So, while the non-enthusiast Accord shopper would likely choose the 4-cyl for reasons of thriftiness, I actually like the 2.4 in that it's so smooth and peppy, a friend who drove it thought it was a V6, as he has a V6 midsizer as well. The 35 MPG we got on that trip certainly wasn't V6 mileage though!
Again, this is a matter of "preference." This is why Baskin Robbins sells 31 flavors. Nothing wrong at all with the 4, I just prefer the "speed" (much superior over the 4) of the V-6. The Accord 4 door with the V-6 is about as close as you can get to the current gen of the Acura TL 3.2 (or even 3.5) without paying 40 K to get it. The NEW 08 model is even that much closer and probably superior to the current TL and nipping at the heels of the RL (price-wise anyway).
By the way, saw the 09 RL at Chicago and its nice, BUT more of the same-old same old. Can't see how they justify nearly 50K for this car (the SH AWD is not worth the 20 K over the Accord EX and certainly not the 10 K over the current TL).
Speaking of which, the "stealerships" certainly ruin it for a LOT of potential V-6 Accord owners, touting the car as "hard to get" and special edition etc etc. In actuality, the I-4 is harder to get (demand) and will probably be so with gas nipping at the $4.00 range. I see the stealerships ruining the sales of the V-6 in the expediencey of selling the 4 (get em in, get em out, I only wanna see red tail-lights" is their mantra!!!)
Again, this is a matter of "preference." This is why Baskin Robbins sells 31 flavors. Nothing wrong at all with the 4, I just prefer the "speed" (much superior over the 4) of the V-6.
Nothing wrong with that. If I did a lot more highway driving, I'd consider a V6. As it is now though, I'm not doing a lot of 80MPH cruising, so the 4-cyl is plenty. I feel like the V6 would be wasted, as I can't tell much difference around town when, say, pulling out onto a 45 MPH road from a parking lot. Above those speeds the V6 just keeps pulling incredibly hard, while the 4-cyl starts to run out of juice above 70 MPH relative to the V6.
I'm totally with you Grad . . .speeds above 70mph is where you feel the most direct benefit of the 6cyl (assuming your not smoke'n the tires from every stop light ---there's a noticeable difference there too ) IMHO, at slower speeds and away from interstate driving, the true benefit of 6cyl engines is limited. Below 70, I feel you get a far superior benefit from having a manual transmission than you do from having a 6cyl engine. But, Grad, you know my feelings about that issue. I'm still suffering . . . . . . .
Below 70, I feel you get a far superior benefit from having a manual transmission than you do from having a 6cyl engine. But, Grad, you know my feelings about that issue. I'm still suffering
Glenn Says: The 6 cylinder is also available in stick (client of mine just got the Coupe and its nice and quick (0-60 in about 5.5); Thats almost BMW 335i territory
Yes, $30 K loaded with Navi for a Blue V-6 Accord coupe with 6 speed stick. Beautiful car, even nicer looking than the Altima coupe which I like a LOT. For $30 K, where are you going to get a car with that kind of performance, Honda class and reliability. Even the highly touted 1 series BMW 135i is going to be about $40 K even though they advertise $34? yeah right, try to get one for that!! The 2002 ti it is not, neither is the price.
For the $$, the Accord coupe V-6 stick is all the SH**.
Glenn -- did you see my post on the 08 Accord Sedan / Coupe thread? I parked next to a blue, manual 6-speed, 6 cyl. coupe this weekend. That is one sweet looking car -- and I usually hate blue cars. Your going to enjoy that one!!!! I, too, really like the new Altima coupe -- but for how gorgeous the [non-permissible content removed]-end of the Altima is, the front end looks so-so at best.
See, I love the 08 accord coupe, It is beautiful, the blue and red both look amazing!
Now, I think the accord sedan, some what needs a spoiler in the rear. It looks a little plain. I am going to get the wing spoiler, because it has the brake light in it as well.
I think it's also helpful to remember the purpose of this forum. It isn't about which is superior, because there is no answer to the question because the question itself is irrelevant. To a prospective buyer wondering what would be the right choice, all we need to do post what we like about our choice and the prospective buyer can make the decision which choice is best for them.
I chose the V6 because I wanted the extra power. How often do I need it? Practically never. When I do travel my cruise is set between 75 and 80, and I'm quite sure the 4 would be able to handle that without any difficulty whatsoever. With all the practical angles (economy, usable power, etc) I would not argue the 4 is a more practical choice, and as grad indicated the reason why so many more of them are sold compared to the six.
So for you prospective buyers, read through the forum, figure out what arguments apply to your situation and buy accordingly. Happy motoring!
Dunno re " heavenly",but the 6 speed V6 coupe is FAST! Motor trend just tested one that ran 14.0 @ 102.5! The other benefit of the 6 speed coupe is that the 3.5 is non VCM. I think the auto trans with obligatory VCM runs about 15.0 @ 97.
agree with your post. I never drove the Accord V6, but someone I know once told me that he has driven both the 7th Gen V6 and a BMW 745i, and he actually prefers driving the AccordV6. He said the Honda was more of a blast to drive, even though the bimmer had more hp.
