Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan

1…7172747677…107

Comments

  • gotoyotagotoyota Member Posts: 280
    redline is 7100 on the 190 HP
    These are the specs, taken from Honda's website.

    LX-S EX / EX-L EX-L V-6 EX-L V-6 6-Speed
    Engine Type In-Line 4-Cylinder V-6
    Engine Block/Cylinder Head Aluminum-Alloy
    Displacement (cc) 2354 3471
    Horsepower @ rpm 190 @ 7000 268 @ 6200
    Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm) 162 @ 4400 248 @ 5000
    Redline 7100 6800
    Bore and Stroke (mm) 87 x 99 89 x 93
    Compression Ratio 10.5 : 1 10.0 : 1
    Valve Train 16-Valve DOHC i-VTEC® 24-Valve SOHC i-VTEC®
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Right. I want a lot of torque lower in the rpm range where it is more available to me in everyday driving. That's either more displacement or diesel.
  • bug4bug4 Member Posts: 370
    Your post got me thinking . . . . When driving a manual, I'm not afraid to floor the throttle because I know exactly how the car is going to react. With a manual, putting your foot into throttle simply gives the engine more gas. With an automatic transmission, flooring it sets in motion a very complex series of mechanical, hydraulic and electronic processes. With auto, I VERY rarely floor it because it almost always means a gear shift under maximum strain. Perhaps that is at the heart of why I don't like auto transmissions. With a manual, you push the clutch, match RPMs, shift it and then floor it -- its smooth and you can take advantage of the engine's full potential without mashing gears. With auto, you floor it, it bucks into a lower gear under full strain and then off you go. Both are effective, but the former seems much easier on the drive train while giving the driver precise control.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Then you're settling for less power. I thought too much was never enough. :)

    Once again, think gearing. You depress the gas pedal (or do we call it diesel pedal in a diesel :P) to your comfort level and need for performance, the gearing decides against the wheel speed where it revs. It is easy to be bogged down with numbers however. 7200 rpm might sound high, but thats because diesels can't go that high. And in the process, the role that gearing plays is completely forgotten.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Settling for less power? The diesel has over 250 foot lbs of torque @2000 rpms and over 40 mpg. I'll take that over 190 hp @ 7000 any day. I've got a 150 mph motorcycle for fun. :)
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    250 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm = 95 HP. Imagine that propelling a 3600 lb car (plus the payload that includes the driver). Almost 38 lb/HP at WOT is not something to brag about. :shades:
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    O.K.,How much torque is the 190 hp 4cylinder making at 2000 rpms?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    140-142 lb-ft. But, you don't gear a 7100 rpm engine like you would a 4500 rpm engine. When you do need power, you can drop down to second (between 45-75 mph) and that is when power comes to play.

    Since diesel is a slow and a low revver, it would need to be in third gear to be in comparable speed range to be at its best. Torque won't do a thing.

    That would be a reason Prius doesn't compete for 0-60 or any acceleration honors despite of having 298 lb-ft at just 0-400 rpm.

    The best bet on performance is to be able to compare speed to power chart. You can't do that looking at peak power or peak torque numbers alone.
  • gotoyotagotoyota Member Posts: 280
    That would be a reason Prius doesn't compete for 0-60 or any acceleration honors despite of having 298 lb-ft at just 0-400 rpm.

    Maybe...but with all that torque, I bet the Prius loaded with four full size tree huggers can do 0-60 almost as fast (in the relative sense) as if it only one on board ;)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Thanks for all the info!

    I was using info I had read from earlier in the year, info that proved not to be correct. That is what was in my head when I posted it. And I was dead wrong.

    I try not to be wrong much, so I apologize!
  • amiramir Member Posts: 115
    hi guys.i am shoping around for honda accord coupe polish metal with ivory cloth instead of black cloth on ex trim.do u think ivory gets dirty alot easier even though the carpet is black in the ivory coupe?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Lighter colors show stains a lot easier than black does. If you're worried about stains, go darker.
  • gwinbeargwinbear Member Posts: 16
    (I wish we could see a horse power chart for the I4 190hp engine! It charts HP and torque as RPM goes from 0 to red-line. I think it is useful information and someone has to have it???)

    Can't we just ask the dealer? After all, it's an excellent marketing item. (but who'll be liable for attaining it?) :) Imagine, "no dyno chart, no deal!"
  • gotoyotagotoyota Member Posts: 280
    Don't sweat it. There's a lot more to life than memorizing car stats! :shades:
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    A sales person is unlikely to have it, unless Honda released it in PR (they do a lot more than that in Japanese market).

    The 190 HP version has two possibilities. One, it is a design taken from European Accord, which still had VTEC on intake cam only. Or, it is similar to the 205 HP engine in TSX, which is the same engine but with higher compression and uses VTEC on intake as well as exhaust cams. Based on all that I have read, the former is more likely.

    In a typical Honda engine that produces peak power beyond 6000 rpm, I have noticed that whatever the peak torque, at least 90% of it arrives at 2500 rpm (this is true even in a 8400 rpm design in the new Civic Type-R, even though the peak arrives at 6100 rpm officially).

    So, with the 177 HP version, you're virtually guaranteed at least 90% of maximum torque from about 2500 rpm to 6500 rpm. Add 300-400 rpm more for the 190 HP. Thats typical.

    There are some engines that defy this norm, and one of them is the 2.4-liter engine in TSX. It generates 90% of its peak torque at just 2000 rpm, and maintains as much or more of it thru 7000 rpm. This is an official dyno of the 205 HP/2.4-liter engine in TSX as released five years ago. At the time we got it with 200 HP as well. The Accord I-4 should be similar except under 2500 rpm (and slightly lower as well).
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Puh....Leeze! You are waaaay to hung up on the gearing! I'll take the 250 ft pounds at 2000 rpms for my driving. You can have the 142 if you want.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Thats fine. Next time don't complain about HP (or lack of). :D
  • bug4bug4 Member Posts: 370
    robertsmx - your restraint is admirable . . so I'll try to come to your defense :D . How can you be too hung up on gearing? It completely defines the characteristics of how an engine delivers power -- yes?
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Well excuusee, me! Horsepower,torque,and displacement are interelated. BTW,it's 250 ft. pounds of torque that allows smooth,shiftless driving at 60-75.
  • glennglennglennglenn Member Posts: 55
    BVD Says: " I have been very impressed with the 4cyl engine, many that have rode with me, have thought I had a 6cyl. I am like no, this is a 4cyl. In fact, I drove the V6 accord and found it not as torque in the low range from start, but I really didn't push it though. Anyone that gets the 4cyl on the 08, will be more than happy, but like others have said, its what your used to. Form your own opinion. "

    I have BOTh an 06 4 banger in the EX Version and a 07 V-6 Se model (Sedans) and the difference between the 4 and the 6 is dramatic. From 0-20 there's not much BUT once the VTEC 6 gets going, its like night and day from the 4. The v-6 doesn't stop pulling once you hit 80 whereas my 4 really starts to labor at that point (revs high and gets noisy) . I know the gas mileage is better on the 4, but its not that much better than the 6 to sacrifice 1.5 seconds to 60 another 2 seconds in the qtr mile. I'd go with the 6 anyday (at least pre 2008 models) since the fuelsavings are NOT that dramatic. I can't comment on the 2008 4 with 190 HP since I haven't driven one, BUT I would imagine the dramatic difference between the 08 v-6 and the 08 i-4 is just as great as pre- 2008 models. Note too that I have dusted many a TL (non-S model) with my V-6 2007 SE sedan. Must be the lighter weight and close HP to the Acura.

    Glenn
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Finally! A voice of reason in this low torque wilderness.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Indeed they are related. But just because someone has a paint brush and a variety of colors, doesn't mean he's got the painting done. :P

    HP and speed are two of the most important things when it comes to performance. You can forget about torque. As for shiftless driving, you're right. If you are ok with lower performance, you could leave the car in top gear. But count me out. It might be ok to negotiate minor hills etc, but for passing power, second or third gear are usually optimal. Don't believe me? Here's a little fun data for you (from AutoCar UK road test of current Accord Diesel). The following are times taken to accelerate...

    30 mph to 50 mph
    Gear 3: 4.0s
    Gear 4: 7.2s

    40 mph to 60 mph
    Gear 4: 6.1s
    Gear 5: 10.2s

    You still think it is better idea to just leave the car in top gear, when power really matters?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    In my previous post I said, power and speed are key to performance. And it is gearing that relates them. It is easy for a lot of folks to be hung up on torque, but they don't realize it is only as good as the amount of power it translates to. That is exactly the reason one won't win races driving around a Prius that operates at 100 rpm even though it would have a whopping 298 lb-ft on tap, when compared to a similarly heavy car but with half the torque but 200 HP.

    Power defines the balance between force (thrust at the wheels) and rate (wheel speed). Gearing helps achieve it.
  • jet10000jet10000 Member Posts: 656
    The diesel has over 250 foot lbs of torque 2000 rpms and over 40 mpg. I'll take that over 190 hp 7000 any day.

    What diesel are you going to "take" that does all of that? I don't think that diesel is sold in America. Whereas the 190 hp is.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I'd go with the 6 anyday (at least pre 2008 models) since the fuelsavings are NOT that dramatic.

    But the initial cost IS pretty dramatic. $2k off the top, THEN start adding fuel savings.That was it for me. I wanted a cloth interior, and a moonroof. I went from there looking at cars. The LXV6 was a good two grand more than the EX cloth 4-cyl I went with. Getting 40MPG on more than one occasion yet still having more than enough power to successfully make any passing moves and merge without sweating means the 4-cyl was right for me.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I believe he's referring to the 2.2 CTDi engine destined for the Accord iand CR-V n 2009. It is currently on sale in Europe, and existed in the previous-gen Euro models as well.
  • carzzzcarzzz Member Posts: 282
    Last gen V6s were underrated. J32 puts about 10 more hp on the wheel than J30. Gen 7 Accord actually puts out 255-260 on premium (ie TL puts 270) under the old rating system. Back to the topic, recently, another site make a dyno run on an 08 Accord V6 and put out 210ish on the wheel, whereas the Gen 7 V6 get a hair below 200 with premium. So, that's why the new V6 perform marginally better than older V6 despite of .5L increase in displacement.
  • gwinbeargwinbear Member Posts: 16
    One thing I noticed about Honda's peak engine output is that they put torque above horsepower until around low 160 ft/lbs, at least for the Inline 4. Case in point:

    The 2008 Accord puts out 161 ft/lbs (4300 rpm); 190hp
    The 1998 Accord (LX) puts out 152 ft/lbs (4500rpm); 150hp (F23A)
    The late S2000 puts out 162 ft/lbs (6200 rpm); 240 hp (F20C)
    The 1990 Acura Legend puts out 162 ft/lbs (4500 rpm), 160hp (C27A, this is V6)

    I've been long suspected that it is how Honda preserve their cars' optimum handling dynamics at low to mid-range rpms, but I can't prove it technically.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Thanks for the performance "tips", but with a motorcycle that goes from 0 to 127 mph in 11 seconds, I don't really need them. :)
  • gotoyotagotoyota Member Posts: 280
    In a typical Honda engine that produces peak power beyond 6000 rpm, I have noticed that whatever the peak torque, at least 90% of it arrives at 2500 rpm (this is true even in a 8400 rpm design in the new Civic Type-R, even though the peak arrives at 6100 rpm officially).

    robertsmx, your posts are always technically informative and interesting to read. But this post just doesn't sit well with me. If Honda's VTEC engines all make 90% of their peak torque from 2-2.5K and beyond, then why is it that every Honda VTEC I have driven has felt so soft at the lower spectrum of the rev range? I was all hot for a 97 Prelude SH at one point years ago because I loved the handling, the sound of the engine and the stats looked good on paper. I went to drive one, fully intending to come home with it. I was definately happy with the handling and the engine note, but completely disappointed with the soft power delivery below about 4k. I didn't buy it - ended up with my VQ powered 97 Maxima that I still drive (til the wheels fall off or the engine explodes - whichever comes first). I know those are old cars, but the newer VTEC's have that same sensation of waiting for the real power to come on at 4000+ RPM's, and feel relatively tame below that. As I have mentioned in past posts, I just bought my wife an 07 Sienna to replace her '04 Odyssey and the difference between the two engines is night and day. One of the minor gripes I've always had about the Ody was the relatively sluggish off the line power - it really loves to rev after about 4300 rpm's and sounds great like all Honda engines do, but below that it feels much slower. The non-VTEC engined Honda's I've driven did not exhibit this peakiness.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Call on 90% of peak torque at only 2500 rpms on Honda engines!
  • vietviet Member Posts: 847
    I agreed with Robertsmx on "90% torque @ 2,500RPM for Honda". My Accord V6 is able to cruise @ 80- 85MPH at 2,500 - 2,700RPM.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    da". My Accord V6 is able to cruise 80- 85MPH at 2,500 - 2,700RPM.

    As is the 1.8L Civic (2700 RPM at 81MPH) and my 2.4L Accord (same as Civic).
  • bristol2bristol2 Member Posts: 736
    But peak torque has nothing to do with comfortable cruising speed.

    Just to add some fuel to the torque vs. gearing arguement....
    It's true that gearing is essential to getting the power of the engine to ground but if the engine is generating less torque there is less power to put through the gearing!
    Torque is absolutely essential to speed at low revs regardless of gearing, gearing may make it more or less effective in generating speed but less torque is never a positive attribute in generating speed.

    Diesels generate more torque, hence diesel trucks pull and push harder and diesel cars generate more speed at lower revs.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Agree. Further,Honda doesn't offer optional final drive ratios,so gearing is a moot point.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Since you mention SH trim, I can assume it mated to manual transmission only. Here is official dyno of the H22A that was used in 1997+ Prelude (from Japanese website, so units are different). But, it is the shape of the torque curve that matters, here it is:
    image

    It produces 90% or better from 2500 rpm thru about 7000 rpm. It jumps up a bit between about 5000 rpm thru 6500 rpm (peaks around 5500 rpm). Thats typical of DOHC VTEC engines.

    A lot of times, you can't feel what the engine is doing due to the fact that is gearing. Or, the car may be heavier (both being the case between Sienna and Odyssey). Honda does not gear its automatic transmission aggressively enough like many others do, and while that helps benefit in highway passing it doesn't improve off the line performance.

    And this dyno tells you even more, an example of Honda V6 producing 90% of its peak torque at just 2000 rpm. That is for the new Accord Coupe (compared to 2005 G35 Coupe's dyno which is in blue). But again, this is a classic example of Honda being more aggressive with engine/transmission with manual transmission for sportier performance than with auto which has compromises built in.

    Here is one of my favorite "shapes", and it is for 2.0-liter i-VTEC which was used in Japanese market Integra (RSX) Type-R (also used in Civic Type-R and Accord Euro-R). It is also used in the new Civic Type-R with a little bump in output, and we get a detuned version in Civic Si.
    image

    Note how the torque curve attains a peak before 3000 rpm, then settles down a bit in the mid range, and goes back up again at high rpm. Simply looking at peak ratings (220 HP @ 8000 rpm, 152 lb-ft @ 7000 rpm) makes the engine sound like it is peaky and lacking low end. The fact is, it has 95% of that peak at about 2800 rpm (or about 145 lb-ft).

    I have more than a dozen examples like this from Honda's bin to make my point. BTW, Odyssey's 3.5/V6 evolved from the 3.5/V6 used in 2001 MDX. That engine was rated: 240 HP @ 5300 rpm, 245 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm to 5000 rpm. In this case, not only that 90% or more of peak torque was available from 2000 rpm, 100% of it was available between 3000 to 5000 rpm. That wasn't even a peak, it was a plain. Although, tuning did differ for Odyssey.
  • glennglennglennglenn Member Posts: 55
    Thanks for the performance "tips", but with a motorcycle that goes from 0 to 127 mph in 11 seconds, I don't really need them.

    Blufz, thats actually SLOW by today's motorcycle standards. Ive seen tests where they do 0-150 in about 9. 8 seconds (think 2008 Hyabusa from Suzuki)

    Glenn
  • ezshift5ezshift5 Member Posts: 858
    ...Blufz, thats actually SLOW by today's motorcycle standards. Ive seen tests where they do 0-150 in about 9. 8 seconds (think 2008 Hyabusa from Suzuki)

    HAY-sus! I'll go a lifetime without attaining 150. (I did one indicate 137 near death (Valley) in my LT-46 '69 Corvette back in the stone age)

    ....never could handle a vehicle that could hide behind a pencil.........

    ..ez..
  • jamese777jamese777 Member Posts: 18
    The 24 hour cable news networks are reporting that the 2008 Accord Sedan tied Audi for first in the mid-size car crash/safety tests conducted by the Insurance Institute of America.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Yes, 7 Honda/Acura vehicles were on the list of 34. 7 Fords were as well, including the new Taurus/Sable, and the Edge/MKX twins, among others.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    I know,but I don't want to really hurt myself ! :)
  • gotoyotagotoyota Member Posts: 280
    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.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Here's the link: texases, "Honda Accord I4 vs V6" #209, 15 Nov 2007 3:52 pm.
  • networkguynetworkguy Member Posts: 53
    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.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    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)
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    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. :)
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    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.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    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?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    The new Accord’s 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).
    2005 G35/6MT
    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. Accord’s 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 G35’s 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 don’t 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 today’s standard).

    With 90% of the peak torque available at just 2000 rpm, it isn’t doing all that at just peak either (we are talking 90% or better between 2000 rpm and 6500 rpm).

    Now, that only proves Honda doesn’t 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.
  • nissmazlovernissmazlover Member Posts: 162
    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.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles