Hondarulez
 |
|
|
I’m not surprised with the power and efficiency of the new GR serious from Toyota. Afterall, Toyota’s old V6 had been trailing behind Honda’s J series for a while, both 3.0L and 3.3L units. The first 2GR application was in 2005 in the Avalon, that’s many years newer than the J series. If I remember correctly, the J series was applied in the 1997 3.0CL.
|
JeffX
|
|
Wizard wrote:
At the same time, however, they also pushed power and torque numbers for Odyssey w/VCM. So, they have done something with VCM equipped V6.
|
Jeez, I can't believe this argument is still carrying on now that the document spells it out very plainly to the contrary. THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES TO THE MOTOR IN THE '09 ACCORD V6 OR '09 ODYSSEY.
You guys got all worked up when Honda revised the HP and torque numbers downward for the '08 Accord at literally the last minute (the numbers for the '08 accord i-4 EX were revised downwards too). If Honda had made changes to the motor, don't you think they would have advertised their work?
PERHAPS, and this is simply wild speculation, but suppose there were some running updates made during the '08 model year that resulted in slightly better performance (wasn't there an early ECU reflash service campaign on '08 Accords?), and perhaps this resulted in slightly better numbers. 2009 would be the first model year that Honda could have these numbers certified and lay claim to the better numbers. And technically it's the same as the last '08s to roll off the line, so they could say that nothing changed from the '08s. I would accept that scenario, but based upon what Honda has stated, not much else.
|
dodole
|
|
|
Its weird when the new accord came out it claimed to have 268hp same with camry but when i read the Car and Driver magazine they said it gonna be 270+hp so now the number back to what the Car and Driver magazine claimed. Oh well.. now we know Accord V6 is more powerful than Camry V6 not just same size and same power but there is more to it aka (technology)
|
Hondarulez
|
|
|
Yea, I've seen several numbers too about a year ago, 268, 271, 273.
|
owequitit
|
|
CivicB18 wrote:
owequitit wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
So the Honda Accords V6 numbers look good on paper but the VCM model will still get its arse handed to it by just about all the major players in the segment. The Camry, Malibu and Altima should still be faster.
Honda should have left the numbers alone until they can figure out how to implement the VCM without effecting performance and the power under the curve while still getting better than average fuel economy. Better yet... dump the VCM and implement a nice 6AT.
-Patrick
|
Define "arse" handed to it, because none of the cars in the segment really outrun it enough to make that much of a difference. Every number I have seen for the Malibu, puts it within a few 10ths in the 1/4 mile. That will seriously be less than a car lenght. Some have been slightly slower, some have been slightly faster. The overall consensus seems to be that the Malibu pulls a little better off the line, and the Accord brings it back in up top, which would jive with the power curve on the VCM J35, the extra displacement of the Malibu, and its 6 speed auto, vs the Accords 5 speed with a tall 1st gear. Don't forget too that the Malibu is heavier than the Accord as well, as well as making less HP, and equal torque at a lower RPM.
As for the Altima and Camry, I am still waiting to see some video of these cars running each other, because again, assuming the Camry really is running 13's stock (in most cases mid to high 14's is probably far more realistic), it still isn't going to put that huge of a distance on the AV6.
Not to mention that in the real world, things like the interior quality, fit and finish, build quality etc are going to hold far more sway than which car finishes a couple lengths ahead of the others in the 1/4 mile.
I hate to say it, because I am one, but most enthusiasts who don't temper their tastes of reality, end up with a very skewed version of it.
|
Camry running 13's? Gathering from all the articles Ive read on the Camry V6 they pretty much consistently run 14.50s with a trap in the 95 mph range, thats pretty quick. To add to that Toyota V6 is pretty efficient also as it gives up NOTHING to the Accord regarding efficiency yet it delivers the performance expected.
Im certainly not saying that overall power is a deal breaker in this segment but I dont think the current VCM V6/5AT is anywhere near Honda best effort.
-Patrick
|
Yes, there are some claims around the internet about stock Camry's running 14.0-13.9's or so. I personally don't buy it, but I suppose it is possible if Toyota is sandbagging numbers too.
And actually, in EPA MPG it does still give up some to the Accord, although I don't know how it would fair in real life. We have always beat EPA estimates handily, but apparently, that isn't as easy to do in a VCM Honda.
Personally, I would only want a 6AT if, and only if Honda could avoid some of the pitfalls associated with them. Like constantly hunting for gears. Even the 5AT does that from time to time. The only real advantage I see is slightly tighter gear spacing, and possibly a little lower cruising RPM's although honestly, I don't think that would be anything more than incremental, as they are already turning pretty slow at high speeds. So really, you aren't going to be looking at a hugely lower 1st gear (too much torque steer I would imagine, and/or wheelspin at lower speeds), and you aren't going to be looking at a hugely higher final gear. And if you are looking at a hugely higher final gear, MPG savings would be incremental the gear spread would still be big, and you are going to get hunting between gears, which is simply annoying.
Either way, the few 10ths isn't going to matter to anyone, except for spec sheet braggerts, nor would the extra gear.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
|
I personally think an additional gear would help the performance for the 5AT. I drive a 02 TL-S and the rpm from from 3rd to 4th gear during full throttle acceleration is huge. I’m talking about from 7000rpm in 3rd, to 4500rpm in 4th. If they have shorter gearing, then fuel economy would suffer. I think this is when an extra cog would help. But for daily driving, I can see why an extra gear is not that necessary.
|
TH23
|
|
Great...more power on paper for the car that already consistently underperforms for its given power ratings.
That's nothing new for the Accord V6 automatics, however, as they've been underwhelming since the 6th generation (the 5th generation V6 actually did surprisingly well given its hefty weight and only 170HP; it was hardly any slower than the 6th gen with 30 more horses).
I'm only referring to the automatic versions, of course. The 6-speeds have done well because Honda hasn't castrated them like they have the automatic versions.
I'll explain. There was no manual transmission for the 6th gen, but the J30A1 in the 1998-2002 Accords (and 1997-1999 3.0CL) was castrated from the start. The wimpy pseudo-VTEC-E system severely hampered the engine's performance, especially compared to the other 3.0s on the market. The low-end and mid-range torque was abysmal for a 3 Litre engine, and paled in comparison to the 3.0s in the Camry and Maxima. Even the high-end (which was all the engine was good for) was nothing to write home about. Honda's justification for the engine's tuning was class-leading fuel economy, but again, it wasn't anything special as the Maxima (and later, the Camry) matched it in that area as well.
Then came the J30A4 in the 7th gen Accord (2003-2007). It was worlds better than the J30A1 it replaced, and it was finally better than the 3.0s the J30A1 fared poorly against. That was all fine and dandy, but while Honda was hard at work perfecting its 3.0, the competition had already moved on to larger-displacement V6s that once again offered superior low-end and mid-range torque compared to the HP-rich Honda V6. Now, as if that wasn't bad enough, Honda decided to hamper the engine's overall performance for the sake of ensuring people had a reason to buy their precious Acura TL. So, to keep the automatic Accord V6 in check, they chose not to include a variable intake manifold on its version of the engine, a simple feature that would've boosted low-end and mid-range torque significantly. A feature they did include on the 6MT's version of the engine, by the way, which gave it a beautifully flat torque curve from idle to redline. The automatic version was left with a deep hole in its torque curve that didn't flatten out until 4000 rpm. It was a torque curve far from ideal for a heavy mid-size family car with an automatic transmission designed to haul 5 adults plus their luggage. It should've been the opposite, with the auto getting the trick manifold and the 6MT going without. But that would've made the auto Accord just as strong as the TL, and Honda didn't want that. And don't get me started on the J30A5. Honda had a chance to rectify their mistake but instead opted to slap on a pair of freer-flowing mufflers and a larger airbox, changes that somehow made the car slower despite its higher HP rating even after the new SAE methods were put in to effect. Where that extra power went, nobody knows...
Now that brings me to the 8th generation V6. Boy, where do I begin...
