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
Some of you need to lighten up -- certainly you may debate someone's opinion, but attacking someone for perceived grammatical and/or spelling errors is not the way to make your points.
We have a very broad-based community, and there is no requirement that the American version of the English language be totally mastered and used perfectly before a member posts a message.
If that were the case, I'd venture to say 60 to 75% of the messages posted here would be in violation. :-D
If you don't agree with what someone says, discuss the reasons you disagree. If you are not sure what someone means, ask for clarification. Attacking someone for the *way* the person expressed the opinions with which you disagree is a low blow and not in keeping with the spirit of our community.
CHI-TOWN SUBURBS OR EVEN ONES TO STAY AWAY FROM. THANKS TO ALL.
but in my opinion, it would be better if the 2.5L engine got the same mileage as the Accord.
Here are some stats:
2003 2.4L Honda Accord MT/AT
MPG 26/34 city/hwy
Tank size 17.1
Highway cruise distance: 581.4 miles(34x17.1)
City cruise distance: 444.6 miles(26x17.1)
2003 2.5L Nissan Altima MT/AT
MPG 23/29 city/hwy
Tank size 20.0
Highway cruise distance: 580.0 miles(29x20)
City cruise distance: 460.0 miles(23x20)
Pretty comprable despite the roughly 18% larger fuel tank. The biggest hitter for Honda is that the low fuel light will go off w/ 4.5 gallons in the tank. Filling up right after the light goes off, I regularly put in 12.6gallons give or take .2gal. Don't mind much, as the mileage is still the same.
I honestly think that both the vehicles need a good pat on the back, because these numbers are very impressive considering the power:displacement numbers and the improved mileage as compared to 5-6 years ago.
btw how is the weather up there? is it snow really bad? because we are going to drive there, and we don't have snow tires (in AR right now).
Thanks
It's a shame that just a few can keep us all from enjoying this conversation.
BTW, I am glad to see this forum reopened.
CUSAFR
They were all in terrific shape and much prettier than the current 2003 Accord.
Compared to the prior models, this current model is so bloated that I am beginning to wonder if these new designers forgot Honda's roots. I am sorry but Honda has lost its way.
It could still be much better. The interior is nice, almost as nice as a VW. If it had great exterior styling, it would be perfect.
I think the coupe is starting to look more like a Cougar on the side (which is not that bad, but not as upscale as they were probably going for when they copied the Mercedes coupe tail lights).
For every five speed they ask for it means one less automatic the'll get.
That's the reason.
http://www.premiumautocare.com
-nobee
Also...anyone know hat they really want as oil weight on '00? Manual says 5W30, "owner link" portion of Honda web site says 5W20. Any significant difference?
I saw more G35 sedans in my area the first few weeks they came out than I have seen new 2003 Accords. I have only seen a single Accord coupe on the road.
So far I love it, any everyone enjoys the navigation system!
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=58735&page_number=2
Yugoboy, do you know what was meant by "remote controlled"? I looked under the hood of a 2003 EX, and there was nothing unusual. It's not as if the hood raises and lowers by itself, it just has a strut instead of a support rod. It was just like my 2000 EX.
The seats on the other hand is simply the best I've sat in for a long while.
a few minor complaints: Honda continues to insist on burying the oil filter beneath and to the rear of the engine. Do it yourselfers will dribble oil on their fingers and suspension parts. At least now you only have to change it every 20,000 miles. Also, the design of the glove compartment latch is faulty and closure is erratic.
More than a few have complained on this link that the new Accord is not sporty looking or quick enough. They should look elsewhere. This is not a sports car or even a sports sedan. Rather it is a mid sized family car (mostly sedans) that has been a hugely successful seller due it's cost, reliability, trade-in value and pleasure to drive.
Struts are inconvenient to operate for some people (my wife hates it) although they might increase the usable trunk space. They require more effort to open/close than hinges. Notice that most luxury cars come with 'hidden' hinges instead of struts, probably for the same reason and that many come with power trunk option.
Slu3:
Dash is indeed higher in the new Accord. I don't have a problem with it, but my wife prefers our 98 Accord because she is short. Honda may have done it to give the car a more 'Euro', instead of an open-air, feel that was a Honda practice (still is, in many new Hondas). Apparently, a lot of people like it that way. I don't think the hood is higher though, but it appears to be because of smaller windshield.
For example, the lower corners of the tail lamp were detached in 92-93 Accord (also reflected in the inside corners of the headlamps), and the lower corners are once again detached, but tail lamp doesnot reflect the headlamp in the sedan (but it does in the coupe). This and the upward slope at the edges of the tail lamp gives the rear a smiley face which many seem to dislike, but from some angles, it actually looks nice to me, better than conventional boxy designs which would have been a safer bet for the conservative crowd. I think most would have welcomed an early 90s Acura Vigor or Integra tail lamp design.
Another thing that may be bothering some from exterior styling point of view is the short rear deck, which once again comes from Honda's past. Reminds me of 92-95 Civic sedan in the rear deck profile. The only difference really is the shape of the tail lamp. I for one, like the changes that Accord received, and it appears to be a more passionate makeover than in the past. My 98 Accord has been a solid car and drives like new (may be even better since the shifts are smoother) and the tires are quieter, but the new Accord is much better, all around, IMO. Two years to go before my 98 Accord retires.
What was the guy from the dealer smoking at the time?
We change the oil and oil filter every 10k in our 2001 Civic and I feel we are pushing it.
Raymond
Assuming that the last problem carmakers want is an engine recall, Honda seems confident to recommend it.
I'd feel confident too, knowing how sharp Honda is with these things.
I'm repeating common knowledge, but I'm still amazed at the simple ingenuity of Honda turning the engine 180 degrees so that the exhaust manifold is now freer flowing (less bends make for less back pressure) and cleaner burning because of shorter distance to the cat converter.
We need to change oil because of contamination with unburned gasoline, and we can only infer that the new HOnda engines have much better combustion.
These, together with the 5-speed auto, a-frame front suspension and rear links (Maxima has a solid rear !) made Accord the obvious choice over Camry and Altima in my case.