Road & Track: Sebring, Accord, Solara Comparison

[Fletch]

Decent article, the Accord won but we all know thats bull sh*t. The Solara they tested ran a 6.6 sec 0-60 and 15.0 sec 1/4 and had the best braking of the three. Pretty impressive, can't wait (hope) for the new supercharger to come out.

[krawzyazn]

Decent article, the Accord won but we all know thats bull sh*t. The Solara they tested ran a 6.6 sec 0-60 and 15.0 sec 1/4 and had the best braking of the three. Pretty impressive, can't wait (hope) for the new supercharger to come out.

ummm car and driver rated the solara at 15.1 1/4 mile time

[slingshot]

Decent article, the Accord won but we all know thats bull sh*t. The Solara they tested ran a 6.6 sec 0-60 and 15.0 sec 1/4 and had the best braking of the three. Pretty impressive, can't wait (hope) for the new supercharger to come out.

Wow, 6.6 is the fastest out there so far and a great number for this automatic. The previous Gens 1 and 1.5 automatics I believe got 0-60 in about 8 secs. The supercharger should really make this Solara rock. Which Solara model did they test and what did they dislike in particular? Was the Solara the fastest of the three? Did the Solara beat the Accord in anything?

[Fletch]

They tested an SE Sport, the article is in the March issue of R&T. The 6 speed MT Accord ran a 6.3 sec 0-60 and 14.8 sec 1/4 in this test.

[slingshot]

They tested an SE Sport, the article is in the March issue of R&T. The 6 speed MT Accord ran a 6.3 sec 0-60 and 14.8 sec 1/4 in this test.

Hmmm, never seen the Accord get such fast numbers but it is a six speed. Kind of not fair putting a six speed version of an Accord in that comparo. It should have been all the same transmissions to judge them fairly against each other.

[TW85]

Come on, you know car magazines have a friggin' love affair with the Accord. They'll do anything possible to boost its ratings, even if it means putting the 6-speed up with 5-speed automatics.

Does Honda pay car magazines? Every review of an Accord is sure blind to the problems they've had...

[Jai_Jai_Binks]

does it really matter how many gears you got to attain a good 1/4 time..mesa think not...I think their accord 1/4 mile would have been computed by third/forth gears...not 5th or 6th...I'm amazed that an A/t solara kept up with M/t accord...not to shabby at all...now someone needs to mate a decent m/t to 3mz, and work from there...

[Fletch]

Looking at the gear ratios in the article, maybe one of the reasons the Solara lost a couple tenths of a second in the 1/4 was it seems to have a real tall 3rd gear, more so than the Accord. The engineers probably had fuel economy in mind during design...

[ezshift5]

..same as my '89 lo-pressure Supra Turbo 5-speed manual (per R/T)

2000 SE-V6 5-speed (just getting broken in at 53k............ez

[fotodad]

First, I think the Accord is a wonderful car. A car which I would have no problem owning. In fact, when I was in the market for a car I test drove a 2004 Accord coupe before deciding on the Solara. I will not dispute the performance numbers because I trust R&T and their testing integrity. But I will definitely dispute the subjective ratings R&T arrived at in their final results. Having driven both cars, I think I can provide a somewhat unbiased opinion.

First, Joe Rusz, Editor-at-Large said, "...I prefer the Accord's more conservative styling to the Solara's somewhat busy, flavor-of-the-month look." Mr. Rusz's uses the word "conservative" as a wonderful euphamism for "bland," "generic," and "unimaginative." He'd have been much more accurate describing the Accord's styling using these words because that is exactly how the car looks and one of the reasons why I didn't buy it. Car magazines can be so hypocritical. One of the previous posts hit the nail on the head saying, "...car magazines have a friggin' love affair with the Accord." In one breath car magazines will criticize an automaker for "flavor-of-the-month" styling when they try to spice up their car line up, trying to distance themselves style-wise from all the cookie-cutter Accords out there. But then in the next breath car mags will praise a "conservative" styled car like the Accord because of biased or money-under-the-table opinions. A car maker can't win. How many times have you read that the Camry is a wonderful car, great performance comfort, excellent reliability only to have the last sentence read, "But its styling is so bland"? So why is the Accord's boring styling praised but the Camry's conservative styling ridiculed? I don't get it!

