Accord 4 cyl vs. 6 cyl

Thanks, Mr. Tice. I was wrong; I didn't pay attention. I apologize. I was
not being snide at all when I said "clear enough?" I wasn't sure I was being
clear.

Your pal,
Daunte

 

I'll never forget the day I was in my 92 Civic Si, at a traffic light,
next to a big Caddy.

The light turned green, he wanted in my lane, and.....despite his trying
from the moment the light turned, he had to settle for getting in behind
me.

Who'd a thunk it. A 92 Civic Si beats a big V8 Caddy off the line and
down the road.

 

once you get that little baby well set up and bouncing off the red line,
you got to spend a /whole/ lot of extra cash to find anything that'll
beat it! whole lot of extra cubic inches too...

 

once you get that little baby well set up and bouncing off the red line,
you got to spend a /whole/ lot of extra cash to find anything that'll
beat it![/QUOTE]

Mine was stock from the day it was new, and I probably had 40K miles on
it by the time this incident happened--if not more.

Oh, yeah, it knew all about the redline. I see no need to baby a Honda
4 cylinder engine. That car is alive and well today, with 137K on it;
my nephew has it.

It still has the original clutch, too.

 

Yup - had mine for 7 years and redlined it almost every time I drove it.
Distro bearings exploding was the only "breakdown" it had in all that time.
At the end of the day, there are any number of cars, driven hard, that will
beat it. I timed it around 10-11 secs to 60mph, which ain't nippy. But
first and second gear just nailed most cars. On the motorway, it was waaay
underpowered and that of all things pissed me off the most. Dropping to
60mph in traffic then having to wait again while the next 30-40mph slowly
approached ...




a

 

Oh I dunno ... £7k on a (quite poor) TVR Grif 5.0 would beat it by about 6-7
seconds up to 60mph I reckon

But then I suppose a '91 Civic these days probably only fetches about £2k
for a good example (mine was a Jap VTi model) so valid point re: the cost
difference.





a

 

some disbelief at the problem you describe. unless you're used to driving a
porsche or something /substantially/ faster than a
vtec honda, there's no way you'd be complaining of this car being a slouch.
seriously, if the car is as bad as you say, there has to be something wrong,
for instance, the kick-down on the automatic should not be significantly
delayed. if yours has a problem with slow downshift, it needs fixing.

jb, thanks for your thoughtful response. Perhaps this "lack of
acceleration" thing is more just in my head than anything else. Perhaps my
expectations are too high and unrealistic. Perhaps I think my car is a
slouch because I know my car is a 4 and not a 6. Know any good car shrinks?

had done to the car other than valve adjustment & exhaust? how long has
it been like that? have you had anything replaced like oxygen sensor or
thermostat? low grade after-market components affect performance. and
have you had the egr system cleaned? does it hesitate? has the air filter
been changed any time recently?

My radiator cracked near the cap and leaked coolant but I caught it right
away and had it replaced. The Honda dealer who replaced it said it was just
"normal part failure" which he said occurs in about 1 in 10 Accords. He
said I did nothing to cause it. I do change the air filter frequently and
it was done when I had the tune-up with valve adjustment a few months ago.
I have not had the egr system cleaned...that's a good point.

"honda specialist" has been telling you age is an excuse. your car is low
mileage by honda standards. and the engine technology is not that retarded.
a friend has a stock accord vtec your vintage with /many/
more miles. when driving that car, i'm much more concerned with keeping my
licence than i am about whether it's a 6.

In fairness to my "Honda specialist"...heh heh!, they did not recommend the
tune up with valve adjustment and muffler replacement as a repair solution
to my "check engine" light problem. That work needed to be done anyway and
I did not even mention the "check engine" light problem to them as I didn't
think it to be that serious at the time, based on what I knew then. I was
only mentioning that work to potentially eliminate them as causes of my
C/E/L problem. The place I go to actually has an excellent reputation among
Honda owners and many get their work done there instead of at any of the 5
Honda dealers in town.

Thanks again, you've given me some good info. and some good places to start.

 

not being snide at all when I said "clear enough?" I wasn't sure I was being
clear.

Now how could I not like a post like that.

Signed,

Troy Williamson

 

Oops - you're right, I could've sworn the newer fours were pushing 200
hp, but 160 it is. The newer sixes have 240 hp, while the pre-2002 ones
have 200 hp. My dad has a current-gen DX with a four, and power is
certainly adequate for both city and highway driving.

Dave

 

They are. RSX, TSX.

 

my crx dx was faster than that. had 305k on the clock too.

there's lots of little things that can improve the overall running of
that car. for my 89 civic, the most remarkable difference was the
quality of the oxygen sensor. new oem is the way to go, by a /long/
way. other little things, other than the tuneup stuff that needs to be
done include, decent oil, decent filter, clean pcv valve, new
thermostat, clean injectors, throttle linkage [make sure it opens all
the way!] and something all too frequently overlooked, brakes!!! i
overhaul my brake calipers every time i fit new pads. that way, they
release fully and there's /no/ wasted energy. closing the windows at
higher speeds helps too!

 

forgot to mention, having the timing belt tensioned properly helped too
- when i got this car, because i'd never bothered to check, the timing
belt was way loose*, so timing was bouncing around a lot. correct
tension made a great difference to the car as the timing, both ignition
& valve, was now on spec.

* to give you an idea /how/ loose, when i took the timing cover off and
turned the motor clockwise, the wrong way, to get the crank to tdc, i
watched the timing belt skip a tooth!!! how it had never skipped in the
10k miles i'd had it before then, i'll never know.

 

Good advice ... but I'm long rid of it thankfully Have an ATR now ...
much quicker! BTW, old Civic, being a Jap import, had A/C as standard, so
no need to worry about windows being open





a

 

Joe,

My wife just bought 2005 EX 4cyl w/leather auto. Since she has been driving
Nissan Altima's for a long time I was concerned about the 4 cyl giving her
enough get up and go since Altimas have a high revving engine or so it
seems. I had her test drive it twice, local and getting on highway and she
said it was fine. She has had it for two weeks now and loves it.

I drove it the other day on 95 in Ct to NY and didn't feel that there was
any problem power wise. Certainly not as much off the line as my car but I
had no complaints. What do I drive to compare, 2004 Acura 270 hp TL, so I
should have felt way underpowered, I really didn't. So being what gas is now
adays the 4 seems to be a good alternative.

George in NY

 

Funny but after reading the several reports here about how little (if any)
difference there was in accelerating with the 4-cyl vs. 6-cyl, I thought
maybe the 4-cylinder might be a lot lighter. But it's not:

2005 Accord EX automatic trans, 4-door Sedan (per Edmunds.com):

V-6, 3 L, 240 hp, 21/30 mpg, curb wt. = 3389 lbs
4-cyl, 2.4 L, 160 hp, 24/34 mpg, curb wt. = 3200 lbs

Perhaps all those horses under the hood are for people who really like to
accelerate? Anything over, say, 120 hp (a guesstimate based on personal
experience) for cars this weight is overkill for ordinary driving folks?

Elle
Original owner, 1991 Civic, about 90 hp, if I recall correctly.

 

"Vikings Fan" wrote

See? I mean no harm - none at all. I'm most concerned that you are
happy with your car and can make the most out of it. Sometimes my 2004
4-cyl doesn't get off the line, and what it takes sometimes is manually
downshifting so the torque? is up and ready for action.

Now the hard part -- I have to admit... I've been a Giants fan since 1954.
<ducking>

Howard

 

happy with your car and can make the most out of it. Sometimes my 2004
4-cyl doesn't get off the line, and what it takes sometimes is manually
downshifting so the torque? is up and ready for action.

Sorry Howard, I guess I have a bit of a hair trigger sometimes. It's also
hard to judge tone sometimes when reading an online post. Your advice made
sense when I viewed it a second time.

I have relatives in New York who are huge Giants fans and they have been
giving me quite a bit of grief about how the Giants have had the Vikings
number the last few years. They quote the 41-0 playoff score of a few years
ago quite regularly. I tell them this year will be different...we finally
have a decent defense. We'll see on November 13, 2005 when the Vikes and
Giants tangle yet again. I don't think I'm confident enough to bet. <g>

 

Your comment about "how little (if any) difference there was in
accelerating with the 4-cyl vs. 6-cyl" is not really correct. It may be
reflecting some drivers' seat of the pants perceptions, but the many
tests in automotive magazines and Consumer Reports say otherwise. For
example Road and Track tests show a 0 to 60 time for the Accord EXV6 of
7.3 seconds for the automatic and 6.3 seconds for the 6 speed manual
transmission. These are significantly better than the results for the 4
cylinder Accords. You (and anyone else) are free to check out the
figures on line or in your local library.

 

Why don't you post this to the several people here who provided this
observation?

I am merely going by what they said.

It may be

But don't these tests attempt to accelerate the car from 0 mph to 60 mph as
fast as possible? Does your average driver always try to accelerate this
quickly?

Take it up with the others, dammit.