Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Honda Accord Coupe



  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Posts: 4,202
    I don't see the Accord buying population aging in my area. There are a few Accords with 55+ people driving them but I see many more with people 25-34 driving them as well. Even see a few people younger than that driving them (like myself). I've seen plenty of older people in Altimas as well .. doesn't mean that only older people buy Altimas. Look at BMW .. it's the quintessential "sports" sedan and I definitely see alot of older people driving them. Doesn't mean that a BMW is any less sporty than a Civic though.

    You have to keep in mind that the Accord sedan is not a sports car. It's a family sedan that happens to be sporty. People buy it because of the safety, reliability, and economy it offers then get surprised by how well it handles the highway. Same goes for the Camry. Fact remains that the "sportier" family sedans don't sell any where near the number of units that the Camry and Accord do. And Toyota has the Celica, Corolla, and upcoming Scion brand to market to younger buyers while Honda has the S2000, RSX, TSX, and Civic. Up until the Z, Nissan had to make the Altima appeal to younger buyers because they had nothing else. Same goes for Mazda. As nice as the Miata is, not everyone can live with a 2 seater with minimal trunk room.
  • emaleemale Posts: 1,380

    i can't figure out why you think the latest accord is so different than previous versions? it actually looks better than the previous two in my opinion. and it would look even better if they put a better hiny on it!

    and i don't think it's an old fogey car by any stretch of the imagination. where i live i see just as many 20-30 somethings driving accords as i do older folks...
  • myq6_14myq6_14 Posts: 5
    I don't know if this is true, but i've always figgured this about the accord buyer's age:

    Honda says accord buyers are ~50 right (i don't know what they say exactly). That means most of the people who drive accords are around 50 right? Well, it can get a little more complicated than that. One thing that's not so easy to figure out is how many of these 50 somthing year olds own the title to their son/daughter's car. I know when I was in high school, a lot of kids got their parents to buy them accords. In college, the same thing happens. Now that I'm in my early 20's i know of some people who get their parent's name on the car to get a lower interest rate. How would honda know who's actually driving the car? Answer: they don't, they just know who signed the papers.

    Quick question: then what kind of $20k cars do 20 something year olds buy anyway?
  • carguy58carguy58 Posts: 2,303
    On the Element I read in a magazine Honda is happy with sales of it but their not happy because they anticipated people in their 20's buying Element's instead the people who are buying them are in their late 30's/early 40's.

    On Toyota they only take chances on styling on niche models. Personally I thought the last couple generation of Camry's were way better looking then the current one. Everybody Toyota fan seems to like the 92-96 Camry model as their favorite.

    About the 3 Series most I have seen younger people driving them. They're mostly for the 30-50 year olds though.
    On Toyota again it seems like they design great cars when you least expect them too. I didn't see the current RAV4 and Celica designs coming. Then when you expect Toyota to do something good like the current Camry where I thought the styling declined they bomb on you. Toyota fans also love the 92-96 SC430. Some car enhusiasts call it the best looking Japanese Car of All time.
    Also on Scion, I saw the new BBX I'm "Nay" on that. I saw a couple letters in "Motor Trend" about the BBX and the 2 letters were from young people both of them wanted either a compact car or a sports car for 20k
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Posts: 4,202
    The 92-96 Camry was the best generation. And it definitely wasn't because it was sporty. In 4 cylinder automatic form it was awfully slow and that was the top-selling version. But it had a substantial feel to it. It exuded quality.

    Some argue the 90-93 Accord was the best. I definitely can see that argument too. Soft-touch, bullet-proof, and yet again it exuded quality.

    While there are some hints of cost-cutting in the new Accord and Camry they both remain true to what made the previous versions so great. They are as reliable as anything out there, safe, get good MPG, comfortable for a family of 4, and the Camry has retained it's entry-luxury feel while the Accord has retained it's sporty feel. They both offer more content than before at the expense of soft-touch materials all over.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    Accord retained its sporty feel? what? it never had any and from my experience with the current one it doesn't now. heavily modded perhaps but out of the box it's not sporty. it's fast in V6 trim, but it doesn't offer the sort of handling that can be termed sporty. if you think an accord is sporty odds are good you've never driven a true sports sedan. cars like a 3 series or G35 will eat an Accord for lunch.

    speaking of amusing there's an extended Camry commercial that shows the car power sliding, doing 180s, etc. that's hilarious if you've ever driven one of those Buick clones. I took out an 02 Camry SE and I left thinking I had just piloted a La-z-boy on wheels. What a claptrap that car is.
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Posts: 4,202
    I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. The Accord is always commended for it's sporty feel in comparison to other family sedans. Of course if you compare an Accord to a 3-series or G35 it's obvious who would be the better handler. In fact, in the recent test between the Accord, Passat, Camry, etc they commented how strange of a world it was when the Accord felt like a German car and the Passat did not. I've driven bunches of cars including Saabs, BMW 3, 5, and 7 series, Mercedes C and E-class, VW's, Audi's, etc, etc, etc so I have a good idea of what a sports sedan is supposed to feel like. If my commute consisted merely of hairpin turns maybe there would be a better-handling car in my driveway but for driving down the highway and hitting the occasional corner the Accord is more than enough car.

    As for the Camry, it actually posted the best numbers a similar, if not the same, comparison test mentioned above. It may float over bumps but for some reason it can corner better than any of them. Strange. Besides, that's a cool commercial. Much better than the Mazda 6 spinning through the dirt.
  • carguy58carguy58 Posts: 2,303
    I thought Toyota fans liked it because it looked like a smaller version of the LS 400 body style wise. I could be wrong.
  • martylawmartylaw Posts: 51
    I saw the new Solara at the NY Auto show yesterday. The front is OK and the back is OK, although both evoke the SC430, and, IMO, like the SC430, are over-styled and overwrought. I think the problem is the side treatment, which just doesn't have a nice, strong profile, such as the Accord Coupe. I like the look of the Accord Coupe a lot. One criticism I have seen has been that it does not have enough detail, which I think is valid. However, I think the Solara has too much detail.
  • sphinx99sphinx99 Posts: 776
    "Quick question: then what kind of $20k cars do 20 something year olds buy anyway?"

    Being one, I can answer that. We buy Mustangs, Sunfires, Civics, Golfs, Eclipses, pick-ups, Neons, and so forth. Generally compact cars with good trunk room, good prices, and ok style.

    I don't think Honda's in danger of becoming a Cadillac anytime soon. Cadillac never had a S2000, Civic Si, TSX or NSX. They only had a Catera that was reputed to "zig." Jury's still out on that one....

    The big difference between cars like the Accord and the "sporty" cars like a Passat is size, IMO. It's too often lost that these "premium" family sedans get much of their agility from their relatively compact dimensions. I don't know about others, but most people I know don't care to trade room for sport. They'd rather have room and, when they are able to afford it, have room AND sport. That's why the Accord sells so darn well--it provides what's arguably the more important part of the equation. Ditto for a good cross-section of domestic sedans. That's also what makes cars like the G35 sedan so special, in my opinion. It provides size AND sport at an affordable price. The Altima and Accord both seem to strike nice balances as well. VWs and Mazdas sacrifice the former for the latter.

    This raises the fascinating question of how the new Ford sedan (Based off the Mazda 6) will fare from a handling perspective. Unless it's a roomy sedan, it's sales will be dismal by Taurus standards. So, assume it'll be a solid mid-size. What are the implications for its handling? I can't wait to find out....
  • myq6_14myq6_14 Posts: 5
    "Being one, I can answer that. We buy Mustangs, Sunfires, Civics, Golfs, Eclipses, pick-ups, Neons, and so forth. Generally compact cars with good trunk room, good prices, and ok style."

    I was actually hoping that somebody would post something like this. I am 21 and I'm gonna buy probably an accord coupe. When I was first looking at cars, I tried to look for something ~20k that was young, had power (preferably a v6), and was roomy for the driver (I'm 6'1" w/ a longish torso). Couldn't really find much that matched those criteria. I don't think choosing an accord over all the "young" cars listed is an "old person's" decision. I think SUV's are played out, so my choices came down to an accord or WRX. Accord's reliability, features, and value won out.
    Thanks for the post though
  • sphinx99sphinx99 Posts: 776
    "I don't think choosing an accord over all the "young" cars listed is an "old person's" decision. I think SUV's are played out, so my choices came down to an accord or WRX. Accord's reliability, features, and value won out.
    Thanks for the post though"

    Um, is someone disagreeing with you? The Accord coupe falls into the bucket that I mentioned, particularly the I4 variety. It's compact, sporty looking, reliable and not too expensive. It also has a decent amount of room in spite of its compactness.
  • snowfulsnowful Posts: 53
    I'm in my mid-20s and I bought the 03 Accord. I agree with some of the cars mentioned above like the Mustang and the Eclipse as cars 20-somethings tend to buy. As a younger buyer, my main goal was to buy something to differentiate me from the high school crowd and the type of car I had in high school. Therefore, I wouldn't take a second look at something like a civic, golf, or sunfire. I want something stylish and powerful, yet something that announces I am a young executive who is beyond the honda civic phase of my life. Other cars I looked at included the TT, 325, C coupe, 350Z, G35, Solara, and a few others. I felt the Accord had the most bang for the buck and I've been very satisfied with my decision.
  • jrp6977jrp6977 Posts: 87
    how much differences of opinion there are concerning the styling of the '03 Accord Coupe and the '04 Solara. I guess that's why there are so many different car models on the road today. I have weighed in as an Accord coupe owner who is very dissappointed with the Accords styling and optimistic about the Solara. Most of the comments I have heard from people I have talked to off this board has been negative towards the Accord. Just this weekend, a visiting friend (and Volvo owner) commented as we passed an "o3 coupe on the street "its not a bad looking car, it just needs something more". I couldn't put it better myself. It also made me think of what is specifically wrong with this design. Honda was trying to appeal to both Accord Coupe owners and former Prelude owners. In doing so, they tilted more to the Prelude than previous Accord. They seemed to have forgetten people like myself, who liked the Accord EX coupe because it combines sport and luxury in an elegant package that is not too large. I'm not looking for a sports car, but am looking for the same thing that used to drive people to cars like the Tbird, Monte Carlo, Gran Prix coupe etc, in a smaller more nimble and modern package.The elegance of the previous model is totally missing.The interior is nice, but contrasts with the plain jane exterior. While I like simple styling without lots of add ons, the '03 is too simple.I've looked at the ground affects and spoilers and don't like them either. It appears the stylists spent most of the time working on the complex front styling (with limited success in my opinion) and just gave up on the rest. Then, they capped it off in an honored Japanese auto maker tradition...they copied from the Germans and gave it Mercedes tailights. Hopefully, Honda will address what I consider to be flaws in this model in subsequent model years. I certainly hope so. I already have a dealer, I don't want to look for another. For those of you who like the new Accord, I am truley envious.
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Posts: 4,202
    Good post sphinx.

