The 4 cylinder engine is excellent and will be fine for most any kind of
driving. That said, and having had experience with both, I opted for
the V6 only because it has noticeably better acceleration because of its
substantially greater horsepower and torque. On the other hand, if I
was mainly interested in better mileage the 4 cylinder would be my
choice. You won't go wrong with either engine.
Lawrence Adler wrote:
Dunno how relevant it is given the age difference, but my '87 Accord
with carbureted 2.0 liter 4 and 385,000km (240,000 miles) on a 5-speed
still hauls ass (for a carb'd 2-liter 4) and gets a solid 500km from a
50l tank (about 28mpg). It keeps up pretty well with my wife's '96
Grand Voyager minivan - the difference with the Plymouth's 3.8l V6 is
offset nicely by the weight difference, while the van takes a 75l tank
to get about the same 500km :)
in junk yards never have the mileage of the 4's.
imo, the only difference in drivability between the 4 & the 6 is that
the 6 picks up quicker at lower revs. if you know how to drive the 4,
i.e. you drop down 1 or 2 gears so the rpm's are above 4k before you put
your foot down, it'll show you plenty of power.
I'd be surprised if you found either 4s or 6s at the junk yard unless the car
was wrecked and written off.... Up here in Winnipeg, none of the wrecked
hondas last long at all in the junk yards. We're talking a couple hours,
unless all your after is a radio antenna or other unimportant parts. lol
And they cut whole sections of frame off to fix other cars that are wrecked
too. You really gotta be careful what you are buying when it comes to hondas
up here. I was at a shop the other day that was fixing an 03 civic, they
welded the entire rear end of another car on to it.
jim beam wrote:
Message posted via CarKB.com
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.