Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Honda Accord I4 vs V6



  • kcrossleykcrossley Posts: 181
    Yes, but I needed an automatic so my wife could drive it. I'm actually getting over my buyer's remorse. I had the opportunity to drive on some winding roads today and doing so WAS fun, even with an I4. The car handled really well and was very stable. I keep hearing that the I4 is more nimble than the V6. Is that true?
  • dampfnudeldampfnudel Posts: 131
    Yes, the I4 is more nimble than the V6 model because it has a lighter engine and smaller turning radius (about 36.1 ft vs. the V6's 39.6 ft). I still feel the V6 Accord handles well for a family sedan, better than the Camry despite the Camry having a smaller turning radius (36.1 ft).

    While the I4 is adequate for most situations, the V6 helps when you're loaded with passengers and cargo. Many of the Accords I see in NJ are V6 models. It also helps that the J30 engine is pretty fuel-efficient for a V6.
  • kcrossleykcrossley Posts: 181
    Oh well. It's too late now.
  • dampfnudeldampfnudel Posts: 131
    You still have a great car which handles a little better and your fuel costs will be a little lower.
  • barkinsbarkins Posts: 10
    The ESC feature is something nice to have, IF and only if you drive in rain and snow everyday of the year.

    Quite frankly ESC and systems like it have always sounded like a gimmick to me. I use to drive a Ford Crown Vic with it and everytime it rained ESC would turn on, the car still felt like it was slipping at times.

    Fact is, you cannot drive the same way you drive in dry conditions versus wet conditions.

    This is a common misconsceptions when you drive in the rain whether you have ESC or not. You shouild always slow the heck down, ESC won't save your life if you're bareling down the road at 65mph when it's raining heavily.

    I live in Los Angeles, where it rains once a year, if that, therefore opting for a V6 because it has ESC is pretty useless. Also, in LA you're stuck in traffic about 75% of the time, so theres no use for a V6 at all.

    Point being, I got a I4 for the fuel economy and couldn't be more pleased. Although the fun factor isn't there, I can take solice in the fact I'm saving some cash at the pumps.
  • kcrossleykcrossley Posts: 181
    Thanks for the post. As it turns out I'm almost acclimated to my Accord EX I4. Almost. Another week or so and I should be okay.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The J30 V6 has really had all the bugs worked out of it at this point..being year 3 since it was introduced in 2002 as an early 2003 model...and it was basically a brand new engine then when it was introduced in 2003 and now they made it even better with modifications to the intake exhaust and the addition of the variable length intake manifold in 2005 which was previously only on the V6 MT but is now on the automatics since 2005. It makes my automatic almost like a manumatic and it feels like I am shifting without physically doing it.

    You claim the engine has been improved since 03. But the numbers don't agree.
    0-60 1/4 mile 1/4 mile speed mph
    06 5A 7.80 15.88 93.70
    03 5A 6.84 15.34 95.70

    This information comes from MSN Autos specs.
    Looks like all these so-called improvements have actually slowed the car down.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Different launch conditions produce different acceleration times. The engine has in fact gained approximately 10 horsepower over the 03-05 models. The SAE regulations have made that number reflect lower numbers. The car is faster, although not much.
  • I have a 2005 Accord V6 without Vehicle Stability Assist™ (VSA®) with traction control. VSA is the correct term thatHonda uses.

    I also have a RWD 2006 Honda S2000 with VSA and VSA makes a significant different in any inclement weather. You can actually drive the S2000 in the rain almost as hard as you can on dry pavement.

    Vehicle Stability Assist (VSA®) with Traction Control

    Working with ABS and the Drive-by-Wire throttle system, VSA enhances stability by detecting oversteer or understeer, and by braking individual wheels and/or reducing throttle to help restore the driver's intended path of travel.



    P.S.- While not as significant on FWD, VSC ( or ESC) does make a significant difference. More and more you will see cars adding VSC. In 5 years it will be as standard and as common as ABS brakes are now.
  • The weight has also increased so that the power to weight ratio is actually less.

    LOL an automatic that feels like it is shifting; sounds like a wannabe.

    Look at the new Maxima commercial with the CVT!!

    Real Manuals forever,

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    May I ask where the extra weight came from? How much "extra" are we talking here? Just curious...
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The car is faster, although not much

    I found out why the 03 Accord is quicker than the 06 Accord, at 0-60mph and 1/4 mile times. It's because of the traction control. Apparently you can't turn off the traction control on the 06 Accord. And a little wheel spin helps the times.

    Edmunds had numbers that were closer, but the 03 Accord was still a little quicker than the 06.
    06 Accord 0-60 (7.60) 1/4 mile (15.60) speed (91.40)
    03 Accord 0-60 (7.00) 1/4 mile (15.42) speed (92.90)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Actually, as I check numbers from Car and Driver, they got the same acceleration numbers from 2003 to the 2006 V-6 models; 6.6 seconds to 60.

    I think VSA can be defeated via pushing the button on the dash (by the sunroof), right?

    I do believe my comment was hasty though, and I'll happily retract it since it appears to be untrue! Forgive me!

    I do feel my 2006 I-4 is faster than my dad's 2005 I-4 (it's more gutsy in the midrange). That's more likely due to lower peak torque.
  • thegraduate,

    If you look up specs for older models you typically get the automatic version only which in the case of 2006 is 61 lbs. heavier

    2006 v6 auto 3364 lbs 244 hp 13.79 lbs/hp
    2005 v6 auto 3318 lbs 240 hp 13.83 lbs/hp
    2004 v6 auto 3285 lbs 240 hp 13.69 lbs/hp
    2003 v6 auto 3265 lbs 240 hp 13.60 lbs/hp

    13.60 os better than 13.79 and therefore the 2003 will probably be faster.

    However, who cares about automatic! The manual 6 speed has a wider ratio and weighs 60-100 lbs less. The 2005 had 17 inch stock tires and is sporty to drive yet gets good mileage.

    I would not hold MSN as my authority on car performance statistics. The rating on the 2005 V6 Manual 6-speed was 0-60 mph in 5.9 seconds which is a far cry from either 7.0 or 7.6 seconds.

    There are a lot better resources for car information. Consumer Reports is good as well as Auto Consumer Guide.


  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    You have to remember that the 4 horsepower difference was actually about 10 horsepower, but the new SAE test procedures made that reflect only 4-6 horsepower.

    That's knit-picking though, and I agree, there's no sense in worrying about 5 horsepower, 50 pounds, and a tenth of a second here or there. They are amazing cars, with great power for the economy they deliver.

    I also prefer not to use MSN autos for my info; I subscribe to Car and Driver and Motor Trend, so I try to use one main source when I compare my numbers (similar launch methods, often the same test site).

    I'm about to load up my Accord EX I-4 to go to the beach, maybe this time I can crack the 40 MPG barrier? Probably not, since I'll have major A/C use, but I look for another 38 MPG trip! Woo hoo!
  • Well I have to admit the I4 is a lot peppier than I originally thought. You have to be willing to step on the gas pedal a little more than a V6, but it will get up and go.

    The main problem I'm having is when you first start the car and when you're idling, it's very apparent that it's a 4.

    I've noticed one other weird thing. The I4 seems like it really wants to go. In other words if you get stuck behind traffic doing say 50 MPH, the car feels sluggish, kind of like it's in a gear that's too high for that speed. Hit the accelerator and it immediately drops down a gear and you have a tighter engine/transmission connection. Perhaps it's just me. :)
  • In other words if you get stuck behind traffic doing say 50 MPH, the car feels sluggish, kind of like it's in a gear that's too high for that speed. Hit the accelerator and it immediately drops down a gear and you have a tighter engine/transmission connection. Perhaps it's just me.

    Well, it isn't really just you. The car uses the tall 5th gear to help it deliver amazing fuel economy on the highway (nearly 40MPG on a few trips I've taken in my 06 I-4 Auto). The transmission shifts down so quickly that I have no problem with the way it is geared. It also allows for a much more relaxed highway run, 75MPH yields a fairly low 2,500 RPM (as opposed to my old 4-speed Accord where the same speed puts it at a noisier 3,000 RPM).

    Get the I-4 above 3,000 RPM, and it becomes a lot of fun. Below that, it's a fuel miser.

    I really like having the best of both worlds! :)
  • That's good to know. I'm really liking this car. Since I have the Nav I'm considering an extended warranty. Did you purchase one for your 06?
  • No, we didn't get the extended warranty. Although I do plan to keep the car for a LONG time (I still have my 1996 LX and it just refuses to need costly repairs!), we have had such good experiences with Honda we felt no need for an extended warranty. In fact, the first repair that cost us any real money was when the electric cooling fan (radiator fan motor) failed, and that wasn't until 2004, when the car had 130,000 miles on it; that was $320. I also had the brake master cylinder replaced (it developed a slow leak - wouldn't maintain brake pressure when sitting stopped with the brakes applied) at 160,000 miles - $300. So, I couldn't see how buying a warranty would've helped me on my old car(spent less than $700 on repairs over 165,000 miles and 11 years), so I'm hoping I will have the same experience with my 2006 model. So far, I'm thinking I will!

    Long story short, we felt no need for the warranty due to Honda's great reliability history within my family.
  • Do you know if the Honda electronics (i.e Nav) system are as reliable? That's my main concern.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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

  • yooper53yooper53 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 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 West coastPosts: 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........
  • ray_h1ray_h1 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... ;)
  • 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 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.
  • 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.