Accord vs. Altima coupes - Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums
Ribbon Banner

Go Back   Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums > CAR SPECIFIC DISCUSSION > 8TH GENERATION HONDA ACCORD (2008-2012)
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Insurance
V6Performance.net is the premier Honda Accord Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 27th, 2010, 10:33 AM   #1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 34
Send a message via AIM to andrew's accord Send a message via MSN to andrew's accord Send a message via Skype™ to andrew's accord
Accord vs. Altima coupes

I'm in the process of buying a new car. I currently have an accord v6 sedan, 2003.

I would like a coupe. Im in love with the accord, and the altima is really nice too. I would love a v6, however i dont feel like it is worth the extra money unless i can find a deal somewhere, so im looking at getting a 4 cylinder.

As far as mods go, they will be very few and far between, im paying my way through college, and I am buying the car, not leasing, so i can do mods later.

So, here we go. Why should I get the accord? I havnt test driven the accord yet, but ill probably go tomorrow to look at them, test drive, etc. I drove the altima 2.5s with convenience package yesterday, and wow....im in love. the CVT trans was prolly the best thing ive ever driven.

So, in short, why the accord over the altima? thanks for any input!
andrew's accord is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 27th, 2010, 12:05 PM   #2
frumaroll
 
six6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,048
the cvt transmission is garbage
six6 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 27th, 2010, 03:10 PM   #3
03 AV6 Coupe
 
hondav6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oceanside, Ca
Posts: 1,628
Personally I would go for the accord. It is the better all around value and vehicle IMO. If it were me though I would go with the 6MT V6 Accord Coupe but I realize cost is an issue.

There was comparison test with the 08 Accord Coupe V6 6MT vs the 08 Nissan Altima Coupe 6MT V6 and the accord won the comparison test hands down. It was edmunds that did the test.
hondav6 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old October 27th, 2010, 04:18 PM   #4
Registered User
 
paperboy42190's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Alhambra, CA
Posts: 2,771
to be honest i dont like the cvt in the altima. i have driven the 08 altima coupe 2.5s and its really hard to get used to the cvt since it seems like it just whirls up and down. perhaps if i had driven it longer i would like it, but for sure it will take some getting used to. however, in the altima, i felt that the interior quality could be much better. the windows would sometimes squeak from rolling up and down and overall the interior feels less refined than the accord. However Im sure if you get the higher trim levels it might be a better experience because i know the altima has an optional navigation which looks very advanced.
__________________
Nighthawk Black Pearl 2007 Acura TL Type-S
paperboy42190 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 27th, 2010, 07:23 PM   #5
jsiriusvtec
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
DO NOT BUY CVT TRANSAXLES (Unless you are a UT fan...it's ok then.)

It is technology derived from go-karts....some of your solid gears are replaced by a nice, sturdy belt. (<-sarcasm)

When I worked at GM a couple of years ago, we had a hell of alot of problems with them.

They would wear, make the trans act even more retarded, then eventually snap and explode in the trans casing.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 28th, 2010, 11:35 AM   #6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 31
I am going to pre-load this post with a disclaimer.
I am a current owner and sales consultant for Honda, so I am biased.

Lets start with the engine.

-The Honda K24 is arguably the best 4 cylinder on the market right now, smooth, refined, powerful (190hp vs 177hp) and very fuel efficient (23/34mpg). Honda also makes more engines than anyone else in the entire world, they know what they're doing. Take this into consideration; Honda has been the sole producer of IRL engines since 2006 and there hasn't been a single engine failure. Not a SINGLE one.
-The Nissan QR25DE has been around since the 2002 model year (in the Altima) and has been plagued with a series of issues and recalls. Most of which revolve around the intake manifold and an unfortunate issue of sucking bolts into the engine. It is less powerful than the K24 and much louder. The CVT transmission provides a smooth, but disconnected feel. They provide consistent fuel economy, but doesnt offer any advantage over the 5 speed automatic in the Accord.