The 4 however, has enough power and is the logical choice for most people. I personally think the little 2.4 in the Accord is an amazing motor, I once 'stuffed' around ~900 lbs of weight (5 people + luggage) in the car and amazingly, it could still go without trouble. I've also got up to the speed of around 90mph(with only me in the car) on the highway without much trouble, and I felt it could still go higher, but I was just a little scared lol. :P The V6 does have it's benefits besides the superior highway passing power though. Sometimes when I go uphill with the car fully loaded, especially with A/C on, the 4 feels quite a bit strained. This won't be the case I'm sure, with the 6.
Lastly, a note about the 'grocery getter' comment, a lot of 4cyl Accord buyers(besides me though, but I'm no typical Accord buyer) could probably afford the V6 as well if they really wanted it. They just opted the 4cyl because it's the more sensible option. Lower fuel costs, lower insurance, lower maintainence upkeep etc. The V6 is more fun but that is not really the top priority to most Accord buyers. To me, unless it's frequently used as a family hauler or taken on trips(loaded with passengers+ luggage), the 4 is plenty enough for and the most logical choice for most people with commuting and 'grocery getting' purposes.
Yep, I had to take my family on its vacation to Florida last summer in my 06 Accord SE, about 16hrs or so away. We had 5 people in the car, Me and my sis in the back, and little sister which is 12 in the middle in the back seat, mom and dad in the front. They drove my car more than I did on the trip! Which felt very weird, not too often am I a passenger in my own car, but it really let me feel out my own car. We had a full trunk full of luggage, including, sand toys, boogie boards. We all felt snug in the car, but really felt quite comfortable in it. We really all had enough room to move a bit, it was not bad at all.
The 4cyl engine did great, even through Tennessee mountains, and down into Alabaman, with the A/C on the whole way. It really didn't show any signs the we were in the car with that much weight. It loves to be wound up, and my mom loved to get up and go, and I kid you not she squealed the tires with us all in it, were like Wow, take it easy mom! My mom was like , this car has some power. She isn't however used to the brakes which are quite stiff, and barely have to push them. I was very impressed with the power, and the gas mileage was amazing, I think really we only spent like $160 if that, on gas total for the whole trip. I think we drove from indiana to like nearly Alabama without stopping. I have been nothing, but impressed with it, and I think time has only made it much better, as crazy as it sounds.
Sometimes, I take er out on the interstate, and let it run, and I am always impressed, even at 80, it is so calm, no shakes, doesn't feel like your going that fast, and the steering it awesome. It is literally like you could keep going faster. It is so smooth and stable. I love driving the interstate. My car does drive alot of highway going 60mph, about 85% of the time. I am sure thats good for the engine!
I will take our trip in my car again this summer, I'll have the 08 accord by then, so we'll see how that stacks up.
Lastly, a note about the 'grocery getter' comment, a lot of 4cyl Accord buyers(besides me though, but I'm no typical Accord buyer) could probably afford the V6 as well if they really wanted it. They just opted the 4cyl because it's the more sensible option. Lower fuel costs, lower insurance, lower maintainence upkeep etc. The V6 is more fun but that is not really the top priority to most Accord buyers. To me, unless it's frequently used as a family hauler or taken on trips(loaded with passengers+ luggage), the 4 is plenty enough for and the most logical choice for most people with commuting and 'grocery getting' purposes.
Yep, the whole "grocery getter" insult for a 4 vs. a V6 is silly. If I see an Accord going by on the street, I basically think "generic reliable McCar", I don't look for dual exhausts or the V6 emblem and somehow think "oh, well he's a real enthusiast" if I see them. Anyone who's snobbish about sports sedans won't even notice an Accord - they'll only pay attention to the German stuff, or maybe a TL, TSX, G35, or IS.
That said, I'm buying a leftover '07 V6 6MT EX-L tomorrow. It'll be replacing a BMW 5 Series as my daily driver. It won't approach the fun of taking the 5MT 5 through the mountains where I live, but it'll be comfortable, reliable, and spacious, in each case more so than the BMW, and at the leftover price I'm paying, it'll cost about 40% of a new 6 cyl. 5 series (30% of a 550i). With the V6 and 6MT (and eventually aftermarket suspension bits), it'll also be enough fun that I won't miss the 5 too much, and I'll either sell that car or relegate it to weekend fun status. I don't kid myself that it's in the same class, however - it's an Accord, and I'm buying it for it's Accord-esque virtues, which are excellent. After years of German cars, my friends are baffled at this move - one said that I'm "getting in touch with my inner bland". That's okay, for what I want it for it's absolutely perfect, and I'm looking forward to driving it every day for years. If I wanted a sports sedan, I'd buy one; that's not what the Accord is, and that's fine with me.
I'm kind-a chuckling . . . . . . In the last three posts, there have been two comments about how Accords even feel good going 80 or 90mph. . . . "It is literally like you could keep going faster."
