n00bee....03 wrx or 03 accord v6
Guest
Posts: n/a
n00bee....03 wrx or 03 accord v6
so yeh...im going to purchase a new car in a few weeks...but the thing is that i cant get stick(dont ask)...so i was wondering that is better...an auto WRX 03(23500) or auto accord coupe v6 03(24000)...which is a better buy??...they are both in the same range in money...but which would u guys for...and y...im stilll in college, and i will fix it up...and what does the auto wrx run in the 1/4 mile?...so yeah...just wanted ur input..thanks
oh yeah how do u guys live with the cup holder in that spot...i think its just horrible...
oh yeah how do u guys live with the cup holder in that spot...i think its just horrible...
Last edited by AwSoMNaMjA; Mar 10, 2003 at 05:34 PM.
Guest
Posts: n/a
true that... i've only used it once or twice in a month or so of driving and honestly it's not that bad... it slides out to the side a little... works out alright...
umm... in my experience, the accord looks great on the outside, is very powerful... but... it's FWD, which just plain sucks in my opinion, and from the inside it feels and looks and interacts with you like... well, like an accord. very unexciting dash, very ho-hum interior. not sporty at all. make sure you drive both exactly how you'd want them before you make a decision.
umm... in my experience, the accord looks great on the outside, is very powerful... but... it's FWD, which just plain sucks in my opinion, and from the inside it feels and looks and interacts with you like... well, like an accord. very unexciting dash, very ho-hum interior. not sporty at all. make sure you drive both exactly how you'd want them before you make a decision.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would go for the accord. I don't see why you'd want an auto wrx. Accord is less likely to be associated with ricey stuff also.
I bought a 98 accord coupe (ex v6, etc.) new as a back up car and it's been a great car, very reliable. It's smooth, and quiet. If you want something quieter or with a better ride your only other option (IMO) is the toyota camry which is very much worse handling, and there is no brake feel +obviously they're very bland.
If you want something fun to drive, I don't think an auto wrx will fit the bill. The accord has descent response, the auto tranny for the current generation is much improved also.
Here's my accord
Good luck on the car hunt, I also suggest you drive both.
Ahmet
I bought a 98 accord coupe (ex v6, etc.) new as a back up car and it's been a great car, very reliable. It's smooth, and quiet. If you want something quieter or with a better ride your only other option (IMO) is the toyota camry which is very much worse handling, and there is no brake feel +obviously they're very bland.
If you want something fun to drive, I don't think an auto wrx will fit the bill. The accord has descent response, the auto tranny for the current generation is much improved also.
Here's my accord
Good luck on the car hunt, I also suggest you drive both.
Ahmet
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't knock the auto's in the WRX, there are a number of people who swear by 'em, and they seem to have had less problems then the 5spd's have. And I'd have to add, that you should be able to pick up the WRX for less then the 23500 you were quoted, since in a few weeks the MY04's "should" start arriving!
Guest
Posts: n/a
so u guys think its not worth it to get an auto wrX??...damn...is there n e auto wrxs out there??....and the accord 6th gen v6 (which my brother has) is a nice car...but i think the 7th gen v6 is way better...performance wise...not looks...but n e one kno the 1/4 for the auto wrx?...i driven the 7th gen accord v6...an di like it...but i cant feel the power..its too smooth...some like that...but i want to feel it...and i bet i could feel it in the auto wrx...so if u own a auto wrx..tell me y u got it!!..thanks in advance
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,462
From: Honolulu, HI
Car Info: 2008 MB C350S Chip/Exhaust 268whp
i drive an auto wrx due to medical reasons and i could honestly say, sometimes i regret it and sometimes i don't. they do about 16 flat in the quarter mile but from what i've seen, they respond very well to mods. a fellow here on HIIC(Hawaii I-Club) named Infek also runs an auto rex in stage 4 format and it breaks into the 13's(high 90% humidity here) with a stock torque converter. it'll lack some low end but make up for it with the consistent and errorless shifting. VTD's another advantage of the auto.
