Our Cars--2003 Honda Accord EX V-6
Let's say I went back in time to 1973 and tracked down the proud original owner of my old 1973 Plymouth Valiant. Let's say I offered that Valiant driver a chance to look at a car from 2003 and then, with eager anticipation in the air, I whipped a sheet off of the Honda Accord pictured here. How do you think that Valiant driver would react?
I think the 1970s driver would be momentarily thrown by the aerodynamic styling, but would subsequently be really disappointed by the lack of progress in the intervening three decades.
"This car is from 2003?" Valiant Bob would ask incredulously. "But it's hardly any different! It still runs on gasoline? It still scrapes rain off the windshield with rubber blades? You still have to steer it with a wheel? It doesn't drive itself? It doesn't fly? What does your car do that mine doesn't?"
No, our cars today aren't as revolutionary as people in the 1960s and early 1970s thought they would be. Heck--based on the timeline of a certain famous movie from 1968, we should be well into our colonization of the moon by now. In part, I think that lack of obvious advancement has come because the internal combustion engine and passenger cars have had more than a century of development--it's a pretty mature technology.
I spend a lot of time writing about and lusting for older cars--probably more than is healthy--but even I find the quality of today's cars completely remarkable. As an example, here's my family's workhorse family sedan--a 2003 Honda Accord EX V-6. It's a pretty straightforward family sedan, albeit with the optional V-6. It's now a half-decade old, and is no longer part of the current generation of Accords.
Oh, and it's fantastic. To answer Valiant Bob's last question, my car does everything his car does, much, much better, without obvious compromises. In fact,the Accord is so good that it serves as my baseline for comparison when mentally evaluating any car, new or old. When a plain-Jane family sedan can stand up to legendary cars of the past, it's really an indicator of what a finely honed tool the modern passenger car has become.
What's astounding to me is just how good my Accord is at virtually everything.
Acceleration
My car has the optional 3.0-liter VTEC V-6, which was rated at 240 horsepower in 2003. For reference, that's as much horsepower as the 1989 Corvette's 5.7-liter L89 V-8 generated. The Accord does it with just over half the engine displacement.
With the magic of variable valve timing, the V-6 is a sweetheart of an engine. It's torquey and comfortable to drive slowly, but when spurred it revs happily and makes a beautiful noise. It's not as glorious as a BMW inline six, nor as brawny as the Nissan V-6, but it's still a wonderful engine.
Car & Driver tested a 2003 Accord EX V-6 at 7.0 seconds in the 0-60 sprint. That doesn't sound particularly impressive in today's world of performance inflation, but a look to the archives reveals just how fast a 7-second 0-60 car is. That's as fast as a mid-1980s Porsche 911SC or 928. It's as fast as a 1990s automatic Nissan 300ZX turbo. It's as fast as a 1990s Ferrari Mondial, or a 1988 BMW M6, or a 1988 Camaro IROC-Z. And this is a family sedan.
In the real world, a world dominated by Seattle traffic, the Accord has rich reserves of power. This might get my car enthusiast papers revoked, but I can't remember the last time I used full throttle. Honestly, I never actually need it. Partial throttle is all that's necessary to get the Accord rocketing along at extralegal velocities. I only use full throttle when I'm feeling stupid and don't have my family in the car.
Handling
Well, the Accord is a family sedan. Nobody will confuse it with a Lotus Elan. It's a sizable front-wheel-drive sedan, and so physics has the last word here.
But within those confines, the Accord is very good. The first thing I noticed about the Accord when I drove it was the steering--it's extremely solid, has good heft, and gives a decent amount of feedback. The suspension is firm enough to keep the Accord composed when it's hustled, but with a smooth ride.
The Accord isn't quite a BMW 5-series in the corners, but it's not terribly far off. It's smooth, solid, and actually pretty responsive.
Comfort/Space
My Accord has a huge trunk - large enough for the Mafia to profitably put to use - and a very comfortable back seat. Even with the front seats pushed comfortably back, there's plenty of leg room.
The car itself is extremely comfortable. I've got leather--perfect for wiping up baby spills!--and the design, layout, and materials used in the interior are so nice that the accommodations compare very well to an Acura or BMW. The materials aren't quite up to the standard of an E-class Mercedes, but that's a pretty lofty standard. The Accord feels just like a luxury car to me.
Environmentally Friendly
Remember when I was talking about how powerful the Accord's V-6 is? Well, it's also ULEV-certified, which means it generates 50% less emissions than the average new car. That's especially remarkable considering today's cars generate 75-90% less emissions than cars in the 1970s. The Accord generates less than half of today's average.
Mileage isn't as good as with a smaller car, or a four-cylinder Accord, but we typically see the mid-to-high 20s. Considering the amount of city driving we do, I think that's pretty remarkable.
Some cars are fast, but are small and inefficient. Some cars are efficient, but small and slow. Some cars are big, but small and inefficient. Somehow the Accord manages to be big, fast, and efficient, and I think that's a triumph of engineering. And--to get back to the original premise of this post--this isn't unique to my Accord. Most cars today have whittled most of the compromise right out.
My Accord has now become the primary vehicle of my wife and child, so it has begun to take on the inevitable dings, spills, stains, smells, and creases. But underneath that patina of child-rearing, it's still the same engineering tour-de-force that would astonish Valiant Bob once he got over the fact that it doesn't fly.
--Chris H.
steaming pile on March 24, 2008 at 03:22 PM
The gas mileage, while unremarkable by today's standards, easily exceeded that of any six cylinder car of the 1980s. So what you have there is a car that seats five in sumptuous comfort with the pickup of all but the most exotic sports cars of a quarter-century ago, not to mention the great muscle cars of the 1960s, all for around $26,000. Or you can get one with a four-banger that's perfectly adequate, (unlike, say, the Plymouth Reliant) gets 31 MPG at 70 MPH with the A/C running (I'd be afraid to drive a Reliant that fast), and still has room for your expanding brood, the oldest of which will probably inherit the car as a hand-me-down a decade or so from now. That's the amazing thing.
Chris Hafner on March 24, 2008 at 04:16 PM
Yes, that's exactly right, Steaming Pile. If we take 1985 as an example, I now have a family sedan as fast as a Camaro IROC-Z, as spacious inside as a Caprice (seriously!), and as efficient as a four-cylinder Taurus.
The remarkable thing is that as much as I like my Accord, it's a pretty standard family car. The new Accord is faster and bigger; and the Hyundai Sonata and Nissan Altima both offer sedans than match my Accord in just about every aspect.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on March 24, 2008 at 04:19 PM
All that, and your recommended oil-change interval is probably 5,000 or 8,000 miles . . . and there's no required chassis lubrication . . . and it starts on cold mornings on one turn of the key.
I was looking at some old Car & Driver magazines a while ago, and I was shocked to realize that my GTI is quicker 0-60, and has a shorter 70-0 stopping distance, than Thomas Magnum's Ferrari 308. (Magnum P.I. has me beat in top speed, and I'm 'way outgunned in coolness factor. On the other hand, I get better gas mileage!)
Chris Hafner on March 24, 2008 at 04:40 PM
All true--when it comes to daily drivers, technology is truly a wonderful thing.
Of course, none of this is deterring me in the slightest from lusting over a 1975 burgundy-over-burgundy Caprice coupe for sale about a mile away from my house. In a way, the reliability of our daily driver frees me up to get something iffy as a second car. Right? Right?
Mochi Mochi on March 24, 2008 at 06:11 PM
No - it is not atomic powered or warp driven. It doesn't allow you to transport down to the nearest planet and it does not have phaser set on stun. It doesn't even fly (but then it would not be a car anymore despite flying-car future tech predictions in 1970). But this is a pretty amazing piece of engineering. The engine alone has some of the most advanced mechanical engineering on the planet going on inside it. AND it is rock solid reliable. They even got the emissions right. From personal experience the inside of a Honda engine is a thing of beauty. When you total all that Honda accomplished with the Accord you have to say they got it right. From handling and comfort to performance and emissions this is a very balanced and effective piece of design.
