|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Unbelievable (Reply to this comment)
by jakemj8402
"Please remember that I am not saying that the Accord is a bad car...."
Hmm....C, B, D, C. With the exception of the "B" I would say those are pretty bad scores.
My family (myself included) has owned several Accords and currently does. There are several areas of your review that I cannot - in any way - concur with. The first is acceleration. Professional automotive and consumer publications that do back-to-back tests with other models in the Accords class often praise it as having the most powerful and refined engine of the group. The newest Accord four-cylinder, which makes 160 horsepower, can move to sixty in 7.9 seconds, much faster than many six-cylinder automobiles currently on the market. Given that the previous Accord had only 150hp, we have never had any problems with passing, merging, or maintaining speed. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that the car you're used to driving has an accelerator with less kick-back resistance on the gas pedal, much like my ES300, which may account for you having to push harder. As for your recommendation of the Legacy, a vehicle I have spent a fair amount of time in, it is slower and less responsive then the Accord, granted it drives all four-wheels.
Price wise the Accord is well within range of its competitors, the Passat can easily go over the 30k mark and the Camry comes very close. The most expensive Accord on the market in '01 was 24-26k (depending on your region), far from being overpriced. The Legacy could have easily reached 28k and currently can go well over 30k for an '05.
An overall grade of "D". Certainly this is out of line. The Accord is a refined, capable, and composed performer on all levels. The Accord, and most other cars in its class are designed and built with a broad range of peoples needs in mind. Is every substantial automotive editor in the country wrong? Probably not. How about 400,000 customers? Again, probably not. I would suggest that either you received a defective car or have an agenda of some sort. Is the Accord as good as it used to be? Nope. Years (think early '90s) ago they might have been producing maybe 70-90k Accords a year; now it's more like 400k+. More cars = More problems and more errors in build quality, most companies that would have had to expand that fast would be doing much worse.
For your own well being, it seems as if you should steer far clear of the Accord or anything else manufactured by Honda. I would hate for you to have to drive one of these slow, poorly built, rough riding trash heaps. And as far as styling goes, your comments are unbelievably lame, as if any of the Accords competitors elicit any real passion themselves. If there was any car on the market more boring to look at than the '01 Accord it was the '01 Legacy.
Regards,
-Jake
|
Sep 25, 2004
11:27 pm PDT
|
|
Nice critical review (Reply to this comment)
by katraak
The Honda Accord is a bland mobile. Very expensive compared to the competition for not so good performance. No doubt Hondas are very good cars but people shopping for it should also consider other makes and models like the Passat, Impala, Maxima, Impreza, Altima and the Sebring. If you still like the Accord go ahead and buy it but atleast look at the competition and see what you are missing.
|
Jul 3, 2001
3:22 pm PDT
|
|
Honda used to be a good car (Reply to this comment)
by mrnadir2000
Once upon a time Hondas were good cars. But seems like Honda engineers were sleeping for the past 10 years. The improvements they have made are not many. Ride is still noisy and the suspension still is rough. Whats gotten worse is the quality control. Gap tolerances are BAD! check out any 2001 accord and you will see that the rear lights dont even line up with the half light on the trunk lid. I will write a detailed opinion later. I just bought a 2001 accord lx 2 months back. I wont recommend it. Guess I am a sucker!
|
May 31, 2001
1:57 pm PDT
|
|
Not to sure on your thinking (Reply to this comment)
by rascus
Now, i'm not sure about your 2k1 Accord, but my 99 Accord with less hp then your 2k1 can get up and go when need to. Personally i am absoultely in love with the car. Overall comfort of the car is outstanding in my book. The handling is very responsive compared to other cars i have owned. Also the new style (with spoiler) looks alot better then the old body style. I have put over 38k miles on my car without any problems whatsoever. I do agree somewhat on the price, i paid 21k for my car (with the addition of spoiler an moonroof).
|
May 4, 2001
1:59 pm PDT
|
|
Re: are you high? (Reply to this comment)
by krashlite2
I've spent about a hundred hours in driving time in Accords and this is more than sufficient to make a critical evaluation. Please remember that I am not saying that the Accord is a bad car but rather that it compares unfavorably with other cars in its price range and category. Of course the Accord's acceleration is better than, say the Civic or the Corolla, but it is unfair to compare apples and oranges. When a comparison is done between equivalent cars like the Maxima or the Impala, thats when you see the difference especially in performance and power. Thanks for your interesting observations however, and no I'm definitely not high and never have been :-)
|
Mar 15, 2001
11:44 pm PST
|
|
are you high? (Reply to this comment)
by bkaiser
Opinions are opinions, but briefly driving a car around as a rental does not make for an accurate point of reference. Having owned many cars over the past several years, 3 of them being Accords from 1988 to 1998, I can tell you that whoever reviewed this model is way off base in his appraisal of the car's performance as a family sedan. The 4 cyl engine paired with either transmission delivers ample acceleration under most conditions, never struggling to maintain above-legal speeds in the mountain passes between Reno and the Bay. Handling precision hs always been an Accord strong suit, and the newest models are quite likely to be just the same. Take this person's review with a LARGE grain of salt.
|
Mar 7, 2001
8:12 am PST
|
|
Re: Good Review (Reply to this comment)
by krashlite2
Hi,
Thanks for reading. Yes you are right, the V6 does handle better. I've driven it only once though, so I hadn't the chance to really check it out :)
Joe
|
Mar 5, 2001
7:27 am PST
|
|
Good Review (Reply to this comment)
by octane
Please try the V6 version. Absolutely a different vehicle compared to the four. H.P. goes without saying but remember, you also go down a tire size with the 4 cyl. Honda is notorious for undersizing their tires. This makes a huge difference in handling and stability at higher speeds. I'm not trying to justify the price, but there is really no comparison between the 2 vehicles.
A Honda flaw.
|
Mar 3, 2001
4:49 pm PST
|
|
wow (Reply to this comment)
by bwyckoff1
this is a great review- I like the way you give other models to look for. very helpful to the consumer!
|
Jan 25, 2001
12:41 pm PST
|
|
|
|