Styling:

This is a matter of personal preference, but with the facelift on the 2011 Accord, it looks fantastic. To me (remember, I'm a current Honda owner and sales consultant, hence: biased) the Altima does not have the refinement in style that the Accord does, interior or exterior.
Take a look at the body panel gaps on both vehicles. Honda takes huge pride in the tight tolerances in manufacturing and it shows up in the way the body panels fit together. The interior quality of the Nissan isn't on the same level as the Honda. Again, this is strictly personal preference.

Cost of ownership (the big boy):

Lets take a look at list prices.
Accord LX-S auto: $24,330 (including $750 destination charges)
Altima 2.5s w/convenience package: $25,260 (including $750 destination charge)

The Accord is nearly $1000 cheaper when comparably equipped (as close as you can get) therefore payments will be cheaper. Honda, as you may know, doesn't discount their vehicles or provide any rebates. This keeps the resale value very high, so you can rest assured that if at any point down the road you decide to sell, you will get the most money for it. The Accord is a Top Safety Pick by the IIHS, and is the cheapest to insure in its class. ALG rates the cost of ownership is the lowest in class as well.



Summary:

These are just a few of the major points that I would consider when looking at vehicles (or selling them). Obviously the decision is up to you, but after spending time selling Hondas, I feel that the Accord is a superior product.
hiddengamer7 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 28th, 2010, 12:30 PM   #7
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
NISSAN's CVTs are great. Just because GM couldn't build one doesn't mean they can't be built well. GM gave up and decided to go with 6-speed automatics. I just checked the reliability history of Nissan's CVT in the Altima and Murano in Consumer Reports, and it's solid. Far more solid than certain Honda automatics have been in years past. I like CVTs because they keep you in the powerband, they're efficient, and there's no shift shock or idiotic shift mapping issues. CVTs have plenty of advantages over conventional 4/5/6 speed automatics. They are a bit dull to drive, but if you want a more conventional feel most of them had a "sport" program that will simulate that.

Honda's K24 is good or bad. I test drove a CR-V once and it felt as smooth as in Inline-6, yet a few rental 04 Accords I had it sounded and felt like absolute crap. Just a question of whether they went all out and put dual balance shafts in along with the fancier motor mounts and better sound and NVH insulation, or if they cut costs and used only a single or NO balance shaft and none of the other fancy stuff, as they appear to have done in the 7th gen Accord with the K24. Haven't driven a Nissan QR25DE lately, but in general I hate "all" larger displacement 4-cylinder engines. To me some are just "less bad" than others. Yeah a few earlier QR25DE engines liked to suck in throttle body screws which wasn't good, but a check of Consumer Reports shows nothing major and nothing recent on these engines.

The comparison to Honda IRL V8 engines is silly. Come on man, is this the kind of fluff you guys are blowing up people's butts these days to try and get them to buy Hondas? If you pulled that on me I'd roll my eyes, or start biting my lip trying not to laugh or smirk, or walk out, LOL. The engines HAVE failed. They're reliable though more because of SPEC and less so because Honda has some miraculously superior engine designing goodness and know how and pixie dust that they throw into the engines. The 3.0L V8s are "only" making 650hp and rev limited to 10,300rpm which is relatively mild for a race spec engine. The old Champ cars were less reliable and had more engine explosions because they were making MORE power (700-800, to approaching 1000hp at one point) from SMALLER engines, turning MORE RPMs. One of the reasons IRL was started was because the super high spec engines were enormously expensive and also high risk. The IRL engines are LOWER spec, larger displacement, lower RPM, and aren't trying to push nearly as much power out of them. That's why they're reliable. With the flip of a switch Honda could get these engines up to the same 800-1000hp range as CART with rev limits in excess of 14,000rpm, but guess what? Then they'd be back to the same higher cost and lower reliability issues that CART was before. Similarly, they could have cut CART engines off at 10,300rpm and/or limited boost to about the same 650hp that Honda's IRL engine is at today and viola, they would have suddenly been a lot more reliable.

