On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:01:48 -0800 (PST), "Human Factors in the
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.
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.
"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.
On 2/3/2010 4:13 PM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:
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
"Do not fear death so much, but rather the inadequate life." -- Bertolt
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?
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.
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.
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
I guess it's just the engineer in me.......after all, there are "lies,
damned lies, and statistics".
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).
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 ?
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.