"Take the Camry, Altima and Maxima for example, all split folding designs, and all of their chassis are rigid as heck. The one-piece folding seat is just a Honda quirk." Let us make it Mercedes and BMW (M5) quirk as well. VW Passat has 60/40 split in lower models, but get on a 4Motion, and you get pass-through, no split. Lower Audis come with split rear seats, not A8, the highest Audi. Civic comes with split seats, not Accord (or TL). So, I guess, as cars get expensive, to keep the costs down, companies like BMW, Mercedes, Honda, VW, Audi start to not offer split seats. Interesting, isn't it?
BTW, it is always interesting to know that Camry and Altima garnered only 2 and 3 stars in the side impact crash tests, with their rigid bodies. It would be interesting to see how Accord does. My bet would be 5-stars.
Looks great! I've read a lot of posts regarding how "ugly" the new '03 looks. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. Best of luck with the new car. Keep us informed on performance, etc.
By the way, since I've been shopping for the same car (probably the I4, though), I have been asking about the deals people have been making (purchase price, lease payments, etc.). If you're so inclined, please post the details of your deal.
I agree with bcab, nice pics. When I went to the dealer and in your photos I thought that the new Accord had a similar body line to the Lexus GS (which in my mind isn't a bad thing). The rims look sharp. We don't have any V6's here in Madison (that I've seen) and I'm waiting for them to come in to take a test drive. Happy driving.
Porknbeans
Grand High Poobah The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
The rear fold down seat probably has little to do with rigidity. The frame around the opening is much more critical, i.e. hatchbacks and wagons being much less rigid because of no center cross brace. Its obviously a cost issue on midsize/midprice cars like Accord (except the Passat 4Motion is probably due to the fact that the trunk is 5 cubic feet smaller because of a higher floor making the fold down seat worthless).
I've got a split rear seat in my Ford and the one-piece unit in the Accord. The split is nice because I can leave the child seat on one side and put the other down if necessary. However, I've found really limited use for the fold down seat because what you can fit in the trunk is really defined by the depth and lenght of the decklid.
"Let us make it Mercedes and BMW (M5) quirk as well. VW Passat has 60/40 split in lower models, but get on a 4Motion, and you get pass-through, no split. Lower Audis come with split rear seats, not A8, the highest Audi. Civic comes with split seats, not Accord (or TL). So, I guess, as cars get expensive, to keep the costs down, companies like BMW, Mercedes, Honda, VW, Audi start to not offer split seats. Interesting, isn't it?
BTW, it is always interesting to know that Camry and Altima garnered only 2 and 3 stars in the side impact crash tests, with their rigid bodies. It would be interesting to see how Accord does. My bet would be 5-stars."
I didn't say it was a quirk exclusive to Honda, I said it was just a Honda quirk. Most midsize cars on this class have the split folding design. And, I didn't say cars WITHOUT a folding seat aren't more rigid, I said cars with a one-piece folding seat aren't more rigid than cars with the split folding design. A one-piece folding seat is not the same as NO folding seat. Most cars in the near-luxury and luxury class will have a pass-thru at best, and it's not to save costs, they just figure people in that market don't need it and don't care, or in some cases maybe they need the room for the AWD gear (4motion). Yes, the lack of a folding seat makes it easier to make the body more rigid, but a one-piece design offers no advantage over the split design in this respect. It's just cheaper to manufacture.
called the dealer I bought from in July...they are saying for the 2003 sedan 4 EXL auto the best they could do is possibly offer 500-800 off MSRP. not worth the trip IMO..
But look under the general honda accord and look at listing 5876 who leased a car if that is what you want to do...or #584 in CO who seems to have bought the car you are looking for....
Great pictures! Do you love your car? I picked up mine (03 V-6 satin silver) on Saturday afternoon and can't stop looking at it ever since. By the way, what kind of camera did you use to take those pictures?
