Looking at getting a 2004 Accord Coupe - anything I should know?

[casiotech wants a new accord]

not as good as Nissan CVT or Infiniti 7 speed

 

[evident]

what's wrong with honda V6 AT?

I was gonna get the 5 speed automatic

not as good as Nissan CVT or Infiniti 7 speed but I don't think the accord AT V6 develop problems..

not after 2003 they don't. they're fine now.

 

[thomsbrain]

The V6 automatics are a very complicated design with individual clutch packs for each gear. In order to get smooth shifts, they use a very long engagement period for the clutches, and they tend to build up a lot of heat. Honda didn't engineer enough heat dissipation into the design, and so they overheat and cook their fluid very quickly. Then they compounded the problem by only recommending fluid changes every 120,000 miles. The fluid actually needs to be changed every 15,000 or so (already dark by then).

I learned about this first-hand when my first automatic transmission failed after only 65,000 miles. It was replaced under my certified-used warranty for free. Now I change the fluid myself, religiously and frequently. It's actually not much harder than changing oil (just tougher to reach the fill plug).

This was a problem in all Honda/Acura V6 5-speed auto designs from roughly 1998-2007, except for the Acura RL, which apparently used a different design. Later years had less problems as they began to figure out a few band-aid solutions. The more power the engine made, the worse. Acura TL-S/CL-S were probably the hardest hit, because they had 270 HP and it was before Honda had worked out the band-aids.

The 6-speed manual on the V6 Accord is a fantastic unit. It's one of the best linkage-based units you're going to find in any car at any price. So I highly recommend it if you want the V6.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

As long as we're clear that you "no longer caring" means that "you tried to talk out your ass to someone and got called on it," then we can get back to productively answering questions.

Reliability and crash test safety are your two top requirements? Look at Subaru. 2006+ have top safety ratings, 2005 Legacy has nearly top, and 2000-2005 were all excellent at their time (standards have evolved since then).

Oh, and revs don't kill engines. Extended over-revving or any consistent lack of proper maintenance is what kills engines. And of course the occasional factory defect. Get over it.

I don't think so...

Your world view is totally screwball.

Majority here and everywhere fails to specify exactly what their "statistics" really mean MOST of the time. I over-generalized, but I wasn't talking out of my ass, you guys are just rice fans so you read about Japanese cars. I could pull up a link to a chart of cars that get better MPG with ATs just as someone else could with cars that get better MPG with MTs. The fact is I was just throwing that in there because people get all hot for MPG ratings. The other fact is that I don't feel like driving a stick because an AT will prevent me from driving like a maniac like I did when I had my BMW. I would also rather buy a used car that has essentially a limiter on the RPM (having the AT) because I know how most people are with their cars. There is no maintenance record that shows when the previous owner shifted and how often they raced their stock Honda. I myself tend to handle my things with kid gloves, and I'm not going to buy a new car while I'm in school.

Your recommendation for a 2006+ Subaru is retarded. You obviously must be "talking out your ass" because you don't know what the KBB is on those cars. LOL

All of you don't understand what "revs kill engines" means. OK, I'll tell you. Every revolution (AKA mileage) wear on the parts, and eventually the cynlinder walls and piston rings form a gap large enough to lower the compression of the cylinder and allow more than desired oil to pass, evident by white blueish smoke out the tail-pipe. Get it yet? I wasn't talking about "revving" the engine near redline and "mileage" is NOT the accurate word here. A car can have 30k miles on it but an engine that's been run at 6500 RPMs 90% of the time (hypothetically) for whatever reason. That car's engine would be in worse shape than a car that's got an engine that's never been over 5000 RPM, and spent most of its life at 2000 RPM average. Thus the phrase "mostly highway miles" that you hear so often since you have to rev up higher than cruising RPM to accelerate or use engine compression going down steep hills. Not all miles wear the same on the engine. I can take a look at the maintenance records to see when the oil was changed and how they take care of their car and all that to make the judgment call, but the way they drove it I'll never have proof of.

So, you contradicted yourself like a nut job twice there. :thumbsdown:

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

The V6 automatics are a very complicated design with individual clutch packs for each gear. In order to get smooth shifts, they use a very long engagement period for the clutches, and they tend to build up a lot of heat. Honda didn't engineer enough heat dissipation into the design, and so they overheat and cook their fluid very quickly. Then they compounded the problem by only recommending fluid changes every 120,000 miles. The fluid actually needs to be changed every 15,000 or so (already dark by then).

