Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
Dinu
PS: But now the 6 is the #1 family sedan for myself, with the Accord at #2.
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.
I still keep a log of every fuel-up. Does anybody else still do that?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Speaking of wolves in sheeps' clothes:
Audi Avant Wagon
Audi S8
WRX Wagon
Volvo 850 Turbo Wagons (back in their days)
Dinu
PS: Power is nothing without control (as Pirelli says)
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)
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.
Dinu
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?
And I'm the corny one? Gee-z .....
I've had zero problems related to it being driven up from NJ. The dealership told me "who" drives them up (take this with a grain of salt). Older folks (retired men in the 60's usually) drive these things from a little extra income. Young kids typically don't do this kind of work, so the car is not beat on. Smoking is not allowed. Plus they get paid "by the hour", so there's no rush to get a car from point A to point B. It's actually beneficial to drive slower.
It also helps in the negotiations. A car with 300 miles vs. a car with 5 miles should sell for a little less (got mine for less than Edmunds TMV).
-Craig
When I got the car, I put the key in the ignition and was treated to loud rap music. Now, an old man listening to this isn't impossible, but it is improbable.
That said, I don't think dealer swaps are bad. Despite my story, it didn't bother me once I was driving off the lot.
My guess is that he changed it. Would a dealership really want some young kid beating the crap and endangering the cars themselves over a 300 mile drive?
-Craig
As for dealer swap - I bought an Escort in Southern NH that they had to bring from their dealership in downeast ME - about 100 miles.
Car ran great for the 4 years and 80K I put on it.
It truly is fantastic to see 34.5 mpg for auto tranny. This really is great for a car that weights 3000 plus pounds. I anticipate better than 34.5 mpg for my LX 5 speeder.
Now, if you have already changed oil by yourself, did you use 5w-20?
Thanks.
www.autofair.com in Manchester, NH, has several '03 EX's in stock at prices posted on the web below $20,000.
If you like the price and you don't want to fight and haggle with dealership sales people and dealership finance managers, then just buy it from Carsdirect.
You can probably get the best possible price if you use Carbargains, but you have to put money up front and wait a week or two while they negotiate for you at various dealers in your area.
Also, is there a listing somewhere that lists the metropolitan areas that are covered by the nav system? Is it in the manual? If it is, can someone with access to it please check to see if Palmdale/Lancaster CA (50 miles north of LA) is covered?
A rear sunshade is now available as a dealer-installed option. It slides up and down manually similar to the factory-installed sunshades installed in VW Passats and some of the new Toyota Camrys.
The Accord rear sunshade is a little-known accessory that has been available on even the last generation Accord, but few salespeople knew it was available because the picture and description in the accessory book was so poor and vague.
It would not surprise me if less than 1% of all Accords ever had the rear sunshade installed.