Which generation Accord...?

Woody wrote: I've owned a '94 EX, a '98 LX, an '04 EX-L and a '10 EX-L Accord. All were purchased new. The first two were four cylinders and the last two were V6s. I tried to make the '94 handle better, but didn't have a whole lot of luck with it. The front rotors were a pain in the ass. I liked the '98 a lot, but it really needed a V6. I also regretted not getting an EX for a little more seat adjustability, but it wasn't in the budget at the time. I still own the '04 (150k+ miles) and the '10 (50k). I've never had any issues with either of them. I have liked each newer generation better than the one before, but if I were recommending a used car bargain, I suggest the '04, whichever generation that is. You do the math. It's a good car, it's comfortable, bulletproof and has plenty of power with the V6. There are also so many of them around that finding a perfect one should be a piece of cake. Downside: I've always thought the '04 was ugly. You always need one car in the garage that you can just jump in, turn the key and go. That's the Accord.

Were all of those manual transmission and do you recommend the automatic? Are the v6 hard to work on when doing maintenance stuff like spark plugs and clutch compared to the 4 cylinder?

sethmeister4 wrote: What's wrong with the Sidekick? Those are usually pretty reliable and cheap to maintain, right? Maybe just keep it? Although the MPG's won't be great I guess...

the Sidekick has all the vices of a truck and none of the virtues. It's a lousy highway car, has no carrying capacity, not enough hp to tow anything, gets about 20 mpg and is, in my experience, very expensive to repair. I think the U-joints or tie rod ends or something are about to need replacement as it goes "clunk" while cornering. Ergo, the consideration for retirement and replacement.

Stick with a manual 4-cylinder, the auto's a kinda finnicky, and the V6's had their share of issues with the automatics. The V6/6-speed combo is pretty rare in the 7th gen sedans, but would be a seriously quick sleeper.

Caraddict wrote:

Woody wrote: I've owned a '94 EX, a '98 LX, an '04 EX-L and a '10 EX-L Accord. All were purchased new. The first two were four cylinders and the last two were V6s. I tried to make the '94 handle better, but didn't have a whole lot of luck with it. The front rotors were a pain in the ass. I liked the '98 a lot, but it really needed a V6. I also regretted not getting an EX for a little more seat adjustability, but it wasn't in the budget at the time. I still own the '04 (150k+ miles) and the '10 (50k). I've never had any issues with either of them. I have liked each newer generation better than the one before, but if I were recommending a used car bargain, I suggest the '04, whichever generation that is. You do the math. It's a good car, it's comfortable, bulletproof and has plenty of power with the V6. There are also so many of them around that finding a perfect one should be a piece of cake. Downside: I've always thought the '04 was ugly. You always need one car in the garage that you can just jump in, turn the key and go. That's the Accord.

Were all of those manual transmission and do you recommend the automatic? Are the v6 hard to work on when doing maintenance stuff like spark plugs and clutch compared to the 4 cylinder?

All were automatics and none of them ever had any kind of transmission issue. Spark plugs haven't been a hassle either. The two V6 call for a spark plug change at 105,000 miles.

My 220,000 mile Accord makes fewer funny noises and drives better than my 84,000 mile Astra. The Astra is also 19 years newer.