Comparison of list prices is also a bit silly because nobody ever pays list price. There's always all sorts of rebates and incentives and other programs and deals going on. Out the door price, Nissans are almost always cheaper than Hondas when comparing the same car. Yes, Honda rarely does rebates or incentive programs - but Nissan does.

All that said, I'd still lean towards an ACCORD.

Why? The Altima coupe just plain looks weird and ugly to me. Very few people actually buy and drive them, which makes me think resale is also going to be very poor. The Accord coupe looks a whole lot better to me, and you'd probably be able to sell it a lot easier too. Nissan hasn't figured out the whole coupe thing yet. Even their Infiniti G coupes have always looked really weird to me. That said, if I test drove the Altima coupe and felt that it drove a whole lot better I could still be swayed, but the looks just don't do it for me. I'd rather buy an Altima sedan than a coupe. But would rather buy an Accord coupe than an Altima coupe.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 28th, 2010, 12:40 PM   #8
Registered User
 
09^CBP^6MT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gardena CA
Posts: 154
There is no way in hell you researched the Nissan CVT and came up with the end result of "it's solid". Google Nissan CVT and get back to me, they completely blow and have been on the verge of a class action lawsuit for years. They issued this as a result of all the problems they had "Nissan has extended the Nissan New Vehicle Limited Warranty for the Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) to 10 years/120,000 miles (whichever occurs first) for CVT transmission repairs, replacement, and related towing on all 2003-2010 model year Nissan vehicles equipped with the CVT. The remainder of the powertrain warranty coverage for components other than the CVT transmission remains unchanged. All other warranty terms, limitations and conditions otherwise apply.

Please note that this is not a safety recall, and there are no safety issues relating to your Continuously Variable Transmission.


Examples .....http://hubpages.com/hub/Nissan-Refus...r-CVT-Problems
http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/200...nny-read-this/
09^CBP^6MT is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 28th, 2010, 12:51 PM   #9
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
I've been tracking Nissan CVTs for years in Consumer Reports because I was curious how well they'd hold up, and have never seen anything major going on with their transmissions, unlike Honda. I'll take Consumer Report's stats vs random people putting up web pages which isn't the least bit scientific any day. For the Japanese Big 3 each selling hundreds of thousands of cars per year, hundreds of people turning up online to complain about something doesn't necessarily mean there's huge problems.

Fact is, you can Google anything on cars and no matter how solid something is you'll find people complaining about things. One guy on one of those websites said he was going to get a Subaru Outback instead? Oh I guess he must not have Googled "Subaru head gasket" or "Subaru vibration" on the Internets!! If they did, then they'd realize they shouldn't buy that car either.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 28th, 2010, 01:19 PM   #10
Registered User
 
09^CBP^6MT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gardena CA
Posts: 154
So explain to me why Nissan doubled the warranty period for the CVT then? Because they were doing everything they could to avoid any more lawsuits. Truth or fiction?
09^CBP^6MT is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 28th, 2010, 01:52 PM   #11
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
It's all a PR game.

A lot of these lawsuits over car problems when the vehicle manufacturer already has and honors a warranty have little legal grounds. They could fight the lawsuit and win, but then they'll come across looking like big greedy corporate bullies and get a lot of bad press and people will just boycott saying they don't stand behind their product, even though they already are with their existing warranty period. That's what you call winning the battle but losing the war. Better to just settle out of court so that there's not nearly as much bad press, or just agree to do beyond warranty repairs, or extend the warranty. If something is already relatively solid, there's not going to be much in the way of added warranty coverage costs to the manufacturer. In fact that's probably cheaper than long drawn out legal battles with consumers which will just make them look bad and cause them to lose more money in lost sales and boycotts than they would have if they just repaired whatever was wrong in the first place. They know all this. They're not dumb. I know the EARLY CVTs did have a higher issue rate so the consumer perception might be a bit uneasy with CVTs in that they're relatively new and unproven and a question mark. Cheaper and easier to just extend the warranty, especially if the actual issue rate is low.

Guess what? Older pre-04 Honda transmissions are still failing at a MILE PER MINUTE in Consumer Reports data, so this is really a moot point. Pot calling the kettle black? Even if the Nissan CVTs did have a higher failure rate early on, Nissan appears to have improved the designs such that they don't continue to re-fail like Honda trannys still are.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 28th, 2010, 02:00 PM   #12
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
BTW forget about horsepower specs.

Nissan QR25DE: 180 lb-ft @ 3900rpm
Honda K24: 162 lb-ft @ 4400rpm

The Nissan engine has a whole lot more torque. Bet it's a lot punchier to drive too.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 28th, 2010, 04:25 PM   #13
Registered User
 
09^CBP^6MT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gardena CA
Posts: 154
What does anything Honda did in the past relate to the Nissan CVT in a new car that this thread was started about? I was simply disagreeing with your statements in regard to the cvt as being solid. IMO it is not. IMO you bringing up Hondas past has nothing to do with it or the present, just a way to deflect what I have brought up. Calling the doubling of a warranty period a PR game is laughable. So is double posting from a mod. One of the main factors in the 6th & 7th gen trans failures was the lack of a dedicated cooler, the 8th gens have one, and the hasn't been any complains since.

Last edited by 09^CBP^6MT; October 28th, 2010 at 05:35 PM..
09^CBP^6MT is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 28th, 2010, 06:44 PM   #14
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by 09^CBP^6MT View Post
What does anything Honda did in the past relate to the Nissan CVT in a new car that this thread was started about? I was simply disagreeing with your statements in regard to the cvt as being solid. IMO it is not.
That's nice, CR says otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 09^CBP^6MT View Post
IMO you bringing up Hondas past has nothing to do with it or the present, just a way to deflect what I have brought up.
Whatever CVT issues Nissan has had appear to be IN THE PAST.

Oh wait, I finally found a Nissan CVT car with tranny issues. The Rogue. The first year car seems to be having issues right now, but not the Altima, not the Maxima, and not the Murano. Well guess what bud, the OP isn't considering a Rogue. I have no idea why that one is having problems, but the Altima isn't and that's what the OP is considering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 09^CBP^6MT View Post
Calling the doubling of a warranty period a PR game is laughable. So is double posting from a mod. One of the main factors in the 6th & 7th gen trans failures was the lack of a dedicated cooler, the 8th gens have one, and the hasn't been any complains since.
Not knowing WTF you're talking about on 6th/7th gen trans failures is laughable too. Do you know how many people slapped accessory tranny coolers on their cars thinking they'd be ok only to still have their trannys blow up? Cuz that wasn't the main issue! Guess who read through hundreds of pages of Honda's report to the NHTSA on their tranny saga way back when, and guess who apparently didn't?

The tranny issues were resolved long before the 8th gen BTW.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 28th, 2010, 06:46 PM   #15
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
double posting just to annoy you.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 28th, 2010, 07:03 PM   #16
BULLPOO
 
SixSpeeder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 4,241
Send a message via AIM to SixSpeeder
Weigh out the options on both cars too. I have the convenience package with my Versa and not having to take the key out of my pocket, ever, is the greatest thing in the world.
SixSpeeder is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 28th, 2010, 10:21 PM   #17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteVTEC View Post
double posting just to annoy you.
you have 99 problems... go have your head checked.


i would also get the Honda over the Nissan, more reliable, better build quality, smoother engine, more refined and faster
mtgear is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 29th, 2010, 06:42 AM   #18
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
The Altima is currently ranked higher than the Accord in CR reliability rankings. Just saying...

