Honda Accord I4 vs V6

blufz1

Thanks for the backup, Grad. Malmouza,as long a you tow within the mfg. limits you are not damaging your car. Boats are the most streamlined of loads and are easy to tow within oem limits.

tgozdalski1

I4 accord has enough power in 95% of situation and for remaining 5% get manual transmission.

dolfan1

Works well unless there are family members who can't or won't drive a stick.
My wife won't, & I wanted more power than the I4 auto offered. Got a six & quite happy with it, thank you.

Yea, blufz pulls a boat occasionally, but for most of us 6 drivers - it isn't about need, it's about want, and guess what - We're not ashamed of it!
Am I supposed to feel bad because I technically burn more fuel than a 4 driver?
I live about 1 mile from work. Bought my Accord in mid Oct of last year. The maintenance minder light still hasn't come on for my first service yet.
Who's burning more fuel, me or the guy with a 4 traveling 10 miles to work each way?

This is why there is no one size fits all answer to the question of which is better. That isn't the purpose of the forum anyway, yet people still try to make it that.
Every individual's circumstances are different. Still, even at that - it still comes down to personal preference. Most people are annoyed when the gas prices climb. But still, if I had known back in Oct what the price of gas is likely to be this summer, I'd say theres a 95% chance I'd have bought the 6 anyway.

arkdarkleson

I posted a while back on this topic, saying this really shouldn't be an argument, just buy what you want. Figured I'd follow up now that I have more info to bring to the table, but first, a little background.
I have 2 accords, a 98 4cyl 5-speed, and an 06 v6 auto. My mother has a 03 6cyl auto. Both my father, and youngest sister have 04 4cyl autos, and my other sister has a 08 v6. Her husband has an 05 4cyl auto. My house looks like a honda dealer during holidays.

my sister, before she bought her new accord, was having a tough time deciding this very issue: was it worth getting the v6 over the 4. One night I had the fam over for dinner, and she raised the issue, which got everyone arguing over the price of gas, the premium for buying the 6 over the 4, the extra power, why she needed it, what was wrong with her old car, and why nobody was driving anything else. The deciding factor came after I chimed in at one point and said my v6 got roughly the same mileage as my older 4cyl. I get 27 with the 6, and 30 with the 4. We all started comparing mileage, and driving styles, and so forth, and found there to be a 3 or 4 mile per gallon difference between the two engines, with our trips anyway.

(bring on the hate mail...) So I got out the calculator and started punching numbers to see what the fule price difference would be for 20,000 miles, assuming a lot. For instance, gas would average 3.25 a gallon for term(HA!), the v6 got 25mpg, and the i4 got 29, The difference was $354. I changed the numbers to reflect more highway, putting the v6 at 27, and i4 at 31, and got $304. For kicks, I dropped the 6 number to the new, stricter EPA city estimate of 18, and left the 4 cyl at the old city estimate of 24, and came up with $889. Basically, what I took from this was the biggest difference anyone was going to see over 20K miles is $900. The more highway you drive, the less of a difference there is, which makes perfect sense because each engine is using less fuel, despite the difference between them. That 4mpg difference only really hits the city drivers.

So just look at it this way: How much do you drive, and is it city or highway? Answer those, then ask yourself, is a smoother engine and 68 more horses worth paying an extra $300 to $900 on gas for 20,000 miles? Then get quotes on each engine from a dealer, and march down there to haggle with the salesman for a v6, and be sure to complain about the price of gas while doing so... they may discount the cost some more.

elroy5

I had a 4 cylinder Accord for 12 years, and it was a great car. I have no complaints, and it was worth every penny I paid for it. When I finally decided I deserved a new Accord, I picked the V6 because I could afford it, and it has also been worth every penny. The V6 appealed to me because of the extra power for passing, the all around smoothness of the engine, and the silent operation under normal acceleration/cruising. The V6 simply felt and sounded like a higher class of car. :shades: To get more, you have to pay a little more, so it all comes down to this. Is the extra power, smoothness, and quietness, worth the extra money? Some say YES, and some say NO, but neither is right or wrong.

blufz1

I really liked my previous 4 cylinder ,manual Accords but too many big time hooksets caused me to get an auto. I really prefer the 6 with an auto trans + this new Accord is alot larger and I prefer to under stress my stuff. Different strokes.

elroy5

We all have different needs and wants. NO one else can tell you which engine is right for you. It's all about what YOU want from your engine.

viet

It seems when one gets used with the silky smoothness and extra power of the Accord V6 it's tough for him/ her to get back to the I4. My first 6-year old Civic 120K miles ran like brand-new on freeway. After I sold it I upgraded to an Accord I4 and then Accord V6 EX-L with all bells and whistles.

Accord shows muscles on long and winding roads. It handles curves superbly. A young man drove an Accord '08 V6 Coupe @ 95MPH to exit to a freeway ramp @ required 55 MPH limit with no problem.

canddmeyer

I have the 4-banger. It may take a little longer to get over to the fast lane, but once I get there no one passes me unless I move over. Accords have fantastic top end speeds.

bug4

top end speeds -- I actually think my 08 I4 MT doesn't do that well at speed. Its not that it won't go fast - its that it doesn't act like it wants to go fast. I really have to burry my foot to get it to cruise at 85-90 and, when I let off the gas, it quickly decelerates as if it was working hard. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, my 98 I4 (MT) was a significantly "faster" car than my 08. (and the 98 got MUCH better gas mileage at speed).

malmouza

The speed for this car will improve after 10,000 miles. The engine when it's new it has higher friction and the parts does not move as smoother as it should, add to that the use of heavy oil by the manufacturer to protect the parts from heat damage. All of these things adds up to higher fuel consumption slower of the line response. But don't worry it will improve gradually. :mad:

blufz1

The 98 was a smaller car with what appears to be much less frontal area. This new Accord is simply larger than I prefer and I think 2.4 liters is borderline too small particulary with the automatic.

bug4

Of course, this discussion is very subjective because how much power and acceleration do we really need? But, I'm going to go on record at this point and agree with you. I think you are particularly correct in limiting your concern to the I4 with the automatic tranny. Having put 8000 miles on my 08 I4, I do not think the engine has sufficient power when mated to the automatic to make for a refined driving experience. Is it adequate -- absolutely!!!!! But, rather than getting used it it, I'm getting less and less satisfied. Having said that, if I had to do it all over again, I still wouldn't go for the V6 ----- I would just get the manual rather than the auto.

dolfan1

It will be interesting to see what happens with the next generation if gas prices don't moderate and stay high from here on in (an unfortunate possibility).
I wouldn't expect the Accord to go back to pre 90's size, but I wouldn't be surprised by a more streamlined sedan with smaller engines and less weight. Of course, technology will continue to improve allowing for more horsepower and greater mileage (with, more than likely, emphasis on the latter).

elroy5

I think the added size, weight, and wind resistance of the 08 Accord, makes a V6 engine more appropriate than ever before. When I see an 08 Accord on the road, it just doesn't look like a car that would have a 4 cylinder engine it in. It looks to expensive, not to have an engine to match the look. I'm sure 08 4 cylinder owners see it differently.

thegraduate

I think it's a shame they couldn't (or wouldn't) ratchet up the torque instead of the horsepower. An Accord with 170hp/180lb-ft would feel a lot peppier than the 190hp EX engine, especially around town. Only when doing high-speed acceleration/passing would the EX have the advantage.

elroy5

I don't think Honda will make the next Accord smaller. They will just keep doing what they've been doing. Which is introducing new economy cars like the Fit for the people who want them.

bug4

elroy - I"m not sure I agree . . . I think Accord buyers usually expect a fairly unique and ingenious blend between size, fuel economy and power (and that is one reason they are willing to pay a premium for an Accord over a smaller Fit or a less well-balanced offering from other manufacturers). In 2008, I think Honda's desire for bigger cars has come into conflict with the engines they select. Through the 07 model, I think it could be argued that the I4, while certainly less powerful than the V6, still promoted a car that could exceed your expectations and be classified as an unusually well engineered automobile.

For what its worth, I really believe the I4 / auto transmission combination on my 08 Accord is not up to the Accord standard. I think Honda miscalculated the balance that an Accord owner expects between size and power and made one version of their 08 Accord with which picky buyers will not be satisfied. When combined with the fact that it doesn't get particularly great gas mileage, I'm left wondering why they did what they did.

Is there anyone on this post who can argue that the 07 model wasn't a better engineered over-all package?

elroy5

I think it's more an American desire for bigger cars than Honda's.
Unfortunately Americans also desire economical 4 cylinder engines, and it's getting harder and harder to achieve both in the same car.

blufz1

Sorry you are not enjoying the car as much as possible,of course, nothing is perfect in real life. I think the sudden slowing you feel when you lift at speed is the wind resistance on that that large frontal area. I sat in an '08 at the dealer and it's really a nice car. It's just larger than I prefer. I'll just wait for a diesel CRV. 194" is just really too large for my taste. Guess if the Civic grows again and gets the diesel it might be interesting as a "Tow Vehicle" also.

blufz1

I agree that we have seen the largest Accord we will ever see. I think alot of us think it's just too big and, with $4 gasoline, I don't see how they could market a still larger Accord.

vchiu

I think potential customers in the US/Canada are pretty lucky to be able to discuss the merits of L4 against V6 solutions with the Accord.

In Europe, the Accord (a smaller Acura model in fact) is not available with any V6, the 2.4 being the most powerful offer.
If we want the same size than the US accord, then we must go for a Hond Legend (Acura RL I think) whitch comes with a 3.5 V6 of 295 HP.
The small problem is that it costs about 50K euros or 80K USD at current rates. and the indicated fuel economy in European Standards is 11.5 L/100, which is close to 21 MPG I believe. It is similar to BMW V8 models. There is no need to tell you the Legend is not meeting an overwhelming success over here.

The European Accord is also offered with a diesel engine, although no automatic transmission yet . it also comes as Station Wagon which is a good thing

http://www.channel4.com/4car/rt/honda/accord/21399/2

elroy5

Seems Honda underestimated the lure of the 08 V6 Accord, to those people wanting something more fuel efficient than their SUVs and Trucks.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/04/honda-accord-be.html#more

dolfan1

Is there anyone on this post who can argue that the 07 model wasn't a better engineered over-all package?

Nope, no argument from me. Started looking for a new car way back when the 07 Camry was first introduced (Apr 06). Decided to wait & see what Honda would do with the 08. Checked out the 08's in Sept, come Oct bought my 07 SE. Almost missed it, they were getting very scarce by then. Nicer looking car, the 08 in many ways, but wanted to avoid new price tag and any first year jitters.

But I can't imagine it getting any bigger. I'm thinking next gen will have at least a 200hp or slightly more 4 and prob around the same pwr for the 6 (maybe more, depends on economy in 5 yrs) with at least 10 to perhaps 20 pct increase in mpg.

Unless gas is $10 a gallon or more, I think there'll still be folks like me & blufz in fairly large numbers who will still want the 6cyl.

elroy5

Unless gas is $10 a gallon or more, I think there'll still be folks like me & blufz in fairly large numbers who will still want the 6cyl.

The V6 Accord seems to be in demand (more than Honda expected). People looking for something more fuel efficient than their large SUV or truck find the Accord V6 very appealing.

malmouza

I would like to start by correcting some comments made about the new accord weight and wind resistance. First aerodynamic drag increases as the square of speed. The coefficient of drag for the 2008 Accord is just over 0.31 Cd for the Sedan and 0.33 Cd for the Coupe. This compares favorably with the 0.34 Cd figure for the previous generation Accord. In addition, the Accord's coefficient of lift (Cl), which indicates how much body lift occurs at speed, drops from over 0.20 Cl to just over 0.17 Cl for the Sedan and 0.14 Cl for the Coupe. This shows how much improvements are done to improve fuel consumption and speed. One more thing, about the frame rail system; The 2008 Accord is the first vehicle to use Honda's new unit-body frame rail system. Positioning the stamped steel frame rails above and inside the Accord's body structure floor - instead of underneath it - creates a nearly flat bottom under the car. The result is greater aerodynamic efficiency for improved fuel mileage, and reduced interior noise that can result from air turbulence underneath the car. The Accord's new frame rail design does not compromise interior room. (This was taking from a Honda technical spec.). As you can see even with the increase in size the Accord still achieve a better MPG, and did not lose anything form its agility or handling.
Responding to a question that was asked whether Honda will increase the size again or not? The answer, I don’t think so. I do not think also the Toyota will increase the size of the Camry; the focus now for all manufacturers, is how to increase fuel efficiency, and horsepower at the same time? Bellow are some existing technologies that can achieve these goals; but the constraint is the cost, and revenues:
1- Using direct injection engine
2- Using Turbo charger with the I4
3- Using both electric motor, and gasoline engine (4 banger) (more torque, and fuel efficient)
I did not include Diesel because that technology is too expensive, and the Diesel price is too expensive to justify any saving. I hope this help.

bug4

Good post malmouze. But, while all that is true, I question whether it really makes a better vehicle-- overall. Yes, there certainly are some things that are better on the 08, but all the technology that went into repositioning the frame appears to have been unable to even bring the car up to the standards of the previous generation. My I4 08 appears to get worse gas mileage and be more noisy than the 07 (although I have admittedly never driven an 07 model).

