Honda must be doing something right because I've owned a 2003 coupe and once we found out we had a baby coming a 2003-2004 sedan was one of our top choices and as of last night, it was THE choice. There are nice cars on the market, but to me the Accord is the best one going in it's price class. I even love the styling.
to find technical service bulletins and recall info.
On the extended warranty stuff, I assume you mean Honda extending the warranty due to a problem (like the transmission on the previous year), I would think this info would be available on the honda website.
I did just take my 03 Accord in for the 3 "product updates" mentioned above. It took them about a day and I had the car back. Never noticed the car driving any differently before or after the work.
i'm a little late but congratulations on your new accord.
wheel locks are not standard but if the car is on the dealer lot for any time the dealer will probably add them to stop the thieves!
time will only tell if honda was able to rectify their past problems with the 5 speed automatics. all i know is that the 5 speed auto performs flawlessly.
I don't like Toyota's latest exterior styling either. I do prefer the Honda of old(80's and 90's not the Honda now that is going for mainnstream acceptance. As for Honda with bland styling did American Cars look that much better than Japanese Cars did in the 90's? I don't think they did.
I have a 3" light scratch in my 03 accord lust below the center of the passenger door. and at certain angles, it's hard to see. problem is on Redondo Red, scratches are very noticeable.
I see turtle wax has a colored wax product, which can fill in light scratches, even has this little lipstick like thing to use. has anyone used something like this? or, can recommend what to use on light scratches other than gloppy touch up paint?
does anyone else notice that the Michelin tires on the 2003 EX-V6 seem loud? the car rides flawlessly, no wobbles, alignment is great. but it seems like the tires are loud. maybe the engine is so quiet, that the tires are heard instead.
just curious. almost 600 miles on my car in one week!
Ok, im on the fence on weather I want to install them on my honda. 04 graphite pearl ex v6. Do they actually make a difference in keeping rain/mud off the side of the car? They seem to change the appearance of the car a little as well. As did the fog lts that i had the dealer install...but they serve an obvious purpose.
Just wanted to say thanks to Edmunds and all the posters on this board. I've been researching for about a year and finally took the plunge on Saturday. Couldn't be happier with my '04 EX-L. Silver. Even splurged for the spoiler!
I was disappointed about it when I read it was mandatory on my '04 EX-L I plan to buy. But, after looking over the info on XM's webpage, it looks like a pretty cool service. Radio here in Minneapolis is awful nowdays anyway.
Isn't it odd that Honda over the years has provided the best seating option to only the top of the line 4-cylinder or V6 buyers? Anyone needing better thigh support needs an 8-way adjustable driver's seat. Apparently, DX, LX and EX non-leather buyers have to get by without a properly adjustable seat.
mjw: We bought the exact same car on Saturday. Ours is a Japanese built silver EX-L automatic sedan. We added the decklid spoiler, fog lights, fenderwell trim, and splash guards. Will take it back this Saturday for the installs.
I love this sedan just as much, if not more, than I loved my 03 EX-L 5-speed coupe. Probably has something to do with the fact that it's silver instead of black and the XM doesn't hurt either.
I have a graphite pearl EX V6 w/Navi AND mud flaps. The black mud flaps blend in well with the graphite pearl so I'd recommend getting them (online at http://www.handa-accessories.com/accord03.html )
As for the XM radio on the '04 - Sounds like a neat mandatory option. I didn't like the painted rectangular bump (antennae) that they slapped on the rear roof line. Looks like an after thought IMHO.
agreed. It's the best painted bump for XM that I've seen, but it still is the first thing to catch your eye on the '04's with XM. I know the radio is great, etc., but I get the urge to pick that thing off. I ask myself why didn't they locate that ugly thing in the truck near the GPS receiver???? Reception can't be a problem if that area is acceptable for the Navi GPS receiver/antenna.... Why, Honda? Why???
cartalk? wait wait don't tell me, the splendid table, sound money, the savvy traveler, this american life, speaking of faith, prarie home companion. Hmm, I think that's about all of them My favorite is cartalk of course.
