Honda Accord vs. Toyota Camry vs. Volkswagen Passat

mvcjones · April 2003

I use these forums to research car purchases as I have made two in the last 6 months, with the Passat and Accord on my short list.

I will not divulge what I purchased, because in the context of this forum it is immaterial as it just becomes a magnet for slanderous remarks. People buy what they like for whatever reason.

This forum has become useless. It used to be a good discussion of the merits of each automobile, and it has now become a garbage filled sandbox where everyone cries about how their car is better than someone else's to justify their purchase.

What a waste of time. If everyone needs to come here to bash someone/something else because they are not secure in their decisions over a consumer product, then there is no value to this discussion except to attack others and their decisions. This goes for both VW and Honda owners who need to attack others to make them secure in their decisions.

I'm OUTTA HERE.

krzyss · April 2003

this might be the reason that it is not listed.
As far as I am concerned, lack of wagon in Honda and Toyota stables did it for me.

Krzys

PS If anybody claims that Camry, Accord or Passat do not have passive safety built in is ...

uncledavid · April 2003

Well, one observation is that were pretty lucky to be living in an age where one can buy a family sedan for under $30,000 that is as strong overall as the Passat or Accord. I've drive Accords for 15 years, and can't say enough good things about the vehicle. I'm also seriously considering a Passat right now, for my next car (partially because I'd like a wagon for all the camping I do). Both cars have their ups and downs, neither is horribly unreliable, and neither is an "appliance." Nothing but good choices here!

riship · April 2003

The following numbers are the sum of 3 and 5 year ALG residual value percentages.

Acura 3.2TL 97%
Accord EX-V6 94%
Lexus ES300 92%
BMW 330i 92%
MB C240 88%
Passat GLX 87%
Audi A4 3.0 83%
Camry XLEV6 82%
Maxima GLE 79%
Volvo S60 78%
Audi A6 3.0 77%
Saab 9-5 68%
Grand Prix 63%

All cars are 2003. Numbers were obtained using the car comparison at acura.com. Admittedly these numbers conflict with ALG residual values award. Those awards were probably based on 2002. Perhaps accord has risen that much. I don't know how to explain BMW beating Acura though for the near luxury award. I seriously doubt that acura would alter these numbers as they are labeled "ALG residual value". Just food for thought.

maxamillion1 · April 2003

There are too many resources to argue against that statement.

allhorizon · April 2003

Thanks, Dena, well said. I am almost convinced now I can post something useful in this discussion.

Unfortunately, what has been pursued here so far is dogmatism, or at best evangelism. Previous posters likely wont care due to their personality, but they fail to understand that buying a car is a personal decision based on fragile and futile optimization in a large parameter space. All I hear is attempts to justify and declare as logical a highly personal weighting of a very limited subset of this.

Three statements:

1. All of these cars are great and much better than just a few years ago, and better than much of the competition.
2. You only have one live. Dont stress out, buy what you like and what feels right to you, within certain but broad limits.
3. Isnt it great that we have choices?

- D.

kenbb · April 2003

Like most family people I live in a reality influenced by family finances. I work within a budget that sets certain limits on my discretionary spending. People who do not do this in my situation end up with financial problems. When I was shopping for a family sedan, and let's face reality that is what all of these cars are, there were many factors I had to take into account. In my situation price and low financing came first. I drove all of the three cars mentioned. Passat: best looking car, high quality interior, not many others in town , made it appealing. It's high price eliminated it for me . I simply had no choice. Accord: Liked the interior, liked the engine, already own one so I know what to expect. Didnt' like the exterior, no low financing when I needed it. Better price wise for what I was getting in the Passat IMO, but I had to pass. Tight budget, want to save and retire in comfort some day. Camry: Quietest most comfortable ride, best price, incredibly cheap financing. In my situation with all of the factors I bought the Camry LE. I know there are trade offs. Maybe some performance , some handling, a little safety. So far I am more than happy with my choice. I thought all 3 were great cars. Actually I tried real hard to find an American company to buy from, maybe next time!

allhorizon · April 2003

Kennan,

You have a good point; the Camry, Focus and even Legacy can be good buys these days on a budget.

