v6 1/4 Mile 15.976 [Archive] - Drive Accord Honda Forums

Sylv

11-01-2009, 03:21 PM

lol was too tired to explain why i didn't strip.

My friend and I were working on his 540i clutch. by the time we finished, we had 3 hours to sleep and we were COMPLETELY tired and exhausted. so we went to bed and got as much sleep as possible.

I will go back early December for another go... stripped. :D

245/45/ZR18 General UHP Tires. All 4 tires. Didn't have SRI or CAI. Just resonator removal and Splash Guard Removal.

08accordv6

11-01-2009, 04:48 PM

seems a little slow even for an a/t. did you do any break torquing? just floored it the entire way down the strip? or did you do manual shifting?

sorry that might be a stupid question..but what is break tqing? im new to auto.
dont you just floor it and the car will go? or there is another way to go faster?

next_milenium

11-01-2009, 05:08 PM

sorry that might be a stupid question..but what is break tqing? im new to auto.
dont you just floor it and the car will go? or there is another way to go faster?

Brake torquing is when you have your foot on the brake and rev your engine to certain point before letting it go and floor the gas. It could potentially quicken your 1/4 mile or 0-60 time.

next_milenium

11-01-2009, 05:09 PM

Is it possible your custom exhaust reduced back pressure and therefore decreased low end torque?

postmortem

11-01-2009, 05:20 PM

car with 270HP and ~3600 lbs has to do better than that.. even automatic mustang v6 with 210HP does about 15.1

next_milenium

11-01-2009, 05:27 PM

car with 270HP and ~3600 lbs has to do better than that.. even automatic mustang v6 with 210HP does about 15.1

Not sure what the official times are for v6 mustang but since it is RWD, it should have better traction off the line. Also, torque at lower RPM is a factor as well. However, I bet Accord will pull away eventually.

Sylv

11-01-2009, 07:02 PM

car with 270HP and ~3600 lbs has to do better than that.. even automatic mustang v6 with 210HP does about 15.1

They have Gears for that.

I will definitely try it again though. This time I will be ready, and my friend's 540i will be ready too, now that his Stage 2 Clutch is set up :)

Stay tuned next month :thmsup:

argus

11-01-2009, 07:14 PM

Better luck next time. Strip down, and keep the VSA off!

Vtecpower

11-01-2009, 08:54 PM

Next time we are stripping Sylv's accord to the metal. Actually if the speedway allowed it, we would have probably removed the hood too :)

Also, i will pull out the back and passenger seat and the entire trunk on my 540i for the next run. Hoping to hit 13.9. Later will probably be going 100shotof nos later in 2011

Sylv

11-01-2009, 09:01 PM

VSA WAS OFF!!! >.< lol

Vtecpower

11-01-2009, 09:03 PM

You can never be so sure! you might have pushed that button but your vsa didnt get disabled. that is the only way you can explain your Civic-like time.....you nearly stay up with me on streets (and my car does 14.1) and on a race day you only do 15.9 lol

next_milenium

11-01-2009, 09:18 PM

Like I said before, the time seems slow since I was 1 car length ahead of a 08 civic si (of course it's possible he was a bad driver).

According to this site, http://www.dragtimes.com/Honda-Civic-Timeslip-14880.html, the 2008 Civic si does 14.98 stock.

dm919

11-02-2009, 03:29 AM

I ran a 10.0 flat 1/8th mile in my V6 sedan, and I know the car is faster than that. I made several passes with VCM off, and the car spun like crazy (no brake torquing). I made several passes with VCM on, and traction control kicked in. The 10.0 run was made feathering the throttle off the line then flooring it after a second or two. I'm sure under ideal conditions, these cars are capable of a 9.8 in the 1/8th or 15.0 flat in the 1/4.

Domtenn15

11-02-2009, 07:57 AM

Am I wrong or could we do near 14 Flat in a coupe v6? My very last car was a 2008 Honda Civic Si Sedan and my Accord feels a lot faster. I would be surprise If I let a good driver race my car and they cant do around 14 flat.

