New LX lease is $259/month (California cost) with $2,500 down, so all
in is less than $400/month. My EXL costs a tad more, but that's my
Would purchase and trade after three years be cheaper or more
expensive? I dunno. Depends on interest rates and tax brackets and
stuff, we're into the noise level at that point. Lease price is good
Don't have to wash an old one? I see.
Yet, you might be surprised how little even the new ones get washed.
Especially if you want it done right the hard way.
no, vehicle reliability follows what's called a "bathtub curve".
you've just bought into the early failure phase.
but it's an emotional choice, not a financial one. according to the
honda usa website, a "zero down featured lease" on a stick shift accord
ex in the san francisco bay area will cost $10,150 over 3 years and have
a residual buy-back price of $15k. that's over $3k per year,
*excluding* insurance, tax, license, their $595 "acquisition fee" and
the $0.15 per mile over 12k miles per year.
it doesn't matter how you slice it - you're paying more for your car per
year than someone who paid $700 for a clunker and dropped $2,300 into an
aggressive preventive maintenance program first year, and >$3k /per
why would you? it's a clunker. washing and waxing would be insane.
yeah, only once a week, not twice. especially if it's leased and the
lessee doesn't want to get dinged on hand-back.
there's no "hard way" about it. when i worked in a shop, i'd see
co-workers run new crate engines with no oil, no coolant, bend valves
because they'd got a timing belt set wrong, fit brake pads the wrong way
around, use incorrect spark plugs, forget air filters, glue electrical
connectors, set kinks into brake hose, steal new components for their
own vehicle and fit used parts onto customer cars, set suspension
bushings wrong so they'd either make the car ride odd or the rubber
prematurely fatigue, etc., etc., etc. these were all factory trained
techs in a big shop. me not wanting to have someone else screw up my
cars is simply a case of being the guy that worked at the sausage
factory not eating sausage.
for sure. but it's the amount we're discussing. i agree, many people
have a negative experience of older car ownership, but in my opinion,
that's more a function of /having/ to get the car maintained and then
getting ripped off by the maintainer than it is the car and its expense
averaged over time. [it doesn't have to be an old car for the owner to
get ripped off*, but an old car sure is easy pickings for most,
especially if the owner's not familiar with what goes on under the hood.]
* a friend of mine got hosed by san francisco honda for an entirely new
braking system on a 4 year old 30k mile civic.
new master cylinder.
new front disks
new front calipers
new front flex hoses
new front pads
new rear drums
new rear pistons
new rear flex hoses
new rear shoes, springs, clips, etc.
i think he paid ~$3k for the work.
i bought the same model car about a month apart from him. we lived and
drove in the same town so it wasn't "san francisco hills" being a wear
differentiatior. i got 60k miles out of my front pads, and i changed
them with ~1/8" of pad material left. the rears were less than 20%
worn. they'd blew smoke up his ass about the car being dangerous to
drive unless the work was done immediately.
unbelievable audacity, but they knew he knew noting about cars, tried
their luck, and struck gold. that kind of thing happens all day long,
every day of the week. and /that/ is what makes people think older cars
"JRStern" wrote in message
Been driving my Accord 2013 EXL for a couple of weeks now, that's with
the four-cylinder engine and the CVT transmission. Also comes with a
handy instantaneous and trip mileage indicator, first time I've had
that (and about time). I haven't even filled the tank up yet, have
been driving sparingly the last few weeks. But here are a few
The rated mileage is supposed to be something like 27/36, up from last
model's 23/34, or thereabouts. Problem was on the old model I never
got more than 30 mpg on a tank, even with over 90% unobstructed
freeway driving. And worse, around town (or in stop-and-go) it was a
dog, often getting under 22 mpg. So I had high hopes for the new one.
I just took a long trip in my 2006 Accord coupe I4 -- 35 - 36 highway
driving. Not a big improvement for the 13 from what I can see, although I
suppose the bigger car and increased weight are the reason. I just hit 100k
on the trip. No reason to sell as I have kept the maintenance up.
Have they been met? Yes and no.
It was not yet a full tank test, but on a 100 mile freeway round trip
the indicated aggregate mileage was over 33. Assuming the indicator
is accurate, that's more than 10% better than the previous model.
Cruising at 70-80mph, the mileage is better yet.
On the other hand, around town the new model is no better - and may be
worse. If you miss a couple of lights, the aggregate drifts below 20
FWIW, this is without trying the "economy mode" button but otherwise
driving with a very light foot, guided by the instantaneous rating.
Something the car seems to hate is feathering in acceleration, what
seems to work better is giving it a small burst and the coasting, the
CVT seems *very* aggressive about dropping the RPM to nothing when it
So, it looks to me like the direct-injection and CVT system could use
a little more tuning. Hey, do you think standard maintenance will
include a software update at some point?
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.