Thanks! I used a Nikon Coolpix 995...and unfortunately, it had just rained a half hour earlier and the clouds were still looming overhead. I'm planning to re-shoot those photos in better lighting conditions.
Yes, I love the car. I'm so amazed with the feel of the car. Very substantial and super quick! This thing has effortless acceleration! So much so, that I'm already finding myself surprising others in traffic...which is good and bad. I've almost been run off the road twice because the other driver didn't think I could catch up to them as fast as I did...and I'm not trying to speed! Gotta keep my eye on the speedo a little more...
"Most cars in the near-luxury and luxury class will have a pass-thru at best, and it's not to save costs, they just figure people in that market don't need it and don't care... It's just cheaper to manufacture"
Cheaper, only if it Honda. It is okay for Mercedes or Audi A8 to not have it, or BMW M5 to offer it as an 'option'.
"Cheaper, only if it Honda. It is okay for Mercedes or Audi A8 to not have it, or BMW M5 to offer it as an 'option'."
Once again you have either unintentionally or intentionally misinterpreted what I said, and you edited your quote of my post to state something I did not say. So, I'll make it real clear: - The one-piece folding rear seat is cheaper to manufacture than the split design. - The one-piece folding rear seat design offers no structural advantages over the split folding design (despite what a Honda salespeople might tell you). - A fixed reat seat is cheaper to manufacture than either of the folding designs. This is why cheaper cars don't have folding rear seats. - For those more expensive (or AWD) cars that have a fixed rear seat (NOT FOLDING), this is obviously not done because it's cheaper (duh!). It is either because they don't think there's market demand for it or there is some structural reason (the car has AWD, or they want to make the chassis stiffer).
I don't know if you just don't get it or you're just messing with me. In either case, I think most people following this conversation DO get it, and are probably getting tired of it, as I am.
Not a problem. A side story that's kindda off the topic... I stopped by a Toyota dealership to check out the 4runner about 6 or 7 yrs ago. I asked why only the sedans got airbags. The sales told me that SUVs "don't need the bags"; they are much more crashworthy then sendans. Guess it's important for buyers to know that a few dealers out there would say anything to get you into the deal.
"- For those more expensive (or AWD) cars that have a fixed rear seat (NOT FOLDING), this is obviously not done because it's cheaper (duh!). It is either because they don't think there's market demand for it or there is some structural reason (the car has AWD, or they want to make the chassis stiffer)."
Sorry, but that's not obvious at all.
What's *obvious* is that every automaker in every segment is looking to cut costs and maximize profits.
Somewhere you've got an internal inconsistency. First you claim that fold-down seats offer no possible structural advantages (can't believe those Honda shills, they're just ripping you off) and then suggest that perhaps some (brands you like?) automakers don't offer fold-down seats in order to increase chassis stiffness- i.e. because non-folding seats can offer structural advantages. (You can hide a strut tower bar in the seat, etc.)
I sort of understand most of the reasons you present for why Honda does not offer stability control. Thanks for the insight. But my point wasn't that VW drives Honda's product decision (easy, big guy!) -it's that VW and Toyota introducing stability control as options to their vehicles resembles the pattern that ABS and air bags took 10 years ago. What was then reserved as optional for upscale cars has migrated to the mainstream as standard equipment over time. Since one can never predict when it may be needed, stability control would be an option I would eagerly go for that over the moonroof and dual zone AC if given the choice.
Hopefully Honda's marketing mavens can find a way to include stability control as an option like VW and Toyota have.
Speaking of choices - does anyone know what Accord models the side curtain air bags are available in? I read somewhere that it may be an option limited to EX V6s only. If that's the case, I really do hope Honda extends that option to all trim levels.
and BTW, Honda doesn't offer factory options unless you count the optional side airbags available for the LX models and the optional Navigation system on the EXL and EXV6 models.
