I just can't tell the difference. After a while they all ride the same. I
would get a new car over a used one any day.

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:cfCdncIcL8w-NK_bnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> 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.
>>>
>>