Honda Accord I4 vs V6

skew

I need some help in choosing between the Ex-L 4 vs. Ex V6. Issues: Fuel economy, performace, and price. I drive 25 miles each way to work-80% highway(65-70 mph.) I've test driven both cars: the Ex-L 4 was fine, but the V6 was FUN. Thanks for your input.

thegraduate

My inline-4 is plenty peppy and delivers 30MPG average in mixed driving, 36-40MPGs on trips. I LOVE the fact that I got a 4-cylinder over the V6 at Chevron-bill time

robgrave

"I've test driven both cars: the Ex-L 4 was fine, but the V6 was FUN."

Appears to me that you've already answered your own question. If you want to pay the extra for the fun, go right ahead.

Me, once I test drove the EX4, I didn't even care to give the 6 a spin. I have no need for the extra power -- no heavy loads, no heavy highway tripping -- so the choice of the 4 was a no brainer. I still can't get over how smooth, quiet, and powerful the 4 is.

As for fun, well, I'm not at all bored with the 4, but if I were thirty years younger I might feel differently. Anyway, I do happen to believe that the Accord was designed first and foremost as a 4 cylinder vehicle, so I feel extra good about my choice. I bought the right car, I'm sure of that.

Robgrave

indyfan

I have a 4 and it's great for every situation.

larouse

We drove both, the V4 and then the V6. Once I test drove the V6 I knew that was the one. The engine is silent and the shifts are really smooth. The car is fun to drive and I enjoy the extra power when I need it. Not that I am out to race or anything like that, just think the extra power is worth the extra money. Think the difference in mileage is not significant and both run on regular.

06nighthawkv6

I agree..The V6 runs great on regular gas( I should know..I tested it with all grades multiple times)and when I took it for the test drive, I knew it was faster and that's why I got it. The I4 is not as smooth especially the first to second upshift and especially as my car continues to break in...and also the I4 embodied the grocery-getter mentality/persona a little too much for me and I don't think the LED lights work well with a grocery-getter image, IMO. It's like trying to put a Lexus into a Chevy Cobalt...it just ain't gonna happen.

I had my factory fill removed at ~5050 miles and replaced it with another Mobil product like the factory fill was but this time it was DriveClean 5000. The power came on when I did this and it continues to come on more again right around the 6500 mile mark which is where I am yet. I imagine it will continue to get smoother and thus quicker off the line as I climb up to 10000 miles and then when I hit the engine with some non-regular non-dino oil like some synthetic blend.. like Castrol syntec..hmmm yummy for my engine... ho man imagine a 2006 V6 with basically a new performance-wise engine and so much un-tapped power waiting to escape as it ages like fine wine... this is what typifies a V6 versus an I4..more hope for the future and what it can bring.. Who know hows those 2006 V6 modifications to the intake and exhaust will "fill out" as this engine marches onward into creamy buttery smooth exstacy.

Look, what I can tell you is my low-end grunt is getting better cuz my RPMs go up faster and the coresponding upshifts are smoother. Is it more power per se? no but I feel a little bit of that too as I crossed the 6000 mile barrier. This car has the potential to be a warrior and not just on weekends. Ok, so I will try to work in an area where they car-pool all the time (downtown for example) and I never did road trips or no longer do clear cross town trips anymore but I also don't have a need to anymore as I find everythign I need "where I live" now..

I burn regular 87 octane exclusively(I tried Super but this car ain't geared like a TL and so doen't need it! Thank God) As I gain all this power so I only need about 35 bucks to fill up with regular unleaded.

Basically, the excitement of what this car could bring at anytime I get in it on any given morning is why I chose an V6 over an I4 and I don't regret the decision one bit.

Infact, I see more reasons everyday to own a V6. One great one? You are motivated to not have 5 months gaps in your employment as I am on now!! :P ( I call it "vacation" and recovery from burnout :sick: )!!

But really, there *Are* other reasons.. like Dual Exhausts and better suspension etc.

thegraduate

The I4 is not as smooth especially the first to second upshift and especially as my car continues to break in...and also the I4 embodied the grocery-getter mentality/persona a little too much for me and I don't think the LED lights work well with a grocery-getter image, IMO. It's like trying to put a Lexus into a Chevy Cobalt...it just ain't gonna happen.





Huh? You realize the exterior of the car is designed the same, right? Not sure how you think one Accord's design looks like a grocery getter and another Accord's design doesn't...Other than wheel-style, a tailpipe, and a badge, V-6 Accords are just as grocery getter as the I-4s. They're just quicker and more expensive ones. The taillamps are the same, and look the same on a Value Package Accord as they do on a V-6. Only the Hybrid model's look different (amber turn signals).

All models (except for VP) have the same suspension setup -being a double wishbone up front and 5-link double-wishbone in the rear. The Inline-4 models have a thicker stabilizer (anti-roll) bar, however. Only the Value Package doesn't handle as well, due to its lack of a rear stabilizer bar.

The V6 models are a blast to drive, but in the twisties, so is my inline-4! For different people, I think a lot lies in priorities. I drive to school in downtown Birmingham daily (14 miles one-way...stop and go + interstate rush hour). I still average 30.1 MPG (since I started keeping track in March). On highway-only trips, I get bewtween 36 and 40 MPG, depending on load and A/C use and always between 75 and 80 MPH. I'm not a hot rod, and my last car was (still is, I drive the old one a lot too) a 1996 Accord LX. It has a whopping 130 horsepower through a 4-speed Auto, so my Inline-4 feels like a rocket in comparison.

To a college guy who really hates paying his Chevron bill every month, the inline-4 was the perfect choice for me.

mrbill1957

Other factors to consider besides gas milage and initial extra $$ for the V6,

V6 has timing belt, I4 uses timing chain, so no $$ for belt change with the I4.

I4 tuneup should cost less then V6,

I4 configuration easier to work on if your a backyard mechanic.

You may want to check with your insurance agent, they may charge more for the V6 over the I4.

Mrbill

ant7

I've heard that a V6 engine is generally more durable in the long run. Is that true?

06nighthawkv6

Well, the J30, it's been said that everything else will fall apart before the engine will but the same cannot be said about the I4(or atleast it hasn't up to this point).. The J30 V6 has really had all the bugs worked out of it at this point..being year 3 since it was introduced in 2002 as an early 2003 model...and it was basically a brand new engine then when it was introduced in 2003 and now they made it even better with modifications to the intake exhaust and the addition of the variable length intake manifold in 2005 which was previously only on the V6 MT but is now on the automatics since 2005. It makes my automatic almost like a manumatic and it feels like I am shifting without physically doing it. It's fun as I can kinda tell when I would be shifting if I actually had a manual. It's neat. I got tons of low end torque now at about 6200 miles and can't wait till I get closer to 10,000 miles so I can add the non-conventional synthetic oil. At that point, I think my low-end torque will be insane as well as the mids (and consequently I will be anointed Monster status)...I don't really use the highs all that much unless its Friday or Saturday :shades:

( :confuse: Hanginnn outt.. down the streettt..the same old thing..we did last week.. not a thing to do but talk to you..we're not allright we're not allright.. :confuse: )

no_exit

A major safety feature - ESC (Electronic Stability Control) is only available on the V6 models. Google 'electronic stability-control' and read a few of those articles.

tallman1

Hmmm, I've always heard that the I4 is the best thing Honda has done. I certainly don't have any complaints. I do know that manuals last longer than automatics though.

skew

Does the "fun"/power factor and the Electronic Stability Control feature tip the scales towards the V6? Offsetting the EX-L I4 advantages of economy(initial cost, insurance, mpg, and maintance?)

louisn

I would not buy a car w/o stability control. Data suggests it is much more of a satety factor than antilock brakes and can save your life.

no_exit

I wouldn't buy a car without it. You may be saving money on gas with the I4 but if the ESC can save your or a loved one's life, that is priceless.

skew

From a safety and techological point of view, is the 2006 version of Honda Accord V6 ESC superior to previous generations?

no_exit

If 2004 and 2005 only have traction control, then yes, ESC is a better technology.

From an Edmunds article (http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/107638/article.html):

"Stability Control: ESC, StabiliTrak, DSC, ESP, AdvanceTrac, RSC
One of the most popular new features you'll see on the dealer lots is stability control — a.k.a. Electronic Stability Control, Dynamic Stability Control. These are the same basic systems under different names, depending on the manufacturer.

Stability control is an electronic system that keeps the car under control in the event of a skid by selectively braking and/or shifting power to tires that have traction. And if you've ever driven a car with stability control on slippery conditions, you know it's well worth the price if it helps you avoid an accident. These systems can immediately detect the loss of traction and react appropriately and without the panic with which a human driver would likely respond.

Traction Control: TRACS, ETC
Before stability control, there was traction control, a.k.a. Electronic Traction Control. Simply put, traction control helps to keep you moving in slippery conditions by automatically cutting power and/or applying the brakes to a spinning wheel or wheels. The system kicks in when it senses wheel spin by comparing the rotational speed of the wheels. Drivers in snow-prone climates have appreciated traction control for years. Unlike stability control, however, traction control by itself will not prevent a skid "

bristol2

Have you tried the V6 with manual trans?

It is a blast to be in everyday, even stop and go traffic is not a big deal once you get the hang of both feet doing stuff.

It also brings good gas mileage and good fun closer together with the added benefit of greater reliability and durability of manual tranmission.

I don't think you lose with either (I4 or V6) decision. I know for myself that in 4 years time it will be still be exciting to get behind the wheel and crank through the shift gates to 80 mph+. Not sure I could say that with a smaller engine....

ezshift5

....I know for myself that in 4 years time it will be still be exciting to get behind the wheel and crank through the shift gates to 80 mph+. Not sure I could say that with a smaller engine....

...agree...

..ez..

06accordx2

I also drove both, ended up with the iVTEC 4 cyc. Been very happy with it. I think the 5 speed trans makes up for any power defincency, so many gears to choose from! I drive mostly non-stop, 25 miles each way to work. I get 30-32 mpg, and I got 36 on a 5 hour trip to NC. Yeah, the V6 was fun, but I didn't really need it.

06nighthawkv6

Well you got a grocery-cart to 40 mph and then when someone wakes up and sees your feeble attempt at speed at 40 mph, they will drop down a gear and smoke you to 60 and beyond with you at that stand-still 40mph with tounge on floor. MPG? You get 24 mpg combined unless you're a hillbilly on a highway all the time. My V6 will catch your MPG when I hit 10,000 miles or soon thereafter and the car fully breaks in..Give it up Super-Walmart man!

tallman1

I must be getting old because I couldn't care less about someone being able to blow past me if I'm doing 40... or even 60.... and it certainly isn't feeble by any stretch. Some of us feel that the i4 has plenty of power for what we need. So do v6 owners feel "feeble" if something more powerful blows by them???

As for mileage, I'm no hillbilly here in western Washington. I do drive on the freeway for long periods of time but there is also a fair amount of bumper to bumper traffic with that. My Accord has about 5500 miles and I've never been below 30 mpg.

06accordx2

Check your math son. How do you get 24 combined mpg from 32/36 city/hwy? I believe that averages out to 34, not 24.
Not all of us are interested in "smoking" somebody, but rather driving a nice reliable vehicle that suits our needs. If you have a need to "smoke" people, that's fine. I don't. I sold my 1972 340ci, 4 spd Cuda' years ago.

temj12

I have an '05 Coupe 5spd manual. When I test drove the car, I could not believe that a 4 cylinder would have that much pep. I have 31,000 miles on mine and I have been very happy with it. At 3,000 rpms you feel the Vtec kick in and the extra pep. The service manager at my Honda dealer says the guys in the shop consider it the best engine Honda makes.

tandy_13

Have a 2006 V6 with almost 13500 miles on it. No complaints so far except for some misalignment of front wheels last year at around 5000 miles when I drove through a blizzard to get to work.
95% highway driving and I now average 29-30 on a consistent basis.
I drove 2002 I4 Accord for almost the entire length of the west coast last year in September and this year I drove my V6 up to Canada from New York with my family this year.
The V6 is definitely more fun to drive, probably safer (I hae driven the car through a major blizzard, numerous thunderstorms and have never ever felt threatened), and carries a full load of 5 adults easier than the I4.
Having said this I must say that the I4 is no slouch, just that the V6 is a better and safer drive.
As to whether it is worth the extra initial price I would best leave to individual preferences.
PT.

robgrave

I'd sure like to see the accident reports for the V6 and I4 repectively. ESC and brake assist not withstanding, I'd bet that the V6 has the higher accident rate. The "nut behind the wheel," you know, is still the most important contributing factor re accidents. Drive a car for the fun and excitement of it, and you increase the chances of mishap, simple as that.

And I certainly don't regard my I4 in any way as an "unsafe" car.

Robgrave

kcrossley

I just bought a new Honda Accord EX-L w/ Navigation and although I like almost everything about the car, I really miss the V6 I had in my Saturn L300. I'm beginning to feel like I should have ponied up the extra $2,000 for the Accord V6, but I was swayed a little by the better fuel economy of the I4.

Strangely, the difference in 0-60 acceleration between my old Saturn V6 and the Accord I4 is only 1/2 second, but for some reason it just feels a lot slower. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it has something to do with the accelerator force that's required to get the car going. With my old V6 all I had to do was tap the accelerator and it was off.

Am I right or am I just driving the car wrong?

thegraduate

Well, with a V-6 (as in your Saturn), the low-end torque is often more apparent than the top-end power advantage. While there is only a small difference in horsepower (16), there is double the difference in torque (30) between the 3.0L V6 in the Saturn and the 2.4L four in the Accord, plus it has a lower torque peak (3,600RPM vs. 4,000RPM for the Accord). If you wind-out the two cars side-by-side, the Accord would probably be only slightly behind the Saturn, if at all (the old 160hp Accord did 0-60 in 8.5sec vs. 8.2 for the Saturn L300 V6; now the accord has received a power bump equivalent to 10 horsepower and has better low/midrange torque... it could be enough for a 0.2 or 0.3 second advantage over the pre-2006 updated Accords). Off the line though, there is no real replacement for displacement, which the Saturn has 25% more of in this case.

midnightcowboy

I4 Not "insafe" it is just that the V6 with Vehicle Stability Assist™ (VSA®) with traction control
is safer in inclement weather.

"Drive a car for the fun and excitement of it, and you increase the chances of mishap, simple as that."
Old wives tale , not really true.

midnightcowboy

You should have bought a V6 6-speed the difference is less than 10% in mpg.

And the 6-speed is much more fun. You can drive it economically and easily beat the EPA estimates.

robgrave

I traded in an Olds Cutlass Supreme ('87) for my I4 Accord. The Olds was pretty much a classic, RWD, 305V8, 4 Barrel Carb, and a darned good runner still after neary 20 years on the road. I was reluctant, really, to give up such a fine running car for a 4 cyl car. If not for rusting in the frame, I'd probably still be running with the Olds.

But the Accord has surpassed by far what I thought a 4 cyl was capable of. Thing is, the Olds, even when it was new, was never quick off the mark. But it produced smooth, quiet and reliable acceleration in the mid-range, where it's needed most. And I get that performance from the Accord, plus a comparably smooth ride and far better handling. Add to that the improved gas mileage, and I can hardly wish I had my Olds back.

It's all in what you're most used to, I guess.

Robgrave

kcrossley

Yes, but I needed an automatic so my wife could drive it. I'm actually getting over my buyer's remorse. I had the opportunity to drive on some winding roads today and doing so WAS fun, even with an I4. The car handled really well and was very stable. I keep hearing that the I4 is more nimble than the V6. Is that true?

dampfnudel

Yes, the I4 is more nimble than the V6 model because it has a lighter engine and smaller turning radius (about 36.1 ft vs. the V6's 39.6 ft). I still feel the V6 Accord handles well for a family sedan, better than the Camry despite the Camry having a smaller turning radius (36.1 ft).

While the I4 is adequate for most situations, the V6 helps when you're loaded with passengers and cargo. Many of the Accords I see in NJ are V6 models. It also helps that the J30 engine is pretty fuel-efficient for a V6.

kcrossley

Oh well. It's too late now.

dampfnudel

You still have a great car which handles a little better and your fuel costs will be a little lower.

barkins

The ESC feature is something nice to have, IF and only if you drive in rain and snow everyday of the year.

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

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

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

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

Point being, I got a I4 for the fuel economy and couldn't be more pleased. Although the fun factor isn't there, I can take solice in the fact I'm saving some cash at the pumps.

kcrossley

Thanks for the post. As it turns out I'm almost acclimated to my Accord EX I4. Almost. Another week or so and I should be okay.

elroy5

The J30 V6 has really had all the bugs worked out of it at this point..being year 3 since it was introduced in 2002 as an early 2003 model...and it was basically a brand new engine then when it was introduced in 2003 and now they made it even better with modifications to the intake exhaust and the addition of the variable length intake manifold in 2005 which was previously only on the V6 MT but is now on the automatics since 2005. It makes my automatic almost like a manumatic and it feels like I am shifting without physically doing it.

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

This information comes from MSN Autos specs.
Looks like all these so-called improvements have actually slowed the car down.

thegraduate

Different launch conditions produce different acceleration times. The engine has in fact gained approximately 10 horsepower over the 03-05 models. The SAE regulations have made that number reflect lower numbers. The car is faster, although not much.

midnightcowboy

I have a 2005 Accord V6 without Vehicle Stability Assist™ (VSA®) with traction control. VSA is the correct term thatHonda uses.

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

Vehicle Stability Assist (VSA®) with Traction Control

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

YMMV,

MidCow

P.S.- While not as significant on FWD, VSC ( or ESC) does make a significant difference. More and more you will see cars adding VSC. In 5 years it will be as standard and as common as ABS brakes are now.

midnightcowboy

The weight has also increased so that the power to weight ratio is actually less.

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

Look at the new Maxima commercial with the CVT!!

Real Manuals forever,

MidCow

thegraduate

May I ask where the extra weight came from? How much "extra" are we talking here? Just curious...

elroy5

The car is faster, although not much


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

Edmunds had numbers that were closer, but the 03 Accord was still a little quicker than the 06.
06 Accord 0-60 (7.60) 1/4 mile (15.60) speed (91.40)
03 Accord 0-60 (7.00) 1/4 mile (15.42) speed (92.90)

thegraduate

Actually, as I check numbers from Car and Driver, they got the same acceleration numbers from 2003 to the 2006 V-6 models; 6.6 seconds to 60.

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

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

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

midnightcowboy

thegraduate,

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOMV,

MidCow

thegraduate

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

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

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

I'm about to load up my Accord EX I-4 to go to the beach, maybe this time I can crack the 40 MPG barrier? Probably not, since I'll have major A/C use, but I look for another 38 MPG trip! Woo hoo!

kcrossley

Well I have to admit the I4 is a lot peppier than I originally thought. You have to be willing to step on the gas pedal a little more than a V6, but it will get up and go.

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

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

thegraduate

In other words if you get stuck behind traffic doing say 50 MPH, the car feels sluggish, kind of like it's in a gear that's too high for that speed. Hit the accelerator and it immediately drops down a gear and you have a tighter engine/transmission connection. Perhaps it's just me.

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

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

I really like having the best of both worlds!

kcrossley

That's good to know. I'm really liking this car. Since I have the Nav I'm considering an extended warranty. Did you purchase one for your 06?

thegraduate

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

Long story short, we felt no need for the warranty due to Honda's great reliability history within my family.

kcrossley

Do you know if the Honda electronics (i.e Nav) system are as reliable? That's my main concern.