Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Older Honda Accords



  • "I did everything right" Okay, if you say so.
    I'm happy to hear about your research techniques before buying a used car, we all should be so diligent.
    However as you have learned the hard way, it's not an exact science. Do those records tell you what kind of gas they put in every time? Do they tell you if they warmed the car up ever or just turned the key and jump on the gas every time? Do they tell you if they drove it like Mario Andretti or Aunt B? Do those records show that this person lives in a house with 5 other people and there's not enough space in the driveway so they have to climb over a small curb at least twice a day with the car? Ok that's a reach but you get the idea. These are some of the reasons I will never buy used again, at least not for me.

    If I was thinking of buying a used car and found out that the previous owner bought it to the dealer for everything including routine things I would move on, but that's just me.
  • own4hown4h Posts: 20
    It was a major factor for me. I also wanted to get back to a manual transmission. I got 31 mpg on a 900 mile trip @ 80 mph +. 2.4 I4 engine handled the mountain passes with ease, & as the engine breaks in, the ease at which it performs impresses me to no end. In town milage seem to be 20% better than the V6, and I don't think I've seen the best milage yet because it only has 7,000 miles on it.
    I had a 2000 EX V6, and find the 2003 EX-L better in every respect but 2, sure miss that homelink for my garage and my aftermarket stereo beat most in home unit (new factory system is much improved though).
    BTW, for those sportiness proponents, the manual transmission does impart much more driving pleasure. I do think the tires are conservative so agressive tires would definately tilt the handling scale.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Hybrid Accord can be thought of as a possibility some time in the future, but in the near future it could be one or more of the light trucks (Odyssey/Pilot/CRV) as Honda has mentioned it a few times.

    As for mileage stagnancy/decline over the decade is concerned, much of it may have to do with a few things that don't help in that area. Cars have gained weight as they received new features from comfort point of view as well as safety. Power, in general, has been the thing as well, however, not always applicable. My 1988 Corolla GT-S delivered about 30 mpg under the same circumstances that our 2000 Civic EX (with more power and features) is delivering, about 31 mpg. And in fact, EPA estimates are higher for 2001+ Civic EX (32/38 mpg) than they were for 1996-2000 Civic EX (28/35 mpg). Accord is another example of getting better in every regard while not giving up on fuel consumption. Accord I-4 w/manual is rated at 26-mpg/34 mpg, which is better than many sub-compact/compact cars with less power.

    I spend about $60 per month in gasoline alone with my 98 Accord averaging 24-25 mpg in mostly city driving. OTOH, with V6, assuming that I got 21 mpg, I would have been paying $10 per month more, and over 77K miles that I have added to my car, the approximate savings has been over $800! With Accord (and Camry), I don't really feel the need of V6 engine, probably a lot of people don't, and could be the reason why more than 80% of those cars sold are equipped with four cylinder engines.
  • own4h & robertsmx: Glad to hear about fuel economy- I'd really love Honda to introduce more Hybrids. They have the brand recognition to convince buyers the technology is worth having, and their AWD sporty hybrid concept is downright neat (but probably heavy)!

    I too am hoping the best is yet to come. It seems small displacement vehicles I've driven in the past have not met, but exceeded their EPA estimates, while larger displacement engines have not. I attribute a lot of this to the smaller engines being older and running their best. For reference, the car I came from was an automatic Celica with a 1.6l engine- rated at 31mpg highway and I'd get a whopping 40mpg!

    For example, robert, if your Civic was rated 4/3mpg better than the Corolla, yet only resulted in 1mpg improvement- are we seeing diminishing returns? Whats going on here? I'd like to hear from more owners. I'm a fairly large proponent of good gas mileage, but am skeptical of certain claims of modern cars. own4h, isn't the Accord rated at 34mpg highway? Subarus, for example, can get dismal gas mileage despite average EPA claims.

    My going theory is that modern engines are built to a higher precision, and therefore don't change as much during break-in. That's why older cars seem to exceed their EPA rating after a few years and modern cars only seem to match it.

    Either that, or the EPA's testing is flawed. How do they test, anyway?
  • spleckspleck Posts: 114
    Fuel efficiency does not directly relate to the amount of emissions. Cars are held to stricter emissions requirements every year. I saw an article about how cars today put out 1/10th the emissions of cars 15 years ago. The world running out of oil isn't as important as all of us choking to death on CO, NO, etc.