You could very well be correct on the other points, but faster?? Road tests have put the Altima with the 2.5/CVT in the mid-7s range - Edmunds. The Accord got like 9.1s. That was a sedan and I forget it if was an EX or LX, but I'll be nice and assume it was the LX with a bit less power, and be incredibly generous and say maybe it could do 8.5s with the EX engine. There's almost no difference in weight between the sedan and coupe so that wouldn't be a big issue. Between the V6's I think it's a draw, but the OP is looking at the 4-cylinders.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 29th, 2010, 10:04 AM   #19
Registered User
 
v6indodarknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 245
from my 2001 v6 sedan...

to my recent 1997 audi a4 quattro 5spd man...
(bought for $3800, fix for $2600, sold for $4200)
i know i got ripped off... but i gotta cut my losses cuz that car is asking for trouble!!!

to now...

2011 BLACK HONDA ACCORD COUPE LX-S 5SPD MANUAL

I know there are lots of haters on this car... but

I love this car so muchhh.... Its beautiful inside and outside

the pix i got from online... so its not the actual pix of my car...

but should be the same trim and color...





it drives so smooth... with

190hp on the engine for a 4banger... not bad... ehhhh...

paid $23880 final price that includes 1.9% interest and tax

not bad for a brand new car...

that is coming from my 6thgenaccord forum... mine... hahahahaha
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
&mpt=[CACHEBUSTER]">
click on picture to see my profile

"Not slammed anymore"
v6indodarknight is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 29th, 2010, 01:27 PM   #20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteVTEC View Post
The Altima is currently ranked higher than the Accord in CR reliability rankings. Just saying...

You could very well be correct on the other points, but faster?? Road tests have put the Altima with the 2.5/CVT in the mid-7s range - Edmunds. The Accord got like 9.1s. That was a sedan and I forget it if was an EX or LX, but I'll be nice and assume it was the LX with a bit less power, and be incredibly generous and say maybe it could do 8.5s with the EX engine. There's almost no difference in weight between the sedan and coupe so that wouldn't be a big issue. Between the V6's I think it's a draw, but the OP is looking at the 4-cylinders.
whatt??.... the accord 4cyl has a better power to weight ratio than the altima 4, 17.13:1 vs 17.85:1... plus CVT's are slow off the line, i rented an altima cvt 4 cyl for about a week and when you stomp on the throttle the cvt takes its time to rev up to red line and stay there. this is deliberate to prevent excessive slippage, overheating and prolong the life of the transmission.

the 4 cyl accord the honda dealership gives me as a loaner is much sharper, stomp on it and the tires will chirp and surges forward smartly (and that was the heavier sendan with less power).


edmunds... dont mag race
mtgear is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 29th, 2010, 01:55 PM   #21
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtgear View Post
whatt??.... the accord 4cyl has a better power to weight ratio than the altima 4, 17.13:1 vs 17.85:1...
Peak horsepower to weight ratio is nearly meaningless. Sure the Accord has a tiny bit more power alllll the way up at 7000rpm where you'll almost never be, whereas the Altima has nearly 20 lb-ft more torque throughout the entire rev band. Powerband matters a whole lot more than peak power figures do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtgear View Post
plus CVT's are slow off the line, i rented an altima cvt 4 cyl for about a week and when you stomp on the throttle the cvt takes its time to rev up to red line and stay there. this is deliberate to prevent excessive slippage, overheating and prolong the life of the transmission.
Even though it's a CVT, it still has a certain lowest ratio and no it's not going to spin up instantly to 6000rpm. It still has to pull through its low ratio first before it starts increasing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtgear View Post
the 4 cyl accord the honda dealership gives me as a loaner is much sharper, stomp on it and the tires will chirp and surges forward smartly (and that was the heavier sendan with less power).

edmunds... dont mag race
All you're talking about here is subjective feel and butt dyno impressions. I hate mag racing too, but actual track tests show the Alty 2.5/CVT kicking the Accord's butt, which makes a lot of sense given how much more torque the Alty has and the fact that the CVT will keep it right at peak power once you've wound out the low ratio. The Accord will hit 190hp for one glorious instant at 7000rpm, and then has to shift where it's not making nearly as much power. The 2.5/CVT combo will put more average power to the wheels at the track and in any street driving test (30-50, 50-70, etc) than the Accord will.

