The 2003 owners manual specifies 5W-20W motor oil, whereas all of the major brands offer only a 5W-30W. Does anyone know of a source for the 5W-20W weight oil? Also, has anyone with an 03 EX noticed a "whistling" noise when the moon roof is in the tilt-up position and the car is traveling above 45MPH?
Anonymousposts - Interior is easy to upgrade. Exterior is not ! Nissan can upgrade the Altima's interior the next day if they want to. But I don't think they are in a hurry since the new Altima is meeting its sales objective. The "war" with the Accord is an incremental one, one battle at a time. Like I said before, if not for the Altima, the Accord would never have a 240hp engine. So don't be too harsh on it. Furthermore, the likes of Nissan, Mazda and VW are going after generation Xers and Yers (aka The Future) while Honda is still catering to remnants of the baby boom generation. Since they screwed up the latest Civic design, Honda has been fighting for its dear life in the "appealing to young buyers" dept. Honda may still sell +400k Accords per yr now, but the future doesn't look good. And Honda knows this ! Nissan, Mazda and VW are very successful in getting the message across to buyers that they are the companies that have hip and fun to drive vehicles. Finally, all Honda 4 cyl VTECs are buzz bombs, OK ?? You need to rev the hell out of the engine to get any juice. And there's absolutely very little torque at the bottom end....very useful on race tracks, but useless on city streets.
Robertsmx & Anonymousposts - I never said other companies don't manipulate consumers. I said Honda does a very good job at it.
Well, it's been good hearing from you all. I think I'll put my Honda blinders back on and take my 90000 miles Altima for a spin along the beach now. Geez, when is this thing gonna break down ? It's almost as reliable as a......Honda ! Nah !!
What should Honda do to upgrade the exterior of the Accord? Looks are subjective .. feel is not. You may not like the Accords looks but anyone who sits inside an Altima can FEEL the cheapness. And there's nothing you can do about the cheapness. Are you going to put some cheap woodgrain inside .. oh Nissan already does that. You can't put soft touch materials on the interior of a car. You can change the looks of the Accord with fog lights, spoiler, tint, and wheels. And just as you say that Nissan can put soft touch materials on the Altima tomorrow, Honda could easily change the exterior of the Accord. But why would they? The Accord already has one of the best interiors in it's class. I see the inside of my car way more than I see the outside. Maybe Nissan will come out with a companion cart for the Altima so it's owners can sit outside the car and not be subjected to it's insides.
I also can't believe anyone who owns a previous generation Altima would call the Type S engine, or any Honda 4 cylinder engine, a buzz bomb. The 2.4L engine in the old Altima was known for it's buziness along with the 2.0L G20 engine. Honda engines, especially the Accord, have always been applauded for their smooth characteristics even when revving up to 8,000-9,000 in the Si and S2000.
Here's what Edmunds had to say about the 98 Altima's 2.4L engine. "Other complaints included the smashed-looking stout rear of the car, the lack of interesting color options for '98 (too many "putrid" earth tones), and its "buzzy engine." We were also disappointed that the Altima didn't have ABS since it is standard on many competing models."
Here's what they had to say about the RSX's engine. "Both the RSX and RSX Type-S feature new 2.0-liter four-cylinder engines with four valves per cylinder and dual overhead camshafts. Like most Honda and Acura engines, they are amazingly smooth and high-revving."
And saying that Honda's future doesn't look good sounds like a Ms. Cleo psychic reading. There isn't much truth to it unless it's something that you want to hear. Honda is putting up better and better numbers every year.
For the record, I'm a young person, 25 yrs old & single and I'm planning on getting my next car within a year, I'm considering the accord & mazda6, (leaning towards accord though because mazda's association with Ford, which are not known for making good high-level decisions in the auto-industry, plus mazda does not have as a solid reliability record as Honda and the 6 is a brand new model instead of a redesign). I'm not even considering Nissan since their initial quality is suffering lately according to some magazines, and their styling is so-so (except maybe for the new altima & 350Z)
The 2003 accord along with the RSX & CRV have the new i-VTEC engine, which has enough low-end torque, unlike previous generation VTEC engines where you have to rev it higher to get the boost. But then again some people like the high-revving sounds of Honda VTEC engines.
deluxcar says: "The NEW Accord is a bloated overpriced and staid sedan designed for the over 55 crowd".
