Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
This has gotten quite interesting... I'm thinking of starting a thread called "God's Will vs. Side Curtains".
~alpha
There are accidents that occur everyday that are beyond what current safety features in cars can do to help prevent fatalities. A side curtain airbag can mean the difference between a temporary headache and severe head trauma or even death. Not everything is black & white, death or walking away from an accident. It's about reducing risk at a small price.
For $500 or less on a brand new car, I wouldn't mind paying that small fee for the extra protection. I think of it as a one-time insurance premium. It's always cheaper to take preventative actions than to pay later such as staying in the hospital longer due to a serious injury or even worse. Everyone has their personal opinions though, I just hope they are based on informed facts.
Auto manufacturers are usually only after the bottom line unless strong consumer demand says otherwise, and usually extra safety equipment does not help the bottom line directly. Car manufacturers were reluctant to put airbags in cars at first due to their high cost and they thought they would not be profitable. They tried to qualify automatic seatbelts as "passive safety features" to delay the mandatory airbag installation deadline around '92 - '93.
There really isn't room for debate about this. It's a fact. Those who would argue otherwise are a perfect example of natural selection at work. Meow!!
Thanks in advance.
Mike
If all you are concerned about is safety then buy a Volvo. If you want a nice blend of affordability, safety, and reliability then buy an Accord and try not to get t-boned by a 4000lb Caddy going 60 MPH. Didn't your mom teach you to look both ways before crossing?
What's next? Whatever technology we can think of and make affordable. And I'd much rather have a reconstructed knee than a reconstructed head if I were to choose between the two.
Is a 1986 Accord as safe as a 2003 Accord? Of course not. Why? Technological advances. And the process will continue indefinitely until we don't have to drive on the ground anymore.
I agree that the 2003 Accord is safe. The 2002 Accord was safe. But would it be "safer" with head air bags? Undoubtedly yes. Why else would they have them on the V6/Auto? The issue here isn't weather or not head air bags are good or not (common sense answers that topic). It's this: Why doesn't Honda at least offer them on more than one trim level?
The same can be said for heated side mirrors. The Canadian Accord get them, we don't even get them on the order sheet.
Granted most people don't give a hoot about head air bags (or heated side mirror for that matter), but wouldn't it be a great marketing tool?
In actuality, the lack of these key features, for me, has stopped my progress in considering the purchase of a Accord EX-L 5 speed manual w/Navi.
-Craig
Seeing as the Swedes were the first to design/perfect the three-point safety belt, it didn't surprise me that they were the first to recognize its limitations. Side impact/Curtain Airbags are the perfect SUPPLEMENT to a current vehicle.
And as to why Honda didn't install Curtain airbags into all Accords, I do not believe it was due to demand by the consumer but the production limitations of airbag producers. European automakers (Audi,BMW,Mercedes-Benz,Porsche,SAAB,Volkswagen,Volvo) have dibs on most of the production of this new product as it is.
The coils have NOT been recalled as a whole yet...AoA/VW is waiting for a sufficient stock before replacing all coils. Right now it's being done on a need basis only.
Ok, the engine has been on the Ward's 10 Best. It's got a nice kick, but the Accord's I4 has butter all over the 1.8T. You can't tell me you don't let your turbo cool down after a spirited drive around town. Shutting off a turbo that's still glowing is asking to choke the thing to death.
Again, it's all preference...but my opinion is that the Honda I4 is a much better "around-town" engine than the 1.8T. There's not much lag, but it can still get tiresome in traffic. The Audi/Passat would be my choice if I was driving over 60mph anywhere. Honda's handling is still WAY behind the Germans, FWIW.
I've driven a 1.8T quattro. It's nice car but the driveline feels like it's lubed by molasses. The car would move but it felt dulled by the weight of the AWD system.
I bought my 03 Accord EX-V6 (4-dr) for $23,400 from Muller Honda in Highland Park. That's in the northern suburbs, but it might be worth the drive (or you could use that price as leverage with dealers in your area).
Good luck!
People are cranking out 250+ hp out of these 1.8Ts and use them and daily drivers. They may require a bit more replacement parts sooner than expected (peripheral components), but the 1.8T is built way beyond the specs of the Honda 4cyl.
Luckily, I live on a very quiet street, which is off of a very straight, long road. Any cooling down is done on those two streets before I turn off the engine. My commute to work in 90% highway. The 5% on either side is on very straight, un-spirited drivable roads. So no, I don't let it cool down. If I was to hammer the crap out of it on the highway and hit a rest stop, then I think common sense will kick in.
Sorry to get off topic...
-Craig
Was interested in anyone who added a K&N air filter or AEM air intake (short or cold-air), or other minor engine modifications to the 2.3-liter. Ive had these on other cars (99 Prelude & 91 Accord), and found that while the acceleration isnt hugely improved, it did rev better at all rpms, did improve the top end pull slightly, and produced a little better mpg in regular driving.
Anyone? Anyone?
By whose estimation? The ubiquity of the 1.8T in everything from Audi to VW to Seat shows that it is a good engine, no doubt. Personally, I don't really think that 250 hp out of the 1.8T is that amazing a feat, since the high-pressure version of the TT already leaves the factory with 225 hp.
Given the fact that Honda is first and foremost an engine builder, I don't think anyone can reasonably fault a Honda 4-cylinder engine or claim that its specification is less than a competitior's. However if anyone has proof of the contrary I'd be interested to see it. I remember reading in C/D a few years ago about how Honda had never had a VTEC engine fail since the introduction of VTEC in 1996. As Gee pointed out, people have been getting big hp numbers out of Honda 4-cylinders for years now. You don't hear about them blowing up, or at least I don't. There has to be some reason that Honda is the preferred engine for modifications.
Sorry to continue off-topic, because this disucssion has been all about Accord vs. Passat and MM Oil lately, and I am growing tired of both.
It just seems sometimes that once a new safety feature comes out, there are people who consider cars without that feature to be unsafe when they are not.
Everybody has hot buttons when buying cars. For many it's COLOR. Nothing else matters.
And for some, it's SAFETY.
I do cringe when I remember in high school, I would drive my dad's VW beetle with reckless abandon. It did have seat belts but I know even a mild collision would have killed me.
I would probably be afraid to drive the thing now.
It's so true what you said about how people think a car is unsafe if it doesn't have the latest safety feature. I hear a lot of people compare the Acura TL and the 2003 Accord and say that the TL is unsafe cause it has no curtain airbags when a year ago, these people would've felt differently. I think the real issue is whether you'd be willing to pay that much money for a car when it doesn't have the latest safety features, especially when you see a similarly priced car that does have it.
ilovehonda,
The EXV6 does come with a security system. I don't think you need to upgrade. The standard one disables the engine.
-Craig
I feel there are WAY more gas guzzling, ego-boosting SUVs and pickups on the road nowadays than there was even just 10 years ago (when I drove my '90 Honda CRX Si without fear). I don't think I'd feel comfortable driving one of those today.
I also had a '99 Acura TL (first year of the redesign). I felt it was safe by '99 standards. But today, with other vehicles offering safer transportation, I'd also look elsewhere. I also had a '98 Volvo S70 T5. At the time, it was very safe. But by comparing it to todays vehicles, it could be better.
Again, we had our first child in 2000. Safety, for us, now is very important.
The '03 Accord is a safe car. The '03 Accord with side air bags is a safer car. But the option to get that safer car costs a lot, because one is also forced to get V6 and auto transmission. That's where the problem, in my eyes, lies.
-Craig
I'm sure that my new, very safe Accord will be "less safe" than whichever Accord model comes out next.
It's true that Honda's airbag situation forces people to get a particular model if they want curtain airbags. I think that's irresponsible.
If it might make a difference between life or death, however, I'll take whatever I have to, and curtain airbags have been shown to make that difference in some cases.
If that means I have to drive a lovely, peppy, luxurious, automatic V6 Accord, so be it (sigh...)
If money were no object...
The reality is that I have to find the safest car in my price range.
Money is the one compromise that I don't have a choice about.
Although I agree that Honda should have made the side curtain airbags more widely available, I think calling them irresponsible is a bit unfair. I look at all of the effort that Honda puts into building the safety cage and crush zones in their cars, and industry sources have revealed that with the Civic and Accord redesigns, they did everything possible to assure that both cars would be strong enough to receive 5 star ratings for front and rear impact. Seems like they've succeeded... look at the ratings for the 2002 Civic.
Even looking at the results for 2002 midsized models, the Accord without side airbags matched the side impact score of the Passat with its plethora of side airbags, and when you added side airbags to the Accord, it beat the Passat's scores. Also compare the 2002 Camry to the 2002 Accord... when neither car has side airbags, the Camry scores 2 stars for front side impact vs. 4 stars for the Accord. Although the 2003 Accord is yet to be tested, with the improvements in the 2003, there's every reason to expect its scores to meet or exceed those of the 2002.
And look at crash tests in general. All cars, trucks, etc. have front airbags for drivers and passengers, yet the scores of these vehicles range from 3 to 5 stars. When you read about these scores, you find that the injuries usually occur when the impact causes intrusion into the passenger compartment, something that the airbags typically can't protect against. So airbags are NOT a substitute for a strong safety cage.
I think the clear conclusion to those test results is that if you have to choose between a car with a very strong safety cage and fewer airbags and one with a weaker safety cage and more airbags, you're probably safer in the one with the stronger safety cage, as long as it has the federally mandated airbags.
So, although Honda has yet to offer side curtain airbags on many models, they still show their concern for safety in many ways, such as strong safety cages (resulting in overall excellence in crash tests, with or without side airbags), ABS across the board for Accords (providing active safety), etc.
Again, I don't disagree that Honda should have made the side curtain airbags more widely available... however, with their very visible push for safety, I don't think that it's fair to label them irresponsible for this one "lapse".
