If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
2004 Accord vs 2007 civic
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 ****ty 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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
2004 Accord vs 2007 civic
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. > wrote in message oups.com... >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 ****ty 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. > |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
2004 Accord vs 2007 civic
Bob Jones wrote:
> 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 > cheap plastics dashboard and the big silly turning knobs. I traded it in for > an RSX in only one year. > > > wrote in message > oups.com... >> 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 ****ty 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. >> > > |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
2004 Accord vs 2007 civic
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. "jim beam" > wrote in message ... > Bob Jones wrote: >> 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 >> cheap plastics dashboard and the big silly turning knobs. I traded it in >> for an RSX in only one year. >> >> > wrote in message >> oups.com... >>> 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 ****ty 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. >>> >> |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
2004 Accord vs 2007 civic
Tough call. You get more car with the Accord. 30,000 miles should not
be much on an Accord or any Honda. On Apr 27, 10:17 pm, "Bob Jones" > wrote: > 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. > > "jim beam" > wrote in message > > ... > > > Bob Jones wrote: > >> 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 > >> cheap plastics dashboard and the big silly turning knobs. I traded it in > >> for an RSX in only one year. > > >> > wrote in message > groups.com... > >>> 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 ****ty 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
2004 Accord vs 2007 civic
More car, you mean more metal or more plastic? There is always a risk buying
a used car. "Jeff Johnson" > wrote in message ups.com... > Tough call. You get more car with the Accord. 30,000 miles should not > be much on an Accord or any Honda. > > On Apr 27, 10:17 pm, "Bob Jones" > wrote: >> 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. >> >> "jim beam" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > Bob Jones wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> cheap plastics dashboard and the big silly turning knobs. I traded it >> >> in >> >> for an RSX in only one year. >> >> >> > wrote in message >> groups.com... >> >>> 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 ****ty 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. > > |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
2004 Accord vs 2007 civic
And don't forget about the warranty.
"Bob Jones" > wrote in message ... > More car, you mean more metal or more plastic? There is always a risk > buying a used car. > > "Jeff Johnson" > wrote in message > ups.com... >> Tough call. You get more car with the Accord. 30,000 miles should not >> be much on an Accord or any Honda. >> >> On Apr 27, 10:17 pm, "Bob Jones" > wrote: >>> 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. >>> >>> "jim beam" > wrote in message >>> >>> ... >>> >>> > Bob Jones wrote: >>> >> 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 >>> >> cheap plastics dashboard and the big silly turning knobs. I traded it >>> >> in >>> >> for an RSX in only one year. >>> >>> >> > wrote in message >>> groups.com... >>> >>> 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 ****ty 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. >> >> > > |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
2004 Accord vs 2007 civic
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 On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:17:46 -0500, "Bob Jones" > wrote: >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. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
2004 Accord vs 2007 civic
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. "Dick" > wrote in message ... > 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 > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:17:46 -0500, "Bob Jones" > wrote: > >>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. > > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
2004 Accord vs 2007 civic
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. On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:16:12 -0500, "Bob Jones" > wrote: >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. > >"Dick" > wrote in message .. . >> 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 >> >> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:17:46 -0500, "Bob Jones" > wrote: >> >>>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. >> >> >> -- >> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2007 Civic EX Rattle | [email protected][_2_] | Honda | 1 | March 6th 07 12:38 AM |
2007 Civic EX vs. 2004 Accord EX | planetx | Honda | 13 | February 2nd 07 09:00 PM |
'99 Civic vs Accord | SQ | Honda | 4 | May 4th 06 12:13 AM |
Accord EX or Civic EX? | harry | Honda | 0 | February 22nd 06 04:12 AM |
Is my '94 Accord today's Civic? | [email protected] | Honda | 0 | October 16th 05 04:26 PM |