"Somewhere you've got an internal inconsistency. First you claim that fold-down seats offer no possible structural advantages (can't believe those Honda shills, they're just ripping you off) and then suggest that perhaps some (brands you like?) automakers don't offer fold-down seats in order to increase chassis stiffness- i.e. because non-folding seats can offer structural advantages. (You can hide a strut tower bar in the seat, etc.)"
Not inconsistent at all. A one-piece folding rear seat design offers no structural advantage over the split folding design, it's just cheaper to produce than the split design. A non-folding (fixed) rear seat, however, offers some advantages to the manufacturer. It reduces cost in those models where that is a critical factor. In other models where cost is not as big of a factor (i.e. Acura), it may have other advantages. While the non-folding rear seat by itself doesn't offer any structural improvement (it doesn't in itself make the chassis stiffer), the absence of a large opening would make it easier to make the structural member behind the seat stiffer if that is a design goal.
This time I will take care to not 'edit' your post. - The one-piece folding rear seat is cheaper to manufacture than the split design. Perhaps. I don't know how much it costs to make one-piece folding seat versus split design. Do you? Cost may be the reason BMW M5 has it as an option, not a standard feature. OTOH, you will get it as a standard feature in BMW 325.
- The one-piece folding rear seat design offers no structural advantages over the split folding design (despite what a Honda salespeople might tell you). Well, sometimes it makes sense to believe people outside these forums. Could it be because of some reason besides cost? Nope, right? Since it is a Honda. But read on.
- A fixed reat seat is cheaper to manufacture than either of the folding designs. This is why cheaper cars don't have folding rear seats. Cheaper cars like Civic?
- For those more expensive (or AWD) cars that have a fixed rear seat (NOT FOLDING), this is obviously not done because it's cheaper (duh!). It is either because they don't think there's market demand for it or there is some structural reason (the car has AWD, or they want to make the chassis stiffer). Good point, but a good excuse as well. Perhaps an excuse we could use for Acura TL, a car that shares underpinnings with Accord. And unlike Accord, TL's rear seatback does not fold down. So you know where it is coming from. But better than either, that in civic, does!
I was just wondering how much is all of this going to cost me if I want a fully loaded sucker I guess they do not bother to tell you that Well I guess that I a m going to have to stay with my old 1999 honda accord ex it performs just fine for me and I also owe 15,000 on it so I must pass.
first new car? =o) as far as I know, its pretty normal to have a pretty raunchy odor coming from the exhaust. Last explanation I heard had to do with the metal in your headers/exhaust system curing or oils in the metal burning off... something like that... My opinion, take it on a long hour drive... should get rid of much of the smell... =o) hope ya like your accord... we are planning on getting one... BTW, my '02 Trailblazer smelled like that too... went away within a few days, but I went about 200mi in the first 5 days showin off my new toy... =o)
I have not seen any evidence that a split-folding rear seat offers the same structural rigidness as a one-piece rear seat. I would even theorize that the one-piece would offer more structural rigidness because it is one piece and not put together by multiple pieces, where manufacturing errors and stress points are introduced. But the cost of one-piece solution is probably cheaper than split-folding one.
I remember reading a review of a new model car...forgot exactly which one, maybe the Lexus IS300, where they put crossmember beams behind the rear seats to improve structural rigidity, that leaves the back-seat unfoldable of course.
Also this reminded me of something I thought of one day, what if they could offer sedans where the entire rear trunk AND window opened as one piece, like in a coupe or hatchback, but then I realized it probably reduces the structural rigidity because of the entire open space, you'd get a lot more trunk room though, but it probably won't pass safety crash tests.
My Passat has a folding rear seat- its a front wheel drive model; the 4 wheel drive version of the Passat does not offer a folding rear seat because the chassis is stiffened in 4wd versions where the opening would be. And my folding seat is one piece. Everything is a trade-off.
Beg pardon, in my last post I left out a negative. It should be here, where I say:
First you claim that *non*fold-down seats offer no possible structural advantages (can't believe those Honda shills, they're just ripping you off)
To quote:
"Not inconsistent at all. A one-piece folding rear seat design offers no structural advantage over the split folding design, it's just cheaper to produce than the split design."
Which explains why the Civic has split folding rear seats.
"A non-folding (fixed) rear seat, however, offers some advantages to the manufacturer. It reduces cost in those models where that is a critical factor."
For the Civic to have split folding rear seats and the Accord (a more expensive car) to not, this would suggest that there is some other reason...
"In other models where cost is not as big of a factor (i.e. Acura), it may have other advantages. While the non-folding rear seat by itself doesn't offer any structural improvement (it doesn't in itself make the chassis stiffer), the absence of a large opening would make it easier to make the structural member behind the seat stiffer if that is a design goal. "
Indeed. Here we come full circle. You suggest non-folding rear seats might be by design, to allow the use of a chassis stiffener member. By your own reasoning, the reason is unlikely to be cost because a cheaper Honda car has split-folding rear seats.
So, why insist you can't believe those dishonest Honda salesmen when they say on some models the non-folding rear seats might be by design, to allow improved chassis stiffness?
Not like it's a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it just sticks out at me that you've selected one manufacturer and one particular model to single out for criticism, despite your own reasoning.
Run while u still can. U should know better than to criticize Honda. Doesn't matter what u say, they'll twist your words and use them against u one way or another. Don't u know that Honda is the air that a lot of people on this forum breathe ?
Hey, but what about that TV commercial on the 03 Accord where it runs for cover before a swarm of spies on jet aircraft trying to take pictures of it ? Well, when something is THAT UGLY, it'd better hide from the rest of the world FAST !
"So, why insist you can't believe those dishonest Honda salesmen when they say on some models the non-folding rear seats might be by design, to allow improved chassis stiffness?"
No, I said a Honda salesperson might say that the ONE-PIECE FOLDING rear seat (such as on the Accord) is structurally better than the split folding design, when it's really not. Once again you've misquoted me (but I doubt that will surprize anyone).
Oh wait, I get it, this is a game. You misquote me, and then wait and see if I can catch it! How clever!
Run while u still can. U should know better than to criticize Honda. Doesn't matter what u say, they'll twist your words and use them against u one way or another. Don't u know that Honda is the air that a lot of people on this forum breathe ?
Hey, but what about that TV commercial on the 03 Accord where it runs for cover before a swarm of spies on jet aircraft trying to take pictures of it ? Well, when something is THAT UGLY, it'd better hide from the rest of the world FAST !
Should we start another group? The I love my new 03 Accord group! Wait till you buy yours - the handling is superb, the leather seats and steering setup is great, the radio controls on the steering wheel are great and the 240 hp is worth every penny!! I could go on and on...
Relax guy. It's not worth the effort. We both know what is going to be the "Talk" when the "6" arrives in the show rooms. You can't defeat the "Biff and Buffy" factor with Honda. ; )
we talk about the way honda boosted HP to 240 with no change in heads, displacement, or materials. anyone have ideas? someone tried to explain it to me, but i still dont quite get it.
Run while u still can. U should know better than to criticize Honda. Doesn't matter what u say, they'll twist your words and use them against u one way or another. Don't u know that Honda is the air that a lot of people on this forum breathe ?
Everyone knows that the accord is the greatest car in the universe. i would gladly pay 7k over sticker or sell my family to own one of the modern marvels of technology!!! i heard these accords are being compared to Rolls Royce and Ferrari!!!
How dare you insult Honda!!!! Mere mortals should not even mention the name!!
Has everybody from the old "Mazda 6 vs. 2003 Accord" moved over into this forum? Many of the recent posts have been as pointless and childish as those from that long gone and unlamented forum.
It's been revived and the atmosphere in there is much more civilized and mature. Besides, if they act up again Pat will close it permanently this time.