Again, there's nothing wrong with the 6-speed's performance, as Honda made sure to do its best with the J35Z3. The VCM-equipped J35Z2 on the other hand, is severely limited for the sake of fuel economy. The VCM system replaced the traditional VTEC system, as there wasn't enough space within the cylinder heads to use both technologies due to the constraints of SOHC architecture. As a result, unlike the J35Z3, the engine only has one cam profile for the entire powerband. There's nothing unusual about that, as most engines only have one cam profile, as variable-valve lift technology is still somewhat rare outside of Honda. However, most modern engines without variable valve lift capability use other technologies like variable cam timing and variable intake manifolds to compensate for having only one cam profile. And if they don't, they usually don't have an extreme, high-end biased cam profile. The J35Z2 does not have variable cam timing (it can't due to the limitations of SOHC) or a variable intake manifold, but it DOES have a cam profile designed for maximum peak power high in the powerband. The result is a steep torque curve that is extremely peaky and doesn't have any plateaus. Once again, the variable intake manifold from the J35Z3 would've done wonders here, but I'm sure Honda wanted to save the upcoming TL from the embarrassment of being no stronger off the line than the lowly Accord family sedan. The end result is an engine that severely under-performs compared to engines with similar peak output (2GR-FE and VQ35-DE especially). And that's why the Camry and Altima easily out-run the Accord V6 automatic, and the Malibu runs right with it despite having less power and a heftier curb weight. Pretty sad, huh?
If only Honda would get in the here and now and design a new from the ground up V6 with today's technology. SOHC VTEC has been around since the early 90's and while SOHC VCM (SOHC i-VTEC) is fairly recent, it's still a band-aid slapped on ancient tech.
What Honda needs is a DOHC V6 with i-VTEC, not unlike the 2GR-FE, but with VTEC variable-valve-lift added. And combined with a properly-geared 6AT, they could match the J35Z2's fuel economy without resorting to power-robbing VCM. Then again, with DOHC, they could probably combine VCM with DOHC i-VTEC to make an engine that has best-in-class performance AND fuel economy. Hell, throw in direct fuel injection and they could do that easily.
Hey, I can dream, can't I? :p
And yes, a 6-speed auto would help, depending on the gearing. A 6-speed with gearing like the Camry's wouldn't help until 3rd gear, which is 13.3% shorter overall than the 3rd gear in the Accord's 5-speed. The car's 0 to 60 time would stay roughly the same while the quarter-mile time would improve slightly.
A better alternative would be a 6-speed geared like the one found in the Passat 3.6. Its gearing is extremely short and very manual-like. It would improve the 0 to 60 time by .3 seconds and the quarter-mile time by nearly .2 seconds.
I'm using CarTest 2000 to get these numbers, by the way.
2008 Accord EX-L V6 sedan
0-60 mph: 6.69 seconds
0-100 mph: 16.50 seconds
1/4-mile: 15.17 seconds @ 94.88 mph
2008 Accord EX-L V6 sedan with Camry V6 tranny
0-60 mph: 6.68 seconds
0-100 mph: 16.90 seconds
1/4-mile: 15.10 seconds @ 95.69 mph
2008 Accord EX-L V6 sedan with Passat 3.6 tranny
0-60 mph: 6.36 seconds
0-100 mph: 16.69 seconds
1/4-mile: 15.03 seconds @ 94.51 mph
2007 Camry SE V6 (Premium Fuel - 272HP/254TQ)
0-60 mph: 6.43 seconds (6.31 seconds)
0-100 mph: 16.02 seconds (15.76 seconds)
1/4-mile: 14.89 seconds @ 95.98 mph (14.81 seconds @ 96.42 mph)
All times are conservative, but as a comparison, it works well enough.
The Passat's 6AT would help performance the most, though it would probably hurt fuel economy somewhat, which is why Honda would never use gearing so short on one of their automatics. Taller gearing, even in the lower gears, is beneficial to fuel economy.
|
owequitit
|
|
TH23 wrote:
Great...more power on paper for the car that already consistently underperforms for its given power ratings.
