Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Honda Accord I4 vs V6

24567…17

Comments

  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Do you know if the Honda electronics (i.e Nav) system are as reliable? That's my main concern.

    Well, considering the fact that the old Hondas really don't have that many "electronics" as far as luxury features (NAV, heated seats, etc), I can't honestly say, because they aren't old enough yet. If the rest of their cars are any sign to the integrity and reliability of their engineering though, I'd say yes.

    The best I can tell you is that all the power features in my 96 Accord work (with the exception of one noisy power-door lock)... A/C, power windows, stereo was still working until I replaced with aftermarket Pioneer CD player (had tape deck), cruise control, all work without any problems.

    Our van was 5 years old when we traded, it had a flawless Auto Climate Control System, Stereo, all power features including power doors; no problems to report on the electronics.

    Check out the "Problems and Solutions" boards to see where people are having trouble; it tends to be with other things than electronics (V6 transmissions), with the exception of 2003-2004 stereo head-unit display failures, which Honda seems to be good-will-repairing even on the cars already out of warranty.
  • carfanatic007carfanatic007 Member Posts: 267
    I like the V6 Six speed Accord. However, I liked 6 Speed Civic SI better and purchased it! Both are fine automobiles to be sure, can't go wrong with either! The V6 has lots of torque. The SI feels like your driving a jet fighter. The sound is awesome. If I had the money, I would have both in my garage LOL.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    carfaantic007 -

    Great choice. I have a 6-speed Accord and put a 6-speed Civc Si on order. The special order fell through so I bought a nS2000. Put an Invidia exhaust on it and not only does it sound like an F14 , it runs like one also!

    Enjoy you Si, a sweet car

    MidCow
  • yooper53yooper53 Member Posts: 286
    '06 accord ex/l, 2.4 l, auto.
    thus far i really am happy w/ my choice. carefully monitored (i.e. exact routes, 2runs) mpg checks seem to indicate 36-37 mpg in the 70 mph range. its true what they say about the i4 once vtec cuts in. i'm amazed. as mentioned elsewhere its a hoot in the twisties, given class of car. still, true fun in the twisties is enhanced w/ a manual trans vs auto trans, IMHO. a disability precludes daily use of manual trans otherwise a manual would have been the only consideration.

    having said that, i sometimes wish i'd gone for the v6. fun factor is undeniable but again its enhanced w/ a manual vs auto trans, again IMHO. one thing against the v6 (I stand to be corrected) is inability to disable vsa/tc. fun factor is all about engine control so its de-enhancing.
    in the end the main factor in choice of i4 is that i was unwilling to pay inflated car insurance premiums, fines and loss of points w/ the v6. there would be speeding tickets! believe me. some things don't change w/ age. :o)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    one thing against the v6 (I stand to be corrected) is inability to disable vsa/tc.

    I'll correct you. Pressing the "VSA" button completely disables the Stability Control, allowing full control of the engine. It's not like some cars that only reduce the amount of intrusion, it does completely disable it. The button is next to the moonroof switch.
  • ezshift5ezshift5 Member Posts: 858

    b>.......having said that, i sometimes wish i'd gone for the v6.

    .....the four - to be sure - gets better fuel econ than our six............

    ...but you know, it ain't THAT much better...............

    True, there are always exceptions............

    ....but the six has this really tremendous reserve bouyancy
    (forgive me - I was at sea too long)...POWER, POWER, POWER is whut I mean........

    ..best..ez
  • ray_h1ray_h1 Member Posts: 1,134
    )) "...the six has this really tremendous reserve bouyancy..." ((

    Hmmm... I wonder if that's what Chrysler referred to in the '30s in the company's "Floating Power" advertising campaign... ;)
  • stevehechtstevehecht Member Posts: 96
    06nighthawkv6 said: "I had my factory fill removed at ~5050 miles and replaced it with another Mobil product like the factory fill was but this time it was DriveClean 5000. The power came on when I did this and it continues to come on more again right around the 6500 mile mark which is where I am yet. I imagine it will continue to get smoother and thus quicker off the line as I climb up to 10000 miles and then when I hit the engine with some non-regular non-dino oil like some synthetic blend.. like Castrol syntec..hmmm yummy for my engine..."

