150k 2004 Accord Review

[k24a4]

Originally Posted By: chrisri
American Accords' are ugly.


Looks a bit like a jellybean, right? Would have preferred the Euro Accord (US Acura TSX) but at the time it was beyond my budget.

Originally Posted By: KGMtech


It was my least reliable car and I replaced it with a 2004 VW Passat, which has been stellar - go figure!


Honda had to step up their game owing to the success of this generation Passat, which was bringing higher levels of luxury and performance to the mid-size market. I remember wanting one.

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd


I share your love of the engine, but do wish that Honda used the same "fully balanced" crankshaft in the lo-po K-series engines that they used in the 200-hp/7,500 rpm versions of this engine in some RSXes and TSXes. I understand that, due to the higher RPM, those crankshafts have better balanced counterweights, and are just plain SMOOTH all the way up to the top. The lower-spec K-series engines, at least in my opinion, are a little coarser as you get above about 4,000 rpm.



I recall that the K24a4 was fully balanced, but could not remember where I read it. A quick search found this: "The K24A4 also features internal balance shafts located within the oil pan, which help minimize second-order harmonic vibrations for a smoother ride."

Read more: http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/1402-k-series-engine-family-breakdown/#ixzz3cCYFoys3

Not sure if that relates or not, but the engine is buttery smooth.

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Lolvoguy
I've never understood the logic of turning UP the stereo to combat (road) noise. Seems counter-intuitive to me


I agree.

I find I often drive with the radio off, the quiet is nice.



I, too, like to drive with the radio off, and a bit of road noise does not bother me. My comment was meant to shed a bit of light on the performance of the radio, which is quite good as far as stock systems go.

 

[k24a4]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
You guys are talking like 200k is some kind of great feat. I have a 1996 Ford full sized work van with a 4.9 in it with over 400k with the original valve cover gaskets.

So does my domestic quality and durability rate as good as Honda or.........


I salute you, Sir, and hope to be there with you someday.

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd


Your Ford is 19 years old, running 13,684 miles per year. OP's Honda is 11 years old, running 13,636 miles/year -- nearly EXACTLY the same! Once OP's Honda is 19 years old like your truck, I look forward to his 260,000 mile review.

Now that is some good math! Hope to be able to give you that review someday, Hokie!

 

[buster]

Sold my 2005 Accord couple (2.4L) that had 180k miles on it for $5k. Ran like new. Incredible car. Bulletproof.

 

[RTexasF]

Well written. I also had an '04 five speed but my rear seat did fold down. It was an EX model and I still miss it to this day.

 

[k24a4]

Originally Posted By: RTexasF
Well written. I also had an '04 five speed but my rear seat did fold down. It was an EX model and I still miss it to this day.


I should have been more clear: the rear seat does fold forward, but only as one piece. For some reason Honda has never given the Accord a split-folding rear seat, even to this day.

 

[k24a4]

Originally Posted By: buster
Sold my 2005 Accord couple (2.4L) that had 180k miles on it for $5k. Ran like new. Incredible car. Bulletproof.


I remember it: Coupe EX-L? I looked forward to reading your updates.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: k24a4
I recall that the K24a4 was fully balanced, but could not remember where I read it. A quick search found this: "The K24A4 also features internal balance shafts located within the oil pan, which help minimize second-order harmonic vibrations for a smoother ride."

Read more: http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/1402-k-series-engine-family-breakdown/#ixzz3cCYFoys3

Not sure if that relates or not, but the engine is buttery smooth.


Yes; I think all of the K-series engines have the twin counter-rotating balance shafts. I understand that the counterweights on the crankshaft are different. Here's a reference:

http://www.superhonda.com/forum/f28/k24a2-vs-k24a4-a2-hybrid-324495/

The K24A2 cranks reportedly have "full counterweights" whereas other flavors of the K24 don't.

 

[HM12460]

Sounds like a nice car. I'm wondering if the CR-V share's it's mechanicals with the Accord?

 

[k24a4]

While based on the Civic platform the CRV does share the Accord power-plant. For 2015 it was updated with the DI K24 and CVT. CRV's have a history of being extremely reliable.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Yes, they are close. The CR-V never had the exact same engine code as the Accord, but they're very similar engines. OP's K24A4 was installed in the Accord and the Element, and was replaced by the K24A8 in 2006 and 2007, respectively. Both of these engines have cast aluminum single stage intake manifolds.

The CR-V of similar vintage used the K24A1 through 2006, which used a plastic dual-stage intake manifold. This moved the torque band a little lower in the engine speed range, peaking at 3,600 rpm vs. the Accord's 4,500 rpm. In 2007, Honda used the K24Z1 in the CR-V, which replaced the plastic intake manifold with a cast aluminum one similar to the Accord's. The torque peak moved up to 4,200 rpm. The Z1 also has an aluminum oil pan that is said to increase block rigidity.

All of the engines are obviously very similar, with slight tweaks to suit different applications. Things like intake manifolds being slightly different, engine mounting being slightly different, oil filter locations being changed over time, etc. It's actually interesting to consider just how many different versions of this engine Honda implemented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_K_engine

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
You guys are talking like 200k is some kind of great feat. I have a 1996 Ford full sized work van with a 4.9 in it with over 400k with the original valve cover gaskets.


My well-maintained 99 Taurus never made it to 200K, the Vulcan's heads went up at 170K. By 140K it had already cost me a fortune- A/C, rack and pinion, front end components, wheel bearings, random sensors and emissions components, and front brakes, front brakes, front brakes, front brakes, front brakes, front brakes, and front brakes.

The automatic transmission was programmed by a schizo and the dealer said it was all good that's the way they are. The car gave itself throttle and upshifted so you drove it by modulating the brake pedal. But according to the dealer that was OK that's they way they are from Ford.

So yeah, I'm happy to read about a trouble-free car at 140K. It's more than Ford could do for me.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: Clevy
You guys are talking like 200k is some kind of great feat. I have a 1996 Ford full sized work van with a 4.9 in it with over 400k with the original valve cover gaskets.


My well-maintained 99 Taurus never made it to 200K, the Vulcan's heads went up at 170K. By 140K it had already cost me a fortune- A/C, rack and pinion, front end components, wheel bearings, random sensors and emissions components, and front brakes, front brakes, front brakes, front brakes, front brakes, front brakes, and front brakes.

The automatic transmission was programmed by a schizo and the dealer said it was all good that's the way they are. The car gave itself throttle and upshifted so you drove it by modulating the brake pedal. But according to the dealer that was OK that's they way they are from Ford.

So yeah, I'm happy to read about a trouble-free car at 140K. It's more than Ford could do for me.


That's the way mine was when it was cold and on high idle to light the cat off.

 

[NJC]

Thanks for the review - I've never paid much attention to this generation Accord (too new). I've had Generations #2, 3 and 4 of the Accord. Although automatics are easy and painless to operate, they probably should be outlawed in some of their models.

I want a standard for my next model Accord.