RTexasF

11-02-2009, 09:37 AM

Domtenn15

11-02-2009, 09:40 AM

I can def. do low 14 flat or lower then if a rav4 does 14.8

next_milenium

11-02-2009, 09:54 AM

Don't forget 4WD gives you better traction off the line. Also, I don't think Rav4 is much heavier than an Accord.

RTexasF

11-02-2009, 09:57 AM

I can def. do low 14 flat or lower then if a rav4 does 14.8

14 flat or lower?? In your dreams maybe.......

From Road & Track - 2008 6-6 coupe

The V-6 is silky smooth and readily spins up to the 6800-rpm redline — which is a lot less than you'd expect from rev-happy Honda engines. Yet, even with variable valve timing, the delivery of the engine's output is linear, not peaky, and rewards with ample pulling power throughout the range. We were able to record 0–60-mph acceleration of 5.9 seconds and the quarter mile in 14.5 sec. at 99.8 mph.

TrailerPro

11-02-2009, 10:12 AM

Do you guys do a good burn-out so you get a GREAT launch? A car with 270 at the wheels should be running Low 14's at around 100mps if it weights 36-3700 lbs.

If it's an auto, foot break it as well. This alone will pick up a couple 10ths. If it's a manual, don't be afraid to dump the clutch if your at the track. That's what it's all about!

Sylv

11-02-2009, 01:17 PM

Well.. the weather didn't help either, Wind (Which was fairly heavy) was blowing against the the strip, pushing back, ontop of it being pretty hot; Ontop of the weight, I'm sure that would be the reason.

Updating OP aswell. (All Times)

60' - 2.635
330- 6.986
1/8- 10.451 @ 71.19
1000-13.447
1/4 - 15.976 @ 89.74

L's TLS

11-02-2009, 02:19 PM

You ran that time because of your 60ft. You need to get a 2.1 or lower to get the times advertised by car mags. They are pro drivers and will consistently get a 2.2-2.1 or lower 60ft. You just need to launch better.

eckseleven

11-02-2009, 02:26 PM

14 flat or lower?? In your dreams maybe.......

From Road & Track - 2008 6-6 coupe

The V-6 is silky smooth and readily spins up to the 6800-rpm redline — which is a lot less than you'd expect from rev-happy Honda engines. Yet, even with variable valve timing, the delivery of the engine's output is linear, not peaky, and rewards with ample pulling power throughout the range. We were able to record 0–60-mph acceleration of 5.9 seconds and the quarter mile in 14.5 sec. at 99.8 mph.

Someone on here has done a 13.9 (6-6 of course) and has the slips to prove it. Do a search. He may have had different tires, I can't remember. Still quite impressive though.

BlueBlahBleh

11-02-2009, 02:30 PM

Someone on here has done a 13.9 (6-6 of course) and has the slips to prove it. Do a search. He may have had different tires, I can't remember. Still quite impressive though.

+1

With the right driver, the 8th gen 6-6 can do a quartermile in the high 13's, stock.

Domtenn15

11-02-2009, 03:28 PM

So you are saying that a rav4 and a 08 accord coupe v6 run about the same time a quarter of mile? Say it again so i can laugh... :nuts:

D-Press

11-02-2009, 03:50 PM

+1

With the right driver, the 8th gen 6-6 can do a quartermile in the high 13's, stock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15vVdJzdhG4

0-60 in 5.8sec
1/4 in 13.9sec@101mph

My best time was 14.2@99 with 2.3sec 60ft.....All that with crazy wheel hop and heavier 19" wheels than stock 18"

AznX TL

11-02-2009, 04:04 PM

Gosha

11-02-2009, 04:07 PM

the extra 400lbs is the dirt on the car and blacked out trims

OriginalWhitey

11-02-2009, 04:34 PM

Domtenn15

11-02-2009, 07:13 PM

Did you already see it not coming from me but someone else clocked the 6-6 at 13.9 in a 1/4 of mile. Im not saying everyone can do it, but a good driver will blow the doors off a rav4 by at least 3 to 4 cars length.

