg for her Camry and only 22 mpg for the 4 cylinder Accord, maybe it is still new at 500 miles, but still...
7. prety good performance - no complaints here

bolivar

You didn't pass much on the highway in 5th gear with that SHO. You better stir the shifter and drop down to 4th or even 3rd to get that sucker moving.

joeandcarol2

On the subject of pleasantness of CL-S over 330i. I used an odd term. But here goes.

1. The manual transmission is much superior. Acura 6 speed is short throw, light effort (multiple synchonizer cones in first 4 gears) and precise. I found the 330i to be more "clunky". The BMW tranny may be more heavy duty (I have no idea) but he Acura is much nicer on a day to day basis. Its the best manual with a 6 cylinder combo I have ever driven.. Classic Honda.

2. The Acura Clutch is very light. A bit abrupt but i got used to it very fast. The 330i clutch is like a truck. My leg got tired. There is no excuse for this in a "refined sports sedan".

3. The BMW 5 speed sits at rpms that are too high for my taste at 80 mph cruising. The acura makes very good use of a 6th gear in this sense.

4. I found the BMW engine not as smooth torque wise. Torque comes on suddenly.. the CL-s seems more linear and plenty of power for me.

5. The RWD does handle better but the new HLSD Acura is much improved over 01, 02. The HLSD seems to pull you through curves as you power out. Not sure what Acura did, but the steering and cornering flatness is also improved for the manual 03. I would prefer the BMW handleing but not with the clunky manual drive train.

joeandcarol2

I do think both the G35 and CL-s are good looking cars. I like good looking cars also... I just think that is a secondary consideration. I am going to also consider the Accord coupe 6 speed. It will have the same tranny as the CL-s not a lot of standard expensive things i dont care about that much... May be a bargain for me.. I suspect I will end up with a G35 however.

yugoboy

I love everything euro that include's volvo, just wait until they come out with the s60 r sedan in 2003, it will be pushing over 300 hp. Anywayz the draw back with euro sedan's, one is price, two is reliability, if you look at any recent consumer reports you will see the like's of volvo, audi, vw, mercedes at the bottom of the barrel for reliability and to a certain extent satisfaction. That is why Japanese sedan's have the advantage, one is price, two is reliability and thus is why we love the accord!!!! All that we ask is that we get the euro version instead of this cromed out, bloated looking crap that always get sent over here!!!!! My 2 cents!!!! And for the record i own a 2002 infiniti g20!!!! Reliable yes, fast no, original, you better believe it!!!!

stantont

You're right about 5th gear acceleration in the SHO, but 4th accelerated quite well from 60. And a downshift to 3rd at 60 gave 4200 rpm - exactly at the peak of the torque curve. From 60 mph to 100 in 3rd took about 7 or 8 seconds - serious passing power! The Accord V6 accelerates well, but nothing like that.

bodydouble

Thanks for the review. It's a bit disappointing that the 3-series Bimmer (with the manual tranny) may not be the "ultimate driving machine" since I have been thinking about perhaps going for a 325Ci with the manual. Maybe I should go and testdrive an '03 CL-S with the 6-speed although it seems silly to trade an '01 for an '03, with the same body style and all. Your observation of the difference between an '03 and a pre-'03 was interesting because I too never found my '01 to be that precise of a handler. In fact, I find that the car really shows its bulk when cornering and kinda clumsy-feeling maneuvering around town. My opinion is that its true mission in life is more as a GT cruiser.

cajun626

I vowed to never purchase an extended warranty, but I paid $550 for a 7 year/75,000 Honda Care warranty when I purchased my Accord last weekend. The dealer started at $895 and just kept reducing it. I have 60 days to cancel without penalty, and now I'm starting to rethink it. Any suggestions? I figure the roadside assistance part of it is worth $280 ($40 x 7 years for AAA), so $270 in repairs/rental reimbursement is my break even point. Help!!

stantont

Thanks for your observations on the 2002 Accord vs the Mercedes E320 and the Camry. Re. your items 5 and 6:

5. Long trips: my comments were based on a combination of driving pleasure and passenger comfort. I've never driven a Mercedes E320, but would expect it to be a superb long-distance cruiser. After all, they were designed in the land of autobahnen. But the E320 is hardly a competitor for the Accord; I could buy 3 EX V6's at $22,500 each for the price of a high-end E320 (near $70,000).
Re. the Camry: my son owns a 1999 Camry. While the Camry's ride is very comfortable, both he and I find it underdamped, especially on undulating roads; it isn't in the "seasick" category, but definitely too soft for our tastes. Both he and I strongly prefer the Accord for long drives: the firmer damping makes it feel more secure on poorer roads, the steering and handling make driving more of a pleasure (helping keep the driver alert), and the Accord's seats are much better, at least to our backsides. He and I both have lower-back injuries, so seats are a pretty critical thing with us.
6. Fuel economy: the Accord showed a greater change in fuel economy before and after breakin than any other car I have ever owned. Maybe Honda builds the engine tight? I don't know. But my first tankful with the V6, driving gently on the highway, varying speeds for breakin, gave about 22 mpg. I was quite disappointed. However, economy gradually increased during breakin; by 6,000 miles it was giving 28 mpg driving at 78-80 mph with a/c on. Now, at 22,000 miles, it gets 28-29 mpg consistently under those conditions.
I am reluctant to compare city mileage because it varies so much with driving habits, trip length, and traffic mix; and I have never driven a full tank in town without any highway miles. But here goes: partial tank estimates gave about 16 mpg in town before breakin, and 21 mpg now.
Another comparison: before I bought the Accord, I went shopping for a Passat. Lovely car; my niece owns one with the 4cyl turbo and stick. It gives 31 mpg on the road, but on premium fuel, at 20 cents per gallon more. Her cost per mile with the turbo 4 is more than the Honda V6.

splitoe

Thanks for your encouragement of much better fuel economy after break-in. It was a disappointment, and I have something to look forward to.
I am a car lover, not a car nut though, and mention of E320 just for information, not comparison, as E320 and Accord are in different price range. My point was being sporty can still be comfort (maybe softer) in the ride. I, too, have lower back problem that I need to put a small pillow in Camry for the seat is too soft. However, my previous Supra Turbo was a great sport car in handling and performance and in the meanwhile a supple ride. I live in S. California, everywhere I go always freeways, rarely the winding mountain roads as shown in Bimmer's commercial and that's why I prefer Camry over Accord as a "highway cruiser" for long trips.
It's a great joy to learn other people experience with their beloved cars.

mustangdrew

After looking and pricing, I am interested in either the '02 Accord EX V6 or the base Mazda Millenia. With the big dealer rebates on the Mazda, it gets a price that is actually deep into Accord territory. The Mazda is around $21k. I like the look of the Mazda much better, but a 2.5 liter 170hp V6 that runs on premium has me giving it a hard look. Also, the Millenia charges extra for traction control, 6 disc cd, and auto dimming mirror but comes with standard foglamps and better wood trim. In live in Florida, so I'm not sure if traction control is all that important anyway. Despite these shortcomings, would the Millinia be a good alternative to the Accord? The Camry seems overpriced and it is hard to find one I like without Toyo. Guard which seems to be a waste of $619. I will definately test drive them both before deciding.

stantont

Yes, location and local road conditions can really "color" your car perceptions. I live in Austin, Texas, so my road trips are often on Texas roads (pretty good, but not great), Oklahoma (fair roads), Tulsa streets (pretty bad), and other southern states (south Louisiana, where most of the roads are built on drained swampland!) And bad roads are not the same everywhere: Louisiana swamps give their roads large undulations om asphalt as well as thumpy tar strips on concrete, while Tulsa's winters give their streets sharp-edged potholes that jar a car and beat up the occupants.

Usage can make a huge difference in service history. Example: back in 1983, my brother-in-law and I both bought Chevy Suburban diesels. Slow as Christmas, but comfortable road cruisers and surprisingly economical with the diesel. I lived in New Orleans at the time, and used the 'burban for highway trips and for pulling a 17' outboard boat trailer. He lived on the family ranch at the end of two miles of unpaved road. My Suburban went through four transmission overhauls in 200,000 miles, but was on original ball joints when I sold it to a nephew. My brother-in-law rebuilt his ball joints and bushings every 60-70,000 miles but is still on the original transmission at nearly 250,000 miles. Did I mention that I put a Gale Banks turbo kit in mine, and that he drives more slowly than I do? ;-)

robr2

IIRC, Millenia's do not hold their value very well. rroyce over in the "real world trade in values" would probably suggest that you look at a used one.

Good Luck

jrct9454

...the Millenia seems like a great deal when you look at the dealer incentives and rebates off the higher starting MSRP, but check out resale on an Accord EX V6, Millenia Base, and say, Camry XLE V6 after 4 years and 40,000 miles.

jrct9454

...went to Kelley and checked out '98 models of the base Millenia, Camry XLE V6, and Accord EX V6, assuming 40k miles and comparable condition.

Accord, wholesale value about $12.5k
Camry.........................$10.5k
Mazda.........................$ 9.5k

And the Accord would in today's market be the second least expensive to buy as a new car, or perhaps even the cheapest, depending on local market conditions.

bunk

What do you mean by this? Second least expensive to buy as a new car?

"And the Accord would in today's market be the second least expensive to buy as a new car, or perhaps even the cheapest, depending on local market conditions. "

thel

He means that you can probably get a 02 Accord EX V6 for less than a 02 Millenia or Camry. After 4 years however, the Accord will cost you more than the other 2 because it holds its value so well.

bodydouble

You must mean the Accord will cost you LESS.

joeandcarol2

You may want to test drive that 325i. My comments were for the 330i only. I did test drive both the 330 and the 325. The clutch on the 325i is much lighter and the transmission much lighter effort (i liked it a lot better). Its almost as if the 330i components were really beefed up. But they were too stiff and heavy to be "pleasant" for me, so no 330i.

bodydouble

There's only a 40 hp difference between the 330 and 325. Weird that BMW would have to beef up the tranny to such a noticeable degree. Maybe they figure guys who'd go for the 330 will really hammer the car.

bodydouble

Honda has resurrected the $500 factory-to-dealer cashback until July 31, 02. Hurry, hurry, hurry...

bolivar

How about that - 2 people that own/ed 91 SHO's and Accord V6's and drive in Tulsa.....

The Accord reminds me a lot of the SHO. The body size, general shape, interior size, etc.

I thought the SHO was a very tight car. Highway running was great. Closing the trunk, it sounded like a Ford, tinny. But the doors closed with authority and it was quiet inside, if you kept it out of the secondary intake runners. I thought the interior was very nice. We had cloth and liked it. After owning the Accord a few weeks, I decided it was also pretty tinny sounding and feeling in places. Sheet metal overall looks pretty thin. Trunk, gas cover, etc.

Now, some other things seemed to be Ford made. And I missed out on several problem SHO's are supposed to have, such as brake problems. But I did have Motor Mounts, A/C, terrible paint, water pump, wiper motor was going out when I sold it, problems. And the clutch - plates didn't give out, but the stiff clutch just got worse each day we owned it. After a trip to the east coast, the clutch was the main reason I sold the car. It just wore me out, no fun to drive any more.

The SHO ran 135mph, the Accord xxxmph. (I've edited the Accord numbers. I't my main caar and expect to keep it a while. Don't want to put in writing something that Honda mind not like for future warranty work.) Neither was topped out, but seemed about all that I cared about doing in them.

rihoops

I own a 99 Accord EX V6 sedan, it looks ok, not as good as a passat, but people buy it because it is reliable. A car can be good looking, fun and reliable. The new accord looks ok, but people will buy it because they know what they will get. Value, reliability and great ergonomics.

isellhondas

Actually a Millenia is worse than that. They will never bring book...probably 1500-2000 back of book.

Not bad cars at all. They simply don't sell.

Funny thing...cars that are slow sellers when new are even worse when used.

jrct9454

...that's still another factor - the book on the Mazda is generous, whereas my experience with the Accord is that few dealers blink at paying book for a used Honda tradein, at least here in Sacto.