    I think the Accord's interior compliments the exterior and vice versa. While the exterior is not cutting edge or trend-setting it is likely to still look fresh when the other models start showing their age. I added fog lights, body-side moldings, chrome exhaust finisher, mud guards, black fender wheel trim, and the rear spoiler to my Accord. The result was VERY, VERY nice. It just didn't look like the same car when I picked it up from the dealer after having the adds put on nor does it look boy-racer. It fits me. I am 23 with a decent job, a house, and retirement savings. I have enough to spend on a nice car but I don't want any unnecessary expenditures. I have better things to worry about. That's where the Accord sets itself apart .. it's almost as sporty as the Mazda6, almost as quiet as the Camry, and it's one of the most reliable cars built.
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Posts: 1,467
    And I am ONLY considering the Accord, Camry, Altima, Mazda6 and VW Passat. These are my only logical choices because I feel that these cars are the best bang for the buck, and they fit me best. I am not into sports cars. Heck, the only coupes I'd consider are the Accord coupe and the new Camry Solara.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    bang for the buck in a camry? maybe most banal for the buck. bad handling and no power don't exactly scream value for one's dollar. at least the accord coupe has serious go-power.
  • nicka3nicka3 Posts: 1
    I'm trying to get some info on this car, and doesn't seem to be much out there. I'm thinging about buying this car, maybe around August or so (or should I wait for MY '04?). Presently I have a 2000 Prelude with 70K. I'm happy with the Prelude, but I have some problems with the driving position. I sat in an Accord 6 speed coupe at the dealer the last time I was getting the Prelude serviced. There is more room inside, and the driving position, comfort factors suit me much better than the Prelude's interior. Too bad the car has to be bigger on the outside and have poorer visibility than the Prelude does. Anyway, I didn't get to drive it. Anyone own one or have any driving impressions of this car?? I've looked in the car mags and I haven't seen any performance data. Anyone know what the performance stats for this car, or knoe of a magazine that has done a road test??

    Thanks, this is my first post by the way!
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Posts: 1,467
    Bang for the buck in that it does everything for the average car buyer very well. The car is reliable, has high resell value and is refined.

    The Camry and Accord have the 3 R's on lock.

    Plus I have a thing for the Camry SE.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    reliable, has high resell value and is refined

    so bang for the buck really isn't what you're looking for. You want banal for the buck. BTW, buy a 2-3 year old Camry (say an old style 2001 or the newer 2002) for 50-70% of its original sticker. It's just as reliable, is just as refined and it will give you more bang for your buck as you'll get the same car for less money and with the majority of the car's depreciation done with.
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Posts: 4,202
    0-60 times of the 6-speed coupe are in the 6.2-6.6 range. Here is a test of the 6-speed coupe against a Mercedes CLK . ex.html
  • snowfulsnowful Posts: 53
    How is a 2-3 year old Camry less banal than an Accord? Granted, neither car is particularly exciting, but I wanted the most "bang for my buck" with a NEW car, not a used one. And for the price of a new accord, there are not too many cars these days or in years past that offer a navigation system - a feature I really wanted.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    His version fo "bang for the buck" was based not on performance but on reliability, resale and refinement. If he's only concerned with the basics and not performance, then a 2 year old Camry SE (02) in september when the 04s hit would fit his bill. He could save 25-30% and get the exact same car. Just as bland but with substantial savings.

    BTW, buying a new car if one is concerned about resale value is sorta funny. You're gonna lose 10-20% in the first year alone. By year 3 you're down 40-50%. If the same model is available used it's a better idea to just slip into a 2 or 3 year old model and let some other poor sucker take that huge depreciation hit. Cars take their biggest hits in depreciation the first few years and then after 100k miles. Buy a used one (especially Japanese) with 30-40k miles on it and you're good for 4-5 years without major concerns and resale won't plummet as it did the first few years. Cars are a cruddy investment, new cars are the worst. The only way to offset the horrible depreciation on a new car is to keep it for 6-7 years. That won't solve the issue but it will help.

    For instance, you can buy a loaded 03 Accord coupe v6 EX with navi for 25k (pre-TTL) so figure 27.5 out the door. By 06 that Accord's gonna be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of 14-16k. 4k a year to drive it, essentially. From that point you usually only take a 2k hit a year.
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    to the price of most cars the depreciation rate gets much worse. Most people don't got there. One reason for that is if you trade a car in, you get a credit for the sales tax. Kinda skews the numbers.
  • I prefer to buy new, simply because you can usually drive a harder bargain on a new car. Ask any car dealer, they make much more money on a used car than on a used one. Plus you have the advantage of a factory warranty on top of that.

    I bought a 99 accord ex v-6 for $24,000. It is now worth $13,000, so I have gotten a great car for only about $229/ month if I were to sell it now. By comparison, a used car is almost always a bit of a crap shoot .. and I don't like buying the older technology to be honest.

    By the time most people have gotten off the used car lot, most people have been completely abused by the high dealer markup, higher interest charges for used, and a warranty that doesn't cover very much.

    I have owned two Hondas, and have been happy with them. However, I am going to trade this coupe in for a Solara come September .. . Man that is one hot looking car! Honda needs to get some better styling .. the couple is a disappointment, at least to my eyes.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    to the price of most cars the depreciation rate gets much worse. Most people don't got there. One reason for that is if you trade a car in, you get a credit for the sales tax. Kinda skews the numbers.

    That depends on your state. In CA that isn't so. You get charged sales tax, THEN the value of the trade-in is subtracted. And TTL is added to the cost of any used car you buy too, so it's a given that the cost of a car is 10% higher than the final agreed upon number.

    BTW, people trade in cars? Talk about taking a bath. Why would you throw away 2k minimum? Makes no sense unless the car is literally about to fall apart and the dealer offered you 2k sight unseen. Check the value of your car for trade-in and for private party sale. It's a huge difference because the dealers rape people on trade-ins.

    Additionally, because dealers rake people over the coals on trade-ins there is substantially more wiggle room in negotiating a price. also, most makes now offer a certified pre-owned program providing you with a warranty that extends far beyond the car's original. That's assuming you buy from a stealership. With the CPO a stealership isn't such a horrendous deal, without CPO, you're far better off getting your mechanic to look at a perspective used car and paying a normal citizen for the vehicle. He'll get more than he would on trade-in, you get a better deal and everybody leaves happy.

    I'm still undecided on the Accord coupe v6 mostly because of the cost of mods I'll incur post-purchase. Plus I've gotta wait for used ones to start popping up. Looking at used v. new, I've seen a few Infiniti g35s go for the high 20s and they come with Infiniti's obscenely generous CPO program. Honda's CPO seems okay but like the basic Honda warranty, it seems to be a tad skimpy.
  • Here's what I found trading and selling cars over the past 6 months in the process of upgrading the family cars:

    1) Honda dealer gave me full "private party" price for a 99 Honda Accord trade in November. Learning point: one could get maximum trade-in on a brand that the dealer is selling.
    2) Otherwise, trade-in is rock-bottom
    3) Worst trade-in scenario: trading mainstream brand (like Honda) for a luxury brand (like Lexus or even Acura) because dealer carries only Lexus-up vehicles to maintain brand prestige. Luxury car dealer will always quote the Kelly wholesale price without even inspecting the "pedestrian" car. This is probably the case too for Hyundai-for-Honda trades, etc.
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    And I live in Ga where you DO get the sales tax credit.
  • carguy58carguy58 Posts: 2,303
    When I was driving into the parking lot of a bank the other day I saw a Sliver 03 Accord Coupe with a spoiler on it. It did look better now that I have seen it in person. I saw some young girl getting into it and driving it away. It looks nice in silver and black colors. Its not the worst looking car out there but does it look as sleek as the last generation Accord Coupe? definately not. As far as the new Solara is concerned the 99-01 Solara was the nicest looking. The 04 Solara is just too overstyled like the Corolla in my opinion.
  • emaleemale Posts: 1,380

    i'd have to disagree, i think the new coupe looks much swoopier than the old one. the old one looked too much like the sedan. imo, the new coupe is an improvment over the old one.
Sign In or Register to comment.