New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities

New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby communipaw » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:54 pm

I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

As most people, my main criteria are reliability and overall economy, not just gas mileage. My specific criteria are GREAT air conditioning and quietness.

Why not just get another Accord V6? My current one is fine except for it's size and close quarter maneuverability. It's length [189"] is a drawback in finding spaces in parallel [curb] parking which I do all the time and its 38 foot turning circle is a drawback in all the ramped garages I use.

I don't need a high horsepower engine but do want an engine with a good amount of low rpm torque, parallel to my current 2003 Accord 6. I want to keep a 6 engine for comfortable and quiet merging into high speed traffic and also for quickly getting from 20 mph to 40/45 mph.

The 4 I had in a 1993 Civic and the 4 I tested in a 2012 Corolla were loud but weak on acceleration. A turbo 4 in a Hyundai was also loud and, although it had better low speed torque, was relatively jerky. The Civic SI does have a large [2.4] 4 in a relatively short body with a relatively light weight but it only comes with stick shift which I don't want.

The only relatively short cars with 6 engines I've seen are BMWs, Mercedes Benz and Audis which are not in my desired economic range, since I'd rather not go over $35,000.

Any suggestions others might have?
communipaw
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:15 am

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby LadyGeek » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:57 pm

This thread is now in the Personal Consumer Issues forum (car).
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
 
Posts: 18863
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby RobG » Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:59 pm

I was really skeptical but I got outvoted (wife+2kids) and bought a 2004 Prius. So far I'm mostly happy. I was surprised that it was a better buy than Accords and similar cars (on the private market anyway - I calculated the cost/mile left assuming the car would die at 200k-250k miles). The engine/motor combo gives good acceleration when needed, but when you don't need the acceleration only the small engine is on so your gas mileage is good.

As a bonus, with the back seats down it even has enough space to haul two deer inside, which is an important figure of merit around here. :D
Stay thrifty my friends.
RobG
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:59 am
Location: Bozeman, MT

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby William4u » Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:07 am

The Prius, Hybrid Camry, and Hybrid Avalon are all good cars that are good on gas and reliable. Toyota's hybrids are rock solid.
User avatar
William4u
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby gt4715b » Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:12 am

There aren't many cars that meet your specifications. You're not going to find a V6 in a car shorter than the Accord nowadays. Everyone is going towards turbo 4 cylinders. Additionally, you're looking for a car with performance characteristics but don't want a manual transmission. Some cars that I would consider are listed below. The Impreza and Focus may be a bit too aggressive your your taste however.

2013 Subaru Impreza WRX (Hatchback): 173.8 inches
2013 Ford Focus ST: 171.6 inches
Volvo C30 T5: 167.4 inches
Audi A3: 168.7 inches
gt4715b
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:29 am

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby stingray5688 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:19 am

(Used) lexus IS350
"Don't be emotional about investing. So even a first investment should not be exciting." - livesoft
stingray5688
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:58 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby StormShadow » Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:23 am

Personally I like Accords and Camrys, but if its a smaller car with some punch you're looking for...

Volkswagen GTI
Subaru Impreza WRX (if automatic is a must you could go for the regular Impreza)
StormShadow
 
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:20 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby jda » Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:48 am

Golf tdi good low end torque, good fuel economy, small turning radius and here is the best part it's not a Toyota or a Honda.
jda
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:03 am

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby Alex Frakt » Wed Feb 13, 2013 3:58 am

6 cylinder, under 35k, and substantially shorter than 189" doesn't currently exist in the US. So what are you willing to compromise on? I'll give a few options.

The Buick Verano Turbo is 184" long and has a 250hp turbo 4. Every reviewer remarks on how quiet it is and it has a lot of power, but handling will not be inspiring (although far better than Buicks of old).

The Acura ILX is 179" long. It's a very upmarket version of the Civic, with extra sound insulation and a better interior. Unfortunately if you want an auto, you will be stuck with a 150hp 2.0 4 cylinder. There's a hybrid version, but it's even slower.

