Honda Accord 3.5 SV V6 AT (2015) vs Isuzu mu-X LS-A 4×4 3.0 AT (2018)
A full spec-by-spec comparison of Honda Accord 3.5 SV V6 AT (2015) vs Isuzu mu-X LS-A 4×4 3.0 AT (2018) — engine, performance, dimensions, features and price, with the differences highlighted to help you decide.
| Specification | Honda Accord 3.5 SV V6 AT (2015) Honda ₱2,117,000 | Isuzu mu-X LS-A 4×4 3.0 AT (2018) Isuzu ₱2,145,000 |
|---|---|---|
| Overview | ||
| Model Year | 2015 | 2018 |
| Warranty | 100,000kms/3-years | 100,000 km/3-years |
| Availability | Discontinued | Current |
| Engine & Drivetrain | ||
| Engine Type | V6 | Inline-4 |
| Displacement | 3471cc | 2999cc |
| Valvetrain | SOHC 24-valve | DOHC 16-valve |
| Aspiration | Naturally aspirated, i-VTEC with Earth Dreams Technology | Turbo Intercooler |
| Fuel Type | Gas | Diesel |
| Max Power | 281 PS @ 4900 rpm | 177 PS @ 3550 - 3650 rpm |
| Max Torque | 339 Nm @ 4900 rpm | 380 Nm @ 1800-2800 rpm |
| Transmission | 6-Speed A/T | 6-Speed A/T |
| Drivetrain | FWD | 4WD |
| Performance & Economy | ||
| 0–60 mph | no | — |
| 0–100 km/h | no | — |
| Top Speed | no | — |
| Fuel Economy (City) | no | — |
| Fuel Economy (Highway) | no | — |
| Fuel Economy (Combined) | no | — |
| Emission Standard | Euro4 | — |
| Body & Dimensions | ||
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Segment | D | J |
| Construction | Unibody | — |
| Doors | 4 | 4 |
| Seating Capacity | 2+3 | 2+3+2 |
| Length (mm) | 4890 | 4825 |
| Width (mm) | 1850 | 1860 |
| Height (mm) | 1465 | 1840 |
| Wheelbase (mm) | 2775 | 2845 |
| Curb Weight (kg) | 1653 | — |
| Fuel Tank (L) | 65 | 65 |
| Chassis, Wheels & Brakes | ||
| Front Suspension | MacPherson | Independent Double Wish bone with coil spring and stabilizer |
| Rear Suspension | Independent Multi-Link Coil w/ Stabilizer | 5-Link Coil Spring with Stabilizer |
| Front Wheels | 17x7.5" Alloys | 18 Alloy |
| Rear Wheels | 17x7.5" Alloys | 18 Alloy |
| Front Tires | 225/50 R18 | 255/60 R18 |
| Rear Tires | 225/50 R18 | 255/60 R18 |
| Front Brakes | Disc | Disc |
| Rear Brakes | Disc | Disc |
| Steering Type | EPS | Power Asisted |
| Steering Column | tilt + tele | Tilt & Telescopic |
| Tire Pressure Monitoring | No | No |
| Differential Lock | No | No |
| Safety | ||
| Anti-lock Braking (ABS) | Yes | Yes |
| Electronic Brakeforce Distribution | Yes | Yes |
| Brake Assist | No | Yes |
| Parking Sensors | Yes | Yes |
| Stability Control | Yes | Yes |
| Traction Control | No | Yes |
| Vehicle Dynamic Control | No | No |
| Forward Collision Mitigation | No | No |
| Blind Spot Warning | No | No |
| Hill Start Assist | Yes | Yes |
| Hill Descent Control | No | Yes |
| Auto Stop/Start | No | No |
| Driver Airbag | Yes | Yes |
| Knee Airbag | No | No |
| Passenger Airbag | Yes | Yes |
| Front Curtain Airbags | Yes | No |
| Rear Curtain Airbags | Yes | No |
| Rear Side Airbags | Yes | No |
| Engine Immobilizer | Yes | Yes |
| Security Alarm | Yes | Yes |
| Door Locking | Central Locking | Central Locking |
| Comfort & Convenience | ||
| Air Conditioning | Dual Zone Full Auto | Auto Climate Control System |
| Rear A/C Vents | Yes | Yes |
| Seat Material | Leather | Leather |
| Parking Brake | Manual | Manual |
| Key Type | Smart Entry | Keyless Entry |
| Push-Button Start | Yes | Yes |
| Cruise Control | No | Yes |
| Multi-Info Display | Yes | Yes |
| Paddle Shifters | Yes | No |
| Reverse Camera | Yes | Yes |
| Auto Headlights | Yes | No |
| Power Windows | Yes | Yes |
| Power Seats | Yes | Yes |
| Remote Trunk Release | Yes | No |
| Eco Mode | Yes | No |
| Antenna | Glass Printed | yes |
| Infotainment & Audio | ||
| Speakers | 7 | 6 |
| Touchscreen | Yes | Yes |
| Navigation | No | Yes |
| Bluetooth | Yes | Yes |
| Apple CarPlay | No | No |
| Android Auto | No | No |
| USB | Yes | Yes |
| AUX Input | Yes | Yes |
| AM/FM Radio | Yes | Yes |
| CD Player | Yes | Yes |
| DVD Player | No | Yes |
| MP3 Playback | Yes | Yes |
| iPod Support | Yes | Yes |
| SD Card Slot | No | No |
| Lighting | ||
| Headlights | LED + Projector | LED |
| Fog Lights | Yes | Yes |
| Daytime Running Lights | Yes | Yes |
Honda Accord 3.5 SV V6 AT (2015) vs Isuzu mu-X LS-A 4×4 3.0 AT (2018): which should you buy?
For the Filipino buyer, the Isuzu mu-X LS-A 4x4 3.0 AT (2018) is the more practical choice over the Honda Accord 3.5 SV V6 AT (2015), despite near-identical prices (₱2,145,000 vs. ₱2,117,000). The mu-X is a current, 7-seat SUV with a diesel turbo engine (177 PS, 380 Nm) and 4WD, offering superior fuel economy, robustness for rough roads, and versatility for families or cargo. Its 1800-2800 rpm torque peak provides strong low-end grunt ideal for traffic and hills. The Accord, while discontinued, delivers far more power (281 PS from a 3.5L V6) and a smoother highway ride, but its lower ground clearance and gasoline engine are less suited to daily commuting or provincial trips. The Accord's FWD and sedan body also limit practicality. For buyers who prioritize power and sedan comfort, the Accord is a compelling but older option; for most Filipino needs—especially off-road, seven-seat capacity, and diesel economy—the mu-X is the better long-term investment. Note: the Accord has no fuel economy data, but its V6 will consume more fuel than the mu-X's diesel. Neither model includes crash-test data in the provided specs.
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, the Honda Accord or the Isuzu mu-X?
The Honda Accord is slightly cheaper at ₱2,117,000 vs. the Isuzu mu-X at ₱2,145,000, but the difference is minimal (₱28,000).
Which vehicle is more powerful?
The Honda Accord is more powerful with 281 PS and 339 Nm from its V6 gasoline engine, compared to the Isuzu mu-X's 177 PS and 380 Nm from its diesel turbo engine.
Which is better for daily commuting in the Philippines?
The Isuzu mu-X is better for daily commuting due to its diesel engine (better fuel economy and low-end torque for traffic) and higher ground clearance for flood-prone roads. The Accord's V6 gasoline engine offers higher power but consumes more fuel and has lower ground clearance.
Which vehicle is safer based on the provided data?
The provided data does not include safety features or crash-test ratings for either vehicle, so a safety comparison cannot be made from this information alone.