After seeing the numbers and using the lease estimator on HOnda web site I am thinking of leasing. My EX V-6 would be about $300 per month on a 42 month, 15k per mile lease. That is great with selling price of $24,000 and $500 cap reduction. Others have posted similiar numbers. Not bad. High residual and low interest come into play here. INKY
someone reported a 61% residual after 42 months. They had looked at all the terms and found 42 months offered the best balance. I found on the lease estimator that an EX or EX-L at 95% of MSRP leases for $270-$290 pretty good deal. However, if you run the numbers for the financng and then factor in the equity you have at the end, the net monthy payment on the car make work out less...
they really dont have anything productive to contribute yet until the 6 arrives. so expect a little more of the honda-bashing for now. and do not ever say that the accord is a better car than the 6 overall or you will be labeled a "troll".
Fortunately, the only person who can truly label & oust trolls is moi. The power, the power!
Seriously, we're not turning this topic in to a Mazda 6 v Honda Accord discussion. This topic is for folks who are genuinely interested in getting information on the upcoming 2003 Accord, not to hash out whose personal preference has more merit.
kirstie_h Roving Host & Future Vehicles Host
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
I leased a 2003 Honda Accord EX-V6 two days ago and have discovered two defects since I acquired the car. One defect is on the right rear door. When shut, the bottom half of the door, closest to the rear tire, is not flush with the car. It sticks out about 1/8 inch. The left rear door is perfectly flush. My dealer could not fix the problem and is sending me to a body shop at an affiliate next week to try to fix it.
The other, more serious, problem is a defective steering wheel/column. It appears that the whole steering column is a few degrees off-kilter. The result is that when holding the wheel at the 3 and 9 o'clock position, the left side of the steering wheel is further out from the dash board than the right side. My dealer acknowledged the problem this morning but said there was nothing they could do. They said they compared it with other 2003 Accords on the lot and that all of the them were the same way.
As you can imagine, I am not happy about this and will be pursuing a resolution to the problem with Honda.
Potential 2003 Accord buyers should be especially vigilant in examining their cars for these and other defects prior to signing any purchase or lease contracts.
I'd like to take a stab at explaining how they increased the HP on the V6 engine from 200 to 240. They most likely did it with a free-flowing intake and exhaust (something aftermarket tuners liked to do with their civics). Engines breathe air and fuel. Older designs probably did not place as much emphasis in the "flow" of the air in and out of the engine, they were probably just put there where ever there was left over space in the engine compartment. By giving it more oxygen to breathe and maybe inject more fuel proportional to that oxygen, you can create more power out of the same displacement engine. Also I think they tweaked the engine to combust at a higher pressure, on the very edge of requiring premium fuel, but with anti-knock technology borrowed from the Acuras so your engine won't knock when using 87 octane gas. You can probably realize the added potential of the V6 by using premium fuel (probably bumps it up to 250hp). Ok, that's the best I can do, hard to explain it without using technical jargon.
I agree with maltbie to be very careful when inspecting a new car you're about to buy. But these defects are bound to be in a car. In consumer reports reviews of cars, they always have a blurb at the end about how many sample defects their test car had. And usually most cars had 1-3, rarely do I see a car with no defects, this includes Toyotas and Hondas.
I don't think the 'off-kilter' steering wheel is actually a defect - it's designed that way. It is quite common to have the steering wheel 'misaligned' like that. My old Audi A4 had a steering wheel like that, and both my '02 Odyssey and '97 Taurus have steering wheels that are not quite parallel to the dash. I have to say it doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is when they are not aligned with straight ahead steering i.e. when the wheels are lined up straight ahead the steering wheel is still slightly turned. Luckily its an easy fix for a service department.
although i see there are a quite big increase, but the peak RPM has been incerased a lot now at 6250rpm, that't pretty close to the 7000 redline there. i don't know about you guys but unless there is an emergency, i don't usually rev my car that high.
also the peak torque hasn't been increased a lot, only 20 lb-ft compare to last year's v6. which makes me wonder how does C&D(or was it somebody else?) got a better 0-60 number than altima, who has 246 lb-ft of torque.
