My Accord Tourer has done 46k in just over a year and a half. I thought a follow-up review might be of use to people.
It remains thirsty - real world mpg averages 40, I've managed 43.7 on a tank recently, but that was 95% motorway, aircon off and 70 mph on cruise. Talk of 55 is just fantasy.
Dealers are not impressive, on the 37.5k service the oil was overfilled by nearly 2 litres - 50% of engine capacity. I had to fight to get this sorted for free, the offending dealer wanted to just have it drained, the dealer in London I?d taken it to felt this was unacceptable, and eventually gave up and paid themselves to change the oil ? kudos to Bromley Honda.
The centre console was changed under warranty because the lid mechanism wasn't working properly. The paint on the bonnet is very thin indeed - there are several stone chips starting to rust. It doesn't tramline on Pirelli P6000 Powergy tyres.
The alternator blew at 20k miles, boiling the battery and ruining a holiday in France when the recovery company and Honda France were completely unable to sort it for nearly two weeks. Honda UK were brilliant - they intervened all guns blazing and got us sorted out, so due credit to them. (A long discussion of this is in the archive here somewhere - I was pretty upset at the time).
It remains comfortable, is still lovely to drive (although the gear-change is perhaps not quite as silky as it once was), and the interior has held up well. The front speakers buzz, something the dealer has refused to sort, and there is the merest hint of a rattle from door trim, but overall it doesn't feel like a 46k car.
So, the main dealer is useless, the paint is thin and it has a drink problem. Otherwise it is pretty brilliant.
G
s
|
Gordon, thanks for that update, I am always interested in "real life" fuel economy. My previous 3 diesel Scenics and my current Altea all struggle to reach 40mpg yet makers claims are closer to 48-50mpg.
Only car I have had which reached figures (and exceeded them) was my diesel saxo. Slow as treacle, but could get high 60s mpg!
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
Thanks Gordon M for that update as it mirrors my own experience with this car, apart from the alternator problem that is.
Got my Accord Tourer iCTDI new in May 2006 and have now done just over 33,000 miles.
No problems apart form the strange front speaker hiss that Gordon mentions, but it comes and goes. Motoring is mainly dual carriageway/motorway cruising, plus some town driving and it has averaged 42.7 MPG. It goes up to over 43 MPG on A roads and down to 40 MPG around town. Overall I am pleased with the MPG compared to the power and ease of driving, but it is not near the official figures!
The Tourer is exactly that and leaves you rested after any journey, as well as swallowing vast amounts in its huge boot. It still handles very well with a full load.
It is still on its original Yokohama tyres on the rear but both fronts are now Pirelli P6000 and again like Gordon these do not tramline. The front tyres were only replaced due to pothole damage to each at different times, a comment on the state of our roads rather than the car.
I am very pleased with it overall and would certainly buy another and recommend it to others.
But can Honda fit a memory to the electric front seats please? My wife and I have different length legs and adjustment could be so much easier!
Hope this helps.
|
i have a 2.4 tourer and i never check the mpg. I think i would cry if i did. Mine is an 03 on 80k. Diesel next time - time for some financial sense.
Interesting that you would have another one - would you pick one over the new mondeo, which is probably cheaper? I have been looking at it with interest.
The concept for the new accord tourer is being released 11th september. History suggests the concept would look very similar to the actual finished version.
|
Gordon, where have you been, 9 months away?
>>It remains thirsty - real world mpg averages 40, I've managed 43.7 on a tank recently, but that was 95% motorway, aircon off and 70 mph on cruise>>
Frankly that is pretty poor.
>>(although the gear-change is perhaps not quite as silky as it once was) ................ but overall it doesn't feel like a 46k car.>>
So what does a 46k car feel like? at 46k and it should be nicely run in.
Regards.
|
ablandy - would I pick one over the new Mondeo? Don't know really, I've only seen the new Mondeo Estate twice, in passing on the motorway, but it looks pretty nice. I'd have to try driving it. I've done 900 miles in a day in the Accord and could still walk and function afterwards, so I fit pretty well (I'm not advocating that sort of distance in one shot btw, it wasn't exactly fun).
Cheddar - It has been nine months hasn't it?? Good grief time goes by quickly. I made a new years resolution to stop spending time I didn't have on here, I've only posted as I thought it might be useful, I'll be disappearing again afterwards I'm afraid. Work pressure and all that..
Having said that, what does a 46k car feel like? I'm not sure, mine feels pretty much like new to be honest, except the engine is a bit more free revving and it no longer drinks any oil. My note looked pretty negative as I was only talking about problems, mostly the car is impeccably screwed together and just what I want. Every time I am getting annoyed by the mpg then I drive a hire car of some sort and am stunned by how gutless they all are in comparison, and then I feel better. I'm going to switch to a different Honda dealer (or maybe even try and find an independent round here, I can't decide whether needing goodwill from Honda is likely) and then hopefully the service problems will go away.
Best wishes to all.
G
|
|
|
|
|
I have been mulling over the prospects of buying a 2.4 saloon and would be interested to hear from ablandy how dire the actual fuel consumption is for this engine.
|
I have a 2.4 saloon and cannot say that I find it that thirsty. I can only go by what I find as I have never calculated it. It is ok is all I can say - even a little better than I first thought it would be. Apols for the waffle but I just want to make my point whilst also saying that if fuel consumption is your main priority then don't look at a petrol 2.4.
If you like all the other attributes associated with this engine then go for it - it is bomb proof, pulls like a train & is very smooth and refined. You will not find a better petrol 4 pot.
I am a big Honda fan and was quite disappointed for Gordon because that is actually a few more problems encountered than I would expect from Honda.
All my ownership experience with the 2 Hondas I have owned (CRV & Accord) have literally been totally trouble free.
I can't wait to see pictures of next Accord tourer next week.
|
|
|
Well chukter its a heavy drinker .
I bought the 2.4 Tourer in May and I have only really done local commutes with a couple of longer motorway runs 100 miles or so and I am getting 22/23mpg , I have usually got climate control on automatic and I don't hang around.
When I see the open road and the heavy right foot goes down so that sort of mpg is about all I can expect.
Official figure is only around 29 mpg I believe.
I'm heading down to Exeter from West Sussex and back this weekend so I will probably get a more realistic figure.
I still love the car , I love the lines of it , its the Automatic Executive model with all the bells and whistles on an 04 plate , smooth running luxury and a surprising turn of speed for its size.
Its a Honda , well engineered and with legendary reliability . If you can afford it - get one....
|
perhaps i should qualify my comment.
1 - i enjoy the pace and pull you get from giving it a bit of welly.
2 - i dont calculate the mpg as i dont really care too much about it. But i do pay the bills for the fuel for the company cars
3 - the other cars are previous model mondeo tds, so im comparing slightly unfairly!
4 - i do a fairly high mileage so should really have a diesel
it is a lovely engine, a lovely car and the consumption is no worse than any other bigger engined car. Drive it sensibly and it goes further....
I had a passat estate v5 for a while, which in my mind have too high consumption for the amount of pleasure it gave.
I havent driven the diesel, so cant compare the characteristics of the engines.
|
So just to confirm that its not to cheap to run but I am like you ablandy , I don't care...I can afford it now after years of running cheap motors whilst struggling with mortgage and bringing up kids .
If I want a cheap to run motor I can use my company Vectra TDI or SWMBO's Yaris.
I like driving along sitting in leather armchair comfort in an ulta powerful motor with all the extras which isn't going to leave me stranded by the roadside...
|
|
I've had a 2.4 Type-S saloon for over three years now (17" Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 tyres) and it returns 34mpg on average - 300 miles per week, mostly on fast A-roads and motorways (average speed for the journey - 45mph). For a 190bhp 2.4 that's pretty good in my opinion.
|
|
|
I like driving along sitting in leather armchair comfort in an ulta powerful motor
Ultra powerful??!!!! Hardly.... LMAO!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That MPG on a motorway is very poor.
I would expect more MPG than that at a steady 70MPH. MY 1.8TDCi S-Max (much taller and wider so larger frontal area) has averaged 43.9MPG since new (17,500 miles) worked out true (not fuel computer garbage). Most of my driving is at 70MPH on motorways like yours.
|
My only comment would be that the figures I've used are 'real'. i.e. have been compensated for the overreading of the odometer.
A straight calculation from the odometer would have yielded an average mpg of 45.5 on that motorway trip, and 41.7 overall (75 indicated is 72 actual - discrepancy calculated using GPS over a 3 mile stretch).
|
|
HI Gordon, got a sense of deja vu after looking at reader reviews for the Accord on the What Car website this morning....
|
|
Cut and paste is a wonderful thing. Yeah, fair cop, I figured it might be useful there too.
|
|
|
|
My only comment would be that the figures I've used are 'real'. i.e. have been compensated for the overreading of the odometer. A straight calculation from the odometer would have yielded an average mpg of 45.5 on that motorway trip and 41.7 overall (75 indicated is 72 actual - discrepancy calculated using GPS over a 3 mile stretch).
