Wasn't to impressed with recent test on 2003 Accord V6 6 speed
11-12-2002 | 07:48 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Wasn't to impressed with recent test on 2003 Accord V6 6 speed
I wasn't very impressed with the recent motor trend test of 2003 accord v6 6 speed. It rated it 0-60mph at 6.2 (what the 5 speed altima does) and its quarter mile at like 14.8 I believe. I know these are good #'s for an accord and yes I know that this accord can eat my 6th gen up, I still think it is capable of more than that. Anyone else agree?
11-12-2002 | 10:07 PM
#3
#CustomUserTitle
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 63,854
Likes: 0
From: glass case of emotion
i have to say that the car hauls ass considering its supposed to have a wife, 2 kids and a dog in it. if you wanted something fast, take the 28K you'd spend on the loaded up Accord and get a Z.
11-13-2002 | 03:02 AM
#4
i love my wife's (y)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: Austin TX
seeing that the Accord has lost weight compared to ours, maybe the 1st & 2nd gearing is too low for the 0-60mph test & is really geared for autocrossing/road races & not drag races.
the Celica GT-S has the same prob, it shifts into 3rd right at 55mph; that extra shifting causes a 1/4sec loss.
the Celica GT-S has the same prob, it shifts into 3rd right at 55mph; that extra shifting causes a 1/4sec loss.
11-13-2002 | 10:13 AM
#6
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 37,274
Likes: 0
From: Southern NH
What do you want for $27,000? 6.2 is damned good...FWD gave it traction problems off the line....but look at the quarter mile time....14.3 seconds. 
It's based off the family sedan Accord, but it's a 2-door only with the 6-speed.
And Bay Accord, how is the Accord slow? It's 0.4 seconds away from the WRX, which is nearly indecipherable unless you raced. Even then, it's a matter of driver skill.
It's based off the family sedan Accord, but it's a 2-door only with the 6-speed.
And Bay Accord, how is the Accord slow? It's 0.4 seconds away from the WRX, which is nearly indecipherable unless you raced. Even then, it's a matter of driver skill.
11-13-2002 | 10:19 AM
#7
Former H22 Accord Owner
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 0
From: NH
Those tests are on cars that all the magazine people get to beat the piss out of, so that may take a few tenths off one that has had proper time to break in and driven more normally. You also have to remember that it has less torque than the Altima too. Either way it's leaps and bound better than anything else in it's price range. Who else offers that much car in a 2 door luxury coupe for that price.
11-13-2002 | 10:33 AM
#8
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
From: Birmingham, AL
First of all.. about the WRX... half a second is a huge difference, and the WRX is about 3k cheaper. But if you still dont think Accords are supposed to be fast, just wait till the 260 HP Accord comes out in January or so. Accords and all hondas for that matter have always been built with at least a little thought of performance in mind. Hince the Type-R's.
11-13-2002 | 10:39 AM
#10
Former H22 Accord Owner
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by AadosX
First of all.. about the WRX... half a second is a huge difference, and the WRX is about 3k cheaper. But if you still dont think Accords are supposed to be fast, just wait till the 260 HP Accord comes out in January or so. Accords and all hondas for that matter have always been built with at least a little thought of performance in mind. Hince the Type-R's.
First of all.. about the WRX... half a second is a huge difference, and the WRX is about 3k cheaper. But if you still dont think Accords are supposed to be fast, just wait till the 260 HP Accord comes out in January or so. Accords and all hondas for that matter have always been built with at least a little thought of performance in mind. Hince the Type-R's.