The C&D 0-60 mph times were better than the altimas due to the Accord's 5-speed transmission compared to the Altima's 4speed. 5 speeds essentially gives the accord a better match of its torque curve to the speed and acceleration demanded by the driver. The accord could easily have the 1-3 gears have close ratio to keep the car's rpm in the peak torque range while it accelerates. But have wider spacing gears in the 4-5 gears to provide the better gas mileage at highway speeds.
An ideal car would have an engine that provides enough torque for quick acceleration and really tall 4/5 gear for highway cruising at < 2000 rpm to save fuel. Unfortunately when the rpms are that low, the engine runs the risk of stalling if the driver stomps on the gas to pass a car on the highway and the transmission doesn't downshift quick enough.
Comments
Let us make it Mercedes and BMW (M5) quirk as well. VW Passat has 60/40 split in lower models, but get on a 4Motion, and you get pass-through, no split. Lower Audis come with split rear seats, not A8, the highest Audi. Civic comes with split seats, not Accord (or TL). So, I guess, as cars get expensive, to keep the costs down, companies like BMW, Mercedes, Honda, VW, Audi start to not offer split seats. Interesting, isn't it?
BTW, it is always interesting to know that Camry and Altima garnered only 2 and 3 stars in the side impact crash tests, with their rigid bodies. It would be interesting to see how Accord does. My bet would be 5-stars.
By the way, since I've been shopping for the same car (probably the I4, though), I have been asking about the deals people have been making (purchase price, lease payments, etc.). If you're so inclined, please post the details of your deal.
Grand High Poobah
The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
I've got a split rear seat in my Ford and the one-piece unit in the Accord. The split is nice because I can leave the child seat on one side and put the other down if necessary. However, I've found really limited use for the fold down seat because what you can fit in the trunk is really defined by the depth and lenght of the decklid.
BTW, it is always interesting to know that Camry and Altima garnered only 2 and 3 stars in the side impact crash tests, with their rigid bodies. It would be interesting to see how Accord does. My bet would be 5-stars."
I didn't say it was a quirk exclusive to Honda, I said it was just a Honda quirk. Most midsize cars on this class have the split folding design. And, I didn't say cars WITHOUT a folding seat aren't more rigid, I said cars with a one-piece folding seat aren't more rigid than cars with the split folding design. A one-piece folding seat is not the same as NO folding seat. Most cars in the near-luxury and luxury class will have a pass-thru at best, and it's not to save costs, they just figure people in that market don't need it and don't care, or in some cases maybe they need the room for the AWD gear (4motion). Yes, the lack of a folding seat makes it easier to make the body more rigid, but a one-piece design offers no advantage over the split design in this respect. It's just cheaper to manufacture.
But look under the general honda accord and look at listing 5876 who leased a car if that is what you want to do...or #584 in CO who seems to have bought the car you are looking for....
Yes, I love the car. I'm so amazed with the feel of the car. Very substantial and super quick! This thing has effortless acceleration! So much so, that I'm already finding myself surprising others in traffic...which is good and bad. I've almost been run off the road twice because the other driver didn't think I could catch up to them as fast as I did...and I'm not trying to speed! Gotta keep my eye on the speedo a little more...
Great car!
-mdbaker1
Cheaper, only if it Honda. It is okay for Mercedes or Audi A8 to not have it, or BMW M5 to offer it as an 'option'.
Once again you have either unintentionally or intentionally misinterpreted what I said, and you edited your quote of my post to state something I did not say. So, I'll make it real clear:
- The one-piece folding rear seat is cheaper to manufacture than the split design.
- The one-piece folding rear seat design offers no structural advantages over the split folding design (despite what a Honda salespeople might tell you).
- A fixed reat seat is cheaper to manufacture than either of the folding designs. This is why cheaper cars don't have folding rear seats.
