Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options

Older Honda Accords

1…8990929495…389

Comments

  • Options
    diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    stantont- re: #2- Because when you're trying to parallel park, it really helps to know where your front hood ends? I can also feel where the Accord ends, but when I'm backing up, I still need to use the rear and side mirrors.
  • Options
    stantontstantont Member Posts: 148
    I confess that while I never have any trouble knowing where the hood ends, I am not nearly so confident backing up. The front and rear headrests, plus the center rear stoplight, always make me feel like there is something lurking just behind me. I use the rear and side mirrors,and turn my head, and still feel like I'm about to back into something. Never have, but I still feel like I'm about to.

    But not being able to see the hood doesn't bother me at all. I'm not sure why that is so. Maybe my previous car (1991 SHO) was about the same hood length? But I really appreciate the great forward visibility in the Accord; it feels like I can see the road just a foot or two ahead of the bumper. Probably not really that close, but it feels like it.

    I once owned a 1983 Suburban: high, square hood and fenders. You could aim with them in tight places, but I always worried that one of the kids or dogs could stand in front of the car and I wouldn't see them. Not a worry with the Accord!
  • Options
    voochvooch Member Posts: 92
    Not seeing the kids or dogs shouldn't be a problem in any midsized sedan, the Accord's no exception. Unless, of course, you're blind. =)
  • Options
    stantontstantont Member Posts: 148
    BTW, does anyone else use the D4/D3 shift positions to play with the car? I found that the overdrive in D4 is pretty tall (2000 rpm at 60 mph), and the torque converter locks up pretty early (about 45 mph?). So the engine feels pretty flat under a slight throttle nudge; you have to wait a split second for the converter to unlock, and then for a downshift to get any appreciable acceleration. Great for highway mileage, but not much fun.

    But D3 doesn't use overdrive, and in addition delays torque converter lockup to about 65-67 mph. So when I am trying to hustle in city traffic or to play with the car on a winding road, I bump the lever to D3; it almost feels like a different car. In D3, 60 mph is about 3300 rpm and throttle response is very nice. At lower speeds, say around 40-50, response is better because of the torque converter's "slippage" (rpm's climb faster), and downshifts to second gear are almost instantaneous because there is no delay waiting for the converter to unlock. It isn't quite as nice as the Passat's "manumatic" trans, but comes pretty close. This undoubtedly costs a bit in mileage, but I still see the numbers I posted above.
    Unlike my '95 Aerostar, the transmission's computer is never fazed by these shifts; I can go from D4 to D3 at any reasonable speed with no jolt or lurch - just a smooth jump in rpm.

    Maybe everyone else already knew this bit, but after nearly 20 years of owning auto trans cars with gobs of low-speed torque and a reluctance to rev, I just "discovered" it with the Accord. My SHO was a stick, so I expected to have to downshift it get it to perform; but the Suburban and the 4-liter Aerostar did not encourage this kind of behavior. In fact, they objected to the D4-D3 downshift with a hard jolt, as if the trans had "forgotten" to unlock the converter clutch before shifting.
  • Options
    isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    I just put it in D4 and keep it there.
  • Options
    bodydoublebodydouble Member Posts: 801
    I generally don't like to play around with shifting it manually because I don't want to inadvertently overshift into D2 or N. The gate pattern on the '02 Maxima is much better-suited to that sort of thing. You shift sideway from D4 to D3, so there is no chance of a mis-shift.
  • Options
    stantontstantont Member Posts: 148
    There is a stop between D3 and 2 where you must push a button to get to 2, so that is not a risk. To downshift, you just pull back on the lever with your fingertips; no way can it get into second. There is no detent between D4 and N, but since the upshift is usually done after you have eased off the throttle, I haven't found that to be a concern.

    I've been doing this for almost a year now; it has just become part of the pleasure of driving for me.
  • Options
    silvercoupe1silvercoupe1 Member Posts: 6
    I have an Accord EX V6 coupe and I shift to D3 when I know I'm not going to exceed 40 mph. The transmission feels much smoother in D3 at low speeds, since the torque converter does not kick in. I would think that it would be better for the transmission to shift into D3 at lower speeds, since the torque converter is not locking and unlocking.
  • Options
    kthenkekthenke Member Posts: 12
    I am very happy to hear that a 5-speed automatic will be in the 2003 V-6 sedan, however, has anyone heard if the Sequential Shift will be part of the package, as it is in the Passat and some other American cars? Has this become a feature that will not be available until the 2004 TL differentiates more from the Accord? Or will Honda offer this to non-Acura buyers? Let's hope - my father-in-law has a '99 TL and he calls his SSS a marriage saver - wife likes the auto and he likes to control which gear with the SSS.

