Just wondering the views of you good people. Looking to get a second hand family size car as I just sold my Renualt Laguna (never again will I ever own one of them. Nothing but trouble from the 2nd week I owned it).
I've had a couple of Mondeo's before but never had an Accord.
If you was to choose for me what would it be? (Just these two cars please. Not get a 406 etc).
Just looking for the pro's and cons on these cars.
Cheers for any help.
|
The Honda will be dearer but everything is likely to work and it will drive like a much younger car.
At that age a Ford is just wheels.
|
I know of examples of both of these cars on R plates that completed 150,000 miles with just routine servicing and consumables. Both 2.0 petrol engines, both entry-ish level trim.
Mondeo much more driver focused. Accord better specced and more refined. Take your pick.
Cheers
DP
|
|
|
It would be the Honda for me.......... my mother has had a line of Mondeos and keeps them for ages...very capable car, but in my opinion don't age so well, such as saggy seats and sloppy damping/suspension.
Drove an Accord at work which everyone else drove, it gets absolutely hammered every day, but come the end of it (still there on an X plate) it drives quite well and the interior is more than acceptable, considering people don't care for it.
Will probably come down to personal opinion
|
|
|
|
True. However since both are going to be 9 year old cars, they may need a few major/expensive bits replacing - I'd imagine a Mondeo would be cheaper to service/repair.
|
|
The Accord will have better air-con though! ;-)
|
|
|
>>I'd imagine a Mondeo would be cheaper to service/repair.
The big expense is a new clutch on a Mondeo, so either consider one with it replaced or factor in a new one at about £800 +. Sorry cannot comment on the Accord clutch.
Its a shame you are looking now as my parents traded their perfect R reg Accord with 42,000 miles back in May. They bought it new and looked after it including garaging when not in use. I would have recommended this car to anyone as it was Honda maintained from new and nothing ever went wrong with it.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
A new clutch installed by a Ford dealer outside the M25 area should be no more than £500 all inclusive. Rapid Fit should be able to under cut this due to alternative labour charges by around 10%. I have run a MK2 Mondeo past 100k miles and had only the following failures:
Rear light clusters leaking - unit had to be replaced as the seal cannot be purchased as a single item cost £65
Heater failure - modified control unit and connector had to be fitted onto circuit, parts cost £15 fitting was a 20 min DIY job.
Rear door handles sticking - main dealer wanted to replace them, issue was resolved using WD40 total cost £0
Boot struts failed at 5 years, easy DIY job parts cost £55
The big expensive jobs on MK2 Zetec engined Mondeos are:
Clutch
Head gasket
Driveshafts (parts not cheap)
|
|
I sold my R reg Accord 2.0iS 4 years ago, it had done 129kmiles with only tyre, pads and exhaust rear box replaced. A superb car!! I should have kept it until it went bang, would probably still have it now.
|
|
they are both old cars and getting older ,things like seized bolts and end of life problems will start rearing their head soon,you really just need to buy the tidiest one of either that you can find for the least money and run it till it becomes a liability
|
The air conditioning in my best mate's 04 Mondeo 2.0 Zetec Ghia would freeze the toes off a brass monkey.
I know. I've been in it often enough...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
You'd have less heartache with (any) Honda over the equivalent Ford. Honda's (and any Japanese marques) reputation is not for nothing, it is well deserved. The Accord is a huge seller in the USA, so it must be doing something right.
In short, IMO the Accord is a better proposition out of the two you are considering. However, Hondas do tend to rust on the rear arches at this sort of age!
|
I cannot praise my 99 Mondeo (So a year newer than you are looking) enough. It has been totally reliable, I've had not a moments problem with it, it is exceptionally cheap to run for what it is, still looks smart and tidy and still sails through MOT's with no advisories.
Fantastic car. Also great fun to drive, which is more than can be said for the Accord.
I could not ask for more from this car. It is going to be very painful to part with it when I replace it with a 5 Series, and I'm not so sure I'll ever have another car which is quite as good in terms of a total package. I certainly dont expect the BMW to be as trouble free.
It is now on 138,000 miles and the paintwork is still virtually immaculate, and the interior is exceptionally good as well. Even the leather steering wheel is not shiney and shows minimal signs of wear.
The fact it cost just 2 and a half grand at only 4 years old and is absolutely loaded with everything from electric heated leather seats to cruise control and air conditioning was yet another bonus.
Although I am biased (Though only as a result of quite how good this car is), I can see no car of its type for less than £3000 that I would rather own.
|
Have you ever actually driven an Accord very far, though?
I used my 1992 coupe (114k miles) this morning for a 180-mile drive on autoroute, city and back roads, because it is still such a pleasure to drive and handles so well. Totally rust-free too, even though it was put together in the USA.
The last Mondeo I drove any distance was a Mk1 of about 1994 that felt very vague and not at all 'up together'.
|
I test drove a 98 Accord Executive (98 onwards shape) before I bought the Mondeo.
Had it been better, I would have bought it.
Of course a Mk1 of 94 vintage will feel vague, they are 12 years old now and you can bet none of its owners in the last 6 years have renewed things like the antirollbar droplinks.
|
I would agree with this. My 2000 mk2 hasn't been completely faultless, but racks up 400+ miles a week and never (touch wood) lets me down.
I've had to do a couple of odds n' sods to keep it together, but I was working out it's cost me the grand total of £300 in servicing and repairs in the 13 months / 21,000 miles I've had it for, and had a six figure mileage on it when I bought it. That £300 includes a pair of front tyres and new front pads by the way.
My dad has a 94 2.0 petrol version which he has bought in 1997 with 90k on the clock. He's put nearly 100,000 miles on it since then, and apart from a duff alarm (disconnected) and a split vacuum pipe has been utterly faultless.
All I would say is they do lose a lot of their "sharpness" as they age, but I still think mine's got more steering feel and better damping than a mate's 02 reg Passat "Sport" with 30k on it.
Cheers
DP
|
|
|
|
|
