Accord vs Altima
11-10-2007, 06:22 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Orlando
Posts: 6,536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accord vs Altima
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...photopanel..1.*
Its things like this that make me prefer Honda to Nissan. The Altima coupe seemed great until the Honda came along....
Its things like this that make me prefer Honda to Nissan. The Altima coupe seemed great until the Honda came along....
11-10-2007, 02:00 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kumainu,Nov 10 2007, 02:45 PM
Again, slow times by Edmunds.
11-10-2007, 02:31 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by erliuic,Nov 10 2007, 03:00 PM
What do you mean by slow times? I was under the impression that C&D times are made by completely abusing the car and are basically impossible for the everyday driver to reproduce. I'm still undecided on how times should be reported.
C&D used to get 14s or more in the 1/4mi for the S2000, is that impossible for owners to achieve?
Some owners have gotten below 14s.In the car magazine industry, C&D's times are usually the most dependable because they drive and launch the cars to their full potential, showing what the cars are capable of in the hands of competent drivers. Not impossible to achieve by some owners!
If I were to test my own cars, I would launch them like C&D too, not ease off like Edmunds.
P.S. Give me that Accord coupe and I guarantee I could do better than 6.3s and 14.6s with a few practice runs. Its trap speed indicates the car's strength, that it can be a solid 14-second car or even less.
11-11-2007, 05:53 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too bad both cars are ugly. Honda and Nissan have both done good work in the past so I just can't see why they have to take decent cars and give then ugly bodies now.
Neither looks great on the inside but I prefer the Honda there. Then again I liked the outgoing Accord interior more.
Just imagine how many more Accords Honda would sell if they got a good designer. Great car... shame about the looks.
Neither looks great on the inside but I prefer the Honda there. Then again I liked the outgoing Accord interior more.
Just imagine how many more Accords Honda would sell if they got a good designer. Great car... shame about the looks.
11-11-2007, 07:32 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Harbor City, CA
Posts: 5,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Accords are Niiiiiiiice in person. Saw a V6 Coupe in Blue like the one in the pictures more than a month ago near Honda HQ, that thing is beautiful in person. Then to add Accord reliability, functionality, and all the luxury you can get for under 30k...this car is definitely top dog in it's class.
Trending Topics
11-11-2007, 01:02 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I've seen both Accord types in person and don't like either. Why is it that Honda can make Acura look good but can't help the Accord. That car went from nice in '97 to dull then to dull with ugly headlights to just pain bad.
Beyond the looks, I assume I will like this car just as I've liked previous Accords (well the generation that came out in '98 isn't much fun to drive).
Beyond the looks, I assume I will like this car just as I've liked previous Accords (well the generation that came out in '98 isn't much fun to drive).
