Lots of rattles and squeaks; brakes replaced three times, blown head gasket, interior and exterior trim falling off, paint peeling.
I bought the car because of all the hype about Honda quality, but there are too many problems. The four cylinder is grossly underpowered and the styling is bland. I miss my Malibu!
My Ex-2002 Honda Accord EX Sedan 2.3 4 Cylinder Automatic, had its Transmission Replaced at only 12.000 Miles. Dealer replaced the transmission under warranty. The Head Gasket blew at 21.000 Miles not to mention lots of annoying Rattles and another unusual Noises and numerous Knockings from undefined parts of the car. Until, I got rid of that Piece of Junk (Replaced in March of this year for a New Brand 2004 Chevrolet Malibu LT, has been a Pleasure so far) the dealer wasn't able to fix a horrible noise, from the rear suspension, not to mention the intermittent tendency to stalling.
Needless, to say... I WILL NEVER EVER BUY AN HONDA AGAIN!!!
Bought in May of 2002 as a Replacement for an Unreliable 2000 Ford Contour, I thought that I did a Great Deal buying an Honda after hearing so many, praises about the so-called "Honda Reliability" and maybe I could erase the Two Years of misery that I had with that Ford.
BIG MISTAKE!!!
Now I see that all this thing about Hondas being Reliable, is just a Load of Crap as Honda Cars!!!
Even Ford build better cars...and I thought, that My previous Contour was a Crappy Car...This Honda was even worse!
Now I'm a happy Chevy owner. My Malibu has been a pleasure so far.
I'm sorry to hear that you've had so many problems with your 2002 Accord. Mine has been perfect so far. I guess every car line has their lemons.
How insulting. For starters, I believe every word about the problems in his 2002 Honda Accord. I owned a 2001 Honda Accord EX V6 Automatic Sedan and I had numerous problems within the first few weeks of ownership. The sunroof and switch worked half of the time, the brakes squealed after 200 miles, water leaked into the trunk, I had problems with the door locks, stereo, windows and power seats. After many conversations with Honda and my local Honda rep. Honda bought the car back from me. I must admit the car was beautiful and fun to drive. But that's just it, I wanted to drive my car and not a loaner car that I was in most of the time. Hey you know what you don't have to believe me nor the person who originally posted a comment. I had one, the original person who posted the review had one, just be grateful that you don't have one. But most of all don't say that it's just in someone's mind. That's very insulting, especially when you have experienced these problems.
That fourth comment was spoken like a true Honda lover. They refuse to believe or acknowledge whenever someone has had a problem with their Honda, instead they just accuse that person of being a liar. Bravo on that fifth comment, it was a very mature way of putting the fourth commenter in his/her place.
I am on my second accord. The first one was a 1990 and was built in Japan. I still have it and have 198000 miles on it. Does it have problems? yep! But at nearly 200K who's complaining... not me. I got my money out of it a long time ago. In fact I just spent $1800 on it for the first time, ever! Now I have a 2002 Accord LX. It has a manual tranny and not too much else. If have over 63K miles on it and not one problem. Now I realize that some of you have had problems. I believe the quality is there, but some have just not been as lucky.
I do not disbelieve the negative comments from the above consumers. I also understand their reasoning to avoid Honda purchases in the future. However, I am on my third Accord primarily due to the reliability. My '91 was sold with 445,000kms and was still running great. I purchased a used '93 and sold it with 438,000kms and was in need of a clutch.
I never had any annoying little problems or major problems with either of these aside form warping brake rotors.
So far, the '02 has 108,000 although I have needed 2 wheel bearings.
I have avoided GM products due to a former '85 Buick Century that was a physical and mechanical write-off before the odometer hit 150,000kms. All GM could say was "you'll have to take us to arbitration".
My Honda Accords owe me nothing.
Agreed 100%. I have a 96 Accord EX, and it's been the best car I've ever owned. Nothing but basic and routine maintenance/upkeep is all that this car has required to stay on the road and still run like new after almost 10 years and 160,000 miles. If that isn't a darn good car, I don't know what is! It's hard to believe that another car that is identical to mine in every way, can be a complete nightmare when mine has been such a miracle... but it happened. The 1998 and later Accords (1998 was the first year for the redesign) tend to be more problematic than the 97 and previous generations. It seems as though most owners bought a newer model Honda based on the success of their previous one, only to be very disappointed. The 1998+ 4-cylinder Accord used a 2.3 liter engine that was essentially the same as the previous 2.2 liter... but the 1998+ models receive many complains of blown head gaskets, stalling for no reason, over heating, etc. while the older 2.2s are nearly flawless. If you look under the hoods of a 97 and then a 98, you almost can't tell the difference. Apparently, however, there is a big difference in the reliability of the two engines. I'm not even mentioning the wide spread premature transmission failures that plagued the 98-02 Accords. How can Honda mess up such a proven powertrain?! Ah well, I don't have to worry too much about it, because I'm doing what a-lot of owners of new Hondas wish they had done, keeping my 96. Back when a Honda used to be a Honda.