Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Honda Cars / April 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

2004 Accord vs 2007 civic

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
edirectory@gmail.com - 28 Apr 2007 02:02 GMT
I am looking at two cars:

1) 2004 Accord EX I4 with 30k, AT
2) 2007 Civic EX AT

They are roughly the same price. I had 1995 Civic die on me--needs new
transmission, and I decided this is just a time to get a new ride.

I have driven the Civic, but not the Accord. The one thing I did not
like about the Civic was the emergency brake seemed to rub on my leg.
Getting in an out of the back seemed more difficult, but who cares :)

I am concerned about the Honda AT. My civic was a manual and I am
still on the same clutch at 140k! I have read millions of posts about
how shitty Honda's AT are, primarily in Accords. Can someone explain
that to me? I would hate to dump money into an Accord only to have a
lemon on my hands.
Bob Jones - 28 Apr 2007 02:51 GMT
I would go for the Civic. It is more fuel economy and nimble.

I had a 04 Accord, the AT was quite smooth, no issue there. But the
workmanship is not as good as the early 90s accords. I did not like the
cheap plastics dashboard and the big silly turning knobs. I traded it in for
an RSX in only one year.

>I am looking at two cars:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> that to me? I would hate to dump money into an Accord only to have a
> lemon on my hands.
jim beam - 28 Apr 2007 02:55 GMT
> I would go for the Civic. It is more fuel economy and nimble.

but no wishbones.

> I had a 04 Accord, the AT was quite smooth, no issue there. But the
> workmanship is not as good as the early 90s accords. I did not like the
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>> that to me? I would hate to dump money into an Accord only to have a
>> lemon on my hands.
Bob Jones - 28 Apr 2007 03:17 GMT
I just can't tell the difference. After a while they all ride the same. I
would get a new car over a used one any day.

>> I would go for the Civic. It is more fuel economy and nimble.
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>>> that to me? I would hate to dump money into an Accord only to have a
>>> lemon on my hands.
Jeff  Johnson - 28 Apr 2007 03:22 GMT
Tough call. You get more car with the Accord. 30,000 miles should not
be much on an Accord or any Honda.

> I just can't tell the difference. After a while they all ride the same. I
> would get a new car over a used one any day.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> >>> that to me? I would hate to dump money into an Accord only to have a
> >>> lemon on my hands.
Bob Jones - 28 Apr 2007 03:27 GMT
More car, you mean more metal or more plastic? There is always a risk buying
a used car.

> Tough call. You get more car with the Accord. 30,000 miles should not
> be much on an Accord or any Honda.
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>> >>> that to me? I would hate to dump money into an Accord only to have a
>> >>> lemon on my hands.
Bob Jones - 28 Apr 2007 03:31 GMT
And don't forget about the warranty.

> More car, you mean more metal or more plastic? There is always a risk
> buying a used car.
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>>> >>> that to me? I would hate to dump money into an Accord only to have a
>>> >>> lemon on my hands.
Dick - 28 Apr 2007 05:04 GMT
We have a 2003 Accord EX.  In 2004 we bought a new 2004 Civic LX for
our granddaughter (she paid for it.)  We drove it home (about 100
miles.)  I know the new Civic's are really nice, but I have to say
there is really no comparison between an Accord and a Civic unless you
are just talking about something to get around town.  When you get
them out on the road on a long trip, the Civic can't hold a candle to
the Accord when comparing ride comfort, performance and noise.
Especially in the mountains.

Dick

>I just can't tell the difference. After a while they all ride the same. I
>would get a new car over a used one any day.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Bob Jones - 29 Apr 2007 01:16 GMT
Hey, some people needs a Rolls Royce to feel comfortable, others feel good
enough on a bike. I drive 50 miles on a beat up highway every day in a Civic
and find it enjoyable. You just need a break in period on a new car.

> We have a 2003 Accord EX.  In 2004 we bought a new 2004 Civic LX for
> our granddaughter (she paid for it.)  We drove it home (about 100
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>I just can't tell the difference. After a while they all ride the same. I
>>would get a new car over a used one any day.
Dick - 29 Apr 2007 02:39 GMT
True enough, but a Honda Accord is a long way from a Rolls.  Try a
4,000 or 5,000 mile trip in that civic then get back to us on the
enjoyable part.  Of course if you are under the age of 40 it probably
wouldn't make any difference anyway.

>Hey, some people needs a Rolls Royce to feel comfortable, others feel good
>enough on a bike. I drive 50 miles on a beat up highway every day in a Civic
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>>>I just can't tell the difference. After a while they all ride the same. I
>>>would get a new car over a used one any day.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

edirectory@gmail.com - 29 Apr 2007 14:14 GMT
Thanks for all the information guys!!

Is 43k a lot of miles for a 2004 Accord? I have an EX I4 in mind, just
was not sure if 43k is a lot for an Accord.

> True enough, but a Honda Accord is a long way from a Rolls.  Try a
> 4,000 or 5,000 mile trip in that civic then get back to us on the
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Dick - 29 Apr 2007 15:11 GMT
That's pretty normal.  Edmunds.com doesn't add or delete value for
that mileage on a 2004.  Our 2003 has 58K and it still seems like new.

>Thanks for all the information guys!!
>
>Is 43k a lot of miles for a 2004 Accord? I have an EX I4 in mind, just
>was not sure if 43k is a lot for an Accord.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dave - 29 Apr 2007 18:20 GMT
I've got a 2004 Accord EXv6 with 100k kms - it still feels like a new car -
no problems other than normal maintenance (gotta do the front rotors soon) -
running Amsoil synthetic is about the only thing out of the ordinary...

> Thanks for all the information guys!!
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> enjoyable part.  Of course if you are under the age of 40 it probably
>> wouldn't make any difference anyway.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Art - 30 Apr 2007 04:30 GMT
Check the headlights before you buy.  The headlights on our 2005 were
pathetic although we were able to improve them with HIR bulbs.  Same wattage
but 50 to 85% more light.  The plastic base of the bulb has to be cut
slightly to fit.

> Thanks for all the information guys!!
>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
TomP - 29 Apr 2007 15:12 GMT
> I would go for the Civic. It is more fuel economy and nimble.

I get less than 25mph around town, fyi.

--
Tp,

-------- __o
-----   -\<.    --------  __o
---  (  )/ (  )    ----  -\<.
--------------------  (  )/ (  )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.