That's nothing new for the Accord V6 automatics, however, as they've been underwhelming since the 6th generation (the 5th generation V6 actually did surprisingly well given its hefty weight and only 170HP; it was hardly any slower than the 6th gen with 30 more horses).
I'm only referring to the automatic versions, of course. The 6-speeds have done well because Honda hasn't castrated them like they have the automatic versions.
I'll explain. There was no manual transmission for the 6th gen, but the J30A1 in the 1998-2002 Accords (and 1997-1999 3.0CL) was castrated from the start. The wimpy pseudo-VTEC-E system severely hampered the engine's performance, especially compared to the other 3.0s on the market. The low-end and mid-range torque was abysmal for a 3 Litre engine, and paled in comparison to the 3.0s in the Camry and Maxima. Even the high-end (which was all the engine was good for) was nothing to write home about. Honda's justification for the engine's tuning was class-leading fuel economy, but again, it wasn't anything special as the Maxima (and later, the Camry) matched it in that area as well.
Then came the J30A4 in the 7th gen Accord (2003-2007). It was worlds better than the J30A1 it replaced, and it was finally better than the 3.0s the J30A1 fared poorly against. That was all fine and dandy, but while Honda was hard at work perfecting its 3.0, the competition had already moved on to larger-displacement V6s that once again offered superior low-end and mid-range torque compared to the HP-rich Honda V6. Now, as if that wasn't bad enough, Honda decided to hamper the engine's overall performance for the sake of ensuring people had a reason to buy their precious Acura TL. So, to keep the automatic Accord V6 in check, they chose not to include a variable intake manifold on its version of the engine, a simple feature that would've boosted low-end and mid-range torque significantly. A feature they did include on the 6MT's version of the engine, by the way, which gave it a beautifully flat torque curve from idle to redline. The automatic version was left with a deep hole in its torque curve that didn't flatten out until 4000 rpm. It was a torque curve far from ideal for a heavy mid-size family car with an automatic transmission designed to haul 5 adults plus their luggage. It should've been the opposite, with the auto getting the trick manifold and the 6MT going without. But that would've made the auto Accord just as strong as the TL, and Honda didn't want that. And don't get me started on the J30A5. Honda had a chance to rectify their mistake but instead opted to slap on a pair of freer-flowing mufflers and a larger airbox, changes that somehow made the car slower despite its higher HP rating even after the new SAE methods were put in to effect. Where that extra power went, nobody knows...
Now that brings me to the 8th generation V6. Boy, where do I begin...
Again, there's nothing wrong with the 6-speed's performance, as Honda made sure to do its best with the J35Z3. The VCM-equipped J35Z2 on the other hand, is severely limited for the sake of fuel economy. The VCM system replaced the traditional VTEC system, as there wasn't enough space within the cylinder heads to use both technologies due to the constraints of SOHC architecture. As a result, unlike the J35Z3, the engine only has one cam profile for the entire powerband. There's nothing unusual about that, as most engines only have one cam profile, as variable-valve lift technology is still somewhat rare outside of Honda. However, most modern engines without variable valve lift capability use other technologies like variable cam timing and variable intake manifolds to compensate for having only one cam profile. And if they don't, they usually don't have an extreme, high-end biased cam profile. The J35Z2 does not have variable cam timing (it can't due to the limitations of SOHC) or a variable intake manifold, but it DOES have a cam profile designed for maximum peak power high in the powerband. The result is a steep torque curve that is extremely peaky and doesn't have any plateaus. Once again, the variable intake manifold from the J35Z3 would've done wonders here, but I'm sure Honda wanted to save the upcoming TL from the embarrassment of being no stronger off the line than the lowly Accord family sedan. The end result is an engine that severely under-performs compared to engines with similar peak output (2GR-FE and VQ35-DE especially). And that's why the Camry and Altima easily out-run the Accord V6 automatic, and the Malibu runs right with it despite having less power and a heftier curb weight. Pretty sad, huh?
If only Honda would get in the here and now and design a new from the ground up V6 with today's technology. SOHC VTEC has been around since the early 90's and while SOHC VCM (SOHC i-VTEC) is fairly recent, it's still a band-aid slapped on ancient tech.
