dlq04

Here's a knowledgeable outsider's view of Honda that should be of interest to many here:

http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml#Rant2

shingles

The guy sounds bitter... my contention is, if the Accord was so bad, why did it sell 414,000 units in the US making it the best selling car? :shurg:

I'll agree the Accord doesn't excite me like say a 540i Sport does. But I suspect almost all of that 414,000 buyer knew what they were buying... reliable, comfortable transportation.

airgate

My wife and I owned a '97 Accord SE sedan, '99 Accord EX Sedan, '00 Accord EX-VL Coupe and finally an '01 Accord EX-VL Sedan before being replaced by the Pilot EX-L. I must say that I always found the Accord's to be classy and devoted vehicles. If we had wanted anything different, we could have certainly found it.

In the end, it was the point that it's a Honda that made us sign the dotted lines. I like that and that's what makes me happy!

Afterall, the "real" reason I first took delivery of a beautiful Berlina Black/Red S2000 in early 2000 was because it's a HONDA!

dlq04

He's often said Honda Motor Co. is one the very best. This review is very tame; you should see what he says about some of the other companies and products out there. I suspect we have a few long time Accord owners in our group and I thought it would get a rise out of them. My last one was a 1983, so I can't really comment but I wish I had a 1907 or was 2007. . . airgate?

ultimate lurker

Interesting, but somewhat mistaken in several of his statements, such as the Accord being dangerously close to being relegated to rental car duty. Or on the Civic suspension, which, while it ticked people off, has been shown to perform just as well on street and track as the old setup. McStruts can't all bad if BMW and Porsche use them, can they?

One thing many people neglect to mention when it comes to styling is that when you have a loyal audience, they often don't want things to change dramatically. When that happens, they feel betrayed. They feel as though their vehicle has been devalued. For reference, look at the major hassle Ford had several years ago when changing the design of its full size pickups. They actually agreed to produce the old design alongside the new for quite a while to appease consumers. And in the grand scheme of things, the look wasn't that different.

Or how about the new Audi A4. Does it really look that different from its predecessor (just a bit, and it looks worse IMO). Of course, everyone will remind me that the previous A4 was a beautiful looking car, so why change it...;-)

Personally, I've never owned an Accord. My family has owned 3 (possibly 4 with the 2003 coming out) and they were all good solid cars. The 87 inspired some liveliness and I liked driving that one. The 93 was simply no fun. The 99 coupe was a nice luxury sport coupe with attractive lines. Plenty of power and luxury, although the handling (mainly due to tires) was a bit soft. The new Accord seems to up the coupe looks a bit, even though the sedan doesn't look too different. And the performance seems to have taken a major step up, as has interior fitment and features.

UL

airgate

OMG!!! LMAO!!!

Nice catch! Yeah, Honda's sending me all their concepts! (yeah, I wish)

I'll fix the post. . .

Barry in Wyoming

We currently own a '92 Accord with 120,000 miles and a '94 Accord with 90,000 miles. Our first Honda was an '86 Accord. It would be "easy to justify" trading something for the '03 Accord V6 MT Coupe, but, I don't think the body shape holds a candle to my '93 Prelude VTEC ... let alone my roadster.

I love the '03 Coupe's numbers including 6 speed manual, 178 foot lb, 240 hp, 3 liters BUT I think it looks dull, at least in the pics. ... but no worse than any other Accord.