>>>>McDonalds sells a lot of hamburgers to the masses, and they will keep you alive but people with advanced taste usually don't usually enjoy eating them.<<<<
Styling is subjective. I think it's a big reach to call the new Accord "ugly". Bland, conservative - OK, but "ugly" is a stretch. The Accord has never really been a beauty queen. Nobody really buys one based on styling anyway. Let's just say, it's no Honda Element or Pontiac Aztek when it comes to ugliness. I'm just not a fan of anything trendy.
"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."
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 new Accord will remain the value and performance benchmark of the mid-sized class.
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.
Beginning on page 97 of the September issue of Car and Driver (came out today) is a positive article on the new Honda Accord. They summed it up this way, "Overall, the 2003 Accord represents substantial progress on almost every front."
Please keep in the mind the new Accord & the new Mazda 6 have yet to be released to the market, nor have they been pitted head to head in any automotive comparison test. Hence, all the ruckus comparing the two's dynamics are a moot point at this time. Even in C&D's test comparison, the old Accord V6 beat the new V6 Altima. Still, I think it best to reserve final opinion until the new Accord can get tested.
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?
"There's nothing wrong with being middle of the road and "uninspired..." 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!
Would be the official on-ale date. Cars will start appearing at dealers in advance of that date so that there is a supply on hand for the official on-sale day.
This may have been discussed previously, but what's the MSRP on the 2003 model? I'm looking at the 2002 Special Edition and wondering if I should wait for the 2003. Any thoughts?
"The Accord manages to strike a balance between the emotion-driven Altima and the left-brained Camry — as well as outdoing the already-excellent previous generation. While its V-6 matches the Altima's power horse for horse, the Accord also equals Camry's attention to detail."
I'm going to leave bias mentality at home and say that the Accord overall has the best interior in it's class and the best Honda interior that I have seen out of their sedans (that goes for Acura too) but to say that it's exterior will age well when many are saying how ugly it looks, even Honda lovers themselves (go to honda-acura.net or vtec.net to find out)is just coming from a bias mentality. The Accord is not just bland the rear pushes it over to the ugly side for the sedan. Let alone they did a bad job of copying styling from other makes. And if you want to call it bland then why does it look even more downmarket then the little civic that couldn't? I'm sure this Accord will be considered "The Ugly One" by many.
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?
I'd say the Mazda 6 wins in the exterior 'looks' department of this class, but I really don't think the Accord is ugly. That's an exaggeration. I'm not a big fan of the 'slammed Civic' tail-lights of the Altima.
I would place the Mazda 6 second place it is a bit bland at the side with no significant character line and the front end isn't as aggressive/cheerful as the Altimas.
"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?
I agree with jguo - looks are very subjective. I'm really not a big fan of the Altima's styling. If you like it, fine. I wouldn't go so far as saying it's ugly, but it's not my favorite.
I'm not a big fan of bulk-suggesting exterior styling, something that might do well with GM buyers, and that is the direction Nissan took with Altima. To me it looks like a 1.5 scale 2000 Civic sedan from the front, front to side profile of Passat, and a high and huge rear end with almost a missing bumper. Overall, the Nissan styling is far from being original, as I doubt you can trace back its styling theme to any Nissan of the past.
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).
At first, I found the '03 Accord to be extremely ugly. It looked a bit better after seeing from different angles. And then yesterday, I got September's issue of Motor Trend. After I saw the Accord and Camry side by side, I actually think it's good looking and unique, dare I say. I still find the Camry to be better looking on the outside(I guess I just like the more conservative look of the Camry). But the Accord is definately not ugly looking anymore. I still prefer the '02 Accord's looks but I would gladly buy the '03 Accord over the Altima because of it's exterior. The Altima's rear Lexus IS300 lights are disgraceful-Nissan just couldn't pull off the tailights like Lexus can.
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.
The way a body style is perceived can be affected by its colour. There are ba-gillions of champange or platinum shaded "CamCords" out there. I will not even talk about the watermelon coloured Taurus I saw on the road last week-- YUCK !! From what I have seen in pictures, the 2003 Accord looks better in darker hues, like red, burgandy, black, or midnight blue. Even "Clover Green" would prolly look nice. To me, colours like silver, grey, & some shades of light blue are dangerous, as that makes the car nearly invisible in low light situations--- especially when the dork driving the car does not turn on their headlights in heavy rain or fog.
I agree with Robertsmx. The Millennia is/was a great looking car. Classy and sporty at the same time. I like the looks of both the 6 and the Accord. The only think that may turn me off to the 6 is the size. From the pictures it doesn't look any bigger than a Protege. I will hold final judgment on the 6 and Accord until I actually see them. I also think the Altima looks great (exterior) with the exception of those tail lights. In my opinion, they just don't seem to match the rest of the car.
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.
When the 94 models came out, I thought that was ugly. I didn't like the rear end... Like I said before on this forum, the Accord tends to do that to people. But the more and more you look at the Accord the more you realize that the designers did their homework. I still like the 2002 styling, but I like the interior design on the 2003. There's just something about Accords that makes you fall in love with it in due time. The interiors ergonomics and quality is timeless IMO. Sure the exterior looks like a bigger Honda Civic, but the civic is not a bad looking car either. Honda's tend to look more proportional although, I like the 2002 coupe styling better than the 2003.
maple49, The Mazda 6 is quite a bit larger than the Protege. I sat in the front & back seats of the Mazda 6-without a doubt it is larger inside & out. The back seat has plenty of room to stretch out. Knees don't touch the back of the front seat backs either. I believe it's pretty close in size to the 2002 Accord sedan and 2001 Camry.
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.
Altima did 0-60 in 6.6s for MT (7.3s was C&D's run). IMO, a drag race between the two would be close, but I doubt Honda will suffer from torque steer like the Nissan, and will likely have a better ride quality.
I got the Altima's 0-60 from Edmunds - they got the same number as C&D. Do you know if that was from the auto or manual?
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.
...if the naysayers don't want the car, that's just one more for the rest of us. This obsessive focus on perceived shortcomings in the car's styling are a ridiculous waste of time when the thing that really matters is how the car drives. My experience with the Altima is that the 6 cyl car has a ride I could not live with on an every-day basis, so how it looks, or whether it edges the Accord in a drag race [who gives a ...?] could not be less relevant.
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...
...and cutting to the reality, the G35 is a rear-drive sedan based on the home market Skyline. It has the great Nissan V6, making 260 hp and the same in torque, and the sucker moves...like nothing I've driven in the past 40 years [since a friend's '62 fuel-injected Corvette]. It is about 3" shorter than an Accord, approx the same width, and with a wheelbase that is 4.5" longer. Prices start at $27.5k for a base sedan, with cloth, manual seats, no sunroof, but with a complete safety and stability package. All I need or want is in the base car, so my price ceiling is about $27k.
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...
I wouldn't consider the G35 to be in the same class as the Accord. The Accord is nice, but IMO, the G35 is one rung further up on the ladder. it's RWD for one, which ultimately is better for cars with sporting intentions. Two, it shares a platform with the japan market Skyline. Three, the exterior of the G35 is just flat out better than the Accords-but the G35's interior bites! For a few grand more I would definately buy the Infiniti G35. IMO, this is the first great car Infiniti has turned out since the 1st generation Q45. And it's one of the best cars in class, blowing away the 3.2TL and running with the BMW 330i.
I would be the last person to call Accord a sedate car. It is one of the cars I gladly take for 1000+ mile trips. Honda may be to blame for not 'glamorizing' the car enough. Some flashy commercials, couple of cosmetic touches could easily do that.
robert: I agree. The more I see this car's pics and specs, the more stunning I am sure it wil be in person. It offers much more than its competitors. Compared to the Accord, they look like they made huge compromises whereas Honda was quietly conjuring the new benchmark ... again.
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.
I recall a recent post where one of the Honda bashers referred to the Accord as a "commuter car". Well, Road and Track doesn't agree:
"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.
Motor Trend is the Coors Light of car mags. They have yet to find a new car they wouldn't take home to meet their mother.
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.
MT is improving in its reporting. They actually pick winners of their comparision tests. I always thought it was weak and suggested to much nicety to advertisers that they did't pick a winner or critisize anythin too much.
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...
Several posts comparing honda, toy, altima, and they are competitors. The altima has the style (cheap interior), honda tends toward the sporty, and camry conservative. all will be relatively trouble free. stop bashing the honda, the market will decide. I feel, honda and toyota will be neck and neck in #'s, altima helped them grow into better cars due to competition but when the new honda comes out, more pressure will be placed on nissan, and toyota. it's the newest kid on the block. the envelope will be pushed for the benefit of the consumer. Funny no one 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
Honda-Acura was doing everything right in 2000, it seemed. Civic/Integra/Accord/Prelude of that model year could have made a perfect complete four-space garage full for me.
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.
Honda shouldn't do what Nissan did, copy bits and pieces from other designs. The resemblance of coupe's tail lamp with CLK is causing so much fuss, but I didn't hear about similarities that Altima/Q45/G35 received. Accord coupe's tail lamp is almost as identical in look to CLK's as is Altima's tail lamp to Chevy Montecarlo's, or Q45's to Audi A6, or G35 to Avalon/BMW 3-series. But then, when it is an Accord, something needs to be dug up in an attempt to bash it.
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?
Anyone remember when Honda was releasing 03 Accord Pricing? 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
INKY, I'd like to know more details about that one. Is that for a volume LX, or a loaded EX-V6 w/ navi? I doubt they'll let that go for a few hundred over invoice.
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