Which 2-liter Car to Buy?

[jut703]

how about 2005 Nissan Cefiro??

Not a fan of the car bro - old model (same as the 1997 one with a few facelifts), and a lot of friends who had one before always had repairs. Di rin maganda handling and itsura for me.


Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

[leodawesome]

I'd get the 2.0 Mazda 3. Just make it shiny and always clean, and an average person would never know that its an older model since it shares the same body with up to the 2012 models. The 4speed AT was compromised by the manual mode, but take note though that its not that super responsive (may konting lag pa din). Just not sure if it can clock 100kph within your specified time frame.

[jut703]

If your after torque, let go of the accord. So slow for a 2 liter.

The crv first gen, the higher hp rating is the 2000 2001 model. The one with a silver box on the intake (it's a silencer).

From the choices and storage of a bike, crv gets my vote.

The maintenance is a breeze because it shares almost the same components of an ek civic.

Don't worry about the brakes, I got bendix metal king pads and it's enough to stop the car with a tuned engine at 165whp.

Ford rs get my vote if it's pure performance.

Edit: other than Olx and ayosdito join groups on fb. Just search for them. Maganda is wala masyado buy and sell.

Hi Archie, I use a 2000 150 hp CR-V as occasionally, albeit automatic. Doesn't really feel fast to me, but above adequate. Responsive transmission and 60-100 kph is pretty decent, but from a standstill or from 120 kph onwards, doesn't have a lot of punch. Must be the long gearing of the AT? The R18 Civic is more rev happy (no torque) but I don't mind revving as long as it gets up to speed quickly.

Haven't tried the 2.0 Accord yet, but from your experience, a 2.0 F20 manual Accord is slower than a B20 manual CR-V? I understand that the B20 is inherently torquier than the F20 but the CR-V is also heavier by almost 100 kilos.

Also, your thoughts on the 2.3 F23? Almost same price in OLX. I know it's torquier, but how far is the performance vs the 2.0 if both are MT? I only get 6 km/L with our 2.0 CR-V AT and if the 2.3 is much thirstier than the 2.0 without much difference in performance, I might opt for the 2.0. But if performance is noticeably better without too much of a hit in FC (say, 0.5 km/L only), then I'll look more towards the 2.3.

One problem we've had with the CR-V is the AWD mechanism which has been creaking from the rear lately when making hard turns. If this is a frequent problem for most CR-Vs, I might have to disable the AWD.

The bike storage isn't a very important feature since I usually pedal all the way so I rarely load the bike in the car, and whether I put it in a CR-V or a midsizer, I still have to take out the front wheel to load it (though it's easier to load with a CR-V through the rear hatch as opposed to doors on a sedan).

Sorry for the flurry of questions, I know kasi you're pretty well-versed on Honda engines and your inputs are highly appreciated. Thanks bro

Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

[jut703]

I'd get the 2.0 Mazda 3. Just make it shiny and always clean, and an average person would never know that its an older model since it shares the same body with up to the 2012 models. The 4speed AT was compromised by the manual mode, but take note though that its not that super responsive (may konting lag pa din). Just not sure if it can clock 100kph within your specified time frame.

Would you say that a 2.0 Mazda 3 is worth double the price of an Accord? 160k vs 320k kasi price and I'm trying to justify if it's worth it.

Also, at that price range, why not the Mz6 nalang since it's roughly the same price with more power, better transmission, better looks, and more features?

Thanks bro


Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

[leodawesome]

Would you say that a 2.0 Mazda 3 is worth double the price of an Accord? 160k vs 320k kasi price and I'm trying to justify if it's worth it.

Also, at that price range, why not the Mz6 nalang since it's roughly the same price with more power, better transmission, better looks, and more features?

Thanks bro


Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

Well kung saken kasi sir kung 2nd hand purchase, the newer (fresher) the better. But of course ideally if you can find a 98-02 Accord that is still in pristine condition for that price, then no doubt go for the accord. It just so happens that since mababa resale value ng M3, you can get a relatively 'newer' unit for its prevailing market value.

About the M6 naman, personally I wasn't a fan of the looks of the 1st gen, but that's just me. The 2.0 M3 is 'premium' enough for my taste. If you go for the M3 vs M6, you can save the excess in price for some mods and maintenance, with having a relatively 'newer' unit. Its also given that the M6 will consume more and will cost more to maintain than the M3. You just have to weigh if you're willing to sacrifice that for the overall better drive than the M3.

Sorry lalo yata gumulo utak mo.

[crosswind]

Would you say that a 2.0 Mazda 3 is worth double the price of an Accord? 160k vs 320k kasi price and I'm trying to justify if it's worth it.

Also, at that price range, why not the Mz6 nalang since it's roughly the same price with more power, better transmission, better looks, and more features?

Thanks bro


Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

8 months na bro
nakapili ka na/nakabili na
if not
suggest ko Accord kung kasya sa budget
How about Toyota Camry mukhang pasok sa budget mo?

[jut703]

Well kung saken kasi sir kung 2nd hand purchase, the newer (fresher) the better. But of course ideally if you can find a 98-02 Accord that is still in pristine condition for that price, then no doubt go for the accord. It just so happens that since mababa resale value ng M3, you can get a relatively 'newer' unit for its prevailing market value.

About the M6 naman, personally I wasn't a fan of the looks of the 1st gen, but that's just me. The 2.0 M3 is 'premium' enough for my taste. If you go for the M3 vs M6, you can save the excess in price for some mods and maintenance, with having a relatively 'newer' unit. Its also given that the M6 will consume more and will cost more to maintain than the M3. You just have to weigh if you're willing to sacrifice that for the overall better drive than the M3.

Sorry lalo yata gumulo utak mo.

Mababa rin kasi resale value ng Accord since midsizer siya hehe. Cheaper than Civics and Cities na kaedad niya nga eh. Tama ka bro best to look for a unit na konti sira para hindi headache.

So far the Accords I'm looking at, yung isang 2.3 ay sira power windows, speedometer and may gasgas bumper. All are minor stuff that I can fix for about 10k and the seller says mechanically ok naman but I need to check with a mechanic din.

Another Accord na 2.0 naman has a faulty compressor which is more expensive to replace.

Yung Mz6 kasi na facelifted bro type na type ko itsura, and same price ang '05 Mz3 2.0 sa '07 Mz6 2.3 so hindi rin ako lugi sa age. Higher maintenance and fuel costs for the Mz6 I'm willing to bear, in exchange for more performance and a more luxurious car.


Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

[jut703]

8 months na bro
nakapili ka na/nakabili na
if not
suggest ko Accord kung kasya sa budget
How about Toyota Camry mukhang pasok sa budget mo?

Nagstop ako maghanap bro eh and ngayon lang ulit ako nagresume sa paghahanap ng kotse.

Which Accord are you referring to? Currently the 6th gen is on top of the list since pinakamura.

The Camry was also in my shortlist top 10 but ultimately di ko type yung daddy car vibe niya and medyo mahal siya..


Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

[leodawesome]

Yung Mz6 kasi na facelifted bro type na type ko itsura, and same price ang '05 Mz3 2.0 sa '07 Mz6 2.3 so hindi rin ako lugi sa age. Higher maintenance and fuel costs for the Mz6 I'm willing to bear, in exchange for more performance and a more luxurious car.

Mukang pwede na scratch si M3 2.0 sa list.

Between the accord and the 6, 6 ako. Depende na lang siguro sa deal at sa condition nung cars. Good luck bro!

[mda_]

Mukang pwede na scratch si M3 2.0 sa list.

Between the accord and the 6, 6 ako. Depende na lang siguro sa deal at sa condition nung cars. Good luck bro!

Toyota Corona Exsior. if it wasn't so old. not very quick but i think it's just a classic.

[crosswind]

Nagstop ako maghanap bro eh and ngayon lang ulit ako nagresume sa paghahanap ng kotse.

Which Accord are you referring to? Currently the 6th gen is on top of the list since pinakamura.

The Camry was also in my shortlist top 10 but ultimately di ko type yung daddy car vibe niya and medyo mahal siya..


Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

yes,the 6th gen accord some has leather seats
yung ayaw ko lang walang headrest sa rear seats
kung pasok sa budget mo 7th gen then why not
how about the 2008 mazda 6 you love it I think because it's
sporty and it dosen't look like a executive car
How about considering
a Volvo and BMW and Audi
if your budget is around 300k

[jut703]

Toyota Corona Exsior. if it wasn't so old. not very quick but i think it's just a classic.

I agree that the Corona Exsior is an interesting car especially if it looks EUDM. However, it's slow (needs an engine change to a 3S-GE beams) and is pretty old already.

yes,the 6th gen accord some has leather seats
yung ayaw ko lang walang headrest sa rear seats
kung pasok sa budget mo 7th gen then why not
how about the 2008 mazda 6 you love it I think because it's
sporty and it dosen't look like a executive car
How about considering
a Volvo and BMW and Audi
if your budget is around 300k

Yup the 6th gen is what I'm looking at right now. The 7th gen, not so much because it's the same engine output on a body that's 150 kg heavier so I understand why others will find it sluggish for a midsizer. My friend has both a 2.0 VTi-L 7th gen and a 2.4 V Camry and the Camry is noticeably faster from a standstill and even with a slow transmission it's still more responsive overall because of the greater torque and lighter body.

The 2008 Mazda 6 looks ugly to me compared to the '05-'07 one. Only the facelift (released 2010) looks good, but that's still expensive. And IMO the facelifted gen 1 Mazda 6 still looks more timeless.

Not interested in Euro cars because the price equivalent of a midsizer would be an older, slower, and less reliable euro car. It's hard enough to maintain an old Jap car, it gets exponentially difficult and expensive if it's an old Euro. Only old Euro I would consider is an E39 5-series because it's such a classic, but I'm not at that financial level in my life yet that I can afford to maintain a money pit just because it's beautiful.

[[archie]]

Hi Archie, I use a 2000 150 hp CR-V as occasionally, albeit automatic. Doesn't really feel fast to me, but above adequate. Responsive transmission and 60-100 kph is pretty decent, but from a standstill or from 120 kph onwards, doesn't have a lot of punch. Must be the long gearing of the AT? The R18 Civic is more rev happy (no torque) but I don't mind revving as long as it gets up to speed quickly.

Haven't tried the 2.0 Accord yet, but from your experience, a 2.0 F20 manual Accord is slower than a B20 manual CR-V? I understand that the B20 is inherently torquier than the F20 but the CR-V is also heavier by almost 100 kilos.

Also, your thoughts on the 2.3 F23? Almost same price in OLX. I know it's torquier, but how far is the performance vs the 2.0 if both are MT? I only get 6 km/L with our 2.0 CR-V AT and if the 2.3 is much thirstier than the 2.0 without much difference in performance, I might opt for the 2.0. But if performance is noticeably better without too much of a hit in FC (say, 0.5 km/L only), then I'll look more towards the 2.3.

One problem we've had with the CR-V is the AWD mechanism which has been creaking from the rear lately when making hard turns. If this is a frequent problem for most CR-Vs, I might have to disable the AWD.

The bike storage isn't a very important feature since I usually pedal all the way so I rarely load the bike in the car, and whether I put it in a CR-V or a midsizer, I still have to take out the front wheel to load it (though it's easier to load with a CR-V through the rear hatch as opposed to doors on a sedan).

Sorry for the flurry of questions, I know kasi you're pretty well-versed on Honda engines and your inputs are highly appreciated. Thanks bro

Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

I have the a/t crv 2000 model. I know it can't match a car on performance but when I was looking into it, I really wanted something higher and with a lot more space than a car could give. I was looking for the best stock performance of its size. Rav 4 xtrail and crv were my choices.

The reason is crv is much easier to play around with. Parts are dirt cheap, more torque than its counterpart of Rav but the xtrail is more powerful but a demon on gas consumption. And lastly, it look more decent for me. Well iba iba naman tayo pag dating sa looks.

I have driven a accord 2.0 and I must say I'm not impressed. It's built for comfort and no torque at all pero may dulo. Hirap sa torque yung oto kahit compare sa crv m/t. Sa highway talo crv sa accord.

F23, never had the chance to drive one.

If your still running a awd, take it off. Promise mas masigla yung oto, torquey.

Hth

Edit: about the r18 civic, I'll say don't get it. Medyo may issues yung car. Tensioner bilis maloose thread, a/c magnetic switch etc. And it's not cheap to get fixed. No offense to fd users...

[crosswind]

I have the a/t crv 2000 model. I know it can't match a car on performance but when I was looking into it, I really wanted something higher and with a lot more space than a car could give. I was looking for the best stock performance of its size. Rav 4 xtrail and crv were my choices.

The reason is crv is much easier to play around with. Parts are dirt cheap, more torque than its counterpart of Rav but the xtrail is more powerful but a demon on gas consumption. And lastly, it look more decent for me. Well iba iba naman tayo pag dating sa looks.

I have driven a accord 2.0 and I must say I'm not impressed. It's built for comfort and no torque at all pero may dulo. Hirap sa torque yung oto kahit compare sa crv m/t. Sa highway talo crv sa accord.

F23, never had the chance to drive one.

If your still running a awd, take it off. Promise mas masigla yung oto, torquey.

Hth

Edit: about the r18 civic, I'll say don't get it. Medyo may issues yung car. Tensioner bilis maloose thread, a/c magnetic switch etc. And it's not cheap to get fixed. No offense to fd users...

I also have a 2000 honda cr-v but its a manual
i dont know if its faster than the A/T because for me
it's already responsive only minor repairs have been fixed
tyres lasted for 12 yrs.
the aircon is very reliable it only had problems on it's 12th yr.
4WD is also very helpful specially on standstill and on a 45 degrees parking on Antipolo
and it climbed up without a sweat beatin the L300 already making a burnout
FC is 6-7km/l on city driving my Galant V6 has better FC at 8km/l
* archie have you already replaced the under components at the chasis
like bushing and shock etc. that cost 44k

[jut703]

I have the a/t crv 2000 model. I know it can't match a car on performance but when I was looking into it, I really wanted something higher and with a lot more space than a car could give. I was looking for the best stock performance of its size. Rav 4 xtrail and crv were my choices.

The reason is crv is much easier to play around with. Parts are dirt cheap, more torque than its counterpart of Rav but the xtrail is more powerful but a demon on gas consumption. And lastly, it look more decent for me. Well iba iba naman tayo pag dating sa looks.

I have driven a accord 2.0 and I must say I'm not impressed. It's built for comfort and no torque at all pero may dulo. Hirap sa torque yung oto kahit compare sa crv m/t. Sa highway talo crv sa accord.

F23, never had the chance to drive one.

If your still running a awd, take it off. Promise mas masigla yung oto, torquey.

Hth

Edit: about the r18 civic, I'll say don't get it. Medyo may issues yung car. Tensioner bilis maloose thread, a/c magnetic switch etc. And it's not cheap to get fixed. No offense to fd users...

I agree spot on with your arguments for the CR-V, it's really very spacious and versatile, with the benefit of high ground clearance for poor roads and occasional floods.

Was the Accord 2.0 you tried an MT or AT? I don't particularly like any AT from the 90s because they rob so much power from the engine.

Not too keen on the FD either - it just doesn't feel special so it's not worth the price.

Thanks!


Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

[leodawesome]

The reason is crv is much easier to play around with. Parts are dirt cheap, more torque than its counterpart of Rav but the xtrail is more powerful but a demon on gas consumption.

TS, have you considered the Xtrail? Powerful engine specially the 2.5L variant. But with old school 4AT, fuel consumption suffers a lot. Still very spritely and springy from stop. My 2.0 4x2 consumes 6.5-7.5km/L average. Yun nga lang very basic ang interior.

[jut703]

TS, have you considered the Xtrail? Powerful engine specially the 2.5L variant. But with old school 4AT, fuel consumption suffers a lot. Still very spritely and springy from stop. My 2.0 4x2 consumes 6.5-7.5km/L average. Yun nga lang very basic ang interior.

Powerful engine but it's a heavy chassis so it's not exactly faster than a similar 2-liter midsizer but it consumes more gas. Also, price range for the X-Trail is too near the Mazda 6 and I'd take the Mz6 in a heartbeat. Mahal masyado ng X-Trail and RAV-4 eh. Handling also isn't very nice and I hate center-mounted gauges.

Great car but not really swak for my needs and wants..

Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

[[archie]]

Was the Accord 2.0 you tried an MT or AT? I don't particularly like any AT from the 90s because they rob so much power from the engine

It was a m/t. Even if you punch the gas pedal it just won't go. Hehe.

A/t is much worse, but it's OK after the first gear.

[jut703]

It was a m/t. Even if you punch the gas pedal it just won't go. Hehe.

A/t is much worse, but it's OK after the first gear.

Nako bro so mukhang mas mabilis pa ang CR-V MT kaysa sa Accord 2.0 MT kahit mas magaan yung Accord because of the B20 vs F20 and the latter's lack of torque.

Focus nalang siguro ako sa 2.3 na Accord. No point getting a 2.0 kung hindi mabilis hehe.


Posted via Tsikot Mobile App

[[archie]]

Yeah pero sa duluhan talo crv.

I'm still a believer of dohc over sohc engines.

Good luck bro, sa tingin ko naman the 2.3 version has some umph.