I don't think the '03 has the same 5-speed as the TL/CL. The '03 may have essentially the same unit as the '03 MDX which Acura says has a NEW compact design 5-speed.
Actually I recall one poster, who supposedly works in the factory that builds the Accord tranny, said that the tranny in the new Accord is a new design. (Sorry I can't remember where or when he posted. You may want to scroll the Accord topics in the Maintenance forum)
IS a serious one. It's amazing that some of the Honda fans will try to blind other people's eyes to this issue like "It's Acura's (haha) problem", "It's probably a new design", It's a Honda (??)...
liking a company or a product to the degree of blindly loving a person is pure hilarious, yet nontheless dangerous.
I am definitely going to hold back from 5-speed honda tranny for a while, just like I did with the TL. Whether or not they have fixed it remains to be seen. It's ain't funny or ok at all anymore if it's YOUR tranny breaking down on you, and do that COUPLE OF TIMES upon each replacement!!
If it IS an Acura problem, it IS an Acura problem, so don't try to spin it any other way. All of the reported problems have referenced Acuras, and the NHTSA site doesn't have a single listing for such a failure for an Accord.
And it's been verified that the new Accord transmission is a new design, so you can get over that, too.
It amazes me that every time someone defends Honda for something, that person HAS to be blind, even if the defense is perfectly valid. If you saw such perfectly reasonable behavior on a Toyota or Nissan site, that would just be loyalty. On a Honda site, the bashers assume it must be fanaticism.
you havent been paying attention have you? the accord tranny is new...different connection and mount points, different synchros(brass instead of cast iron), different setup. the problems with the trannys in the cl/tl, '02 accord, and odyssey were corrected long before the article in the la times. this is from the honda regional rep directly.the '03 accord is unaffected by the faulty parts, because the parts are different.
secondly, these problem trannys have a 1.6% failure rate. this includes original trannys AND replacement trannys. almost every other manufacturer would kill for numbers like these, so before you harp on honda for reliability, you go right ahead and buy your ford, chrysler, chevy or nissan and take their HIGHER failure rates.
The article specifically said that there greater than average problems with Accord V-6 and Acura TL transmissions. Nowhere did they say that the symptoms were exactly the same, or that Accords or Odysseys would have the "shift to second gear" problem that the LA Times article reports with the Acuras. After all, nobody can deny that the two trannys referenced are different designs... one is a 5-speed, the other is a 4-speed.
My objection to your post was your generic use of Acura/Honda, and then following up with the statement about shifting to 2nd gear at 70 mph. Your failure to specify that the problem you stated has been reported (at least per the article you reference) in the Acuras implies that Accords and Odysseys have experienced the exact same problem. And you can protest all you like, but there are no reports of the sudden downshift behavior on Accords or Odysseys.
Go check for consumer complaints for 2000 - 2002 Accords on the NHTSA sites about this "problem". As I said earlier, there are none. The "problem" referenced in the LA Times article for the 4-speed auto didn't specify how the it manifested itself, so there's no justification for you to imply that Accord trannys will fail in the "spectacular" way that those couple of TLs referenced in the article did.
I agree that Honda should be more forthcoming with information. I make no excuses about that. But exacerbating the situation with unfounded speculation and sensationalistic "the sky is falling" type posts as some people have tried to do is certainly not helping either. Based on a newspaper article and a few posts on some web sites, these people are trying to make the case that this problem is widespread. The fact remains that there is no proof that the problem is widespread, certain people's opinions notwithstanding.
I do appreciate the fact that we can discuss this rationally, without using a thousand exclamation points and sounding like the front cover of the National Enquirer.
The 1.6% figure doesn't represent the total Honda transmission failure rate. It represents only the 16,000 transmissions replaced because that particular flaw. I am sure there have been other warranty repairs to other 2000 - 2002 V-6 transmissions in that group made for other reasons.
Plus, because there are still a million of them under warranty for the next 3 years there that MAY fail because of the defect, that number is sure to increase as time passes.
you stated that GM, Nissan and some others have higher failure rates. Where did you get your figures about failure rates on these manufacturers and could you share them? Were you specifically referring to transmissions?
First they criticize the design even though they won't buy one and now they try to somehow connect tranny problems from old with the newly redesigned trannys.
Are you Hondaphobes that desperate to find something wrong with the brand - to the point where your accusations don't even have a logical pattern?
