Accord, Passat or Avensis

Green Hornet

JHMEG wrote: »

Even more strange is that German Rocks normally advocates French cars...

Not too many others out there who do.:D

coolbeans

Stinkah wrote: »

Just wanted to Thank Everyone for the replies on this so far. Superb information. I'm not too sure that I can wait until July such are my current circumstances, but my strong feeling is that the Accord is the pick of the bunch which makes me happy

Again, Thank you!

Ahhh...sweet validation.:D

PCwiggum

bazz26 wrote: »

OP wait until after 1st of July and import yourself a Honda Accord 2.2 diesel. The VRT will be reduced on it and because it is an import registered after 1st July the annual road tax will be around €420 compared with over €700 at the moment. I am going down this route myself next year.

The Accord is a lovely car and feels that little less main stream than the Passat or Avensis.

Hi, sorry I'm a bit late joining this tread, but I'm torn between the Accord and Passat myself. I wouldn't consider the Avensis - don't know why - I just think its a bit bland (IMO, I don't want to offend any Avensis drivers).

My first choice was to buy a 2004 2.2DAccord in the UK after July 1st, but I've since found out the road tax will be still charged based on cc for all cars pre 2008, no matter where they are from.

That put me on to my 2nd choice - the Passat which would save me +€250/year on tax.

I would like to persuaded to stick to my first choice - help please!!

vengeance52

PCwiggum wrote: »

Hi, sorry I'm a bit late joining this tread, but I'm torn between the Accord and Passat myself. I wouldn't consider the Avensis - don't know why - I just think its a bit bland (IMO, I don't want to offend any Avensis drivers).

My first choice was to buy a 2004 2.2DAccord in the UK after July 1st, but I've since found out the road tax will be still charged based on cc for all cars pre 2008, no matter where they are from.

That put me on to my 2nd choice - the Passat which would save me +€250/year on tax.

I would like to persuaded to stick to my first choice - help please!!

Get the accord. i got the exact same make and model in NI last june and its the best decision ive made. i drove the passat and found it slower and doesnt handle as nice as the accord.

Never had one prob ever with the accord, i get about 55mpg and i love it.

i had a thread when i was picking my car, and i got alot of good info from others here on boards.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53046386

Green Hornet

PCwiggum wrote: »

Hi, sorry I'm a bit late joining this tread, but I'm torn between the Accord and Passat myself. I wouldn't consider the Avensis - don't know why - I just think its a bit bland (IMO, I don't want to offend any Avensis drivers).

My first choice was to buy a 2004 2.2DAccord in the UK after July 1st, but I've since found out the road tax will be still charged based on cc for all cars pre 2008, no matter where they are from.

That put me on to my 2nd choice - the Passat which would save me +€250/year on tax.

I would like to persuaded to stick to my first choice - help please!!

No contest. Go for the Accord. Sturdy, well built, economical, good resale value and has more character than the Passat. They never break down either whereas there are a few negative posts with regards to the reliability of the Passat on the boards.

PCwiggum

vengeance52 wrote: »

Get the accord. i got the exact same make and model in NI last june and its the best decision ive made. i drove the passat and found it slower and doesnt handle as nice as the accord.

Never had one prob ever with the accord, i get about 55mpg and i love it.

i had a thread when i was picking my car, and i got alot of good info from others here on boards.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53046386

Thanks guys, swaying back towards the Honda - cheers for the link to previous thread Vengeance

E92

Don't forget that the lower road tax only applies to cars with a 08 reg or newer. Only VRT is changing on pre 08 imports in July.Pre 08 cars imported after July will continue to be taxed on engine size, like all other pre 08 cars here.

vengeance52

PCwiggum wrote: »

Thanks guys, swaying back towards the Honda - cheers for the link to previous thread Vengeance

no probs, i love my accord. i think it looks better than a passat too but that might be just me

It BeeMee

PCwiggum wrote: »

the Passat which would save me +€250/year on tax.

For the sake of €4.81 a week, I'd go with the Accord ....

PCwiggum

It BeeMee wrote: »

For the sake of €4.81 a week, I'd go with the Accord ....

When you put it like that - its a simple choice really - thanks!

legalbird12

Accord is by far the best. Take one for a test drive and you'll see

E92

The new Accord has been taking a bit of a pasting from Autocar. Basically the Accord has ideas above it's station.

2.4 i-VTEC review

That really didn't get a good review at all. See below.

