Accord EX 2004 vs 2005

I am on the verge of buying an Accord EX (automatic, 4 cylinder). I'll
probably buy a 2004, but want to make sure there isn't some spectacular
reason (other than depreciation) that I should be interested in the 2005.
What's new for the 2005 model? Anything?

 

Lighted steering wheel controls and slightly different tail lights.

 

I'm considering a lease program on the '04 Accord, and I would need a robust
mileage allowance, like 54,000 miles. I am deeply concerned, though, about
putting miles on the car past the 36,000 bumper to bumper factory warranty.
Anybody care to share similar experiences? How likely is a well-maintained
and carefully handled Honda to develop major problems between 36,000 and
54,000 miles?

 

Man, you are a sucker.

If you're worried about that, go buy any car and keep it under factory
warranty. It doesn't matter.

 

If it makes you feel good or superior to think of me as a "sucker", just
waiting to be sold on the extended warranty, so be it. The reality of it is
that I would never go for that. Being that I assess risk and count beans for
a living, and am thoroughly analytical in general, only rarely (and a long
time ago) have I been taken as a "sucker". I will either buy the car, or
take a calculate chance of eclipsing 54K in a lease with no problems. Keep
your cynical comments to yourself and stop poisoning a generally informative
and helpful community.

The life of a negative, antisocial jerk-off like you is certainly full of
self-imposed struggle. I pity you.

 

That you in this day and age are THAT concerned about this type of
thing, is very weird.

That's why you buy a Honda. By buying Honda, you minimize the risk just
about as low as you can.

But your obsession with being under factory warranty is sick. You need
to arrange leases that keep you under factory warranty and just switch
cars as needed. There is no cure for what you have.

 

The life of a negative, antisocial jerk-off like you is certainly full of

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHA.

Dr. Phil couldn't have said it any better!

Elmo_pee_fagnasty is just angry cause he drives a 20 year old junker with
250,000 miles. He said so himself!




____________________________________
Do not write below this line. Reserved for me.

 

Actually there is a big difference and my friend was telling me that I
should get one because of this. All the 2005 accords have head curtain
airbags as well as side and front. That's a good safe feature and I know it
is something my insurance would be affected in a positive way as well as my
own piece of mind.

 

Elmo, there is no need for this abuse; the gentleman merely asked a
question. You are starting to sound like "He Hates..."



Smarsquid: If you were talking about a Chrysler product, your fears would
be highly understandable. I left Honda to buy a new 1995 Dodge Intrepid. I
had no problems until just after the 36,000 mile warranty expired. Between
36k and 40k miles I had the transmission die ($2,000), the A/C condenser
leak ($600) and an oxygen sensor fail ($300). Many things continued to fail
until I finally donated the car when the transmission failed the second time
at ~90,000 miles. (and NO, I didn't abuse the car, I pampered it - it still
LOOKED great when I gave it away).



The reason I went back to Honda was its reputation for reliability and the
very good reliability of my previous Accord. I'd say your probability of
having a significant problem with an Accord between 36k and 54k are pretty
slim (unless you cause the problem).



You might want to check out JD Power and Associates website for their latest
3 year reliability ranking. Honda is WAY below industry average for number
of problems in a 3-year period, and Dodge is WAY worse than industry average
(and its parent, Mercedes Benz is considerably worse than even Dodge).



Another thing to consider is customer service - I'd be willing to bet that
Honda would be much more likely to help out if a major failure occurred a
little after the warranty expired than Chrysler. Chrysler was absolutely no
help in any of my problems with the Intrepid.



I'm a reliability engineer (no, not for Honda) and let me give you a short
lesson. There is a thing called "infant mortality" (my boss hates that
term - he used to do safety engineering on toys). This means that on almost
every new product, it is much more likely to fail in it's first few months
than it is to fail later in life until parts start to wear out (these are
called wear-out failures). This means that most of the failures should
occur during the warranty period. Between infant mortality and wearout is
typically a long period of very low failure-rate. When graphed, it looks
like a cut-away of a bathtub, hence its name "bathtub curve".



Companies like Honda try to make their parts (and therefore their cars) as
reliable as economically feasible - their future sales depend on that. From
my sample size of 1 experience (not statistically significant) with Dodge,
it APPEARS that their only concern was getting the car past it's warranty
period and didn't have much concern about how long it lasted after that.
The JD Power report APPEARS to reflect that sentiment also.



By the way, I would never buy another Daimler-Chrysler product as long as I
live

 

My 2004 EXL has the side curtain airbags, If you want that feature look for
an EXL . Best money I ever spent on a car

 

Smarsquid: If you were talking about a Chrysler product, your fears would

You just summed up my life experience, and have professional
experience to back it. If a car is a piece of junk, it will fail
regardless of pampering. If it is well-designed, it will generally
give very long service unless abused. Everything you said is worth
re-reading by the uninitiated.

I think, though, that you failed to emphasize one point: it takes
TREMENDOUS engineering skill to design a product to fail on schedule
-- the schedule being just past the warranty period. The service
department of most dealerships brings in as much, or more money than
the sales department. How quickly would a Chrysler or GM dealer go
out of business if half their revenue dried up because the cars
actually last? The economics of their business model weren't set up
for it.

JM

 

Hi JM,

I doubt (or maybe REALLY hope) that the car manufacturers aren't actually
trying to make things fail right after the warranty expires (I'm pretty sure
they used to do that, many years ago - some actually didn't want their
cars to last so you would almost have to buy a new one in a few years).

What I suspect some car manufacturers do is cost-reduce until the
failure-rate approaches the warranty period, but to save money not to
purposely cause failures. Case in point, the belt pully on the my Dodge
power steering pump was plastic - it probably saved Dodge ~$1.50 at most.
This broke at ~75,000 - 80,000 miles and it cost me more than $150 to have
replaced! ...all to save Chrysler a few cents.

Other manufacturers who value their reliability reputation (Toyota and
Honda to mention a couple) design their parts (or have their suppliers do
it) to last as long as possible within reasonable cost restraints. I'm sure
that even Honda and Toyota don't have a cost-is-no-object philosophy.

As far as keeping the dealers busy, when my Dodge transmission failed the
first time, Dodge was willing to pay 1/2 of the $2,000 cost to have the
dealer rebuild the transmission, HOWEVER the local dealers were so busy, I
couldn't find any who could even look at it for a week (I guess others'
transmissions were failing also). I ended up taking it to a reputable
transmission shop and paid the entire $1400 myself, because I couldn't be
without the car for a week and a half. At least the non-Crysler rebuilt one
lasted 50% longer (57,000 miles) than the original.