Nissan's Maxima had problems with the Tranny, I believe with the Redesigned Maxima in 2000.
Toyota had sludge problems with oil in some of their models
Now Honda (Acura) is having or had problems with their trannies as well.
I don't see the big deal, they all have their share of problems. At least it's not like the Focus, which has a recall every week or the Escape, which had a recall before it debuted. If Honda had a problem with the trannys the way some of you try to make it look, do you think they would honestly bring out not just any redesigned car, but their top-selling flagship family car with a defective tranny? I don't think so. Honda is not that stupid.
Also, we just brought and Odyssey, and I haven't had any problems with the tranny, the only thing I don't like are the stupid power doors.
I think the next move is for the Hondaphobes to come in here and hark about the ~160,000 motorcycles that Honda is also recalling and somehow relate that to the tranny problems.
Accord will again be a best seller...... Those of you that doubt that are either sales people from competitive makes and models trying to convince the readers here to buy other than the best or your simply ignorant. My guess is your both. Grow up!
Sorry if this message isn't on the current 'automatic transmission failure' topic. I saw a previous post a couple of days ago about if anyone has driven a 2003 w/ MT. I thought I'd share my experience. . .
I am looking for a sporty and reliable car to replace my current '91 Accord (213,000 miles btw). I'm a Honda fan, so I looked into the 2002 Accord EXL w/MT and more recently the 2003 Accord EX w/MT.
I agree with most other people that the 2003's look much better in person than the internet pictures. The car looks like it's gained a lot of weight compared to the 2002's. It looks a lot larger than it actually is compared to the 2002's. This is one reason why I might wait for more info regarding the Acura TSX before I go with the 2003 Accord. The size of the car is at the point where it's a little disturbing, especially the width (it's now over an inch wider than the CRV!).
The good thing is that the car feels smaller than it actually is. The car is definitely more nimble than the 2002's. The suspension is also slightly stiffer and the tires don't laterally roll over like they used to. Still, the tires howl and loose traction while taking turns at moderate speed. With better tires, the car should handle pretty well. Comparing this suspension to the 2003 V6 (which I test drove right after), the 4-cyl easily handles better. The V6 suspension seems a little softer tuned (I've read that the stabilizer bars are actually narrower in the V6). Also, I noticed that the front end seems to bounce a bit on certain bumps probably due to the added weight of the engine.
Now for the best part. The MT shifter is nothing short of excellent. The throws are very short and shifting from gear to gear gives you a positive "click". The clutch is light and very progressive. The 2003 manual transmissions are MUCH better than the 2002's.
The power of the 4-cylinder through the manual transmission is also very impressive. Acceleration gain over the 2002's is moderate, although the low-end torque has increased substantially. It's now pretty easy to chirp the tires going into second gear and you can probably chirp the tires going into third gear. This engine is so good, I'd bet this car will beat a 2002 Audi A4 quattro 1.8t manual to 60 (I also test drove one of these. Reliability was the main reason why I didn't buy one. I really didn't want my coil packs dying on me in the middle of nowhere). One annoyance I found while rowing through the gears is that the tachometer has gotten really small, especially compared to the speedometer. Oh well, pretty minor detail I guess. The V6 feels much the same as the 2002 V6's, except the car really pulls in the upper rpm's.
I would have to say that the 4-cyl with the manual transmission is very impressive. Now if they could only shrink the dimensions a little, I wouldn't hesitate on buying one.
I just read all the post's and i dont know why people think that i am talking about the new trannies in the 03 accord, im not!!???? Just want to know how big a problem this might be, that is all!!!! And talon95 i do think that 16,000 transmission failure's is a small number when you look at the grand scheme of thing's, but try telling that to one of the 16,000 owners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can't you ever post about anything without going over the top?
I'm not trying to minimize the importance of the problems that have occurred, I'm just trying to make sure that the issue is presented in a balanced manner, rather than the "ohmigod, ohmigod, ohmigod" nature of your messages. All of your posts make everything sound as if it's the end of the world as we know it. If you didn't make SUCH A BIG DEAL about everything, your posts would be much more credible.
Yes, for the 1.6% of owners who have experienced tranny problems, it's not great. But let's put this whole thing into perspective... if you do a bit of additional research beyond the sensationalistic tone of the LA Times article, it's obvious that there are not 16,000 worst case scenarios like the experiences that article describes. We don't have 16,000 owners who are experiencing a sudden downshift to second gear from 70 MPH. The symptoms they experience are far less dramatic, Honda/Acura replaces the transmission and life goes on. Sure, that's not GOOD news for the owners involved, but it's hardly the catastrophe that you try to imply it is.
