Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Honda Accord I4 vs V6

11113151617

Comments

  • graphicguygraphicguy Member Posts: 13,665
    sloquark....years ago I had a TL. I liked it. Had some issues with the transmission (slow to engage, jerky on takeoff). But, the dealer took very good care of me and addressed my issues promptly. Still, my biggest issue was the handling of a front driver.

    Then, I drove an '08 TL-S. Much improved over my old TL.....actually, it was pretty dramatic. I almost pulled the trigger on it....particularly since my dealer was making a heck of a deal on them at the time (could have picked one up for $33K and change).

    Then, I drove the Accord. Again, for a front driver, very impressive. I certainly enjoyed it more more than it's more expensive cousin...the TSX. Throw in the price differential (about $4K less for the Accord vs the TSX and $7K less than the TL-S), I decided I would be just as happy with the Accord EX-L w/Navi. Pocketed the money. Bought the Accord.

    Been extremely pleased. It's actually exceeded my expectations....especially for the price.

    Haven't looked back.

    Still, your TL-S is sweet. It was a very close 2nd for me. Two different cars, however.
    2023 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring
  • gyushergyusher Member Posts: 67
    I do think the line between the two cars is shrinking. . . The Accord I drive now (08 EX-L coupe 4cyl) is much more car than the Acura Integra I bought new only a few years ago (10-12 iirc). That car was also a red coupe but somewhat smaller. Still I loved that car and put close to 100K on it during the year I owned it.

    At the time I was a traveling salesman and put around 100K on my cars each year.

    1999 I drove an SVT Contour that was great fun but my 08 Accord would be close if not stronger. In 98 I drove a Cavalier Z24 also a 4 cyl car from Chevrolet no less. That said that Z24 was a great car and provided me with over 80K miles that year.

    Each of these 4 cyl cars (except the V6 Contour) gave me over 30mpg, cost less than their performance would lead you to believe. My new Accord reminds me of the good parts of each of those cars. All red by the way. . . just so happened, wasn't planned.

    Anyway my 4 cyl Accord reminds me of the Integra I had with it's 7000+ redline and her power band not to mention her road holding manners. . . I'm sure I will love this Honda just as much or more than the others I've owned. . .
  • efferseffers Member Posts: 25
    Looking to purchase my first vehicle, and would like input on whether to get the V6 or the I4 Accord Coupe? Would like the manual transmission, for sure.

    Would the 5 speed manual I4 be that much different than the 6 speed V6? I would test drive both and compare but unfortunately, I am only starting to learn stick shift!

    Obviously the V6 will require more fuel per 100km but is it excessive?

    I expect to get at least 10 years out of this car, and will be commuting to work about 130km each day (about 80 miles). Currently drive an automatic Civic and passing on the highway is brutal!

    Thanks!
  • dpmeersmandpmeersman Member Posts: 275
    I applaud you for desiring a manual tranny. The 4 with the manual may be a better choice just from a maintenance standpoint. Using a 50 week work year you'll be putting on 20,000 miles a year just commuting. Add another 5,000 miles annually for normal vacation trips and just running around and your up to 25,000 miles annually. In approximately 4 years you'll have an expensive timing belt/water pump preventative maintenance job to do on the six that you won't have to do on the 4 as it uses a timing chain. If most of your miles are hwy then the 4 will provide you with better economy and enough zip to pass. If none of these points concern you and you want more than just "enough" zip, the 6 will thrill you come passing time, particularly as you will have the only 6 cyl available in a gen 8 Accord without VCM. The fact of the matter is both are great cars with the manual tranny. Judging from what I've seen posted in these forums, the 6 will provide you with better straight line acceleration, but due to all around lighter weight and a better balance in weight distribution, the 4 will handle the curves better. No real wrong choice here, you'll have to decide which one matches you driving style.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Member Posts: 1,724
    Well, since you want to keep the car for 10 years or so, makes sure you are happy. Its that simple. Really they are both great cars.Drive them both. This is something you'll have to live with.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Considering you're coming from a Civic automatic, the 4-cylinder (190 hp) will feel like a rocket ship in comparison to your current car, and likely have all the power you want!
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    Who knows what gas could cost in 10 years. Go with the I4.

    Don't forget you will also save a fair amount on the purchase price - would you prefer the V-6 or the I4 AND a really nice huge flat screen TV. :)

    This might be more of a choice if you wanted the automatic, but the stick makes the 4 quite quick.
  • efferseffers Member Posts: 25
    Thanks for the replies guys.

    I agree, I most likely won't know the difference between the I4 and V6 coming from an auto Civic. The distance commuting to work will be driven mostly highway as well... but it seems quite reassuring from the posts above that the I4 would be able to handle anything thrown at me.

    5 speed transmission versus 6 speed transmission - is there much difference?

    The chrome accents/fogs which come with the V6 are quite tempting though. Like I said previously, I wish I was an expert at driving manual as I could test drive both and figure out which one is best but unfortunately I plan to do most of my learning on this vehicle!
  • gyushergyusher Member Posts: 67
    I wish I was an expert at driving manual as I could test drive both and figure out which one is best but unfortunately I plan to do most of my learning on this vehicle!

    It would seem to me that if I was fixing to spend 30 grand on an automobile I'd know how to drive it first. Not trying to be a butt. . . but. . . find a way to learn how then drive them both first.

    I bought a red coupe 4 cyl EX-L automatic. On the surface you would think I made a huge mistake as I would have prefered the V6 6MT. I like power, the more the better so why did I buy the 4/AT and why do I like it as much as I do?

    The fact is I learned long ago that what I think I want isn't always what I really want. The 4 cyl car with an automatic would appear to be a million miles from what I really wanted or thought I wanted. That said however I know that in the real world and at 80+% of the time I'm in a car I'm on the way to work and bogged down in traffic. The other 20% of the time the cruise is on and I'm sailing down the interstate at 65-70 trying to stay awake. I opted for the leather and a few bells and wistles over the big motor. In my case it was a matter of initial cost plus what did I really need vs what I thought I wanted. Yes it would be great to have the V6. . . wonderful to be exact but don't sell the 4 banger short.

    You really need to drive them both before making your decision even if they are automatics. Drive them both first you'll be glad you did.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Member Posts: 1,724
    I like your post! It is true, I almost consider that my downfall, as I say I want something, have it all planned out, and then when it is presented to me, I pick something completely different. Am I happy? Most of the time, yes. I think picking the 4cyl engine is perfect. The car will show a little green, and most will never know that the car is actually a 4cyl. Plus, you really are not going to feel anything different in the drivers seat. I too have been saying that when I buy my next Accord in about a year, I will get the V6, but would be just as happy in the 4? Yes. Most always get more than what they need. Just like my co-worker getting V8 Dodge Charger R/T only to drive it a few blocks from home. That poor engine is suffocating. But, she wanted a V8.

    By the way, the Red, or the Blue in the coupe is truly amazing!
  • tallman1tallman1 Member Posts: 1,874
    I wish I was an expert at driving manual as I could test drive both and figure out which one is best but unfortunately I plan to do most of my learning on this vehicle!

    FWIW, I was in your position many years ago (1980 to be exact.) I had minimal experience with a stick but I knew I wanted one in my first brand new car. I test drove an automatic Datsun (now Nissan) 200SX coupe. Due to trade issues, Japanese cars weren't easy to get then so I had to wait a month or two but my 5 spd stick finally arrived in the color I wanted. I've been driving manuals ever since.

    Go ahead and drive both the I4 and V6 auto to see which you like. Then know that the manual will be that much more fun when you get it! It won't take you long to get good at driving it either.

    For the record, when I tested an I4 automatic in 06, I thought it was pretty sluggish... even when compared to my 95 EX manual. When I drove the I4 manual, it was a world apart. :)

    06 Accord EX-L I4 manual w/Navi
  • cman7cman7 Member Posts: 19
    Want and need. The last three posts are so timely. I purchased an I4 a few weeks ago. When I test drove it I was impressed with the amount of power that it had for a 4 cyl auto.It has only preformed better as I have driven it. It has more HP than my 1996 Accord V6 (170) vs. (190). I have enjoyed driving it.

    That aside I have had this feeling in my mind that I should purchased the Acura TL instead.I am thinking that I am missing some enjoyment that the I4 does not have The driving force has been the price drop in the 08 TL. I have even gone as far as pricing what my loss would be too exchange cars.

    Do I need a TL with my driving habits ? No. Will it cost me more to maintain the 6 cylinder engine (gas,maintenance) ? Yes a lot more, especially with gas prices sure to go back up.. Does the E-XL that I purchased have just about all of the upgrades that I would use everyday ? Yes.

