CarSPIN Forums

Which one?

Is "neither" a valid response?

Again a case of the classic one having more character. As well as being rarer these days.

The new one.

Definitely the 30 year old car.  It has character like ChrisV said.  I love it.

Yeah, well, a Model T has "character" out the ass, but you wouldn't want to take one down the Interstate.

The Accord is a run-of-the-mill people hauler. It's about being practical. New one all the way.





It might be nice to have the old one as an indulgence, but there are plenty of other old cars that are much more desirable, IMO.

I think the old one looks better, and is lighter, so there you go.

I actually would love to have a 1977 or 1978 Honda Civic.  My buddy had on in high school and it was a pretty cool car.

I'd rather ride a new one.  I don't think I'd want to be found dead behind the wheel of either.  A '77 Civic maybe.  But not an Accord.

I like the new one more.

It was an '85 Accord I'd def. pick that, but I'll go with the 07 here

2007 Accord Coupe, V6, 6 speed; should do 0-60 in about the same time as my '95 Riviera V6 4 speed auto. :P

Still picked the new one.

Quote from: CMan on May 10, 2007, 12:32:47 PM
2007 Accord Coupe, V6, 6 speed; should do 0-60 in about the same time as my '95 Riviera V6 4 speed auto. :P

Still picked the new one.

The Riv is about two seconds slower.  :tounge:
5.9 seconds to 60 mph for the Accord vs. 7.8 seconds for the Riviera.


http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

This is like dick in your mouth vs. mouth on your dick, gimme a break :P

Let's put it this way:

If I were to buy a new Accord, I'd drive it for a few years and then sell it. In a couple of months I'd forget a lot about it. Most people would have never bothered to make note of it in the first place. I have no doubt it would serve its functional well.

If I were to buy an old one and use it as my daily driver, people would think I'm a nutjob.

I voted for the old one.

Quote from: The Pirate on May 10, 2007, 04:57:24 PM

The Riv is about two seconds slower.  :tounge:
5.9 seconds to 60 mph for the Accord vs. 7.8 seconds for the Riviera.


http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

STFU los3r n00b. :nono: ;)

http://www.dragtimes.com/Buick-Riviera-Timeslip-3591.html

Wait a minute. 13.9 1/4 , not 15.9. :P

Quote from: CMan on May 10, 2007, 07:29:02 PM
STFU los3r n00b. :nono: ;)

The truth hurts, I know...

Quote from: CMan on May 10, 2007, 07:33:29 PM
http://www.dragtimes.com/Buick-Riviera-Timeslip-3591.html

Wait a minute. 13.9 1/4 , not 15.9. :P

Sorry, but I'm not believing a 2.0xx 60 foot time for any front wheel driver on street tires, much less a stock Riviera.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 10, 2007, 07:40:26 PM
Sorry, but I'm not believing a 2.0xx 60 foot time for any front wheel driver on street tires, much less a stock Riviera.

A supercharged one, maybe?  It still seems a bit optimistic though.

It's got a good kick with the S/C.

'77 because of the rarity factor.

Quote from: CMan on May 10, 2007, 08:06:38 PM
It's got a good kick with the S/C.

No doubt- but the high power should show up more in the trap speed,- which is pretty low for a sub-14 second run- than in the 60 ft time, which is going to be traction limited.

The time slip for this cars reads like that of a car on slicks in the 240 hp range.

Quote from: Tave on May 08, 2007, 07:51:40 AM
Yeah, well, a Model T has "character" out the ass, but you wouldn't want to take one down the Interstate.

The Accord is a run-of-the-mill people hauler. It's about being practical. New one all the way.





It might be nice to have the old one as an indulgence, but there are plenty of other old cars that are much more desirable, IMO.

Pretty much, yeah. I figure, if I'm gonna have an old car, is should be more to my taste than an Accord. And I'd prefer an old car to a new one. :lol:

My favorite Accord is the one before the current one. Or the current one in coupe form.