Jetta SportWagon is 179" long with an 170hp 5 cylinder engine. You can also get a diesel with an impressive 236 lb-ft of torque, but you are taking a chance with long term reliability.

if you are one of those enlightened souls who like hatchbacks, the VW Golf and Mazda3 hatchbacks meet your length, sportiness and power requirements. The tradeoff is noise and perhaps some ride refinement.
Alex Frakt
Founder
 
Posts: 9460
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby mike143 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:03 am

When I bought my 2004 4 cylinder Accord is was due to the fact the 4 cylinder had a timing chain versus the V6 timing belt, which equates to lower ownership cost. I believe most manufactures are now similar, belt in the 6, chain in the 4. Honda 4 cylinder engine love to take it to redline. The wife's 2012 Civic (auto) is very sedate under normal conditions but put it to the floor it screams with joy, same with my 2004 4 cylinder Accord (manual). If you want another 10 year car I would suggest the 2013 Civic or ILX, both variants available in a more fun edition if you take the manual. The TSX is also an option at 185.6" overall length, a Civic sedan is 179.4" overall length. A off the wall option if you are mostly considering compactness and fit for four adults is the Kia Soul at 162.2" length.
Nothing is free, someone pays.
User avatar
mike143
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby camaro327 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:04 am

Gee, I would like a 200 mph, gets 40 mpg, and sits five people comfortably, but it doesn't exist.

In all seriousness, your specs pretty much rule out all but V6 as others have noted. The only other thing is to make some test drives on the 4 cylinders. It's both the combination of engine and the quality of the transmission. Some companies just have the combination of the two set up better.

Also, I'm not sure if anybody mentioned the VW GTI or GLI. Both those have turbos, but might meet your size specifications. I'm not sure what the latest ratings are on reliability for these though.
camaro327
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:04 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby mike143 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:12 am

camaro327 wrote:Gee, I would like a 200 mph, gets 40 mpg, and sits five people comfortably, but it doesn't exist.

In all seriousness, your specs pretty much rule out all but V6 as others have noted. The only other thing is to make some test drives on the 4 cylinders. It's both the combination of engine and the quality of the transmission. Some companies just have the combination of the two set up better.

Also, I'm not sure if anybody mentioned the VW GTI or GLI. Both those have turbos, but might meet your size specifications. I'm not sure what the latest ratings are on reliability for these though.

I personally would stay away from Honda V6 automatic transmissions, they historically have had high probability of early failure.

Edit: In regards to fuel economy, the wife's 2012 Civic is usually at 36 mpg tank average when she is driving it and I easily do over 40+ mpg on medium distance trips. It will also do 40-41 mpg on cruise at 70 mph. The car simply amazes me, just wonder what it would do with ethanol free fuel.
Nothing is free, someone pays.
User avatar
mike143
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby Dick D » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:38 am

We currently have a 2002 Accord EXL- V6 with 152,000 miles. When ready, I will replace it with another Accord or Acura. Recently purchased a 2013 Acura RDX. The car is great to drive. The ride and interior comfort is significantly better than the CRV that it replaced. We drive into New York and park on the street at least 2 times per month. The RDX is easy to park on the streets of NY with the back up cameras. You will find that many new cars have this feature. The Currently we are averaging 25 mpg.
Dick D
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:55 am
Location: Connecticut

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby Keep It Simple » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:47 am

mike143 wrote:I personally would stay away from Honda V6 automatic transmissions, they historically have had high probability of early failure.


What on earth are you talking about...an isolated incident? Honda V6 engines are extremely reliable. I don't think you will find too many people here who would agree with your statement or that have had many bad experiences with the Honda engine in general. I read mostly praise for it.

K.I.S.
Keep It Simple
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:07 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby Eagle784 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:49 am

A 2012 RAV4 V6 (182in.) is a smallish car with a v6 (269hp) and under $30K (if you hurry, you should still be able to find it new).

Not sure about the AC etc.
Last edited by Eagle784 on Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eagle784
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:12 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby mike143 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:51 am

Keep It Simple wrote:
mike143 wrote:I personally would stay away from Honda V6 automatic transmissions, they historically have had high probability of early failure.


What on earth are you talking about...an isolated incident? Honda V6 engines are extremely reliable. I don't think you will find too many people here who would agree with your statement or that have had many bad experiences with the Honda engine in general. I read mostly praise for it.

K.I.S.

V6 HONDA TRANSMISSIONS. All my vehicles have been Hondas expect my first, you are speaking to the choir.
Nothing is free, someone pays.
User avatar
mike143
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby marcwd » Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:04 am

Alex Frakt wrote:The Acura ILX is 179" long. It's a very upmarket version of the Civic, with extra sound insulation and a better interior.


It may have extra sound insulation, but, disappointingly, the reviews I've seen all comment on the noisiness of the 2.4L version.
marcwd
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:15 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby marcwd » Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:13 am

mike143 wrote:I personally would stay away from Honda V6 automatic transmissions, they historically have had high probability of early failure.



The 6-speed manual transmission offered with the V6 engine hasn't been without problems either. Numerous reports of 3rd-gear issues. I believe there may have been a Honda service bulletin that addresses this.
marcwd
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:15 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby mike143 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:31 am

marcwd wrote:
mike143 wrote:I personally would stay away from Honda V6 automatic transmissions, they historically have had high probability of early failure.



The 6-speed manual transmission offered with the V6 engine hasn't been without problems either. Numerous reports of 3rd-gear issues. I believe there may have been a Honda service bulletin that addresses this.

All the Hondas I have owned have been 4 cylinder manual transmissions: 89 Accord LXi Sedan, 96 Civic CX, 91 CRX DX, 96 Civic EX Coupe, and now 04 Accord LX Sedan. The 4 cylinder manual 2004 Accord is more than enough to keep me entertained and just short of getting me in too much trouble.
Nothing is free, someone pays.
User avatar
mike143
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby Keep It Simple » Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:34 am

marcwd wrote:
mike143 wrote:I personally would stay away from Honda V6 automatic transmissions, they historically have had high probability of early failure.



The 6-speed manual transmission offered with the V6 engine hasn't been without problems either. Numerous reports of 3rd-gear issues. I believe there may have been a Honda service bulletin that addresses this.


Can you please be more specific. Otherwise it sounds like you are saying that this issue applies to every V6 engine they ever made which obviously is not the case. What model and what year(s).

Thank You,

K.I.S.
Keep It Simple
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:07 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby cjking » Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:47 am

I vaguely recall my father being concerned about whether a 4-cylinder engine would do, in the early 1970's. Don't think I've been in a 6 cylinder car since about 1975, so I'm not qualified to comment on the merits of a 6, but I do agree with those who've hinted it's a requirement you need to reconsider.

Two-litre four-cylinder diesel engines can be chosen for Mercedes C-Class and BMW 3-series and Jaguar XF, none of which would lack performance or refinement, I would have thought. Hopefully this proves number of cylinders should not be a criterion.
Last edited by cjking on Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
cjking
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:30 am

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby mike143 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:50 am

Keep It Simple wrote:
marcwd wrote:
mike143 wrote:I personally would stay away from Honda V6 automatic transmissions, they historically have had high probability of early failure.



The 6-speed manual transmission offered with the V6 engine hasn't been without problems either. Numerous reports of 3rd-gear issues. I believe there may have been a Honda service bulletin that addresses this.


Can you please be more specific. Otherwise it sounds like you are saying that this issue applies to every V6 engine they ever made which obviously is not the case. What model and what year(s).

Thank You,

K.I.S.

TRANSMISSION not engine. Let's start here: http://www.odysseytransmission.com

I want ultimate lowest cost of ownership so I end up with a Honda 4 cylinder with manual transmission.
Nothing is free, someone pays.
User avatar
mike143
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby marcwd » Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:04 pm

mike143 wrote:
Keep It Simple wrote:
marcwd wrote:
mike143 wrote:I personally would stay away from Honda V6 automatic transmissions, they historically have had high probability of early failure.



The 6-speed manual transmission offered with the V6 engine hasn't been without problems either. Numerous reports of 3rd-gear issues. I believe there may have been a Honda service bulletin that addresses this.


Can you please be more specific. Otherwise it sounds like you are saying that this issue applies to every V6 engine they ever made which obviously is not the case. What model and what year(s).

Thank You,

K.I.S.

TRANSMISSION not engine. Let's start here: http://www.odysseytransmission.com



Thanks for attempting to clarify, but I don't think that the Honda Odyssey was ever offered with a 6-speed manual transmission.
marcwd
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:15 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby mike143 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:15 pm

marcwd wrote:
mike143 wrote:
Keep It Simple wrote:
marcwd wrote:
mike143 wrote:I personally would stay away from Honda V6 automatic transmissions, they historically have had high probability of early failure.



The 6-speed manual transmission offered with the V6 engine hasn't been without problems either. Numerous reports of 3rd-gear issues. I believe there may have been a Honda service bulletin that addresses this.


Can you please be more specific. Otherwise it sounds like you are saying that this issue applies to every V6 engine they ever made which obviously is not the case. What model and what year(s).

Thank You,

K.I.S.

TRANSMISSION not engine. Let's start here: http://www.odysseytransmission.com



Thanks for attempting to clarify, but I don't think that the Honda Odyssey was ever offered with a 6-speed manual transmission.

I give up.
Nothing is free, someone pays.
User avatar
mike143
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby BenBritt » Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:39 pm

Mike,
I understand what you are saying. Thank you.
BenBritt
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:39 am

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby keystone » Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:14 pm

The V6 Accords are typically not as reliable as the 4 cylinder versions. This is what I have noticed from looking at years of reliability data in Consumer Reports. This doesn't mean they are bad cars or you can't get 250K worry free miles, but if reliability is your #1 criteria (as it is mine) then I would think twice about the 6 cylinder version.
keystone
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:34 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby FrugalInvestor » Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:25 pm

The length of the car is not necessarily indicative of its turning radius. Some short vehicles turn very wide and visa versa. Check each vehicle's detailed specs.
"Some men worship rank, some worship heroes, some worship power, some worship God, and over these ideals they dispute and cannot unite, but they all worship money. - Mark Twain
User avatar
FrugalInvestor
 
Posts: 3301
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:20 am

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby Alex Frakt » Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:31 pm

Keep It Simple wrote:
mike143 wrote:I personally would stay away from Honda V6 automatic transmissions, they historically have had high probability of early failure.


What on earth are you talking about...an isolated incident? Honda V6 engines are extremely reliable. I don't think you will find too many people here who would agree with your statement or that have had many bad experiences with the Honda engine in general. I read mostly praise for it.

K.I.S.

It's not an isolated incident. The automatic transmission on Honda's 3.2 V6 has been the subject of numerous recalls, eventually totalling 1.1 million vehicles. I have a 2003 Acura TL with that combination and went through a recall to have an extra transmission oil cooler line fitted and still had the transmission fail at only 30k miles. It was replaced under warranty. As a result of class action suits, Honda was forced to offer extended warranties on the transmission for 2000-2003 vehicles with that engine.

And that does not seem to be the end of the problem, see this 2011 New York Times' Wheels blog entry Honda Transmission Problems Seem to Persist.
Alex Frakt
Founder
 
Posts: 9460
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby Alex Frakt » Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:42 pm

marcwd wrote:
Alex Frakt wrote:The Acura ILX is 179" long. It's a very upmarket version of the Civic, with extra sound insulation and a better interior.


It may have extra sound insulation, but, disappointingly, the reviews I've seen all comment on the noisiness of the 2.4L version.

The 2.4 is only available with a manual, so it's a moot point given the OP's requirements.
Alex Frakt
Founder
 
Posts: 9460
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby Keep It Simple » Wed Feb 13, 2013 3:00 pm

Interesting - I don't often read negative reviews regarding anything Honda...no company is perfect though. I would still not hesitate one moment to buy a Honda V6 or V4 as they are both far and away better than 95% of the other vehicles out there. There are some manufacturers who match them in reliability, but none that surpass them by any meaningful measurement.

K.I.S.
Keep It Simple
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:07 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby marcwd » Wed Feb 13, 2013 3:49 pm

Alex Frakt wrote:
marcwd wrote:
Alex Frakt wrote:The Acura ILX is 179" long. It's a very upmarket version of the Civic, with extra sound insulation and a better interior.


It may have extra sound insulation, but, disappointingly, the reviews I've seen all comment on the noisiness of the 2.4L version.

The 2.4 is only available with a manual, so it's a moot point given the OP's requirements.


Yes, and the acceleration of the base ILX is essentially that of a Civic, which the OP has not found to be satisfactory.
marcwd
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:15 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby dragoncar » Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:20 pm

I've got the same car. Problem with the V6 is that the timing belt is hard/expensive to change. New V6s are even bigger now, right?

How about a TSX? It's slightly shorter.

edit: NM on the TSX, it has a larger turning circle than the 2003 Accord v6
dragoncar
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:08 am

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby maroon » Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:29 pm

Semi off-topic - if you're interested in a newer Accord V6, you might want to read up on Honda's VCM (variable cylinder management) system. Edmunds.com has a really L-O-N-G thread discussing this exact topic. The 4 cylinder Accords don't "feature" VCM, nor do the manual V6 coupes (I think!).
Last edited by maroon on Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
maroon
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:59 am

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby EternalOptimist » Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:34 pm

I've owned several 4 cylinder Honda Accords since 1983 and have been totally satisfied...got almost 40 mi/gal going up to Boston. Lately with the price of them being so high, I've leased them. The pluses: always have a new car, few mechanical issues/no new tires/tuneups, don't own a depreciating asset. Also own a 6 cyl Pathfinder which uses too much gas.
"When nothing goes right....go left"
User avatar
EternalOptimist
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:21 pm
Location: New York

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby mmmodem » Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:43 pm

This is actually pretty simple. You wrote 3 paragraphs about V6 engines and 1 sentence about fuel economy. Lets just say you want power but not necessarily a V6 just at least as much as your current Accord. You also want quiet so no turbo and smaller vehicle within $35k that is reliable.

Honda can offer you another Accord V6 but you'll suffer the size issue. But Accords come with side and backup cameras that mimic an overhead view. Piece of cake to park. Its quieter and uses less has fuel with the same power. About $30k.

Acura has the ILX. It only has 150 hp so you'll be down on power just a tad. But it'll be smaller and it'll be quiet. $27k

Toyota has nothing that's fits your criteria. Heh, someone suggested a Prius. I drive one. It's slower and louder than the Corolla you didn't like. And they're ugly. They're so expensive, you don't even save money. You just use less gas.

Lexus has the IS250. You can just squeak under $35k for the base model. It's on the sporty side so it won't be as smooth or quiet a ride.

Mazda has the 3 with a 2.5 liter 4 cyl. It's such a big displacement engine so it feels like a V6. Unfortunately, zoom zoom Mazdas are loud. Lots of wind noise on my friends Mazda3. It's about $25k

The VW Jetta also has a big 4 cyl engine. It's smaller and quiet. Unfortunately, Jetta reliability is not that great.

There's nothing from Nissan, Chevy, Ford, or Chrysler that fit your criteria. Luxury brands are priced out of range.

As I said, simple decision. You get another Accord V6. They're smaller than the last model which were bigger than your model. So hopefully, they're the same size as you have right now.
mmmodem
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 2:22 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby Alex Frakt » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:17 pm

mmmodem wrote:...There's nothing from Nissan, Chevy, Ford, or Chrysler that fit your criteria. Luxury brands are priced out of range.

I pretty much agree with the post above except for this sentence. The Buick Verano Turbo is a legitimate option. It is quiet, despite the turbo. It is powerful. And it should be reasonably nimble in your parking garage because it's a reskinned Opel Astra. European mid-market cars like the Astra are always engineered to deal with tight quarters and since GM's primary market for Buicks is now China, where quarters are equally cramped, they aren't messing with this. The interior is also very nice, I sat in one at the Chicago Auto Show yesterday.

The only chance you are taking with this is on long-term reliability. But all cars are pretty good now. Honda and Toyota have taken their knocks over the last few years, so it's hard to say that any brand is a guarantee of reliability any more.

Some reviews:
http://www.windingroad.com/articles/rev ... ano-turbo/ - "Where the Verano excels—and in fact, where all Buicks excel—is the way it isolates the cabin from the outside environment. Sometimes this results in an isolation box, like we see in the Enclave or LaCrosse. Other times, it works out and delivers a comfortable, luxurious experience that is still capable of being fun on a twisting stretch of road. That’s what we see with the Verano.

