bought the Accord EXV6 yesterday morning. desert mist color. it is an 03 with 6 miles on it! it still had the wrapper on it. weird thing is, the born on date in the door jamb is 8/03. i thought they started making 04's in August. anyway, got a good deal. $23700 plus tax and tags.
I just picked up an 04 in graphite. It was made in 8/03 as well. I guess somewhere in august they made the switch to the 04's. The smooth engine is putting a smile on my face as well..no more 4cyls for me after experiencing this ride.
bunk: If the Legacy is anything like the Forester then the engine can't match the best as far as engine and transmission smoothness. The tranny in the Forester I drove was very vague and had such a low engagement point that it took a minute to get used to it. Only way to know whether it's a problem for you or not is to take a Legacy for a drive.
Other than Hondas we have owned a RAV4, Chevy Silverado, Lexus LS400/GS300, and a Mazda Protege. Nothing blatantly wrong with any of them other than the Chevy's tendency to like the dealership's service department more than it liked our driveway. They just weren't Hondas and Hondas seem to be what I like to drive most. That said, my significant other's Lexus is a close second. If nothing else when you do take your Lexus to the shop you get a nice new Lexus to drive for a couple of days. In the last 3 months we have had a 2002 RX300, a 2003 IS300, and a 2002 ES300.
The new Accords are awesome. I absolutely LOVE my 03 Accord EX-L 5-speed manual and hate to get rid of it.
I think Honda is too worried about Nissan when they are styling cars. Ever since the 02 Altima came out I noticed how Honda is styling their cars differently ever since Nissan has been red hot. In my opinion Honda should just be Honda and stop trying to match Nissan. We all remember what happened to Nissan and Mazda when they tried to be Toyota in the mid to late 90's.
About the 04 TL I don't like the line on the door. It ruins a rather clean look to the car. I haven't seen the back end of the car yet. At least Honda went with their traditional styling with the TSX even though the exterior maybe a little understated.
Not to mention the Camry, Altima, Taurus, and Accord seem to be melding into the same car. Very little to tell them apart from the front unless you are pretty close.
like the shape of the 04 Pontiac Grand Prix and the tailights of the 02 Galant with a little 02 Hyundai Sonata meshed in there. It looks too American on the back end. It doesn't look Japanese enough.
Honda and Toyota are both taking the Japanese out of their cars. Not that I would like many of the Japanese cars that are coming out on the JDM market. It seems the Europeans are coming out with the best designs right now.
Can anyone tell me the dealer invoice amount, or refer me to a website, on a 2004 Accord EX V-6 4DR, with and w/o Navi. Any help would be appriciated, Thanks, Sir_col
This is going to cost them some customers eventually. I mean Toyota has always had older buyers anyway but Honda was doing so many things right. The average age of their core buyer is going to go up in the next 10 years just like Toyota's did in the 90's. Honda's are starting to look like every Gm or Ford. What is the use of that if you are not going to stand out? Honda had a good thing in the 80's and 90's. Honda in 1996 was cool in 2003 I don't know. Their watering down all the cars exterior wise.
If anything, Honda is a bit more aggressive on the styling now than it has been in a while. Unless I'm missing something. Tell me why Honda was cool in 1996, and not now?
watering down until this years Accord and next years Civic. It seems they are trying to be a little more daring. And the TSX and TL are almost aggressive looking.
The Accord is better looking than the Camry from any angle, but that's about it. Acura is clearly getting the nicer looking cars IMO, probably Honda's way of pushing people who can afford it to spend more $$. Make good business sence since Honda has such a strong name in NA.
don't do it for me like the older ones. In the 80's and 90's Honda had it going on. It seems like they are trying to get more American Car Buyer loyalists with their current generation of cars. As we all know American Car Buyers always have complained about Honda's "blandness" so Honda is trying to go after that customer I guess. They are going to lose some youunger buyers in the process while doing that like me for example(if Honda keeps going like this with their styling.) The newer Accord really hasn't appealed to younger people like previous generations did. Honda was going at something for 20 years and decided to change their styling a little by throwing a little General Motors or Ford exterior into their cars. I don't like that. I neve cared for Gm or Ford products styling. It just doesn't do anything for me.
In 1996 Honda had the younger buyers now they don't have as many younger buyers and the cars are starting to blend in with other cars. I guess Honda is pulling a NASCAR(appeal to as many people as you can.) We just can't have this person appealed to our product we have to have the person who has been buying a Chevy for 20 years.
My point is Honda was doing good with the stylig they had. Why ruin a good thing? Also Honda better watch it because look what Mazda and Nissan did in the mid to late 90's when they changed up their styling.