NPR is all I listen to in terms of radio, if I wanted music I like, I pop in a CD...or for road trips, my own customized PC-burned CDs. I personally would get an in-dash MP3 player before XM radio, One time cost and hundreds of hours of playtime.
The $600 is just a price increase. The Accord EX V6 is extremely competitive when it comes price so another $600 is not going to change that. I specifically sought out a 2004 just for the XM (the side curtains are another bonus). In the process I probably cost myself $600 because they were ready to get rid of their leftover 03 Accords.
At least Honda gives you the option of CD's, AM/FM, and now XM in EX-L and EX V6 models. Mercedes only offered a cassette player for way toooo long.
I have an unusual question. I have a 1998 Olds Intrigue with 110K miles which has the venerable 3800 GM motor. It puts out 195 max hp and 220 max torgue through a 4 speed automatic tranny. The car weighs about 3460 pounds. Most car mags clock it 0-60mph from 7.8 to 8.3 seconds.
I am seriously considering a new Accord EX 4 banger rated at 160 max hp, 161 max torque with the 5 speed automatic tranny. This car weighs 3210 pounds. Most car mags clock this around the 8.5 to 9.0 second range 0-60.
Do any of you think the difference in performance is worth sacrificing? Is it all that significant? I'd like the Accord V6--- but I think I'd could live with the I-4, especially given its lower initial and subsequent maintenance costs.
It has been a while since I have test driven the Accord 4 banger, and I'd prefer not to have to go thru with all the dealer hassle just yet. I just want to see if anyone else out there has compared all three cars-- the Intrigue, Accord 4, and Accord V6.
Maybe, if I'm lucky, a tree will fall on my Intrigue when hurricane Isabel rolls through my home state of NC... **just kidding on that one **
that I owned a '93 Explorer with (I think) 158hp V6 engine. I can't stand a car that won't go and the darn thing was not fast but quick enough to satisfy. Wife had a 200hp '93 Cadillac that probably weighed 5klb. It was way quick. These HP wars are crazy. I can't imagine a 160hp Honda won't work for you. By coincidence, I just helped my daughter buy an EXV6 sedan. It is very, very quick. Same month, 3 weeks later I helped my mother-in-law buy an Accord LX 4 (I'm the official car advisor in our family). It is plenty quick. Not quit as smooth but as much hp as an fairly heavy Explorer a decade ago. Drive one. You will be as surprised as I was. All the numbers can be misleading. Seat-of-the-pants the 4 feels way more than adequate in this car.
I find it funny that people are worried a 4 banger won't be enough power @ around 160 when a few years ago we had V6 motors rated about the same. The 140hp Ecotec I have in my Alero is plenty peppy and when I tested an 4 cyl Accord, I thought it to be fast. Hey, I like V6s as much as much as anyone, but I think the 4 cyl motor is the best choice and bang for the buck in an Accord.
The V6 is a nice to have luxury that makes the car feel smoother, quieter and more refined. It's funny that people try to justify it by saying that the V6 is "needed" because they can't accelerate onto a freeway onramp fast enough with the 4 cylinder. "I have to press the gas pedal too hard with the 4 cylinder and I can hear a noise coming from the engine when I do that. Oh no!"
If you like the way a V6 "feels" get it. Most people know right off the bat if they like a V6 just based on how it feels when driving. Not the speed but as someone said before the smoothness, quietness, more refined. And in the case of the Accord a broad broad torque band that will be very much appreciated if you drive at extralegal speeds very often. Try passing an 18 wheeler when you and he are already going 70. The 4 banger will require a little more time to make that pass. The V6 will make you feel very confident when doing the same move.
