In article <PYOdnTVVbvrkqo3cRVn-tQ@comcast.com> "CaptainKrunch"
<nobody@nothing.com> writes:

>Well the accord is aimed at a certain age demographic, and the Toyota is
>aimed at another demographic. The Camry's are aimed at the old people and
>the Accords aimed at the younger crowd who want a firmer, more sportier
>feel. I do realize you were comparing the Corolla and not the Camry
>
>I have a feeling you are a little old for the Accord

I drive a Dodge Ram pickup, my wife drives a Lexus LS400 and my son drives
an Accord EX. What's that say about us????


--
Help Support Satellite Radio!
Your local radio broadcasters through their powerful NAB lobbyiests
are currently pushing a bill through Congress that if passed, would block
the Satellite Radio services from carrying local content (Traffic & Weather)
Please call your elected representatives at (202) 225-3121 and urge them to
Oppose HR 4026. We need your help, please.
<http://www.xmradio.com/grassroots/index.jsp>

 

Bubba wrote:
> In article <PYOdnTVVbvrkqo3cRVn-tQ@comcast.com> "CaptainKrunch"
> <nobody@nothing.com> writes:
>
>> Well the accord is aimed at a certain age demographic, and the
>> Toyota is aimed at another demographic. The Camry's are aimed at
>> the old people and the Accords aimed at the younger crowd who want a
>> firmer, more sportier feel. I do realize you were comparing the
>> Corolla and not the Camry
>>
>> I have a feeling you are a little old for the Accord
>
> I drive a Dodge Ram pickup, my wife drives a Lexus LS400 and my son
> drives an Accord EX. What's that say about us????

Your wife has excellent taste.
MCB

 

Bubba wrote:
> In article <PYOdnTVVbvrkqo3cRVn-tQ@comcast.com> "CaptainKrunch"
> <nobody@nothing.com> writes:
>
>> Well the accord is aimed at a certain age demographic, and the
>> Toyota is aimed at another demographic. The Camry's are aimed at
>> the old people and the Accords aimed at the younger crowd who want a
>> firmer, more sportier feel. I do realize you were comparing the
>> Corolla and not the Camry
>>
>> I have a feeling you are a little old for the Accord
>
> I drive a Dodge Ram pickup, my wife drives a Lexus LS400 and my son
> drives an Accord EX. What's that say about us????

Your wife has excellent taste.
MCB

 

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 16:18:49 -0700, "Ted" <abc@abc.com> wrote:
>Before I bought the Accord, I thought I will love it. However, I found my
>Accord with Automatic Transmission (96 year model) does not shift as smooth
>as the Corolla that I have. The ride is not as comfortable as Toyota either.

Not sure what model you have, but my experience and the messages on
these groups show that Honda does not really grok the automatic
transmission. Besides the ones that fail entirely, I suspect there
are a lot out there not working right.

But I'm staying with the marque anyway, and so far, the tranny on my
2004 Accord EX 2.4 is 97% excellent. Not sure I'd want to own one out
of warranty, however.

Does Toyota do better with their trannies?

J.

 

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 16:18:49 -0700, "Ted" <abc@abc.com> wrote:
>Before I bought the Accord, I thought I will love it. However, I found my
>Accord with Automatic Transmission (96 year model) does not shift as smooth
>as the Corolla that I have. The ride is not as comfortable as Toyota either.

Not sure what model you have, but my experience and the messages on
these groups show that Honda does not really grok the automatic
transmission. Besides the ones that fail entirely, I suspect there
are a lot out there not working right.

But I'm staying with the marque anyway, and so far, the tranny on my
2004 Accord EX 2.4 is 97% excellent. Not sure I'd want to own one out
of warranty, however.

Does Toyota do better with their trannies?

J.

 

Outside of owning a Honda, I also own a 1997 Ford Taurus GL and within the
first 100,000mi (roughly) of both cars, my Taurus has had several
annoyances. None of which were major mechanical failures although
numerous Taurus owners have had transmission failures with their cars.
Some of the annoyances I experienced were several sensors, wheel bearing,
and tie-rod gone bad. My cruise control just stopped working (probably
sensor related), replaced a broken gear shift cable three months ago,
something underneath in the rear of the car is rusted/broken (hearing
popping sounds whenever I take a left turn), fuel gauge stops working
whenever I make a complete stop after driving 20+ mins, and my
transmission sometimes refuses to engage when I first start the car after
driving it several times during that same day...luckly a quick 'restart'
of the car fixes the problem. Oh yeah, my back left window started
working again this spring! Don't know why...but i'm happy.

Despite the annoyances, I still love my Big Bad Taurus.

My 2000 Civic EX has had no problems to date. But $8,000 is a lot of
savings. If you don't mind the annoyances which may/will come with owning
a Taurus, go Ford. Otherwise, go Honda.

-AGS

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:39:02 GMT, Bob S. <bsnoma@msn.com> wrote:

> Don't do it, I had a Taurus once and I had every kind of problems, that I
> decided to sell it a few months later. And of course, it put me upside
> down.
> I am glad I got rid of that P.O.S.
> Never again, I can tell you that.
>
> "Fred Smith" <fred@freddy.com> wrote in message
> news:410fdf31.0@news.syr.edu...
> : I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
> : The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
> : for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
> depreciation
> : and the Accord low depreciation.
> :
> : Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly
> from
> an
> : economic
> : point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
> : eventually account
> : for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
> : average mileage?
> :
> : I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a
> nicer,
> : tighter, better made car, and
> : some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can
> make
> : an business case for
> : the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend
> the
> : extra money. : )
> :
> : Fred
> :
> :
> :
>
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

 

Outside of owning a Honda, I also own a 1997 Ford Taurus GL and within the
first 100,000mi (roughly) of both cars, my Taurus has had several
annoyances. None of which were major mechanical failures although
numerous Taurus owners have had transmission failures with their cars.
Some of the annoyances I experienced were several sensors, wheel bearing,
and tie-rod gone bad. My cruise control just stopped working (probably
sensor related), replaced a broken gear shift cable three months ago,
something underneath in the rear of the car is rusted/broken (hearing
popping sounds whenever I take a left turn), fuel gauge stops working
whenever I make a complete stop after driving 20+ mins, and my
transmission sometimes refuses to engage when I first start the car after
driving it several times during that same day...luckly a quick 'restart'
of the car fixes the problem. Oh yeah, my back left window started
working again this spring! Don't know why...but i'm happy.

Despite the annoyances, I still love my Big Bad Taurus.

My 2000 Civic EX has had no problems to date. But $8,000 is a lot of
savings. If you don't mind the annoyances which may/will come with owning
a Taurus, go Ford. Otherwise, go Honda.

-AGS

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:39:02 GMT, Bob S. <bsnoma@msn.com> wrote:

> Don't do it, I had a Taurus once and I had every kind of problems, that I
> decided to sell it a few months later. And of course, it put me upside
> down.
> I am glad I got rid of that P.O.S.
> Never again, I can tell you that.
>
> "Fred Smith" <fred@freddy.com> wrote in message
> news:410fdf31.0@news.syr.edu...
> : I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
> : The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
> : for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
> depreciation
> : and the Accord low depreciation.
> :
> : Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly
> from
> an
> : economic
> : point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
> : eventually account
> : for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
> : average mileage?
> :
> : I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a
> nicer,
> : tighter, better made car, and
> : some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can
> make
> : an business case for
> : the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend
> the
> : extra money. : )
> :
> : Fred
> :
> :
> :
>
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

 

Ted wrote:
> I did test drive, but didn't pay attention for the transmission issue. It
> was not very noticable when car was warm, and it was only noticable between
> the 1st and the 2nd gear. That's all my fault.

I had a 94 Accord EXR (same gear box as your 96), and it dit shift
harder between 1st and 2nd, as do many older Hondas or Acuras with
automatic transmissions. But the hard shifting happens at all times,
whether the car is warm or not. There is nothing wrong with the
transmissions, that's just how they are built. You should have noticed
it during a test drive.

> In fact, I don't like Cadillac. I found it is not comfortable because it is
> too soft. On the other hand, it is also costy. I was looking for a reliable
> family car, both Camry and Accord were on my list. But I couldn't find a
> suitable Camry at that time. That's why I choosed the Accord. But I
> regreted.

When I decided to buy my 01 Prelude a few months ago, I test drove
several different cars (Honda Prelude and Accord coupe, Acura RSX and
Integra, Subaru WRX STi, VW Golf VR6) that were in the same class before
finally deciding on the Prelude. A matter of personal prefference, but I
liked it the most and it also fit my budget. Once I settled on the
Prelude, I looked at 15 different ones and drove about 5-6 over the next
_two months_ untill I found one in good shape at a reasonable price.

The reason for this rant is to show how a car should be bought (I hope
others will agree). If you rush into it, you're almost guaranteed not to
like it in the long run. Even if the car is in perfect shape, it does
not match your expectations.

> I am not saying Honda is not good. But it just does not meet my requirement.

Your first post implied that you hate Hondas and that the OP should buy
a Taurus. What else would you mean by "I will never buy another Honda"?

Cosmin

 

Ted wrote:
> I did test drive, but didn't pay attention for the transmission issue. It
> was not very noticable when car was warm, and it was only noticable between
> the 1st and the 2nd gear. That's all my fault.

I had a 94 Accord EXR (same gear box as your 96), and it dit shift
harder between 1st and 2nd, as do many older Hondas or Acuras with
automatic transmissions. But the hard shifting happens at all times,
whether the car is warm or not. There is nothing wrong with the
transmissions, that's just how they are built. You should have noticed
it during a test drive.

> In fact, I don't like Cadillac. I found it is not comfortable because it is
> too soft. On the other hand, it is also costy. I was looking for a reliable
> family car, both Camry and Accord were on my list. But I couldn't find a
> suitable Camry at that time. That's why I choosed the Accord. But I
> regreted.

When I decided to buy my 01 Prelude a few months ago, I test drove
several different cars (Honda Prelude and Accord coupe, Acura RSX and
Integra, Subaru WRX STi, VW Golf VR6) that were in the same class before
finally deciding on the Prelude. A matter of personal prefference, but I
liked it the most and it also fit my budget. Once I settled on the
Prelude, I looked at 15 different ones and drove about 5-6 over the next
_two months_ untill I found one in good shape at a reasonable price.

The reason for this rant is to show how a car should be bought (I hope
others will agree). If you rush into it, you're almost guaranteed not to
like it in the long run. Even if the car is in perfect shape, it does
not match your expectations.

> I am not saying Honda is not good. But it just does not meet my requirement.

Your first post implied that you hate Hondas and that the OP should buy
a Taurus. What else would you mean by "I will never buy another Honda"?

Cosmin

 

AGS wrote:
> Outside of owning a Honda, I also own a 1997 Ford Taurus GL and within
> the first 100,000mi (roughly) of both cars, my Taurus has had several
> annoyances. None of which were major mechanical failures although
> numerous Taurus owners have had transmission failures with their cars.
> Some of the annoyances I experienced were several sensors, wheel
> bearing, and tie-rod gone bad. My cruise control just stopped working
> (probably sensor related), replaced a broken gear shift cable three
> months ago, something underneath in the rear of the car is
> rusted/broken (hearing popping sounds whenever I take a left turn),
> fuel gauge stops working whenever I make a complete stop after driving
> 20+ mins, and my transmission sometimes refuses to engage when I first
> start the car after driving it several times during that same
> day...luckly a quick 'restart' of the car fixes the problem. Oh yeah,
> my back left window started working again this spring! Don't know
> why...but i'm happy.
>
> Despite the annoyances, I still love my Big Bad Taurus.
>
> My 2000 Civic EX has had no problems to date. But $8,000 is a lot of
> savings. If you don't mind the annoyances which may/will come with
> owning a Taurus, go Ford. Otherwise, go Honda.
>
> -AGS
>
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:39:02 GMT, Bob S. <bsnoma@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't do it, I had a Taurus once and I had every kind of problems, that I
>> decided to sell it a few months later. And of course, it put me
>> upside down.
>> I am glad I got rid of that P.O.S.
>> Never again, I can tell you that.
>>
>> "Fred Smith" <fred@freddy.com> wrote in message
>> news:410fdf31.0@news.syr.edu...
>> : I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
>> : The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
>> : for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
>> depreciation
>> : and the Accord low depreciation.
>> :
>> : Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly
>> from
>> an
>> : economic
>> : point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
>> : eventually account
>> : for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
>> : average mileage?
>> :
>> : I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a
>> nicer,
>> : tighter, better made car, and
>> : some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can
>> make
>> : an business case for
>> : the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to
>> spend the
>> : extra money. : )
>> :
>> : Fred
>> :
>> :
>> :
>>
>>
>
>
>
Hi,
Just simple fact. Even if Taurus were reliable, think about
trade-in(resale) value on either car. Honda wins hands down.
Tony

 

AGS wrote:
> Outside of owning a Honda, I also own a 1997 Ford Taurus GL and within
> the first 100,000mi (roughly) of both cars, my Taurus has had several
> annoyances. None of which were major mechanical failures although
> numerous Taurus owners have had transmission failures with their cars.
> Some of the annoyances I experienced were several sensors, wheel
> bearing, and tie-rod gone bad. My cruise control just stopped working
> (probably sensor related), replaced a broken gear shift cable three
> months ago, something underneath in the rear of the car is
> rusted/broken (hearing popping sounds whenever I take a left turn),
> fuel gauge stops working whenever I make a complete stop after driving
> 20+ mins, and my transmission sometimes refuses to engage when I first
> start the car after driving it several times during that same
> day...luckly a quick 'restart' of the car fixes the problem. Oh yeah,
> my back left window started working again this spring! Don't know
> why...but i'm happy.
>
> Despite the annoyances, I still love my Big Bad Taurus.
>
> My 2000 Civic EX has had no problems to date. But $8,000 is a lot of
> savings. If you don't mind the annoyances which may/will come with
> owning a Taurus, go Ford. Otherwise, go Honda.
>
> -AGS
>
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:39:02 GMT, Bob S. <bsnoma@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't do it, I had a Taurus once and I had every kind of problems, that I
>> decided to sell it a few months later. And of course, it put me
>> upside down.
>> I am glad I got rid of that P.O.S.
>> Never again, I can tell you that.
>>
>> "Fred Smith" <fred@freddy.com> wrote in message
>> news:410fdf31.0@news.syr.edu...
>> : I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord.
>> : The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper
>> : for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of
>> depreciation
>> : and the Accord low depreciation.
>> :
>> : Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly
>> from
>> an
>> : economic
>> : point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to
>> : eventually account
>> : for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with
>> : average mileage?
>> :
>> : I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a
>> nicer,
>> : tighter, better made car, and
>> : some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can
>> make
>> : an business case for
>> : the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to
>> spend the
>> : extra money. : )
>> :
>> : Fred
>> :
>> :
>> :
>>
>>
>
>
>
Hi,
Just simple fact. Even if Taurus were reliable, think about
trade-in(resale) value on either car. Honda wins hands down.
Tony

 

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:HYdQc.12985$J06.9527@pd7tw2no...
> Hi,
> Just simple fact. Even if Taurus were reliable, think about
> trade-in(resale) value on either car. Honda wins hands down.
> Tony

Very true, but I tend to keep my cars a long time. In five years or maybe
even much longer than that, the difference in trade-in won't come close to
making up even half of the $8,000.00.

 

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:HYdQc.12985$J06.9527@pd7tw2no...
> Hi,
> Just simple fact. Even if Taurus were reliable, think about
> trade-in(resale) value on either car. Honda wins hands down.
> Tony

Very true, but I tend to keep my cars a long time. In five years or maybe
even much longer than that, the difference in trade-in won't come close to
making up even half of the $8,000.00.

 

Fred Smith wrote:
> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:HYdQc.12985$J06.9527@pd7tw2no...
>
>>Hi,
>>Just simple fact. Even if Taurus were reliable, think about
>>trade-in(resale) value on either car. Honda wins hands down.
>>Tony
>
>
> Very true, but I tend to keep my cars a long time. In five years or maybe
> even much longer than that, the difference in trade-in won't come close to
> making up even half of the $8,000.00.

On the Toronto autotrader (Canadian currency prices) a 98-99 Taurus
sells for $13-4k while a 98-99 Accord sells for $19-7.5k, both depending
on model and condition. So even after 6 years the difference in value
between the two cars is still $6-4k.

Add to that the fact that the Taurus is far from being a reliable car.
Most likely the money you would save right now if buying a Taurus will
be spent on repairs.

Cosmin

 

Fred Smith wrote:
> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:HYdQc.12985$J06.9527@pd7tw2no...
>
>>Hi,
>>Just simple fact. Even if Taurus were reliable, think about
>>trade-in(resale) value on either car. Honda wins hands down.
>>Tony
>
>
> Very true, but I tend to keep my cars a long time. In five years or maybe
> even much longer than that, the difference in trade-in won't come close to
> making up even half of the $8,000.00.

On the Toronto autotrader (Canadian currency prices) a 98-99 Taurus
sells for $13-4k while a 98-99 Accord sells for $19-7.5k, both depending
on model and condition. So even after 6 years the difference in value
between the two cars is still $6-4k.

Add to that the fact that the Taurus is far from being a reliable car.
Most likely the money you would save right now if buying a Taurus will
be spent on repairs.

Cosmin