Tough call. You get more car with the Accord. 30,000 miles should not
be much on an Accord or any Honda.

On Apr 27, 10:17 pm, "Bob Jones" <e...@me.not> wrote:
> 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" <spamvor...@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.
>
> >> <edirect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1177722145.429053.269100@c35g2000hsg.google groups.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.