Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
08-28-2005, 09:06 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
I'm buying my first Honda and decided upon a 2006 Accord, but I'm not sure
if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. I realize the 4 cylinder gets
better gas mileage, but wonder if it has enough power to carry two passages,
kayaks and associated gear. Also, I understand the 6 cylinder is a smoother
running and a quieter engine.
Any suggestions are appreciated and thank you for your help.
if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. I realize the 4 cylinder gets
better gas mileage, but wonder if it has enough power to carry two passages,
kayaks and associated gear. Also, I understand the 6 cylinder is a smoother
running and a quieter engine.
Any suggestions are appreciated and thank you for your help.
08-28-2005, 10:08 AM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
Unless you're going to be doing **a lot** of driving through the mountains
(ongoing, not just an occasional vacation trip) the 4-cyl engine will be
just fine. Consumer's Reports loves the car and loves the 4-cyl. Their
road test over all types of terrain & driving conditions averaged 24 mpg
overall. By all means get one with an automatic transmission. If nothing
else the automatic will make it **much** easier to sell (better trade-in)
when it comes time to replace it. CR also says the 4-cyl is smoother than
most 6-cyl.
Ultimately the decision is yours. Go to a dealer and test drive both, but
make it a fair test. You want both test drives to be of the same model,
i.e., coupe vs coupe or sedan vs sedan and stick vs stick or automatic vs
automatic.
Gas prices are only headed in one direction; UP
My son bought an '05 EX sedan 6-cyl. He wishes now he had bought the
4-cyl.
In article <descsn0p1@enews3.newsguy.com> "Joe" <jrb258@hotmail.com>
writes:
>I'm buying my first Honda and decided upon a 2006 Accord, but I'm not sure
>if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. I realize the 4 cylinder gets
>better gas mileage, but wonder if it has enough power to carry two passages,
>kayaks and associated gear. Also, I understand the 6 cylinder is a smoother
>running and a quieter engine.
>
>Any suggestions are appreciated and thank you for your help.
>
>
(ongoing, not just an occasional vacation trip) the 4-cyl engine will be
just fine. Consumer's Reports loves the car and loves the 4-cyl. Their
road test over all types of terrain & driving conditions averaged 24 mpg
overall. By all means get one with an automatic transmission. If nothing
else the automatic will make it **much** easier to sell (better trade-in)
when it comes time to replace it. CR also says the 4-cyl is smoother than
most 6-cyl.
Ultimately the decision is yours. Go to a dealer and test drive both, but
make it a fair test. You want both test drives to be of the same model,
i.e., coupe vs coupe or sedan vs sedan and stick vs stick or automatic vs
automatic.
Gas prices are only headed in one direction; UP
My son bought an '05 EX sedan 6-cyl. He wishes now he had bought the
4-cyl.
In article <descsn0p1@enews3.newsguy.com> "Joe" <jrb258@hotmail.com>
writes:
>I'm buying my first Honda and decided upon a 2006 Accord, but I'm not sure
>if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. I realize the 4 cylinder gets
>better gas mileage, but wonder if it has enough power to carry two passages,
>kayaks and associated gear. Also, I understand the 6 cylinder is a smoother
>running and a quieter engine.
>
>Any suggestions are appreciated and thank you for your help.
>
>
08-28-2005, 10:57 AM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
Joe wrote:
> I'm buying my first Honda and decided upon a 2006 Accord, but I'm not
> sure if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. I realize the 4
> cylinder gets better gas mileage, but wonder if it has enough power
> to carry two passages, kayaks and associated gear. Also, I
> understand the 6 cylinder is a smoother running and a quieter engine.
>
> Any suggestions are appreciated and thank you for your help.
There is one of each in my immediate family (2004) with auto. I usually
drive the 6, as it has the NAV system. The 6 is more powerful, but you will
not be disappointed by the 4. Either one will fill your needs as you
describe them.
Take a test drive of each. Drive them aggressively.
> I'm buying my first Honda and decided upon a 2006 Accord, but I'm not
> sure if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. I realize the 4
> cylinder gets better gas mileage, but wonder if it has enough power
> to carry two passages, kayaks and associated gear. Also, I
> understand the 6 cylinder is a smoother running and a quieter engine.
>
> Any suggestions are appreciated and thank you for your help.
There is one of each in my immediate family (2004) with auto. I usually
drive the 6, as it has the NAV system. The 6 is more powerful, but you will
not be disappointed by the 4. Either one will fill your needs as you
describe them.
Take a test drive of each. Drive them aggressively.
