Yes,I find no need to smooth the air flow on my stocker.
The spoiler is for looks only. It gives the car a more sporty look IMO. No street legal car needs a spoiler for down force. Even the spoilers on sports cars are there for looks, and have no real function.
Still, the point is well made. To each his/her own - we don't need to belittle someone else's personal preferences just because we don't see things the same way.
It is very true "Rear spoiler = form" in case of the Accord. I have mine on to distingish it from others. It is not worth $400, I bought the aftermarket spoiler and installed it myself.
Samething with SUV, if you don't have roof rack, the car look like a baldhead.
Let's not be so quick to denigrate the function. In next months issue, Consumer Reports will reveal, after extensive testing, that a properly installed spoiler can actually repel killer bees and also reverse the direction of a rockslide at higher elevations and low humidity. Sad to say, the model that is claimed to also grind coffee beans has thus far shown less than average reliability.
I agree completely. I was just having too much fun,I guess. Did not want any person to take offense. Could care less what others do as long as it's legal.
I am on my 4th Honda, a 2002 Accord EX V6. Previous 95 Accord was 4 cyl and did poorly in snow. Traded it b/c of that but neighbor thinks it may have been due to tires. Am ready to buy new 07 Accord Sedan and wonder how others have done in snow with 4 cyl. Is weight of V6 advantageous in snow or will 4 cyl suffice? Thanks!
I can't speak on how well my 04 Ex-L I4 would do in the snow because I drove my 88 for it's last winter. That thing went through DEEP snow without any problems, and the tires have 60k on them. I wouldn't consider that car a heavyweight in the front end.
Typically, you want less power in the snow. In this case however, I'd go for the V6 whole-heartedly if you do a lot of foul-weather driving, because it comes standard with Vehicle Stability Control. The 4-cylinder doesn't have this system available.
For the record, I'm a 4-cylinder owner and honestly could not be happier with my 2006 EX Accord. I absolutely love it. I also have a 1996 LX 4-cyl Accord (similar to your 1995 model).
The V-6 has slightly wider tires, which offset its weight advantage in the snow.
If you need to go in the snow get snow tires. They don't really cost anything because your summer tires last longer, and they help in every aspect of snow driving (unlike awd).
As the driver of a 4-cylinder Accord, I can whole-heartedly tell you that it certainly does. I do a lot of interstate driving, and I'll tell ya, it takes little effort to hit 90 MPH. The best part is, if you keep it closer to 70 MPH and are modest with your acceleration, you'll get highway mileage numbers well above the sticker (I get 38-40 MPG when I'm easy on the gas on the highway).
Let me suggest something to you. Go drive a 4-cylinder Accord. If you drive a V6, you'll be spoiled with lots of excess power. In the Accord's case, it is a matter of "quick" (4-cylinder) vs. really fast (V6).
Here's something that will give you some insight on the Accord 4-cylinder:
The current Accord I4 accelerates faster than the Accord V6 of ten years ago. It has the similar horsepower (166 hp), with more gears in its transmission now than it did then, and weight is similar.
I have an 05 EX 4cyl auto and I think the power is just fine for my needs. The 07 has a little more power. The only thing different I would do is buy the 5sp manual. I just like driving stick better than a slush box.
On the spoilers, I like the spoiler on the Hybrid. No function other than looks. Not worth the money though. I was going to buy from H&A but reconsidered when I saw the price and had to drill holes.
W/out meaning to divert the subject, I'm quite impressed w/any tire w/enough tread after 60k mi. to bite thru "DEEP" snow (that IS more than 4 inches, right?). Please uphold your civic duty & divulge the brand, model, etc. of those tires.
Does the 4cylinder Accord have an enough power for city and occasional highway use?
You won't find any problems with the I4 at all. In fact, when you drive it you will be quite impressed. Others like the V6 for the extra power but that isn't your question. There's a I4 vs V6 thread around here somewhere if you want more feedback from both sides.
I do agree that the manual is much more responsive though.
I checked Honda's website. I could not find any difference between the SE V6 and LX V6 Sedan. The only thing I found was the SE has a tiny bit more passenger space. And yet, the SE V6 costs about $1000 less than the LX V6. Can anybody point out the differences for me? And perhaps recommend either one or the other? Thank you.
Does the 4cylinder Accord have an enough power for city and occasional highway use?
This depends a lot on your driving style, and what you are used to. If you are used to high-powered/high-performance cars, and do a lot of high-speed passing, you may want the V6. Try them both out. The V6 is worth the extra $$$ for some, and not for others. Most people are obviously satisfied with the I4's power, or they would not sell soooooo many of them.