I'm not poking fun - promise -- its just a difference in where you drive. I live in the great state of Wyoming where the "men are men and the sheep are nervous . . . . " Wait --wrong joke! There are lots of very long, very smooth, very deserted roads in Wyoming. I always put very good tires on my Accords and, lets just say, it is "literally like you could keep going faster . . . ." :shades: Lots faster . . .
I have an 03 V6, and I have only gone over 100mph once (passing two 18 wheelers on the interstate). I don't race other cars from stop lights either, so it's not about 0-60 or 1/4 mile times either. Where I live, there are a lot of long stretches of road with gradual curves, and double yellow lines. There are few opportunities to pass, so you have to make the most of them. You can get behind a car going 45 in a 55 very often, and be stuck there for miles. It's not that I take chances, because a 4 cylinder could make most of the passes I do. It's just soooo much easier with the 6 cylinder engine under the hood. Half the time, when I pass I don't have to "floor it" to get a good response. The extra power makes for more relaxed passing. I don't have to anticipate as much, and get a run on the car I'm about to pass.
If I would have decided on the 4 cylinder Accord, I'm sure I would be completely satisfied with it, but the V6 has spoiled me over the past 5 years, so I would have a tuff time going back to a 4 cyl. now.
You're exactly right about the sports sedan angle. If "fun to drive" was at the top of my priority list, for around the same money I probably would have opted for a WRX or perhaps a Mazda 3Speed. A previous poster called the V6 Accord an "autobahn car", and though I didn't entirely agree I acknowledged he had a good point.
I wanted a car with bulletproof reliability, a proven track record (no, not race track), an affordable price tag, reasonably economical, etc etc, that also had plenty of uummph if I wanted it for whatever reason (usually, theres no reason at all = just feel like getting on the gas once in awhile). After spending months and countless hours studying various makes and models, I decided the best car to fit the bill was the Accord V6. End of story.
But I must say I'm shocked you found a leftover 07 6MT still on the lot. Yea, I think you'll be pretty satisfied. Wish I could have done that, but there is NOOOO way the wife will drive a stick. So have fun.
That's just the difference in us (and there's nothing wrong with that). You like having more power than you need. I look at a V6 as wretched excess. "Why buy what I'll never use?" That's my question, and how I look at things. With the 4-cyl, I rarely floor the loud pedal, but when I do it performs how I need it to. For that 2% of times when I need to floor it to get around a slow car or get out into traffic, I do it. The engine's made for it, the iVtec makes pleasing sounds, and it requires no actual effort on my part. For the other 98%, I have a car that is very responsive around town, plenty powerful for interstate cruising and lane-jockeying, and gets better mileage than the V6.
I'm not arguing against ya elroy, just presenting the other side of the coin. We both know each of us picked the right engine for us.
We both know each of us picked the right engine for us.
Right grad. I'm glad we have a choice now. Back in 91, I had no choice. The 4th gen Accord came in I4, and that's it. It was a light car, so 140hp did ok, but there were times I wanted more.
"Wretched excess"? Come on grad. Of all the people on this forum your posts are usually the most well written and thought out. But wretched excess? What does that make BMW's, Mercedes, heck - Acura TL's! There is nothing wrong with someone who wants the extra power of the 6 in an Accord. I don't think you meant to suggest there was, but that sure was a curious choice of words.
I agree that the V6 MT6 is an awesome vehicle to drive. Had a chance to buy one in January and were it not for the Mrs. having to shift would have pulled the trigger. Would have been a great car for my mid life crisis. Ended up buying an 07 EX-L V6A with less than 5000 miles and absolutely love the way it handles. I traded a 4cyl Camry which at times just did not seem to have enough power. Would really notice it when using cruise going up hills. The V6 Accord never has to surge to go up hills like the Camry did. One thing I have noticed is the rear window defogger does not work near as well as the Camry's. Favorite feature is the XM radio. Never listen to local stations anymore.
Cut me some slack. I said I look at the V6 as wretched excess, meaning "for me."
If, to me, my 130hp '96 Accord is adequate, and my 166hp Accord is fast, the V6 is overly excessive in power; I barely use what I've got in the 4-cyl!
And, you're right, I didn't suggest there was anything wrong with those who prefer more powerful vehicles. My parents are shopping for a V6 midsize/full-size car right now because they want lots of power on the highway (their other car for running around is a 2007 Civic EX, so this new car will be a comfy highway runner for trips.
Alright now blufz, this is what I was referring to in post 265. Let's don't have a "Ken-L Ration" discussion = My choice is better than your choice, my choice is better than yours.....(sing along) It's a personal preference. Period. I don't consider myself smarter than the other guy who chose the 4, nor do I think I'm being wasteful compared to 4 driver.
I wasn't trying to be over-critical grad. As I said I think you probably have the most thoughtful posts in these Accord forums. It's just when I read that phrase it hit a nerve. I realize you were talking about yourself, but if it's a wretched excess for you, I think there is the implication it's a wretched excess, period. That's just the way it hit me, and I think a lot of others who opted for the 6. But in the end, no biggie. Looking forward to your future posts throughout the Accord forums.