    OK, I've read differing stories about when's a good time to switch from dino to synth. For instance the AMSOIL website says at 500 miles, while you seem to indicate that you will wait for 10,000 miles. I have also seen others saying 1000 miles. What's up with this?

    A related question: Once you start using synthetics you don't have to change your oil as frequently as Honda tells you to. However, waiting longer between oil changes would possibily have an affect on your warranty and/or EW. Any ideas on this?
  • w9cww9cw Member Posts: 888
    Steve - These results are unrelated to your Honda per se, but representative of synthetic oil performance. I have a 1994 Dodge Grand Caravan ES which has just over 161,000 miles. Two weeks ago, one of the head gaskets of the 3.3L V6 developed a coolant leak (not an uncommon problem).

    I tore the engine down to replace both head gaskets, and found the engine to be perfectly clean, and most importantly, you could still see the cross-hatch honing marks in the cylinder bores done at the factory. This, of course, means the oil was really doing its job.

    I use Mobil 1 5W-30, but still adhere to 3K/3month oil change intervals as the vehicle is used under severe service with substantial stop-and-go city driving.

    I've owned Hondas before, and although their oil maintenance minder system is good, I'd still change at a shorter intervals, even using synthetic. Changing oil at 10,000 mile intervals is not good regardless of oil used - just ask any good automotive tech. And, this is especially true if you do any city driving.
  • stevehechtstevehecht Member Posts: 96
    Thanks, good advice, w9cw. Speaking of the oil maintenance minder system I haven't been able to find out how many MILES they actually are recommending for oil changes. It says 100%, 50%, 40%, etc.--but of HOW many miles? Maybe I missed it in the manual, but I couldn't find any absolute numbers.

    I guess I was thrown off by the AMSoil website, which recommends running their oils for 25-35,000 miles. I use a Mobil station for service, and have changed my Mobil 1 every 7000 miles, but before I traded in my Passat I had decided to cut that to 5000, so I'll stick with that. Any opinions about AMSoil vs. Mobil 1? If you read the AMSoil website they seem to have lots of empirical proof that they have the better oil. I don't mind paying a few dollars more for a better oil if I only change my oil three times per year.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    AMSoil website, which recommends running their oils for 25-35,000 miles.

    Someone has to be kidding here. The oil will get way too dirty by 25k miles. And change the oil three times a year, not unless all it does is sit in the garage. And do you actually believe what a companies own web-site says about it's own oil.

    It says 100%, 50%, 40%, etc.--but of HOW many miles?

    The maintenance minder goes on engine revolutions, instead of mileage.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Follow the minder (its more accurate than doing it by mileage), but if you must go by a schedule, the models before the minder came out had intervals of 5,000 or 10,000 miles (depending on severe or normal conditions) for I4 models, and 3,750 or 7,500 miles for V6 models.

    25,000 miles is completely bogus; I'd never go past 10,000 miles for an oil changes.
  • ray_h1ray_h1 Member Posts: 1,134
    Honda builds in considerable early run-in protection with the high molybdenum treat pre-assembly lube the company liberally slathers on all moving parts of their engines. "Moly" is an excellent dry film anti-wear agent that has a strong, polar affinity for bare metal. Upon first startup, the circulating motor oil displaces any excess assembly goo and forces it into solution so that the remaining moly is subsequently part of the oil - an idealized, "run-in" boosted oil if you will*. As long as Honda's simple run-in procedures are observed during the first 600 miles to achieve a solid moly fill in the metal's asperities, there's no reason to change the factory-fill oil out earlier than the maintenance minder system indicates (though I'd personally be sorely tempted to draw the line at 6,000 miles, max, regardless - but that's just me ;)).

    *For do-it-yourselfers anticipating draining the factory-fill oil, do not be alarmed if the oil drains with a puzzling, gray-black metallic sheen (page 4 of 8). It's NOT indicative of excess bearing wear metals. That sheen is the excess moly that's still suspended in the motor oil. These are particulates that are milled to less than 5 microns, so they freely pass through the oil filter and remain in the oil where they're available to "heal" wear areas that shed their initial moly coating during run-in. (Moly is intentionally sacrificial to protect bearing metals under high load or momentary oil film loss situations.) Among conventional motor oils, Chevron Supreme and Havoline [one and the same since, a) they're both produced by Chevron Oil Co., and b) list exactly the same physical properties in their respective online product data sheets] have especially high moly treat rates. CS is typically priced less than Havoline for some reason, but may be the more difficult to find at retail channels other than Chevron gas stations - where it will command an inflated price. Happy motoring all you Honda-heads! :)
  • topgun7topgun7 Member Posts: 412
    If you are leasing an Accord, the money factor for V6 (0.00182?) is better than 4 cylinder (0.0022). The difference can be about $15-20 a month. Also the demand for V6 seems to be less than I4 so you are more likely to be able to deal close to or below invoice (We got an 04 EX-L V6 that is 1000 below invoice back in Dec 03).
  • mak15mak15 Member Posts: 1
    Hi Guys:
    I am planning to buy 2007 accord EX-L but still can't decide V4 or V6. What do you guys think? I wanted it to be fuel efficient but I am afraid the I4 can't move when it's going up a hill.......

    Oh, one more thing, the sales give me $22000 for V4 Auto includes every fees, except Tax. Do you think it's a good deal?

    Thanks, guys!
  • tallman1tallman1 Member Posts: 1,874
    Take some time to read the previous messages here... and you'll see that it really depends. ;)

    I suggest you drive both and then make the decision. You know your driving habits and routes so you'll know if you want to give up the mileage to get more power.

    I love the I4... although I didn't like the automatic. The manual is quick and responsive. I don't find the lack of power to be much of a problem... but I'm a mpg freak so I really appreciate the great mileage. I've got almost 19,000 miles on my 06 EX-L and I've never had a tank below 30 mpg.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    I've put 41,000 miles on my V6, and I love it. I would not trade the power for the little extra mileage. Everyone has different priorities though. If most of your driving is around town, and not much on the highway, the I4 will suit you fine. If you feel like your driving style would require extra power, go for the V6.

    PS: It is an inline 4cyl. (I4, not V4).
  • neteng101neteng101 Member Posts: 176
    I'll second the V6 for highways... it hustles when you need to gain speed effortlessly for passing/merging/etc. And this is one smooth engine! I didn't test drive the I4 but asked my salesman later about the engine being silent/smooth in the V6 and he said the I4s aren't as smooth/quiet as the V6 is in operation.

    But you will pay a small price for the V6 at the pump!
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    You should buy the model you most enjoy. You will keep the car longer if you like it and that will save you $ over time.
  • master1master1 Member Posts: 340
    Definetly get the V6. Most likely it's better built than the four cylinder, quieter, and more refined. It's worth the extra one or two thousand to get a better quality car that is more refined.
  • tallman1tallman1 Member Posts: 1,874
    Uh.... while I agree that engine size totally depends on personal preference, Honda's I4 has a sterling reputation.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The V6 is much quicker... but better built is doubtful. There have been more recalls on the V6 than the I4, I believe.
  • bristol2bristol2 Member Posts: 736
    I have the V6 and love it but I have always heard that Honda's 'greatest' engine is the I4.
    I imagine the I4 with manual 5 speed is probably the most perfectly balanced choice of mileage, reliability and power. Having said that the v6 adds the unquantifiable element of 'fun'.

    I think either choice is great.
  • saleemsaleem Member Posts: 114
    having said that the v6 adds the unquantifiable element of 'fun'.

    I think the quantity is the increase in horsepower and torque :D
  • stevewavestevewave Member Posts: 7
    I would go with the V6, I think the extra options are worth it. However, $22k for the 4 Cyl is a great price! Before buying my V6, the lowest I got the dealership on the 4 cyl was $22,400. What price did they quote you on the V6? I got mine for $24,300.
    Steve
  • ezshift5ezshift5 Member Posts: 858
    ... have the V6 and love it but I have always heard that Honda's 'greatest' engine is the I4.

    I imagine the I4 with manual 5 speed is probably the most perfectly balanced choice of mileage, reliability and power.

    ....another V-6 6M here....agree w/Bristol across the board.

    ...BTW, recent highway fuel data:(LA to Vegas, Burbank to the state capital)...both were a micron under 36.

    ..very little skill will get you over 36 with the 4 cyl.

    ..a great deal of concentration, patience and so forth CAN get you over 36 MPG with the V-6 6M....

    ..looking forward to driving the NextGen $ cyl 5M......

    ..best, ez..
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    very little skill will get you over 36 with the 4 cyl.

    ..a great deal of concentration, patience and so forth CAN get you over 36 MPG with the V-6 6M....


    He speaks the truth my friends! I got 36.4 MPG on my very first trip in my I4 Auto Accord (2006 EX). I did that by driving up the highway with the cruise on 78. After that, I have tried to maximize my mileage, and have cracked the 40 MPG barrier twice!
  • bristol2bristol2 Member Posts: 736
    I am sure everyone has seen those inital shots of the next generation Accord.

    Try buying that little baby in any set-up other than v6 6m and you will definitely feel like you missed out!

    Can't wait!
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Member Posts: 1,724
    I love my I4, its just enough power for me, although the are times when I would love to have the v6, but the I4 is quite peppy, and I have had my co-workers in my car and they thought it was a v6. Also this car does great when passing. It gets from 60mph to way past 80 if your not careful. I seriously I have to keep myself from getting past that point, thats too fast.

    Also this car does excellent, on the interstate, but at
    points maybe-maybe it could use a bit more power.. Very smooth, handles the road very well. I love my I4, but for those that want even more fun, Go for it! can't blame ya.

    Test drive them both, although I have not test drove the v6 at all, so all I know is the I4, I am afraid to test the v6, I don't wanna wish I had it.

    Also, my car already has equity in it, so when I trade it in, its going to be great. I think I have atleast $4k equity right now, Awesome,

    I CANT WAIT TIL THE NEW ACCORD>hope there not too expensive.
  • thechosonthechoson Member Posts: 32
    Hi everyone! I am trying to decide between these two, because they seem within the price range I am looking at. The V6 EX would be ideal, but a tad too expensive.

    The reasons I'd like a V6 are typical- I'm young, I want a speedy car.

    My gf has a 4 SE, and I am very impressed with the I-4 engine. I have a 95 Maxima which is just awesome in my opinion, and the 0-60 time in the I-4 SE is only about 0.5 seconds behind my V6 Maxima. But for some reason, it doesn't feel nearly as fast or fun to drive as the Maxima.

    The primary reason I'd want the EX-L is the leather seats. Honestly, I don't care about the other goodies in that car, but the leather seats do make it very attractive.

    So any opinions would be appreciated.

    Also, would it feasible/possible to later on get leather seats aftermarket in a car?

    Thanks!
  • neteng101neteng101 Member Posts: 176
    I think leather seats are overrated but the ones in the Accord are pretty nice. Why not spend a bit more and get the EX V6 though?
  • thechosonthechoson Member Posts: 32
    Well my plan initially was to get a VP and be done with it, so I'm already reaching a little beyond what I initially thought I'd be spending, so I don't think I can justify that extra I'd have to spend for the EX V6
  • neteng101neteng101 Member Posts: 176
    Then it looks like you have to decide whether you satisfy your butt when it sinks into the seat, or your right foot when it goes pedal to the metal. I'd go for drive first, luxury 2nd so its pretty easy that the V6 wins but you'll have to decide if the looks/feel matters more.

    If you drive a lot on highways that are pretty fast flowing, the extra power of the V6 is nice to have.
  • tallman1tallman1 Member Posts: 1,874
    I like the leather even more than I thought I would. The extra stuff with the EX-L is also nice, even though you may not appreciate it at first.

    And, of course, you can only get the heated seats with leather. That isn't a big deal with me but it is VERY popular with my passengers, even though only the seat is heated on the passenger side.
  • neteng101neteng101 Member Posts: 176
    Never felt a need for heated seats with cloth seats but I can totally relate to the extras being nice. Thus why I mentioned why not go all the way for the EX V6. ;)

    The worse part about the SE is the steering wheel - a leather wrap on that would make such a difference.
  • tallman1tallman1 Member Posts: 1,874
    He didn't care about the extras but wanted the leather. He also didn't want to pay for the V6. One has to draw the line somewhere.... we all have a different line.

    But then again, we all know that some of us would go out of our way to stick with the I4. ;)
  • ezshift5ezshift5 Member Posts: 858


    ..One has to draw the line somewhere.... we all have a different line.

    4 cyl has a timing chain; my 6M uses the 105k-limited belt.
    Advantage: 4

    However, the six has better numbers than my 350/350 'vette.
    ..and still will approach 40 mpg using cc/6thOD/2150......

    Advantage: 6

    ..both great cars; both with a "different line"

    best, ez..
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Disagree that the 6 can "approach 40 mpg" other than on a death defying downhill.
  • ezshift5ezshift5 Member Posts: 858
    ....Disagree that the 6 can "approach 40 mpg" other than on a death defying downhill.

    ....whatever.....

    (..had a problem believing it myself...)

    ..ez..
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Considering I got 33mpg doing 80mph on the interstate (EX V6), I'm sure I could get over 35, if I drove at 60mph. That will never happen though, because I will never drive that slow on the open highway. I also refuse to concentrate on saving gas, while I'm driving. That would take all the fun out of it for me.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Those that drive them know...

    I have a 4-cylinder 5-Auto Sedan that is capable of over 40 MPG when very steady at 72 MPH. Imagine at 60MPH!

    Like I said, very steady. Any acceleration or speed fluctutations put me back into the mid-high 30s.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    No offense intended. I chalked it up to euphemism. :)
  • cst010cst010 Member Posts: 5
    Looking at getting my 1st honda and could use some advice as to getting a new or used Accord.. I have narrowed down to two, a used `06 EX L V6 with 45000 selling at 21K or getting a new EX L 4 for 23K. I drive mostly highway miles and it is hilly. My commute is 123 miles one way.
    Thanks
  • jack47jack47 Member Posts: 312
    1. Buy new...not someone else'e possible problem.

    2. Consider moving closer to work.
  • saleemsaleem Member Posts: 114
    an 06 with 45,000 miles??! get the new. and i think it should be a little cheaper than 23, but not sure.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Depends what kind of shape the V6 is in, and if it's actually worth the price. But the V6 is a dream on the highway, and if you think you would use the extra power, get a V6.
  • blackexv6blackexv6 Member Posts: 503
    I had an '03 Accord EXV6 & put 58k in 3-1/2 years.

    The gas mileage averaged around 24-26 mpg with 80% highway & 20% city.

    Ended up having a lot of problems with the car but a co-worker has 120k+ on a 4cyl LX w/no issues. He gets 35 mpg on the highway & has plenty of power.

    I would get the '07 4cyl to save on gas + it is more reliable than the V6.
  • bristol2bristol2 Member Posts: 736
    I got a new EX-L V6 for 24k.

    It was from a one single price type of company so no haggling was involved.
  • ezshift5ezshift5 Member Posts: 858
    ... got a new EX-L V6 for 24k.

    ...me too (23.4 plus TTL). If you can possibly go 2-3 grand more - - - - - the new vehicle would seem preferable.

    ..ez..
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Do not pay that much for a used car!!!!! Buy a new one.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles