2009 KIA Optima vs. 2004 Honda Accord

My wife just bought a new, 2016 Honda Accord. I drive a 2009 KIA Optima, auto. transmission, 4 cyl. with 97,000+ miles and she still has her 2004 Honda Accord, manual transmission, 4 cyl. with 180,000+ miles. Both cars have been cared for pretty well and we have really had no major issues with either car. My KIA sustained minor hail damage several years ago, which I had repaired, but if you look close (it is black) you can spot it. MY QUESTION - which car should I keep…the 2009 KIA Optima or the 2004 Honda Accord??

“Cared for pretty well” doesn’t really tell us enough about the maintenance histories of both cars. While Hondas have traditionally had superior reliability and durability, a lapse in maintenance over those 180k miles could easily negate that superiority.

If you give us the details of each car’s maintenance over the past 3 years, that would paint a clearer picture, IMHO.

Hmmmm…An '09 Kia with 97K and an '04 Honda with 180K. Without know their maintenance history…it’s a tough call but I would have to keep the Kia. The odds are better.

Agree! The KIa has much better odds.

6 of one, half dozen of the other. I’d probably keep the Accord , all else being equal. That’s b/c with the number of Accords on the road, replacement parts might be easier to obtain and a little less expensive. If you plan to own the car until the 20 year old mark, that too would favor the Accord.

Okay, I probably did not do the Accord justice here…first of all, I noted wrong on the year…the Honda Accord is actually a 2003 and I would say the maintenance has been extremely good. My wife has religiously had the oil and air filter changed every 5-6,000 miles at the Honda dealer. The only thing that is not original, other than tires, one battery and a set of brake pads, is the catalytic converter. The clutch is even the original and it is very tight. Having said that, obviously, the clutch will go somewhere in the near future. The car has been garaged since the beginning and is a one owner car.

The 2009 Kia Optima has been maintained well and I have changed the oil and air filter every 6-7,000 miles, but not as religiously as my wife with her Honda and my oil changes have not always been at the Kia dealer. I have, however, had the transmission fluid flushed and replaced twice (at the Kia dealer) since buying the car new. The Kia has been taken in for one recall repair, dealing with the transmission computer, and it has operated great since. The only thing that is not original on the Kia is the battery and brake pads. There has been a recent recall on the Optima undercarriage, which deals with the undercarriage protection, but I have not taken it in yet for that repair. As I mentioned, the Kia did suffer some minor hail damage, but that was repaired and obviously, that damage did not affect the mechanics of the car. The Optima has not been garaged the entire time, however, it has been garaged the past four years.

The interior on both cars is very good, but I would probably give that edge to the Honda.

I hope this helps VDCdriver and others with assisting me to make this decision.

Well, it does appear that both cars have been decently maintained. In fact, I am impressed that the OP has done two trans fluid changes on the Kia. As the regulars in this forum know only too well, most people seem to ignore that type of important maintenance.

In view of apparently decent maintenance on both cars, I would have to make the decision based solely on odometer mileage, and as a result I would suggest keeping the Kia.

Which one do you like more. Do you like a manual or you are always in stop & go traffic?

If it were me, I would sell the one that sells for a higher price (?Kia) and keep the money/save it for my next car.

The Accord is a solid car, but it’s twice the age with twice the mileage. I’d keep the Kia.