Further, in the I4 models, they up the HP numbers but really do nothing with torque. From what I understand, the 190hp EX/EX-L engine is simply the LX with some fancier parts that allow it to rev higher. Horse power that only comes at 7000rpm is useless horse power for me. I suspect that the marketing department was behind upping the EX models to 190 HP in the way Honda did it.

Turbo -- that would be cool -- but unlikely. From my limited understanding of the issue, turbo units will not provide the longevity and maintenance-free experience upon which Honda stakes its reputation. (I've driven the new VW/Audi 2 liter with turbo and its very, very impressive and very powerful at mid-range rpm.)

malmouza

I agree with what you said about the torque, the 08 accord I4 does not hove a lot of usable torque specialy if matted with the automatic transmission. Mine is manual, and I cannot start moving the car from a stop using the second gear, that’s tell me that the engine is tuned for high end speed, and midrange power. This is common for Honda, this is how they get a good fuel efficient engines. My wife drive Jetta 2.0L, manual transmission, it has only 115 hp, but the engine was tuned to extract more torque at low RPM. I can start moving the Jetta using just second gear. For Honda to change the ECU software in order to have higher torque at low RPM, they will lose the fuel saving the accord was rated for by the EPA. As you can see there is a trade off. My suggestion to HONDA is to add a small electric motor, sandwiched between the current engine and the transmission; this will increase the torque during acceleration and shutoff the engine when you stop the car. It will need an extra battery for the electric motor; the cost will be minimal around ($1500). This is the same technology used by GM in the Saturn Vue hybrid. And I am sure people will pay that extra cost, personally I would. :mad:

dolfan1

I doubt Honda will do anything but what they've always done with their engines - continue to improve on existing technology. The only turbo-Accord I could envision might be a turbo-diesel, but even that is a long shot. As for the hybrid, the last foray into that territory was a miserable failure (they should have mated the electric motor to the 4 cyl instead of the 6). Besides, usually these cars come with a premium price tag, negating the fuel savings over much of the life of the car.

Consumers want improved economy & power. So far, car makers have delivered & theres no reason to expect that to change. Next time however, it'd be wise to not increase the size and just have them more economical than the previous model.

blufz1

I don't think Honda got your memo re the diesel as they have a 4 and a 6 diesel coming in 2009-2010.

malmouza

Honda was thinking about bringing the Diesel engine here in USA, but they are having a second thought right now. The Diesel in Europe is taxed at the same rate as the gasoline, and that's the reason that people they chose the diesel in Europe over the gasoline, because it's cheap, and it get a good gas mileage. Over here in USA, the government taxes the Diesel higher than the gasoline. Currently the Diesel is $4.29 for 1 gallon, assuming the new Accord Diesel does 45 MPG, and the price premium you'll pay is $5000 over the current price of the regular Accord, Doing this comparison a full tank of Diesel will cost you $79.36, on the regular Accord you'll need only $64.75, so the difference in filling up the tank is $14.61. Now, let's see how many miles both cars will travel on the same full tank, assuming the regular Accord does 31 MPG according to the EPA, and me. For the diesel the car will travel 832 miles, for the gasoline car, it will travel 573 miles, but don't forget that $14.61, I can buy 4 gallons for gas with that money, and can drive 124 miles more. So the total is 697 miles for the gasoline engine, and 832 miles for the diesel. The difference is 135 miles saving for the Diesel. Using the gas price as a base for our calculation, and assuming we fill the tank twice a month, our monthly saving using the Diesel is $77.14, our yearly saving is $925.68, It will take 5.4 years to make up for the $5000 premium you pay up front for the Diesel, and I am not counting in my calculation the interest on the $5000 for 5.4 years. Most people they don't keep the car that long. I hope this help.

