Honda Accord question

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I've been wanting to get away from timing belt engines. Sucks the Accord V6's are belt. My nephew had the belt done on his Ridgeline and it was over $2000.

Buy a 4 cylinder Accord. Its a good car, but a little boring after a week.

 

[dan_erickson]

I have had a 2010 Accord coupe 4 cylinder loaded, now I have a 2015 Accord coupe V6 loaded. Here is my opinion on both cars.

The 2010 4 cylinder was a great car, super reliable, did everything it was suppose to and never failed. Now I did not care for the 4 banger engine because it had a slight vibration that I could feel in the steering wheel while sitting at a stop light. If you needed to pass someone on the highway or get out of the way you might as well just pull over because the engine will be screaming but the car is not going anywhere. It was adequate for zipping around town. The interior layout on the dash and console is terrible. The radio, HVAC controls, console ect looks and feels cheap, also the seats were not that great and would give me leg cramps on a long drive.

My current 2015 Accord with the V6 is not a bad car either. Everything that I dislike about my old 2010 was changed and improved with the 2015. The V6 has plenty of power, sometimes it still will surprise me and the gas mileage is not bad at all. Real world it is right about the same as my old 2010 as far and gas mileage. I installed a VCM muzzler and that was probably one of the best things I could do to that car. The transmission I can't stand. Maybe it just me, maybe it is the shift logic in the computer but I just don't like it and Honda can not find anything wrong. Massive improvement on the interior and I can't say enough about that. Exterior looks better too. I like the V6 with a VCM Muzzler at lot better then the 4 cylinder engine. The 9th gen is a way better car with either engine option IMHO

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: bubbatime
People trade them in rather than incur a $1000 expense at the dealer.


Funny you mention that because all of the V6 ones I'm finding are right under 100K. If I buy a V6 one that'll be a negotiating tool,timing belt replacement.

 

[aquariuscsm]

I was planning on driving into Houston to look at a few and hopefully drive one home (all dealership cars). But the weather Saturday is supposed to be bad,so I might have to plan another Saturday.

 

[dareo]

Strongly suggest a 9th gen 2013 model if possible. However since you want AT i would only do the V6, otherwise you gamble on a used cvt. Prices have come down a lot on these cars. The v6 AT will have likely been driven at much smaller throttle angles than the 4 cyl. The 4 cyl can accelerate well but it needs to be worked hard.

 

[stockrex]

I would get a v6, both engines have fuel dilution issues, I drove the heck out my v6 accord, 200k.

 

[aquariuscsm]

I'll definitely drive both "side by side" and see which I like better. I've definitely decided the Accord coupe is what I'm buying. Like I stated earlier,the few I've looked at so far,the major dealership ones are the best examples. The individual seller and mom and pop car lot ones always have issues. Even though the dealership ones are higher priced,you get what you pay for,unless you find that garaged cream puff.

 

[fdcg27]

If you're looking at that age range, then you're looking at two different generations.
Since we own a gen 8 '12 and I've driven lots of miles in a gen 7 car, I can tell you that the '03-07 gen 7 car is much better to drive. If you can find a good gen 7 four cylinder car, buy it.
The gen 8 car features heavy understeer even with the four and is therefore not nearly as entertaining to drive as the earlier cars.
I find that the four in our '12 has plenty of power, but you do have to let it rev and not shift early and you also have to put your foot down and force downshifts if you want to move.
The V-6 is much more effortless with its power output, but will deliver markedly inferior fuel economy in typical use.
OTOH, really nice Accords at a decent price tend to be V-6 cars. V-6 cars are often cheaper than equivalent four cylinder cars, since buyers seem to understand that they'll be looking at a timing belt service almost at once.
You should also consider that the current generation cars are gone at the end of this model year.
You might therefore be able to buy a new '17 in November or December for a killer price. This is how we bought our '12. If you can abide DI and CVT, a leftover new '17 might be a good choice for you.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
V-6 cars are often cheaper than equivalent four cylinder cars, since buyers seem to understand that they'll be looking at a timing belt service almost at once.


I'm definitely seeing this. I have no problem whatsoever getting the timing belt service done as soon as I buy one as long as the seller negotiates on the price per service. The V6 is definitely what I'm leaning towards. Thank you for these awesome reviews and advice. Learning more and more about these cars and what to look for is a very good help and much appreciated!!

 

[AccordV6MN]

I bought my 2006 Accord V6 6MT coupe EX-L when it was 2 years old with 51K miles on it.

It has served me well and still going strong. The only problem I had was the central lock actuator that cost me $250-300 fixed by dealer and shifting to 3rd gear issue (won't go in all the way and kick back). Visited dealer many times and of course never happen when the tech drove it. After doing research, the fix was the MT fluid. Honda MTF is SUCK. I've using Penzoil MTF since 80K and now 162K miles still no issue.

I keep log of every re-fueling and my lifetime MPG is slightly over 29 (low at 26-27MPG in winter traffic jam and high at 32-33 hwy, occasionally over) to commute to work 35% with traffic light (30-50 mph), the rest in hwy (60-70 mph).

Replaced timing belt along with water pump at dealer for $800-830.

Replaced spark plugs, one of bank is easy, facing forward. The other bank, not too bad except one of the cylinder, tight space.

I used to have 97 accord with I4, which was nice too. 1-2 MPG better than my current accord. The I4 enough power to pass in hwy, the V6 is a breeze.

No plan to sell yet as it still serve me well. No rattle, no dilution mentioned above. I used conventional oil until I found BITOG with Mobil rebate, that makes synth in the price range of conv w/o rebate. Replace oil filter every time (even I could do every other) at MM 20%, about 6 mo, 5500-7500 miles.

The thing I don't like about the V6 is that front heavy. As I make turn a corner or round about the front end dips and ready to understeer much more than the I4.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Does the Accord V6 require premium unleaded fuel?

 

[A_A_G]

Up your budget just a bit and get a '13 Accord. The 08-12 model is the generation that Honda cut some serious corners in interior quality and reliability. I'm personally a fan of the Accord Sport in 6 speed manual flavor, such a joy to drive and returns excellent fuel economy.

 

[Danh]

Originally Posted By: A_A_G
Up your budget just a bit and get a '13 Accord. The 08-12 model is the generation that Honda cut some serious corners in interior quality and reliability. I'm personally a fan of the Accord Sport in 6 speed manual flavor, such a joy to drive and returns excellent fuel economy.


The OP should be aware that the 2013 changed in other ways, too: the CVT is the only automatic available (which he requires) and the 4 cylinder engine went from port to direct fuel injection. The CVT and DI have their pluses, but the CVT doesn't appeal to everyone and the DI does produce considerable fuel dilution. Plus, the first model year of any change has its risks.

I'd vote for a 4 cylinder 2012.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: A_A_G
Up your budget just a bit and get a '13 Accord. The 08-12 model is the generation that Honda cut some serious corners in interior quality and reliability. I'm personally a fan of the Accord Sport in 6 speed manual flavor, such a joy to drive and returns excellent fuel economy.


The OP should be aware that the 2013 changed in other ways, too: the CVT is the only automatic available (which he requires) and the 4 cylinder engine went from port to direct fuel injection. The CVT and DI have their pluses, but the CVT doesn't appeal to everyone and the DI does produce considerable fuel dilution. Plus, the first model year of any change has its risks.

I'd vote for a 4 cylinder 2012.


I'd actually thought about that. I just looked at a 2013 low mileage one online at a Honda dealership,BUT,I'm unsure about the whole CVT thing. I'll browse for some 2012 4 cyl models.

 

[FutureDoc]

I am kinda curious here.... with the manual being out, why not open up a few more options. I keep coming back that there are a few better coupes for traffic than the Accord. I would go with a G37 coupe with a slushbox over the Accord with the CVT. Also, the G37/Accord are about the same price for the same yeas/mileage. You might bet a few more toys for the money. Now, the rear seat is better in the Accord than the G37 but I do not know if that is a main thing. You might enjoy the Infiniti in comparison to the Z.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
I am kinda curious here.... with the manual being out, why not open up a few more options. I keep coming back that there are a few better coupes for traffic than the Accord. I would go with a G37 coupe with a slushbox over the Accord with the CVT. Also, the G37/Accord are about the same price for the same yeas/mileage. You might bet a few more toys for the money. Now, the rear seat is better in the Accord than the G37 but I do not know if that is a main thing. You might enjoy the Infiniti in comparison to the Z.



Funny you mention the G37. An ex gf of mine just bought a Q60 coupe. I drove it and it feels almost exactly like my 300ZX,but not quite as solid and sturdy. Weird thing is,my Z pulls ALOT harder than the Q,and it's only rated at 222 hp. I really didn't like it though. I can't quite pinpoint what it is,but I just wasn't impressed.

I wonder if the G's are as reliable and cheap to own and maintain as an Accord? Weird,but so far the Accord coupes are still my favorite.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
An ex gf of mine just bought a Q60 coupe. I drove it and it feels almost exactly like my 300ZX,but not quite as solid and sturdy. Weird thing is,my Z pulls ALOT harder than the Q,and it's only rated at 222 hp.

Which engine did the Q60 have? They're available with 2-liter I4 208hp engines all the way up to twin turbo 3-liter V6 with 400hp.

 

[SatinSilver]

Originally Posted By: Brybo86
The V6 is VCM in the Sedan big NO NO
V6 is NON VCM in the coupe.


The V6 manual coupe doesn't have VCM but the automatic versions do have it. The VCM Muzzler can easily and cheaply disable it per Trav on here. Kind of a must-do if you go that route.

A coupe guys on the Accord forum have 200k+ on the original timing belt. The ones that come out at 100k look pristine. So I'd be tempted to let it go 200k before replacing or maybe 150k. Since I'm sure the belt would be fine at that mileage. But not sure about the other components that are replaced along with the belt during that service.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: SatinSilver
But not sure about the other components that are replaced along with the belt during that service.

Yeah, in many cars it's the belt tensioner that snaps and not the belt itself.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
I am kinda curious here.... with the manual being out, why not open up a few more options. I keep coming back that there are a few better coupes for traffic than the Accord. I would go with a G37 coupe with a slushbox over the Accord with the CVT. Also, the G37/Accord are about the same price for the same yeas/mileage. You might bet a few more toys for the money. Now, the rear seat is better in the Accord than the G37 but I do not know if that is a main thing. You might enjoy the Infiniti in comparison to the Z.



Funny you mention the G37. An ex gf of mine just bought a Q60 coupe. I drove it and it feels almost exactly like my 300ZX,but not quite as solid and sturdy. Weird thing is,my Z pulls ALOT harder than the Q,and it's only rated at 222 hp. I really didn't like it though. I can't quite pinpoint what it is,but I just wasn't impressed.

I wonder if the G's are as reliable and cheap to own and maintain as an Accord? Weird,but so far the Accord coupes are still my favorite.


I like the Accord Coupe a lot. If they had a slightly better suspension tuned towards sporty driving, it could be my DD. An revived "Prelude" would be it.

I understand that feeling with the G. That is kinda what happened with the WRX to me... kinda the perfect car on paper but I just did not have an emotional hook to it. Still, they made the Q60 a bit softer, a LOT heavier, and I think detuned the V6 -now only 300bhp- (they do offer a turbo 4 with 208bhp) the power so it might be worth checking out the G37. Of those that left the G's alone, I have not heard of a lot of problems. A friend has loved his G (sedan version) and does a lot of miles commuting between locations (oversees various stores, etc). He went from a Camry to the G sedan and has been happy as far as the reliability.

Well, Accords overall are Honda's real claim and even with their recent trouble-spots, the Accord never had the cost cutting. The V6+Z1 fluid automatics are always a weak point but that can be maintenance related too.

If you want something that feels like a Z, cough, Hyundai Genesis Coupe (V6 only). I could not get a 370Z due to baby/backseat needs but the Hyundai is a good copy. Felt like my 280ZX. It has that "want to be a higher quality vehicle but with a limited parts bin of Japaense vehicles of the 80s) Reliability will be a bit behind the Accord (Hyundai has been nipping at Honda heel on reliability) but you could pick up one up for about $5K less with very little mileage comparatively.