Most reliable Accord models?
02-04-2010, 07:11 AM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Most reliable Accord models?
In article <4b6a35a9$0$5101$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.co m>,
Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because it was the
> > first model year of an entirely new model, completely new from the
> > inside out.
>
> Right.
>
> 2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
>
> I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year. It has
> never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary oxygen sensor
> when it was three years old or so.
>
> Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it daily.
>
> I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it only has
> 85,000 miles.
>
>
> RFT!!!
What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you understand?
If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds. Why
stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't have to?
Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because it was the
> > first model year of an entirely new model, completely new from the
> > inside out.
>
> Right.
>
> 2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
>
> I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year. It has
> never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary oxygen sensor
> when it was three years old or so.
>
> Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it daily.
>
> I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it only has
> 85,000 miles.
>
>
> RFT!!!
What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you understand?
If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds. Why
stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't have to?
02-04-2010, 08:31 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Most reliable Accord models?
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:11:23 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article <4b6a35a9$0$5101$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.co m>,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because it was the
>> > first model year of an entirely new model, completely new from the
>> > inside out.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> 2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
>>
>> I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year. It has
>> never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary oxygen sensor
>> when it was three years old or so.
>>
>> Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it daily.
>>
>> I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it only has
>> 85,000 miles.
>>
>>
>> RFT!!!
>
>What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you understand?
>
>If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds. Why
>stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't have to?
Elmo, in a generic / general case, you are correct. However in
specific situations, maybe maybe not. Those situations could be
buyer's budget, car useage, who does repairs, etc.. . This post is
not arguing with your post, just a clarification to what you posted.
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article <4b6a35a9$0$5101$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.co m>,
> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because it was the
>> > first model year of an entirely new model, completely new from the
>> > inside out.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> 2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
>>
>> I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year. It has
>> never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary oxygen sensor
>> when it was three years old or so.
>>
>> Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it daily.
>>
>> I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it only has
>> 85,000 miles.
>>
>>
>> RFT!!!
>
>What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you understand?
>
>If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds. Why
>stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't have to?
Elmo, in a generic / general case, you are correct. However in
specific situations, maybe maybe not. Those situations could be
buyer's budget, car useage, who does repairs, etc.. . This post is
not arguing with your post, just a clarification to what you posted.
02-05-2010, 12:07 AM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Most reliable Accord models?
"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:c5ilm51t050o55dnjlcvb95a8otn97sor4@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:11:23 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <4b6a35a9$0$5101$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.co m>,
>> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> > However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because it
>>> > was the
>>> > first model year of an entirely new model, completely new from
>>> > the
>>> > inside out.
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> 2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
>>>
>>> I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year. It
>>> has
>>> never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary oxygen
>>> sensor
>>> when it was three years old or so.
>>>
>>> Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it daily.
>>>
>>> I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it only
>>> has
>>> 85,000 miles.
>>>
>>>
>>> RFT!!!
>>
>>What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you understand?
>>
>>If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds. Why
>>stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't have
>>to?
>
>
> Elmo, in a generic / general case, you are correct. However in
> specific situations, maybe maybe not. Those situations could be
> buyer's budget, car useage, who does repairs, etc.. . This post is
> not arguing with your post, just a clarification to what you posted.
Playing the "odds" is too general without defining what the odds are.
As an example, if the odds are that the chance of failure is doubled
means little. If the odds are that chance of failure just went from 1
in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000 the risk is still negligible (.1% to .2%). If
the odds are that the chance of failure went from 100 in 1,000 to 200
in 1,000, the risk of failure were pretty high to begin with and the
increase is appreciable.
02-05-2010, 06:36 AM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Most reliable Accord models?
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 21:07:22 -0800, "Stewart" <gortamus@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>news:c5ilm51t050o55dnjlcvb95a8otn97sor4@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:11:23 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4b6a35a9$0$5101$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.co m>,
>>> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because it
>>>> > was the
>>>> > first model year of an entirely new model, completely new from
>>>> > the
>>>> > inside out.
>>>>
>>>> Right.
>>>>
>>>> 2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
>>>>
>>>> I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year. It
>>>> has
>>>> never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary oxygen
>>>> sensor
>>>> when it was three years old or so.
>>>>
>>>> Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it daily.
>>>>
>>>> I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it only
>>>> has
>>>> 85,000 miles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RFT!!!
>>>
>>>What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you understand?
