Honda Accord
Honda Accord technical data
Select Honda Accord generation for full details - reviews, specifications, fuel consumption, pricing, quality and safety features, options, photos and more
Is Honda Accord a reliable car?
Overall, the reliability of the Honda Accord is average. The number of defects found on the Honda Accord during the annual technical checkups is about average for a car of its age.
According to these reviews, the highest reliability scores achieved Honda Accord generation from 1998 to 2001, while the models produced from 2011 to 2015 had the lowest reliability ratings, reliability scores vary quite significantly between generations of Honda Accord. For more information, check the respective generation information.
Most Honda Accord engines utilize a timing chain drive, which is widely regarded as more dependable compared to engines with a timing belt drive.
Honda Accord reviews
Total 14 Honda Accord owner reviews
Pros: If there is no rust and it car is beeing followed up, the car doesn't actually rust, 3 years in a row technicak inspection passed without any remarks. Here and there of course rust bubbles appear now, after our frost winters and age of 13 years.
Low fuel consumption when driving alone with a full tank on a highway cruise 95km / h and 5 speed fuel consumption 4.5l / 100km, full car then 5.5l / 100km highway. The average city + highway cycle 6l / 100km is therefore such an average consumption, but mostly it is a little below 6L or as the manufacturer has indicated - 5.8l / 100km.
Quite a spacious car, for two + 8-year-old child calmly lowers the benches, throws a mattress and can comfortably spend the night in the trunk on any summer trip.
High-quality premum audio system with active subwoofer, does not even demand better for everyday use. Rolling keeps Latvian roads very well, in 4 years I have replaced only 2 bushings and 2 stabilizers in rolling stock.
The seat is comfortable, half-leather, I drove from Riga to the LT / PL border without stopping and did not even want to get off. I am 178cm tall, only if you are taller then I could start to be narrow because for me the distance of the seat is standing at the end position. I would say that if it was about 5cm longer, then there could be problems with comfort.
Good and sharp steering.
If you find it rusty then I recommend this model, because it is suitable for both more aggressive driving and family trips.
Cons: I have one of the last 7th generation that rolled off the assembly line in Japan (facelift model), but not aux / usb in the original equipment, although the navigation radio has such an output, honda does not offer to buy separately (I requested dealer). I had ordered some Chinese miracle from ebay but sounded miserable, now there is a good BT modulator and I make a living with it.
It could be a bit more powerful, because if there is a full car, then you have to overtake. The turbine satarts to work only from 1800 RPM until then there is no overtaking capacity, so if on a cruise for example on 1200RPM and press accelerator ... it takes some time, but when the turbine turns on then the car goes to the end of the clock. But either the lack of power can't scream terribly and is satisfying on daily trips. Of course there is no ´dragreisist´ with 140hp, but if you are alone, then it also allows you to provoke more aggressively ...
I really don't like ´facelift´ Japanese invention that the DVD card reader is in front of you in the console (before the facelift there were normal shelves.) The DVD card disc puts in well if 1x in life .... I understand if you could watch DVD movies on the navigation screen ... but no! read only the map. It would have been better to have left the shelf and put the reader somewhere in a trivial place.
The sound insulation is not good, when entering the highway during the rain, it seems that the sound passes through the whole can.
The ground clearance could have been at least a couple of cm higher because it is quite low and every now and then when entering the forest I had to look for an alternative path.
As already mentioned, quite thin layer of lacquer and easily scratches, but the body is galvanized and one deeper scratch that has passed under the paint layer, even after 3 LV winters has not turned into a rust stain. That's why everyone who sees honda has rust - guess ... That's not all! There are no more 90s products when honda did not galvanized the body ....
| Purchase year: | 2016 age of car 9 years) | Owned for | 73`000 kilometers (4 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 6.0 litres per 100km (40% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 990 € (~ 247 € per year) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: Well equipped, elastic engine sufficiently dynamic and comfortable car. A responsive and obedient steering response. Sufficiently economic. For family car roomy interior - 5 adults can feel free inside. A good cabin ergonomics. Dependable car - a positive sense, because you can be sure that it will not fail you.
Cons: Plan polish / paint coating - easily scraping even when dealing with small branches. Could be better sound insulation - audible road bumps. Interior trim materials become noisy over time - tend to issue a variety of noises. Compared with German analogues less lifting capacity.
| Purchase year: | 2017 age of car 11 years) | Owned for | 20`000 kilometers (1 year) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 7.2 litres per 100km (90% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 55 € (~ 55 € per year) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: Convenient, good-looking, reliable, good drivability - have set up a Eibach springs pro kit, which made driving even more sporty and confortable. 2.0 engine accelerates feom 0 km/h to 100 km/h in 9 seconds, which is much faster, than mentioned in article here.
Cons: Regular problems with handbrake (annually), steams up lamps in front. Easy scraping bodywork - varnish soft.
| Purchase year: | 2014 age of car 9 years) | Owned for | 50`000 kilometers (3 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 9.5 litres per 100km (60% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 520 € (~ 173 € per year) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: I am a fan of this model and there have been in previous year's models. All have served just perfect. Sufficiently comfortable and well-equipped car whose electronics engine as well as rolling part of our roads is just perfect.
| Purchase year: | 2015 age of car 6 years) | Owned for | 43`000 kilometers (2 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 6.4 litres per 100km (60% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 145 € (~ 72 € per year) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: Comfortable, spacious, dependable
Cons: Boring - its feel not fun to drive; Very large turning radius (manoeuvrability as container ship); Poor visibility in side; Fuel consumption is not as stated;bad sound insulation
| Purchase year: | 2014 age of car 10 years) | Owned for | 35`000 kilometers (1 year) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 9.5 litres per 100km (90% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 325 € (~ 325 € per year) | ||
Would NOT recomend this car to the friend
Pros: A very comfortable car, a quiet engine, which works with chain, as well as a dynamic enough for daily city driving.
| Purchase year: | 2014 age of car 9 years) | Owned for | 50`000 kilometers (2 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 6.5 litres per 100km (80% urban driving) | ||
| Total cost of repairs: | 600 € (~ 300 € per year) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend
Pros: Durable running gear
Cons: After 10 years use rust appeared on arches. Often front lamps burn out.
| Purchase year: | 2006 new car) | Owned for | 220`000 kilometers (11 years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fuel consumption: | 7.0 litres per 100km (40% urban driving) | ||
Would recomend this car to the friend