I realize you were talking about yourself, but if it's a wretched excess for you, I think there is the implication it's a wretched excess, period.
Sorry it came off like that, because that's not how it was meant in any way. The V6 is a great motor in a great car. It's just more motor than I care to pay for, because the 4-cyl is much more than adequate for me as it is.
I don't do lots of high-speed driving in high-traffic areas, so the V6 is pretty unnecessary.
You won't go back to the 4,once you experience the 6.
For some of us, once we experience the power AND mileage of the 4, we wouldn't think about getting a 6. And that doesn't even factor in the initial cost.
I like grad and was just teasing him. The more I contemplate changing the spark plugs on my 6,the more "cents" the 4 makes. I tow a small bass boat and prefer the lower effort of the 6 to pull it. The only 4 in my future would be a Honda diesel.
The various comments about driving on 2 lane roads changed my thinking. My 4cyl is adequate because I do lots of interstate driving at 80-85mph. However, if I was doing lots of 60-75mph driving on two lane roads, a 6 cyl might be better suited. On an interstate, I get to make relatively slow, controlled passes that often would not be possible on a two lane road. On two lane roads, more reserve power at mid-range RPMs would be very nice!! As it has been noted before, the I4 doesn't produce much oomph until you get into the upper RPM range. [Of course, I can always nail the throttle and let the car jump from 5th to 3rd gear --- but for my style of driving, that is reserved for emergencies only! ]
Yea, the two lane highway thing is only real place the I can think of that the 6 would really come in handy. I've been driving my V6 now since Oct of last year, and I really can't think of a single time I've actually NEEDED the extra power. I just like knowing it's there.
For the practically minded person, considering what it costs to fill up every trip to the gas station, that probably doesn't make a lot of sense. Nor do I expect it to. I'm just glad we still have a choice to make.
she squealed the tires with us all in it, were like Wow, take it easy mom LOL, driving the way she did probably isn't a good idea on a family trip.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Nice to know that your family could fit comfortably in the Accord in such a long trip. Like I posted in my previous post, my family could 'fit' in the car, but I don't think they'd all be comfortable in a long trip like yours did. Also, although the 4cyl is a great engine itself, I'd imagine there would be times when the car would struggle, if it's fully loaded with people and luggage. In my case, the V6 would be the more ideal choice for the long trip. Better yet, I think we'll probably feel more comfortable in a Odyssey or Sienna in a situation like this, but that is a whole different topic. :P
Congrats with your decision to buy the Accord. The Accord doesn't have as much 'status' as the Bimmers do nor are they as sporty, but, at the end of the day, you know what you are getting with the Accord. I'm sure you'll be happy with your decision after all.
If I wanted a sports sedan, I'd buy one; that's not what the Accord is, and that's fine with me.
It's not a sports sedan, not by your definition. But it's a sporty family sedan. 0-60 in 5.9 secs for your 6MT is surely 'sporty' enough for me.
men are men and the sheep are nervous LOL, I guess if I lived in Wyoming, I'd be considered one of those nervous sheep.
Seriously, even if the road conditions allow and you have enough 'guts' to do higher speeds, don't you have to watch out for those state troopers in your state?
I'd get a big fat ticket if I got caught doing over 90mph where I live, even on the highway/interstate.
speed ---- actually, its the same in Wyoming. You'll get a ticket over about 84mph. You can safely cruise on the interstate at about 82mph and on the two-lane at about 72mph. But, the secret is knowing when and where the troopers will be. I drive the same roads over and over -- so I pretty much know when and where I can speed up a bit. Also, I don't mean to suggest that I cruise at really fast speeds. Its just that . . sometimes I come over the top of a bluff, I can see the perfectly straight, flat, abandoned road for 5 miles in front of me and it just feels good to let my little Honda go . . . .. go little Honda . . go. . . . . .be free!!
[Interestingly, my 08 Accord feels slower than did my 98 Accord. I'm not sure whether I just haven't fully broken in the engine/transmission yet - but I have 6000+ miles. In any event, my new car just seems to have to push a lot harder to maintain fast speeds. Whereas my 98 seemed not to really start panting until the 95-100mph mark, the new one seems to start breathing hard about 85mph. Wonder if it could be aerodynamics. My 98 was a very curvey design . . . .]
