By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
This new Accord is going to kick [non-permissible content removed]. The new Camry and Altima do too, but this 2003 Accord is going to be something!
Detroit's thrown in the towel. Impala and Intrepid? Bigger, so more size-for-the-dollar. Taurus? Soon to be dead. Toyota/Honda/Nissan? Someone understands midsizers! oh, the horror... I mean, the predictability! Who would have guessed?
Accord will look sporty... but the Pilot is another matter altogether. Oh well... a sporty midsize and a "real" SUV... good 2003 lineup in Hondaland. No complaints here on their redesigned volume models, yet.
Anyway- I agree with most here that the top of the line 2003 Accord has more features to offer than simlar Camrys and Altimas, so its the choice if you want the most goodies. What I want to see is a bread and butter comparo of the 4cyl. auto ABS models at the 21-22K MSRP price point... to see where the differences for the masses lie.
Should be interesting. The Accord seems as though it will offer a good deal of value at all parts of its price range- but the photos really do make it look like a Civic on steroids... maybe a good thing once upon a time, but not so great now. Like many designs, I'm sure it will grow on those of us who dont like it ...especially as we being seeing multiple hundreds of thousands of them on the road.
~alpha
Once again, the Accord looks like a boring, ho-hum appliance. For a lot of people, that's exactly what they want, but not me.
Who beat it with the ugly stick? Honda's been taking some ugly pills, with the Element, the doughy Pilot, and the new Accord. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, than the Suzuki Aerio should be beaming! Just more market share for Camry, I guess!
But maybe it's Altima-matching 240HP, and 0-60 in 6.6 sec will pacify those who are taste-disabled?
I see an aardvark!
I like Hondas, but for me they're becoming too huge. The new Accord is probably the size of an Avalon. Back in the 70's, I'm guessing even young people drove big cars, but today most of them prefer smaller cars.Seems like the Accord is really designed for the over 45 crowd.
It certainly is his kind of car.
I remember from the article that the new Accord was benchmarked against the Passat. Surprise? I do not think that the new Accord at this very moment is threatened by Camry. I mean with all respect to the Camry, the only thing that it got better than the Accord was the "coffin-quiet" interior. Other than that, Nothing as in Nada. That is of course, my own opinion.
Whotheman
It's not all the size that matters you know..Its how you use it that does...
PEACE!
PEACE!
you keep saying the accord is going to lose market share to the camry. if this doesn't happen (which is highly likely), will you acknowledge you were mistaken?
forget about the second question, what did MT have to say? i let my subscription expired.
beach: altima doesn't need "touches", it needs a complete make over on the inside and that aint going to happen until it gets redesigned.
Unfortunately, the new Civic is very noisy so unless Honda brings another quiet compact vehicle to market, I may have to look elsewhere next year.
The new Accord does some things well, like the power gives it an advantage. The 5-speed auto accentuates this. The telescopic steering and inproved fuel economy, and standard ABS on ALL models.
Camry does some things better. Larger trunk, quieter interior, VSC available (no traction control on Accord, at least not mentioned on the expensive test model), better looking.
The Altimas interior is much better than the Accord's exterior. I've driven the new Altima, and it's no Pontiac Grand Prix inside! The Accord looks like a Suzuki outside!
I wouldn't buy either! They-re both corny. I think the Camry is at least unoffensively corny. The Accord is faster, but cornier! I prefer spinach! I'd get the 6 or Altima based on looks, and manual/V6 combo. Call me POPEYE, the sailor man!
I personally do not take car magazines' seriously. Howeve, they do entertain me... but to take their word seriously- NO.I am not that kind of person, unfortunately. I never allow them to influence or worse to choose for me. They may be experts but at the end of the day, I am the one to drive my car and who is the best person to criticise but only me, the consumer. But that is just me and we clearly are the opposites because you take their word, well- so seriously..while I take their word with a bottle of beer...so to speak.
Good for you, you let your subscription expired...
I am not even planning to buy a car right now. But I just admire the way honda is handling its business. When other car companies chooses to go down, decontent, etc- they chose to improve their product line. That is one strategy that deserves respect, at least from me...
strager,
People complained about lack of size in 94-97 Accord. The car had about 94 cu. feet of interior volume. In 1996, when Honda finally decided to put a V6, they had to stretch the chassis to fit the new drivetrain. When 1998 redesign came around, the original 94-97 Accord evolved into European/JDM Accord. Maintaining the same size may not have worked well on the sales front in America. That is the reason why Honda sold three variants of the same car by market (for 2003, they are merging JDM and European versions).
In Fall 1997, I was car shopping, and knowing that Maxima had $5K cashback rebate going, I visited a Nissan dealership for a test drive. During the discussion, the sales person opened a folder and had a chart comparing power and interior volume, and started reading it.
- 1998 Altima has more power than either Camry or Accord (I was looking for Maxima, not Altima, but that is a mute point here, the sales person continued). As it turned out, I knew 1998 Accord had same power as the Altima (150 HP) so what was he reading? I took a peak at the chart where the comparison mentioned 1997 Accord/Camry versus 1998 Altima.
- Altima has faster acceleration than Accord or Camry.
:
- Altima has more room (based on what he had) than Accord.
Now, I knew he was comparing 1998 Altima (94.5 cu. feet) to 1997 Accord (94 cu. ft), while 1998 Accord had moved up to 101 cu. feet, not only more than Altima, but also Maxima and Camry (96.5 cu. feet), and as much as Taurus.
This is the point I wanted to bring up. Interior room dimensions have become more like horsepower ratings, and obvisouly, Honda wouldn't want to be left behind. Sometimes, it just becomes necessary to do what the market wants, otherwise, why would Honda have 2-3 variations of Accord?
1998 Accord is about 188.5" long, sitting on 106.9" wheelbase (coupe is shorter and sits on 105.3" wheelbase). From what I read, 2003 Accord is less than an inch longer (189.3"?) and has the same width, but now the wheelbase is probably 108.1" (same as TL). That is hardly any difference in exterior dimensions. But, as far as interior goes, Honda may have increased the interior volume by 1-1.5 cu. feet, and perhaps flat rear floor, may be not. If they did, Accord may be a smaller car on the outside, with as much room (not more) on the inside as its competition.
My 1998 Accord has 14+ cu. ft of trunk space, quite decent and gobbles up quite a few large/medium bags.
In short, going small in America may not work well, one of the reasons why America gets the larger Accord (still midsize) which may still be smaller on the outside when compared to most of its competition.
You completely lost me on this one. Care to elaborate.
this is your opinion and not motor trends. correct. i have a hunch that MT praised the accord big time and they actually like the car's styling. thanks for the info.
Traction control is a standard feature with 2002 Accord V6, and I can't see it being removed from 2003.
The Altimas interior is much better than the Accord's exterior. I've driven the new Altima, and it's no Pontiac Grand Prix inside! The Accord looks like a Suzuki outside!
How do you compare a car's exterior to another car's interior and vice versa? Interesting.
One of us must read badges and letters differently. Looking at Nissan Maxima and Suzuki Esteem parked next to each other, I could see where Nissan got its styling inspiration from. and you call Honda look like Suzuki? Well, Altima looks very similar to 1999 Civic sedan from the front, in case you haven't noticed, do so. The side is similar to Passat's, and the rear is a combination of Hyundai Elantra/Passat with tail lamp from Monte Carlo (albeit use of some chrome and clear lenses like Toyota Supra/RX300 and Honda S2000 make it look a little different). Now talk about fresh ideas. It is about as fresh as the latest Hyundai Sonata.
"Thank you", says C. Van Tune....
"No, thank you!" says Honda's PR Director.
And based on the pictures I have seen, there are some interesting touches not seen in earlier Accords, and some that were seen over a decade ago.
Windshield washers have disappeared from the hood, the side mirror gets Acura like 2-tone touch, the side sill is no longer as aggressive as it used to be, but just above the plain side sill and the lower end of the doors, an S2000-like crease appears. The headlamp is no longer 'traditional Accord', but have S2000-look to it, the lens and the inside.
Interesting, because it looks sleek, compared to the boxier look that most are going for.
See, that is what I call perspective.
"Thank you", says C. Van Tune....
"No, thank you!" says Honda's PR Director. "
Based on your logic, Did MT appreciated the car but only out of favor?!!!
I HOPE you guys have read the article! They praised the dynamics of the car, but any other subjective comments are few and far between. They clearly focused on the positive. It had all the allure of a Honda press release. A full comparison will reveal more cerebral impressions, and less static information to convince the reader the car is better than before.
I know it is better, but now it has a glaring weakness, that it didn't have before. Altima sold some interior quality for power and good looks. Honda sold some looks for more power. That's the way I see it. Camry could use more power. Accord could use a new design team. They are both excellent cars. Neither car is perfect. That's what I got from the article.
I do not think the accord needs a new design team. I certainly do not want radical changes- generation after generation. Its a good way to kill the much regarded resale value.
did MT get the first road test? what about autoworld weekly? sounds like all the magazines got their preview at the same time and it's just a matter of when the magazines get mailed out.
And if you buy a car based on trunk size, better look elsewhere. Even 540 is going to disappoint you.
And AMI didn't TEST the accord, they just gave you a walkaround, much like MT did, but not as in-depth, without instrumented testing.
whotheman, if you think the styling is what these cars are about, you are missing the point. I am concerned with the styling like I mentioned, that's because I want shape that I can live with (not Aztek-ugly). The new Accord is stealthy and modest yet pleasing and timeless. I don't like my car to be too flashy, and I believe most people don't. That's why Accords and Camrys are top sellers.
What rather makes the Accord so beautiful in its beholder's eyes is how trusty and near perfect the car is. You just can't go wrong with the Accord, and I think the new one will be no exception.
Of course, the Camry is just as trusy and as close to perfection, but the Camry is no fun to drive and has more of an older image to it (I am 28). That's one of the reasons I like the new Accord. With its small grille and Civic/Prelude-like front end, the car looks younger than its predecessor.
I also love the new Mazda 6. But for some reason, I simply don't trust it. Sames goes for the Passat.
The Altima is a good-looking car with an dissapointing interior, not to mention the declining initial-quality for Nissan. It's been out of my list a long time ago. comments?
But let's be careful to remember that "looks" are entirely subjective and one person's apple is another one's grapefruit. Or something like that.
It ain't worth arguing about!!
Pat
Sedans Host
Yeah, right... Whotheman could only wish. I guess.
"Good-looking" is not all its cracked up to be. Look at the Dodge Stratus .. a very good looking car, I think, but they don't sell because of reliability issues and poor marketing. I think the Galant is also a good looker but the interior is poor and it sells at a small fraction of Accord rates. The Altima is okay, but the tail lights are a Toyota rip-off and the interior truly sux. What an incredibly cheap (quality-wise) car - I was surprised.
I'm looking forward to checking out the Accord coupe - it looks awesome from the spyshots.
The new Accord is indeed impressive, and anyone who doesnt think so.. whether a fan of the Altima, Camry or 6... needs a head check. Comparing V6 models, I'd certainly go with the Accord, even though I think its not particularly attractive. But... the verdict is still out for the 4 cly..... I think its advantage against the Camry (if there is one) is considerably less than its V6 sibling.
my .02, for now.
~alpha
I prefer Japanese/European dimensions, there are several models (not sold in the US) which I find very roomy without the bulk.
Venus said I should get a Jetta. That's a little cramped in the rear, and most important of all is missing the Honda badge (a MUST for me). I might wait and check out the Acura TSX sport wagon, that's supposed to be more compact.
The loaner Corolla had roughly 6,000 miles on it. How long does it take for the Corolla to break in? My Civic (again, a 99 model) took less than 600 miles.
As for weight, the new Corolla is roughly 100 lbs heavier than my Civic, but with 130hp, I expected it to be livelier than my Civic with its humble 106hp. I said that the Corolla didn't have to work as hard as the Civic in getting up to highway speeds, and it's still true. I also said it wasn't any faster than the Civic getting to 60, and that's still true. And as for passing power, once the Civic is revving, its passing power is up to par with the new Corolla. I've driven the 2 cars, I think I have some merit in comparing them.
If you still think that warrants some rebuttal, I suggest you go a drive a 99 Civic LX sedan with an automatic transmission before you comment on my posts, because I'm accusing you of criticizing my Civic without even driving it.
The new Accord is truly remarkable if all of the information is correct in this article. I have never seen so many upgrades in the next generation of any particular vehicle. Some most noteable in the 2003 Accord are: 5-speed auto trans, upgrades in ride, handling, and braking, posher interior, 27% more rigid, upgrades in the rack-and-pinion steering, upgrades in the double-wishbone suspension, ABS standard, 10% more fuel efficient in the 4-cylinder with 10 HP increase, and upgrades in accident crash worthiness. There are many more in the article. I am anxious to see someone test this vehicle vs. the others in the Accords' class to see if this is just hype or if this is truly a substantial improvement over the current Accord, which is still an impressive vehicle.
The fact that so many people object to the looks of it probably is a good indicator that it isn't a fantastic design. I can't remember the last time I saw a picture of a new car that I thought "ugh". Supporters may want to peruse other new models and see if they can find as many "oh my god, my eyes, my eyes!" responses...
The Accord is vanilla, it always has been, it probably always will be. Its not "sensual" or "refined". Its definitely closer to "classic" since the majority of people like them. It is plain jane marketed for the masses, and thats what sells it. Thats not necessarily bad. Its certainly successful!