    So if the new Accord puts out 1/10th of the garbage of a 88 Accord, then unless your old car can get 300 MPG, the world's better off.
  • Not what I was thinking about, but true nonetheless. Speaking of, I bought the ULEV equipment on my vehicle just in anticipation of lower sulfer fuel- it's not yet required in my area. I hope these stricter regulations go nationwide.

    And even more so, I hope SUVs are forced to meet the same requirements. It was just posted on the SUV's board that the average SUV is driven farther every year than the average car. What a waste.

    I still can't believe I'm getting 34mpg CITY in my current car- 500+ miles on a tank (three weeks worth) is unbelievable. Never underestimate a manual tranny!
  • jfavourjfavour Posts: 105
    I am glad that emissions have improved significantly. It seems to be (at least partially) attributable to the fact that California has forced manufacturers to clean up their cars. It is a shame we haven't also seen the feds force fuel consumption numbers up as aggressively.

    I am not going to complain about the current state of autos, though, because we clearly have as choices the most reliable, best performing and cleanest vehicles available ever today. I simply want more and think there is definite room for improvement. It may cost more at first, but competition among manufacturers will bring down those costs in the long run.

    In a world where organic grocery stores are thriving, it seems people could be convinced to pay a bit more for a cleaner AND more fuel efficient vehicle, like the hybrids from Honda and Toyota.
  • dinu01dinu01 Posts: 2,586
    I think the 2001+ MPV figures (with the 3.0 V6) are much closer to the Ody than what you showed. Regardless of this, this is the Accord forum so let's discuss this car. The 98-02 versions were my favourite and my preferred family sedan (especially with the sweet 5spd).

    PS: But now the 6 is the #1 family sedan for myself, with the Accord at #2.
  • own4hown4h Posts: 20
    Yes, Accord i4 manual is rated at 34 mpg, but from California to Home (1400 mile) I averaged 80 mpg, passed thousands of cars but was passed only twice, had some icy roads, went through 4 mountain passes, had 5 Adults and a full trunk. And the engine is not fully broken in.
    31 mpg is not good, its great. In two weeks, I'll go on a 400 mile trip with 2 people in the car, over flat and hopefully clear roads and will try to keep it around 70 mph. I think an extra 3 mpg should be possible.
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    Really don't know what the mileage was. But I love my EX-L. I listen mostly to pop or techno so my stereo is fine. I actually have it flat with +3 on the treble. We filled up once in Ocala. Fla and came all the way to NW Atlanta on that one tank of gas. Not bad. And that's averaging 85 or so with a quick top speed test against some guy in a Grand Am. By the way EX-L sticks will do 125 at a reasonable RPM too.
  • talon95talon95 Posts: 1,110
    Hey, I like the Accord, but even I don't think that's possible. Unless you did a LOT of coasting... <g>
  • Just to confirm, you drive a manual, correct? I look forward to hearing your results. That's pretty good for five people and hills.

    I still keep a log of every fuel-up. Does anybody else still do that?
  • own4hown4h Posts: 20
    I wish.
    My goof I averaged 80 mph and got 31 mpg. EPA numbers are at lower highway speeds & not fully loaded. The average driver drives much faster, usually at a huge reduction in fuel efficiency. This engine like 80 mph as much as I do, and will take the mountain passes and wind like a V6.
    I also run a log but around town I usually part fill($1 off for 8 gal) so can only calculate milage when I fill up.
  • spleckspleck Posts: 114
    I am glad that emissions have improved significantly. It seems to be (at least partially) attributable to the fact that California has forced manufacturers to clean up their cars. It is a shame we haven't also seen the feds force fuel consumption numbers up as aggressively.

    I would definitely thank California for the improvements that brought about LEV, ULEV, SULEV standards, etc. I think emissions control is more important than MPG improvement though because emissions have no benefit--they just pollute; oil though runs much of the economy... I don't think the government will control fuel efficiency too soon--until hybrids/hydrogen fuels are more common, we don't know what the economic implications will be if fuel sales drop (fuel taxes will be heavier on people with older cars that can't afford newer cars, gas will be "worth" more and prices will go up--hurting poorer people with older cars, etc...).

