Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The sketch of front of the car shown in grey had appeared in a German magazine prevously and was ID'd as the new Euro Accord. It certainly had more of an Acura look to it than the current direction being taken on Hondas.
Hopefully, we'll get the rumored 220hp. VTECT 4cyl with a 5spd. in that car...
venus- I sense sarcasm...
Just don't tell them that the Camry received 2 stars in the side impact ratings from the feds, compared with a 3 for the Altima and a 4 for the current Accord. It had received better ratings in the past.
For what it's worth, let me echo the recent comments that Honda should stop following the "slightly bigger, wider, etc" crowd and try to lead in the opposite direction. My family has had three Accords, but my personal favorite is my brother's hand-me-down 1987 edition. That car still is (at 160k miles) an honest-to-God low-riding sportscar compared to the recent models. And *gasp* it was fashion-forward, with flip-up headlights! Let's get innovative again, folks!! I hope Honda realizes that it's headed into Buick country at its current pace. (Toyota too, for that matter, but to them I say good riddance)
I've done both, and I can tell you that Honda has nothing to have its "hands trembling" about here. The interior of the Nissan is clearly inferior in execution and materials [they are said to be scrambling to fix the worst of it], and the ride of the 6 cyl car is like having rocks in the tires. The best car is the 4 cyl "S", but it too shares the weaknesses of the interior and general lack of refinement.
Bash away, gang - lay into Honda for its grievous errors. Just be sure you have actually driven and spent time in ALL of the competitors before drawing conclusions. It's the combination of all the attributes [see post above] that ultimately sells the car and keeps people happy.
The beauty of the marketplace is that you get to put your money wherever you want it to reside, for whatever reasons move you. I can't imagine making such a judgment solely on the basis of the photos we've seen, without looking at and sitting in the car, much less driving it to see how the on-road experience compares to the competition...but then I continue to be mystified by the tone of this discussion for the past couple of weeks.
I'm not a huge fan of the look of the new Camry, but I would NEVER make a buy-no buy decision based on that limited observation. I have driven both the six and four cyl Camrys, and am impressed by the usual Toyota attention to refinement and good ride. I was tempted by an XLE 4 cyl, but ultimately decided to hold off buying in this class until the Accord, Mazda, and ultimately the BMW 1er are on the road.
Yes, those of you who want a different look, decent performance, and a moderate price tag might want to wait until 2004, when the BMW 1-series will be around to compete in the $18-$25k segment. It's a smaller car, RWD, and very different from the Accord/Camry/Altima/Mazda6, but is a car that interests me a lot because we only need the back seat for occasional use. But how the car looks [beyond its obvious generic BMW family traits] is absolutely the last thing on my checklist. Oh, well...maybe I'm too easy to please - I don't find any of the cars in this group unacceptable to look at.
1. UNACCEPTABLE 2-star side impact rating
2. sludgy, 10 year-old, premium-fuel, V-6.
3. blah buick-like styling
4. smally and poor fitting drivers seat for MANY.
5. Floaty, near buick-like handling (SE is a bit better)
6. Fit & finish issues
2003 Accord Weakness:
1. Lack of information
2. blah styling with a hint of class (waiting to see it in person though)
2003 Accord Expectations:
Great ride, power, interior, drivability, fit & finish
Good Handling
Good to Excellent Safety Ratings
Just don't know what's going on with Japan's big two-- more and more conservative. Very sad considering where they were fifteen years ago--especially Honda.
02 Accord - could be better, I hope the 03 Accord gives us a better ride, less road noise and handles like a BMW ( or close )
02 Camry XLE V6 - should handle a little better, needs more HP ( about 25 ), styling so-so
02 Altima 3.5 - the ride could be better, interior quality should up to Toyota/Honda standards, wide turning radius
03 Avalon - nice but not my style, floats too much
02 525i - expensive ( cost,maint.,insurance,etc.)
