...at the risk of incriminating myself, i took the exv6 up higher than anyone i know...had it up to 134 mph yesterday on an empty stretch of highway! and it was still pulling!
seaf...you are right...5th gear is tall...VERY tall! with the pedal still on the floor, 5th gear took over at 107 mph! i thought i was already in 5th, but i looked down at the speedo, and while i looked it shifted again! surprised the heck out of me! once it shifted at 107, i let off, put the cruise on, and was turning only 2800 rpm! WOW!!!
then i REALLY punched it, and by the time i got to 134, i was coming back to civilization, and had to let off before getting put in the clink.
if the car achieves these things, isnt it logical that it was DESIGNED to do so? i wouldnt worry about that. some people like to actually test drive a car, rather than be petrified to go past 3000 rpm. a test drive is a test drive. its for seeing what a car will be like to own.
BTW...i also bought this car today, so dont worry about it being in someone else's garage...lol.
Appreciate the info there but you did ask for it--I would be the maddest customer in town had I known my new car had been driven that way. But again great info. Let me know if you do any dealer trades into OK! Just kidding. once again, how long does it take from a production date for a car to reach the showroom in you best guess? INKY
Please check CarnDriver review (available now on the site?). They have explnation of from where additional 40hp comes. 30% from the free intake/bumped up copmpression ratio, 40% from the freer flowing exhuast (Look M, No manifold) "manifold integrated in the individual cylinder heads!!" (whatever that means) & 30% comes from the intake variable timing valves etc.
The increase in power, but not in torque in due to the special valve design. What happens is the horse power is roughly proportional to torque times rpm. In a regular engine, the torque begins to decrease after 5000-5500rpm, so there is no point of using rev range above 6000rpm. The honda VTEC and BMW M3 engine, (Toyota VVTi and Nissan spec V to a less extent), would maintain the torque to above 6000rpm. If they can extend the rev by 20% while maintaining the same torque, they get 20% more horsepower.
These engines will have a slightly different driving experience from others. The reason is you only get the stated horsepower when you rev high. So if you compare a Honda having 240hp with 7200 rpm red line to a 240hp V6 with 6000rpm redline, Honda VTEC has to rev 3600rpm to be comparable to V6 rev 3000rpm in power. If you still rev 3000rpm (to keep engine quiet), you have 20% less power. A lot of review commented some VTEC engine does not have a linear torque. I disagree. The torque is very linear. It is the driver who forgot to remind himself that he has to rev 20% more to get the horsepower. In another words, under normal driving, the engine is just like another regular engine with same displacement (so discount the power by 20%). It is only when you rev to 7000rpm, you feel the engine is suddenly 20% more powerful.
i got it at $750 under msrp, and doc. fees were waived...saved about $1000 from regular retail deal. i leased with only 1st pmt OOP, and 36 months at 362.40. i added spoiler, moonroof visor, stripe, and splash guards. silver exv6. as a salesperson, i havent had a car payment in 3 years. (always had a demo) im relying on this car selling that much better to make the payments for me. BTW, i cant sell one to myself. goes in as a house deal.
inky...im in louisville, KY, and it takes 5-7 calendar days for us to get them. in OK, i would imagine a week and a half or so.
Ickes_mobile, you're right, an ideal car would have CVT that matches the engine's peak torque & efficiency. But then again, who knows if the ideal car's engine would be gasoline powered? Maybe it'd be hydrogen powered with electric motors at all 4 wheels? Then you'd get gobs of torque from very low rpm from the electric motors. The stuff of dreams...back to reality now...
I'd love to see the accord have CVT, too bad Honda's CVT can't handle lots of torque right now. Maybe a little corporate espionage at Audi could turn up some ideas...(the latest A4 has CVT matched with a V6)
I know this has been asked before but I'll ask it again. Anyone have any info on the XM Radio Option? I believe Its supposed to be available 10/1? Just curious what type of antenna is going to be used and if it can be installed with either the cassette player or MP3 player.
"Please check CarnDriver review (available now on the site?). They have explnation of from where additional 40hp comes. 30% from the free intake/bumped up copmpression ratio, 40% from the freer flowing exhuast (Look M, No manifold) "manifold integrated in the individual cylinder heads!!" (whatever that means) & 30% comes from the intake variable timing valves etc."