    Let's hope Honda at least puts it in the V-6's. To me I would rather keep the 200 hp and have this tranny set up than have higher hp with the plain jane shift mechanism that is in the current
    Accords.

    Also, let's lower that hand break a little, eh Honda? It sticks up too much!
  • Options
    pkraddpkradd Member Posts: 358
    I drove a Passat and a '02 Accord and chose the Passat. Handling sometimes depends on tires.
  • Options
    diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    http://sohc.vtec.net/news_files/22835/03acc-03.jpg


    Overall shape is very sleek in this picture.


    The rest can be seen here:

    http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=22835

  • Options
    maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    ...anymore to me, it looks kind of nice looking. That appears to be the EX model.
  • Options
    venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    thinks for the link, it's appreciated.

    take out the stupid spoiler and bra and I like it too. i have a feeling that white won't be its best color though.
  • Options
    alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    IMO, mainly because of its somewhat hunchback look-not unlike the Lexus GS design. venus-agreed-darker colors will help this car. Interested to drive it, should be fun.
    ~alpha
  • Options
    talon95talon95 Member Posts: 1,110
    I'm glad we finally saw a direct side view... from that perspective, I like the new roofline.

    Also, I'm glad to see that they've gone to real rear headrests.

    Hope we get to see the interior sometime soon.
  • Options
    bodydoublebodydouble Member Posts: 801
    The wheel/tire look a touch small though. They don't quite fill out the wheelwell properly.
  • Options
    wgrwgr Member Posts: 127
    The spoiler does look stupid, at least in these pictures. I must admit, I am warming to the 03 design the more I see pictures; but, can't really tell until I see it in person.
  • Options
    robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    Did you notice the thread over on that other forum where some of them think those photos are a conspiracy theory on Honda's part?

    Like I said before, Honda will let us know what and when they want us to.
  • Options
    bunkbunk Member Posts: 66
    Are there any more Coupe pictures around??
    I still have not seen it from all angles. I only saw the original spy pics and one other shot that has been around now for a while. It is hard to get a good idea of what this car looks like with the 3quarter shots. I think the sedan looks pretty good! From what I have seen of the coupe, I think the current model may have it beat as far as exterior appeal.
  • Options
    ickes_mobileickes_mobile Member Posts: 675
    pretty suprising since no one has actually seen it. As before, its very Honda looking, altought the front overhang looks long. Definately ditch the spoiler. If most BMWs don't need them, a Honda sure doesn't.
  • Options
    bunkbunk Member Posts: 66
    From what I have seen of the 03 coupe, I would still say that the 02 seems to be nicer looking.
  • Options
    ickes_mobileickes_mobile Member Posts: 675
    That was my first reaction too. Then I followed one of the current cars home last Friday. I like the current design alot, but from some angles, the rear 3/4 looks bloated too (as has been the critiisim of the new car photos).
  • Options
    diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    robr- I only read a few posts...I swear, it takes forever to read messages over there with the screen reloading with every message view.

    I did a photo comparison of the 03 Accord with the new Camry - the Accord is definitely the sharper design. Although it seemed that the Accord had a longer wheelbase and a longer roof than the Camry. The great part is, though, it doesn't look like a duchshund.
  • Options
    rearareara Member Posts: 2
    I happened to witness some 'new' Honda car on the road yesterday. It has a very similar look in its tail light to Altima, namely transparent cover with the light inside. I couldn't read the car's name from the distance, but I could see H logo. So, I thought that this is a new 2003 Accord since it was near a Honda dealer. But according to the spy shot found here, it looks different. Then, what was the one I saw yesterday? Any idea?
  • Options
    robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    ...the new Honda you saw was probably a 94-97 model with boy racer rear lights.
  • Options
    bunkbunk Member Posts: 66
    I wrote this for another board, but would like it to be seen here as well -

    I also don't know if you are talking about the sedan or the coupe, but I think the coupe is pretty slick looking! It seems that many people on these boards associate speed with character and if that is the case I have seen 0-60 times for the accord coupe as low as 7.4.
    2000 test results for the Maxima were 7.8. 2002 comparison tests put the Passat at 8.0, the Camry at 8.1 and the Altima at 7.3 (if you look at the automatic, which would be comparing apples to apples when discussing the Honda).
    This paragraph was written by edmunds about the coupe :
    "The 3.0-liter V6 is probably one of the sweetest powerplants currently available. Honda has managed to provide both low-end torque and the requisite high-end, VTEC rush in one engine. With 200 horsepower and 195 foot-pounds of torque on tap, the V6-equipped coupe gets to 60 mph in 7.5 seconds. What that number doesn't convey is the seamless and refined behavior of this engine that can be appreciated only from behind the steering wheel. "
    This is my reply to many of the opinions I have seen here about the point A to point B Honda, and it's poor shifting trans, and it's slow speed compared to the Altima and Maxima.
    If someone has something to say about these facts being wrong or abstract then please give another .02 cents.
  • Options
    alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    Its seems like you are finally beginning to form your own opinion. Test drive them all. See if you feel a difference in shift quality and 3 tenths of a second to 60. Its more about the passing times and street starts, IMO, and comparisons should be taken for what they worth. Also, the 2000 Maxima had about 30 less hp, and its most effective, IMO, to be consistent in comparing numbers for vehicles- ie..if you use Car and Driver for the Altima, then use Car and Driver for the Accord. Ideally, for reasons previously mentioned, its best if they are all in the same comparison test.
    ~alpha
  • Options
    bunkbunk Member Posts: 66
    Thank you, I am going to Car and Driver now. What do you own?
  • Options
    ickes_mobileickes_mobile Member Posts: 675
    tested a manual 3.5 Altima in the August issue and found that it went 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and did the quarter in 14.8 @ 96mph. Pretty impressive apples!
  • Options
    alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    Usually, if they chose to divulge info, you can find out more about the posters if you click on their names.
    ~alpha
  • Options
    jfavourjfavour Member Posts: 105
    I just ordered a set of replacement tires for my 2000 LX-V6. After searching through several sources, I settled on a set of Bridgestone Turanza LS-V's in the OEM size. I ordered them from the tire rack and will have them mounted locally. Does anyone have any experience with these tires? They seem to be a relatively new design and feature all of the latest all season improvements Bridgestone currently offers. The OEM tires were Bridgestone Turanza EL42 and they were not great tires. I was convinced by tire rack's customer service person that these new Turnaza's were spectacular. I hope that proves to be true.
  • Options
    bunkbunk Member Posts: 66
    To those of you that told me to read C&D as if it would make me lean toward the Altima over the Honda, I read it and I basically came away with that it was fast, did not have a good ride, had a cheap interior, and a not so pleasing shifter. Did I miss something? If speed is the only thing that counts I guess I see where you guys are coming from, otherwise I don't think the Altima is such a clear Accord beater. I thought I remembered reading a past Accord Coupe V6 review from C&D and it was just as good, if not better? I am not being argumentative, I am just making conversation and looking for answers that I may not be aware of. Thanks.
  • Options
    ickes_mobileickes_mobile Member Posts: 675
    If your single minded criteria for buying a car is performance, then yes, the Altima is probably the car for you. If you're interested in any of the other criteria you listed, then the Accord is likely the better all around car, especially in four cylinder guise.

    BTW, weren't you in a hurry to buy a new car?
  • Options
    cds12cds12 Member Posts: 139
    it will be a miracle.
  • Options
    zorglubzorglub Member Posts: 79
    I bought a 2002 Accord EX 4 cyl last November and enjoy the car. However, I just looked at Edmunds' preview of the new Mazda, and boy, does this car look sharp.

    If I were in the market for a new sedan this fall, I'd definitely take a look at the Mazda. Plus, they apparently will have a V6 with a 5 speed auto. At least on paper, it looks pretty good.

    As for the new Accord, I'd say that I am less than thrilled by the new design, but I guess that I'll get used to it.
  • Options
    alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    Did you have to mention the new Mazda? Now the bunkster is going to have yet ANOTHER variable to consider. Bunk, when I suggested you read Car and Driver, I said that because you were interested in acceleration times, and I very much feel that Car and Driver has merit in their street start tests and passing runs. I also feel that it is important, when comparing acceleration between similar models, to compare among tests from the same people, since methodolgy will likely be universal within that organization. EX- if you get a stat for an Altima 3.5 auto from Car and Driver, then compare it to a stat or the Accord EX from Car and Driver, and not from Motor Trend or whateve
    Also, I, nor anyone here, ever implied the Altima was better simply because it is faster. Acceleration is JUST ONE ASPECT OF A CAR, but along with shift quality, something you cant seem to get past....
    ~alpha
  • Options
    adamr2adamr2 Member Posts: 31
    I agree, for pure acceleration, the altima beats the accord. I was considering the Altima before I bought my EX v6 coupe. When the Altima first came out at the NY auto show, I was very impressed with the new look. However, seeing it on the road a lot, the back lights are wearing thin on me, I don't like them as much.

    Design aside, the problem with the Altima is that if you go for the V6, and add some options which are standard on the accord, such as side airbags, ABS, and some other features, the price really adds up. I can not see paying in the mid to upper 20's for an Altima. Dollar for dollar, the Accord is an easy winner in my book. It is not put together as well as the accord. At the NY auto show, you really get to sit in a car and play around with it. I was jumping from the accord to the Altima a few times to compare. The interior build quality of the Altima was not there. The center console and other parts were jut not solid.

    One thing (I know bunk does not need more options) to consider should also be the Acura 3.2 CL. For about $4,000 more, you get more luxury feel, a bigger (and faster) engine, and some extra features. This may be the last year for the CL as they are not selling, so you should be able to get a good deal on it. I just could not justify the extra money. However, since the new accord will probably go for stick at around $26k, you could probably get a CL for around that price or slightly more. That would be an interesting comparison.
  • Options
    fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    BMW 325i, Audi A4, Lexus IS300, Infiniti G35...

    Bunk, get the '02 Accord. It's the right car for you.
  • Options
    hondacarehondacare Member Posts: 3
    Reliability is the issue here. Keep in mind that the Altima is a high compression engine. The Accord is a low compression engine. Less wear and tear on the Accord engine over the long run. However, if you are leasing the Altima for 24-36 months....then disregard.
  • Options
    bodydoublebodydouble Member Posts: 801
    that the Altima styling is quickly wearing thin. The front looks bland, the taillights look too rice and the body looks fat.
  • Options
    alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    was definitely one of the reasons why my mother chose the Camry over the Altima, though I feel both are attractive as far as family cars go. Camry and Accord offered better color choices at the time as well. All the Altima colors, aside from that Maroon-ish one, are too dull.
    ~alpha
  • Options
    trekk2trekk2 Member Posts: 1
    Anyone interested in assuming a lease on 2002 Accord EX coupe (4cyl,man)- $300 a month (33 remaining). Atlanta Area.
  • Options
    bunkbunk Member Posts: 66
    Yeah, I was in desperate need of a car, but a kind family member decided to let me use one of their extra vehicles until I decided on something new. I don't think they realized that I may not decide on something until the year 2005 rolls around?! : )
    I am even getting sick of trying to figure out what I want to spend my money on, but I really want to feel good about what I decide on. This is a lot of money for ME to spend and I want to be happy with my purchase.
    Alpha, can I ask you if this statement "Acceleration is JUST ONE ASPECT OF A CAR, but along with shift quality, something you cant seem to get past...." means that in your experience the Altima not only accelerates better, but also shifts better? I have not heard anything too bad about the shifting of either car? I did read from two sources that they did not like the shifting on the manual trans Altima. I did not think the Accord shifted badly when I test drove it, but maybe I am not a good judge. As far as the Altima goes, the salesman would not allow me to just test drive the car without lengthy conversations and this took some of my attention away from noticing things like how the car shifted.
    I hope you know I was not attacking your advise in looking at C&D to see what they said about the Altima. My reply after reading C&D was to question those that seem to act as if the Altima is clearly much better than the Accord and to address the comment that the Accord is a point A to point B car. I was just wanting to see what the responses may be to the facts. I agree with you completely that you have to compare performance tests from one car to another through the same source, whether it be C&D or Edmunds. The only thing I seem to be able to find that the Altima is better at than the Accord is acceleration, am I wrong?
  • Options
    bodydoublebodydouble Member Posts: 801
    Traditonally , Honda makes some of the best manual transmissions in the business.
  • Options
    kathyva2kathyva2 Member Posts: 3
    I was wondering if anyone has experienced the traction problems described in some of the reviews I've read. Has anyone had traction problems driving on wet pavement?
  • Options
    bunkbunk Member Posts: 66
    I read and was concerned about this also. From what I have heard a lot of this has to do with the tires that are on the car. That is just what I read in a couple of articles, it is not what I know from experience.
    bodydouble and adamr2 are probably the ones that could best answer this question.
    bodydouble, I know they make some of the best manual transmissions, but how is their automatic that is in the V6 Coupe. Alpha seems to think that it has some shift quality problems?
  • Options
    diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    Whether it's poor braking distance, handling, or noise, the culprit is almost always the tires when it comes to Honda.
  • Options
    ickes_mobileickes_mobile Member Posts: 675
    in rain or snow with our 2001 EX 5spd. wearing Michelin MXV4 Energy tires.

    Doesn't EX-V6 have traction control?
  • Options
    bimmer4mebimmer4me Member Posts: 266
    Please don't take this the wrong way. I read this thread all the time and enjoy it. Question, do you fret this much on every Honda issue positive or negitive? Do you get any sleep at night? Just bite the bullit, purchase the Accord, whether it be a 2002 or 2003, I'm sure you'll be happy with your Honda. Good luck!
  • Options
    dmullinsdmullins Member Posts: 30
    I just found this board. I have a 2001 Accord EX V6 that appears to have warped rotors. The car has 20K miles. I get a bad shake upon braking. It rides smooth at speed and has no pull while driving. I'm pretty sure it's the rotors. What does everyone think? What about warranty as well?

    Thanks in advance.
    Drew
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles