Buying help - 2005 Hybrid or 2014 Accord?

[theaveng]

Originally Posted by Xist

As Balto wrote, automatics have better gearing than manuals.

I don't know the abbreviation EOC. And yes in the case of the Accord, the auto does appear to have gearing (+6 mpg highway). Usually the auto is lower MPG because of the torque converter.

Normally I buy a manual shift because it's 1000 dollars cheaper, but that's not the case with the Accord. Manual or automatic, it's the same price. That too is unusual
.

[digital rules]

Add in some hefty hills & the manuals gearing disadvantage can be erased quickly, but doubt it's much of an issue in Texas.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by theaveng

I don't know the abbreviation EOC.

Engine-off coasting.

Normally I buy a manual shift because it's 1000 dollars cheaper, but that's not the case with the Accord. Manual or automatic, it's the same price. That too is unusual
.

Maybe that's due to the lower demand for the manuals. Anyway, you may also remember they tend to have a higher depreciation ratio back there.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by theaveng

So far you are the only 1 to answer the original question. So you think manual will do better than automatic, even though there's a 6 highway mpg gap?

Because the EPA ratings are total horses**t.

At least half the people on this forum driving stick have to deal with a 5 speed manual with short-ish gears, you have 6 gears, it can't be that bad.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Because the EPA ratings are total horses**t.

At least half the people on this forum driving stick have to deal with a 5 speed manual with short-ish gears, you have 6 gears, it can't be that bad.

There are 2 main reasons for the most recent manuals featuring a rather underestimated EPA-certified mileage: one is their test method which seems clearly biased to benefit the automatics, and other is to be blamed at the automakers for setting the gear ratioes more towards the street-racing kids than the regular budget-conscious driver. Well, I guess neither a street-racer or a penny-pincher would take a brand-new Accord, let alone a V6, as a first option, but I'd still consider the manual transmission as a good option because of its simplicity, and also nowadays in America it may be like a passive anti-theft device

[theaveng]

"Russian dating for men"..... this place runs interesting ads.


I found the Accord EPA to be pretty accurate..... 2005/14 accord hybrid/nonhybrid are essentially tied (33/34 highway) and in my testdrive they scored the same highway MPG.

Hybrid accord has disadvantages:
Hybrid premium
Battery replacement cost
no manual shift
No fold down seats

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

I really don't understand why Honda did the hybrid the way they did, instead of doing it around the 4-cyl Accord. Toyota and Hyundai used their 4-cyls as the base for hybrid versions, and so did Ford and Chevy with their early hybrid versions of Fusion and Malibu when a V6 was still available for both.

[theaveng]

When the Insight and Civic Hybrids flopped, someone in management decided it was because audiences really wanted Power not absolute-best economy. The result was an Accord V6 hybrid and a CRZ hybrid. They also upsized the insight and civic engines to gain more power, but loss of economy.

In my opinion it's basically a power struggle within Honda..... the managers or engineers in favor of hyper-MPG produced the 70 mpg insight and 50 mpg Civic during the 90s/early 2000s. When they failed to sell, those managers were discredited & other managers (or engineers) tookover development. The other managers produced "sport hybrids" from 2005 onward.

Those too failed. Now it appears the pendulum has swung back to the pro-MPG managers (so we got a 50mpg Accord I4). In other words: Office politics.