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
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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®
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.
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.
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
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!
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!"
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).
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
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?
Power defines the balance between force (thrust at the wheels) and rate (wheel speed). Gearing helps achieve it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As is the 1.8L Civic (2700 RPM at 81MPH) and my 2.4L Accord (same as Civic).
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.
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.
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.
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
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..
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.