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
" is that a Accord or Mercury Cougar?"
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
In your post #726 you stated "I want to rest my head on the headrest while driving." Sorry, but that's neither a good idea while driving nor the purpose of automobile head restraints (THEY ARE NOT HEADRESTS). They are a safety feature meant to RESTRAIN your head from suddenly swinging too far back and snapping your neck in an accident.
The only time that you should consider them to be headrests is when you are trying to take a nap while your vehicle is parked.
I'll agree that they're an important safety feature, but stating that they are not designed to be used as a place to rest one's head while driving is a bit *ahem* extreme.
I'm just guessing here, but articulated head restraint designs are probably due to a few safety factors. Different body shapes place heads in different driving positions. Someone with a common type of scoliosis (forward arching spine, mostly in women), someone with a "hunchback" or an overweight person, would surely have their head further forward when they are in a normal seated position than someone without such pysical conditions. That would be a primary reason that such persons would be safer with a head restraint able to be placed further forward than the "normal" position.
The point is that "one size" doesn't fit all bodies. The same reason that automobile seats and mirrors are able to be customized with adjustments for forward, backward, angle, height, lumbar support, etc.
"The point is that "one size" doesn't fit all bodies."
While unarguably correct, this is not "the point." "The point" is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a headreast as a place to rest one's head while driving.
If this really were a safety issue, there would be warning stickers on the headrests and dire notices in every car's owner's manual.
I don't need the moonroof on the EX and I think that the Traction Control System on the LX V6 would be nice to have. BUT, the LX V6 is more expensive than the EX.
Do any of you own the LX V6? Any comments?
The 4 is good on the highway - fast and responsive enough and very economical. But 2nd gear on this engine is weak and flat around town or when accelerating in that gear.
Put on some nice rims on the LX-V6 and you've got a really nice car for the price of a 4-cyl EX.
1st tank - 22mpg
2nd - 24 mpg
3rd - 25 mpg
4th - 26 mpg
5th - 27 mpg
26-27MPG around (rural) town - 12 mile drive to work with 6 traffic lights, average 35-45MPH.
29-30MPG driving to the "big city" all freeway @70-80MPH
I now have 6000 miles on the car. The "Maint Req'd" has just begun to flash, so I will get my first oil change soon. I hope that the mileage improves since that was one reason for getting the car. I will have the tire pressure checked as well thanks again.
Another question: does anyone know how to hook up a PC to the Honda's onboard computer?
Looks to me that there are only a few 2003 EXL 4 Cylinders out there left.
Honda stunned me today when they continued offering the 2.9% Financing on the Accords and cancelled the 1.9% on the Civics. Thought it would be the other way around.
So what is everyone paying for EX Accords these days??
First of all, the head liner is now made of a very cheap looking material that looks like it belongs in an entry level Korean car. This material is also found on the sun visors, that themselves lack the quality feel of previous Hondas. I found that the visors required more effort to move and did not flip smoothly like previous Hondas. Also, the top of instrument panel is made up of far more pieces than is normal Honda practice and don't seem to fit as well as they should. The large number of pieces makes me wonder if the likely of squeaks and rattles occurring is higher now. The materials look high quality though.
Also, the plastic trim on the steering wheel around the radio controls and cruise control does not fit flush to the leather on the wheel as it is supposed to.
When looking at a comparable '04 Solara SLE, with its Lexus-like interior, I didn't notice such problems.
I can't help but wonder, is Honda loosing its touch?
Interior materials are supposedly benchmarked against VW. Compared with the 6 gen Acccords we had, the headliner does feel coarser and harder to keep clean. Steering wheel parts, as you noted, don't line up as well as desired.
While the new Accords are definitely a notch higher in concept and design (vs previous Accords), build quality based on my personal experience has slipped. We have two 03s and both have the Honda-uncustomary creaks and rattles.
Looking at the Accord ledger, its flaws aren't enough to offset its value. Wish they weren't there, but against current car offerings the Accord appears to still be ahead.
I'm hoping the Koreans push the envelope so it pushes Honda.
I can't think of any soft touch in my new SI. My 2000 was better than that and my 1993 Civic EX was better still.
But it's a compromise. The 04 Accord EX-L has every feature my $53,000 (when new) 1994 Lexus has except the RWD V8. In some cases even more stuff. Heck, the EX-V6 only has a 10hp deficit from the 4.0 V8. You gotta cut the corners somewhere cause $53,000 in 1994 is a lot more money than $23,000-$27,000 today.
The metallic pedals should've given you a clue that the IS300 is not about luxury look or feel. The IS300 appeals to a different demographic, just like the Acura TSX (based on the European Accord). I own two IS300s. I wasn't looking for soft surfaces (or soft suspension).
The Lexus ES300 is definitely about luxury, look and feel. The former TL platform appealed to different segments in base and Type S models. The new TL drops base and moves line more toward Type S, but trying to keep luxury.
The American Accord is geared more toward pleasing the vast middle than appealing to any particular demographic. It tries to be as many things to as many people as possible.
Just as for the options you get in a $22,000 Accord you have to expect that there will be some compromises. While there are more pieces on my 04 dash than there were on my 99 or 01 dash the materials are nice, the look is nicer, and you get alot more for your money. In 2002 only EX V6 Accords received climate control, let alone dual climate control, no LED gauges in any Accord, no heated seats, no side curtain airbags, only 16's on the V6 coupe (V6 sedan & others had 15's), no telescopic wheel, no 5-speed automatic transmission or 6-speed coupe version, ABS is now standard, etc. All of this for a negligible price increase. The Accord, for all intents and purposes, is a better car than the one proceeding it.
I don't think the Koreans are going to push Honda. VW has a better shot at pushing Honda but with their lackluster quality they can't.
I do like the interior better than previous Accord's but if at comes at a price at sacrificing quality I don't think making the interior materials of better quality is worthed. Honda has always made vehicles that were solid reliable, had class, and were good value for your money. I think Honda has lost class in its exterior styling and is trying to cater to too many audiences at once. The quality of recent with the Civic losing its double wishbone suspension and the 03 Accord teething problems makes me wonder if Honda has lost its touch with great build quality of its cars. The Accord is still a good car for its money though. The Civic I think the 1996-2000 model was more to my liking than the current model is. The 01+ looks ok but the interior was deconted and the styling dropped off a little bit from the previous generation.
Also the center console seems to slide forward to easy! When a passenger is rididng with me and they put their elbow on the center sliding console they will sometimes move the console thus affecting my driving position of my arm. I was wondering if there was a lock on it?
Other than that I love my car. One month and 1500 miles. The V6 is so smooth!
did you ditch the '03 just to get the XM??
dealer suggest every 3000mi, but owner's manul said 5000mi, C&D review even mention once 10000mi going to be fine. confuse!
btw, what kind of oil is better?
thanks lot!
Todays fuel injected, computer controlled engines don't suffer from oil dillution like the old carburated engines did. The fuel/air mixture is perfectly controlled. Go research on the BMW forums. Those cars have a service computer that analyzes the length of trip, number of starts, etc., and many of those owners report oil change intervals of 10,000 miles or more, depending on their driving conditions. Also, folks who are using an oil analysis to determine oil condition are easily going 10,000 miles between oil changes!
A good thing to remember is that if the guy who trying to sell me a service is making $ from that service, his opinion may be biased. C&D doesn't make $ by giving out service tips.
Service Bulliten 03-069
Symptom:
Front brake noise or judder when braking:
Probably Cause:
Front pads have caused a variation in the brake disc thickness (i.e. scoring)
Corrective Action:
Refinish front brake discs, and install new pads.
Vehicles Affected:
2003 Accord 2-door
L4 - FROM VIN 1HGCM7...3A000001
thru 1HGCM7...3A027433
L6 (a/t only) - From VIN1HGCM8...3A000001
thru 1HGCM8...SA036251
2003 Accord 4-door
L4
Ohio built - 1HGCM5...3A000001
thru 1HGCM5...3A101162
Japan built - JHMCM5...3C000001
thru JHMCM5...3C081070
Mexico built - (VIN Begins with 3HG) - ALL
V6
1HGCM6...3A000001
thru 1HGCM6...3A101604"
I understand your last post about oil changes, but the 3000 mile interval is what was recommended about 10~15 years ago. My 92 Civic listed a maximum interval of 5000 miles.
However, my new Accord has a maximum interval of 10000 miles. Since the max interval has doubled, you wouldn't even consider moving up to say, 5000 miles?
I'm seriously not trying to dismiss your recommendation but it seems like something about the engines have changed, hence the recommended interval doubling. Yet you still recommend the 3000 mile mark.
For arguments sake lets say everyone is a "severe use" driver so even the Honda Book says do oil changes every 5000 miles.
And lets say that unless you plan on keeping the car for 200,000 miles
3000 Mile Changes
------------------
66 oil changes @ $24.95 = $1648
5000 Mile Changes
------------------
40 oil changes @ $24.95 = $998
7500 Mile Changes
-----------------
26 oil changes @ $24.95 = $648
10000 mile changes ("normal use")
------------------
20 oil changes @ $24.95 = $499
10,000 Mile Changes with Synthetic
----------------------------------
20 oil Changes @ $42.95 = $859
The $650 difference between the 3000/5000 mile chnages may be worth the risk to some of us and not worth it to others. The $1148 difference between the 3000/10000 mile changes is also an interesting point to consider. But I can't get myself to go 10,000 miles on regular oil regardless of what Honda says.
What would a new engine run $3500 ?? But that is a crapshoot. You have to first keep a car long enough to find out and there are som many other factors that could break down well before the engine.
My recommendation is to go with 5000 mile changes with regular oil if you drive less than 15,000 miles per year. And go with synthetic oil and 10,000 mile intervals (with a premium filter) if you drive closer to 25,000 miles a year.
Good Luck.
If it were conventional, I definitely would run every 3k, but Amsoil guarantees the oil they sell is good for 7500 miles.... 5k is fair for me.
Haven't yet found a 5w-20 conventional oil, and I think it would be relatively difficult to make since conventional oil has many different sized molecules, unlike synthetic. I don't really think I've seen a 5w-20 blend yet either, but I'm sure that's not far off with Honda and Ford doing the 5w20 thing.