I am about to buy an Accord and the 160 hp 4 cyl is all I really need
but I plan to own this for a long time and put about 200,000 miles on
it. My question is would the 6 cyl be more likely to reach that
milestone than the 4 with a lot less problems along the way or doesn't
it really matter?

 

Well, since Honda has had issues with the V6 auto trannys, and your not
needing a "hot rod" go with the 4 cylinder.

<d.saxe@att.net> wrote in message
news:1109481180.333168.266300@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> I am about to buy an Accord and the 160 hp 4 cyl is all I really need
> but I plan to own this for a long time and put about 200,000 miles on
> it. My question is would the 6 cyl be more likely to reach that
> milestone than the 4 with a lot less problems along the way or doesn't
> it really matter?
>

 

d.saxe@att.net wrote:
> I am about to buy an Accord and the 160 hp 4 cyl is all I really need
> but I plan to own this for a long time and put about 200,000 miles on
> it. My question is would the 6 cyl be more likely to reach that
> milestone than the 4 with a lot less problems along the way or doesn't
> it really matter?
>

honda has more years making 4s than 6es. id tend to stick with the 4.
especially the manual-shift version.

 

For my money I'd go with the V6-no question. Much smoother, better power to
the road. Ignore what you've heard-V6 is the best choice.
Of the 5 Accords sitting in my drive, only one is V6. The L4s have had
no auto transmission problems at all, and the V6 is a four speed
auto.Collectively accumulated over 800,000 miles.
See my collection at:

http://www.odyclub.com/forums/showth...ight=netdoctor
<d.saxe@att.net> wrote in message
news:1109481180.333168.266300@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> I am about to buy an Accord and the 160 hp 4 cyl is all I really need
> but I plan to own this for a long time and put about 200,000 miles on
> it. My question is would the 6 cyl be more likely to reach that
> milestone than the 4 with a lot less problems along the way or doesn't
> it really matter?
>

 

d.saxe@att.net wrote:
> I am about to buy an Accord and the 160 hp 4 cyl is all I really need
> but I plan to own this for a long time and put about 200,000 miles on
> it. My question is would the 6 cyl be more likely to reach that
> milestone than the 4 with a lot less problems along the way or doesn't
> it really matter?
>
stick with the 4. there are some amazing mileages recorded for them.
also go to a junk yard some time. proportional to the sales volume,
there are many more junked honda 6's there than there are 4's - that
tells you all you need to know.

 

I have a 2001 4cyl and a 2004 6cyl. The 4cyl has very adequate power and is
a very reliable engine. However for me the 6 cyl is a helluva lot more fun
to drive and I get a lot more smiles per mile. If the extra performance is
not of concern to you then by all means buy the 4 cyl which will also save
you quite a bit on the initial investment and the probably cost less for
maintenance and repairs. For me the 6cyl was well worth the investment that
I have never given a second thought. . --- Steve


<d.saxe@att.net> wrote in message
news:1109481180.333168.266300@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
>I am about to buy an Accord and the 160 hp 4 cyl is all I really need
> but I plan to own this for a long time and put about 200,000 miles on
> it. My question is would the 6 cyl be more likely to reach that
> milestone than the 4 with a lot less problems along the way or doesn't
> it really matter?
>

 

In article <1109481180.333168.266300@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,
d.saxe@att.net says...
> I am about to buy an Accord and the 160 hp 4 cyl is all I really need
> but I plan to own this for a long time and put about 200,000 miles on
> it. My question is would the 6 cyl be more likely to reach that
> milestone than the 4 with a lot less problems along the way or doesn't
> it really matter?
>
>
It wont be long before we are paying over $3.00 a gallon for gas.
The end of the gas hogs is at hand. Just go to Europe and see what the
average European is driving.

5 years from not you will be glad you got a car with 26/34 rather than
one with 19/25. Per tank that will be 170 extra miles of driving!

Also if I am right the 4 will sell better at that time.



--
jerry

 

d.saxe@att.net wrote:
> I am about to buy an Accord and the 160 hp 4 cyl is all I really need
> but I plan to own this for a long time and put about 200,000 miles on
> it. My question is would the 6 cyl be more likely to reach that
> milestone than the 4 with a lot less problems along the way or
doesn't
> it really matter?

Any decent Japanese V6 should be able to reach 200,000+ miles. That
said, an I-4 is better balanced and goes through fewer weird harmonics
than a V6, so it probably will last longer. Theoretically, you want a
V8 or an I-4, not a V6.

If you do push the I-4 hard on a habitual basis, the auto tranny will
be doing a lot of downshifting. All those shifts could be harder on it
than a V6 (with more torque) is. Keep that in mind before you decide
that an I-4 has adequate power.

I bought a 2004 V6 EX and love it. Never even drove the I-4, so I
don't know how it does.

JM

 

If you want a car that will shine after 200,000 miles, a standard tranny
without AC would be the best combo.

If Automatic and AC is a must, the 4 cyl Honda has a better reputation when
compared to the V6. However, If the car is going to pull alot of load,
and/or driven in an area with extreme hills, then a V6 would be a better
choice.

Pars


<d.saxe@att.net> wrote in message
news:1109481180.333168.266300@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> I am about to buy an Accord and the 160 hp 4 cyl is all I really need
> but I plan to own this for a long time and put about 200,000 miles on
> it. My question is would the 6 cyl be more likely to reach that
> milestone than the 4 with a lot less problems along the way or doesn't
> it really matter?
>

 

After a quick google search, I found a '93 Accord that was traded in with
over 1 million miles. The dealership has the thing on display. It is a 4
cylinder, manual transmission, and apparently has been driven all day every
day for 13 years.

Longevity is no longer correlated with power or displacement as it may have
been 40 years ago in American cars.

In my experience, the L4 is just fine unless you plan on towing.

Honda automatic transmissions are problematic. Choice of transmission
should trump choice of motor.

regards,
KL

 

Respect your opinions. I stick to my original statement. For my money, V6
5AT.

"Keith E. Loyd" <nospam@dagnamit.com> wrote in message
news:VLLUd.36178$Zr.32368@okepread03...
> After a quick google search, I found a '93 Accord that was traded in with
> over 1 million miles. The dealership has the thing on display. It is a 4
> cylinder, manual transmission, and apparently has been driven all day
every
> day for 13 years.
>
> Longevity is no longer correlated with power or displacement as it may
have
> been 40 years ago in American cars.
>
> In my experience, the L4 is just fine unless you plan on towing.
>
> Honda automatic transmissions are problematic. Choice of transmission
> should trump choice of motor.
>
> regards,
> KL
>
>

 

Keith E. Loyd <nospam@dagnamit.com> wrote:
> Longevity is no longer correlated with power or displacement as it may have
> been 40 years ago in American cars.

Odd you should mention 40 years ago as some sort of special date.
My Dad's 64 Chevy II was purchased in January of 1965. It has 340,000
miles on it, maybe 440K. Not enough digits on the odometer, and we tend to
lose track after a while. The two speed Powerglide automatic transmission
was rebuilt at 65,000 miles, and it is vibrating pretty badly now due to a
worn front bushing. The 194 cubic inch straight six was about the smallest
engine availble on a US built car at the time.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5