I'd still never buy an Altima coupe though, because it makes my eyes want to vomit. So just sayin... If you really want performance you want the V6 version of either car anyways. I'm sure the Accord is still more than adequate.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 29th, 2010, 02:01 PM   #22
"Certified Hybrid Killer"
 
SteVTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Commietown, MD
Posts: 5,056
I'm honestly shocked that it's been NISSAN of all companies innovating the CVT and bringing it into the mainstream. Their engine designs historically have leaned more torwards torque production and having a good powerband. Honda's peaky higher HP lower torque engines would benefit far more from CVT transmissions than Nissan's would, and I would have thought CVTs would be more in line with Honda's engine building philosophy and how to get better performance and efficiency out of their cars. They do make some CVTs, just not for their bigger cars or with bigger engines. In addition to being faster and more powerful, the Nissan 2.5/CVT combo also gets 2mpg better overall (EPA combined) than the Accord 2.4/5AT.
SteVTEC is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 29th, 2010, 02:05 PM   #23
BULLPOO
 
SixSpeeder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 4,241
Send a message via AIM to SixSpeeder
Teh Honduh CVT would be the only CVT I would drive because it would have been made by the hands of Zeus. If it ain't Honda, it's crap is what I always say.
SixSpeeder is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 29th, 2010, 03:38 PM   #24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 38
everyone is biased, make your own personal opinion.
killa cali is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old October 31st, 2010, 11:40 PM   #25
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 206
i got a 6-6 for 25,700.
altima could never touch that price on a new car
i looked for a month for an altima with same specs around 27, nothing came close from any dealership within 100 miles. test drove both, the accord was definitly alot more fun to drive.
just my opinion
smilez is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 16th, 2010, 04:34 PM   #26
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 16
Hi. I'm new to this thread. and quite frankly I cant post new threads unlss I have an x amount of posts. But can some one tell me in their opinion what's better? 7th gen accord vs. 8th gen accord?
I'm currently debating on which one to get. But I'd like to know the comparisons.

thanks.
Enraged21 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 22nd, 2010, 09:30 PM   #27
Registered User
 
hhondaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 118
Accord all the way. You probably want to buy something different because you already had an Accord, but it is a much better car all around than an Altima. There's plenty of comparos out there and everyone picks Accord. The 8th gen is a completely revised edition so you won't be getting a regurgitated version of what already existed. (cough, Altima). The 3 Series are great cars if you want something different, or a G35/37
hhondaa is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old December 13th, 2010, 04:44 AM   #28
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Little Rock, Arkansas
Posts: 17
Send a message via Yahoo to Glenn Davis
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew's accord View Post
I'm in the process of buying a new car. I currently have an accord v6 sedan, 2003.

I would like a coupe. Im in love with the accord, and the altima is really nice too. I would love a v6, however i dont feel like it is worth the extra money unless i can find a deal somewhere, so im looking at getting a 4 cylinder.

As far as mods go, they will be very few and far between, im paying my way through college, and I am buying the car, not leasing, so i can do mods later.

So, here we go. Why should I get the accord? I havnt test driven the accord yet, but ill probably go tomorrow to look at them, test drive, etc. I drove the altima 2.5s with convenience package yesterday, and wow....im in love. the CVT trans was prolly the best thing ive ever driven.


So, in short, why the accord over the altima? thanks for any input!
I've always found the accord to be more tightly constructed, as well as more durable.
__________________
Accordz 4 Lyfe
Glenn Davis is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old December 14th, 2010, 08:05 AM   #29
BULLPOO
 
SixSpeeder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 4,241
Send a message via AIM to SixSpeeder
Glenn - please no mod lists in your sig. Thanks!
SixSpeeder is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old December 14th, 2010, 10:41 AM   #30
Registered User
 
FollowingNFront's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteVTEC View Post
NISSAN's CVTs are great. Just because GM couldn't build one doesn't mean they can't be built well. GM gave up and decided to go with 6-speed automatics. I just checked the reliability history of Nissan's CVT in the Altima and Murano in Consumer Reports, and it's solid. Far more solid than certain Honda automatics have been in years past. I like CVTs because they keep you in the powerband, they're efficient, and there's no shift shock or idiotic shift mapping issues. CVTs have plenty of advantages over conventional 4/5/6 speed automatics. They are a bit dull to drive, but if you want a more conventional feel most of them had a "sport" program that will simulate that.

Honda's K24 is good or bad. I test drove a CR-V once and it felt as smooth as in Inline-6, yet a few rental 04 Accords I had it sounded and felt like absolute crap. Just a question of whether they went all out and put dual balance shafts in along with the fancier motor mounts and better sound and NVH insulation, or if they cut costs and used only a single or NO balance shaft and none of the other fancy stuff, as they appear to have done in the 7th gen Accord with the K24. Haven't driven a Nissan QR25DE lately, but in general I hate "all" larger displacement 4-cylinder engines. To me some are just "less bad" than others. Yeah a few earlier QR25DE engines liked to suck in throttle body screws which wasn't good, but a check of Consumer Reports shows nothing major and nothing recent on these engines.

The comparison to Honda IRL V8 engines is silly. Come on man, is this the kind of fluff you guys are blowing up people's butts these days to try and get them to buy Hondas? If you pulled that on me I'd roll my eyes, or start biting my lip trying not to laugh or smirk, or walk out, LOL. The engines HAVE failed. They're reliable though more because of SPEC and less so because Honda has some miraculously superior engine designing goodness and know how and pixie dust that they throw into the engines. The 3.0L V8s are "only" making 650hp and rev limited to 10,300rpm which is relatively mild for a race spec engine. The old Champ cars were less reliable and had more engine explosions because they were making MORE power (700-800, to approaching 1000hp at one point) from SMALLER engines, turning MORE RPMs. One of the reasons IRL was started was because the super high spec engines were enormously expensive and also high risk. The IRL engines are LOWER spec, larger displacement, lower RPM, and aren't trying to push nearly as much power out of them. That's why they're reliable. With the flip of a switch Honda could get these engines up to the same 800-1000hp range as CART with rev limits in excess of 14,000rpm, but guess what? Then they'd be back to the same higher cost and lower reliability issues that CART was before. Similarly, they could have cut CART engines off at 10,300rpm and/or limited boost to about the same 650hp that Honda's IRL engine is at today and viola, they would have suddenly been a lot more reliable.

Comparison of list prices is also a bit silly because nobody ever pays list price. There's always all sorts of rebates and incentives and other programs and deals going on. Out the door price, Nissans are almost always cheaper than Hondas when comparing the same car. Yes, Honda rarely does rebates or incentive programs - but Nissan does.

All that said, I'd still lean towards an ACCORD.

Why? The Altima coupe just plain looks weird and ugly to me. Very few people actually buy and drive them, which makes me think resale is also going to be very poor. The Accord coupe looks a whole lot better to me, and you'd probably be able to sell it a lot easier too. Nissan hasn't figured out the whole coupe thing yet. Even their Infiniti G coupes have always looked really weird to me. That said, if I test drove the Altima coupe and felt that it drove a whole lot better I could still be swayed, but the looks just don't do it for me. I'd rather buy an Altima sedan than a coupe. But would rather buy an Accord coupe than an Altima coupe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteVTEC View Post
I've been tracking Nissan CVTs for years in Consumer Reports because I was curious how well they'd hold up, and have never seen anything major going on with their transmissions, unlike Honda. I'll take Consumer Report's stats vs random people putting up web pages which isn't the least bit scientific any day. For the Japanese Big 3 each selling hundreds of thousands of cars per year, hundreds of people turning up online to complain about something doesn't necessarily mean there's huge problems.

Fact is, you can Google anything on cars and no matter how solid something is you'll find people complaining about things. One guy on one of those websites said he was going to get a Subaru Outback instead? Oh I guess he must not have Googled "Subaru head gasket" or "Subaru vibration" on the Internets!! If they did, then they'd realize they shouldn't buy that car either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteVTEC View Post
It's all a PR game.

A lot of these lawsuits over car problems when the vehicle manufacturer already has and honors a warranty have little legal grounds. They could fight the lawsuit and win, but then they'll come across looking like big greedy corporate bullies and get a lot of bad press and people will just boycott saying they don't stand behind their product, even though they already are with their existing warranty period. That's what you call winning the battle but losing the war. Better to just settle out of court so that there's not nearly as much bad press, or just agree to do beyond warranty repairs, or extend the warranty. If something is already relatively solid, there's not going to be much in the way of added warranty coverage costs to the manufacturer. In fact that's probably cheaper than long drawn out legal battles with consumers which will just make them look bad and cause them to lose more money in lost sales and boycotts than they would have if they just repaired whatever was wrong in the first place. They know all this. They're not dumb. I know the EARLY CVTs did have a higher issue rate so the consumer perception might be a bit uneasy with CVTs in that they're relatively new and unproven and a question mark. Cheaper and easier to just extend the warranty, especially if the actual issue rate is low.

Guess what? Older pre-04 Honda transmissions are still failing at a MILE PER MINUTE in Consumer Reports data, so this is really a moot point. Pot calling the kettle black? Even if the Nissan CVTs did have a higher failure rate early on, Nissan appears to have improved the designs such that they don't continue to re-fail like Honda trannys still are.
Well put
Quote:
Originally Posted by 09^CBP^6MT View Post
the 8th gens have one, and the hasn't been any complains since.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteVTEC View Post

The tranny issues were resolved long before the 8th gen BTW.
Not quite fellas. Venture over to DriveAccord and search for 8th gen tranny issues. There have been a few people already with trans issues in the 8th gens. HONDA AUTO TRANS ARE CRAP WHEN MATED WITH V6s! Simple. I personally blame a non-serviceable filter. Some will agree with me on the cause, and some will disagree. However, you can't refute the fact that Honda autos are continuously having issues til this day. Just yesterday I saw a thread with a guy that has an 08 and feels that his torque converter is acting up because the trans gets stupid an hunts through gears, and shifts erratically. Hmmmm my 06 trans was doing just that before it sh*t the bed at 44k miles and was replaced under warranty.

Do I think my "new" trans with less than 10k on it will fail at some point? You bet I do. It is all a game of upkeep from here on out until I can afford my 6mt swap. I won't do a Honda V6 auto trans again.



Now, to touch on the OP's question, my dad has a 2010 Altima 2.5sl sedan. I drove it for a few hundred miles on a road trip, and also around town and such. I am a self proclaimed car enthusiast, so I do not like the feel of having no gears, however the CVT in that car is very smooth and is quite nice for what it is. It does what it is supposed to basically. That is more than I can say for Honda's 5ATs which shift hard sometimes intermittently for no reason (at least when paired with the V6).

Another thing is gas mileage. I have driven a 2009 Accord EXL sedan loaner car for around a week (when Honda was replacing my trans in my 06 SMH) and I must say, it didn't get much better mileage than my AV6. My dad's Altima gets superb gas mileage! I know that is comparing sedan to sedan, but assume that the coupe to coupe comparison would ring similarly.

It would be a tossup for me. However, I personally wouldn't be looking into a 4cyl or auto. And instead of buying new, I'd go certified used or something like that and look at a nice 06 TL or something of that nature (6mt ONLY)... But yeah. That is what I'd do.

Good luck
FollowingNFront is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply


Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Honda Accord Forum : V6 Performance Accord Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Chapter
Choose your AV6 Chapter Location
Ride
What do you drive?
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On