Whats the best year of Accords?
 

I have been now looking for the past two weeks, and still cannot find
one. What year do you folks recommend for an Accord?

I am looking for a 1998-2001 Honda Accord EX with leather seats, moon
roof, and a 5 or 6 speed manual, but I have not found one. It appears
that Accords are rarely made in stick.

Thanks!

---
be your own boss, earn residual income, and help others while you do
it!
http://www.idrink.us

Have health problems? Monavie can help!

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

mopa wrote:
> I have been now looking for the past two weeks, and still cannot find
> one. What year do you folks recommend for an Accord?
>
> I am looking for a 1998-2001 Honda Accord EX with leather seats, moon
> roof, and a 5 or 6 speed manual, but I have not found one. It appears
> that Accords are rarely made in stick.
>
> Thanks!

'87 baby.... 3Geez da shizzle!


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0603-3, 01/18/2006
Tested on: 1/20/2006 12:30:54 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

mopa wrote:

> I am looking for a 1998-2001 Honda Accord EX with leather seats, moon
> roof, and a 5 or 6 speed manual, but I have not found one. It appears
> that Accords are rarely made in stick.

The 6-speed was only made available on the coupe for 2003 and on the sedan
for this year (I think). But both are very limited production models
anyway (and they are V6 models).

If you want a '98-'02 with a manual, your only choice of engine is a
4-cylinder. The V6 was available only with an automatic.

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

My current Accord is a 1999 EX Leather manual so it fits your search.
As you have surmised, they are rare. I had to order it and wait a
month or two for it to become available when I bought it back in 1999.
even then, I had little choice of color.

The dealer told me that people who buy the EX, especially the leather
version, rarely wanted a manual transmission. When my car arrived the
salesperson was amazed at how much snappier my car performed compared
to the automatic EX models. It's a great car and I am not about to
sell it.

Best of luck with your search.

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

In article <1137736492.112282.160090@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
"mopa" <buttakid@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I am looking for a 1998-2001 Honda Accord EX with leather seats, moon
> roof, and a 5 or 6 speed manual, but I have not found one. It appears
> that Accords are rarely made in stick.

I had one, albeit without the leather.

You can go to hondacars.com and search the Certified Used inventory in
your area. That's how I found my 2000 EX 5 speed a couple of years ago.

That's my favorite generation of Accord, btw, as long as you don't have
a 6 cylinder engine with the infamous horrible automatic transmission.
Stick with the 4 cylinder engine.

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

Thanks guys, I think im going to go with the 2003 Honda Accord Ex Coupe
5 speed 4 cyl. What do you think of those?

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

Thanks guys, I think im going to go with the 2003 Honda Accord Ex Coupe
5 speed 4 cyl. What do you think of those? I heard the timing belt in
2003 changed to a chain, and is no longer the rubber belt... so that is
a great thing!

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

mopa wrote:

> Thanks guys, I think im going to go with the 2003 Honda Accord Ex Coupe
> 5 speed 4 cyl. What do you think of those? I heard the timing belt in
> 2003 changed to a chain, and is no longer the rubber belt... so that is
> a great thing!

By 5-speed, I am assuming you mean a 5-speed manual? The automatic on
the current Accord also has 5 gears. :-)

And yes, the 4-cylinder did get a timing chain starting with the '03 model.

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:40:51 -0500, High Tech Misfit <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
>And yes, the 4-cylinder did get a timing chain starting with the '03 model.

Mildly curious as to why? Is it to make the 100k mile service point?

J.

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

JXStern wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:40:51 -0500, High Tech Misfit <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>>And yes, the 4-cylinder did get a timing chain starting with the '03 model.
>
>
> Mildly curious as to why? Is it to make the 100k mile service point?
>
> J.
>
no, belts make 100k no problem. more likely it's to make replacement
prohibitively expensive. bean counters rule at honda these days, so
cars that routinely do 400k or more with changes of a $30 belt are not
considered to be useful in the revenue stream.

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:asmdnc37JqLXdE_eRVn-jw@speakeasy.net...
> JXStern wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:40:51 -0500, High Tech Misfit <me@privacy.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>And yes, the 4-cylinder did get a timing chain starting with the '03
>>>model.
>>
>>
>> Mildly curious as to why? Is it to make the 100k mile service point?
>>
>> J.
>>
> no, belts make 100k no problem. more likely it's to make replacement
> prohibitively expensive. bean counters rule at honda these days, so cars
> that routinely do 400k or more with changes of a $30 belt are not
> considered to be useful in the revenue stream.

In the Toyota world, I know the belt was replaces with a chain to make use
of the Veritable Valve Technology-- Also gat rid of the EGR valve by doing
that.


--
Stephen W. Hansen
ASE Certified Master Automobile Technician
ASE Automobile Advanced Engine Performance
ASE Undercar Specialist

http://autorepair.about.com/cs/troub...l_obd_main.htm
http://www.troublecodes.net/technical/

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

Stephen H wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:asmdnc37JqLXdE_eRVn-jw@speakeasy.net...
>
>>JXStern wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:40:51 -0500, High Tech Misfit <me@privacy.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And yes, the 4-cylinder did get a timing chain starting with the '03
>>>>model.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mildly curious as to why? Is it to make the 100k mile service point?
>>>
>>>J.
>>>
>>
>>no, belts make 100k no problem. more likely it's to make replacement
>>prohibitively expensive. bean counters rule at honda these days, so cars
>>that routinely do 400k or more with changes of a $30 belt are not
>>considered to be useful in the revenue stream.
>
>
> In the Toyota world, I know the belt was replaces with a chain to make use
> of the Veritable Valve Technology-- Also gat rid of the EGR valve by doing
> that.
>
>
iirc, porsche & mercedes use belts for the same thing. chain is an
engine life policy decision, not a technology accommodation decision.

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:09:12 -0800, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
wrote:
>>>And yes, the 4-cylinder did get a timing chain starting with the '03 model.
>>
>> Mildly curious as to why? Is it to make the 100k mile service point?
>>
>no, belts make 100k no problem. more likely it's to make replacement
>prohibitively expensive. bean counters rule at honda these days, so
>cars that routinely do 400k or more with changes of a $30 belt are not
>considered to be useful in the revenue stream.

Hmm, well, I'm usually on the side of the cynical, but I don't see how
this would produce more Honda revenue. Sell fewer spare parts, for
one thing, but mostly because I think there's a disconnect between the
new car market and the used car market, relatively few people buy a
new car and hold it twenty years, then return for another only from
the same vendor. Any other alternative explanations? Not that I
expect every corporate decision to be rational.

J.

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
news:59c7t1l9enr64nffbno3f2qmsdmbn9onb0@4ax.com...
> Hmm, well, I'm usually on the side of the cynical, but I don't see how
> this would produce more Honda revenue. Sell fewer spare parts, for
> one thing, but mostly because I think there's a disconnect between the
> new car market and the used car market, relatively few people buy a
> new car and hold it twenty years, then return for another only from
> the same vendor. Any other alternative explanations? Not that I
> expect every corporate decision to be rational.
>
> J.
>
Frankly, I don't know what has prompted the shift from belts to chains.
Chains used to be the norm, but they were hardly any more reliable than
belts. IIRC 60K miles was the life expectancy of timing chains in the '60s
through '80s. I unloaded a 1984 Dodge with a Mitsubishi "silent shaft"
engine around 90K miles because the timing chain was worn out and chewing on
the timing chain cover. Step one in replacement was "remove engine from car"
to provide room to get the timing chain cover off.

Maybe better oils have improved timing chain life.

Mike

Re: Whats the best year of Accords?
 

JXStern wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:09:12 -0800, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>>And yes, the 4-cylinder did get a timing chain starting with the '03 model.
>>>
>>>Mildly curious as to why? Is it to make the 100k mile service point?
>>>
>>
>>no, belts make 100k no problem. more likely it's to make replacement
>>prohibitively expensive. bean counters rule at honda these days, so
>>cars that routinely do 400k or more with changes of a $30 belt are not
>>considered to be useful in the revenue stream.
>
>
> Hmm, well, I'm usually on the side of the cynical, but I don't see how
> this would produce more Honda revenue. Sell fewer spare parts, for
> one thing, but mostly because I think there's a disconnect between the
> new car market and the used car market, relatively few people buy a
> new car and hold it twenty years, then return for another only from
> the same vendor. Any other alternative explanations? Not that I
> expect every corporate decision to be rational.
>
> J.
>
most people have their car serviced at a dealer, so let's look at dealer
costs. if the car's 100k miles old, and worth say $5k, most people will
pay $1000 to do the belts, pump, ignition wiring, etc. as a high mileage
"tune up". and it's worth it to keep the car on the road for another
100k miles. but most people will /not/ pay $3000 to get to the same
place with a chain replacement. chains generally cost more, require new
driving cogs, and require a much more substantial strip-down of the
engine to replace, hence the job is much more expensive. add to that
the fact that chains get noisy, and soon the motor is on the slope
toward driver irritation [and a new car sale] /long/ before a belt
driven motor would be.

agreed, chains "last longer", but they don't last 400k, and anything
much beyond 150k, the value of the car vs. cost to replace equation
makes keeping the car on the road uneconomic. if you're a manufacturer
run by bean counters and those bean counters are under some misguided
impression that customer loyalty is something that won't evaporate so
they can start, as caesar once said, shaving their sheep, not shearing
them, chain drive is the way to go.