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
I too am disappointed with the Euro Accord pictures, looks like an evolutionary Mazda Protege. Seems to me that Honda had decided as a corporate design strategy to stick to the conservative look in all their high volume vehicles.
Is anyone else out there interested in aspects of the Accord other than styling? What about increased horsepower without too much sacrifice of the Accord's virtues of smoothness and driveability? What tires have people tried, with what results?
Am I the only one who doesn't much care how it looks, but rather how it drives and how durable and reliable it is?
I guess I'm different than you two. I have always thought that Hondas and Acuras possesed clean, un-offensive styling. I've owned one Acura and one Honda. This new Accord looks like trash IMO. It's obvious that looks aren't everything, but they can't be completely ignored (in your cases, maybe they can). I think it's funny that as soon as the pics came out, many people started with the "looks aren't everything" lines. I like Hondas, but I'm not THAT Honda-centric. I swear that Honda could make the next Civic look identical to a piece of dog crap and you'd still have the Honda freaks talking about how nice it shifts and how well it steers. Incredible.
Looks can only get you so far. Besides, it's the only thing we know about the new Accord. If we knew what the interior looked like, or the engine options, or the handling, etc., I'm sure we'd talk about that ad nauseum, too. Some people just can't handle freedom of speech.
Isn't the V6 fast? I heard it did 0-60 in 7.9. That is not too bad.
Wondered if it's normal or just me. It's no big deal, but I found it funny.
For the record, the car sat in the sun for a few hours (glad I got silver), and it was a nice 95+ in the south SF bay area.
I can't see the sense in trying to rationalize an ugly car. Of course styling is subjective. If it looks good to you it isn't ugly, that's just someone elses opinion.
I've compared the new 6 speed CLS to a BMW 3 series 330i and I'll tell you that if you drive a manual tranny car the CL-S is much more pleasant (and almost, but not quite, as exciting to drive). I'll take the plain looking CL-S anytime. Do you drive a manual? ever drive an S-2000 or RSX or the new Civic SI manual? Much different than most of the crap out there today
I do drive a manual. I have for 9 years with 6 different cars ranging from a 91 Mustang LX 5.0L to a 95 Acura Integra GS-R (which was regarded by many as having the best FWD manual trans shift quality). I've driven so many manual transmission cars that I couldn't even count them all. My friend has a 99 Civic Si and my brother has a 2002 Civic EX; I've driven them both. No need to lecture me on shift quality.
"Maybe us honda/nissan freaks are more drivers than people who want to buy a good looking sofa that just takes you from A to B."
Who says you can't have a good looking car that is also fun to drive?
You sure illustrate the point that styling is subjective.
I like the Accord because it is very reliable, very well-made with excellent fit and finish, pleasantly styled, drives and handles well, is very comfortable on long vacation trips, gets good fuel economy, and has pretty good performance. Before I bought it, I test drove (NOTE: actually drove, not just looked at web pictures) a Passat, a Maxima, a Taurus, a Camry, and a Subaru Legacy. In the end, I bought the Accord. All were nice cars, but the Accord had a precision feel that none of the others could match. bunk, I do have the V6, and it does get about 7.5-7.9 sec on 0-60, depending on whose road tests you read. But my previous car was a 1991 Taurus SHO, so 7.9 sec to 60 doesn't seem fast (the SHO did it in 6.6 sec, and more importantly, in a highway passing situation, there were few sedans that could stay with the SHO). The Accord, BTW, is a much more refined-feeling car than the SHO. Big surprise! The SHO handled more agressively (faster) than the Accord, though the Neuspeed rear bar brings the Accord pretty close; I suspect quicker tires will do the rest.
So back to my original question: show versus go. Has anyone tried different tires on a late-model Accord? What were the results?. BTW, I've already looked at TireRack's website; I hoped that this forum would give me a different perspective.
From the looks of the "new" Accord, I would chose the Altima ('03 are "suppose" to have a better interior).
Now, if we had the Euro Accord that would be another story!
I find the front styling extremely busy, and not at all pretty. That is why I say styling is completely subjective. To paraphrase, "one mans treasure is another mans trash".
Seeing that you like it so well, you should pick up a copy of the August Motor Trend, and check page 36. It also gives you a little more info on it.
At least Sweden's other car manufacturer, Volvo, has finally figured out how to style a car. But then you probably think they are ugly. Oh well, there's that subjectivity again. :-)
1. very reliable - I believe so
2. very well-made with excellent fit and finish - I believe so, but one of the 2002 Accord on the dealer lot has an uneven trunklid, well...
3. leasantly styled - everybody has his opinion
4. drives and handles well - yes
5. is very confortable on long vacation trips - really? It is the last car I'll take for a long drive, I like my 2001 E320 and 2000 Camry better.
6. gets good fuel economy - quite a few complaints with V6 fuel economy in this Edmunds review forum. My coworker get less than 20 mpg and my E320 get me 21 mpg. My wife got 25 mpg for her Camry and only 22 mpg for the 4 cylinder Accord, maybe it is still new at 500 miles, but still...
7. prety good performance - no complaints here
1. The manual transmission is much superior. Acura 6 speed is short throw, light effort (multiple synchonizer cones in first 4 gears) and precise. I found the 330i to be more "clunky". The BMW tranny may be more heavy duty (I have no idea) but he Acura is much nicer on a day to day basis. Its the best manual with a 6 cylinder combo I have ever driven.. Classic Honda.