The Accord's styling could be improved a bit by simply tweaking the looks of the head and tail lights, decklid, hood, bumpers, fenders and exterior door panels. Let's all see what happens fall 2005. They will probably at least have new tail lights (which have been critisized for looking similar to a Saturn or Buick).
Depends on who you consider young. At 31, I consider myself young (enough to be able to purchase a $20-26K sedan) and Accord appeals to me more than most cars in the class. Styling has never been the selling point of Hondas, which, IMO is a good thing by itself.
I may be in the minority, but I actually like the new Accord's styling. It is not perfect, but neither was the 1998 Accord's styling. Honda seems to always leave something to be desired With 1998, I though the grill could have been better. With 2003-, I feel just a more conventional tail lamps would do it. And i don't think I can complain about the interior.
i can safely say that i would have NEVER bought an Accord until 2003. for 98-02 they might as well have been economy cars in my opinion. the new Accord is a little more controversial, but at least you left with the feeling that it was "designed" or "styled", whether you like the style or not. the old Accord was just too "safe" looking.
one thing is for sure - the new Accord sedan, from the rear, can look great, or really bad, depending on color and wheel design.
I've got to agree with robertsmx. I really didn't like the '03 sedan or coupe when the first pictures came out, and was glad I jumped on an '02 EX-V6 coupe when I had the chance. But the more I looked the better I liked the way the '03s are styled. So I jumped and bought an '03 EX-L 5M sedan last December, and sometimes I feel like I can't look at it enough - especially from the rear 3/4 view. Maybe it's just me, but in blue the car really looks amazing. I even like the taillights.
Been looking for an 04 new car. Finally decided that the LX V6 Honda Coupe is the bargain of the Honda line. Better than the Camry Solara. The unequal length A arm suspension beats the Toyotas all to hell. Mac Struts are not anywhere near as good as double wishbones. Look at the MSRP of the LX V6 compared to the EX. I do not think you get your moneys worth with the EX. Any body else have other opinions...? My dealer told me he would sell me this car at invoice. Does anyone know what invoice is on the LX V6 Coupe?? Also this car would have no dealer adds of any kind.
I think the 03 Accord styling is much better than most of its competition. The frond end is so aggressive, just like the s2000. I really like the headlight design.
From the competition, the Altima has a nice rear end, and the Mazda6 has a good looking taut front, but as a whole, the Accord is far appealing and timeless. The rear of the Mazda sucks, making the licence plate recess almost look like an afterthought. Half the plate hangs out of the recess. I think the recess is built for european plates, which are more horizontal, than for the American ones, which are more rectangular.
Anyway, have 20k trouble free miles on my 03 LX and love the car everytime I look at it or drive it.
Accord. As for the 98 Accord being an economy car the new one is a size of a Pontiac Boneville. The new Accord is a full size car now. 1990 was the first year the Accord could be called a Mid size car. Pre 1990 Accord models were compact cars in my opinion.
As for Acura getting the better styling the new TL is less contriversal than the new Accord on the exterior but I still don't like it from what I have seen. Acura has always gotten the sportier styling than Honda has anyway.
The LX V6 vs the EX V6 was my comparison. The LX has all of the mechanical bits,plus 8 way pwr seat and 6 disc changer indash, and only lacks a outside temp gauge of the things I would want. The LX comes with steel wheels which makes it very inexpensive to trade for good alloys as you do not have to pay for the cheap alloys that Honda puts on the EX. The sunroof is a frill that is about useless. Freeze in the winter and burn up in the summer. Leather is slippery and hot/cold. Check the brochure and see if you think the added things on the EX V6 are worth 4200 dollars over the LX (MSRP) The price one must pay for the LX is even a greater spread, as the LX is much more likely to get a larger discount. I would not want a four cylinder Accord, too big and heavy for the four to offer good performance. It is true however, that most people think the added frills that Honda chooses to festoon the EX with are worth getting because they worry about what the neighbors might think. Luxury appointments almost always cost much more than they are worth. I think that I can manage to turn my A/C on and off when needed, and the phony wood trim in the EX is awful. The reasons go on and on, but suffice it to say that the LX V6 is the smart buy from a financial point of view.
The only reason someone would buy the LX V6 is because they CANT afford the fully loaded EX V6. No need to go into detail in to regards why the EX V6 isnt full of value. Some people dont like leather, but when resale time comes, leather helps , believe me. Personally I cant stand hub caps. For a decent set of alloys, you will have to drop atleast 300 per wheel, I would never even consider a wheel/tire package that is less then that. THe Honda wheels arent too shabby. All those expensive luxury products are quite nice, and many individuals dont mind dropping the money for them.