On the other hand, 10 years ago I bought a Golf for $13,000, which was about $1000-2000 more than a comparable Civic. I have had less than $1000 in repairs on it, pay less insurance locally because it has an alarm and is not a target car (unlike the Civic), change the oil only every 6000-8000 miles, and have been getting 28/35(average 30)mpg throughout its lifetime. Total cost of ownership and fun factor have been great. YMMV.

In the end, for many people +-10% to 15% or so in the initial price is an acceptable variation when all other things are considered.

- D

mricciardi · April 2003

Hi all: I know you think this is crazy, a Chrysler in with the imports, but if your talking Passat then you must consider the 300M. As for the assumed greatest benefits of owing an import, reliability/longevity, VW doesn't belong in the same category with Camry or Accord. As for the VW, they have horrible automatic transmissions. If you buy one just have $4,000 put aside for later cause you'll be replacing the tranny before 100,000 miles (but after the warranty expires), so add it to the price you pay for the car. If you don't believe me contact some of your local transmission places. Some of them won't even work on it, you need special tools and have to get a code from VW. At VW, they just replace them with a rebuilt one, and its expensive. As well, you may experience some electrical problems and may end up replacing the entire exhaust (which has two mufflers on it, big $$$ bucks). Though the car never left me stranded, it is far from perfect. As for a discussion on resale, sure all three are better then the 300M, but do include the cost for fixing the VW, which then brings it right there with the 300M in five years due to the VWs real high purchase price. I've done allot of homework on these vehicles as I am now in the market for a new car, and I would never consider an American made car over an import before now, but the 300M is ranked as the #1 most reliable American made Sedan and has a better history then the Jetta and Passat on warranty repairs, specifically within the last three years. VW's profits have gone up since their warranties have been reduced from 10yr 100,000 miles. The 300M also has had fewer problems than your S60 Volvo's! Don't take my word for anything, do your own homework, but be sure to research it unbiased, don't just read reports by major magazines, talk to owners and contact repair shops too. You will be hard-pressed to find any 300M's in your local shops for any kind of major repair work, including at the Chrysler dealership, hmmm interesting, in fact I extremely surprised. In 1999, the first year model did have some nagging problems, but the powertrain is solid and the car merits a look when you consider the recent discounting to make room for any 04's. The key to buying this car, because the resale is less within 4-6 years of ownership then the imports is to get it heavily discounted on the front end (buy) to reduce the amount of loss on the back end (when you sell it). As for the Camry, well, it's a nice looking car with a 1972 Buick "like" ride to it. I said like, not exactly. Its gotta a grandma-esq dashboard, and its not much fun to drive. Pretty much a mom's car or for a senior on a budget, you know, one who couldn't afford or didn't want to spend the extra bucks for the Caddy. The Accord is bland in styling, but the V-6 moves that car extemely well. The ride is more firm then the Camry yet it is still comfortable, the seats are much better then in the Camry, its more fun to drive then either the Passat or the Camry. There is allot to like about the Accord V-6, its hard to beat for the money considering the company. Oh yeah, and it has more room than the Passat. I discredited the Passat because of its high price tag when loaded up and future trouble you are almost guaranteed to have with it. Buying an extended warranty to cover the VW for the life of the loan is a smart move on that car. The 300M, well, it is priced similarly to the Passat, and with the April $3,000 discount, if bought even with some extras, your in the ballpark of the Camry and Accord too, frankly, with its reliability rating and big discount it warrants a look. Though some (not all, again do your homework) Honda's go for many trouble-free miles and years of service, it usually will not be with one owner, cause you will grow tired of it, and by the way, if you were to keep a car that long, any vehicle, it would be worth nothing at that point anyway. So, I think the Honda is clearly the best buy in this class, but the 300M is the most comfortable and most fun to drive, and I project it will be more reliable then the Passat from experience and from what I learned. As for resale, yeah, it sucks compared to Honda and Camry for a 5-6 year period, but not the Passat when you figure in the expensive repair costs of that car. So, if you do want more car for the money just try to get one heavily discounted on the front end so you don't get hurt at the back end. Good luck to all.....

