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

2.0 or 2.4 for short trips?

Fair enough. Each to their own and all that. I think which ever Accord vaynah goes for he'll be happy with it.
 
My 2.4 does high 20's around town and mid 30's on long runs. Glad I chose it over the 2.0

Besides, I have the Type S, 2.0 Type S is just wrong.
 
Very defensive these 2.4 owners aren't they? Not many 2.0 owners entering the debate. Quietly contented probably ;-)
 
2.0 is a fabulous engine mate... This thread isn't a criticism of it, we are just saying given the option the 2.4 is better
 
Wilderman said:
Very defensive these 2.4 owners aren't they? Not many 2.0 owners entering the debate. Quietly contented probably ;-)
Click to expand...

because we don't beat around the bush, I sold a 2.4 and its a fantastic car, no bones about it, I got a lexus now but the accord is probably better it you want a more exciting drive (and you want to hear the engine), the two cars are totally different and the lexus will pamper you but the 2.4 accord is just great.
 
At a guess, I'd say there are more 2.4 owners on the forum than 2.0 as far as 7th gen petrol owning members are concerned. But as Fahad says, both are super engines, but given the choice and all the other factors at play such as tax, insurance, MPG etc, the 2.4 is considered by many to be the better option of the two.

But don't forget the K20 in various guises has been a flagship engine in a many Honda vehicles since the early 2000s.
 
So is the 2.4 a louder engine? I can barely hear the engine in mine (2.0)

I struggle to understand why the 2.4 would be a better short trip engine, but it comes down to whether the OP whats to buy a faster car with higher running costs or a slightly slower car with slightly cheaper running costs.

I would cry myself to sleep if I struggled to get 30mpg everyday.
 
More torque in the low end means the car is happy in high gears at lower RPM which can deliver improved fuel economy, not to mention a smoother drive. You can be in 6th gear from about 26mph without the engine juddering or anything. Therefore it's extremely smooth and well suited to rolling around town streets. And yes it's extremely quiet (unless you have silly intake and exhaust mods ;) ).
 
Chris beat me to it. You can go a bit quicker in a straight line if you're prepared to pay a bit more. Ive no doubt the 2.4 is a great engine (its a Honda after all) but i don't understand the logic of having it in a car that's going to be sat in traffic most of its life which is what the OP was about.
 
2.4 Auto Tourer on a run.
image_zpsc8e417f8.jpg
 
I got 99.9mpg on my Primera Gt computer after i reset it and went on a long downhill stretch with no throttle. Beat that ;-)
 
Basically, if you look at it on paper alone, the 2.0 is a more economical and more sensible choice. But the difference between the two in terms of economy is very marginal and the refinement and extra grunt (which is nice to have there when you want/need it) of the 2.4 is very high and the value for money is very good on the second hand market. So the question posed was, if you could choose between the 2.0 and 2.4 for a car to mostly do short trips in, a lot of people are saying 2.4 for exactly this reason. Yes the 2.0 is a more economical choice, but with the small difference in fuelling and tax across the year, is it worth the saving when you could have a more refined drive?

It's all a question of balance and where your priorities lie.

That said, I bet if you see a 2.0 come up for good money tomorrow and test drive it, you'd love it and buy it. I bet if a 2.4 comes up tomorrow and you test drive it, you'll love it and buy it. The Accord is a cracking car, either way, and both the 2.0 and 2.4 will make great family town cars. The issue here is you're asking 2.0 or 2.4 on a car forum where arguably the majority of members will put ride/drive quality and performance over economy. I wonder what the answer to this question would be on a Prius forum... :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top