96-97 EX Power Question
 

How much more powerful are the EX's compared to the others in terms of driving? Is it a significant difference or just slight boost of speed when you need it? Im going crazy trying to track down an EX just to get the top of the line model but is it even worth it?

EX makes 15 more hp(145 instead of 130) over the lx/dx.

I have owned both. There is a little difference, but not huge. I'd be more interested in the EX because of the rear disc brakes, power windows, etc.

Rice LX also has power windows but not sunroof, etc

That is unless you're talking about the EX models with the V6; then they put out 170 HP.

I didn't know there was different types of EX's....

Both the EX and the LX models had a V6 option, the two 4-Cylinder models are as live2rice stated (145 and 130 HP respectively), the two V6 models put out 170 HP.

The 4cyl is the one you want though, at least in my opinion.

If funcrusher is looking for a car with three pedals under the dash, I completely agree, however, the automatic version of the 4-cylinder cars, even the more powerful EX, are pretty much dogs with fleas when it comes to acceleration.

I can imagine, I've never driven an auto one though.

One of my co-workers has an EX 4-Cylinder automatic, and geez, merging onto the freeway at full tilt is a bit scary.

Personally I'm a stick shift bigot, unfortunately when I bought my 2001, all of the 4-Cylinder EX models I saw with three pedals under the dash were seriously thrashed and I didn't have the luxury of time to keep looking. As I was driving home discouraged with my lack of progress in finding a car, I saw the 2001 EX-L V6 sitting by the side of the road; it was in great shape with only 114,000 miles on it (this was back in 2012), and I bought it on the spot.

Compared to another co-worker's EX 5-Speed, I'd say the V6 models are just a hair faster, but nowhere near as fun to drive.

For the 4 cylinders:

Was the EX 145 hp and the LX 130 hp?

Why would I want a 4 cylinder instead of v6??

I will be getting an automatic, not stick

Yes, for the 4-Cylinder models the EX puts out 145 HP while the LX puts out 130.

Given that you're looking for Automatic models, you have the option of the V6 engines as well; the trade-off for the smooth as silk and significantly better performing V6 is reduced fuel economy. As a baseline, my 2001 EX-L V6 gets 30-31 mpg at 70, I've heard anecdotally that the 4-Cylinder Automatic models get closer to 35 mpg, and the 4-Cylinder Manual models can handily beat 35.

Yes I really want a v6 since I plan on keeping the car for at least 5 years.

How can I tell the difference between a v6 and 4 cylinder if they're both the same year and trims? Without looking under the hood....

^^ The average mpg will be lower.

Some engine parts for the 5th gen Accord V6 are no longer available new. Many owners and techs have said the 5th gen V6 is a pig.

Also see post #4 in this thread: https://www.hondaaccordforum.com/for...uestion-58837/

As redbull said, a lot less part availability for the V6s.

While I've never measured it, as I understand things, the Gen 5 Accords with the V6 have a longer hood and longer front fenders. I'm also under the impression that the V6 models have a "V6" insignia on the trunk.

Hmmm, interesting, I must have missed that thread. Apparently the V6 motor in the Gen 6 models is either A) much improved, or B) I'm just lucky. Either way, the engine in my car is rock solid, quiet, powerful, smooth, and delivers decent fuel economy.

Yikes maybe I shouldn't even mess with a v6 if its that much trouble....

What was the hp for the 97 SE? Was it only available in 4 cylinder? So will there a significant difference between the 130 hp for the LX and 145 ES?

The SE has the same motor as the LX (i.e. 130 HP); that car coupled to an automatic transmission is pretty slow for things like freeway merges and such.

Was there a SE v6?

How slow exactly does everyone mean with 130 hp? I used to have an automatic 01 Civic DX so it has to be better than that. I'm not sure what the hp was with that though.

Does everyone agree that a V6 isn't worth it then?

The SE was a 130 HP 4-Cylinder engine only.

The 2001 Civic DX has a Power to Weight ratio of 21.5 pounds per HP.
The 1997 Accord LX has a Power to Weight ratio of 22.3 pounds per HP.

Long story short, the Civic will be marginally faster than the Accord.

Geez.....I think a 4 cylinder EX is my best bet if I can track one down. Sunroof, 145 hp, power windows...

Having a 97 dx auto. Mine hadrear disc's. I can't complain. It's better than my dad's 96 Mazda barbie car (miata) auto, but I think the Mazda is only a 1.6 or something like that. The 30+ mug people talk about dumbfounds me. Best we've gotten was around 27mpg, tend to average about 25mpg.

It is kinda nerve wracking to wind it up merging tho.

I have a 97 lx with the v6 (all power - locks, windows, sunroof, seats, etc) and let me say, the power is there, but when it comes to replacing parts for it, the v6 cost is almost 3X what the 4 cylinder is

25mpg? Do a lot of city driving? I used to average 34mpg in my 95 lx, granted it was a manual. But you still should be able to get better than 25mpg.

Solid mixed. About 70/30. 70% hiway.

That's pretty scary, my 2001 Accord with the V6 gets in the high 20s with a 70/30 mix of highway/urban driving.

Have you per-chance changed your upstream O2 sensor? If not you might want to consider doing so.