Two things I have seen are power seats, and moonroof. The LX-V6 has them, the SE-V6 does not. The tiny bit more space is probably because the power seats are larger (less rear leg room), and the moonroof (less head room) . There may be other differences too.
The manual transmission Accord goes to 60 in about 7.5 seconds (or maybe a tad more). Add about a second (or a tad less) for the automatic. Both are pretty peppy. I will show my age here, but when I was in college, a V-8 Mustang GT was about 7.5 to 60. I still remember all the car mags raving about how fast and powerfull it was - my how times have changed.
My last car was an Integra (no slouch - I have had it over 130 mph), and the Accord feels noticeably quicker. Driving on the highway is no problem at all, and the speed limit here is 75.
The tires are Bfgoodrich Control T/A. If I remember right, they had a 80k mile warranty. They were nothing pricey, just something I picked up at Sams Club. I will be selling the 88 soon, so I won't see how long they do last. They still have a good amount of tread on them.
I've been fortunate in usually getting high mileage out of tires. On my 96 Tacoma, I was able to get 102k out of the factory set of tires. I had similar luck on my old truck as well.
Yes, 4"+ a couple of times this winter. I live near Milwaukee.
I have a 4cy manual 06 model. My first two tanks both got over 34 mpg doing 55-60 mph. Now at higher normal speeds I routinely get 32 mpg on my commutes. I find extracting more mpg is more fun than more aggressive driving. Power is great and plenty. With a $3.30/gal price, it's a no brainer to go with the 4 cy.
A buick regal with a v6. i'm currently deciding between an impala and the accord 4cylinder (it may sound like an odd comparison but when i add all the costs, insurance, etc it works out to the same monthly payments here in toronto).
Ok, makes sense to me, actually. The Impala and Accord are very similar in price and usable interior space. My dad considered one for awhile, but decided against it b/c of resale value.
Go out and drive a 4-cylinder Accord. I think you'll find it has very good low-end throttle response and lots of high-rpm pull as well. Plus, the awesome AWESOME fuel mileage to boot. (Can you tell I love my Accord? )
The Impala has a smoother ride, but it has a constant nervous giggle to it. The Accord has a stiffer ride, but is solid as a rock. The Impala has more power than a 4cyl. Accord, but you will pay for the power at the pump. The Impala has softer seats than the Accord, which has more lateral support. The interior of the Impala seems a bit more spacious, but the quality of materials, placement, and workmanship are below Accord standards. The Accord's reliability would win the comparo for me, but if you are not going to have the car long after the warranty expires, it hardly matters. I am Accord bias, but I can see someone liking the Impala enough to buy one.
in either case (accord or impala) i would purchase the extended factory warranty as i would be keeping the car for at least 5 years (and hopefully longer. my regal lasted 11yrs). i'm just having a real tough time choosing:
Accord - cons: higher insurance premiums, 'smaller' engine, far fewer features (i.e. mp3/aux jack, traction, power driver seat, etc etc). full fold down seat (this really has my head scratching) pros: long history of reliability. decent looks. better gas millage. Impala - cons: it looks like a rental. questionable long-term reliability. large blind spots and narrow rear field of view. pros: lots of features. 0% financing, cheaper insurance. smoother ride, huge trunk. flip-n-fold 60/40 seats. big v6 engine.
i suppose with chrome exhaust tips the impala can look alright
You cite Honda's "smaller" engine as a con, and the Impala's "big V6" as a pro. You realize that the "smaller" engine in the Accord is faster than either engine (3.5l OR 3.9l) in the Impala?
Just keeping you informed, in case you didn't know. Honda makes much more horsepower per cubic inch than the Impala does, so don't let engine size fool you. The Impala will have the edge in grunt below 2,500 RPM, but the Honda will pull away from all Impalas (save for the 5.3l V8) when merging.
It's one of the best looking "rentals" on the lot then. I don't think they look all that bad to be honest. Better than the new Sebring/Avenger, and IMO, the Camry.
I have a close friend who has a 2006 EX-L Accord V6. His son has the same vehicle with a 4. Both are automatic. The V6 on a long interstate drive last summer got 34 MPG with cruise control set at 65 MPH. City driving this vehicle gets 21 to 22 MPG
My friend's son 4 cylinder is getting 22 MPG in city and the highest on interstate travel is 29 MPG.
The EPA highway numbers for these vehicles are 4 cylinder 34 MPG V6 = 29 MPG
Has anyone on this message board experienced similar MPG numbers to those of my friend and his son?
In trying to rationalize why the V6 got higher MPG highway numbers I can only point to the final drive train gear ratio. The 4 has a numerically higher ration therefore this translates into higher RPM at any given speed in high gear in comparison with the V6. At 86 MPH the 4 cylinder is turning 2700 RPM while the V6 is only turning about 1800 RPM.
I am strongly considering buying a new Accord and would get the 4 if it got better MPG then the V6. But if the V6 highway numbers are better, then there is no question the V6 is the obvious chioce for me.
I have been getting 33mpg on the highway in my V6, and that's over 70mph. Around town I get about 23mpg. I have no clue what the 4cyl. really gets. I guess it depends on how much the extra power is worth to you personally, and your own driving style. Will you actually use the extra power?
The 4-cylinder is capable of 40 MPG when driven below 75 MPH at a constant speed (I've done it more than once).
And, you've got your numbers a little off on the RPM thing. The V6 will run about 300 RPM lower at 90 MPH, (200 RPM lower at 60 MPH), not 900 as you stated. My I4 Accord runs 2,900 RPM at 87 MPH (it's an automatic, btw). At 60 MPH, the V6 Accord runs around 1,800 RPM. At 60 MPH, the I4 runs about 2,000 RPM.
Since you havent told me different, I'm assuming that the "son" in your post drives much more aggressively than your close friend. I've never had a tank below 27 MPG in my 2006 4-cylinder Accord.
I do really like the way the seats fold on the Impala. Gives a real low floor - kinda like the Fit. Wish Honda had something like this on the Accord.
As far as speed goes, what is the point. They will both go fast enough to get you put in jail - no matter which engine.
This is a little off topic, but most SUV's are quite slow (they are very heavy) yet because they have large engines people don't complain. It is not the engine size it is the power to weight ratio that makes a car peppy.
My friend's son 4 cylinder is getting 22 MPG in city and the highest on interstate travel is 29 MPG.
Methinks your friend's son has a bit of a leadfoot. My highway mileage is much better than that and I've never had any tank of gas go below 29 mpg in my 06 I4 manual.
My friend's son 4 cylinder is getting 22 MPG in city and the highest on interstate travel is 29 MPG.
Methinks your friend's son has a bit of a leadfoot. My highway mileage is much better than that and I've never had any tank of gas go below 29 mpg in my 06 I4 manual.
Hmm, it seems the manual and auto gear ratios are different. My 4-cyl manual runs 2900 RPM at 70 mph and definitely above 3K at 80 mph. Did Honda make the manual transmission more "sport" by making the gears shorter?
Hmm, it seems the manual and auto gear ratios are different. My 4-cyl manual runs 2900 RPM at 70 mph and definitely above 3K at 80 mph. Did Honda make the manual transmission more "sport" by making the gears shorter?
That's not too surprising. The Fit and Civic are the same way, but in the Civic, it lowers fuel economy on the highway according to EPA numbers. I was thinking your Accord is a 2002 model...which are geared even shorter, I believe. Not sure why I was thinking this though...your name I guess.
There is a typo in my original posting on the MPG numbers of the V6 vs 4 cyl auto Accord.
This is part of the original posting
"In trying to rationalize why the V6 got higher MPG highway numbers I can only point to the final drive train gear ratio. The 4 has a numerically higher ration therefore this translates into higher RPM at any given speed in high gear in comparison with the V6. At 86 MPH the 4 cylinder is turning 2700 RPM while the V6 is only turning about 1800 RPM."
The error is 86 MPH. It should have been 65 MPH. Again my friend indicated that at 65 MPH the 6 cyl turns 1800 RPM while the 4 turns 2700 RPM. In other words the 4 turns 900 more RPM at 65 then the V6. Are these numbers similar to those you all have experienced.
Remember originally this was all about the V6 seemingly getting better highway mileage numbers then the 4 cylinder.
Down here in Fort Myers, Florida there is a man sitting in front of the local Honda dealer on US Route 41 with a large orange sign which says BAD AIR BAGS. This fellow has been doing this for several months.
I stopped and talked with him to find out the problem. He told me that he was in a 70 MPH crash with an Acura TL and the air bags failed to deploy. Prior to the crash HONDA/ACURA had three chances to correct the problem On three occasions prior to the crash the air bag warning light came on. Each time he took it back to the dealer for a fix. Apparently the Acura dealer did not fix it.
While he did have his safety belt on when the crash occurred, because the air bag did not deploy, he suffered significant internal injury from the seat belt.
He wrote letters to Acura/Honda for some sort of settlement and never received a response. It is his intent to move on to the Acura dealer in Naples next month and then on to the Honda dealer in the next location north of Fort Myers.
