Thanks for all the great advise. But, more confuse after read the great post.
Luckily, I call the insurance company. If I go with V6, I would have to pay $350 per 6months premium more then I4. I did not see too many post mentioned how big the insurance jump. I must admit that I have a teenage on my insurance list.
The choice is clear and regret did not call insurance company earlier.
I4 has more then enough power to me, but love all the extra feature come only with the V6 such as VSC, brake assist, 17" alloy etc.
Anyway, my problem solved! Just drive home a brand new Accord 4dr I4 EXL Auto
It would appear that this forum got neglected; pushed back to the cobwebs of the threads where the read-only forums are placed until doomsday. Did we forget about this one, or does nobody need it anymore?
Maybe it will pick back up when the information about the 2008 Accord engines is released.
I'm thinking that, other than maintenance forums, all Accord forums should be focussed on the '08 model. Pretty much anything that could be broken down on the current iteration is out there.
Only problem is, we don't know much about the '08s.....
It's funny because I've seen several posts in other threads about the 4vs6 issue. All they really have to do is come here and read the past posts. Or post the question here... I'm sure everyone would LOVE to go over their prefs one more time.
I'm sure some of you have heard this before, but here it goes again. I have an 03 EXV6, and I love this engine. I am not an MPG fanatic, and will sacrifice (some) fuel economy for power. My last Accord was a 4 cylinder, and I wanted more highway power this time (it's just more fun). This car and engine are a good match, IMO.
I agree. After many years driving 4 cyl Hondas and Mazdas, the pep of my new Accord 6 cyl is amzing. It's really a joy to drive. Safer getting out onto the parkway, but mostly just fun. I've finally conquered Pittsburgh's hills. And "fun" is worth something!
My 4's were manual and I did love them. Tendonitis in my right elbow caused me to get an auto. I prefer the 6 w/the auto + I've got a small bass boat to pull. The 6 just works better 4 me. Can't wait for that diesel,tho.
I am considering the 07 Accord,but not sure if I should go with the I4 or V6. My current car is an Olds Intrigue V6 with traction control. I could be very happy with the I4,but I live in NE so traction control and now stability control are important.
My commute to work is mostly back road city driving,but that could change to stop and go highway in the near future.
What are some of the "real" MPG on stop and go highway driving.
Why can't you get VSC on the 4cycl. That would make me very happy.
I have the 06 accord 4cyl and its quite peppy enough, even on the highway, it gets awesome mileage, even when the kick butt A/C is on. It actually did quite well in the snow as well, I felt very safe, and kept contact with the road well. Too be honest, Since I have owned the car I have not really technically did the MPG, but I do know that I can go up to 2 weeks without filling up, and that is driving 6 days a week, 1 hour each day. I drive mostly highway though. It does very well. If you want more power than the v6 is well enough in the honda, MPG is not sacrifised too much, With prices the way low with the 07's, you might be better off, and perhaps happier with the V6, it wouldn't be that much more. I will tell you, the 4cyl will keep up and put up a fight with many cars on the road, I have no problems manuvering. The 4cyl is built for efficiency and very strong "Torquey". Test drive both!! seriously, then decide which one you "need". Yes the V6 does have the traction control too. I don't think you would be sorry for getting a 4cyl though. Its not wimpy at all. Most think my car is a V6. Good Luck! Remember send in quotes to multiple dealers.
Snow tires will do more good in the white stuff than all the acronyms combined. Not that, VSC etc do not help(my Sienna has all that stuff), but tires are much more important.
On top of that your summer tires will last longer and you won't get all the winter gunk on your alloys.
I have run 4 snows for about 15 years and have never been stuck (or even near) and never had to change travel plans (unless the roads were closed to all cars) because of only having FWD. This is in SD where blizzards can be nasty, and most recently with an Integra (light and not too much clearance). Do not have snows for the Accord yet, but it should do better than the Integra with 500 lbs more weight.
Thanks for the reply. I have driven both the 4 and 6 and probably would be quite happy with the 4. My wife has the Subaru Forrester 4 cycl and has plenty of pep for me on the highway. Of course the Sub has AWD and traction control,but I just don't like Subarus.
Its not the power I'm looking for in the 6,but I do swear by traction control. I've been a dead stop on an incline with ice and snow underneath and moved when the light changed to green without any problem. I looked behind me and cars were slipping and sliding.
The more I write the more I am leaning towards the 6 because of the VSC which I think will become like ABS in the future. All cars will have it. Even the 4 cycl.