The funny thing is that well I sat shotgun in a stock manual wrx(H&R Coilovers) and it had some "oh ****"(just like from stock turbo to vf30) factor when ripping some turns and uphill acceleration. This is after getting used to almost a year with an auto wrx.
The funny thing is that well I sat shotgun in a stock manual wrx(H&R Coilovers) and it had some "oh ****"(just like from stock turbo to vf30) factor when ripping some turns and uphill acceleration. This is after getting used to almost a year with an auto wrx.
Guest
Posts: n/a
what are you talking about "accord less likely to be associated with rice"?
first of all honda gets equated with rice WAAAY more than subaru... and accords don't dodge that bullet! there are more riced accords around here than subarus and toyotas combined.
second of all... rice shouldn't be a factor- if you want rice you'll rice it out no matter what it is, and if you don't then it won't be rice cuz you won't rice it out!
duhh...
first of all honda gets equated with rice WAAAY more than subaru... and accords don't dodge that bullet! there are more riced accords around here than subarus and toyotas combined.
second of all... rice shouldn't be a factor- if you want rice you'll rice it out no matter what it is, and if you don't then it won't be rice cuz you won't rice it out!
duhh...
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would recommend the WRX for a few reasons.
Obviously, even the stock WRX with an automatic transmission is a beast. (Motor Trend did a long-term test on a WRX wagon, and they had a lot of positives to say about it including many stoplight victories against cars along the lines of Mustang GTs of various model years. So I figure the automatic WRX shouldn't be too far behind the 5-speed wagon, which did the quarter in 14.6 seconds in Motor Trend's tests.) And the fact that it is automatic probably lowers chances of problems when you push your car. (Regardless of the car, many drivers who have sticks and drive aggressively can burn their clutch in no time.) On the other hand, the Accord still has a 240-hp V-6 under its hood, but it was intended to be mated with the 6-speed. In a magazine, probably also Motor Trend, they said that Honda specifically tuned the dual-exhaust note of the V-6 to sound best with the 6-speed throughout the rev range. And aside from the exhaust note, you lose a bit of performance, probably moreso than the WRX does to its 5-speed counterpart.
Personally, I feel that Honda worked wonders as far as value and all, but the front is just so damned ugly. Some people say that about the WRX, but come on, that's not everyone's opinion, and anyway Subarus were never really praised solely for their looks. (I actually like both the bug-eyed headlights as well as the redesigned 2004 front ends.) Those gigantic Accord headlights belong in lighthouses, not on Hondas. Sure, it has nice leather, wood trim, and an optional navigation system, but if you really wanted those goodies you'd work an extra few months and get a BMW or Lexus.
Who needs leather? I have a '95 Accord EX coupe, and let me tell you, the leather sucks. It's hot on hot days and cold on cold nights, and the passenger seat is badly worn. (The leather seats in my father's Mercedes CLK are a different story, however.) Who needs wood trim? It's a Honda, for crying out loud. I would've thought they would put carbon-fiber trim as a factory option before they would use wood. Who needs the navigation system? Only truck drivers and hardcore travellers do. You're a fool if you just hop in your car without knowing where you're going beforehand anyway.
And once again, come on, it's a WRX. There is no other car sold in the U.S. that is as much of a bad-*** beast as the WRX for that money. Sure, you can talk about Accord V-6s, Mustang GTs, and SRT-4s (all of which the WRX can at least hang with if not beat), but let's see how those cars perform once you hit a twisty road or drive in the rain/mud/snow.
Obviously, even the stock WRX with an automatic transmission is a beast. (Motor Trend did a long-term test on a WRX wagon, and they had a lot of positives to say about it including many stoplight victories against cars along the lines of Mustang GTs of various model years. So I figure the automatic WRX shouldn't be too far behind the 5-speed wagon, which did the quarter in 14.6 seconds in Motor Trend's tests.) And the fact that it is automatic probably lowers chances of problems when you push your car. (Regardless of the car, many drivers who have sticks and drive aggressively can burn their clutch in no time.) On the other hand, the Accord still has a 240-hp V-6 under its hood, but it was intended to be mated with the 6-speed. In a magazine, probably also Motor Trend, they said that Honda specifically tuned the dual-exhaust note of the V-6 to sound best with the 6-speed throughout the rev range. And aside from the exhaust note, you lose a bit of performance, probably moreso than the WRX does to its 5-speed counterpart.
Personally, I feel that Honda worked wonders as far as value and all, but the front is just so damned ugly. Some people say that about the WRX, but come on, that's not everyone's opinion, and anyway Subarus were never really praised solely for their looks. (I actually like both the bug-eyed headlights as well as the redesigned 2004 front ends.) Those gigantic Accord headlights belong in lighthouses, not on Hondas. Sure, it has nice leather, wood trim, and an optional navigation system, but if you really wanted those goodies you'd work an extra few months and get a BMW or Lexus.
Who needs leather? I have a '95 Accord EX coupe, and let me tell you, the leather sucks. It's hot on hot days and cold on cold nights, and the passenger seat is badly worn. (The leather seats in my father's Mercedes CLK are a different story, however.) Who needs wood trim? It's a Honda, for crying out loud. I would've thought they would put carbon-fiber trim as a factory option before they would use wood. Who needs the navigation system? Only truck drivers and hardcore travellers do. You're a fool if you just hop in your car without knowing where you're going beforehand anyway.
And once again, come on, it's a WRX. There is no other car sold in the U.S. that is as much of a bad-*** beast as the WRX for that money. Sure, you can talk about Accord V-6s, Mustang GTs, and SRT-4s (all of which the WRX can at least hang with if not beat), but let's see how those cars perform once you hit a twisty road or drive in the rain/mud/snow.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by DeeezNuuuts83
I would recommend the WRX for a few reasons.
Obviously, even the stock WRX with an automatic transmission is a beast. (Motor Trend did a long-term test on a WRX wagon, and they had a lot of positives to say about it including many stoplight victories against cars along the lines of Mustang GTs of various model years. So I figure the automatic WRX shouldn't be too far behind the 5-speed wagon, which did the quarter in 14.6 seconds in Motor Trend's tests.) And the fact that it is automatic probably lowers chances of problems when you push your car. (Regardless of the car, many drivers who have sticks and drive aggressively can burn their clutch in no time.) On the other hand, the Accord still has a 240-hp V-6 under its hood, but it was intended to be mated with the 6-speed. In a magazine, probably also Motor Trend, they said that Honda specifically tuned the dual-exhaust note of the V-6 to sound best with the 6-speed throughout the rev range. And aside from the exhaust note, you lose a bit of performance, probably moreso than the WRX does to its 5-speed counterpart.
Personally, I feel that Honda worked wonders as far as value and all, but the front is just so damned ugly. Some people say that about the WRX, but come on, that's not everyone's opinion, and anyway Subarus were never really praised solely for their looks. (I actually like both the bug-eyed headlights as well as the redesigned 2004 front ends.) Those gigantic Accord headlights belong in lighthouses, not on Hondas. Sure, it has nice leather, wood trim, and an optional navigation system, but if you really wanted those goodies you'd work an extra few months and get a BMW or Lexus.
Who needs leather? I have a '95 Accord EX coupe, and let me tell you, the leather sucks. It's hot on hot days and cold on cold nights, and the passenger seat is badly worn. (The leather seats in my father's Mercedes CLK are a different story, however.) Who needs wood trim? It's a Honda, for crying out loud. I would've thought they would put carbon-fiber trim as a factory option before they would use wood. Who needs the navigation system? Only truck drivers and hardcore travellers do. You're a fool if you just hop in your car without knowing where you're going beforehand anyway.
