Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Honda Accord - 2003 Redesign
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
RightO!
Bang-on-target!
should read ...
"Objectively, if you're looking for things like comfort, quiet, refinement, resale value... get the Honda. If you're looking for something a little sportier, more fun to drive, get the Mazda. If you want it all, get the Honda."
The only real questions are what the new styling will do to the sales numbers, and whether or not the added content is enough to overcome a prospective buyer's aestheic objections.
Also, tonight the wife & I had to go to the mall to get a present for a relative's birthday. On the way out, she tried to get into the wrong car. No matter how many times she hit the fob, the door to her 2002 Civic EX would not unlock. You'll never guess what she was actually trying to enter--- a BMW 328i sedan !!! I almost laughed myself to death.
To her untrained eye, they looked exactly alike. Now there's a comparison!! But, guess which one will likely still be running without a major rebuild in ten years?
Yea, your covered by clothing, but your the dork in the crowd.
I agree. When going fast, it is better to stay on the middle of the road, then on the edge.
As far as inspiration goes, however, a lot depends on what it means to the particular person. It is always good, IMO, to be self-inspired, and that is something Honda has been doing for a long time.
So, the question... is the new Accord 'conservatively designed'? I don't think so. Why? Look at smaller details, not what is thrown at the face. Every element in the new Accord has a meaning, and style, whether everybody likes it or not is a different issue.
It is amazing to see how Honda manages to maintain cohesiveness in its styling. I see elements from late 80s Accords, some interior influence from early 90s Legend, a bit of smoothness and high-rear deck profile of 1995 Civic sedan, and evolution of 98-02 wrap around tail lamp, and a common feature... low and wide stance with steeply sloped windshield and low hood profile.
If this is being conservative and uninspired, I admit, that is something I like.
And we're not talking about the rest of the car yet!
Michael
~ FasterThanU ~
I'm sure that for those who do not like the Accord, your nose ring looks REAL attractive when you blow your nose, or get Kleenex stuck on it.
Also, will there be any incentives or rebates?
http://waw.wardsauto.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazinearticleid=153664&magazineid=50&mode=print
It's true that Nissan must do something about the Altimas interior to stay competitive and the doors especially need some work. I wouldn't mind having rear headrests either, Honda has wised up! With that said lets give credit where it is due and not knock a car beacuse we have our Honda manufactured glasses on.
Can we agree that Accord has the better interior in the class and Altima has the better exterior?
Exterior styling is PURELY subjective, you can't measure it, you can't weight it, and you sure can't test it. As such, you will never get an agreement among people with different taste. It's like arguing what's the best food. I can accept and be happy for you that you like the Altima's exterior. But why can't you accept the fact that some of us like the new Accord's exterior?
The new Accord has a crisp, sleek and modern look that is distinctive.
The Altima is a rehash, mish-mash of other makers' styling themes. And built cheaply too.
But then, some apparently love it, so there we go. Thats subjectivity.
Mazda is trying to apply some jazziness to its 626 in the form of Mazda 6, but IMO, Millenia is their best looking sedan, and they should have gone in that direction. Initially I though Millenia was the inspiration, but the more I look at Mazda 6, it looks more like 626. OTOH, I really love the rear end in Millenia, very refined and upscale, (used to be) unique too (especially the rear glass).
Plus, the Accord interior is 10times nicer than the Altima's and the performance is very similar. Good Job Honda!! Now, I just hope the quality is better this time around on the Accord.
Sidenote: the new Mazda 6 is definately a sharp looking car and Mazda actually designed nice Lexus knock-off tailights. But I wouldn't dare buy a Mazda 6 because of the Ford connection. I also sat in a Mazda 6 at the NY International auto show and the car was a bit flimsy, as in doors and dash materials.
Looks are subjective. I tend to like the Honda, Mazda, Nissan line-up. I think BMWs are gorgeous (would buy a 330 is a second if I didn't commute to NYC everyday). Personally, I think all Volvos, most MBs, the Audi A6, Infiniti G35, Lexus GS and VW Passat are pretty ugly. I'm not saying that they aren't great cars, I'm just not crazy about their looks. I guess I have strange taste.
machiavelli, The last 929 was a very sharp looking automobile, inside & out. As was the Mazda Millenia before it's current & slight redesign. Actually the last generation 929 still looks good today on the road. Most 2003 models do not look as good.
0 - 60MPH = 6.57 sec. (This is as fast as the L-Tuned IS300 reviewed in the same issue, at 6.56 sec.)
Quarter Mile = 14.98 sec. (faster than the L-Tuned IS300 at 15.02 sec.)
The 6-speed manual version of the coupe, according to MT, should return 0-60 in the 5 SECOND RANGE. An Accord, yes, an Accord.
This tramples the Altima whose 0-60 = 7.3 sec.
All this and a Honda-smooth ride. Thanks most definitely to Nissan for giving the Altima 240HP. Gave Honda a chance to show they always do it better.
Note that the Accord did 6.56 with the auto.
According to MT they believe the 6-speed manual coupe could return a sub 5 second run! How anyone could call the Accord a sedate car is beyond me. If styling is their only argument, they need to find something else.
I was going to wait for the '04s, but after driving an Infiniti G35 last weekend, I am very anxious now to compare an '03 Accord EX V6. Front vs rear drive question aside, the price difference and performance vs value equation sure make the new Accord look like a roaring bargain to me. If others here believe otherwise, well, that's one less person I'll be rubbing elbows with in the showroom....OK with me...
Based on what I've read so far, the Accord 6 will trail the G by maybe a car length to 60 mph, hardly worth talking about. The G needs premium fuel, needs an oil change every 3750 miles, has a superior warranty and good [if scarce] dealer body. Ride on the base car with 16" wheels feels comparable to our '01 EX V6, so I am hoping for some improvement there with the '03 Accord. The G will probably depreciate faster, since Nissan has not taken care of the Infiniti franchise to date the way Toyota has Lexus.
In my mind, these two cars are very much competitors, FOR WHAT I WANT. I don't need a "sports sedan" [I've been doing that since our '67 BMW 1602]...I need a comfortable, safe, fun-to-drive touring car that won't beat you up at the end of a 600 mile day and won't cost an arm and a leg to own and maintain.
Now, the motoring press, in its infinite wisdom, would not consider these two cars together. Fortunately, they're not spending my money, so I get to ignore their marketing rules.
Over the past 40 years, I've owned everything German and Japanese, several times over, so I have intimate knowledge of the risks and rewards of the various competitors in the $20-28k class. For example, another possibility is an overseas-delivered BMW 325 with minimal option load, which I can have for $27-28k, but which carries much more financial risk over the long haul [both maintenance and repair risks] than the Japanese.
I guess my point is that the old Accord was a fine competitor in its class, but the new Accord has virtues that [again, pending a thorough test] seem to move it up a class without costing any more money. If that ain't progress, then I don't know what progress looks like...
jrc: What a great post. Thoughts from someone in the market for a car who is actually informed and not weighted down by bias. Whatever car you end up buying will surely fit your needs.
"Slight changes in geometry, together with a new front subframe and softer lower control arm bushings, help the Accord's overall ride withough hurting the car's sporty feel. Accords have always been fun to hustle down a twisty road, and the 2003 model is no exception."
Let the Altima and Mazda 6 fans keep harping on the so-called "fact" that their favorite cars are so much sportier than the Accord. Sources like Motor Trend and Road and Track, who really know cars, can get past the fanboy mentality and tell it like it really is.
I'm a bigger fan of Honda than of Nissan or Mazda, but objectively speaking, one has to admit that the Mazda 6 was probably designed with more of an emphasis placed upon handling than was the Accord. The more mainstream your car is, the more compromises you need to make in order to maintain your sales numbers. Mazda has less at stake than Honda, so they can afford to go in a slightly different direction, which only benefits the consumer (more choice is a good thing).
Anyone who says the Civic EX is as fun to drive on a twisty road as a Protoge ES is a liar. I think that pretty much sums up the some of the differences that will exist between the Accord and the 6, which is not to say that the Accord will not still be the better overall package.
Honda isn't helping itself with it boring car image. Witness the Brown LX wearing full hubcaps and with two-tone brown interior featured in the September Automobile review. As the reviewer, Jamie Kittman (aka avid Passat lover) noted, the brown two tone interior definately isn't "european" and somewhat justifies the higher asking price for the Passat.
As for the G35, its built off the same platform as the Z350 and will spin off a coupe of its own this fall, as well as the next Skyline GT-R. The engine is fully behind the front axle, making it "mid-engined" for better weight distribution and handling. Everything I have read about the car gives it an A- (interior material letdowns again) and makes it a close 2nd the the BMW 3-Series. If you make cost an issue however, the G35 is a no-brainer...
mendtions the ford, chevy, chryler alternative, because the above 3 set the pace. honda and toyota will push altima to improve the interior and we the consumer will benefit.
people who buy honda sacrifice some style for quality, resale value and drivability
some people just like to see themselves argue on line., most don't listen or care what they spout off. substance counts
Don't know about the new Civic or RSX. Today was a Sunday, and I felt like cruising around, so I went around to the dealers and squatted down and walked around the cars and everything. Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh no sir, I don't like it.
That said, the only big problem with the 2003 Accords in all the photos I have seen is the back end... which I haven't seen many photos of.
I don't like the 2002 Altima's taillights as much as I did when they first came out.
I really like the new Accord's styling, very much a Honda, from about every angle. The coupe's taillamp does look more like it came off CLK more than from Acura CL, and the rear end of the sedan could have been better (something that evolved from the Integra/Vigor of early 90s).
Based on all reviews (except Edmund's Wardlaw, who appears to be the only person who was told that the new Accord is an all out sport sedan), Accord is better than ever, more refined, more solid, better handling, better features, for about as much as it did. Who can have a problem with that?
Also, I got quite a few emails about the $316 over invoice (whatever it turns out to be)deal on 03 Accords at the Oklahoma dealer. E-mail me a Jcro3717@aol.com if interested in more details--not too good to be true.
INKY