Except for overpriced (also staid sedan is a little harsh), I agree 100%. Honda has tried to put a big spin out about "passion" and attracting younger buyers away from the Passat etc. I think they're getting very concerned about losing a lot of younger buyers with the new Civic, and the new Accord is probably going to make that situation worse. Their spin isn't going to help one bit. Honda will definitely sell more than 400K Accords every year, but IMHO the 03 Accord demographics will show a big shift to the older buyer.
Call me a Honda basher, but I'm a Honda owner and anticipate that my next car will be a Honda Stream or Acura TSX.
I am one of the people who enjoys the rush of the old Vtec sound. Especially with a cold air intake like we have on our other SI. But on the same hand it's nice to get in my 02 and just cruise around with some extra low-end torque. But even the 00 Si's engine is smooth as glass even at 8000 RPM.
The Accord is overall just a better value and better choice, but I hear for the 2004 or 2005 MY, Nissan is heavily upgraded the interior because the Maxima gets a full redesign. Expect new stuff like power passenger's seats, a new top line model, MUCH better interior materials, etc.
The 6 is nice looking .. as long as Mazda leaves out the clear tail lights and gives it a nice interior. I hope they don't go the way of the Altima and spend all the design money on the outside.
Did they improve the materials used? If so, what exactly did they change? My aunt's Altima is nice but the interior is all hard, sharp plastic. The velour cloth covering the seats and door panels is nice, though. My Accord's interior isn't perfect but the only hard plastic is found on the pillars and the very top of the dash and in the center console. Everything else is soft-touch vinyl including the majority of the dash and the door panels. The interior is what turned me away from the Altima when I bought my Accord but I'm interested to hear how much the Altima's interior has changed for 2003.
They just added some titanium-looking trim pieces to the dash, which look EVEN tackier than last year. Instead of the panel with the radio and the stereo being one piece, it's now two pieces, which looks tacky because of the gap between the pieces. The new armrest is nice though. It's actually leather-covered now if you get leather upholstery. The materials remain unchanged. I don't like the cloth upholstery in the Accord or the Altima. The both look kind of cheap compared to the new Camry's cloth. Overall though, the Accord beats them both in interior materials and quality.
The Altima's interior isn't improved at all. They did add some soft-touch stuff to the door panels but it's only in one spot and even though the armrest materials are improved the thing still feels cheap when you open and close it.
That is new corporate weight for Honda and Ford. Penzoil, amsoil, Castrol, Motorcraft, Valvoline all have 5w20 oils. I live in hot OK and think 5w30 is pushing it. However, Honda says 5w20 and that is what I will use. I use 5w30 in my Acura MDX because book says you can. Benefits of 5w20 is slightly higher mpg and good winter start up. There may however be a long term wear effect. It stands to reason, that longevity of engine mechanicals may suffer. I have no data and no one will ever run a test and publish it. I really think 5w20 was a ploy to raise CAFE by .5 mpg. If that is true then they are not looking out for our long term needs. INKY
That's an interesting theory Inky. It sounds plausible, but I'd like to think that Honda tested the new i-VTEC engines and found it to be more reliable since it is a more modern design and can get away with 5w20 oil. If Honda was trying to raise its CAFE standards then it probably wouldn't recommend 10k miles between oil changes, they probably would have stuck with previous generation figures.
The fact that they recommend 5w20 oil AND raised the oil change interval makes me think the new engines are indeed more reliable and efficient in the long run. But I may be too optimistic here.
Typically automobile manufacturers move to a lower weight oil as engine tolerances grow smaller. The spaces between the moving parts is smaller, therefore a lighter weight (thinner) oil is required to provide adequate lubrication.