Idk if you drive your car with the ebrake on all the time but mine def. feels close to a 14 flat car. ... And by the way im coming from an 02 Trans am WS6 so you dont think i have never driven a fast car before. Not saying the accord is the fastest car out there by any mean but is not as slow as you are saying it is (at least the 6-6 is not). The only reason why a 6-6 wouldnt be able to do a 14 time is because those michelin tires dont get any traction at all. Other than that like some of you are saying a car with 271HP from factory (about 235 WHP) should be doing that time.
Sorry if my writting isnt clear since im from DR.

RTexasF

11-03-2009, 06:09 AM

So you are saying that a rav4 and a 08 accord coupe v6 run about the same time a quarter of mile? Say it again so i can laugh... :nuts:

The laugh is on you!
Where did you come up with that crap, no one even suggested such a thing. A V-6 RAV would give a V-6 Accord sedan or V-6 auto coupe a run for it's money though and it's not that far behind the 6/6 coupe in the 1/4 mile.

Domtenn15

11-03-2009, 08:20 AM

Yea bumber to bumper right?... But hey it is what you think vs what I think so lets move on!!:thmsup:

Domtenn15

11-03-2009, 08:26 AM

I still dont think that a rav4 will be even close to a 6-6... But hey it is what you think vs what I think so lets move on!!:thmsup:

08accordv6

11-03-2009, 09:42 AM

Not sure what the official times are for v6 mustang but since it is RWD, it should have better traction off the line. Also, torque at lower RPM is a factor as well. However, I bet Accord will pull away eventually.

the v6 mustang is slower off the start and the accord keeps on gaining a bit of distance as we pull off...
i raced 3 diff mustangs and it was the same for all..even tho i had my rims on ( which were heavier then stock)..

08accordv6

11-03-2009, 09:49 AM

yeah, but the accord v6 is running 270 to the crank, maybe 220-235 to the wheels depending on transmission.

i have seen one youtube that had 239 or 241hp to the wheel..and like 225 tq or something like that cant recall it very well sorry
but it was stock too

RTexasF

11-03-2009, 09:57 AM

I still dont think that a rav4 will be even close to a 6-6... But hey it is what you think vs what I think so lets move on!!:thmsup:

coupe 6/6 101 in the 1/4

rav 99 in the 1/4

Of course the 6/6 will win but only a 2mph difference is not bad for a four door crossover is it? I'll bet you never thought it would be that close didja?

Alright I'll leave it alone now that the truth is up there.

eckseleven

11-03-2009, 02:13 PM

Don't worry about the Rav4. It will tip over in the turns.

next_milenium

11-03-2009, 02:20 PM

What's up with RAV4 vs 6-6?

It's all about weight to power ratio. If you stick a 500HP v8 into a CRV, it will destroy most cars on the road.

So RAV4 has 3.5 v6 with similar power to Accord v6. So what? Two totally different category of cars. Crossover versus coupe. Not competing each other. Not really sure why RAV4 was even brought up in this thread. :dunno:

Cleankill

11-03-2009, 02:32 PM

I still can't figure out what the 400 extra lbs was......pretty poor time actually when a 4WD RAV4 V-6 can do this. I might go looking for some Accord sedans to stomp :lmao: since mine is 2WD and lighter than the one tested.

Whatever source you get it from is not reliable...
Rav4 v6 only produce 246lb-ft of torque...
99 mph trap is too high for 269hp engine on SUV...
it doesn't make sense... with it's shape and weight....
say only i see camry (lighter + less drag & surface area) could barely get 99mph with 6 speeds auto from C/D who ususally publishes the best number...

For a comparison, MS3 also has 6.4 sec from 0-60, but traps 99.5mph @ 14.4 sec according to Insideline
14.8 sec is more like 95 mph trap for the rav4...

Domtenn15

11-03-2009, 02:50 PM

There is not a big difference between 8th gen Accord 6-6 and a 2010 Rav4 in the quarter of a mile as some of you are saying... You be the judge

brooks08v6coupe

11-03-2009, 03:37 PM

Anyone figure out a way to turn the vsa off with the tire pressure lowered?