blufz1

The premium is not 5k. Further,any initial premium will shrink if diesel prices stay up. Further still, there are reasons other than mpg to own a diesel.

elroy5

Honda was thinking about bringing the Diesel engine here in USA, but they are having a second thought right now. The Diesel in Europe is taxed at the same rate as the gasoline, and that's the reason that people they chose the diesel in Europe over the gasoline, because it's cheap, and it get a good gas mileage. Over here in USA, the government taxes the Diesel higher than the gasoline. Currently the Diesel is $4.29 for 1 gallon, assuming the new Accord Diesel does 45 MPG, and the price premium you'll pay is $5000 over the current price of the regular Accord, Doing this comparison a full tank of Diesel will cost you $79.36, on the regular Accord you'll need only $64.75, so the difference in filling up the tank is $14.61. Now, let's see how many miles both cars will travel on the same full tank, assuming the regular Accord does 31 MPG according to the EPA, and me. For the diesel the car will travel 832 miles, for the gasoline car, it will travel 573 miles, but don't forget that $14.61, I can buy 4 gallons for gas with that money, and can drive 124 miles more. So the total is 697 miles for the gasoline engine, and 832 miles for the diesel. The difference is 135 miles saving for the Diesel. Using the gas price as a base for our calculation, and assuming we fill the tank twice a month, our monthly saving using the Diesel is $77.14, our yearly saving is $925.68, It will take 5.4 years to make up for the $5000 premium you pay up front for the Diesel, and I am not counting in my calculation the interest on the $5000 for 5.4 years. Most people they don't keep the car that long. I hope this help.


Too many assumptions, so no it doesn't help. Sorry.

thegraduate

I agree... assuming a $5k premium over the regular Accord means we're looking at a $35k Accord - not gonna happen this decade.

malmouza

I will have to say that Honda is known for charging more for their cars, and they are exploiting their old reputation which is (Reliability). If you are going to buy a Diesel go with the Jetta, the new 2.0L common rail injection engine is rated at 40 city / 50 highway, and it suppose to be at the dealer lot this summer for ($23,000) this a good price, the torque on this engine is 235 bft, and 140 hp. Another thing, I drove the diesel for a years, and I know for sure that diesel car will start rattling inside and out after 40,000 miles, and the reason is the high compression engine, that shakes the whole car. I drove a 2007 Mercedes diesel for 250 miles, even though it’s quite inside the cabin, when I got out of the car after 165 miles, my feet where having some fatigue from the vibration that is coming from the cabin floor. No matter what the manufacturer does, still the gasoline engine is smoother, than the Diesel one. But, considering the saving using the diesel engine, it’s worth to consider buying it. Ah, and the maintenance is more costly than the gasoline. There you have it.

dolfan1

The upcoming Accord diesel has more hp & torque, but will probably cost more. However, considering reliability issues usually associated with VW's, the extra cost might be worth it.

dudleyr

blufz,

I have a question about towing with an Accord. I have a buddy with a Toyota truck that is extremely envious of the Accord mpg (he was with me on a 200 mile trip that I averaged 43 mpg) but says he needs his truck for occasional towing. Now he does not have a boat and has never towed anything before, but he feels he needs the ability.

I think the towing capacity is 1,500 lbs on the Accord is that correct? How much does your boat weigh? I know the car has plenty of power for towing, but how about traction on a wet boat ramp getting the boat out of the water. Do you every have any trouble?

Thanks

parviz

"...and be sure to complain about the price of gas while doing so... they may discount the cost some more..."

No, they will just steer you towards the 4 cylinders using your own point

parviz

Thanks for the post. Interesting to see that the V6 Accord has such higher demands that I thought. It was also educational to read the comments at the end of the article, learning new things on how Toyota (and maybe others too) manipulate the numbers and the name of the cars to show sale numbers.

elroy5

The most important thing to me, was that a car (or two) outsold full size trucks, for the first time in 20 years. It was only for two months, but I think the trend will continue. I wonder if the Accord, and or Camry, will take the sales title for the year?

blufz1

Hey,Coastman! The towing capacity is 1,000 for the Accord and 1500 for the CRV. My boat, trailer battery,etc. weighs about 700 lbs. Also boats are more streamlined than a camper so that helps. Never a serious problem at the ramps. My 02 v6 has traction control but I routinely do not use it. The steepness and or slickness of the ramps where he launches should be considered. That's just be an individual ramp issue. I pulled this boat rig on my previous 4 cyl Accord which had 98k on it when traded and it ran fine. My 02 has 88k and runs perfectly. I like trucks but prefer a more nimble vehicle that I can better lock up with my high $ rods and reels. Hope this helps.

dudleyr

Thanks!

bug4

Never towed with a Honda - but I've done lots of towing with SUVs and the conventional wisdom is not to exceed 70% of the stated towing capacity.

spent2much

Consider a slightly used Honda Accord Hybrid 2006-2007. I looked and test drove all the new 08's - ended up buying an Accord Hybrid 2006 with 33,000mi for $20,500 on Craigslist...and am very happy with the choice.. It has sound-dampening...rock solid dependability (except for a Control Module on the ABS brakes, covered under a warranty notice) It is more powerful/much quieter than the 2008 V-6 Accord.
Much cheaper. Better fuel mileage 27/34. It is a MUSCLE CAR! which is nice in downtown traffic, yet still better fuel mileage than BMW/Mercedes sports cars (18mpg) which it can usually out-accelerate. It is not "snooty". 4 doors great for family and friends. Tax reabate. Light sporty steering (unlike Acura). Regular gas. Handles similar to (slightly better than) 2008 Accord Coupe. An engineering marvel..too bad they discontinued it...they should have put the concept in an Acura body with sport wheels to begin with (how did they ever get the idea that with "Hybrid" Americans also wanted a car that had a "nerd" look to it? Change out the wheels - an import auto shop can help....and you've got a great car...or wait until the 2009's diesel and hybrids in the new body style..I hope they add the sound-dampening that's in the 2006-2007 Accord Hybrid.

stephen987

I'm considering replacing my '02 EXL V6 (200 hp) with a new 4-cylinder model, mostly because I'm interested in having a bit more involving driving experience. My '02 is automatic (as all V6 Accords were then), and the handling also seems a bit soft.

I know some of you say that it's hard to go from the V6 to the I4, but it seems that most of those comments come from folks who have the much stronger 03-07 models.

So I'm wondering--has anyone out there driven both the 177 and 190 hp versions of the Accord with a manual transmission? I'm curious as to whether or not you can actually feel the extra power of the EX in routine driving. I'd also like to hear from anyone who's gone from a 98-02 V6 to one of the new fours.

dudleyr

If you want a more involving driving experience I strongly reccomend getting the 4 with a stick shift. While you may lose a little bit of low end grunt to your V-6, you will lose nothing in an all out sprint.

I went from a '90 Integra to my 07 I4 MT and my Integra feels like a dog now. The Accord has power all the time, the Integra needed to be wound up. Best thing is the Accord actually uses less gas in the same situations. I have not driven the '08 yet, but the extra power should help to make up for the extra weight.

stephen987

That's what I was thinking, dudleyr. Thing is, EX 5MT is presumably the most involving (more power, bigger wheels, and a strut tower brace), but it's a very difficult combo to find around here. LX and LX-P with 5MT are fairly plentiful but I wonder if the missing 13 hp will be noticeable. I don't go for the redline very often, but I do spend a fair amount of time with the tach between 3k-5k rpm when driving our other Honda (a '99 Civic EX). So I'm interested in knowing whether or not the torque and hp curves are noticeably different through the midrage.

blufz1

I have an 02 V6 and I would not go to an 08 4 cylinder because the torque of your 6 is 200 and the torque of the 2.4 is about 160 for the 177 and only 6ft pounds more for the 190. + the 08 is a larger,heavier car than your 02. But that's just me. You can increase handling with higher performance tires. What tires are you running?

thegraduate

I thought the 2002 Accord V6 had 200hp/195lbft? Either way, its plenty more than the 2.4L.

Either way, the simple way to decide is to drive for yourself. I'm sure blufz would agree, while making a

thegraduate

I drove an Accord EX (190hp) and felt that it didn't have the off-the-line punch of my 2006 Accord EX (166hp). Once up in the higher rev ranges (6,000 rpm) it may have pulled a little harder than my car, but not enough to make me want it over my current car/powertrain.

It's a shame they didn't opt for more low-end torque. I'd much prefer a 180lb-ft/170hp Accord than a 160lb-ft/190hp Accord.