I think that Honda makes a very good product and I have two of them now, an 03 Civic, and an 06 Civic. But I have found that aside from better reliablity than anything you buy from America, or maybe even Europe, there 4 Cylinder engines just puzzle me. Unless they have lots more horsepower, such as a Civic SI, which has a great power to weight ratio, they just don't go well, even when revved up. Yes the new Accord does comes standard with either 177 or 190 horspower, depending on the model you choose, but again these numbers are much higher than they were previously, such as the Accords of the 90;s which I believe had 130-145 or something like that until the new models came out for 2003. For some reason, when you floor them, especially with the correct gear selected, they just don't go like you think they should. There is always a hesitation and then it slowly ramps up, yet some of these are cars are suppossed to be pretty quick from 0-60 but really don't seem like it. I read in Car and Driver a couple year ago that a new Civic with 5 speed manual go do 0-60 in 7.7 sec, yet I have driven the manual version and it really seems to fall a little flat on the highway after that. I am just wondering why Honda 4 Cylinder engines don't have that follow through that you see in the early gears. On the other hand, even though they are not the quickest on acceleration, they cruise easily above 80MPH, even running up to 100MPH if you are not paying attention and going down a slight incline. My 03 Civic is a manual and is actually very quick ripping though 1st and 2nd gears, but then after you shift up, especially to 4th and 5th it just doesn't go that quickly, and it should, its a light car, granted it only has something like 120 horsepower, but it is pretty good for a small car. On the other hand the 06 Civic, which is the new body style, has the 5 speed automatic and the 140 horsepower engine standard. It feels a little better on the highway, especially if you shift down to 3rd gear manually and rev it past 5000 where Honda's I-VTEC system catches some wind, but my 03 can go quicker up a hill than the 06, which also makes no sense, because the 06 is only 200 pounds heavier, but also has a decent bump in power. Sorry this is long, but I was wondering if there are any engineer types who cold explain why Honda 4 Cylinder engines are like this. Also, to those looking to add a little oomph, get a drop in K & N airfilter. Not only can you tell a difference in performance off the line and especially higher up, you get better MPGs' and they are so easy to clean and re-oil them. I run a drop in on each of my Civics, though I am going to get the more buffer cold air intake which adds 8-10 HP or so they say, though its a lot more expensive. One more thing, these cars do need an incredibly long break in period for the engine. Honestly, it took about 20000 miles to really loosen up. Just my 02 cents on this subject, comments welcome.
it just feels good to let my little Honda go . . . .. go little Honda . . go. . . . . .be free!!
Same here! I try to "free" up my car a bit once in a while too! Except I don't go insane while doing so. Mine (and others') safety, as well as the possibility of a 'big' ticket from the cops keep my speed in check.
my 08 Accord feels slower than did my 98 Accord Maybe it's because your 98 weighed something like 400 lbs less than your 08 while there isn't a lot of difference in torque between the two?
There is some truth to the honda's long break in period. I honestly feel now that my car has 32k miles on it, it really opens up really well!! More so than in early mileage. I honestly felt it was a little tight within the earlier miles. So perhaps with the 08 accord, it takes some time to really feel the engine potential.
Have you cchecked the MPG forum? Many are reporting poor MPG's on the 4-cyl. The best I got so far is 24mpg with 90% highway & 10%start stops. Averaging 22mpg usually.
You need to drive both, that will help. Remember the 4 is awesome, and when it is broken in, it offers much more then with 4 miles on the clock. I have 4, and love it, love the fuel economy and power, and after a long break-in, yes a long break in, it really likes to wind up. I am sure both 4 and 6 are both long in there break in, and perhaps that is why some are experiencing a few issues on the 6. I am finding it true that it takes about 10k+ miles or more to really feel the engines potential.
Really if you don't drive alot, than a 4 will be awesome, and I am no way close to thinking that I am lacking power when I need it, I have no problem passing or getting on the highway. I love it. Try to drive a broken in 4cyl if you can, a demo.
Think about this, are you going to be able to really use this V6 engine? Don't be like my co-worker and drive an 06 Dodge Charger R/T with a V8, and literally live only a mile or so away from work, just down the street a few lights. She is never going to ever use that engine on the way to work. Doing more harm to the engine than anything, let alone killing her fuel economy. It also has VCM on it. Of course not a speed to use it, in a residential zone. So think about that as well.
We all have to remember, that a Honda 4 cylinder engine is not your typical 4 cylinder engine. It is one amazing engine. This is a Honda engine, with V-Tec, and it simply pulls and it is very smooth. Think of it like a V6 wanna be. lol really it tries and puts up a good fight. 4 cylinders are not what they used to be.
Just drive them both, we all have our own definition of fun and practical. Its the only way. Do what feels right to you. It is your car.
There may not be anything wrong with the VCM, but even though it's a Honda I know I've always been wary of first year engines & technology. That's one reason I went with the 07.
If I were to consider the 08, I'd be waiting a bit & closely monitoring the 08 forums. I noticed the VCM forum has over a thousand posts. You should find your answers there.
Yepper, you got that right. Think Poseur. I-4 is a grocery getter and wanna be and the 6 is a great performer and the real thing. Dual exhaust and all. I own BOTH and for the $$, the v-6 is the better deal. Gas mileage is only about 1 less per MPG than the -4, so spring for the 6. Insurance is about the same too.
Eh, he's got an opinion, and isn't afraid to share it.
Personally, I think some people (not all) think that their grocery getter having 260 horses make them sports sedans... it doesn't. It makes them fast-in-a-straight-line grocery getters with umpteen cupholders and plenty of trunk space for the stroller, or soccer equipment. The Accord V6 has safe, predictable handling, better-than-average road feel, but definitely isn't the sportiest in the class (Mazda 6 anyone?), much less a comparable rival to true sports sedans. It's a practical, 3500lb, FWD, automatic, family-minded and designed vehicle.
By the way, I know this, and I'm a young person who CHOSE an Accord over an SUV or sporty car. The option I chose (4-cyl) is by far the best seller. Maybe its the V6 being the poseur since only a fraction of buyers believe the V6 to be worth the extra money to them? Haha
By the way, glenn, if you read this, how is the 4-cyl Accord being the poseur? It's the bread and butter; the car that's always been around. It's always been the most efficient option, with competitive horsepower and fuel economy with other comparable cars (1996 Accord - 130-145hp, 1996 Camry 125hp; 1999 Accord - 150hp, 1999 Camry 133hp - Honda always tied or led for economy during these example years). I can pull more numbers if anyone would like.
I personally feel a car that can accelerate as fast as a 320hp Tahoe (faster, actually) up an onramp to 60 MPH has plenty of power, since these beasts hog the roads these days in Birmingham. Hondas have always prided themselves on their smooth, high and free-revving 4-cylinder engines. The Accord still has them; and that, my friend, is the real thing as far as I'm concerned.
Its all good, like I said we all have our own opinions, it was just a very forward post, thats okay, that is just how he feels. At the end of the day, most are driving a way more extravagant car than what they actually need. We take our beautiful rides for granted. I am thankful for what I got, and that I am able to pay for it and have that luxury. I am proud of it. I really don't need some new car, but I do, and I don't need a V6. Why give more money to the oil company. It really is a matter of wants and needs and knowing the line between them, but at the same time, you only live life once.
Comments
Again, this is a matter of "preference." This is why Baskin Robbins sells 31 flavors. Nothing wrong at all with the 4, I just prefer the "speed" (much superior over the 4) of the V-6. The Accord 4 door with the V-6 is about as close as you can get to the current gen of the Acura TL 3.2 (or even 3.5) without paying 40 K to get it. The NEW 08 model is even that much closer and probably superior to the current TL and nipping at the heels of the RL (price-wise anyway).
By the way, saw the 09 RL at Chicago and its nice, BUT more of the same-old same old. Can't see how they justify nearly 50K for this car (the SH AWD is not worth the 20 K over the Accord EX and certainly not the 10 K over the current TL).
Glenn
Nothing wrong with that. If I did a lot more highway driving, I'd consider a V6. As it is now though, I'm not doing a lot of 80MPH cruising, so the 4-cyl is plenty. I feel like the V6 would be wasted, as I can't tell much difference around town when, say, pulling out onto a 45 MPH road from a parking lot. Above those speeds the V6 just keeps pulling incredibly hard, while the 4-cyl starts to run out of juice above 70 MPH relative to the V6.
Glenn Says: The 6 cylinder is also available in stick (client of mine just got the Coupe and its nice and quick (0-60 in about 5.5); Thats almost BMW 335i territory
Glenn
For the $$, the Accord coupe V-6 stick is all the SH**.
Glenn
[guess I better get back on topic]
Now, I think the accord sedan, some what needs a spoiler in the rear. It looks a little plain. I am going to get the wing spoiler, because it has the brake light in it as well.
Let's skip the insulting names and keep a focus on whether the I4 or V6 is the choice we'd prefer.
I chose the V6 because I wanted the extra power. How often do I need it? Practically never. When I do travel my cruise is set between 75 and 80, and I'm quite sure the 4 would be able to handle that without any difficulty whatsoever. With all the practical angles (economy, usable power, etc) I would not argue the 4 is a more practical choice, and as grad indicated the reason why so many more of them are sold compared to the six.
So for you prospective buyers, read through the forum, figure out what arguments apply to your situation and buy accordingly. Happy motoring!
The 4 however, has enough power and is the logical choice for most people. I personally think the little 2.4 in the Accord is an amazing motor, I once 'stuffed' around ~900 lbs of weight (5 people + luggage) in the car and amazingly, it could still go without trouble. I've also got up to the speed of around 90mph(with only me in the car) on the highway without much trouble, and I felt it could still go higher, but I was just a little scared lol. :P The V6 does have it's benefits besides the superior highway passing power though. Sometimes when I go uphill with the car fully loaded, especially with A/C on, the 4 feels quite a bit strained. This won't be the case I'm sure, with the 6.
Lastly, a note about the 'grocery getter' comment, a lot of 4cyl Accord buyers(besides me though, but I'm no typical Accord buyer) could probably afford the V6 as well if they really wanted it. They just opted the 4cyl because it's the more sensible option. Lower fuel costs, lower insurance, lower maintainence upkeep etc. The V6 is more fun but that is not really the top priority to most Accord buyers. To me, unless it's frequently used as a family hauler or taken on trips(loaded with passengers+ luggage), the 4 is plenty enough for and the most logical choice for most people with commuting and 'grocery getting' purposes.