I applaud Toyota, a conservative auto manufacturer, for thinking outside the box when designing the 04 Solara. It's design is fresh, unique, daring, sophisticated, and exciting. Accord=boring, boring, boring. Oops, I'm sorry, I mean "conservative."

Here's my take on R&T's subjective ratings:

Driving excitement:
Accord 17.8
Solara 20.0
(R&T reversed these numbers)

Engine:
Accord 17.1
Solara 20.0
(R&T reversed these numbers)

Gearbox:
Accord 17.9
Solara 20.0
(R&T reversed these numbers)

Steering:
Accord 20.0
Solara 17.0 (left drift!)

Brakes:
Accord 20.0
Solara 19.0
(R&T gave Solara 20.0)

Ride:
Accord 19.1
Solara 20.0
(I agree with R&T)

Handling:
Accord 19.3
Solara 20.0
(R&T reversed these numbers)

Exterior styling:
Accord 10.5
Solara 15.0
(R&T reversed these numbers. They are nuts!)

Interior styling:
Accord 13.4
Solara 15.0
(R&T reversed these numbers. I found the interior on the Accord cluttered and confusing. Whereas the Solara is sophisticated in its simplicity.)

Seats:
Accord 10.0
Solara 9.4
(I agree with R&T. The seats in the Accord were more comfortable.)

Ergonomic/controls:
Accord 9.7
Solara 10.0
(R&T reversed these numbers. Again, Accord=confusing and uncoordinated. Solara=luxurious and understandable)

Luggage space:
Accord 10.0
Solara 10.0
(I agree wth R&T.)

So now let me tally the true final results.

Okay, I'm back.

The new and more accurate final results are:
Accord: 570.5 total points including performance and pricing
Solara: 593.3 toatal points including performance and pricing

I think this is a much more accurate comparison of the two cars.

[Shoe]

i just want to add this 1 lil thing that i noticed in another car mags ratings the accord got a 3 out of 10 for the trunk solara got the same.

I use the trunk every morning fill it to capasity twice, out of curiosity I went back to see what the magazine rated the 98 accord my previous car wich i did the same job and it got a 4.

NOW HERES WHERE I GET MAD. The solara holds 6 boxes and 3 half boxes the 98 accord held 3 half boxes and 4 full boxes

Id also like to add the solara is a loose fit where the accords was snug.

I could never put my hockey stick in the accords trunk but I can in the solara now.

thats 2 more full ( same size as mail bins) for the solara over the last accord who incedently had 1 point higher in the raitings of a certain car mag.

I dont know the size of the current accords trunk numbers wize but I did open the lid of the trunk and thought it was smaller than my 98 accords trunk. I really think the solaras trunk space is worth more than the accords.



wow all that on trunk space I type too much.

shoe

[Prophet]

prefer the Accord's more conservative styling to the Solara's somewhat busy, flavor-of-the-month look."

If everyone shared the same attitude as the R&T author, every car in America would look exactly the same because no car maker would ever dare do anything different.

[dabuda]

the solara trunk is huge...coming from a lude anyway...i think the accord looks hot with the HFP package...the solara is also nice but seems more flashy and unique...pix to compare

[SKYravefever]

Trunk ratings are based not only upon capacity, but also the ease of loading and receiving items. However, a 3 and/or 4 out of 10 is a horrendous assessment of the Accord and Solara's trunks. I suppose sports cars would get a -4 (???).

BTW, car magazines get whatever the manufacturers can give to them. So it's not exactly a fair test, but they test whatever they can get. Besides, numbers alone do not determine the car's worth.

[slingshot]

I agree that Accord does look better in the photo but those headlights still have to go. They are the ugliest part of the car. The rear lights are much better.