ItsaHonda

Refinement & sophistication in Accord? Nah, I go with the Nissan V6>>>

I have to disagree, sorry. Nissan makes a fine V6 engine, but the rest of the car leaves a lot to be desired.

Nissan V6 is much more refned than the Accord 4 bannger. You can get v6 in Nissan for the price of 4 cyl Accord>>

You get what you pay for. In the case of Accord vs. Altima, you sacrifice acceleration for an all around better made automobile.

Accord is not that much better than Altima in terms of interior quality.>>>

This is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. The Accords interior is by far the best in the mid-size class category, materials are of high quality and fit and finish is outstanding. The Altimas interior is ho-hum at best, and just about every Altima reviewer comments on the unusually cheap materials. Hondas are known for their interiors, and for good reason.

Don't flatter yourself, Accord is no where near Lexus for interior; not even TSX is very close to the detail, craftsmanship and material of Lexus>>>

Okay, that was going to the extreme, I agree... but in the mid-size class, it sure comes the closest. The Accord certainly doesnt remind you of being in a mid-class car, as the others do. It looks and feels more expensive than it really is...and has the quality to back it up.

I have to agree that honda 4 might be most reliable but by far it is not the most refined 4 cyl engine>>>

No, Id have to give that one to Toyota and some of the European brands, but Hondas are up there.

The engine is noisy and powerband is rather weired>>>

Noisy? I found the Accords 4-cylinder to be VERY quiet and especially smooth. Are you comparing your 7 year old engine to brand new ones from other makes?

When the incapable engine is mated w/ one of the most harsh automatic transmission>>>

Again, you must be comparing your 7 year old Accord to 2003s. Beginning in 1998, Honda automatics have become boring like everyone elses and shift so smooth you can barely feel whats going on (my only gripe with the new Accord) I may be a rare breed, but I LOVE the way my 5th gen automatic shifts!

but there is nothing luxury about Accord>>>

Just as there is nothing mid-class about it either.

For the price, Accord is a very good car; however if you are willing to put down another 5K~7K, you will be surprised how much more material quality, creaftsmanship and refinement you can buy>>>

Nonsense. Honda set the standard, from which all others will be judged.

vinz

hey ItsaHonda what do you know ? you got a pontiac trans am.

hehehe * just joking *

cjamie

Mid size is a broad range, I consider A6, E class, 5 class, Lexus ES, GS Lincoln LS, Jag S class all are in the midsize as well. Any of them have much better interior than Accord. I think what you meant to say is midsize non luxury. Accord is alot closer to Altima than any of the above I specified. Even TSX (best craftsmanship other than RL that Honda makes) has a margin to catch up to being as good as the compact relative of the cars I mention above. The statement I was trying to get accross is that when you start throwing those cars into the picture, Accord interior seems to compare well with Altima for interior. Especially considering that you do get either 3k discount or a larger engine with Altima.

Ture, I do compare an 6 yrs old engine with new engines as well as old engines. However it is a wide claim that honda engines are like new even after 100k miles. The 8 yrs old volvo 850 engine w/ relative amount of milage seems to be holding up really well (even w/ 5 cyl volvo engine is much smoother and has lots more power) compare to the honda engine. Even some old nissan altima engines are holding up really well compare to the 4 cyl I have.

When I test drove the new Accord with its price range in mind, I was not impressed by the smoothness and power. Steering wheel still vibrates and power is still non linear (4cyl).

Of course mywife's car is just totally unacceptable, it is a small 4 cyl that sounds like a disel truck. The 96 ex interior is almost as bad as a 91 Cavalier, which is my first car (parents bought in high school).

Automatic transmission wise, I have never had one shifting so harsh. Of course, I might be biased, other than my first car, I have never driven a car with tag less than $30K. I am just extremely disappointed by the car when I finally have to drive the supposely legendary. Seeing so many "polished truth" here while suffering day to day is hard to swallow.

I don't hate Honda. Before I had a chance to drive it, I truly think it might be a car to be desired. I stayed with European cars as that's what my family had been subscribing to until my wife's accord was forced onto me. W/ all the problems this car have and all the maintanence it required, I just don't understand why all the prase and all the comparasons to cars that are not in the same league. Bottom line is Accord is a little expensive but compares well to cars in its intended market. However, it is merely on the bottom of the middle when you consider the whole midsize class.

You get what you pay for; but there are good alternatives. BTW, Accord argueablely sets standards for midsize basic transportation (accord, camry altima..etc). Honda doesn't set standards where you guys are comparing Accord to. Start accepting Altima being a good alternative of Accord instead of trying to tell people that Accord is good alternative to A4, BMW3.

jschmid

I don't really feel like going back and reading every post, but that's what this started out as, Accord vs Altima. I think most people here will agree that european luxury cars are nicer than Accords. I also agree that Lexus makes nicer stuff than Honda's Acura division.

When people say the Accord is nicer than the Altima, it doesn't mean they are saying that the Accord is better than an E class benz.

What you listed as "midsize cars" I would call midsize luxury cars.

Anyway, it's semantics.

But if you go back to my post near the top of this thread that I posted like 2-3months ago, I think the fact that Car and Driver chose the 160hp I4 Accord over the 240hp V6 Altima as an overall better car speaks volumes about Accord vs Altima quality.

Sure, I'd drive a midsize euro sports sedan if I had the money. And I probably will when I graduate dental school in a couple years, but for now, if I'm choosing between an Altima or an Accord, I'll take the Accord. Because it's a better car. Not because it's the most amazing midsize car in the world, but because it's a better car than the Altima.

cjamie

I'd take that and respect your decision. However, I am just pointing out that it is not the first time I read on this forum: "I am not taking the lowly Altima because the interior of Accord is as good as a 35K car", which the statment itself is untrue.

One thing to point out is that the setup C/D tested is unreal. How often do Honda and Altima sell manual transmission? For their specific test environment sure, Accord is a winner, however it doens't represent the mass.

cjamie

BTW, being totally honest though, I prob won't have so much fit if I come up to Accord instead of going down 20k to Accord (if both are brand new).

I used to bitch when I had Audi and Lexus as well. Now driving my wife's Accord just makes me miss my A4 and my GS...marriage is a bad thing :-( especially if she brings in a bad car...

What I should do is either move or find a job that's further than hers...so I can claim the other car...

ItsaHonda

Mid size is a broad range, I consider A6, E class, 5 class, Lexus ES, GS Lincoln LS, Jag S class all are in the midsize as well>>>

Which is exactly why I specified mid-class. Cars in this category include the Taurus, Altima, Accord, Camry, Malibu, Century, etc.. NONE of which have the rich luxury of the Accord. When you drive a Taurus, you are constantly reminded that you are only in a mid-class mid-size family sedan. Not so in the Accord.



Any of them have much better interior than Accord>>>

Perhaps they have a better layout and more detail (to justify the price and class segment) but the Accord equals their material quality as as well as fit and finish.

I think what you meant to say is midsize non luxury>>>

Mid-class, is what I said... and that is what it means.

Accord is alot closer to Altima than any of the above>>>

We clearly view quality differently.

Even TSX (best craftsmanship other than RL that Honda makes)>>>

Incase you werent aware, Accord and TSX share basically the same interior, for the TSX is nothing more than a European Accord. The TSX has a few more nifty details, but there is virtually no difference between the two on the inside.


Ture, I do compare an 6 yrs old engine with new engines as well as old engines. However it is a wide claim that honda engines are like new even after 100k miles>>>

Regarding dependability and longevity. A Honda 4-cylinder is not over the hill at only 100,000 miles. It says nothing about a 1996 4-cylinder being as smooth and refined as a 2003. Even Hondas new 2.4 is a hundred times better than my F22 in terms of smooth and quiet operation. In 1996, however, the Accord 4-cylinder was among (But not the most) refined in its class segment. The big two STILL do not have a 4-cylinder powerplant that performs as smooth and effortless as my 7-year old F22 at highway speeds.