>>>
>>>If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds. Why
>>>stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't have
>>>to?
>>
>>
>> Elmo, in a generic / general case, you are correct. However in
>> specific situations, maybe maybe not. Those situations could be
>> buyer's budget, car useage, who does repairs, etc.. . This post is
>> not arguing with your post, just a clarification to what you posted.
>
>Playing the "odds" is too general without defining what the odds are.
>As an example, if the odds are that the chance of failure is doubled
>means little. If the odds are that chance of failure just went from 1
>in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000 the risk is still negligible (.1% to .2%). If
>the odds are that the chance of failure went from 100 in 1,000 to 200
>in 1,000, the risk of failure were pretty high to begin with and the
>increase is appreciable.
>
Agreed in theory but in the real world I don't know the "real" odds so
I named some real life examples why he could be or not be correct. I
like your thoughts tho on this.... good point !!
wrote:
>
>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>news:c5ilm51t050o55dnjlcvb95a8otn97sor4@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:11:23 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4b6a35a9$0$5101$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.co m>,
>>> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because it
>>>> > was the
>>>> > first model year of an entirely new model, completely new from
>>>> > the
>>>> > inside out.
>>>>
>>>> Right.
>>>>
>>>> 2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
>>>>
>>>> I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year. It
>>>> has
>>>> never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary oxygen
>>>> sensor
>>>> when it was three years old or so.
>>>>
>>>> Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it daily.
>>>>
>>>> I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it only
>>>> has
>>>> 85,000 miles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RFT!!!
>>>
>>>What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you understand?
>>>
>>>If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds. Why
>>>stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't have
>>>to?
>>
>>
>> Elmo, in a generic / general case, you are correct. However in
>> specific situations, maybe maybe not. Those situations could be
>> buyer's budget, car useage, who does repairs, etc.. . This post is
>> not arguing with your post, just a clarification to what you posted.
>
>Playing the "odds" is too general without defining what the odds are.
>As an example, if the odds are that the chance of failure is doubled
>means little. If the odds are that chance of failure just went from 1
>in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000 the risk is still negligible (.1% to .2%). If
>the odds are that the chance of failure went from 100 in 1,000 to 200
>in 1,000, the risk of failure were pretty high to begin with and the
>increase is appreciable.
>
Agreed in theory but in the real world I don't know the "real" odds so
I named some real life examples why he could be or not be correct. I
like your thoughts tho on this.... good point !!
02-06-2010, 11:36 AM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Most reliable Accord models?
"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:i80om5h4i5cb90vehrhgndble4fi1s78c0@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 21:07:22 -0800, "Stewart" <gortamus@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>>news:c5ilm51t050o55dnjlcvb95a8otn97sor4@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:11:23 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>>> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <4b6a35a9$0$5101$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.co m>,
>>>> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because
>>>>> > it
>>>>> > was the
>>>>> > first model year of an entirely new model, completely new from
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > inside out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year. It
>>>>> has
>>>>> never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary oxygen
>>>>> sensor
>>>>> when it was three years old or so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it
>>>>> daily.
>>>>>
>>>>> I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it only
>>>>> has
>>>>> 85,000 miles.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> RFT!!!
>>>>
>>>>What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you
>>>>understand?
>>>>
>>>>If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds.
>>>>Why
>>>>stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't have
>>>>to?
>>>
>>>
>>> Elmo, in a generic / general case, you are correct. However in
>>> specific situations, maybe maybe not. Those situations could be
>>> buyer's budget, car useage, who does repairs, etc.. . This post
>>> is
>>> not arguing with your post, just a clarification to what you
>>> posted.
>>
>>Playing the "odds" is too general without defining what the odds
>>are.
>>As an example, if the odds are that the chance of failure is doubled
>>means little. If the odds are that chance of failure just went from
>>1
>>in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000 the risk is still negligible (.1% to .2%).
>>If
>>the odds are that the chance of failure went from 100 in 1,000 to
>>200
>>in 1,000, the risk of failure were pretty high to begin with and the
>>increase is appreciable.
>>
>
>
> Agreed in theory but in the real world I don't know the "real" odds
> so
> I named some real life examples why he could be or not be correct.
> I
> like your thoughts tho on this.... good point !!
It is funny...whenever I watch the news and they have a story about
some drug or some dietary supplement, the headline always leads in
with something like
"Blah blah increases risk of cancer by 100%!!!!!!".
