Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Volkswagen Jetta vs. Honda Accord

killermonkeykillermonkey Member Posts: 1
edited October 2014 in Honda
I' getting a new car now, and I have narrowed my choices to these two cars, the Jetta and the Accord. I've heard mixed reviews on both of them and i can't choose between the two. Which one do you guys/gals think is better and why.


  • barryssbarryss Member Posts: 41
    Now that's an interesting comparison--most people compare the Passat to the Accord. The Jetta is more comparable to a Civic. Are you going to be having people ride in the backseat very often? If so, I'm sure they'll appreciate the Accord. Mixed reviews on the Accord? I guess they're mixed because there's a few publications that that rank the Accord as only a close number 2 instead of number 1 :-).

    I have a Passat and a new Accord. The Passat is fun to drive, but it's been in the shop quite a bit and it has a *better* reliability record than the Jetta. The Passat is built in Germany, but the Jetta is built in Mexico and has below average reliability. My friends with Jettas are not happy campers. Too many problems and VW charges out the wazoo for parts.

    The Accord probably isn't as hip as the Jetta, although the Jetta doesn't seem nearly as popular as it once was. However, I'm having a blast with my Accord and even my cousin, a young single lawyer, almost bought an Accord instead of his BMW.

    If you do want a VW, go for a low-end Passat--it's much better than a Jetta.

    Barry S.
  • hydra2hydra2 Member Posts: 114
    BarryS summed it up nicely. The Accord and Passat are family sedans. The Jetta and Civic are compacts (formerly sub-compacts. Their smaller size yields cheaper prices and higher mpg, but both are a little cramped for family sedans, though the civic is larger than it looks. There are tons of mods for the Jetta and Civic to make them go insanely fast, but the accord 4 banger and especially the v6 is plenty fast for most people and more comfortable. Honda gets so much power out of its small engines that the vw turbo chargers are problematic. A chipped Jetta or one with a v6 shoved into it will fly, but still be unreliable. I love the Passat, but I suspect that one reason that its sales are not higher is that so many Jetta owners with reliablity problems, jump ship to another brand when purchasing their next car.
  • flyvtecflyvtec Member Posts: 3
    Which model of both cars? I'm assuming you are talking top of the line sedans? Personally, I like how the Jetta looks over the Accord. But I prefer the Accord, overall, because of it's reputation for good realibility and value. If I were you, drive both cars and go with your instincts. I own a 04 Accord Coupe 6speed V6 and I love it!!!! =)
  • iaflyeriaflyer Member Posts: 1
    I own both a 2000 Jetta and a very recently acquired 2004 Accord. First impressions:

    The Accord is a larger car. Much more room in the back seat for people than the Jetta. Also, there is more room in the front seats as well. In the Jetta, the rear passengers feet are cramped, unless the front seat is all the way forward. I also got more luxury and options for my money with the Accord.

    Jetta is "tighter" to drive. It seems to handle the road better and makes the driver feel more un tune with the road (it is not modded). The Jetta has not been as reliable as I would like. Service cost has been high as well.

    I can't compare the power of the two, since the Jetta is a TDI (Diesel) while I've got the 2.4l in the Accord. I love the TDI engine, would not hesitate to get another Diesel from VW. I chose the Accord over the Passat for the reliability, potential service cost and features for the dollar.

  • sys3175sys3175 Member Posts: 11
    I'd probably take the Jetta and I have actually made the decision. My Jetta has been great and have had no problems, yes the accord is bigger, but especially the newer models are increasingly ugly.

    I know alot of people who have accords (both v6 and 4cyl) and are burning insane amount of oil in a car with less then 20,000miles on it, and there service is no better then VW (the classic "This is normal" and blaming the way you drive). As far as power goes I've run some friendly comp between my 1.8t and the high end accord v6 and I always come out on top at highway speeds, though I don't doubt in a short distance it would out run me, since I have a stock automatic, but once I'm doing about 40 I can fly past him like he is in reverse).

    Alot of people knock the Jetta for being made in Mexico, however I have not seen any problems with the car due to inital build quality. Mexico does not equal bad. It is quite possible to build a quality car in mexico. It seems most problems with these cars are the mechanics at the VW dealerships which make even the most menial repair into a huge ordeal.

    In the end, no one can tell you what to do, or what to get... if you wanted the size of the accord I'd say go for the Passat.. I've driven a few (when I was looking at my Jetta) and they are very nice cars. If you get the Jetta keep up with all of the recommended maintance, they will save you alot of hassle and also keep your car under warranty.
  • grove4grove4 Member Posts: 95
    I have to call you out on this.You say you go past your friend over 40 like he is in reverse.Maybe if he has a 4cyl.But in no way will a stock 1.8t do that to a 03 or newer v6.All you have to do is go to car-stats.com and you will see hard facts.Sorry, but I just think the truth should be known to anybody surfing this site comparing these two cars.
  • sys3175sys3175 Member Posts: 11
    I am not talking about the 0-60 of the car, i'm talking about hitting the accelerator while driving at a steady 30-40 miles. The acceleration curve is much different at this point then if you were trying to do this from a complete stop. I've driven both cars.. while doing 40 in the vw you can floor it and put yourself against the seats, in the accord.. it just doesn't seem to happen.
  • financeoptionsfinanceoptions Member Posts: 6
    Are you serious. The V6 accord will destroy the paltry 1.8 Jetta. No matter what the distance is or what speed you are traveling. The V6 Passat can't even keep up with the V6 accord, stop preaching false statements. And yes I have driven both cars, and no I dont own either.

    I believe you meant to say TORQUE CURVE, not acceleration curve.

    http://www.new-cars.com/2003/volkswagen/volkswagen-jetta-specs.ht- ml
    Check out that site and let me know if the accord V6 can beat the jetta. Hmm, 0-60 Jetta 10 second ballpark, Accord 7 second ballpark. While Im at it, I am willing to bet my childrens college tution that the accord 4 cylinder can beat the Jetta TOO.
  • grove4grove4 Member Posts: 95
    Does VW make a car that is quicker than a 03 or newer accord V6?I dont think there is one Sys3175:Even in quarter mile times the accord is much quicker and has a higher speed than a 1.8t at the end of the trap.So your seat of the pants feel may not quite be accurate to reality.
  • blaneblane Member Posts: 2,017

    In your post #6 you state: "I know alot of people who have accords (both v6 and 4cyl) and are burning insane amount of oil in a car with less then 20,000miles on it.."

    First of all, how many people do you know that own Accords? Of that number, how many burn ANY oil, no less "insane amounts"? What are the ages and conditions of this imaginary fleet of vehicles?

    Your comment is total nonsense.
  • 600kgolfgt600kgolfgt Member Posts: 690
    If you look further down the list at the VR6 and the 1.8T Jettas, (Instead of the base 2.0L jetta and the TDI) you will find them in the 7-sec. 0-60 range. And this is on the link you provided, no less...

    Looks like you just blew away your kid's college tuition....
  • kenp2kenp2 Member Posts: 2
    I don't get it. The posted time for 1.8T is 7.7 sec for the manual and 8.9 for the auto. The VR6 is slower than the 1.8T(auto only). I have seen a lot of reviews posting the Accord V6 6sp in the 6.5 range and the auto in the 7.0 range. I don't think the Jetta will keep up with the Accord V6.
  • 600kgolfgt600kgolfgt Member Posts: 690
    I was just pointing out that financeoptions focused on the slower 0-60 times of the 2.0L Jetta and the TDI, while convieniently leaving out the times for the VR6 and the 1.8T for the purpose of bolstering his argument - just like a politician (and also saying that he would bet his kids college tuition that the 4-cylinder Accord could beat the Jetta).

