- #5 of 64
-
Re: These two vehicles are closer than you think! [thegraduate]
by bknsf
-
Nov 28, 2006 (8:27 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Nov 27, 2006 2:37 pm)
Thanks for the input, but at least "on paper", the IS has a lot more going for it (thus maybe justifying the higher price). The IS beats the Accord V6 on:
>4yr warranty vs a 3 yr warranty
>Rear-wheel drive (I'm in Cali, so AWD isn't so important)
>Keyless ignition
>Tire pressure monitoring
>Better gas mileage (somewhat offsetting the higher gas price)
>and several other less important items (IMO).
I figure when the Accord is updated in '08(?) it will be more competitive, but currently it seems a step below.
|
- #6 of 64
-
Re: These two vehicles are closer than you think! [bknsf]
by nross
-
Nov 29, 2006 (11:13 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bknsf (Nov 28, 2006 8:27 pm)
The IS has two more air bags (knee bags) better side airbags( they have a greater area and protect more space), and the first dual chamber front drivers bag. It has better crash test ratings than the Accord as well. The keyless ignition is great. Is the IS $10,000 better. No, but it is better. The tire pressure monitor is nice to have as the run flats seem to loose air more easily, and you need to check them more often. Speaking of those run flats, when the weather gets near freezing, they get very stiff and the ride turns harsh. Both cars are nice and an excellent value for their price. The Accord is less expensive and nicer than a loaded Camry. The IS is 6-10k less than a 3 (328i)series BMW and that car doesn't even come with a spare tire, which is a deal killer for me. I am very happy with both, and you can't go wrong with either one.
|
- #7 of 64
-
Re: These two vehicles are closer than you think! [nross]
by louiswei
-
Nov 29, 2006 (11:45 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: nross (Nov 29, 2006 11:13 am)
I don't think the IS comes with run-flats. I don't know about the 17" on the AWD but all the 18" tires are summer tires, NOT run-flats. My IS350 has a spare in the trunk.
|
- #8 of 64
-
Re: These two vehicles are closer than you think! [louiswei]
by nross
-
Nov 29, 2006 (11:59 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: louiswei (Nov 29, 2006 11:45 am)
On the East coast, every IS seems to have the run flats. They also have all have a spare tire. The 3 series BMW's don't have spares at all. If you get a flat, the run-flats are good for a hundred to one hundredfifty miles or so. Not good if you are driving on a 500 mile round trip. Could leave you stranded. Lexus first used the run-flats on the GS 300 with no spare included and a lot of customers complained, so they all now include spare tires. On the West coast you can get more tire choices. Also on the West coast, your cars come with the memory seats and on the East coast they do not. Also, at least for the first year of production, the West coast cars came with Xenon headlights and the East coast cars did not. I think this is a ridiculous way to go for Lexus.
|
- #9 of 64
-
Re: These two vehicles are closer than you think! [nross]
by louiswei
-
Nov 29, 2006 (12:30 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: nross (Nov 29, 2006 11:59 am)
I think the reason that East coast are getting run-flats is because most people opt for all-season tires over there anyway. In the South all the IS with 18" are coming with summer tires.
I believe if you choose the "expensive package" on the East coast you'll be able to get xenon as well. I know in the South that's that case. However I don't understand why the xenon is standard equipment on the ES350 but not the IS. You would think that at least the IS350 should come standard with xenon if not all the IS. If Acura can offer xenon as standard eq on the TSX I think Lexus should do so on the IS as well. What pissed me off the most that one can't even get the xenon as a stand alone option for the 06'. Fourtunately they addressed that issue with the 07' but that still leave us 06' owners stranded.
|
- #14 of 64
-
Who feels insecure because of a car they bought?
by thegraduate
-
Dec 23, 2006 (8:58 pm)
-
|
Honda Accord EX V6 6MT (vs. Lexus IS250 6MT)
$27,995 (vs. $30,970)
244 hp (vs. 204)
40 more horsepower
211 lb-ft (vs. 185)
26 more lb-ft torque
(The Lexus weighs more than the functionally larger Accord - which doesn't help the power deficit).
0-60 5.9 sec (Lexus cites the IS250 0-60 time at 7.9 sec - although I would think it would be quicker into the low to mid 7s).
21City/30Hwy on Regular (vs. 20/29 on Premium)
MUCH more room (nearly 5 inches more legroom than IS250)
More cargo space
(Basically, you get GS size at IS price)
Sure, you get more features in a Lexus (because frankly, at over $30k for s subcompact car, you should), but the Accord certainly seems to hold its own against the Lexus, considering the price advantage it holds, and that it is a five year old design soon-to-be replaced. For someone over 6' tall, the Accord's extra room will definitely come into play. It sure was important to me!
Doesn't look totally bogus of an argument to me. I mean, if it was a pointless thread, you wouldn't have clicked on the link to it except to make tongue-in-cheek deragatory remarks about people's decisions, right? And I think we all have more tact than that, don't we?
|