The 4cyl engine did great, even through Tennessee mountains, and down into Alabaman, with the A/C on the whole way. It really didn't show any signs the we were in the car with that much weight. It loves to be wound up, and my mom loved to get up and go, and I kid you not she squealed the tires with us all in it, were like Wow, take it easy mom! My mom was like , this car has some power. She isn't however used to the brakes which are quite stiff, and barely have to push them.
I was very impressed with the power, and the gas mileage was amazing, I think really we only spent like $160 if that, on gas total for the whole trip. I think we drove from indiana to like nearly Alabama without stopping. I have been nothing, but impressed with it, and I think time has only made it much better, as crazy as it sounds.
Sometimes, I take er out on the interstate, and let it run, and I am always impressed, even at 80, it is so calm, no shakes, doesn't feel like your going that fast, and the steering it awesome. It is literally like you could keep going faster. It is so smooth and stable. I love driving the interstate. My car does drive alot of highway going 60mph, about 85% of the time. I am sure thats good for the engine!
I will take our trip in my car again this summer, I'll have the 08 accord by then, so we'll see how that stacks up.
Well, there you go... my experience.
Yep, the whole "grocery getter" insult for a 4 vs. a V6 is silly. If I see an Accord going by on the street, I basically think "generic reliable McCar", I don't look for dual exhausts or the V6 emblem and somehow think "oh, well he's a real enthusiast" if I see them. Anyone who's snobbish about sports sedans won't even notice an Accord - they'll only pay attention to the German stuff, or maybe a TL, TSX, G35, or IS.
That said, I'm buying a leftover '07 V6 6MT EX-L tomorrow. It'll be replacing a BMW 5 Series as my daily driver. It won't approach the fun of taking the 5MT 5 through the mountains where I live, but it'll be comfortable, reliable, and spacious, in each case more so than the BMW, and at the leftover price I'm paying, it'll cost about 40% of a new 6 cyl. 5 series (30% of a 550i). With the V6 and 6MT (and eventually aftermarket suspension bits), it'll also be enough fun that I won't miss the 5 too much, and I'll either sell that car or relegate it to weekend fun status. I don't kid myself that it's in the same class, however - it's an Accord, and I'm buying it for it's Accord-esque virtues, which are excellent. After years of German cars, my friends are baffled at this move - one said that I'm "getting in touch with my inner bland". That's okay, for what I want it for it's absolutely perfect, and I'm looking forward to driving it every day for years. If I wanted a sports sedan, I'd buy one; that's not what the Accord is, and that's fine with me.
I'm not poking fun - promise -- its just a difference in where you drive. I live in the great state of Wyoming where the "men are men and the sheep are nervous . . . . " Wait --wrong joke!
If I would have decided on the 4 cylinder Accord, I'm sure I would be completely satisfied with it, but the V6 has spoiled me over the past 5 years, so I would have a tuff time going back to a 4 cyl. now.
mike
I wanted a car with bulletproof reliability, a proven track record (no, not race track), an affordable price tag, reasonably economical, etc etc, that also had plenty of uummph if I wanted it for whatever reason (usually, theres no reason at all = just feel like getting on the gas once in awhile). After spending months and countless hours studying various makes and models, I decided the best car to fit the bill was the Accord V6. End of story.
But I must say I'm shocked you found a leftover 07 6MT still on the lot. Yea, I think you'll be pretty satisfied. Wish I could have done that, but there is NOOOO way the wife will drive a stick. So have fun.
I'm not arguing against ya elroy, just presenting the other side of the coin. We both know each of us picked the right engine for us.
Right grad.
If, to me, my 130hp '96 Accord is adequate, and my 166hp Accord is fast, the V6 is overly excessive in power; I barely use what I've got in the 4-cyl!
And, you're right, I didn't suggest there was anything wrong with those who prefer more powerful vehicles. My parents are shopping for a V6 midsize/full-size car right now because they want lots of power on the highway (their other car for running around is a 2007 Civic EX, so this new car will be a comfy highway runner for trips.
It's a personal preference. Period. I don't consider myself smarter than the other guy who chose the 4, nor do I think I'm being wasteful compared to 4 driver.
I wasn't trying to be over-critical grad. As I said I think you probably have the most thoughtful posts in these Accord forums. It's just when I read that phrase it hit a nerve. I realize you were talking about yourself, but if it's a wretched excess for you, I think there is the implication it's a wretched excess, period. That's just the way it hit me, and I think a lot of others who opted for the 6.
But in the end, no biggie. Looking forward to your future posts throughout the Accord forums.
Sorry it came off like that, because that's not how it was meant in any way. The V6 is a great motor in a great car. It's just more motor than I care to pay for, because the 4-cyl is much more than adequate for me as it is.
I don't do lots of high-speed driving in high-traffic areas, so the V6 is pretty unnecessary.
For some of us, once we experience the power AND mileage of the 4, we wouldn't think about getting a 6.
For the practically minded person, considering what it costs to fill up every trip to the gas station, that probably doesn't make a lot of sense. Nor do I expect it to. I'm just glad we still have a choice to make.
