By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Which maintenance schedule said this? The official Honda schedule says to replace the timing belt @ 105000 miles for either normal or severe service.
Quote:
I like my '04 Civic EX auto sedan, BUT recently learned that a new Accord LX would cost only about $1,500 more. Wouldn't that have been a better buy - with 5 speed auto, double wishbones front and rear, 160 h.p., EPA 24/34 very close to the Civic's, and more? Edmunds "True Cost to Own" states that the Accord LX would cost only $1,447 more over 5 years! I drove the Accord the other day and it definitely feels like it has better acceleration, and I think a better ride.
What do you think?
Andy
And, as a previous reply stated, the 4cyl has a timing chain. If that's like the chain that was in my old Mazda truck that thing lasted forever.
Quote:
I like my '04 Civic EX auto sedan, BUT recently learned that a new Accord LX would cost only about $1,500 more. Wouldn't that have been a better buy - with 5 speed auto, double wishbones front and rear, 160 h.p., EPA 24/34 very close to the Civic's, and more? Edmunds "True Cost to Own" states that the Accord LX would cost only $1,447 more over 5 years! I drove the Accord the other day and it definitely feels like it has better acceleration, and I think a better ride.
What do you think?
Andy
I am considering both - but will wait for the next Civic before I buy. If the Civic had a wagon version I would take that over the Accord in a heartbeat.
If you already bought the Civic then enjoy it. You will get better mileage, be a little more nimble and easier to park. Remember your EX is a higher model than the Accord LX, hence the small price diff.
Camry vs. Corolla
Altima vs. Sentra
Impala vs. Cavalier
Crown Victoria vs. Focus
etc., etc.
Sure, they all have four wheels and an engine. But they are not built by their manufacturers to be comparable.
jpl
If I were making a recommendation to someone who was not a regular member of these boards (ie. very particular about their vehicles) I would never suggest they buy a new Civic EX over a new Accord LX. The advantages of the Accord over the Civic far outweigh the disadvantages. Having driven a Civic EX for 2 days while my Accord was having warranty work done, affirms that for me.
Of course that is In My Humble Opinion
I went back to to my Owner's manual and previous posts. The timing belt issue was discussed extensively and rcc8179 is correct about EX-L having a timing chain and there is NO replacement recommendation from HONDA. They expect the chain to last the life of the car.
Andy
The Civic is an excellent small car, but you'd have to repeal the laws of physics to make it as safe as a larger, heavier car (all else equal).
Before buying my '04 EX-L sedan I had a Mazda Protege for 12.5 years and I really liked it. But the character of traffic has changed over the past decade and more than half the vehicles on the road now are destructive trucks, SUVs, or vans.
I didn't feel safe in a small car (that I'm getting older and more paranoid is another reason).
I like the larger car better while driving, but not while parking--usually walk or take public transit in San Francisco where I live and use the Accord to drive out of the city where parking is rarely an issue.......Richard
i miss VW too. i'm looking forward to the new jetta coming out next spring. i'm hearing great things about the new 2.0l turbo.
andysandiego:
i think you should of went with the accord too. the extra $1500 is well worth the extra money for you get so much more car. personally i think the current civic is sort of a "mistake" car for honda. cars such as the mazda3 really out class it.
- power drivers seat
- outside temp guage
- split folding rear seat
-auto on headlights?
anyone know what the accord has that the camry does not? Seems that honda should have included at least the power seat especially in this price range, and leaving off the temp guage when it is std on much less expensive cars and cant cost much i dont understand ( yes i know it is a minor item, but i think it is cool). Why honda makes it so difficult to get these items is puzzling. (come on how hard would it have been to split the rear seat).
Andy
No, they cannot. Those are pressed on rotors.
One advantage to the Accord is that you have a better chance of finding the exact car you want since they are monospec.
I used to work at an oil change place in high school and college, so I've opened and closed plenty of hoods.
If the struts lock up, you can easily bend your hood, it doesn't take much effort at all. I saw it happen on an Infiniti Q45. Ouch.
Thanks in advance.
I know it's personal opinion but am wondering if it's worth going with the 3.0.
Also as far as repair costs which one is less expensive to maintain and repair.
Thanks in advance.
That said, I don't think the difference is significant enough to discourage someone from buying the V6 Accord.
Drive them both and then decide which one you like better. YOU should be the only person deciding whether the V6 is worth $3000 more of YOUR money.
You don't get that fancy auto-dimming rear-view mirror with compass and the power adjustable passenger seat plus of course there is the 160/240 hp difference. I test drove both cars and you can definitely feel the extra power of the V6 but 160 is plenty enough for me. My '93 LX does not have any problem going up to Tahoe or Yosemite even with the A/C and a roof rack full of camping gear, I'm sure 160 ponies should be adequate.
Thank you in advance.
One of the fastest cars I ever owned was a '72 Buick Skylark Custom with a 350 cu. inch V8. My '04 Accord EX-L 4 cyl. feels about the same--both cars have 0 to 60 mph time of about 9 seconds which is more than adequate acceleration.
Unless you're carrying heavy loads over mountains, the 4 is likely to be good enough and will cost less to buy and own......Richard
Thanks in advance.
I don't see the real advantage of the 4 if it will only give me a couple extra miles per gallon. That is only $65 savings a year in gas.
There are more advantages to the 4cyl than just gas mileage. For starters, the 4cyl has a timing chain which doesn't need to be replaced, the V6 has a belt which must be changed at, what, 100k for $300+.
Come tune-up time, it'll be more expensive to change plugs on the V6. There is also the initial cost savings at purchase with the 4...a couple thousand dollars. The weight distribution with the 4 is better, resulting in better handling. Reading these boards, you might also come to the conclusion that the auto tranny with the V6 can be a bit more problematic. I would say that the 4cyl is more environmentally friendly, as it probably emits less emissions.
There are many reasons why someone who considers themselves cost-conscious would choose to get the 4cyl over the V6. Don't get me wrong, the V6 is an awesome engine, and if costs are not a factor I would have gotten one. But, there are many advantages to the 4cyl other than just "$65 per year in gas. "
If you're getting that kind of mileage with the V6, you'd be getting more than just a couple MPG better with the I4. You can't compare your MPG figures with someone elses because your driving style is different. If murray53 is getting 22-23 mpg with his 4 cyl auto and you're getting 27 mpg with your V6 auto, he obviously doesn't have the same driving conditons as you. There is no way that the V6 gets better mileage than the I4.
I can tell you one thing, if I had your car, I wouldn't be getting anywhere near the mileage figures that your getting.
but on the highway, it does get 30-32 MPG at cruising speed 70-75mph.
Also consider rim and tire weight as it affects handling, drivability and drivetrain longevity; the lighter the better (stock: about 30 lbs). Chrome and spinners (on an Accord ?) wreak havoc on suspension, tranny and other powertrain parts.
Hope this helps.
but on the highway, it does get 30-32 MPG at cruising speed 70-75mph."
It all has to do with driving conditions, 100%. If you're getting 30-32 mpg cruising 70-75 mph, the 4 cyl will do better cruising 70-75 mph.
The best you can do is go by the EPA rating and adjust from there according to how you drive. After checking a few tankfuls, you'll get a pretty good idea on what to expect all the time.
I check my mileage on every single tank. My old car, a 2001 Protege got 19 mpg once, and 38 mpg once. The 19 mpg figure was during the coldest week in Minnesota, with short trips to the park and ride. The car never completely warmed up on those trips. The 38 mpg figure was an experiment, I did a loop around the Twin Cities on our beltway freeway when there was no traffic and kept it at a constant 60-65 mph. Driving conditions, I tell ya.
So use the EPA figures because anecdotal mileage figures from Edmunds members are pretty worthless.
I guess I'll ask the service rep at Honda.
Why? What's different about them that would affect affect those?
traded mine in! if anyone has brake rotor problems, feel free to email me if you need advice on how to get rotors replaced!
Have also researched quite a bit, especially other enthusiast forums for real-world user observations of different offset, rim brand, and size installations.
04 rims didn't change, and neither would have the specs. As for this Accord generation, I wouldn't expect wheel specs to change unless Honda changes its suspension geometry.
Rim & tire retailers are usually unaware of (or disregard) vital wheel & suspension data per my experience.
From a performance/reliability-first perspective, a light rim and tire combination, together with the correct "rolling diameter," yield the best results ("unsprung weight" weighs heavily on this issue).
From a style-first standpoint, chrome and those riveting spinners could be the rims of choice for some. The weight trade-off includes shorter suspension, brakes and possibly powertrain lifespan. One could also expect longer braking distances.