Honda Accord vs. Toyota Camry vs. Volkswagen Passat

mikek37 · May 2003

One more thing, do you enjoy that silky smooth 240 horsepower 5 speed automatic engine, WHOOPS thats the accord, I meant to say do you enjoy your 190 HP engine, coil problem and a price tag abut 3-4K more????

I personally believe you are the only person to ever say the Honda Accord's interior looks cheap?

pat · May 2003

Well, it's not likely that only one person holds any one give opinion, you know?

At any rate, we are here to discuss the vehicles, not berate others for the choices they have made. 'K?

mliong · May 2003

What is really ought to boild down to, is which car fits a person's needs the most?

The Horsepower issue:
Passat: 190HP
Accord: 240HP
Although the Passat appears to have the pitiful 190HP V6 engine, it really doesn't mean that it is underpowered - it just means that it's V6 puts out less power than most other V6 engines of today. The transmission is still silky smooth, and the engine does have a lot of power - even when loaded up with passengers.

If you look at the statistics for both cars, you'll notice that their 0-60 acceleration times are only a second or two apart - so the net effect isn't as disparate as the HP ratings make it appear.

But really, whom among us routinely screeches thier cars to 60MPH so that they can screech to a halt at the next stop light? I only care if a car has enough power to get me OUT of someone else's way, or to merge into the freeway. It's a family sedan folks, not a Formula One racer.

The reliability issue:
The Passat will never match the Accord in reliability - period. That's because VW does not pay as much attention to it as Honda does. This does not mean that the Passat is unreliable - since it has ranked average in vehicular reliability.

Please don't mistaken the Passat for VW's other inferior, problem prone cars, like the Jetta, Bettle, Jetta, Golf, Jetta, and... did I mention the Jetta?

The coil-pack problems are now RESOLVED. So that should be a non-issue at this point.

The Safety Issue:
The Passat is THE SAFEST FAMILY SEDAN - bar none. This is not Consumer Reports saying this, but also NHTSA and IIHS. Side curtain airbags are standard - handy for protecting your head in case of an accident. I will never buy another car without one after my cousin went into a coma after banging her head in an auto accident.

Does this make the Accord any less safer? Heck no! It is an extremely safe car! But the Passat is still safer.

The Interior ergonomics Issue:
This can be argued till the cows come home. Some people like the look of Hondas. Some of the Passat. Heck, a lot of people don't even care - look at how many people buy American cars with atrocious interiors!

I abhore wood trim - but the Passat's interior trim doesn't bother me, it's THAT GOOD. I also love the Accords modern interior.

I personally prefer the Passat's interior. Honda engineers should sit inside a Passat in the dark and learn how to design cars ergonomically. The Passats interior is plush, ergonomic and "warm."

VW engineers should sit inside an Accord and learn how to wire electronics correctly. Disabling the homelink system when the ignition is off is... well, amateur.

The Money Issue:
The Passat is leagues more expensive than the Accord - as much as 2-3 thousand dollars. But you also get a lot of stuff in it that isn't found in the Accord - and vice verse (no NAV on Passat).

Not everyone is rich, and in this economy, not many folks will stay that way either! The Accord has always delivered an affordable and extremely reliable car with the Accord - it is the definition of a "people's car".

The Passat has always delivered a very well equipped car at a higher price, and it is as close to a luxury car as you can get without paying a luxury tax.

Final word on this "essay":
The reliability of the Passat isn't as good as it ought to be, but it is still very reliable.

Get the Accord if:
* you want raw power for street racing.
* you value reliability
* you don't want to spend too much $$ for any car
* you like the modern, aluminum look.
* you don't mind the stratospheric theft rates.

Get the Passat if:
* you value safety above all others, Passat.
* you like how a car handles, either should do - but I prefer the Passat.
* you like the "creature comfort" features - like memory seats, etc. etc.
* you like the refined interior design of most European luxury cars.
* you are used to the reliability of an American or European car - because it is a lot more reliable than most VWs, BMWs or Mecedes Benzes (and let's not pick on the American Automakers again...)

anonymousposts · May 2003

In a recent test of the Accord EX V6, Camry XLE V6, the Passat GLX and either a 6 or an Altima the Passat was the slowest of the group. It gives up nearly 2.0 seconds to the Accord to 60. By the time you get up to 100 MPH the Accord is ahead by almost 8 seconds. In fact, to the 1/4 mile the Passat GLX is only .9 seconds faster than a Honda Insight. Big difference whether you want ample passing power or you want to be a stop-light racer.

As for the Passat being safer the Accord received a Best Pick rating and a 5-star rating for front and side impact. Same as the Passat. No advantage either way there. And yes, the 5-star Accord rating was without side curtain airbags.

mliong · May 2003

All good points, but speed isn't an overall factor for some buyers like me. Many family drivers have no need for stop-light racing, let alone swerving in and out of traffic at 100MPH. But you are correct that the Passat does need more power to get out of sticky situations - now that a lot of cars have engines rated way north of the 200HP mark.

With regards to the side impact, it is important to note that the crash test dummies do not register head-force trauma. The brain is the easiest to damage, and the hardest to "repair" from my earlier posting.

Don't get me wrong, both are still excellent cars. Safe, refined and reliable. But as I mentioned earlier, speed and power doesn't determine everything - and people really ought to drive both cars and see what they value the most before plunking down a big chunk of change. I didn't buy my Odyssey because of the HP rating, but because of the reliability, comfort, ergonomics, SAFETY and style.

pwright2 · May 2003

These Accord owners shouldn't get upset just because I purchased my Passat GLX. So you're faster by a second or two, big deal. If I am buying a top of the line car why would I buy one with imitation wood? I even looked at the Acura TL for $33,000. Same thing, cheap tacky fake wood. Same for the top of the line Camry. Even the Honda salesmen were very pushy and tacky. I'm satisfied. Oh, and I almost forgot, my brother came over Friday with his brand new Passat. Former car: 97 Accord.

maxamillion1 · June 2003

A person can buy ANY car they want. And ANY car can have problems. Honda Accords, VW Passats, Nissan Altimas, ANY car can have problems.

I say buy what you want and enjoy it, don't try to throw off on others because they didn't buy what you have.

anonymousposts · June 2003

The Passat is only ahead of the Accord in subjective areas. The Passat doesn't handle as well as the Accord, it's slower than the Accord, no safer than the Accord, and definitely not more reliable than the Accord. So all that is left are subjective areas which are pointless to argue. Me, I prefer the Honda-ness of my Accord, the expected reliability based on owning 6 Accords prior to this one, the exceptional manual transmission, smooth engine, and the low-cost and low-maintenance ownership that it provides.

So, you know someone who traded a 97 Accord for a Passat. I work at a dealer and I have seen people trade Passats for Galants, Accords, Camrys, and even a Taurus once. Someone just came in and traded a 2003 Accord for a 2001 Expedition. In a fit of idiocy I traded a 2001 Accord EX V6 coupe for a 2001 Protege .. what the heck was I thinking? Quickly dumped the Pro for a Civic SI. I have even seen someone trade a 2001 Corvette for a 2002 Lancer. There are many reasons people trade cars. Some people just want something different. Right now we are thinking about trading our GS300 for a 03 Civic SI ... funny part about that is we traded a 02 Civic SI for the GS300.

mariner7 · June 2003

If you're happy with your cars, that's great! But not everyone is looking for an appliance when looking for a car. There are other things, like, looks, styling, driving pleasure, etc.

allhorizon · June 2003

anonymousposts,

Please do not get carried away. We are here to discuss cars. You (as everyone else) know very well that the Accord can not possibly be a full 8 seconds faster to 100mph than the Passat. Perhaps 1 or 2 seconds, if you dont mind to keep the revs above 6500rpm, and who drives like that.

Also, the Passat V6 has more low-end torque, which is much more important in daily driving. I love that I can get up a mountain pass with three people on board and fully packed at about 2000rpm. Why would I want to buy a V6, if I had to rev it to almost 5000rpm to get the same result? Peak hp is a singular number, it is the point where you (or the automatic) shift into next gear. What is much more important is how much torque you have in the gear before you get there (i.e., at low rpm). That is where the outdated, but very reliable VW V6 beats the Accords new (and still unproven) 6 cyl. engine.

I like the reliability of the Passat, and that is why I bought it almost 4 years ago, and I am very satisfied with it. It may be rated average, but average 2003 (or even 2000) surely beats good 1998 or so. Even my 1994 Golf has not had any problem the past 5 years, so I have no worries.

By the way, I have never needed road-side assistance in my VWs (one of them 10 years old and approaching 130,000 miles), but I have needed it about 3-4 times in my Japanese-manufactured cars. Still coil problems after many years? Not at all; as you well know, a supplier had some problems, for a few months, with a new design that did not even exist 7 years ago. Identified, solved, free loaner car, fixed for free, fine. Why phrase it like you did other than to scare people?

I suggest we use a bit less rhetoric in these discussions. I can always come up with personal experiences that seem counter to what someone else says. And someone else can always blow up an average 2003 reliability rating to you will need road-side assistance. The smart individuals who visit this resource will tend to ignore such persistent and obvious rhetoric, which just sounds so much like the manufacturers marketing language they are trying to get away from, here.

- D.

manamal · June 2003

The problem with using the 'safety' argument to justify the purchase of a PASSAT over an Accord:
Accurd EXV6 can be had for about 23K, Passat V6 loaded W/ leather, 28K. Yes, the Passat might be safer, but for the same 28K, you can get a SAAB 9-5 linear (or for 2K more, an ARC). Those are safer cars with nicer interiors.

mliong · June 2003

The 9-5 model you mentioned starts at $34K - which is really far north of the price band we are discussing.

On the subject of safety:
Side Curtain Airbag:
Passat - standard on all trims
Accord - on V6 EX Leather trim only

Stability Control:
Passat - optional (but often included for $250)
Accord - not available

Traction Control:
Passat - Standard
Accord - Standard

Braking:
Passat - ABS w/ shorted distance
Accord - ABS w/ slightly longer distance

Spare Tire:
Passat - Full size on steel rim
Accord - SpaceSaver on steel rim

Accident Avoidance Test (according to CR)
Passat completed it at the highest speed compared to all other tested family midsize sedans.

NHTSA Tests
Passat - 5 Stars front and Back. 4 stars for side
Accord - 5 Stars front and Back. No test for side

IIHS tests
Passat - Good overall rating.
Accord - Good overall rating.

I can really nit pick on the minutia details and post them all for you, but it will not change the fact that both cars are very safe.

In MY opinion, the Passat is the safer car - when you factor in the Stability control because I have seen it in action.

I happen to like the little luxuries like memory seats that auto-adjust by themselves depending on the FOB signal it receives. I happen to also like the interior ergonomics and the excellent support the seats give me. There are a lot of little touches and intangibles that really add up in the Passat when you drive it.

I think a lot of Passat bashers ought to really take the time to sit in one and see what it does offer that the Accord doesn't. I also think that the Passat engineers should really look at the Accord to see how they can improve the Passat.

I beleive that cars are more than an appliance. If I have to sit in a car and drive it, it had darned well be enjoyable for me! Would I want it to be ultra luxurious and opulent? No. The Passat sits in that narrow band between utilitarian and opulence - and that's really what its market is.

Accords are more utilitarian (dependable, reliable, safe with a sprinkle of style and luxury). Some may call it an "appliance" but it is really far more than that.

I really wish that Honda would grant their Honda lines a bit more options like memory seats (which is handy for two drivers with vastly different ergonomic requirements), and improved sound-proofing - but they don't.

Getting back to the Saab 9-5, I'm sure it is a really nice car, with far better amenities than the Passat, but it is also way over the $33K mark and I can't justify a car that high in price.

manamal · June 2003

MSRP starts at 37K for the 9-5 linear, and 39K for the Arc, but the actual cost is usually Invoice - incentives, or 35K -5K for the linear, and 37K - 5K for the Arc, so you are looking at 28K for a passat vs 30K for a Linear, or 32K for an Arc. I can tell you...the SAAB is a much nicer car than the PASSAT.

