2008 6MT Accord traps 1/4 @ 102, tops STI/EVO in 5-60

[Fireball]

Source: Car & Driver magazine, March 2008, page 104

The 2008 Honda Accord EX-L V6 coupe 6-speed manual test results:

0-60: 5.6 seconds
0-100: 13.6 seconds
5-60: 5.9 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.2 seconds @ 102 mph
70-0: 177 feet
Skidpad: .85g
MPG: 22

Note in the same issue on page 48 the Evo ran 5-60 in 6.1 seconds and the STI ran 5-60 in 6.8 seconds.

[daavo]

Wow ... can't wait to read the article. I think those are the fastest times so far.

[ezshift5]

Wow ... can't wait to read the article. I think those are the fastest times so far.


.....my subscription copy always seems late: the March/08 issue is on the shelf at the supermarket, the bookstore..........

I thought C&D would beat Road and Track's times..............

Anyway, I look forward the reading the article (whenever.................)

..ez..

[krazyfiend]

damn, that's quick! ...MT envy on my part when I see / hear about these #'s ..but nonetheless ...Honda performance ftw!

/me goes off to B&N to pick up a copy to scan all three sections, merge in PS and send to the mitsu and subbie cliques at work

=)

[Trip]

Nice. :)

With proper tires, I'm sure braking and skidpad would be better. Why doesn't Honda offer a summer tire option like the Civic Si?

[krazyfiend]

Nice. :)

With proper tires, I'm sure braking and skidpad would be better. Why doesn't Honda offer a summer tire option like the Civic Si?


because they didn't stamp Si on the back of you 6MT :D

w/o the 'Si' , clearly any honda auto has no need for 'summer tires' or more grip.

/me rolls his eyes

[88AccordLX-i]

I just got my copy today. I read through it, but see anything about the coupe, but I wasn't expecting anything. I saw this, I was like "OH SNAP!!!" So I checked it out, it was a good little article. Major complaint was the price, at $31,145, which does seem high.

[USAFRET]

It that a typo "5 to 60". Since when have they started using a "rolling start" to measure what has been the standard standing start to 60???

[RTexasF]

It's a standard measurement but why I don't know.

[Trip]

I've seen the 5-60mph metric in a number of reviews for some time now. Its supposed to represent a "real world start."

If you think about it, it makes sense. How often can you get max acceleration with THE perfect launch - especially with a manual transmission. More often then not there's some wheel spin or there's a split second hesitation as you feather the clutch out and then stomp the gas.

[Peniole]

why does the 5-60 take longer than the 0-60?

[Ignition_key]

Source: Car & Driver magazine, March 2008, page 104

The 2008 Honda Accord EX-L V6 coupe 6-speed manual test results:

0-60: 5.6 seconds
0-100: 13.6 seconds
5-60: 5.9 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.2 seconds @ 102 mph
70-0: 177 feet
Skidpad: .85g
MPG: 22

Note in the same issue on page 48 the Evo ran 5-60 in 6.1 seconds and the STI ran 5-60 in 6.8 seconds.

Those are pretty impressive numbers. I can Guarantee by putting Lighter wheels and Ultra High Performance Summer tires would futher chop pff .3~.5 seconds off the times they published.

The stock Wheels on Tires on the Accord 6MT Suck BIG TIME!!

[Trip]

Those are pretty impressive numbers. I can Guarantee by putting Lighter wheels and Ultra High Performance Summer tires would futher chop pff .3~.5 seconds off the times they published.

The stock Wheels on Tires on the Accord 6MT Suck BIG TIME!!

Normally I would be all for "lighter is better" but I wonder if Honda intentionally used the heavier wheels. I think each wheel and tire together weight like 50 lbs + :paranoid:

Even with the heavy OEM rims you can light up the front wheels in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Wouldn't a lighter wheel/tire combo - even with grippier rubber - instigate wheel spin?

On the plus side braking, handling and ride should improve with the reduction of unsprung weight/less rolling inertia.

Ignition - did you get aftermarket rims yet? Any pics?

[Ignition_key]

I dont think HONDA intentionally made the rims heavier becuase it costs more to make light weight Wheels.
They didnt make the Accord a Performance car so that why they were being cost affective on the wheels.

YES i did get the Wheels BUT not the tires (245/45/18) yet, since they wont be available till March from Yokohama....

Here are the rims I got

http://www.enkei.com/jpeg%20files/Wheels/RS+M%205307.jpg

My next step it to get the car tinted and put a clear bra on the front fender and rear Bumper.
Also in the works is getting Better Braking rotors and brakes.

[Trip]

Those wheels are NICE. :thmsup: Good choice. Clean and simple.

When I upgrade my tires next fall, I want to upgrade the brakes, too. From the reviews I read, the OEM brakes are subject to overheating and massive fade when used aggresively for extended lengths of time.

[Edaccord08]

why does the 5-60 take longer than the 0-60?

