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.

 

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.
"rjdriver" <rjdrivers@***.net> wrote in message
news:ZCoPc.18138$cv5.7009@lakeread07...
>
> "Tim" <654@6546.net> wrote in message
news:cejtki0tbp@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > With the problems honda and acura have had with their transmissions the
> last
> > 5 years not to mention ignition switches and numerious other problems I
> > would rule out buying a honda or acura all together.
>
>
> Can you site evidence of this? First I heard. And Consumer Reports
> reliability ratings show no slippage in these two areas in the last 5
years.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Kenneth J. Harris" <kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote in message
> > news:9w7Pc.20247$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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

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.
"rjdriver" <rjdrivers@***.net> wrote in message
news:ZCoPc.18138$cv5.7009@lakeread07...
>
> "Tim" <654@6546.net> wrote in message
news:cejtki0tbp@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > With the problems honda and acura have had with their transmissions the
> last
> > 5 years not to mention ignition switches and numerious other problems I
> > would rule out buying a honda or acura all together.
>
>
> Can you site evidence of this? First I heard. And Consumer Reports
> reliability ratings show no slippage in these two areas in the last 5
years.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Kenneth J. Harris" <kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote in message
> > news:9w7Pc.20247$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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

In article <cepe5q041i@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Tim" <654@6546.net> wrote:

> 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.

 

In article <cepe5q041i@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Tim" <654@6546.net> wrote:

> 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.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> 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.

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.

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> 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.

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.

 

In article <qZhQc.211315$IQ4.26471@attbi_s02>,
"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote:

> > Honda has disappointed many, many of their customers--throwing away
> > years of reputation in the process.
>
> I'd have more faith in them actually fixing the problem.

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.

 

In article <qZhQc.211315$IQ4.26471@attbi_s02>,
"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote:

> > Honda has disappointed many, many of their customers--throwing away
> > years of reputation in the process.
>
> I'd have more faith in them actually fixing the problem.

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.

 

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in message news:<Jason-0108041859140001@pm2-broad-141.snlo.dialup.fix.net>...
> >
> > 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.

I faced the same decision, and went for the 2004 Accord - I even ended
up going with the 4-cylinder after testing it. I decided against the
Acura, a lovely car, because I didn't think the additional $10 was
justified, and also because when I got into the TL, I felt like I was
in the Accord - the climate control, etc. switches were identical.
That turned me off. You can't go wrong on this decision, though, IMO!
Also, I live in MN with about 50" of snow each year, and am
comfortable with just FWD.
RPM

 

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in message news:<Jason-0108041859140001@pm2-broad-141.snlo.dialup.fix.net>...
> >
> > 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.

I faced the same decision, and went for the 2004 Accord - I even ended
up going with the 4-cylinder after testing it. I decided against the
Acura, a lovely car, because I didn't think the additional $10 was
justified, and also because when I got into the TL, I felt like I was
in the Accord - the climate control, etc. switches were identical.
That turned me off. You can't go wrong on this decision, though, IMO!
Also, I live in MN with about 50" of snow each year, and am
comfortable with just FWD.
RPM

 

I want to thank everyone for your posts. I have bought a 2004 Accord EX with the leather option. I passed on the navigation because I already use a laptop with GPS for a small RV and plan to use it in the new Accord when I need it. I paid just under $22K in Ventura, CA and I felt this was discounted enough to make the '04 worth it rather than wait for the '05. This vehicle replaces a '97 Jeep Grand Cherokee, so it is night and day from this. I decided on the Accord for the price, mileage, reliability, appointments, and less complexity than the Acura... Al
"aljudy" <nowhere@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:A8VOc.5073$AY5.1054@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m...
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

 

I want to thank everyone for your posts. I have bought a 2004 Accord EX with the leather option. I passed on the navigation because I already use a laptop with GPS for a small RV and plan to use it in the new Accord when I need it. I paid just under $22K in Ventura, CA and I felt this was discounted enough to make the '04 worth it rather than wait for the '05. This vehicle replaces a '97 Jeep Grand Cherokee, so it is night and day from this. I decided on the Accord for the price, mileage, reliability, appointments, and less complexity than the Acura... Al
"aljudy" <nowhere@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:A8VOc.5073$AY5.1054@newssvr21.news.prodigy.co m...
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

 

So go by a Chrysler then. If what you say is true, we should be
seeing Honda resale values slipping to Chrysler levels. Or better
yet, today, go try to lease a Chrysler and a Honda of the same cost
and compare lease payments (due to residual value differences).

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:09:10 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> 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?
>
>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.

 

So go by a Chrysler then. If what you say is true, we should be
seeing Honda resale values slipping to Chrysler levels. Or better
yet, today, go try to lease a Chrysler and a Honda of the same cost
and compare lease payments (due to residual value differences).

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:09:10 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> 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?
>
>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.