Mechanic
 |
|
Damn! FWIW, time for me to post up a crow-eating mea culpa!
The 6-spd MT Sport is one hell of an Accord.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-four-cylinder-manual-test-review
I'll add my voice to the cash-in-hand buyers waiting in line for an EX 6-spd MT with those 18" alloys. White would be nice, thank you.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Admiring your strength in admitting error, Mechanic and in paying a compliment.
Malcolm
:)
|
bigblue
|
|
|
0-60 in 6.6s ? Wow, didn't realise it was that fast, that's (Euro) Civic Type-R speed.
|
A77
|
|
the way Honda Canada presents it the change to and struts was dictated by the wish to make the car smaller. The weight saving (15kg) just an inevitable benefit. The lack of a pass through or 60/40 is justified as a way of making the interior quieter.
I see Car and Driver won't out Honda's claim of a more spacious rear seat to the test either. If they had bothered to they'd have seen its a lie, or at best a fudge. Leg room is the same, but headroom is compromised, so tall people have to slouch, thereby robbing leg room. But its the same or worse in its rivals, apart from the Passat, and as the market research people say the car is targetted at empty nesters and impress young professionals then why should they even bother to be so disingenuous.
6.6 to 60 - crap that is quick. This engine must be a bit under-rated. Hugely impressive car despite my quibbles. Hope to try a sport CVT today.
|
dootndo2
|
|
Now if we could just get it with Navi.
We're getting closer.
dootndo2
|
Hondarulez
|
|
The 2009 TSX 6MT makes 180whp/162lbft at the wheels according to Shawn's/Jeff's dyno test as shown here:
C/D managed 0-60mph in 6.7s and 1/4 mile in 15.3s@93mph in the 6MT TSX:
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2009-acura-tsx.pdf
That TSX is at 3380lb, while the Accord 6MT I4 is at 3270lb or so. We also know with DI, the new K24 has more low and mid range torque than before.
The TSX needs two shifts to get to 60mph (2nd gear tops out at 54mph). Accord on the other hand needs just one shift. That's probably good for a few tenths of a second.
With the above factors, I'd guesstimate the Accord I4 6MT sport will put down around 170whp and 170lbft of torque. With a 15% drivetrain loss, that would translate to around 196hp at the crank.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
A77 wrote:
the way Honda Canada presents it the change to and struts was dictated by the wish to make the car smaller. The weight saving (15kg) just an inevitable benefit. The lack of a pass through or 60/40 is justified as a way of making the interior quieter.
I see Car and Driver won't out Honda's claim of a more spacious rear seat to the test either. If they had bothered to they'd have seen its a lie, or at best a fudge. Leg room is the same, but headroom is compromised, so tall people have to slouch, thereby robbing leg room. But its the same or worse in its rivals, apart from the Passat, and as the market research people say the car is targetted at empty nesters and impress young professionals then why should they even bother to be so disingenuous.
6.6 to 60 - crap that is quick. This engine must be a bit under-rated. Hugely impressive car despite my quibbles. Hope to try a sport CVT today.
|
Full story: http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1103734
|
DCR
|
|
|
The choice of black only on Honda.com for an LX-S and EX coupe manual has to be a mistake.
|
S600=Dream
|
|
DCR wrote:
The choice of black only on Honda.com for an LX-S and EX coupe manual has to be a mistake.
|
This was my first thought too.
I thought for sure they just hadn't updated the page yet. Now, however, seems like that's how it is.
Hopefully you like dull gray or impossible to keep clean black on your Accord!
*grumbles*
|
A77
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
A77 wrote:
the way Honda Canada presents it the change to and struts was dictated by the wish to make the car smaller. The weight saving (15kg) just an inevitable benefit. The lack of a pass through or 60/40 is justified as a way of making the interior quieter.
I see Car and Driver won't out Honda's claim of a more spacious rear seat to the test either. If they had bothered to they'd have seen its a lie, or at best a fudge. Leg room is the same, but headroom is compromised, so tall people have to slouch, thereby robbing leg room. But its the same or worse in its rivals, apart from the Passat, and as the market research people say the car is targetted at empty nesters and impress young professionals then why should they even bother to be so disingenuous.
6.6 to 60 - crap that is quick. This engine must be a bit under-rated. Hugely impressive car despite my quibbles. Hope to try a sport CVT today.
|
Full story: http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1103734
|
Thanks - hadnt seen that link. my phone auto corrected kidless to be impress somehow and I didnt spot it. In case that made no sense...
Had a very short drive in the Sport CVT - not enough to get any real impression. But it looks fabulous - somehow the wheels and darker chrome make it the best looking in the range - the rear treatment is spot on too. This is also the first non audio touch screen version I have seen - and it looks much nicer with real buttons. I think it's a mistake not to have a sunroof - as so many people want it, esp when in Canada there is no EX alternative. The lack of a lock on the glove box is silly bean counting, the removal of the window lowering feature from the key is strange, the lack of an aux socket even more bizarre as the touring has one..must save ten cents..., lack of sat radio annoying too, as is the pass through removal. But despite all these minor gripes, it's a stunning vehicle at a great price. In black it looks fabulous.
The seat material is very smooth and almost like leather. Its not the nice thick soft stuff the old EX had, but, like my TSX, it doesnt pick up fleck and lint and is easy to maintain and looks nice. Hopefully can drive it longer distance later today.
|
JP
|
|
Hondarulez wrote:
The 2009 TSX 6MT makes 180whp/162lbft at the wheels according to Shawn's/Jeff's dyno test as shown here:
C/D managed 0-60mph in 6.7s and 1/4 mile in 15.3s@93mph in the 6MT TSX:
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2009-acura-tsx.pdf
That TSX is at 3380lb, while the Accord 6MT I4 is at 3270lb or so. We also know with DI, the new K24 has more low and mid range torque than before.
The TSX needs two shifts to get to 60mph (2nd gear tops out at 54mph). Accord on the other hand needs just one shift. That's probably good for a few tenths of a second.
With the above factors, I'd guesstimate the Accord I4 6MT sport will put down around 170whp and 170lbft of torque. With a 15% drivetrain loss, that would translate to around 196hp at the crank.
|
'12 civic Si weights 2877 lbs, that is like 400 lbs less than the '13 sport 6mt tested... I might be wrong but I think I did read somewhere that 100 pounds less improves 1mpg in fuel economy + .1 seconds in 0-60 mph mark...
If that is correct could we have a improved Civic Si just with a swap of the '13 accord sport model (assuming there are no gain in weight) ED powertrain... Plus LSD (lets say gains .3 seconds)..
... We could have a EPA 32mpg combined and a 0-60 time of 5.9s...
It is allowed to dream (8)
|
Hondarulez
|
|
JP wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
The 2009 TSX 6MT makes 180whp/162lbft at the wheels according to Shawn's/Jeff's dyno test as shown here:
C/D managed 0-60mph in 6.7s and 1/4 mile in 15.3s@93mph in the 6MT TSX:
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2009-acura-tsx.pdf
That TSX is at 3380lb, while the Accord 6MT I4 is at 3270lb or so. We also know with DI, the new K24 has more low and mid range torque than before.
The TSX needs two shifts to get to 60mph (2nd gear tops out at 54mph). Accord on the other hand needs just one shift. That's probably good for a few tenths of a second.
With the above factors, I'd guesstimate the Accord I4 6MT sport will put down around 170whp and 170lbft of torque. With a 15% drivetrain loss, that would translate to around 196hp at the crank.
|
'12 civic Si weights 2877 lbs, that is like 400 lbs less than the '13 sport 6mt tested... I might be wrong but I think I did read somewhere that 100 pounds less improves 1mpg in fuel economy + .1 seconds in 0-60 mph mark...
If that is correct could we have a improved Civic Si just with a swap of the '13 accord sport model (assuming there are no gain in weight) ED powertrain... Plus LSD (lets say gains .3 seconds)..
... We could have a EPA 32mpg combined and a 0-60 time of 5.9s...
It is allowed to dream (8)
|
I like your idea but I think gaining 0.3s from LSD is a bit too optimistic for an engine that is not all that powerful.
I think the current K24 in the Accord is purely to replace the previous 177hp/190hp K24. I think Honda can come up (if they haven't already) have one with a more aggressive tune that is good for 210hp/190lbft of torque.
|
owequitit
|
|
JP wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
The 2009 TSX 6MT makes 180whp/162lbft at the wheels according to Shawn's/Jeff's dyno test as shown here:
C/D managed 0-60mph in 6.7s and 1/4 mile in 15.3s@93mph in the 6MT TSX:
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2009-acura-tsx.pdf
That TSX is at 3380lb, while the Accord 6MT I4 is at 3270lb or so. We also know with DI, the new K24 has more low and mid range torque than before.
The TSX needs two shifts to get to 60mph (2nd gear tops out at 54mph). Accord on the other hand needs just one shift. That's probably good for a few tenths of a second.
With the above factors, I'd guesstimate the Accord I4 6MT sport will put down around 170whp and 170lbft of torque. With a 15% drivetrain loss, that would translate to around 196hp at the crank.
|
'12 civic Si weights 2877 lbs, that is like 400 lbs less than the '13 sport 6mt tested... I might be wrong but I think I did read somewhere that 100 pounds less improves 1mpg in fuel economy + .1 seconds in 0-60 mph mark...
If that is correct could we have a improved Civic Si just with a swap of the '13 accord sport model (assuming there are no gain in weight) ED powertrain... Plus LSD (lets say gains .3 seconds)..
... We could have a EPA 32mpg combined and a 0-60 time of 5.9s...
It is allowed to dream (8)
|
Not correct. It is .1 second in the 1/4 mile. This ED engine would make the Si about as fast as it is now, while being even less sporty than the engine that is already in there. 0-60 is unlikely to change much as traction would likely become more of an issue. Also, gearing is more heavily going to come into play there as well. Notice that in the vast majority of tests, the new Si is really no faster than the old one (despite less weight and more torque with almost nearly as aggressive gearing). It simply has a different character.
|
|
|
| |
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
