Dame Edna 9-5 or Accord 2.4 as a motorway hack?

[eltax91]

Hi guys.

I'm looking to pick up a new motorway hack to replace my woefully unreliable 5 series. I cover 30k plus a year for work. The above two choices have surfaced as potential candidates

One key requirement, because of the way my mileage allowance works, is it benefits me financially to run a car which is over 2000cc capacity.

I'm keen to avoid BMW again as I now have a sour taste of the brand.

Given the mileage and the fact I spend hours in the car, I need reliability and something well appointed inside. The 5'er has been faultless in the latter regard

Lastly, it needs to be 2005 or newer to accommodate my 'wker' plate.

Budget is anything up to £7k, the saab's are cheaper but perhaps less reliable than the Honda?

Saab would be the 2.3T and the Honda the plain old 2.4 N/A. Manual or auto, I don't really care, both have their pluses and minuses for me

Any real world opinions from someone who has run these? What's the real world mpg like on either? Is this version of the accord as reliable as every other Honda ever built?

Cheers

[10 Pence Short]

I ran a 2003 2.4 Type-S for 125,000 miles over 2 years. Absolutely faultless other than the CD player (an Alpine unit) needing a fix. Go for the Executive (which has more toys) rather than the Type-S. MPG was low 30s, measured brim to brim. Very, very comfortable seats and excellent ergonomics. The manual is excellent, the auto is an older slushbox, though is 5 speed.

Needs to rev to get it to go anywhere quick, but that's not really an issue if like me you don't mind that kind of thing.

[eltax91]

Thanks 10ps. Ever driven the auto? Given its a 5 speed I guess it's quite a lot less economical then?

Shame as the manual seems much rarer and tougher to find!

[TheHeretic]

The Accord, despite having a granny image, is actually a very nice place to sit and munch miles. The 2.4 is a decent unit, and will push you along quite happily without emptying your wallet.

Friend of mine had one in the states when I was over there. Very decent motor.

[10 Pence Short]

eltax91 said:

Thanks 10ps. Ever driven the auto? Given its a 5 speed I guess it's quite a lot less economical then?

Shame as the manual seems much rarer and tougher to find!

Only very briefly when mine was in for service. I didn't really pay attention to economy as I never filled it.

My experience of Honda is that the manual boxes are typically less reliable than the Autos, though.

[BrownBottle]

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2013...

Big motorway miles you say, what about one of these ?

Failing that, I found the 9-5 diesel I had on hire years ago a nice motorway car, but bear in mind they are out of business so you could get humped on parts prices.

[eltax91]

BrownBottle said:

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2013...

Big motorway miles you say, what about one of these ?

Failing that, I found the 9-5 diesel I had on hire years ago a nice motorway car, but bear in mind they are out of business so you could get humped on parts prices.

The LS430 was ruled out originally on the grounds that its surely going to be ruinous when it comes to fuel economy? How would it compare to the other 2?

I've similarly discounted the Volvo with the 2.5T on a fuel economy basis, although I guess that's no worse than the Saab?!

[TooLateForAName]

I think the honda is a nicer place to be.

My parents have a 9-5 1.9tid and I'm currently shopping for an accord.

The trim/switchgear of the honda seems better (although my parents isnt the leather).

Would you be looking at the 7th or 8th gen honda?

[NNH]

Don't forget that the 2-litre Mercedes diesel is actually a 2.1, which is handy for getting above the 1999cc mileage band.

[Sump]

eltax91 said:

The LS430 was ruled out originally on the grounds that its surely going to be ruinous when it comes to fuel economy? How would it compare to the other 2?

I've similarly discounted the Volvo with the 2.5T on a fuel economy basis, although I guess that's no worse than the Saab?!

On a motorway run you get around 29 MPG. Mixed expect 24 MPG.

[Super Slo Mo]

I've not been in the Saab, but from experience of the Honda, I thought the Accord a little noisy inside compared to my V70, and I didn't like the seats. That's not to say there was anything wrong with them as it's subjective, but I was hurting after an hour. My mate liked his though, and they have plenty of gadgets.

[BrownBottle]

eltax91 said:

The LS430 was ruled out originally on the grounds that its surely going to be ruinous when it comes to fuel economy? How would it compare to the other 2?

I've similarly discounted the Volvo with the 2.5T on a fuel economy basis, although I guess that's no worse than the Saab?!

Yeah, but with the money you would save on repair bills compared to the Saab it would balance out.

/Man maths

[Nigel Worc's]

I bottled out of changing the E39 for an E60/61, because of all the bad reports.

I've gone to VW Caddy van, keeping the E39 for private use, but I know that won't be suitable for you.

Of all the cars I tried, the D5 engined Volvo S60 ,S80, and V70 impressed me the most, both in terms of driveablity and comfort, with amazing mpg figues.

[beko1987]

I had an 07 Accord Estate 2.2 derv for a few days a few years ago as a pool car from work. Found it very good, got mid 40's when driving my collagues and I up to Manchester, and down to 15-16 when titting around the night before with friends.

My unbiased opinion of 3 days play! Looking to ge tone when the price drops to near shed, this one had leather, outdated but funky popup satnav, cruise etc

[10 Pence Short]

The Volvos of that vintage have a terrible reputation for faults, unfortunately, particularly with the auto box.

[10 Pence Short]

Just to add, I presume the OP is being reimbursed for fuel at the HMRC rates, hence his quest for an over 2000cc petrol. The diesel reimbursment rates are suitably lower than for petrol.

[Mr E]

We considered a 2.4 accord wagon, but bought a 9-5. Much preferred the Swedish barge and to be honest it probably has the legs on the Honda 95% of the time.

Not sure I'd want to do 30k pa in one though. Fuel would be expensive.

[Nigel Worc's]

10 Pence Short said:

The Volvos of that vintage have a terrible reputation for faults, unfortunately, particularly with the auto box.

Really ?

That's rather "unvolvo", mind you, the latter BMWs are very "unBMW" in terms of reliability.

I was looking a little older than Eltax, around the 2003/5 vintage, and the people advising me weren't coming up with any issues.

[Howard-]

The Saab will be faster but the Accord will be better in every other way. The interior quality alone of the Saab would be enough to put me off let alone the rest of the car, i.e. the driving dynamics (or lack thereof) and suspect reliability.

[eltax91]

TooLateForAName said:

I think the honda is a nicer place to be.

My parents have a 9-5 1.9tid and I'm currently shopping for an accord.

The trim/switchgear of the honda seems better (although my parents isnt the leather).

Would you be looking at the 7th or 8th gen honda?

Thanks all for the responses this far. I'm looking at 2006-2008 cars in the accord from my budget.

Sound like I need to try the Accord out ASAP and see if I like it.

Nigel - I'm sure not all e60/e61 are the same, maybe I just got a lemon?! It had all the 'ticks' when buying it, full history, specialist maintained etc

As for mileage rates, yes, I'm shopping in the over 2000cc petrol bracket as I can reclaim 26ppm. Equivalent size diesel is only 18ppm reclaim able. So, given an accord petrol should return 30 and a diesel around 45, the man maths really does stack up to owning the petrol, given the supposedly lower maintenance costs!

My e61 is LPG too, but naturally I forgot to mention that toy employer so I still claim the petrol rate.