"No, the can of worms explodes when you realise that this car costs not much less than a BMW 325i SE – a car with an award-winning, 215bhp, 3.0-litre six-cylinder engine, as well as a riflebolt six-speed manual gearbox, rear-driven handling dynamism to spare, and more genuine premium-brand allure than you can measure in a hundred focus groups.
The range-topping Honda Accord, on the other hand – the model that middle-managers countrywide should surely aspire to own if the outfit’s premium brand ambitions are to be taken seriously – has a noisy, 198bhp 2.4-litre four-pot under the bonnet, which drives the front wheels through a five-speed automatic gearbox that is often slow to kick down and guilty of transmission slip. The Power of Dreams? This is anything but.
In fact, this car needs this powertrain only marginally more than it needs an unscheduled level-crossing meeting with the 7.58 from London Paddington."

2.2 i-DTEC review

That fared a lot better, but it's clear that Honda will have to do more than this if they want it to be considered alongside the 3 series, A4 etc. They did say it's more than a match for Volvo and Saab though.

vengeance52

E92 wrote: »

The new Accord has been taking a bit of a pasting from Autocar. Basically the Accord has ideas above it's station.

2.4 i-VTEC review

That really didn't get a good review at all. See below.

"No, the can of worms explodes when you realise that this car costs not much less than a BMW 325i SE – a car with an award-winning, 215bhp, 3.0-litre six-cylinder engine, as well as a riflebolt six-speed manual gearbox, rear-driven handling dynamism to spare, and more genuine premium-brand allure than you can measure in a hundred focus groups.
The range-topping Honda Accord, on the other hand – the model that middle-managers countrywide should surely aspire to own if the outfit’s premium brand ambitions are to be taken seriously – has a noisy, 198bhp 2.4-litre four-pot under the bonnet, which drives the front wheels through a five-speed automatic gearbox that is often slow to kick down and guilty of transmission slip. The Power of Dreams? This is anything but.
In fact, this car needs this powertrain only marginally more than it needs an unscheduled level-crossing meeting with the 7.58 from London Paddington."

2.2 i-DTEC review

That fared a lot better, but it's clear that Honda will have to do more than this if they want it to be considered alongside the 3 series, A4 etc. They did say it's more than a match for Volvo and Saab though.

Same site:
http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/RoadTestsOnTheRoad/Honda-Accord-2.2-i-CTDi-Executive/205016/

"On the road, it’s easy to be slightly underwhelmed by the Accord, but its true strengths soon come clear. It delivers strong, real-world performance with a new standard of diesel refinement. Power is available from as low as 1400rpm and then builds strongly but smoothly, right to the 4500rpm red line, making overtaking an effortless affair.

Given the wet conditions, a 60-0mph braking time of 3.0sec is reasonable and the pedal feel inspires confidence.

To cope with the added weight of the diesel engine Honda has tweaked the spring and damper rates. We’ve always been impressed with the handling of the new Accord and the diesel variant is no different. It’s quiet, rides well and has a useful ability to cover big distances in comfort. It also entertains on twisting B-roads: with such excellent body control – even over viciously pock-marked and undulating surfaces – and precise steering and decent amounts of grip, it’s a rewarding experience. "

They compare it to a BMW, but if you compare it to a passat, im sure the accord will come out top.

JHMEG

PCwiggum wrote: »

That put me on to my 2nd choice - the Passat which would save me +€250/year on tax.

But could end up costing you more in the long run...

JHMEG

The previous paragraph of the 2.4 Accord review (which you didn't post, E92):
It’s also got an equipment list strong enough to make it the most technologically advanced car in its class. There are few problems, then, with the way this car looks, feels, rides or handles, and none at all with the fact that, at various times and to varying degrees, it’s clever enough to brake, accelerate and steer on behalf of its owner, and to warn him of a potential crash up ahead.

Has the BMW got electric windows in the back yet?;)

I also don't understand why they compare an Accord with an auto box to a BMW with a manual.

E92

vengeance52 wrote: »

They compare it to a BMW, but if you compare it to a passat, im sure the accord will come out top.

I did say that the diesel fared well:).

I agree that it probably is a better car than the Passat(though I'm no great fan of the VW), but Honda are pricing it to take on BMW, not VW let alone cars I would consider to be it's natural rivals e.g. Mondeom, Avensis.

Hence why the first thing I said was that the Accord has ideas above it's station, and it does. If they priced it realistically rather than idealogically then I know it would have gotten a much better review.

If Honda want the car to be considered a rival to cars like the 3 series then it's fair game that one should compare it to the 3 series, and not an Avensis, Passat, etc.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

If Honda want the car to be considered a rival to cars like the 3 series then it's fair game that one should compare it to the 3 series, and not an Avensis, Passat, etc.

In fairness its the press that are making the comparisons.

Also in fairness the Accord has a lot more goodies than the 325 they're comparing it to.