What Honda needs is a DOHC V6 with i-VTEC, not unlike the 2GR-FE, but with VTEC variable-valve-lift added. And combined with a properly-geared 6AT, they could match the J35Z2's fuel economy without resorting to power-robbing VCM. Then again, with DOHC, they could probably combine VCM with DOHC i-VTEC to make an engine that has best-in-class performance AND fuel economy. Hell, throw in direct fuel injection and they could do that easily.
Hey, I can dream, can't I? :p
And yes, a 6-speed auto would help, depending on the gearing. A 6-speed with gearing like the Camry's wouldn't help until 3rd gear, which is 13.3% shorter overall than the 3rd gear in the Accord's 5-speed. The car's 0 to 60 time would stay roughly the same while the quarter-mile time would improve slightly.
A better alternative would be a 6-speed geared like the one found in the Passat 3.6. Its gearing is extremely short and very manual-like. It would improve the 0 to 60 time by .3 seconds and the quarter-mile time by nearly .2 seconds.
I'm using CarTest 2000 to get these numbers, by the way.
2008 Accord EX-L V6 sedan
0-60 mph: 6.69 seconds
0-100 mph: 16.50 seconds
1/4-mile: 15.17 seconds @ 94.88 mph
2008 Accord EX-L V6 sedan with Camry V6 tranny
0-60 mph: 6.68 seconds
0-100 mph: 16.90 seconds
1/4-mile: 15.10 seconds @ 95.69 mph
2008 Accord EX-L V6 sedan with Passat 3.6 tranny
0-60 mph: 6.36 seconds
0-100 mph: 16.69 seconds
1/4-mile: 15.03 seconds @ 94.51 mph
2007 Camry SE V6 (Premium Fuel - 272HP/254TQ)
0-60 mph: 6.43 seconds (6.31 seconds)
0-100 mph: 16.02 seconds (15.76 seconds)
1/4-mile: 14.89 seconds @ 95.98 mph (14.81 seconds @ 96.42 mph)
All times are conservative, but as a comparison, it works well enough.
The Passat's 6AT would help performance the most, though it would probably hurt fuel economy somewhat, which is why Honda would never use gearing so short on one of their automatics. Taller gearing, even in the lower gears, is beneficial to fuel economy.
|
1) The J30A1 offered performance equivalent to any 3.0 in its price range at the time of debut. In fact, an Accord EX V6 out ran both a Camry V6 and a Maxima V6 in its first C&D comparison test. The other mag tests I saw put it on par with both when tested against both. It remained equivalent to the Camry throughout the generation. The Maxima eventually got more power, but then again, it was also a more expensive car, so it should have more power.
I have never driven an equivalent Camry V6 or Maxima 3.0V6 for that matter and found the J30A1 to be severly lacking. It might have been more top end biased, but it wasn't like "Oh my god, it just won't go anywhere until 5K." In around town driving, all 3 were perfectly driveable.
2) VVT is completely possible with SOHC. Dodge does it on an OHV engine with 1 cam for 10 cylinders. I am sure there is a way for Honda to figure it out for 2 cams and 6 cylinders. Probably, they elected not to because the cost of development outweighed the gains, similar to the reason they didn't put VVT on the exhaust cam of the K series. It was a lot of additional cost, for a marginal gain at best. I think the exhaust/intake VTEC will make a far more worthwhile improvement overall, and that will probably be phased in over time, if the engine isn't replaced outright by then. FYI, Honda seems to average around 12 years for engine life cycles, and currently the J series is only about 10 years old. Perhaps a new V6 family will debut with the new RL and begin to work its way through the line. Perhaps not. Time will tell.
In contrast, Toyotas 3.0 remained virtually the same from 1992 until the debut of the current Camry and 2GR-FE, which was a grand total of 15 years without so much as a power increase, despite the fact that all manufacturers had moved on, including Honda. Not all decisions are made based on the ability to win a drag race. Especially not in this class, which is perhaps the most conservative class in all of automobiledom.
Also, I wholeheartedly disagree with the comments about the J30A4 and A5. Here is why.
1) Unlike Nissan which requires 91 octane to actually get the factory rated HP, the J30 does it on 87 with an additional power boost on 91. A noticeable boost I might add. The J30A4 also outperformed the Altima, despite its larger 3.5 liter engine, and even after the switch to a 5AT to match Honda, trailed at most by a few 10ths. The 3.0 Camry wasn't even in the neighborhood.
2) The variable intake manifold, if you look at its principle of operation, should limit top end power, as it does not feature the larger plenum function of the VIM. The runner lengths seem to be the same, and overall dimensions are similar. The main difference is that the VIM opens a set of butterflies in the plenum, between the two plenum halfs to increase available plenum volume at high rpms, as opposed to changing runner length or in some other way altering resonance tuning. This generally has the effect of enhancing high RPM breathing. I see this as no exception. Since the single stage IM is essentially similar to the VIM with the butterflies closed, I am not convinced it makes a huge difference in bottom end. I am more than willing to be proven wrong however. This is consistent with actually driving both cars, as the VIM equipped cars pull right into the rev limit, while the non-VIM equipped cars start to fall off pretty rapidly above 6K. The few single stage pulls I have seen have torque dropping off almost immediately AFTER the peak, while the VIM engines continue to pull for about another 700-1200 RPM. The rest of the powerband seems to be similar to the VIM manual equipped cars, but obviously weaker due to the greater power loss through the transmission. The taller gearing is also noticeable. The similar powerband, beared out by driving both back to back, is also consistent with the principle of operation of the VIM. I have yet to see some good dynos of the auto equipped J30A4/A5 series, but having driven them, the "softness" in the bottom end is more likely due to the transmission's taller gearing, and greater loss through the system. Maybe notyper will provide some dynos, or other insight, although I doubt many auto owners dyno their cars. I would like to see proof if I am wrong, but I have done quite a bit of searching, and haven't come across anything substantial for a stock A4/A5, whereas the other non VIM pull was for the current J35Z2.
3) We own both a 2004 V6 and a 2006 V6 and the J30A5 is slightly more visceral, which I like, but it is NOT slower than the A4. They have slightly different gearing, with the A5 getting the nod in first, and the A4 having less of a hole where it won't downshift to 2nd gear. At 55 MPH the 06 tranny leaves me wanting, but coincidentally, the revised gearing almost mirrors the Camry 6 speeds, so I am not totally convinced that one extra gear would help all that much, especially if served to lower 3rd-5th. I am not convinced that a lower 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th gear would help either. In either car, you are hitting the top of 3rd at about 90MPH. Real world scenario: how many people are going to be driving these cars that fast? Really.
3) 3.5Liters+ more gears brings even bigger challenges, because you can't have these cars torque steering around the neighborhood. The more low end you produce, the more limited you become with gearing on the bottom. The slower you turn the engine in cruise, the more limited you become with gearing at the top. So in essence, a bigger engine turning slower is going to limit the gear spacing for a realistic transmission. The result? More gears in a smaller space, more hunting, and an overall marginal improvement. As I said before, the tighter gearing holes might be nice, unless they come with the typical 6 speed auto tradeoffs.
4) As for the J35Z2, I haven't spent enough time with it to make a judgement. The only one I spent a little bit of time with had less than 20 miles on the clock and it already felt at least equal to the J30A4/A5 which honestly, despite internet chatroom banter, is no slouch of an engine; in either transmission form. I admit that it WAS a little softer on the bottom end than I would have liked, but it was also slightly stronger up top than I expected, despite being green and running on 87 octane. You also have to consider the extra weight it was lugging around. It was stronger than a brand new, equal mileage, equal fuel J30A5 I also spent some time with prior to buying the 06.
Perhaps a 6AT would have helped, but honestly, the car was more than adequate for its mission, was very smooth, and didn't hunt for gears like some other cars. Nor did it have the ridiculous CVT power delivery of the Nissan. None of it was worth .3-.4 in the quarter mile.
In the end, the current powertrain isn't without its limitations. As a tempering point, neither are the Camry or Altima for that matter, so there is no perfect solution. Personally, the build quality, materials and fit and finish are going to be the deciding factor in most cases, and in that regard the Accord trumps both. It is unfortunate, because the Camry really took a step back in that regard.
Personally, I think they would have done well to just put the J35Z3 in there with optimized ratios. I would bet that mileage wouldn't have changed much, due to better power at lower RPM's, and it would have nearly or completely matched the performance of the "more powerful" Camry and Altima.
And using a spreadsheet calculator is silly. There are so many infinite variables that can't be accounted for it isn't even funny. The ONLY definitive way to get the best results is to run equally broken in cars, of equal mileage, on the same track, on the same day, with the same fuel and driver.
|
owequitit
|
|
TH23 wrote:
Great...more power on paper for the car that already consistently underperforms for its given power ratings.
That's nothing new for the Accord V6 automatics, however, as they've been underwhelming since the 6th generation (the 5th generation V6 actually did surprisingly well given its hefty weight and only 170HP; it was hardly any slower than the 6th gen with 30 more horses).
I'm only referring to the automatic versions, of course. The 6-speeds have done well because Honda hasn't castrated them like they have the automatic versions.
I'll explain. There was no manual transmission for the 6th gen, but the J30A1 in the 1998-2002 Accords (and 1997-1999 3.0CL) was castrated from the start. The wimpy pseudo-VTEC-E system severely hampered the engine's performance, especially compared to the other 3.0s on the market. The low-end and mid-range torque was abysmal for a 3 Litre engine, and paled in comparison to the 3.0s in the Camry and Maxima. Even the high-end (which was all the engine was good for) was nothing to write home about. Honda's justification for the engine's tuning was class-leading fuel economy, but again, it wasn't anything special as the Maxima (and later, the Camry) matched it in that area as well.
Then came the J30A4 in the 7th gen Accord (2003-2007). It was worlds better than the J30A1 it replaced, and it was finally better than the 3.0s the J30A1 fared poorly against. That was all fine and dandy, but while Honda was hard at work perfecting its 3.0, the competition had already moved on to larger-displacement V6s that once again offered superior low-end and mid-range torque compared to the HP-rich Honda V6. Now, as if that wasn't bad enough, Honda decided to hamper the engine's overall performance for the sake of ensuring people had a reason to buy their precious Acura TL. So, to keep the automatic Accord V6 in check, they chose not to include a variable intake manifold on its version of the engine, a simple feature that would've boosted low-end and mid-range torque significantly. A feature they did include on the 6MT's version of the engine, by the way, which gave it a beautifully flat torque curve from idle to redline. The automatic version was left with a deep hole in its torque curve that didn't flatten out until 4000 rpm. It was a torque curve far from ideal for a heavy mid-size family car with an automatic transmission designed to haul 5 adults plus their luggage. It should've been the opposite, with the auto getting the trick manifold and the 6MT going without. But that would've made the auto Accord just as strong as the TL, and Honda didn't want that. And don't get me started on the J30A5. Honda had a chance to rectify their mistake but instead opted to slap on a pair of freer-flowing mufflers and a larger airbox, changes that somehow made the car slower despite its higher HP rating even after the new SAE methods were put in to effect. Where that extra power went, nobody knows...
Now that brings me to the 8th generation V6. Boy, where do I begin...
Again, there's nothing wrong with the 6-speed's performance, as Honda made sure to do its best with the J35Z3. The VCM-equipped J35Z2 on the other hand, is severely limited for the sake of fuel economy. The VCM system replaced the traditional VTEC system, as there wasn't enough space within the cylinder heads to use both technologies due to the constraints of SOHC architecture. As a result, unlike the J35Z3, the engine only has one cam profile for the entire powerband. There's nothing unusual about that, as most engines only have one cam profile, as variable-valve lift technology is still somewhat rare outside of Honda. However, most modern engines without variable valve lift capability use other technologies like variable cam timing and variable intake manifolds to compensate for having only one cam profile. And if they don't, they usually don't have an extreme, high-end biased cam profile. The J35Z2 does not have variable cam timing (it can't due to the limitations of SOHC) or a variable intake manifold, but it DOES have a cam profile designed for maximum peak power high in the powerband. The result is a steep torque curve that is extremely peaky and doesn't have any plateaus. Once again, the variable intake manifold from the J35Z3 would've done wonders here, but I'm sure Honda wanted to save the upcoming TL from the embarrassment of being no stronger off the line than the lowly Accord family sedan. The end result is an engine that severely under-performs compared to engines with similar peak output (2GR-FE and VQ35-DE especially). And that's why the Camry and Altima easily out-run the Accord V6 automatic, and the Malibu runs right with it despite having less power and a heftier curb weight. Pretty sad, huh?
If only Honda would get in the here and now and design a new from the ground up V6 with today's technology. SOHC VTEC has been around since the early 90's and while SOHC VCM (SOHC i-VTEC) is fairly recent, it's still a band-aid slapped on ancient tech.
What Honda needs is a DOHC V6 with i-VTEC, not unlike the 2GR-FE, but with VTEC variable-valve-lift added. And combined with a properly-geared 6AT, they could match the J35Z2's fuel economy without resorting to power-robbing VCM. Then again, with DOHC, they could probably combine VCM with DOHC i-VTEC to make an engine that has best-in-class performance AND fuel economy. Hell, throw in direct fuel injection and they could do that easily.
Hey, I can dream, can't I? :p
And yes, a 6-speed auto would help, depending on the gearing. A 6-speed with gearing like the Camry's wouldn't help until 3rd gear, which is 13.3% shorter overall than the 3rd gear in the Accord's 5-speed. The car's 0 to 60 time would stay roughly the same while the quarter-mile time would improve slightly.
A better alternative would be a 6-speed geared like the one found in the Passat 3.6. Its gearing is extremely short and very manual-like. It would improve the 0 to 60 time by .3 seconds and the quarter-mile time by nearly .2 seconds.
I'm using CarTest 2000 to get these numbers, by the way.
2008 Accord EX-L V6 sedan
0-60 mph: 6.69 seconds
0-100 mph: 16.50 seconds
1/4-mile: 15.17 seconds @ 94.88 mph
2008 Accord EX-L V6 sedan with Camry V6 tranny
0-60 mph: 6.68 seconds
0-100 mph: 16.90 seconds
1/4-mile: 15.10 seconds @ 95.69 mph
2008 Accord EX-L V6 sedan with Passat 3.6 tranny
0-60 mph: 6.36 seconds
0-100 mph: 16.69 seconds
1/4-mile: 15.03 seconds @ 94.51 mph
2007 Camry SE V6 (Premium Fuel - 272HP/254TQ)
0-60 mph: 6.43 seconds (6.31 seconds)
0-100 mph: 16.02 seconds (15.76 seconds)
1/4-mile: 14.89 seconds @ 95.98 mph (14.81 seconds @ 96.42 mph)
All times are conservative, but as a comparison, it works well enough.
The Passat's 6AT would help performance the most, though it would probably hurt fuel economy somewhat, which is why Honda would never use gearing so short on one of their automatics. Taller gearing, even in the lower gears, is beneficial to fuel economy.
|
Found these in looking around.
2003:
http://www.vtec.net/articles/article-image?image=58735/03accordexv6_dyno.jpg
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=58735&page_number=2 (whole article)
2008:
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=714997
I believe the confusion is coming in on the auto dyno plots, because you generally can't get WOT the same way you can with a manual equipped car. If you do, they kick down. You will notice that it is MUCH more pronounced on the 08, but it was mentioned in the article that Jeff had the same problem with the 03. That would affect the appearance of the curve significantly, making it APPEAR to have less torque down low, because of the throttle limitation. Unfortunately, with only the ability to lock these in 1st gear, there isn't much you can do. The paddleshift trannies probably would work better (a'la the new TL) because Honda's "manual" trannies tend to be very obidient. I guess maybe we will have to wait and see.
|
|
|
| |
|
![[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}
