150k 2004 Accord Review

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
753
Location
MA
If the sole determinate of automotive greatness was the quality with which a car ages, this car would be in that category, easily. I've had no major issues in over ten years and 150k miles and the car does, truly, drive, “like new”. Any signs of aging from a driving perspective have been imperceptible. It seems a stretch to say a mass market family sedan can be, “great”, so perhaps better to say the Accord, “Has been great to me.”

Can't ask for much more from a daily driver-reliable, easy to maintain, comfortable, frugal at the pump, and peppy enough to be entertaining. The engine is a gem, as smooth a 4 cylinder as there ever was, whether revving toward the upper reaches of the tachometer or sedately cruising down the Interstate. When closing in on the red-line the 2.4 liter snarls like a coiled cat, but otherwise purrs along like a sated kitten. Instrumented tests of the 5-manual had it scooting 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. It seems Honda underrates their 4 cylinders. The official spec was 160 hp, 161 ft/lbs at the crank, but independent dynamometer tests on the stock K24 surmised it was making more like 170 hp, 175 ft/lbs. Either way, you won't come up short in this car, it has a steady stream of torque from just off idle to 5800 rpm. An added bonus, I've averaged 31.2 mpg in mixed driving over the past 80k as tracked by fuelly.

The manual transmission, like every other input on the car, is slick, effortless, accurate. The only quibble here is that the clutch does not have a clearly defined engagement point, but the gear box itself is spot-on. Stretch MTF changes too far, though, and the transmission starts to bind a bit with notch-y engagements. 30k-50k mile intervals seem to be the sweet spot.

The driver's chair has held up over the long haul, neither the firm foam padding nor the fabric has shown signs of wear. The steering wheel has a pleasingly thick rim that offers excellent tactile feedback and heft. Every detail of the interior is so well thought out that spending time in the cabin is a pleasure and not a pain. Although road noise is an oft repeated bane of this model, at least until the most recent Accord debuted, I've never found it intrusive or tiresome. Turn up the very good stock stereo and road noise becomes a non-issue. The taut suspension lends itself to better-than-most family sedan handling, though the firm ride, especially over broken pavement, might be a turn-off to some.

A few negatives:

1) the brakes warp rotors. To be fair I only noticed it when I swapped out the originals at 100k for Everlasts, but I have had to replace them (free under warranty) almost on a yearly basis. I'm planning on a complete brake system tune-up this Summer, and have Centric Premiums ready to go on all 4 corners with Wagner pads. Hope for improvement here.
2) Cold weather induces piston slap. The metal-on-metal discord leads to apprehension about engine health, which, fortunately, has proven to be unwarranted.
3) No split folding rear seat. The Accord has never had one. Not really a huge deal. There is a ski pass through.
4) Steering wheel controls not illuminated. This was rectified after the '04 model year.
5) Weak floor vents. Instead of blowing heat directly on the feet it seems to blow it everywhere else. I'm a fan of breathing cool air and having warm feet, not vice-verse.

That is pretty much it. I've stayed up to date on maintenance except for the valve adjustment, which I have never done. That, also, is planned for the Summer. Every major mechanical component is original (knock on wood) except for the Catalytic converter, which was replaced under warranty at 70k. I'd like to claim innocence on that one but have strong suspicions I am the one to blame for its rather rapid demise. Hint: stuffing a shop towel in the intake while cleaning out the air filter box, forgetting it's there, then driving=not a good idea. A massive fuel dump while the engine gasped for air most likely disintegrated the substrate.

Oh, and the radio pcb board was replaced 50-50 with Honda at about the same time. Radio screen going dark was a TSB issue, but I had exceeded the time limit.

IMG_20150430_190532_hdr.jpg


572954db-b8b6-4cd5-9680-e7dbeb7da720.jpg


IMG_20150517_141829_hdr.jpg
IMG_20150604_093012_hdr.jpg


IMG_20150604_093036_hdr.jpg


IMG_20150604_093036_hdr.jpg
 
Good for you!.

My 1991 Accord EX-R Coupe 5sp was a nice car to drive, but it left me with a bad taste for Honda.

The clutch pedal squeaked like crazy, the dealer fix would last only 2 months at best. Clutch friction material would absorb ambient humidity and get grabby - dealer tried to fix but gave up by saying they all do that! Ignitor failure left my wife stranded once, seat recliner snapped a tooth while driving - seat back floating around is so nice, drivers windows rattled - dealer fixed 3x then gave up.

We sold it after 13 years with 307,000km to some kid - only took 2 hours of the For Sale sign to sell :eek:)

It was my least reliable car and I replaced it with a 2004 VW Passat, which has been stellar - go figure!
 
Had 240K miles on a 2005 Accord 2.4 in 5 years. Traded it in in 2010. Needed nothing more than oil changes, brakes, and tires. GREAT car!
 
Originally Posted By: zpinch
A 1991 Accord... replaced by a 13 year newer vehicle is always an excellent comparison.


When you own a Honda, that brand that everyone loves, and then you have problems, it makes you wonder why me? Yes it was maintained faithfully, but the stuff that failed was bad design PERIOD.

VW never has enjoyed the reputation of Honda, but from my 11 years of the Passat, the car has not stranded, broken stupid stuff. I rest on my comparison.

As usual, YMMV.
 
Good write up. I have it's near-mechanical twin, a 2005 CR-V. Same deal as you said....all original minus fluids/filters/plugs/brake pads/rotors at 218k. Well I did replace the accy belt.
It's going on a 900 mile road trip tomorrow/Saturday. No worries about it.
It's due for the valve adjustment at 220k.
 
I had a 94 Accord that I sold in 2006 with 415,xxx km on it (257,xxx miles). It was a very good Car.

Never left me stranded. Only issue was that it developed an oil leak. I had googled it for about a month. Found a TSB on a bulletin board in 2002. Issue was a bolt that held the exhaust manifold to the block caused a hairline crack which was near a return oil galley. That issue happened around 350,xxx km. Took it to the dealer and they said it was well past the mileage allowed. I removed that bolt which slowed down the oil leak. Tried to JB weld it, but it still leaked a bit. I would just top up the oil.

Funny thing was that the Local Honda dealer and some independent Honda shops never heard of the issue. When I went to the dealer only after I told him I found it on the Internet, did the bother to search on his computer.


If you get a "good" Accord meaning it's not a lemon, it can run forever.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: chrisri
American Accords' are ugly.


They save the Euro version for the US only Acura brand and jazz it up a tad.
 
Nice enjoy it. If I were to run out and buy a car for the long haul Accord manual transmission is it.

Resonable reliability, price comfort, efficiency, durability and engaging to drive for its class with manual transmission. Thankfully the traditions continues with 2014+ Honda Accord Sport 6mt but goes all the way back to 1986+.
 
You're not kidding -- the seat cloths look amazing for the age!

You're also not kidding about the engine. Many assume (or just read on the interwebs) that you have to make a Honda engine scream for it to go anywhere, but that's just not the case for at least some of their engines. Our CR-V has the same basic 2.4L K-series engine, and bolted to an automatic transmission no less, and merging and passing is just simply uneventful. Our CR-V rarely sees north than about 3,000 rpm -- most shifting seems to happen in the 2,500-2,800 RPM range.

I share your love of the engine, but do wish that Honda used the same "fully balanced" crankshaft in the lo-po K-series engines that they used in the 200-hp/7,500 rpm versions of this engine in some RSXes and TSXes. I understand that, due to the higher RPM, those crankshafts have better balanced counterweights, and are just plain SMOOTH all the way up to the top. The lower-spec K-series engines, at least in my opinion, are a little coarser as you get above about 4,000 rpm.

That said, for an engine designed in the late 1990s as the K-series was, that it's STILL being used today and that it's STILL one of the leading engines in its class, is a real testament to the basic design and architecture Honda conjured up nearly 20 years ago.
 
I've never understood the logic of turning UP the stereo to combat (road) noise. Seems counter-intuitive to me
 
Originally Posted By: Lolvoguy
I've never understood the logic of turning UP the stereo to combat (road) noise. Seems counter-intuitive to me


I agree.

I find I often drive with the radio off, the quiet is nice.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd


I share your love of the engine, but do wish that Honda used the same "fully balanced" crankshaft in the lo-po K-series engines that they used in the 200-hp/7,500 rpm versions of this engine in some RSXes and TSXes. I understand that, due to the higher RPM, those crankshafts have better balanced counterweights, and are just plain SMOOTH all the way up to the top. The lower-spec K-series engines, at least in my opinion, are a little coarser as you get above about 4,000 rpm.


Funny you bring this particular item up. Every day at lunch, my co-worker and I trade off and on for lunch runs. Mine is the 05 CR-V and his is the 05 RSX Type S. You are right, his is MUCH smoother out at 5-7K RPM's vs. mine at 4-5. He has 218k also, no issues minus a new clutch recently.
 
Originally Posted By: k24a4


A few negatives:

1) the brakes warp rotors. To be fair I only noticed it when I swapped out the originals at 100k for Everlasts, but I have had to replace them (free under warranty) almost on a yearly basis. I'm planning on a complete brake system tune-up this Summer, and have Centric Premiums ready to go on all 4 corners with Wagner pads. Hope for improvement here.


Nice write-up, but this problem would drive me crazy.

After a zillion threads in the Brakes section of this forum debunking "warped rotors", I was hoping no one would bring this up again.

Read the threads. Read the articles. Rotors either go on eccentric in the first place and build up friction material to feel like they are warped, or they are the victim of pad imprinting due to poor break-in. Please read-up on this topic and save yourself some money and frustration instead of falsely blaming metallurgy.

I am too tired of beating on this old drum to link links or the article. Years ago I figured this stuff out and now I can get away with cheap rotors and pads (with the occasional rotor return if it's too far out) and have them last 80K with no pulsation.
 
You guys are talking like 200k is some kind of great feat. I have a 1996 Ford full sized work van with a 4.9 in it with over 400k with the original valve cover gaskets. It hauls tools and takes a monthly road trip for nails that totals over 500kms round trip.
And prior to my ownership it was a fleet vehicle and came with service records so it was well maintained. It has eaten a tranny though but I blame that on being consistently loaded at 350k km.
So 400000kms is roughly 260000 miles. Hard worked miles and has cost me next to nothing to maintain.
So does my domestic quality and durability rate as good as Honda or.........
 
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Lolvoguy
I've never understood the logic of turning UP the stereo to combat (road) noise. Seems counter-intuitive to me


I agree.

I find I often drive with the radio off, the quiet is nice.


+1
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
So does my domestic quality and durability rate as good as Honda or.........


Sure it does. Any vehicle that lasts that long, especially under that kind of service, is to be commended.

Your Ford is 19 years old, running 13,684 miles per year. OP's Honda is 11 years old, running 13,636 miles/year -- nearly EXACTLY the same! Once OP's Honda is 19 years old like your truck, I look forward to his 260,000 mile review.
smile.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top