Stephen

The 2.4 vtec accords have always been poor sellers here thanks to the tax regime. I don't see that changing either.
My ould fella has put about 70,000 km on his 06 diesel accord with zero issues and fantastic fuel economy. I have a petrol civic with the same horsepower but the extra torque of the diesel makes it really fun to drive for a 4-door saloon. He's trading it for a new i-DTEC this summer

what_car

Stinkah wrote: »

Hello all,

I'm new to this board, used to use the tech boards all the time, but never the motors one. I'm not majorly into cars but I've reason to buy a car at the moment. I'm recently married with a kid on the way, so I need a good reliable, comfortable car, that's not going to cost the earth and that will be easily maintained and relatively cheap to run.

I've been searching for a while now and have narrowed the search down to three possible candidates, but would like so "expert" advice on which one I should pick, and maybe a couple of simple reasons why.

My choices are:

(all from 2004 onwards)
The Honda Accord
The VW Passat
The Toyota Avensis

My gut feeling is that thousands of taxi men can't be wrong in terms of reliability, so would be leaning at the moment towards an Avensis. Then again, they are a small bit on the boring side and the Accord is nice looking, comfortable car and Honda's are built to last. The final choice is the VW Passat, and realistically this is my outsider at the moment because I've only really thrown it in because of the VW name.

My preference would be to have leather seats but it's not a must. Thinking here is that with baby coming, any mess can be wiped clean pretty easy in theory

I've budgetted for a spend between 16 and 20k so that would obviously restrict my purchase power, but I'm not adverse be any means, to travelling to the UK to purchase and have been looking into what Car Giant have to offer and like what I see.

Anyway, I'd be very greatful for any thoughts suggestions from you guys.

Thanks in advance,

i have owned both cars so i can give real world experience of them.
i must say that the avensis was handy on fuel, about 830km for a full tank.
i had the luna diesel, climate, folding mirrors, cruise control, ew, alloys,
overall a nice big saloon.. but as i stated before, horribly boring.
i sold it after 6 mths from new!

i now have an accord type s , saloon. much better made car around, and made in japan! i went with the petrol accord auto, and avg 31-35 mpg over a tank, and regularly get 45mpg on a motorway run.

i must say its a very enjoyable car to drive and servicing costs not bad, first main service cost 190 yoyo's at a main dealer.

it has a premium feel over that of the avensis.. better materials in cabin, nice dash, and it looks great...

having owned an avensis, i would recommend the accord any day..far superior!

what_car

Stephen wrote: »

He's trading it for a new i-DTEC this summer

new model ? this autumn you mean?:)

the new accord is not released until september.

with an auto diesel option available in 09!

testicle

So, here's my similar dilemma...

Accord or X-Type ?

both Diesels...

what_car

testicle wrote: »

So, here's my similar dilemma...

Accord or X-Type ?

both Diesels...

honda better reliability? Jag parts expensive if things go wrong?

x type is more of an old mans car isnt it?,,,,

what year cars are you talking about?


E92 if u see this , how much do you rekon new accord diesel ( current model) cars will decrease in price? post 1st July.

cheers

E92

what_car wrote: »

E92 if u see this , how much do you rekon new accord diesel ( current model) cars will decrease in price? post 1st July.

The link in my sig should answer that question:).

Though it remains to be seen what Universal Honda decide to do. Will they follow BMW(and MINI)'s lead or will they copy Hyundai, who have announced that the new i10 will not be decreasing in price in July, even though it's VRT will be falling from 22.5% to 14%.

I've heard it mentioned that Hondas here have a lower pre VRT price compared to Europe so it remains to be seen what will happen. I'm not saying if this is true or not, I don't know.

Given that the new Accord is priced to compete against a 3 series BMW in the UK(the diesel I linked earlier costs £24,910 in the UK, while the 320d ES costs £25,020, now to be fair that car was in top of the range guise, while the 320d is in base spec but even still the 320d SE is barely £1,000 dearer than the Accord), and that the new Accord gets into a higher VRT and CO2 category than the said Beemer, I would expect that the cheapest i-DTEC will cost something similar to the 320d ES, which is €38k, or maybe not far off.

The Accord is probably a vastly superior car to the Jag, not least because the Jag is based on the old Mondeo.

I'd be inclined to say that the Mondeo is the best of those 3 cars though.

testicle

what_car wrote: »

honda better reliability? Jag parts expensive if things go wrong?

x type is more of an old mans car isnt it?,,,,

what year cars are you talking about?

05/06 Region

The Diesel X-Type engine is, I believe, the same as in the Mondeo ST TDCi.
The S-Type is the old man's car - the X-Type is aimed at the 25-40 age group, I think.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

Given that the new Accord is priced to compete against a 3 series BMW in the UK

It's not! That Accord is top spec with lane departure warning system and so on. Probably radar cruise control. Spec up a 320d to the same level and see what the price is. This is Honda's angle on it. Why go to the expense of doing RWD, something that is wasted on most people, when you can give them toys, toys, toys for the same money!