    OK , then why do I think I need a TL. It is something that gets in your head too let you think that you are in NEED of that product,when the truth of the matter is that the I4 is 95% of what I need, and will use. I have made up my mind to save the $6000 difference and enjoy a few more trips with my wife in the next couple of years.
  • efferseffers Member Posts: 25
    THANKS to everyone for keeping things in perspective. I guess when I do think about it, I don't really NEED a V6, it'd just be nice to have.

    To the poster regarding learning how to drive stick; I feel comfortable generally cruising around in a manual transmission vehicle but what I meant to say was that due to my lack of knowledge driving manual, I would not be able to tell much difference between the I4 and V6 while driving. The suggestion to drive both in automatic is a great one and I will request this once the 09 vehicles start appearing in showrooms (in Canada).

    Other than that, too bad the I4 does not come with the fogs and/or the dual exhausts. I think the dual exhausts add considerable sportiness to the rear view.
  • gyushergyusher Member Posts: 67
    I researched and drove all the cars that I could that cost 2 to 3 times what my little red coupe cost then I picked the car that I could afford that reminded me of the spendy ones that I liked most or had many of the same traits and feelings I had while driving what I could not afford.

    Next I drove the entry level econo boxes and moved up to what I felt I could afford. In both cases I landed on the same red Honda coupe. . .

    I almost bought a leather loaded Kia Optima until I slept on it and realized that I could drive the Accord for not much more. I was driving to the Kia place to buy that Kia but turned into the Honda dealership and drove home in the Honda instead. . . Actually I spent several months looking hard. I kinda knew all along what it would be in the end, just wanted to make sure I was right in my thinking processes. . .
  • dolfan1dolfan1 Member Posts: 218
    Do take into consideration most of the posters here chose the I4, Honda sells a lot more of them compared to the 6.

    No, you probably really don't NEED the 6. Neither did I, but I bought it anyway. Because I wanted the power it provided. I would recommend you take the advice to drive both. You may find you're like me and a few others, in the minority that prefer the most powerful engine available, regardless of whether it is needed or not.

    This is especially true if you're planning on keeping it for a long time. You'll want to be certain you buy the car that will make you satisfied= in terms of performance, cost to operate, etc.

    Weigh all the angles, then make the decision. If you choose the 4, with the standard tranny, you'll probably never lack for needed power. I you go with the 6, you'll just have more fun when you decide to utilize it's power. You need to figure out which one suits YOU best, not what suits the majority of the posters here. Either way, you'll be in a Honda so you've made a wise purchase no matter what.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Do take into consideration most of the posters here chose the I4, Honda sells a lot more of them compared to the 6.

    Ok, mister "6 of one or a half dozen of the other."

    ;)

    Honda sells more I4s than V6s. Shoppers choose the I4 more than the V6. Its the same thing read both ways! :shades:
  • dolfan1dolfan1 Member Posts: 218
    The point I was trying to make to the poster who was shopping for a car was since there are more 4 owners than 6, it stands to reason there will be more favorable comments towards the 4 vs the 6 in the forum, and to take that into consideration.

    The important thing is not what the majority thinks, but what the individual looking for a car thinks and feels. Hence, it's always a good idea to test drive both, then weigh all the angles before deciding.
  • efferseffers Member Posts: 25
    Is maintenance really that much higher on the V6 compared to the I4 as one of the previous posters mentioned?? Again, looking to keep this car in the long term.
  • dpmeersmandpmeersman Member Posts: 275
    The timing belt/water pump change around 109,000 miles for the 6 cyl is all I'm aware of, excluding the obvious like 2 additional plugs at time of replacement. Both engines are pretty low maintenance.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Member Posts: 1,724
    Picking a car is fun, exciting, but all at the same time, it is hard, annoying, nerve racking. Especially for me, I can drive all the coolest cars, and go, wow, I like that car. But, cannot decide which car to get. I talk the talk, and say, I am going to get this, but all the options, looks, nick picks. It makes me go insane sometimes...lol. But I find myself to use this crazy method of making choices at other times in my life. Down to picking the paint color for a wall, literally hours just to pick a color. Its like, just pick one and go for it. Pick the one that you keep coming back to, of course within reason. You got the person inside you going, get what you really want, then, you later have that other person screaming practicality. Ah, well, I don't have to think about trading for about a year, thats when I will want to do it, though my lease is not up for longer than that....lol. I'll do it though.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I gotcha. :)
  • ljgbjgljgbjg Member Posts: 374
    TL uses premium fuel too
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Always buy the car you WANT,within reason. You will keep the car longer. The fewer number of cars you own over your lifetime;the more money you can accumulate.
  • cman7cman7 Member Posts: 19
    I guess my point was,the car I want may not be the car i need. Gas prices are returning to $4 this weekend and beyond. Do I WANT to give the oil barons the extra money per year that it takes to run the TL engine on premium gas. The I4 will give me 90% of the performance at $6000 less,plus $800 less a year on average to run. I will keep the I4 for at least 10 years.Let's do the math. A total savings of at least $14,000. Sometimes what you want is not what you need.

    I could afford a TL, but common sense tells me I probably won't use the performance as I sit in the famous Atlanta traffic parking lot each day . Believe me it was close,but the right side of my brain took over my thinking. In addition the only additional feature that the TL has that i would use is the bluetooth. I can take that $14000 and use it to travel farther in my I4.
  • ljgbjgljgbjg Member Posts: 374
    You would be wise to not only get the I4 but with automatic. I love cars and have had many hi performance cars. While living in VA I had to travel to DC on business regularly and deal with "rush" (now there's an oxymoron!) hour traffic on I-95 and the beltway. Stop and go - just like the opening scene from the movie "Office". I had a wonderful Acura Legend Type II 6 speed Coupe that did 0-60 in about 5.8 and topped out at 155 governed. But in that stop and go traffic??? A total headache - clutch in, clutch out, clutch in - put it in neutral, clutch out. Traffic moves a car length - repeat. Talk about burning out a clutch!!!!

    No, if possible get a beater to commute in(a Series I Legend will give you about 22-25 MPG on regular, has plenty of go, and it is still possible to find one on auto trader or e-bay for well under $10,000 with plenty of life left in it - do your autofax) and have the TL in the garage for weekend fun. Otherwise - get the EXL with the 190 HP I4. You'll be much happier. :)
  • cman7cman7 Member Posts: 19
    I agree with you on the beater. We have a 98 Toyota Camry 6 cyl. It gets about 25 mpg,and is still very reliable. We use it as our shopping mall dent taker. I just would not trust it for long hauls.

    I am enjoying the I4 more and more each time I drive it. It wants to cruise at around 70-75 miles per hour. It can accelerate to the highway speeds that I need to enter the expressway without a problem. It is turning into an excellent choice. I am averaging about 28 mpg, and improving. In addition, the I4's 190 hp is almost equal to the 192 hp of the 98 Camry. Like someone mentioned before. What we considered great hp a few years ago, is now not enough. We WANT more, for what reason ?
  • dolfan1dolfan1 Member Posts: 218
    We WANT more, for what reason ?

    I think two factors are at work.
    1. As the years go by the technology gets better and better. Today's cars provide far more power than yesterdays cars at about the same gas mpg. So, you get the best of both worlds. Couple that with:
    2.. Until recently, gas was considered reasonably priced. So automakers started making them a little bigger & heavier, and in doing so had to utilize the extra power the continually improving technology provided.

    Now you'll probably see them move to placing less emphasis on power & more on economy. If the current trends continue.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The size and weight of these cars has increased by a noticeable margin over the years. My 1996 Accord weighs 2,855 lbs, and has 130 horsepower. Today's Accord 4-cyl weighs nearly 3,300 lbs, and has a larger front area to push down the road.

    Something you don't need to forget is that while the new Accord EX I4 makes 60 more horses than my old 1996 Accord (130 vs. 190), the torque difference isn't nearly that big; with my old Accord making 139 lb-ft versus 162 for the new Accord.

    Don't get me wrong, I also have a newer 2006 Accord 2.4L that makes 166hp/160lb-ft and it is plenty quick (has been tested to be quicker than the 2008 Accord with the 190hp engine, actually). I love the 4-cyl, but the reasoning behind more power makes sense.

    Your I4 Accord is not as powerful as the V6 Camry you had, it lacks a lot of torque relative to your Toyota (almost 50 lb-ft!).
  • robgraverobgrave Member Posts: 65
    "...I also have a newer 2006 Accord 2.4L that makes 166hp/160lb-ft and it is plenty quick (has been tested to be quicker than the 2008 Accord with the 190hp engine, actually). I love the 4-cyl, but the reasoning behind more power makes sense."

    I think they may have found the "sweet spot" with the 2006 (or, more generally, the seventh generation) 4 cyl. I drive one as well, and can't imagine why I would want more power. With the larger and heavier 2008, however, I might be inclined toward the 6 cyl., from what reports I've read.

    Anyway, I intend to keep my 2006 for a good long while. All things considered, it is one heck of a fine automobile.
  • efferseffers Member Posts: 25
    I have been reading a few articles and they state problems with the 6 speed gearbox on many Honda/Acura V6 models. Something about a grinding 2nd gear and 3rd gear pop. Is this a problem that frequent all Accord V6 MT models??? Still confused on whether to choose the I4 or V6.
  • efferseffers Member Posts: 25
    And to the other poster... I will be driving 90-95% highway on my 60km commute to work each day.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Member Posts: 1,724
    Okay, I just sat in a new 09 Honda fit, quite impressed with the whole package.

    But, wanted to state that it has the paddleshifters on the steering wheel controlling the 5spd transmission. Where in the world is this on the 09 accord? You would think that if they could put this option on an 09 fit, surely they can put this on the 09 Accord!!? Heck even the G6 and the new malibu have this... Kind of a bummer. :( I know some don't feel its a big deal, but for me, its half the fun! That is why sometimes I take my moms 08 Jetta SE to work.
  • keitha3keitha3 Member Posts: 124
    Yep, it doesn't make sense. I remember wondering the same thing when I got my '09 Accord. Why doesn't it have paddle shifters, when our '08 Fit does? The only thing that I could think of was that you might need to gear down a notch when passing at freeway speeds with the Fit, but that doesn't make clear sense to me, not when so many cars with lots of power have the same feature or a variant thereof.

    Then, it hit me. They probably just wanted to hold the cost down.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    I would think cost cutting on an "economy" car (Fit) would be more important than on a mainstream family car (Accord). I think it's more an indication of the target buyer for each car. I think a lot of Accord buyers (me included) would consider paddle shifters just another unnecessary gadget I would never use.
  • dpmeersmandpmeersman Member Posts: 275
    Those in Australia buying a new Accord get the paddle shifters. Check out their web site: http://euro.honda.com.au/about-the-car_performance-handling.aspx

    I've mentioned in other posts that Honda has fallen behind in the area of automatic transmissions compared to it's competitors. These are my sentiments and they have been echoed of late by most automotive journalists. The 09 Acura RL, a car that for some will be leaving the dealers lot at a cost of $50,000 still has a 5 spd auto tranny. While this is barely acceptable at the Accord level, at the $50,000 price range it's just wrong. It's been mentioned on these pages that just adding extra gears doesn't necessarily make it better and I'm sure that there are some 6 spd auto's that probably aren't as good as Honda's 5 spd. But we are talking Honda here. I think they are willing to take the hit in the press and in their luxury sales market while they perfect a more advanced tranny which I'm guessing will show up in their 2010 lineup. A little late by it's competitors standards but late & performing flawlessly is better than early and having another tranny fiasco on their hands.
    I've been really impressed by VW/Audi DSG transmission. By most accounts it has gotten better to the point where it will outperform their same cars equipped with manual transmissions. It's been available for about 3 years now and I'm wondering where I can dig up some info regarding reliability of this tranny. If it is a high maintenance & expensive to maintain item, VW/Audi owners are used to this. Honda/Acura owners aren't.
    I'm hoping that they have seen what others have done in the area of transmissions and when I purchase the Gen 9 Accord one year after it's initial release it will have a 6 to 8 speed tranny that will do them proud.
  • dvsuttondvsutton Member Posts: 48
    Niether. After owning a Honda Odyssey with two trans rebuilds, sliding door falls off its tracks, door rattles, rotors have to be replaced every 10k miles, dash lights flicker, and leaks oil, I would not ever, consider any Honda badged product. I don't care if they made toilet paper. I wouldn't buy it.
  • stevecarstevecar Member Posts: 148
    That Euro Accord, I believe is the Acura TSX here.Different car.
  • dpmeersmandpmeersman Member Posts: 275
    Your right, 'my bad. This link takes you to the spec sheet for the non-euro Accord with the V6 and paddle shifters:

    http://www.honda.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/internet/Honda.com.au/Home/Showroom/Acco- rd/Specifications/
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Acura isn't the only luxo-brand selling 5-speed autos, ya know. Infiniti's M45, which can cost over $65,000, uses a 5-speed automatic.