What they don't tell you is what is the real risk, as the big numbers
grabs the spotlight.
If the risk of cancer without it is .01%, and the risk with it is .02%
(which is a 100% increase), one might not want to take it if it's a
dietary supplement that may or may not do much. However, if it is a
medication that is of great benefit in the relief of advanced
rheumatoid arthritis, I would think that this added risk would still
be acceptable.
I guess it's just the engineer in me.......after all, there are "lies,
damned lies, and statistics".
02-07-2010, 09:21 AM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Most reliable Accord models?
Human Factors in the Training of Pilots By Jefferson M. Koonce wrote:
> Are there Accord models of certain years that have particularly good
> track record for maintenance and reliability? I'm interested in the
> years 1998 to 2008.
>
> All input greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
I have a 2005 Accord, and just love it. New tires at 60K, but that's
been it, except for basic maintenance. But I'm not a fan of the new
Accords; they seem cramped to me.
> Are there Accord models of certain years that have particularly good
> track record for maintenance and reliability? I'm interested in the
> years 1998 to 2008.
>
> All input greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
I have a 2005 Accord, and just love it. New tires at 60K, but that's
been it, except for basic maintenance. But I'm not a fan of the new
Accords; they seem cramped to me.
02-07-2010, 10:16 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Most reliable Accord models?
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 08:36:59 -0800, "Stewart" <gortamus@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>news:i80om5h4i5cb90vehrhgndble4fi1s78c0@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 21:07:22 -0800, "Stewart" <gortamus@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>>>news:c5ilm51t050o55dnjlcvb95a8otn97sor4@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:11:23 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>>>> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <4b6a35a9$0$5101$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.co m>,
>>>>> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> > However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because
>>>>>> > it
>>>>>> > was the
>>>>>> > first model year of an entirely new model, completely new from
>>>>>> > the
>>>>>> > inside out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year. It
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary oxygen
>>>>>> sensor
>>>>>> when it was three years old or so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it
>>>>>> daily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it only
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> 85,000 miles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RFT!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you
>>>>>understand?
>>>>>
>>>>>If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds.
>>>>>Why
>>>>>stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't have
>>>>>to?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Elmo, in a generic / general case, you are correct. However in
>>>> specific situations, maybe maybe not. Those situations could be
>>>> buyer's budget, car useage, who does repairs, etc.. . This post
>>>> is
>>>> not arguing with your post, just a clarification to what you
>>>> posted.
>>>
>>>Playing the "odds" is too general without defining what the odds
>>>are.
>>>As an example, if the odds are that the chance of failure is doubled
>>>means little. If the odds are that chance of failure just went from
>>>1
>>>in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000 the risk is still negligible (.1% to .2%).
>>>If
>>>the odds are that the chance of failure went from 100 in 1,000 to
>>>200
>>>in 1,000, the risk of failure were pretty high to begin with and the
>>>increase is appreciable.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed in theory but in the real world I don't know the "real" odds
>> so
>> I named some real life examples why he could be or not be correct.
>> I
>> like your thoughts tho on this.... good point !!
>
>It is funny...whenever I watch the news and they have a story about
>some drug or some dietary supplement, the headline always leads in
>with something like
>
>"Blah blah increases risk of cancer by 100%!!!!!!".
>
>What they don't tell you is what is the real risk, as the big numbers
>grabs the spotlight.
>
>If the risk of cancer without it is .01%, and the risk with it is .02%
>(which is a 100% increase), one might not want to take it if it's a
>dietary supplement that may or may not do much. However, if it is a
>medication that is of great benefit in the relief of advanced
>rheumatoid arthritis, I would think that this added risk would still
>be acceptable.
>
>I guess it's just the engineer in me.......after all, there are "lies,
>damned lies, and statistics".
>
I remember when I was in High School (long ago) I had a speech teacher
who said you shouldn't use statistics for your speeches. If I recall,
it was because they can distort the facts. Now it's funny because
that's all you hear from politicians. I wonder if a current speech
teacher would agree with my old speech teacher? Any speech teachers
reading this post?
