Re: Accord questions

Paul " <"=?x-user-defined?Q??= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q??wrote:


I have the '04 EX 6 cyl. Can you spin the tires? Have done so accidentally a few times when taking off in tight spots. I'm sure if one wanted to leave a good amount of their tire investment on the pavement, it could be done (though the 6 isn't as good at it as my Vmax was).
When testing, the 4 was actually peppy, but the 6 could easily merge onto a CA freeway with 4 or 5 people in the car easily (up to 75 mph well before the end of the ramps).
Good torque at the low end, speeds through the gearing quite well. Good performance, 29 MPG actual on the highway (driving at 70+ most of the time), 21-22 around town.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
L Alpert wrote:

Thanks. That is the kind of info I was looking for. I have read that the Honda 3.0 has poor low end torque but your response says the opposite. Eventually I will road test however I am still narrowing down between 6 cyl Accord, Camry, Mazda, Nissan, etc. I like the inside and outside looks of the Accord better than the others. Better to spend a few minutes here rather then a few hours at the dealers. Paul.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ah, so that's how people end up with crappy cars. Collect some hearsay and do the minimum amount of the legwork themselves.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Body Roll wrote:

So you are saying the Honda Accord is a crappy car? Please give me an example of a good car.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Accord is not bad, obese, but not bad. Camry is. Former coworker's late model CE started to fall apart at 70k miles. Not to mention that the car itself is not good. Same goes for nissan. Same story: another former coworker, late model Nissan Altima: 70k miles and the car starts to go. He also has an older Maxima with 160+k on it though and it seems to hold pretty well. Mazda 626 has Ford automatic transmission (Ford is known for crappy automatics I think).

Sure, Lotus Elise & Exige Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Mazda RX-8 Civic Si Mazda 3 Dodge Viper Chevy Corvette Acura RSX & TSX
About half of those can seat 4 in some kind of semblance of comfort.
If you look for a more comfortable ride Z350 and G35 are probably not too bad. There is probably more cars in GT category but I don't keep track of those.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Body Roll wrote:

I've looked at and test driven most of those in the last year. Beauty and practicality are in the eye of the beholder. I would not consider any of them good cars. I should mention that I will not have a little high winding 4 cyl with no low end torque and high wear breakdown probability. It will be used daily in city traffic.
Lotus Elise & Exige - bizarre looking, too small Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution - shoe box, too small Mazda RX-8 - nice but bizarre looking, too small Civic Si - shoe box, too small Mazda 3 - ok but I like the Mazda 6 better Dodge Viper - nice but impractical, looked at one 7-1-06. Chevy Corvette - already had several, want something else Acura RSX & TSX - nice but small, I like the TL better.
Also looked at: Z and G cars - nice, G is a good possibility, waiting on feedback from nissan ng, have     not test driven yet. BMW 330 - nice, good possibility Jag XKR - nice but poor reliability Toyota - nondescript generic boxes Audi A4 - high winding 4 Porsche Boxster - too small All the above is a fraction of my "looked at" list.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did you look at mazdaspeed 6 or you have made your mind and the desire to get a 6 pot boat anchor is cast in stone? Mazda is the only one that offers standard transmission with any powerplant in case you like to row. And according to the reviews their 2.3L 4s are silky smoooth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Body Roll wrote:

mazda, like their ford brethren, use cast iron cranks. that's why their 2.4's are rated much lower in power per liter than honda or toyota.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim beam wrote:

Whoaaa! There has an Ford equivalent of Mazdaspeed 6? Please let me know which one is that. Last time I checked they were peddling secretary's six packs.

So does Mitsubishi in the Lancer Evolution. I hope you'd agree that both Evolution and Mazdaspeed 6 are way more fun than Accord. Both will leave you high hp per liter s2000 in a straightaway and chances are Evo would obliterate s2000 in twisties as well. Besides, try using higher boost in an aluminum block and see where the engine parts would end up. The rumor is that Evo X has aluminum block (along with a shitload of electronics in the drivetrain). Some people would buy it regardless. I guess it's people like you.
In a non turbo car I think aluminum block makes a lot of sense though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul " <"=?x-user-defined?Q??= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q??wrote:

Happy hunting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.