krzyss · April 2003

but it is still hard to read it if it is not broken into paragraphs.
So how is your Jetta GL doing ?

Krzys

03honda · April 2003

How can you compare your experiences with a 1996 Jetta GL to a 2003 Passat, Camry, or Accord? And then go on to say that most people who buy a 2003 PASSAT will have $4,000+ in repairs like you had with a 1996 JETTA. (By the way, I have an Accord).

hiflyer · April 2003

Does the word "venting" mean anything?

BTW, if one is the original owner of a '98 -'01 Passat and its transmission conks out before 100k miles, VW replaces it free under the powertrain warranty - and I haven't heard that service being necessary all that often.

toledo19 · April 2003

No question the 300M is a beautiful automobile. But, the road noise is so pronounced that you have to jack up the sound system to muffle it! And, the windshileld appears to be miles away because of the cab forward design. No thanks!

jtbruin · April 2003

When I first used this site to decide between midsize cars, it was actually useful for me since i didn't know much about any of these cars. I read some posts (the ones that were actually informative) and these people listed what they thought was good and bad about the their car and what to look for when i was deciding.

I was set on getting a mazda 6, but after getting some advice (from mazda 6 fans) about what to look for and what would suit me best, i looked at each of these cars.

I'm a grad student a thought about what was most important to me in car. i chose my car seeing if they met what i wanted:
1) price (passat was too expensive)
2) styling (accord, nasty [non-permissible content removed])
3) ride & comfort (mazda 6, altima, camry were all good)
4) straigt up acceleration (mazda 6 is gone, too weak at low end)
5) interior (altima is too cheap)

that left me with the camry le and that's what I got! It's dark blue, looks nice, nice ride, handles could be better, but overall very good considering I got the car for about $16.7k, way less than anything out there. hope this is useful for those comparing cars out there!

anonymousposts · April 2003

I don't care what anyone says ... I love the outside of the new Accord. Besides I see the interior more than I see the exterior and there is no way I could live with the Toyota's "Buicky" interior.

tsonic · April 2003

First off, I just bought an EXL accord after 5 months of debate. If I didn't have 4 kids, I would have gone for the Passat, but just can't see spending that kind of money for a family car. Camry has it's plusses, little bigger and quiter than the Accord, but it's more expensive for the same features (important to me were safety - ABS, air bags, and of course leather and the moon roof:)) So what I'll call the "high-lower end family car" decision went to the Accord. Similar features on a Passat would have run me over $5,000 more. So, I think the Passat is a better car, but not a better value, and therefore went with the Accord...

ivan_99 · April 2003

Funny you should mention the 300M. I recently drove my sister in-laws 2000 300M for the day. I expected a lot since this is supposedly marketed as a higher end automobile (near luxury).

Even though it was a 2000, I currently drive a 03 Accord EX I4 5M, I thought it should still retain some of the Newness; there was no comparison between the two. The 300M dash creaked and banged around (a lot), the engine was harsh above 4000, and the interior reeked of cheap wood. I won't mention the brakes since that may be due to neglect (terrible, I guess I just did mention it

). I don't recall the performance specs on the 300 but I'm positive my 4 cylinder 5M had better performance in all categories. The 300 may have a slight advantage on power when under 2000 rpm. This did NOT feel like a 250+hp engine, I'm not sure if it was the 4sp tranny or the ratios but it was lacking

I like the styling of the 300M and on paper it looks like it would be a winner when compared to any of these (Passat is my winner) but there is a reason the used ones depreciate. I've driven a 2000 Passat and even though there are variances with all used automobiles it clearly was superior.

