2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan

colloquor

90MPH on DFW freeways . . . that's normal. I travel to DFW quite often on business, and I see those speeds very often - not from me in my rental, but from local commuters flashing by me!

thegraduate

With a number of vehicles using a 5-speed auto and an I4, the typical RPM at 70 is around 1800 to 1900 RPM. An I4 will be "gutless" at that RPM level - it's normal.

In my 2006 Accord 4-cyl Auto (and my dad's 2007 Civic EX Auto, incidentally) the engine turns 1,000 RPM per 30MPH in 5th. 70MPH = 2,333RPM.

My car doesn't feel gutless, but it doesn't take off like it does when it downshifts.

98% of the time, I want the car running as efficiently as possible when in top gear and if I need to pass, I really don't care if it has to drop a gear. That's why I've got it! :

tabby102

After much anticipation I finally got to test drive an 08 coupe EX-L 4 auto, and was disappointed. The ivory leather appeared unattractively yellow to me, the driving experience was not at all sporty (thanks to the AT) and the car seemed quite large inside. Of course, I've been driving a 96 Integra 5 spd GS-R for the past 11 years, and it feels very sporty to me. I doubt that the local dealers will have any V6's to drive, so should I test drive a Civic (Si) coupe as a comparison, or is that really apples and oranges? :confuse:

thegraduate

A Civic Si has a VERY peaky engine with meager low-end power, sort of the opposite of the large and torquey 3.5L V6.

I'd say the Civic Si is going to be a lot more like your Sentra than the Accord Coupe. You should drive it anyway, maybe you'd like it better than the Accord. It is not much like the V6 Accord though.

robertsmx

I am one of those drivers who drive past DFW airport.

robertsmx

Here is a thing about Honda. When it comes to automatic transmission, Honda does not gear is aggressively for off the line starts. A typical Honda/Acura V6 (and Accord I-4) with auto will pull 45 mph in first gear if it were allowed to rev to redline, and 75 mph in second gear at redline. However, when it comes to highway passing, the gearing become more aggressive.

Some automakers seem reluctant to have the transmission up shift for high speed acceleration. Not Honda. If you’re cruising along in an Accord or even TL at 55-60 mph and want to accelerate a little, the transmission will shift to fourth for added power. But, if you want a more aggressive acceleration, it will shift to third (and may be second) for all those horses on tap. This allows them to have better highway passing prowess.

While going thru CR test data couple of years ago, I was shocked to see that Accord I-4/auto was just as quick as Camry V6/auto, not in 0-60 test but in rolling acceleration. They both completed 40-60 run in low 5 seconds. The Camry was actually a tick slower, despite of having a 50 HP and torque advantage from the V6. The I-4 Camry was even slower, doing so in about 6.5s (although it had similar power rating as the Accord I-4). The Accord V6 was 1 second quicker than Camry V6 and Accord I-4.

The key to good acceleration is horsepower. By up shifting into a lower gear at any speed, you’re getting more of those horses to the wheels. And that’s the idea behind shifting. This is exactly the reason why I have long felt that V6 is unnecessary.

Ten years ago, I picked EX-L over EXV6 and LXV6 (which was actually cheaper). If I were to get another Accord, EX-L would be it again.

bug4

robertsmx - I think your probably right about the grade-logic and the I4 engine. I'm just not accustom to how manufacturers utilize the I4 power with auto transmissions. I guess I'll just never get to actually use 5th gear under full throttle (it automatically jumps down to fourth). I think I just really should have held out for a 5-speed manual when I bought this new car . . . . . . ;-( [I wonder if Honda will ever install a gear-selection mode on an auto tranny -- tiptronic type system? I would use that! ]

thegraduate

I guess I'll just never get to actually use 5th gear under full throttle (it automatically jumps down to fourth).