2. The Acura Clutch is very light. A bit abrupt but i got used to it very fast. The 330i clutch is like a truck. My leg got tired. There is no excuse for this in a "refined sports sedan".
3. The BMW 5 speed sits at rpms that are too high for my taste at 80 mph cruising. The acura makes very good use of a 6th gear in this sense.
4. I found the BMW engine not as smooth torque wise. Torque comes on suddenly.. the CL-s seems more linear and plenty of power for me.
5. The RWD does handle better but the new HLSD Acura is much improved over 01, 02. The HLSD seems to pull you through curves as you power out. Not sure what Acura did, but the steering and cornering flatness is also improved for the manual 03. I would prefer the BMW handleing but not with the clunky manual drive train.
5. Long trips: my comments were based on a combination of driving pleasure and passenger comfort. I've never driven a Mercedes E320, but would expect it to be a superb long-distance cruiser. After all, they were designed in the land of autobahnen. But the E320 is hardly a competitor for the Accord; I could buy 3 EX V6's at $22,500 each for the price of a high-end E320 (near $70,000).
Re. the Camry: my son owns a 1999 Camry. While the Camry's ride is very comfortable, both he and I find it underdamped, especially on undulating roads; it isn't in the "seasick" category, but definitely too soft for our tastes. Both he and I strongly prefer the Accord for long drives: the firmer damping makes it feel more secure on poorer roads, the steering and handling make driving more of a pleasure (helping keep the driver alert), and the Accord's seats are much better, at least to our backsides. He and I both have lower-back injuries, so seats are a pretty critical thing with us.
6. Fuel economy: the Accord showed a greater change in fuel economy before and after breakin than any other car I have ever owned. Maybe Honda builds the engine tight? I don't know. But my first tankful with the V6, driving gently on the highway, varying speeds for breakin, gave about 22 mpg. I was quite disappointed. However, economy gradually increased during breakin; by 6,000 miles it was giving 28 mpg driving at 78-80 mph with a/c on. Now, at 22,000 miles, it gets 28-29 mpg consistently under those conditions.
I am reluctant to compare city mileage because it varies so much with driving habits, trip length, and traffic mix; and I have never driven a full tank in town without any highway miles. But here goes: partial tank estimates gave about 16 mpg in town before breakin, and 21 mpg now.
Another comparison: before I bought the Accord, I went shopping for a Passat. Lovely car; my niece owns one with the 4cyl turbo and stick. It gives 31 mpg on the road, but on premium fuel, at 20 cents per gallon more. Her cost per mile with the turbo 4 is more than the Honda V6.
I am a car lover, not a car nut though, and mention of E320 just for information, not comparison, as E320 and Accord are in different price range. My point was being sporty can still be comfort (maybe softer) in the ride. I, too, have lower back problem that I need to put a small pillow in Camry for the seat is too soft. However, my previous Supra Turbo was a great sport car in handling and performance and in the meanwhile a supple ride. I live in S. California, everywhere I go always freeways, rarely the winding mountain roads as shown in Bimmer's commercial and that's why I prefer Camry over Accord as a "highway cruiser" for long trips.
It's a great joy to learn other people experience with their beloved cars.
Usage can make a huge difference in service history. Example: back in 1983, my brother-in-law and I both bought Chevy Suburban diesels. Slow as Christmas, but comfortable road cruisers and surprisingly economical with the diesel. I lived in New Orleans at the time, and used the 'burban for highway trips and for pulling a 17' outboard boat trailer. He lived on the family ranch at the end of two miles of unpaved road. My Suburban went through four transmission overhauls in 200,000 miles, but was on original ball joints when I sold it to a nephew. My brother-in-law rebuilt his ball joints and bushings every 60-70,000 miles but is still on the original transmission at nearly 250,000 miles. Did I mention that I put a Gale Banks turbo kit in mine, and that he drives more slowly than I do? ;-)
Good Luck
Accord, wholesale value about $12.5k
Camry.........................$10.5k
Mazda.........................$ 9.5k
And the Accord would in today's market be the second least expensive to buy as a new car, or perhaps even the cheapest, depending on local market conditions.
"And the Accord would in today's market be the second least expensive to buy as a new car, or perhaps even the cheapest, depending on local market conditions. "
The Accord reminds me a lot of the SHO. The body size, general shape, interior size, etc.
I thought the SHO was a very tight car. Highway running was great. Closing the trunk, it sounded like a Ford, tinny. But the doors closed with authority and it was quiet inside, if you kept it out of the secondary intake runners. I thought the interior was very nice. We had cloth and liked it. After owning the Accord a few weeks, I decided it was also pretty tinny sounding and feeling in places. Sheet metal overall looks pretty thin. Trunk, gas cover, etc.
Now, some other things seemed to be Ford made. And I missed out on several problem SHO's are supposed to have, such as brake problems. But I did have Motor Mounts, A/C, terrible paint, water pump, wiper motor was going out when I sold it, problems. And the clutch - plates didn't give out, but the stiff clutch just got worse each day we owned it. After a trip to the east coast, the clutch was the main reason I sold the car. It just wore me out, no fun to drive any more.
The SHO ran 135mph, the Accord xxxmph. (I've edited the Accord numbers. I't my main caar and expect to keep it a while. Don't want to put in writing something that Honda mind not like for future warranty work.) Neither was topped out, but seemed about all that I cared about doing in them.
Not bad cars at all. They simply don't sell.
Funny thing...cars that are slow sellers when new are even worse when used.