Accord vs Accura

I am considering buying a 2004 Honda Accord or an Accura. Can someone
please give me some guidance as to why buy one vs the other besides that
the Accura is a couple of thousand dollars higher in price. I am leaning towards
the Accord because it is simpler and has higher mileage. On the other hand the Accura has traction control and stability control, but these features mean more
complexity. Please give me your thoughts... Al

 

These are both Honda-built cars and so both should provide you with a long
and reliable service life. Bear in mind of course that the more complex
feature load may at some point prove problematic and require more
servicing. However, don't try to compensate for this by purchasing an
extended warranty. There is no value in an EW except to the dealer.

However, since there are different accessories and features *YOU* have to
decide which of these are more important *TO YOU*. Right now with the
high fuel prices I would think with all else being equal that fuel economy
would be an important factor. Of course unless you drive a lot of miles,
the difference in only a couple MPG are going to have little impact, so
you have to weigh this item carefully.

The Accura is more of a "status symbol". Are social appearances important?
Do you need to impress someone? If not, then the Accord gets the check
mark in this column.

Arguably, in the long term I think you're going to find the Accord (EX)
hard to beat. While you're at it, get the NAV package, you'll love it.

Just be mindful of the fact that the 2005s are going to be rolling into
your dealer's showroom very soon. My opinion on this topic is that unless
you can buy last year's model (2004) equally equipped for at least 20%
less than you can buy a new 2005, go for the 2005. In other words, why buy
a car that's already a year old (and a year already depreciated in value)
when the difference in monthly payments would be minimal? At the end of a
typical 5-yr note the 2004 will be 6 yrs old and worth less, but you will
have paid almost the same for it as you would a 2005.

There really is little incentive right now to buy a 2004 instead of a
2005. All the dealers are really HURTING because of the depressed car
market. My bet is with some aggressive haggling that you're going to be
able to strike as good a deal on an '05 as you will on an '04.

Remember, forget the extended warranty. It's not a warranty at all, it's a
mechanical breakdown insurance police with a per-occurrence deductible
that *DOES NOT* cover the car bumper-to-bumper. Honda cars are among the
most reliable on the road today. Your chances of just breaking even with
the policy's high up-front cost is historically slim. However, if you're
utterly convinced that you want an EW, for goodness' sake don't buy it
from the dealer. Instead contact your auto insurance company. Both State
Farm and Allstate offer a similar plan at a remarkable savings over the
dealership's plan.

 

I am familiar with both cars--the Honda Accord EX (auto with the V6)
which I own, and the Accura which a friend and a relative both own. As
you said, the Accura is a bit more expensive, but you do get more
features such as stability control and fog lights. More importantly,
the Accura has better performance (acceleration, brakeing and handling),
at least that's what the tests in auto magazines show. Neverless I
bought the Honda and have been quite satisfied. One report said
something like it was a smart buy because it gave you about 93% of what
the Accura does but cost less than 93% as much. Good luck.

Ken

 

I recently purchased a 2004 Accord V6-EX (no navigation) and
considered a 2004 Acura TL. For me, the choice of the Accord was
almost a no-brainer.

There is no doubt that the TL is a better car, but the TL costs
almost $8K more.

If you compare features and specifications, the Accord and TL are
extrememly similar. Yes, the TL has a slightly more powerful
engine and the TL has slightly better handling. Both have traction
control and similar transmissions. The interior of the TL is somewhat
more fancy, but only slightly so.

The accord V6-EX comes with leather, a very good sound system (yes,
the TL has a somewhat better one) and a well laid out driver's
console. The Accord V6-EX is an entry level luxury car in every
way except price.

If the somewhat better handling and performance are extremely
important to you, and the extra $8K is not an inssue, go with the
TL. If you "settle" for the Accord, you won't be disappointed
however.

--
Harvey J. Cohen, Ph. D.
-------

"The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make
sense." - Tom Clancy

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Does not the Acura 6 cyl also require 93 octane gas? Heard this somewhere,
but never verified it.....

 

The TL requires "Premium" unleaded gas, which if memory serves
me correctly is a 91 Octane gas., at least in Southern Cal.

 

I am considering buying a 2004 Honda Accord thoughts... Al
all accura cars require hi octane gas, get the honda.