02 Maxima - could be better ( the Altima handles better ) The Infiniti I35 is really a Maxima in my eyes.
02 Lexus ES300 - only slightly better than a Camry XLE V6.
02 Passat - nice car ( electrical problems ? )
The original ES300 looked way to much like the Camry. Over the years the ES continued to improve its looks slightly while the Camry reached an all time boring low in the 97-01 generation. The gap between the cars became very wide during those years. I agree the 02 ES looks okay, but the Camry, although no looker improved immensely from 01 to 02. Thus the ES300 is now just slightly better than the Camry.
I agree with davied99 that the grill on the '98-02 car was a let down from the '96-'97 car (I never liked the '94-'95 either). It was a little more conservative, but classier. The '01-'02 front end was supposed to look sporty'er, but I don't think it quite made it. It always buggs me that the Civic has a better front end around the grill with some chrome and a mesh backed "H" logo.
Both the Civic 5 door and Jazz/Fit would really attract younger buyers, and be a refreshing alternative to the boring Civic and Accord sedans for those who want a Honda.
What's so crazy about the next Accord having 240HP? Look at where it was 10 years ago when the most powerful Accord had 140HP, then look at it now with 200HP. There is no reason why Honda wouldn't add 40HP to the V6. They added 30HP in the last redesign so 40 shouldn't seem so far fetched. They could very well do that with the current 3.0 V6. All they have to do is fit it with the technology used in the TL Type-S 3.2 V6(mainly the variable-resonance intake system which gives a supercharging effect)and it could have that much power very easily.
I have to admit, in the 50's, 60's, and 70's I suffered from the same testosterone driven malady.
The Detroit muscle car phase of the late 50's through about '73 (Arab oil crisis) was a result.
This is shaping up as the Japanese brand version of that phenomenon. I suspect after the SUV's and overpowered Nissans etc have a high enough percentage of vehicles on the road, we will see a repeat of '73. Then about 30 years later history will repeat again.
We better hope for quick development of alternative fuel sources soon.
jrct9454: I've ridden in a couple Nissan Altimas. One friend (24yo) has a 2000, another (27yo) has a 1997/98. I'd take my 1997 Accord over either one. I find the interior cramped and interior materials cheap compared to the Accord, and the ride slightly more harsh. The styling doesn't do it either (esp. the weird shaped trunk). I'd take my Accord or my roomate's 1999 Ford Contour over the Altima anyday.
Second, well the sludge issue- not really an issue anymore seeing as how mods have been made as of April on all V6 engines (supposedly), and the fact that sludge occurs in something like less than 1% of said engines.
Third, styling- obviously subjective, but I like our dark Camry with accessory (not factory) Toyota alloys. I don't see the Buick resemblance, but thats your opinion, and I completely respect it. (I should note that I'm 21...and I might fall out of the norm since I think that Buicks are nicely styled for their intentions... Chryslers are another ballgame).
Fourth- the drivers seat. I can't really comment on this one, it tends to be the larger frame/taller people that have problems..I'm neither. Just took the car on a 480mile round trip, had no problems.
Fifth- Buick like handling. Well, the 02 LE 4 that I speak of is my parents'. My car is an 00 Camry LE, and I feel the new one is more precise and agile, rolls less in turns, and the ride is more controlled.... Still, if these cars had been paid for by my money, this is where the current Accord would really have given me an issue- I do prefer that car's sharpness. My parents, however, preferred the ride and quiet of the Camry.
Finally- Our car, obviously just one of what? 365K to be sold this year- has a flawless fit and finish, especially the interior, which is VASTLY improved over our previous gen in design and execution. (proud to say our 2002 is built by Americans). On what are you basing fit and finish issues, and what makes you think they wont be an issue for the new Accord? Both the Civic and Ody dropped in their reliabitly rating from CR when redesigned.
In anycase, I really cant wait to see the Accord in person. I'm a Toyota fan by nature, but when the lease is up on the 2000 Camry, I'M going to be the one spending money this time, so its going to be interesting. (Our 2002 is ours for good, not a lease). Time will tell.
~alpha
I just find the 2 star side impact rating (especially since Camrys in the past have scored better than that) unacceptable, perhaps even a bit negligent on Toyota's part.
Otherwise, the Camry is a solid car that is levels above in refinement compared to any Buick.
Like alpha01 said, it mainly taller & larger people. Toyota shortened the seat by an inch or two to create the appearance of greater interior space or something. Just plain silly. Lot's of Camry owners are also trying all kinds of seat covers to get a more comfortable seat as well.
Once you have dropper $20K+ on a car, you just gotta learn to live with things like bad seats.
2. Yeah, fit & finish on the initial batch of Camry's was not up to snuff. lots of complaints about litte squeaks & rattles. It sounds like they MAY have gotten better lately on the newer built cars.
3. Read lots of reviews. Including the C+D one where the 2002 Accord (5-year old design) BEAT the 2002 Camry (brand new). Most reviews agree with my take on the Camry & Accord.
4. Those 200,000 people bought the 2002 Camry before the terrible side-impact crash test results were release a couple weeks ago. This issue is gonna explode in the media real soon now. My hope is a testing or report error. Can't beleive that Toyota would screw up so bad.
First of all, the Camry that got the 2-star side impact rating for the front seats was on a car without side airbags. The 2002 Lexus ES 300 with side air bags received a 5-star rating. Since the cars have similar structures I would guess a side-airbag-equipped Camry would score about the same. If somebody is that concerned with safety then they should get the side airbag option.
Second, take a look at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ratings. They do the 40 mph offset crash, the cause of over half of all auto deaths. The 2002 Camry got the highest rating on all but left leg/foot, in which it got the second highest rating. Overall, the Camry was a "best overall pick." The Accord did not test as well and was not a best pick.
I like both the Accord and Camry. My point is that from a safety standpoint each car has its own merits. My bet is the Camry and Accord are fairly equal overall.
Instead, it is a salient anomaly that the rear passenger can receive 5 stars while the front passenger gets only 2. And compared with the excellent frontal tests that the Camry received, the 2 really stands out like a sore thumb.
While we're on the topic of safety, I'd like to say that Honda has really inproved. Every new Honda vehicle that NHTSA has tested recently (CRV, Civic, Accord, Odyssey) has gotten at least a double five star safety rating, if not a quadruple five star safety rating. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the new Accord received a "best pick" rating from the IIHS, and I'd be very surprised if it didn't receive a quadruple five star safety rating. If they can make the two door Civic (with side airbags) receive full marks in the side impact crash, then they can just about do anything. My .02
I hope you guys have a great day!
-otherwise, I agree with most of what you say.
~alpha
Rice Dragon- the side curtains come with a side airbag mounted in the seat as well... why would you think that these two in conjunction would not yield an improvement in the rating? And as opposed to contours, I WOULD HAVE thought the higher belt line would benefit the car more than it apparently did.
~alpha
Stephen
If so, and if you're reluctant to pay the extra dough at this time for the extended warranty, you could always reconsider later on down the road after you've had extensive road time with your Honda. Our family has had the good fortune of not buying a lemon in the 3 Hondas we own. Doesn't mean that they don't exist.
As for the euro accord, the car is supposed to be coming here as an entry level Acura sedan to replace the deceased Integra sedan. The best of both worlds it would seem. After checking out the photos, it looks a lot like the Mazda6. Maybe my decsion on my next car isn't made after all, especially if they bring the 250hp Type-R! Mazda of course, it promising a 250hp MazdaSpeed version. Things are getting interesting... BTW, here is the link...
http://sohc.vtec.net/pics/03/accord/0611autocar.jpg
As noted in the VTEC forums, the smart idea would be to price this BMW competitor between the TL and the Accord. Assuming Honda does this, the potential downside is that many more people than Honda expects may turn their noses at the "Buicky" Accord and go for the TSX, which could force the market price upward to BMW range.
Benz