Accord versus Taurus Economics

[Fred Smith]

I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord. The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of depreciation and the Accord low depreciation.

Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from an economic point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to eventually account for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with average mileage?

I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer, tighter, better made car, and some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can make an business case for the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the extra money. : )

Fred

 

[Bob S.]

Don't do it, I had a Taurus once and I had every kind of problems, that I decided to sell it a few months later. And of course, it put me upside down. I am glad I got rid of that P.O.S. Never again, I can tell you that.

I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord. The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of

depreciation

and the Accord low depreciation.

Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from

an

economic
point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to eventually account for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with average mileage?

I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer, tighter, better made car, and some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can

make

an business case for
the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the extra money. : )

Fred

 

[Eric]

but I'm wondering if I can make an business case for the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the extra money. : )

With the Accord, you won't have to buy a new car after 5 years. That alone should save you enough money to justify it's price. If given regular basic maintenance, the Accord should last you 10-15 years or more.

Eric

 

[Bob S.]

Remember something else, this is a Honda group. I am sure you'll get different answers at a Ford group.

I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord. The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of

depreciation

and the Accord low depreciation.

Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from

an

economic
point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to eventually account for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with average mileage?

I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer, tighter, better made car, and some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can

make

an business case for
the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the extra money. : )

Fred

 

[motsco_ _]

I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord. The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of depreciation and the Accord low depreciation.

Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from an economic point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to eventually account for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with average mileage?

I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer, tighter, better made car, and some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can make an business case for the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the extra money. : )

Fred

The RESALE VALUE graph for an Accord eventually levels out after a few years, so you'll always get a fair buck back out of it. The graph for a Taurus continues to drop and reaches close to ZERO. At least that's what the Auto Trader prices seem to show.

'Curly'

 

[Artfulcodger]

I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord. The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of depreciation and the Accord low depreciation.

Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from an economic point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to eventually account for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with average mileage?

I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer, tighter, better made car, and some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can make an business case for the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the extra money. : )

Fred

The Accord naturally is your car of choice, however dealing with a wife you may find yourself behind the wheel of a Taurus and completely redecorated home.
Mike

 

[Artfulcodger]

I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord. The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of depreciation and the Accord low depreciation.

Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from an economic point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to eventually account for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with average mileage?

I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer, tighter, better made car, and some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can make an business case for the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the extra money. : )

Fred

Besides which you can get a taupe Taurus and it blends so well with the new roof and trim paint on the house.
Mike

 

[Larry]

That's a pretty accurate statement.....I fetched $220 at the junkyard for my 89 Taurus Wagon a few years back that had 185,000 miles and was pretty well shot. They gave me more than a sedan, because they needed wagons. If it has still been in decent running condition, it would have been worth $1,000 tops, even though it was in good physical shape. Older comparable Hondas still fetch $2500.

 

[bearman]

I am thinking about getting a used 2003 Taurus or Accord. The difference for a roughly equivalent model is around 8,000 cheaper for the Taurus, maybe even more. The Taurus has a high rate of depreciation and the Accord low depreciation.

Given that, is there something else that I should consider strictly from an economic point of view? I know the Accord will be more reliable, but enough to eventually account for the difference in price if I own it for say five years or so with average mileage?

I realize there are other variables, and that the Accord is just a nicer, tighter, better made car, and some of this is a matter of personal taste, but I'm wondering if I can make an business case for the Honda Accord. I would have to do this to convince my wife to spend the extra money. : )

Fred

Get a copy of Consumer Reports annual guide where it lists vehicle Frequency of Repair. Compare Accord with Taurus. Make you decision.

Bearman

 

[Ted]

Just my opnion:

Before I bought the Accord, I thought I will love it. However, I found my Accord with Automatic Transmission (96 year model) does not shift as smooth as the Corolla that I have. The ride is not as comfortable as Toyota either.

I will never buy another Honda.

 

[motsco_ _]

Just my opnion:

Before I bought the Accord, I thought I will love it. However, I found my Accord with Automatic Transmission (96 year model) does not shift as smooth as the Corolla that I have. The ride is not as comfortable as Toyota either.

I will never buy another Honda.

Ted,

If your Honda isn't shifting smoothly, it probably means somebody changed the tranny fluyid but didn't use Honda Z1 ATF.

Dexron III doesn't have the correct additives that Honda requires. That's why your manual says you can use Dexron III 'temporarily, if Honda fluid isn't available'

Honda autos with Dexron in them shift gears like slamming a door. Actually, just like my riding mower :-(

'Curly'

 

[Paul (archive)]

If you want a softer car as you put it" comfortable car", you shouldn't buy Hondas in the first place. Cadillac's are softer than Toyotas, maybe you should get one of those "comfortable" cars. BTW, you didn't test drive the Honda before you bought it?

Paul

 

[Ted]

Thanks for your post.

When I bought the Accord, I asked a local reputable Honda dealer to do a power flush (as Honda recommened) on ATF. However, it didn't improve.

In fact, after driving my 96 Accord, I also tried my friend's 00 Accord. He has it since new and always uses the Honda fluid. It does run a bit better than my Accord. However, it did not run as smoothly as my cheaper Corolla. My friend also said that the Accord never run as smoothly as other domestic cars since new. I thought an Accord as a family car should be much more comfortable than a Corolla.

I haven't tried the later model. But I am so disappointed after trying two Honda's. I think this is just my opnion. I need a very comfortable and reliable car for my family, not a sporty car.

Ted

 

[Ted]

Thank you, Paul.

I did test drive, but didn't pay attention for the transmission issue. It was not very noticable when car was warm, and it was only noticable between the 1st and the 2nd gear. That's all my fault.

In fact, I don't like Cadillac. I found it is not comfortable because it is too soft. On the other hand, it is also costy. I was looking for a reliable family car, both Camry and Accord were on my list. But I couldn't find a suitable Camry at that time. That's why I choosed the Accord. But I regreted.

I am not saying Honda is not good. But it just does not meet my requirement.

 

[CaptainKrunch]

Well the accord is aimed at a certain age demographic, and the Toyota is aimed at another demographic. The Camry's are aimed at the old people and the Accords aimed at the younger crowd who want a firmer, more sportier feel. I do realize you were comparing the Corolla and not the Camry

I have a feeling you are a little old for the Accord

 

[Bubba]

Well the accord is aimed at a certain age demographic, and the Toyota is aimed at another demographic. The Camry's are aimed at the old people and the Accords aimed at the younger crowd who want a firmer, more sportier feel. I do realize you were comparing the Corolla and not the Camry

I have a feeling you are a little old for the Accord

I drive a Dodge Ram pickup, my wife drives a Lexus LS400 and my son drives an Accord EX. What's that say about us????

 

[Artfulcodger]

I drive a Dodge Ram pickup, my wife drives a Lexus LS400 and my son drives an Accord EX. What's that say about us????

Your wife has excellent taste.
MCB

 

[JXStern]

Before I bought the Accord, I thought I will love it. However, I found my Accord with Automatic Transmission (96 year model) does not shift as smooth as the Corolla that I have. The ride is not as comfortable as Toyota either.

Not sure what model you have, but my experience and the messages on these groups show that Honda does not really grok the automatic transmission. Besides the ones that fail entirely, I suspect there are a lot out there not working right.

But I'm staying with the marque anyway, and so far, the tranny on my 2004 Accord EX 2.4 is 97% excellent. Not sure I'd want to own one out of warranty, however.

Does Toyota do better with their trannies?

J.

 

[AGS]

Outside of owning a Honda, I also own a 1997 Ford Taurus GL and within the first 100,000mi (roughly) of both cars, my Taurus has had several annoyances. None of which were major mechanical failures although numerous Taurus owners have had transmission failures with their cars. Some of the annoyances I experienced were several sensors, wheel bearing, and tie-rod gone bad. My cruise control just stopped working (probably sensor related), replaced a broken gear shift cable three months ago, something underneath in the rear of the car is rusted/broken (hearing popping sounds whenever I take a left turn), fuel gauge stops working whenever I make a complete stop after driving 20+ mins, and my transmission sometimes refuses to engage when I first start the car after driving it several times during that same day...luckly a quick 'restart' of the car fixes the problem. Oh yeah, my back left window started working again this spring! Don't know why...but i'm happy.

Despite the annoyances, I still love my Big Bad Taurus.

My 2000 Civic EX has had no problems to date. But $8,000 is a lot of savings. If you don't mind the annoyances which may/will come with owning a Taurus, go Ford. Otherwise, go Honda.

-AGS

 

[Cosmin N.]

I did test drive, but didn't pay attention for the transmission issue. It was not very noticable when car was warm, and it was only noticable between the 1st and the 2nd gear. That's all my fault.

I had a 94 Accord EXR (same gear box as your 96), and it dit shift harder between 1st and 2nd, as do many older Hondas or Acuras with automatic transmissions. But the hard shifting happens at all times, whether the car is warm or not. There is nothing wrong with the transmissions, that's just how they are built. You should have noticed it during a test drive.

In fact, I don't like Cadillac. I found it is not comfortable because it is too soft. On the other hand, it is also costy. I was looking for a reliable family car, both Camry and Accord were on my list. But I couldn't find a suitable Camry at that time. That's why I choosed the Accord. But I regreted.

When I decided to buy my 01 Prelude a few months ago, I test drove several different cars (Honda Prelude and Accord coupe, Acura RSX and Integra, Subaru WRX STi, VW Golf VR6) that were in the same class before finally deciding on the Prelude. A matter of personal prefference, but I liked it the most and it also fit my budget. Once I settled on the Prelude, I looked at 15 different ones and drove about 5-6 over the next _two months_ untill I found one in good shape at a reasonable price.

The reason for this rant is to show how a car should be bought (I hope others will agree). If you rush into it, you're almost guaranteed not to like it in the long run. Even if the car is in perfect shape, it does not match your expectations.

I am not saying Honda is not good. But it just does not meet my requirement.

Your first post implied that you hate Hondas and that the OP should buy a Taurus. What else would you mean by "I will never buy another Honda"?

Cosmin