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



  • keitha3keitha3 Posts: 124
    I went from last generation's 4 cyl. to the '09 V6 and have not regretted the choice whatsoever. I never thought my new Accord would be the favorite car I've ever owned, but it is. While not a roadburner, it does accelerate so smoothly that passing other cars at freeway speeds is a snap. It is a joy to drive and fun to push on twisty mountain roads, while, at the same time, offering room and comfort for the family.
  • The 2008 V6 is rated at 268 mph. The 2009 is rated at 271. The specs appear to be the same. What is different?

    btw, I love this car. the mileage is not great (suburban driving, avg about21; have gotten 27 on the highway), but it's comfortable, smooth, fast and it looks so good.

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Simply been re-rated is all. The 2008s are no less powerful than the 2009s.
  • Thanks. Feel much better. ;-)


    ps: re-rating means a change in the way of measurement? Paperwork?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Not quite sure in this case. I'm sure they haven't changed the methods of determining how a car will be rated HP wise (they did that a couple of years ago; the results were lower numbers for most vehicles - an example, the Honda Odyssey was rated 255hp for 2005, but after the re-rating, it had 244hp, despite no engine changes).
  • scubaduscubadu Posts: 13
    I like this thread! My 2007 Accord SE V6 lease is up, so I drove a few cars:

    First was the Accord LX I4 automatic sedan. While not slow, it certainly was not inspiring.

    Next was the Accord EX V6 automatic sedan. Lots of torque and you can feel the vehicle's heft. I like the leather seats, too. Then I saw the price and said no thank you. Too bad Honda doesn't make an LX or SE V6. And I understand why. When I got my 07 SE V6, the dealer and Honda almost gave me the car.

    Third drive was a 2009 Civic SI 4 door sedan with manual transmission. I loved the way the car drove and the engine reved into VTEC land. The dealer wanted over $21,000 for it, and I wasn't a big fan of the tacky rear spoiler. Nor do I want to use premium unleaded. The deal breaker was a black interior. It makes a small car look smaller and shows every bit of dirt.

    I also drove a "strippy" camry with the 158 hp engine and manual transmission. Toyota may get better performance with auto, but the manual Camry was boring.

    Yesterday I drove and bought a 2009 Accord LX I4 manual sedan. Compared to the automatic, the manual is much more fun to drive. It is a totally different experience compared to the auto. Now comparing to driving a 2007 I4 manual, that model seemed slighly quicker. The 2009 engine feels smoother. If you want a car that is fun to drive and relatively inexpensive, give the I4 manual transmission a try.

    This will be my 4th Accord:

    1988 Accord LX 99 hp auto
    1998 Accord LX V6 200hp auto
    2007 Accord SE V6 auto
    2009 Accord LX I4 manual
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Too bad Honda doesn't make an LX or SE V6. And I understand why. When I got my 07 SE V6, the dealer and Honda almost gave me the car.

    There is an EX-V6 that costs $2,100 less than the loaded EX-L V6 (comparable to the 2007 LX-V6). It doesn't have things like leather, heated seats, premium sound, auto-climate control.
  • scubaduscubadu Posts: 13
    "There is an EX-V6 that costs $2,100 less than the loaded EX-L V6 (comparable to the 2007 LX-V6)."

    I drove that model, and what a nice one! Unfortunately even the non-loaded EX-V6 is about $6,000 more than the LX with manual transmission.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Indeed it is a nice one. Just making sure you knew what-was-what. Most dealers I've come to find out have only leather models, and with the recent re-labeling of particular models, it can get a little bit confusing. ;)
  • 177 vs 190hp:

    EX's have a extra valve on the exhaust that opens at high pressure. This is the only difference; the engine, intake, ECU, everything from that muffler valve forward is the same. What happens is that backpressure change equates to a higher redline, 7100 in the EX, over 6800 in the LX, and the increased airflow north of 6800 rpm allows for the engine to go an extra 300 revs and get something out of it: the 23 hp. Having said that, and as you probably already guessed: both engines are only pulling 170hp at 6500 rpm, and all powerband equivalents back to idle.

