Jump to content

No longer fancy an Alfa 159, I fancy a 2007 Honda Accord. Am I mad?


inconsistant

Recommended Posts

I had a saloon. 2.2 04 diesel. 

Wasn't as reliable as the marketing hype woukd have you believe.

Exhaust manifold, alternator x2.  drop links, CD changer.  ABS faults. Rust (possibly from previous crash repair) and finally timing chain and tensioner lots of nasty metal in the oil.  I choose not to repair it. 

 

Oh and every couple if months one or other of the dipped head light bulbs would blow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Bren said:

Unless the replacement is significantly newer with lower miles I would'nt bother - you are moving sideways.

This is very sound advice indeed. 

I've got a 2006 accord estate same spec as that one but wouldn't recommend paying 2k for one.  Things to know about them.... They are very practical and competent but pretty soulless and boring once the novelty of heated leather, sat-nav and air con have worn off. Check for rot, and then go and check for rot again. Honda's of this age like to rot out underneath while the paint remains immaculate up top. Just ask @Supernautwho bought a similarly aged Civic, almost out of MOT but clean MOT history. Had to be scrapped as the rear subframe mounts were just hopes and dreams. Some are bean tins before this age some are older and mint underneath so don't buy unless you've seen the underside. Thankfully mine seems to be a good one.

This age of accord has a weak clutch. If you give it full shoe in 6th gear a lot accelerating quickly to overtake from say 60mph then the clutch will fry. The engine has loads of torque from 1200rpm and it feels great using it like this but the clutch can't cope. I bought mine at super low mileage 50k and by 60k had roasted the clutch by enjoying all that torque. I've now done 4k more by just driving like grandma wearing carpet slippers and using the gears a lot more to keep the revs higher. But press the loud pedal and it just slips like crazy. Prices I got for doing the clutch were £760 without flywheel and £1350 with so I'll soldier on as is for now until it'll not move under its own steam any more. 

If you didn't have a car then mibbies that accord could be an option because nothing is cheap at the moment but given that you already have the Volvo then I definitely wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2.2 is a good engine, unreal amounts of torque and pretty hardy.

The Accord, the Mrs loves hers, it's not really my cup of tea. I find the ride a wee bit sickening, can't put my finger on why. It will GLF at the slightest persuasion and embarass lots of seemingly quicker cars.  It's let down by the fact the drive is just so boring. It handles and grips well, it just lacks any excitement at all and the steering is so light it feels like driving on ice. It says a lot that I'd pick my van over the accord any day if I wanted to go a drive.

Driving position can be extremely comfortable and is good on long journeys. Visibility is a bit shite though. It sounds a bit boomy / tinny inside.

The 2.2 eats clutches and DMFs for breakfast. Working on them is a real pain in the arse, I nearly lost the will to live just changing the aux belt this year. The clutch is an exhaust and subframe out job. 

Mpg, theoretically mid 50s but I struggle to beat around 45 on my commute which is not much better than my van. The Mrs drives it foot to the floor everywhere and gets about 37.

The centre console is horrific. Two years in and I still have to take my eyes off the road to adjust the heating and fan. The sat nav, I can't even be arsed working that out.

Electrics can be an issue as everything is wired through everything else and isn't robust. Our passenger door is basically dead, no power window, mirror or speaker all because the electric window switch failed which is really common.

They're great An cars if you can get one cheap that has been looked after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not liking the sound of the dizzle one, but my mate has a 2.0 pez estate and he likes it. Goes alright and seems to be behaving even though he neglects it/thrashes it. Not sure about economy but if the dizzle is getting 37mpg as above then it wouldn't need to be amazing to cost the same per mile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all,  comments so far have been really helpful as the internet says these are bomb proof and mega reliable and go on forever but sounds like that's not quite true!

Petrol vs diesel is an interesting one, I suppose I was looking at the cheaper tax, better fuel economy and quite a big co2 difference, 150 vs 200g/km, which seems quite high for a 2.0 of this age, I think the average for all cars is about 150 so thats roughly where I’d like to be given the choice. It’s not a massive thing though, so don’t assume that’s leading the decision making. So maybe petrol…

In context  we do a max of 4500 miles per year in the Volvo.  We’ve had the v70 for 3 yrs, bought when 15 yrs old off here cheaply because of potential big issues but it was a £1500 car on the open market. Similar spec/miles 15 yr old v70s are currently about £3000-4000.

To jump to a V70 significantly newer, say 8-10 yrs old they are about £6000-£9000, still typically with 150,000 miles. We don’t use a car enough to have that much money tied up in a car that will be sat on the drive most of the time. 

This Honda I reckon ‘should’ be a £1000-1200 car, which would make more sense for the mileage/risks. I suppose rather than looking at it as only a couple of years younger and therefore a sideways move I’m looking at that Honda as 50,000 miles less than our V70 and looks like its a good well kept example from the photos, so was thinking maybe worth it if likely to be relatively trouble free for the next couple of years. But I agree its not a big jump forward.

I’m typically very loyal to cars, my thinking is better stick with a car you know etc, and am trying to break that habit here but you’re all making it difficult! But I’m grateful for the advice! The problem is that I have the budget to buy a car at this end of the market but not the skills.

The current used car market, eh?! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To a degree we are in the same predicament. I would live to replace the vectra - 152k and fifteen years old. In its favour is it's condition and even though it is derv it is simpler than more modern stuff. However, £5k will get you something four or five years newer but with more miles - there's no point. Anything less than 100k and you are looking at £8k +.

It's the same with my e60 545 - low twnties around the town and it like high octane unleaded. I don't do many miles ( good job), I console myself with the fact that it's paid for and is a nice place to be. If I went into debt for it's replacement I might save on fuel but then I am forking out in payments every month.

Unless you NEED a replacement I think it's better to sit tight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve got an Accord 2007, and I’ve had a D5 v70 from 2004.

The accords ace, mines a cheap, rough high miler and it’s been generally bombproof ( although the crank pulley died this week).

The 2.2 diesel is smooth, quiet and powerful. I get nearly 50 mpg most of the time. Sat nav etc easy to use and every last thing still works.

when I first got it, stuff like crap tyres, ancient brake fluid and tired suspension bushes ruined its drive. Now sorted it’s excellent.

compared to the volvo I’d have them equal on build quality. The Honda is more economical and handles and steers better than the  V70. It’s more reliable to boot. The Hondas heating and air con is great.
 

Volvo was better looking, sounded better, and had a cracking stereo.

I wouldn’t know what to change the Accord for, it’s a great package. Might be a bit too boring if only car, but I’ve got a couple of toys so the Accord is a useful, comfy workhorse.

Mines done 210k now, I did have a thread on modern section, but nothing ever happens so I don’t update it.

 

87283905-53CF-412E-A5CA-2BC43A854AA8.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A diesel really isn't necessary on an annual mileage of 4,500.  Average mpg of 30 would require 150 gallons to cover the distance.  Average mpg of 50 would need 90.  Assuming £6.10 per gallon, the difference in total is £366.00.  One modern diesel thing going wrong would wipe out the savings completely, plus there's the fact that most semi-modern petrols can be driven in town without issue.  

A 2.0 petrol Mondeo would do the job just as well and they are nice cars to drive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although there’s logic in the advice, diesels do provide a different experience in general, more torque, more robust physical engine components, and lower road tax just some. 
 

Also I think there’s a bit too much panic about diesel distruction that I’ve rarely witnessed. Stuff like turbos, injectors and fuel pumps don’t break every week on every car / van that’s diesel powered. Ever seen a courier in a sprinter? That’s destruction testing for real there. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...