Honda Car Forum

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

These are both Honda-built cars and so both should provide you with a long
and reliable service life. Bear in mind of course that the more complex
feature load may at some point prove problematic and require more
servicing. However, don't try to compensate for this by purchasing an
extended warranty. There is no value in an EW except to the dealer.

However, since there are different accessories and features *YOU* have to
decide which of these are more important *TO YOU*. Right now with the
high fuel prices I would think with all else being equal that fuel economy
would be an important factor. Of course unless you drive a lot of miles,
the difference in only a couple MPG are going to have little impact, so
you have to weigh this item carefully.

The Accura is more of a "status symbol". Are social appearances important?
Do you need to impress someone? If not, then the Accord gets the check
mark in this column.

Arguably, in the long term I think you're going to find the Accord (EX)
hard to beat. While you're at it, get the NAV package, you'll love it.

Just be mindful of the fact that the 2005s are going to be rolling into
your dealer's showroom very soon. My opinion on this topic is that unless
you can buy last year's model (2004) equally equipped for at least 20%
less than you can buy a new 2005, go for the 2005. In other words, why buy
a car that's already a year old (and a year already depreciated in value)
when the difference in monthly payments would be minimal? At the end of a
typical 5-yr note the 2004 will be 6 yrs old and worth less, but you will
have paid almost the same for it as you would a 2005.

There really is little incentive right now to buy a 2004 instead of a
2005. All the dealers are really HURTING because of the depressed car
market. My bet is with some aggressive haggling that you're going to be
able to strike as good a deal on an '05 as you will on an '04.

Remember, forget the extended warranty. It's not a warranty at all, it's a
mechanical breakdown insurance police with a per-occurrence deductible
that *DOES NOT* cover the car bumper-to-bumper. Honda cars are among the
most reliable on the road today. Your chances of just breaking even with
the policy's high up-front cost is historically slim. However, if you're
utterly convinced that you want an EW, for goodness' sake don't buy it
from the dealer. Instead contact your auto insurance company. Both State
Farm and Allstate offer a similar plan at a remarkable savings over the
dealership's plan.

In article <A8VOc.5073$AY5.1054@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> "aljudy"
<nowhere@yahoo.com> writes:

>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 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 <A8VOc.5073$AY5.1054@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> , aljudy
<nowhere@yahoo.com> 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.

I recently purchased a 2004 Accord V6-EX (no navigation) and
considered a 2004 Acura TL. For me, the choice of the Accord was
almost a no-brainer.

There is no doubt that the TL is a better car, but the TL costs
almost $8K more.

If you compare features and specifications, the Accord and TL are
extrememly similar. Yes, the TL has a slightly more powerful
engine and the TL has slightly better handling. Both have traction
control and similar transmissions. The interior of the TL is somewhat
more fancy, but only slightly so.

The accord V6-EX comes with leather, a very good sound system (yes,
the TL has a somewhat better one) and a well laid out driver's
console. The Accord V6-EX is an entry level luxury car in every
way except price.

If the somewhat better handling and performance are extremely
important to you, and the extra $8K is not an inssue, go with the
TL. If you "settle" for the Accord, you won't be disappointed
however.

--
Harvey J. Cohen, Ph. D.
-------

"The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make
sense." - Tom Clancy

------------------------------------------------------------------

Harvey J Cohen wrote:
> In article <A8VOc.5073$AY5.1054@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> , aljudy
> <nowhere@yahoo.com> 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.
>
> I recently purchased a 2004 Accord V6-EX (no navigation) and
> considered a 2004 Acura TL. For me, the choice of the Accord was
> almost a no-brainer.
>
> There is no doubt that the TL is a better car, but the TL costs
> almost $8K more.
>
> If you compare features and specifications, the Accord and TL are
> extrememly similar. Yes, the TL has a slightly more powerful
> engine and the TL has slightly better handling. Both have traction
> control and similar transmissions. The interior of the TL is
> somewhat more fancy, but only slightly so.
>
> The accord V6-EX comes with leather, a very good sound system (yes,
> the TL has a somewhat better one) and a well laid out driver's
> console. The Accord V6-EX is an entry level luxury car in every
> way except price.
>
> If the somewhat better handling and performance are extremely
> important to you, and the extra $8K is not an inssue, go with the
> TL. If you "settle" for the Accord, you won't be disappointed
> however.

Does not the Acura 6 cyl also require 93 octane gas? Heard this somewhere,
but never verified it.....

In article <Ss9Pc.209628$JR4.162433@attbi_s54>, L Alpert
<alpertl@xxcomcast.net> wrote:


> Does not the Acura 6 cyl also require 93 octane gas? Heard this somewhere,
> but never verified it.....
>
>

The TL requires "Premium" unleaded gas, which if memory serves
me correctly is a 91 Octane gas., at least in Southern Cal.

--
Harvey J. Cohen, Ph. D.
-------

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as
you please. -- Mark Twain
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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 thoughts... Al
all accura cars require hi octane gas, get the honda.

Recommended, but not absolutely required. These cars have a built-in knock
sensor which automatically retards the timing to prevent spark knock (and
associated damage) whenever lower octane fuel is used.

Of course performance and efficiency suffer, but no damage occurs.


In article <10gqoauajno679c@corp.supernews.com> "jack" <goose1@cox-in.com>
writes:

>
> "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 thoughts... Al
> all accura cars require hi octane gas, get the honda.

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
>

>
> 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.