L's TLS

11-04-2009, 04:14 AM

^^^No but I think you can lower to 25psi without triggering the TPMS so that you can control VSA as usual.

OriginalWhitey

11-04-2009, 07:57 AM

Anyone figure out a way to turn the vsa off with the tire pressure lowered?

Lowering tire pressure on all-season tires will give you less traction becuase of the sidewalls. Your not running slicks, leave the tire pressure where it should be.

RTexasF

11-04-2009, 08:10 AM

Whatever source you get it from is not reliable...
Rav4 v6 only produce 246lb-ft of torque...
99 mph trap is too high for 269hp engine on SUV...
it doesn't make sense... with it's shape and weight....
say only i see camry (lighter + less drag & surface area) could barely get 99mph with 6 speeds auto from C/D who ususally publishes the best number...

For a comparison, MS3 also has 6.4 sec from 0-60, but traps 99.5mph @ 14.4 sec according to Insideline
14.8 sec is more like 95 mph trap for the rav4...

The 264 torgue figure is indeed a typo, I wrote them about it but to no avail. Motorweek is not reliable? Since when do you know more than what their tests prove?

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2834b.shtml

So according to you this one is also unreliable? Yeah right, they've only done this for 25 years.....they don't know anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15vVdJzdhG4

Ever watch a 1/4 mile drag race where the loser had a lower elapsed time? The other car got their first, happens every day, so much for your time/mph theory.

Cleankill

11-04-2009, 09:35 AM

99mph trap is also a typo :D

dm919

11-04-2009, 04:38 PM

The best way to compare 2 cars acceleration times (besides legally at a drag strip :D ) is to use the same source. Maybe Motorweek's test track is downhill, or they got their hands on a factory tuned or factory freak RAV4, but they never tested an Accord V6 sedan. InsideLine tested both cars with the same test procedures/conditions and here are the results:

2008 Toyota RAV4 4x4 Limited:
0-60 in 7.3 sec.
269 hp / 3,785 lbs.
1/4 mile : 15.4 @ 90.2 mph
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=700fvhGzc0o
http://www.insideline.com/toyota/rav4/2008/2009-volkswagen-tiguan-vs-2008-honda-cr-v-vs-2008-toyota-rav4.html?page=3#article_pagination_top

2008 Accord EX-L V6 sedan:
0-60 in 7.0 sec.
268 hp / 3,579 lbs.
1/4 mile : 15.3 @ 95.4 mph
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAIuC-LPEDI
http://www.insideline.com/honda/accord/2008/comparison-test-2007-2008-v6-family-sedans.html?page=3#article_pagination_top

So the RAV4 isn't faster than ANY 8th gen V6 Accord. Can we please stop beating this dead horse?!

kozumasbullitt

11-04-2009, 08:05 PM

wow thats slow!!!i think the 8th gen v6 might be the slowest 271 hp car ever made if your 1/4 mile times are correct.

dm919

11-05-2009, 04:06 AM

Sylv

11-05-2009, 06:52 AM

Why don't people in Cali come to the next event? Dec. 5th, $20 to race $10 to watch.

Auto Club Speedway
9300 Cherry Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335

Gates open at 6:00 a.m.

Maybe compare my time with someone else

My time was high b/c of high elevation/weight/heavy wind. So another v6 should come and try.

aprevo15

11-06-2009, 07:55 AM

lol @ the people on here throwing out numbers and stuff.

the other day i was 1 1/2 car length ahead on a civic si sedan on my 7th gen 6spd so i should be in the low to high 13s also.<<<<=======see i can do it too. lol.

ja-quan

11-07-2009, 07:31 PM

14.095 was my time at 100mph... Stock...Car would get a high 13 with minor changes. Like the driver and tires. I am going to install a cold air intake and exhaust to try to reach 13's without spending major money.

Edaccord08

11-08-2009, 04:37 AM

The Accord only feels slower off the line because of overly aggressive engine management. The engine doesn't open up to full throttle until 20 mph! My dad's '09 Camry SE V6 will smoke both front tires off the line all through 1st gear, and my Accord will barely chirp the tires.
You make it sound like there a governor "holding" HP . I think what you mean, or should i say what I think is going on is this. "IF" TB is not at 100% its not because of some calculated safety factor its because engine management knows at low engine speed it would hinder to open it up full as it will just bog it more.

The issue on the Auto V6 is 2 fold compared to MT. First the auto peak torque is at 5k rpm. The torque converter is very low something like 2k stall rpm. So the auto is going to be dog off line till you get up some speed.
Now compared to MT, that has same issue too with peak torque "but" MT has 6 speeds and it has Vtec on intake to help low end rpm some .

BlueBlahBleh

11-08-2009, 05:16 AM

You make it sound like there a governor "holding" HP . I think what you mean, or should i say what I think is going on is this. "IF" TB is not at 100% its not because of some calculated safety factor its because engine management knows at low engine speed it would hinder to open it up full as it will just bog it more.

The issue on the Auto V6 is 2 fold compared to MT. First the auto peak torque is at 5k rpm. The torque converter is very low something like 2k stall rpm. So the auto is going to be dog off line till you get up some speed.
Now compared to MT, that has same issue too with peak torque "but" MT has 6 speeds and it has Vtec on intake to help low end rpm some .

VTEC doesn't kick in on the V6-6MT until high RPM; conversely the auto V6 has i-vtec, which in basic terms is active across the entire band of RPM's to afford more low and mid-range torque. The auto has less WHP than the manual, though, (15-20 less) because of the power loss that occurs during the transfer of energy from the engine to the wheels via the transmission.

Edaccord08

11-08-2009, 05:41 AM

VTEC doesn't kick in on the V6-6MT until high RPM; conversely the auto V6 has i-vtec, which in basic terms is active across the entire band of RPM's to afford more low and mid-range torque. The auto has less WHP than the manual, though, (15-20 less) because of the power loss that occurs during the transfer of energy from the engine to the wheels via the transmission.
No, your thinking wrong way, the V6 MT smaller cam and dual plenum manifold gives it better low end torque .
Yes the auto torque converter has loss around 15% but biggest issue between them is low stall of auto combined with a non vtec engine and having only 5 gears compared to 6 of MT. these all add up to sluggish off line performance.
For a auto to perform good off line, you either need max torque at a broader lower rpm, or have more gears(or higher ratio , limiting top speed) .
Think of this, how fun would the Civic SI be if there was a automatic trans option with its engine specs of ( 197 HP @ 7800rpm , Torque 139 @ 6100rpm ) ?

slow4dr

11-08-2009, 06:22 AM

Just FYI: The Fontana track is uphill.......Why else would all the magazines that test there run the track backwards?

eckseleven

11-08-2009, 08:35 AM

conversely the auto V6 has i-vtec, which in basic terms is active across the entire band of RPM's to afford more low and mid-range torque

i-vtec for the auto V6 is for cylinder management only; not like the i-vtec in the I4. This is the other contributing factor to it's poor performance.

postmortem

11-08-2009, 05:58 PM

i-vtec for the auto V6 is for cylinder management only; not like the i-vtec in the I4. This is the other contributing factor to it's poor performance.

is there a respectable site that has proof that i-VTEC in 3.5 reduces VTEC to just cylinder management?

eckseleven

11-09-2009, 06:12 AM

is there a respectable site that has proof that i-VTEC in 3.5 reduces VTEC to just cylinder management?

I have a bookmark on my home computer that talks about it. For now, all I can find is this wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Cylinder_Management

Edaccord08

11-09-2009, 08:17 AM

is there a respectable site that has proof that i-VTEC in 3.5 reduces VTEC to just cylinder management?

