By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I own a 1985 Honda Accord 1.8L Carb. automatic with 110,000 miles.
While driving in the city, one moment it started running horrible and I barely made it home. A few weeks before it had a complete tune-up (plugs, wires, cap and rotor, timing, all filters, compression test 110-130, valve adjustment etc) and passed CA smog the first try. The car runs normal when cold, but when the choke opens and the engine idles down, it runs on two cylinders. When cold and idling I can pull the plug wires off at the dist. cap one at a time and each wire makes the engine rpm lower about the same. But when the choke opens it starts running horrible, I can pull the wires on cylinders 3 and 4 and it doesn't change the rpm at all. If I take either of 1 or 2 cyl. wires off the engine dies. In other words, when cold all cylinders are normal, but once it warms up and the choke opens and idles down, I can take the 3 & 4 plug wires off and it makes on change to the rpm. I've sprayed carb cleaner every where I thought an intake/carb leak might be and found none. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Good Luck
Thanks for all the advice!
Thank you!
http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=347007
........Richard
For a summary, they are air dams. For more detail, check out the post.
There shouldn't be any additional road noise unless you're now using different tires or only replaced, say, 2 instead of 4, and the car is running slightly uneven.
I know the Honda 2.4 I-4 is a sweet engine for a 4-banger, and if I were going to take the manual transmission I would have no problem with this. But, and this is where I'm losing sleep, because the majority of my life is spent commuting in Atlanta traffic (jams) I want the automatic tranny.
So, if I couple the 2.4 I-4 with the AT, will I regret it? I can afford the V-6 upgrade, but I seriously do not want to spend the extra $3K if I don't need to (Heck, that's my down payment on a motorcycle...).
This accord will be used mostly for commuting, but will certainly see the occasional family (wife and 3 kids) weekend trip up the North Georgia mountains. I don't expect to be racing any teenagers or anything.
All opinions are welcome!
Also if you're going with the I-4/AT, get the 7/100K extended warranty. Some people think it's a waste of money. I don't. I sleep better at night.
The price difference between the 4 and V6 is probably $2,000 or less, not $3,000. But it's likely to be a waste of money in your case because the 4 is responsive and more than adequately powered with the A/T--it's faster than it's safe to go on any city street and is plenty quick on the highway, too.
The 4 is a good road car in my experience--mine is the '04 EX-L 4 cyl sedan with A/T. It'll cruise silently at 70 to 80 MPH and get over 33 MPG doing it.
Both engines are excellent and you won't make a mistake with either one, but the 4 makes more sense for the type of driving you'll be doing..........Richard
Just wanted to metion this for those who may have missed it.
On top of that it's leaking oil faster than I can pour it in (almost), and slowly leaking power steering fluid. :sick:
I've been told so many things and I don't know what to believe...I've been told I have a clogged PVC valve, that my cat is clogged, that I have a cracked ring.
Any ideas? :confuse:
My pricing is from Carsdirect.com.
Accord LX 2.4 : $17,765 + $719 (A/T) = $18,484.
Accord LX 3.0 : $21,317
Difference : $2,833 + tax ($198.31) = $3031.31.
http://www.handa-accessories.com/accelect03.html
I don't have an '03 or '04 Accord so perhaps this is not the installed player. But considering what was said about the player on the linked site, this seems to be the player offered from the factory, or at least as an upgrade.
As for the FM transmitters, like the "iTrip" for the iPod...they are pretty good. I personally don't like the iTrip....it's range is not very good and it sometimes just scans for a station to broadcast on without actually ever finding one. I have friends that have it and got to mess around with it a bit. For where I live (NYC area), something like the Belkin Tunecast with selectable broadcast stations is a much more reliable and economical alternative. Also, the Tunecast can be opened up and altered quite easily so that it's range is more than doubled.
Hope that helps some.
PS - the previous poster is also correct, many CD recording programs default to leaving burned CDs open which means that almost no CD players will play them. Make sure you change this setting to "close session". Leaving it open means you will be able to burn more onto it later (assuming it isnt filled) in another session but most cd players will not be able to do anything with it until it is closed.
If you look at the specs for the 6 disk in-dash changer, nothing is mentioned that it plays MP3s. I also have checked my owners manual, it does say that you can use CD-Rs but not CD-RWs. Nothing was mentioned about MP3s.
I have also verified that my CD session was closed. I also made sure that I copied the MP3s to the CD in data file form, and not converted audio tracks. For a CD player to play MP3s, it must have MP3 decoding built in.
I would think that if the changer could play MP3s, it would be something they would mention as a selling point, and probably would also have a "MP3 compatible" marking on it's front.
And yes, obviously to play MP3 cds the player must have an MP3 decoder onboard, which amounts to probably another 4 cents of investment in production.
But it does sound like there is the possibility of some people with single cd players being able to play MP3 cds, we shall see.
Anyway, having a 6 disc in dash cd player is not very far away from having a MP3 compatible cd player. You can still write your own cdrs and have six of them to use on random play. This pretty much makes up for the fact that you cant play MP3 cds.
You will find that your mileage is significantly better at the speed limit, rather than at 75 to 80 mph. It's a matter of pure physics.
I average in the low to mid 30's in all flat steady-speed highway driving with my 2004 V6 AT Coupe. Hilly highway driving, with varying speeds, will lower those numbers.
Yes, the 6 disc changer makes the need for a MP3 player less, and the XM radio also helps, although when my 90 free days are up, I'm not sure if I will sign up for it. I guess MP3 is just one of the options that you wonder why they don't have it since the cost is small. It's sort of like why they don't have the tire pressure monitor option. Any car with anti-lock brakes can monitor if a tire is going soft, so why not take advantage of it??
Oh well, by the time I buy my next new car, (10 years hopefully) CD players will probably have been replaced with the next technology.
I hope Honda does the same with the refreshed 06 Accord (and maybe even the illusive AUX input).
If yes, two of the cyclinders have a cracked ring. That's why you think it's leaking oil faster than I can pour it in.
At 90, 80, 145, 123, I wouldn't worry about it as long as you can fill the oil in.
I just run until it quits.
Personally, I'd rather have a minijack input than a MP3 compatible CD player. Then you can throw in a MP3 player, tape deck, or whatever you want and blast it through the car's audio system.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you be better off posting an Acura question in an Acura forum, rather than a Honda Accord forum?
Thanks
About the V6, I know of a few people who are over the 150k mark and I haven't heard of any seal failures on those yet.
Test drive Accords with both engines--the V6 is faster, of course, but the 4 is very quick and smooth. Gas mileage is about a mile or 2 per gallon less with the V6 and both use regular gas, so fuel economy isn't much of an issue.
I think the 4 is more than fast enough and see no need for the V6, but you should make that decision on your own considering how and where you drive. With respect to acceleration, I think the 1998-2002 Accord 4 cyl., A/T had a 0 to 60 time of about 10.5 seconds, and the current Accord 4 cyl goes from 0 to 60 in 9.0 seconds. So the new 4 should feel much quicker than your '98...........Richard