Gordon,
I have also checked my odometer and it is accurate for disctance so therefore my numbers can be relied upon. The speedometer does overread by about 3-4% by that makes no differnece whatsover, I'm only concerned in distance travelled and fuel used.
All my working are here:
www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/188504.html
|
a900ss, didn't mean to imply that yours were inaccurate, but also wasn't sure if it was 'normal' to have corrected the odometer.
I still think my Accord has a drink problem - 50+ should be easy to obtain on a long run. Ah well...
|
I 100% agree with you Gordon, I think it is a bit juicy.
Take Care
|
I think the economy must be related to tyres
Mine is on 16" michelins and have recently had a similar tourer for a couple of weeks (80 k miles less) also on 16" michelins and they both do around 50mpg. I have never got below 43 and really have to thrash it to do so.
Our Fleet manager had a saloon on 17" and was gettting around 40 as are a couple of others in the fleet with 17" wheels. The 17" tyre is wider, not just lower profile.
I agree with Gordon that they do not suffer from the miles - mine (105k) feels just like the loaner (24k)!
Never noticed any hiss on the speakers - it is loud when it should be and quiet when it should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have had two fleet Diesel tourers.
The first, (5 speed) did 75k miles over 3 years and averaged around 43 ? 45 mpg. It used a lot of oil, (2 ? 3 litres between services). Speakers used to rattle on my one as well.
New model in June 2007, (6 speed) just done 7k miles. Uses much less fuel, (average is around 52 mpg) uses almost no oil, no speaker rattle, drives much better than the previous car.
Seems that the new car is like a different model. Car is driven exactly the same as the previous model over the same roads.
Q.
|
>>Seems that the new car is like a different model. <<
All car makers improve as the model ages but Honda are particulalrly good at listening to customers and fixing things quickly. If you take the new Civic it did not do that well in a Which survey recently - it was a very poor showing for Honda being only as good as VW. You can bet when the survey is repeated in a year or 2 the Civic will be back in top spot.
That is what I like about Honda.
|
I have just returned from France with my Tourer fully loaded - I haven't counted the number of bottles of wine yet, but they were pretty heavy. On the full to full method with air con going and a mixture of autoroutes and single carriageways, as well as travelling through Chartres, I averaged a fraction over forty-six to the gallon.
I have found that keeping my tyres at 35lbs all round has improved my fuel consumption.
|
|
Robbie, what is the recommended pressure?
|
Robbie what is the recommended pressure?
I'll have to go in the garage to check. Honda stick them on the door. The difference isn't very much, about 2lbs difference. It has not affected tyre wear at all, nor does it affect the handling or braking. As the car was fully loaded travelling to France and returning then the tyre pressures were correct.
Returning home last year with a lot less wine and so not as heavy I achieved 51mpg.
|
|
|
|
I have found that keeping my tyres at 35lbs all round has improved my fuel consumption.
Of course. But doesn't it cause the centre's of they tyres to wear faster?
My BIL does this - he has a company car and the lease company pays for the tyres, but he pays for most of his fuel (does little private mileage).
|
|
I run mine slightly hard as well - 35/38 and the wear is still even. Fronts average 30k and rears 45k.
|
|
|
|
Just back from a 3,200 mile, fully loaded roadtrip round Europe.
First two tanks were largely motorway, aircon off, with probably 10% single carriageway by mile. 42.5 mpg. Rest of journey was mix of aircon on cruise at 130km/h (indicated 85) and mountain roads. High altitude (2,000 m +) switchbacks fully loaded with aircon on got 38. Overall average of 41.
All figures full to full.
|
|
|
|
|
Does the wheel size really make a difference to fuel consumption, or is it that the odometer is accurate with one size but not the other?
Personally I always go for the standard wheels: the ride is usually better, and as I don't spend a lot of time looking at wheels I don't perceive a great deal of difference in the appearance of the car.
|
|
What Car magazine stated that you lost approx. 1 mpg for every 1" of increased alloy size. Dunno if this is true, however!
|
|
|
|
Hi
I have a 2004 Accord ExecutiveTourer now at 68k miles ? bought second hand at 51k miles and fitted with 17? Penta wheels / Michelin Pilot sport tyres.
