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
But not being able to see the hood doesn't bother me at all. I'm not sure why that is so. Maybe my previous car (1991 SHO) was about the same hood length? But I really appreciate the great forward visibility in the Accord; it feels like I can see the road just a foot or two ahead of the bumper. Probably not really that close, but it feels like it.
I once owned a 1983 Suburban: high, square hood and fenders. You could aim with them in tight places, but I always worried that one of the kids or dogs could stand in front of the car and I wouldn't see them. Not a worry with the Accord!
But D3 doesn't use overdrive, and in addition delays torque converter lockup to about 65-67 mph. So when I am trying to hustle in city traffic or to play with the car on a winding road, I bump the lever to D3; it almost feels like a different car. In D3, 60 mph is about 3300 rpm and throttle response is very nice. At lower speeds, say around 40-50, response is better because of the torque converter's "slippage" (rpm's climb faster), and downshifts to second gear are almost instantaneous because there is no delay waiting for the converter to unlock. It isn't quite as nice as the Passat's "manumatic" trans, but comes pretty close. This undoubtedly costs a bit in mileage, but I still see the numbers I posted above.
Unlike my '95 Aerostar, the transmission's computer is never fazed by these shifts; I can go from D4 to D3 at any reasonable speed with no jolt or lurch - just a smooth jump in rpm.
Maybe everyone else already knew this bit, but after nearly 20 years of owning auto trans cars with gobs of low-speed torque and a reluctance to rev, I just "discovered" it with the Accord. My SHO was a stick, so I expected to have to downshift it get it to perform; but the Suburban and the 4-liter Aerostar did not encourage this kind of behavior. In fact, they objected to the D4-D3 downshift with a hard jolt, as if the trans had "forgotten" to unlock the converter clutch before shifting.
I've been doing this for almost a year now; it has just become part of the pleasure of driving for me.
Let's hope Honda at least puts it in the V-6's. To me I would rather keep the 200 hp and have this tranny set up than have higher hp with the plain jane shift mechanism that is in the current
Accords.
Also, let's lower that hand break a little, eh Honda? It sticks up too much!
Overall shape is very sleek in this picture.
The rest can be seen here:
http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=22835
take out the stupid spoiler and bra and I like it too. i have a feeling that white won't be its best color though.
~alpha
Also, I'm glad to see that they've gone to real rear headrests.
Hope we get to see the interior sometime soon.
Like I said before, Honda will let us know what and when they want us to.
I still have not seen it from all angles. I only saw the original spy pics and one other shot that has been around now for a while. It is hard to get a good idea of what this car looks like with the 3quarter shots. I think the sedan looks pretty good! From what I have seen of the coupe, I think the current model may have it beat as far as exterior appeal.
I did a photo comparison of the 03 Accord with the new Camry - the Accord is definitely the sharper design. Although it seemed that the Accord had a longer wheelbase and a longer roof than the Camry. The great part is, though, it doesn't look like a duchshund.
I also don't know if you are talking about the sedan or the coupe, but I think the coupe is pretty slick looking! It seems that many people on these boards associate speed with character and if that is the case I have seen 0-60 times for the accord coupe as low as 7.4.
2000 test results for the Maxima were 7.8. 2002 comparison tests put the Passat at 8.0, the Camry at 8.1 and the Altima at 7.3 (if you look at the automatic, which would be comparing apples to apples when discussing the Honda).
This paragraph was written by edmunds about the coupe :
"The 3.0-liter V6 is probably one of the sweetest powerplants currently available. Honda has managed to provide both low-end torque and the requisite high-end, VTEC rush in one engine. With 200 horsepower and 195 foot-pounds of torque on tap, the V6-equipped coupe gets to 60 mph in 7.5 seconds. What that number doesn't convey is the seamless and refined behavior of this engine that can be appreciated only from behind the steering wheel. "
This is my reply to many of the opinions I have seen here about the point A to point B Honda, and it's poor shifting trans, and it's slow speed compared to the Altima and Maxima.
If someone has something to say about these facts being wrong or abstract then please give another .02 cents.
~alpha
~alpha
BTW, weren't you in a hurry to buy a new car?
If I were in the market for a new sedan this fall, I'd definitely take a look at the Mazda. Plus, they apparently will have a V6 with a 5 speed auto. At least on paper, it looks pretty good.
As for the new Accord, I'd say that I am less than thrilled by the new design, but I guess that I'll get used to it.
Also, I, nor anyone here, ever implied the Altima was better simply because it is faster. Acceleration is JUST ONE ASPECT OF A CAR, but along with shift quality, something you cant seem to get past....
~alpha
Design aside, the problem with the Altima is that if you go for the V6, and add some options which are standard on the accord, such as side airbags, ABS, and some other features, the price really adds up. I can not see paying in the mid to upper 20's for an Altima. Dollar for dollar, the Accord is an easy winner in my book. It is not put together as well as the accord. At the NY auto show, you really get to sit in a car and play around with it. I was jumping from the accord to the Altima a few times to compare. The interior build quality of the Altima was not there. The center console and other parts were jut not solid.
One thing (I know bunk does not need more options) to consider should also be the Acura 3.2 CL. For about $4,000 more, you get more luxury feel, a bigger (and faster) engine, and some extra features. This may be the last year for the CL as they are not selling, so you should be able to get a good deal on it. I just could not justify the extra money. However, since the new accord will probably go for stick at around $26k, you could probably get a CL for around that price or slightly more. That would be an interesting comparison.
Bunk, get the '02 Accord. It's the right car for you.
~alpha
I am even getting sick of trying to figure out what I want to spend my money on, but I really want to feel good about what I decide on. This is a lot of money for ME to spend and I want to be happy with my purchase.
Alpha, can I ask you if this statement "Acceleration is JUST ONE ASPECT OF A CAR, but along with shift quality, something you cant seem to get past...." means that in your experience the Altima not only accelerates better, but also shifts better? I have not heard anything too bad about the shifting of either car? I did read from two sources that they did not like the shifting on the manual trans Altima. I did not think the Accord shifted badly when I test drove it, but maybe I am not a good judge. As far as the Altima goes, the salesman would not allow me to just test drive the car without lengthy conversations and this took some of my attention away from noticing things like how the car shifted.
I hope you know I was not attacking your advise in looking at C&D to see what they said about the Altima. My reply after reading C&D was to question those that seem to act as if the Altima is clearly much better than the Accord and to address the comment that the Accord is a point A to point B car. I was just wanting to see what the responses may be to the facts. I agree with you completely that you have to compare performance tests from one car to another through the same source, whether it be C&D or Edmunds. The only thing I seem to be able to find that the Altima is better at than the Accord is acceleration, am I wrong?
bodydouble and adamr2 are probably the ones that could best answer this question.
bodydouble, I know they make some of the best manual transmissions, but how is their automatic that is in the V6 Coupe. Alpha seems to think that it has some shift quality problems?
Doesn't EX-V6 have traction control?
Thanks in advance.
Drew