Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Why can't the Accord be packaged more effeciently?
I really like the new Accord overall, especially the better fuel mileage, and availability of the manual tranny in every trim line, but in my mind the Camry still has some advantages.
More rear seat room
More trunk space
CD and Cassete (for books on tape) standard
Outside temp gauge on every car not just top of line (very handy when travelling in the winter)
Regarding power. I drove the 5-speed Camry 4-cyl, and could hardly tell it from my brothers 5-speed maxima (1998?) in terms of engine smoothness, and acceleration. (remember Camry weighs less than Maxima). If the new Honda engine is as nice (which it should be) I really can't see any need for a 6 cylinder engine, in fact I would go the other direction and say I would like to see a 2.0 liter engne that really gets great gas mileage, and still has the power of last years car (more than enough for me).
1. faulty automatic transmission
2. cheap chipped and faded paint
3. cheap stereo
4. cheap alloy wheels that pitted after one winter
5. loud internal noises
6. loud wind noises (couldn't hardly talk on my cell on hiway) yes, the windows were closed
7. windshield wiper design that whirled noisily in cold weather
8. center armrest material wore down before 30k miles
9. slow (could'nt get out of its own way)until you really revved it).
10. strange off center steering wheel
11. ac was lousy (maybe from too much glass)
Take a look at the thousands of unsatisfied Accord reports in the Maint and Repair section of Edmunds.
I replaced this overated car with a SUPERIOR Altima.
MAINTENANCE COSTS: Assumes services performed generally at manufacturer's suggested intervals; other services done at selected intervals. Cost per service is based upon industry-standard service times and national labor rate averages for non-luxury cars and trucks ($75/hour) and luxury cars ($85/hour). Parts prices are based on manufacturer's suggested list price where available.
REPAIR COSTS: Repair cost is based on a $0 deductible extended service contract that will pay for repairs for 5 years or at least 70,000 miles. Figures used are averages from nationally available service contract providers.
A lowly Accord EX V-6 is shy and anonomous. I travel a lot and really want no attention but a smooth nice semi performance car for getting around. (yes I would call the 03 Accord EX V-6 a semi performance car that uses regular unleaded fuel, has competitive insurance rates and performs in all areas competently.
INKY
This is important for example in the Corolla that someone mentioned- the 2003 rear seat is roomy for many, but for my uncle whose legs are very long, tight foot/leg room up front forces him to position the seat against its backstops, severely limiting usable rear seat space.
Our 02 Camry is very comfortable and feels cavernous inside, whereas our 00 certainly doesnt. I felt the 98-02 Accord was much more roomy/comfortable than the 97-01 Camry. -- It will be interesting to see how the new models compare.
~alpha
btw- i just (finally) read the article on the Accord by AMI Auto World. They are good for factual information, sort of. Overall, that mag is a piece of trash. They listed the "Average list price" of the new Accord at 16,000. Riiiiight. The average TRANSACTION price isnt even going to approach that.
http://detnews.com/2002/autosconsumer/0207/31/g01-549838.htm
"The latest edition of Accord is clearly an improvement over the '02 model, although it doesn't look or feel like as great a leap as the new Camry was a year ago. Nor does the Accord step too far away from its principal competitor, in terms of styling, features and performance. But it should wear well with previous Accord owners and Honda loyalists who've been waiting since model year 1998 for a major overhaul."
-Anita and Paul Lienert, Detriot News, July 31, 2002
Interesting.
~alpha
Most of my observations about the Altima are based on experience as well... it doesn't take more than an afternoon to determine that a car has a cheap interior, a cheap feel and a hard ride.
Give the Altima a year or two and you'll see tons of posts on problems as well... this brand new version is only in its first model year.
Funny... I've had a 2K Accord and my experience is much better than yours. Enough so that I'll be seriously considering a 2004 Accord. So I guess my positive report cancels out your negative report.
Anyway, I use reviews because they tend to filter out bias to a large extent, something that your posts clearly fail to do. (I'll admit that you can say the same about mine, which is why I posted quotes from reviews.) So pardon me if I don't fall over dead from the problems you allegedly had with your Accord... whether or not you'd like to believe it, you aren't the poster child for Accord quality.
bodydouble : Our Intrigue which replaced an Accord has so far (2 1/2 years in) been more reliable. Only repair was a faulty temp gauge. Best car I have ever had. GM is number 3 in initial quality and re-sale is no concern as I drive cars for 7-8 years. Like I said, everything is foreign in Canada so I don't carry any major bias (ie I am not flag waving)
Given that the Impala is made in Canada, doesn't that make it like an Accord built in Ohio?
http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/020730/200207301610000828_1.html
"But Honda engineers are so serious about putting more pizzazz into the Accord that the vehicle's project manager and a key powertrain engineer last February got a hold of a Nissan Altima and ran it in a makeshift drag race against their car in the dead of night. The results of the rat-racing in a parking lot behind the company's technical center in Torrance, Calif. : The 240 horsepower Altima was faster from the start to 30 miles an hour, but as cars zoomed to 60 miles an hour, the new Accord pulled ahead by a length."
Only kidding! The Altima is a great car and has helped transform this segment. I think the 2003 model (with the revised interior) will be a big hit. However, I think it will remain a niche player compared to the new Accord (which will be very successful) and the Camry.
My guess is that you'll pay about 14,000-14500 or so before tax, etc. for a DX with AC (or a DX with an option pkg). I paid 15,665 for an LX 5 Speed. A good way to get a good price is to check the ads in your local newspaper. Often they list "1 only" at this price, and if you simply go down as soon as they open, and try to buy the car, you might be in luck. Another method would be to call up your local dealer and ask for a price. An Accord DX with auto and AC would probably list for nearly 17,000, but Honda is offering dealers incentives of 1250 for each Accord sold. You should be able more than $3000 off of the list price of any Accord. I got almost 4000 off of list on my LX. Happy shopping!
It also says that Car & Driver editor Csaba Csere gives the new Accord a "rave" in its latest issue. That must be the September issue, which I have yet to receive. Anyone seen it yet?
Maple49 is right that the Altima raised the performance bar within the mid-size segment. Thank Nissan for the 240hp V-6 in the new Accord. With Camry at 192 and Passat at 200hp., Honda could have held the line on hp.
The same can be said about the Passat and interior materials...
Previour experience with Toyota - Corolla, Supra Turbo and 2000 Camry are all very positive. I purchased 2002 Accord 2 months ago, could not resist the low price and I knew Accord was a good car from 3 car magzines I subscribed. Unfortunately, the Accord experience is disappointing...
My comparison to 2000 Camry:
1. Accord wins in the performance and handling.
2. Interior and trunk is smaller with exterior dimensions comparable.
3. Too much noise from engine and moonroof.
4. Not as smooth and refined.
5. Poor gas mileage.
I also have a 2001 E320 and I have been used to the smoothness of Camry and E320 that I feel it is just different everytime I drive Accord. I purchased Accord for my wife that my daughter got the Camry. However, my wife really wants to hang on to HER Camry, which she enjoy drving.
Performance and handling is important, however, the smoothness is even more important. My daughter likes Accord and we'll give it to her 2 years later and shop for another Camry or a MB.
Interesting... this is from your first message to me:
"Look at the Edmunds review on the '03 Accord and see for yourself -you are wrong."
So we obviously have a double standard here... reviews are great if they support your opinion, but they're garbage if they support mine. Typical of your so-called "logic".
I'm glad to see that YOU managed to change the discussion to suit your needs... my original comments dealt with general characteristics and performance, and had NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIABILITY. Since you had no ammunition to counter the legitimate quotes from reviews, you decided to try to change the debate from general characteristics to reliability, so you could squeeze in your complaints about your Accord.
So your comments about your reliability problems have no relevance to the discussion. Nor does your reference to the Edmunds boards. And trust me, if I wanted to carry this any further, I'd have no problem countering your nonsense about reliability. But I've already wasted way more time than I should have on this useless debate.
Find someone else to harass, will you?
~alpha
http://www.cardesignnews.com/news/2002/020730honda-accord/index.html
I believe this material was released just today. Includes very detailed, expandable photos.
Now that is what I'm talking about - those are some of the best pics I've see of the Accord. Really good - of course I still prefer the coupe but I think most people do style-wise. Maybe it's because it's been a few days since the production pics came out but I think this Accord looks pretty stunning.
Thanks for those pics again.
ickes- I think the Accord would look better if the air dam was a bit wider (bigger smile?). But I think it can do without the side vents.
J/K ..
A monster? Whoa that's pretty rough assessment.
Nice photoshop diploid.
Heh the photochopping has begun!
~alpha
-They needed more power - we've got it.
-They needed better fuel consumption - yep.
-ABS needed to be widely available - it's std.
-I wanted a 5-spd automatic in the 4 cyl - it's there.
-It needed a better driver's seat - looks like we got that, too, but of course driving is most important.
-Finally, it needed to be quieter and more refined at speed - again, the proof will be in the driving, but there's good promise on this issue, as well.
Sounds like a winner to me. And the more I see the car from different angles, the more I like the looks too, but I'll admit that is the least important part of this equation for me. I just don't get the raging debate on this topic...
Look at the pricing, the features, and the driving experience...lots of promising stuff here. We'll have to see in September, of course, when you can get some actual seat time, but for me, they seem to have hit all of the targets [except one - I too wish for wider availability of the head bags, but that will no doubt come in later model years - it always does].
It needed a more competitive safety package (Vehicle skid control, side curtain airbags for ALL models) - It didn't get it!
It needed a more attractive exterior - It didn't get it!
It needed a stick/V6 combo for this "more sensual, aggresive Accord" - It didn't get it!
It needed to prove it is the best. Well, guess what? It didn't get it done!
The '03 Accord is simply going to blow the competition off the sales chart!