The EPA only test vehicles with new oil, therefore oil change interval is irrelevant.
The cold flow characteristics of oil is determined by it's xW number, thus, 5W flows better cold than 10... BUT this does not effect EPA MPG test much as that is done at operating temp.
The loses that occur from the extra work of pumping W30 oil vs W20 oil MIGHT account for AS MUCH AS .5 MPG...
I doubt the manufacturing tolerance would PRECLUDE use of 10W30 oil, however the DECREASED wear at cold start & INCREASED MPG do seem to make sense...
The Accord is not the first Honda to have this spec, but it will likely be the highest volume vehicle. I do not think that Honda would risk increased engine wear/possible warranty claims unless they were darn sure that 5W2) will be FINE until AT LEAST 100K (the longest extended warranty available from the factory, albeight at extra cost...)
The S2000's, RSX, and SI's also use 5W/20. Just make sure you keep an eye on the oil level. The W/20 is a thinner oil so it is more likely to burn, especially when the car is breaking in.
In-dash MP3 Player, that's so cool! I realize one disc will only hold 60 or so songs and the in-dash changer will hold that or more across 6 audio discs, but still MP3 players usually display the ID3 info which is even better.
Does anyone know if the Honda MP3 player will display ID3 info via the head unit?
I have only seen one on the road and I drove by a dealership and only saw 2 sedans and 1 coupe out front along with dozens of 2003 and 2002 Civics and a few 2002 Accords. I wonder what the hold up is? I saw more Infiniti G35s on the road in the first weeks of its release than this new Accrd.
I sat in an 03 LX last week. I see the power port is now inside the console for charging phones. What if one needs to use it for another accessory that is needed outside the console (ie radar detector? Does the cord have to stretch from the windshield to the console?
I have seen one accord with the MP3 player installed, but since I didn't expect it see it, I didn't take my MP3 CD ( 148 songs by the way ) with me.
I asked if they had a MP3 CD to test the system, but the salesperson didn't know where it was. I heard that the player supports ID3, but no proof so far that the ID3 tags will be displayed on the head unit ( it should ), I will check it out next time I see one installed. I also heard a rumor that xenons may be an option for the 04 or 05 accord.
Xenons are options on many cars sold in Germany, France including the Ford Mondeo, Passat (all versions), Golf, Jetta/Bora, Vectra(Saturn LS cousin), some Hondas
I had been driving Hondas for over 12 years. I recently left Honda because I wanted a van/suv and Honda was too proud of their van and Suv for me to spring for one. The new CRV was ugly. I traded off a 94 Accord. I wondered what the new ones would look like, but traded anyway 4 months ago. Well, I just took a look at the 2003 Accord. I am UNimpressed! Honda really needs to get some folks that can design a nice looking car, they seem to be going backwards. I guess if they run their 4-5 year cycle, I won't be getting one next time I need a new vehicle. That is too bad, they make a good reliable car, but just can't seem to get up to date on design and features. Also, the guy in a previous post said that the Altima had a cheap feel inside. I, too, found that to be the case when I was shopping. The Altima, is however, a much better looking car than the new Accord!
I respect your opinion however I disagree. I like the styling of the new Accord. I think the new Altima is an improvement over previous designs but I still think it is unattractive.
I agree--better looking than last model? Probably. For years now, new Hondas have looked awful to me early on, and after some exposure, they grow on me and I like them better and better.
The new accord definitely falls in the awful category right now--but I won't be suprized if it grows on me over time. (I do find the contraversial rear-end to look quite nice and nearly Italian in appearance) The front still looks like the Salamander-Captain in 'Return of the Jedi' (BUT less so than the Taurus)
I think the new accord's look has depth, ie, at one angle it looks curvey, and at the other, it looks funny, and yet at another, it looks muscular, so it will grow on you, no matter what your inclination is. That is how a car manufacturer does to its bread-and-butter car to maximize its mass appeal. Do you realize that 80% of the time, the angle where you approach your car is at 7 O'Clock, when you car nose points at 12. From that angle, the accord just looks spectacular, it even strecths its eyes(headlight) towards the side for you to see...