The 8 yrs old volvo 850 engine w/ relative amount of milage seems to be holding up really well (even w/ 5 cyl volvo engine is much smoother and has lots more power) compare to the honda engine>>

And look at Vovos reliability track record. Its not nearly as consistant as Hondas.


Even some old nissan altima engines are holding up really well compare to the 4 cyl I have>>>

Nissan makes a decent quality engine as well (My personal favorite of theirs was the 3.0 v6) but they are still third behind Honda and Toyota.

When I test drove the new Accord with its price range in mind, I was not impressed by the smoothness and power. Steering wheel still vibrates and power is still non linear (4cyl)>>>

The steering wheel did not vibrate in my test Accord (EX) not even at highway speeds. The engine was very peppy for being a 4-cylinder, and I did not find the car to be under powered. Engine performed almost silently and I felt no hints of vibration whatsoever. The Altima was also a very smooth performer as I noted, but lacked the solid feel of the Accord.

Of course mywife's car is just totally unacceptable, it is a small 4 cyl that sounds like a disel truck>>>

And I truely believe your Accord is unique to itself. I have the same car, and it continues to impress me everyday. I've owned better riding cars, more powerful cars, and even more comfortable cars... but none of them had the quality nor reliability of the Accord day after day, year after year, mile after mile.


The 96 ex interior is almost as bad as a 91 Cavalier>>>

You stand alone on that belief. The 96 EXs interior is VERY well put together, materials are of good quality and every panel fits together with nearly perfect precision. After 7 years, it still has no rattles or squeaks, and still looks/feels like it did the day it was built. Nothing has ever failed to work, or come apart. In comparison to a 91 Cavalier, it's a Bentley.

Automatic transmission wise, I have never had one shifting so harsh. Of course, I might be biased, other than my first car, I have never driven a car with tag less than $30K>>

I've owned and driven cars in many different price ranges. Mostly Cadillacs, which is my American luxury brand of choice, and all were much above $30k. I thought I liked silky smooth automatics, until I test drove the Accord... Ive been sold on it ever since.

I am just extremely disappointed by the car when I finally have to drive the supposely legendary. Seeing so many "polished truth" here while suffering day to day is hard to swallow>>

Like I stated earlier, I truely believe that your car is unique to itself, because I own the same year make and model, and I do not have any dissapointments or regrets. I love the car, and am impressed with it every time I drive it. Its only flaw is not being a 2003

I stayed with European cars as that's what my family had been subscribing to until my wife's accord was forced onto me>>

I've never owned a European car, I tried to buy a VW Passat (before I considered the Accord) because the Passat has the solid build quality that attracted me to the Accord, plus that European ride and handling that I love so much. But when I started doing my homework, I learned that VW was having extensive reliability issues, and after speaking with owners...I decided that it wouldnt be a wise decision. I'd safely say 7 out of 10 Passat owners did not recommend the car to potential buyers. 9 out 10 Accord owners reassured me that I couldnt go wrong with the Honda. I'm glad I took their advice and I pass it on to everyone. I thought about BMW, but for the price, I was not moved by the styling and did not find the interiors to very comfortable or inviting. My other fear of owning a European automobile was knowing that when it breaks, repairs are more expensive than average, and only certain sources will perform the work. In that respect, the Accord is MUCH easier to own and reassured my decision.

W/ all the problems this car have and all the maintanence it required, I just don't understand why all the prase and all the comparasons to cars that are not in the same league>>>

Because the average Accord owner does not have the problems you are having with their car.


You get what you pay for; but there are good alternatives. BTW, Accord argueablely sets standards for midsize basic transportation (accord, camry altima..etc). Honda doesn't set standards where you guys are comparing Accord to. Start accepting Altima being a good alternative of Accord instead of trying to tell people that Accord is good alternative to A4, BMW3>>>

All I said was that for a mid-class car, the 7th gen Accord has the qualities and luxury of a much more expensive automobile, which it does, hands down.

cjamie

Unless if you got ripped off, a 2003 Accord cannot compare to a much more expensive car. Ownership of Caddy kind of explains why you cannot tell between quality. Don't get me wrong, Caddy make good cars, just that they are not really able to compete anymore, everybody has gotten much better. While it is also known that you don't get quality mateiral and assembly with Cadillac.

Itsahonda, I would also advise you taking a test drive on any of the luxury sedens before commenting. You clearly have not had a luxury car or have not paid attention to what makes a luxury car a luxury car. Accord interior is cheap as it is in its range. Repeat the following when you drive your accord again then see if Accord is near luxury. I expect leather hand brake, I expect leather shifter knob, I expect same feel of bottoms when pressed, I expect same ilumination intensity on all bottons in the night, I expect to open the hood without the prop rod, I expect soft material all pillars, I expect a full size alloy spare tire, I expect not seeing screw holes any where, I expect soft material around the center console. I expect real wood if I am willing to pay. I expect flawless assembliing quality where no stitch is out of place, no panel has ripped edges.

I disagree on Accord material quality. Accord does not compare in material quality to any of the cars mentioned above. Even just feel the quality of the leather, it does not compare well with the cars we had above. The amount of hard plastic in Accord is unacceptable. When I am in the Accord, I am constantly reminded that I am in a sub $30k car; quality of material is not there. Yes, it has improved for instance finally the trunk lid finally has linent, but it is not good enough. TSX and Accord are different animal, one is assembled in Japan, the other one is assembled in US. Craftmanship is by far lower on the Accord, I was able to find several assembling flaws on 3 different Accords I saw on the lot...at Acura dealer, I found 3 assembling flaws in a TL within 1 minute. TSX however, I spent around 5 minutes and actually to my suprise I found non. TSX finish is just a lot better than Accord. I don't suppose you can tell the difference since TSX is merely an Accord.

I would assume that the big 2 you are talking about are Mercedes and BMW; while I have not really driven their 4 cyl engines lately, I can't say if their 4 cyl engines are better or worse than the Accord. However, based on the Audi I had, the 4 cyl is by far much more refined than the Honda engine. Especially it doesn't have that crazy stage output of the Honda engine.

As you said, the only flaw of your car is that it is not a 2003, however 2003 has smooth transmission. What do you actually like? This is not the first time that people admit that Honda has jerky shifting on their automatic transmission; not even the 2003 shifts smooth at least I didn't feel so. Either I was pampered really well by me Lexus or the Accord has transmission problem. Even the ES300 rental I got has smoother shifting than Accord; yet ES300 is merely a Camry

All I can really say is that if you can't tell between the assembling quality, you don't have critical eyes. In that case I don't blame you for not being able to tell the difference between a good car and and a bad car.

I am not sure if my car has problems, I got two dealers to test drive it and a family friend who is a mechanic to drive it. All of them told me that the car is running in very good order. When I comment on things I don't like, they pretty much told me that Honda is pretty much like that. Please don't tell me that you don't feel the difference between putting your hand on your computer desk and putting your hand on steering wheel while your car is at idle. If you don't feel vibration, I got to see your car in person... When you turn on A/C and your car doesn't jerk, again I have to see your car in person. I just have not had a car that will do any of those...

vinz

hey cjamie, upon scanning your reply, i think you expect a $150,000 accord which honda can build especially for you with real smooth leather in every corner of the interior, real mahogany wood trim, 400 hp engine, hydraulic release hood and trunk, automatic engine start and so on. you might want to consider giving them a call.

cjamie

That's the impresssion the media and owners give me before I had a chance driving one. The more the expection the larger the disappointment.

The way the owners speak of the car sound unreal; Altima compares well with Accord, however Accord compares poorly with more expensive cars.

Accept the truth that Accord is not luxurious! And turst me you don't need 150K to get a car with the descriptions I gave you. Accord is either not designed for that or has a long way to go before matching the description.

Compare Accord with what it is intended, don't compare Accord with what it is not intended is what I am trying to say.