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

Going to view this Accord Type S

R

rossk26

Members
Messages
19
Reaction score
1
Location
North East
Car
Focus ST
Hello,

New member here, who is hopefully going to be buying an Accord Type S!

I've decided on the 2.0i Type S, as I love the looks, however I know nothing about them really. There seem to be slightly different trim levels? Some with 18" alloys, some with 17", and some with Nav and some without etc.

So I've seen this one online, love the colour, mileage is respectable, condition looks good. But it's missing the Nav unit, I'm not really fussed about the sat nav itself, as I won't really use it. But is there anything else you miss out on if it doesn't have the Nav unit? The dash does look slightly better with the unit.

http://www.motors.co.uk/car-34761959/sr
 
I have exact model since nearly new, never put a foot wrong for me, but since you are UK based, try find a 2.4 version if you can, it's the same car but a lot more ooomph and six speed box for motorway cruising B)

18's were optional extra's, same with navi, I wouldn't miss the navi, but it can come with a premium sound system, I'd like a better sound system in my bus if I'm honest ;)
 
2.4 all the way ...great 6 speed gearbox

But yeah, you won't find many 2.4 type s
 
I'm picking the 2.0 as I'm coming from the 2.5T ST and I want to reduce the running costs a little. I know the margins are minimal, but I'd prefer to reduce them. I'm not fussed about power anymore, I've had my fun in the ST.
 
I've just bought a 2.4 accord type S and looked at the 2L as well, whether it's 2L with 5 gears or 2.4 with 6 gears, remember there pretty heavy and real world mpg with be very similar. If you want economy go diesel. Test drove both and the torque on the 2.4 is great.

But whatever accord you buy you'll love it
 
It is a beauty B)
 
Yeah I seen that, it does look very nice. I notice it had been lowered however, not sure I'm keen on that.

What are the real world MPG figures for the 2.0 and 2.4?

I only do 8000 miles a year, and get roughly 30mpg in my Focus ST at the minute with my current commute. I don't want worse than that, and ideally I want 35 average, with the potential on a run to get high 30's maybe even 40.
 
As much as I know I can run it. It's the fact I want to keep my running costs to a minimum. I still love cars, and want something that looks nice, hence I'm looking at the Accord Type S and not a Mondeo! But I'm moving out this year, and the whole reason I'm selling my ST is to free up some money to put towards the deposit.

The last thing I want is to have a less efficient car than the ST, as even though I do 8K miles a year, I'm still putting in £65 every fortnight.

But if the 2.4 could realistically average 30-35 I'd consider it, but I'd prefer the 2.0 as it's more likely that can achieve 35?
 
I think you only have 5 gears on the 2.0. That won't help your mpg. With a 2.4 you've got the 6th gear, and could easily achieve 40 mpg on a motorway run.
I do about 70% extra urban miles and I get about 320-350 miles from a full tank(I always fill up when red light comes on, so probably still have 10 litres to go).

Tax on a 2.0 engine is £260, where for a 2.4 you would pay £280, £20 pounds more but you gain lot more for those money.
 
 
rossk26 said:
Hello,

New member here, who is hopefully going to be buying an Accord Type S!

I've decided on the 2.0i Type S, as I love the looks, however I know nothing about them really. There seem to be slightly different trim levels? Some with 18" alloys, some with 17", and some with Nav and some without etc.

So I've seen this one online, love the colour, mileage is respectable, condition looks good. But it's missing the Nav unit, I'm not really fussed about the sat nav itself, as I won't really use it. But is there anything else you miss out on if it doesn't have the Nav unit? The dash does look slightly better with the unit.

http://www.motors.co.uk/car-34761959/sr
Click to expand...
That's a stunning car, and unless it's a dog then a very reasonable price.

Not sure the Type S had different trim levels, but it did have a few optional extras.
 
toffee_pie said:
Running costs between the 2,4 and 2 are marginal. If anything the 2 litre is underpowered.
Click to expand...
The one thing I don't feel in my 2, I think its a very strong performer for its power.

i've worked out i'm getting just over 30mpg on my daily commute which is 40miles aday that consists of Motorway and town driving, and i'm not a eco driver, a mix of normal and planting it.

I'm impressed with the car.

I'd love a Type S 2.4 WITH a Manual.
 
Running costs are about more than miles per gallon though. How do the 2.0 and the 2.4 compare for road tax and insurance groups?
 
2 is £260 to tax and the 2.4 is £280, insurance wise, I don't have a clue, wouldn't expect it to be that much of a difference though
 
I'm leaning more towards the 2.0 engine. Running costs will be marginal, but at the same time, I'm not fussed on power output anymore, and if I can run one car which is slightly cheaper, I'd prefer that. The 5 gears is putting me off however now though, been used to 6 gear box and you forget how useful and excellent that 6th gear is!
 
The 6 gear box was decisive for me too. It's nice to have the car rest in 6th gear on the motorway, and even on normal roads.
 
rossk26 said:
I'm leaning more towards the 2.0 engine. Running costs will be marginal, but at the same time, I'm not fussed on power output anymore, and if I can run one car which is slightly cheaper, I'd prefer that. The 5 gears is putting me off however now though, been used to 6 gear box and you forget how useful and excellent that 6th gear is!
Click to expand...
Driving is all about the feeling.
Follow your heart and go for the 2.4 with 6 gears if I were you.
This is also the significant reason I spent extra money on the facelift ctdi for the gear box
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top