When purchasing a new automobile I find it helpful to drive a used one a few years old (when one is available). This doesn't always work when new models come out on new platforms.

.02

bippy5674 · April 2003

I am in the process of trying to find a DEPENDABLE station wagon. The ratings on the Camry were not very good compared to the Honda. The Honda is more money however. I was wanting to know if any owner of a camry wagon has had any expensive or serious problems with their wagon. Also if they had a choice would they buy another one. I am not buying brand new but used and in the early nineties model, like 92-94. The problems that stood out in the ratings were engine problems and steering, suspension problems. If you had any repairs relating to these please state what and how much the repair was. I was looking at Subaru's as well but I owned one before and the engine had a severe recurring problem. I appreciate any feed back.
Thanks

allhorizon · April 2003

Lori,

A typical 10 year old car has over 120,000-150,000 miles, which means it could quickly develop transmission or engine problems no matter what brand. At that mileage, I would strongly recommend a car with perfect maintenance history and a single owner. Even then leave a few thousand dollars in your budget for future repairs.

I don't quite remember when Honda and Toyotas stopped making their wagons, but when I was shopping for a wagon a few years back the used ones were scarce and overpriced. I wouldn't worry about a problem with a single car you owned before. You may be better off with a 5-6 year old Legacy than with a 10 year old Accord or Camry.

- D.

anonymousposts · April 2003

There is no reason a Camry wagon would be any less reliable than a Camry sedan. My in-law had a 94 Camry with 160,000 not-very-well-maintained miles on it but it never gave any problems. Another relative just bought a 94 Camry with 148,000 miles and the car runs and feels like new. Same goes for a 91 and 93 Accord we have owned. Just buy the one you like, are comfortable with, and can afford.

krzyss · April 2003

What kind of new cars do you drive that they feel like 150000 miles, 9 years old vehicles.
It is hard to imagine why somebody would sell 10+ years old car, which is supposedly running great.
Choose the car and take it to trusted mechanic before paying for it.

Krzys

anonymousposts · April 2003

The 9 year old cars with 150,000 miles that I have driven still have tight suspensions, no rattles, the engine is still smooth, tranny is still smooth whether it is auto or manual, and you feel like you can jump in it and go any where. There are alot of new cars that you can't say that for.

Why would someone sell a 10 year old car that was running great? Maybe they are just ready for a change, maybe they need something bigger/smaller, or maybe they are like me and my fiance and just like to buy different cars.

maxamillion1 · April 2003

We have a 1992 Honda Accord DX with over 226,000 miles on it, we brought the car brand new, and there is nothing wrong with it at all. The car is in perfect shape, and it has been all over the southern and midwestern U.S. We would never sell it though, and we still don't have any rattles.

hmurphy · April 2003

My 94 Camry runs like a dream, but I bought a 2003 Accord because of all the new safety features. Lots of people sell their old cars to take advantage of new features, not because the old cars are lemons. My Camry would get me to work and back without trouble, but it wouldn't protect me as well as the new Accord in an accident.

bodble2 · April 2003

A 12-year-old car, no matter how immaculate, is still 12-year-old technology. And other than computer technology, I think automotive technology has the fastest rate of obsolescence.

allhorizon · April 2003

Safety is one reason I suggested looking at a 5-6 year old wagon over a 10 year old.

The other reason is, the original poster asked for a dependable station wagon (emphasis by poster).

Say a reasonably built car has a useful life of 200,000 miles, after which it becomes a matter of luck if it is still dependable (and I dont like to use the words luck and dependable in the same sentence). Thus, driven at 15,000 mile/yr, a 10-year old car has perhaps 50,000 miles left, a 6-year old car more than twice as much, while requiring presumably (on average) less repair costs. Taking into account likely safety, power, and amenities differences, the newer car could be a much better deal even if it is three times as expensive as the older car.