    VW (factory) tends to tune their engines on the conservative side (top speed limited by a speed and rev limiter)- the stock engines have a tremendous upside as far as tuning is concerned - case in point, VW/Audi tuner Techtonics has a dual intercooler kit that will bump up the 1.8T engine from 180 to 225hp (same as the Audi TT) - just by bolting it on the engine with no special modifications.
    Add a Techtonics chip (which besides tuning the car more efficiently, it also removes the factory speed limiter and modifying the rev limiter), and you're pushing 300hp. Add a higher performance exhaust, and, you get the picture (all this from only 1.8 liters). That's why VW's have been an aftermarket favorite since the beginning.

    The Accord should put out more horsepower in stock form, due to its larger displacement engines.

    I've been driving (and working on) VW's for over 20 years, and put 900K on my first two VW's alone. The Accord is a fine car in its own right, but I have no desire to join the sheep and see myself coming and going. Plus, trying to do maintenance on an Accord is a pain (wires and hoses galore) - so it better darn well be reliable - otherwise it will cost you $$$$ in labor alone. Besides, I like being a lot more involved with the operation and maintenence of my vehicles than the majority of drivers who's only self-absorbed concerns consist of turning the key, aiming the vehicle, talking on the cell phone, or trying to relive the movie "The Fast and the Furious" on the highway...

    We VW drivers like going against the flow (and having fun doing so) just fine, thank you. There's much more to driving than 0-60 and top speed - we look at the total driving experience, and quite frankly, the Accord doesn't do a thing for me.

    To each his own, I guess
  • wsommarivawsommariva Member Posts: 157
    Take good test drives in both cars. Compare price, options, stlying, etc. Buy what you like. Just remember that on average the Honda's reliability is much higher than the Jettas. I love my 2000 Jetta VR6 despite the many many part failures. It runs great and looks great. If reliability is very important think Honda.

    As far as made in Mexico, the Mexicans assemble the cars very well. The problem is the crappy parts they are given to put in.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    Whoa! You sure managed to put a lot of untruths in one post. Here's how:

    1. Any 2003 and later V6 accord blows away both the Passat and Jetta in pretty much all performance stats, including 0-60, 1/4 mile etc. Please check any reputed publication like Edmunds etc and you will know the facts, not your daydreaming numbers. Many publications have managed low 6s in the V6 Accord, and CD managed 5.9s with the manual coupe. By the time the Accord gets to 60, you will probably be getting out of your daydream.

    2. I have not even heard one Acocrd owner talking about 'insane' oil consumption, pls check the Accord problems forum and point out to us where you got your 'anecdote' from.

    3. Chipping a VW will void your warranty, which you are sure to need on a regular basis. Anyway, we are discussion stock cars here. For mods, Hondas have for long been tuner favorites, and that speaks volumes for their 'modability'

    4. One of you put 900k miles on your VW, and that's great, since you yourself are a mechanic. However, I would ask you to look over one of the Edmunds forums about high mileage cars, and you will find most of the cars to be Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans.

    I myself own an poor little 2003 I-4 Auto Accord, and can bet you that I can beat the hell out of your 1.8T (auto) any day, and on any perofrmance benchmark, forget about using a V6 Accord.

    You guys just don't want to acknowledge that the V6 Accord is at a much higher Perofrmance Level than your VWs, but that does not change facts.