Well, when you think about it, you wouldn't want to do so in theory. If I'm cruising along at 55MPH and see the need to get moving QUICK (say an 18-wheeler is speeding up behind you WAY too fast), you're gonna floor it. Do you want to be in fifth (where you may find 100-110hp at best?) Personally, I want the car to downshift pretty aggressively to move me as fast as possible!

bug4

Your points are well taken And so, it seems that the automatic transmission simply dictates a driver's driving style. It simply prohibits a driver from tapping the engine's full potential in any one gear. Really, it means that I no longer get to lug the engine during highway driving (75% to full throttle in high gear). But, I think there definitely good times for doing exactly that

thegraduate

A Honda engine is really made to rev as opposed to low-end lugging. It's part of its inherent design. Just look at the torque peak, horsepower peak, and redline. It's really one to wind-up. Moreso than my 2.2L in my 1996 (redline in that SOHC engine is 6,300 RPM, almost 1,000 lower than the 2.4L in the EX).

bug4

Very true! Perhaps the 2009 diesel Accord will be my dream machine

tabby102

I'd say the Civic Si is going to be a lot more like your Sentra than the Accord Coupe
Whoa, I said Integra, not Sentra! I really like having a hatchback - it makes my car an APV (all purpose vehicle), so I may go test drive a Scion tC. Much less expensive, but way more sporty than the Accord coupe.

Sporin

fwiw, my new LX 5spd turns 2500 RPM's at my usual cruising speed of 68-70 mph.

That's actually lower then my previous car, a 5spd V6 Mazda6 Wagon which turned just shy of 3k RPMs at the same speed (and returned a whopping 23mpg (combined) in the process :mad:

I'm really hoping to see a combined average of 30mpg in this car. :shades:

thegraduate

Ha, I said Sentra but honestly meant Integra.

robertsmx

As engines increase in displacement and power, or going from I-4 to V6 to V8, the transmission ratios become taller. This is more pronounced in higher gears than in lower (which also explains why there isn’t a bigger difference in fuel economy on highway). The result is that despite big difference in rated power/torque outputs, the performance in top two gears is rarely different. You can see that by calculating maximum thrust that the power train can deliver in each of these gears. A typical modern car will get you around about 0.11g maximum, at WOT, in top gear (assuming 15% drive train loss, and 200 lb driver). This is true, regardless of the engine.

And if you choose to stay in the top gear, something as minor as accelerating from 30 mph to 50 mph can take 10-12 seconds. And this car may even be equipped with a powerful V8.

Shifting of gears allows you to manage power. And power is what gets you the thrust necessary to maintain speed as well as to accelerate.

robertsmx

I was going to mention it (diesel) in my previous post and in fact, it is just what you need if you want to avoid shifts under light throttle.

I said that a typical car will get you 0.11g (maximum) in top gear (let us assume fifth gear). If you were to use fourth, the thrust will typically go up to about 0.14g-0.15g (maximum). I keep saying “maximum” because the calculation is at peak torque (and under wide-open-throttle).

A diesel engine will generally cruise around 1900-2000 rpm, which is the point they typically have peak torque. As a matter of fact, they can’t afford to cruise at much lower rpm due to an issue. They use turbo, which typically shows up around 1500-1700 rpm. It also allows them to keep the turbo spooled up for reduced lag. Now, under WOT, you also happen to have maximum torque right at cruising rpm (60-65 mph). The thrust in top gear will be, generally, similar to comparable gasoline car in fourth gear. So, they don’t need a shift under light throttle (if horsepower on tap is “enough” for the demand).

The downside to this is that, due to lower redline, at lower speeds they will also require more shifts. In your gasoline powered Accord, it will take only two gears to accelerate from 0 to 75 mph. In diesel, it will definitely need three, and potentially four.

punkyjunior895

I am noticing that like no dealerships are stocking the V6 coupes. If they do they only got 1 or 2 its pathetic. Anyone know whats going on? according to this item number from a dealership selling the accord coupe on ebay Item number: 270189032034 ; that only 35 coupes are on the ground in the United States? what kind of bs is going on here. We knew about this car a yr in advance and its as though it's not being built.

robertsmx

I believe Honda plans to build only 15% of Accords in coupe bodystyle. That would be a total of 60K or so for the year. Assuming 1000 dealers, that amounts to 5 units/month, and includes, likely, higher volume four cylinder models. So, even if 25% of the coupes were to be sold with V6, there will be only 1 per dealership/month.

This happened back with 1998 Accord as well. Demand greatly exceeded supply. In fact, back then even EXV6 sedan trims were affected as well, and to a lesser extent, EX-L sedan (I was one of the lucky ones who, being one of the first on the lot, wasn't subjected to a wait list which shortly followed).

bluewonder

do you have the 190hp 4cylinder or the 177 hp...I ask because I am considering the 190 hp....

bug4

I have the 190hp. But, two things to consider: 1st: From everything I've learned, the difference between the 190hp version and the 177hp version is only apparent at the the upper end of RPM. Torque is virtually identical between the engines. 2nd: Before deciding against a Honda, make sure and drive all the competition. I have identified some things I don't like about my Honda, but it is still a nice car. Furthermore, particularly with regard to the transmission and engine, I like it much better than the Nissan and Camrys that I drove. Frankly, I think I'm just not used to an automatic transmission

texases

Very true re: the competition. I rented a Camry 4cyl and thought it particularly gutless.

Sporin

IMO, the 4cyl Camry and Altima aren't even close. The engine and transmission in the Honda is so smooth and the car's interior is a LOT bigger, not to mention the stellar safety ratings. Just my opinion.

I'm very happy with my 177hp, 5spd so far. It is perfectly happy to run around at 2k but the power builds quickly once you get above 4k. I'm taking it easy breaking it in so I've only revved above 5k a couple of times. Looking forward to exploring the upper reaches after the first five or six hundred miles are on the odo.

An extra 13 hp available at the tippy top rpms would be so seldom accessed in my case that it certainly wasn't worth it value or dollarwise. Torque is nearly identical and the 177hp's peak torque actually comes in at a slightly lower RPM.

beechjet21

Since I have personally driven three '08 V6 coupes just here in Des Moines, I'd have to think that this guy is either misinformed or flat out lying.

jaxs1

People are buying them, so other dealers are selling them.

khoey

Just thought I would update. My coupe is still on schedule for build between 11/17 and 11/21, but no vin number yet.

Maybe tomorrow?

jet10000

so should I test drive a Civic (Si) coupe as a comparison

You should definitely test drive the Civic Si. You might find it a lot more fun to drive than your Integra.

Also, it's definitely worth finding an Accord coupe V6 to drive. With the MT, you'll have a lot more fun than the AT.

jet10000

I have personally driven three '08 V6 coupes just here in Des Moines, I'd have to think that this guy is either misinformed or flat out lying.

Maybe Des Moines isn't a hotbed for V6 coupe sales as in other parts of the country?

gotoyota

I wonder what the RPM's are in the new Accord at 80 mph vs the 1998's?? Couldn't it be that the extra weight in combination with a taller overdrive gear makes maintaining 80 on any sort of grade more of a challenge in the new car? Also, does the new 4 cyl engine give up a little low speed torque in lieu of high speed HP since it has a somewhat higher specific output/liter than the older 2.3L/140-145HP engine - that seems logical to me...no?

thegraduate

I wonder what the RPM's are in the new Accord at 80 mph vs the 1998's?? Couldn't it be that the extra weight in combination with a taller overdrive gear makes maintaining 80 on any sort of grade more of a challenge in the new car? Also, does the new 4 cyl engine give up a little low speed torque in lieu of high speed HP since it has a somewhat higher specific output/liter than the older 2.3L/140-145HP engine - that seems logical to me...no?

IIRC (and I think I do), the gearing of the 08 in 5th was the same as the 2003-2007.

That puts them about 300 RPM lower at 80 than the 1998-2002.

EDIT:

I just calculated things...

The 2003-2007 2.4L 5A runs 1000 RPM per 30 MPH (or 2667 RPM at 80). My grandmother's 2002 2.3L 4A runs approx. 1100 RPM per 30 MPH (or 2933 RPM at 80). That would make a noticeable difference.

For the record, highway numbers for the 1998-2002 2.3L Auto are 4 MPG lower!

gotoyota

Very true! Perhaps the 2009 diesel Accord will be my dream machine

The cool thing about diesels is that it's relatively easy to get big power gains from them. From the factory, they are usually tuned to deliver gobs of torque with mediocre HP figures....but with some tuning, you can increase HP to match or exceed gas counterparts - especially now that they incorporate the use of turbocharging. And the real magic is that the torque jumps dramatically too. I'd say if low end grunt is your top priority, it just might be worth the wait for the diesel. The BMW 330d is the perfect car - 286 HP and 427 lb-ft in European tune, and still gets a combined 35 MPG (http://wardsauto.com/ar/bmw_diesel_us). The Accord is obviously not going to be that aggressive, but it has potential to be entertaining and seriously economical. If you can forget about the diesels of 10-20 years ago and drive one of the modern turbodiesels, you'll be hooked.

robertsmx

1998 Accord EX runs ~3000 rpm at 80 mph. 2008 Accord EX would turn 2600 rpm at the same speed. But that’s the 5-speed advantage over 4-speed (in 1998). And despite gains at the top end, newer engines have similar or better torque output at the lower end. The 2.4-liter engine in TSX is a good example (I posted its official dyno earlier). Before the engine was up-rated couple of years ago, it not only produced 200 HP (from only 2354 cc) at the top end, it also had 90% of the peak torque available at just 2000 rpm. I don’t think the Accord’s I-4 is aggressively designed, but it will be safe to assume 90% of the peak torque being on hand at 2500 rpm (which is typical of all higher revving Honda engines, something I addressed earlier).

Like I said earlier, no matter how much torque an engine generates, the gearing is such that the maximum thrust possible in top gear is generally around 0.11g, rarely more and usually a little less. In other words, it would take approximately the same force to stop my TL running in top gear at 45 mph as it would take my Accord, despite a huge difference in power/torque output.

Regardless of engine output, Honda’s grade logic comes into play. It detects an incline and will select the lower gear to reduce gear hunting.

gotoyota

I thought the grade logic caused it to hold a lower gear when descending a hill to prevent unwanted acceleration (for lack of a better term)? Don't all auto tranny's grab a lower gear when the load is increased, like when ascending a grade?

robertsmx

Grade logic works both ways.


Other automatic transmission grab (and release) lower gear when the driver depresses the throttle. They may not "hold" the lower gear long enough, which results in gear hunting.

bug4

As you may remember, I just traded in my 1998 Accord I4. It had a manual transmission. In 5th gear, it ran 80mph at 3000-3100rpm. My new 08 Accord with automatic transmission runs at about 2700 at 80mph. Perhaps that is why I liked my 98 better. Perhaps that extra 400 rpm, even in a less powerful engine, allowed the car to better perform at higher speeds? [Of course, the 98 manual didn't shift down at every slight incline ]

bug4

Is that BMW 330d available in the US? If so, it just might be worth paying the premium price for a European car. Mated to a manual transmission, that just might be the perfect car . . . . for me

thegraduate

Perhaps that is why I liked my 98 better. Perhaps that extra 400 rpm, even in a less powerful engine, allowed the car to better perform at higher speeds? [Of course, the 98 manual didn't shift down at every slight incline ]

Perhaps. If you drive with the cruise on in a manual equipped car, it could, in theory, floor the car in fifth gear. It wouldn't be very perceptable to the occupants of the car. In an auto, it downshifts to make the car run more efficiently (I guess).

