Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Midsize Sedans 2.0

178101213543

Comments

  • "2007 Accord LX Sedan 5-speed manual, 0-60 in 7.5 seconds - that's pretty quick for a 4 banger"

    That's the beauty of the current "horsepower war" - everything is faster, even the 4 bangers. My last sedan was a Mazda 626 with a V6 generating 170 HP and 165 TQ. It would go 0-60 in 7.2 seconds when equipped with a manual. The 4-banger in the Accord has become just as powerful and very nearly as fast as most V6s of 5-10 years ago, especially when you consider the new revised power ratings.

    Normally I'd agree with you about the C&D testing procedures and a car being faster in their hands than in the hands of the average driver, but I don't think that applies to the Accord.

    Here's why: the average car is considerably slower in the more conservative 5-60 test than in the all-out 0-60 run, but the difference is only 0.4 seconds for the Accord. The Accord's 5-60 time of 7.9 seconds is on par with cars that go faster 0-60. Additionally, most cars that match its 0-60 time of 7.5 seconds have a slower 5-60 time.

    Bottom line? Just as some cars feel slower than their specs on paper suggest, in my opinion the Accord drives faster than its spec sheet suggests.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    The main reason, IMO, that the Accord is such a nice car with manual is that it's the same exact car they sell in Japan. Almost everyone in Japan drives manual, and the 4 cylinder engine is the "big" engine over in Japan - or about as big as most people pay for since the taxes are based upon displacement(with 2.5L+ being the premium category with almost twice the yearly registration of a 2.0L)

    Ford - they build their manuals like GM does - something to make the car go for the ultra-cheap model. And it plainly shows.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    the 'feeling' of quickness probably has something to do with torque and where that torque peaks. Torque may not influence acceleration times in the same way that HP does, but it sure does help with some drivability issues as well as that 'feeling' of quickness.
    Have a sneaking suspicion that some test driver for a C&D road test is revving the heck out of that Accord and then, popping the clutch in a trial/error process attempting to squeeze a few tenths here and there. My point was, that this is not likely something you would do to your own car and a degree of abuse that the vast majority of drivers never do - therefore, you 'real' 0-60 should be slower - as would it be for all cars.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Not sure I buy the 9.2 sec for manual transmission 4 cyl Fusion. If it is accurate, then little is lost in going to the automatic. CR, which tests the way a normal person would drive got 9.5 for the 4 cyl automatic in a Milan.

    It's difficult to believe one could get 9.5 sec by just flooring an automatic, but only improve that to 9.2 driving the manual in an abusive manner.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    there are a few cases, the DSG Porsche 911 comes to mind, where the autos will actually outaccelerate the manuals. Not many but it can happen. In any case, maybe not nearly as much mechanical gain with the stick as what you might think?
  • Have a sneaking suspicion that some test driver for a C&D road test is revving the heck out of that Accord and then, popping the clutch in a trial/error process attempting to squeeze a few tenths here and there. My point was, that this is not likely something you would do to your own car and a degree of abuse that the vast majority of drivers never do - therefore, you 'real' 0-60 should be slower - as would it be for all cars.

    That's where the 5-60 test comes in. There's no revving and popping the clutch in a 5-60 test, it's already in gear with the clutch out, and rolling 5mph. The only variable there would be how much throttle to give (and resulting wheelspin if any). Accord is only 4 tenths slower to 60 in that test than the standard 0-60, whereas most other cars (like the Fusion) have a larger 0-60/5-60 difference.

    Car and Driver test results:

    Accord I4 5M
    0-60 mph 7.5
    Street start, 5-60 mph 7.9

    Fusion I4 5M
    0-60 mph 8.1
    Street start, 5-60 mph 9.0

    Difference:
    0-60 0.6
    5-60 1.1

    See my point? If you look at the C&D 0-60 test as a high-revving, clutch-popping, tire-smoking drag strip launch, and the 5-60 test as more of a "real world" run, you can see what I mean about the Accord feeling faster than similiar cars under any (but particularly those) circumstances. There's not much difference between the two driving styles in the Accord.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    the 5-60 test as more of a "real world" run
    OK, have to agree with that, but you do have to wonder how far past redline they run the things (the Honda engine maybe a little more willing and able to do that) and possibly even 'slam shifting' sans the clutch.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,601
    You're correct. I should have said '82 or '83 regarding the IBM PC. Thanks.

    Other PC makers, not as well know as the IBM name, were offering similar computers for far less money.

    That was my point in comparing computers to cars.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    Other PC makers, not as well know as the IBM name, were offering similar computers for far less money.

    That was my point in comparing computers to cars.


    That is a valid point, but there is a warning in that market as well. Companies like eMachines build dispoable computers that are designed for maintenance, they are designed to be tossed if an component fails, since they are integrated into the mobo.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    These numbers are not "considerably faster" as you stated. .6 seconds? and 1.1 seconds? I hardly doubt anyone test driving these sedans is really going to feel the difference. I would be most people who shop 4cyl sedans don't really care about 0-60 times. Most who do get the V6's I would bet. :shades:
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    looks to be the most liked by thier owners with a whopping 9.6! I am starting to see more and more on the internet about the new Malibu. Looks like Chevy is making a move back into the sedan arena.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    As far as that 1.1 seconds goes, I can feel it in something as insignificant as highway passing. I can feel it in off-the-line response. And, if the numbers aren't considerably faster, the way in which the car accelerates is much more effortless versus the Fusion in my perception. "Considerably faster" is subjective, my friend.

    I got the 4-cylinder. Acceleration wasn't tops on my list, but when I could get good the best fuel economy from a car that was also quicker than many (all at the time, actually)of its competing 4-cylinders, I knew I had found my car.

    I guess I'm not "most" though. :)

    Referencing post 480, the Aura has to be the best offering from GM in the midsize arena in a dozen years. GM should've imported Opels all-along, they have to be better than things like the late '90s Lumina.

    I'm glad to see GM finally having some products it can be proud of other than trucks. As I see it, Ford should be proud of its Fusion, but perfuming the pig on the Focus and Escape? Shame on you Ford. You succeeded with an all-new Fusion and it receives great reviews, can't you give us a new Escape and Focus in less than 8 years? Or will the Fusion be around, with nothing new but a fascia, in 8 years? I certainly hope not. The bar is moving way too fast for that.
  • "These numbers are not "considerably faster" as you stated. .6 seconds? and 1.1 seconds? I hardly doubt anyone test driving these sedans is really going to feel the difference. I would be most people who shop 4cyl sedans don't really care about 0-60 times. Most who do get the V6's I would bet. :shades: "

    You don't think 1.1 seconds 5-60 mph is considerably faster? Or that most people wouldn't feel the difference? Well, lets look at some examples.

    A 1.1 second faster 5-60 time than the Accord 2.4L 5M would be 6.8 seconds. That would be just AHEAD of a 2007 Ford Mustang 4.0L V6 manual, which finished 1st place in the C&D "Quickest Cars under $20,000" article (in which the Accord 2.4L 5M finished 6th). Think you could feel that difference?

    One more 1.1 second increment? Now you are just 0.1 second behind the 2007 Ford Mustang GT 4.6L V8 manual in a 5-60 run. How about that difference?

    The difference between the Accord and the Fusion in a realistic "real world, street start" 5-60 mph run is nearly the same as the difference between a Mustang V6 and a Mustang GT in the same test... That is something anybody is definately gonna feel. I would know, I've driven all of those cars recently! :D
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    GM should've imported Opels all-along
    grad - they kinda have - remember the Cimarron that I think went off the market back in the late 80s, and there also is a lot of 'Opel' in the CTS as well. Agree about GM finally getting its act together though (and Ford's inability to keep up) - it will interesting to see if a 'good' Malibu can 'sell' without the now traditional GM discount structures as this would obviously be good for GM as well. Folks that go out and shop Camcords expect to negotitate from window sticker, those that shop the US brands expect something much more. It would seem that if the Aura is going to be sold the way they are ('no nonsense' pricing) that the consumer is going to expect the new Malibu with a good size discount, meaning that GM would have to artificially inflate the sticker to accomodate the discounts - like what they do with Buicks.
  • bv050506bv050506 Posts: 97
    Yes my altima has that ambient lighting too. Kinda cool, just not sure the reasoning behind it. Mine is pointed at the center counsel and gives off a orangy red tint.
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Posts: 442
    Maybe it is just my old bones, but I really find it very hard to believe that ANYONE could possibly feel the difference in cars accelerating 0-60 or 5-60 when the time difference is less than a timed 1 second. Some say even .1 sec...come-on. I have driven multiple cars in various "speed acceleration trials" and can't imagine determining that kind of difference given that time frame. Now, change it to 3 or 4 seconds, then maybe it would be noticeable. Sorry, but that is my opinion with these comments, and of course I, like anyone else may be wrong.
    van :confuse: ;);)
  • Hey! You buy a Honda, Toyota, or Nissan with a small 4 banger and a 5 or 6 speed stick, you buy it for economy. Thank you for doing that. If you have to drive a lot of miles and pay $3.40/gal like we do in California, you should have a small econobox.
    So what's up with all this banter about 0-60, 5-60 etc?
    The cars are all about MPG, not acceleration.

    I don't drive a lot of miles and preferred acceleration and comfort so I opted for the Aura XR. Choices based on needs, so what if your car is a second slower than the other guys?
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    Considering how far a vehicle travels at 60mph in one second, I think it would be noticeable. On the other hand the sound of the engine, the way the transmission shifts, and suspension can make a car feel faster than it really is. This was commented on by a reviewer in the 03 "Midsize Sedan Comparison" test. The reviewer commented that because the 03 Altima engine was louder, and suspension stiffer, it felt like it was faster than the 03 Accord, when in reality it wasn't.
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Posts: 442
    I have driven 4,6,& 8 cyl vehicles with standard and auto trans in sundry speed options. I have driven for speed and for economy, but now am very happy to go for safety and comfort overall. My comments were related to the "feeling of differences" in the 0-60 areas being less than 1 second. Personally I don't care about the other guys speed either, I opted for my needs. However I just felt that some of the comments here were stretching the point of reality, thus my input.
    van
  • So if you drove around in a Mustang V6 for a while, and then switched to a Mustang GT, you really don't think you would notice much difference? Pulling out into traffic? Merging onto the highway? Both cars would feel the same to you?

    I was able to feel a difference in how they responded to throttle inputs without even driving the cars fast. I'd bet that the average driver would notice as well.

    I know we aren't talking about Mustangs here, but the difference between the 5-60 times of the two Mustangs is nearly identical to the difference between the Fusion/Mazda6 4-cylinder and the Accord.
  • I don't, and wasn't, disagreeing with anything you said. Fact is I agree with you comments about how significant a second is in 0-60 times. Anyone that has been street racing or just doing the stoplight grand prix, will KNOW THE DIFFERENCE of a few tenths, especially if they come in second place time after time.
    I hate to be second, it's just another word for looser.

    I used to drive a car with a 2.5L turbo and 5 speed. It was a few tenths quicker than the Mustang 5.0 to 60 and in the 1/4. It got the same MPG as the Mustang too, which proves it takes X amount of Gasoline to make Y amount of power and propel Z weight to V velocity in a specified T time.
    Physics?
  • Hey why does it have to be one or the other (performance OR economy)? I feel like a got a pretty good mix of both, especially considering the price.
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Posts: 442
    My point wasn't that you wouldn't feel a difference, but rather that your "feelings" would not be able to tell whether that difference was one or the other if the time difference was less than a second going 0-60 or thereabouts. Both would show acceleration, and give a feeling thereof. If the ONLY difference was less than 1 second of time, or less than that, do you think you would know which one was faster. I personally think not, but then again I have been wrong before.
    I am considering ONLY THE FEELING, and determining from that.
    van
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    So if you drove around in a Mustang V6 for a while, and then switched to a Mustang GT, you really don't think you would notice much difference?

    I doubt you would, not in the 0-60 times. Your talking about standing on the gas and running 2nd gear out to almost (if not) 60 mph. either car, or the altima, fussion, camry, accord for that matter, is going to feel like its going extremly fast. I can't see noticing a second difference.

    And thats what separates a v6 mustang from a GT. you don't have to push it so hard to get those kind of results. You'll notice the difference in normal driving far more than when your pushing the car as hard as you can. In fact, the thing you'll notice most about the GT is how easily the thing will take off, without having to give it a lot of gas.
  • Hey why does it have to be one or the other (performance OR economy)? I feel like a got a pretty good mix of both, especially considering the price.