In either case, looking at the maintenance record and upcoming service requirements (timing belt/water pump, brakes, tires) as well as having the car checked by an independent mechanic is highly advisable. Also, a car with more mileage, but all highway, will likely have fewer problems than one with lower mileage, but much city/short trips driving.

- D.

mliong · May 2003

The last Consumer Reports edition had an interesting graph that showed the failure rates by classifications over time. They compared the Japanese with the American and Euro brands.

The Japanese (ergo Honda and Toyota) had half the failure rates as the American (as if that was a surprise) or the Euro cars. However, as you start approaching the 7 year mark, all off them start to converge to the same failure rates(though the Japanese cars were slightly more reliable, it was statistically insignificant at that point).

Although the final reliability may be the same for all makes and models, the failure rates at the first seven years is still a significant factor - especially after the warranty runs out!

When we were looking for my wife's car, we noticed that...

Passat
+ Average Reliability.
+ Impeccable interior and ergonomics.
+ Minimal road noise.
+ Excellent safety features - standard.
+ Costs an arm, leg and first born.
+ Smooth shifting tranny.
+ 190HP for a V6? Capable, but there are better.
+ Must sell second born for premium gas.
+ So rare, unlikely to be stolen.

Accord
+ Above Average Reliability.
+ Above average interior and ergonomics.
+ Obvious road noise - Honda needs to work on this.
+ Unknown safety features - to me anyway.
+ Costs and arm.
+ Smooth shifting tranny.
+ 230HP V6 Engine.
+ Uses regular fuel.
+ Will show up in top 10 list of stolen cars.

Camry
+Above Average Reliability (though CR will say average)
+ Plain "American" interior. Excellent fit, but lousy styling.
+ Minimal road noise.
+ Good safety features - but must [non-permissible content removed] them on.
+ Costs an arm.
+ Our test model had the tranny fishing problem between 3rd and 4th gears. Probably fixed by now.
+ 200+ HP engine.
+ Uses regular fuel.
+ Will show up in top 10 list of stolen cars.

We looked at the interior of the Altima and just didn't bother with the test drive. All three cars are good cars, but it really depends on what you can live with (or afford).

6t6 · May 2003

I narrowed my car search to the Accord EX ( V6 because I want side curtain air bags), Passat GLX and Acura TSX. All very good cars, with slightly different strengths and weaknesses, so I'm surprised at the vehemence of some of the postings here. I think the Accord provides the most car for the money, but I'd like a little sportier handling and therefore may go with the TSX. The Passat is a good blend of handling and ride comfort, but costs the most and I'm leery of its repair record. CR rates it as average, but they did the same with the Volvo I've been driving the past 7 years(or maybe even rated it above average at the time) and, while not horrible, it has developed some odd and annoying problems and parts cost a lot.

anonymousposts · May 2003

The TSX is awesome.

allhorizon · May 2003

Michael,

I agree with much what you said, but I have a few comments with respect to your Passat summary:

>> + 190HP for a V6? Capable, but there are better. <<

Do you like to rev to 5000-7000rpm? When buying a V6, many people like the fact that it can afford them plenty of torque down low. Which the Passat can. But not many of its competitors. Sure, you can have 220 or 240hp, but (1) that is a marginal difference, and (2) acceleration is the integral over the torque/hp available before the peak hp, which is when you shift, and thus a mute point.

>> + Must sell second born for premium gas. <<

You can use regular gas if you want. There is no requirement for premium gas. On the other hand, I leave it as an exercise for you to calculate how much more premium costs over a few years, and whether that should make a difference in a purchasing decision, compared to the total cost of ownership [hint: it does not].

