Re: Accord vs Accura
 

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.
"Kenneth J. Harris" <kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote in message
news:9w7Pc.20247$cL2.9135550@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
> 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
>
> aljudy wrote:
> > 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
>

Re: Accord vs Accura
 

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.
"Kenneth J. Harris" <kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote in message
news:9w7Pc.20247$cL2.9135550@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
> 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
>
> aljudy wrote:
> > 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
>

Re: 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

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.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

Re: 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

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.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

Re: Accord vs Accura
 

"Tim" <654@6546.net> wrote in message news:cejtki0tbp@enews2.newsguy.com...
> 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.


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










> "Kenneth J. Harris" <kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote in message
> news:9w7Pc.20247$cL2.9135550@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
> > 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
> >
> > aljudy wrote:
> > > 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
> >
>
>

Re: Accord vs Accura
 

"Tim" <654@6546.net> wrote in message news:cejtki0tbp@enews2.newsguy.com...
> 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.


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










> "Kenneth J. Harris" <kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote in message
> news:9w7Pc.20247$cL2.9135550@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
> > 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
> >
> > aljudy wrote:
> > > 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
> >
>
>

Re: Accord vs Accura
 

In article <ZCoPc.18138$cv5.7009@lakeread07>,
"rjdriver" <rjdrivers@cox.net> wrote:

> > 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.
>
>
> 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.

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.

Re: Accord vs Accura
 

In article <ZCoPc.18138$cv5.7009@lakeread07>,
"rjdriver" <rjdrivers@cox.net> wrote:

> > 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.
>
>
> 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.

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.

Re: Re: Accord vs Accura
 

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:16:22 -0400, "Tim" <654@6546.net> wrote:

>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.

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

Re: Re: Accord vs Accura
 

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:16:22 -0400, "Tim" <654@6546.net> wrote:

>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.

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

Re: Accord vs Accura
 

In article <qb8vg051cneof8d34lhsbpqp50p3nl0eko@4ax.com>,
JAC <techguy94-at-mchsi-dot-com@> wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:16:22 -0400, "Tim" <654@6546.net> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> 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.

Re: Accord vs Accura
 

In article <qb8vg051cneof8d34lhsbpqp50p3nl0eko@4ax.com>,
JAC <techguy94-at-mchsi-dot-com@> wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:16:22 -0400, "Tim" <654@6546.net> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> 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.

Re: Accord vs Accura
 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <qb8vg051cneof8d34lhsbpqp50p3nl0eko@4ax.com>,
> JAC <techguy94-at-mchsi-dot-com@> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:16:22 -0400, "Tim" <654@6546.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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?

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.....

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

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.

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

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

Re: Accord vs Accura
 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <qb8vg051cneof8d34lhsbpqp50p3nl0eko@4ax.com>,
> JAC <techguy94-at-mchsi-dot-com@> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:16:22 -0400, "Tim" <654@6546.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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?

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.....

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

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.

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

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

Re: Accord vs Accura
 

In article <iiWPc.223370$JR4.204927@attbi_s54>,
"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote:

> > If I'm going to get Chrysler-level quality, why should I pay
> > Honda-level prices?
>
> Not even close, IMO, even with the tranny issues.

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.