08-28-2005, 11:00 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
I have the Accord V6 and have also driven the 4 cylinder (both 4 door
automatics). The four is fine, but the V6 has substantially more power
and acceleration. Of course, the gas mileage is less, but we get 32 mpg
on trips. I'm talking about driving calmly and maintaining a steady
65-70 mph on major highways for 250-300 miles. So, I think either
engine would do the job for you (or me) but the V6 sure feels better to me.
Ken
Joe wrote:
> I'm buying my first Honda and decided upon a 2006 Accord, but I'm not sure
> if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. I realize the 4 cylinder gets
> better gas mileage, but wonder if it has enough power to carry two passages,
> kayaks and associated gear. Also, I understand the 6 cylinder is a smoother
> running and a quieter engine.
>
> Any suggestions are appreciated and thank you for your help.
>
>
>
automatics). The four is fine, but the V6 has substantially more power
and acceleration. Of course, the gas mileage is less, but we get 32 mpg
on trips. I'm talking about driving calmly and maintaining a steady
65-70 mph on major highways for 250-300 miles. So, I think either
engine would do the job for you (or me) but the V6 sure feels better to me.
Ken
Joe wrote:
> I'm buying my first Honda and decided upon a 2006 Accord, but I'm not sure
> if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. I realize the 4 cylinder gets
> better gas mileage, but wonder if it has enough power to carry two passages,
> kayaks and associated gear. Also, I understand the 6 cylinder is a smoother
> running and a quieter engine.
>
> Any suggestions are appreciated and thank you for your help.
>
>
>
08-28-2005, 11:04 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
"Joe" <jrb258@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm buying my first Honda and decided upon a 2006 Accord, but I'm not sure
if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. . . .
Joe, I have owned and driven nothing but Honda Accord 4 door sedans (LX,
then EX) for the past 15 years, so I have thought about this very same
question quite a bit. My first Accord, purchased new in 1990, was a 4
cylinder LX sedan. When that car was totalled, I replaced it with a new
1994 EX with the 4 cylinder VTEC engine.
While I have liked both cars quite a bit, I have been telling myself for the
last 5 years that my next car, and every car afterwards, will have no lower
than a 6 cylinder engine. My main reason has to do with safety, especially
as traffic worsens and people drive at increasingly higher speeds in the
metropolitan area where I live.
The problem I have now with my 4 cylinder VTEC is that it's difficult for me
to get into the flow of freeway traffic (and sometimes even non-freeway
traffic) when I'm entering the freeway from the on-ramp. The car just can't
accelerate fast enough to easily get into the flow of traffic so I
invariably end up with another vehicle inches from my rear bumper no matter
how skillfully I merge into traffic. Of course, the real problem is that
there are drivers going 75+ mph in the right (merge) lane in a 55 mph speed
zone, and if this wasn't happening I wouldn't have a problem. But given
this reality, I have often wished I had a 6 cylinder vehicle to give me
better acceleration in this situation and others, thus giving me a higher
level of safety.
I remember when I bought my Honda EX in 1994 I read a Consumer Reports
article on the car that said the relatively new (at the time) VTEC 4
cylinder engine had so much more power than a "regular" 4 cylinder engine
that you would be wasting your money buying a 6 cylinder Accord because the
power between the two wouldn't be much different. I'm not so sure that I
agree with that as I've driven a 6 cylinder Accord similar in model year to
mine and it seemed to have much better power and acceleration than my VTEC
4. And this was when my car was new.
The other reason I would go with a 6 is that I believe the mileage gap
between 4 and 6 has narrowed with Accords in recent years so perhaps,
depending on your driving habits, there may not be a huge difference between
the two in overall fuel economy. Especially if you do alot of freeway
driving, live in a more rural area, etc.
And then of course there is the new Honda Accord Hybrid V6 which came out
this year which has interested me alot as far as a next car choice. I
haven't read any reviews yet but the information on the car seemed pretty
impressive from a power AND fuel economy point of view.
You also mention that you will be regularly hauling stuff in your Accord
(kayaks, etc.). Another reason to get a 6 instead of a 4, especially if the
trips are long.
Anyway, from a guy who has driven 4 cylinder Accords for the past 15 years,
I recommend you get a 6 cylinder. If you don't, I think you'll end up
wishing you did. Just my humble opinion.
> I'm buying my first Honda and decided upon a 2006 Accord, but I'm not sure
if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. . . .