Rob the SVX guy on March 24, 2008 at 09:54 PM
Chris, although it gets better MPG, it does NOT mean that it's better for the environment than the valiant was. People need to quit equating better MPG to 'saving the planet', because the real problem with everything, EVERYTHING, is 'consumption'. Is it a good car? Sure. Is it efficient? Kind of. It's more efficient than the valiant at using fuel and getting performance, but what people are ignoring are the immense amounts of energy, raw materials, and pollution generated from PRODUCING the car in the first place. What am I saying? I'm saying that for every new car created, massive amounts of pollution is thrown into the air from all the energy required, all the strip mining for ore, all the heat required to recycle existing metal, all the machines using internal combustion engines using to transport ore, parts, and materials, the energy used to refine the chemicals needed for plastics, rubber, paints, etc. Some studies have shown that for each 'average' car created, the impact of it's production will not be met by the car's tailpipe emissions unless the car is driven over 650,000 miles. Am I saying that we shouldn't have any new cars? Of course not. That's silly. I am saying we should work hard to salvage almost any vehicle that already exists, and keep it on the road as LONG AS POSSIBLE, which reduces consumption. Sure, my 1989 Accord with 98hp burns a bit of oil (more likely it leaks), and it needs parts sometimes, but by keeping this car until I'm unable to fix it, I'm doing the environment a favor. Currently, we OVERPRODUCE automobiles at an alarming rate, which decrease the market value of a used car to the point where a fairly simple procedure (bad fuel lines, bad brakes, or a bad transmission) wind up getting a car thrown into the junkyard, instead of being driven for another 50-150,000 miles.
All three of my cars have over 150,000 miles, my accord having 263,590. And you know what? As long as I maintain them properly they're all great cars, and I don't need to get new ones. Think about this. So many people view Priuses as environmentally friendly, when in fact they are the complete opposite. With twice as many parts, 2 drivetrains, and batteries made in a country with zero environmental regulations, that Prius pollutes a lot more than any 1970s piece of American iron ever will.
Chris Hafner on March 24, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Rob the SVX guy: "Chris, although it gets better MPG, it does NOT mean that it's better for the environment than the valiant was."
All good points. Though since my car has already been built and is an alternative to a brand new 2008 car, my Accord now gets grandfathered in just like a Valiant, right?
:-)
"I am saying we should work hard to salvage almost any vehicle that already exists, and keep it on the road as LONG AS POSSIBLE"
I am 100-percent on board with this!
Robert Sims Jr. on March 25, 2008 at 02:44 AM
I have owned serveral Honda's and I would a gree with you on the quality of the vehicle but I found that my 1992 190E 2.6 Mercede Benz was a heavier car and heald the road bettet. When it came to gas, they where equal. The Benz did burn high test, but the 87 octane that the Honda burned kept me in the gas station, especially in the city ( it ran better on 87 oct. ) On the open road they where equal. Now I bought the Honda new in 98 for $24,ooo and drove it for 8 years, it was my second new Honda. The Benz I bough used for $7,000 With 62,000 miles. It may not be a good comparison, and I do love Honda but give me the Benz.
Steaming Pile on March 25, 2008 at 07:24 AM
@Rob the SVX guy - Also consider that many junked cars get cannibalized for parts. I like used parts - they save me big money. I still agree with you that we junk our old cars too early. We run ours until they fall apart, but we expect them to last a long time. That's why we buy Hondas, because you can get ten years' use out of them without breaking a sweat, even in the Northeast where the weather just beats the living crap out of cars. We'll probably trade our '99 Accord for a new one in a couple of years, and when we do, under its rusty hood the engine will probably still run like the day it was built - a junk dealer's dream car.
Anthony Cagle on March 25, 2008 at 08:29 AM
I know what you mean comparing these things to old cars. Just this morning I drove the Spousal Unit's 1996 Civic to work to drop it off for a tune-up next door to where I work. It's a little 2-door HX, the most efficient version -- around 43 highway. Except in acceleration, it's far better in nearly every way than my '78 Mustang II: Handles better, rides better, quieter. I regularly drive both so I'm constantly going from old to new and back again. Admittedly, mine is way more fun to drive, but there's really little comparison.
Can anyone argue that we're not in a golden age of automobiles? We have an embarrassing array of riches right now from performance to efficiency, nearly all of which are well-built and comfortable. This must be what the '60s felt like.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on March 25, 2008 at 09:03 AM
Anthony: Those Detroit 60s cars weren't all that well built, but since there wasn't much to compare them to besides other Detroit 60s iron, nobody noticed.