I learned about this first-hand when my first automatic transmission failed after only 65,000 miles. It was replaced under my certified-used warranty for free. Now I change the fluid myself, religiously and frequently. It's actually not much harder than changing oil (just tougher to reach the fill plug).

This was a problem in all Honda/Acura V6 5-speed auto designs from roughly 1998-2007, except for the Acura RL, which apparently used a different design. Later years had less problems as they began to figure out a few band-aid solutions. The more power the engine made, the worse. Acura TL-S/CL-S were probably the hardest hit, because they had 270 HP and it was before Honda had worked out the band-aids.

The 6-speed manual on the V6 Accord is a fantastic unit. It's one of the best linkage-based units you're going to find in any car at any price. So I highly recommend it if you want the V6.

Great info and I was kind of thinking about the CL-S too. Thanks. Only problem I have is people who don't rev high don't know how to shift and probably grind gears sometimes, but people who can shift well probably rev high and race the engine a lot of times.... sort of a catch 22 for me buying a used car.

 

[BassBomb]

change the transmission fluid much more often than Honda reccomends.. I need to do mine ASAP

 

[fbrdphreak]

Great, we have another Louisssssssssssssssssssss. My blocked list grows every day

 

[StageLeft]

From the 2009 Maxima owner's manual. More like $10 a quart, though.

Yikes, what a waste of money. I do Mobil 1 and even that's debatable. it's something like $5.50/quart. I do use the OEM filter but it's quite inexpensive ($7 maybe).

 

[3chordcharlie]

Great info and I was kind of thinking about the CL-S too. Thanks. Only problem I have is people who don't rev high don't know how to shift and probably grind gears sometimes, but people who can shift well probably rev high and race the engine a lot of times.... sort of a catch 22 for me buying a used car.

There's plenty of 40 year old women out there who DO know how to drive a manual. And most of them don't drive like idiots. An added bonus is that a few of them even drive hondas.

Also, an automatic is not going to keep YOU from driving like an idiot like you did in your BMW, it's just going to make it easier to do without paying any real attention to your car.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

Great, we have another Louisssssssssssssssssssss. My blocked list grows every day

...annnnnd THAT'S why he remains ignorant... LOL Hopefully this means he won't respond to any of my posts.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

There's plenty of 40 year old women out there who DO know how to drive a manual. And most of them don't drive like idiots. An added bonus is that a few of them even drive hondas.

Also, an automatic is not going to keep YOU from driving like an idiot like you did in your BMW, it's just going to make it easier to do without paying any real attention to your car.

I guess I wouldn't know seeing as I don't hang out with many 40 year-old women You don't seem to get my point, and I was just saying "you're right" to be nice since this thread is such a craptastic display of forumness. I said if they KNOW how to drive a stick (like every woman should ) then they probably rev higher more often than someone who doesn't and gets scared hearing an engine rev.

Maybe I've changed because I haven't driven like an idiot for years, but even driving like an idiot for ME is a daily habit for most people. Over a decade with no traffic infractions (except excessive noise) or accidents for me, and I had the BMW from 2002 onward.

 

[Arkaign]

Great, we have another Louisssssssssssssssssssss. My blocked list grows every day

^^ Haha, truth.

 

[dug777]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

Plug in 2004 Accord and the manual beats or equals the auto every time.

Someone occasionally 'over revving' as they change gears in a manual is clearly not the same as holding an engine at 6500 rpm plus for nearly 30,000 miles (and that's the daftest hypothetical situation I've ever heard of in my life), and will not have any meaningful, noticeable wear difference to one that was changed perfectly every time.

Car engines are designed to operate within the rev-band (you ever noticed Honda enthusiastically advertises VTEC?), and it's entirely unlikely that occasionally revving it up will make any meaningful difference to the lifetime of the engine. Remember that the manufacturer doesn't know if you live in somewhere that is dead flat and only do highway miles, or mountainous and only do city miles, so they design the engine to provide for the most 'extreme' practical scenario (otherwise they'd be innundated with complaints and bad press when all their engines failed early in the latter scenario.

I'd also suggest that every auto I've ever driven kicks down far more often than I would do in a manual, which seems likely to lead to a greater 'average lifetime' rev level. Not that it matters.

Now, if you can't be bothered with a manual, that's a perfectly good reason to want an auto in my book.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

I could be bothered with a manual if the overall car was more worthwhile in regards to reliability and safety and value.

I understand that Honda designs their Autos to get 1 MPG less rated fuel economy. I also understand that there are thousands of possible scenarios. You insipid folks don't understand that I wasn't looking to be corrected on fuel economy, but rather for things to know about these particular cars, such as thomsbrain's post. You are not being helpful, and you're just as wrong as I am. Over 30 posts and only 1 or 2 that are helpful at all.

 

[Arkaign]

I could be bothered with a manual if the overall car was more worthwhile in regards to reliability and safety and value.

I understand that Honda designs their Autos to get 1 MPG less rated fuel economy. I also understand that there are thousands of possible scenarios. You insipid folks don't understand that I wasn't looking to be corrected on fuel economy, but rather for things to know about these particular cars, such as thomsbrain's post. You are not being helpful, and you're just as wrong as I am. Over 30 posts and only 1 or 2 that are helpful at all.

Honda doesn't 'design their autos to get 1mpg less', it's just what happens when you put a conventional slushbox against a conventional manual transmission.

I think we should all start over, but you have to drop incorrect previous assumptions, such as the demonstrably false 'autos always get better mpgs than manuals'.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

Honda doesn't 'design their autos to get 1mpg less', it's just what happens when you put a conventional slushbox against a conventional manual transmission.

I think we should all start over, but you have to drop incorrect previous assumptions, such as the demonstrably false 'autos always get better mpgs than manuals'.

I thought I did on the first page down there. All I said was "AT gives slightly better gas mileage". I don't need forumites to try and sell me on the idea of manual gearboxes, I said I want an Automatic. The fact that anyone tried to sway me towards a Manual by saying that the Manual Transmission gets 1 MPG better is even more retarded than me assuming that since most German cars get better MPG with an AT, Hondas must also. But, since I'm not a closed-minded ignoramus, I took note that it depends on the gearing and driving habits as some have clarified. Either way 1 MPG is not a concern - old spark plugs, bad oil, etc could have more of an impact on fuel economy than 1 MPG.

 

[PhoKingGuy]

I thought I did on the first page down there. All I said was "AT gives slightly better gas mileage". I don't need forumites to try and sell me on the idea of manual gearboxes, I said I want an Automatic. The fact that anyone tried to sway me towards a Manual by saying that the Manual Transmission gets 1 MPG better is even more retarded than me assuming that since most German cars get better MPG with an AT, Hondas must also. But, since I'm not a closed-minded ignoramus, I took note that it depends on the gearing and driving habits as some have clarified. Either way 1 MPG is not a concern - old spark plugs, bad oil, etc could have more of an impact on fuel economy than 1 MPG.

???

The only instance where this is true is the VW DSG, but other than that I dont think so...

 

[Arkaign]

Look at the history, you first gave false information, on which you were corrected, and then you responded with :

"The reason stock ATs always get better MPGs is that they shift at a lower RPM and quicker. "

Which is patently false. Only a few models get better fuel economy with an Auto, and none to my knowledge do so with conventional slushboxes.

You were the one that brought fuel economy into the discussion, in post #10, and the reason given was 'better fuel economy with AT'. Given that this piece of information is in fact provably incorrect, it bears logic that you might reconsider this decision, or just admit that you want the AT for the convenience factor, which is entirely understandable.

As for German cars, all 2009 fueleconomy.gov test results, all using identical engine choices to confirm efficiency difference (city/highway) :

VW Jetta 2L Diesel Auto (29/40)
VW Jetta 2L Diesel 6-speed (30/41)
VW Jetta 2L Auto (22/29)
VW Jetta 2L 6-speed (21/31)
VW Jetta 2.5L Auto (20/29)
VW Jetta 2.5L Manual (21/30)
VW GTI Auto (22/29)
VW GTI Manual (21/31)
Audi A3 Auto (22/28)
Audi A3 Manual (21/30)
Audi A4 Auto (21/27)
Audi A4 Manual (22/30)
BMW 128i (identical for both)
BMW 135i Auto (18/25)
BMW 135i Manual (17/25)
BMW 328i (identical)
BMW 335i (identical)
BMW M3 (identical)
BMW 528i Auto (18/27)
BMW 528i Manual (18/28)
BMW 535i (identical)
BMW M5 (identical)
BMW M6 (identical)

etc, etc. Across the industry, autos are getting better! The sequential manual automatics are leading the way in this regard, and the difference is very impressive over just a decade ago when 3 and 4-speed autos were the norm, leading to some very disparate efficiency gaps indeed. Interestingly, the newest Accords have split the fuel economy angle depending on the motor choice :

2009 Accord 2.4L i4 Automatic (21/30)
2009 Accord 2.4L i4 Manual (22/31)
2009 Accord 3.5L V6 Automatic (19/28)
2009 Accord 3.5L V6 Manual (17/25)

Very interesting, eh? If anything, research on the very latest cars shows that a lot of models (even most of the BMWs and Audis I looked up) get slightly better fuel economy with a manual, and most get approximately equal fuel economy. It also shows that you really have to look model by model, year by year, to really know what's up, as shown by the crazy difference in the '09 Accords. For the i4 model, the manual gets better fuel economy, and for the V6, the EXACT opposite is true.

 

[dug777]

I could be bothered with a manual if the overall car was more worthwhile in regards to reliability and safety and value.

I understand that Honda designs their Autos to get 1 MPG less rated fuel economy. I also understand that there are thousands of possible scenarios. You insipid folks don't understand that I wasn't looking to be corrected on fuel economy, but rather for things to know about these particular cars, such as thomsbrain's post. You are not being helpful, and you're just as wrong as I am. Over 30 posts and only 1 or 2 that are helpful at all.

Let's summarise your behaviour in this thread: Make a series of downright incorrect statements (Check), thow in a couple of completely daft hypothetical secenarios (Check, but hard to hear you over the car being held at 6500 rpm for 30,000 miles, you'll have to speak up), then degenerate into a cloud of whining and insults when you get called out and your arguments get debunked (Check).

You're concerned about safety, reliability and value: a manual or auto doesn't make the car any safer or otherwise, so that has been addressed, a manual is simpler, lighter, should be cheaper to maintain, and has a safety valve called a 'clutch' that will take most of the abuse and is cheap to replace, so reliability should be just as good, if not better than an auto (since you know what car you want, I suggest you check some accord owners forums and seek their views on 2004 Accord transmissions, you don't need to trust us), and value is rather hard to quantify, but manuals usually start off cheaper, and resale value may be lower because most people looking for an Accord may want autos (hence better value to you as a second-hand car buyer), but a look at used prices should tell you whether that is the case.

I suppose my point is that you haven't substantiated any of your 'issues' with manual transmissions vis a vis auto transmissions, and you just get rude and abusive when people point this out and provide their opinion on the issue.

As I have said, if you just 'want' an auto, that's absolutely fine by me and anyone else in this thread. What people have reacted to is your reasons for justifying this preference, which many people (myself included) believe are incorrect.

I prefer brunettes to blondes, but I don't argue that it's because they run better, are more reliable, and require lower maintenance. I just do.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

• I don't have to have a good reason because it's MY MONEY. So, go F yourself.
• The only site you or anyone has quoted from (by the way thank you for wasting your time because it doesn't matter AT ALL to me, and was only used to appeal to idiots, apparently it has) Wherever it was that I looked (probably EPA numbers or manufacturers) I don't remember, and I don't care. I DO care about the difference between a 4 cyl and 8 cyl. however. But like I said above, I don't need to be right about car specifics. That's not even the point here. It's more important to be right ethically.
• ME? I became abusive? I was gone for a day or two and I come back to see all these insults over 1 MPG...
• It's not a "daft hypothetical", it's an over-the-top hypothetical (meaning hasn't happened ) to make a point.
• I never said ATs are more reliable, run better, or whatever else you've managed to conflate. If you can't read an English paragraph then I don't care what you tell me that you've read on fueleconomy.gov because you've demonstrated your inability to paraphrase at a college level.
• Finally and most importantly, YOU are the unethical ones for admitting that your whole reason for being in this thread is to be annoying and unethical, not helpful.

So, to keep score here:

• You fail at the most basic level of social decency
• I fail for stooping down to your level

 

[Arkaign]

You're just nuts CBC, and in your own choice words, "go fuck yourself". You've proven utterly unworthy of any serious response. Don't let the door kick you in the ass on the way out.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

I never wanted a response from you, and you've responded to every insipid thing already showing why I didn't want a response from you. You never answered my question. You just have nothing good to offer. You are incapable of ethical behavior. See? That's me trying to help you, something you haven't done for me. I'm better than you. LOL

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

You're just nuts CBC, and in your own choice words, "go fuck yourself".

And now you've stooped down to what you think is a lower level than you live at... so what's the score?

 

[Arkaign]

And now you've stooped down to what you think is a lower level than you live at... so what's the score?

There is no score, and your erratic behavior has already been pretty well analyzed already above by several other members.

If you're seriously asking for car advice, but then make multiple statements of things that are grossly incorrect, it becomes a bit important to help you (a few minutes of google-fu would have saved you some embarassment here) understand some things that you have false views on. Asking for certain advice and then ignoring facts presented is a poor way of going about things.

You are an obstinate stubborn person, one who is given to quick insults frequently. I'll give some examples you've already tossed out along the way :

(1)- "The only site you or anyone has quoted from ... etc .. was only used to appeal to idiots"

I don't think anyone here seriously thinks that fueleconomy.gov is anything other than a very dry site for statistics. The manufacturer doesn't get to just say 'our model gets XX MPG fuel economy', it has to be TESTED scientifically, and the results are posted regardless of input from the manufacturer. This is black-and-white info, and the new EPA testing procedures are lauded for their vastly improved accuracy over previous testing standards. To say such a site is 'for idiots' and then dismiss the official fuel economy results entirely is the very definition of idiocy.

(2)- In response to being corrected on two issues you replied with "You are absolutely wrong. Sounds like something you took straight out of the Ricer Bible."

What? Your whole response is to just tell someone that they're wrong, and combine it with a weak 'Ricer' insult? 5 minutes of google once again could have helped you here.

(3)- Some of your other choice comments : "Go F yourself" "No need to be a cockface" "Your talking out your ass" (sic)

It's just unnecessary. Every single one of the posts here, including my first response to correct your misunderstanding of some fundamentals, was not hostile to you until you began to become erratic and irrational.

 

[dug777]

• I don't have to have a good reason because it's MY MONEY. So, go F yourself.
• The only site you or anyone has quoted from (by the way thank you for wasting your time because it doesn't matter AT ALL to me, and was only used to appeal to idiots, apparently it has) Wherever it was that I looked (probably EPA numbers or manufacturers) I don't remember, and I don't care. I DO care about the difference between a 4 cyl and 8 cyl. however. But like I said above, I don't need to be right about car specifics. That's not even the point here. It's more important to be right ethically.
• ME? I became abusive? I was gone for a day or two and I come back to see all these insults over 1 MPG...
• It's not a "daft hypothetical", it's an over-the-top hypothetical (meaning hasn't happened ) to make a point.
• I never said ATs are more reliable, run better, or whatever else you've managed to conflate. If you can't read an English paragraph then I don't care what you tell me that you've read on fueleconomy.gov because you've demonstrated your inability to paraphrase at a college level.
• Finally and most importantly, YOU are the unethical ones for admitting that your whole reason for being in this thread is to be annoying and unethical, not helpful.

So, to keep score here:

• You fail at the most basic level of social decency
• I fail for stooping down to your level

I don't believe that I ever conceded that I was being annoying and/or unhelpful, unless you consider pointing out that you were wrong in several pretty key assumptions you'd made to explain your preference for an auto over a manual is annoying or unhelpful. I doubt anyone else would agree with you if you said that you did.

Social decency has nothing to do with it, and if it has any meaning relevant to this thread, I'd suggest it encompassed not being rude, dismissive and abusive like you have been.

Your hypothetical example was entirely 'daft' (Google: If you describe a person or their behaviour as daft, you think that they are stupid, impractical, or rather strange). It was both stupid, impractical, and rather strange, because it's not remotely feasible that someone could or would hold a car at 6500 rpm for 30,000 miles, and not at all relevant to your claim that over revving while changing gears and staying in too high a gear sometimes would have any relevant or meaningful effect on an engine's lifespan (which it won't). In short, it's a strawman.

EDIT: Added to which you've actually stated that 'I could be bothered with a manual if the overall car was more worthwhile in regards to reliability and safety and value', so my comments that you have badmouthed were entirely relevant. As I suggested, get on an Accord forum and ask them about manual and auto transmissions for 2004. They will give you all the feedback you could require, and more no doubt, in order to make the most informed decision on this matter.