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
~alpha
Although the Accord certainly has the usual refinement, good ergonomics, more power, lower emissions etc, Honda seems to have designed the Accord to appeal to an older customer. I miss the sporty styling of the '94-'97 generation.
the honda interiors are top notch imo. they look/feel rich and classy and are plenty user friendly.
The rear drum brakes are a disappointment on the Accord, though I did like their feel.
I do recall the Toyota salesman saying that most manuals they had were on the SE model, but I didn't ask to drive one.
It may have made a difference on my rankings; may have bumped the Altima down, but I don't think it would have gotten into my top 2.
I'll probably give the Camry a go again when I decide to purchase another vehicle.
As for being a Buick as some have mentioned, I would take that as a compliment. The customers that Accord has had 10 years and 15 years ago are still buying cars, but they want a little more in their car now.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I purchased a 2003 Honda Accord EX-V6 with NAVI and received one card labeled "Anti-Theft Radio." The card had two stickers on it with numbers - one was handwritten "Navi" and the other was handwritten "RC" (presumably for radio control). I may be being nitpicky, but my old Honda had two anti-theft security cards for the radio and it came with a small booklet explaining how to use the card in the event the battery goes dead.
Should I have received two anti-theft radio cards and two anti-theft navigation cards? Should I also have received an instruction booklet for the radio card and an instruction booklet for the navigation card?
Thanks.
My wife has the 4 and I drive the 6 (coupe), both EX, and I get to drive the 4 quite often enough to form comparative impressions.
The 4 feels lighter and agile, confirming what the car journalists say. Part of the territory is more engine noise, including more road texture filtering through.
In regular low-speed driving around city streets, both cars have adequate power with 2 occupants. Otherwise, the 6 has better passing power in high-speed/interstate driving, especially with more than 2 people and their luggage.
If the car will have mixed city/highway use, the 6 is therefore a better option - having in mind that one might need accident avoidance power on the interstate when fully loaded. Plus, the V6 has side curtain airbags which the 4 doesn't.
As an all-around city car, the 4 will be more than adequate.
One thing that benny didn't mention... the rush you get when you push the V6 and the new tranny executes the perfect downshift. It's a great feeling.
Definitely, the car enthusiast will favor the V6 auto or even the i4 manual.
Someone posted about this in another thread that got closed but I have the same question. I just noticed a chip already in my 3mth old Accord sedan. I'm pissed! I've also noticed what look like little tiny orange rust spots on the lower side walls' paint. One chip may just happen, but has anyone else seen similiar things already? If there's a paint problem with this car I want to identify it early.
What color do you have?
To me, the quiet but vigorous aspect of this is the most interesting thing, and it's the thing that most differentiates the 2003 from my 2000 EX V6 that it replaces. The 2000 could yield pretty vigorous acceleration as well, but it would often be accompanied by an abrupt tranny downshift that would give you a pretty good kick in the pants. Not that it was so bad, but the smoothness of the 2003 is amazing by comparison. Changes the whole feeling of refinement in the car.
The V6 powertrain on the 2003 is VERY nice. The tranny downshifts readily and smoothly, and the engine feels much stronger at low end... the only so-so power at low end was another minor beef that I had with the 2000, and one that the 2003 eliminates completely. Passing on a highway or scooting over a lane on the freeway seems effortless... the car really hauls.
The ride is quite a bit smoother under most conditions than the 2000, certainly much better over expansion strips and the like. It's still a bit harsh over moderate sharp bumps, but after all, this isn't a Camry, so I have no complaints.
Handling... the steering is still very responsive and accurate. In general, the car still feels very eager in curves. Pretty amazing considering the smoother ride.
Interior... I love the new gauges and the center pod. Overall, the interior has a more luxurious, Acura-like feel, at least in the EX. The seats are a bit more supportive (although the seats in the 2000 suited me just fine as well). The dash and beltline are a bit higher, but you get used to it. One nice thing is that taller friends of mine feel that it's more roomy, since their legs fit under the dash and steering wheel better. Speaking of the steering wheel, the telescoping feature is a nice addition.
Wind noise is substantially reduced. Also, road noise over very rough surfaces is reduced, although still noticable.
As for directional stability in wind, that's one area that, IMO, the new Accord falls slightly behind the previous gen. Unlike your perceptions of your 2000, my 2000 always felt quite stable in crosswinds. Perhaps this was because the '97 Cutlass that I had just prior to the 2000 Accord was a real handful in wind and the Accord was much better by comparison. Anyway, my 2003 feels a little more sensitive to me than the 2000, although it's still way better than the Cutlass was. So I guess you'd have to drive it yourself to see what your perceptions might be.
Anything I missed that you're wondering about?
The question is: Do you think that because Honda has gained the reputation for reliability that problems that arise during the earlier stages of ownership are down-played? (As opposed to problems in Domestic cars that are further percipitated through online forums).
This question was originally brought to me by someone who was a ttempting to discredit CR reliability scores.
Thanx
sdiori
i've mentioned before that my '03 coupe v6 automatic is also sometimes "lurchy" during light throttle application. although i have noticed that is seems temp dependent. when the tranny is cold it is much more noticeable. overall though i'm getting used to it. one more oddity about the tranny. has anyone else noticed that after you've backed up and then put it in drive, it takes a couple seconds before it goes into drive? i noticed this right away after i bought the car. i found myself hitting the gas before the tranny had gone completely into drive, and thus would get a healthy bump when it did go into drive under throttle. this tranny is much slower shifting from reverse to drive vs the other vehicles i've had in my garage. just an observation...
Anyone else notice anything with the paint?