This is a soft suspension, but it’s not floppy or ill mannered. Hit a pothole, and the Verano absorbs the impact and carries on. There’s no porpoising up and down like an intoxicated bottlenose, and there’s no spine-shattering jolt transmitted into the seat. In fact, there’s not much of anything at all. Maybe a dull thud, but that’s about it. On smooth roads, the Verano feels effortlessly comfortable.

Like we said, though, it’ll still dance if you want it to, with a few drawbacks. Roll is a bit of an issue, in that there’s so much of it. It doesn’t give the Verano an unstable or uncontrollable feeling, but it does necessitate slower entry speeds. The handling is very much biased to the front, and as a result, the Buick isn’t really willing to rotate all that easily. It’s not an autocrosser, but it does a decent impression of one.

Perhaps our favorite thing about driving Buicks is the way they eradicate exterior noise. The Verano Turbo starts below $30,000, but it’s still extremely quiet in the cabin.

...The last thing we’ll say about the Verano Turbo is this: the primary competitors listed on Buick’s media site are the Lexus IS250, Acura ILX, and Audi A3. We’d take the Verano over all of them. Yes, we passed up a Lexus, an Acura, and an Audi for a Buick. Perhaps there’s no higher praise for the brand than that."

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/dr ... rano_turbo - "Like all Veranos, the Turbo is slathered in sound insulation, including aerodynamic underpanels, specially designed (and heavy) wheels, acoustic lamination on the windshield and front windows, thick mats sandwiching the firewall, and enough foam and rubber to childproof a Swarovski store. Only a mild hum and faint whistle betrays the fact that you might be blowing by a VW GTI. Better than the sound of silence, though, is the sense of solidity the Verano imparts over the worst surfaces. Potholes around Automobile's office that jar larger cars register only a slight "thump" through the Buick's steering wheel. That's a credit to the Verano's aforementioned European origins -- Buick says the Verano's body is even stiffer than its German cousin, the Opel Astra. We believe it. Don't get the idea, however, that the sportiest Verano is tuned to handle like a sporty Astra OPC -- the goal here was still a comfy ride. That said, the dual-path dampers, slightly stiffer than those in the base car, generally do a good job controlling body motions. Likewise, the electric power steering, limp on the base car, has a welcome bit of feedback programmed in here without sacrificing the light feel modern luxury buyers expect.

The modern luxury buyer is the real target here. The Verano Turbo, we repeat, is not intended to be a sport compact. Rather, Buick hopes the four-cylinder's thrust will attract customers downsizing from larger, V-6-powered premium cars..."

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-reviews ... no-turbo-1 - "On the road, the 3,482-pound Buick accelerates to 60 mph in 6.1 seconds. This is impressive—and brisk—but we were especially pleased that Buick gave the Verano Turbo just enough handling prowess to make us grin on an interstate entrance ramp. The front tires howl early, but a slight lift of the throttle promptly tucks the nose back in line. Once the shenanigans end, the Turbo is uncannily, almost supernaturally quiet, and it provides a soft, but not floaty, ride over broken pavement. "
Alex Frakt
Founder
 
Posts: 9460
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby Dave76 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:05 pm

3,482 pounds? Wow! That's about the weight of a 1980s Chevrolet Caprice V8.

I would be concerned about the longevity of the battery and its long-term performance. The battery is very expensive to replace. I also wonder about the environmental effects for battery disposal.
Dave76
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby mmmodem » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:29 pm

The only reason I didn't include the Verano in my list of recommendation was because of the turbo. I can admit ignorance here but turbo's of yore required high engine RPM to spool to sufficiently provide power. This means you get the jerky action that the OP mentioned on a Sonata turbo. You'll be stepping on the gas to the floor for power and get very little. 3 seconds later you get a sudden burst of speed. My experience was on a 2002 vintage Subaru WRX turbo and this "turbo lag" was annoying. I heard this problem has been mitigated on today's turbo engines but my bosses Ford Fusion seem to exhibit the same behavior albeit to a lesser degree.
mmmodem
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 2:22 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby stoptothink » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:18 pm

mmmodem wrote:The only reason I didn't include the Verano in my list of recommendation was because of the turbo. I can admit ignorance here but turbo's of yore required high engine RPM to spool to sufficiently provide power. This means you get the jerky action that the OP mentioned on a Sonata turbo. You'll be stepping on the gas to the floor for power and get very little. 3 seconds later you get a sudden burst of speed. My experience was on a 2002 vintage Subaru WRX turbo and this "turbo lag" was annoying. I heard this problem has been mitigated on today's turbo engines but my bosses Ford Fusion seem to exhibit the same behavior albeit to a lesser degree.


That is extremely dependent on several factors. Yes, the Subaru WRX has a lot of lag, it is supposed to because it is an engine developed for high-RPM performance. The bigger the turbo the more air (displacement and/or RPM) required to spool up. Don't know anything about the Verano, but I've driven four separate vehicles with the VW/Audi 2.0t and noticed almost no lag whatsoever.

Every manufacturer is moving to turbos and away from displacement because of upcoming CAFE standards. Pretty soon the only place you'll find a 6-cylinder will be under the bonnet of sports car...with a pair of turbos strapped to it.
stoptothink
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:53 am

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby Dave76 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:22 pm

stoptothink wrote:
Every manufacturer is moving to turbos and away from displacement because of upcoming CAFE standards. Pretty soon the only place you'll find a 6-cylinder will be under the bonnet of sports car...with a pair of turbos strapped to it.


If so, history will be repeating itself. Chrysler didn't have a 6 cylinder for most of the 1980s. The 4 and turbo 4 was used in almost everything. I've got a 4 cylinder in my Chrysler New Yorker.
Dave76
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby pjtallman » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:52 pm

I came from a V8 and bought a VW Golf TDI. Great acceleration, you can turn on a dime, the automatic shifts perfectly and I am getting 40mpg in about a 50/50 mix of city/hiway driving (when I drove from LA to SF on freeway I was getting almost 50). VW diesels have an above average reliability. All the VW reliability concerns are from their gas engine powered vehicles. The same TDI engine is used in the Golf, Jetta, and Passat. Strongly recommend you give them a look.
pjtallman
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby FrugalInvestor » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:59 pm

pjtallman wrote:I came from a V8 and bought a VW Golf TDI. Great acceleration, you can turn on a dime, the automatic shifts perfectly and I am getting 40mpg in about a 50/50 mix of city/hiway driving (when I drove from LA to SF on freeway I was getting almost 50). VW diesels have an above average reliability. All the VW reliability concerns are from their gas engine powered vehicles. The same TDI engine is used in the Golf, Jetta, and Passat. Strongly recommend you give them a look.


My brother really likes his. I've sworn off VW products after a really bad experience with an Audi.
"Some men worship rank, some worship heroes, some worship power, some worship God, and over these ideals they dispute and cannot unite, but they all worship money. - Mark Twain
User avatar
FrugalInvestor
 
Posts: 3301
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:20 am

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby Dave76 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:12 pm

FrugalInvestor wrote:
pjtallman wrote:I came from a V8 and bought a VW Golf TDI. Great acceleration, you can turn on a dime, the automatic shifts perfectly and I am getting 40mpg in about a 50/50 mix of city/hiway driving (when I drove from LA to SF on freeway I was getting almost 50). VW diesels have an above average reliability. All the VW reliability concerns are from their gas engine powered vehicles. The same TDI engine is used in the Golf, Jetta, and Passat. Strongly recommend you give them a look.


My brother really likes his. I've sworn off VW products after a really bad experience with an Audi.


German cars are high maintenance.

Many diesels are quieter and cleaner than ever before. I drove a Renault Vel Satis for a couple of miles before I realized it was a diesel. But one of the best diesels is the Peugeot diesel produced from 1977 to about 2002. That's a great diesel. I knew people in England that had them and they swore by them.
Dave76
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby RobG » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:19 pm

pjtallman wrote:I came from a V8 and bought a VW Golf TDI. Great acceleration, you can turn on a dime, the automatic shifts perfectly and I am getting 40mpg in about a 50/50 mix of city/hiway driving (when I drove from LA to SF on freeway I was getting almost 50). VW diesels have an above average reliability. All the VW reliability concerns are from their gas engine powered vehicles. The same TDI engine is used in the Golf, Jetta, and Passat. Strongly recommend you give them a look.