Though I don't know how they test things , my guess is the 5-60 is done with just gas, no clutch work.
where 0-60 there slipping clutch to get good launch.

[GigaS27]

Sorry but and STI and EVO are AWD vehicles with plenty power. 0-60 this cars should beat the v6 from a stand still if the person knows how to drive. Now if the vehicle is already moving, and in higher top end, i would agree the v6 should win. I don't believe those stats. The people must have had bad runs.

I've seen STi's hit 4 sec's 0-60 stock, and 13 sec 1/4mile runs before....


EDIT:
i just noticed the part of 5-60, of course this will kill a turbo vehicle because of turbo lag, as V6's have a ton more torque at lower RPM's...

[krazyfiend]

a friend of a friend who knows someone that is elite and has mad hacker skills dug this linked page of the 08' accord coupe 'short take' from C&D up... Imagine that, someone already scanned it.


http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/6086/coupereviewug6.th.jpg (http://img523.imageshack.us/my.php?image=coupereviewug6.jpg)

and he found these two scans from the same magazine...

2008 Accord sedan review/test within a shootout with other 4-cylinder sedans... guess who the winner was ? =)

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/4742/sedan1zh9.th.jpg (http://img523.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sedan1zh9.jpg) http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/5902/sedan2iz1.th.jpg (http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sedan2iz1.jpg)

[RDS]

why does the 5-60 take longer than the 0-60?

Depends, but typically it's because from a standing start, you can launch at a higher RPM. Get the launch right and it's possible to get a quicker time than 5-60, which should tell you a bit more about how the car's powerband has been optimized (does it pull hard from low RPM, does it pull harder top end, passing power, etc.).

[Fireball]

Sorry but and STI and EVO are AWD vehicles with plenty power. 0-60 this cars should beat the v6 from a stand still if the person knows how to drive. Now if the vehicle is already moving, and in higher top end, i would agree the v6 should win. I don't believe those stats. The people must have had bad runs.

I've seen STi's hit 4 sec's 0-60 stock, and 13 sec 1/4mile runs before....


EDIT:
i just noticed the part of 5-60, of course this will kill a turbo vehicle because of turbo lag, as V6's have a ton more torque at lower RPM's...

The turbocharged Evo beat the naturally aspirated V6 R32 from 5-60 mph in this issue of Car & Driver.

[krazyfiend]

The turbocharged Evo beat the naturally aspirated V6 R32 from 5-60 mph in this issue of Car & Driver.

and from outta the blue, here is a scan of the page of the breakdown of times/ratings C&D had for the mitsu evo, subbi impreza wrx and R32 Volks

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/659/contrastwb0.th.jpg (http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=contrastwb0.jpg)


on a sidenote: I think most Accord devotee's (especially those who appreciate the 8th gen) should def pick up this magazine, WELL worth the 4.50$ stand price

[Belize042]

It that a typo "5 to 60". Since when have they started using a "rolling start" to measure what has been the standard standing start to 60???
C&D began measuring what they call "street start," 5-60mph acceleration, some years ago when they compared a Porsche Turbo with a Corvette. After tooling around in both cars for a day, they thought the Vette would kill the Porsche on the drag strip, but the opposite occurred. The Vette was faster in real-world acceleration (Up to a point), but with a clutch-dropping wheel-spinning start the Porsche walked away from it.

Since most of us avoid brutal drag-race starts, the 5-60 time is more representative of what we get in the real world. In manual transmission cars, the 5-60 time is longer because of the lack of wheelspin. Cars with automatics frequently see little, if any, difference in the two times, though.

[BenjiBoy650]

why does the 5-60 take longer than the 0-60?

When you launch at 0, you can modulate the clutch to manage wheelspin and keep the engine in the upper rev range. When you do a 5-60, you run the car from whatever RPM it is at 5MPH, so it bogs a little. That's why the engines with better torque like the Accord aren't so affected by the test, whereas the STI and Evo that need time to build up boost are severely handicapped by it

[Peniole]

Thanks ben and others that replied. Makes sense.

[wafflefries]

why does the 5-60 take longer than the 0-60?

With a good hook, those first 10-20 go by pretty quickly.

[Sporin]

Remember you can't compare performance times from different tests. Temperature, humidity, track surface, wind... all of these have an effect.

Unless the EVO and STI were compared back to back with the Accord at the same time, on the same track, then the comparison, while fun, isn't very scientific.

Also the 5-60 takes away the EVO/STI's awd launch advantage.

Still, IMPRESSIVE numbers from the Accord. :thmsup:

[Edaccord08]

C&D began measuring what they call "street start," 5-60mph acceleration, some years ago when they compared a Porsche Turbo with a Corvette. After tooling around in both cars for a day, they thought the Vette would kill the Porsche on the drag strip, but the opposite occurred. The Vette was faster in real-world acceleration (Up to a point), but with a clutch-dropping wheel-spinning start the Porsche walked away from it.

Since most of us avoid brutal drag-race starts, the 5-60 time is more representative of what we get in the real world. In manual transmission cars, the 5-60 time is longer because of the lack of wheelspin. Cars with automatics frequently see little, if any, difference in the two times, though.

right but Porsche turbo like 930 is not meant for that type of starts, your really beating on the clutch alot as it has wide tires/good rear traction.
I know I wouldn't drive 930 if i owned one like that, they have considerable turbo lag too down low.

[Fireball]

Remember you can't compare performance times from different tests. Temperature, humidity, track surface, wind... all of these have an effect.

Unless the EVO and STI were compared back to back with the Accord at the same time, on the same track, then the comparison, while fun, isn't very scientific.

Also the 5-60 takes away the EVO/STI's awd launch advantage.

Still, IMPRESSIVE numbers from the Accord. :thmsup:

IIRC Car and Driver adjusts measured times to remove variations in environmental conditions.

[chanke4252]

car and driver is a rag. bottom line is that the only way that the accord is faster than an evo/sti is when you basically take boost and awd out of the mix. this is like drugging and blindfolding jeff gordon and declaring all other drivers better because they passed him. outside of these dumb scenarios that don't really matter in actual driving the accord IS, always has been, and always will be slower.

[krazyfiend]

not taking anything away from the STi or evo...


... outside of these dumb scenarios ...


....but, most of the owners of evo's and STi's I met at Purdue and just out n' about I would classify exactly as that...'dumb scenarios' placed behind the wheel.

:lmao:

of course, YMMV

[chanke4252]

how is it anything but dumb? I mean of course it's worth knowing, but I find it hilarious that you guys put any stock into how well the accord does in the 5-60 compared to cars with turbo lag galore. nevermind the fact that sti's/evos's are just higher performance cars in general except when they are forced into a situation that really accentuates one of the only performance drawbacks they have that the accord doesn't. I have an idea, lets hook a 5000lb trailer to an accord, and then another one to an semi, and then lets call the semi the faster car in general. that's basically the logic some of you guys use. if you wanted a sports car, you should have bought one. pretending your accord is one by using horribly skewed comparisons does not make it true. and don't even tell me that you guys weren't implying that the accord is a faster car, because that's all that fireball ever freaking posts about.

what evo/sti guys are you talking about? you must be talking about the ones who have no idea what the clutch is for. if they are sitting on the throttle at 5mph and complaining that they have poor acceleration then i really don't think it matters what car they are driving because they just suck in general.

[cforez]

If you're not doing 4500 rpm clutch drops at every stoplight, you're driving the car wrong! :yes:

[Demonik]

:stupid: :D

[chanke4252]

If you're not doing 4500 rpm clutch drops at every stoplight, you're driving the car wrong! :yes:

I didn't mean that, but I assume if someone is complaining about 5-60 acceleration that they are autocrossing or *gasp* street racing (of course we never see sti's and evo's street racing, right?), in which case they probably aren't too terribly concerned about totally minimizing wear and tear otherwise they wouldn't be taking part in those activities. I really just can't imagine that krazy was just strolling around purdue and a bunch of people were complaining about their 5-60's and how it affects their daily driving.

[krazyfiend]

if you wanted a sports car, you should have bought one. pretending your accord is one by using horribly skewed comparisons does not make it true. and don't even tell me that you guys weren't implying that the accord is a faster car, because that's all that fireball ever freaking posts about.

what evo/sti guys are you talking about? you must be talking about the ones who have no idea what the clutch is for. if they are sitting on the throttle at 5mph and complaining that they have poor acceleration then i really don't think it matters what car they are driving because they just suck in general.

to me, the accord coupe ... it's a quick economic fwd based coupe with a brand name that has a great record in reliability and function.

myself, I could never consider a non RWD car a 'sports car' ... even AWD cars, i'd consider 'rally inspired' and even with high HP output, not true 'sports cars' since AWD from Audi and Subbie started out meant for the rally racing and the such


and to even be getting close/near to the STi and EVO is admirable imho (and that's all it is, and opinion)...considering the class those cars are in and how they bring all the fanboys out , its amusing to see FWD representing. it doesn't have all the nice racing inspired perks, and yet the engine output still helps it keep pace while keeping your ass in a nice comfy accord interior that has plenty of room for 4.

let's strap a turbo on to a v6 6MT with HFP suspension and SH-AWD... and see how well it does...it'd be interesting, but not feasible for the Accord let alone Honda line (in the US)

yes, those are the exact guys/gals im speaking of...most clearly need a half day at a respectable driving/racing school. Most of the time, the keys/car are just handed to the folks I see owning them and they've merely gotten the car for the name/looks and have little clue of how to drive a turbo equipped car without some proper schooling.

I really just can't imagine that krazy was just strolling around purdue and a bunch of people were complaining about their 5-60's and how it affects their daily driving.

chanke is dead on. flooring syndrome must be a result of too much fast and furious mentality/viewing gone awry.

[chanke4252]

good points