Also, with your auto, you have a power-sapping torque converter which translates to some driveline loss. I'm going to play with some numbers and post again shortly.

thegraduate

Just make some assumptions with me. This is just theory, as I do not know the actual driveline loss of an auto v. a manual transmission. I also do not have the exact figures for the weight of a 1998 EX-L, so I'm assuming 3,100lbs with a manual.

If you take power to weight, the raw numbers equate to:

1998 EX-L: 21.3lbs per horsepower
2008 EX-L Auto: 18.0 lbs per horsepower

If you translate a 12% driveline loss for the automatic, though, you get

2008 EX-L Auto*: 20.55 lbs per horsepower.

Couple that with taller gearing and higher power peaks, and what you are feeling is probably very real, because you came from a manual transmission and moved to an automatic.

Anyone PLEASE FEEL FREE to jump in, adjust my numbers, or correct me. : I'm just playing with numbers.

tabby102

Well guess what? Civic Si's are as scarce as V6 MT Accord coupes in Albuquerque; i.e., there are none, so I'm going to have to come up with plan B. Like drive a Civic coupe MT or an 07 Accord coupe V6 MT if I can find one

robertsmx

Can't argue against numbers, but I would guess 15-17% drive line loss with auto (when using new SAE standard for output) compared to 12-13% for the manual. But more than that, it is just that Honda's manual transmission ratios are shorter than automatic ratios. And that makes for a big difference.

However, not big enough that one could leave the transmission in top gear at 60-65 mph to make a pass on freeway. It will take almost 12 seconds to complete the pass, something that might be done in less than half in second or third gear.

To put that in perspective, I will use numbers from a European publication on Accord Diesel (138 HP/251 lb-ft, 5-speed manual).

40 mph - 60 mph
In fourth gear: 6.1s
In fifth gear: 10.2s

I wish they had it measured in third gear as well. At least those folks know there is life beyond high rpm cluth drop 0-60 run that Edmunds and like take pride in.

0hms

A lot of dealerships around me have pre-sold many of the V6 coupes. Perhaps that's what's happening in your area.

fosterphx1

The trailing car rode under the bumper and bent the rear bulkhead and moved the floor of the trunk compartment. Damage does not appear to have reached the rear suspension. The car is designed to allow all these metal pieces to deflect, tear, etc. and dissipate energy. All the bent pieces will be cut out and replaced. The only visible damage was to the bumper cover. My fingers are crossed on the body shop accurately matching the basque red pearl paint.

gotoyota

Is that BMW 330d available in the US? If so, it just might be worth paying the premium price for a European car. Mated to a manual transmission, that just might be the perfect car . . . . for me

Supposed to be coming in the next year, IIRC.

khoey

My car has arrived!!!!

Dealer was polling Honda for the vin number but couldn't get anything. This morning the salesman saw the delivery truck show up, and there it was. He thinks it was built yesterday.

I pick it up Saturday.

2008 Accord Coupe EX-L V6 MT w/nav
Black on black

I think I got lucky with this car.

jans57

We have a ticking noise in the engine. Noise gets louder as RPM's are increased. Honda thinks it is in the cylinder head and they plan to replace it. Car is fine otherwise. Did we get a lemon? No one is sure about this. Has anyone else had a problem with this???

tabby102

And what did you have to pay for that baby ?

khoey

Got $900 off.

blufz1

I would try to make them eat it. That's upsetting on a new car. Perhaps you could negotiate a lifetime warranty on the engine.

jaxs1

You say "the engine," buy you don't say what engine. What is the model of Accord you have?

bluewonder

can you feel the extra hp in the 190 hp when you pass someone, or getting on the interstate or at take off?....I am trying to figure out where the hp serves it's purpose....I drove the 190 hp and the 6cyl 2008 accord but the dealership didn't let me drive it far enough to really see the umph....i did not drive the 177hp now I think I might need to...I was leaning towards the 190hp because I currently drive a 3.5 6cyl car and I am used to some get up and go........thanks in advance for a response

bvdj84

You might want to read the 4vs6 forum on the accord. It will tell you alot more on their than on this forum.