Hi grad. You've undoubtedly seen my posts on this issue before. But, I couldn't agree with your post more. The more I drive my 08 (11k on the odometer now), the more I don't think Honda got the balance between size and power right. I love the size of the new Honda, but from a driver's standpoint, the damn thing is too big for the I4 engine. In my experience, above about 4500 rpm, the thing comes alive. But, that's ridiculous for driving in town and mustering ooomph off the line. I'm not 16 anymore and I want my passengers to feel like they're in a competent touring sedan - not a nitro injected import. And, unless you want the bucking bronco ride associated with dropping two gears as you nail the throttle on the highway, there is insufficient power for highway driving. The transmission consistently shifts down one or even two gears to cope with inclines.
Get the stick, and the I4 is a powerhouse. I had a loaner I4 AT this past week (2003 model) and it felt more like my first gen Odyssey in terms of engine driveability around town than my 07 I4 MT Accord.
Granted it had more scoot than the Ody when floored, but the Ody weighed 300 lbs more and had a 2.2 liter engine.
I don't consider the I4 AT to be underpowered especially when pushed hard, but the MT just feels like it is a larger more powerful engine when cruising around town. Direct connection to the gears (no torque converter), 100 lbs lighter and shorter gearing all help. BTW I never ever have to downshift on the highway. I am always in 5th gear even up steep hills.
For many people, the manual tranny is not an option, for whatever reason. They do have a V6 option though. I felt the 7th gen Accord was too big for a 4 cylinder engine, so there's no way I would have bought an 08 with a 4 cylinder. The 4 cylinder is more than adequate for SOME people, but I'm not one of them. The mileage is not that much better.
Did your plugs look bad, at 90k miles? I don't remember exactly when the manual recommends changing them (105k ?), but I haven't even looked at them yet (at 54k).
The electrodes were ok but slightly coated. Plug threads discolored. Rust ring on top side of plug. 105k definitely too long too run them in my case. The back bank plugs seemed slightly worse than the front bank plugs and 2 of them required more effort to remove. Glad I changed them at 90k. I'll change them at 5yrs. or 50k in the future. Dealer quoted me $171 for the platinums otc. Got the same oem platinum plugs for $68 at Autozone. Motor smoother on start up ,more responsive,and appears to be going farther on this 1st tank after the change.
i fill up at minimum of twice per week. at this rate, payoff is around a year, assuming 5k premium. i think a diesel accord rated at 45/50 mpg's from honda would rule.
The 190 HP I4 has more power/torque than did the 2.7 V6 from the first generation Legends and the '97 Accord. I believe I have seen 0-60 times of 8.2 secs? Very reasonable IMHO. What is more disturbing about the I4 than any lack of power is the headlight flickering which seems endemic.
The 190 HP I4 has more power/torque than did the 2.7 V6 from the first generation Legends and the '97 Accord. I believe I have seen 0-60 times of 8.2 secs? Very reasonable IMHO.
Yes you have, and that is for an automatic transmission. I think it is pretty reasonable too, but what do I know - my 130hp '96 model with a 4-speed Auto seems perfectly adequate to me, and runs 90 mph without hesitation .
It's not a drag racer; it is a family car, and serves its purpose well. The new 4-cylinder sedans from Honda and its competitors are all more than adequate. Some want more than "more than adequate" though, and there's nothing wrong with that. I drove my folks new ride, a sedan from a competing brand with 263hp; the power was NICE, but they get about 30 hwy; I'd rather have my 4-cyl Accord which still has plenty of pep, but much better mileage.
Personal choice/different strokes/yadda yadda yadda...
"Personal choice/different strokes/yadda yadda yadda.."
Exactly and I see no need for anyone to be denigrating the choice of another for those differences. I remember our 4 cyl. '83 Accord (I didn't and don't even know the HP) and cruising across PA on I-81 in the middle of the night en route from VA to Syracuse, NY at Christmas time with the cruise set at 85. It had plenty of power and it was perfectly fine.
FWIW that '83 had 75 hp. Helps to illustrate how overpowered many cars are today -especially considering the alternative is increasing mpg instead of hp.
My '80 Scirocco had 76 hp and was quite peppy. Very fun to drive.
Cars do weigh a lot more than they used to, but not long ago (the 1990s) 10 seconds for a midsize car to reach 60 MPH was seen as acceptable. SUVs could take 13-15 seconds and be "average." Now, our full-size SUVs and pickups are running to 60 mph in 6 seconds, and the slowest competitive midsize sedan runs 0-60 in the eights, and is seen as "lazy" in acceleration.
There were a few years in the late 70's when the Corvette could barely break 8 seconds to 60. Now that is near the territory of the slowest Accords. How things have changed!
Also funny how people don't consider weight and just look at hp. I still have coworkers who think their 250 to 300hp V-8 trucks with 4 speed automatics and 6,000 lbs of weight are quicker than my 166hp (170+ by old numbers) Accord with a 5 speed stick and just over 3,100 lbs of weight. They literally think my car is underpowered and their trucks are powerful beasts - despite my car being quicker.
Indeed - a close friend of mine has a 1994 Accord EX (145hp), but he had to drive his parents' Tahoe, 4.8L 285hp while his was fixed after an accident. He said he LOVED the V8 power. Having driven a Tahoe with the 5.3 (which is quicker than the 4.8), I'd say his 145hp Accord with stick is at least as fast as the 285hp Tahoe, since the Accord weighs in at 2800 lbs, while the Tahoe is over 2.5 tons.
Pretty amazing performance for a car with 75 HP!! 0-60 I believe was around 10 secs. and our cruising at 85 at 2:00 AM in PA - two adults, two kids as passengers, plus all the Christmas stuff in the trunk. I remember thinking at the time how quiet the car was, how smoothly it ran, what great mileage we got with it, and who needed anything else?
Yep, they are going to put a big V8 engine in the Accord! Making it the hot rod of the family sedan!! NOT! No, but that would be hilarious. Put a big RL engine in it! You know it would be neat to have like a Type S Accord! Now, I am not sure how many would buy it, but I would imagine some would. But, it would totally cut into the Acura's turf....lol
If I was going to get the Coupe, I would probably opt for the V6 though, with the 6spd manual. In red!
You want Honda performance? Get an S2000. Absolutely frigging unbelieveable if you have never driven one. I had my doubts - until I drove one and then bought a 2004. Once the VTEC kicks in - hold on tight!!! I scared the crap out of people with that car, and not just 0-60 in 5.7, but the 80-100 in 4th, 100-135 in 5th and 135-152 in 6th. Of course the 152 came up slowly, but I can assure you 0-60 does not once the RPMs get into the 6000-8000 range and VTEC is on. You really won't believe it - like a second engine comes on. I have driven many performance cars but NEVER anything like the S2000.
I drove both when I was test driving cars. I could definitely tell a difference. The 177hp engine was smooth and adequete. However, I thought the 190hp engine not only sounded better, but felt slightly smoother when accelerating. The high range of revs (5000-7000rpm) on the 190hp engine makes the car feel like a small rocket, where as the 177hp engine didn't feel nearly as potent.
the 190hp engine is far and away the better engine IMO.
A more appropiate comparison would be between a 2.4 inline 4 and a 2.4 V-6 or a 3.5 inline 4 and a 3.5 V-6 not a 2.4 inline 4 with a 3.5 V-6. . .
In my mind these are 2 completly different cars designed for 2 different purposes. Trying to make do with a 4 cyl engine when in reality you need a stronger V-6 is unfair to both engines.
Personally I like both cars but chose the 2.4 (08 EX-L Coupe, Red) because to me it is more suited to what I need. I could have bought the V-6 if that was what I wanted but I chose the 4 instead. I like the V-6 just fine.
To me its kinda like comparing a small block V-8 to a big block V-8. Both do the job but you have to lean on the small block more which can be great fun in itself. Of course it is effortless in the big block but in reality both do just fine depending on their purpose.
I have only around 600 miles on my Accord right now. I've jumped on it only a couple times and was impressed with her performance. Actually she is stronger than I thought she would be.
I don't mind working a little harder to get what I need plus its fun in its own right. Yes the V-6 is faster, stronger, easier etc. but it wasn't what I wanted. There is something to say about a well balanced 4 cylinder Honda that kinda reminds me of how far it has come since those first little Hondas of the early 70s.
