More car, you mean more metal or more plastic? There is always a risk buying
a used car.

"Jeff Johnson" <jedijeff@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177726925.857720.59800@n76g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
> 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.
>
>