Joe, I have owned and driven nothing but Honda Accord 4 door sedans (LX,
then EX) for the past 15 years, so I have thought about this very same
question quite a bit. My first Accord, purchased new in 1990, was a 4
cylinder LX sedan. When that car was totalled, I replaced it with a new
1994 EX with the 4 cylinder VTEC engine.
While I have liked both cars quite a bit, I have been telling myself for the
last 5 years that my next car, and every car afterwards, will have no lower
than a 6 cylinder engine. My main reason has to do with safety, especially
as traffic worsens and people drive at increasingly higher speeds in the
metropolitan area where I live.
The problem I have now with my 4 cylinder VTEC is that it's difficult for me
to get into the flow of freeway traffic (and sometimes even non-freeway
traffic) when I'm entering the freeway from the on-ramp. The car just can't
accelerate fast enough to easily get into the flow of traffic so I
invariably end up with another vehicle inches from my rear bumper no matter
how skillfully I merge into traffic. Of course, the real problem is that
there are drivers going 75+ mph in the right (merge) lane in a 55 mph speed
zone, and if this wasn't happening I wouldn't have a problem. But given
this reality, I have often wished I had a 6 cylinder vehicle to give me
better acceleration in this situation and others, thus giving me a higher
level of safety.
I remember when I bought my Honda EX in 1994 I read a Consumer Reports
article on the car that said the relatively new (at the time) VTEC 4
cylinder engine had so much more power than a "regular" 4 cylinder engine
that you would be wasting your money buying a 6 cylinder Accord because the
power between the two wouldn't be much different. I'm not so sure that I
agree with that as I've driven a 6 cylinder Accord similar in model year to
mine and it seemed to have much better power and acceleration than my VTEC
4. And this was when my car was new.
The other reason I would go with a 6 is that I believe the mileage gap
between 4 and 6 has narrowed with Accords in recent years so perhaps,
depending on your driving habits, there may not be a huge difference between
the two in overall fuel economy. Especially if you do alot of freeway
driving, live in a more rural area, etc.
And then of course there is the new Honda Accord Hybrid V6 which came out
this year which has interested me alot as far as a next car choice. I
haven't read any reviews yet but the information on the car seemed pretty
impressive from a power AND fuel economy point of view.
You also mention that you will be regularly hauling stuff in your Accord
(kayaks, etc.). Another reason to get a 6 instead of a 4, especially if the
trips are long.
Anyway, from a guy who has driven 4 cylinder Accords for the past 15 years,
I recommend you get a 6 cylinder. If you don't, I think you'll end up
wishing you did. Just my humble opinion.
08-28-2005, 11:23 AM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
In article <2okQe.57558$3S5.48029@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
"Vikings Fan" <ddd@eee.com> wrote:
> Anyway, from a guy who has driven 4 cylinder Accords for the past 15 years,
> I recommend you get a 6 cylinder.
And as a guy who has driven MODERN 4 cylinder Accords for awhile, I have
an opposing viewpoint.
the MODERN 4 cylinder Accord is a wonderful machine--and it doesn't lack
for power at all.
"Vikings Fan" <ddd@eee.com> wrote:
> Anyway, from a guy who has driven 4 cylinder Accords for the past 15 years,
> I recommend you get a 6 cylinder.
And as a guy who has driven MODERN 4 cylinder Accords for awhile, I have
an opposing viewpoint.
the MODERN 4 cylinder Accord is a wonderful machine--and it doesn't lack
for power at all.
08-28-2005, 11:35 AM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
Vikings Fan wrote:
> "Joe" <jrb258@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm buying my first Honda and decided upon a 2006 Accord, but I'm not sure
>
> if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. . . .
>
> Joe, I have owned and driven nothing but Honda Accord 4 door sedans (LX,
> then EX) for the past 15 years, so I have thought about this very same
> question quite a bit. My first Accord, purchased new in 1990, was a 4
> cylinder LX sedan. When that car was totalled, I replaced it with a new
> 1994 EX with the 4 cylinder VTEC engine.
>
> While I have liked both cars quite a bit, I have been telling myself for the
> last 5 years that my next car, and every car afterwards, will have no lower
> than a 6 cylinder engine. My main reason has to do with safety, especially
> as traffic worsens and people drive at increasingly higher speeds in the
> metropolitan area where I live.
>
> The problem I have now with my 4 cylinder VTEC is that it's difficult for me
> to get into the flow of freeway traffic (and sometimes even non-freeway
> traffic) when I'm entering the freeway from the on-ramp. The car just can't
> accelerate fast enough to easily get into the flow of traffic so I
> invariably end up with another vehicle inches from my rear bumper no matter
> how skillfully I merge into traffic. Of course, the real problem is that
> there are drivers going 75+ mph in the right (merge) lane in a 55 mph speed
> zone, and if this wasn't happening I wouldn't have a problem. But given
> this reality, I have often wished I had a 6 cylinder vehicle to give me
> better acceleration in this situation and others, thus giving me a higher
> level of safety.
wow. is this automatic or stick? if it's automatic, there must be
something wrong. if it's a stick, you're just not using the right revs.
my crappy 1.5 non-vtec civic has me merging onto busy metropolitan
freeways with plenty of ooomph. the vtec accords i've driven have been
/significantly/ more powerful than my car and just /take off/ when
floored above 4k rpm, so i really do find this claim surprising.
regarding the op's question, longevity of honda 4's is legendary. the
6's, not so. for economy & reliability, with /plenty/ of spare power,
i'd go with the 4.
>
> I remember when I bought my Honda EX in 1994 I read a Consumer Reports
> article on the car that said the relatively new (at the time) VTEC 4
> cylinder engine had so much more power than a "regular" 4 cylinder engine
> that you would be wasting your money buying a 6 cylinder Accord because the
> power between the two wouldn't be much different. I'm not so sure that I
> agree with that as I've driven a 6 cylinder Accord similar in model year to
> mine and it seemed to have much better power and acceleration than my VTEC
> 4. And this was when my car was new.
>
> The other reason I would go with a 6 is that I believe the mileage gap
> between 4 and 6 has narrowed with Accords in recent years so perhaps,
> depending on your driving habits, there may not be a huge difference between
> the two in overall fuel economy. Especially if you do alot of freeway
> driving, live in a more rural area, etc.
>
> And then of course there is the new Honda Accord Hybrid V6 which came out
> this year which has interested me alot as far as a next car choice. I
> haven't read any reviews yet but the information on the car seemed pretty
> impressive from a power AND fuel economy point of view.
>
> You also mention that you will be regularly hauling stuff in your Accord
> (kayaks, etc.). Another reason to get a 6 instead of a 4, especially if the
> trips are long.
>
> Anyway, from a guy who has driven 4 cylinder Accords for the past 15 years,
> I recommend you get a 6 cylinder. If you don't, I think you'll end up
> wishing you did. Just my humble opinion.
>
>
>
> "Joe" <jrb258@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm buying my first Honda and decided upon a 2006 Accord, but I'm not sure
>
> if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. . . .
>
> Joe, I have owned and driven nothing but Honda Accord 4 door sedans (LX,
> then EX) for the past 15 years, so I have thought about this very same
> question quite a bit. My first Accord, purchased new in 1990, was a 4
> cylinder LX sedan. When that car was totalled, I replaced it with a new
> 1994 EX with the 4 cylinder VTEC engine.
>
> While I have liked both cars quite a bit, I have been telling myself for the
> last 5 years that my next car, and every car afterwards, will have no lower
> than a 6 cylinder engine. My main reason has to do with safety, especially
> as traffic worsens and people drive at increasingly higher speeds in the
> metropolitan area where I live.
>
> The problem I have now with my 4 cylinder VTEC is that it's difficult for me
> to get into the flow of freeway traffic (and sometimes even non-freeway
> traffic) when I'm entering the freeway from the on-ramp. The car just can't
> accelerate fast enough to easily get into the flow of traffic so I
> invariably end up with another vehicle inches from my rear bumper no matter
> how skillfully I merge into traffic. Of course, the real problem is that
> there are drivers going 75+ mph in the right (merge) lane in a 55 mph speed
> zone, and if this wasn't happening I wouldn't have a problem. But given
> this reality, I have often wished I had a 6 cylinder vehicle to give me
> better acceleration in this situation and others, thus giving me a higher
> level of safety.
wow. is this automatic or stick? if it's automatic, there must be
something wrong. if it's a stick, you're just not using the right revs.
my crappy 1.5 non-vtec civic has me merging onto busy metropolitan
freeways with plenty of ooomph. the vtec accords i've driven have been
/significantly/ more powerful than my car and just /take off/ when
floored above 4k rpm, so i really do find this claim surprising.
regarding the op's question, longevity of honda 4's is legendary. the
6's, not so. for economy & reliability, with /plenty/ of spare power,
i'd go with the 4.
>
> I remember when I bought my Honda EX in 1994 I read a Consumer Reports
> article on the car that said the relatively new (at the time) VTEC 4
> cylinder engine had so much more power than a "regular" 4 cylinder engine
> that you would be wasting your money buying a 6 cylinder Accord because the
> power between the two wouldn't be much different. I'm not so sure that I
> agree with that as I've driven a 6 cylinder Accord similar in model year to
> mine and it seemed to have much better power and acceleration than my VTEC
> 4. And this was when my car was new.
>
> The other reason I would go with a 6 is that I believe the mileage gap
> between 4 and 6 has narrowed with Accords in recent years so perhaps,
> depending on your driving habits, there may not be a huge difference between
> the two in overall fuel economy. Especially if you do alot of freeway
> driving, live in a more rural area, etc.
>
> And then of course there is the new Honda Accord Hybrid V6 which came out
> this year which has interested me alot as far as a next car choice. I
> haven't read any reviews yet but the information on the car seemed pretty
> impressive from a power AND fuel economy point of view.
>
> You also mention that you will be regularly hauling stuff in your Accord
> (kayaks, etc.). Another reason to get a 6 instead of a 4, especially if the
> trips are long.
>
> Anyway, from a guy who has driven 4 cylinder Accords for the past 15 years,
> I recommend you get a 6 cylinder. If you don't, I think you'll end up
> wishing you did. Just my humble opinion.
>
>
>
08-28-2005, 11:51 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> wow. is this automatic or stick? if it's automatic, there must be
something wrong. if it's a stick, you're just not using the right revs.
It's an automatic, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It's
just old...almost 12 years. But like I said, even when it was new I thought
the acceleration could have been better. I don't know about the newer
Accord VTEC 4s, maybe they are better as far as power and acceleration. But
I'd still get a 6 over a 4 if/when I buy a new Accord. No question about
it.
> regarding the op's question, longevity of honda 4's is legendary. the
6's, not so.
Wasn't aware of this. If true, definitely an argument in favor of the 4, if
the difference is indeed significant. Do you have source on this or is this
just anecdotal?
> wow. is this automatic or stick? if it's automatic, there must be
something wrong. if it's a stick, you're just not using the right revs.
It's an automatic, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It's
just old...almost 12 years. But like I said, even when it was new I thought
the acceleration could have been better. I don't know about the newer
Accord VTEC 4s, maybe they are better as far as power and acceleration. But
I'd still get a 6 over a 4 if/when I buy a new Accord. No question about
it.
> regarding the op's question, longevity of honda 4's is legendary. the
6's, not so.
Wasn't aware of this. If true, definitely an argument in favor of the 4, if
the difference is indeed significant. Do you have source on this or is this
just anecdotal?
08-28-2005, 12:00 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
Vikings Fan wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
>>wow. is this automatic or stick? if it's automatic, there must be
>
> something wrong. if it's a stick, you're just not using the right revs.
>
> It's an automatic, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It's
> just old...almost 12 years. But like I said, even when it was new I thought
> the acceleration could have been better. I don't know about the newer
> Accord VTEC 4s, maybe they are better as far as power and acceleration. But
> I'd still get a 6 over a 4 if/when I buy a new Accord. No question about
> it.
>
>
>>regarding the op's question, longevity of honda 4's is legendary. the
>
> 6's, not so.
>
> Wasn't aware of this. If true, definitely an argument in favor of the 4, if
> the difference is indeed significant. Do you have source on this or is this
> just anecdotal?
>
it's largely anecdotal. but i've taken the trouble to check junkyards
for this kind of thing, and i've never seen a 6 over 160k miles. you
see 4's with 200, 300 or even 400 regularly. of course, it's all
academic if the op replaces their car every few years.
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
>>wow. is this automatic or stick? if it's automatic, there must be
>
> something wrong. if it's a stick, you're just not using the right revs.
>
> It's an automatic, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It's
> just old...almost 12 years. But like I said, even when it was new I thought
> the acceleration could have been better. I don't know about the newer
> Accord VTEC 4s, maybe they are better as far as power and acceleration. But
> I'd still get a 6 over a 4 if/when I buy a new Accord. No question about
> it.
>
>
>>regarding the op's question, longevity of honda 4's is legendary. the
>
> 6's, not so.
>
> Wasn't aware of this. If true, definitely an argument in favor of the 4, if
> the difference is indeed significant. Do you have source on this or is this
> just anecdotal?
>
it's largely anecdotal. but i've taken the trouble to check junkyards
for this kind of thing, and i've never seen a 6 over 160k miles. you
see 4's with 200, 300 or even 400 regularly. of course, it's all
academic if the op replaces their car every few years.
08-28-2005, 01:31 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
In article <elmop-80BA6A.11235128082005@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
> In article <2okQe.57558$3S5.48029@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> "Vikings Fan" <ddd@eee.com> wrote:
> > Anyway, from a guy who has driven 4 cylinder Accords for the past 15 years,
> > I recommend you get a 6 cylinder.
>
> And as a guy who has driven MODERN 4 cylinder Accords for awhile, I have
> an opposing viewpoint.
>
> the MODERN 4 cylinder Accord is a wonderful machine--and it doesn't lack
> for power at all.
Agreed. It's worth pointing out that the four in the current-generation
(2002-present) Accords puts out roughly the same horsepower as the six
did in the previous-generation (1998-2001) models.
Dave
elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
> In article <2okQe.57558$3S5.48029@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> "Vikings Fan" <ddd@eee.com> wrote:
> > Anyway, from a guy who has driven 4 cylinder Accords for the past 15 years,
> > I recommend you get a 6 cylinder.
>
> And as a guy who has driven MODERN 4 cylinder Accords for awhile, I have
> an opposing viewpoint.
>
> the MODERN 4 cylinder Accord is a wonderful machine--and it doesn't lack
> for power at all.
Agreed. It's worth pointing out that the four in the current-generation
(2002-present) Accords puts out roughly the same horsepower as the six
did in the previous-generation (1998-2001) models.
Dave
08-28-2005, 04:16 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
In article <L-WdnYvCgZk3RIzeRVn-pQ@speakeasy.net>,
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> > The problem I have now with my 4 cylinder VTEC is that it's difficult for me
> > to get into the flow of freeway traffic (and sometimes even non-freeway
> > traffic) when I'm entering the freeway from the on-ramp. The car just can't
> > accelerate fast enough to easily get into the flow of traffic so I
> > invariably end up with another vehicle inches from my rear bumper no matter
> > how skillfully I merge into traffic. Of course, the real problem is that
> > there are drivers going 75+ mph in the right (merge) lane in a 55 mph speed
> > zone, and if this wasn't happening I wouldn't have a problem. But given
> > this reality, I have often wished I had a 6 cylinder vehicle to give me
> > better acceleration in this situation and others, thus giving me a higher
> > level of safety.
>
> wow. is this automatic or stick? if it's automatic, there must be
> something wrong. if it's a stick, you're just not using the right revs.
I absolutely agree here.
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> > The problem I have now with my 4 cylinder VTEC is that it's difficult for me
> > to get into the flow of freeway traffic (and sometimes even non-freeway
> > traffic) when I'm entering the freeway from the on-ramp. The car just can't
> > accelerate fast enough to easily get into the flow of traffic so I
> > invariably end up with another vehicle inches from my rear bumper no matter
> > how skillfully I merge into traffic. Of course, the real problem is that
> > there are drivers going 75+ mph in the right (merge) lane in a 55 mph speed
> > zone, and if this wasn't happening I wouldn't have a problem. But given
> > this reality, I have often wished I had a 6 cylinder vehicle to give me
> > better acceleration in this situation and others, thus giving me a higher
> > level of safety.
>
> wow. is this automatic or stick? if it's automatic, there must be
> something wrong. if it's a stick, you're just not using the right revs.
I absolutely agree here.
08-28-2005, 04:35 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote
> > > Of course, the real problem is that
> > > there are drivers going 75+ mph in the right (merge) lane in a 55 mph
speed
> > > zone, and if this wasn't happening I wouldn't have a problem. But
given
> > > this reality, I have often wished I had a 6 cylinder vehicle to give
me
> > > better acceleration in this situation and others, thus giving me a
higher
> > > level of safety.
> > wow. is this automatic or stick? if it's automatic, there must be
> > something wrong. if it's a stick, you're just not using the right revs.
> I absolutely agree here.
Me, too. My 4 '04 Auto has plenty of power -- if I use the transmission
correctly. OK, what's correctly? If you KNOW you're going to need instant
acceleration, manually downshift the damned thing before you're ready to
accelerate. Otherwise, it does take a second or two for the transmission to
get to where you seem to need it. I shift down to 3rd or even 2nd when I'm
in close city traffic where speeds are varying because of moronic drivers
ahead of me who don't know how to maintain a simple speed.
Granted, you still won't be able to go 0-75 in 8.4 seconds.....
Clear enough?
Howard Lester
08-28-2005, 05:31 PM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
"Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote:
> Me, too. My 4 '04 Auto has plenty of power -- if I use the transmission
correctly. OK, what's correctly? If you KNOW you're going to need instant
acceleration, manually downshift the damned thing before you're ready to
accelerate. Otherwise, it does take a second or two for the transmission to
get to where you seem to need it. I shift down to 3rd or even 2nd when I'm
in close city traffic where speeds are varying because of moronic drivers
ahead of me who don't know how to maintain a simple speed.
> Granted, you still won't be able to go 0-75 in 8.4 seconds.....
> Clear enough?
Well, Howie, if you took the time to read my posts in this thread, you would
see that I mentioned I have an automatic transmission, not a manual. So
shifting, RPMs, etc. is NOT the issue with me. Also, you mentioned you have
a 2004 4-cylinder and mine is a 1994. Obviously, with a model that is 10
years newer (and only a year old), you're not going to have the same
problems that I do. It is not an apples to apples comparison. So you can
turn off the snide condescension.
What is it with this newsgroup...is there nothing but Group Thought that
occurs in here and anyone with a minority opinion gets talked down to? I
obviously have not kept up on the changes to the Accord VTEC 4 like the rest
of you have, so I was not aware of the significant increases in horsepower
that have occurred over the years. So I learned something here and I may
have to re-think my original position. But snide condescension that comes
from not reading/comprehending other people's posts sure isn't making you
look very good either.
> Me, too. My 4 '04 Auto has plenty of power -- if I use the transmission
correctly. OK, what's correctly? If you KNOW you're going to need instant
acceleration, manually downshift the damned thing before you're ready to
accelerate. Otherwise, it does take a second or two for the transmission to
get to where you seem to need it. I shift down to 3rd or even 2nd when I'm
in close city traffic where speeds are varying because of moronic drivers
ahead of me who don't know how to maintain a simple speed.
> Granted, you still won't be able to go 0-75 in 8.4 seconds.....
> Clear enough?
Well, Howie, if you took the time to read my posts in this thread, you would
see that I mentioned I have an automatic transmission, not a manual. So
shifting, RPMs, etc. is NOT the issue with me. Also, you mentioned you have
a 2004 4-cylinder and mine is a 1994. Obviously, with a model that is 10
years newer (and only a year old), you're not going to have the same
problems that I do. It is not an apples to apples comparison. So you can
turn off the snide condescension.
What is it with this newsgroup...is there nothing but Group Thought that
occurs in here and anyone with a minority opinion gets talked down to? I
obviously have not kept up on the changes to the Accord VTEC 4 like the rest
of you have, so I was not aware of the significant increases in horsepower
that have occurred over the years. So I learned something here and I may
have to re-think my original position. But snide condescension that comes
from not reading/comprehending other people's posts sure isn't making you
look very good either.
08-28-2005, 05:55 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
On 8/28/2005 4:31 PM Vikings Fan spake these words of knowledge:
> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>
>> Me, too. My 4 '04 Auto has plenty of power -- if I use the transmission
> correctly. OK, what's correctly? If you KNOW you're going to need instant
> acceleration, manually downshift the damned thing before you're ready to
> accelerate. Otherwise, it does take a second or two for the transmission to
> get to where you seem to need it. I shift down to 3rd or even 2nd when I'm
> in close city traffic where speeds are varying because of moronic drivers
> ahead of me who don't know how to maintain a simple speed.
>
>> Granted, you still won't be able to go 0-75 in 8.4 seconds.....
>
>> Clear enough?
>
> Well, Howie, if you took the time to read my posts in this thread, you would
> see that I mentioned I have an automatic transmission, not a manual. So
> shifting, RPMs, etc. is NOT the issue with me. Also, you mentioned you have
> a 2004 4-cylinder and mine is a 1994. Obviously, with a model that is 10
> years newer (and only a year old), you're not going to have the same
> problems that I do. It is not an apples to apples comparison. So you can
> turn off the snide condescension.
>
> What is it with this newsgroup...is there nothing but Group Thought that
> occurs in here and anyone with a minority opinion gets talked down to? I
> obviously have not kept up on the changes to the Accord VTEC 4 like the rest
> of you have, so I was not aware of the significant increases in horsepower
> that have occurred over the years. So I learned something here and I may
> have to re-think my original position. But snide condescension that comes
> from not reading/comprehending other people's posts sure isn't making you
> look very good either.
Speaking of snide condescension, Howie was talking about automatic
transmissions. If you took the time to read... nevermind. It turns out
that automatic transmissions have more than one gear.
Several of the responses here were from people with 4-cylinder engines
of a vintage similar to that of your car; your dismissal based on the
changes in the engine certainly aren't germane there.
While some folks aren't necessarily doing as much reading as they
should, it's not just them.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
.... Without nipples, breasts would be pointless.
> "Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>
>> Me, too. My 4 '04 Auto has plenty of power -- if I use the transmission
> correctly. OK, what's correctly? If you KNOW you're going to need instant
> acceleration, manually downshift the damned thing before you're ready to
> accelerate. Otherwise, it does take a second or two for the transmission to
> get to where you seem to need it. I shift down to 3rd or even 2nd when I'm
> in close city traffic where speeds are varying because of moronic drivers
> ahead of me who don't know how to maintain a simple speed.
>
>> Granted, you still won't be able to go 0-75 in 8.4 seconds.....
>
>> Clear enough?
>
> Well, Howie, if you took the time to read my posts in this thread, you would
> see that I mentioned I have an automatic transmission, not a manual. So
> shifting, RPMs, etc. is NOT the issue with me. Also, you mentioned you have
> a 2004 4-cylinder and mine is a 1994. Obviously, with a model that is 10
> years newer (and only a year old), you're not going to have the same
> problems that I do. It is not an apples to apples comparison. So you can
> turn off the snide condescension.
>
> What is it with this newsgroup...is there nothing but Group Thought that
> occurs in here and anyone with a minority opinion gets talked down to? I
> obviously have not kept up on the changes to the Accord VTEC 4 like the rest
> of you have, so I was not aware of the significant increases in horsepower
> that have occurred over the years. So I learned something here and I may
> have to re-think my original position. But snide condescension that comes
> from not reading/comprehending other people's posts sure isn't making you
> look very good either.
Speaking of snide condescension, Howie was talking about automatic
transmissions. If you took the time to read... nevermind. It turns out
that automatic transmissions have more than one gear.
Several of the responses here were from people with 4-cylinder engines
of a vintage similar to that of your car; your dismissal based on the
changes in the engine certainly aren't germane there.
While some folks aren't necessarily doing as much reading as they
should, it's not just them.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
.... Without nipples, breasts would be pointless.
08-28-2005, 05:56 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
Bubba wrote:
> Unless you're going to be doing **a lot** of driving through the mountains
> (ongoing, not just an occasional vacation trip) the 4-cyl engine will be
> just fine. Consumer's Reports loves the car and loves the 4-cyl. Their
> road test over all types of terrain & driving conditions averaged 24 mpg
> overall. By all means get one with an automatic transmission. If nothing
> else the automatic will make it **much** easier to sell (better trade-in)
> when it comes time to replace it. CR also says the 4-cyl is smoother than
> most 6-cyl.
>
> Ultimately the decision is yours. Go to a dealer and test drive both, but
> make it a fair test. You want both test drives to be of the same model,
> i.e., coupe vs coupe or sedan vs sedan and stick vs stick or automatic vs
> automatic.
>
> Gas prices are only headed in one direction; UP
>
> My son bought an '05 EX sedan 6-cyl. He wishes now he had bought the
> 4-cyl.
>
>
> In article <descsn0p1@enews3.newsguy.com> "Joe" <jrb258@hotmail.com>
> writes:
>
>
>>I'm buying my first Honda and decided upon a 2006 Accord, but I'm not sure
>>if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. I realize the 4 cylinder gets
>>better gas mileage, but wonder if it has enough power to carry two passages,
>>kayaks and associated gear. Also, I understand the 6 cylinder is a smoother
>>running and a quieter engine.
>>
>>Any suggestions are appreciated and thank you for your help.
>>
>>
How is the transmission on the 6 vs the 4.
> Unless you're going to be doing **a lot** of driving through the mountains
> (ongoing, not just an occasional vacation trip) the 4-cyl engine will be
> just fine. Consumer's Reports loves the car and loves the 4-cyl. Their
> road test over all types of terrain & driving conditions averaged 24 mpg
> overall. By all means get one with an automatic transmission. If nothing
> else the automatic will make it **much** easier to sell (better trade-in)
> when it comes time to replace it. CR also says the 4-cyl is smoother than
> most 6-cyl.
>
> Ultimately the decision is yours. Go to a dealer and test drive both, but
> make it a fair test. You want both test drives to be of the same model,
> i.e., coupe vs coupe or sedan vs sedan and stick vs stick or automatic vs
> automatic.
>
> Gas prices are only headed in one direction; UP
>
> My son bought an '05 EX sedan 6-cyl. He wishes now he had bought the
> 4-cyl.
>
>
> In article <descsn0p1@enews3.newsguy.com> "Joe" <jrb258@hotmail.com>
> writes:
>
>
>>I'm buying my first Honda and decided upon a 2006 Accord, but I'm not sure
>>if it should be a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. I realize the 4 cylinder gets
>>better gas mileage, but wonder if it has enough power to carry two passages,
>>kayaks and associated gear. Also, I understand the 6 cylinder is a smoother
>>running and a quieter engine.
>>
>>Any suggestions are appreciated and thank you for your help.
>>
>>
How is the transmission on the 6 vs the 4.