Additionally, this fellow also told me that if a laptop computer which is turned on is placed on the passenger seat, the air bags will be deactivated and you will have to go to the dealer to have the air bag computer reset.
Has anyone had any problems with air bags on a HONDA product including Acura's?
Additionally, this fellow also told me that if a laptop computer which is turned on is placed on the passenger seat, the air bags will be deactivated and you will have to go to the dealer to have the air bag computer reset.
That's some skewed info.
Check the owner's manual, it will tell you if something in the seat is over something lightweight and under 80-something pounds, it will deactivate the airbag, and the "Passenger Airbag Off" light will illuminate on the dashboard. This is to protect small children who may be in the front seat who would be injured by the airbag. There's no reset needed though. Remove the lightweight object/child, or put something/someone heavier in the seat, and the airbag will immediately re-activate, and the light will turn off.
Comments
The spoiler is for looks only. It gives the car a more sporty look IMO. No street legal car needs a spoiler for down force. Even the spoilers on sports cars are there for looks, and have no real function.
I have mine on to distingish it from others. It is not worth $400, I bought the aftermarket spoiler and installed it myself.
Samething with SUV, if you don't have roof rack, the car look like a baldhead.
Works for fire-ants though.
I can't speak on how well my 04 Ex-L I4 would do in the snow because I drove my 88 for it's last winter. That thing went through DEEP snow without any problems, and the tires have 60k on them. I wouldn't consider that car a heavyweight in the front end.
Mrbill
For the record, I'm a 4-cylinder owner and honestly could not be happier with my 2006 EX Accord. I absolutely love it. I also have a 1996 LX 4-cyl Accord (similar to your 1995 model).
Let us know what you decide!
Thegrad
If you need to go in the snow get snow tires. They don't really cost anything because your summer tires last longer, and they help in every aspect of snow driving (unlike awd).
Let me suggest something to you. Go drive a 4-cylinder Accord. If you drive a V6, you'll be spoiled with lots of excess power. In the Accord's case, it is a matter of "quick" (4-cylinder) vs. really fast (V6).
Here's something that will give you some insight on the Accord 4-cylinder:
The current Accord I4 accelerates faster than the Accord V6 of ten years ago. It has the similar horsepower (166 hp), with more gears in its transmission now than it did then, and weight is similar.
May I ask what you drive currently?
On the spoilers, I like the spoiler on the Hybrid. No function other than looks. Not worth the money though. I was going to buy from H&A but reconsidered when I saw the price and had to drill holes.
You won't find any problems with the I4 at all. In fact, when you drive it you will be quite impressed. Others like the V6 for the extra power but that isn't your question. There's a I4 vs V6 thread around here somewhere if you want more feedback from both sides.
I do agree that the manual is much more responsive though.
This depends a lot on your driving style, and what you are used to. If you are used to high-powered/high-performance cars, and do a lot of high-speed passing, you may want the V6. Try them both out. The V6 is worth the extra $$$ for some, and not for others. Most people are obviously satisfied with the I4's power, or they would not sell soooooo many of them.
My last car was an Integra (no slouch - I have had it over 130 mph), and the Accord feels noticeably quicker. Driving on the highway is no problem at all, and the speed limit here is 75.
According to the Fact Sheet, the LX has the driver's 8-way power seat, moonroof, heated side mirrors, and the ambient lighting above the console.
I've been fortunate in usually getting high mileage out of tires. On my 96 Tacoma, I was able to get 102k out of the factory set of tires. I had similar luck on my old truck as well.
Yes, 4"+ a couple of times this winter. I live near Milwaukee.
Mrbill
A buick regal with a v6. i'm currently deciding between an impala and the accord 4cylinder (it may sound like an odd comparison but when i add all the costs, insurance, etc it works out to the same monthly payments here in toronto).
Go out and drive a 4-cylinder Accord. I think you'll find it has very good low-end throttle response and lots of high-rpm pull as well. Plus, the awesome AWESOME fuel mileage to boot. (Can you tell I love my Accord?
Accord -
cons: higher insurance premiums, 'smaller' engine, far fewer features (i.e. mp3/aux jack, traction, power driver seat, etc etc). full fold down seat (this really has my head scratching)
pros: long history of reliability. decent looks. better gas millage.
Impala -
cons: it looks like a rental. questionable long-term reliability. large blind spots and narrow rear field of view.
pros: lots of features. 0% financing, cheaper insurance. smoother ride, huge trunk. flip-n-fold 60/40 seats. big v6 engine.
i suppose with chrome exhaust tips the impala can look alright
Just keeping you informed, in case you didn't know. Honda makes much more horsepower per cubic inch than the Impala does, so don't let engine size fool you. The Impala will have the edge in grunt below 2,500 RPM, but the Honda will pull away from all Impalas (save for the 5.3l V8) when merging.
