Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

Vikings Fan wrote:
> "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.
>

i don't think people are intending to "talk down", but there's
definitely some disbelief at the problem you describe. unless you're
used to driving a porsche or something /substantially/ faster than a
vtec honda, there's no way you'd be complaining of this car being a
slouch. seriously, if the car is as bad as you say, there has to be
something wrong, for instance, the kick-down on the automatic should not
be significantly delayed. if yours has a problem with slow downshift,
it needs fixing.

returning to your "check engine light" posting, what other work have you
had done to the car other than valve adjustment & exhaust? how long has
it been like that? have you had anything replaced like oxygen sensor or
thermostat? low grade after-market components affect performance. and
have you had the egr system cleaned? does it hesitate? has the air
filter been changed any time recently?

regarding age comparisons, that's something of a red herring if your
"honda specialist" has been telling you age is an excuse. your car is
low mileage by honda standards. and the engine technology is not that
retarded. a friend has a stock accord vtec your vintage with /many/
more miles. when driving that car, i'm much more concerned with keeping
my licence than i am about whether it's a 6.

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

>
>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.
>
I agree...I have a '92 LX with automatic that has been driven all over
the east coast and most of the midwest. I currently live in Texas and
don't have any trouble merging or holding 80+ (no lectures, please).

See no need for a 6, expecially in light of today's (and tomorrow's
increasing) fuel prices.

Herb

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

"Vikings Fan" <ddd@eee.com> wrote in message
news:r2qQe.57652$3S5.2668@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> 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.
>

Either your car has something wrong, or you simply can't anticipate traffic
properly. I had a '91 Civic 1.5 and very little on the road touched me in
it. It never set the world alight, but really - 99.998% of people drive
like they have Ms Daisy in tow ....

FYI, yes, it was a manual (auto's are for American's and those that like
bumper cars ;p), but that's not really the point. When I go home and
occasionally borrow my Mum's 1 litre Yaris, I still stay ahead of virtually
all traffic - even when joining the motorway (just forget 50-90mph
acceleration or going up hills).

Learn to drive better or get your car serviced/traded in. One's at fault
.....




a

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

"Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d7bb0f01023b56c98a00a@207.14.113.17...
> 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

I just picked up an '05 LX 5-speed (yeah, I know it'll be a pain to sell -
but I still wanted some fun while driving!) No problems whatsoever merging
out in traffic. Only thing which may affect merging out is when you're
trying to merge into traffic and you have an idiot that doesn't want to let
you in. Then it doesn't matter if you have a 4, 6 or 8. The current
Accords have 160 hp and 161 ft/lb torque so that does the job for me. Using
turn signals when merging or turning definately helps as well.

If gas mileage is a factor for you, the 4 gets 26/34 mpg while the v6 gets
20/30 mpg - information from Edmond's website. Test drive both of them and
see what you think.

-Dave L.

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

"HPGrn" <majorret310@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q0f4h1htp1sg4lou8ld1iqelkfks9a1usi@4ax.com...
> See no need for a 6, expecially in light of today's (and tomorrow's
> increasing) fuel prices.
>
> Herb

Have to disagree there - 6 cylinders would be more comfortable and give
better low end torque. As for petrol prices, please, don't make me ill!!
You're from Texas right? Land of free (never mind polluting the rest of the
planet) oil?? ;p

May as well enjoy petrol cars while we can - your government (and plenty of
others) will use up the rest of the world's oil before the next generation
take over! That and big brother monitoring the roads so that even a few
seconds exceeding the speed limit will see people fined. I really do wish
some propellerheads would come up with a lightening quick alternative to
internal combustion ...




a

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

Vikings Fan wrote:

> 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.

Thanks, Mr. Tice. I was wrong; I didn't pay attention. I apologize. I was
not being snide at all when I said "clear enough?" I wasn't sure I was being
clear.

Your pal,
Daunte

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

In article <VbrQe.35446$jr4.26560@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
"al" <[ask_me_first]@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Either your car has something wrong, or you simply can't anticipate traffic
> properly. I had a '91 Civic 1.5 and very little on the road touched me in
> it.

I'll never forget the day I was in my 92 Civic Si, at a traffic light,
next to a big Caddy.

The light turned green, he wanted in my lane, and.....despite his trying
from the moment the light turned, he had to settle for getting in behind
me.

Who'd a thunk it. A 92 Civic Si beats a big V8 Caddy off the line and
down the road.

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <VbrQe.35446$jr4.26560@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
> "al" <[ask_me_first]@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Either your car has something wrong, or you simply can't anticipate traffic
>>properly. I had a '91 Civic 1.5 and very little on the road touched me in
>>it.
>
>
> I'll never forget the day I was in my 92 Civic Si, at a traffic light,
> next to a big Caddy.
>
> The light turned green, he wanted in my lane, and.....despite his trying
> from the moment the light turned, he had to settle for getting in behind
> me.
>
> Who'd a thunk it. A 92 Civic Si beats a big V8 Caddy off the line and
> down the road.
>
once you get that little baby well set up and bouncing off the red line,
you got to spend a /whole/ lot of extra cash to find anything that'll
beat it! whole lot of extra cubic inches too...

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

In article <XtCdnZ2dnZ3DczCWnZ2dncTTj96dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@speakeasy.net>,
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> > Who'd a thunk it. A 92 Civic Si beats a big V8 Caddy off the line and
> > down the road.
> >
> once you get that little baby well set up and bouncing off the red line,
> you got to spend a /whole/ lot of extra cash to find anything that'll
> beat it!

Mine was stock from the day it was new, and I probably had 40K miles on
it by the time this incident happened--if not more.

Oh, yeah, it knew all about the redline. I see no need to baby a Honda
4 cylinder engine. That car is alive and well today, with 137K on it;
my nephew has it.

It still has the original clutch, too.

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-11F3DA.20092528082005@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
>
> Oh, yeah, it knew all about the redline. I see no need to baby a Honda
> 4 cylinder engine. That car is alive and well today, with 137K on it;
> my nephew has it.

Yup - had mine for 7 years and redlined it almost every time I drove it.
Distro bearings exploding was the only "breakdown" it had in all that time.
At the end of the day, there are any number of cars, driven hard, that will
beat it. I timed it around 10-11 secs to 60mph, which ain't nippy. But
first and second gear just nailed most cars. On the motorway, it was waaay
underpowered and that of all things pissed me off the most. Dropping to
60mph in traffic then having to wait again while the next 30-40mph slowly
approached ...




a

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:XtCdnZ2dnZ3DczCWnZ2dncTTj96dnZ2dRVn-z52dnZ0@speakeasy.net...
> once you get that little baby well set up and bouncing off the red line,
> you got to spend a /whole/ lot of extra cash to find anything that'll beat
> it! whole lot of extra cubic inches too...

Oh I dunno ... £7k on a (quite poor) TVR Grif 5.0 would beat it by about 6-7
seconds up to 60mph I reckon ;)

But then I suppose a '91 Civic these days probably only fetches about £2k
for a good example (mine was a Jap VTi model) so valid point re: the cost
difference.





a

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> i don't think people are intending to "talk down", but there's definitely
some disbelief at the problem you describe. unless you're used to driving a
porsche or something /substantially/ faster than a
vtec honda, there's no way you'd be complaining of this car being a slouch.
seriously, if the car is as bad as you say, there has to be something wrong,
for instance, the kick-down on the automatic should not be significantly
delayed. if yours has a problem with slow downshift, it needs fixing.

jb, thanks for your thoughtful response. Perhaps this "lack of
acceleration" thing is more just in my head than anything else. Perhaps my
expectations are too high and unrealistic. Perhaps I think my car is a
slouch because I know my car is a 4 and not a 6. Know any good car shrinks?

> returning to your "check engine light" posting, what other work have you
had done to the car other than valve adjustment & exhaust? how long has
it been like that? have you had anything replaced like oxygen sensor or
thermostat? low grade after-market components affect performance. and
have you had the egr system cleaned? does it hesitate? has the air filter
been changed any time recently?

My radiator cracked near the cap and leaked coolant but I caught it right
away and had it replaced. The Honda dealer who replaced it said it was just
"normal part failure" which he said occurs in about 1 in 10 Accords. He
said I did nothing to cause it. I do change the air filter frequently and
it was done when I had the tune-up with valve adjustment a few months ago.
I have not had the egr system cleaned...that's a good point.

> regarding age comparisons, that's something of a red herring if your
"honda specialist" has been telling you age is an excuse. your car is low
mileage by honda standards. and the engine technology is not that retarded.
a friend has a stock accord vtec your vintage with /many/
more miles. when driving that car, i'm much more concerned with keeping my
licence than i am about whether it's a 6.

In fairness to my "Honda specialist"...heh heh!, they did not recommend the
tune up with valve adjustment and muffler replacement as a repair solution
to my "check engine" light problem. That work needed to be done anyway and
I did not even mention the "check engine" light problem to them as I didn't
think it to be that serious at the time, based on what I knew then. I was
only mentioning that work to potentially eliminate them as causes of my
C/E/L problem. The place I go to actually has an excellent reputation among
Honda owners and many get their work done there instead of at any of the 5
Honda dealers in town.

Thanks again, you've given me some good info. and some good places to start.

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

"Howard Lester" wrote:

> Thanks, Mr. Tice. I was wrong; I didn't pay attention. I apologize. I was
not being snide at all when I said "clear enough?" I wasn't sure I was being
clear.

> Your pal,
> Daunte


Now how could I not like a post like that.

Signed,

Troy Williamson

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

"Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d7bb0f01023b56c98a00a@207.14.113.17...
> 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
>
I just picked up an '05 LX 5-speed (yeah, I know it'll be a pain to sell -
but I still wanted some fun while driving!) No problems whatsoever merging
out in traffic. Only thing which may affect merging out is when you're
trying to merge into traffic and you have an idiot that doesn't want to let
you in. Then it doesn't matter if you have a 4, 6 or 8. The current
Accords have 160 hp and 161 ft/lb torque so that does the job for me. Using
turn signals when merging or turning definately helps as well.

If gas mileage is a factor for you, the 4 gets 26/34 mpg while the v6 gets
20/30 mpg - information from Edmond's website. Test drive both of them and
see what you think.

-Dave L.

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

In article <xaKdnZ2dnZ2sGeC5nZ2dnSXdj96dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@comcast.com>,
davelieuREMOVE@MEyahoo.com says...
>
> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d7bb0f01023b56c98a00a@207.14.113.17...

> > 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.
>
> I just picked up an '05 LX 5-speed (yeah, I know it'll be a pain to sell -
> but I still wanted some fun while driving!) No problems whatsoever merging
> out in traffic. Only thing which may affect merging out is when you're
> trying to merge into traffic and you have an idiot that doesn't want to let
> you in. Then it doesn't matter if you have a 4, 6 or 8. The current
> Accords have 160 hp and 161 ft/lb torque so that does the job for me. Using
> turn signals when merging or turning definately helps as well.

Oops - you're right, I could've sworn the newer fours were pushing 200
hp, but 160 it is. The newer sixes have 240 hp, while the pre-2002 ones
have 200 hp. My dad has a current-gen DX with a four, and power is
certainly adequate for both city and highway driving.

Dave