On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:27:47 -0400, "harry" <harry_liuNOSPAM@lcc.com>
wrote:

>I drove many big SUVs before and am planning to get a fuel efficient sedan
>to commute to work (50% HWY, 50 % not so heavy local).
>My wife has a 06 Accord V6, I loved driving it but the gas mileage is
>terrible (17-18mpg). I may get up to 20mpg in my driving road condition but
>it is not a real saving in gas to me.
>
>Here is the dilemma, I like to save gas and I don't want to lose fun of
>driving and stability/performance. Owned a Civic in 80s and feel it "heavy"
>when two or three adult sit in, struggling when it is taking more than one
>adult passenger was my impression with Civic.
>
>This Civic/accord I4 will be 99% my commute car and at most with my teen
>daughter for local soccer practice.
>
>What is your opinion?
>I have been driving trucks for more than 15 years, any modern sedan is
>considered agile responsive car to me. Not like my wife, she can not settle
>with Accord 4 cyl., must be a V6. to drive her 40mph top roads to office..
>

The Fit is supposed to be great fun to drive as well as fuel
efficient.

 

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:27:47 -0400, "harry" <harry_liuNOSPAM@lcc.com>
wrote:

>I drove many big SUVs before and am planning to get a fuel efficient sedan
>to commute to work (50% HWY, 50 % not so heavy local).
>My wife has a 06 Accord V6, I loved driving it but the gas mileage is
>terrible (17-18mpg). I may get up to 20mpg in my driving road condition but
>it is not a real saving in gas to me.
>
>Here is the dilemma, I like to save gas and I don't want to lose fun of
>driving and stability/performance. Owned a Civic in 80s and feel it "heavy"
>when two or three adult sit in, struggling when it is taking more than one
>adult passenger was my impression with Civic.
>
>This Civic/accord I4 will be 99% my commute car and at most with my teen
>daughter for local soccer practice.
>
>What is your opinion?
>I have been driving trucks for more than 15 years, any modern sedan is
>considered agile responsive car to me. Not like my wife, she can not settle
>with Accord 4 cyl., must be a V6. to drive her 40mph top roads to office..
>

The Fit is supposed to be great fun to drive as well as fuel
efficient.

 

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:27:47 -0400, "harry" <harry_liuNOSPAM@lcc.com>
wrote:

>I drove many big SUVs before and am planning to get a fuel efficient sedan
>to commute to work (50% HWY, 50 % not so heavy local).
>My wife has a 06 Accord V6, I loved driving it but the gas mileage is
>terrible (17-18mpg). I may get up to 20mpg in my driving road condition but
>it is not a real saving in gas to me.
>
>Here is the dilemma, I like to save gas and I don't want to lose fun of
>driving and stability/performance. Owned a Civic in 80s and feel it "heavy"
>when two or three adult sit in, struggling when it is taking more than one
>adult passenger was my impression with Civic.
>
>This Civic/accord I4 will be 99% my commute car and at most with my teen
>daughter for local soccer practice.
>
>What is your opinion?
>I have been driving trucks for more than 15 years, any modern sedan is
>considered agile responsive car to me. Not like my wife, she can not settle
>with Accord 4 cyl., must be a V6. to drive her 40mph top roads to office..
>

The Fit is supposed to be great fun to drive as well as fuel
efficient.

 

harry wrote:

>
> What is your opinion?
> I have been driving trucks for more than 15 years, any modern sedan is
> considered agile responsive car to me. Not like my wife, she can not settle
> with Accord 4 cyl., must be a V6. to drive her 40mph top roads to office..
>
>

Value for the money wise the 4 cylinder Accord is going to be best as it
is a well tested model in plentiful supply and is being sold at
aggressive discounts.

If fuel economy is your top priority, however, the Civic does a little
better than the Accord. In either case IMO you get better economy if
your are willing to shift for yourself and get a manual transmission.
This also saves on up front costs. The only reason to get an automatic
is if you hate driving a stick or if you plan to trade in soon. Stick
shifts take a hit on resale value. Also, Honda has had some problems in
recent years with it's automatic transmissions. Hopefully these are
resolved, but if not, the manual avoids that problem all together.

Best all around buy is a manual transmission 4 cylinder Accord.