Regardless I ended up with the I4 because I prefer to row my own gears and I have no problem with the power in the I4. Besides as i get older I am not really going places as fast as I used to. The extra 60 seconds I gained driving 25 miles just isn;t worth the risk anymore. I do spend alot of time cruising at 80+ MPH and for that my Accord I4 performs flawlessly.
As far as the dyno. "Vee-Tec dot net" dynoed the 2003 I4 accord. The 140 Hp/150 Ftlb is at the wheels. It was rated at 175hp/170 ftlb at the crank which is what every car manufacturer in the US advertises with. Either way it makes for a very fast car.
both Accords are nice. but sometimes a V6 is NEEDED. some people buy Accords to be basic transportation, cross shopping Galant, Saturn, 4 cylinder Camry/Altima, Mazda6, etc. others, like myself, are interested in "bang for the buck" too, but against 6 cylinder Camry/Altima, and even 3 and 5 series and Passats, Audi A4, etc. when you think about the fact that my EX-V6 does EVERYTHING and more than my friends BMW 528i, i think the bang for the buck award goes to the Accord EX-V6, hands down.
lets not make this a 4 cyl Accord vs. 6 cyl Accord thing. those kind of attitudes belong in other lesser sedan boards....;)
I agree also, if you are cross shopping those cars, then the V6 Accord may be your ticket. That said, I wish Honda would do more to distinguish the V6 models from the four bangers. Unless you are looking at the badging, it's hard to tell any difference.
I bought the V6 because of several things. The engine seems much quieter and is definitely smoother. Here in South Texas we have extremely short on-ramps to the expressways. This car accelerates smoothly and I don't feel like I am pushing it when I merge. I have had the car (V6/w NAV) for two months now and am extremely satisfied with it. It beats the heck out of the Intrigue I traded in. I have been averaging 26 MPG in mixed driving. A 700 mile trip is coming next month and will see what the hiway MPG is. So far Honda has made a believer out of me. Oh, and the Nav system is absolutely incredible!!
I thank all of you for your inputs regarding Accord engine options.
Methinks I will prolly go for the 4 cylinder. Although the lead foot in me longs for the V6, the practical side of me wins over for the I-4.
On the bright side, with less weight on the nose of the car, I can dance around corners at warp speed and get better fuel efficiency. The 4 banger is hardly slow in real time--- but compared to that V6--- it is decidely slower--- in relative terms.
Comments
Good choices if you ask me.
Anyway, you can get some of this stuff at the honda website www.hondacars.com and click on the "owner link"
Also, I use the NHTSA National Hiway Traffic Safety Assn,
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/tsb/tsbsearch.cfm
to find technical service bulletins and recall info.
On the extended warranty stuff, I assume you mean Honda extending the warranty due to a problem (like the transmission on the previous year), I would think this info would be available on the honda website.
brian
wheel locks are not standard but if the car is on the dealer lot for any time the dealer will probably add them to stop the thieves!
time will only tell if honda was able to rectify their past problems with the 5 speed automatics. all i know is that the 5 speed auto performs flawlessly.
I see turtle wax has a colored wax product, which can fill in light scratches, even has this little lipstick like thing to use. has anyone used something like this? or, can recommend what to use on light scratches other than gloppy touch up paint?
just curious. almost 600 miles on my car in one week!
They definitely serve a purpose. Not only with mud, from with rocks as well.
I just wish they were painted.
Wish I had it on my 03'...!
I believe, LX has manual adjustment (not powered), and EX (non-leather) has 4-way power seat, I believe with manual adjustment as well.
I love this sedan just as much, if not more, than I loved my 03 EX-L 5-speed coupe. Probably has something to do with the fact that it's silver instead of black and the XM doesn't hurt either.
As for the XM radio on the '04 - Sounds like a neat mandatory option. I didn't like the painted rectangular bump (antennae) that they slapped on the rear roof line. Looks like an after thought IMHO.
Try listening to NPR on the way to and from work, you'll never feel the need to spend $10 a month for radio.