    Anyway, if this keeps you happy, keep Day dreaming, you might even start beating M3s and M5s with your Jettas and Passats, in both lower end as well as highway speeds.
  • nw1997nw1997 Member Posts: 227

         I could not have agreed with you more. Many people don't push their vehicles. Maybe the Accord that he passed was in it's break-in period or some people don't punch/push their cars hard all the time. VW's were made by the German's originally for those with low budgets. Many parts are much more expensive than MB's. I don't see how people can compare VW's with Toyota's and Honda's.
  • grove4grove4 Member Posts: 95
    Autobahn tested,drivers wanted...blah,blah,blah,blah,blah.They can have them and there inflated prices and the problems that go with them.I will take power,comfort reliability and last but not least a good resale value.I guess that means I am just like everybody else but who cares.
  • 600kgolfgt600kgolfgt Member Posts: 690
    Go back and read my post again - slowly. When you're finished, I'm pretty sure you will be better equipped to point out which untruths have I spoken of? Be specific. And show me (exactly) where I said (in the previous post) where I said that a Jetta will blow away a V-6 Honda. You, my friend are trying to find a much deeper meaning in my post than what is actually stated. Sounds like you're daydreaming to me.

    B.T.W. - I seriously doubt that there are more high mileage (400K+) Hondas out there than VWs - most drivers tend to turn their cars over for newer models more frequently than you realize.

    Did you know that a VW Beetle went over the million-mile mark? Show me a one-million+ mile example of a Honda...

    And for the record - Son - I have driven Hondas (my sister had one until I had to rescue her when she broke down)... In fact, I've probably been driving my 1975 VW Scirocco in auto crosses years ago while you were on the playground playing hopskotch. Once again, they Hondas) are very nice cars, but they don't do a thing for me (again, to each his own - so don't be so thin-skinned when people say they don't like Hondas - it's a free country - and I've given up six years of my life serving in the Air Force to make sure people like you and me have that right). Remember - there is more to real world driving than 0-60 times. So grow up - learn to read with greater comprehension, and don't be too quick to attack people you don't know... Especially this military veteran... Besides, you have no idea what modifications I made to my car - and I don't tell people about it. I'd much rather have them learn the hard way...

    Have fun displaying your adolescent tendencies by blowing away all the VW's you encounter. I'll bet it makes you feel like a REAL man...
  • fish8fish8 Member Posts: 2,282
    It seems you are VERY caught up in 0-60 times and who can beat who. 600KgolfGT never said that a specific VW can beat an Accord. Your response had so many generalizations it was incredible. Please CAREFULLY read the entire post before you go on the attack.
  • deej1323deej1323 Member Posts: 4
    03accordman said your 4cyl accord would beat the 1.8T?.... i really hope you arent talking about the 2003.... actually i hope this whole thread is about the 2002 or older, cuz no chance in hell the 4cyl accord would even come close to the new 1.8T. the new 0-60 times are closer to 6.8-6.9, and 1/4 times of low to mid 15's....

    the v6 on the other hand would of course beat any 1.8T ever made, they are incredible nice and fast cars. The V6 Passat is slower than the new 1.8T, so the statement earler makes no sense.

    I dont even know what to say, cuz i have heard the honda vs VW for so long, but any civic loses so the 1.8T, any accord loses besides the V6.... so i dont know what else
  • deej1323deej1323 Member Posts: 4
    And on other notes.... Just cuz it says in writing 0-60 at 7.7 does not mean its autmatically true. There are many other sites that have it as low as 6.7, and as high 7.7 as it is there. Also, those stats are when the car is fully loaded. Close to 3100 lbs for th GLS 1.8T... and i have had my car weighed, which is not fully loaded, and is about 2950... huge difference.

    I owned a 99 Altima, and have raced many 4 cyl Accords around my town, considering everyone owns one. 4 times i remeber, and 3 I won (accords were auto) and 1 i lost (manual). But my Altima is not even comparable in speed to my 03 1.8T. Not even close....
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671

    I think you misunderstood. I was replying to both you and sys3175 in that post. If you read his post carefully, you will see that he said that a 1.8T beats a V6 Accord 'like it was going in reverse.' Hence in this situation, it seems you read my post too fast before reading the heading completely. Regarding your autocross experience, I have no doubt that you must be good and experienced, but that does not give you a cart blanche. As for a 1 million mile Honda, as I posted in the post that you speed read, please go to the Edmunds forum where people discuss about high mileage cars, and you will see many Hondas. I can only reiterate that you at least take a look there. I also got in the 0-60 times because that is a parameter (alongwith 1/4 mile) that is universally used in performance benchmarking. And like you say, to each his own, VWs do nothing for me and never will as long as they are unable to fix even small problems like bulbs fusing all the time.


    As you must have by now read above, I was responding to sys3175's claims of beating the V6 accord, unfortunately you too did not read the subject line where I have clearly mentioned 'Re: sys3175, 600kgolfgt'. Please read carefully once again.

    Yes, I was referring to a 4 cyl 2003 Accord. The manual 2003 I-4 has been timed to 7.5s to 60, while the 1.8T Jetta does the same in 7.5-7.7, so they are very close. An in fact the discussion was about comparing the V6 Accord to the 1.8T Jetta. Hope that clears it up.

    BTW, I also own a 2000 Altima that I love, and the lower weight definitely gives it an advantage over comparable sedans, like those period Accords and Camrys. However, the 2003 Accord is a different story altogether, its deceptively quick.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    Motor Trend had an article on a 1.3 Million Accord, you could do a search on MT's website and read that story. Alternately, as I wrote earlier, Edmunds has a forum 'Highest mileage Japanese cars' that mentions many Hondas that have done pretty decent miles.
  • deej1323deej1323 Member Posts: 4
    2003 Accord EX
    Horsepower: 160 hp
    Torque: 161 ft-lbs.
    Curb Weight: 3109 lbs.

    2003 Jetta GL 1.8T
    Horsepower: 180 hp
    Torque: 173 ft-lbs.
    Curb Weight: 2974 lbs.

    20 more hp, 12 more lbs of tq, and 135 lbs lighter
    How the same 0-60 times?
  • 600kgolfgt600kgolfgt Member Posts: 690
    I was only answering your response to my post. What sys3175 said is not my concern, as it was not addressed to me.

    Enough of beating this dead horse. At least we're not driving crappy products from the Big Three...
  • deej1323deej1323 Member Posts: 4
    I understand tuning and other factors other than numbers that affect times, I was just wondering if you knew the difference in the tuning of each car. And also where did you see the 7.5-7.7 second 0-60 times for the Jetta. All i have seen around and from people talking is lower 7's to higher 6's.

    I completly understand however the argument of the V6 vs the 1.8T. MUCH more power from the V6, and a hell of a lot faster, and I am surprised to see someone say "they flew past one on the highway". Although I am willing to believe it considering the weight of each car, and there were possibly other things in the Accord which could in turn weigh it down. For the price of each, and the power of each, it would be a hard decision for me, even being a VW owner. The honda's are very reliable and have not heard of any problems with them at all. But the V6 is also much more expensive if I am not mistaken. Tough decision, and I like both cars a lot.
  • dkrabdkrab Member Posts: 77
    Buy what you like. Cars today are much better than they were 20 years ago. VW may not be as reliable, but the difference won't be that much.

    As far as the country of origin, please remember that some of the Accords sold in the US are built in Mexico, too. Are they not as good as the US or Japanese built units? Bet you can't tell the difference.
  • jtrujillo86jtrujillo86 Member Posts: 300
    Let's not forget about the transmission problems Honda is currently having in the Accords...

  • fish8fish8 Member Posts: 2,282
    Unfortunately, I have had personal experience with a transmission failure in an Accord. The transmission started to deteriorate in my Wifes '98 Accord. This occurred at 75,000.
  • gatrhumpygatrhumpy Member Posts: 126
    Does anyone know where I can find the Accord Sedan 3.0L V6 0-60 MPH times compared to other vehicles like the Altima, Maxima, and Jetta etc.?
  • lelandhendrixlelandhendrix Member Posts: 240
    Earlier it was mentioned that Hondas burn oil.

    I haven't heard of this, but have this to share:

    I'm on my third Honda, and the one I had the longest was a Civic that I drove 280,000 miles. Even at that age, the car burned NO oil, and continued to get 40 miles per gallon on the highway. My other two cars, including my current 2003 Honda with 14,000 miles, consume NO oil as well.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    Websites of car and driver, Road and Track etc should give you 0-60 times of these cars.

    Yeah, 2000 - 2002 Accords did have transmission issues, and it was around a 1.2 - 2% failure rate. Fortunately, Honda extended warranty till 100k miles on these model years.

    I own a 2003 Accord, with 27k on it, and hope this model is not affected by that problem, since it is a different tranny. Other than the tranny issue, Accords have been faultless and are pretty much considered the gold standard along with the Camry on reliability.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    I have never ever heard of any Honda engine burn oil, and I do consider myself a well researched carphile.

    Even in campuses where you generally tend to see the highest mileage cars, Hondas are regarded highly and are reknowned for 'clean tailpipes'
  • fish8fish8 Member Posts: 2,282
    I never heard about the extended warranty on 2002-2003 Accords. That wouldn't of helped my for our 1998 Accord though.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    The extended tranny warranty was given to 2000 - 2002 Accords, not on 2003 onwards. You are right, it still wouldn't have helped you. However, I have read on this forum that many pre 2000 Accord owners managed to get Honda to pitch in for repairs.

    I too would be pissed off if the same problem happened to me, since I expect this car to last around 200k miles
  • fish8fish8 Member Posts: 2,282
    As a matter of fact, Honda did agree to pay 20-25% of the cost to replace the transmission. But, the total cost was in excess of $5,000 for a new factory transmission. So, it just was not worth it to us to shell out that much money when the car was only worth less than $10,000. So, we went to carmax and they gave us lots of money for it.

    I do personally believe Hondas are very good cars and most will last a long time with proper maintenance. Though, our experience with our Honda turned us off from that brand. We will consider them in the future, as long as they have an attractive product.

    I just want people to realize that ALL car models have problems ( INCLUDING HONDAS ).
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    I agree with you, having to put us with this kind of a problem is not acceptable, and Honda should have paid in full. I do happen to know that the factory transmission cost is around 5K so that does not make it a favorable proposition.

    I am planning to buy an extended warranty on the engine and drivetrain. It is an added cost and I did not plan for it earlier.
  • newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    have never been very good according to my Honda mechanic. There have always been issues with them and it goes back farther than the recent Accords. When I owned Hondas, I used to bring them to a good friend of my Dad to get them fixed. He works at an independent import repair shop and he's one of the Honda guys. He usually only works on Hondas. They have other guys who work on VWs/Audis, Subarus, etc. He is very biased towards Hondas (he thinks VWs are junk), but he says one of the only bad things about them are their automatics, which was OK with me because I've never owned an automatic.

    Their manual transmissions are the best though.....
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    According to Motor Trend a Accord EX V6 sedan does 0-60 in 6.5 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 14.9 @ 92.8 MPH. A manual GTI 1.8T does 0-60 in 6.8 and the 1/4 in 15.3 @ 93.1 MPH. Please explain to me how an AUTOMATIC Jetta 1.8T would leave an Accord V6 like it was in reverse. Nevermind, I know how. We are in Edmunds-land and it's easy to talk the talk knowing you will never have to walk the walk and back up what you say.
  • 600kgolfgt600kgolfgt Member Posts: 690
    Please point us to the previous post that stated
    "AUTOMATIC Jetta 1.8T would leave an Accord V6 like it was in reverse"
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    6.5sec V6 Accord, 6.8sec GTI Jetta. Do the math, even in Manual config, the jetta is left behind. And there was talk of the Accord being passed like it was in reverse. Make sense?
  • hmurphyhmurphy Member Posts: 278
    I don't understand the obsession with which passenger sedans beat which other passenger sedans. How many of us actually get up to 92.8 mph? For the sake of everyone on the road, I hope it's not many.

