13th Aug 2009, 13:00

This is totally unfair! Obviously a BMW is going to perform better than an Accord! The BMW was designed specifically for performance! The Accord was meant to be a reliable family sedan, not an Autobahn racer! And by the way, luxury car or not, Honda and Toyota still beat BMW and Mercedes in reliability every year.

13th Aug 2009, 22:01

Having had 5-series BMW's, a Honda and a Ford Fusion, I'll take the Ford Fusion over EITHER.

13th Aug 2009, 22:37

I used to buy Honda Accords.

The first one was a 1979 that had a 75 horsepower motor and weighed 2000 pounds and was smaller than today's Civic by far.

My last was a 1992 that weighed 2200 pounds, was nicely compact and great fun to drive.

Now the new ones are way too large and weigh 3500 pounds, so naturally you need a V6 engine to haul the lard around.

I now drive a small Mini Cooper that weighs 2600 pounds, but looks like it should weigh maybe 2000 pounds at most due to all the mandated safety equipment air bags and other bloat.

In general, the answer is not bigger and heavier, but smaller and more efficient. We have learned nothing over the past 25 years as to what constitutes real efficiency.

14th Aug 2009, 13:31

The new Midsize cars are almost, or as heavy as my mid 90's Buick Park Avenue, it weights a little over 3500lbs, and its considered a large car.

25th Aug 2009, 08:38

No. Americans have learned nothing about downsizing in the auto industry, which is why we got into so much trouble with SUV's. That being said, the new Accord is a large car, but it drives pretty tight and feels smaller than it is.

Also, in no way do you need the V-6 for this car. The base 4 cylinder is plenty to move this car around nicely. Even the 0-60 times are in the 8 second range, which isn't fast, but it is more than acceptable for most any driving scenario.

Another thing with the 4 cylinder is that with the 5 speed AT it cruises very nicely on the highway. 75-80 mph is achieved under 3000 RPMs, which keeps the ride quiet and smooth. So you get a large sized car that gets nearly 30 mpg day to day, which isn't so bad.

6th Sep 2009, 06:21

I owned 2 Honda Accords.

A 2006, but it was a lemon, bad water pump then the transmission failed. Both are known Honda problems, the car is babied and never abused!!! Only had 23,000km when the problems started. Sold it at 60,000 km when the transmission again seemed to wonder, shift or slip at 80km/h, thought it was a one in a million since people praise these cars....

So I traded it in for a 2008 Accord V-6... ah not again.. first 4,000 km I thought I was home free, but around 5k on cold starts it ran rough and almost stalled, then I thought I was dreaming, the transmission started to shift hard... transmission failure at 7,000 km no.. no.. no more.

Traded it in for a 2009 Dodge Charger Hemi.. wow, I am getting the same average mpg with a powerful V-8; it handles, I think better than the Honda with a silky smooth ride. Easy to turn steering wheel, drive with my pinky finger for turns if I wanted to.

I only bought this car because 2 co-workers own them, well basically the same car, a 2005 300C with 110,000 trouble free km and a 2006 Charger with 70,000 trouble free km, they have never seen the shop, nor has mine now with 7,800 km.

A few people I know have Dodge Rams with the same 5.7 Hemi I have, and they also never had an issue, so I know I am safe, as my Honda friends we knew about had the timing belts that go all the time at different km.

I was a Honda/Acura guy until now. Won't miss the trans problems, nor the timing belt problems that I lived with for 10 years on my previous Acura's and Honda's.. I don't know how I put up with it for so long..

Drive a Charger/300, you will see what I am saying. The Honda is a grocery getter compared to the Charger.. and I was a Honda guy, still own a 2000 Acura Integra GSR,my first new car, but I rarely drive it anymore, I have a new baby that I love to death!! 2009 Dodge Charger R/T Hemi black beauty sits next to my 2000 Acura Integra GSR, also a black beauty, but after 3 timing belts and a new head 1 @ 20,000, 2nd @ 79,000, now just redone another @ 99,000, it may be up for sale..

6th Sep 2009, 23:07

Some drivers obviously do not have a BMW pocketbook for initial costs, service and repairs. Honda has a far better record for reliability than BMW models. Also, Accord's rivals include models such as: Nissan Altima, Chevy Malibu, Mitsubishi Galant, Toyota Camry, not BMW 5 Series. BMW 5 Series rivals include such models: Lexus ES (which is a far better looking, reliable, stylish car than 5 Series), Mercedes E-Class, Infiniti M (far more dependable than 5 Series, also cheaper). So please, leave the Accord where it is and leave the 5 Series where it belongs.

6th Sep 2009, 23:11

"Drive a Charger/300, you will see what I am saying."

Don't brag on the Charger too soon. It is still new and it too will need maintenance at regular intervals.

26th Oct 2009, 14:11

I know many people with Chargers that are 3 or 4 model years old since they released them early. They have more than proven themselves as far as reliability is concerned and they are amazingly powerful, smooth driving cars. They even get into the mid 20's for mileage with the cylinder deactivation on the Hemi.

Plus what is the point in saying they too will need maintenance at regular intervals. Please tell me what car doesn't need maintenance at regular intervals?

26th Oct 2009, 14:13

"Honda's best kept secret in a family car."

What do you mean secret? There have been literally millions of Accords sold and they have been around for over 30 years. They also are on Car and Drivers 10 best list year after year, and have been for at least 15 years.

Where is the secret??

26th Oct 2009, 14:16

How can someone compare a car that costs in the mid $40K range to a car that costs in the mid $20K range. For almost twice the price, the BMW 5 series better have something over the Accord! If you want to compare apples to apples, at least stay in the same general price range.

I bet the BMW 1 series outperforms a Civic too.