I agree with you that the 2003 Accord is all hype and unremarkable.
After weeks of waiting in anticipation I went to the dealership expecting to see a new Accord ushering us into the new millennium. What I saw instead was a car designed by a committee, having all the accoutrements (i.e. cup holders, heated seats, NAV, etc.) but no refinement or sophistication. In short, bland, boring and plain vanilla.
Say what you will about the exterior, but I found the interior to be among the best out there. Equal to the Passat in terms of materials, but better ergonomiclly.
I have had my 03 Accord almost a month and it is better than ever. I parked next to a Lexus ES300 at Walgreens and side by side the cars were very comparable. We rented a 2002 Camry on a trip this weekend and talk about boring! There was nothing exciting about the interior or exterior. Honda designs their cars so they maintain their value and style. I just sold my 95 Accord EX for $8200.00. The car still looked current 8 years later and what other manufacturer can boast a resale like that.
I'm was a big fan of Honda/Acura but this latest Accord is ugly. The interior is actually pretty nice.
I went to the dealership to check it out and I just can't get past the droopy tail lights. I figure it might look better on the road, but it looks just as bad.
The side panels have a diagonal crease much like what is seen on the Nissan Altima. The back lights look like someone rear ended the car and caused the bumper to droop. You could rear end a 2002 model and get a 2003 design.
So far, I've only seen 1 2003 new accord on the road. The person that redesigned the new Accord should be fired.
How come cars from Germany and Italy look so much better than cars from Japan? Does it really cost that much to build a good looking car. Hyundai's 03 Tiburon copied mostly from the Ferrari 456GT. Why can't Honda do that?
I was thinking about getting an Accord as my next daily driver, but its just too ugly.
The designers claim that they were inspired by a cheetah I believe. Thats exactly what inspired the designers to create the current Infiniti Q45.
The Q45 is a very slow seller right now and you can one well below sticker. I see the Accord going the same direction.
I hope they do a better job with the new Acura RLs and Acura NSXs, otherwise I'm going to get my next cars from Lexus/Toyota.
former Accord owner former Integra owner current RL owner current NSX owner
Infiniti claims that a cheeta is the inspiration for the new FX45 crossover SUV, not the Q45. Anyway, its a dumb suggestion. I too noticed the similarities betweent the front 3/4 of the Alima and Accord.
Sure, it's not the flashiest or prettiest car out there, but it's probably the best overall car out there for it's price. I'm also not looking at the otside of the car when I drive it. The interior is more important to me. i like that the exterior is bland. I don't want to stand out in a crowd and be noticed. If I want that, then I'll get the bright yellow Lexus or something like that.
To me it's really unfortunate... for its family sedan class, the new Accord has a good interior, good mechanical quality, reliabiilty, even a good drive (relatively). The engines and 5 speed auto are all class-leading. I was fully intended to get one for my dairly drive.
Walking around the exterior, I summon all my will power to try to like it, even if not now, maybe they would still look fine couple of years later like the previous 3 generations (1990 to 2002) have been to date.
As of now, I don't like the odds of that. I know it's superficial, but the outside look is really a big part of buying decision for many. This really kills it for me. Too bad.
You do not like it....thats it. The public reaction is mostly favourable. This new design looks different in different colors. To me the car looks splendid except for the taillights which are now growing on me. This time HOnda has reduced rear leg room an an inch & given it to front side ! Good actually given that rear seats are empty most of the time.
2002 has 1 inch more legroom in the rear seat!!
If I had the cash I would have traded my 2000 Accord immediately after initial rush was over. The black looks majestic !!
looks great from several angles and just inoffensive from others. Its not a great design like Passat. But, I wouldn't be embarrased driving it either. The quality of the interior and the value for the $$$ off-sets my concerns about the exterior.
