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.

<edirectory@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177722145.429053.269100@c35g2000hsg.googlegr 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 shitty 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.
>