I'm sad to say that the Accord six-cylinder is so bad that CR can't even recommend it. CR can barely recommend the four-cylinder which is only average. What the hell happened to Honda? The Camry has gotten worse also, not in reliability but in crash safety.
Some winners: Mazda 6 and Toyota Avalon.
Hard to notice the Camry or Accord after you see the 6..
Posted by: StarHalo | November 01, 2013 at 09:53 PM
Is the 6 rated higher by CR? I wonder where these cars are manufactured? U.S.? Sad to say, but I'm betting the Japan market Hondas/Toyotas are still getting "BEST BUY" and "RECOMMENDED" ratings. By the way, my 2007 Kia Sedona minivan (bought used as a weekend Home Depot hauler, purchased with about 113,000 miles on it, two years ago) is doing great. Fit and finish, top notch. Reliability, very good.
Posted by: Angelo | November 02, 2013 at 05:31 AM
The Hondas are built in Ohio; the Mazda 6 is built in Japan.
The highly rated Avalon? I don't know where it's built.
Posted by: herculodge | November 02, 2013 at 07:22 AM
There are a lot of great cars out there. Our year old Accord has been stellar with 18k miles on it. It's an EXL with the 4 and has no issues performing around town, in the mountains with 4 bikes on the hitch rack, or on long trips. I don't really see the need for the 6 unless you need quick acceleration. You can never go wrong with a Honda, no matter what CR says.
Posted by: jmaffu | November 03, 2013 at 06:47 AM
CR is reporting from a survey of 2013 models, which are having a lot of problems reported regarding stereo and electronics, so bad that Honda had to update software. Hopefully, the 2014 models will be better in this regard.
Posted by: herculodge | November 03, 2013 at 06:56 AM
I bought the original Accord, I can't remember if it was 1974 or 76, but it was a wonderful car where I put nearly 250 miles on it before I had the engine rebuilt. I think I paid just over 4K out the door
Posted by: Tom Welch | November 03, 2013 at 08:02 AM
The electronics/infotainment systems are what are dragging down reliability scores for most manufacturers. That's pretty much how it works in the modern computer world, where it's just sort of a given that the end user is the beta tester; not a big deal if you have to restart your cell phone, but not being able to start your car is something else entirely..
Should also mention that the Accord gets a CVT transmission this year, not a good choice for performance, but awesome as a luxury touch, which I'd be comfortable with for the family truckster..
Posted by: StarHalo | November 03, 2013 at 09:32 AM
StarHalo: Why do you consider the CVT to be awesome as a luxury touch? My company car, a Prius, has one. It's not nearly as much fun to drive as my other cars. I guess the fact that there's no shifting might imply a smooth delivery of power----but it's actually just the opposite----seems to wind and wind and not give enough power when you need the power. Step on the gas in my Saab and you feel the jolt as the shifts take place. To me, it's a luxury when you know you can merge with traffic easily and pass cars at high speed.
Posted by: Angelo | November 03, 2013 at 04:58 PM
Angelo, that's because it's a Prius; you can't really compare the experience of driving a wheeled appliance versus an actual car. Seriously though, a merely average engine can be a lot more comfortable when there's no shifting involved, just a steady, constant surge as the car glides up to speed, like an electric car. Comfy stuff.
Posted by: StarHalo | November 03, 2013 at 09:07 PM
I can see your point. I would have to experience a CVT done the right way. But I notice that car writers continue to pan the CVT.
Posted by: Angelo | November 04, 2013 at 04:04 AM