Thinking of updating me Honda this year so starting to look now, I never hurry these things. Is the Aurion made on the same platform as the Camry, i:e suspension wise? They look abit nicer than the camry but seem to share a fair bit. I see they have a 3.5 motor. Last camry I drove any great distance was a 2000 and it made me sea sick. And the Mark x looks like a nice unit but are these an unkown yet? Also looking at another Honda accord. Not interested in 0 to 100 times etc (as long as its not an hour of course) just a nice comfy long distance hauler. And Im not quite joining any bowling clubs.
msigg,
Jan 12, 2:41am
Both are excellent cars. The Aurion would be my pick over the Honda, I believe the Toyota has one of the most robust auto trans, the 3.5 will have heaps of power but economy and super smooth running,I sure the Honda is smooth too, probably slightly more economical, the toyota might be a little dearer but will hold it's price slightly better. Aurion for me.
timmo1,
Jan 12, 2:56am
If you want size then the Aurion is hard to beat. although it doesn't seem to do any one thing particularly well, its a decent large car. The Mark X is a bit more dynamic but smaller (RWD vs FWD)- The 3.0 is from the same engine family as the 3.5 in the Aurion.
richardmayes,
Jan 12, 12:13pm
I've driven an Aurion Sportivo quite a bit at work and it's not a bad car, but found the ride and handling is a bit crude compared to an older 1999 Accord V6. So I would expect a contemporary Accord to be better still.
You have to rev it to get the power out, it's not like a Falcodore engine. Gearbox seems strong but the up/down thing in "manual" mode isn't really responsive enough for fun driving, it takes its time making changes.
tgray,
Jan 12, 1:28pm
The Commodore SV6 is more of a comparison with the Aurion. I am currently driving a Mark x and really like it, but it's a smaller car.
kazbanz,
Jan 12, 1:30pm
gunny--u in dauckland ennee time soon? -sum dealer as accord an mark x ya cood drive then by dahn yer ways
audi_s_ate,
Jan 12, 3:30pm
I would avoid the mark x - they run a direct injection motor and can have carbon build up issues (same engine shared in the lexus is series) Another vote for a 2.4 Accord (I get 900km a tank open rd)
gunhand,
Jan 12, 11:21pm
Geez, I currently own a 99 accord so would be disapointed if a 8 year newer car was not as good to drive. My one is quite a good open road cruiser and cheap enough to run, and of course runs like a swiss army watch. Haven't driven an Aurion any great distance ( a few meters at best lol) so will be interested in how they do go. I would have thought a 3.5ltr would rev quite freely?
gunhand,
Jan 12, 11:22pm
Was in Aucks for Springsteen, the price of a taxi scared me off from coming back any time soon LOL. But ya never know.
kazbanz,
Jan 13, 2:13am
Pity mate--I'd given you a drive in what was to be the new kazmobile.
gunhand,
Jan 13, 2:19am
They must be good then, you givin up the commy for the Mark X?
kazbanz,
Jan 13, 2:26am
gunny I hate to admit it-the mark X in theory ticks every single box there is to tick for me now. Its grunty,comfortable and handles pretty well YET-On sunday I CHOSE to drive our $4000 300000km 2001 previa. I can't work out my rationale on this but I personally feel more comfortable in a lower value car.--Go figure-car dealer prefers to drive ;'shitters'
kimbo88,
Jan 13, 2:26am
The carbon buildup issues in these cars are usually the result of Kiwis trying to run them on 91 fuel, which they are not designed to run on - they are meant to use only 98 (or certainly no less than 95 minimum). I have had several of the newer direct injection Toyotas, the current one for the last 4 years and never had any problems whatsoever, and I will shortly be buying the next Mark X. My vote goes for the Mark X - but run on the correct fuel only.
lugee,
Jan 13, 3:18am
Accord. The K24 is an excellent engine, has enough torque too. Also one of few cars that new you can actually get with a 6 speed manual if you are so inclined.
pandai,
Jan 13, 7:52am
Agree with the above - 2.4L Accord Euro. A much better car to drive than the V6 Accord of the same era, which we also owned.
bigfatmat1,
Jan 13, 1:53pm
the 6spd accord is two litre not a k24
audi_s_ate,
Jan 13, 2:00pm
FYI you can get the 6spd manual in both the k20 'euro r' and k24.
pandai,
Jan 13, 4:05pm
Those will be imported models, Accord Euros that were sold new in NZ were 2.4.
brapbrap8,
Jan 13, 5:26pm
My vote would be to take a 3.6L Subaru Legacy for a drive then report back.
richardmayes,
Jan 13, 5:47pm
The engine and gearbox is definitely the best part of the Aurion! It looks like a Camry but it will accelerate side by side with most things on the road apart from serious performance cars.
It's the most powerful FWD car I've driven, and it certainly changed my changed my perceptions of FWD cars with a bit of power - if you step on the gas at high revs the engine just pulls you along straight ahead.
(I know dyed-in-the-wool RWD-only people insist that a good RWD chassis "puts the power down" better, but IMHO the confidence that comes from knowing that you will never swap ends, no matter how much power you pour on, would more than make up for a having a few % less adhesion!)
The gearbox seems to take the strain without any sick sounding noises, but as stated previously it isn't great for "sporty" driving, even in tiptronic mode it thinks about it for a second after you tell it to change down or up.
Handling in twisty stuff is pretty good - considering it is just a great big ugly Camry with fatter tyres and a V6 - but you are aware there is a big heavy back end floating around behind you.
So it's probably a good functional car for someone who just wants a good functional car, with the ability to blow the doors off people when needed. But it's not really a toy car for fun driving that you could get overly enthusiastic about if "fun driving" is your thing.
And yes, more road/wind noise than your old Honda! A LOT more power though.
gunhand,
Jan 13, 10:55pm
All very interesting, na, not interested in any kind of toy. Just a car to go where I'm going in comfort and enough power to just cruise up hills etc, plus a bit of leg room for a teenager who's growing at an inch a day. If they are noiser than what ive got it will put me off. They don't make em like they used to lol. Ive heard several people say they wish they had their pre 2000 Hondas still when they have updated to a later one. But I will test drive one or two in the coming months. I like quite cruisy cars these days.
dublo,
Jan 14, 2:14am
I am told the NZ-new 1998-2002 Accord was the "best" Accord made (that comment came from a Honda service manager.)
I compared a 2013 2.4 litre Accord Euro (new, price about $48000) with our '99 3 litre V6 ($10000 5 years ago): both about 200hp (at 6500rpm+ in the 2.4 4 cylinder, at 5500rpm in the V6); 2.4 harder ride, higher dashboard so not the "commanding" view of the road of the V6, enormous number of gimmicks so steering wheel is cluttered with switches, engine snarls when producing a bit of power (V6 is very quiet) and it has a screen on the dashboard for the side-mounted camera so you can see what is happening in the lane on your left without turning your head! Feels bigger and heavier than the V6 (which it is) and I doubt whether it would be much lighter on fuel. Road noise appeared very slightly quieter than the V6. Not $38000 better than our V6, which is an excellent touring car with very well engineered handling and more than adequate performance!
After all that I can't offer any comment on what a 2008ish Accord would be like but I imagine it would be pretty good, and without as many gimmicks as the new one. I note the advert lists "4 star" fuel consumption, our V6 is "3.5". In practice I doubt whether there is much difference, both will use a bit of petrol if you pour on the power!
bigfatmat1,
Jan 14, 2:42am
Dont know why people would say that I have owned a lot of hondas from 88 to 08 and driven alot of later ones I own a 07 accord euro L spec nz new misses has a 08 accord euro wagon. both exceptional cars hers is s spec so pretty average specd. the 8th gen is a much bigger car does not feel as sporty as mine feels alot wider def does not handle as nice. y anyone would want to go back to a pre 2000 model after driving any of these two cars would be beyond me. Both very quite and smooth on the road. quite engines, usual honda induction noise at higher rpm, My car has alot more features leather trim heated seats rain sense wipers sunroof. hers has a better sound system
vtecnet,
Jan 16, 2:18am
The problem is, if you buy a Honda, you end up with a Honda. Nothing wrong with them really, I used to own them, but moved on to Euro cars. I would consider the Toyota Mark X myself though, it offers a lot of what a 5 series BMW offers, ie RWD, Size etc
gunhand,
Jan 16, 2:24am
Ive found one in yard down here so hope to go for a drive next weekend in it.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.