Menu
What's new
By:
Advanced search...

2.0 or 2.4 for short trips?

V

vaynah

Members
Messages
83
Reaction score
6
Location
Manchester
Car
2.4 Type S
I can't decide which one to go for. I've read somewhere that 2.0 is more suitable for city driving with better pick up at lower revs, while the 2.4 is more for motorways as it picks up in higher revs. is that the case?

It will mainly be used around town, on short journey not exceeding 40mph and with occasional motorway driving.
 
Same as my driving style and I went for the 2.4. From what I read the 2.4 is alot nicer to drive, more toys and only a couple of mpg worse than the 2.0L.
 
I have a 2.4 tourer and a 2.0 crv and the 2.4 is a nicer engine
Loads more torque low down, it's better mpg than the crv
If only the crv got the 2.4 in this country :-(


My accord might be up for sale next week when I get back from Cornwall in it.
 
Either way its not going to be economical.

Are you looking for pre or post facelift? Something I've learnt is the facelift 2.0 gets better mpg (and a slightly faster 0 -60).

I've never driven a 2.4 but the 2.0 has plenty of power for me.
 
2.4 manual... 'Nuff said ;)
 
-Rich- said:
Same as my driving style and I went for the 2.4. From what I read the 2.4 is alot nicer to drive, more toys and only a couple of mpg worse than the 2.0L.
Click to expand...

More toys? Wich of your toys are not in my 2.0 executive? : p
 
Depends what you want out of it. The 2.0 will cheaper on fuel, insurance and tax and I suspect the only time you'll miss the extra grunt of the 2.4 is on the open roads. I have a 2.0 and do a mixture of twisty b roads, a few miles of A road and a few miles in built up areas and can honestly say i enjoy the drive. Never feel i need more power. If i did a lot of miles on the motor way it might be a different matter. Remember theres no difference in the chassis and suspension which are a big part of the way a car drives.
 
We also have both engines in the household and I would definitely recommend the 2.4 over the 2.0
 
Deff the 2.4
 
2.4, 2.4, 2.4,
2.4, 2.4, 2.4,

(sung the style of the football chant "Here we go, here we go, here we go")
 
Simple fact is...if you don't get a 2.4, you will always wonder "What if?". It's a fantastic engine and its not outrageous on fuel.
 
That comparison is a little unfair as the 2.0 is in a Fr-v isn't it Fahad? Truth is they're both good engines with enough power, one is economy orientated the other is perfomance orientated. Simples
 
Another vote for the 2.4 here.
Most of my driving is short stuff in outer London with the odd weekend trip back ooop north.
I'll rarely get less than 30mpg or 280miles froma full tank even if it all town driving, and expect 360+ to 400miles to a tank if muc of it is motorway miles.
 
Osiris said:
6th Gear?
Click to expand...
I test-drove a 7th gen 2.2 with 6 gears, and the 6th gear felt so f*cking useless... Glad i bought my 2.0 AT
 
Yep possibly not a totally fair comparison but putting the kerb weight issues to one side (not sure if frv is even heavier than an accord), the k24 is just a nicer engine allround.

Always wondered what a K24 frv would be like..
 
Most of the best Honda engines are 2.0 though i.e. S2000, civic type r, integra type r, euro r. Wonder why they didnt put a 2.4 in any of those? Maybe not responsive enough? :p
 
Yep true but they're all performance versions of the K20. It's a great atrong reliable unit no doubt and doesn't drink a drop of oil whereas our K24 has a horrible drinking habit.

But in standard from the k24 wins hands down over the k20 I'm afraid.
 
2.4 MILES better. I have the auto but would go for a manual if ihad the choice again.
 
Def the 2.4 The torque may not look that much bigger on paper but it is a very smooth engine that will be happy to sit in 6th gear around town. A very relaxed motor with performance when required.
 
6th gear around town? :O

I guess best way will be to test drive both cars
I'm after a manual
 
btw, is there a sales section on this forum?
 
Then I better get busy :p
 
mango said:
Another vote for the 2.4 here.
Most of my driving is short stuff in outer London with the odd weekend trip back ooop north.
I'll rarely get less than 30mpg or 280miles froma full tank even if it all town driving, and expect 360+ to 400miles to a tank if muc of it is motorway miles.
Click to expand...
How have you calculated that? 280 miles on a full tank (lets say you fill with 60L) works out at around 21mpg. This is roughly what I get on my 2.4 auto with just town driving, I get around 260 miles. If I drive like a granny and do nothing but motorway miles I'll get 360 miles, which is just under 30mpg.

Obviously this would be slightly more in a manual.

vaynah said:
Then I better get busy :p
Click to expand...
Almost there! :D
 
Wonder if any one has actually driven both a manual 2.0 and a manual 2.4 accord? You know, for the sake of a more balanced opinion ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top