Stewart, your point is a "good one" but unfortunately those that use
the stats, don't want you to think that way
. And yes, it's the
engineer in you that thinks that way. College taught you to think
like that (it did me).
wrote:
>
>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>news:i80om5h4i5cb90vehrhgndble4fi1s78c0@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 21:07:22 -0800, "Stewart" <gortamus@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>>>news:c5ilm51t050o55dnjlcvb95a8otn97sor4@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:11:23 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>>>> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <4b6a35a9$0$5101$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.co m>,
>>>>> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> > However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because
>>>>>> > it
>>>>>> > was the
>>>>>> > first model year of an entirely new model, completely new from
>>>>>> > the
>>>>>> > inside out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year. It
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary oxygen
>>>>>> sensor
>>>>>> when it was three years old or so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it
>>>>>> daily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it only
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> 85,000 miles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RFT!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you
>>>>>understand?
>>>>>
>>>>>If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds.
>>>>>Why
>>>>>stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't have
>>>>>to?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Elmo, in a generic / general case, you are correct. However in
>>>> specific situations, maybe maybe not. Those situations could be
>>>> buyer's budget, car useage, who does repairs, etc.. . This post
>>>> is
>>>> not arguing with your post, just a clarification to what you
>>>> posted.
>>>
>>>Playing the "odds" is too general without defining what the odds
>>>are.
>>>As an example, if the odds are that the chance of failure is doubled
>>>means little. If the odds are that chance of failure just went from
>>>1
>>>in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000 the risk is still negligible (.1% to .2%).
>>>If
>>>the odds are that the chance of failure went from 100 in 1,000 to
>>>200
>>>in 1,000, the risk of failure were pretty high to begin with and the
>>>increase is appreciable.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed in theory but in the real world I don't know the "real" odds
>> so
>> I named some real life examples why he could be or not be correct.
>> I
>> like your thoughts tho on this.... good point !!
>
>It is funny...whenever I watch the news and they have a story about
>some drug or some dietary supplement, the headline always leads in
>with something like
>
>"Blah blah increases risk of cancer by 100%!!!!!!".
>
>What they don't tell you is what is the real risk, as the big numbers
>grabs the spotlight.
>
>If the risk of cancer without it is .01%, and the risk with it is .02%
>(which is a 100% increase), one might not want to take it if it's a
>dietary supplement that may or may not do much. However, if it is a
>medication that is of great benefit in the relief of advanced
>rheumatoid arthritis, I would think that this added risk would still
>be acceptable.
>
>I guess it's just the engineer in me.......after all, there are "lies,
>damned lies, and statistics".
>
I remember when I was in High School (long ago) I had a speech teacher
who said you shouldn't use statistics for your speeches. If I recall,
it was because they can distort the facts. Now it's funny because
that's all you hear from politicians. I wonder if a current speech
teacher would agree with my old speech teacher? Any speech teachers
reading this post?
Stewart, your point is a "good one" but unfortunately those that use
the stats, don't want you to think that way
. And yes, it's theengineer in you that thinks that way. College taught you to think
like that (it did me).
02-07-2010, 10:17 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Most reliable Accord models?
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:21:46 -0500, Gary44 <garykrose@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Human Factors in the Training of Pilots By Jefferson M. Koonce wrote:
>> Are there Accord models of certain years that have particularly good
>> track record for maintenance and reliability? I'm interested in the
>> years 1998 to 2008.
>>
>> All input greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks.
>I have a 2005 Accord, and just love it. New tires at 60K, but that's
>been it, except for basic maintenance. But I'm not a fan of the new
>Accords; they seem cramped to me.
I thought the new Accords were less cramped because they are larger??
wrote:
>Human Factors in the Training of Pilots By Jefferson M. Koonce wrote:
>> Are there Accord models of certain years that have particularly good
>> track record for maintenance and reliability? I'm interested in the
>> years 1998 to 2008.
>>
>> All input greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks.
>I have a 2005 Accord, and just love it. New tires at 60K, but that's
>been it, except for basic maintenance. But I'm not a fan of the new
>Accords; they seem cramped to me.
I thought the new Accords were less cramped because they are larger??
02-08-2010, 12:17 AM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Most reliable Accord models?
"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:8svum515e7fm3dud4qlbg4m8rsch1qr699@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 08:36:59 -0800, "Stewart" <gortamus@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>>news:i80om5h4i5cb90vehrhgndble4fi1s78c0@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 21:07:22 -0800, "Stewart" <gortamus@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:c5ilm51t050o55dnjlcvb95a8otn97sor4@4ax.co m...
>>>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:11:23 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>>>>> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <4b6a35a9$0$5101$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.co m>,
>>>>>> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because
>>>>>>> > it
>>>>>>> > was the
>>>>>>> > first model year of an entirely new model, completely new
>>>>>>> > from
>>>>>>> > the
>>>>>>> > inside out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year.
>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary
>>>>>>> oxygen
>>>>>>> sensor
>>>>>>> when it was three years old or so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it
>>>>>>> daily.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> 85,000 miles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RFT!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you
>>>>>>understand?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds.
>>>>>>Why
>>>>>>stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't
>>>>>>have
>>>>>>to?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Elmo, in a generic / general case, you are correct. However in
>>>>> specific situations, maybe maybe not. Those situations could be
>>>>> buyer's budget, car useage, who does repairs, etc.. . This
>>>>> post
>>>>> is
>>>>> not arguing with your post, just a clarification to what you
>>>>> posted.
>>>>
>>>>Playing the "odds" is too general without defining what the odds
>>>>are.
>>>>As an example, if the odds are that the chance of failure is
>>>>doubled
>>>>means little. If the odds are that chance of failure just went
>>>>from
>>>>1
>>>>in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000 the risk is still negligible (.1% to .2%).
>>>>If
>>>>the odds are that the chance of failure went from 100 in 1,000 to
>>>>200
>>>>in 1,000, the risk of failure were pretty high to begin with and
>>>>the
>>>>increase is appreciable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed in theory but in the real world I don't know the "real"
>>> odds
>>> so
>>> I named some real life examples why he could be or not be correct.
>>> I
>>> like your thoughts tho on this.... good point !!
>>
>>It is funny...whenever I watch the news and they have a story about
>>some drug or some dietary supplement, the headline always leads in
>>with something like
>>
>>"Blah blah increases risk of cancer by 100%!!!!!!".
>>
>>What they don't tell you is what is the real risk, as the big
>>numbers
>>grabs the spotlight.
>>
>>If the risk of cancer without it is .01%, and the risk with it is
>>.02%
>>(which is a 100% increase), one might not want to take it if it's a
>>dietary supplement that may or may not do much. However, if it is a
>>medication that is of great benefit in the relief of advanced
>>rheumatoid arthritis, I would think that this added risk would still
>>be acceptable.
>>
>>I guess it's just the engineer in me.......after all, there are
>>"lies,
>>damned lies, and statistics".
>>
>
>
> I remember when I was in High School (long ago) I had a speech
> teacher
> who said you shouldn't use statistics for your speeches. If I
> recall,
> it was because they can distort the facts. Now it's funny because
> that's all you hear from politicians. I wonder if a current speech
> teacher would agree with my old speech teacher? Any speech teachers
> reading this post?
>
> Stewart, your point is a "good one" but unfortunately those that
> use
> the stats, don't want you to think that way
. And yes, it's the> engineer in you that thinks that way. College taught you to think
> like that (it did me).
Yes, politicians always seem to talk through a different bodily
orifice then the rest of us.....
02-08-2010, 08:10 AM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Most reliable Accord models?
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:17:50 -0800, "Stewart" <gortamus@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>news:8svum515e7fm3dud4qlbg4m8rsch1qr699@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 08:36:59 -0800, "Stewart" <gortamus@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>>>news:i80om5h4i5cb90vehrhgndble4fi1s78c0@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 21:07:22 -0800, "Stewart" <gortamus@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:c5ilm51t050o55dnjlcvb95a8otn97sor4@4ax.c om...
>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:11:23 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>>>>>> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <4b6a35a9$0$5101$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.co m>,
>>>>>>> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because
>>>>>>>> > it
>>>>>>>> > was the
>>>>>>>> > first model year of an entirely new model, completely new
>>>>>>>> > from
>>>>>>>> > the
>>>>>>>> > inside out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year.
>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary
>>>>>>>> oxygen
>>>>>>>> sensor
>>>>>>>> when it was three years old or so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it
>>>>>>>> daily.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> 85,000 miles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RFT!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you
>>>>>>>understand?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds.
>>>>>>>Why
>>>>>>>stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't
>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elmo, in a generic / general case, you are correct. However in
>>>>>> specific situations, maybe maybe not. Those situations could be
>>>>>> buyer's budget, car useage, who does repairs, etc.. . This
>>>>>> post
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> not arguing with your post, just a clarification to what you
>>>>>> posted.
>>>>>
>>>>>Playing the "odds" is too general without defining what the odds
>>>>>are.
>>>>>As an example, if the odds are that the chance of failure is
>>>>>doubled
>>>>>means little. If the odds are that chance of failure just went
>>>>>from
>>>>>1
>>>>>in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000 the risk is still negligible (.1% to .2%).
>>>>>If
>>>>>the odds are that the chance of failure went from 100 in 1,000 to
>>>>>200
>>>>>in 1,000, the risk of failure were pretty high to begin with and
>>>>>the
>>>>>increase is appreciable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed in theory but in the real world I don't know the "real"
>>>> odds
>>>> so
>>>> I named some real life examples why he could be or not be correct.
>>>> I
>>>> like your thoughts tho on this.... good point !!
>>>
>>>It is funny...whenever I watch the news and they have a story about
>>>some drug or some dietary supplement, the headline always leads in
>>>with something like
>>>
>>>"Blah blah increases risk of cancer by 100%!!!!!!".
>>>
>>>What they don't tell you is what is the real risk, as the big
>>>numbers
>>>grabs the spotlight.
>>>
>>>If the risk of cancer without it is .01%, and the risk with it is
>>>.02%
>>>(which is a 100% increase), one might not want to take it if it's a
>>>dietary supplement that may or may not do much. However, if it is a
>>>medication that is of great benefit in the relief of advanced
>>>rheumatoid arthritis, I would think that this added risk would still
>>>be acceptable.
>>>
>>>I guess it's just the engineer in me.......after all, there are
>>>"lies,
>>>damned lies, and statistics".
>>>
>>
>>
>> I remember when I was in High School (long ago) I had a speech
>> teacher
>> who said you shouldn't use statistics for your speeches. If I
>> recall,
>> it was because they can distort the facts. Now it's funny because
>> that's all you hear from politicians. I wonder if a current speech
>> teacher would agree with my old speech teacher? Any speech teachers
>> reading this post?
>>
>> Stewart, your point is a "good one" but unfortunately those that
>> use
>> the stats, don't want you to think that way . And yes, it's the
>> engineer in you that thinks that way. College taught you to think
>> like that (it did me).
>
>Yes, politicians always seem to talk through a different bodily
>orifice then the rest of us.....
>
Agreed. Lately I'm bothered by their loyalty to partisan thinking
rather than who they actually represent or work for. It's so
frustrating to hear how they don't work together. Gosh, if you did
this in the private sector, you'd be outa business fast. I remember
a friend telling me that he worked with some gov't employees who told
him that there was no need to rush because there is always the next
day. Can you imagine why the gov't is so slow at all levels if they
think like this?
Oh well, I know I've strayed off the Accord so forgive me but to get
back closer to topic.....
Have the 2010 Accords corrected their brake problems that many
complained about in the 08 and 09s ?
wrote:
>
>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>news:8svum515e7fm3dud4qlbg4m8rsch1qr699@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 08:36:59 -0800, "Stewart" <gortamus@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>>>news:i80om5h4i5cb90vehrhgndble4fi1s78c0@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 21:07:22 -0800, "Stewart" <gortamus@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:c5ilm51t050o55dnjlcvb95a8otn97sor4@4ax.c om...
>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:11:23 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>>>>>> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <4b6a35a9$0$5101$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.co m>,
>>>>>>> Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because
>>>>>>>> > it
>>>>>>>> > was the
>>>>>>>> > first model year of an entirely new model, completely new
>>>>>>>> > from
>>>>>>>> > the
>>>>>>>> > inside out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year.
>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary
>>>>>>>> oxygen
>>>>>>>> sensor
>>>>>>>> when it was three years old or so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it
>>>>>>>> daily.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> 85,000 miles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RFT!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you
>>>>>>>understand?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds.
>>>>>>>Why
>>>>>>>stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't
>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elmo, in a generic / general case, you are correct. However in
>>>>>> specific situations, maybe maybe not. Those situations could be
>>>>>> buyer's budget, car useage, who does repairs, etc.. . This
>>>>>> post
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> not arguing with your post, just a clarification to what you
>>>>>> posted.
>>>>>
>>>>>Playing the "odds" is too general without defining what the odds
>>>>>are.
>>>>>As an example, if the odds are that the chance of failure is
>>>>>doubled
>>>>>means little. If the odds are that chance of failure just went
>>>>>from
>>>>>1
>>>>>in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000 the risk is still negligible (.1% to .2%).
>>>>>If
>>>>>the odds are that the chance of failure went from 100 in 1,000 to
>>>>>200
>>>>>in 1,000, the risk of failure were pretty high to begin with and
>>>>>the
>>>>>increase is appreciable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed in theory but in the real world I don't know the "real"
>>>> odds
>>>> so
>>>> I named some real life examples why he could be or not be correct.
>>>> I
>>>> like your thoughts tho on this.... good point !!
>>>
>>>It is funny...whenever I watch the news and they have a story about
>>>some drug or some dietary supplement, the headline always leads in
>>>with something like
>>>
>>>"Blah blah increases risk of cancer by 100%!!!!!!".
>>>
>>>What they don't tell you is what is the real risk, as the big
>>>numbers
>>>grabs the spotlight.
>>>
>>>If the risk of cancer without it is .01%, and the risk with it is
>>>.02%
>>>(which is a 100% increase), one might not want to take it if it's a
>>>dietary supplement that may or may not do much. However, if it is a
>>>medication that is of great benefit in the relief of advanced
>>>rheumatoid arthritis, I would think that this added risk would still
>>>be acceptable.
>>>
>>>I guess it's just the engineer in me.......after all, there are
>>>"lies,
>>>damned lies, and statistics".
>>>
>>
>>
>> I remember when I was in High School (long ago) I had a speech
>> teacher
>> who said you shouldn't use statistics for your speeches. If I
>> recall,
>> it was because they can distort the facts. Now it's funny because
>> that's all you hear from politicians. I wonder if a current speech
>> teacher would agree with my old speech teacher? Any speech teachers
>> reading this post?
>>
>> Stewart, your point is a "good one" but unfortunately those that
>> use
>> the stats, don't want you to think that way
. And yes, it's the>> engineer in you that thinks that way. College taught you to think
>> like that (it did me).
>
>Yes, politicians always seem to talk through a different bodily
>orifice then the rest of us.....
>
Agreed. Lately I'm bothered by their loyalty to partisan thinking
rather than who they actually represent or work for. It's so
frustrating to hear how they don't work together. Gosh, if you did
this in the private sector, you'd be outa business fast. I remember
a friend telling me that he worked with some gov't employees who told
him that there was no need to rush because there is always the next
day. Can you imagine why the gov't is so slow at all levels if they
think like this?
Oh well, I know I've strayed off the Accord so forgive me but to get
back closer to topic.....
Have the 2010 Accords corrected their brake problems that many
complained about in the 08 and 09s ?
02-10-2010, 02:26 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Most reliable Accord models?
Guy wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:21:46 -0500, Gary44<garykrose@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Human Factors in the Training of Pilots By Jefferson M. Koonce wrote:
>>> Are there Accord models of certain years that have particularly good
>>> track record for maintenance and reliability? I'm interested in the
>>> years 1998 to 2008.
>>>
>>> All input greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>> I have a 2005 Accord, and just love it. New tires at 60K, but that's
>> been it, except for basic maintenance. But I'm not a fan of the new
>> Accords; they seem cramped to me.
>
> I thought the new Accords were less cramped because they are larger
So did I, so imagine my surprise when I sat in a 2009 and felt
claustrophobic in it. Considering how much larger it is on the outside
compared to my 2005, I was also surprised that the trunk wasn't
appreciably larger!
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:21:46 -0500, Gary44<garykrose@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Human Factors in the Training of Pilots By Jefferson M. Koonce wrote:
>>> Are there Accord models of certain years that have particularly good
>>> track record for maintenance and reliability? I'm interested in the
>>> years 1998 to 2008.
>>>
>>> All input greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>> I have a 2005 Accord, and just love it. New tires at 60K, but that's
>> been it, except for basic maintenance. But I'm not a fan of the new
>> Accords; they seem cramped to me.
>
> I thought the new Accords were less cramped because they are larger
So did I, so imagine my surprise when I sat in a 2009 and felt
claustrophobic in it. Considering how much larger it is on the outside
compared to my 2005, I was also surprised that the trunk wasn't
appreciably larger!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Hafiz Abdul Qadeer Anwar
Honda Mailing List
0
07-12-2009 10:04 AM
mikeGC
Motorcycle Section
1
10-13-2007 01:05 PM
2TONE_93GT
General Automotive Chat
1
11-21-2006 06:22 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)