When it comes to resale, peoples eyes light up when they see the following: LEATHER, MOONROOF, HEATED SEATS, ALLOY WHEELS and all those silly little creature comforts you write-off.
the ONLY reason someone wouldn't get an EX over an LX is because they don't have money, or are too cheap. or if they are 6'7 and claim to not fit in the car with the moonroof.
snaker is borderline insulting people that buy the EX. that is kind of sad. just because one person wasn't willing to pay for leather and a moonroof doesn't mean that the people who DO purchase the EX are doing it for the neighbors. my neighbors don't see my car - sits in my nice warm garage all night long. which is opened by my new HomeLink equipped Honda. LOVE IT!
There you go, concerned with what other people want in a used car. Your assumption that only those people who cannot afford an EX would want a LX is silly. Some people have a lot of money because they are not silly enough to think that the junk that Honda adds to the EX makes for a luxury car, and they have enough sense to buy only what is useful to them and if you really did some research on who buys what(price wise), you would find that those with lots of money buy at the top of the market, or the bottom. Here is why. The top line cars (Porsche, Benz, Rolls,etc, are the top, and the bottom priced cars are without pretense. Many of my friends buy in this manner, and they could not care one whit what anyone else thinks of their purchases. Most of them could buy anything they want for cash. Do you think that the EX will last longer? Will it drive down the road better? Who are you trying to impress? If you had all this money why don't you buy a Modena?, or even a nice Porsche 911 GT? Do you not see that the difference between a Honda EX (low price car) and a Honda Lx (low price car) is not in the price, but the logic of smart purchases. Why throw away money on stuff that one may not even like. such as, leather, automatic A/C, fake wood, shiny tin coated plastic, and little colored lights? Think about what you can get for the 4000 dollar difference. Is your name really Bill Gates?
Accord is larger because market demands it. It is still among the smaller midsize sedans in the market today. Just look at how people talk about lack of room in TSX (which is in fact better than 94-97 Accord). And TSX is about 6 inch shorter than Accord. You will also notice the same arguments against 2004 TL since it is going to be smaller (on the outside, and much of it is reflected in the trunk size).
Bonneville, I believe, is about a foot longer than the Accord, definitely not the same size. The difference between Accord and Bonneville in terms of external dimensions may be similar to that between Accord and Civic. It is that different.
OTOH, Altima and Maxima are both 3 inch longer than the Accord on the outside, Mazda6 is couple of inches shorter.
Robr2,
1998- onwards, the Accord is classified as a mid size car. The cabin volume has been about 102 cu. ft. (98 cu.ft for EX models due to moon roof). Civic has moved up from sub compact to compact with cabin volume of 91 cu. ft (88 cu. ft w/moonroof).
The first part of your posting does not make sense. The idea that I am insulting anyone for buying an EX over an LX is really far out. A person buys what they want in the final analysis, and their reasons for doing so are valid to them, just as my reasons are valid to me. The reasons that I retired at 46 years old are in part, that I live within my means and I AM cheap. That is why I will never have to work again, I do not waste money on stuff that I, repeat I, do not want, or have any use for. Yes I do hit my head on every sunroof equipped car that I have ever driven or rode in. I am 6'5". Believe me, I think every person should get what they want, and I was only expressing my own opinion, and I thought that it was obvious that I was only stating what I thought was the best VALUE IN THE HONDA LINE, and this was not intended to insult anyone who feels differently. By the way the LX is the only V6 that Honda makes that does NOT have a sunroof.
your opinion is totally valid. but you made a specific statement which was actually just a really bad assumption: that most people only buy the EX to impress someone else. that is where your ideas get a little "iffy", in my opinion. these ARE NOT expensive cars. there isn't a Honda on the planet that will "impress the neighbors", EX, LX, DX, Si, or what have you. and there isn't a person on this earth that buys Hondas for that reason. i think you are wrong there, that is all. your argument works for me when i consider that my friend has a 530 BMW. does NOTHING better than my EX-V6 Accord, for thousands less. to me, that BMW is the image car....but again, i could never say to my neighbors, look at my EX Accord, be impressed!
as an Accord newbie, what do i need to do/not do to make sure that my car doesn't have the "Honda automatic transmission issues", other than don't drive the car?
seriously, some people say that Honda automatics don't work well with V6's? i know the TL's had problems one year. anyone have any technical proof that Honda fixed the automatics for the new style Accords?
Comments
they were crying, but oh well.
car is HUGE and engine is smooth.
