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.

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.
>

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.
>>
>
>

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.
>>>
>>

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.

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.
>
>

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.
>>
>>
>
>

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

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
>

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