    Glad to hear it. I too think I got performance and economy. I guess those two terms are relative. I think for a performance car it should be able to do ov er 95 in a 1/4 mile, do it in under 15 seconds. 0-60 should be as close to 6 seconds as you can get, quicker if you can afford it. Top speed isn't real important because I hardly ever want to go over 100 anyway.
    On the economy side I like 30 MPG but had to give up 2 for the performance I wanted.
    So, for about $26K I get 0-60 in 5.9, 1/4 mile in 14.7 @97MPH and fantastic ride, handling and comfort. But I only get 28MPG highway and 22 in the city.
    Relatively speaking, good enough for me.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    Personally, 0-60, 5-60, or 1/4 mile times are not the reason I wanted a V6 engine. Passing and merging power, are more important. When I am on one of the single lane roads, and there is a Sunday driver in front of me doing 45 in a 55mph zone, I want to be able to pass him quickly without needing 1/2 mile clear of on-coming traffic, to do it safely. Beating the guy next to me at the red light to the next red light is not necessary, and I see no point in it.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,941
    Ummm... the Cimarron was a rebadged Cavalier with more chrome and a leather interior--NOT an Opel.
  • w9cww9cw Posts: 888
    Backy, you are absolutely correct - the Cadillac Cimarron was a rebadged Chevy Cavalier, as was the Olds Firenza, Pontiac Sunbird, and Buick Skyhawk. All were built on the economy-car GM J-platform, and were simply known as J-Cars. The Cimarron's failure was one of the reasons the Cadillac division almost filed for bankruptcy in the late '80s.

    See this link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Cimarron

    Perhaps captain2 was thinking of the more recent Cadillac Catera, which was a rebadged Opel Omega - see the link below for this info:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Catera
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,229
    I doubt you would, not in the 0-60 times. Your talking about standing on the gas and running 2nd gear out to almost (if not) 60 mph. either car, or the altima, fussion, camry, accord for that matter, is going to feel like its going extremly fast. I can't see noticing a second difference.


    Again, I had a Mazda6 V6 with manual trans and now have a Mustang GT with manual trans. The Mazda was rated by C&D at somewhere around 6.5 seconds to 60, the Mustang's best I've ever seen was 4.9 seconds. I'll be perfectly honest, I just can't shift that fast nor do I abuse my cars like they do to get those times. However, I can say that jd10013 makes a good point.

    There are times that I look down at the speedo of the Mustang, after taking off from a stop hard and fast on my way home from work, and see that I'm doing 80 or 90 MPH. I'm still used to seeing 60 MPH at those same points in the road which is how fast I'd have been going in the 6 at that point. I then realize how much faster the Mustang is but up until I look down it just feels like I'm going really fast regardless of which car I was in.

    So the feeling is the same in a hard launch IMO. You fell like you're going really fast. How fast you are really going isn't realized until you look at the gauges. That's when the "I'm going to pee my pants" feeling kicks in. ;)
  • Isn't it a great feeling that you can match or exceed any current freeway speed while still on the onramp? Some cars can only match it during rush hour in LA ;)
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Perhaps captain2 was thinking of the more recent Cadillac Catera
    perhaps I was, sorry. Opel has been a long time subsidiary of GM and first imported some rather nasty tin cans in the 50s and 60s. Circa the early 70s a midsize sedan (at that time) the Opel Manta 1900 was a really well designed car, so much so that it became an autocross favorite. Think the exchange rate got it though, because I believe it later became a Japanese Isuzu by by mid 70s, marketed as always by Buick.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Posts: 25,061
    >the thing you'll notice most about the GT is how easily the thing will take off, without having to give it a lot of gas.

    That's right on. High torque at low engine speeds really feels great. Always has. Always will.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2008 Cobalt 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I'm with you. For $25K 0 to 60 in 5.3 and up to 27 mpg on the highway. Extremely versatile with AWD and a huge sunroof. I've given up some economy for performance. Although this car isn't on the list of linked cars for this thread, the model is made by a manufacturer on the list.

    Downside, driving the car as if it had two speeds, on or off, gas mileage suffers. The equation f=ma still holds true. Without a big heavy V8 in the nose, lightweight high-output cars feel much more balanced.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,229
    Isn't it a great feeling that you can match or exceed any current freeway speed while still on the onramp? Some cars can only match it during rush hour in LA

    It is quite a rush! Of course I lose a good bit of convenience havint two small children when compared to the cars compared in this thread. So far I have no problem with that though.

    Why during rush hour in L.A.? Because you have to go that fast to keep up? I always thought rush hour in L.A. was bumper to bumper? :confuse:
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    It's either going 75mph or 25mph. Not much inbetween.

    (busy counting the days until I can leave L.A.)
  • Some cars can only match it during rush hour in LA

    Why during rush hour in L.A.? Because you have to go that fast to keep up? I always thought rush hour in L.A. was bumper to bumper?

    My point was obvious to me when I wrote it. Rush Hour in LA is stop and go, speeding along at 0-10MPH. That's when the wimpy econo boxes and (many) of the Hybrids can get up to a safe merge speed. Said with tong-in-cheek humor inflection :D I grew up and learned to drive in LA. I would go stark raving nuts if I had to drive it every day now.

    Out here in the So.Cal desert, you better be up to 75MPH, or more, at the end of the onramp or a Tractor-Trailer might just run over you. :shades:
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    liked by thier owners with a whopping 9.6!
    well maybe, if you are willing to put up with the 'old' pushrod 3.5 and the even older 4 spped tranny. That would be the XE not the 3.6 XR which will 'run' with about any of the 'better' cars in this class. The Malibu so equipped may well make an impact, the versions of the last several years dull at best. Don't know if GM is going to be able to sell it at much of a profit however - if the autobuyer is going to spend something north of $25k for a car, they are not likely to want it to have a Chevy nameplate on it in this class. Same problem that I see the Sonata having.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Out here in the So.Cal desert, you better be up to 75MPH, or more, at the end of the onramp or a Tractor-Trailer might just run over you
    exactly why a good V6 is preferable in a 3300 lb.+ car - and the FE tradeoff is getting to the point that even that is relatively minor, (70 gallons of gas or so PER YEAR assuming a 3 mpg difference). And yes the Altima, Camry, the Sonata, the Saturn XR, and the Accord V6 will all get well into the 6s and run 15s (or less) 90+ mph quarters. So is it worth not sweating that tractor-trailer, buyer's choice - you pay a whole coupla hundred bucks a year for the 'privilege'.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Out here in the So.Cal desert, you better be up to 75MPH, or more, at the end of the onramp or a Tractor-Trailer might just run over you
    exactly why a good V6 is preferable in a 3300 lb.+ car - and the FE tradeoff is getting to the point that even that is relatively minor, (70 gallons of gas or so PER YEAR assuming a 3 mpg difference). And yes the Altima, Camry, the Sonata, the Saturn XR, and the Accord V6 will all get well into the 6s and run 15s (or less) 90+ mph quarters. So is it worth not sweating that tractor-trailer, buyer's choice - you pay a whole coupla hundred bucks a year for the 'privilege'.


    The thing is, where I live and where my parents live (two large but not GIANT cities - Birmingham, AL, and Oklahoma CIty) there isn't one place where my 4-cylinder Accord ever has close calls due to lacking power. When my 4-cylinder Accord can out-accelerate the massive number of Tahoes and Expeditions on the road, I don't feel that extra power is a need. It is a want, and that's ok, but it isn't one of My needs. The mixed city average of 29 MPG with upper 30s to 40 MPG highway money in this college student's pocket, too!
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    There is a town about 20 miles away from where I live, and we travel this road often. It's a single lane road with not many areas to pass. If I get behind a slow-poke (going 40mph in a 55mph zone) in the first 5 miles I may only get one or two chances to pass him. There are times when if I only had a 4cyl, I would have to follow the slow-poke the entire 20 miles. With the V6, I don't need much of a gap to complete the pass. My wife says I am obsessed with not wanting to follow behind other cars, and she may be right about that. I agree grad, that the V6 is not necessary, but it sure is nice, in these situations.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Sure it is, but of course, fast is relative. You'll remember my other car is a 130 hp Accord with a 4-speed auto, so the 5-speed auto 166 horsepower Accord is as much faster to me, as the 244 hp is to the 166 hp with you. In my 130 hp car, I typically don't challenge people trying to race around me to cut me off, but in my 166 hp Accord, it is much easier.

    I say all this to say: I understand exactly where you're coming from.

    To my friend I graduated high school with, my cars are "slow, and slower." Of course, his FIRST car was an Acura 2.5TL with 175 hp, and his current car is a 3.2CL with 225 hp. To ME however, my cars are "adequate, and quick."

    It is all relative.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    It is all relative.

    My previous Accord was 140hp, and I was happy with it for a long time. If I would have test driven only a 4cyl.(and not the V6) when I was shopping, I probably would have bought one, and been satisfied with it. I tried the V6 out, and that was it, I couldn't go back. Did you try the V6 out, when you were shopping?
  • Isn't it great we live in a country where we have so many choices?
    I liven in Colorado where Subaru's with Turbos rule the mountain roads. Just a few miles away, in Kansas, any 4 banger will do because the altitude is low (lots of air) and the highest hill is 2 feet hi.
    In California, I need and want HP with moderate MPG.
    Thank a soldier for helping you have a choice.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I had driven a 2003 V6 Accord before, and honestly, can't tell much difference around town. Either car will bark the tires from a stop (meaning it is more than enough for this teenager's insurance! :)). On the highway is where the V6 shows its difference. I tried several of the Accord's competitors V6s, but their extra power didn't help me overcome their interiors (Sonata, Fusion) or overall boredom (Camry). I didn't need to drive a V6 Accord (the price was more than I wanted to pay, and a really fast car isn't what I [or my folks] were after) because the 4-cylinder was much more than necessary, and plenty of fun.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    There are times when if I only had a 4cyl, I would have to follow the slow-poke the entire 20 miles.

    Only if you don't know how to pass correctly. :P

    The 45-65 passing acceleration time differs by maybe 0.5 to 1.0 seconds between these 4 and 6 cylinders. I think this means you'd need maybe 40-80 feet extra acceleration space for the 4 cyl.

    All this means is that you would have to back off that little bit further behind, so that you can accelerate in your own lane and then execute the passing maneuver while spending the same amount of time in the other lane as you would with the V6.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,229
    My point was obvious to me when I wrote it. Rush Hour in LA is stop and go, speeding along at 0-10MPH. That's when the wimpy econo boxes and (many) of the Hybrids can get up to a safe merge speed. Said with tong-in-cheek humor inflection I grew up and learned to drive in LA. I would go stark raving nuts if I had to drive it every day now.


    Got it now. I figured you were making a joke but I just wasn't getting it at the time. :shades:
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    All this means is that you would have to back off that little bit further behind, so that you can accelerate in your own lane and then execute the passing maneuver while spending the same amount of time in the other lane as you would with the V6.

    Which is exactly what I had to do with my old 140hp Accord. And it still took longer to get around. Not to mention you don't always have the time for such advanced timing maneuvers. Then sometimes I would accelerate hard, get right up to the rear of the car in front of me, then realize it was too close a call to go for it. Then have to hit the brakes, and maybe try again later. With the V6, I don't spend extra time in preparing to pass. I just hit it, and go. Much easier. I have to admit the 4cyl was a challenge, and actually fun sometimes, when the maneuver worked. :D
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Not to mention, the 4-cylinder Accords have a tossability (is that a word? :)) that the V6s just don't have. The V6 is like the grown-up Accord. It's smart, all business. The 4-cylinder isn't as quick, but it seems to have more fun getting there.

    That may not hold true in everyone's opinion, and that's ok. I don't have to agree with everyone all the time :)
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    Not to mention, the 4-cylinder Accords have a tossability (is that a word? ) that the V6s just don't have.

    The 92 Accord was much smaller, and lighter, and tossability (the word seems to fit, real or not) was it's game. That car was made specifically for a 4cyl engine. A V6 would have never fit under that hood (without a gigantic shoehorn). I feel the current Accord is much more suited for the V6 engine, and not as tossable as the 92, with either engine.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I feel the current Accord is much more suited for the V6 engine, and not as tossable as the 92, with either engine.

    I hear ya, I just felt like the 4-cylinder was lighter on its feet, although lacking the muscle under the hood that the V6 posseses.

    Knowing how my 1996 was also a handler in its day makes me want to pony up some $ and replace the shocks and struts. The ones I have are the original stock ones (172k mostly hwy miles). The car handles nicely and predictably, but I can't help but feel it is nowhere as sharp as it once was.

    The ride on bumpy interstates sure is nice though; much softer than my 06! :)
Sign In or Register to comment.