I concur with other readers comments - with the mpg of 42/43 mpg, although my wheels do seem to tramline/ bump steer at slow speeds. The drive when solo is like a dream, quiet, flexible and relaxing. Quite a distinct difference to my previous car - a VW 130 Bora Sport which was fun in a different way.
The one thing I miss from the VW diesel though is the low down grunt when I tow a caravan.
I can?t say I would recommend the Honda diesel for towing ? the mpg goes through the roof at 25/28mpg and it is hard work having to keep changing gear on the 5 speed box to keep as steady pace.
Have found the seats comfortable although the passenger seat would benefit from having height adjustment. One would have expected that to have been provided or at least an option. I have even considered having the passenger seat frame changed with one from a left hand driver?s version which must have this feature.
An untreated chip on the roof turned rusty ? something I would have not have expected to deal with, other manufacturers galvanize the bodies.
The inner surface of all the alloy wheels corroded and have been replaced under warrantee. The replacement wheels are now showing the same signs of corrosion ? again something that should not occur, especially as I have made a point of keeping them clean. I also think that the discs will need to be replaced soon as they are corroding away, quicker than I would have expected.
The exhaust manifold had to be replaced as a hairline crack had occurred, fortunately under warrantee ? I have since taken out a further 3 years cover with Honda just in case????.
My local dealer could do better???guess you get what you pay for and as I did not buy the car from them????..
Overall comments ? a brilliant car but not for towing!
|
I had a 5 speed 2.2 Accord tourer Exec for 3 years and 63k, replaced with a Citroen C4 Picasso.
Concur with the reviews above, fuel consumption in the high 30's most of the time, despite turning the aircon off whenever possible. However, I don't hang around and it's a heavy car which is impressively quick (especially in 3rd).
The front discs were replaced under warranty from Honda (but only after I demonstrated the juddering as they "couldn't find the problem") as they were obviously warped.
17" Penta wheels look nice but are corrode badly and tramline badly with OEM Yokohoma's, why fit them when you know it doesn't do the car any favours Honda?
CD player had a hissy fit at 57k and was replaced, no quibbles.
Overall impression was a good drivers car, capable of covering huge distances comfortably. The cabin was a little cramped and dark, especially for rear seat passengers but my nippers didn't notice too much.
Engine/drivetrain very smooth/progressive and a light year away from older diesels.
Boot is large and the hidden compartment below the floor is sufficiently large to keep most valuables out of sight.
Build quality is impressive, feels like it's forged out of one billet rather than fabricated.
Wouldn't hesitate to recommend one as a good used buy, but check the fuel consumption as 2003-04 diesel models were extremely variable.
|
Now had my Accord Tourer for about 15 months / 30k miles. (It's an 04 with total 62k)
Like many others I'm frustrated with the mpg.
Average is about 41mpg (can be as low as 38. 44 is the max I have had). This is about 70% motoway work at a guess. For comparison I used to average 48mpg from my Mondeo TDCi doing the same work.
The car is well built and the interior is holding up well with no rattles* (see below) etc. Have had a couple of minor issues (Alloys and Headlamp replaced under warranty) but it has never let me down.
*The passenger door speaker does sound a bit dodgy sometimes.
I would urge anyone with one of these (or any other car in fact) to get a spare. Got a blowout on the motorway one Saturday night and ended up with a nightmare trip to find a 24hr Garage who could fit a new tyre.
Would I recommend this car? Well to be honest, if buying again I would find it very hard to justify the extra cost over a Mondeo.
Has anyone had a third party re-map done and has it improved consumption?
Edited by Chris75 on 07/10/2007 at 15:37
|
I seriously considered one of these when I opted out of my company car - in fact I had one on test for a few days, and if there had been an auto version I probably would have bought it.
The Honda (it was 5 speed then) was probably the most bearable of the manuals with an easy gear change and extremely flexible engine but in the end I bought a nearly new MB C270CDi Estate (auto).
Reading the fuel consumption figures on the Accord makes me smile - I can get 50MPG from the Merc on long motorway runs if I try, and pressing on it'll do 45. OK, short journeys around town it's pretty awful - it feels a heavy car and it takes a while for the engine to warm up (the a/c apparently works in reverse to heat the cabin though) - but I tend to use our Jazz for those anyway.
|
|
|
|