Let's move on to something else, OK? This horse had taken its last breath long ago.
I noticed the exact same thing in previous Honda's I've test driven. It is caused by high tire pressure. Honda inflates the tires to 40-45 psi when they leave the factory, to prevent flat spotting while in transport, and while sitting on the dealer's lot. If your dealer hasn't lowered the pressure, the car will drift all over the place. Go back and re-test an Accord with the proper tire inflation!
If anyone is thinking the new Accord (or any Accord) will be trouble free, they are dreaming. One of Honda's weak spots is auto-transmissions which have a slightly higher defect rate. My neighbor's Accord tranny blew after a year. That said, they are still generally pretty good and it should not hinder sales. I suspect Accord will out sell Camry in model year 03.
Why lease one? It's like renting a car for a few years. I can not see any advantage to leasing. Put a little more down to buy or wait to have more to put down. Just my thoughts
I was about to post the link here and see you beat me to it! I am still looking for additional info elsewhere on the Internet, but USA Today seems to be the only news source so far. I can't even find anything on the Honda website about it yet. USA Today must have contacted Honda, because I'm sure that the information would be more widespread had there been a press release.
I noticed that the article said the extension didn't include the 2002 V6 Accords like Mike Spencer had in the LA Times article, but included I4 automatics. I'm guessing only the V6s are involved and includes 2002 since the 1 million number was used, but we will need to wait for the letter to be certain what the offer is. Hopefully this means Honda has narrowed down where the problem is and can eliminate saftey concerns with information on how to determine if there is a problem before complete failure occurs.
I've been leasing for many years now for a couple of reasons: 1. I use the car for business and write off 100% of each lease payment (a small advantage over depreciating a purchased car) 2. I'm not mechanical. I have all normal services performed (including 3k mile oil changes, etc.), and enjoy the confort of always driving a car that's "in warranty" 3. I get a new car every 3 years with a "maximum "out of pocket" of $2k (usually less) 4. In order to get a 48 month loan payment down to the $300 neiborhood I would have to put down considerably more than $2k to purchase the car
However, you're right that "renting" kind of sucks, but it seems to work for me.
(Sorry, the link was too long to post. But the article is on the front page under the Car News section)
Vehicles covered by the extended warranty include:
2000 - 2001 Honda Accord, Odyssey and Prelude
2000 - 2002 and some 2003 Acura 3.2 TL
2001 - 2002 and some 2003 Acura 3.2 CL
While only two percent of these vehicles have experienced these transmission problems, American Honda will provide extended transmission warranties on all potentially affected vehicles. "Our priorities are making sure our customers are taken care of and reassured they can continue to depend on their Honda or Acura automobile for a long time to come," said Tom Elliott, executive vice president for American Honda."
Still no word on if this means only V6 transmissions, though. Both of the articles quoted Honda as saying any 2000 - 2001 automatic transmission Accord, Odyssey, and Prelude owner. I imagine that details about whether it transfers or is limited to original buyers, etc. will come out in the letter.
It is interesting that AutoWeek's version stated that "There is usually plenty of warning to the driver that the transmission is not operating properly, such as slow or erratic shifting, giving them ample time to take the vehicle in for service."
They finally addressed the relative safety question in my mind - hurray!!!!
Does anybody know what happens if one already has a 7yr/100K extended warranty? Will Honda reimburse the "transmission portion" of the price paid for this warranty?
Well, Hondaphobes? Honda basher? the moment you express a concern about a confirmed Honda problem, these fans really show what they are made of. We are here to learn about the product we are interested to buy, not to waste time with those work-for-free Honda salespersons who jump on everything you say.
Again, 1.6% of TRANNY is a serious problem! let's say ONLY 1/16 of them turns into an accident, so means you got 1 in a thousand confirmed chance of dying drving those affected Honda? are you kidding me?? I can accept some of the unreliable stuff as all car makers have them, but definitely not something that will break down while I am driving 80 miles/hour!
This extended shows Honda acknowledges the problem, a reasonable move. It however, reminds me of another maker Hxx and the sort that offer long warranty to pacify buyers from their reliability problems. It only tells you that you can safely (only money-wise, mind you) keep those Honda now from 3/4 years original warranty to 7 years before you really should sell it.
I hope they fix it soon, not only verbally though.
For all the new owners or people who have test driven the new Accord - Is the rear Floor for the new accord flat like the Civic or not. Thanks for your time.
The article didn't say specifically, but since one of the drivers of the decision was the US NHTSA, I would have to conclude that this is for Honda USA. Hopefully Honda Canada will follow suit... you'd think that the actions of one would serve as precedent for the other, but you never know...
In the market for a replacement on my '93 Accord. Budget constraints mean not the new '03, unless I go base-line LX, but I want V6, leather etc. My question is, which of the following used cars (both around Cdn$26-27k) would you choose?
A - a 2000-2002 Accord EX V6 with 20-30k miles B - a 1999-2000 Acura TL with 35-50k miles
I drive 10k , mostly suburban miles per year. Married with two kids. Thanks in advance for any opinions.
The floor in the rear seat of the new Accord is not flat. The is a small "hump" in the center which the center console sits on. They did use thicker carpeting and sound insulation on the outboard footwells making these smaller areas flat...
Help! Needed: I have a 2000 Honda Accord, Love the car, But when Transmission problems came up, the dealer played dumb. Spend over $2,300 with the and dealer still have Tranny problem. Than after feeling hurt and lied to by Dealer went to another shop and spend another 1,200. And my Honda is still showing signs of a problem. I would like to Know what are the channels for getting back any of the money I put out, By the way I'm still paying the Bank for this Car. HELP!
I am glad that you are enjoying your new Accord. I centainly like them ALOT! I went to Breakaway Honda in Greenville, SC this evening, and they had an array of 2003 Accords on the lot. They had more 2003s than they had 2002s. I saw every model with the exception of the DX and LXV6. No coupes were on the lot. I really had my heart set on seeing one of those. I was very interested in a Noble Green LX they had on the lot. It looked great in that color. Noble in definately my favorite color so far. I also saw an EXV6 in Eternal Blue, but it was sold, and the couple driving it seemed pretty satsified with it It looked VERY nice looking. I think I could easily afford the EX or EX-L models with the 5spd manual. The cars look so much better in person, but they do appear to be a lot bulkier than the previous model, and much much taller as well. I really really have my heart set on the dual-zone climate control for some reason, so I will probably swing for either an EX-L coupe or sedan with the 5spd man.
Also, I will be in the Queen City, North Carolina area this weekend to meet up with Washington University (St. Louis) I will go to every car dealership I know of, especially the Honda dealers on South Blvd. and Independence Blvd. I cannot wait to go this Sunday!
On an even more off topic note, I saw the new Z today! It is beautiful! It was a Touring model in Silver. That thing is beautiful! I really wish I could get one, but it's too impractical for someone my size. I really hate that.
Nice web site. Please keep us informed as the miles roll on. Could you tell us how you came about buying one on the day that you just went out to look and test-drive the new Accord? Are you worried at all concerning the 5-speed auto trans problem with the Acuras and some Hondas? How does the 2003 Accord compare to the 2002?
Honda has identified and fixed the tranny problem. The third gear cluth was shared by idler and the third gear, and prone to greater wear. This is the reason 2002 Accord is missing from the recall list, so I would not be worried about 2003s. The tranny has been revamped to address the issues.
I live up in Central NYS. How do the rear discs on the Accord hold up in this area? Are drums better to have in an area such as this with all the salt, and gravel in the winter? Is there really a performance difference in every day driving? We like the features of the EX I-4 auto, but I have heard to stay away from rear discs up here?
why would rear discs be any different that front discs?? i'm confused! i've never heard of any problems with 4 wheel disc brake equipped vehicles vs front disc/rear drum equipped ones in cold climates...
GM had many problems with 4 wheel discs in Camaros from '82-87. Many 4 wheel disc cars have self adjusting parking brakes. If you do not use your parking brake they become corroded and the calipers will have to be replaced. For the most part 4 wheel discs are not that necessary unless you are racing or pulling heavy loads. The rear brakes in passenger cars only do 12-20% of the braking. Also manufacturers do not temper the rotors as well as they used to and they are prone to warpage.
The car was indeed improved a lot in every aspect. I drove about 20 miles with 15 of them on highway and I did the test drive alone. The car overall is a nice vehicle. But still there are things that I did not like. Here is the list: (1) Remote power down window (nice feature) but cannot remotely power up (at least the dealer told so) (2) Engine vibration and noise noticable even at parking. (3) When I first turned the left signal, it stayed on without flashing. I had to do it back and forth several times to get it working. (4) Wind noise noticeable at 60 mph, but much better than previous model. (5) I also noticed a low level, low frequency background sound while driving (6) At 70 mph, I tried to speed up to 80 mph. Hit the gas pedal, engine quickly rev to 5000 rpm but the car hesitated about 2 seconds then started to accelerate. Repeated that several times. Not sure if this is the characteristic of the VTEC engine or it was just my test car's nature. Either way I did not like the behavior.
Comparing with the V6 Camry I just tested a few days ago, I do not feel Accord is stronger in terms of acceleration, not much better in terms of handling. I now fully understood why Consumer Report's buy guide gave the edge to Toyota Camry.
Dan Jedlicka of Carpoint also observed that and I quote "while the new automatic upshifts smoothly and is superior to a conventional 4-speed automatic, it pauses noticeably before downshifting. There's no excuse for that with a new unit"
Maybe some of those who have been driving the 03's for awhile can share their experiences? Will help us potential buyers. Thank you
He also said that "the new Accord should remain one of the top-selling mid-size sedans"
Comments
Actually I recall one poster, who supposedly works in the factory that builds the Accord tranny, said that the tranny in the new Accord is a new design. (Sorry I can't remember where or when he posted. You may want to scroll the Accord topics in the Maintenance forum)
liking a company or a product to the degree of blindly loving a person is pure hilarious, yet nontheless dangerous.
I am definitely going to hold back from 5-speed honda tranny for a while, just like I did with the TL. Whether or not they have fixed it remains to be seen. It's ain't funny or ok at all anymore if it's YOUR tranny breaking down on you, and do that COUPLE OF TIMES upon each replacement!!
wake up.
And it's been verified that the new Accord transmission is a new design, so you can get over that, too.
It amazes me that every time someone defends Honda for something, that person HAS to be blind, even if the defense is perfectly valid. If you saw such perfectly reasonable behavior on a Toyota or Nissan site, that would just be loyalty. On a Honda site, the bashers assume it must be fanaticism.
Get real...
secondly, these problem trannys have a 1.6% failure rate. this includes original trannys AND replacement trannys. almost every other manufacturer would kill for numbers like these, so before you harp on honda for reliability, you go right ahead and buy your ford, chrysler, chevy or nissan and take their HIGHER failure rates.
My objection to your post was your generic use of Acura/Honda, and then following up with the statement about shifting to 2nd gear at 70 mph. Your failure to specify that the problem you stated has been reported (at least per the article you reference) in the Acuras implies that Accords and Odysseys have experienced the exact same problem. And you can protest all you like, but there are no reports of the sudden downshift behavior on Accords or Odysseys.
Go check for consumer complaints for 2000 - 2002 Accords on the NHTSA sites about this "problem". As I said earlier, there are none. The "problem" referenced in the LA Times article for the 4-speed auto didn't specify how the it manifested itself, so there's no justification for you to imply that Accord trannys will fail in the "spectacular" way that those couple of TLs referenced in the article did.
I do appreciate the fact that we can discuss this rationally, without using a thousand exclamation points and sounding like the front cover of the National Enquirer.
Plus, because there are still a million of them under warranty for the next 3 years there that MAY fail because of the defect, that number is sure to increase as time passes.
Thanks for allowing me to explain.
Are you Hondaphobes that desperate to find something wrong with the brand - to the point where your accusations don't even have a logical pattern?
Tomek
Toyota had sludge problems with oil in some of their models
Now Honda (Acura) is having or had problems with their trannies as well.
I don't see the big deal, they all have their share of problems. At least it's not like the Focus, which has a recall every week or the Escape, which had a recall before it debuted. If Honda had a problem with the trannys the way some of you try to make it look, do you think they would honestly bring out not just any redesigned car, but their top-selling flagship family car with a defective tranny? I don't think so. Honda is not that stupid.
Also, we just brought and Odyssey, and I haven't had any problems with the tranny, the only thing I don't like are the stupid power doors.
Those of you that doubt that are either sales people from competitive makes and models trying to convince the readers here to buy other than the best or your simply ignorant.
My guess is your both. Grow up!
I am looking for a sporty and reliable car to replace my current '91 Accord (213,000 miles btw). I'm a Honda fan, so I looked into the 2002 Accord EXL w/MT and more recently the 2003 Accord EX w/MT.
I agree with most other people that the 2003's look much better in person than the internet pictures. The car looks like it's gained a lot of weight compared to the 2002's. It looks a lot larger than it actually is compared to the 2002's. This is one reason why I might wait for more info regarding the Acura TSX before I go with the 2003 Accord. The size of the car is at the point where it's a little disturbing, especially the width (it's now over an inch wider than the CRV!).
The good thing is that the car feels smaller than it actually is. The car is definitely more nimble than the 2002's. The suspension is also slightly stiffer and the tires don't laterally roll over like they used to. Still, the tires howl and loose traction while taking turns at moderate speed. With better tires, the car should handle pretty well. Comparing this suspension to the 2003 V6 (which I test drove right after), the 4-cyl easily handles better. The V6 suspension seems a little softer tuned (I've read that the stabilizer bars are actually narrower in the V6). Also, I noticed that the front end seems to bounce a bit on certain bumps probably due to the added weight of the engine.
Now for the best part. The MT shifter is nothing short of excellent. The throws are very short and shifting from gear to gear gives you a positive "click". The clutch is light and very progressive. The 2003 manual transmissions are MUCH better than the 2002's.
The power of the 4-cylinder through the manual transmission is also very impressive. Acceleration gain over the 2002's is moderate, although the low-end torque has increased substantially. It's now pretty easy to chirp the tires going into second gear and you can probably chirp the tires going into third gear. This engine is so good, I'd bet this car will beat a 2002 Audi A4 quattro 1.8t manual to 60 (I also test drove one of these. Reliability was the main reason why I didn't buy one. I really didn't want my coil packs dying on me in the middle of nowhere). One annoyance I found while rowing through the gears is that the tachometer has gotten really small, especially compared to the speedometer. Oh well, pretty minor detail I guess. The V6 feels much the same as the 2002 V6's, except the car really pulls in the upper rpm's.
I would have to say that the 4-cyl with the manual transmission is very impressive. Now if they could only shrink the dimensions a little, I wouldn't hesitate on buying one.
I'm not trying to minimize the importance of the problems that have occurred, I'm just trying to make sure that the issue is presented in a balanced manner, rather than the "ohmigod, ohmigod, ohmigod" nature of your messages. All of your posts make everything sound as if it's the end of the world as we know it. If you didn't make SUCH A BIG DEAL about everything, your posts would be much more credible.
Yes, for the 1.6% of owners who have experienced tranny problems, it's not great. But let's put this whole thing into perspective... if you do a bit of additional research beyond the sensationalistic tone of the LA Times article, it's obvious that there are not 16,000 worst case scenarios like the experiences that article describes. We don't have 16,000 owners who are experiencing a sudden downshift to second gear from 70 MPH. The symptoms they experience are far less dramatic, Honda/Acura replaces the transmission and life goes on. Sure, that's not GOOD news for the owners involved, but it's hardly the catastrophe that you try to imply it is.
Let's move on to something else, OK? This horse had taken its last breath long ago.
So I guess they're taking the issue quite seriously.
I noticed that the article said the extension didn't include the 2002 V6 Accords like Mike Spencer had in the LA Times article, but included I4 automatics. I'm guessing only the V6s are involved and includes 2002 since the 1 million number was used, but we will need to wait for the letter to be certain what the offer is. Hopefully this means Honda has narrowed down where the problem is and can eliminate saftey concerns with information on how to determine if there is a problem before complete failure occurs.
1. I use the car for business and write off 100% of each lease payment (a small advantage over depreciating a purchased car)
2. I'm not mechanical. I have all normal services performed (including 3k mile oil changes, etc.), and enjoy the confort of always driving a car that's "in warranty"
3. I get a new car every 3 years with a "maximum "out of pocket" of $2k (usually less)
4. In order to get a 48 month loan payment down to the $300 neiborhood I would have to put down considerably more than $2k to purchase the car
However, you're right that "renting" kind of sucks, but it seems to work for me.
(Sorry, the link was too long to post. But the article is on the front page under the Car News section)
Vehicles covered by the extended warranty include:
2000 - 2001 Honda Accord, Odyssey and Prelude
2000 - 2002 and some 2003 Acura 3.2 TL
2001 - 2002 and some 2003 Acura 3.2 CL
While only two percent of these vehicles have experienced these transmission problems, American Honda will provide extended transmission warranties on all potentially affected vehicles. "Our priorities are making sure our customers are taken care of and reassured they can continue to depend on their Honda or Acura automobile for a long time to come," said Tom Elliott, executive vice president for American Honda."
Still no word on if this means only V6 transmissions, though. Both of the articles quoted Honda as saying any 2000 - 2001 automatic transmission Accord, Odyssey, and Prelude owner. I imagine that details about whether it transfers or is limited to original buyers, etc. will come out in the letter.
It is interesting that AutoWeek's version stated that "There is usually plenty of warning to the driver that the transmission is not operating properly, such as slow or erratic shifting, giving them ample time to take the vehicle in for service."
They finally addressed the relative safety question in my mind - hurray!!!!
Again, 1.6% of TRANNY is a serious problem! let's say ONLY 1/16 of them turns into an accident, so means you got 1 in a thousand confirmed chance of dying drving those affected Honda? are you kidding me?? I can accept some of the unreliable stuff as all car makers have them, but definitely not something that will break down while I am driving 80 miles/hour!
This extended shows Honda acknowledges the problem, a reasonable move. It however, reminds me of another maker Hxx and the sort that offer long warranty to pacify buyers from their reliability problems. It only tells you that you can safely (only money-wise, mind you) keep those Honda now from 3/4 years original warranty to 7 years before you really should sell it.
I hope they fix it soon, not only verbally though.
Thanks for your time.
A - a 2000-2002 Accord EX V6 with 20-30k miles
B - a 1999-2000 Acura TL with 35-50k miles
I drive 10k , mostly suburban miles per year. Married with two kids. Thanks in advance for any opinions.
to buy that same car would at least double your payment. take the extra 250 bucks a month and put it in your kids college account.
Normally I'm not a proponent for leases but I see the Accord deals now are pretty darn good.
check out this link. if you pursue this, it appears you should get your money back...
http://www.autonews.com/news.cms?newsId=3340
http://users.erols.com/mdbaker1/exv6main.htm
-mdbaker1
2003 Accord EX V6 Sedan in Satin Silver - purchased 9.11.2002
Also,
I will be in the Queen City, North Carolina area this weekend to meet up with Washington University (St. Louis) I will go to every car dealership I know of, especially the Honda dealers on South Blvd. and Independence Blvd. I cannot wait to go this Sunday!
On an even more off topic note,
I saw the new Z today! It is beautiful! It was a Touring model in Silver. That thing is beautiful! I really wish I could get one, but it's too impractical for someone my size. I really hate that.
lets say zero accidents. that would be factual. this is far from a serious problem in terms of safety.
Could you tell us how you came about buying one on the day that you just went out to look and test-drive the new Accord?
Are you worried at all concerning the 5-speed auto trans problem with the Acuras and some Hondas?
How does the 2003 Accord compare to the 2002?
Regards,
Mark.
Many 4 wheel disc cars have self adjusting parking brakes. If you do not use your parking brake they become corroded and the calipers will have to be replaced.
For the most part 4 wheel discs are not that necessary unless you are racing or pulling heavy loads.
The rear brakes in passenger cars only do 12-20% of the braking.
Also manufacturers do not temper the rotors as well as they used to and they are prone to warpage.
(1) Remote power down window (nice feature) but cannot remotely power up (at least the dealer told so)
(2) Engine vibration and noise noticable even at parking.
(3) When I first turned the left signal, it stayed on without flashing. I had to do it back and forth several times to get it working.
(4) Wind noise noticeable at 60 mph, but much better than previous model.
(5) I also noticed a low level, low frequency background sound while driving
(6) At 70 mph, I tried to speed up to 80 mph. Hit the gas pedal, engine quickly rev to 5000 rpm but the car hesitated about 2 seconds then started to accelerate. Repeated that several times. Not sure if this is the characteristic of the VTEC engine or it was just my test car's nature. Either way I did not like the behavior.
Comparing with the V6 Camry I just tested a few days ago, I do not feel Accord is stronger in terms of acceleration, not much better in terms of handling. I now fully understood why Consumer Report's buy guide gave the edge to Toyota Camry.
Maybe some of those who have been driving the 03's for awhile can share their experiences? Will help us potential buyers. Thank you
He also said that "the new Accord should remain one of the top-selling mid-size sedans"