I am anxious to compare the Mazda6 and the new Accord. By all accounts, the new Mazda6 is going to be something special for a segment of the mid-size sedan market. I feel the same about the Mazda6's exterior as I do about the Accords. Good, but not great. I do have more reservations about the interior design, however. The truth will be in the driving...
I've seen a lot of ugly pictures of the 2003 sedan online, but I saw one in person and only the side profile doesn't look that great to me and even that is not so bad as to dismiss the car based on that. The rear looks more like an Alfa than a Saturn in real life. I don't have to force myself to like it. A Passat still looks better, but not enough better for me buy one for more money.
I was personally in love with the Altima's exterior design. I didn't like the Accord's look from the pictures, but when I saw it in person, it grew on me.
Everyone has their personal taste. But the value, quality and the interior thoroughness far outweigh any dislike over the outside. Hey, what car is perfect?
As someone mentioned before, you spend more time inside than out. I have a long commute, so the time I spend inside is very much enjoyed now (plus my fiance likes it!).
I was reading an issue of Top Gear last night and saw another picture of the new VW Pheaton. The C-pillar of the new Accord and the VW are very similar, particuarly the rear edge of the back window. Weird. (almost as weird as a $60,000 VW)
One thing the new Accord could have used was that BWM angle at the base of the rear side windows. All the Accords pre 1998 had it, and I think it would have looked good on this design too.
I agree most of the new accord angles look good except maybe the rear, but even that is kind of growing on me now. I was driving behind a 03 accord on the hwy the other day for a couple of miles before I had to exit. It was a light blue color and looking at the rear, I can't help but think that the car is smiling. Hard to dislike a car that smiles at you
A side note on looks and how well it holds up, I think the accords have held up over the generations well. I remember not liking the 98-02 generation accords when they first came out, and now it actually looks better than some other models from the same time. I also remember the Audi A4 looked really good when it first came out, now I think it's bland and doesn't have much going for it. Consumer tastes in styling change over time, sometimes they go back to classic designs. It's like fashion, what's in today may not be in tomorrow, what's in tomorrow may not be in today. I think the new accord is a trend setter rather than a follower.
There were a lot of things wrong about the 2001 Civic redesign. Now everybody knows about the suspension but the front one performs better than the rear double wishbone. I am glad they didn't screw-up Accord's suspension. Previous 98+ Accord to be honest was more buttoned down & sporty feeling than the passat. Interior execution was terrific but quality of materials was a bit better in passat but now it is very close. technology: Accord was & is using more sophisticated technology than Passat. They didn't need to put spice in 98 but they nneeded now...& they did.
Just that every time I ride in Civic I see several things worng with it. 1.8 Liter engine 10+hp/lb-ft in every trim. Suspension etc. Material quality is much better than the prev generation though.
A Civic that has had the cylinders bored and upsized the pistons, or i guess you could lengthen the stroke with a different crankshaft. With all that work I would probably try to increase the displacement to 2 litres. Or you could just transplant an Acura Integra engine. Thats what a lot of guys do. With the Integra engine you get DOHC VTEC, now thats the real deal.
I agree with you on Civic. Actually, I think something that would be good for Civic would be, 1.6 liter iVTEC engine, ~120 HP DX/LX 2.0 liter iVTEC engine, ~160 HP EX/Si 2.0 liter iVTEC engine, ~200 HP SiR
They look nice, better than the sedan actually. The dealership I went to had 4 coupes total. Three EX models and one LXV6. I LOVE the LXV6. Those chrome tailpipes look GREAT! The styling is very fluid looking. Two were Graphite Pearl (EX and LXV6) That color is good looking. The San Marino Red was in the back, but that color is good looking too. The other EX was Taffeta White. I really really want the EX model. Prices aren't that bad either.
I also saw the coupe today (in sapphire blue) and I think I like the sedan better. Maybe my opinion will change when I see more colors.
Test drove a 5-speed EX sedan today and LOVED it. That stick is like butter, as is the engine. It's alot quieter and smoother than the 99 EX 5-speed I used to have. Will probably buy an EX-L 5-speed around Christmas or early in 03 when they are ready to deal on them a little more.
Initially was going to get inline 4 but ended up getting V6 instead.
I had $900 off the MSRP.
One question though is that I had this paint protection of sort that is added to the options on my car, which costs about 600 bucks.
The dealer said that the option cannot be removed from my car, because it's already coming with it from the factory. Is that true?
I am worried if I am getting something that is not necessary at all.
Also, how much should TTL be? Mine was like 1500 (or bit more) for TTL. (dont remember exact numbers)
All said and done, I signed for a little over 25k including TTL and some options like tinting, paint protection, mud guards, etc. (The 25k includes trade-in (450) and discount (900) as well as TTL.)
Paint protectant is added at the dealer, not from the factory. If it was added at the factory they would have to put it on the sticker but since it's dealer added it was probably on an addendum. The Accords I looked at had the protectant package on it for $595 but I think it's a rip-off.
Your sales tax will depend on your county or state tax rate.
Comments
Anonymousposts - Interior is easy to upgrade. Exterior is not ! Nissan can upgrade the Altima's interior the next day if they want to. But I don't think they are in a hurry since the new Altima is meeting its sales objective. The "war" with the Accord is an incremental one, one battle at a time. Like I said before, if not for the Altima, the Accord would never have a 240hp engine. So don't be too harsh on it. Furthermore, the likes of Nissan, Mazda and VW are going after generation Xers and Yers (aka The Future) while Honda is still catering to remnants of the baby boom generation. Since they screwed up the latest Civic design, Honda has been fighting for its dear life in the "appealing to young buyers" dept. Honda may still sell +400k Accords per yr now, but the future doesn't look good. And Honda knows this ! Nissan, Mazda and VW are very successful in getting the message across to buyers that they are the companies that have hip and fun to drive vehicles. Finally, all Honda 4 cyl VTECs are buzz bombs, OK ?? You need to rev the hell out of the engine to get any juice. And there's absolutely very little torque at the bottom end....very useful on race tracks, but useless on city streets.
Robertsmx & Anonymousposts - I never said other companies don't manipulate consumers. I said Honda does a very good job at it.
Well, it's been good hearing from you all. I think I'll put my Honda blinders back on and take my 90000 miles Altima for a spin along the beach now. Geez, when is this thing gonna break down ? It's almost as reliable as a......Honda ! Nah !!
I also can't believe anyone who owns a previous generation Altima would call the Type S engine, or any Honda 4 cylinder engine, a buzz bomb. The 2.4L engine in the old Altima was known for it's buziness along with the 2.0L G20 engine. Honda engines, especially the Accord, have always been applauded for their smooth characteristics even when revving up to 8,000-9,000 in the Si and S2000.
Here's what Edmunds had to say about the 98 Altima's 2.4L engine.
"Other complaints included the smashed-looking stout rear of the car, the lack of interesting color options for '98 (too many "putrid" earth tones), and its "buzzy engine." We were also disappointed that the Altima didn't have ABS since it is standard on many competing models."
Here's what they had to say about the RSX's engine.
"Both the RSX and RSX Type-S feature new 2.0-liter four-cylinder engines with four valves per cylinder and dual overhead camshafts. Like most Honda and Acura engines, they are amazingly smooth and high-revving."
And saying that Honda's future doesn't look good sounds like a Ms. Cleo psychic reading. There isn't much truth to it unless it's something that you want to hear. Honda is putting up better and better numbers every year.
The 2003 accord along with the RSX & CRV have the new i-VTEC engine, which has enough low-end torque, unlike previous generation VTEC engines where you have to rev it higher to get the boost. But then again some people like the high-revving sounds of Honda VTEC engines.
Except for overpriced (also staid sedan is a little harsh), I agree 100%. Honda has tried to put a big spin out about "passion" and attracting younger buyers away from the Passat etc. I think they're getting very concerned about losing a lot of younger buyers with the new Civic, and the new Accord is probably going to make that situation worse. Their spin isn't going to help one bit. Honda will definitely sell more than 400K Accords every year, but IMHO the 03 Accord demographics will show a big shift to the older buyer.