>> + So rare, unlikely to be stolen. <<

Good statistics will differentiate burglaries and losses as a percentage of sold cars. My local university does this, and the state does, too. Properly weighted with number of cars sold, Hondas and Toyotas are by a wide margin the heaviest targets (reflected by raised insurance premiums in my county), closely followed by Nissan pick-ups.

- D.

allhorizon · May 2003

anonymousposts,

I agree that the European Accord is a nice family sedan. Unfortunately, it is a bit underpowered and overpriced, here in the US.

- D.

mliong · May 2003

I've heard that you can use regular gas on the Passat, but I haven't heard what the effect of it would be. I know that you can use less than premium gas on an Odyssey and take the 5HP hit for it (which I haven't noticed). However, it stated it in the Odyssey manual (that regular was OK).

Given the general reputation of VW dealerships, I'm not so sure if I should chance it - given that it isn't stated anywhere on the manual. But you are right, the cost of premium over regular shouldn't add up too much over the years.

anonymousposts · May 2003

Underpowered and overpriced? Compared to what? Sure you can get a Mustang GT for $20,000 but what car can you get that matches the TSX's power, reliability, performance, and features for it's base price of $25,000?

petrnyc · May 2003

TSX is a very nice car, but everything has its value and price. I think at $23K Accord EX V6 is a much more value for less $$$.

blane · May 2003

anonymousposts:

I agree with your comments about the TSX. However, its base price is not $25,000. It is actually $26,990.

atlantabenny · May 2003

For a view of what and how the guys who make our cars think, here's an interesting round-table discussion among Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Volvo and Hyundai CEOs.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-05-27-import-automakers-- roundtable_x.htm

anonymousposts · May 2003

You are right, if all you want is a nice family sedan with excellent quality, safety, and a reasonable price tag, the Accord EX-V6 would be a better choice. But it won't match the TSX's 17" wheels, 6-speed tranny, HIDs, etc. Compared to other sedans with comparable features and performance the TSX is a bargain.

maxamillion1 · May 2003

But to me, its REAL compeititor is the Mazda6. And if you include the Mazda6 against the TSX, the value content kind of fades down. Not totally, but somewhat.

Sure the TSX has a beautiful interior, and a nice set of transmissions, but I just find it overpriced for a I4 sedan that is nothing more than a European Accord. Not saying I don't like the TSX, and yes the premium might be worth it to others, but I have got to say that I was shocked when the car came out because the pricing seemed outrageous.

I still consider the TSX one mf my top choices, but like someone else stated. It should have started at around $24,995. Not $26.9. I am sure an Audi A4 1.8t can cost that much as well, but then again, I'd call it overpriced too.

anonymousposts · May 2003

At $26,990 the TSX comes with EVERYTHING. If you load up a 6s your MSRP is $24,605 for a manual transmission. That's only $2000 difference and you are still missing a gear on the tranny, a climate control on the dash, HID's, and those cool lights on the mirrors. Not to mention, as nice as the 6 may be, the TSX is in a different class as far as materials and interior design go and a 6 will get left by the TSX.

The 3-series starts at $28,500 before you add things that are standard on the TSX like a sunroof and leather. The A4 does base at $25,700 but has only 170HP, cloth seats, and 15" wheels. By the time you add optional equipment you are at $29,300 and still 30HP short and 1 gear short of the TSX.

The TSX is not perfect but it is a nice compromise between less-expensive cars such as the 6s/Accord EX V6 and higher-priced cars like the 3-series and A4.

atlantabenny · May 2003

...nice instrument lighting and overall, a tasteful, restrained interior. Maybe a little austere but that's with Lexus in mind. Rear passenger room is tight, not like an 03 or even previous gen Accord.

Outside, chrome strips on door handles and signal lights on mirrors give it an upscale demeanor. 17 inch rims are understated but they fit the car's character.

Seems like a 4-door that would appeal to young families who once owned an Integra or a Civic.

bodble2 · May 2003

You know I like Honda as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is you or gee35!), but while I find the TSX to be an attractive and welcomed offering by Acura, I would stop short of calling it awesome or a bargain. The power is not going to blow anyone's mind. The interior is "nice" but it still has some cheapish pieces. Also they could have included a couple of features (ie. memory driver seat, power passenger seat would have been nice)

maxamillion1 · May 2003

I still don't see it as a bargain, but you do not have to agree, that is the point of these forums.

I agree, for $26,995 the car should have memory seats, and a power passenger seat.

Now this is just my opinion.

But like I said, I am still considering the TSX, but the Accord is probably a better value for me.

pwright2 · May 2003

The Passat GLX was the much better choice for me. Yes I paid more but it has many more features. It feels more expensive than the others. The Accord and Camry felt cheap when I sat inside. Both have fake imitation wood trim. The Passats is real burled walnut. Check out the latest Consumer Reports midsize comparison test. Once again the Passat came out on top, even with the all new Accord. The Accord and Camry just seemed bland with little style. Take it from a Passat owner, get the Passat.

allhorizon · May 2003

I give the TSX the reliability factor, as I would give most (but not all) Hondas. Other than that, I don't find it a particular bargain nor exceptionally powerful. For comparison, the 1.8l turbo A4 or Passat GLS have more torque until 4500 rpm (in fact, they have the max torque the TSX has at 4500 from about 1900rpm to 5500 or so). Given they have the same weight, there is no question which car I would rather drive. The A4 is about the same price, the Passat is about $4000 cheaper, including leather (street price or Edmunds' TMV).

Note that I am not comparing with V6s, and there are quite a few around that are more powerful, have more low-end grunt, and are still less expensive than the TSX (including the Accord).

The TSX has lots to offer, and for some (but not all) people reliablity is number one priority. I think it would be a good value at $23,000 to $24,000. It still does not come as a wagon, though.

I think I'll save myselve a bundle and get my Forester 2.5XT! More effective space, AWD, and more power!

- D.

03accordman · May 2003

Why not quote reviews and tests from C&D, R&T, Autoweek etc, which have all picked the 03 Accord over the Passat? Or are you blind to tests where the Passat gets trashed.

Sure the Passat will feel an expensive car, that's because it is more expensive, and for a lot of people money is an issue.

Since you do suggest buying the Passat over other cars, how about suggesting keeping a supply of ignition coils that are still a problem for a car in its 7th year?

And how about the weak 190HP V6, as compared to the buttery smooth 240HP Accord V6?

anonymousposts · May 2003

And take it from an Accord owner who works at a dealership and sees lots and lots of Passats come back for repair, buy the Accord.

pwright2 · May 2003

'03accordman' I didn't mean to upset you. I wish you all the best with your Accord. I test drove all three and made the best choice IMO. Money wasn't an issue with me. I just could not get past the imitation wood interior and the dull exterior. The Accord I test drove was the top of the line EX V6 with leather, and it just looked cheap. The Passat has a much better warranty with roadside assistance which the Accord doesn't even offer. Also the Accord had a few recalls of its own over the past few years. In the end I just wanted a family sedan with great looks, luxurious, sporty, reliable, with excellent workmanship. I'm satisfied.

anonymousposts · May 2003

You will need that roadside with the Passat. As much as you are satisfied with your Passat I am satisfied with my Accord. For the price of a loaded 2.0L 115HP Jetta I have a car that's been proven to be one of the most reliable cars built while offering such goodies as dual-zone climate control, leather, LED gauges, 6-disc changer, 5-star safety rating, and keeps me from being on a first name basis with the gas station people.

bodble2 · May 2003

the front end of the Passat does look sweet -- classy and expensive-looking.

mikek37 · May 2003

U wanted a reliable car.. Um the Passat doesnt cut it!

Honda Accord vs. Toyota Camry vs. Volkswagen Passat

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles