Most reliable Accord models?

I'm quite happy with my 2001 V6. No issues what-so-ever with the vehicle.

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.

1. Library: Consumer Reports
2. Consumer Reports online

If you want a V6, stay away from the 1998-2004 models. Even the 05 models are suspect in my mind, but absolutely the 2004 models and below are dangerous buys--that is, unless you enjoy replacing automatic transmissions.

If you want a 4 cylinder, 2000-2002 are excellent choices.

Just to add to my post above, my Accord is a LX model, 4 cyl automatic.

The #2 option requires subscription though ($!)

Hi Elmo,

4 years on our 2006 EX V6 and no tranny problems. Been an all-around pleasure to drive.

Jon

Yep.

But the odds are way against anyone buying it used.

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.

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.

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?

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:

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

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?

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.

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 !!

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".