Call me a Honda basher, but I'm a Honda owner and anticipate that my next car will be a Honda Stream or Acura TSX.
Penzoil, amsoil, Castrol, Motorcraft, Valvoline all have 5w20 oils. I live in hot OK and think 5w30 is pushing it. However, Honda says 5w20 and that is what I will use. I use 5w30 in my Acura MDX because book says you can. Benefits of 5w20 is slightly higher mpg and good winter start up. There may however be a long term wear effect. It stands to reason, that longevity of engine mechanicals may suffer. I have no data and no one will ever run a test and publish it. I really think 5w20 was a ploy to raise CAFE by .5 mpg.
If that is true then they are not looking out for our long term needs.
INKY
The fact that they recommend 5w20 oil AND raised the oil change interval makes me think the new engines are indeed more reliable and efficient in the long run. But I may be too optimistic here.
The cold flow characteristics of oil is determined by it's xW number, thus, 5W flows better cold than 10... BUT this does not effect EPA MPG test much as that is done at operating temp.
The loses that occur from the extra work of pumping W30 oil vs W20 oil MIGHT account for AS MUCH AS .5 MPG...
I doubt the manufacturing tolerance would PRECLUDE use of 10W30 oil, however the DECREASED wear at cold start & INCREASED MPG do seem to make sense...
The Accord is not the first Honda to have this spec, but it will likely be the highest volume vehicle. I do not think that Honda would risk increased engine wear/possible warranty claims unless they were darn sure that 5W2) will be FINE until AT LEAST 100K (the longest extended warranty available from the factory, albeight at extra cost...)
Does anyone know if the Honda MP3 player will display ID3 info via the head unit?
I wonder what the hold up is?
I saw more Infiniti G35s on the road in the first weeks of its release than this new Accrd.
I asked if they had a MP3 CD to test the system, but the salesperson didn't know where it was. I heard that the player supports ID3, but no proof so far that the ID3 tags will be displayed on the head unit ( it should ), I will check it out next time I see one installed. I also heard a rumor that xenons may be an option for the 04 or 05 accord.
Xenons are options on many cars sold in Germany, France including the Ford Mondeo, Passat (all versions), Golf, Jetta/Bora, Vectra(Saturn LS cousin), some Hondas
I guess if they run their 4-5 year cycle, I won't be getting one next time I need a new vehicle. That is too bad, they make a good reliable car, but just can't seem to get up to date on design and features. Also, the guy in a previous post said that the Altima had a cheap feel inside. I, too, found that to be the case when I was shopping. The Altima, is however, a much better looking car than the new Accord!
I agree--better looking than last model? Probably. For years now, new Hondas have looked awful to me early on, and after some exposure, they grow on me and I like them better and better.
The new accord definitely falls in the awful category right now--but I won't be suprized if it grows on me over time. (I do find the contraversial rear-end to look quite nice and nearly Italian in appearance) The front still looks like the Salamander-Captain in 'Return of the Jedi' (BUT less so than the Taurus)
Glub, glub!
I agree with you that the 2003 Accord is all hype and unremarkable.
After weeks of waiting in anticipation I went to the dealership expecting to see a new Accord ushering us into the new millennium. What I saw instead was a car designed by a committee, having all the accoutrements (i.e. cup holders, heated seats, NAV, etc.) but no refinement or sophistication. In short, bland, boring and plain vanilla.
I went to the dealership to check it out and I just can't get past the droopy tail lights. I figure it might look better on the road, but it looks just as bad.
The side panels have a diagonal crease much like what is seen on the Nissan Altima. The back lights look like someone rear ended the car and caused the bumper to droop. You could rear end a 2002 model and get a 2003 design.
So far, I've only seen 1 2003 new accord on the road. The person that redesigned the new Accord should be fired.
How come cars from Germany and Italy look so much better than cars from Japan? Does it really cost that much to build a good looking car. Hyundai's 03 Tiburon copied mostly from the Ferrari 456GT. Why can't Honda do that?
I was thinking about getting an Accord as my next daily driver, but its just too ugly.
The designers claim that they were inspired by a cheetah I believe. Thats exactly what inspired the designers to create the current Infiniti Q45.
The Q45 is a very slow seller right now and you can one well below sticker. I see the Accord going the same direction.
I hope they do a better job with the new Acura RLs and Acura NSXs, otherwise I'm going to get my next cars from Lexus/Toyota.
former Accord owner
former Integra owner
current RL owner
current NSX owner
The sidekick is 'Nien Nunb' <http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/niennunb/>
Come to think of it neither really look like a Taurus, but they both have aerodynamic qualities, now don't they?
Walking around the exterior, I summon all my will power to try to like it, even if not now, maybe they would still look fine couple of years later like the previous 3 generations (1990 to 2002) have been to date.
As of now, I don't like the odds of that. I know it's superficial, but the outside look is really a big part of buying decision for many. This really kills it for me. Too bad.
2002 has 1 inch more legroom in the rear seat!!
If I had the cash I would have traded my 2000 Accord immediately after initial rush was over. The black looks majestic !!
I am anxious to compare the Mazda6 and the new Accord. By all accounts, the new Mazda6 is going to be something special for a segment of the mid-size sedan market. I feel the same about the Mazda6's exterior as I do about the Accords. Good, but not great. I do have more reservations about the interior design, however. The truth will be in the driving...
A Passat still looks better, but not enough better for me buy one for more money.
Everyone has their personal taste. But the value, quality and the interior thoroughness far outweigh any dislike over the outside. Hey, what car is perfect?
As someone mentioned before, you spend more time inside than out. I have a long commute, so the time I spend inside is very much enjoyed now (plus my fiance likes it!).
One thing the new Accord could have used was that BWM angle at the base of the rear side windows. All the Accords pre 1998 had it, and I think it would have looked good on this design too.
A side note on looks and how well it holds up, I think the accords have held up over the generations well. I remember not liking the 98-02 generation accords when they first came out, and now it actually looks better than some other models from the same time. I also remember the Audi A4 looked really good when it first came out, now I think it's bland and doesn't have much going for it. Consumer tastes in styling change over time, sometimes they go back to classic designs. It's like fashion, what's in today may not be in tomorrow, what's in tomorrow may not be in today. I think the new accord is a trend setter rather than a follower.
Just that every time I ride in Civic I see several things worng with it. 1.8 Liter engine 10+hp/lb-ft in every trim. Suspension etc. Material quality is much better than the prev generation though.
With all that work I would probably try to increase the displacement to 2 litres. Or you
could just transplant an Acura Integra engine.
Thats what a lot of guys do. With the Integra
engine you get DOHC VTEC, now thats the real deal.
1.6 liter iVTEC engine, ~120 HP DX/LX
2.0 liter iVTEC engine, ~160 HP EX/Si
2.0 liter iVTEC engine, ~200 HP SiR
Test drove a 5-speed EX sedan today and LOVED it. That stick is like butter, as is the engine. It's alot quieter and smoother than the 99 EX 5-speed I used to have. Will probably buy an EX-L 5-speed around Christmas or early in 03 when they are ready to deal on them a little more.
I had $900 off the MSRP.
One question though is that I had this paint protection of sort that is added to the options on my car, which costs about 600 bucks.
The dealer said that the option cannot be removed from my car, because it's already coming with it from the factory. Is that true?
I am worried if I am getting something that is not necessary at all.
Also, how much should TTL be? Mine was like 1500 (or bit more) for TTL. (dont remember exact numbers)
All said and done, I signed for a little over 25k including TTL and some options like tinting, paint protection, mud guards, etc. (The 25k includes trade-in (450) and discount (900) as well as TTL.)
Your sales tax will depend on your county or state tax rate.