    There is no difference driving wise unless you really stomp on it, and I mean really stomp on it. And honestly, you probably don't even feel it, let alone do it enough to. 23hp isn't enough to throw you back in your seat. I Think the only reason Honda throws that valve on is to make it look like your getting something more out of the EX. If your spending more money, you want more power, right?

    So, If your hung up on purchasing an cloth EX over an LX-P, do it if you want the larger wheels, cd changer, dual zone climate control, ambient console lighting, and that sunroof that I never see anyone use. (apologies to those few that actually do use it) If your doing it for the horsepower, buy the V6.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,724
    I think if I were to get an Accord or the new 2010 TSX, it will be a V6. I am ready for some power!! While still being efficient.
  • dpmeersmandpmeersman Posts: 275
    Considering the target market that the TSX is going for, the non VCM V6 should make quite the pocket rocket. It'll be interesting to see what the real world pricing will be.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,724
    Yes!! I really want my Honda back! I have a 08 G6 4cyl now. I want to dump it!

    I live in a small town, and was out walking today. I saw a RED Accord Coupe V6 driving around. I happened to walk by the car again in the housing edition. She was pulling out of her drive way. It was gorgeous!! I want it so bad!! I told her to be proud she has such a fine car. I would love to have that car!! However, I told her to watch out for our horrible harassing cop we have.

    It is too bad Honda cannot offer a sporty 6spd DSG transmission with paddleshifters. Heck the Honda fit has the paddleshifters, even GM . I know a manual is best, but the automatic could offer "almost" the same fun. for me atleast.

    What a beauty! I love that car. .... Snap out of anyway..
  • dpmeersmandpmeersman Posts: 275
    A DSG type transmission would be what I would choose. VW designed that as a manual transmission with automatic capabilities. Shifting exclusively with the paddle shifters would not be a strain on that transmission as this was the intent from the ground up. Most vehicles today offering paddle shifters have taken traditional automatic transmissions and provided the driver with the option of shifting using the paddles. As this was not their original mission, consistent use may cause problems with these transmissions. I'm only speculating here and can offer no hard facts. But I have test driven a recent VW GTI with the DSG and was very impressed with the vehicle overall and in particular the DSG/4 cyl turbo combo. The new model hitting show rooms this fall looks to be an improvement over an already very capable vehicle.
  • ezshift5ezshift5 West coastPosts: 857
    ......I am ready for some power!! While still being efficient.

    .........the numbers inherent to my 6M underscore your words above.....................

    To 60 <6.0 seconds; 1/4-mile circa 14.5 on an abusive (to the clutch) launch.......

    In the flat AZ desert - 2200 rpm/cruise/no ac/87 octane/6th gear overdrive - i have broken the 40 MPG barrier............

    best, ez.........
  • gyushergyusher Posts: 67
    I still like my 08 4 cyl EX-L coupe especially now after my first oil change. The car feels like she has 20 more HP at least. . . Why I know not unless that 'break-in' oil was just too heavy and the 5-20 M1 I use is much thinner. Anyway she's much perker now.

    I just about traded her for a V6 Rav 4. . . The V6 Rav 4 will smoke the V6 Accord. Biggest sleeper going. . . . Toyota says the V6 Rav 4 is their fastest accelerating vehicle. Faster than a Mustang GT. . .

    Anyway I decided to keep my Honda. . . I know the V6 is sexier, faster and better equipped but my little 4 banger grows on you. . .
  • stephen987stephen987 Posts: 1,994
    Faster than a Mustang GT

    I know this particular forum isn't where this challenge belongs, but I have to say that seems like a stretch. The numbers I've seen for the Mustang are 0-60 in the low fives. I would expect the V6 RAV4 to be around six seconds flat, since it weighs about the same as a V6 Camry (2wd RAV=3560 lbs, Camry V6 SE=3483 lbs per Toyota website).
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    Why would you trade an 08 car in? The fewer cars you own in your life the more $ you will have.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    RAV4 = 6.9 sec
    Mustang V8 = 5.2 sec
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,724
    Yes, but keep the Accord! It definitely grows on you, and Honda makes an awesome 4cyl. GM cannot keep throwing Honda in their commercials and remotely compare the differences in their 4cyl engines. NO WAY!! Their cars could get better mileage, but the Accord is rated usually for better mileage than what it is posted, and will most definitely be more consistent over time. My 08 G6 4cyl engine is a piece of crap! Either something is wrong with my transmission/engine or that is honestly the way it is supposed to be. I am having the service center look at it.

    I truly miss the Honda 4cyl I had on the 06 Accord. Be glad you have a nice Honda!
    keep it! I would trade out for my Honda back in a heart beat. I am brain storming of ways to get out of my G6 now. I want out now!
  • dpmeersmandpmeersman Posts: 275
    In considering your next purchase/lease the type of terrain you usually drive in should be factored in when deciding on the 4 or 6 cyl. If you decide to go with the Accord it's larger size & weight require more torque to climb steep inclines. So your going to find yourself getting more aggressive with the throttle. If you visit the real world mpg in this forum a lot of 4 cyl owners under these conditions are reporting less than expected mpg's. The 6 cyl will return equal or slightly better fuel economy in hilly terrain. If your driving is mostly level terrain the excellent Honda 4 cyl will be more than adequate.
  • gyushergyusher Posts: 67
    I just now have 8K on my 08 4cyl Coupe. My average mpg is right at 23. . . I would think it could be better but I'm not complaining. on the big road she will get 30 at 70+ but my route to work and back although about 80/20 hwy/city the traffic level makes it more like 100 city. . .
  • acar1acar1 Posts: 4
    My commute is also about 80/20 highway city; about 30 miles each way. Plenty of traffic here in the DC metro area. My 350 HP, 6 speed Corvette delivers 25-26 mpg on average. True, I short shift to save fuel but even at 1500 RPM (about 70 mpg in 6 gear) my 'Vette still can move better than your I4 Accord. Honda's I4 engine is not well matched to the new, corpulent Accord. Platform sharing with the TL makes the Accord a V6 car.
  • stephen987stephen987 Posts: 1,994
    acar1, no offense intended, but have you driven a four-cylinder Accord? It's a pretty well-balanced car, and at least with the manual transmission it does not feel underpowered.

    I'll agree that your Corvette is a lot more exciting--for the money it should be!--but not all of us are able to put our automotive dollar into something that will only hold two people.
  • gyushergyusher Posts: 67
    Apples to apples. . . i'd still rather have my under powered gas hog than an economical Corvette at about 3 times the money.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    You're comparing a Vette to an Accord? :confuse: Can you take the family out for dinner and a movie with the Vette? These are two entirely different cars, for different purposes. Let's be realistic with the comparisons, ok.
  • gyushergyusher Posts: 67
    I was rear ended by a woman driving a late model Acura MDX. . . Long story short my 08 coupe had to have 4500 bucks worth of work done and while in the shop I drove rental cars for 3 1/2 weeks. I got to compare mileage against my Honda.

    1st car was a Chevrolet Impala SS loaded with a very similiar engine to the Corvette. Mileage over the same roads I drove my Accord on for a tank of gas. Mileage for the V8 Impala was 21. . . I thought pretty darn good.

    The next 2 weeks I drove an HHR (cheaper than the SS Impala). The HHR had the big 4 cyl (not the turbo model) and my mileage was also 21. . .

    Actually my Accord does better at 23-24 than both those cars. I expected the little HHR to be much better but wasn't so. . .
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    Penny rich and pound foolish to "short shift" your Vette. You are lugging it:That's hard on your drive train.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,724
    I bet you were so glad to have your Honda back... I know I would after driving those cars... yikes!
  • gyushergyusher Posts: 67
    I bet you were so glad to have your Honda back

    The big V8 Impals SS wasn't bad. . . Gobs of power but still cheesy. . . Then the HHR. . .ugghh!!

    My Honda felt like a Formula 1 race car after that thing. What I did realise was that I just thought I was getting bored with my 4cyl Accord. Once I got her back it was like a new car all over again.

    Funny thing. . . It's now about 3 weeks later and that good feeling is still strong as ever. . .
Sign In or Register to comment.