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.
>
> <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.
>>
>
>