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
killermonkey
Member Posts: 1
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
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.
iaflyer
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.
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.
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.
Looks like you just blew away your kid's college tuition....
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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....
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.
Fish8:
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.
deej1323:
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.
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?
Enough of beating this dead horse. At least we're not driving crappy products from the Big Three...
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.
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.
Jeremy
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.
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.
Even in campuses where you generally tend to see the highest mileage cars, Hondas are regarded highly and are reknowned for 'clean tailpipes'
I too would be pissed off if the same problem happened to me, since I expect this car to last around 200k miles
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 ).
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.
Their manual transmissions are the best though.....
"AUTOMATIC Jetta 1.8T would leave an Accord V6 like it was in reverse"
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.
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..
I'm not concerned about .3-second variances in achieving high speeds.
Good grief.
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
Are you kidding the 7 Series and 5 Series look Japanese: thats emulating 1990's Pontiac in my mind.
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)...
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!!!!