Thanks for your input and I do plan on getting as many quotes as I can.
If anyone knows about winter weather it would be someone living in SD,but I've had the Intrique for 10 years and no snow tires and not once did I get stuck in snow or ice. This includes driving up to Vermont to ski praying for snow all the way.
The more I write the more I am leaning towards the 6 because of the VSC which I think will become like ABS in the future. All cars will have it. Even the 4 cycl.
Indeed it will, it is mandated to be on all new cars in 2012.
I own an '03 Accord DX I4 5MT. A very basic car in all respects, but one which I've upgraded and performs very well (PDLs were a must, I hated the car w/o them). I have to say that I am very impressed with the smoothness of the I4. I'm very much into cars, both as a fan and as a mechanic (I've been known to take engines apart), and this is a bulletproof engine -- all you need to do is change the oil and you're pretty much set.
I've owned V6 and V8 cars, and I can afford a V12 MB S600 if I ever feel like taking my money and blowing it on a depreciating asset.
If you are purely a performance enthusiast, probably the AV6 6MT is the Accord for you, but then again, if you want a lot of ooomph, the Accord is not necessarily the best choice. If you want a great, fun car that's a smart buy from a gas/maintenance/durability perspective, it's impossible to beat the current Accord I4 5MT, unless you can do with less room and can downgrade to a Civic 5MT (*not* the Si). Spend the money you save vs the V6 on handling upgrades. For example, I've got RSX Type-S 17" wheels w/ 225/45R17 tires, which make a huge difference in rain and stopping power, as well as a Neuspeed STB which helps in cornering.
The Accord's I4 is built like a tank, it uses a timing chain which doesn't need replacing for the lifetime of the engine and basically only needs oil changes. I use M1 5W20 simply because I prefer 8k+ mile OCIs, but dino is just as good, as long as you change it regularly. The Accord 5MT's drivetrain is second to none, and is recognized for its durability.
This is a fun car to drive (for what it is). Granted, my copy weighs under 3000 lb. while the current ones add an extra ~130 lbs, but you "new" guys' cars should still feel as fun to drive as mine does with a female passenger
My last 13 tanks of gas have been 500+ milers, one of which was my all-time record (so far) at 609.2 miles on 16.2 gal, which translates to 37.6 MPG. I've driven the car 36k miles as a second owner (picked her up at 18k miles, avoiding the 1st 2 years depreciation hit) and I'm averaging 32.4 MPG lifetime on it. For the size of the car, this is simply amazing. I do baby it, but at ~56k miles on the odo it feels the same as it did the day I bought it (for cash - say no to debt!).
I think the extra 14 hp of the '08 Accord's I4 is just what the doctor ordered; as long as it doesn't affect gas mileage, which is excellent on the current model, it will quite possibly be the best 4-banger on the planet. Of course, that's only until the diesels show up, which is what I'm waiting for.
As far as me, for lotsa-power type of fun, I'm considering getting a "weekend" car. I'm looking at a V8 Mustang manual, an M3 (V6) SMG or Bi-turbo V8/V12 Mercedes.
--- Say no to hybrids, biofuels and hydrogen - they're all scams. Diesel is the responsible way to go.
This is probably as ill-informed a statement as one can find... want to be "responsible"? spending a little time to read how evil diesel engine is to the environment. Yes couple of bucks it seems to save you today at the pump... at a cost that European is starting to run away from, while dumb and short-sighted Americans are embracing...
--- Say no to hybrids, biofuels and hydrogen - they're all scams. Diesel is the responsible way to go.
The reviewer for The Detroit News considered the 177hp 2.4L to be "underpowered," which suggested to me that the 2008 is a significantly heavier car than my 2006 2.4L. It strains a bit, he said, at highway speeds.
The more I hear about the 2008, the happier I am that I have the 2006. A bigger, heavier Accord doesn't appeal to me.
The Detroit News always has gripes about Honda/Acura products; I guess because they don't build them there. I assure if an American manufacturer put out a car as good as the Accord is in its segment, that newspaper would rave about it. I can't imagine that a 3200 to 3300 pound car would strain at highway speeds with a 177 HP engine and that's all that the Accord LX/LX-P Sedans weigh.
I think the feel about power is relative. The new EX/EX-L is almost as powerful as the 1998-2002 Accord V6, and about as heavy as well. But then, if one gets out of a 268 HP Accord (especially with 6MT) and hops into one with 177 HP/auto, the difference will be huge. Just based on spec sheet, that MT/V6 coupe will put a lot of cars feel weak (including AT/V6 Accords).
