Most reliable Accord models?

Page 1 of 2  
Are there Accord models of certain years that have particularly good track record for maintenance and reliability? I'm interested in the years 1998 to 2008.
All input greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/30/2010 5:01 PM, Human Factors in the Training of Pilots By Jefferson M. Koonce wrote:

    I'm quite happy with my 2001 V6. No issues what-so-ever with the vehicle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:01:48 -0800 (PST), "Human Factors in the
wrote:

My 2003 Accord has no repairs so far just maintenance but I read one review once that said to avoid this year. Don't remember which one. Unless you will do the work yourself, I'd go for a newer model like 2006 or 7. The 2008's and newer have premature brake issues. Otherwise they are okay.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just to add to my post above, my Accord is a LX model, 4 cyl automatic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/30/10 17:31, Guy wrote:

I'll echo Guy's positive report on the 2003 Accords, specifically a 2003 EX Sedan, I4, 5Auto. Only non routine service, besides a couple of tires which ran over weird stuff, e.g., a chuck of radio antenna, my only service was to replace a rear O2 sensor which was failing. I've had it since new, 67,000 miles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

However, the odds are against the 2003 model--simply because it was the first model year of an entirely new model, completely new from the inside out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elmo, are you making a general observation about the first production year of any new model, or do you have a specific concern with the Accords from 2003? or both?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article
"Human Factors in the Training of Pilots By Jefferson M. Koonce"

First production year of any all-new model (not simple refresh).
Not saying they're crap, but the odds of getting a unit that isn't built so well are greater, not to mention it's probably the 2005 models that got the fixes they discovered they needed as they worked on 2003 models that were out in the hands of real people.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/3/2010 4:13 PM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:

Right.
2003 LX Accord, 4-cyl automatic.
I bought it new, drove it over 40,000 miles the first year. It has never had any problem except that I replaced a secondary oxygen sensor when it was three years old or so.
Now has just over 140,000 miles, and my daughter drives it daily.
I drive a 2004 Accord, 6-cyl stick. Very nice, although it only has 85,000 miles.
RFT!!! Dave Kelsen
--
"Do not fear death so much, but rather the inadequate life." -- Bertolt
Brecht
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What about "the odds are against the 03 model" don't you understand?
If you're buying used, you are by definition playing the odds. Why stack them against yourself from the beginning when you don't have to?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:11:23 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"

Elmo, in a generic / general case, you are correct. However in specific situations, maybe maybe not. Those situations could be buyer's budget, car useage, who does repairs, etc.. . This post is not arguing with your post, just a clarification to what you posted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Playing the "odds" is too general without defining what the odds are. As an example, if the odds are that the chance of failure is doubled means little. If the odds are that chance of failure just went from 1 in 1,000 to 2 in 1,000 the risk is still negligible (.1% to .2%). If the odds are that the chance of failure went from 100 in 1,000 to 200 in 1,000, the risk of failure were pretty high to begin with and the increase is appreciable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Agreed in theory but in the real world I don't know the "real" odds so I named some real life examples why he could be or not be correct. I like your thoughts tho on this.... good point !!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It is funny...whenever I watch the news and they have a story about some drug or some dietary supplement, the headline always leads in with something like
"Blah blah increases risk of cancer by 100%!!!!!!".
What they don't tell you is what is the real risk, as the big numbers grabs the spotlight.
If the risk of cancer without it is .01%, and the risk with it is .02% (which is a 100% increase), one might not want to take it if it's a dietary supplement that may or may not do much. However, if it is a medication that is of great benefit in the relief of advanced rheumatoid arthritis, I would think that this added risk would still be acceptable.
I guess it's just the engineer in me.......after all, there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I remember when I was in High School (long ago) I had a speech teacher who said you shouldn't use statistics for your speeches. If I recall, it was because they can distort the facts. Now it's funny because that's all you hear from politicians. I wonder if a current speech teacher would agree with my old speech teacher? Any speech teachers reading this post?
Stewart, your point is a "good one" but unfortunately those that use the stats, don't want you to think that way :( . And yes, it's the engineer in you that thinks that way. College taught you to think like that (it did me).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes, politicians always seem to talk through a different bodily orifice then the rest of us.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Agreed. Lately I'm bothered by their loyalty to partisan thinking rather than who they actually represent or work for. It's so frustrating to hear how they don't work together. Gosh, if you did this in the private sector, you'd be outa business fast. I remember a friend telling me that he worked with some gov't employees who told him that there was no need to rush because there is always the next day. Can you imagine why the gov't is so slow at all levels if they think like this?
Oh well, I know I've strayed off the Accord so forgive me but to get back closer to topic.....
Have the 2010 Accords corrected their brake problems that many complained about in the 08 and 09s ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yeah, and they complain about the slow Toyota responses to issues.

Not sure if they did. I hear the Prius 2010 brakes are pretty good.........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

mmmm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I just couldn't resist.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.