All of the power increase you mentioned above (except the last) are through the increase of torque. In the end, it is the torque that will most concern you in daily driver. Horsepower (only achievable at @6000rpm) is for drag racing.
I noticed pulling out of the garage yesterday a creaking noise, drove off and no problem, at low speeds I am getting this creaking noise. It is getting worse, not sure if there is a bushing that needs to be lubed or what.
I hope that there isn't more to come. It is coming from the front end, and when you put on the breaks it goes away.
you can have 2 things installed in the center console...mp3, xm radio, dvd player, etc...every electronic accessory goes into the lower console bin, but will fit only 2 things at a time.the car's antenna is used for the xm radio as well.
That's really funny!! YOu expect any person in this forum with half a brain to believe you paid $750 under MSRP? Doc fees waived...so what! That's a junk fee add-on for the dealer. I was offered $1500 off list from a local dealer, and I'm not a salesman like you. I don't believe that at all of what you claim you paid. You are just trying to justify to everyone else considering an Accord of a price in that range. You don't want people to negotiate it down further because that'll hurt you profits and ultimately, your commisions. I can't get over you saying such b.s. If I were a salesman for Honda, and wanted to buy a vehicle for myself, I'd expect nothing less that cost, especially considering the dealer gets 3% reserve anyway. $750.00 under MSRP for a Honda salesman, that's funny stuff!!
I noticed that when you build a coupe on the hondacars website you can't select both the mp3 and cassette but the sedan page lets you. Also the installation instructions for the cassette and mp3 on collegehillshonda.com don't acknowledge what to do if you are installing both.
Just curious. What I really would like is either cassette and MP3 or cassette and XM.
I don't believe that you only got $750 below MSRP for a second. In about a month or two ANYONE in my area could probably get a new Accord EXV6 for at least $1000 below MSRP.
I have a question for anyone who knows, when will the coupe hit dealerships? We recently brought an Odyssey EX and the dealers had no idea when the new Coupe would arrive. I LOVE the EX coupe with leather...per Honda.com
none of you are in my local market anyway, so why would i care what you pay????
the fact is, i got the first discount on ANY '03 accord in this local market, (yes, even LX's are going for full pop) and i am happy with it. yes, i could have waited a lot longer and got more money off, but i had a choice...drive my civic demo till then(2-door LX auto), or spend a little money and drive something for 3 years that i really love. even as a salesperson, i still have emotions and an ego (believe it or not...lol), and i thought a few extra bucks a month was worth half the people on the road staring for awhile!
My husband was driving my new V-6 ex Sunday (our second day with the new car) and we heard a rattle or squeak. It turned out to be the passenger side visor was not hooked into its little clip. Once clipped in, the noise stopped - thank goodness! Maybe check that out.
Bowke, I'm having some trouble with your math. According to Car & Driver road test, V-6 Accord goes 31.4 mph/1000 rpm in 5th gear and 22.4 in 4th. So..if you were turning 2800rpm when you "backed off", you were only going about 88mph--what's the big deal with that? And if you were somehow in 4th you were only going about 63mph. I dont get your point about rpm.
My dealership is offering the same deal to employees on the v6 accords, no at cost deals until the waiting list is over. Same goes for Oddys, Pilots, S2000s. I can sympathize.
First off Bowke, I hope I didn't offened you, but that did seem a little unreal.
I would like to comment on the EXV6 coupe. What's the deal with Honda limiting the V6 6spd to one per dealership? That's unreal. Do they not expect to sell many EXV6s?
The difference in torque can be compensated by choice of gearing. Honda might have done just that. 5-speeds give a lot more flexibility, as does the suspension geometry that Accord uses (reduced torque steer).
Somebody with the knowledge of Accord's gearing can correct me, but my guess is that Accord's V6 would have the following overall drive ratios (or close to), Gear 1 - 11.50:1 Gear 2 - 06.90:1 (60% of first) Gear 3 - 04.49:1 (65% of second)
Altima's V6 (auto) has the following overall drive ratios, Gear 1 - 10.50:1 Gear 2 - 05.78:1 (55% of first) Gear 3 - 03.75:1 (65% of second)
Now, Accord's 3.0/V6 develops 16% less torque than Altima's 3.5/V6. But notice the gearing. Gear 1 - Accord's gearing is 9% shorter. So, Altima would still have 'torque advantage' in the first gear. Gear 2 - Accord's gearing is 19% shorter. So, Accord will have the advantage in this gear. Gear 3 - Accord's gearing is 19% shorter. So, Accord will have the advantage in this gear as well.
So, it is not always engine torque that matters. Gearing plays a huge role in how a car will perform. Also to consider would be size of the wheels that the cars wear. Smaller wheels (overall diameter including the rubber) will provide additional 'gearing' advantage. If we compared Accord Coupe V6 (P215/50/R17) to Altima 3.5SE (P215/55/R17), the Altima has a higher profile tires while both cars use the same size rims (17"). This means that overall diameter of the Accord's wheel will be smaller as well, adding to the 'torque multiplication' advantage.
Additionally, also remember that a shorter gear will rev faster.
i have no idea what honda is thinking. We just got this memo the other day -- our dealership wasn't expecting it at all, so we've already taken deposits. We're not going to be able to honor these now, obviously, for two years, so we're going to have upset customers. Plus, we've got some really ticked off salespeople. Three of us had deposits down, too. The situation stinks.
But all of your consideration of gear ratio and wheel size eventually broil down to one thing: engine rpm (by the beauty of math). My point is if two cars at the same speed use the same rev, the one with higher torque theoretically wins out in terms of engine output. The engine with 10% less torque need to rev 10% higher to get the same output. The key assumption is both cars are at same speed.
"My point is if two cars at the same speed use the same rev"
But they won't. That's why people have been trying to explain gearing. The car with the lower-torque but higher-revving engine will have shorter gearing. The car with the high-revving engine will benefit greatly from an extra gear or two in the transmission- most of the gears can be shorter for acceleration, but you can also have a really tall gear for quiet, fuel-efficient (highway) cruising.
"The engine with 10% less torque need to rev 10% higher to get the same output. The key assumption is both cars are at same speed."
Well yes. HP = torque * RPM / 5252. But you seem to also be assuming 'equal revs' which means you're ignoring gearing, and you can't.
If cars are geared properly, what it all comes down to is _engine output_ not rpm.
cding, Shorter gears will also keep your revs higher. A 1.1 time shorter gearing means that for same speed, the car is revving 1.1 times higher (beside 1.1 times greater torque multiplication). So, if Altima gets to 31 mph at 4500 rpm in first, Accord (assuming the gearing from my previous post) will be revving at about 5000 rpm for 31 mph.
This is what I would expect from the "geniuses" that do seem to artificially constrain the supply of CERTAIN products.
It is a page out of BMW's play book. Unfortunately, Honda does not have the true base of "afficinados" that the M cars do and people who have been 'frozen out' by Honda's "geniuses" will not only buy another vehicle they will also likely turn their backs to other Honda products. Afterall, if BMW was really a "full line manufacturer" they could not get away their arrogrant 'tude either...
Just to add in another factor to how the new accord beats the altima in 0-60 in the C&D tests. The weight of the accord can also play a role. Or even how they're balanced. If not enough weight was under the driving wheels, it could add a few milliseconds in wheelspin. The torque steer in the altima is wasted energy that does not contribute to straight-line acceleration.
The alloy wheels in the accord may also be lighter, less rotational inertia to get it going from stop. Or to be even more specific, the wheels could have more weight distribution towards the center rather than outside perimeter. This reduces rotational inertia in a spinning body according to Newton's laws of physics. I think the V6 accord comes with the 10-spoke alloy wheels, which are in general lighter than 5-spoke designs.
"if cars are geared properly, what it all comes down to is _engine output_ not rpm."
But....but engine output(horsepower not torque) is proportional to rpm. That is why auto make only makes "one" graph of horsepower vs rpm, not 4 or 5, one for each gear. Life is so much easier (by the courtesy of physics)
seaf: Actually, C&D tests mentions Accord tipping the scale at 3439 lb., compared to Altima 3.5SE they tested at 3361 lb. This makes the comparison even more interesting.
cding: but engine output(horsepower not torque) is proportional to rpm. Yes. But realize that gearing also determines your rpm by speed. In the example I used above, @ 31 mph in first Altima V6 would be at 4500 rpm (about 210 HP) Accord V6 would be at 5000 rpm (about 202 HP)
And this means that Altima will feel torquier in first gear (goes back to my post where I used gearing to make the point).