    I don't see why any of this really matters unless you're a NASCAR participant.

    Most of the Jettas and Hondas I see are carting average Joes and Janes (myself included) to work or the mall or the drycleaner.
  • 600kgolfgt600kgolfgt Member Posts: 690
    I believe my previous question was directed at anonymousposts. In case you didn't understand it, I will say this again:

    anonymousposts - Please point us to the previous post that explicitly stated the following:

    "AUTOMATIC Jetta 1.8T would leave an Accord V6 like it was in reverse"

    03accordman - Your loyalty to your Accord should be commended. But don't let your loyalty blind you to the point where you take my last post as a statement rather than what it really is - a request.

    Recap: anonymousposts claimed that a previous post had the following statement:

    "AUTOMATIC Jetta 1.8T would leave an Accord V6 like it was in reverse"

    To which I immediately responded by asking him for the source of that statement.

    Now that I have CLEARLY stated the intentions of my previous post, I hope you go back, read it again, and have a better understanding (I'm pretty sure most of the readers understand where I was coming from)...

    By the way, with the amount of horsepower a V6 accord (230 or 240) vs. the Jetta 1.8T's 180hp, the Accord should have 0-60 times at least 1 second better, not 0.3 seconds better. So the fact that an automobile with a 1.8L 4-cylinder engine can actually keep up with an automobile with a 3.2L V-6 engine should be cause for concern..
  • hmurphyhmurphy Member Posts: 278
    ...like my job, my family, etc.

    I'm not concerned about .3-second variances in achieving high speeds.

    Good grief.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    I don't want to get into name calling or anything like that. Anony was referring to the original poster not you. You decided to ge tin the discussion, and now can't take the heat.

    From your post, it is clear who is blinded by loyalty. And by your self confessed knowledge fo cars, you should be ablt to answer your question yourself (V6 vs 1.8T times)

    You do realize that the Accord is a much bigger car than a Jetta, right? You also realize the time an auto tranny loses to a manual, right? The 0-60 times mentioned are for an AUTO Accord vs a MANUAL Jetta. Make some sense? C&D tested the V6 Accord coupe (manual) to around 5.8-5.9 seconds to 60. That look like a 1 second difference to you? That too in a much larger car.

    I will just say that again, you should have been able to answer this yourself.

    Anyway, enjoy your VW
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    The Germans are the benchmark for handling cars.
    Are you kidding the 7 Series and 5 Series look Japanese: thats emulating 1990's Pontiac in my mind.
  • 600kgolfgt600kgolfgt Member Posts: 690
    >The Germans are the benchmark for handling cars.

    Good point - I definitely agree with you.

    My only bone of contention with BMW is the styling. I attended the Phila. Car show this past weekend, and checked out the new 5 & 7 series BMW's. Those extra lines they added to the front and the lighting in the front and back strike me as being more Acura-like (and I think Acuras are beautiful cars in their own right) and less German-like. I was tempted to go to the sales booth and say "Be thankful I am not the CEO of BMW - because the first thing I would do is fire the entire design staff" In fact, those designs wouldn't have left the cutting room floor.

    Styling differences aside, the new BMWs are excellent)...
  • fish8fish8 Member Posts: 2,282
    I think Jattas and Accords are really not marketed to the same category of buyer. Each car has it's merits and each driver needs to decide what is important for them. Both are great cars, but as this thread points out, each car is not for everyone.

    Drive what you like and enjoy it...whether it's a Honda, VW, BMW or a Chevy.

    BTW.....I will put money down that many of the above posts get deleted by the end of the day!!!!
  • fish8fish8 Member Posts: 2,282
    Who in here has actually OWNED both a Honda and VW?
  • nw1997nw1997 Member Posts: 227
    Like their commercail states "DRIVERS WANTED", what does that mean? Are they in need of people to purchase their cars, etc.?
This discussion has been closed.