By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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.