Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

In article <MPG.1d7c2d339e077cd998a00d@207.14.113.17>,
Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:

> I could've sworn the newer fours were pushing 200

They are. RSX, TSX.

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

al wrote:
> "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.

my crx dx was faster than that. had 305k on the clock too.

> 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 ...

there's lots of little things that can improve the overall running of
that car. for my 89 civic, the most remarkable difference was the
quality of the oxygen sensor. new oem is the way to go, by a /long/
way. other little things, other than the tuneup stuff that needs to be
done include, decent oil, decent filter, clean pcv valve, new
thermostat, clean injectors, throttle linkage [make sure it opens all
the way!] and something all too frequently overlooked, brakes!!! i
overhaul my brake calipers every time i fit new pads. that way, they
release fully and there's /no/ wasted energy. closing the windows at
higher speeds helps too!

>
>
>
>
> a
>
>

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

jim beam wrote:
> al wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
>
> my crx dx was faster than that. had 305k on the clock too.
>
>> 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 ...
>
>
> there's lots of little things that can improve the overall running of
> that car. for my 89 civic, the most remarkable difference was the
> quality of the oxygen sensor. new oem is the way to go, by a /long/
> way. other little things, other than the tuneup stuff that needs to be
> done include, decent oil, decent filter, clean pcv valve, new
> thermostat, clean injectors, throttle linkage [make sure it opens all
> the way!] and something all too frequently overlooked, brakes!!! i
> overhaul my brake calipers every time i fit new pads. that way, they
> release fully and there's /no/ wasted energy. closing the windows at
> higher speeds helps too!

forgot to mention, having the timing belt tensioned properly helped too
- when i got this car, because i'd never bothered to check, the timing
belt was way loose*, so timing was bouncing around a lot. correct
tension made a great difference to the car as the timing, both ignition
& valve, was now on spec.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> a

* to give you an idea /how/ loose, when i took the timing cover off and
turned the motor clockwise, the wrong way, to get the crank to tdc, i
watched the timing belt skip a tooth!!! how it had never skipped in the
10k miles i'd had it before then, i'll never know.

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:Q7WdnSiOy9hU6Y_eRVn-gQ@speakeasy.net...
> there's lots of little things that can improve the overall running of that
> car. for my 89 civic, the most remarkable difference was the quality of
> the oxygen sensor. new oem is the way to go, by a /long/ way. other
> little things, other than the tuneup stuff that needs to be done include,
> decent oil, decent filter, clean pcv valve, new thermostat, clean
> injectors, throttle linkage [make sure it opens all the way!] and
> something all too frequently overlooked, brakes!!! i overhaul my brake
> calipers every time i fit new pads. that way, they release fully and
> there's /no/ wasted energy. closing the windows at higher speeds helps
> too!
>

Good advice ... but I'm long rid of it thankfully ;) Have an ATR now ...
much quicker! BTW, old Civic, being a Jap import, had A/C as standard, so
no need to worry about windows being open :)





a

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

Joe,

My wife just bought 2005 EX 4cyl w/leather auto. Since she has been driving
Nissan Altima's for a long time I was concerned about the 4 cyl giving her
enough get up and go since Altimas have a high revving engine or so it
seems. I had her test drive it twice, local and getting on highway and she
said it was fine. She has had it for two weeks now and loves it.

I drove it the other day on 95 in Ct to NY and didn't feel that there was
any problem power wise. Certainly not as much off the line as my car but I
had no complaints. What do I drive to compare, 2004 Acura 270 hp TL, so I
should have felt way underpowered, I really didn't. So being what gas is now
adays the 4 seems to be a good alternative.

George in NY

"Joe" <jrb258@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:descsn0p1@enews3.newsguy.com...
> 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.
>
>
>

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

"George in NY" <georgeny@verizon.net> wrote
> My wife just bought 2005 EX 4cyl w/leather auto. Since she has been
driving
> Nissan Altima's for a long time I was concerned about the 4 cyl giving her
> enough get up and go since Altimas have a high revving engine or so it
> seems. I had her test drive it twice, local and getting on highway and she
> said it was fine. She has had it for two weeks now and loves it.
>
> I drove it the other day on 95 in Ct to NY and didn't feel that there was
> any problem power wise. Certainly not as much off the line as my car but I
> had no complaints. What do I drive to compare, 2004 Acura 270 hp TL, so I
> should have felt way underpowered, I really didn't. So being what gas is
now
> adays the 4 seems to be a good alternative.

Funny but after reading the several reports here about how little (if any)
difference there was in accelerating with the 4-cyl vs. 6-cyl, I thought
maybe the 4-cylinder might be a lot lighter. But it's not:

2005 Accord EX automatic trans, 4-door Sedan (per Edmunds.com):

V-6, 3 L, 240 hp, 21/30 mpg, curb wt. = 3389 lbs
4-cyl, 2.4 L, 160 hp, 24/34 mpg, curb wt. = 3200 lbs

Perhaps all those horses under the hood are for people who really like to
accelerate? Anything over, say, 120 hp (a guesstimate based on personal
experience) for cars this weight is overkill for ordinary driving folks?

Elle
Original owner, 1991 Civic, about 90 hp, if I recall correctly.

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

"Vikings Fan" wrote

> "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

:-) See? I mean no harm - none at all. I'm most concerned that you are
happy with your car and can make the most out of it. Sometimes my 2004
4-cyl doesn't get off the line, and what it takes sometimes is manually
downshifting so the torque? is up and ready for action.

Now the hard part -- I have to admit... I've been a Giants fan since 1954.
<ducking>

Howard

Re: November 13, 2005 (was: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl)
 

"Howard Lester" <heylester@dakotacom.net> wrote:

> :-) See? I mean no harm - none at all. I'm most concerned that you are
happy with your car and can make the most out of it. Sometimes my 2004
4-cyl doesn't get off the line, and what it takes sometimes is manually
downshifting so the torque? is up and ready for action.

Sorry Howard, I guess I have a bit of a hair trigger sometimes. It's also
hard to judge tone sometimes when reading an online post. Your advice made
sense when I viewed it a second time.

> Now the hard part -- I have to admit... I've been a Giants fan since 1954.
> <ducking>

I have relatives in New York who are huge Giants fans and they have been
giving me quite a bit of grief about how the Giants have had the Vikings
number the last few years. They quote the 41-0 playoff score of a few years
ago quite regularly. I tell them this year will be different...we finally
have a decent defense. We'll see on November 13, 2005 when the Vikes and
Giants tangle yet again. I don't think I'm confident enough to bet. <g>

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

Your comment about "how little (if any) difference there was in
accelerating with the 4-cyl vs. 6-cyl" is not really correct. It may be
reflecting some drivers' seat of the pants perceptions, but the many
tests in automotive magazines and Consumer Reports say otherwise. For
example Road and Track tests show a 0 to 60 time for the Accord EXV6 of
7.3 seconds for the automatic and 6.3 seconds for the 6 speed manual
transmission. These are significantly better than the results for the 4
cylinder Accords. You (and anyone else) are free to check out the
figures on line or in your local library.

Elle wrote:
> "George in NY" <georgeny@verizon.net> wrote
>
>>My wife just bought 2005 EX 4cyl w/leather auto. Since she has been
>
> driving
>
>>Nissan Altima's for a long time I was concerned about the 4 cyl giving her
>>enough get up and go since Altimas have a high revving engine or so it
>>seems. I had her test drive it twice, local and getting on highway and she
>>said it was fine. She has had it for two weeks now and loves it.
>>
>>I drove it the other day on 95 in Ct to NY and didn't feel that there was
>>any problem power wise. Certainly not as much off the line as my car but I
>>had no complaints. What do I drive to compare, 2004 Acura 270 hp TL, so I
>>should have felt way underpowered, I really didn't. So being what gas is
>
> now
>
>>adays the 4 seems to be a good alternative.
>
>
> Funny but after reading the several reports here about how little (if any)
> difference there was in accelerating with the 4-cyl vs. 6-cyl, I thought
> maybe the 4-cylinder might be a lot lighter. But it's not:
>
> 2005 Accord EX automatic trans, 4-door Sedan (per Edmunds.com):
>
> V-6, 3 L, 240 hp, 21/30 mpg, curb wt. = 3389 lbs
> 4-cyl, 2.4 L, 160 hp, 24/34 mpg, curb wt. = 3200 lbs
>
> Perhaps all those horses under the hood are for people who really like to
> accelerate? Anything over, say, 120 hp (a guesstimate based on personal
> experience) for cars this weight is overkill for ordinary driving folks?
>
> Elle
> Original owner, 1991 Civic, about 90 hp, if I recall correctly.
>
>

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

"Kenneth J. Harris" <kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote
> Your comment about "how little (if any) difference there was in
> accelerating with the 4-cyl vs. 6-cyl" is not really correct.

Why don't you post this to the several people here who provided this
observation?

I am merely going by what they said.

It may be
> reflecting some drivers' seat of the pants perceptions, but the many
> tests in automotive magazines and Consumer Reports say otherwise. For
> example Road and Track tests show a 0 to 60 time for the Accord EXV6 of
> 7.3 seconds for the automatic and 6.3 seconds for the 6 speed manual
> transmission. These are significantly better than the results for the 4
> cylinder Accords.

But don't these tests attempt to accelerate the car from 0 mph to 60 mph as
fast as possible? Does your average driver always try to accelerate this
quickly?

> You (and anyone else) are free to check out the
> figures on line or in your local library.

Take it up with the others, dammit.

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

Well, calm down a bit. No need to overreact. Your statements "I am
merely going by what they said" and "take it up with the others" tell
the story. I absolve you of any responsibility for what was in your
post. Feel better now? But to answer your questions (But don't these
tests attempt to accelerate the car from 0 mph to 60 mph as fast as
possible? Does your average driver always try to accelerate this
quickly?), yes those tests measure maximum acceleration from a standing
start and they are also good indicators of acceleration ability at less
than maximum acceleration conditions. In addition, some tests (Consumer
Reports for one) also test for acceleration at highway speeds--from
45mph to 65mph for example. The average driver doesn't constntly use
maximum acceleration during everyday driving but on occasion may use it:
entering a busy limited access highway that has only short entrance
ramps and necessary passing on a 2 lane road are two examples that come
to mind.

Elle wrote:
> "Kenneth J. Harris" <kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote
>
>>Your comment about "how little (if any) difference there was in
>>accelerating with the 4-cyl vs. 6-cyl" is not really correct.
>
>
> Why don't you post this to the several people here who provided this
> observation?
>
> I am merely going by what they said.
>
> It may be
>
>>reflecting some drivers' seat of the pants perceptions, but the many
>>tests in automotive magazines and Consumer Reports say otherwise. For
>>example Road and Track tests show a 0 to 60 time for the Accord EXV6 of
>>7.3 seconds for the automatic and 6.3 seconds for the 6 speed manual
>>transmission. These are significantly better than the results for the 4
>>cylinder Accords.
>
>
> But don't these tests attempt to accelerate the car from 0 mph to 60 mph as
> fast as possible? Does your average driver always try to accelerate this
> quickly?
>
>
>>You (and anyone else) are free to check out the
>>figures on line or in your local library.
>
>
> Take it up with the others, dammit.
>
>

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

"Kenneth J. Harris" <kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote
> Well, calm down a bit. No need to overreact.

You wish I had overreacted instead of constructively put you in your
deserved place...

Re: November 13, 2005 (was: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl)
 

"Vikings Fan" wrote

> I tell them this year will be different...we finally
> have a decent defense. We'll see on November 13, 2005 when the Vikes and
> Giants tangle yet again. I don't think I'm confident enough to bet. <g>

Neither am I!!! (on the Giants!) :-)

Enjoy your car. See, it never occurred to me to downshift an automatic in
traffic, but a fellow on rec.autos.honda suggested it to me, and I'm
grateful for it. You'd THINK a good automatic would take care of those
little things, and it doesn't. We still have to think.

Howard

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

awhile back a guy was looking into buying a honda accord and wanted to know
which one to buy and i kept replying telling him the 4 cylinder was the way
to go and everybody in the group was saying get the 6 then after he bought
the car i put up one final post saying you'll wish you would've got the 4
and low and behold i was right. for about the same price of a v6 accord you
can buy a 4cylinder ex model which is top of the line. i would definitely
get the 4 cylinder it will have a high resale value whether it's an
automatic or manual and with the newer type of vtech engine it has plenty of
power.


-jeff
"Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bO%Qe.5101$z2.1109@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> "Kenneth J. Harris" <kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote
>> Well, calm down a bit. No need to overreact.
>
> You wish I had overreacted instead of constructively put you in your
> deserved place...
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl
 

In article <wpLQe.3294$Wd7.251@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> writes:
>
> Perhaps all those horses under the hood are for people who really like to
> accelerate? Anything over, say, 120 hp (a guesstimate based on personal
> experience) for cars this weight is overkill for ordinary driving folks?

I admit that I was more than satisfied with the 125 hp of my 1993
Civic EX, but that car only weighed about 2400 lbs and it had a
manual transmission. For an automatic-transmission Accord at 3200
lbs, I expect 120 hp would definitely seem inadequate in some
normal driving situations, such as passing on two-lane roads. 160
might suffice - though I'd still much rather have the manual
transmission, which I've found makes a considerable difference for
Hondas. (The Civic EX, for example, would do 80 mph in third gear,
which really came in handy for passing. I passed five cars in one
go on a rural highway in Ohio once.)

Hmm... According to Edmunds, my 1990 Accord LX also has 125 hp, at
about 2900 lbs. It's quite peppy, but again that's with the manual
transmission.

All that said, I'm not sure I'd want to judge what qualifies as
"ordinary" driving, or an unusual fondness for acceleration.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

Pogo: The dogs *scarcely* ever catches the rabbit.
Bun: "Scarcely" got a very unpleasant ring of frequency to it.
-- Walt Kelly