Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The spoiler is for looks only. It gives the car a more sporty look IMO. No street legal car needs a spoiler for down force. Even the spoilers on sports cars are there for looks, and have no real function.
I have mine on to distingish it from others. It is not worth $400, I bought the aftermarket spoiler and installed it myself.
Samething with SUV, if you don't have roof rack, the car look like a baldhead.
Works for fire-ants though.
I can't speak on how well my 04 Ex-L I4 would do in the snow because I drove my 88 for it's last winter. That thing went through DEEP snow without any problems, and the tires have 60k on them. I wouldn't consider that car a heavyweight in the front end.
Mrbill
For the record, I'm a 4-cylinder owner and honestly could not be happier with my 2006 EX Accord. I absolutely love it. I also have a 1996 LX 4-cyl Accord (similar to your 1995 model).
Let us know what you decide!
Thegrad
If you need to go in the snow get snow tires. They don't really cost anything because your summer tires last longer, and they help in every aspect of snow driving (unlike awd).
Let me suggest something to you. Go drive a 4-cylinder Accord. If you drive a V6, you'll be spoiled with lots of excess power. In the Accord's case, it is a matter of "quick" (4-cylinder) vs. really fast (V6).
Here's something that will give you some insight on the Accord 4-cylinder:
The current Accord I4 accelerates faster than the Accord V6 of ten years ago. It has the similar horsepower (166 hp), with more gears in its transmission now than it did then, and weight is similar.
May I ask what you drive currently?
On the spoilers, I like the spoiler on the Hybrid. No function other than looks. Not worth the money though. I was going to buy from H&A but reconsidered when I saw the price and had to drill holes.
You won't find any problems with the I4 at all. In fact, when you drive it you will be quite impressed. Others like the V6 for the extra power but that isn't your question. There's a I4 vs V6 thread around here somewhere if you want more feedback from both sides.
I do agree that the manual is much more responsive though.
This depends a lot on your driving style, and what you are used to. If you are used to high-powered/high-performance cars, and do a lot of high-speed passing, you may want the V6. Try them both out. The V6 is worth the extra $$$ for some, and not for others. Most people are obviously satisfied with the I4's power, or they would not sell soooooo many of them.
My last car was an Integra (no slouch - I have had it over 130 mph), and the Accord feels noticeably quicker. Driving on the highway is no problem at all, and the speed limit here is 75.
According to the Fact Sheet, the LX has the driver's 8-way power seat, moonroof, heated side mirrors, and the ambient lighting above the console.
I've been fortunate in usually getting high mileage out of tires. On my 96 Tacoma, I was able to get 102k out of the factory set of tires. I had similar luck on my old truck as well.
Yes, 4"+ a couple of times this winter. I live near Milwaukee.
Mrbill
A buick regal with a v6. i'm currently deciding between an impala and the accord 4cylinder (it may sound like an odd comparison but when i add all the costs, insurance, etc it works out to the same monthly payments here in toronto).
Go out and drive a 4-cylinder Accord. I think you'll find it has very good low-end throttle response and lots of high-rpm pull as well. Plus, the awesome AWESOME fuel mileage to boot. (Can you tell I love my Accord? )
Accord -
cons: higher insurance premiums, 'smaller' engine, far fewer features (i.e. mp3/aux jack, traction, power driver seat, etc etc). full fold down seat (this really has my head scratching)
pros: long history of reliability. decent looks. better gas millage.
Impala -
cons: it looks like a rental. questionable long-term reliability. large blind spots and narrow rear field of view.
pros: lots of features. 0% financing, cheaper insurance. smoother ride, huge trunk. flip-n-fold 60/40 seats. big v6 engine.
i suppose with chrome exhaust tips the impala can look alright
Just keeping you informed, in case you didn't know. Honda makes much more horsepower per cubic inch than the Impala does, so don't let engine size fool you. The Impala will have the edge in grunt below 2,500 RPM, but the Honda will pull away from all Impalas (save for the 5.3l V8) when merging.
Exactly, I had one for two weeks. Put an "e" on the rear bumper, and you're all set.
My friend's son 4 cylinder is getting 22 MPG in city and the highest on interstate travel is 29 MPG.
The EPA highway numbers for these vehicles are
4 cylinder 34 MPG V6 = 29 MPG
Has anyone on this message board experienced similar MPG numbers to those of my friend and his son?
In trying to rationalize why the V6 got higher MPG highway numbers I can only point to the final drive train gear ratio. The 4 has a numerically higher ration therefore this translates into higher RPM at any given speed in high gear in comparison with the V6. At 86 MPH the 4 cylinder is turning 2700 RPM while the V6 is only turning about 1800 RPM.
I am strongly considering buying a new Accord and would get the 4 if it got better MPG then the V6. But if the V6 highway numbers are better, then there is no question the V6 is the obvious chioce for me.
And, you've got your numbers a little off on the RPM thing. The V6 will run about 300 RPM lower at 90 MPH, (200 RPM lower at 60 MPH), not 900 as you stated. My I4 Accord runs 2,900 RPM at 87 MPH (it's an automatic, btw). At 60 MPH, the V6 Accord runs around 1,800 RPM. At 60 MPH, the I4 runs about 2,000 RPM.
Since you havent told me different, I'm assuming that the "son" in your post drives much more aggressively than your close friend. I've never had a tank below 27 MPG in my 2006 4-cylinder Accord.
As far as speed goes, what is the point. They will both go fast enough to get you put in jail - no matter which engine.
This is a little off topic, but most SUV's are quite slow (they are very heavy) yet because they have large engines people don't complain. It is not the engine size it is the power to weight ratio that makes a car peppy.
Methinks your friend's son has a bit of a leadfoot. My highway mileage is much better than that and I've never had any tank of gas go below 29 mpg in my 06 I4 manual.
Methinks your friend's son has a bit of a leadfoot. My highway mileage is much better than that and I've never had any tank of gas go below 29 mpg in my 06 I4 manual.
Haha, me agrees.
Part of the reason for shorter gears is to eliminate the need for downshifting on the highway - cancelling cruise.
That's not too surprising. The Fit and Civic are the same way, but in the Civic, it lowers fuel economy on the highway according to EPA numbers. I was thinking your Accord is a 2002 model...which are geared even shorter, I believe. Not sure why I was thinking this though...your name I guess.
This is part of the original posting
"In trying to rationalize why the V6 got higher MPG highway numbers I can only point to the final drive train gear ratio. The 4 has a numerically higher ration therefore this translates into higher RPM at any given speed in high gear in comparison with the V6. At 86 MPH the 4 cylinder is turning 2700 RPM while the V6 is only turning about 1800 RPM."
The error is 86 MPH. It should have been 65 MPH. Again my friend indicated that at 65 MPH the 6 cyl turns 1800 RPM while the 4 turns 2700 RPM. In other words the 4 turns 900 more RPM at 65 then the V6. Are these numbers similar to those you all have experienced.
Remember originally this was all about the V6 seemingly getting better highway mileage numbers then the 4 cylinder.
Don't know where the 2,700 rpm comes from.
I stopped and talked with him to find out the problem. He told me that he was in a 70 MPH crash with an Acura TL and the air bags failed to deploy. Prior to the crash HONDA/ACURA had three chances to correct the problem On three occasions prior to the crash the air bag warning light came on. Each time he took it back to the dealer for a fix. Apparently the Acura dealer did not fix it.
While he did have his safety belt on when the crash occurred, because the air bag did not deploy, he suffered significant internal injury from the seat belt.
He wrote letters to Acura/Honda for some sort of settlement and never received a response. It is his intent to move on to the Acura dealer in Naples next month and then on to the Honda dealer in the next location north of Fort Myers.
Additionally, this fellow also told me that if a laptop computer which is turned on is placed on the passenger seat, the air bags will be deactivated and you will have to go to the dealer to have the air bag computer reset.
Has anyone had any problems with air bags on a HONDA product including Acura's?
That's some skewed info.
Check the owner's manual, it will tell you if something in the seat is over something lightweight and under 80-something pounds, it will deactivate the airbag, and the "Passenger Airbag Off" light will illuminate on the dashboard. This is to protect small children who may be in the front seat who would be injured by the airbag. There's no reset needed though. Remove the lightweight object/child, or put something/someone heavier in the seat, and the airbag will immediately re-activate, and the light will turn off.