Non-members can see only five Honda Accord reviews per section.
Join us and see them all.Why the Honda Accord?
Handling: Feeling of confidence and stability on the highway. This car tracks true...no need to be constantly correcting.
Powertrain performance: This car will move when asked to. The engine seems bigger than it really is - and that growl from the tailpipe - glorious.
Control design: If I understand this question correctly - steering control. Tight and precise feeling at high speed and the ease of turning the wheel at slow speeeds such as in a parking lot.
Driving position & visibility: No feeling of a blind spot, I can reliably see all around without turning my head too much. I was able to easily find a relaxed, comfortable driving position, critical for long distance driving.
Reliability & durability: Historical experience. The parts that matter most to drivability will last - in my experience an Accords drivetrain will remain functional while the body rusts away.
Why Not the GMC Acadia?
Fuel economy: Even with conservative driving over long distance, was not able to get close to EPA MPG. In order to get those numbers I have to depart too far from my normal driving habits - wont happen easily, no fun. Especially when the Acadia is so willing to sprint.
Price or payments: The trim level I would be interested in is a bit above what I would be willing to spend. I also thought the Acadia was a bit too much vehicle for commuting and daily running around.
Why the Honda Accord?
Exterior styling: Body curves, unique style, different from others. Most of other sedans are either slivers of soap (just like Benz 4 door coup) or look like Inifinity/Nissan/Renault knock offs. Accord has style of its own
Powertrain performance: Very smooth power delivery from 190 HP 4 cylinder engine via very responsive 5 speed transmission. Transmission is not as modern as GM or Ford 6 speed, but works very well. Engine is a gem. Perfect combination of power and economy.
Handling: Extremely balanced steering, small turning circle for front wheel drive car with 17" tires. Smooth road's imperfection absorbency. It handles like a sport luxury car, not 25K one. There is really nothing comparable for this price.
Reliability & durability: It is my 6th Honda. % previous ones gave no reason to suspect anything down the road.
Materials & workmanship: It is Honda. Materials are good and fitted very well.
Why Not the Pontiac Vibe?
Exterior styling: I bought last generation Vibe because it looked much more stylish then Matrix. However, current Matrix is stylish looking and current Vibe looks like it was designed with an ax and one slob of wood. Not to mention the brand is gone.
Dealership practices: The service department has typical GM attitude: you bought the car it is your problem now. Actually GM now if government problem. In addition there is no dealer: Pontiac is gone.
Why the Honda Accord?
Handling: I was used to and accepting of the handling of a Town Car. In comparison the V6 Accord has superb handling.
Reliability & durability: Our two previous Hondas gave us exemplary trouble-free driving. In eleven months and 19,000 miles so has this one.
Materials & workmanship: The car's fit and finish are well executed.
Insurance & depreciation: This car's record of lower than average depreciation is a primary reason I bought it. I traded in a Lincoln and received practically nothing for that.
Why Not the MINI Cooper?
Powertrain performance: The way the CVT in this base model yo-yos trying to "find the right gear" is awful, particularly in hilly or mountainous terrain. Fortunately Cooper discontinued this transmission the year after we bought ours. Too bad for us.
Quietness: We have the convertible which is loud top up or down. This is to be expected. Given how much fun the car is, even with the CVT, the noise is worth it.
Rear seat room & comfort: The rear seat is usable only as a package tray, though it does serve to hold a second carry-on bag.
Cargo capacity & towing: Very little carrying capacity, though that's not the purpose of the car.
Why the Honda Accord?
Powertrain performance: Fast and smooth; excellent performance on regular gas.
Front seat comfort: Power adjustments on the driver's seat, including the lumbar support, plus the seat design combine for maximum comfort.
Handling: Handles "smaller" than it is. Best handling FWD sedan I've driven. Quick overall, with instantaneous changes of direction, minimal body roll.
Driving position & visibility: Excellent range of adjustments between seat and steering wheel, which has both tilt and telescope.
Reliability & durability: Consumer Reports and many owner reviews confirm the Accord is a reliable car, maintaining its pluses even after high mileage.
Why Not the Mercury Milan?