-- Mercedes and BMW were exotic and priced too high for most buyers.
-- Volkswagen Beetles had excellent build quality, but--c'mon! It's a VW! That's a car for hippies!
-- There were relatively few Japanese imports. I don't recall seeing anything in Ohio with a Japanese nameplate until the early 1970s.
-- British cars were so poorly assembled they made Detroit look good.
-- Fiat? Fix It Again Tony!
Rob the SVX guy on March 25, 2008 at 09:22 AM
Yes, but the get sent to junkyards and parted FAR too early. I also scour junkyards for parts, because it's cheap, and fun. However, how many times have you seen a fairly beautiful or complete car just sitting there, awaiting it's demise? In my years of junkyard scavenging, I've seen all sorts of beautiful cars that should be ON THE ROAD, not sitting in a yard crammed next to other vehicles, where people will walk across it's pristine hood to avoid the mud, where people pull a few things off of it, then it gets crushed. I've seen a gorgeous black 1970 Polara, with perfect chrome, glass, interior, paint, and body (except a small ding on the pass. door, it apparently had a bad transmission, and the owner junked it), I've seen mint sciroccos, awesome looking audi V8s, an integra GSR that was merely towed and the owner didn't feel like paying for it, but was 100% working, and also rust free with gorgeous paint, the list can go on and on and on. It's sad, and the reason these cars were junked in the first place was OVER production, which drives down the value of used cars, so that a simple problem causes them to be scrapped. It's extremely wasteful, and considering how much more I like older cars than boring things like this article was about (sorry Chris), it just pisses me off.
Chris Hafner on March 25, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Rob: "It's sad, and the reason these cars were junked in the first place was OVER production, which drives down the value of used cars, so that a simple problem causes them to be scrapped. It's extremely wasteful, and considering how much more I like older cars than boring things like this article was about (sorry Chris), it just pisses me off."
No worries. I think the ratio of old cars to new cars in this blog shows that I'm pretty much of the same mind with you on the desirability of old cars.
I don't necessarily mind new cars--I think modern cars are pretty breathtaking--but the older cars are more interesting and I agree that they are needlessly thrown away. That 1970 Polara in particular just kills me. I've wanted one for a long time, and they're awfully rare now.
By the way, you just keep drilling home how similar our automotive tastes are. Mint Sciroccos? Audi V-8? Yes please!
Anthony Cagle on March 25, 2008 at 10:46 AM
"Those Detroit 60s cars weren't all that well built, but since there wasn't much to compare them to besides other Detroit 60s iron, nobody noticed."
I've thought that for a while now. For a long time I went along with the herd mentality that it was only in the '70s that cars had such lousy quality. I started hearing from more and more people exactly what you said.
Still, they had sooooo many bad-ass cars the enjoy.
I'm thinking the '20s was the original golden age.
Anthony Cagle on March 25, 2008 at 10:46 AM
"Those Detroit 60s cars weren't all that well built, but since there wasn't much to compare them to besides other Detroit 60s iron, nobody noticed."
I've thought that for a while now. For a long time I went along with the herd mentality that it was only in the '70s that cars had such lousy quality. I started hearing from more and more people exactly what you said.
Still, they had sooooo many bad-ass cars the enjoy.
I'm thinking the '20s was the original golden age.
Chris Hafner on March 25, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Yeah, I don't think people prefer 1960s cars to 1970s cars because they are better-built, necessarily. I think there are a few things at work.
1. Cars became more complex in the 1970s - primarily because of the need for emissions equipment. That emissions equipment was relatively new, complex, and had lots of unintended consequences on starting and drivability. Strip emissions equipment from a typical 1970s car, and I'd bet it would drive as sweetly, if not more so, as a typical 1960s car.
2. American cars changed in the 1970s, especially in the late 1970s. The Big Three were very good at building large-displacement, rear-wheel drive sedans and coupes. They weren't so good at building smaller, small-displacement, front-wheel-drive cars. You'll note that some of the 1970s cars with the worst reputations (such as the GM X-car) were the cars where the automakers tried to take a big step forward in technology. The cars that were more traditionally built (Malibu, Impala) tended to play to the automakers' strengths and were less troubled than the more radical designs (Citation). I don't think a '76 Impala, for example, is any worse-built than a '66 Impala.