Other than Hondas we have owned a RAV4, Chevy Silverado, Lexus LS400/GS300, and a Mazda Protege. Nothing blatantly wrong with any of them other than the Chevy's tendency to like the dealership's service department more than it liked our driveway. They just weren't Hondas and Hondas seem to be what I like to drive most. That said, my significant other's Lexus is a close second. If nothing else when you do take your Lexus to the shop you get a nice new Lexus to drive for a couple of days. In the last 3 months we have had a 2002 RX300, a 2003 IS300, and a 2002 ES300.
The new Accords are awesome. I absolutely LOVE my 03 Accord EX-L 5-speed manual and hate to get rid of it.
About the 04 TL I don't like the line on the door. It ruins a rather clean look to the car. I haven't seen the back end of the car yet. At least Honda went with their traditional styling with the TSX even though the exterior maybe a little understated.
The TL's rear end also looks like a Civic.
Not to mention the Camry, Altima, Taurus, and Accord seem to be melding into the same car. Very little to tell them apart from the front unless you are pretty close.
Sorry for misleading...
In 1996 Honda had the younger buyers now they don't have as many younger buyers and the cars are starting to blend in with other cars. I guess Honda is pulling a NASCAR(appeal to as many people as you can.) We just can't have this person appealed to our product we have to have the person who has been buying a Chevy for 20 years.
My point is Honda was doing good with the stylig they had. Why ruin a good thing? Also Honda better watch it because look what Mazda and Nissan did in the mid to late 90's when they changed up their styling.
Let's all see what happens fall 2005. They will probably at least have new tail lights (which have been critisized for looking similar to a Saturn or Buick).
I may be in the minority, but I actually like the new Accord's styling. It is not perfect, but neither was the 1998 Accord's styling. Honda seems to always leave something to be desired With 1998, I though the grill could have been better. With 2003-, I feel just a more conventional tail lamps would do it. And i don't think I can complain about the interior.
one thing is for sure - the new Accord sedan, from the rear, can look great, or really bad, depending on color and wheel design.
From the competition, the Altima has a nice rear end, and the Mazda6 has a good looking taut front, but as a whole, the Accord is far appealing and timeless. The rear of the Mazda sucks, making the licence plate recess almost look like an afterthought. Half the plate hangs out of the recess. I think the recess is built for european plates, which are more horizontal, than for the American ones, which are more rectangular.
Anyway, have 20k trouble free miles on my 03 LX and love the car everytime I look at it or drive it.
As for Acura getting the better styling the new TL is less contriversal than the new Accord on the exterior but I still don't like it from what I have seen. Acura has always gotten the sportier styling than Honda has anyway.
The Toyota Avalon is a full sized car, and there is no way the ACcord is as big as that.
I think the TL will look sharp in person. Pictures most of the time do not do a car justice. The TL will look quite nice in black.
Length 189 202
Width 71 74
Height 57 56.6
Wheelbase 112.2 107.9
Weight 3360 3716 lbs
Engine cyl 6 6
The aren't same size except for number
of cylinders!!! 8)
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Just wondering.
When it comes to resale, peoples eyes light up when they see the following: LEATHER, MOONROOF, HEATED SEATS, ALLOY WHEELS and all those silly little creature comforts you write-off.
Honda is loosing the large Greenhouse effect by raising the cowls. I'm skipping this generation.
I hope they bring some of the hatch and 5 doors from the JDM market here, but I doubt it.
I agree, I find the Acura styles more interesting.
snaker is borderline insulting people that buy the EX. that is kind of sad. just because one person wasn't willing to pay for leather and a moonroof doesn't mean that the people who DO purchase the EX are doing it for the neighbors. my neighbors don't see my car - sits in my nice warm garage all night long. which is opened by my new HomeLink equipped Honda. LOVE IT!
Accord is larger because market demands it. It is still among the smaller midsize sedans in the market today. Just look at how people talk about lack of room in TSX (which is in fact better than 94-97 Accord). And TSX is about 6 inch shorter than Accord. You will also notice the same arguments against 2004 TL since it is going to be smaller (on the outside, and much of it is reflected in the trunk size).
Bonneville, I believe, is about a foot longer than the Accord, definitely not the same size. The difference between Accord and Bonneville in terms of external dimensions may be similar to that between Accord and Civic. It is that different.
OTOH, Altima and Maxima are both 3 inch longer than the Accord on the outside, Mazda6 is couple of inches shorter.
Robr2,
1998- onwards, the Accord is classified as a mid size car. The cabin volume has been about 102 cu. ft. (98 cu.ft for EX models due to moon roof). Civic has moved up from sub compact to compact with cabin volume of 91 cu. ft (88 cu. ft w/moonroof).
seriously, some people say that Honda automatics don't work well with V6's? i know the TL's had problems one year. anyone have any technical proof that Honda fixed the automatics for the new style Accords?
thanks.
See post 18874.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,