The review was extremely positive from Detroit News.
"The review was extremely positive from Detroit News."
Yes it was. Which is why the remark about the "underpowered" 177 was so noticeable. In all other respects, nothing but praise.
And I agree as well that the V6 driving experience could well have biased the reviewer when trying out the I4 177. But, as a matter of fact, the remark was the first and only time I have ever read a negative about power with respect to the Accord.
I'll wait to see what others have to say, of course. The jury is still out on this point.
Not quite. It is expectations, especially after driving 6MT/V6 (it promises to be quite a beast in terms of feel and rolling acceleration). And it looks like the reviewer did spend some time in the red coupe.
.....it looks like the reviewer did spend some time in the red coupe.
..as the owner of a Gen VII 6M coupe, I perused the Detroit News review. However, I missed any real coupe performance feedback.
Wonder which of the 'big three' (MT, C/D, Road and Track) will be the first for a road test.
I'm interested, but am somewhere between responsible cost consciousness and getting hosed when it comes to obligating my Naval Reserve bread. It's hard for the leopard to change its' spots......even for a coupe which will most likely turn a triple digit quarter and hustle to 60 circa 5.5...........
Theoretically, 0-60 should be possible in 5.5s, but being a front driver (and Honda's tendency to put "long lasting" tires, if traction is an issue, it will come down to 5.7-5.8s.
Here is another comment concerning the I4's (from a Consumer Digest review):
"With the automatic transmission, 4-cylinder Accords move smartly from a stop and have enough power for passing and merging. LX and LX-P's 177-horsepower engine performs on par with EX and EX-L 190-horse unit, but is notably rougher at idle, with a pronounced quake felt through the steering wheel."
At highway speeds it's about the HP not torque. Torque is a bigger factor from a standing start. The 2008 Accord is supposed to be very slippery, so it ain't about the drag.
I am in the market for a new vehicle. I recently drove a 2007 4 cyl accord rental from an airport. I hope the 2008s have more power than the 2007 - not just horsepower, but torque. All my car did was downshift on hills. I thought it was terribly underpowered. I haven't driven the 2008 accord, but have driven the 2008 v-6 camry. I can't imagine the honda having more power than the camry, but will test drive a v-6 before buying. I don't think I'd waste my time on a 4 cylinder accord.
I agree that these cars are getting too large and heavy for 4 cylinder engines, at least for my style of driving. I have an 03 V6 Accord, and it is definitely not underpowered. The 08 V6 should perform at least on par with a V6 Camry.
- same power output yes, but needs VCM to get the same mileage.
So what difference does it make? if the mileage is the same. What makes the extra gear (with flaring) better than VCM? The 08 Accord won the only car magazine comparison I've seen, and based on what I've seen, (interior/exterior) it wins my comparison so far too.
I4="cheap" grocery getter V6=true americana with 17 inch wheels(Enkei designed!) and suspension(no modding to 17s for I4s), dual exhausts, Vehicle Stability and V6 emblem (yes, the most important part..)
City MPG (no highway bullhockey) I4=24 mpg CITY (26 for manual transmission) V6=20 CITY (but I get 25-26 in 100% city now that it' broken in)
Both I4 ans V6 get 30+ mpg on the highway so it's a wash. ALL you people claiming these 30+ mpg as overfall mileage NO NO NO.. CITY and highway..totally different.
Remember: you will always be perceived as possessing a cheap grocery getter car 'for the masses' with the I4.
The V6 brings you a cut above which is sometimes "everything" in an increasingly materialistic as well as shallow world. Sorry, that's just dem breaks, I didn't say it was fair. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
You're right that the increased size of the new Accord may be a bit of a problem, in terms of performance and maybe even sales.
For people who have kids (like me), the added size is probably a plus, but it is seeming a bit bloated.
I'm guessing the next generation Accord (due in 5 years) may slim down a bit.
I found the interior of the 08 exl that I sat in upscale and very nice. I think your criticisms may be a bit over the top, but when I test drive it again I'll try to pay more attention to to some of the things you're pointing out.
Mike Hanley at Cars.com was apparently determined not to accept the "materialistic" and "shallow" view of the world, at least as far as the Accord is concerned. His conclusion (with respect to the 2008 choice) is as follows:
"The four-cylinder EX trim level is the high-volume Accord; it's expected to account for half of all Accord sedan sales. Its 190-hp four-cylinder has more-than-adequate power, though its high-speed passing performance isn't as strong as the V-6's. The engine is also notably louder than the V-6, and its automatic isn't as smooth; upshifts can be a little jerky at times. Still, if it were my money, I'd opt for the four-cylinder because the premium for the less fuel-efficient V-6 isn't worth the so-so performance."
Just another 2 cents worth, perhaps, but still, professional reviewers do have their reputations to consider.
Both I4 ans V6 get 30+ mpg on the highway so it's a wash.
lol... a wash? What about those of us in the I4 who hit the high 30's and occasionally cross the 40 mpg barrier?
City driving varies so much. Someone just posted getting 16 in the city in his I4.
Trust me, combined mileage is very important to some of us... after all, it is the bottom line.
For the record, where does it end? If you think the V6 is so superior, it must kill you when someone in a BMW, Acura, Benz, Lexus, etc. comes across your path. If your justification works for them, just think how totally satisfied I am in my I4 with a manual transmission. :shades:
I'll bet the majority see my car and your car and think it is exactly the same.... a Honda Accord. I'm not talking about the enthusiast, just the general public who doesn't know about the dual exhaust or the V6 emblem.
woah! An I-4 Honda and a BMW the same quickness? A 2001-03 530i can hit 60 in as little as 6.5 seconds (with a stick); 7.0-7.2 with an auto. The best I've managed to wring out of an demo 08 accord EX Manual with 30 less horsepower was 7.6, and that's having to dump the clutch at 3500 RPM. Real world driving, (i.e. rolling starts at 5-60mph, or 30-65mph starting in 2nd or 5th gear, etc) there's no comparison. The Bimmer is running 214lbs/ft of torque at 3500 rpm, beating the honda's 161 at 4300rpm. More torque at a lower rpm = more thrust on the road. As far as picking the which model Accord to get, my advice: 0-60 isn't the deciding factor. Test drive them on the highway and toe into the throttle to see what they've got. That's what really separates the V6 and I-4 accords. The 4 has what the car needs, and the 6 has what enthusiasts want.
The best I've managed to wring out of an demo 08 accord EX Manual with 30 less horsepower was 7.6
Makes sense. The 2007 models were about a half second quicker according to... dang it, was it Motor Trend or Automobile? I can't remember! I do know I read 7.2 seconds for the 4-cylinder manual. The 190hp EX 4-cyl ran 7.9 in the same 0-60 time frame.
Is it faster than a 530, honestly, I doubt it. It doesn't have the torque. But, it IS a lot faster than its 166hp would suggest.
The new models aren't any quicker than the old ones, the 4s are actually a little slower.
It isn’t easy to beat BMW’s in 0-60 runs. They are geared with exceptional aggression for that. Rolling acceleration is another story, however. That said, in both cases, HP (or lack of) does come into play. But again, HP is only as good as the transmission that makes use of it.
Comments
Thanks for all the great advise. But, more confuse after read the great post.
Luckily, I call the insurance company. If I go with V6, I would have to pay $350 per 6months premium more then I4. I did not see too many post mentioned how big the insurance jump. I must admit that I have a teenage on my insurance list.
The choice is clear and regret did not call insurance company earlier.
I4 has more then enough power to me, but love all the extra feature come only with the V6 such as VSC, brake assist, 17" alloy etc.
Anyway, my problem solved! Just drive home a brand new Accord 4dr I4 EXL Auto
Maybe it will pick back up when the information about the 2008 Accord engines is released.
Pretty much anything that could be broken down on the current iteration is out there.
Only problem is, we don't know much about the '08s.....
I really liked this thread, I guess I'll have to wait for September to get cranked up again!
4-cyl engine - approx $2,000 savings
Stick shift - approx $1,000 savings
Not buying as much oil from the middle east - priceless.
My commute to work is mostly back road city driving,but that could change to stop and go highway in the near future.
What are some of the "real" MPG on stop and go highway driving.
Why can't you get VSC on the 4cycl. That would make me very happy.
On top of that your summer tires will last longer and you won't get all the winter gunk on your alloys.
I have run 4 snows for about 15 years and have never been stuck (or even near) and never had to change travel plans (unless the roads were closed to all cars) because of only having FWD. This is in SD where blizzards can be nasty, and most recently with an Integra (light and not too much clearance). Do not have snows for the Accord yet, but it should do better than the Integra with 500 lbs more weight.
Its not the power I'm looking for in the 6,but I do swear by traction control. I've been a dead stop on an incline with ice and snow underneath and moved when the light changed to green without any problem. I looked behind me and cars were slipping and sliding.
The more I write the more I am leaning towards the 6 because of the VSC which I think will become like ABS in the future. All cars will have it. Even the 4 cycl.
Thanks for your input and I do plan on getting as many quotes as I can.
Tks,
Thanks for your insight about the snow tires.
Indeed it will, it is mandated to be on all new cars in 2012.
I've owned V6 and V8 cars, and I can afford a V12 MB S600 if I ever feel like taking my money and blowing it on a depreciating asset.
If you are purely a performance enthusiast, probably the AV6 6MT is the Accord for you, but then again, if you want a lot of ooomph, the Accord is not necessarily the best choice. If you want a great, fun car that's a smart buy from a gas/maintenance/durability perspective, it's impossible to beat the current Accord I4 5MT, unless you can do with less room and can downgrade to a Civic 5MT (*not* the Si). Spend the money you save vs the V6 on handling upgrades. For example, I've got RSX Type-S 17" wheels w/ 225/45R17 tires, which make a huge difference in rain and stopping power, as well as a Neuspeed STB which helps in cornering.
The Accord's I4 is built like a tank, it uses a timing chain which doesn't need replacing for the lifetime of the engine and basically only needs oil changes. I use M1 5W20 simply because I prefer 8k+ mile OCIs, but dino is just as good, as long as you change it regularly. The Accord 5MT's drivetrain is second to none, and is recognized for its durability.
This is a fun car to drive (for what it is). Granted, my copy weighs under 3000 lb. while the current ones add an extra ~130 lbs, but you "new" guys' cars should still feel as fun to drive as mine does with a female passenger
My last 13 tanks of gas have been 500+ milers, one of which was my all-time record (so far) at 609.2 miles on 16.2 gal, which translates to 37.6 MPG. I've driven the car 36k miles as a second owner (picked her up at 18k miles, avoiding the 1st 2 years depreciation hit) and I'm averaging 32.4 MPG lifetime on it. For the size of the car, this is simply amazing. I do baby it, but at ~56k miles on the odo it feels the same as it did the day I bought it (for cash - say no to debt!).
I think the extra 14 hp of the '08 Accord's I4 is just what the doctor ordered; as long as it doesn't affect gas mileage, which is excellent on the current model, it will quite possibly be the best 4-banger on the planet. Of course, that's only until the diesels show up, which is what I'm waiting for.
As far as me, for lotsa-power type of fun, I'm considering getting a "weekend" car. I'm looking at a V8 Mustang manual, an M3 (V6) SMG or Bi-turbo V8/V12 Mercedes.
---
Say no to hybrids, biofuels and hydrogen - they're all scams. Diesel is the responsible way to go.
....interesting statement. 55-mpg (HWY) VW diesel pickup + a 6M coupe provide good counterpoint.
The 6M can provide stellar fuel efficiency on the freeway, but in town it's another story. (we use the VW).
..best, ez..
---
Say no to hybrids, biofuels and hydrogen - they're all scams. Diesel is the responsible way to go.
Must be generational or geographical.
190hp 2.4L
268hp 3.5L
Wake up, forum!
The more I hear about the 2008, the happier I am that I have the 2006. A bigger, heavier Accord doesn't appeal to me.
The review was extremely positive from Detroit News.
Yes it was. Which is why the remark about the "underpowered" 177 was so noticeable. In all other respects, nothing but praise.
And I agree as well that the V6 driving experience could well have biased the reviewer when trying out the I4 177. But, as a matter of fact, the remark was the first and only time I have ever read a negative about power with respect to the Accord.
I'll wait to see what others have to say, of course. The jury is still out on this point.
..as the owner of a Gen VII 6M coupe, I perused the Detroit News review. However, I missed any real coupe performance feedback.
Wonder which of the 'big three' (MT, C/D, Road and Track) will be the first for a road test.
I'm interested, but am somewhere between responsible cost consciousness and getting hosed when it comes to obligating my Naval Reserve bread. It's hard for the leopard to change its' spots......even for a coupe which will most likely turn a triple digit quarter and hustle to 60 circa 5.5...........
best, ez...
Rolling acceleration will be the one to watch.
"With the automatic transmission, 4-cylinder Accords move smartly from a stop and have enough power for passing and merging. LX and LX-P's 177-horsepower engine performs on par with EX and EX-L 190-horse unit, but is notably rougher at idle, with a pronounced quake felt through the steering wheel."
Comments about engines aside, I found this site:
http://jalopnik.com/cars/new-cars/2008-honda-accord-revealed-291565.php
very useful (particularly the photo gallery) as an overall summary of the 2008.
- slower shifting 5 speed (> 5 years old) vs new 6 speed (with quirks now worked out)
- timing belt (worse kind, where a snapped belt would damage the engine) vs timing chain.
- same power output yes, but needs VCM to get the same mileage.
To me they are glaring weak points for two cars supposedly very competitive.
The 08 V6 should perform at least on par with a V6 Camry.
So what difference does it make? if the mileage is the same. What makes the extra gear (with flaring) better than VCM? The 08 Accord won the only car magazine comparison I've seen, and based on what I've seen, (interior/exterior) it wins my comparison so far too.
V6=true americana with 17 inch wheels(Enkei designed!) and suspension(no modding to 17s for I4s), dual exhausts, Vehicle Stability and V6 emblem (yes, the most important part..)
City MPG (no highway bullhockey)
I4=24 mpg CITY (26 for manual transmission)
V6=20 CITY (but I get 25-26 in 100% city now that it' broken in)
Both I4 ans V6 get 30+ mpg on the highway so it's a wash.
ALL you people claiming these 30+ mpg as overfall mileage NO NO NO.. CITY and highway..totally different.
Remember: you will always be perceived as possessing a cheap grocery getter car 'for the masses' with the I4.
The V6 brings you a cut above which is sometimes "everything" in an increasingly materialistic as well as shallow world. Sorry, that's just dem breaks, I didn't say it was fair. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
You're right that the increased size of the new Accord may be a bit of a problem, in terms of performance and maybe even sales.
For people who have kids (like me), the added size is probably a plus, but it is seeming a bit bloated.
I'm guessing the next generation Accord (due in 5 years) may slim down a bit.
I found the interior of the 08 exl that I sat in upscale and very nice. I think your criticisms may be a bit over the top, but when I test drive it again I'll try to pay more attention to to some of the things you're pointing out.
"The four-cylinder EX trim level is the high-volume Accord; it's expected to account for half of all Accord sedan sales. Its 190-hp four-cylinder has more-than-adequate power, though its high-speed passing performance isn't as strong as the V-6's. The engine is also notably louder than the V-6, and its automatic isn't as smooth; upshifts can be a little jerky at times. Still, if it were my money, I'd opt for the four-cylinder because the premium for the less fuel-efficient V-6 isn't worth the so-so performance."
Just another 2 cents worth, perhaps, but still, professional reviewers do have their reputations to consider.
lol... a wash? What about those of us in the I4 who hit the high 30's and occasionally cross the 40 mpg barrier?
City driving varies so much. Someone just posted getting 16 in the city in his I4.
Trust me, combined mileage is very important to some of us... after all, it is the bottom line.
For the record, where does it end? If you think the V6 is so superior, it must kill you when someone in a BMW, Acura, Benz, Lexus, etc. comes across your path. If your justification works for them, just think how totally satisfied I am in my I4 with a manual transmission. :shades:
I'll bet the majority see my car and your car and think it is exactly the same.... a Honda Accord. I'm not talking about the enthusiast, just the general public who doesn't know about the dual exhaust or the V6 emblem.
Sorry, you are also a part of the masses. :P
Will the current V-6 be a grocery getter in 5 years when the 2013 I4 is just as fast?
The V-6 is overkill and not necessary. Some may want it, but that does not mean it is necessary.
As far as picking the which model Accord to get, my advice: 0-60 isn't the deciding factor. Test drive them on the highway and toe into the throttle to see what they've got. That's what really separates the V6 and I-4 accords. The 4 has what the car needs, and the 6 has what enthusiasts want.
Makes sense. The 2007 models were about a half second quicker according to... dang it, was it Motor Trend or Automobile? I can't remember! I do know I read 7.2 seconds for the 4-cylinder manual. The 190hp EX 4-cyl ran 7.9 in the same 0-60 time frame.
Is it faster than a 530, honestly, I doubt it. It doesn't have the torque. But, it IS a lot faster than its 166hp would suggest.
The new models aren't any quicker than the old ones, the 4s are actually a little slower.