I would be expecting the base model of the new Accord after July 1st to be maybe 10% dearer than your spreadsheet, ie about 35k, or a bit cheaper than the current base Accord currently is.

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

It's not! That Accord is top spec with lane departure warning system and so on. Probably radar cruise control. Spec up a 320d to the same level and see what the price is. This is Honda's angle on it. Why go to the expense of doing RWD, something that is wasted on most people, when you can give them toys, toys, toys for the same money!

This is the argument made by Lexus, Volvo and other semi-premium makes and look where it got them against the German rivals(admittedly Lexus are starting to pick up sales in Europe, but that's after 18 years here). The 3 series outsells the Mondeo in the UK! I'm not getting into an argument about what is best, but the sales stats don't lie and your argument does not hold in the eyes of the people who buy these cars;).

The "equip to the max and to hell with mechanical complication" argument is one that works extremely well in the US, so well in fact that in VWs attempts to sell more cars over there, they will shortly be doing exactly what I just described but it is wasted here!

I don't understand why Honda don't just sell Acuras here, and let them compete against the Germans and Lexus etc. We saw how long it takes to move a brand upmarket with Audi, why don't they just start afresh with Acura and sell that as your 3 series rival rather than from a car company that sells 1.2 litre superminis?

35k is definately much better and more sensible but a new 3 series will be available for just over a grand more(though that one is petrol rather than diesel but actually is kinder to the planet than the Accord because the BMW pollutes less CO2).
Audi have a 2.0 TDI A4 coming that should be priced at around €35k in July(though it has only 120 bhp).

Biro

E92 wrote: »

I don't understand why Honda don't just sell Acuras here, and let them compete against the Germans and Lexus etc. We saw how long it takes to move a brand upmarket with Audi, why don't they just start afresh with Acura and sell that as your 3 series rival rather than from a car company that sells 1.2 litre superminis?

Does that mean though that BMW selling that crappy 1-series are cheapening their name?!?

E92 wrote: »

35k is definately much better and more sensible but a new 3 series will be available for just over a grand more(though that one is petrol rather than diesel but actually is kinder to the planet than the Accord because the BMW pollutes less CO2).

The problem is though that the 3-series is really over-rated. The 3 series and A4 are really in a league of their own where image is more important. OK, so the beemer has an excellent diesel engine, but so has the Honda. The real world mpg is the same, the bhp difference isn't really noticable (in fact the beemer feels slower than it actually is). The 5 series really is worth the extra 7k over the 3 series. Granted, the 3 gives you nice handling with a reasonable interior. But the minute you sit in it you can't help noticing the kind of cramped, stingy kind of space with a mediocre dash layout. They really are small. The 5-series is a far more comprehensive car. In my opinion you go from the likes of the Accord straight to the 5-series when you're looking to move up a level. Despite the English journalists, the 3 series isn't a step up from the Accord/Avensis/Mondeo/Passat type cars. All it's got is handling, but it's still a saloon, so it's not THAT much better.

bushy...

JHMEG wrote: »

Personally I'd prefer to have my Japanese car built in Japan. Ironically I think a lot of Brits would feel the same.

As a mechanic I know says about Lucas, a British company: they were making sh1t 25 years ago, and they're still making sh1t. He actually blames Nissan's misfortunes on the extensive use of Lucas parts.

Lucas - Prince of Darkness

E92

Biro wrote: »

Does that mean though that BMW selling that crappy 1-series are cheapening their name?!?

Yes. I've said so more than once here on Motors before. I haven't gone in a 1 series though so I don't know if it as bad as you say it is. But it would want to be something spectacular to be better than the Mazda3 to answer your question. I think you're paying for a badge with the 1 series(I have no time for the A3 or A class for the same reason). I have sat in one and it is laughably cramped in the back and looks hideous.

Though the Coupé looks fantastic, and the car mags say it is much better than the hatchback.

It does as you say move the brand downmarket selling family hatchbacks instead of executive saloons, there is no doubt about that. But the sales figures completely disagree with me and with the new emissions regs on the way it's probably just as well they have it.

And would I rather they were developing cars like this than say an X6 or the "Progressive Activity Sedan", hell yes I would.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

Though the Coupé looks fantastic,

No it doesn't. They took the one nice thing off the 3 series coupe (tail lights) and replaced them with ugly ones. The rest of the car is as bland as the 3.

Don't the 1 and 3 share a lot of components and the same basic design anyway?