LOL, driving the way she did probably isn't a good idea on a family trip.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Nice to know that your family could fit comfortably in the Accord in such a long trip. Like I posted in my previous post, my family could 'fit' in the car, but I don't think they'd all be comfortable in a long trip like yours did. Also, although the 4cyl is a great engine itself, I'd imagine there would be times when the car would struggle, if it's fully loaded with people and luggage. In my case, the V6 would be the more ideal choice for the long trip. Better yet, I think we'll probably feel more comfortable in a Odyssey or Sienna in a situation like this, but that is a whole different topic. :P
If I wanted a sports sedan, I'd buy one; that's not what the Accord is, and that's fine with me.
It's not a sports sedan, not by your definition. But it's a sporty family sedan. 0-60 in 5.9 secs for your 6MT is surely 'sporty' enough for me.
LOL, I guess if I lived in Wyoming, I'd be considered one of those nervous sheep.
Seriously, even if the road conditions allow and you have enough 'guts' to do higher speeds, don't you have to watch out for those state troopers in your state?
I'd get a big fat ticket if I got caught doing over 90mph where I live, even on the highway/interstate.
[Interestingly, my 08 Accord feels slower than did my 98 Accord. I'm not sure whether I just haven't fully broken in the engine/transmission yet - but I have 6000+ miles. In any event, my new car just seems to have to push a lot harder to maintain fast speeds. Whereas my 98 seemed not to really start panting until the 95-100mph mark, the new one seems to start breathing hard about 85mph. Wonder if it could be aerodynamics. My 98 was a very curvey design . . . .]
Same here! I try to "free" up my car a bit once in a while too! Except I don't go insane while doing so. Mine (and others') safety, as well as the possibility of a 'big' ticket from the cops keep my speed in check.
my 08 Accord feels slower than did my 98 Accord
Maybe it's because your 98 weighed something like 400 lbs less than your 08 while there isn't a lot of difference in torque between the two?
Why am I about to buy a honda Accord 2008?
Gas mileage folks.
Is the VCM and new 6 cylinder problematic, or one to rethink till 2009 incase there is a major flaw? Anyone have thoughts on this?
Really if you don't drive alot, than a 4 will be awesome, and I am no way close to thinking that I am lacking power when I need it, I have no problem passing or getting on the highway. I love it. Try to drive a broken in 4cyl if you can, a demo.
Think about this, are you going to be able to really use this V6 engine? Don't be like my co-worker and drive an 06 Dodge Charger R/T with a V8, and literally live only a mile or so away from work, just down the street a few lights. She is never going to ever use that engine on the way to work. Doing more harm to the engine than anything, let alone killing her fuel economy. It also has VCM on it. Of course not a speed to use it, in a residential zone. So think about that as well.
We all have to remember, that a Honda 4 cylinder engine is not your typical 4 cylinder engine. It is one amazing engine. This is a Honda engine, with V-Tec, and it simply pulls and it is very smooth. Think of it like a V6 wanna be. lol really it tries and puts up a good fight. 4 cylinders are not what they used to be.
Just drive them both, we all have our own definition of fun and practical. Its the only way. Do what feels right to you. It is your car.
If I were to consider the 08, I'd be waiting a bit & closely monitoring the 08 forums. I noticed the VCM forum has over a thousand posts. You should find your answers there.
Yepper, you got that right. Think Poseur. I-4 is a grocery getter and wanna be and the 6 is a great performer and the real thing. Dual exhaust and all. I own BOTH and for the $$, the v-6 is the better deal. Gas mileage is only about 1 less per MPG than the -4, so spring for the 6. Insurance is about the same too.
Glenn
Personally, I think some people (not all) think that their grocery getter having 260 horses make them sports sedans... it doesn't. It makes them fast-in-a-straight-line grocery getters with umpteen cupholders and plenty of trunk space for the stroller, or soccer equipment. The Accord V6 has safe, predictable handling, better-than-average road feel, but definitely isn't the sportiest in the class (Mazda 6 anyone?), much less a comparable rival to true sports sedans. It's a practical, 3500lb, FWD, automatic, family-minded and designed vehicle.
By the way, I know this, and I'm a young person who CHOSE an Accord over an SUV or sporty car. The option I chose (4-cyl) is by far the best seller. Maybe its the V6 being the poseur since only a fraction of buyers believe the V6 to be worth the extra money to them?
By the way, glenn, if you read this, how is the 4-cyl Accord being the poseur? It's the bread and butter; the car that's always been around. It's always been the most efficient option, with competitive horsepower and fuel economy with other comparable cars (1996 Accord - 130-145hp, 1996 Camry 125hp; 1999 Accord - 150hp, 1999 Camry 133hp - Honda always tied or led for economy during these example years). I can pull more numbers if anyone would like.
I personally feel a car that can accelerate as fast as a 320hp Tahoe (faster, actually) up an onramp to 60 MPH has plenty of power, since these beasts hog the roads these days in Birmingham. Hondas have always prided themselves on their smooth, high and free-revving 4-cylinder engines. The Accord still has them; and that, my friend, is the real thing as far as I'm concerned.