 

Recommended, but not absolutely required. These cars have a built-in knock
sensor which automatically retards the timing to prevent spark knock (and
associated damage) whenever lower octane fuel is used.

Of course performance and efficiency suffer, but no damage occurs.

 

With the problems honda and acura have had with their transmissions the last
5 years not to mention ignition switches and numerious other problems I
would rule out buying a honda or acura all together.

 

Do you live in an area that gets snow during the winter months? If so, I
recommend that you buy the Accura since the traction and stability control
will help you deal better with slick roads. If you live in a area that
does not ever get any snow--test drive both of them and buy the one you
like best. They are both excellent cars--the Accura is slightly better.

 

Can you site evidence of this? First I heard. And Consumer Reports
reliability ratings show no slippage in these two areas in the last 5 years.



Bob

 

Can you site evidence of this? First I heard. And Consumer Reports
reliability ratings show no slippage in these two areas in the last 5 years.[/QUOTE]

The transmission thing is huge. Don't buy an Accord or Accord-related
vehicle (Odyssey, etc.) from the 98-02 model years with a V6 engine and
an automatic transmission. Even the 4 cylinder models are suspect with
respect to the automatic transmissions.

At one point, my Honda shop was putting in about 4-5 automatic
transmissions a week. It was like the fart in the living room:
everyone knew about it, but no one was willing to talk about it.

Finally Honda took some steps to add warranty, etc. to those
transmissions. Then the 5 speed transmission came out in the Odyssey,
and those are now under recall. So they went to an all-new transmission
and still couldn't get it right.

Honda, that great engineering company, has screwed up BIG time with
major engineering issues--like the transmissions.

Ignition switches--yes, the CRV and now older Odyssey/Accords are having
recalls.

 

Oh yes, I remember reading about how all the other manufacturers made
perfect cars.

 

Quit apologizing for Honda.

For Honda, the major mistakes they've made with transmissions alone is a
HUGE issue. The same mistakes would be par for the course at, say,
Chrysler--but Honda threw away years and years and untold billions of
dollars of engineering reputation by making ongoing major engineering
screwups and not taking immediate and full responsibility for them.

What's par for the course at all the other manufacturers is NOT par for
the course at Honda. And that's why we bought Hondas. Now, you're
saying that Honda should be accepted as being just like "all the other
manufacturers"? Like Chrysler?

If I'm going to get Chrysler-level quality, why should I pay Honda-level
prices?

You can't hide behind the other manufacturers being screwups if you want
people to think Honda is above that.

 

Ford only recalled Pintos when they figured the lawsuits would cost them
more then the recall. It is the way business is conducted. I'm not
apologizing or making excuses for it, it is just the reality.

I had an issue with my front brakes on my Jeep, which was listed on a TSB.
They wouldn't do anything about it until they realized I knew of the
TSB.....

Not even close, IMO, even with the tranny issues. I have a Jeep and 3
Hondas, the Jepp can't hold a candle to them.

No one is above a "screw up". It's up to the statisticians.

 

Not even close, IMO, even with the tranny issues.[/QUOTE]

But relatively speaking, given what we've come to expect from Honda, an
issue of this magnitude puts them right down in the Chrysler class.

Honda has disappointed many, many of their customers--throwing away
years of reputation in the process.

 

I know first hand of recalls for ignition switch electrical and mecanical,
also timing belt tenisioner, trsnsmission,and egr ports clog often or valves
have to be replaced, this is on mdx cl and tl's. The rl and rsx has their
problem's too, about the best buy for acura or honda is the tsx auto trans.
and the honda element.

 

Element is built in Japan. TSX?

I expect the new RL to fall into the "best buy" category, too.

 

But relatively speaking, given what we've come to expect from Honda,
an issue of this magnitude puts them right down in the Chrysler class.

Honda has disappointed many, many of their customers--throwing away
years of reputation in the process.[/QUOTE]

I'd have more faith in them actually fixing the problem. I have 2 accord v6
EXL's, an '01 coupe and a '04 sedan (and a Civic EX to boot) in the
immediate family. More then happy with all of them.

 

I'd have more faith in them actually fixing the problem.[/QUOTE]

But they denied the problem for years, even as their dealers were
putting in 4-5 transmissions a week into those 99 Accords.

That's Chrysler-level quality.