The engines are probably bulletproof, but I've heard horror stories about TDI's electrical systems and everything else being buggy - at least in the Jettas, maybe the golfs are better? Hopefully they will get it fixed because I really like the way they drive.
Stay thrifty my friends.
RobG
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:59 am
Location: Bozeman, MT

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby dewey » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:56 pm

dragoncar wrote:I've got the same car. Problem with the V6 is that the timing belt is hard/expensive to change. New V6s are even bigger now, right?

How about a TSX? It's slightly shorter.

edit: NM on the TSX, it has a larger turning circle than the 2003 Accord v6


I agree the TSX would be a good option. And the 4 cylinder will surprise with its punch--and excellent mileage. But it has the 6 option too. The TSX is in its last year of production so you may be able to get a nice deal as well.
“The only freedom that is of enduring importance is freedom of intelligence…”
dewey
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby TheGreyingDuke » Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:31 pm

pjtallman wrote:I came from a V8 and bought a VW Golf TDI. Great acceleration, you can turn on a dime, the automatic shifts perfectly and I am getting 40mpg in about a 50/50 mix of city/hiway driving (when I drove from LA to SF on freeway I was getting almost 50). VW diesels have an above average reliability. All the VW reliability concerns are from their gas engine powered vehicles. The same TDI engine is used in the Golf, Jetta, and Passat. Strongly recommend you give them a look.


You have got to be kidding me! Do a quick search on "HPFP AND TDI" to see tales of woe with failed high pressure fuel pumps on the TDIs and some people getting caught with $8k repair bills. I went for the Sportswagen with the fabled 2.0 turbo and what I lose in mileage I gain in smiles/mile!
User avatar
TheGreyingDuke
 
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:34 am

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby communipaw » Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:54 pm

I thank you all for your comments .

Yes, the 2013 Accord is shorter than the 2012 Accord but it still is about an inch longer than my 2003 Accord. Overall length is of concern to me for finding curb parking not for maneuvering. The maneuvering comes into play in the many garages with steep windy ramps that I also use regularly. And I've learned that the turning circle isn't connected only with the wheel base as I had thought but also depends upon drive, front wheel drive seems to have a bigger turning circle than rear wheel drive.

Again thanks for all for your opinions and I will look at the TSX-6 , a leftover 2012 RAV-4 Six, and the Buick Turbo Verano. But it looks like those who commented that I'm unlikely to find a shortish 6 that meets my other requirements [eg "6 cylinder, under 35k, and substantially shorter than 189" doesn't currently exist in the US.]" may be correct.

The 2013 Accord 6 Coupe is an inch or 2 shorter than the sedan ; that isn't significant but might be the only way to go if the TSX, ILS and Verano don't pan out..
communipaw
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:15 am

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby Cherokee8215 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:06 pm

Used 2011-2012 Lexus IS250 with 10,000 miles or less.
Cherokee8215
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:16 am

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby mike143 » Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:04 pm

Nothing is free, someone pays.
User avatar
mike143
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: New car: I'm about to replace my 2003 Accord V6.

Postby mmmodem » Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:48 pm

TheGreyingDuke wrote:
pjtallman wrote:You have got to be kidding me! Do a quick search on "HPFP AND TDI" to see tales of woe with failed high pressure fuel pumps on the TDIs and some people getting caught with $8k repair bills. I went for the Sportswagen with the fabled 2.0 turbo and what I lose in mileage I gain in smiles/mile!

My coworker whom claims he drove manual VWs his whole life pulled in to work a few months ago in CRV. He told me his Jetta was the last straw. He loves the brand and their cars but the poor reliability turned him to Honda.

This year's JD Power survey says it all pretty much sums it up for VW.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/0 ... decimated/
mmmodem
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 2:22 pm

Next

Return to Personal Consumer Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], keith6014, kimon, Yahoo [Bot] and 17 guests