NPR is all I listen to in terms of radio, if I wanted music I like, I pop in a CD...or for road trips, my own customized PC-burned CDs. I personally would get an in-dash MP3 player before XM radio, One time cost and hundreds of hours of playtime.
At least Honda gives you the option of CD's, AM/FM, and now XM in EX-L and EX V6 models. Mercedes only offered a cassette player for way toooo long.
I think an 8-way seat adds a tilt to the bottom cusion in addition to moving the entire seat up/down.
2way- whole seat up/down.
I am seriously considering a new Accord EX 4 banger rated at 160 max hp, 161 max torque with the 5 speed automatic tranny. This car weighs 3210 pounds. Most car mags clock this around the 8.5 to 9.0 second range 0-60.
Do any of you think the difference in performance is worth sacrificing? Is it all that significant? I'd like the Accord V6--- but I think I'd could live with the I-4, especially given its lower initial and subsequent maintenance costs.
It has been a while since I have test driven the Accord 4 banger, and I'd prefer not to have to go thru with all the dealer hassle just yet. I just want to see if anyone else out there has compared all three cars-- the Intrigue, Accord 4, and Accord V6.
Maybe, if I'm lucky, a tree will fall on my Intrigue when hurricane Isabel rolls through my home state of NC... **just kidding on that one
Ideas? Suggestions? Thanks
By coincidence, I just helped my daughter buy an EXV6 sedan. It is very, very quick. Same month, 3 weeks later I helped my mother-in-law buy an Accord LX 4 (I'm the official car advisor in our family). It is plenty quick. Not quit as smooth but as much hp as an fairly heavy Explorer a decade ago. Drive one. You will be as surprised as I was. All the numbers can be misleading. Seat-of-the-pants the 4 feels way more than adequate in this car.
Assuming you want the Auto
a V6 Camaro w/ the GM 3800 and (I believe LS1) auto tranny, has been dyno'd at 159HP/163TQ
The I4 Accord has been dynoed out at about 140HP/150TQ. Not too bad considering 30% less displacement, and about 30% better MPG.
Realize the Camaro probably is reading higher than the Intrigue would due to differences in tuning, etc.
Test drive that bugger, and see for yourself. I have had the I4 for about a year, and have no issues with the K24 Engine.
It's funny that people try to justify it by saying that the V6 is "needed" because they can't accelerate onto a freeway onramp fast enough with the 4 cylinder.
"I have to press the gas pedal too hard with the 4 cylinder and I can hear a noise coming from the engine when I do that. Oh no!"
Regardless I ended up with the I4 because I prefer to row my own gears and I have no problem with the power in the I4. Besides as i get older I am not really going places as fast as I used to. The extra 60 seconds I gained driving 25 miles just isn;t worth the risk anymore. I do spend alot of time cruising at 80+ MPH and for that my Accord I4 performs flawlessly.
As far as the dyno. "Vee-Tec dot net" dynoed the 2003 I4 accord. The 140 Hp/150 Ftlb is at the wheels. It was rated at 175hp/170 ftlb at the crank which is what every car manufacturer in the US advertises with. Either way it makes for a very fast car.
lets not make this a 4 cyl Accord vs. 6 cyl Accord thing. those kind of attitudes belong in other lesser sedan boards....;)
Would you recommend taking it back to the dealer or finding a lesser-expensive auto shop?
Thanks.
Methinks I will prolly go for the 4 cylinder. Although the lead foot in me longs for the V6, the practical side of me wins over for the I-4.
On the bright side, with less weight on the nose of the car, I can dance around corners at warp speed and get better fuel efficiency. The 4 banger is hardly slow in real time--- but compared to that V6--- it is decidely slower--- in relative terms.
to each his own!
i hate the Michelin Energy MXV4 tires on my Accord. someone said that they will quiet down actually over time. i hope so!
What kind of differentiation do you expect between I-4 and V6 models?