7.7..

for me to get from 0-60 with VSA off, LONG FLAT ROAD...wtf?

Upgrade the driver

J/k :hug:

Upgrade the driver

J/k :hug:

ouch! lol
Is it a stick or auto? if it's stick, then driver needs more practice :thmsup:

for me to get from 0-60 with VSA off, LONG FLAT ROAD...wtf?

Harsh, I get 8.2 with my 4 Banger, Shifting through Auto...

That 7.7 has to be an auto...

the Variable engine management program destroyed an otherwise fantastic V6 auto trans car, BMW use the same technology on all their 3.0L engine cars as well, but gained a way better result. Honda claimed themselves are the best in engineering in the world, I think if they wanted to copy the German, there is still a way to go!
e.g. BMW 328i Auto with 3.0 L 230 hp/ 200 tq = 6.7 sec. 0-62
08 Accord V6 Auto 3.5 L 271 hp/ 254 tq = 7.6 sec 0-62

If that is accurate, that is BAD! :thumbsdow

I might give you a slight scare in my Taurus! :lmao:

the Variable engine management program destroyed an otherwise fantastic V6 auto trans car, BMW use the same technology on all their 3.0L engine cars as well
You're confused buddy. You were referring to variable CYLINDER management (VCM), which BMW DOES NOT have (thankfully). VCM was a deal-breaker for me, but luckily 6MTs didn't have it.

To the OP: Magazines abuse cars to wring maximum performance, something most owners wouldn't do (brake-torquing in case of autos). In addition, most mags 'correct' their figures to sea level. If you live higher than that, remember every 1K' of altitude kills 3% of your power. At any rate, you're not that far off buddy; nothing wrong with your car. Take care.
JC

7.7 sec is entirely too slow IMO. I know strong torque at lower RPM is more important for fast 0-60 but at 271 HP and 240 TQ, 7.7 sec for 0-60 is slower than MANY cars with less power. I didn't buy my accord for drag racing but having the oomph would've been nice.

if you expect performance numbers, don't buy an automatic..

There is not an "Automatic" problem, many European cars use Automatic/manual gear box and gain faster time than manual transmission.

Don't go by max HP and Torque numbers but were there max is in the RPM scale.
Above someone posted to BMW328i , if you look at specs of the BMW even though its lower max hp and torque it is making it at half the rpm than a honda foes 2700 vers 4500, so the BMW has good pull down low. its also a 6 speed.

I be curious to know what rpm you guys with 6MT launch at to get near 6sec 0-60 times.

Does Honda post performance times like some other manufactures?? Or do we have to rely on independent tests by car magazines etc???

BTW what is the OFFICIAL 0-60 times for the V6 manual and auto if they exist? If there is no real baseline then you can expect times to be all over the board.

wat ur car didnt come with turbo..pfffffff

wat ur car didnt come with turbo..pfffffff

lol..no it didnt. and yes, sadly, its a auto. =[ i thought maybe it'd be just a bit faster than 7.7 tho..i was lokin for at least a low 7 high 6...

Did you just gun it? To get best number out of automatics, you would have to brake-torque before you launch, it's akin to slipping the clutch in a manual transmission vehicle, and then you have to try both shifting yourself or rely on the transmission control module to see which gives you the best time.

Not the kind of thing you need, nor want to do on a daily basis on the street as it is hard on the transmissions, so just drive normally and punch it as you need it.

There is not an "Automatic" problem, many European cars use Automatic/manual gear box and gain faster time than manual transmission.

I agree, but in the case of the 8th gen accord, the automatics aren't as fast as the manuals.

I agree, but in the case of the 8th gen accord, the automatics aren't as fast as the manuals.
You are not just comparing AT vers MT with 08 accord.
Your comparing a 6MT to a 5AT and coupe 3.5 with Vtec against Sedan with VCM. Not fair comparison.
I don't know how the V6 is but I see nothing wrong with shifting speed on the 2.4L, at WOT it shifts firm and leaving it in D gives almost rev limit shifts.
The tight eco torque converter is weak link here.
That said 7.7 does sound slow, i would think it would of done low 7 "if" the 6MT can do sub 6.

I managed to get 8 seconds flat with stabily control on. I did 2 seperate runs.
It's for 08 V6 Auto coupe. The car was empty.

I am little disappointed, but I never expected it to be a performer. Better for me, less tickets. I was thinking of Impreza STI or Mazda Speed3 before getting accord. I just like the way it looks and it's pretty luxury compared to cars metioned above.

Oh yeah, it's FWD w/o LSD. It's def not performance car. Just keep that in mind.

5.9 for manual apparently shouldn't be 2 secs more for an auto coupe

i go 0 to 100 k/m in 6.9

How are you guys testing this?? looking at your watch???

I have roughly ZERO faith in anyone's numbers who didn't test it properly.

JM2C

I would also put the AT in D3 not D then give it a try. Makes quite a bit of difference. The AT should be about 1.5 seconds slower than the MT which makes ~7.2-7.5 reasonable. To be honest as much as I wish I got the MT over the AT I really do not need that speed from a stop. What is more important to me is when you are on the highway and need to put on the power.

What is 0-100 of latest gen civic si? I was neck and neck with si up till 100 before I had to slow down. It was a rolling start from 15-20mph.

The Automatic with VCM isnt 271 Hp like the 6MT without VCM. They have both been dyno tested independantly. The automatic V6 is about 25-30 Hp slower because of the VCM. Honda automatic transmissions are notoriously weak to begin with. I wouldnt be stressing it out too hard if I owned one. They are made to go from Point A to point B and nothing else.

The Automatic with VCM isnt 271 Hp like the 6MT without VCM. They have both been dyno tested independantly. The automatic V6 is about 25-30 Hp slower because of the VCM. Honda automatic transmissions are notoriously weak to begin with. I wouldnt be stressing it out too hard if I owned one. They are made to go from Point A to point B and nothing else.

Sorry have to say BS! unless you can back this up with some evidence. VCM does not slow the car down. When VCM is not activated you have all 6 cyl. running and will have full power. Now if you said the AT transmission decreases the power to the wheels then I would agree with you although 20-30 HP differences is a little much I think.

anyone know what a new G37 sedan will do 0-60?? I raced one the other day and was DEAD EVEN till about 75 when i got off the gas because of merging


oh and im AT

Sorry have to say BS! unless you can back this up with some evidence. VCM does not slow the car down. When VCM is not activated you have all 6 cyl. running and will have full power. Now if you said the AT transmission decreases the power to the wheels then I would agree with you although 20-30 HP differences is a little much I think.

VCM does slow down the car. It has to do with the reworked torque curve, so VCM kills the otherwise sporty engine. Read up about it.

anyone know what a new G37 sedan will do 0-60?? I raced one the other day and was DEAD EVEN till about 75 when i got off the gas because of merging


oh and im AT

G37 Sedan will do 0-60 in about 5-6 seconds. It will be much faster than accord, given 330HP+ engine and 7-speed tranny. I don't know where you saw the sedan, as far as I know G37 sedans are not out yet.

There is a big difference between HP and Torque. Yes the AT does not have the dual profiles cams which gives you more low and mid range torque. But the engine HP is the same.

For the twentieth time let's clear the air.

I get quicker to 60mph merging unto a highway than the OP's drag time: so 7.7 is SLOW (maybe your engine still still breaking in). The best I had thus far was 6.863 +/-.5(friend had a GPS montioring things..). And even then I will admit I wasnt going all out (I care too much for my babie...).

As far as HP, both engine's produce the same PEAK horsepower and torgue (at the crank). Where things differ is VTEC. The 6MT engine produces alot more torgue early in the rev band than the AT VCM engine. Therefore there is alot more thrust early on. ADD to that the fact the auto takes away more power than the manual before it gets to the wheels, and you get a auto 0-60 time that is .8 (average) second slower than the manual.

BUT 7.7 is pushing it... i know of I4 owners that can get those times... it is definitely the driver.

I don't have 0-60 times but I do know how my Accord compares to my M35X. From a stop the M35X pulls ahead of the Accord. Once the Accord gets to 15 mph it's about 1 car length behind the M35X and then it stays even with the M35X all the way to 100 mph. The M35X has 5AT and AWD and power is split 50/50 front/back when accelerating from stopped.

There's no way I'd describe my Accord as slow even if supposedly takes 7.5 seconds to 60 mph.

And as far as the Accord V6 sedan goes, why does it matter to anyone here if it takes 7.0 to 7.5 seconds to 60 mph? Why does it matter that the V6 Accord sedan may be slightly slower than a V6 Camry or Altima or Maxima? Sedan owners who claim the V6 is too slow either didn't do their homework or they simply bought the wrong car.

For the twentieth time let's clear the air.

I get quicker to 60mph merging unto a highway than the OP's drag time: so 7.7 is SLOW (maybe your engine still still breaking in). The best I had thus far was 6.863 +/-.5(friend had a GPS montioring things..). And even then I will admit I wasnt going all out (I care too much for my babie...).

As far as HP, both engine's produce the same PEAK horsepower and torgue (at the crank). Where things differ is VTEC. The 6MT engine produces alot more torgue early in the rev band than the AT VCM engine. Therefore there is alot more thrust early on. ADD to that the fact the auto takes away more power than the manual before it gets to the wheels, and you get a auto 0-60 time that is .8 (average) second slower than the manual.

BUT 7.7 is pushing it... i know of I4 owners that can get those times... it is definitely the driver.

A voice of reason. Exactly what I said but much better written.

here is a repost of the dyno result comparison between 6mt V6 and auto V6.

http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=719873

here is a repost of the dyno result comparison between 6mt V6 and auto V6.

http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=719873

I see a torque graph and HP graph for the 6 MT. Where is the one for the AT. Did you think the torque graph was the AT dyno? Maybe you should take a closer look at that.

the Variable engine management program destroyed an otherwise fantastic V6 auto trans car, BMW use the same technology on all their 3.0L engine cars as well, but gained a way better result. Honda claimed themselves are the best in engineering in the world, I think if they wanted to copy the German, there is still a way to go!
e.g. BMW 328i Auto with 3.0 L 230 hp/ 200 tq = 6.7 sec. 0-62
08 Accord V6 Auto 3.5 L 271 hp/ 254 tq = 7.6 sec 0-62
1) 328i is 3340 lbs. Accord coupe V6 5AT is 3569. over 200 lbs weight difference. that's a lot.
2) RWD advantage to the BMW. when you accelerate, the weight transfers to the rear. so more weight pushes down on the rear wheels on launch to give the 328i better traction. front end lifts up on the accord to reduce traction.
3) 6AT vs 5AT. shorter gearing and closer ratios to get to the powerband of the engine faster and keep it there longer.
4) BMW does not have VCM on any of their engines. and the VCM system in the accord is actually killing a good amount of low-midrange torque due to lack of low RPM cam lobes like on traditional VTEC J-series V6's

For the twentieth time let's clear the air.

I get quicker to 60mph merging unto a highway than the OP's drag time: so 7.7 is SLOW (maybe your engine still still breaking in). The best I had thus far was 6.863 +/-.5(friend had a GPS montioring things..). And even then I will admit I wasnt going all out (I care too much for my babie...).

As far as HP, both engine's produce the same PEAK horsepower and torgue (at the crank). Where things differ is VTEC. The 6MT engine produces alot more torgue early in the rev band than the AT VCM engine. Therefore there is alot more thrust early on. ADD to that the fact the auto takes away more power than the manual before it gets to the wheels, and you get a auto 0-60 time that is .8 (average) second slower than the manual.

BUT 7.7 is pushing it... i know of I4 owners that can get those times... it is definitely the driver.

This post couldn't be more correct. Well stated sir!

BTW...7.7s is on the slow side. My truck is much faster that that :).

its on one of the links there.....sorry i posted the wrong link....There is another one showing the automatic from the same guy..

Guys (and gals :dunno:), first of all, if you are measuring 0-60 with a stopwatch or even a wrist watch, that is utterly inaccurate.

Second, here's performace data for 08 Civic Si from motortrend:

I was dead even with Si till 100mph from a rolling start of 15-20mph. That's after he jumped on me as I was only half throttle (did underestimate Si a little :D).

So my point is, 0-60 time of 7.7 is WAY slow. It maybe due to OP's engine not fully broken in, bad fuel, etc etc. I'm not saying Accord V6 Auto's 0-60 time is 6.3 sec like an Si (magazines abuse cars for maximum performance). I am willing to bet an avg 0-60 time for an auto V6 is somewhere between 6.5 to 7.0.

It doesn't really matter to me what 0-60 time is. To me, my car is quick enough and gives me ample power to merge and pass at will. This debate is purely for entertainment. :banana:

G37 Sedan will do 0-60 in about 5-6 seconds. It will be much faster than accord, given 330HP+ engine and 7-speed tranny. I don't know where you saw the sedan, as far as I know G37 sedans are not out yet.



330 hp but only 260lbs of torque.and a lot more weight..i thought they wpuld be quicker too but there not..

Has anyone used Dynolicious? It's an iPhone app that could measure 0-60 and a few other things.

The Gen. 7 Accord (Coupe and sedan) with an automatic and V-6 could hit 60 in just under 7 seconds, verified in several tests by Car and Driver and others. This is approximately 1 second behind the times of the 6-speed coupes and sedans they've tested. The Gen. 8 has a bit more power, and a bit more weight, so should fall in approximately the same range. In March 2008 C&D took a 6-speed Gen. 8 coupe to 60 in 5.6 seconds. I can't find a test with a Gen. 8 V-6 with automatic, but they did test a Gen. 8 sedan with the 190hp 4 and automatic, and that one made 60 in 8.2 seconds.

Driving style is a factor, but not a great one with automatic transmissions. C&D also tests what they call "street start" acceleration, which measures the 5-60mph time, eliminating clutch-drops and brake-torque starts, for a better idea of real-world acceleration. In automatic transmission cars with decent power and a wide torque band, street start is only slightly behind the 0-60 time of a drag-race style launch. Due to the slippage allowed by the automatic, it can even be faster than the 5-60mph time of the same car with a manual transmission.

(All) that said, I'd expect the Gen. 8 with a V-6 and automatic to hit 60 in the 6.5 seconds range, and agree with the posters who said measuring with the speedometer and a stopwatch can produce large errors. Even gps-based systems are often only accurate to within 1/2 second in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, based on published tests against drag-strip timing equipment.

You bought a Nissan, All you get is a Nisaan, no matter how pretty they packaged it. Period!

I thought one of the big factors for the low 0-60 times was that the drive by wire system did not allow WOT until the car hits 20+ mph. Also the computer cuts the throttle during shifts which hurts the 1-2 shift but keeps strain off the engine.

just sayin guys, i dont think its me. my engine was warmed and ready as i had been driving a good 30-45 mins, its a straight road, BUT i did use a stop watch. and im pretty sure my engine is broken in pretty good, almost 6300 miles...

This was stated before but this shouldn't even be up for discussion. If you measured your 0-60 time with a wrist watch or stop watch by the time you hit start and finish that's probably a second of delay right there. And as for Dynolicious and Gtech performance meters you need to know the exact weight of your vehicle to get an accurate reading. And you can't tell me anyone here knows the exact weight of their vehicle. You would need to put it on a scale, enter the weight on the Gtech, and do you run. Using the weight stated on the door doesn't include the weight of gas and the weight of the driver. Not only that, but you have to be an extremely good driver to run a good 0-60 time, it doesn't happen over night and it's never going to be consistent. You have to launch the car perfectly and get every shift dead on. This car doesn't have performance motor mounts and a performance suspension to get a good launch out of. the coupe chassis doesn't allow us to see the full potential of the V-6 engine.

You have to understand, the 0-60 times they get in the magazines are under ideal conditions. Exact tire pressures, time traps set up to measure time, minimal gas in tank, and a damn good driver.

If you want fast 0-60 times get 245 series tires on light wheels, lsd, and a good suspension set up (which is not out yet)

You have to understand, the 0-60 times they get in the magazines are under ideal conditions. Exact tire pressures, time traps set up to measure time, minimal gas in tank, and a damn good driver.
AND corrected to sea-level, no humidity, cold weather... basically unattainable.

Since I don't abuse my cars, I only pay attention to the 5-60 times for comparison, as somebody else mentioned. I don't gun the throttle until clutch is out. And I certainly don't break-torque my autos. So those magazine figures are mostly crap IMO. Good day.

Is there any official 0-60 times for EX V6 auto by reputable mags?

Low to mid 7's

wow - I thought the car is faster than that... Thanks

I average low to mid 7's once hit 6.9 though

Whoever said BMW has VCM, i got a good laugh out of it, if you meant VTEC, ok, they have "VTEC" but it is always on, its called "VANOS" the new M3 has Double-VANOS aka I-VTEC for us, VANOS is regular like regular VTEC driven by oil pressure.

Whoever said BMW has VCM, i got a good laugh out of it, if you meant VTEC, ok, they have "VTEC" but it is always on, its called "VANOS" the new M3 has Double-VANOS aka I-VTEC for us, VANOS is regular like regular VTEC driven by oil pressure.
A little clarification. There're 2 kinds of 'variable valve timing', as you seem to be aware. VTEC is variable lift, which is only a 2-step process. The other is cam phasing, which is infinitely variable, and the 'i' portion on i-VTEC indeed (but VTEC doesn't always mean variable lift, like on VCM engines). Now, all this is only on the INTAKE side on Hondas.

Now to BMWs. I haven't researched the new M3 V8 to be honest, but on previous engines, 'double VANOS' means cam-phasing on BOTH intake and exhaust cams, and the V8 M3 has them as well. The only question is if it also has variable lift on the intake. I don't know, but we can find out. My guess is the acronym would have changed if that was the case, but could be wrong. Take care.

A little clarification. There're 2 kinds of 'variable valve timing', as you seem to be aware. VTEC is variable lift, which is only a 2-step process. The other is cam phasing, which is infinitely variable, and the 'i' portion on i-VTEC indeed (but VTEC doesn't always mean variable lift, like on VCM engines). Now, all this is only on the INTAKE side on Hondas.

Now to BMWs. I haven't researched the new M3 V8 to be honest, but on previous engines, 'double VANOS' means cam-phasing on BOTH intake and exhaust cams, and the V8 M3 has them as well. The only question is if it also has variable lift on the intake. I don't know, but we can find out. My guess is the acronym would have changed if that was the case, but could be wrong. Take care.

Hmm, i look more into it, and ya, if i remember correctly from reading Double VANOS, its intake and exhaust.. lol ill look it up again later :yes:

I live in a very congested area--
lucky if I can do a 0 to 12 mph run :confused:

Hmm, i look more into it, and ya, if i remember correctly from reading Double VANOS, its intake and exhaust.. lol ill look it up again later :yes:
Just googled it, and it's just cam-phasing on both intake and exhaust cams, as I thought. And the pics make it abundantly clear it does not have secondary 'VTEC' cam lobes. VTEC is mostly gimmick to me; much rather have just DOHC heads, but if you add single or double 'VANOS', all the better. Oh, and chain-driven cams. Most competing V6s have all of that; it's about time for Honda to replace the J engine. Take care.