But if you do the math in second or third gear, you will notice that Accord will be putting more horsepower (and by way of having shorter gearing, ofcourse) for the same speed, which will translate to Accord being torquier in those gears (refer back to my gearing example).
I would guess 0-60 for I4 to be, Manual: 8.0s Auto: 8.8s
And this is without having the knowledge of gearing. If you can provide numbers (curb weight, gearing and transmission type) I will provide you a better 'guesstimate'.
The horsepower war between Accord and Altima is not over yet. Look at how much torque Nissan can pull from 350Z engine, you can surely expect Altima bump up the torque (and horsepower) very soon if they want to. So what does this mean? The one with bigger displacement has better potentional. Accord should really get a 3.5L engine to compete. Solely rely on VTEC technology is not an answer (because VTEC does not have good horsepower in the 2000-3000rpm range for daily drive, and if engine needs to rev high to keep up, it gets noisier).
Honda/Acura's NSX can shoot out 270hp from a 3.0L engine...and that was 10 years ago.
As easily as Nissan can up the ante, so can Honda. The only reason they won't is because of the Acura TL...can't have the cheaper sedan be more powerful than the more expensive one.
When they "upscale" the Maxima and the I3-whatever next year, they can't have the Altima bumping heads with its higher class siblings in the horsepower race, either. They also have the G35 to keep in mind.
However, if it gets to that point, Nissan can raise the hp on the Maxima even more. Then again, Honda/Acura can do the same with the TL.
However, I do think that they're closing in on the practical limits of hp on "popularly priced" mid-sized cars... does it really make sense for such a class of cars to have like 275 or 300 hp or more? Remember, after all, most of the cars in this class are FWD, and torque steer is already a documented issue with the Altima even at its current hp/torque ratings.
did any of you see the october 2002 issue of C&D when they reveal a spy shot of the "international accord"? it says it will be code named the Acura TSX as a replacement for the integra sedan since they have the RSX for the coupe. it is a mix of the euro and japanese model honda . the esmitated base price will be $25k. says it will be a 2004 model with either six speed manual or five speed automatic. anymore info on this sedan?
For the last 8 months I have been waiting to see and purchase a new Accord. This afternoon my wife and I visited the local Honda dealer to view the new 2003's. They had eight EX models on the lot. Unfortunately, my wife was totally disappointed in the body styling. She either wants to keep her 1998 Acura CL or get another new CL. She was completely disgusted with the 2003 Accord sedan.
Go check out www.vtec.net or "Temple of VTEC" for more info. This cat has been out of the bag long before C&D got around to mentioning it. There are even official press photos of the European and Japanese Accord out there, so no need to look at just spy photos. There is also a TSX forum here at Edmunds...
Thanks Bigzheng17. I was pretty close with my 'gearing estimate' on Accord. I did find it at Honda's Digital Newsroom website today. In fact, I found that website to be almost as comprehensive as Honda's JDM website.
crashnburn2: Euro/JDM Accord is rumored to come to NA as Acura TSX sometime next year. It is smaller (and more than likely, lighter) than American Accord. It sits on the same wheelbase as Accord Coupe, and is 6" shorter and 1" narrower than the Accord sedan. For Europe, the following engines are mentioned... 2.0 liter DOHC iVTEC I4 (K20A): 155 HP/144 lb.-ft; 5-speed SportShift Auto or 5-speed Manual 2.4 liter DOHC iVTEC I4 (K24A): 190 HP/163 lb.-ft; 5-speed SportShift Auto or 6-speed Manual 2.2 liter Common Rail Turbo Diesel: 140 HP/245 lb.-ft (Fall 2003)
As far as TSX goes, I would guess either J25A (2.5 liter V6) or some tweaked version of K24A to support a base and a Type-S model. Gasoline-electric AWD Type-S model is a good possibility too.
The engines in NSX or S2000 are purist VTEC. They can rev beyond 9000rpm. But they are not meant for mainstream sedans. That is why VTEC engines in Civic, Accord,TL-S,.. are just minor exercise of the VTEC principles. Their redline is normally below 8000rpm that is pretty much as high as they will go in terms of engine rev. There are reasons for that: 1) Sedan needs to carry people. At the same time, it needs the feel of refinement in the engine department. That means, it needs to give enough power even at low rev. No auto maker will design the transmission such that the engine needs to constantly rev above 3000rpm for mainstream sedan. It is definitely not a selling point. 2) On the other hand, NSX and S2000 are for purists. The drivers will not hesitate to constantly rev the engine even above 3500rpm. They just want to have fun. Besides, the wind noise and other will mask the engine noise.
I don't believe Honda will bring engines of NSX and S2000 to Accord ever. But I can be wrong. If they ever want to have higher horsepower, it will be through bigger displacement, not higher rev.
Do we need even more horse power for today's sedan? Yes. This is particularly true if they want to attract younger buyers. Younger buyers should be any automaker's top priority because of future business. Look at how Toyota is concerned with the average age of their customers being higher than Honda. Honda has done an excellent jobs in this regard. They cannot afford to lose it to Nissan Altima. Someone indicated the sales of Accord is not increasing. I believe if they lost any customer, it will be to Nissan, not Toyota.
Just purchased a 2003 Accord EX 4 Cyl. in NC. Got 1150 below msrp plus 4 free tanks of gas ($80). The doc fee was $149 (low for my area). Shopped around a little but very few places would deal. I think you could get $1400-1500 off MSRP if you can wait. I leased because the residual is 63% (3 yr. / 15k miles per year), MF .0023.
Comments
seaf...you are right...5th gear is tall...VERY tall! with the pedal still on the floor, 5th gear took over at 107 mph! i thought i was already in 5th, but i looked down at the speedo, and while i looked it shifted again! surprised the heck out of me! once it shifted at 107, i let off, put the cruise on, and was turning only 2800 rpm! WOW!!!
then i REALLY punched it, and by the time i got to 134, i was coming back to civilization, and had to let off before getting put in the clink.
if the car achieves these things, isnt it logical that it was DESIGNED to do so? i wouldnt worry about that. some people like to actually test drive a car, rather than be petrified to go past 3000 rpm. a test drive is a test drive. its for seeing what a car will be like to own.
BTW...i also bought this car today, so dont worry about it being in someone else's garage...lol.
once again, how long does it take from a production date for a car to reach the showroom in you best guess?
INKY
Please chech carndriver for the information.
These engines will have a slightly different driving experience from others. The reason is you only get the stated horsepower when you rev high. So if you compare a Honda having 240hp with 7200 rpm red line to a 240hp V6 with 6000rpm redline, Honda VTEC has to rev 3600rpm to be comparable to V6 rev 3000rpm in power. If you still rev 3000rpm (to keep engine quiet), you have 20% less power. A lot of review commented some VTEC engine does not have a linear torque. I disagree. The torque is very linear. It is the driver who forgot to remind himself that he has to rev 20% more to get the horsepower. In another words, under normal driving, the engine is just like another regular engine with same displacement (so discount the power by 20%). It is only when you rev to 7000rpm, you feel the engine is suddenly 20% more powerful.
Check
"Look, Ma, No Exhaust Manifolds!" at the bottom of the page.
inky...im in louisville, KY, and it takes 5-7 calendar days for us to get them. in OK, i would imagine a week and a half or so.
I'd love to see the accord have CVT, too bad Honda's CVT can't handle lots of torque right now. Maybe a little corporate espionage at Audi could turn up some ideas...(the latest A4 has CVT matched with a V6)
All of the power increase you mentioned above (except the last) are through the increase of torque. In the end, it is the torque that will most concern you in daily driver. Horsepower (only achievable at @6000rpm) is for drag racing.
I hope that there isn't more to come. It is coming from the front end, and when you put on the breaks it goes away.
Michael
Just curious. What I really would like is either cassette and MP3 or cassette and XM.
Jeff
EX-L 4-Cyl. Auto. Trans. @ $287/mo. + $2000 o.o.p.
I was all set for the I4 when he hit me with a deal for a V6 (EX-L) @ $312/mo. + $2000 o.o.p.
The I4 is all I need (for the way I drive), but is $25/mo. too small a difference to pass up the V6?
Regarding the Honda tranny problem, has the new '03 V6 been reported to having the same problem, and does the problem include the I4?
Thanks in advance for your help.
I have a question for anyone who knows, when will the coupe hit dealerships? We recently brought an Odyssey EX and the dealers had no idea when the new Coupe would arrive. I LOVE the EX coupe with leather...per Honda.com
the fact is, i got the first discount on ANY '03 accord in this local market, (yes, even LX's are going for full pop) and i am happy with it. yes, i could have waited a lot longer and got more money off, but i had a choice...drive my civic demo till then(2-door LX auto), or spend a little money and drive something for 3 years that i really love. even as a salesperson, i still have emotions and an ego (believe it or not...lol), and i thought a few extra bucks a month was worth half the people on the road staring for awhile!
INKY
I hope I didn't offened you, but that did seem a little unreal.
I would like to comment on the EXV6 coupe.
What's the deal with Honda limiting the V6 6spd to one per dealership? That's unreal. Do they not expect to sell many EXV6s?
Somebody with the knowledge of Accord's gearing can correct me, but my guess is that Accord's V6 would have the following overall drive ratios (or close to),
Gear 1 - 11.50:1
Gear 2 - 06.90:1 (60% of first)
Gear 3 - 04.49:1 (65% of second)
Altima's V6 (auto) has the following overall drive ratios,
Gear 1 - 10.50:1
Gear 2 - 05.78:1 (55% of first)
Gear 3 - 03.75:1 (65% of second)
Now, Accord's 3.0/V6 develops 16% less torque than Altima's 3.5/V6. But notice the gearing.
Gear 1 - Accord's gearing is 9% shorter. So, Altima would still have 'torque advantage' in the first gear.
Gear 2 - Accord's gearing is 19% shorter. So, Accord will have the advantage in this gear.
Gear 3 - Accord's gearing is 19% shorter. So, Accord will have the advantage in this gear as well.
So, it is not always engine torque that matters. Gearing plays a huge role in how a car will perform. Also to consider would be size of the wheels that the cars wear. Smaller wheels (overall diameter including the rubber) will provide additional 'gearing' advantage. If we compared Accord Coupe V6 (P215/50/R17) to Altima 3.5SE (P215/55/R17), the Altima has a higher profile tires while both cars use the same size rims (17"). This means that overall diameter of the Accord's wheel will be smaller as well, adding to the 'torque multiplication' advantage.
Additionally, also remember that a shorter gear will rev faster.
That's funny, you seem to question everyone else's buying experience.
wheel size eventually broil down to one thing: engine rpm (by the beauty of math). My point is if two cars at the same speed use the same rev, the one with higher torque theoretically wins out in terms of engine output. The engine with 10% less torque need to rev 10% higher to get the same output. The key assumption is both cars are at same speed.
"My point is if two cars at the same speed use the same rev"
But they won't. That's why people have been trying to explain gearing. The car with the lower-torque but higher-revving engine will have shorter gearing. The car with the high-revving engine will benefit greatly from an extra gear or two in the transmission- most of the gears can be shorter for acceleration, but you can also have a really tall gear for quiet, fuel-efficient (highway) cruising.
"The engine with 10% less torque need to rev 10% higher to get the same output. The key assumption is both cars are at same speed."
Well yes. HP = torque * RPM / 5252. But you seem to also be assuming 'equal revs' which means you're ignoring gearing, and you can't.
If cars are geared properly, what it all comes down to is _engine output_ not rpm.
Shorter gears will also keep your revs higher. A 1.1 time shorter gearing means that for same speed, the car is revving 1.1 times higher (beside 1.1 times greater torque multiplication). So, if Altima gets to 31 mph at 4500 rpm in first, Accord (assuming the gearing from my previous post) will be revving at about 5000 rpm for 31 mph.
It is a page out of BMW's play book. Unfortunately, Honda does not have the true base of "afficinados" that the M cars do and people who have been 'frozen out' by Honda's "geniuses" will not only buy another vehicle they will also likely turn their backs to other Honda products. Afterall, if BMW was really a "full line manufacturer" they could not get away their arrogrant 'tude either...
Real smart move..
The alloy wheels in the accord may also be lighter, less rotational inertia to get it going from stop. Or to be even more specific, the wheels could have more weight distribution towards the center rather than outside perimeter. This reduces rotational inertia in a spinning body according to Newton's laws of physics. I think the V6 accord comes with the 10-spoke alloy wheels, which are in general lighter than 5-spoke designs.
But....but engine output(horsepower not torque) is proportional to rpm. That is why auto make only makes "one" graph of horsepower vs rpm, not 4 or 5, one for each gear. Life is so much easier (by the courtesy of physics)
Actually, C&D tests mentions Accord tipping the scale at 3439 lb., compared to Altima 3.5SE they tested at 3361 lb.
This makes the comparison even more interesting.
cding:
but engine output(horsepower not torque) is proportional to rpm.
Yes. But realize that gearing also determines your rpm by speed. In the example I used above, @ 31 mph in first
Altima V6 would be at 4500 rpm (about 210 HP)
Accord V6 would be at 5000 rpm (about 202 HP)
And this means that Altima will feel torquier in first gear (goes back to my post where I used gearing to make the point).
But if you do the math in second or third gear, you will notice that Accord will be putting more horsepower (and by way of having shorter gearing, ofcourse) for the same speed, which will translate to Accord being torquier in those gears (refer back to my gearing example).
Manual: 8.0s
Auto: 8.8s
And this is without having the knowledge of gearing. If you can provide numbers (curb weight, gearing and transmission type) I will provide you a better 'guesstimate'.
As easily as Nissan can up the ante, so can Honda. The only reason they won't is because of the Acura TL...can't have the cheaper sedan be more powerful than the more expensive one.
http://www.collegehillshonda.com/new/03accord/a2dr03spec.htm
scroll down a page or two, in gear ratio
However, if it gets to that point, Nissan can raise the hp on the Maxima even more. Then again, Honda/Acura can do the same with the TL.
However, I do think that they're closing in on the practical limits of hp on "popularly priced" mid-sized cars... does it really make sense for such a class of cars to have like 275 or 300 hp or more? Remember, after all, most of the cars in this class are FWD, and torque steer is already a documented issue with the Altima even at its current hp/torque ratings.
crashnburn2:
Euro/JDM Accord is rumored to come to NA as Acura TSX sometime next year. It is smaller (and more than likely, lighter) than American Accord. It sits on the same wheelbase as Accord Coupe, and is 6" shorter and 1" narrower than the Accord sedan. For Europe, the following engines are mentioned...
2.0 liter DOHC iVTEC I4 (K20A):
155 HP/144 lb.-ft; 5-speed SportShift Auto or 5-speed Manual
2.4 liter DOHC iVTEC I4 (K24A):
190 HP/163 lb.-ft; 5-speed SportShift Auto or 6-speed Manual
2.2 liter Common Rail Turbo Diesel:
140 HP/245 lb.-ft (Fall 2003)
As far as TSX goes, I would guess either J25A (2.5 liter V6) or some tweaked version of K24A to support a base and a Type-S model. Gasoline-electric AWD Type-S model is a good possibility too.
http://users.erols.com/mdbaker1/exv6main.htm
-mdbaker1
2003 Accord EX V6 Sedan in Satin Silver - purchased 9.11.2002
There are reasons for that:
1) Sedan needs to carry people. At the same time, it needs the feel of refinement in the engine department. That means, it needs to give enough power even at low rev. No auto maker will design the transmission such that the engine needs to constantly rev above 3000rpm for mainstream sedan. It is definitely not a selling point.
2) On the other hand, NSX and S2000 are for purists. The drivers will not hesitate to constantly rev the engine even above 3500rpm. They just want to have fun. Besides, the wind noise and other will mask the engine noise.
I don't believe Honda will bring engines of NSX and S2000 to Accord ever. But I can be wrong. If they ever want to have higher horsepower, it will be through bigger displacement, not higher rev.
Do we need even more horse power for today's sedan? Yes. This is particularly true if they want to attract younger buyers. Younger buyers should be any automaker's top priority because of future business. Look at how Toyota is concerned with the average age of their customers being higher than Honda. Honda has done an excellent jobs in this regard. They cannot afford to lose it to Nissan Altima. Someone indicated the sales of Accord is not increasing. I believe if they lost any customer, it will be to Nissan, not Toyota.
Just purchased a 2003 Accord EX 4 Cyl. in NC. Got 1150 below msrp plus 4 free tanks of gas ($80). The doc fee was $149 (low for my area). Shopped around a little but very few places would deal. I think you could get $1400-1500 off MSRP if you can wait. I leased because the residual is 63% (3 yr. / 15k miles per year), MF .0023.
Nice car ...
Best Wishes,
yhari@yahoo.com