It is the same argument between the Accord and the Passat....4K vs. nicer car.

mliong · June 2003

I took a looksee at the saabusa webpage at the interior to see what you mean. It does look nice, but I still prefer the Passat's interior styling.

However, pictures really don't give the whole... er. picture - so I might be missing out on the details.

bjbird2 · June 2003

I've said it before, but a lot of the same posters are coming back with the same postings they posted earlier, before the host got noticably upset with all the car bashing.
My daugter has an 03' Accord and I have an 02 Passat. After living with both cars for about 6 months, I still prefer the Passat, and now my daughter does also. If she had it to do over, she would buy the Passat today.
The coils have been replaced on mine, and that is the only maintainance I've had, except for routine oil changes. VW picked up the car at my house and gave me a loaner, total time 2 days for the coils. Again, that's the ONLY problem I've had, so the mis-representation of Passats sitting along roadsides is a total fabrication. My daugter has had her share of problems with the Accord, possibly because it's the first year, and they are still working some bugs out, so the Accords are not entirely problem free.

Regarding the Saab, the interior I saw didn't look as good as the Passat or even the Accord. It had far to much GM influence, which made me think the GM designers had some hand in it.

mikek37 · June 2003

You are doing the same thing as the other posters.

So my question to you is, do you consider yourself a hypocrite?

bjbird2 · June 2003

If you read my post I don't consider it "bashing", just a subjective opinion of the two cars from someone who has spent some time with both cars. No different than a long term review.
I consider these statements "bashing" from people who have not spent time with both cars and are making statements not based on fact.
"You will need that roadside with the Passat."
"U wanted a reliable car.. Um the Passat doesnt cut it!"
Both statements from you Mike, and not true, based on actual facts, the Passat has better than average reliability according to CR. The coil problem was an exception, and there are many cases of those exceptions, even with the reliable Japanese brands.
I just read about problems with Toyota strut towers that have to be replaced at 70/80k miles at a cost of $1500, but that will have little impact on overall Toyota reliability. Same thing with the coils and Passat.
Another bashing statement:
"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?"
The problem is behind us and most of the coils have been replaced, so you can stop dwelling on that.
And
"How about the weak 190HP V6, as compared to the buttery smooth 240HP Accord V6?"
Not true, the Passat is far from weak, even though the HP numbers are lower. More bashing.
So no, I don't consider myself a hypocrite, just stating facts...

pat · June 2003

Car "bashing" is one thing. Poster bashing is another, and THAT is what doesn't belong here.

Let's stick to the cars and leave the personal comments out of the conversation, please.

mliong · June 2003

Does anyone know what they are?

All cars have 1st year teething problems - it's just the nature of things.

mikek37 · June 2003

I am not bashing, I am stating a fact:

1) Passat has had the coil problems for how long? They are replaced, does that mean they are fixed for the long term, I guess only time will tell!

2) The engine isnt up to par in terms of its competition. Honda is known for its engines. 240 hp, decent torque and it still manages better mgp values then the weaker passat engine.

For the amount of money, 3-4K more then a fully loaded accord, are these problems worth it?

bjbird2 · June 2003

The coil problem just showed up in the 2001.5, 2002s and only the early 2003s, and it took a while to surface. When VW had a handle on which coils were an issue they replaced them.
It's past, done.
I have the 1.8T 4 cylinder Passat which was named one of the ten best engines in the world by Wards Automotive, and it is far from "weak". In fact in can be easily modified to perform equal to the Audis, which use the same engine with a different chip. The modifications do not void the VW warantee unless the problem can be traced directly to the chip.
Yes, the car is definitely worth it, speaking from real world experience with both the Passat and the Accord. I look forward to driving the Passat every day, and I've never had a car I enjoyed more, including my Infiniti, and my 2 RX-7's.

8u6hfd · June 2003

Passat: Ignition Coils
Accord: Transmission
Toyota: Sludge

Naturally, people will get defensive in these areas.

The Ignition Coils, the problem surfaced slowly from MY2001.5 to now. VW Recall.

Transmissions, seems to happen to the cars without the auxilary tranny cooler and sport shift. I think Honda offered an extended warranty on the transmissions.

Sludge, was a problem when toyota upped the operating temperature, but was rememedied to 2002. Toyota Bulletin

mliong · June 2003

Wasn't that exclusive to the Odysseys and certain Acura models? I thought the fault was pinned on premature wear on two disks.

The Ignition coil problem is the least of my problems, IMHO - since it is easily replaced compared to a downed transmission - or a dead engine due to sluge.

I'm hoping that I'm the lucky 95% that never gets to see my Odyssey's transmission fail - otherwise, it's going to be a looooooooong wait.

03accordman · June 2003

You just repeated all your old posts while saying that others are doing it.

Anyway, I guess if we start again, its going to have the same points raised.

Please check with your VW dealer, as soon as you chip your car, your warranty will get voided.

Second, anyone can see that the Passat V6 engine is a weakling when compared to Accord and Altima V6s, so why keep repeating the same diatribe like a parrot? Things like "chip it" and stuff just don't cut it with the segment that these cars are meant for, "midsize family sedans".

bjbird2 · June 2003

Yes, we have started again, and I feel obliged, again, to correct a lot of the mis-statements and distortions that are re-appearing, again.
I was told by VW dealer service that the chip will not void the warrantee unless it is directly responsible for the problem. It would be good to see that in writing.
The Passat engine is not "weak", it just has less HP than the Accord. It's still a very good engine by most standards, although not as quick from the stoplight as the Accord.

jsmath5 · June 2003

An Accord V6 can be had for around $24,000. Invoice is like $23,765. Hope that helps.

manamal · June 2003

Not looking to buy my self (two cars less than 1 year old). I was just trying to point out that
the difference between a well-equipped PASSAT and Accord is greater than the difference between the well equipped Passat and well equipped 9-5. 9-5 has more features, is safer, and according to CR, more reliable.

mliong · June 2003

With regards to replacing the chip on the 1.8T, I firmly beleive that would void your warranty, period.

It follows the same logic as replacing the CPU on your computer. The warranty is simply void the minute you start swapping parts out.

Additionally, the new chip would be easily discovered once a diagnostic check is run against it, as it does not have the same "ID Codes" that identifies it as a VW chip - unless you reprogram that chip, to imitate a VW chip.

Either way, I think "Chipping" should be left out of this discussion - simply due to the fact that:

1) It is not an option one buys with the car.
2) It is relegated to a small niche market of modders.

bjbird2 · June 2003

I disagree, I don't think any after market modifications should be left out of this discussion. This is a car discussion, and many owners make after market changes to personalize their cars and make them more suited to their needs, whether it's just a wheel and tire swap, window tint or performance change. This discussion is not limited to cars purchased off the lot, it should include the potential a car has to meet individual owner's needs. Some cars have more potential and a larger selection to satisfy the after market enthusiasts, and that enters in
into some purchasing decisions.
After market mods may be a niche market, but it's a large niche with money to spend.
Just check out clubb5.com

bodble2 · June 2003

But where do you draw the line? If I turn my car into something out of 2fast 2furious, I don't think it would still be valid for these discussions. So the answer is you compare cars sans mods.

bjbird2 · June 2003

I don't think a car has to be stereotyped by Fastn'Furious to be individualized and more fun to drive and look at than stock. It's a matter of taste and preference. Some people want their car to be something more than another car in the herd, and some cars have more potential for personalizing for more fun and interest. Just look at some of the Mercedes aftermarket mod cars authorized by the factory. It can be part of the purchase decision for people that don't want just transportation appliances.

bodble2 · June 2003

That's a whole different ball game. I go back to my original question. If you start including mods (street mods, not factory mods like AMG, or SVT, or Mazdaspeed, etc) in your comparisons, where do you draw the line?

talon95 · June 2003

I agree with you completely... there is no way to draw the line, and it completely muddies the comparison. If people want to compare cars with mods, start a forum expressly for that.

And before someone gets all bent out of shape about it, I'm referring to mechanical/electronic mods such as chipping, swapping out springs, sway bars, etc. Not something as common as changing to a different brand of tire, since most models are available with a variety of brands anyway.

bjbird2 · June 2003

Sorry, I think mods and the availablility of aftermarket parts should be part of this discussion. There are some of us who have an interest in the aftermarket potential of a car, and that would influence our purchase decision. Others, like yourselves have no interest in bulding a more personalized vehicle, but that should not exclude those of us who do. I'm one of those who would read this board to get all of the information I could on a vehicle, and that would include performance and appearance possiblities after the purchase. You're already drawing an arbitrary line by excluding tires.

bodble2 · June 2003

start a separate topic to compare mods. You start discussing the different street mods and it'd be Greek to the majority of the posters on this topic.

talon95 · June 2003

... just asking you to take such discussions to an appropriate forum. Which isn't this one. Then those of you who want to read all they can to get all of the information you can on a vehicle can do so. You just read 2 forums, one for standard cars with manufacturer approved equipment and accessories and one for cars with aftermarket mods. I think this is a very reasonable request. The ability to have a clear discussion about a particular topic is why there's such a wide variety of forums on Edmunds, to satisfy the highly varied needs of its members, and not forcing the preferences of some groups of members on other members.

Why is it such a huge burden for you to take your interest in mods to another forum, so that those of us who AREN'T interested in modding can have a forum pertinent to us? I'm sorry, but I don't want all of the possible permutations provided by all the types of mods available to cloud the discussion of the basic quality of the cars. The forums should absolutely be separate so that the preferences of one group don't supercede the preferences of another.

BTW, I'm including tires, not excluding them. As I said, this is because all of these cars are already available from the factory with a variety of tires, so it's a stretch to call changing tires a mod, as long as the tires selected are within the general range of sizes that are available on the car from the factory. I included it as a concession towards being reasonable, and it comes as no surprise that you insist on faulting the suggestion. If that's the position you elect to take, then no mods at all, not even tires. I'm just trying to be reasonable, but also considerate of the needs and desires of others. And that doesn't include insisting that the only forum that should exist is the one that suits my particular preferences, at the expense of the preferences of others. My solution considers the desires of both camps... yours doesn't.

bjbird2 · June 2003

This is the appropriate forum. I don't agree with what you're saying the about the aftermarket, and I'll continue to discuss the aftermarket potential of these cars on this board. Your statements are your personal opinions, and do not necessarily reflect the majority of people who have an interest in these cars. Vehicles reflect the personalities of their owners and not all owners or would-be owners want to drive something that they can't tailor to their individual needs. If you want to drive a factory stock car, that's your choice. If you're satisfied with what the manufacturer thinks is the best vehicle for you, that's your choice. I'm more interested in the potential a car has to go beyond what the factory supplies, and the reccomendations of others with similar interests. There is room for all of us on this board. My solution considers the desires of both camps...people who are interested in all aspects of these cars, not just yours. Check the other boards and you'll find that there are posts from those who are looking for options to get the full potential out of their cars to suit individual preferences.

talon95 · June 2003

Do you have an opinion on this? As usual, bjbird2 and I couldn't seem to agree that the sky is blue, so further discussion is pointless. I don't mind the occasional reference to a mod when it suits the discussion or if someone asks a specific question, but I don't feel this forum should be taken over by extensive discussion of cars with aftermarket mods... a specifically targeted forum is the place for such discussions, IMO. Bjbird2 clearly disagrees, and feels such discussions are appropriate. You're the expert in the field of "staying on topic"... if you think that such discussions are within scope, I'll bow to your wisdom. Hopefully, bjbird2 will do the same if you feel that such discussions are not within scope.

bjbird2 · June 2003

The topic is the cars, and all aspects of these cars...

talon95 · June 2003

If that's so, why is there an Aftermarket and Accessories discussion board? Here's how that board is described:

Welcome to the Aftermarket and Accessories Message Board!
From "fuzzy dice" and window tint, to turbochargers, lift kits and "mag" wheels,
this is the place to seek and exchange information on those goodies that truly make it your machine!

"I'm more interested in the potential a car has to go beyond what the factory supplies, and the reccomendations of others with similar interests."

According to its description, it sounds like the Aftermarket and Accessories board is just the ticket to support the interests that you express. The forums are by make and model, so you can discuss Passat mods to your heart's content. If these mod discussions were appropriate for the Sedans board, there would be no need for the Aftermarket and Accessories board.

