16th Jan 2007, 08:23

To answer several of your comments above (I am a new post-er) ;

Sorry to say to the gent who had been overtaken by Focus's and such, but this is maybe partly down to the fact you have the SSS gearbox - this knocks the acceleration compared to the manual 'box. I have a 2.0 SE Exec and I have found the performance impressive (and this is the least powerful car I have had for a while). There is no way you should get overtaken by any of those if you don't want to and you use the car to it's potential. The air-con will make a bit of a difference, but not that much!

To the guy asking about the BOSE stereo; I am surprised. I have found mine to be great for a factory-fit system, no problems with volume - are you sure you've got the balance/fade/bass/treble adjusted correctly?

To the guy asking about Honda sat-nav. This was NOT standard fit on the SE Exec, it was an option only, so some have it, some don't. I think it was possibly standard fit on the Type-V, but I'm not sure.

Lastly, to add my own report on fuel consumption. I have a 2.0 and typically get 370 miles from a tank (and I am quite heavy footed!). If I drive more steadily for a few days, I get about 400 from the tank, but I agree, the fuel warning light is very pessimistic! I have driven more than 80 miles with it on and still the most I've ever got in the tank was 62 litres. Maybe those of you who aren't getting much from a tankful are believing that deceitful fuel light!!

23rd Jan 2007, 09:53

I currently have a 1.4 2001 corolla, with basic features (s). For my next car I was looking at getting the se exec, because it comes fully loaded in 2.0 litre edition, but I have been warned that I won't get much out of the petrol. Although it's a big jump from a 1.4 to a 2.0, the main reasons I wanted to get the SE is because it only comes fully loaded with a navigation system in a 2.0. Dos anyone know if it comes in a smaller engine or alternative fully loaded cars in a smaller engine size? Also in the accord SE exec, is it better to get the hatchback or the saloon? Which would be better for ladies (since I'm going to be sharing the car with a lady)

24th Jan 2007, 00:02

I have a 2002 2.0 SE Exec (one of the last of that shape before the new one came out - mine is an '02 reg, the last ones were '52 reg).

Sat Nav IS NOT standard on the SE Exec (although just about everything else is). Mine does not have it. It was available as an option, so if you hunt I'm sure you could find some with Nav fitted, but they do not all have it.

I think the fuel economy is fine for a 2.0 car. Obviously you will notice a diff from your 1.4 and it depends on how you drive it, but I get about 400 miles from a full tank with town and motorway driving, and I certainly use the performance!

Hatchback vs Saloon is really a matter of need and taste. The Hatchback is more practical for obvious reasons, but the Saloon is arguably better looking.

There is a version of this shape of Accord called the Type-V which is the top spec you can get, and that does have Nav as standard. For the first couple of years it had the 2.0 engine, but in (I think) 2001, they upgraded it to a 2.3.

Hope this helps.