Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan



  • amiramir Posts: 97
    hi guys.i am shoping around for honda accord coupe polish metal with ivory cloth instead of black cloth on ex u think ivory gets dirty alot easier even though the carpet is black in the ivory coupe?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Lighter colors show stains a lot easier than black does. If you're worried about stains, go darker.
  • (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 Posts: 280
    Don't sweat it. There's a lot more to life than memorizing car stats! :shades:
  • robertsmxrobertsmx 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 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 Posts: 5,525
    Thats fine. Next time don't complain about HP (or lack of). :D
  • bug4bug4 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 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.
  • 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.

  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    Finally! A voice of reason in this low torque wilderness.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx 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 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 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 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 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 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.
  • 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 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 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 Posts: 2,045
    Call on 90% of peak torque at only 2500 rpms on Honda engines!
  • vietviet 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 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 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 Posts: 2,045
    Agree. Further,Honda doesn't offer optional final drive ratios,so gearing is a moot point.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx 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:

    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.
  • 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)

  • ezshift5ezshift5 West coastPosts: 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.........

  • 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 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.
This discussion has been closed.