3. Performance hides a lot of sins. In the 1960s, we didn't have to worry about fuel economy and emissions - as a result, seemingly every car had a high-performance derivation that was coveted at the time, lionized later, and that still today reflects well across the rest of the line.
For example, the 1976 Chevy Nova was a much better family sedan than the 1967 Chevy II Nova. But because the Chevy II was available with a fuelie 327 in SS trim, it has been venerated through the decades. The '76 Nova was available only as an ordinary sedan, so it doesn't benefit by association.
When people today think about the 1960s, they think about muscle cars. They don't think about the vast majority of 1960s cars that were just ordinary cars. They don't think about the slow base versions of the Chevelle or Mercury Cougar, or the VW Bug, or the Rambler, or the Renault Dauphine.
The 1960s were special because of the bountiful performance; not necessarily because the cars themselves were any better than what came later. the 1970s look worse in retrospect because muscle was taken out of the mix. If we just look at everyday cars of the 1960s, they certainly don't overshadow their 1970s counterparts.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on March 25, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I'm pretty much in agreement with you there, Chris, but I do think there were a couple of other factors at work:
-- As I alluded above, in the 1970s, Detroit started to face serious competition in a way it hadn't in the 1960s. We got Toyota Corollas and Honda Civics and the like, superbly-built, superbly-engineered, extremely competent vehicles.
-- At the same time, there was an erosion in the quality of what Detroit was building. It was more than the loss of muscle; the Big 3 1/2 did a poor job of re-engineering to meet the new emissions requirements, and at the same time materials and build quality slipped a little more each year. The incremental decline from one year to the next was not all that noticeable, but after ten years or so of decline, you woke up one morning and noticed that the rear fenders on Dad's two-year old '72 Galaxie in the driveway were dissolving into oxide before your eyes and its engine was going out of tune every 750 miles, while Uncle Frank's '66 Dart seemed to be holding up pretty well.
mochi mochi on March 25, 2008 at 03:38 PM
In the 1960's American cars were great in part because they were simple. Yes there were big cars with big engines. But the basic cars were really quite good on average. The 1970's did usher in a vast increase in complexity. Europe and Japan handled that increased complexity with grace. US manufacturers did not pursue graceful solutions and this resulted in reliability issues. more complexity more chances for failure. If you have a base of 70% reliability to begin with, and then you multiply the number of avenues for failure (all with a similar reliability level) then you multiply the likelihood of something failing. When things were simple (as in the 60s) that was not so bad - fixes were relatively straightforward.
Regarding base models. The 60's was not solely the province of the large car and the muscle car. I think of the more pedestrian models of the Mustang. Also the Falcon. Ford was making smaller, lighter, more efficient cars that were really nice. I still wish I could get a nice little Falcon. Other makers also made some decent smaller cars. But overall what stands out in all this is utter unblemished simplicity. There was a freshness of thinking. In the mid to late 60's there were a number of nicely appointed cars with pretty clean lines.
The 1970's marked a number of shifts. But I think the concept of the luxury car became a dominant theme for US design. Profits and bean counters were in, while Detroit refused to embrace regulations with a spirit of creativity. Europe and Japan did. The result was Detroit began selling the car as a set of decorative accessories instead of advancing technology and design. Perhaps the market had shifted. Perhaps Detroit was sitting on its laurels and reusing to budge. But while the rest of the world (EU and Japan) kept things simple and lean, Detroit produced rolling disco balls and sluggish lumbering behemoths. Debauched wedding cakes on wheels.
I think Cookie the Dog's Owner gets it right here. There was a continuous decline as Detroit refused to budge and arrogantly refused to make concessions to the advancing tide of change. One or two years would have been one thing... an full decade is another thing entirely.
Honda is a shining example of the opposite approach to design. Efficiency and creativity in design. Better solutions and reliability enforced fleet-wide. I have personal experience with exactly why Hondas are so reliable. Each and every part is manufactured and tested to strict standards. Every part I have ever replaced that was NOT OEM has failed and cost me money. Honda OEM parts last for a very long time. Component design is one of the main contributors to overall reliability. That is one of the lessons that Honda learned early on. Meanwhile Detroit was looking at increasing profits by cutting the bottom line and building with cheaper parts. A formula for reliability disaster.