Exactly, I had one for two weeks. Put an "e" on the rear bumper, and you're all set.
My friend's son 4 cylinder is getting 22 MPG in city and the highest on interstate travel is 29 MPG.
The EPA highway numbers for these vehicles are
4 cylinder 34 MPG V6 = 29 MPG
Has anyone on this message board experienced similar MPG numbers to those of my friend and his son?
In trying to rationalize why the V6 got higher MPG highway numbers I can only point to the final drive train gear ratio. The 4 has a numerically higher ration therefore this translates into higher RPM at any given speed in high gear in comparison with the V6. At 86 MPH the 4 cylinder is turning 2700 RPM while the V6 is only turning about 1800 RPM.
I am strongly considering buying a new Accord and would get the 4 if it got better MPG then the V6. But if the V6 highway numbers are better, then there is no question the V6 is the obvious chioce for me.
And, you've got your numbers a little off on the RPM thing. The V6 will run about 300 RPM lower at 90 MPH, (200 RPM lower at 60 MPH), not 900 as you stated. My I4 Accord runs 2,900 RPM at 87 MPH (it's an automatic, btw). At 60 MPH, the V6 Accord runs around 1,800 RPM. At 60 MPH, the I4 runs about 2,000 RPM.
Since you havent told me different, I'm assuming that the "son" in your post drives much more aggressively than your close friend. I've never had a tank below 27 MPG in my 2006 4-cylinder Accord.
As far as speed goes, what is the point. They will both go fast enough to get you put in jail - no matter which engine.
This is a little off topic, but most SUV's are quite slow (they are very heavy) yet because they have large engines people don't complain. It is not the engine size it is the power to weight ratio that makes a car peppy.
Methinks your friend's son has a bit of a leadfoot. My highway mileage is much better than that and I've never had any tank of gas go below 29 mpg in my 06 I4 manual.
Methinks your friend's son has a bit of a leadfoot. My highway mileage is much better than that and I've never had any tank of gas go below 29 mpg in my 06 I4 manual.
Haha, me agrees.
Part of the reason for shorter gears is to eliminate the need for downshifting on the highway - cancelling cruise.
That's not too surprising. The Fit and Civic are the same way, but in the Civic, it lowers fuel economy on the highway according to EPA numbers. I was thinking your Accord is a 2002 model...which are geared even shorter, I believe. Not sure why I was thinking this though...your name I guess.
This is part of the original posting
"In trying to rationalize why the V6 got higher MPG highway numbers I can only point to the final drive train gear ratio. The 4 has a numerically higher ration therefore this translates into higher RPM at any given speed in high gear in comparison with the V6. At 86 MPH the 4 cylinder is turning 2700 RPM while the V6 is only turning about 1800 RPM."
The error is 86 MPH. It should have been 65 MPH. Again my friend indicated that at 65 MPH the 6 cyl turns 1800 RPM while the 4 turns 2700 RPM. In other words the 4 turns 900 more RPM at 65 then the V6. Are these numbers similar to those you all have experienced.
Remember originally this was all about the V6 seemingly getting better highway mileage numbers then the 4 cylinder.
Don't know where the 2,700 rpm comes from.
I stopped and talked with him to find out the problem. He told me that he was in a 70 MPH crash with an Acura TL and the air bags failed to deploy. Prior to the crash HONDA/ACURA had three chances to correct the problem On three occasions prior to the crash the air bag warning light came on. Each time he took it back to the dealer for a fix. Apparently the Acura dealer did not fix it.
While he did have his safety belt on when the crash occurred, because the air bag did not deploy, he suffered significant internal injury from the seat belt.
He wrote letters to Acura/Honda for some sort of settlement and never received a response. It is his intent to move on to the Acura dealer in Naples next month and then on to the Honda dealer in the next location north of Fort Myers.
Additionally, this fellow also told me that if a laptop computer which is turned on is placed on the passenger seat, the air bags will be deactivated and you will have to go to the dealer to have the air bag computer reset.
Has anyone had any problems with air bags on a HONDA product including Acura's?
That's some skewed info.
Check the owner's manual, it will tell you if something in the seat is over something lightweight and under 80-something pounds, it will deactivate the airbag, and the "Passenger Airbag Off" light will illuminate on the dashboard. This is to protect small children who may be in the front seat who would be injured by the airbag. There's no reset needed though. Remove the lightweight object/child, or put something/someone heavier in the seat, and the airbag will immediately re-activate, and the light will turn off.