If you check parts its easy to see, the VCM version of honda 3.5 V6 has no low/high cam and rockers on the intake. If you look at parts and pics you see the VCM type uses a mix of rocker arms as not all shut values off, so its now way to do vtec without the right cam's.

here link to parts to see for yourself
Accord 4dr, EXL V6 auto

https://www.hondapartsdeals.com/hpa_parts_list.php?vin=&Label[ProductID]=ACCORD&Label[YearID]=2009&Label[DoorID]=4&Label[GradeID]=EXL-V6+%28NAVI%29&Label[AreaID]=KA&Label[TransmissionID]=5AT&Label[SectionID]=ENGINE&Label[IllustrationGroupID]=VALVE+-+ROCKER+ARM+%28FR.%29+%28V6%29&ProductID=5&YearID=40&DoorID=4&GradeID=634&AreaID=2&TransmissionID=7&SectionID=1&IllustrationGroupID=16336

2dr, EX v6 MT6

https://www.hondapartsdeals.com/hpa_parts_list.php?vin=&Label[ProductID]=ACCORD&Label[YearID]=2009&Label[DoorID]=2&Label[GradeID]=EXL-V6+%28NAVI%29&Label[AreaID]=KA&Label[TransmissionID]=6MT&Label[SectionID]=ENGINE&Label[IllustrationGroupID]=VALVE+-+ROCKER+ARM+%28FR.%29+%28V6%29&ProductID=5&YearID=40&DoorID=1&GradeID=634&AreaID=2&TransmissionID=8&SectionID=1&IllustrationGroupID=16604

I know pic not shown so here link to Odyssey EX which uses vtec, non VCM 3.5 (same config as MT on valvetrain, but detuned version)

https://www.hondapartsdeals.com/hpa_parts_list.php?vin=&Label[ProductID]=ODYSSEY&Label[YearID]=2009&Label[DoorID]=5&Label[GradeID]=EX&Label[AreaID]=KA&Label[TransmissionID]=5AT&Label[SectionID]=ENGINE&Label[IllustrationGroupID]=VALVE+-+ROCKER+ARM+%28FR.%29+%281%29&ProductID=11&YearID=40&DoorID=3&GradeID=8&AreaID=2&TransmissionID=7&SectionID=1&IllustrationGroupID=13319

Here info from honda and you see only the MT6 has vtec specs (it shows how rockers work on vcm too and there no low/high cam profiles)

http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=4106

outersquare

01-26-2010, 10:29 AM

i know this is an old thread but CA speedway is not a particularly friendly track, it has 1000+ ft elevation and the temperature is often hot.

times at that strip are not comparable to any magazine numbers.

randyb

03-09-2010, 07:44 PM

i am not positive what the elevation in rogersville, mo but the elevation here in waynesville is ~1000 ft and the temp in july was ~80 and i still bettered the magazine times, and thats without the formula magazines use to equal out the altitude and temp when they test.

30196

Sylv

03-09-2010, 08:08 PM

California Speedway has an elevation of 1121 feet. (Googled that one)

I know why I did such a horrible time. I went there recently with a couple of friends when the exhaust wasn't finished (Didn't run because of this).

I talked to about 5 people about this and they all said the same thing. You have to subtract 0.4 seconds off each time to get a good 1/4 mile time, because of the humidity/temp/elevation. (I did not tell them my time, so don't get the idea that they think my 15.9 should have been the avg 15.5). As much as it was 15.9, I know it could have been 15.6 at least or below. The single exit exhaust was good, but slightly restrictive because i had too small of piping the true dual with an X pipe is a lot better, as well as the intake I have atm was only at its short ram version, so i did not get any air sort of good air into the engine. I may go back one more time to see what the time is, but not any time soon. Hell the true dual isn't finished because I need to fix the downpipe, and I know exactly what im going to do to fix that.

Baldeagle

03-10-2010, 02:52 AM

For perspective, an extra 400 pounds on a 3,500 pound car is an 11% increase in weight. To maintain the same horsepower to weight ratio your car would need an additional 30 hp (almost 300 crank hp in total). Like others have said, your VCM 3.5-liter engine has poor low end torque and may be much more susceptible to losing acceleration due to increased weight than other cars.

Edaccord08

03-10-2010, 04:58 AM