- For those more expensive (or AWD) cars that have a fixed rear seat (NOT FOLDING), this is obviously not done because it's cheaper (duh!). It is either because they don't think there's market demand for it or there is some structural reason (the car has AWD, or they want to make the chassis stiffer).
I don't know if you just don't get it or you're just messing with me. In either case, I think most people following this conversation DO get it, and are probably getting tired of it, as I am.
"- For those more expensive (or AWD) cars that have a fixed rear seat (NOT FOLDING), this is obviously not done because it's cheaper (duh!). It is either because they don't think there's market demand for it or there is some structural reason (the car has AWD, or they want to make the chassis stiffer)."
Sorry, but that's not obvious at all.
What's *obvious* is that every automaker in every segment is looking to cut costs and maximize profits.
Somewhere you've got an internal inconsistency. First you claim that fold-down seats offer no possible structural advantages (can't believe those Honda shills, they're just ripping you off) and then suggest that perhaps some (brands you like?) automakers don't offer fold-down seats in order to increase chassis stiffness- i.e. because non-folding seats can offer structural advantages. (You can hide a strut tower bar in the seat, etc.)
Which is it?
Hopefully Honda's marketing mavens can find a way to include stability control as an option like VW and Toyota have.
Speaking of choices - does anyone know what Accord models the side curtain air bags are available in? I read somewhere that it may be an option limited to EX V6s only. If that's the case, I really do hope Honda extends that option to all trim levels.
Thanks!
Not inconsistent at all.
A one-piece folding rear seat design offers no structural advantage over the split folding design, it's just cheaper to produce than the split design.
A non-folding (fixed) rear seat, however, offers some advantages to the manufacturer. It reduces cost in those models where that is a critical factor. In other models where cost is not as big of a factor (i.e. Acura), it may have other advantages. While the non-folding rear seat by itself doesn't offer any structural improvement (it doesn't in itself make the chassis stiffer), the absence of a large opening would make it easier to make the structural member behind the seat stiffer if that is a design goal.
- The one-piece folding rear seat is cheaper to manufacture than the split design.
Perhaps. I don't know how much it costs to make one-piece folding seat versus split design. Do you? Cost may be the reason BMW M5 has it as an option, not a standard feature. OTOH, you will get it as a standard feature in BMW 325.
- The one-piece folding rear seat design offers no structural advantages over the split folding design (despite what a Honda salespeople might tell you).
Well, sometimes it makes sense to believe people outside these forums. Could it be because of some reason besides cost? Nope, right? Since it is a Honda. But read on.
- A fixed reat seat is cheaper to manufacture than either of the folding designs. This is why cheaper cars don't have folding rear seats.
Cheaper cars like Civic?
- For those more expensive (or AWD) cars that have a fixed rear seat (NOT FOLDING), this is obviously not done because it's cheaper (duh!). It is either because they don't think there's market demand for it or there is some structural reason (the car has AWD, or they want to make the chassis stiffer).
Good point, but a good excuse as well. Perhaps an excuse we could use for Acura TL, a car that shares underpinnings with Accord. And unlike Accord, TL's rear seatback does not fold down. So you know where it is coming from. But better than either, that in civic, does!
thanks!
I remember reading a review of a new model car...forgot exactly which one, maybe the Lexus IS300, where they put crossmember beams behind the rear seats to improve structural rigidity, that leaves the back-seat unfoldable of course.
Also this reminded me of something I thought of one day, what if they could offer sedans where the entire rear trunk AND window opened as one piece, like in a coupe or hatchback, but then I realized it probably reduces the structural rigidity because of the entire open space, you'd get a lot more trunk room though, but it probably won't pass safety crash tests.
First you claim that *non*fold-down seats offer no possible structural advantages (can't believe those Honda shills, they're just ripping you off)
To quote:
"Not inconsistent at all.
A one-piece folding rear seat design offers no structural advantage over the split folding design, it's just cheaper to produce than the split design."
Which explains why the Civic has split folding rear seats.
"A non-folding (fixed) rear seat, however, offers some advantages to the manufacturer. It reduces cost in those models where that is a critical factor."
For the Civic to have split folding rear seats and the Accord (a more expensive car) to not, this would suggest that there is some other reason...
"In other models where cost is not as big of a factor (i.e. Acura), it may have other advantages. While the non-folding rear seat by itself doesn't offer any structural improvement (it doesn't in itself make the chassis stiffer), the absence of a large opening would make it easier to make the structural member behind the seat stiffer if that is a design goal. "
Indeed. Here we come full circle. You suggest non-folding rear seats might be by design, to allow the use of a chassis stiffener member. By your own reasoning, the reason is unlikely to be cost because a cheaper Honda car has split-folding rear seats.
So, why insist you can't believe those dishonest Honda salesmen when they say on some models the non-folding rear seats might be by design, to allow improved chassis stiffness?
Not like it's a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it just sticks out at me that you've selected one manufacturer and one particular model to single out for criticism, despite your own reasoning.
Hey, but what about that TV commercial on the 03 Accord where it runs for cover before a swarm of spies on jet aircraft trying to take pictures of it ? Well, when something is THAT UGLY, it'd better hide from the rest of the world FAST !
No, I said a Honda salesperson might say that the ONE-PIECE FOLDING rear seat (such as on the Accord) is structurally better than the split folding design, when it's really not. Once again you've misquoted me (but I doubt that will surprize anyone).
Oh wait, I get it, this is a game. You misquote me, and then wait and see if I can catch it! How clever!
Hey, but what about that TV commercial on the 03 Accord where it runs for cover before a swarm of spies on jet aircraft trying to take pictures of it ? Well, when something is THAT UGLY, it'd better hide from the rest of the world FAST !
Regards,
Mark.
Everyone knows that the accord is the greatest car in the universe.
i would gladly pay 7k over sticker or sell my family to own one of the modern marvels of technology!!! i heard these accords are being compared to Rolls Royce and Ferrari!!!
How dare you insult Honda!!!! Mere mortals should not even mention the name!!
Hail HOnda!!!
Not bad. High residual and low interest come into play here.
INKY
Whatever....
Seriously, we're not turning this topic in to a Mazda 6 v Honda Accord discussion. This topic is for folks who are genuinely interested in getting information on the upcoming 2003 Accord, not to hash out whose personal preference has more merit.
kirstie_h
Roving Host & Future Vehicles Host
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
The other, more serious, problem is a defective steering wheel/column. It appears that the whole steering column is a few degrees off-kilter. The result is that when holding the wheel at the 3 and 9 o'clock position, the left side of the steering wheel is further out from the dash board than the right side. My dealer acknowledged the problem this morning but said there was nothing they could do. They said they compared it with other 2003 Accords on the lot and that all of the them were the same way.
As you can imagine, I am not happy about this and will be pursuing a resolution to the problem with Honda.
Potential 2003 Accord buyers should be especially vigilant in examining their cars for these and other defects prior to signing any purchase or lease contracts.
I agree with maltbie to be very careful when inspecting a new car you're about to buy. But these defects are bound to be in a car. In consumer reports reviews of cars, they always have a blurb at the end about how many sample defects their test car had. And usually most cars had 1-3, rarely do I see a car with no defects, this includes Toyotas and Hondas.
also the peak torque hasn't been increased a lot, only 20 lb-ft compare to last year's v6. which makes me wonder how does C&D(or was it somebody else?) got a better 0-60 number than altima, who has 246 lb-ft of torque.
An ideal car would have an engine that provides enough torque for quick acceleration and really tall 4/5 gear for highway cruising at < 2000 rpm to save fuel. Unfortunately when the rpms are that low, the engine runs the risk of stalling if the driver stomps on the gas to pass a car on the highway and the transmission doesn't downshift quick enough.