The 6-speed was only made available on the coupe for 2003 and on the sedan
for this year (I think). But both are very limited production models
anyway (and they are V6 models).
If you want a '98-'02 with a manual, your only choice of engine is a
4-cylinder. The V6 was available only with an automatic.
My current Accord is a 1999 EX Leather manual so it fits your search.
As you have surmised, they are rare. I had to order it and wait a
month or two for it to become available when I bought it back in 1999.
even then, I had little choice of color.
The dealer told me that people who buy the EX, especially the leather
version, rarely wanted a manual transmission. When my car arrived the
salesperson was amazed at how much snappier my car performed compared
to the automatic EX models. It's a great car and I am not about to
Best of luck with your search.
I had one, albeit without the leather.
You can go to hondacars.com and search the Certified Used inventory in
your area. That's how I found my 2000 EX 5 speed a couple of years ago.
That's my favorite generation of Accord, btw, as long as you don't have
a 6 cylinder engine with the infamous horrible automatic transmission.
Stick with the 4 cylinder engine.
Thanks guys, I think im going to go with the 2003 Honda Accord Ex Coupe
5 speed 4 cyl. What do you think of those? I heard the timing belt in
2003 changed to a chain, and is no longer the rubber belt... so that is
a great thing!
no, belts make 100k no problem. more likely it's to make replacement
prohibitively expensive. bean counters rule at honda these days, so
cars that routinely do 400k or more with changes of a $30 belt are not
considered to be useful in the revenue stream.
Hmm, well, I'm usually on the side of the cynical, but I don't see how
this would produce more Honda revenue. Sell fewer spare parts, for
one thing, but mostly because I think there's a disconnect between the
new car market and the used car market, relatively few people buy a
new car and hold it twenty years, then return for another only from
the same vendor. Any other alternative explanations? Not that I
expect every corporate decision to be rational.
Frankly, I don't know what has prompted the shift from belts to chains.
Chains used to be the norm, but they were hardly any more reliable than
belts. IIRC 60K miles was the life expectancy of timing chains in the '60s
through '80s. I unloaded a 1984 Dodge with a Mitsubishi "silent shaft"
engine around 90K miles because the timing chain was worn out and chewing on
the timing chain cover. Step one in replacement was "remove engine from car"
to provide room to get the timing chain cover off.
Maybe better oils have improved timing chain life.
most people have their car serviced at a dealer, so let's look at dealer
costs. if the car's 100k miles old, and worth say $5k, most people will
pay $1000 to do the belts, pump, ignition wiring, etc. as a high mileage
"tune up". and it's worth it to keep the car on the road for another
100k miles. but most people will /not/ pay $3000 to get to the same
place with a chain replacement. chains generally cost more, require new
driving cogs, and require a much more substantial strip-down of the
engine to replace, hence the job is much more expensive. add to that
the fact that chains get noisy, and soon the motor is on the slope
toward driver irritation [and a new car sale] /long/ before a belt
driven motor would be.
agreed, chains "last longer", but they don't last 400k, and anything
much beyond 150k, the value of the car vs. cost to replace equation
makes keeping the car on the road uneconomic. if you're a manufacturer
run by bean counters and those bean counters are under some misguided
impression that customer loyalty is something that won't evaporate so
they can start, as caesar once said, shaving their sheep, not shearing
them, chain drive is the way to go.
I would agree with Jim Beam. I've owned Honda's and SAAB's for 25
years. I still have two classic SAAB 900's, one of which is my
daughter's who's away at college. Both, of course, use timing chains.
One is a 1985 8-valve SOHC, and my daughter's a 1987 16-valve DOHC,
each have over 160K miles. So far, so good, but I can tell on the '85
that the chain tensioner is about max'ed out maintaining the tension on
the chain. Replacing it is not an easy, nor an inexpensive
proposition. And with SAAB's engine/transaxle design, the easiest way
to replace it is to pull the entire system out of the chassis. Smart,
and experienced, SAAB Certified Master Technicians can change it out
while the engine is still in the car, but it's hard to find these folks
in some areas. Either way, it's generally Big $$$ . . .
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a Gilmer (that's its actual
name!) reinforced rubber timing belt design. They're much easier, and
generally much less costly, to replace than a chain. The practical
problem in the field is primarily because of: 1). failure of the owner
to replace the belt within the recommended limits, and 2). use with
interference engines. Should the belt break with an interference
engine, very bad things happen to valves and pistons! With today's
naturally-aspirated high-compression engines, interference designs are
Say you just lease the new car for three years. That has recently
been a very economic way to go because the resale has been so high.
If Honda starts making it so you need another $2,000 to keep the
vehicle on the road after 100k, maybe half that is going to come out
of the 3-year resale value, which increases lease prices, and/or puts
pressure on the sales price.
Not arguing, just running some numbers on the consequences.
My lease is up in December, but I'm getting close to the 36k miles
already so might trade in early. Let's see, $1k over 36 payments is
another $30/month or so, just to pay for the chain, if my numbers are
somewhere in the ballpark. See if I can lease a new EX4 for the same
$279 this time around, plus or minus a little dealing on the drive-off
Thanks guys, I am thinking if they just put a timing chain in the V6
model. The car that I bought is the 2003 Honda Accord Coupe 2.4 Liter
Vtec 4 Cylinder Manual Engine. This is what it looks like:
I wanted the 4 cyl, because it gets very good gas mileage, compared to
the V6 model and I think the insurance is cheaper too, and maintenance.
I am 25 years old, and it will cost me $198 dollars a month for full
coverage, I have a good driving record, but I do not see why it is so
high? I heard it drops when you hit 28, but in the past I heard it
drops when you turn 24. I am told one thing, than something else. I am
be your own boss, earn residual income, and help others while you do
I feel that 1993 ex is the best and most reliable accord ever.
as for chains ask why all of the most expensive cars use chains.
Why all of the rigs that do over 500K before overhauls use chains?.
Belts allow the manufacturers to save cost in engine design and assembly..
In most cases, the last Honda Accord in a series is the best ones to buy.
The 1993 Accord, the 1997 Accord and the 2002 Accord were the last ones in
each series. If I am wrong--I'm sure someone will let me know.
The reason: Honda fixes any problems they find. The last Accord in each
series mentioned above usually does not have any problems since all of
those problems were fixed. The first Accord in a series such as the 1998
Accord would be the one in that series that had the most factory problems.
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
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.