And once again, come on, it's a WRX. There is no other car sold in the U.S. that is as much of a bad-*** beast as the WRX for that money. Sure, you can talk about Accord V-6s, Mustang GTs, and SRT-4s (all of which the WRX can at least hang with if not beat), but let's see how those cars perform once you hit a twisty road or drive in the rain/mud/snow.
I would recommend the WRX for a few reasons.
Obviously, even the stock WRX with an automatic transmission is a beast. (Motor Trend did a long-term test on a WRX wagon, and they had a lot of positives to say about it including many stoplight victories against cars along the lines of Mustang GTs of various model years. So I figure the automatic WRX shouldn't be too far behind the 5-speed wagon, which did the quarter in 14.6 seconds in Motor Trend's tests.) And the fact that it is automatic probably lowers chances of problems when you push your car. (Regardless of the car, many drivers who have sticks and drive aggressively can burn their clutch in no time.) On the other hand, the Accord still has a 240-hp V-6 under its hood, but it was intended to be mated with the 6-speed. In a magazine, probably also Motor Trend, they said that Honda specifically tuned the dual-exhaust note of the V-6 to sound best with the 6-speed throughout the rev range. And aside from the exhaust note, you lose a bit of performance, probably moreso than the WRX does to its 5-speed counterpart.
Personally, I feel that Honda worked wonders as far as value and all, but the front is just so damned ugly. Some people say that about the WRX, but come on, that's not everyone's opinion, and anyway Subarus were never really praised solely for their looks. (I actually like both the bug-eyed headlights as well as the redesigned 2004 front ends.) Those gigantic Accord headlights belong in lighthouses, not on Hondas. Sure, it has nice leather, wood trim, and an optional navigation system, but if you really wanted those goodies you'd work an extra few months and get a BMW or Lexus.
Who needs leather? I have a '95 Accord EX coupe, and let me tell you, the leather sucks. It's hot on hot days and cold on cold nights, and the passenger seat is badly worn. (The leather seats in my father's Mercedes CLK are a different story, however.) Who needs wood trim? It's a Honda, for crying out loud. I would've thought they would put carbon-fiber trim as a factory option before they would use wood. Who needs the navigation system? Only truck drivers and hardcore travellers do. You're a fool if you just hop in your car without knowing where you're going beforehand anyway.
And once again, come on, it's a WRX. There is no other car sold in the U.S. that is as much of a bad-*** beast as the WRX for that money. Sure, you can talk about Accord V-6s, Mustang GTs, and SRT-4s (all of which the WRX can at least hang with if not beat), but let's see how those cars perform once you hit a twisty road or drive in the rain/mud/snow.
and to boom....how do u like driving an auto wrx...is it that bad...cuase i really love this car...and the fact that i cant get stick doesnt mean i cant get the car, right?...but i dont want to get it and just hate it cause the auto isnt as good....in hawaii and with that humidity, its 16 flat like 15 flat here? i am looking for speed and looks, and wrx is what i like.
so yeah i like both cars...can u guys help me chooose.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
I personally feel that an automatic transaxle goes against the character of the WRX. If you cannot drive a manual for one reason or another, obviously you will miss out w/some cars, as unfortunately in this price range there are no clutchless manuals.
To clarify my comment on the accords, the WRX certainly appears more "rice friendly" to me in stock form. The accord has no hood scoops, no spoilers, huge fog lights, etc. Many people put them on, but as delivered from the dealer, the car appears clean, and sleek.
I'm strongly considering picking up a WRX in the following weeks, but it's styling and what other people associate them with is not one of the car's strong points in my honest opinion.
Ahmet
To clarify my comment on the accords, the WRX certainly appears more "rice friendly" to me in stock form. The accord has no hood scoops, no spoilers, huge fog lights, etc. Many people put them on, but as delivered from the dealer, the car appears clean, and sleek.
I'm strongly considering picking up a WRX in the following weeks, but it's styling and what other people associate them with is not one of the car's strong points in my honest opinion.
Ahmet