John

 

harry wrote:

>
> What is your opinion?
> I have been driving trucks for more than 15 years, any modern sedan is
> considered agile responsive car to me. Not like my wife, she can not settle
> with Accord 4 cyl., must be a V6. to drive her 40mph top roads to office..
>
>

Value for the money wise the 4 cylinder Accord is going to be best as it
is a well tested model in plentiful supply and is being sold at
aggressive discounts.

If fuel economy is your top priority, however, the Civic does a little
better than the Accord. In either case IMO you get better economy if
your are willing to shift for yourself and get a manual transmission.
This also saves on up front costs. The only reason to get an automatic
is if you hate driving a stick or if you plan to trade in soon. Stick
shifts take a hit on resale value. Also, Honda has had some problems in
recent years with it's automatic transmissions. Hopefully these are
resolved, but if not, the manual avoids that problem all together.

Best all around buy is a manual transmission 4 cylinder Accord.

John

 

harry wrote:

>
> What is your opinion?
> I have been driving trucks for more than 15 years, any modern sedan is
> considered agile responsive car to me. Not like my wife, she can not settle
> with Accord 4 cyl., must be a V6. to drive her 40mph top roads to office..
>
>

Value for the money wise the 4 cylinder Accord is going to be best as it
is a well tested model in plentiful supply and is being sold at
aggressive discounts.

If fuel economy is your top priority, however, the Civic does a little
better than the Accord. In either case IMO you get better economy if
your are willing to shift for yourself and get a manual transmission.
This also saves on up front costs. The only reason to get an automatic
is if you hate driving a stick or if you plan to trade in soon. Stick
shifts take a hit on resale value. Also, Honda has had some problems in
recent years with it's automatic transmissions. Hopefully these are
resolved, but if not, the manual avoids that problem all together.

Best all around buy is a manual transmission 4 cylinder Accord.

John

 

harry wrote:

>
> What is your opinion?
> I have been driving trucks for more than 15 years, any modern sedan is
> considered agile responsive car to me. Not like my wife, she can not settle
> with Accord 4 cyl., must be a V6. to drive her 40mph top roads to office..
>
>

Value for the money wise the 4 cylinder Accord is going to be best as it
is a well tested model in plentiful supply and is being sold at
aggressive discounts.

If fuel economy is your top priority, however, the Civic does a little
better than the Accord. In either case IMO you get better economy if
your are willing to shift for yourself and get a manual transmission.
This also saves on up front costs. The only reason to get an automatic
is if you hate driving a stick or if you plan to trade in soon. Stick
shifts take a hit on resale value. Also, Honda has had some problems in
recent years with it's automatic transmissions. Hopefully these are
resolved, but if not, the manual avoids that problem all together.

Best all around buy is a manual transmission 4 cylinder Accord.

John

 

harry wrote:
> I drove many big SUVs before and am planning to get a fuel efficient
> sedan to commute to work (50% HWY, 50 % not so heavy local).
> My wife has a 06 Accord V6, I loved driving it but the gas mileage is
> terrible (17-18mpg). I may get up to 20mpg in my driving road
> condition but it is not a real saving in gas to me.

You may want to look into why the mileage is so low for the wife's car. I
have a 2004 v6 and I get 29 MPG on the highway, and around 21-22 around
town. Not much less in the summer using the AC. I have found some
differences in the trip computer and my calculations. You may want to try
to do it manually for awhile and compare.

>
> Here is the dilemma, I like to save gas and I don't want to lose fun
> of driving and stability/performance. Owned a Civic in 80s and feel
> it "heavy" when two or three adult sit in, struggling when it is
> taking more than one adult passenger was my impression with Civic.

The new 4 cyl produces much more HP and torque from the 80's models. My
daughter had a 2002 civic that was quite "peppy" and still got 33 MPG (EX
with automatic).

>
> This Civic/accord I4 will be 99% my commute car and at most with my
> teen daughter for local soccer practice.
>
> What is your opinion?
> I have been driving trucks for more than 15 years, any modern sedan is
> considered agile responsive car to me. Not like my wife, she can not
> settle with Accord 4 cyl., must be a V6. to drive her 40mph top roads
> to office..

Though the 4 cyl accord has good acceleration, my preference is the 6 cyl.
It is much easier to pull out onto a CA freeway and merge with 4 or 5 people
in the car (my test drives for both 4 cyl and 6 cyl were with 5 people in
the car), as the traffic moves along at 75MPH+ and the ramps are not very
long. It is also makes it much easier in going through the mountains to get
to Tahoe and Reno.

 

harry wrote:
> I drove many big SUVs before and am planning to get a fuel efficient
> sedan to commute to work (50% HWY, 50 % not so heavy local).
> My wife has a 06 Accord V6, I loved driving it but the gas mileage is
> terrible (17-18mpg). I may get up to 20mpg in my driving road
> condition but it is not a real saving in gas to me.

You may want to look into why the mileage is so low for the wife's car. I
have a 2004 v6 and I get 29 MPG on the highway, and around 21-22 around
town. Not much less in the summer using the AC. I have found some
differences in the trip computer and my calculations. You may want to try
to do it manually for awhile and compare.

>
> Here is the dilemma, I like to save gas and I don't want to lose fun
> of driving and stability/performance. Owned a Civic in 80s and feel
> it "heavy" when two or three adult sit in, struggling when it is
> taking more than one adult passenger was my impression with Civic.

The new 4 cyl produces much more HP and torque from the 80's models. My
daughter had a 2002 civic that was quite "peppy" and still got 33 MPG (EX
with automatic).

>
> This Civic/accord I4 will be 99% my commute car and at most with my
> teen daughter for local soccer practice.
>
> What is your opinion?
> I have been driving trucks for more than 15 years, any modern sedan is
> considered agile responsive car to me. Not like my wife, she can not
> settle with Accord 4 cyl., must be a V6. to drive her 40mph top roads
> to office..

Though the 4 cyl accord has good acceleration, my preference is the 6 cyl.
It is much easier to pull out onto a CA freeway and merge with 4 or 5 people
in the car (my test drives for both 4 cyl and 6 cyl were with 5 people in
the car), as the traffic moves along at 75MPH+ and the ramps are not very
long. It is also makes it much easier in going through the mountains to get
to Tahoe and Reno.

 

harry wrote:
> I drove many big SUVs before and am planning to get a fuel efficient
> sedan to commute to work (50% HWY, 50 % not so heavy local).
> My wife has a 06 Accord V6, I loved driving it but the gas mileage is
> terrible (17-18mpg). I may get up to 20mpg in my driving road
> condition but it is not a real saving in gas to me.

You may want to look into why the mileage is so low for the wife's car. I
have a 2004 v6 and I get 29 MPG on the highway, and around 21-22 around
town. Not much less in the summer using the AC. I have found some
differences in the trip computer and my calculations. You may want to try
to do it manually for awhile and compare.

>
> Here is the dilemma, I like to save gas and I don't want to lose fun
> of driving and stability/performance. Owned a Civic in 80s and feel
> it "heavy" when two or three adult sit in, struggling when it is
> taking more than one adult passenger was my impression with Civic.

The new 4 cyl produces much more HP and torque from the 80's models. My
daughter had a 2002 civic that was quite "peppy" and still got 33 MPG (EX
with automatic).

>
> This Civic/accord I4 will be 99% my commute car and at most with my
> teen daughter for local soccer practice.
>
> What is your opinion?
> I have been driving trucks for more than 15 years, any modern sedan is
> considered agile responsive car to me. Not like my wife, she can not
> settle with Accord 4 cyl., must be a V6. to drive her 40mph top roads
> to office..

Though the 4 cyl accord has good acceleration, my preference is the 6 cyl.
It is much easier to pull out onto a CA freeway and merge with 4 or 5 people
in the car (my test drives for both 4 cyl and 6 cyl were with 5 people in
the car), as the traffic moves along at 75MPH+ and the ramps are not very
long. It is also makes it much easier in going through the mountains to get
to Tahoe and Reno.

 

harry wrote:
> I drove many big SUVs before and am planning to get a fuel efficient
> sedan to commute to work (50% HWY, 50 % not so heavy local).
> My wife has a 06 Accord V6, I loved driving it but the gas mileage is
> terrible (17-18mpg). I may get up to 20mpg in my driving road
> condition but it is not a real saving in gas to me.

You may want to look into why the mileage is so low for the wife's car. I
have a 2004 v6 and I get 29 MPG on the highway, and around 21-22 around
town. Not much less in the summer using the AC. I have found some
differences in the trip computer and my calculations. You may want to try
to do it manually for awhile and compare.

>
> Here is the dilemma, I like to save gas and I don't want to lose fun
> of driving and stability/performance. Owned a Civic in 80s and feel
> it "heavy" when two or three adult sit in, struggling when it is
> taking more than one adult passenger was my impression with Civic.

The new 4 cyl produces much more HP and torque from the 80's models. My
daughter had a 2002 civic that was quite "peppy" and still got 33 MPG (EX
with automatic).

>
> This Civic/accord I4 will be 99% my commute car and at most with my
> teen daughter for local soccer practice.
>
> What is your opinion?
> I have been driving trucks for more than 15 years, any modern sedan is
> considered agile responsive car to me. Not like my wife, she can not
> settle with Accord 4 cyl., must be a V6. to drive her 40mph top roads
> to office..

Though the 4 cyl accord has good acceleration, my preference is the 6 cyl.
It is much easier to pull out onto a CA freeway and merge with 4 or 5 people
in the car (my test drives for both 4 cyl and 6 cyl were with 5 people in
the car), as the traffic moves along at 75MPH+ and the ramps are not very
long. It is also makes it much easier in going through the mountains to get
to Tahoe and Reno.

 

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:17:25 -0400, "Kenneth J. Harris"
<kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
>acceleration is noticeably better both at low and high speeds (and you
>don't have to wind up the engine as much to do this)

The only time I can rev my I4 is entering a freeway on an uphill ramp,
or otherwise pulling out from a freeway slow lane onto a fast lane for
passing. On city streets, it never gets above 4k, and seldom above 3k
(with an auto trans). For a 2.4 liter engine, it's astonishing! In
my old Alfa, I'd be revving it to 5k+ just to pull away at traffic
lights! Gotta love the new tech. I wonder, on the Accords, with a
stick I'd probably average another 500rpm, the auto is very quick to
kick up, and it does make me a little less aggressive.

J.

 

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:17:25 -0400, "Kenneth J. Harris"
<kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
>acceleration is noticeably better both at low and high speeds (and you
>don't have to wind up the engine as much to do this)

The only time I can rev my I4 is entering a freeway on an uphill ramp,
or otherwise pulling out from a freeway slow lane onto a fast lane for
passing. On city streets, it never gets above 4k, and seldom above 3k
(with an auto trans). For a 2.4 liter engine, it's astonishing! In
my old Alfa, I'd be revving it to 5k+ just to pull away at traffic
lights! Gotta love the new tech. I wonder, on the Accords, with a
stick I'd probably average another 500rpm, the auto is very quick to
kick up, and it does make me a little less aggressive.

J.

 

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:17:25 -0400, "Kenneth J. Harris"
<kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
>acceleration is noticeably better both at low and high speeds (and you
>don't have to wind up the engine as much to do this)

The only time I can rev my I4 is entering a freeway on an uphill ramp,
or otherwise pulling out from a freeway slow lane onto a fast lane for
passing. On city streets, it never gets above 4k, and seldom above 3k
(with an auto trans). For a 2.4 liter engine, it's astonishing! In
my old Alfa, I'd be revving it to 5k+ just to pull away at traffic
lights! Gotta love the new tech. I wonder, on the Accords, with a
stick I'd probably average another 500rpm, the auto is very quick to
kick up, and it does make me a little less aggressive.

J.

 

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:17:25 -0400, "Kenneth J. Harris"
<kharris@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
>acceleration is noticeably better both at low and high speeds (and you
>don't have to wind up the engine as much to do this)

The only time I can rev my I4 is entering a freeway on an uphill ramp,
or otherwise pulling out from a freeway slow lane onto a fast lane for
passing. On city streets, it never gets above 4k, and seldom above 3k
(with an auto trans). For a 2.4 liter engine, it's astonishing! In
my old Alfa, I'd be revving it to 5k+ just to pull away at traffic
lights! Gotta love the new tech. I wonder, on the Accords, with a
stick I'd probably average another 500rpm, the auto is very quick to
kick up, and it does make me a little less aggressive.

J.