New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 34 of 34
  1. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,726
    #31
    Quote Originally Posted by mbt View Post
    the accord is really a great car. even the first 2.0 accords with 15" wheels are very lovely to drive; I don't find them too underpowered even on the highway. marvelous steering, excellent ergonomics, superb instruments, very good stock audio, amazing quality... you will simply NOT go wrong with this car!

    I find the Civic a bit too faddish inside and out, especially the spaceship dashboard. not a bad car at all and the engine and drivetrain are very good, but I'll take the used Accord over a new Civic myself. the used Accord will be a bargain.
    Accords have been growing and becoming heavier after each generation, but engine size didn't. The 2.0 of the current model, despite i-VTEC advancement, felt lethargic and certainly gulps fuel. This should explain why it has been scrapped in favor of the 2.4 motor.

  2. Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,199
    #32
    Quote Originally Posted by squala View Post
    Accords have been growing and becoming heavier after each generation, but engine size didn't. The 2.0 of the current model, despite i-VTEC advancement, felt lethargic and certainly gulps fuel. This should explain why it has been scrapped in favor of the 2.4 motor.
    I think that's because we've been given the USDM version of the Accord VII. The JDM Accord (sold as the Acura TSX) is a lightweight relative to it. Curb weight on the Acura TSX/JDM Accord is about the same as the previous generation model (the old Accord VI 2.3li weighed 1400kg ~ 1463kg, depending on trim level).

    JDM Accord: 1488kg
    US/PHDM Accord: 1558kg

    JDM 2.4li engine: 205hp*7000rpm, 164lbs-ft*4500rpm
    USDM 2.4li engine: 166hp*5800rpm, 160lbs-ft*4000rpm

  3. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,614
    #33
    Quote Originally Posted by squala View Post
    Accords have been growing and becoming heavier after each generation, but engine size didn't. The 2.0 of the current model, despite i-VTEC advancement, felt lethargic and certainly gulps fuel. This should explain why it has been scrapped in favor of the 2.4 motor.
    The 5-speed A/T helps, it could also be that the thing is so smooth you won't really notice unless you're rushing. The same K20 engine feels slower in the CR-V than in the Accord if i remember right. I know someone who owns both a 2004 Accord 2.0 and a 2004 CR-V 2.0 and he says the CR-V drinks more fuel.

    But I agree that the 2.4 is a more appropriate engine for the Accord than the K20... and especially the gonzo V6 -- a bit too much for city driving, but what the heck! V6 Accords would be bargain buys in the used-car market

  4. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,726
    #34
    That's probably because the 2.0 CR-V had only 4-speed A/T, and the fact that it's less aerodynamic than the Accord makes it consume even more gas. I drove my friend's '04 Accord 2.0 to the Fort then Quezon Ave, and the E in the fuel gauge seems to magnetize the needle. There was no traffic and neither did I have a leaded foot that time. It really drank fuel like there's no tomorrow. Other 2.0 owners also complained of gas guzzling, according to a Honda dealer I talked to before. Thus, the 2.4.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
2007 civic vs. 2004 accord