    Just a heads-up. :shades:
  • graphicguygraphicguy Member Posts: 13,665
    I'm ambivalent about a couple of popular features. One of them is paddle shifters (or manumatic transmissions). The very good ones (the VW/Audi DSG is very good) offer an actual performance benefit. While I haven't tried all the rest, I've tried enough of them. Biggest beef is the fact that when you need them most (like needing to down shift into a corner) always has the paddles in an uncomfortable position to really utilize them. Aside from the DSG variety, the shifts aren't quick enough, either.

    The other is push button start. I know that feature is getting a lot of traction. To me, I don't see the huge benefit. I have to grab my keys to drive my car anyway. A simple insert key and twist maneuver just isn't a hassle to me. Plus, there's always the worry of whether the battery in the fob has enough juice.

    Regarding the Acura TL vs the Accord has been an ongoing debate. While I believe a good case can be made with the ('08) standard TL vs the Accord (V6), once you get into the TL-S ('08), the pendulum swings to the TL-S. Honda/Acura is probably the most adept at taming the torque steer/understeer demons in powerful FWD cars.

    Given the fact that you can buy an '08 TL-S for roughly $32.5K-$33K right now, that's a tough decision. I almost pulled that trigger.

    But, like most of you, I had to keep reminding myself what my automotive goals were. That is good MPG on regular fuel. Comfortable car with plenty of power (190HP I4 in the Accord). But, if I were in the market for a V6 Accord (around $28K after negotiations), I'd opt for the TL-S with the killer stereo, more power, better warranty, better looks?, for roughly $4K-$5K more.

    The new '09 TL will hold close to MSRP, at least for awhile. That spread will be more like $10K over a V6 Accord....even more if you opt for the SH-AWD version. And the "Styling Update" is questionable on the new TL.

    TSX didn't even enter into it as it costs about $2K more (after negotiations) for a car that doesn't improve appreciably over the I4 Accord. Plus, it too takes premium fuel.
    2023 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Member Posts: 1,724
    I consider the Honda Accord the main stream sedan, so I would think they would keep up on items like this. I think the market has changed slightly when I have seen many young people driving the accord, even the new 08. A few older folks. I don't get in the car, and feel like I am driving a buick. Its quite modern, perhaps, that why so many people like it. When I am older, I don't see myself getting into some honkin buick, no offense to anyone here... but, why not have fun, and treat yourself to the life you have had, and get the car you want. But, some are not into cars as much as us here, right?

    There are so many cars that now have the shiftronic option, and many of are standard even on the base model. Even the 09 G6 4cyl has a 6spd sport option. I love the DSG in the VW, in fact, I would totally drive a VW wolfsburg edition with the 2.0T 6spd DSG, that thing simply rolls! If the Accord does not have the option by next spring, then I will try for the TSX, but I would totally still buy the Accord even without this though, because I love it.

    I don't think they are cost cutting, the option has been on the Acura for years now, so it is just a matter of getting it put on the Accord, but shocking to see it on a Fit, the 117hp could possibly need it more than the accord though.
  • csr67csr67 Member Posts: 58
    I totally agree with the comments that paddle shifters on a normal automatic are a gimic and a waste of time. If you want to manually shift your Accord, just drop it down to 1, and bump your way through the gears.... Now when Honda jumps on the bandwagon and comes up with a nice twin clutch sequential like VW/Audi, then I'd welcome the paddles. On many cars (Chevy Malibu, etc...) the manu-matic paddles are a total sales gimmick. There's absolutely no benefit to them other than the "boy racer" feeling of grabbing a gear. I've driven lots of rental cars with paddles (manu-matic) and it loses it's luster after about 5 minutes of playing around. Now the VW DSG is a whole different story.... Rev matched downshifts, and lightning fast upshifts on what is really a stick shift car run by a computer.
  • dpmeersmandpmeersman Member Posts: 275
    Many valid points made here. I agree on the push button start. Some people that I work with have made that a must have for their next purchase. If my next car has it at no additional cost then so be it, but I can't see this as being a deal breaker. Like you, I've tried the DSG and feel it superior to many others. While I've pointed out that the Australian Accord does have the paddle shifters, mated to this generation Honda transmission I doubt that it can match the DSG for speed of shifts and getting most of the power to the wheels. The DSG was built from the ground up with paddle shifters in mind, while others have added them to existing builds to be competitive but they are in feature only not in speed of shifts or getting all the power to the wheels.
    Many new designs take a while to grow on you. My 08 Accord is frowned upon by many previous Accord owners, I think, for mainly 2 reasons. It's gotten to big and the sheet metal styling. I wanted a larger car and the Accord grew into something I would consider and the styling to me showed Honda was finally taking some chances instead of playing it safe. The new Acura's are showing that they are still willing to take a chance but looking at them, maybe they should go back to playing it safe. That's one ugly snout.
  • ljgbjgljgbjg Member Posts: 374
    I really don't have a problem with the number of gears except perhaps having a 6th gear taller overdrive than 5th is now. But with the flat torque curve of the V6, I cannot understand even the need for that - use the 4 other gears for acceleration and 5th for highway cruising.

    There is only one need to have many gears - no torque or a very narrow RPM operating range(like an 18 wheeler). I drove a 1966 427 Corvette - it had so much torque you could start up in 3rd and then go to 4th. You almost had no need for 1st and 2nd, AND I might add that the more gears there are in the transmission, the more complex it becomes and more expensive to repair. With the addition of a torque converter to the AT there REALLY is no need for a lot of gears, despite Lexus ads. Chevy had the two speed Powerglide for years and it was simple and cheap. The Chapparal race car used an adaptation of that transmission successfully for years, even winning Nurburgring with it.
  • graphicguygraphicguy Member Posts: 13,665
    I know much has been said about the total "goodness" of the Malibu. But, like many of you, I still felt it was lacking when compared to the Accord. The Malibu I drove had crisp road manners. It was the attention to detail that really steered me to the Accord.

    Just one example, I know the GM tried to make the Malibu's interior more stylish. But, touch one of the power window switches, and you can feel rough edges on them. Accord switches are more "finished" and refined. Another example is the steering wheel. Thick and beefy, just the right size in the Accord. Not so with the Malibu.

    I don't know about now with GM employee pricing, but the Accord and Malibu were similarly priced. Big difference was the fact that included in the Accord's price was a Nav with bluetooth. In the Malibu, you're stuck with the inane "ON STAR" service. And, at least the one I tried, you had to get a separate phone number from ON STAR at additional cost, to use the Malibu's internal microphone and speakers to do hands free calling.

    It's the little detail I notice that truly separates the Accord from its competition.
    2023 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring
  • dpmeersmandpmeersman Member Posts: 275
    After a year of driving my Accord I forgot how much a like the feel of the steering wheel. Recently gassed up my wife's 01 Protege and while I never objected to it prior to owning the Accord, it's steering wheel now feels like a toy in comparison.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Member Posts: 1,724
    I totally agree with you on GM cars, even the new models, still have that cheap feel to them, and if you look closely at the new malibu and the G6, they have pretty much all the same parts, switches, seats, Even the same lame sunroof button, that should be a circular module to adjust it or something better than that little black button, that you have to hold to have it go back to closed position. Same dome lights, It really is the little things like this that make the whole package, because I honestly rub my hand across the dash, the seats, doors, to see how it all feels. How can you get any better if you just recycle the same parts in newer cars, especially when the parts were never all that good in the first place.


    Yep, it is the details that really set them apart, that being the Accord pays more attention to this. Its not perfect, but its up there for me, compared to the value!
  • csr67csr67 Member Posts: 58
    Yes, that's the curse of GM, the interior quality is stuck in 1970. Just feel all the cheezy hard-touch plastics in a Malibu or Impala, it's a joke. As an Accord driver and frequent business renter of GM Malibu's and Impala's, I appreciate my Accord every time I walk away from the airport. The "new" Impala has one of the worst interior designs I've seen in a modern car.
  • bug4bug4 Member Posts: 370
    Perhaps the bigger issue with paddleshifters isn't any sort of performance benefit, but simply the ability to choose gears. After driving manual transmissions until I got my 08 Accord, I have grown to hate the fact that I can't choose between 4th and 5th gears. I don't need paddle shifters, but I should could use either a manual shifting mode, or even a simple over-drive shut-off button.
  • gyushergyusher Member Posts: 67
    A paddle shifter that works right behind 4 or 500HP is one thing or one in a entry level wanna be is another but in a middle of the road 4cyl Accord is yet another where I'd rather have some other feature instead.

    I do agree however that I would love to have a 4th gear in my Accord that I can hold it in. 3rd is fine for passing or in city driving but give me my 4th gear for the 40-60 range and I'm happy.
Sign In or Register to comment.