Someone said the new "Fit" is actually larger than the first Accord. . .
The Accord 4cyl, is amazing! When compared to other 4cyl, you will soon realize, how smooth, and strong that engine really is. I love it! The v-tec really pulls. The engine has not been modified much from the previous generation, just reprogrammed. It simply pulls quite well if you need it to. I had noticed on my 06 Accord, that it had taken quite awhile to truly break-in, and as I got to about 12k or so miles, and noticed, it really had loosened up more. That is when the engine felt really good. I truly believe an engine takes awhile to break-in, even after its "factory" break-in time frame. I know this, because I have noticed it on both new cars I have had. The transmission is smoother, more predictable. I drove my car all the way down to Panama city Florida, from Indiana, and that really shows its true colors, and even in the hilly areas, it did quite well, but at some points having a bit more power would have been nice. But, the 4cyl, is quite torquey for what it is.
Sooner or later, I see myself getting the new Accord, or the new TSX, But if I get the accord, I am going all out, and getting the V6, it has the VCM, so it will help on mileage. It will be my first V6 car. The TSX, would fun as well, very futuristic. The engine having the manual shift option would be fun.
I really didn't expect any 'real' performance from the 2.4 but after close to 1K on the ticker it just gets better and better. I'm still changing my speeds and haven't pushed her very hard at this point. I know from experience that a hard break-in takes around 20-30K. Maybe a better word is 'seasoned' instead of broke-in.
I knew it would be adequate and right now that's all I was expecting. That said however I can see where this 'little sister' might turn out to be great fun as well as decent, reliable and inexpensive transportation.
I find myself grinning more now days. The V-6 is great, I know that but you expect it to be. This little girl has something to offer as well. . .
I've seen numerous time in mags like Car and Driver and Motor Trend that the ideal "driver's" Accord is the 4-cylinder with a manual transmission. It is lighter and more tossable than the V6, yet the manual adds pep when compared to the automatic.
See, I am not the only one to think that it really does take quite awhile to really break-in, and be able to see the engines true colors. The dealer did tell me, that if I were to drive a brand new 4cyl, it would feel slower than my 4cyl, that is more broken in. I have even noticed that when driving my 4cyl home from a 14hr trip, that it was more smooth and agile than it was when I drove it on the way there, as crazy as that sounds, but it totally felt that way. Its like running it out on the interstate and the hills, really broke it in, and is exactly what it needed. Its getting better and better with more miles.
I however, wish that it had a manual shift mode on it, to be able to control it even more, having this option on the automatic would make it more fun, and while keeping up with todays features on other competing models where most already have this feature standard. The sonta, has this standard on even the base models. Now of course this does not replace traditional manual, but is getting pretty close with its technology, that one wouldn't see much difference. This option would be excellent when I took my car on my trip in the hilly parts of the interstate, to control its gearing much better than the cruise control can. I feel the new 09 Accord needs to have this option! I personally would use it, maybe not all the time, but knowing that I can use it when I want, that would be nice. Having it on my mom's 08 Jetta SE, it so much fun, making it a like a little racer...lol. I am sure I would want a full manual transmission all the time, but I would certainly try to learn.
Yes, nothing really ever replaces a true manual transmission, but having the manual shift option on the automatic would make the 4cyl so much more fun. But, I would learn if it was the Accord Coupe V6 in red.
Not sure it'd be that much more FUN, but if they wanted to replace D3, 2, and 1 with the manumatic slushbox option I wouldn't complain. Personally, these do all I ever need, since 4th gear isn't going to provide much more engine braking than 5th.
I've seen numerous time in mags like Car and Driver and Motor Trend that the ideal "driver's" Accord is the 4-cylinder with a manual transmission.
Not "ideal" for me. The 4 cylinder doesn't have enough passing power on the highway, manual or not. I shift a manual every day, and it's no big thrill to me. A long looping on-ramp is all I need for fun. Playing with the "big dogs" out on the interstate can be fun too. The V6 is needed for that. From 70mph up, the 4 cylinder doesn't have much kick.
I think its all a matter of what you are comfortable with. For years we had dirt bikes that we took camping just about every weekend.
One was a little 60mph Honda 175 and the other a Suzuki RM-400 that would truly stomp you if you weren't careful. Of course it was a blast to ride but everyone fought over that little Honda simply because you could run that rascal flat out balls to the wall without wondering if you would be alive at the end of the day. It was easy and forgiving. On the other hand drive that Suzuki like that and you better be competent or it would hurt you.
Sometimes its more fun getting all the good out of something when you have to work a little to do it. . .
Yes for 99% of everything you do the V-6 is easier and we all know it will go faster, last longer, have more resale and be a hell of a lot easier but still it is great fun to do more with less. I think more rewarding to some extent.
Its all what your used to, but for me,the 06 accord 4cyl, has plenty of passing power in "normal" situations, but the interstate can be more tricky with hills, luggage. My 4cyl did great though despite. Honestly it was truly more than enough power on basic highways going 50mph and needing to pass, and noticed I had to not push too hard, as I would be up to 80mph in no time, it really likes to run. This is from my experiences, but that all being said, are there times I have wished I had a V6, yes, of course, it'd be fun, and sometimes, the 4cyl, occasionally wants to hide when you need it the most, points where you thought you could get the power you needed to do something, and it was lacking.Than other times, where you thought, Wow! the 4cyl is really athletic. But, is it more than ample for what I need? yes.
Now if you are a driver that is on the interstate constantly, than you need to get the V6, its the only way you can smoothly, and comfortably handle the conditions of passing, hills, on ramps. That would be a big help. Now, a 4cyl can do this just fine, but the V6 would certainly be there for you more when you need it. The 4cyl downshifts too much, which is sorta annoying, seems a little lost. I saw a Lexus pass on the interstate for miles and miles, and it was on hills, and it looked as though it took no effort to run the road with its power. I am sure it was a V6, not a V8.
To me, on the interstate, there's no such thing as "playing with the 'big dogs'" from 70 mph and up. I'll agree that compared to a big V6 (my folks' new 3.5L Taurus is my best and most recent comparison) the 4-cyl feels lacking with passing power. To me though, if I find myself flooring it to pass something above 70 MPH I should check myself; the highest limit around here is 70 MPH, and if I'm wanting to go a LOT faster than that (to the point 166hp isn't enough to meet my needs, something is wrong. Obviously, others feel differently.
Playing for me is a twisty back-road on the way to the Warrior River (look it up in AL Geography ). The limit is 45 but has many curves that suggest 20 or 25 mph), the Accord can take them much quicker and never squeal a tire. It's just a fun drive that is lightly traveled and really shows some of the athleticism of the Accord's chassis and suspension tuning.
There are plenty of roads where you can stay within the legal limits and have a ball doing it. . . I know the area you speak of well. I worked out of Cullman for years and lived in South Georgia.
In northern California when I-5 was not completed in the Yreka caynon it was 2 lane and many, many fast turns. Thinking I was doing something in those days with my Fiat 124 Sport Coupe and Triumph GT-6 and TR-4 plus a few factory hot rods (427 Fords) I had great fun in that caynon. My new 4 cyl Honda would outperform all those cars (except the Fords of course). Kinda wish that road was still there.
I do understand the desire to own the V-6. Had one been available with the 6 speed manual I might have brought it home.
Actually I traded the V-6 for a leather loaded 4cyl EX-L coupe. Not sure I could afford a V-6 EX-L and I'd rather have the leather than the big motor. . .
I agree, there are other options on a car that could take the place of an engine. Only if the engine is sufficient enough for me to get by, which is usually true. Like for the Accord, one could get the V6 or the Navi for about the same price upgrade, I would rather have the Navigation. But, with better pricing and rates, you almost can get the loaded accord, and still get the decent mileage. I am proud of 4cyl's engines though, some are impressive. Its almost getting to the place where the V6 is getting pretty good gas mileage, so it makes it more justified.
I own an '08 Sedan with VCM and I am not convinced the it really has any great effect on MPG. Yes I have gotten 30 on the highway - 5 MPG better than our 1990 Legend with 180,000 miles on it. But is it all that better than my son's 2007? Absolutely not. And its operation, if not "right" can cause you fits - just check the VCM board here and at Temple of VTEC.
You will want to REALLY do your homework on VCM before you decide, and DRIVE the actual car you will get - VCM operation seems to vary considerably among cars - not noticeable on some, and annoyingly noticeable on others.
Good advise being offered here. Make sure you take an extended test drive of the vehicle your considering. Some owners are quite disappointed with the intrusion of VCM activity and the level in which it is perceived by both driver and passengers. Others are aware of the 6-4-3 cylinder activity do to minor surges and others wouldn't know anything was going on if not for the ECO dash indicator. As to it's impact on fuel economy I'll pass judgment based on my previous V-6 mid-size sedan. That vehicle weighed 300 pounds less, had 68 less horsepower and 48 ft/lbs less torque. It consistently returned 22 mpg city/country driving and 27 mpg's hwy. This heavier more powerful vehicle gets the same 22 mpg's city/county mix and 29 mpg consistently and 32 occasionally on the hwy if driven prudently. It appears as if their is some benefit. Would I have preferred the same engine with a good 6 spd AT and no VCM? You bet I would. Honda does seem to be trailing other mfg's in the auto transmission area. Even the new 09 Acura TL has a 5 spd and I'm not sure that is acceptable anymore in the class it's competing with. Maybe they're whipping up something revolutionary in the tranny world and it's a year or two away. We can only hope that if that is the case it will be better realized and engineered then the 6-4-3 VCM they are currently mfging.
But is it all that better than my son's 2007? Absolutely not.
Considering the 08 is larger, heavier, and has a larger engine than the 07, if it gets the same mileage as the 07, VCM must be doing something right. I also don't agree that more gears in the transmission is necessarily better. The Camry's 6 speed automatic has problems (flaring issues), and the Malibu's transmission according to reviews is reluctant to downshift (probably designed more for fuel mileage than responsiveness). The grass is not always greener on the other side. As the number of gears increases, the benefit decreases.
The fact that the car is much larger, weighs more, produces more power, yet gets similar mileage than the old, smaller-engined lighter vehicle tells me VCM helps.
EDIT: Elroy, I just saw your post above this one. Looks like we're on the same page.
Sure, if the 08 Accord was the same size, with the same engine, you would expect better mileage than the 07. The fact that the mileage hasn't gone down, should be enough.
I did my first test drive in the 4 cyl. 2008 Accord Sedan yesterday. I found the power adequate, but a bit buzzy when you really got on it. Coming from a VW GTI 1.8T I guess I'm just used to more power/torque. I'm now rethinking my purchase and considering going to the Accord V6. My price quotes are only $1500 more for the V6, and I think it's worth that for the bigger engine, dual exhaust, foglights, and homelink transmitter. I'll go drive the V6 and decide....
I just happened to park next to an 08 V-6 (EX-L)coupe today and I got a good opertunity to compare the two side by side.
The V-6 just looked like my car's big brother. Boy was it gorgeous. Still they strike me as two totally different cars, both being something of interest to me. Both something I'd buy in a heart beat and be overjoyed with whichever one I took home. Different reasons but both very desirable.
The little differences like chrome door handles and bigger tires and wheels give it a different, bigger look to me.
I'll admit that there was a brief moment of buyer's remorse after looking at that bad boy but it passed just as soon as I drove out of the parking lot. Kinda like looking at something nice then moving on.
If I had bought the V-6 it would have had to be a 6spd manual without ECM. In the long haul I like the automatic set on cruise within legal limits and trying to stay comfortable or trying to get comfortable while the miles click by as they do on a long ride. Mine does just fine doing that and in reality that's probally 99% of what I do in this car.
I drove both the EX-L 4 cyl and EX-L V6 before deciding on the V6. I wanted to go with the 4 Cyl model, but there was resonance coming from sound system. I first thought I had a window open. I know the EX 4 Cyl have the ANC system, but I didn't think it would be something I would notice. Funny though, the V6 with ANC didn't have the resonance, maybe because it was cancelled out by the "noise" it was supposed to be cancelling. I drove both without the radio on so I could hear everything. The 4 Cyl had a bit more road noise, possibly due to lack of trunk lid liner and other sound deadening, but not so much to prevent me from buying if that was the only drawback.
My son's '07 gets the same or better mileage without all the attendant complications and the potential sensations of the 6-4-3 tranistions of VCM.
I believe dpmeersman was referring to the 6 speed with a taller OD - THAT would certianly reduce hwy RPMs and improve mpg without all the complicaitons of VCM .
My son's '07 gets the same or better mileage without all the attendant complications and the potential sensations of the 6-4-3 tranistions of VCM.
But if his car weighed as much as yours, had as much displacement as yours creating 30+ more lb-ft of torque, and has as much frontal area to move, you can be sure it wouldn't get mileage as good as yours without VCM, therefore the comparison isn't apples to apples.
Of course it is not comparing apples to apples. My point is that VCM is being touted as a gas savings application. Compared to what? The 2007 V6 already delivered 30 MPG on the highway. Because the 2008 became corpulent they had to somehow come up with something?
What would be interesting is for more coupe owners to chime in - comparing VCM with AT and 6 speed manual w/o VCM. That would be a truer comparison although final drive ratios may be different.
My point is that VCM is being touted as a gas savings application. Compared to what? The 2007 V6 already delivered 30 MPG on the highway. Because the 2008 became corpulent they had to somehow come up with something?
But it IS a gas savings application; without it, your mileage would be worse. Honda doesn't tout it as getting drastically better mileage than the competition (although with EPA regs it does do darn good). I've interpreted it to mean VCM helps the Accord have good mileage. And it does.
"But it IS a gas savings application; without it, your mileage would be worse."
How can you say that? What do you have to compare it to? That is a conclusion without evidence. Which is why I said it would be nice for coupe owners to chime in - it is the only basis to compare VCM against a V6 w/o VCM. Only then, if the non VCm engines are lower MPG can you say what you did.
How can you say that? What do you have to compare it to? That is a conclusion without evidence.
The non VCM Accord Coupe has a large drop in mileage, and the current VCM Accord which weighs notably more, is larger in area, and still manages to be just as fast. If you think that the larger, heavier, larger displacement, more powerful non-VCM Accord would match that of the smaller, lighter 3.0L Accord, I've got a bridge to sell you...
Empircal evidence from owners would be nice, but you can't make a scientific evaluation from a handful of owners without VCM and a handful with it.
Comments
Granted it had more scoot than the Ody when floored, but the Ody weighed 300 lbs more and had a 2.2 liter engine.
I don't consider the I4 AT to be underpowered especially when pushed hard, but the MT just feels like it is a larger more powerful engine when cruising around town. Direct connection to the gears (no torque converter), 100 lbs lighter and shorter gearing all help. BTW I never ever have to downshift on the highway. I am always in 5th gear even up steep hills.
Heh-heh... I couldn't agree more. But everyone already knows that. :shades:
Yes you have, and that is for an automatic transmission. I think it is pretty reasonable too, but what do I know - my 130hp '96 model with a 4-speed Auto seems perfectly adequate to me, and runs 90 mph without hesitation
It's not a drag racer; it is a family car, and serves its purpose well. The new 4-cylinder sedans from Honda and its competitors are all more than adequate. Some want more than "more than adequate" though, and there's nothing wrong with that. I drove my folks new ride, a sedan from a competing brand with 263hp; the power was NICE, but they get about 30 hwy; I'd rather have my 4-cyl Accord which still has plenty of pep, but much better mileage.
Personal choice/different strokes/yadda yadda yadda...
Exactly and I see no need for anyone to be denigrating the choice of another for those differences. I remember our 4 cyl. '83 Accord (I didn't and don't even know the HP) and cruising across PA on I-81 in the middle of the night en route from VA to Syracuse, NY at Christmas time with the cruise set at 85. It had plenty of power and it was perfectly fine.
My '80 Scirocco had 76 hp and was quite peppy. Very fun to drive.
My, how things change.
Also funny how people don't consider weight and just look at hp. I still have coworkers who think their 250 to 300hp V-8 trucks with 4 speed automatics and 6,000 lbs of weight are quicker than my 166hp (170+ by old numbers) Accord with a 5 speed stick and just over 3,100 lbs of weight. They literally think my car is underpowered and their trucks are powerful beasts - despite my car being quicker.
Unfortunately many people share these thoughts.
It's about perception.
Yes - our standards have changed.
If I was going to get the Coupe, I would probably opt for the V6 though, with the 6spd manual. In red!
I'm not sure how big a difference the automatic would make, but with the stick shift the LX-P was fun to drive and very smooth.
the 190hp engine is far and away the better engine IMO.
In my mind these are 2 completly different cars designed for 2 different purposes. Trying to make do with a 4 cyl engine when in reality you need a stronger V-6 is unfair to both engines.
Personally I like both cars but chose the 2.4 (08 EX-L Coupe, Red) because to me it is more suited to what I need. I could have bought the V-6 if that was what I wanted but I chose the 4 instead. I like the V-6 just fine.
To me its kinda like comparing a small block V-8 to a big block V-8. Both do the job but you have to lean on the small block more which can be great fun in itself. Of course it is effortless in the big block but in reality both do just fine depending on their purpose.
I have only around 600 miles on my Accord right now. I've jumped on it only a couple times and was impressed with her performance. Actually she is stronger than I thought she would be.
I don't mind working a little harder to get what I need plus its fun in its own right. Yes the V-6 is faster, stronger, easier etc. but it wasn't what I wanted. There is something to say about a well balanced 4 cylinder Honda that kinda reminds me of how far it has come since those first little Hondas of the early 70s.
Someone said the new "Fit" is actually larger than the first Accord. . .
Sooner or later, I see myself getting the new Accord, or the new TSX, But if I get the accord, I am going all out, and getting the V6, it has the VCM, so it will help on mileage. It will be my first V6 car. The TSX, would fun as well, very futuristic. The engine having the manual shift option would be fun.
I knew it would be adequate and right now that's all I was expecting. That said however I can see where this 'little sister' might turn out to be great fun as well as decent, reliable and inexpensive transportation.
I find myself grinning more now days. The V-6 is great, I know that but you expect it to be. This little girl has something to offer as well. . .
I have even noticed that when driving my 4cyl home from a 14hr trip, that it was more smooth and agile than it was when I drove it on the way there, as crazy as that sounds, but it totally felt that way. Its like running it out on the interstate and the hills, really broke it in, and is exactly what it needed. Its getting better and better with more miles.
I however, wish that it had a manual shift mode on it, to be able to control it even more, having this option on the automatic would make it more fun, and while keeping up with todays features on other competing models where most already have this feature standard. The sonta, has this standard on even the base models. Now of course this does not replace traditional manual, but is getting pretty close with its technology, that one wouldn't see much difference. This option would be excellent when I took my car on my trip in the hilly parts of the interstate, to control its gearing much better than the cruise control can. I feel the new 09 Accord needs to have this option! I personally would use it, maybe not all the time, but knowing that I can use it when I want, that would be nice. Having it on my mom's 08 Jetta SE, it so much fun, making it a like a little racer...lol. I am sure I would want a full manual transmission all the time, but I would certainly try to learn.
I agree wholeheartedly! (But you already knew that.) :shades:
Not "ideal" for me. The 4 cylinder doesn't have enough passing power on the highway, manual or not. I shift a manual every day, and it's no big thrill to me. A long looping on-ramp is all I need for fun. Playing with the "big dogs" out on the interstate can be fun too. The V6 is needed for that. From 70mph up, the 4 cylinder doesn't have much kick.
One was a little 60mph Honda 175 and the other a Suzuki RM-400 that would truly stomp you if you weren't careful. Of course it was a blast to ride but everyone fought over that little Honda simply because you could run that rascal flat out balls to the wall without wondering if you would be alive at the end of the day. It was easy and forgiving. On the other hand drive that Suzuki like that and you better be competent or it would hurt you.
Sometimes its more fun getting all the good out of something when you have to work a little to do it. . .
Yes for 99% of everything you do the V-6 is easier and we all know it will go faster, last longer, have more resale and be a hell of a lot easier but still it is great fun to do more with less. I think more rewarding to some extent.
Now if you are a driver that is on the interstate constantly, than you need to get the V6, its the only way you can smoothly, and comfortably handle the conditions of passing, hills, on ramps. That would be a big help. Now, a 4cyl can do this just fine, but the V6 would certainly be there for you more when you need it. The 4cyl downshifts too much, which is sorta annoying, seems a little lost.
I saw a Lexus pass on the interstate for miles and miles, and it was on hills, and it looked as though it took no effort to run the road with its power. I am sure it was a V6, not a V8.
Playing for me is a twisty back-road on the way to the Warrior River (look it up in AL Geography
There are plenty of roads where you can stay within the legal limits and have a ball doing it. . . I know the area you speak of well. I worked out of Cullman for years and lived in South Georgia.
In northern California when I-5 was not completed in the Yreka caynon it was 2 lane and many, many fast turns. Thinking I was doing something in those days with my Fiat 124 Sport Coupe and Triumph GT-6 and TR-4 plus a few factory hot rods (427 Fords) I had great fun in that caynon. My new 4 cyl Honda would outperform all those cars (except the Fords of course). Kinda wish that road was still there.
I do understand the desire to own the V-6. Had one been available with the 6 speed manual I might have brought it home.
Actually I traded the V-6 for a leather loaded 4cyl EX-L coupe. Not sure I could afford a V-6 EX-L and I'd rather have the leather than the big motor. . .
I own an '08 Sedan with VCM and I am not convinced the it really has any great effect on MPG. Yes I have gotten 30 on the highway - 5 MPG better than our 1990 Legend with 180,000 miles on it. But is it all that better than my son's 2007? Absolutely not. And its operation, if not "right" can cause you fits - just check the VCM board here and at Temple of VTEC.
You will want to REALLY do your homework on VCM before you decide, and DRIVE the actual car you will get - VCM operation seems to vary considerably among cars - not noticeable on some, and annoyingly noticeable on others.
Considering the 08 is larger, heavier, and has a larger engine than the 07, if it gets the same mileage as the 07, VCM must be doing something right. I also don't agree that more gears in the transmission is necessarily better. The Camry's 6 speed automatic has problems (flaring issues), and the Malibu's transmission according to reviews is reluctant to downshift (probably designed more for fuel mileage than responsiveness). The grass is not always greener on the other side. As the number of gears increases, the benefit decreases.
EDIT: Elroy, I just saw your post above this one. Looks like we're on the same page.
The V-6 just looked like my car's big brother. Boy was it gorgeous. Still they strike me as two totally different cars, both being something of interest to me. Both something I'd buy in a heart beat and be overjoyed with whichever one I took home. Different reasons but both very desirable.
The little differences like chrome door handles and bigger tires and wheels give it a different, bigger look to me.
I'll admit that there was a brief moment of buyer's remorse after looking at that bad boy but it passed just as soon as I drove out of the parking lot. Kinda like looking at something nice then moving on.
If I had bought the V-6 it would have had to be a 6spd manual without ECM. In the long haul I like the automatic set on cruise within legal limits and trying to stay comfortable or trying to get comfortable while the miles click by as they do on a long ride. Mine does just fine doing that and in reality that's probally 99% of what I do in this car.
I believe dpmeersman was referring to the 6 speed with a taller OD - THAT would certianly reduce hwy RPMs and improve mpg without all the complicaitons of VCM .
But if his car weighed as much as yours, had as much displacement as yours creating 30+ more lb-ft of torque, and has as much frontal area to move, you can be sure it wouldn't get mileage as good as yours without VCM, therefore the comparison isn't apples to apples.
What would be interesting is for more coupe owners to chime in - comparing VCM with AT and 6 speed manual w/o VCM. That would be a truer comparison although final drive ratios may be different.
But it IS a gas savings application; without it, your mileage would be worse. Honda doesn't tout it as getting drastically better mileage than the competition (although with EPA regs it does do darn good). I've interpreted it to mean VCM helps the Accord have good mileage. And it does.
How can you say that? What do you have to compare it to? That is a conclusion without evidence. Which is why I said it would be nice for coupe owners to chime in - it is the only basis to compare VCM against a V6 w/o VCM. Only then, if the non VCm engines are lower MPG can you say what you did.
The non VCM Accord Coupe has a large drop in mileage, and the current VCM Accord which weighs notably more, is larger in area, and still manages to be just as fast. If you think that the larger, heavier, larger displacement, more powerful non-VCM Accord would match that of the smaller, lighter 3.0L Accord, I've got a bridge to sell you...
Empircal evidence from owners would be nice, but you can't make a scientific evaluation from a handful of owners without VCM and a handful with it.