Last post on Mar 31, 2011 at 9:21 AM
You are in the Honda Accord
What is this discussion about?
Honda Accord, Sedan
#3824 of 5530 Re: 190 HP versions [robertsmx]
Nov 16, 2007 (12:33 am)
Thanks for the reply and the graphs. That does make me wonder, but I was distinctly impressed (or unimpressed) with a sense of waiting for the power in the SH, as in our Odyssey. The SH was a manual. I also remember thinking the gearing seemed pretty tall - I don't know what the figures were, but I guess I just expected it to feel faster since I was comparing cars that posted 0-60 times in the upper mid 6 second range. I never had any trouble spanking them in my Maxima either (at least when it was younger, starting to feel it's age now...). I have had a fair amount of experience in Hondas with VTEC engines and they all seem to feel a bit peaky to me. and they do seem to want to rev a little higher when negotiating an incline, but that could be attributed to overly-tall gearing, which does allow for better drag times with a skilled driver behind the wheel, but seems to make it feel slower in regular driving. No? I don't know what it is. I do remember being very impressed by the broad power spread of a 96 Accord LX I drove back in the late 90's, and it was a 4 cyl. But then I also recall a comparo between the 200HP Acura 3.0CL and the 200HP Toyota Solara (Car and Driver, probably around 1999-ish) where they said even though the Acura posted a quicker 0-60, it did not feel as stong as the Solara. And I know our Sienna is rated at 266HP - 26 more than our Ody(although our Ody is rated at the old SAE standard, so could be more of a disparity) but it's still surprising to see how easily the Sienna pulls away from it - especially from a standstill.
Anyway, back to the Accord... I will just have to drive one to see for myself - I'll be comparing against the G35 and Camry SE V6 for certain, and probably the TL and Altima 3.5. Still likely a few months away, but I'm getting anxious.
#3826 of 5530 Re: Battle of the Coupes [robertsmx]
Nov 16, 2007 (6:38 am)
I vaguely remember C&D getting MazdaSpeed6 to do 0-60 in an impressive 5.3 seconds. But a look at 5-60 was another story. The car took 6.9s for it, while still good it is a whopping 1.6s slower compared to 0-60. Most powerful cars will get the job done in an additional 0.5s-0.8s.
I don't really buy the 5.3 0-60 time. Most tests I've seen put the MS3 around 5.9-6.2 in the 0-60 run.The HP is slighlty off the 6 but it's lighter and has the same engine. After driving mine for about a year, I think you'd have to drive it like you weren't taking it home to get a 5.3.
#3827 of 5530 Re: 190 HP versions [gotoyota]
Nov 16, 2007 (9:41 am)
I have had a fair amount of experience in Hondas with VTEC engines and they all seem to feel a bit peaky to me.
Honestly gotoyota, you aren't the only one. Here are the three cars I drive routinely within a week:
1996 Accord LX, 130hp/139lb-ft, 4-speed Auto, Non-Vtec, 176k mi
2002 Accord LX, 150hp/152lb-ft, 4-speed Auto, Vtec, 90k mi
2006 Accord EX, 166hp/160lb-ft, 5-speed Auto, iVtec, 26k mi (and my baby )
The 2006 blows them both out of the water. It has both low-end and top-end power in droves, relative to the others.
The 1996 actually feels like it has more power off the line than the 2002 does, it just runs out of steam above 60MPH.
The 2002 is the opposite of the 1996, you punch it off the line and it says "Who, me?" for a second, then gathers up its purse and gets going. Above 60MPH, it is no contest though, the Vtec pays off big time in passing power vs. my 1996. (The 2002 is my grandmother's by the way)
#3828 of 5530 Re: 190 HP versions [thegraduate]
Nov 16, 2007 (10:56 am)
Hi, grad! Part of the reason for the perceived difference is the 96 and maybe the 02 are SOHC engines.The 06 is DOHC. Study hard.
#3829 of 5530 Re: 190 HP versions [blufz1]
Nov 16, 2007 (11:59 am)
It doesn't make a difference in reality. The transition from 2.3 SOHC to 2.4 DOHC did little to nothing to the shape of the torque curve. The increase was largely proportional (to increase in displacement) based on pictures posted by Honda.
#3830 of 5530 Re: 190 HP versions [robertsmx]
Nov 16, 2007 (12:18 pm)
The 3.0L SOHC engine in the 03-07 Accord performed quite well when compared to the 3.5L DOHC engines from Toyota and Nissan. It out performed many DOHC engines of the same and larger displacement (and still does). I think all of Honda's V6 engines are still SOHC, including the one used in the 08 Accord. I wonder if Honda will ever come out with a DOHC V6? Will that be the next step? Or will they go with a V8?
#3831 of 5530 Re: 190 HP versions [elroy5]
Nov 16, 2007 (12:51 pm)
The new Accordís 3.5/V6, which is a SOHC VTEC, proves that DOHC can be something just for namesake for most part. You may have seen it before but take a look at this dyno plot
that maps 2005 G35 Coupe/6MT to 2008 Accord V6/6MT taken on the same machine. The measurements are at hubs, so the losses are lower than expected if taken at the wheels. Let us look at the measured numbers first (and compare to rated numbers).
Power: 266.4 HP 6272 rpm (crank rating: 298 HP* 6400 rpm)
Torque: 247.5 lb-ft 4973 rpm (crank rating: 260 lb-ft 4800 rpm)
* 298 HP under old SAE rating. SAE certified rating (new rules) is 286 HP. Accordís rating (below) is under new SAE rating.
2008 Accord V6
Power: 268.5 HP 6117 rpm (crank rating: 268 HP 6200 rpm)
Torque: 248.4 lb-ft 3922 rpm (crank rating: 248 lb-ft 5000 rpm)
There are a lot of interesting points to be made here. First of all, it seems that Honda has underrated the V6. The numbers at the hubs is virtually identical to the rating at the crank. And in both cases, it actually delivered better numbers than the higher rated G35ís VQ35. Not only that, the observed peaks arrived at lower rpm too (torque peak arrived 1000 rpm before it did in the VQ).
What we donít see in this plot is that Honda achieved this result without resorting to high compression (and as a result it gets those numbers on regular grade gasoline, while numbers for the VQ are with premium). In fact, this J35 has a relatively low compression of only 10.0:1 (for todayís standard).
With 90% of the peak torque available at just 2000 rpm, it isnít doing all that at just peak either (we are talking 90% or better between 2000 rpm and 6500 rpm).
Now, that only proves Honda doesnít need two more cams and added complexity, size and weight of DOHC to be able to compete in terms of power and torque while using the same displacement. Even better, when you consider that it gets better mileage too (not necessarily on EPA cycle, but in real world), while running on regular grade.
But, that is when Honda cared about performance. With VCM version, Honda has taken a different route. I can only guess, but Honda probably thinks that only people buying V6 mated to manual transmission care about maximum performance. Those with auto are looking for more practicality and with rising gas prices that implies better fuel economy too.
To achieve this, the 3.5 is tuned to be more docile but more by design. Unlike non-VCM version, it gets by with a single profile. And with the profile chosen for higher HP, there is some compromise in low-mid range, a reason Accord 3.5/V6 w/VCM will feel relatively soft down low compared to the monster that is the non-VCM version. In effect, the VCM costs about 10% loss in low-mid range torque. So, it performs more like a 3.2/V6 under 3500 rpm than a 3.5.
DOHC layout would be better if we were talking 7500-8000 rpm redline. And in case of Accord, to help against the compromises taken to implement VCM. Other than that, simplicity rules!
The non-VCM 3.5/V6 is already overpowering the front wheels in the Accord (as evident by the dyno, and especially in the road tests including one from Edmunds). I say, power is more than needed, just focus on improving fuel economy further, and keep refining. That would be smarter.
Nov 16, 2007 (12:52 pm)
OK, so I finally went to the Honda dealership on Wednesday night since I was helping my mother shop for a new '08 CR-V. Mind you, though my sign in name says NissMazlover, I still have loved Hondas all my life. They are just in third position for me behind Nissan and Mazda. In any case, I was very anxious to experience the new Accord when it came out. I have to say that I was reserving judgement until I sat in and drove it since I have been disappointed with the look of it since I have seen it on the net, in pictures, on TV and in person driving by.
In any case, I asked for a test drive and experienced the car first hand. I have to say, that I am definitely not overwhelmed with excitement over it and really CAN'T understand the HEAPS of praise that the car is getting: First off, it's really NOT a good looking car. It might be impressive due to its size, but it's styling leaves MUCH to be desired. It manages to have interesting angles, yet be boring and sedate at the same time. Even the Camry is more interesting to look at!
Secondly, I don't understand the praise the interior is getting, as well. OK, the interior is nice enough, though I wasn't impressed. I think the previous generation's interior is much nicer. This one seems stupid to me. Like, it was made for dumb people with fat fingers that like and need lots of BIG, toy-like buttons. CLACK, CLACK, CLAK...DUUUUHHH. Plus, I don't understand all the hoopla about its interior, either. I have been in other cars who's interiors have impressed me more. I hate Toyotas, but even I had to admit that the Camry's interior was VERY nice and nicer than the Accord's. The Altima's interior is also much nicer, as are the interiors of any other Volkswagens and a slew of other cars. Honda's interior choice works in the Civic, but NOT in the Accord. So, I didn't get the big deal.
Thirdly, the new Accord looks and FEELS MAMMOTH! What is all this talk about it still feeling nimble and lithe? WHATEVER! The car feels just as LARGE as it looks! What's happened to the Accord? It used to be this cool, perfectly suited, perfectly sized, even european driving feeling car that was near perfect. With this iteration, it just seems as though Honda tried too hard (though not with the styling excitement level) and made it too big - or, at least, FEEL too big. Nissan came to its senses with the Altima, and realized that the new one didn't need to be any bigger. Instead, they shortened the length and wheelbase of it's newest Altima. Why didn't Honda at least keep he Accord the same size, or only SLIGHTLY increase it? This one's too big and bulky.
And, fourthly, I didn't think that the four cylinder engines offered felt that different from each other. The V6 felt VERY nice, admitted. And the car feels SO nice driving it down the road. BUT, the four cylinder engines didn't feel that different from each other and, dare I say, they DO feel UNDERPOWERED for this LARGE car. The Altima's 4 cylinder feels like a SIX! Although the Accord's 4 cylinder is smooth, it still feels like a 4 cylinder due to the car's size and weight.
So, I just wanted to weigh in with my opinion - which is all that it is: an opinion. Just had to get it out of my chest. Thanks.
#3833 of 5530 Re: My Verdict [nissmazlover]
Nov 16, 2007 (12:54 pm)
The Altima's 4 cylinder feels like a SIX!
Based on my extensive experience, it begs for mercy. It feels strained and sounds metallic, especially under moderate to heavy throttle. My 1998 Accord's 150 HP I-4 puts it to shame in terms of sound and smoothness.