Brand reputation & image: Persistent rumors that Ford will drop the line; Sable has already been dropped. The Milan Premier, although touted by Mercury as an upscale car, is nothing more than a re-badged Fusion and not as comfortable as my 2000 Taurus.
Powertrain performance: I expected better performance from the Milan than I had in my 2000 Taurus: 10% more HP, 6 speed vs 4 speed transmission, smaller car. Performance was OK, but nothing special, and there is now a flimsy looking pulley and belt opposite the serpentine be
Interior styling: Combination vinyl and leather seats look cheap, as does the dash and door trim.
Front seat comfort: No passenger power seat available; minimal power adjustment for driver's seat; half the adjustments are manual.
Why the Honda Accord?
Powertrain performance: Strong V6 and 6 speed combination was and is a segment leader in performance.
Why the Chevrolet Malibu?
Exterior styling: Test drove the Accord, Altima and Fusion.
Thought the Malibu looked the best and had the nicest looking wheels (LTZ)
Interior styling: I love the interior, the two tone effect makes the interior seems even larger than it already is, the wood accents are a nice touch and the centre console
is easy to use and functional.
Handling: Great handling, though torque steer is pretty bad.
The Altima, Fusion and Malibu all had better handling than the Accord, but the Honda had very little if any torque steer, which is amazing for a front wheel drive 270 HP vehicle.
Audio & nav systems: The Malibu has the best sound system in this class (I didn't test drive a Camry).
The BOSE stereo with 8 speakers including 2 subwoofers is excellent. This was a major selling point for me, as I drive 30k km/year.
The Altima system was good, Accord bad.
Discounts & incentives: After test driving the four cars, It was a toss up between the Altima 3.5 SR and Malibu LTZ.
With the GM employee pricing event, the incentives were too good to turn down and I bought the chevy.
I hope the quality can match that of Nissan and Honda.
Why Not the Honda Accord?
Discounts & incentives: 0% financing is good, but GM was offering employee pricing and a Canadian clunker program (saved $1150)
Too much of a deal to turn down, even though Honda has superior build quality.
Malibu has been getting good reliability ratings, we'll see....
Exterior styling: The Accord is plain looking and the dual exhaust looks terrible.
Interior styling: Nice Leather seats, but the centre console is ugly and is difficult to use.
Handling: Not very sporty, but great job the torque steer
Audio & nav systems: Test drove Malibu, Altima, Fusion and Accord in top trims.
The Accord sound system is the worst by far. Very little Bass and the sound wasn't the brightest.
Why the Nissan Sentra?
Interior styling: Leather, very comfortable
Fuel economy: Averaging 33+
Ride smoothness: rides like a mid size car
Audio & nav systems: Rockford Fosgate
Why Not the Honda Accord?
Fuel economy: in the 20's
Audio & nav systems: not enough power
Quietness: Wind noise is horrible
Control design: wind pushes you around like driving a tent
Why the Volkswagen Passat?
Powertrain performance: The turbo kicks in fast, great low and high end acceleration.
Materials & workmanship: Fit and finish are superior
Handling: Nimble and fun to drive
Safety & braking: Quick stop with minimal brake fade.
Interior styling: Clean, comfortable
Why Not the Honda Accord?
Powertrain performance: Sluggish
Materials & workmanship: Poor fit and finish. Much lower than my 5 previous Hondas.
Audio & nav systems: Slow performance on Nav system.
Front seat comfort: Backache
Quietness: Very loud road noise
Why the Toyota Tundra?
Reliability & durability: Aside from standard maintenance schedules, nothing has unexpectedly broken or proven defective. Even though I have slip behind on the maintenance schedule, it has always performed like new.
Powertrain performance: Very smooth and quiet power delivery. These days, 240hp is not an impressive number, but the low-end torque is more than adequate. It may not have a high top speed, but who drives a truck faster than 100+ mph anyway??
Ride smoothness: Actually the ride can be quiet bumpy at times, but the TRD Sport package included a stabilizer bar which I think really helps with the ride. For a truck, I would say it is as smooth as a family sedan with a moderately firm suspension.
Quietness: Though I intend to install performance exhaust, I do appreciate the quietness in driving. Also the cabin is very insulated and allows little road/tire noise to penetrate through. These attributes make for a relaxed commute.
Driving position & visibility: Excellent driving position and forward visibility. I sit high with the dash in perfect view below. Rear visibility is typical for a truck, but the shallow bed do help me see traffic and what's behind as I'm in reverse.
Why Not the Honda Accord?
Quietness: Road noise seems to penetrate the cabin's otherwise serene environment. Not sure how to fix that, but I'm sure we will get used to it; we just bought the car this year and the positive attributes far outweigh the negatives.
Exterior styling: In general, it is a real aggressive look, but I'm not sure I will be in love with it 10 years from now. But it is a far more progressive design than the previous gen Accord. This one looks more like its Acura cousins.
Color choices: Ours is silver and though is is a neutral color, it isn't really eye catching. The white pearl would have been our first choice but could not find one on any dealership lots. The interior colors are kind of boring.
Why the Kia Rondo?
Interior styling: good visibility practical
Why the Honda Accord?
Exterior styling: looks fast sitting still
Powertrain performance: excellent acceleration with good fuel economy
Materials & workmanship: the Honda materials and workmanship are a step above others, though Honda still cannot make a good sun visor.
Handling: It handles like a car that weighs 1000lbs less
Fuel economy: with only 1700 miles on the odometer getting 27-30 mpg combined drivinhg
Why the Honda Accord?
Handling: Very tight steering and grip. Wide stance helps/
Brand reputation & image: Speaks for itself.....remains to be seen if it still is.
Reliability & durability: Reputation....Still new I have no personal experience
Exterior styling: Not the run of the mill coupe done from the 4 door. Honda did a nice job with this large coupe.
Materials & workmanship: After owning a Chevy HHR, This car's INITAIL workmanship seems like a Bentley
Why Not the Honda Accord?
Audio & nav systems: Audio system is not up to par with even the Pioneer in the Chevy I had. Speakers distort and rattle.
Fuel economy: Well my bad I chose the 6 cyl......Not Honda's fault. VCM is promising though. Still have not run a full tank through it.
Ride smoothness: Stiff suspension means stiffer ride......I get it.
Interior styling: Center console very busy......Nav would have been a better choice to limit buttons...But at$2000 not worth it.
Why the Honda Accord?
Reliability & durability: Wife had an Accord from 2000 and very little ever went wrong with it until it dropped the transmission July 2009. No brainer to get another one to serve as the every-day family car.
Fuel economy: Too soon to tell, but past experience has shown strong mpg even with a 6cyl - definitely above 20 with a lot of town/city driving.
Price or payments: For the price - the features and available options (we don't need many) were very well put together.
Brand reputation & image: The Accord is known as a reliable car that isn't overly sexy, but does have a style that is at least nice.
Safety & braking: Only know it's safety and braking by reputation, as we've been lucky enough not to have experienced any extreme need for either.
Why the Honda Accord?
Past personal experience: My previous Accords ('83 and '94) handled incredibly well and were fun to drive. The driver was definitely in control of the experience.
Materials & workmanship: Fit and finish on my '83 and '94 were top notch. The '94 still is.
Reliability & durability: I drove each of my Accords for more than 14 years with no major repairs.
Brand reputation & image: Hondas are known for reliability and value. They run forever. Those I owned were prime examples of this.
Why Not the Honda Accord?
Quietness: Every car I test drove (Mazda 6, Hyundai Sonata, Ford Fusion) was much quieter.
Available features: No all-wheel drive available. Not much flexibility in options choices.
Exterior styling: It looks like an old person's car, like an Oldsmobile or a Buick, something your grandfather would drive. It's just NOT stylish.
Cargo capacity & towing: The trunk hinges take away a lot of cargo space.
Why the Honda Accord?
Handling: For a ubiquitous family car, the steering is fantastic. The ride is well-damped, sometimes choppy, but it seems to have a good amount of travel; no crashiness. The handling is competent, reassuring, but could use better tires I think.