-Craig
Say you do something stupid like bump into a retaining wall at a slow 10 mph. In a car the bumper crumples to absorb some of the impact. The Hummer transfers all of that energy to it's occupants - major hospital bills, just not much vehicle damage.
Also, ever feel comforted by having a guardrail alongside the road - not in a Hummer (or other large SUV) you will either go right through the guardrail (they are not designed to hold back such behemoths), or you will go over it and probably get tripped (or flipped) in the process.
Give me an Accord any day - just as safe as the SUV without nearly the damage to others. Of course the better handling, ride, economy, purchase price etc. are icing on the cake. Now if they only made a wagon they could have the room of an SUV too.
From the info below, the 2003 Accord edged out the VW Passat (which was designed in 1998). The 1998 designed Accord didn't do well at all. Honda made great progress with the new Accord.
2003 Accord
G Overall (best pick)
G Structure/Safety cage
Injury measures:
G Head/neck
G Chest
G Leg/foot, left
G Leg/foot, right
G Restraints/dummy kinematics
1998-2003 VW Passat
G Overall (best pick)
G Structure/Safety cage
Injury measures:
G Head/neck
G Chest
G Leg/foot, left
G Leg/foot, right
A Restraints/dummy kinematics
1998-2002 Accord
A Overall
A Structure/Safety cage
Injury measures:
G Head/neck
G Chest
G Leg/foot, left
P Leg/foot, right
G Restraints/dummy kinematics
G = Good (highest value)
A = Average
M = Marginal
P = Poor
What kind of % have people been able to negotiate of the MSRPs? The dealer I have been talking to seems quite sticky on price. I could go elsewhere as I live in the Toronto area and there are many dealers.
Here are the results for 2002:
2002 Honda Accord 4-DR (no SAB):
Front Impact: 5 stars
Rear Impact: 5 stars
Front Side Impact: 4 stars
Rear Side Impact: 4 stars
**************
2002 Honda Accord 4-DR (w/SAB):
Front Impact: 5 stars
Rear Impact: 5 stars
Front Side Impact: 4 stars
Rear Side Impact: 5 stars
**************
2002 Volkswagen Passat 4-DR (w/SAB):
Front Impact: 5 stars
Rear Impact: 5 stars
Front Side Impact: 4 stars
Rear Side Impact: 4 stars
**************
I cited the 2002 scores because the NHTSA hasn't yet tested the 2003 Accord. But the 2002 scores certainly supported my point very well.
So, as I stated, the 2002 Accord 4-DR without side airbags matched the scores of the 2002 Passat 4-DR WITH side airbags. The 2002 Accord with side airbags improved the rear side impact score to beat the Passat, while matching it in every other measurement.
This wasn't a slam on the Passat... the Passat just provided an excellent point of comparison because it has embraced side airbags early on. My point is to remind people that there's more to safety than airbags, and that airbags above and beyond those that are federally mandated don't necessarily guarantee the highest level of safety. If you're concerned about safe automobiles, you have to look at the entire safety picture, not just a laundry list of the airbags a particular car is equipped with.
HELP!!!!
needed to refill the tank. That came out backwards in the previous post!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
(requires Flash6)
Also the NHTSA's star ratings are a very simplified version. If I were looking more closely at two cars, I'd look at the actual data readings recorded on the dummies during the impact by clicking on the model on the website.
I also think NHTSA's tests are getting old, There has been plenty of time for automakers to optimize their structures to pass the tests specifically. I prefer to look at multiple sources such as IIHS offset, Japanese, and the European NCAP tests. A good site (although somewhat slow to update with the latest results) is www.crashtest.com.
If that's true, one would expect that that all vehicles would get 5 star ratings. But they don't. Even recent redesigns such as the Altima and Camry had some average or below average scores. Perhaps the designers aren't quite as deceitful as you imply.
Also, for my point about the Accord, look at the, as you imply, more intensive IIHS tests. The 2002 Accord got a rating of good for head/neck, so it seems to validate what the NHTSA found as far as side impacts are concerned. And it appears that Honda is NOT sacrificing head protection by designing the safety cage specifically for a high rating.
No test is perfect... but I wouldn't casually throw the NHTSA results away.
This is a 1.8l 5-speed (of course it would be quite a bit worse with an automatic)
How long do you drive for?
Do you live in a high altitude state...CO?
My first 3 fillups were over 31 mpg 70/30 (20 min drives at a time). I4 5M
AC doesn't really effect my mileage...just feels a little less powerful (like you have 3 more passengers).
Unless you're driving under 3 miles at a time and in stop and go traffic, I'd get Honda to look at it.
I understand there is some coolness factor involved, but for someone like myself who travels (and likes to use) maps/road atlases, and uses mapquest, etc. before trips, is there any real benefit to this I'm missing? Obviously, I'm not adverse to spending a little more for luxury features given that I'm considering the EX V6, but if its just a fancy looking profit center for Honda, i'd just as soon pass.
I havent actually used or seen a demo of the nav system yet, so any comments, however minor, would be appreciated.