    Personally, I would push for cleaner diesel before hybrid technology. If US diesel was cleaner/purer, then all the semis would be less polluting and run better, and we could use some of the advanced diesel technology out there capable of getting us 50-60 mpg with more power than the Civic hybrid.

    I prefer cars like the Accord that are near luxurious, but are still capable performers. A hybrid Accord would add weight and take away power. I would like to see an option like the Civic Hybrid, but not an all sweeping hybrid movement like some want. And again, I would like us to get clean diesel and a diesel Honda.

    own4h: hah hah... took me a minute to realize your typo! Thought maybe you parked on a flatbed truck...
  • talon95talon95 Posts: 1,110
    "Tsk, tsk... Stop using old performance numbers for the MPV. Those numbers look like they are from the 2000 model year, and with such slow times for both vehicles, I'm guessing Consumer Reports. The 2.5L V6 with 170HP and 4 speed tranny was replaced in the 2002 model year with a 3.0L 200HP and 5 speed automatic. Certainly a bit faster, even in the hands of Consumer Reports. ;)"

    Yes, those were the numbers from Consumer Reports... they listed them under the 2002 model. But since both sets of numbers came from the same source, the relative performance difference is still valid. Since your new set of numbers is from a different source, it doesn't have any bearing on the Odyssey numbers.

    Check Consumers Guide for ratings of both vans with their upgraded engines. Odyssey acceleration still beats MPV quite handily, although MPV mileage has improved to best Odyssey. Handling is at best a wash (MPV LX scores lower, but ES matches Odyssey), so the earlier statement about MPV's handling advantage is still inaccurate. Of course, middle and rear space and cargo room is no contest, with the Odyssey coming out on top. Overall scores for best model - MPV 61, Odyssey 69 (out of 100).

    'Nuff said... back to the Accord discussion.
  • Honda's are amazing on gas. I owned a 1991 Accord LX 5-speed for two years, from 140,000 miles through 202,000 miles. I believe the EPA numbers were 24/30 for the manual. I mostly only did long distance highway driving. Averaging 75-80mph easily returned around 33-34mpg. Numerous times the low fuel light would come on (immediately getting gas would show that I could put in 14 gallons of gas, indicating the light went on with 3 gallons left in the 17.1 gallon tank) with 475-500 miles, meaning around 35mpg. The 94-97 Accord manual with the VTEC 2.2-liter improved those EPA numbers to 25/31, as did the 98-02 2.3-liter VTEC engine. I can only imagine the numbers you could attain with the 26/34 from the new Accord. Cruising ranges of 600 miles seem attainable.
    Fuel mileage is a very varying thing tho. Before the 1991 Accord I owned a 1994 Nissan Sentra automatic with the 1.6-liter engine. Even tho its EPA numbers were 28/35, driving the same roads at the same speeds as the Accord I would average barely any better mpg, around 35-37. You would think with significantly better numbers (versus 24/30 in a engine .6-liters smaller and much less powerful) that gas mileage would be a lot better. I guess it wasnt due to the fact that at 80mph the 1.6-liter engine was revving its guts out on the highway, and around town you'd have to rev it much higher just to move quickly. With my latest car, a 99 Prelude, its the same. Its rated at 22/27, and i was expecting around 31-32mpg on the highway (based on the numbers from the Accord). No such luck. The Prelude will average 29-30 on the highway, and if you include some around town driving, it drops much quicker than the Accord. Overall I probably average 27mpg, which is good for the type of car it is, but still lower than I expected. The i-Vtec 2.4-liter in the current Accord seems like an amazing engine, given its power, low-end torque yet ability to rev freely, its clean burning emissions, and its exceptional mileage. Go Honda.
  • Nice post 8816.
    My 03 LX 5 speed manual is only 38 days old, so I do not have any mpg to share with.
    If this i-VTEC 2.4 can return 34 mpg on highway, it really will be an amzing engine and car.
    Only thing about 5speed manual is that they are rated LEV rather SULEV as found in automatic .It would been nice to brag about driving super clean car rather just LEV.
    I wonder what made 5 speed manual LEV.
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    Even though it's a 5 speed coupe..It's still super clean. HAAAHHAAAH...Ahem.
  • From the January 2003 Letters to the Editor:

    "As for Passats and Accords, we like both (ergo their Most Wanted and Honorable Mention placement in the "Sedan Under $25,000" category). However, even a base Passat in the low 20s would be more desirable to most of our editors than a loaded Accord costing $24,000"

    What is Edmunds smoking? With the redesigned 2003 Accord, Edmunds opinion clearly is in the minority relative to other car reviews comparing the Passat and Accord.
  • I was at a Honda dealer a few weeks ago and if I remember correctly, here are the relative pollution numbers (.5 is the average amount of pollutants out of a new car)

    Accord I4 Auto - 0.04
    Accord V6 Auto - 0.19
    Accord I4 Manual - 0.24

    I was very surprised to see a 4 cylinder pollute more than the 6 cylinder. Do not remember EPA MPG estimates though.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Conventional AWD systems can add about 200 lb. to the weight of any car. If an electric assist can deliver the same configuration and about as much, it would be still better for a few reasons, and a big one being that unlike conventional systems, it would be a source of additional power as well. And then, it would also provide the benefits of idle stop features found in Insight, Prius and Civic Hybrid.

    robert, if your Civic was rated 4/3mpg better than the Corolla, yet only resulted in 1mpg improvement- are we seeing diminishing returns? Whats going on here?
    2000 Civic EX was rated at 28 mpg/35 mpg and it yields 31 mpg in nearly 100% city driving conditions. I doubt the Corolla GT-S was rated worse than the Civic, although it developed less power and was a lighter car.
    Our other car is 98 Accord EX (auto), rated at 23 mpg/30 mpg. I consistently get a shade better than 24 mpg in city driving which is mostly off freeways. Mileage did go up a little after few thousand miles. On highways, with me being lead footed, I average better than 30 mpg under any circumstances (mountain, heat, 75+ mph etc.). So, it does manage to deliver better than the EPA estimates. Can't say about the 2003 Accords though. The four cylinder rating has improved to 24/33 this time.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Since the power bump from 210 HP to 240 HP, Odyssey is capable of outrunning several family sedans with V6 power. 0-60 in 8.2s is pretty impressive for its heft (4400 lb.). It is matched by Honda Pilot as well, which weighs just as much and shares the drive train.
  • dinu01dinu01 Posts: 2,586
    8.2s is impressive indeed!

    Speaking of wolves in sheeps' clothes:

    Audi Avant Wagon
    Audi S8
    WRX Wagon
    Volvo 850 Turbo Wagons (back in their days)

    PS: Power is nothing without control (as Pirelli says)
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Green Gas Emissions Estimate Per Year (mileage estimate)
    2003 Accord I-4/manual: 6.6 tons (26/34)
    2003 Accord I-4/auto: 6.9 tons (24/33)
    2003 Accord V6/auto: 7.8 tons (21/30)

    2002 Accord I-4/auto: 7.5 tons (23/30)
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Speaking of control, you should read the latest C&D's article on its 5-best truck selection. Honda CRV, Honda Pilot and Honda Odyssey are three of the five. They seem to like Odyssey for its 'fun to drive for a minivan' factor.
  • dinu01dinu01 Posts: 2,586
    I don't know too much about trucks, except the fact that I would take a Toyota Tundra/Tacoma (for a pick-up), an Ody/MPV ES (for a minivan), a LandCruiser/Sequoia/Pilot (for a large SUV) and a CRV/Freelander (small SUV) over any domestic one. I'm more of a car guy and actually HATE trucks.

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Correction: I should have said... Light Trucks, since minivans (and SUVs) are classified as such.
  • What is Edmunds smoking? With the redesigned 2003 Accord, Edmunds opinion clearly is in the minority relative to other car reviews comparing the Passat and Accord.

    I disagree with a lot of what they say at times, but they are one of the more unbiased and consistant publications. Edmunds is the first to tell you what's bad about a car, and I respect that.

    So, it does manage to deliver better than the EPA estimates.

    Traditionally, the saying was that gas mileage deteriorates after 45-55mph. I'd bet that on modern engines, peak mileage is attained around 65mph or better. Small engines are torquier at lower RPMs and cars are more aerodynamic than ever. What speed does the EPA test at? 55?
  • Want incredible mileage? My friend drove her Geo Metro from Boston to Cleveland on one tank of gas!
  • would you buy a swap accord with 300 miles on it?
Sign In or Register to comment.