I was at my local Honda dealer this evening dropping my son off to pick up his Accord from service, wandered into the showroom, and was told by a salesperson that they expect 2003 Accords by late August.
Get a copy of the September 2002 issue of AMI Auto World magazine. On pages 18 and 19 there is a beautiful two-page spread photo of the new Accord along with a three-page review article. This is definitely Honda's best family sedan far surpassing both the Acura TL and RL.
Among the many features is a voice activated DVD navigation system and a 240 hp SOHC V6 engine.
If you look very closely, on the second picture of the Accord coupe you get a blurry view of the front end, BUT in the background by the white tent there is a silver Pilot and a dark grey sedan that might be the '04 TL? It looks sorta like the current TL, but the tail-lights are different from the '03. Check it out.
I doubt we will see pics of the new TL just yet. Maybe in a couple of months, after all of the "NEW Accord" passion has died down, and the car is sitting at your nearest Honda dealership. I'll definately be at Vic Bailey Honda AND Dick Brooks Honda this coming Monday.
Yup, the Gray car in the picture next to the HOnda Pilot is the 2002 3.2TL Type-S. There is no way Honda would leak out pics of the upcoming TL like that. At the most right now, you would see camofloughed TL's.
First, car's styling, front and rear, couldn't be uglier! If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, than a Suzuki Aerio is blushing somewhere!
But besides it's Lurch-type jawline, it is super-fast (o-60 in 6.6!), matching the Altima in time and power (240HP). The 5-speed Auto helps greatly here, since it lacks the Altima's torque.
I believe it has the Lexus-derived car-off blacked-out guage cluster, and titl-telscope steering. Still a 14 cube trunk (?)!
Thumbs down here. I haven't even gotten to the coupes lack of style yet!
Also, from the pics, did the the interior look any better than the current Accord's interior? I like the current car's interior too. Do the materials match the new Passat? Thanks
I still say, the car in the pictures I posted in #157 doesn't look like a current TL to me. The current TL doesn't have chrome on the rear bumper and tail-lights like the one in that picture does.
That is definitely the 2002 TL by looking at the C pillar and rear design. That chrome you see is a reflection of light. The tail lights are those of a 2002 although visually they seem to have more white...just an illusion.
YUK YUK YUK. I didn't think honda could make a generic car look even more generic. The greenhouse is identical to the camry, the nose is BLAH and the tail looks like the old one as seen through distored glass. I've owned Hondas for years, but they have totally LOST IT when it comes to styling. I mean, they're kidding right? This one is a stinker.
... who likes the new Accord? I think it looks decent. The front looks a bit too much like my '97 model, but I've always thought the 96-97 front was better than the current one. The black Accord on Temple of VTech (http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=26225) is rather sharp, I think. The two-door has a slight Prelude look to it from the front (picture on upper left). I like it. This youngin' (25) wouldn't mind having one, even if all my friends are buying Altimas and Jettas right now. If only I had the cash for a V6....
Interesting. The new Accord Coupe, w/V-6 and 6-spd, will supposedly list for about 27 grand. But we have a problem. I can easily walk down to my Infiniti dealer, throw down the same chunk of change, and drive away in a much sexier-and faster-automobile...the G35 Coupe. With a premium nameplate, to boot.
it still retains the honda intangibles: reliability, drivability, practicality
otherwise, even the alleged 240HP sounds weak (edmunds' review says it doesnt have the same acceleration as the altima V6) and hamstrung
other than loyalists, why would anyone choose the new Honda over the new Camry (reliability and style) or Altima (sheer performance for under $25,000)? And with the arrival of the Mazda 6.. Honda better do something about that styling
It got similar scathing reviews a year ago when the car was first seen. Many people would NOT hold it up as any kind of styling benchmark. And reliability is traditionally a wash between the Accord and the Camry.
Altima? Sheer performance for under $25,000, but with a cheap feel and lack of refinement that reveals how they hit that price point. The abysmal interior materials and excessively harsh ride are excellent examples of this.
I guarantee that the new Accord will do just fine against these two competitors.
I don't think the styling is going to be a show-stopper, but the 2003's look derivative in the worst way. That is, they have many of the same styling elements as the Camry and Altima, but don't integrate the details as well. The sedan looks very frumpy in back, and the 3/4 front view on the coupe picture makes the front overhang look droopy. I'm sure the car acquits itself nicely on the road, but the Honda marketers should lay off the sport sedan stuff.
Actually, to me, the front end looks like it has some Taurus DNA in there. This isn't necessarily always an insult, but in this case it is.
The arching character line is ripped right off of the Altima. Shameless, except it looks a lot better on the Altima. Likewise the Mercedes taillamp and trunk line detail on the coupe.
In case it sounds like I'm bashing, I actually thought the current generation Accord looked pretty presentable. (I like the sedan better than the coupe.) Styling is all about proportion, and the current car design "seems right" in that aspect. The new car seems out of balance and swelled-up.
The V6 may not be Altima-class, but it does give up a half-liter in displacement to the Nissan. I think Edmunds judges this unfairly; most people aren't looking for rude amounts of acceleration in this class. The 2.4 sounds like a sweet powerplant, probably a lot more refined than the Altima's. Not an area Honda is likely to mess up.
Speaking as a former (1995 model) Accord owner, the wind noise abatement is a VERY good thing. My old Accord never felt rock-solid at speed. I replaced it with a BMW 325i -- there is just no comparison, my BMW feels the same at 100 as it does at 50. Sounds like the new Accord is a major step forward in this department.
Just the same, if I were looking, I don't even know that I'd test drive an Accord at this point. I have an Ody (and love it), but the Accord just doesn't seem like it is a market benchmark anymore. The Passat seems to have inherited that mantle (and having test-driven and almost bought a Passat) I think it is the car I'd focus on if I were after a midsize sedan. Failing that, I'd drive a Mazda 6, a Camry, and an Altima (and a G35) and maybe a TL before I'd test-drive an Accord.
ebm16 - if you find a G35 coupe on a dealer's lot for under $27K, let me know. The average G35 coupe will be over $30K. The average Accord will be under $20K.
The point to note is that Nissan can easily upgrade and improve the Altima's interior while the Accord is stuck with its exterior shape for the next five years!
I think people were fooled by some of the "artist's renderings" of the Accord. I personally thought that the car was going to get a serious infusion of sport. But it's still an Accord: meant for families, not enthusiasts.
I am not impressed with the styling. I feel like it's a lot of wasted potential here, folks. They had time to size up the competition and respond appropriately. The car that most people will buy -- the LX -- is still underpowered, underoptioned and generally too understated.
I like cars in general, but nothing that Japan is offering in this segment will make me get out of my German car -- build quality, handling, acceleration, and STYLING -- are all superior to the Honda.
The interior in a dark color has no wood trim just a really fake looking metallic look. Remember these cars are built for family, reliability, and low price, not performace or innovative looks. If you want this go to Audi, BMW, or Benz. Even VW looks BORING!
I read somewhere that the project leader of the 2003 Accord, Mr. Charles Baker used to be a designer at SATURN before coming over to HONDA. No wonder the rear (especially the tail-light design) has a strong resemblance to Saturns! Mr. Baker has been quoted as saying that he based his design on the lines of a cheetah. By no stretch of the imagination do I see any resemblance to any member of the cat family! What I see is a crouching frog!! IMHO, in the future Honda would be better off if they shop for designers at VW, Daimler-Chrysler or even Ford!
Again, though, I think that the design will sell well. My biggest problem with the new car is that I was expecting so much. I thought: cool, a 6-speed, 240+ HP car for less than 26K. But the car didn't deliver, not because it isn't any of those things, but mainly because there was no way it was going to live up to my expectations.
zgrabill makes a good point - enthusiast's expectations were too high. It's not a sports sedan. Who cares? For the average consumer, it builds upon the strengths of the 98-02 Accord, and will continue to be a best seller.
Zgrabill--Your car better have better "build quality, handling, acceleration, and STYLING" than Honda -- it's a Bimmer for crying out loud! Throw me a frickin' bone here!
Seriously, I like the styling of the coupe. It looks almost like the logical successor to the 94-97 model (96-97 especially), with a little Mercury Cougar thrown in. I'm not sure Honda will hit the mark with the younger set (other than me), but the car certainly isn't fugly and will still be a top seller.
You're right that the comparison was a little unfair.
My point, though, is that the new Japanese cars in this segment seem to be offering a lot more car, and they straggle into higher price segments.
For instance, a fully loaded Accord is going to run over 27k, likewise with the Altima. That's BMW 325, Audi A4 -- almost G35 country. Granted, you are going to get a base 325i comparied to a loaded Honda or Nissan, but if you are going to spend that much money -- and you like to drive -- what are you going to choose? I have to admit, prior to seeing the Accord I was intrigued -- it sounded like a lot of car for the money. But the reality is that the new Accord will likely have a lot of body roll going into curves and have high 6 times (at best) and low to mid 7's (more realistic) 0-60. In short: it will not be a "sport" or "performance" car (and yes, I admit that there is a whole lot more to "performance" than sheer acceleration).
But, in fairness to the gurus at Honda, it was never meant to be. Any notions of that were dreamt up solely by me and others like me due to the promise of a whole lotta HP and a redesigned car that HAD to be a good one due to the competition already on the market.
I agree with the auto reviewer quoted in the Edmunds write-up of the '03 who stated that it bears uncanny resemblance in the front to the Kia Rio. Yuck!
Are there plans to bring a wagon variant to market in the U.S.?
Seeing that the Acura TL-S 6 speed does 0-60 in 5.9 sec, I'm predicting a 6.1 sec 0-60 for the Accord coupe with 6 spd. Which makes sense, seeing that MT recorded 6.6 seconds for the sedan with an automatic trans.
The new Accord coupe v6 with 6 spd weighs 3265 lbs, as compared to 3446 lbs for the Acura TL-S.
The Acura has 8% more horsepower, yet weighs 5.5% heavier, so the difference is negligible.
So the acceleration is neck and neck with a BMW 330i, but is $11,000 cheaper.
I see the resemblence with the Rio. But, was the front made to look like a Kia Rio, or was the Kia front made to look like the 94-97 Accord? You know where my money is.
At $27k, the highest Accord does approach entry-level BMW/Acura/Lexus levels (although I imagine the Accord's cost-of-ownership is much lower than any of those, in the long run). I think Honda is smarter than to market the coupe as equivalent to the BMW 3-series or whatever. They know their bread-and-butter is still going to be the LX sedan.
You will see that the BMW 330i has the best 0-60 time at 6.1 seconds while the Acura tl type s was 6.5.
I have never heard of a TL type s getting there in 5.9 seconds. That's almost 540i speed. That's not to say that a test hasn't been done getting it there, but the Road and Track numbers disagree with you.
Plus, the CL type s is more comparable to an Accord Sedan than a TL. And those are also NOT sub 6 seconds 0-60.
That sounds more right, but I still think that's a little fast. Where did you see that time?
All that said, I think you make a good point: I may be unfairly comparing speed to price, which isn't always the case, take the WRX for example. But with the exception of the g35 (which R&T says ran in 6.2 seconds), Acura (and Honda) don't always seem to reflect their HP. Now the s2000 is pretty fast and that has 240 hp engine. But it's pretty light and the turbocharged 4 is a completely different engine from the v-6.
The new accord does look strange, but I'll reserve my judgement until I can see the car in person.
In terms of accord pricing, I think the 27k accord includes the navigation system. That would go inline with other honda/acura models that charge an extra 2k for the navigation. That said, an EX V6 would likely remain around 25k, and the navi version would be 27k. Comparing the Altima to the 2002 accord (since I don't know the exact pricing for the 03), adding auto trans, side air bags, and ABS would be a shade under 25k, which is roughly what the accord's msrp is. However, the altima does not include climate control, a power glass sunroof, leather, and a 6-CD changer. So basically if you get the altima you are trading 40 hp for those luxury features. Adding those options to the altima would significantly raise the price. Furthermore, there have been numerous reports of poor quality on the Altima (J.D. Powers initial qualtiy report). Clearly, the 02 accord is a great bargain.
The CL-S 6-speed was tested recently in one of these magazines. I subscribe to both, and can't remember which one it was in.
Anyone else out there remember which issue it was in?
The electronic throttle control (drive-by-wire) for the Accord V6 should be pretty interesting, especially when coupled with the 5-spd auto. According to the Honda press release, it momemtarily cuts the throttle slightly between shifts to reduce shift shock. I think it will result in an incredibly refined drivetrain.
It was Car and Driver, July 2002 issue, where they compared it to the BMW 330Ci. 0-60 times were 5.9 for the Acura, 5.8 for the Beemer. They actually ranked the Acura's engine and transmission higher than the Beemer's, although the Beemer won the comparison with a score of 97 points to the Acura's 96.
I think you're exactly right. Honda is not trying to "win" anything other than selling more cars than its competitors. And it wants to sell high quality cars. I think Honda will accomplish both of these goals with the redesigned Accord, even though reactions to its styling are mixed.
What's more interesting, though, is the real progression in automotive technology that we are witnessing right now. I mean, a 240 HP Accord?!? Who would have thought that was likely 10 years ago? Even 5 years ago? What is clear, getting past arguments over speed off the line (which I myself get tangled in), is that the "average" family car is no longer average. When so called grocery-getting mommy sedans are packing serious punch, it may no longer be fair to call these cars average. Throw items like DVD-based navigations systems on top of the increased performance, and we are witnessing a major evolution in cars. And they're still affordable. Technology like the much maligned 7 series is going to slowly trickle down. It's pretty exciting for those who enjoy driving, that's for sure.
Comments
www.auto.com
Among the many features is a voice activated DVD navigation system and a 240 hp SOHC V6 engine.
If you look very closely, on the second picture of the Accord coupe you get a blurry view of the front end, BUT in the background by the white tent there is a silver Pilot and a dark grey sedan that might be the '04 TL? It looks sorta like the current TL, but the tail-lights are different from the '03. Check it out.
But besides it's Lurch-type jawline, it is super-fast (o-60 in 6.6!), matching the Altima in time and power (240HP). The 5-speed Auto helps greatly here, since it lacks the Altima's torque.
I believe it has the Lexus-derived car-off blacked-out guage cluster, and titl-telscope steering. Still a 14 cube trunk (?)!
Thumbs down here. I haven't even gotten to the coupes lack of style yet!
It has pics of both the exteror and the interior of the coupe and sedan.
Also their other models that are coming up.
Just go to:
http://www.thehollywoodextra.com
and go to the car page, and the various Honda links.
http://thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5136&sid=180&n=157
YUK YUK YUK. I didn't think honda could make a generic car look even more generic. The greenhouse is identical to the camry, the nose is BLAH and the tail looks like the old one as seen through distored glass. I've owned Hondas for years, but they have totally LOST IT when it comes to styling. I mean, they're kidding right? This one is a stinker.
otherwise, even the alleged 240HP sounds weak (edmunds' review says it doesnt have the same acceleration as the altima V6) and hamstrung
other than loyalists, why would anyone choose the new Honda over the new Camry (reliability and style) or Altima (sheer performance for under $25,000)? And with the arrival of the Mazda 6.. Honda better do something about that styling
Altima? Sheer performance for under $25,000, but with a cheap feel and lack of refinement that reveals how they hit that price point. The abysmal interior materials and excessively harsh ride are excellent examples of this.
I guarantee that the new Accord will do just fine against these two competitors.
Actually, to me, the front end looks like it has some Taurus DNA in there. This isn't necessarily always an insult, but in this case it is.
The arching character line is ripped right off of the Altima. Shameless, except it looks a lot better on the Altima. Likewise the Mercedes taillamp and trunk line detail on the coupe.
In case it sounds like I'm bashing, I actually thought the current generation Accord looked pretty presentable. (I like the sedan better than the coupe.) Styling is all about proportion, and the current car design "seems right" in that aspect. The new car seems out of balance and swelled-up.
The V6 may not be Altima-class, but it does give up a half-liter in displacement to the Nissan. I think Edmunds judges this unfairly; most people aren't looking for rude amounts of acceleration in this class. The 2.4 sounds like a sweet powerplant, probably a lot more refined than the Altima's. Not an area Honda is likely to mess up.
Speaking as a former (1995 model) Accord owner, the wind noise abatement is a VERY good thing. My old Accord never felt rock-solid at speed. I replaced it with a BMW 325i -- there is just no comparison, my BMW feels the same at 100 as it does at 50. Sounds like the new Accord is a major step forward in this department.
Just the same, if I were looking, I don't even know that I'd test drive an Accord at this point. I have an Ody (and love it), but the Accord just doesn't seem like it is a market benchmark anymore. The Passat seems to have inherited that mantle (and having test-driven and almost bought a Passat) I think it is the car I'd focus on if I were after a midsize sedan. Failing that, I'd drive a Mazda 6, a Camry, and an Altima (and a G35) and maybe a TL before I'd test-drive an Accord.
I am not impressed with the styling. I feel like it's a lot of wasted potential here, folks. They had time to size up the competition and respond appropriately. The car that most people will buy -- the LX -- is still underpowered, underoptioned and generally too understated.
I like cars in general, but nothing that Japan is offering in this segment will make me get out of my German car -- build quality, handling, acceleration, and STYLING -- are all superior to the Honda.
Seriously, I like the styling of the coupe. It looks almost like the logical successor to the 94-97 model (96-97 especially), with a little Mercury Cougar thrown in. I'm not sure Honda will hit the mark with the younger set (other than me), but the car certainly isn't fugly and will still be a top seller.
My point, though, is that the new Japanese cars in this segment seem to be offering a lot more car, and they straggle into higher price segments.
For instance, a fully loaded Accord is going to run over 27k, likewise with the Altima. That's BMW 325, Audi A4 -- almost G35 country. Granted, you are going to get a base 325i comparied to a loaded Honda or Nissan, but if you are going to spend that much money -- and you like to drive -- what are you going to choose? I have to admit, prior to seeing the Accord I was intrigued -- it sounded like a lot of car for the money. But the reality is that the new Accord will likely have a lot of body roll going into curves and have high 6 times (at best) and low to mid 7's (more realistic) 0-60. In short: it will not be a "sport" or "performance" car (and yes, I admit that there is a whole lot more to "performance" than sheer acceleration).
But, in fairness to the gurus at Honda, it was never meant to be. Any notions of that were dreamt up solely by me and others like me due to the promise of a whole lotta HP and a redesigned car that HAD to be a good one due to the competition already on the market.
Are there plans to bring a wagon variant to market in the U.S.?
The new Accord coupe v6 with 6 spd weighs 3265 lbs, as compared to 3446 lbs for the Acura TL-S.
The Acura has 8% more horsepower, yet weighs 5.5% heavier, so the difference is negligible.
So the acceleration is neck and neck with a BMW 330i, but is $11,000 cheaper.
At $27k, the highest Accord does approach entry-level BMW/Acura/Lexus levels (although I imagine the Accord's cost-of-ownership is much lower than any of those, in the long run). I think Honda is smarter than to market the coupe as equivalent to the BMW 3-series or whatever. They know their bread-and-butter is still going to be the LX sedan.
http://roadandtrack.com/reviews/roadtests/pdf/2002_07_sedans_data.pdf
You will see that the BMW 330i has the best 0-60 time at 6.1 seconds while the Acura tl type s was 6.5.
I have never heard of a TL type s getting there in 5.9 seconds. That's almost 540i speed. That's not to say that a test hasn't been done getting it there, but the Road and Track numbers disagree with you.
Plus, the CL type s is more comparable to an Accord Sedan than a TL. And those are also NOT sub 6 seconds 0-60.
PS- I liked it better when Acura actually used NAMES for their cars....
All that said, I think you make a good point: I may be unfairly comparing speed to price, which isn't always the case, take the WRX for example. But with the exception of the g35 (which R&T says ran in 6.2 seconds), Acura (and Honda) don't always seem to reflect their HP. Now the s2000 is pretty fast and that has 240 hp engine. But it's pretty light and the turbocharged 4 is a completely different engine from the v-6.
In terms of accord pricing, I think the 27k accord includes the navigation system. That would go inline with other honda/acura models that charge an extra 2k for the navigation. That said, an EX V6 would likely remain around 25k, and the navi version would be 27k.
Comparing the Altima to the 2002 accord (since I don't know the exact pricing for the 03), adding auto trans, side air bags, and ABS would be a shade under 25k, which is roughly what the accord's msrp is. However, the altima does not include climate control, a power glass sunroof, leather, and a 6-CD changer. So basically if you get the altima you are trading 40 hp for those luxury features. Adding those options to the altima would significantly raise the price. Furthermore, there have been numerous reports of poor quality on the Altima (J.D. Powers initial qualtiy report). Clearly, the 02 accord is a great bargain.
Anyone else out there remember which issue it was in?
The electronic throttle control (drive-by-wire) for the Accord V6 should be pretty interesting, especially when coupled with the 5-spd auto. According to the Honda press release, it momemtarily cuts the throttle slightly between shifts to reduce shift shock. I think it will result in an incredibly refined drivetrain.
http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/020730/200207301610000828_1.html
Toyota will have another 20HP by next fall.
By mid-next year, all the main players will have at least 215HP.
What's more interesting, though, is the real progression in automotive technology that we are witnessing right now. I mean, a 240 HP Accord?!? Who would have thought that was likely 10 years ago? Even 5 years ago? What is clear, getting past arguments over speed off the line (which I myself get tangled in), is that the "average" family car is no longer average. When so called grocery-getting mommy sedans are packing serious punch, it may no longer be fair to call these cars average. Throw items like DVD-based navigations systems on top of the increased performance, and we are witnessing a major evolution in cars. And they're still affordable. Technology like the much maligned 7 series is going to slowly trickle down. It's pretty exciting for those who enjoy driving, that's for sure.
Zach
http://caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/comparisontests/2002/july/200207_comparo_hobson.xml?&page=1