Why don't we just end this exchange and see what Pat has to say?

bjbird2 · June 2003

The membership agreement says:
"You understand that the content within Town Hall is based on individual opinion and experience, which may vary significantly from one person to the next."
"Town Hall welcomes all points of view on automotive matters"

I think all points of view relative to these 3 cars should be welcome within the context of this board. It's an open forum to discuss the merits of the vehicles, and should not be limited to one persons view of what is appropriate for all of us. How can discussing issues that many of us consider improvements muddy the waters? Many of the readers out there are interested in the aftermarket improvements that one car may offer over another, and if I can say that chipping my Passat will significantly improve the performance relative to an Accord, why shouldn't that be discussed in this forum? We're comparing the cars and what they have to offer, including after you get them home. That's not at all off-topic. Where does it say that this comparison is limited to cars that owners have not changed in some respect?

talon95 · June 2003

Whatever... this exchange is going nowhere. Talk about anything you'd like.

bodble2 · June 2003

You're misinterpreting the Membership Agreement you quoted. It is true TH welcomes all points of view on automotive matters. But they do not mean all points of view WITHIN THE SAME TOPIC!

Besides, you're not really offering a different point of view, you're actually on a different subject matter.

pat · June 2003

You folks have just spent 15 posts arguing about what you are supposed to be arguing about - you even threw in interpretations of the Membership Agreement!

The issue was never every kind of aftermarket mod available for all three cars. It was chipping one of them. If you believe that chipping places a vehicle outside of the comparison, just say so and move on.

You folks would argue with the gatepost if there was one here. : )

I agree that it makes sense to compare vehicles as they are purchased. However, many folks buy cars with the intent of chipping, so I don't see why that should never be mentioned.

If you folks can't concentrate on a genuine, polite comparison of the cars and stop the arguing, it's probably time to call a halt to this discussion.

It is *definitely* time to stop arguing about what can be discussed here. If you have more to say, feel free to email me.

Thanks.

pat · June 2003

I just removed four posts in which folks are continuing to argue with each other rather than talking about the cars.

Anyone who wants this discussion to remain open needs to post some messages to get us back on track.

anonymousposts · June 2003

"Getting back to the Saab 9-5, I'm sure it is a really nice car, with far better amenities than the Passat, but it is also way over the $33K mark and I can't justify a car that high in price."

Much the same as someone not being able to justify several thousand dollars more for a car that is slower, historically less-reliable, and smaller just so they can have memory seats.

If you need stability control then chances are you need to learn how to drive or you need to slow down. Never needed it in any car I have owned.

Instead of trying to argue with you about the car's performance and how a Passat can't be nearly 8 seconds slower to 100MPH I will refer you to page 194-195 of the June 2003 issue of Road & Track. I found it interesting that there were only 3 cars slower than the V6 Passat out of 126 cars. 123rd out of 126 isn't a good showing at all by anyone's standards. In fact, 2 of the 3 cars that the Passat was faster than were hybrids.

I hope you do enjoy the interior of your Passat because you will spend alot of time trying to get where you are going with performance like that. Maybe part of the Passat being safer is that you can't really go that fast to start out with.

bodble2 · June 2003

"If you need stability control then chances are you need to learn how to drive or you need to slow down."

I would have to disagree with you on this one. I don't think it's fair to make a blanket statement like that. Maybe if you drive FWD in a dry climate, yes. But a RWD in wet or snowy condition, stability control would be a must.

mikek37 · June 2003

I think anonymous was just stating that if you dont try to take your car to the limit, there is no need for stability control ( Which corrects under and oversteer I believe). Wish the accord offered AWD, now that would be a complete package!

anonymousposts · June 2003

Since both the Passat and the Accord are FWD family sedans stability control is of limited use. Neither are RWD sports sedans. If climate is that much of a concern I believe that the owner would be better served with a Passat 4Motion, Subaru Legacy, or some other 4WD vehicle. Stability control would make a negligible difference.

pat · June 2003

mikek37, please check your email

Honda Accord vs. Toyota Camry vs. Volkswagen Passat

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles