From vtec.net

http://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=876086&page_number=1#876068

Okay here's the difference between the J35Z2 (VCM) and J35Z3.

J35Z3 has a "mild" VTEC system that operates on the intake only. Each of the two intake valves in a cylinder have different cam profiles, one "mild" and one "wild", for lack of better terms. At higher RPM, the two rocker arms lock together, forcing the "mild" rocker arm to transmit the "wild" profile to its valve.

The J35Z2, or VCM version, uses a VTEC-like system of oil pressure, sliding pistons and return springs, but that's where the similarities to VTEC end.

In cylinders 1 thru 4, each intake and exhaust rocker arm is halved, with the natural position being that the halves are locked together, making one good working rocker arm. When in VCM mode, the two halves separate, the valves are therefore no longer connected to the camshaft, and the cylinder is "off".

Unlike the Z3, the cam profiles for each intake valve in a given cylinder of the z2 are identical, just as they would be in a non-VTEC engine!

In summary, the low to mid-range torque benefits of having some swirl and the more aggressive secondary lobe of the Z3 engine explains why it outperforms the Z2 by such a wide margin.

Interestingly, the intake lobes in the Z2 have considerably more lift than the "primary" intake lobes of the Z3; nearly as much lift in fact as the "secondary" (VTEC) lobe.

Z2 intake lobe: 1.3965"
Z3 "primary" lobe: 1.3504"
Z3 "secondary" lobe: 1.4024"

Exhaust lift is identical for both engines. Sadly, I can't find any cam duration data...

Or, in layman's terms: THE VCM ENGINE DOES NOT HAVE VTEC!!!

The 6mt is the only one with VTEC. The auto V6's have VCM and i-VTEC, and the i4's (manual and auto) both have i-VTEC.

Or, in layman's terms: THE VCM ENGINE DOES NOT HAVE VTEC!!!
Is that news to you after 2 years :D?

lol I haven't owned this car for 2 yrs, just under a month actually. It still bothers me how weak this car feels for a 3.5L engine. In theory it should be quicker than the 7th gen based on the numbers..but it's almost exactly the same (comparing auto to auto of course). And as far as FE goes..look at the TSX V6 and drop 5hp and 5ft lb for premium and there is still a substantial difference yet the FE difference is what 1city/2hwy. It makes less and less sense considering it would be cheaper for honda to just build one 3.5L V6, with 2 different ecu tunes, one for the TSX v6 and base TL using premium, and one for the accords with regular fuel.

lol I haven't owned this car for 2 yrs, just under a month actually. It still bothers me how weak this car feels for a 3.5L engine. In theory it should be quicker than the 7th gen based on the numbers..but it's almost exactly the same (comparing auto to auto of course). And as far as FE goes..look at the TSX V6 and drop 5hp and 5ft lb for premium and there is still a substantial difference yet the FE difference is what 1city/2hwy. It makes less and less sense considering it would be cheaper for honda to just build one 3.5L V6, with 2 different ecu tunes, one for the TSX v6 and base TL using premium, and one for the accords with regular fuel.


I beg to differ. If you kick the RPM's up on the VCM V6 by laying your right foot into the gas pedal. The car takes off and shows the 271 HP under the hood. I just came out of a 3.5 L '08 Maxima and initially felt the same as you. That is until I learned how to get this motor to kick.

Try it.........:biggrin:

well my problem is really that the low to mids are very weak for a 3.5L..I'm comparing to my 3.5L 02 odyssey which is much heavier..and an 05TL which has a 3.2L. The top end is definitely less in the case of the latter. I tried an 07 TL-S and there is a considerable difference on the top end (yes I realize there is a 20hp difference). But its really the low to mid range area and around town when it annoys me going into vcm and then not having enough juice to maintain thus dropping out of vcm and then going back in etc.

well my problem is really that the low to mids are very weak for a 3.5L..I'm comparing to my 3.5L 02 odyssey which is much heavier..and an 05TL which has a 3.2L. The top end is definitely less in the case of the latter. I tried an 07 TL-S and there is a considerable difference on the top end (yes I realize there is a 20hp difference). But its really the low to mid range area and around town when it annoys me going into vcm and then not having enough juice to maintain thus dropping out of vcm and then going back in etc.

Maybe it's because you haven't owned the car long time yet. I used to pay much attention to that Eco light. Not anymore. I just drive it normally. But I know what you mean. I also notice lack of oomph at certain speeds and RPM. However, I've learned to anticipate and not expect instantaneous thrust.

well my problem is really that the low to mids are very weak for a 3.5L..I'm comparing to my 3.5L 02 odyssey which is much heavier..and an 05TL which has a 3.2L. The top end is definitely less in the case of the latter. I tried an 07 TL-S and there is a considerable difference on the top end (yes I realize there is a 20hp difference). But its really the low to mid range area and around town when it annoys me going into vcm and then not having enough juice to maintain thus dropping out of vcm and then going back in etc.

I will put my flame suit on and prepare for the fire.

I drove the '08-'09 VCM Sedans. Passed on them both times.

Then I drove the 2010 and purchased one.

Honda has made some changes.

While it still may not have the low end grunt you desire. The going into and out of VCM and it being perceptible is HISTORY.

Peace......

I really should go back and try the 2010 to see the difference, both the VCM op and the 5AT, I'm betting there was a change but Honda won't admit to it and it probably is a large difference which is why the service manager insisted that I not try it.

I really should go back and try the 2010 to see the difference, both the VCM op and the 5AT, I'm betting there was a change but Honda won't admit to it and it probably is a large difference which is why the service manager insisted that I not try it.

While its an old dog, I bet you'd have some fun driving my '97 Bonneville. :D That car has some serious low end pull for a 205 HP push rod dinosaur.

Edit: In the winter I run 93 OCT in the Bonn. but only get 14-16 MPG. Summer 18-19 on Reg.

If Honda did make the change, it's mostly likely software related which should allow 08 and 09's to be updated.

that makes the most sense to me..but they're playing it very close to the chest..releasing a recall or TSB for that would probably be too much of an admission for them.

It's too bad I can't just flash it myself..like flashing new bios for a computer lol. (We are of course under the assumption that the physical parts are the same).

that makes the most sense to me..but they're playing it very close to the chest..releasing a recall or TSB for that would probably be too much of an admission for them.

It's too bad I can't just flash it myself..like flashing new bios for a computer lol. (We are of course under the assumption that the physical parts are the same).

It wouldn't require any recall or TSB as it's not really a defect. It's just an improvement so dealers should just reflash/update when customers come in for regular maintenance.

Of course, this is all based on the assumption Honda did make changes, which I personally doubt it (since VCM is an old and proven technology Honda's been using for years).

Maybe it's because you haven't owned the car long time yet. I used to pay much attention to that Eco light. Not anymore. I just drive it normally. But I know what you mean. I also notice lack of oomph at certain speeds and RPM. However, I've learned to anticipate and not expect instantaneous thrust.

Yeah, one thing I can tell you is that the V6 manual accord has instant torque. There is no need to anticipate it like x-mas presents, its just instant response to your right foot. :wave:

Wait a minute now and correct me if I'm wrong but VCM was first implemented as a 3/6 deactivation system. Now it is 3/4/6 and therefore is a new version of "old proven technology".

Yeah, one thing I can tell you is that the V6 manual accord has instant torque. There is no need to anticipate it like x-mas presents, its just instant response to your right foot. :wave:

Bro, are you stalking me now? :lmao:

No car has INSTANTANEOUS TQ, especially a car with less than 230 TQ like your 6-6. Also, you'd have to drive the 6-6 like you stole it to keep it in the sweet powerband if you want close to instant TQ. My friends 335i coupe 6 speed with 300 TQ (at WAY lower RPM than accord) still doesn't feel like it's instant (although much better han any accord).

yeah..the auto 335i I drove sort of had 2 mini explosions..one at about 2.5k and another at 4k. Not very linear IMO but lots of torque either way.

Bro, are you stalking me now? :lmao:

No car has INSTANTANEOUS TQ, especially a car with less than 230 TQ like your 6-6. Also, you'd have to drive the 6-6 like you stole it to keep it in the sweet powerband if you want close to instant TQ. My friends 335i coupe 6 speed with 300 TQ (at WAY lower RPM than accord) still doesn't feel like it's instant (although much better han any accord).

What about electric cars? Their torque is instant and constant.

It's a trade off for the six cylinder motors... the 6/6 has the true "old skool" VTEC, but VCM motors get better gas mileage. So you kinda have a choice...power + MT, or efficiency + AT

Just remember that for next time. A/T is for women and pu$$ies. :naughty:

Just kidding...sorta. Settle down... have a laugh. :D

Bro, are you stalking me now? :lmao:

No car has INSTANTANEOUS TQ, especially a car with less than 230 TQ like your 6-6. Also, you'd have to drive the 6-6 like you stole it to keep it in the sweet powerband if you want close to instant TQ. My friends 335i coupe 6 speed with 300 TQ (at WAY lower RPM than accord) still doesn't feel like it's instant (although much better han any accord).

I can’t believe the debate between you guys continue to go on. But since it is a fun conversation that is fun to debate I will chime in again. I have to respectfully disagree with you millennium. My Accord 6-6 has virtually instant torque off the line, and my legacy gt before definitely had instant at any part of the power band after 3300rpm if I stomped on it. If someone said ‘no car has instantaneous tq’ I would say to that owner you’ve never driven a car with power.

A big reason I bought the Accord 6-6 was because of how much torque it has off the line or any time I drop my car down to an appropriate gear the Accord is ready to go. It does not require me to drive it in a harsh manner either, if I’m giving the car 75% throttle or more in the appropriate gear the car has solid power. I did not drive the auto accord prior to purchasing mine, so I can’t chime in on its driving response first hand. But based on this thread and others I’ve seen, the VCM in culmination with poor auto tranny which loses significant power to the wheels appears to create a lethargic driving experience in terms of power for the Auto Accord.

so having the at or mt is what difference?

so having the at or mt is what difference?

1. Different Engine
2. Different Transmission
3. Different (better) overall feel in the 6mt variant of the car.

the transmission should've been the only difference. Seeing as Acura got 27hwy using premium on the TSX V6, I'm betting the Accord could've achieved the same hwy number with some gearing magic while using the true VTEC engine.

Vtec.net had them timed at 5.9 for the 6-6, 6.1 the TSX V6, and 7.2 for the auto. While 0-60 is not the be all end all of tests it shows the drastic difference in power between VCM and non. Seeing as the Accord is about 100lbs lighter than the TSX, even if using regular fuel it would, in theory, have been able to cut the same 0-60 time of 6.1 if using the traditional vtec engine. The extra power would also help around town since the extra low end tq allows you to stay in higher gear longer.

I can’t believe the debate between you guys continue to go on. But since it is a fun conversation that is fun to debate I will chime in again. I have to respectfully disagree with you millennium. My Accord 6-6 has virtually instant torque off the line, and my legacy gt before definitely had instant at any part of the power band after 3300rpm if I stomped on it. If someone said ‘no car has instantaneous tq’ I would say to that owner you’ve never driven a car with power.

A big reason I bought the Accord 6-6 was because of how much torque it has off the line or any time I drop my car down to an appropriate gear the Accord is ready to go. It does not require me to drive it in a harsh manner either, if I’m giving the car 75% throttle or more in the appropriate gear the car has solid power. I did not drive the auto accord prior to purchasing mine, so I can’t chime in on its driving response first hand. But based on this thread and others I’ve seen, the VCM in culmination with poor auto tranny which loses significant power to the wheels appears to create a lethargic driving experience in terms of power for the Auto Accord.

Well said. As long as the debate stays civil, I'm all for it. After all, isn't that and sharing of information the main purpose of these forums?

This debate may have gotten off topic a little but the original point I was trying to make was that a 'MOD' on a car is not always done for performance enhancement in the sense of speed. To me, a 'MOD' can be anything that can increase owner's satisfaction. A nice stereo set up is not going to give you more HP but it makes driving the car more enjoyable. Same thing with a nice sounding exhaust. Therefore, for someone to say putting an aftermarket exhaust on accord v6 is not warranted simply because it's an auto is down right argumentative and baseless.

This discussion may seem like a debate on which is better but it's not. 6-6 has it's own many advantages while auto has it's place. If getting the most bang for my buck and buying the fastest car possible was my objective, I would not have looked at a honda in the first place.

I am still struggling to understand the disturbing of that original post.

the point the post was that honda decided that AT owners of the V6 would sacrifice a considerable amount of low end and mid range torque for what are essentially marginal gains in hwy mileage (+2mpg)

http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/855587/tsx_vs_accord_v6.gif

even if you subtract 5hp/5ft-lb for premium used in the tsx, there is a solid 20-25hp/ft-lb lost throughout the power band, with the largest differentials at the top end (and low end which isn't displayable)

the point the post was that honda decided that AT owners of the V6 would sacrifice a considerable amount of low end and mid range torque for what are essentially marginal gains in hwy mileage (+2mpg)

http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/855587/tsx_vs_accord_v6.gif

even if you subtract 5hp/5ft-lb for premium used in the tsx, there is a solid 20-25hp/ft-lb lost throughout the power band, with the largest differentials at the top end (and low end which isn't displayable)

Here's an idea. If you or anyone else want to squeeze the maximum performance out of our VCM v6's, pump premium fuel and you'll most likely gain few more HP and TQ.

Here's an idea. If you or anyone else want to squeeze the maximum performance out of our VCM v6's, pump premium fuel and you'll most likely gain few more HP and TQ.

I understand why you would suggest something like that, but I'll be the first one to say that in this particular case, there is very little, if anything to be gained by filling up with premium (93+ octane) fuel. I tried this on my car, with 0 change. I realize that it take the engine some time to adjust, but I did approximate 320 miles on premium fuel and didn't feel any difference in comparison to regular (87 Octane). Even with the benefit of doubt that premium fuel boosts performance by 3-4%, that kind of performance gain will not be felt by the seat of the pants dyno in regular, day to day commute. Conversely, running a car on regular when it requires premium does decrease the performance enough to feel it, based on my experience with a 2003 Nissan Pathfinder.

Wait a minute now and correct me if I'm wrong but VCM was first implemented as a 3/6 deactivation system. Now it is 3/4/6 and therefore is a new version of "old proven technology".

Ha ha, the early model caddies had 8-6-4 YEARS ago, so all of the VCM motors are old technology. :thmsup:

the point the post was that honda decided that AT owners of the V6 would sacrifice a considerable amount of low end and mid range torque for what are essentially marginal gains in hwy mileage (+2mpg)

http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/855587/tsx_vs_accord_v6.gif

even if you subtract 5hp/5ft-lb for premium used in the tsx, there is a solid 20-25hp/ft-lb lost throughout the power band, with the largest differentials at the top end (and low end which isn't displayable)

In hindsight, what should of happened was Honda putting the J35Z3 into the Auto accord. Gearing it a little lower, so that 65mph would be at around 2,100 rpms and 80mph @ 2400-2500 rpm and fuel economy would be the same as VCM engine provides. That way, if you need power, punch it and you got it and if you are just cruising around, you'll have enough low end grunt to not have the need to use much throttle. IMO, VCM and its use in a Honda is a gimmick. On the other hand, VCM is a good idea for heavy duty trucks with large engines (V8, V10) because when they are unloaded and cruising on the highway, there is no need to supply fuel to all 8 or 10 cylinders.

Here's an idea. If you or anyone else want to squeeze the maximum performance out of our VCM v6's, pump premium fuel and you'll most likely gain few more HP and TQ.

the point is that premium isn't the fix here. At best you will get 5hp at the top end. The post from vtec.net essentially is a downer because it means even an ecu change cannot make up for the 20hp/20tq lost throughout the power band.

In hindsight, what should of happened was Honda putting the J35Z3 into the Auto accord. Gearing it a little lower, so that 65mph would be at around 2,100 rpms and 80mph @ 2400-2500 rpm and fuel economy would be the same as VCM engine provides. That way, if you need power, punch it and you got it and if you are just cruising around, you'll have enough low end grunt to not have the need to use much throttle. IMO, VCM and its use in a Honda is a gimmick. On the other hand, VCM is a good idea for heavy duty trucks with large engines (V8, V10) because when they are unloaded and cruising on the highway, there is no need to supply fuel to all 8 or 10 cylinders.


This thread is ridiculous.

Go drive a broken in 2010 Accord V6 Sedan filled with 87 octane fuel. Only a pussy doesn't have the experience to make this car fly. It has 271 HP and if you can't find it well.........:tongue:

I do now, and always will regret buying an auto in this car.

Thought if I wanted to row I'd hop in my s2000 or prelude for the day...

I love my accord. its comfortable. awesome for long trips but sometimes I just wanna play on my way home from work...

its okay I just open the windows, hit cruise control, watch the ECO light turn on, hit the tunes and chill....

I think every one needs to realize that most people are getting one of these cars just to move around without any care about performance. They don't care how fast it gets to 60. They don't know what VCM is or how it works. They may not even know it's a V6 under the hood.

Honda knows this. And they figure give the performance oriented V6 to the people that get the 6MT because obviously they do care a bit more performance and a more exciting car to drive. Maybe they could have offered the both V6s for the auto but in the end that probably just complicates things more.


Go drive a broken in 2010 Accord V6 Sedan filled with 87 octane fuel. Only a pussy doesn't have the experience to make this car fly. It has 271 HP and if you can't find it well.........:tongue:

It may have that at the crank but power at the wheels is ultimately what matters. The auto is down a good 20HP / 20 lb/ft or so. Hell, I saw dyno proof on this forum of somebody getting 200 HP at the wheels with the auto. The best I have seen is 215 I think. Yet every 6-6 dyno I have seen is at least 240. But it's all relative. I'm sure if I had jumped in the auto V6 I would have thought it was pretty damn quick compared to my old Cavalier.

unreal,

I do now, and always will regret buying an auto in this car.

Thought if I wanted to row I'd hop in my s2000 or prelude for the day...

I love my accord. its comfortable. awesome for long trips but sometimes I just wanna play on my way home from work...

its okay I just open the windows, hit cruise control, watch the ECO light turn on, hit the tunes and chill....

This is the best.. This is how i roll...

To add to that

AND JUST WATCH PEOPLES HEAD TURN/NECKS SNAP

unreal,

How so? Nothing is being said that isn't true. They are just different cars for different purposes. Neither is better. The auto V6 is quick for what it is but the key phrase here is "for what it is." What it is is Honda's attempt at squeezing 4 cylinder mileage out of a V6 combined with a power ****ing auto tranny. There's no such thing as a good level of performance and economy.

I do now, and always will regret buying an auto in this car.

Thought if I wanted to row I'd hop in my s2000 or prelude for the day...

I love my accord. its comfortable. awesome for long trips but sometimes I just wanna play on my way home from work...

its okay I just open the windows, hit cruise control, watch the ECO light turn on, hit the tunes and chill....

My thoughts exactly, minus having a prelude lol. For me the 6-6 was nearly impossible to find with what I wanted without having to order one which I hate doing.

In hindsight, what should of happened was Honda putting the J35Z3 into the Auto accord. Gearing it a little lower, so that 65mph would be at around 2,100 rpms and 80mph @ 2400-2500 rpm and fuel economy would be the same as VCM engine provides. That way, if you need power, punch it and you got it and if you are just cruising around, you'll have enough low end grunt to not have the need to use much throttle. IMO, VCM and its use in a Honda is a gimmick. On the other hand, VCM is a good idea for heavy duty trucks with large engines (V8, V10) because when they are unloaded and cruising on the highway, there is no need to supply fuel to all 8 or 10 cylinders.

right, VCM should of been a option, or trim option . Not make all 5AT with VCM. If you look a Honda Odyssey only the EX L has the VCM .

For those that don't realize Honda can't do both , its either VTEC on intake as in ^MT or its VCM . you can only use the rockers either or .

I will put my flame suit on and prepare for the fire.

I drove the '08-'09 VCM Sedans. Passed on them both times.

Then I drove the 2010 and purchased one.

Honda has made some changes.

While it still may not have the low end grunt you desire. The going into and out of VCM and it being perceptible is HISTORY.

Peace......

VCM is imperceptible on my 08. :dunno: The 2010 I drove felt no different to my 2008.

I would never spend the money on the v6 unless it was the 6-6.

VCM is imperceptible on my 08. :dunno: The 2010 I drove felt no different to my 2008.

I've noticed that the weird slow 2-3 shift happens when I grandma the car. With med throttle 1-2, 2-3, and 3-4 shift as they should. When you tried the 2010 did you try different levels of throttle?

not VCM related, but I found a TSB on the whine I noticed between 2-3000 rpm.
http://mordor.rutgers.edu/accord/tsb/08-09%20engine%20whine%2009-084.pdf

I've noticed that the weird slow 2-3 shift happens when I grandma the car. With med throttle 1-2, 2-3, and 3-4 shift as they should. When you tried the 2010 did you try different levels of throttle?

not VCM related, but I found a TSB on the whine I noticed between 2-3000 rpm.
http://mordor.rutgers.edu/accord/tsb/08-09%20engine%20whine%2009-084.pdf

Interesting. I haven't noticed any whine on mine.

I would never spend the money on the v6 unless it was the 6-6.

:thmsup:

I do now, and always will regret buying an auto in this car.

Thought if I wanted to row I'd hop in my s2000 or prelude for the day...

I love my accord. its comfortable. awesome for long trips but sometimes I just wanna play on my way home from work...

its okay I just open the windows, hit cruise control, watch the ECO light turn on, hit the tunes and chill....

Amen to that. I always told myself i would never own a auto car but this time around i guess things are different. The accords have plenty of power and it's nice as you mentioned to hit the cruise control, watch the eco light turn on and chill :thmsup:

This is the best.. This is how i roll...

To add to that

AND JUST WATCH PEOPLES HEAD TURN/NECKS SNAP

Wish i could say that one . . . . . my car is stock for now but maybe with your help it won't be LoL.

This thread is ridiculous.

Go drive a broken in 2010 Accord V6 Sedan filled with 87 octane fuel. Only a pussy doesn't have the experience to make this car fly. It has 271 HP and if you can't find it well.........:tongue:

+1

If I wanted real performance, the Honda Accord in ANY variation would not have been on the long list..Much ado about nothing..

In summary, the low to mid-range torque benefits of having some swirl and the more aggressive secondary lobe of the Z3 engine explains why it outperforms the Z2 by such a wide margin.




No mention of the approx 25+ extra hp atw due to the tranny? And how are they measuring 'performance' , just 0-60? I could care less what this article says. In the power band, the car has more than enough power for the road, great throttle response and if I wanted a performance sedan as a priority, I wouldn't have gotten a honda.

the point the post was that honda decided that AT owners of the V6 would sacrifice a considerable amount of low end and mid range torque for what are essentially marginal gains in hwy mileage (+2mpg)

http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/855587/tsx_vs_accord_v6.gif

even if you subtract 5hp/5ft-lb for premium used in the tsx, there is a solid 20-25hp/ft-lb lost throughout the power band, with the largest differentials at the top end (and low end which isn't displayable)

I don't think the vcm engine is sacrificing much low end and mid range torque. People might think that way with off the line acceleration because the auto tranny often starts in second gear rather than 1st gear. If you floor the gas, you do feel better get go.

The other reason MT drivers feel more torque is due to the way you can modulate the clutch. Having driven a stick shift for past 1.5 years, I know that if you rev the engine and release the clutch quickly, there's that sudden grabbing sensation with a good launch.

That's the whole point of driving stick - you control when and how to shift the gears for the desired effect. To me, the AT and MT V6 Accords feel different simply because of the transmissions. VCM v non-VCM makes very little difference.

When I drove the MT V6, I had a different mindset. When driving the AT, my mindset is that I'm more calm, like driving a luxury car. I'm not expecting to be excited. Of course, if I were to floor the gas each time, the AT car would provide some excitement too, but it's different from driving stick.

I think people here are over analyzing the VCM difference, and inflating the power difference.

Here's an idea. If you or anyone else want to squeeze the maximum performance out of our VCM v6's, pump premium fuel and you'll most likely gain few more HP and TQ.

I don't think you'll find any difference. This engine is not designed to take advantage of higher octane gas.

. To me, the AT and MT V6 Accords feel different simply because of the transmissions. VCM v non-VCM makes very little difference.


I think people here are over analyzing the VCM difference, and inflating the power difference.


x 2 !

I've noticed that the weird slow 2-3 shift happens when I grandma the car. With med throttle 1-2, 2-3, and 3-4 shift as they should. When you tried the 2010 did you try different levels of throttle?

/tsb/08-09%20engine%20whine%2009-084.pdf[/url]

Yes.

Interesting. I haven't noticed any whine on mine.

Me neither

I don't think you'll find any difference. This engine is not designed to take advantage of higher octane gas.

I've tried both 87 and 93 and there's no difference.

Amen to that. I always told myself i would never own a auto car but this time around i guess things are different. The accords have plenty of power and it's nice as you mentioned to hit the cruise control, watch the eco light turn on and chill :thmsup:



Wish i could say that one . . . . . my car is stock for now but maybe with your help it won't be LoL.

gotta say the looks i get in this car is awesome... its a hard thing to pull off in south florida with M3's and Porsches everywhere... most people that give me props even on the high way... its clear they dont relize its an accord or they at least have to figure it out... but its not easily recognizable as an accord...

Just the other day got props from a dude in a new bodystlye GTO i'm like wha?? props from an american muscle dude??? trueeee lol.... this was at 70mph on I-595, dude rolled his window down just to give a thumbs up....

not to say this couldnt' happen with a 6-6... but just saying i think thats what i enjoy the most with this car-- all the props... and enjoying the ride...

That said, the weather in south fla is awesome right now... so i'm thinking all next week the s2000 will come out to play :) just hope i remember how to drive stick at this point lol -- the only time that car has come out of the garage in the last 2 months was for me to bring the prelude(s) inside to work on them.

^^^Your car is extraordinary man so you don't count LOL just kidding. I was pumping gas today on my way to work and these two people came up to me and were like "Thats a really nice Honda" & asked if it was fast. i told them it was pretty quick for what it was and that it was a 6speed. & there eyes just lit up saying "its a stick" I just chuckled and said yea. My car on the outside is all stock except 35% tint and 6000K HIDs. I always get compliments on it. This March will be even better when I put on the new wheels sleeping n my basement, drop, and exhaust.

On a side note why are you selling the coilovers and the wheels?

On a side note why are you selling the coilovers and the wheels?

http://smiliesftw.com/x/secret.gif (http://smiliesftw.com) you'lll seeeee :naughty:

No mention of the approx 25+ extra hp atw due to the tranny? And how are they measuring 'performance' , just 0-60? I could care less what this article says. In the power band, the car has more than enough power for the road, great throttle response and if I wanted a performance sedan as a priority, I wouldn't have gotten a honda.

lol its not "an article" its straight out of the published service manual. They measured the difference on a dyno so it wasn't just 0-60, that just happens to be the easiest way to compare. If you look off the acura and honda websites the gear ratios for the 5AT are also nearly the same leaving VCM as the only difference to be factored. The dyno chart I posted earlier shows a significant difference across the entire powerband. I hope no one here will try to suggest that the acura's premium fuel is responsible for 20-30hp/tq across the band, at best it contributes 5hp/tq throughout. My point is that quite a few loyal honda owners have been put off by this VCM that would only show real gains for people whose commutes are mostly highway 55+ sustained. For the rest of us without pure hwy commutes where the speed can vary widely it is somewhat noticeable without any real gains, in addition to having extra tsbs dedicated to VCM, and its interaction with the transmission.

I think it would be a good idea for us to jump on over to the 7th gen forum and see what the real world mpg people are getting there with their v6 auto's. And then we compare that to real world mpg of the 8th gen v6 auto. And then we factor in real world performance figures like acceleration from 30 to 50 and 40 to 60, and maybe throw in the 1/4 mile for fun. That way we can see what as better 3.0 V6 and no VCM or 3.5 V6 w/ VCM.

lol its not "an article" its straight out of the published service manual. They measured the difference on a dyno so it wasn't just 0-60, that just happens to be the easiest way to compare. If you look off the acura and honda websites the gear ratios for the 5AT are also nearly the same leaving VCM as the only difference to be factored. The dyno chart I posted earlier shows a significant difference across the entire powerband. I hope no one here will try to suggest that the acura's premium fuel is responsible for 20-30hp/tq across the band, at best it contributes 5hp/tq throughout. My point is that quite a few loyal honda owners have been put off by this VCM that would only show real gains for people whose commutes are mostly highway 55+ sustained. For the rest of us without pure hwy commutes where the speed can vary widely it is somewhat noticeable without any real gains, in addition to having extra tsbs dedicated to VCM, and its interaction with the transmission.


I was referring to the "in summary..."" bit ... I can guess that wasn't from the service manual, but the posters own words.

On Acuras site it says the TSX is rated at 280hp, but listed premium , which can easily account for the 8hp difference rated.

The gas isnt the reason its a more powerful motor, the higer compression ratio of the motors is the reason for more power. Its the same motor that was in the 3rd gen TL Type S but detuned to make 280HP instead of 286HP. They could have easily made 290HP of the engine with the compression ratio those "premium fuel" motors have.

hmm L's TLS, I hadn't considered that before:

Sedan V6 VCM 10.5:1
TSX V6 11.2:1 (identical engine to 4th gen base TL)
Coupe V6 VTEC 10:1

Honda's V6 with 271 hp is the most responsive car motor I have ever driven. Also the smoothest too. Quiet, yet with a hint of power tone from the mufflers and intake. You just have to drive it hard and then you will understand.

It's a trade off for the six cylinder motors... the 6/6 has the true "old skool" VTEC, but VCM motors get better gas mileage. So you kinda have a choice...power + MT, or efficiency + AT

Just remember that for next time. A/T is for women and pu$$ies. :naughty:

Just kidding...sorta. Settle down... have a laugh. :D


You bought a faux sports car and you're bragging about being manly? The very first 8th gen coupe i saw on the road was driven by a 40-something year old woman.

Honda's V6 with 271 hp is the most responsive car motor I have ever driven. Also the smoothest too. Quiet, yet with a hint of power tone from the mufflers and intake. You just have to drive it hard and then you will understand.

Yesterday a G37 Sedan pulled up to me at the light and I though he wanted to give it a go and sure enough he did. I gave him the jump off the line and contrary to what we have read from some on this bored about the lowly VCM motor. In short order I was a 1/4 car length ahead and from there just backed off and let him go.

Curious, I looked up the specs for the G37 Sedan with the venerable "Q" motor:

Horsepower 328 hp @ 7,000 rpm

Torque 269 lb-ft @ 5,200 rpm


Honda iVTE VCM

Horsepower 271 hp @ 6,200 rpm

Torque 254lb-ft @ 5,000 rpm


As you can see, the Honda motor delivers peak HP and torque at a lower RPM.

So to the OP, I know the Honda iVtec V6 VCM Sedan is fast and not "compared to a Chevy Cavalier".

And I say BS, that this motor Dyno's at 200-215 HP

I've owned and driven lots of cars.

This 271 HP Auto from Honda is Fast.

End of rant.

You bought a faux sports car and you're bragging about being manly? The very first 8th gen coupe i saw on the road was driven by a 40-something year old woman.

Where did he say anything about an Accord? He just said A/T.



And I say BS, that this motor Dyno's at 200-215 HP


http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showthread.php?t=26804
http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showthread.php?t=32548
http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showthread.php?t=27350

Use the search function and you will find more. Numbers don't lie.

Yesterday a G37 Sedan pulled up to me at the light and I though he wanted to give it a go and sure enough he did. I gave him the jump off the line and contrary to what we have read from some on this bored about the lowly VCM motor. In short order I was a 1/4 car length ahead and from there just backed off and let him go.

Curious, I looked up the specs for the G37 Sedan with the venerable "Q" motor:

Horsepower 328 hp @ 7,000 rpm

Torque 269 lb-ft @ 5,200 rpm


Honda iVTE VCM

Horsepower 271 hp @ 6,200 rpm

Torque 254lb-ft @ 5,000 rpm


As you can see, the Honda motor delivers peak HP and torque at a lower RPM.

So to the OP, I know the Honda iVtec V6 VCM Sedan is fast and not "compared to a Chevy Cavalier".

And I say BS, that this motor Dyno's at 200-215 HP

I've owned and driven lots of cars.

This 271 HP Auto from Honda is Fast.

End of rant.

Impressive. Unexpected. A few possibilities:

1. the g37 wasn't really racing you.
2. g37 was stick shift, and driver ****ed at shifting
3. the V6 Accord was really faster than that particular G37 (the least likely scenario)

lol there is no way you could have beaten the G37 if he was trying at all, 0-60 they're at least a second faster..same with the 5-60. The accord V6 VCM is no slug but lets not be delirious about its performance..even the vtec V6/6sp would have to try pretty hard just to match the auto G37

Where did he say anything about an Accord? He just said A/T.



You missed the point.

He "sorta" said those who drive A/T's are women or [expl.] which implies that real men drive a stick. He drives a stick and obviously came to the conclusion that it makes him more manly. However, the fact that he's driving a FWD coupe makes it less Manly and more middle-aged-womanly. So they sorta cancel each other out.


Just kidding of course. Sorta.

Yesterday a G37 Sedan pulled up to me at the light and I though he wanted to give it a go and sure enough he did. I gave him the jump off the line and contrary to what we have read from some on this bored about the lowly VCM motor. In short order I was a 1/4 car length ahead and from there just backed off and let him go.

Curious, I looked up the specs for the G37 Sedan with the venerable "Q" motor:

Horsepower 328 hp @ 7,000 rpm

Torque 269 lb-ft @ 5,200 rpm


Honda iVTE VCM

Horsepower 271 hp @ 6,200 rpm

Torque 254lb-ft @ 5,000 rpm


As you can see, the Honda motor delivers peak HP and torque at a lower RPM.

So to the OP, I know the Honda iVtec V6 VCM Sedan is fast and not "compared to a Chevy Cavalier".

And I say BS, that this motor Dyno's at 200-215 HP

I've owned and driven lots of cars.

This 271 HP Auto from Honda is Fast.

End of rant.

Street racing is dumb. If you choose to do it, at least don't talk about it. Furthermore was this a G37x or a plain G37. If it was a G37x, this story is believable, if it was a plain G37, the driver of the G37 wasn't into this "race" as much as you were, because the G37 is definitely stronger then the Auto V6.

You missed the point.

He "sorta" said those who drive A/T's are women or [expl.] which implies that real men drive a stick. He drives a stick and obviously came to the conclusion that it makes him more manly. However, the fact that he's driving a FWD coupe makes it less Manly and more middle-aged-womanly. So they sorta cancel each other out.


Just kidding of course. Sorta.

HAve to agree here...Getting a stick in any Accord is like taking a 70 year old wife shopping at Victoria Secret.

However, the fact that he's driving a FWD coupe makes it less Manly and more middle-aged-womanly.

There are more FWD cars on the road than anything else. Gender has nothing to do with it. Are you a middle aged woman since you own an Accord?

HAve to agree here...Getting a stick in any Accord is like taking a 70 year old wife shopping at Victoria Secret.

You guys are throwing out everything you can to defend your purchase. This is just getting lame.

HAve to agree here...Getting a stick in any Accord is like taking a 70 year old wife shopping at Victoria Secret.

whoa kingfrog, you're missing out.
accords are pretty fun with stick.
you should try it for a while and see for yourself.

whoa kingfrog, you're missing out.
accords are pretty fun with stick.
you should try it for a while and see for yourself.


NAh...If I want to drive a stick and deal with the "work" in trafiic I want a car where it will make a major difference.

a real sport car not a heavy middle age family car.....

Street racing is dumb. If you choose to do it, at least don't talk about it. Furthermore was this a G37x or a plain G37. If it was a G37x, this story is believable, if it was a plain G37, the driver of the G37 wasn't into this "race" as much as you were, because the G37 is definitely stronger then the Auto V6.

It was an X.

I do not street race.

It was just a one off event, a sprint down the blvd. One 48 yr old man (me) vs another middle aged man.

Lastly, I can talk about whatever I want on this forum without your approval.

It was an X.

I do not street race.

It was just a one off event, a sprint down the blvd. One 48 yr old man (me) vs another middle aged man.

Lastly, I can talk about whatever I want on this forum without your approval.

Street Racing is retarded and I hardly doubt that was your only time ever doing it. While you can continue to be as incompetent as your actions and post incriminating evidence against yourself on the internet, where the comment will never go away and can always be used against you in court down the line or in your case possibly sooner than later. You can talk about whatever you want, but we can post our opinions on just how stupid your actions are.:thmsup:

Here's a good read about a guy recently in colorado who posted about street racing. Then there was an accident as a result of street racing reported by the news involving a car similiar in description to the deuche who posted about street racing. The police were looking for the guy who got away, long story short because he posted on the forum about street racing and he posted pics of his car which matched the description of the suspected car, he got busted.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1836823

Glad you're not worried about the police.

^And aside from all that, it's against forum rules.

It was an X.

I do not street race.

It was just a one off event, a sprint down the blvd. One 48 yr old man (me) vs another middle aged man.

Lastly, I can talk about whatever I want on this forum without your approval.



But you have to have my approval.

Street racing is an illegal activity and is not condoned by DriveAccord.net. Threads or posts that discuss street racing will be removed without notice

I never used the word race.

Feel free to delete whatever you chose to, including my membership.

I never used the word race.

Feel free to delete whatever you chose to, including my membership.

Your description clearly descibes a race as it was one 48 year old vs another middle aged man. I didn't realize there could be a head to head match up as you described without a competition, ie racing. I hate to rant myself, but it drives me crazy when people post about street racing online. You can go to the local track any time you want on a test and tune night and run your car all you want legally, there is zero reason to put innocent people at risk for your illegal fun.

Yesterday a G37 Sedan pulled up to me at the light and I though he wanted to give it a go and sure enough he did. I gave him the jump off the line and contrary to what we have read from some on this bored about the lowly VCM motor. In short order I was a 1/4 car length ahead and from there just backed off and let him go.


It was an X.

I do not street race.

It was just a one off event, a sprint down the blvd. One 48 yr old man (me) vs another middle aged man.


I never used the word race.

Feel free to delete whatever you chose to, including my membership.

I took something from the store and didn't pay for it, but I didn't steal it.

Personal attacks against forum members are against the rules.

Personal attacks against forum members are against the rules.

:lmao: I said your actions were incompetent and stupid and that a '48 year old' was racing, I didn't technically personally attack you. I have said my peace, back to thread topic.

Getting a stick in any Accord is like taking a 70 year old wife shopping at Victoria Secret.
Wrong. FYI, my 6-6 stick is more enjoyable to row than the 2-1/2 times more expensive M3 (notice I didn't say the car overall, but the stick itself). You should try one; it drives great, especially with my now countersunk '10 TL weighted knob. Good day.

And as far as the 'racing' rant, Reb is a mature guy (like many of us), and never said he raced the G37. Getting up to speed quickly and letting off is different than racing.

Wrong. FYI, my 6-6 stick is more enjoyable to row than the 2-1/2 times more expensive M3 (notice I didn't say the car overall, but the stick itself). You should try one; it drives great, especially with my now countersunk '10 TL weighted knob. Good day.

I am sure you enjoy the shifting.......Its just not for me on this car.

But then again if i could get an automatic on my V Star bike I would have it as well...I HATE all clutching....give me a set of paddles without a manual clutch, I am all over it.

I never used the word race.

Feel free to delete whatever you chose to, including my membership.

Please don't tempt us Mods with that defense.

Through direct actions you were accelerating at full power just as the other driver was to contest which car is faster, by definition you were racing regardless how you may perceive it differently yourself, it will never stand up in court as a defense for either one of you had the police been involved and charges laid.

And as noted already, what you did goes against the DA forum rules.

Personal attacks against forum members are against the rules.

I am inclined to think that TommyPenguin was stating the facts, but that's just me. :dunno:

Please don't tempt us Mods with that defense.

Through direct actions you were accelerating at full power just as the other driver was to contest which car is faster, by definition you were racing regardless how you may perceive it differently yourself, it will never stand up in court as a defense for either one of you had the police been involved and charges laid.

And as noted already, what you did goes against the DA forum rules.



I am inclined to think that TommyPenguin was stating the facts, but that's just me. :dunno:


I'm happy just to read the forum.

Please delete my membership.

I do not want to participate in a forum where one member can personally attack another.

And then the moderator decides that derogatory remarks written about me are factual.

And as far as the 'racing' rant, Reb is a mature guy (like many of us), and never said he raced the G37. Getting up to speed quickly and letting off is different than racing.


I would have to disagree with you on that statement. I just reread this entire thread to see why he even posted about the race. He was offended regarding the discussion about the performance differences between the auto and manual because he owns an auto. He was dumbfounded that starbai said he would prefer the manual. He then decided to go street race another car a day after he posted his disgust post and then he posted his street racing results to prove his point... I don't think there is anything mature about that.

ok guys..the whole point of this thread is that those of us who purchased (not necessarily prefer) an AT V6 are in actuality choosing a substantially weaker engine, by virtue of its economy vcm functions, etc. My problem is that honda advertises the the 6-6 and VCM as having the same hp/tq when that is far from the truth. There is a solid 20hp/20tq difference across the board even with MT vs AT losses factored in.

Wrong. FYI, my 6-6 stick is more enjoyable to row than the 2-1/2 times more expensive M3 (notice I didn't say the car overall, but the stick itself). You should try one; it drives great, especially with my now countersunk '10 TL weighted knob. Good day.

And as far as the 'racing' rant, Reb is a mature guy (like many of us), and never said he raced the G37. Getting up to speed quickly and letting off is different than racing.

If only an auto was a available in the Accord I'd never buy it. It's boring as hell.

ok guys..the whole point of this thread is that those of us who purchased (not necessarily prefer) an AT V6 are in actuality choosing a substantially weaker engine, by virtue of its economy vcm functions, etc. My problem is that honda advertises the the 6-6 and VCM as having the same hp/tq when that is far from the truth. There is a solid 20hp/20tq difference across the board even with MT vs AT losses factored in.

Well, it's not actually false advertising. I'm sure that at the crank, both engines make their advertised 271hp. But once you get to the nitty gritty of it with wheel horse power and actual torque to the wheels, its a different story. Personally, I would love it if cars were sold with their whp and actual torque to the wheels advertised. But I don't think its gonna happen.

Well, it's not actually false advertising. I'm sure that at the crank, both engines make their advertised 271hp. But once you get to the nitty gritty of it with wheel horse power and actual torque to the wheels, its a different story. Personally, I would love it if cars were sold with their whp and actual torque to the wheels advertised. But I don't think its gonna happen.

The problem is that at the crank, that statement is only true for the VTEC V6, as tested by vtec.net. I'm talking literally the 268hp and tq as stated per specs. The VCM one, even if they somehow mated it to an MT to eliminate the transmission variable, would show a 20hp difference throughout the range, but most notably at the peak, where the numbers come from. This isn't about whp, transmission differences or even ecu tuning coming into play. This is about the physical inability of the engine to hit the numbers as stated, even crank.

this thread is pretty entertaining!lol. i love my at v6 and am never dissapointed by the power(my coupe has only had premium fuel in it and dont understand why you would fuelit anything else)

I don't think the vcm engine is sacrificing much low end and mid range torque. People might think that way with off the line acceleration because the auto tranny often starts in second gear rather than 1st gear. If you floor the gas, you do feel better get go.

The other reason MT drivers feel more torque is due to the way you can modulate the clutch. Having driven a stick shift for past 1.5 years, I know that if you rev the engine and release the clutch quickly, there's that sudden grabbing sensation with a good launch.

That's the whole point of driving stick - you control when and how to shift the gears for the desired effect. To me, the AT and MT V6 Accords feel different simply because of the transmissions. VCM v non-VCM makes very little difference.

When I drove the MT V6, I had a different mindset. When driving the AT, my mindset is that I'm more calm, like driving a luxury car. I'm not expecting to be excited. Of course, if I were to floor the gas each time, the AT car would provide some excitement too, but it's different from driving stick.

I think people here are over analyzing the VCM difference, and inflating the power difference.


Why bother with V6?
Save $$ and buy L4 with proven high reving i-VTEC!

this thread is pretty entertaining!lol. i love my at v6 and am never dissapointed by the power(my coupe has only had premium fuel in it and dont understand why you would fuelit anything else)

Our cars our meant to run on regular gas. You won't see any benefit by running premium.

thats not what the manual tells u.......premium gas helps hp,mpg's and burns cleaner.

(i no longer have the option to quote ppl?)

It's proven running 93 octane gas increases HP and TQ by TOV. Whether the small increase is worth or even noticeable is another discussion.

I did notice a very pleasing improvement in throttle response when using premium, but none in fuel efficiency, so I reverted back to regular. Its true what next says, its been proven and even stated by honda engineer that its 'good for about 10 more hp'

There are more FWD cars on the road than anything else. Gender has nothing to do with it. Are you a middle aged woman since you own an Accord?



You guys are throwing out everything you can to defend your purchase. This is just getting lame.

You just don't get it. You can't call someone a p***y for driving an A/T when you yourself are driving a FAKE sports car. ie. FWD Coupe.

Do you know who else pretends to be something they are not? I'll give you a hint..

they wear makeup and push-up bras.

You just don't get it. You can't call someone a p***y for driving an A/T when you yourself are driving a FAKE sports car. ie. FWD Coupe.

Do you know who else pretends to be something they are not? I'll give you a hint..

they wear makeup and push-up bras.

1. I think the original post was a joke.
2. I don't think anyone here said that the accord 6mt is a sports car, so you need to simma down now.
3. I think we both can agree that automatic transmissions were created to attract more buyers. The automatic trans. took away the need to learn how to shift for yourself while you are driving. However, to those with the same mentality as myself, driving a stick shift car is a craft and a purer form of driving as opposed to getting into the car, putting it into drive and letting it take care of your shifting. I mean, why do you think auto companies came out with the concept of the auto-stick and paddle shifters? I think its because they want to give the driver who can't drive manual trans more involvement.

You just don't get it. You can't call someone a p***y for driving an A/T when you yourself are driving a FAKE sports car. ie. FWD Coupe.
Do you know who else pretends to be something they are not? I'll give you a hint..
they wear makeup and push-up bras.

Did I say I drive a sports car? IMO no car that turns only the front wheels is a sports car. Man, some of you auto drivers (not all) throw that phrase around more than anyone else. No 6MT drivers are calling it one.

1. I think the original post was a joke.
2. I don't think anyone here said that the accord 6mt is a sports car, so you need to simma down now.
3. I think we both can agree that automatic transmissions were created to attract more buyers. The automatic trans. took away the need to learn how to shift for yourself while you are driving. However, to those with the same mentality as myself, driving a stick shift car is a craft and a purer form of driving as opposed to getting into the car, putting it into drive and letting it take care of your shifting. I mean, why do you think auto companies came out with the concept of the auto-stick and paddle shifters? I think its because they want to give the driver who can't drive manual trans more involvement.

What he said.

The problem is that at the crank, that statement is only true for the VTEC V6, as tested by vtec.net. I'm talking literally the 268hp and tq as stated per specs. The VCM one, even if they somehow mated it to an MT to eliminate the transmission variable, would show a 20hp difference throughout the range, but most notably at the peak, where the numbers come from. This isn't about whp, transmission differences or even ecu tuning coming into play. This is about the physical inability of the engine to hit the numbers as stated, even crank.

I think the VCM engine can really make 271 PEAK HP. But how much power it makes before that I think is the differnce between the two engines. I also think that the 6MT motors is underated but thats just my opinion.

Did I say I drive a sports car? IMO no car that turns only the front wheels is a sports car. Man, some of you auto drivers (not all) throw that phrase around more than anyone else. No 6MT drivers are calling it one.



What he said.

I didn't mean "You" as in you in particular. I mean a person can't call someone a pussy for driving an A/T when they themsleves drive a womans coupe! Pot, meet kettle.

I used to buy exclusively manuals. Now, i'll only ever have a manual in my daily driver if it's RWD or AWD.

Well the "woman's coupe" is a lot more fun to drive and a majority of people on this forum will agree with that (but not the "woman's coupe" part of course). I prefer manual because I wan't a more engaging drive. That goes for any car no matter of body style or drive type. I'd rather be driving a 4spd Omni than an automatic one for example. A manual trans is not just for sports cars. It's been around a lot longer than auto and in a wider variety of vehicles too.

At the end of the day we all drive what we want and I for one have respect for that. It's shocking that others can't have this point of view.

http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2007/11/09-nissan-gt-r/Nissan-GT-R-interior-1-lg.jpg


Nuff sed.

Sorry for derail.

Well the "woman's coupe" is a lot more fun to drive and a majority of people on this forum will agree with that (but not the "woman's coupe" part of course). I prefer manual because I wan't a more engaging drive. That goes for any car no matter of body style or drive type. I'd rather be driving a 4spd Omni than an automatic one for example. A manual trans is not just for sports cars. It's been around a lot longer than auto and in a wider variety of vehicles too.

At the end of the day we all drive what we want and I for one have respect for that. It's shocking that others can't have this point of view.

Exactly. Which is why i sort of got upset when a member called many other members "pussies" for driving A/T's. It was rude and vulgar.

I'm confused. First the original quote from vtec.net. states, "In cylinders 1 thru 4, each intake and exhaust rocker arm is halved." Did the writer mean cylinders 1-6, or is there something different about the other two cylinders of the VCM V6 engine?

Next, please confirm that I'm getting this concept. It seems that Honda's VCM technology is somehow incompatible with their VTEC technology. Consequently the VCM engine can use only one camshaft profile as opposed to the mild/aggressive profiles used by the VTEC system. Based on vtec.net's lift information, it seems the single, VCM camshaft profile is very similar to that of the high-rpm, aggressive VTEC cam profile. That creates a problem. Specifically, the aggressive camshaft profile hurts low rpm thermal efficiency. Although the VCM engine's aggressive camshaft profile preserves most of the VTEC engine's high-rpm power, it hurts low rpm power. According to other posts, this high- rpm camshaft causes the VCM engine to lose about 20 lbs-ft of torque at low-rpm compared to the VTEC 3.5 liter engine. In effect, Honda's 3.5 liter VCM engine has a low-rpm torque curve of a 3.0 liter engine. When floored, the driver must wait until the engine reaches about 5,000 rpm before the VCM engine begins to deliver the same punch of the 3.5 liter VTEC engine. Am I getting this?

And what's the benefit? Better mileage? Here is another confusing point to me. If this aggressive camshaft profile continuously hurts low-rpm efficiency and torque, doesn't it mean it also hurts mileage? I know the VCM engine claims better mileage, but is it only because it deactivates cylinders under light load? What happens under medium-light load when all 6 cylinders kick in? I don't see how the "full displacement" 3.5 liter VCM engine can get better mileage than the more efficient 3.5 liter VTEC engine if it must constantly operate under the realm of the inefficient high-rpm camshaft. Does this make sense?

My Accord coupe V6 6MT generates 258 hp at the wheels as determined by seat-of-pantsometer :banana:

I'm confused. First the original quote from vtec.net. states, "In cylinders 1 thru 4, each intake and exhaust rocker arm is halved." Did the writer mean cylinders 1-6, or is there something different about the other two cylinders of the VCM V6 engine?

Next, please confirm that I'm getting this concept. It seems that Honda's VCM technology is somehow incompatible with their VTEC technology. Consequently the VCM engine can use only one camshaft profile as opposed to the mild/aggressive profiles used by the VTEC system. Based on vtec.net's lift information, it seems the single, VCM camshaft profile is very similar to that of the high-rpm, aggressive VTEC cam profile. That creates a problem. Specifically, the aggressive camshaft profile hurts low rpm thermal efficiency. Although the VCM engine's aggressive camshaft profile preserves most of the VTEC engine's high-rpm power, it hurts low rpm power. According to other posts, this high- rpm camshaft causes the VCM engine to lose about 20 lbs-ft of torque at low-rpm compared to the VTEC 3.5 liter engine. In effect, Honda's 3.5 liter VCM engine has a low-rpm torque curve of a 3.0 liter engine. When floored, the driver must wait until the engine reaches about 5,000 rpm before the VCM engine begins to deliver the same punch of the 3.5 liter VTEC engine. Am I getting this?

And what's the benefit? Better mileage? Here is another confusing point to me. If this aggressive camshaft profile continuously hurts low-rpm efficiency and torque, doesn't it mean it also hurts mileage? I know the VCM engine claims better mileage, but is it only because it deactivates cylinders under light load? What happens under medium-light load when all 6 cylinders kick in? I don't see how the "full displacement" 3.5 liter VCM engine can get better mileage than the more efficient 3.5 liter VTEC engine if it must constantly operate under the realm of the inefficient high-rpm camshaft. Does this make sense?

only 4 of the cylinders have ability to be shut down . with only max of 3 at one time (the deactivate cylinders move as you go from 6>4>3 .
this should help ,read down 1/2 to VCM part

http://www.honda.com/newsandviews/article.aspx?id=4106

As for your rest question you have basic idea ok. I don't think cam specs are out for V6 or L4 as to duration of them, but I will guess the V6 6MT low speed cam lobes give it slight better response (throttle) and slightly flatter torque curve than the VCM .
Also note intake manifold on 6MT has low/high rpm plenum . I don't think not having a low speed cam would hurt mpg as that would be more driving style , throttle input . I say this "if" it could do both VCM and Vtec the driving experience would be better as far as feel/response IMO .
My guess is Honda VCM intake cam profile is slight less duration than the 6MT but they raised CR 10> 10.5 to compensate so specs come out about the same (HP/TQ ) .
New Acura are coming out with VTEC on both intake and exhaust now with SOHC , so improvement is being made ,feature wise .

I did notice a very pleasing improvement in throttle response when using premium, but none in fuel efficiency, so I reverted back to regular. Its true what next says, its been proven and even stated by honda engineer that its 'good for about 10 more hp'

well..you're almost right, it's good for about 8hp but that is ONLY at the peak. IOW, this is not an increase throughout the powerband.

Look here:
http://www.vtec.net/articles/article-image?image=714997/08accv65at_dyno2.gif

My Accord coupe V6 6MT generates 258 hp at the wheels as determined by seat-of-pantsometer :banana:

From that same measurment, albeit different instrument, My V6 AT does the same!!:banana:

Edaccord08, thanks for the response and article. Jterp7, thanks for the vtec.net dyno chart. So what's going on in that chart between 3,600 and 4100 rpm? At 3,800 rpm, the 93-octane run shows 30 lbs-ft more torque than the 87-octane run. Could that decrease in power for the 87-octane fuel be caused by the ECU retarding the timing to prevent pre-detonation? Is this power difference really a function of ignition timing? (That's a 20% difference in torque at that rpm.) I see that at 4,100 rpm, the 87-octane torque curve turns back on like at light switch. Perhaps this is the same question, but are the higher rpm power gains also a function of the computer's ability keep the timing more advanced with the 93-octane fuel than for the 87-octane fuel? Do you know if my 3.0 liter engine advances or retards the timing the same way? Just out of curiosity, I have to try premium fuel to see if I can feel any difference in low-rpm power.

Edaccord08, thanks for the response and article. Jterp7, thanks for the vtec.net dyno chart. So what's going on in that chart between 3,600 and 4100 rpm? At 3,800 rpm, the 93-octane run shows 30 lbs-ft more torque than the 87-octane run. Could that decrease in power for the 87-octane fuel be caused by the ECU retarding the timing to prevent pre-detonation? Is this power difference really a function of ignition timing? (That's a 20% difference in torque at that rpm.) I see that at 4,100 rpm, the 87-octane torque curve turns back on like at light switch. Perhaps this is the same question, but are the higher rpm power gains also a function of the computer's ability keep the timing more advanced with the 93-octane fuel than for the 87-octane fuel? Do you know if my 3.0 liter engine advances or retards the timing the same way? Just out of curiosity, I have to try premium fuel to see if I can feel any difference in low-rpm power.

If the ECU is retarding the timing to prevent pre ignition, then I would guess that one should get better MPG with high Octane.

I have been reading this gasoline selection issue with interst because it has always been a rule that cars designed to run on 87 CAN get better MPG on 93. Take the Nissan. This year there is no "requirement" to run 91, however nothing has changed (except the ECU timing). When I was reseaching the cars, everyone was saying they will run on 87 but the ECU will retard the timing and lower gas milegas will result.


I am now wondering of these engines were initially "designed" to run on higher octane but 87 is "recommended" for marketing reasons. Modern Engines can adapt to lower octane fuel using pre ignition sensors, but do they adapt going up? By what means does an engine "know" higher octane is being used to adjust timing since there would be no pre ignition warning?

Seems to me looking at that chart the V6 does run differently on higher octane......But HP is not a concern to me. Better fuel efficiency would be if the cost/benefit ratio agreed..

lol i forgot the disclaimer: anything below 4200rpm on the auto accord should be ignored since it was not full throttle (from vtec.net)

Edaccord08, thanks for the response and article. Jterp7, thanks for the vtec.net dyno chart. So what's going on in that chart between 3,600 and 4100 rpm? At 3,800 rpm, the 93-octane run shows 30 lbs-ft more torque than the 87-octane run. Could that decrease in power for the 87-octane fuel be caused by the ECU retarding the timing to prevent pre-detonation? Is this power difference really a function of ignition timing? (That's a 20% difference in torque at that rpm.) I see that at 4,100 rpm, the 87-octane torque curve turns back on like at light switch. Perhaps this is the same question, but are the higher rpm power gains also a function of the computer's ability keep the timing more advanced with the 93-octane fuel than for the 87-octane fuel? Do you know if my 3.0 liter engine advances or retards the timing the same way? Just out of curiosity, I have to try premium fuel to see if I can feel any difference in low-rpm power.
Its hard to say from the graph , sometimes the beginning of dyno charts shows weird curves .
But if that's real data it could be knock sensor kicking in retarding the timing on the 87 line graph . The problem with fuel tests as there so many variables, type of 87 , temp/weather conditions and altitude level tests were made have affect on octane .

That disclaimer makes sense. I have never sensed a boost of power right at 4,100 rpm in my car. The torque curve felt smooth.

You raised an interesting question. Will the ECU automatically advance the timing until the knock sensor senses pre-detonation? Does that imply that the ECU will always use the most advanced timing possible for it's given fuel source? I suppose that would be nice to know if one want to take their car to the race track. If more advanced timing could increase power by 4% (peak hp difference between 87 and 93 octane on dyno chart), does that mean mileage could also increase by 4%. If a 4% mileage gain is all one can expect, that will not offset the 12%-15% increase in price to buy premium fuel.

That disclaimer makes sense. I have never sensed a boost of power right at 4,100 rpm in my car. The torque curve felt smooth.

You raised an interesting question. Will the ECU automatically advance the timing until the knock sensor senses pre-detonation? Does that imply that the ECU will always use the most advanced timing possible for it's given fuel source? I suppose that would be nice to know if one want to take their car to the race track. If more advanced timing could increase power by 4% (peak hp difference between 87 and 93 octane on dyno chart), does that mean mileage could also increase by 4%. If a 4% mileage gain is all one can expect, that will not offset the 12%-15% increase in price to buy premium fuel.
And THAT is the $100,000 question for me......when deciding on Preimum.

I drive maybe 500 miles a month so the additional cost is not all that bad. But if there is no benefit at all.... it makes no sense to run more than 87.....

Simply Slower burning fuel is not going to be cleaner or make the car last longer...

If the ECU is retarding the timing to prevent pre ignition, then I would guess that one should get better MPG with high Octane.

I have been reading this gasoline selection issue with interst because it has always been a rule that cars designed to run on 87 CAN get better MPG on 93. Take the Nissan. This year there is no "requirement" to run 91, however nothing has changed (except the ECU timing). When I was reseaching the cars, everyone was saying they will run on 87 but the ECU will retard the timing and lower gas milegas will result.


I am now wondering of these engines were initially "designed" to run on higher octane but 87 is "recommended" for marketing reasons. Modern Engines can adapt to lower octane fuel using pre ignition sensors, but do they adapt going up? By what means does an engine "know" higher octane is being used to adjust timing since there would be no pre ignition warning?

Seems to me looking at that chart the V6 does run differently on higher octane......But HP is not a concern to me. Better fuel efficiency would be if the cost/benefit ratio agreed..

I don’t know what you mean by modern engines can adapt to lower octane fuel using ‘pre ignition’ sensors, because they can not without tuning.You can run a higher octane fuel on a car that is designed for lower octane but there are no gains to be had without changing the tune, specifically the ‘base’ and ‘advanced’ timing tables to add timing since you are running richer. Without tuning, you run the exact same timing as you are configured for on 87 octane. Thus you run richer and it is actually wasteful to run higher octane on a stock map, since you are not tuned for that octane to run optimally. A downside to running rich is that you are more likely to foul up your spark plugs and o2 sensors faster and obviously it costs more.

As far as running less octane on a car designed for higher octane, this is a big no no. You’re car will not automatically adapt, it will pull timing due to the low octane as your fine learning knock sensor sees the lean condition and your engine is knocking. When you run a lower octane ideally you would need to add more fuel or cut timing drastically to avoid running lean and causing a knock event. But the only change the ecu will make based on the knock sensors results will be to the timing tables and the ecu can only pull so much timing. To accommodate lower octane to run safely on a car that is tuned for a higher octane, changes are needed to the maf scaling table, fuel targets and to the ‘closed’ and ‘open loop’ fueling tables.

Despite what many will say, you can not typically feel an engine knock., I almost never could feel knock with my 05 Legacy GT, despite logging it with my laptop almost daily and seeing at least a several knock events(typically happened below 2000rpm) on almost every drive I took. Unless I had a cylinder misfire or my fuel trims were really off I could not feel knock and if I could feel knock, it was time to pull over or get the car towed because a catastrophe is looming.

off topic, does the '04 gen 7 Accord v6 use the VCM?

Very generally it all depends on the baseline advance curves the ECU is programed too. Most times cars tuned for 91 would have more aggressive timing curves an87 ones not so much.
But if the baseline of 87 curve still makes the knock sensor trigger retarded timing with some or all 87 fuels, then some improvement would happen with 91 but its not going to be same as a 91 tuned vehicle > Honda vs Acura .

off topic, does the '04 gen 7 Accord v6 use the VCM?

No, VCM did not come out until 8th Gen, which is 2008, and only on automatic transmission V6.

I don’t know what you mean by modern engines can adapt to lower octane fuel using ‘pre ignition’ sensors, because they can not without tuning.You can run a higher octane fuel on a car that is designed for lower octane but there are no gains to be had without changing the tune, specifically the ‘base’ and ‘advanced’ timing tables to add timing since you are running richer. Without tuning, you run the exact same timing as you are configured for on 87 octane. Thus you run richer and it is actually wasteful to run higher octane on a stock map, since you are not tuned for that octane to run optimally. A downside to running rich is that you are more likely to foul up your spark plugs and o2 sensors faster and obviously it costs more.

As far as running less octane on a car designed for higher octane, this is a big no no. You’re car will not automatically adapt, it will pull timing due to the low octane as your fine learning knock sensor sees the lean condition and your engine is knocking. When you run a lower octane ideally you would need to add more fuel or cut timing drastically to avoid running lean and causing a knock event. But the only change the ecu will make based on the knock sensors results will be to the timing tables and the ecu can only pull so much timing. To accommodate lower octane to run safely on a car that is tuned for a higher octane, changes are needed to the maf scaling table, fuel targets and to the ‘closed’ and ‘open loop’ fueling tables.

Despite what many will say, you can not typically feel an engine knock., I almost never could feel knock with my 05 Legacy GT, despite logging it with my laptop almost daily and seeing at least a several knock events(typically happened below 2000rpm) on almost every drive I took. Unless I had a cylinder misfire or my fuel trims were really off I could not feel knock and if I could feel knock, it was time to pull over or get the car towed because a catastrophe is looming.

Great explanation...Thanks

Despite what many will say, you can not typically feel an engine knock., I almost never could feel knock with my 05 Legacy GT, despite logging it with my laptop almost daily and seeing at least a several knock events(typically happened below 2000rpm) on almost every drive I took. Unless I had a cylinder misfire or my fuel trims were really off I could not feel knock and if I could feel knock, it was time to pull over or get the car towed because a catastrophe is looming.
Are you saying you never felt the retardation of ignition timing when knock sensor kicked in ?
That depends on the engine and how aggressive the curves are .

The only thing manufacture could do timing maps one for 87 and one for 91 . the ECU could not do this on itself , would need octane switch .

No, VCM did not come out until 8th Gen, which is 2008, and only on automatic transmission V6.

so the gen 7 v6s are real VTEC then? my '04 v6 auto is still pretty quick off the line. my wife drives a '09 TL fwd with 280hp and i feel my Accord is faster than hers. probably that's because my Accord weighs a lot than the TL.

Are you saying you never felt the retardation of ignition timing when knock sensor kicked in ?
That depends on the engine and how aggressive the curves are .

The only thing manufacture could do timing maps one for 87 and one for 91 . the ECU could not do this on itself , would need octane switch .


I didn’t say never, as I said further below in my last post that I could normally only feel knock, ie timing being pulled(retardation) in two instances, one being with a cylinder misfire, the other being when my fuel trims were significantly off, ie the idle cell(Cell A) was more than 10% off. Aside from that I could not feel it.

On a stock map with stock mods it would be very hard if not impossible to feel knock, as all cars have a knock sensor and they are always in use while driving, timing only gets pulled if there is a 'knock event'. In the summer when it’s a 100degrees out your ecu pulls timing because the intake air temperatures are so hot and to avoid extremely hot exhaust temps(overheating). In cool conditions you are running probably peak or close to peak timing advance.

A map is supposed to cover an extremely wide range of atmospheric conditions and while a map has some flexibility for changes in atmospheric conditions and pressure, it does not have the flexibility to account for different fuels. There are many tables in the ecu and each table has its Max and Min thresholds. If the ecu could automatically account for octane and conditions, etc you could put any fuel in the car you want and the ecu would be smart enough to recognize the afr and adjust but that isn’t how it works. Maybe one day cars will be smart enough to recognize the fuel being put into it but definitely haven’t heard of anything regarding that today.

You are correct, for a car to be able to run different types of fuel you need to have two maps(programs) for the car’s ecus and have the ability to flash the ecu with the appropriate map. For my 05 Legacy GT, I had a map for 91ocatane and one for E85, which was my race map and daily driver map because e85 is cheaper than 91octane and it was so much safer to run given how knock resistant E85 is. E85 is essentially 105octane.

I didn’t say never, as I said further below in my last post that I could normally only feel knock, ie timing being pulled(retardation) in two instances, one being with a cylinder misfire, the other being when my fuel trims were significantly off, ie the idle cell(Cell A) was more than 10% off. Aside from that I could not feel it.

On a stock map with stock mods it would be very hard if not impossible to feel knock, as all cars have a knock sensor and they are always in use while driving, timing only gets pulled if there is a 'knock event'. In the summer when it’s a 100degrees out your ecu pulls timing because the intake air temperatures are so hot and to avoid extremely hot exhaust temps(overheating). In cool conditions you are running probably peak or close to peak timing advance.

A map is supposed to cover an extremely wide range of atmospheric conditions and while a map has some flexibility for changes in atmospheric conditions and pressure, it does not have the flexibility to account for different fuels. There are many tables in the ecu and each table has its Max and Min thresholds. If the ecu could automatically account for octane and conditions, etc you could put any fuel in the car you want and the ecu would be smart enough to recognize the afr and adjust but that isn’t how it works. Maybe one day cars will be smart enough to recognize the fuel being put into it but definitely haven’t heard of anything regarding that today.

You are correct, for a car to be able to run different types of fuel you need to have two maps(programs) for the car’s ecus and have the ability to flash the ecu with the appropriate map. For my 05 Legacy GT, I had a map for 91ocatane and one for E85, which was my race map and daily driver map because e85 is cheaper than 91octane and it was so much safer to run given how knock resistant E85 is. E85 is essentially 105octane.

ok, right ,then I agree 100% , I wasn't sure what you meant .
NA cars you probably have hard time feeling anything, but some of turbo cars you can feel it if lower octane is used or boost .

OK so to get a clearer idea of conclusions....

Regarding the use of 93 octane in an 87 recommended Honda V6

a. Gas mileage is better and can be quantified.
b. Performance is better and can be quantified
c. There is no ethanol in premium which is better for seals and gaskets??

Cost/benefit ratio is suspect.....leading to using the recommended 87 and be done with it.

OK so to get a clearer idea of conclusions....

Regarding the use of 93 octane in an 87 recommended Honda V6

a. Gas mileage is better and can be quantified.
b. Performance is better and can be quantified
c. There is no ethanol in premium which is better for seals and gaskets??

Cost/benefit ratio is suspect.....leading to using the recommended 87 and be done with it.
A.Despite some people thinking they may see a ‘noticeable’ difference in gas mileage by going with a higher octane fuel, I would have to see their results logged to believe it factual. You will still be spraying the same amount of fuel as you would running a stock map as you have not changed any of the fueling tables.

B.Because the higher the octane the more knock resistant the fuel is to your motor. You will be more likely to run max timing because your engine won’t be as likely to knock, perhaps it would be beneficial to run premium in the hot months but not in the cool ones.

C.Ethanol is in all fuels, possibly not diesel, can’t say for sure. But it is definitely in all pump gas including premium at least in Colorado and probably all 50 states. Since the mid 90’s when the ethanol additive to pump gas movement started for cleaner burning cars, all cars manufactured from the mid 90’s on have been made to have parts in the fuel system that will not disintegrate or corrode to due to the ethanol content.

A.Despite some people thinking they may see a ‘noticeable’ difference in gas mileage by going with a higher octane fuel, I would have to see their results logged to believe it factual. You will still be spraying the same amount of fuel as you would running a stock map as you have not changed any of the fueling tables.

B.Because the higher the octane the more knock resistant the fuel is to your motor. You will be more likely to run max timing because your engine won’t be as likely to knock, perhaps it would be beneficial to run premium in the hot months but not in the cool ones.

C.Ethanol is in all fuels, possibly not diesel, can’t say for sure. But it is definitely in all pump gas including premium at least in Colorado and probably all 50 states. Since the mid 90’s when the ethanol additive to pump gas movement started for cleaner burning cars, all cars manufactured from the mid 90’s on have been made to have parts in the fuel system that will not disintegrate or corrode to due to the ethanol content.



Well said, and 100% correct on all points.

I used 93 octane in my 7th gen V6 with good results. Gas mileage was consistently higher with premium by an average of almost 2 mpg (24 vs. 22 in the summer), and I could definitely feel a difference in low-end torque. In fact, the reason the mileage was so much better with 93 was that I didn't have to use as much throttle to get the same acceleration.

I no longer have the data, but I used an Auterra OBD scan tool to measure the timing advance with both fuels and found that the engine ran significantly more timing advance at low rpms with the premium fuel. IIRC, on 87 octane the timing would drop to 12 degrees at low rpm under WOT and would then steadily climb up to a maximum of 24 degrees in VTEC. With 93 octane, the timing curve would only drop to a minimum 19 or so at low rpm and then steadily build to a maximum of 25 degrees in the VTEC range. That would probably explain why I could hear some mild pinging at low rpm on 87 octane under heavy loads, but not when I used premium.

Someone should do some datalogging with an 8G V6 (and I4, too) and see what happens when you switch to a higher (or lower) octane. I would, but I sold my OBD scan tool years ago when I realized it had served its purpose and was no longer needed.

Someone should do some datalogging with an 8G V6 (and I4, too) and see what happens when you switch to a higher (or lower) octane. I would, but I sold my OBD scan tool years ago when I realized it had served its purpose and was no longer needed.

What logging tools and software are available for the 8th gen if any? I would love to log my car, it would be nice if opensource supported Honda, but they only support Subaru Ecus and the Evo Ecus. If Cobb made an Accessport unit for our cars we could log timing and Dynamic Advance with it along with a few other parameters, not much but better than nothing. I heard from someone that the new Civic SI is supported by Cobb and an Accessport is available for it but, haven’t read a thing about it personally and if Cobb has plans on coming out with an AP that supports the Accord.

Please don't tempt us Mods with that defense.

Through direct actions you were accelerating at full power just as the other driver was to contest which car is faster, by definition you were racing regardless how you may perceive it differently yourself, it will never stand up in court as a defense for either one of you had the police been involved and charges laid.

And as noted already, what you did goes against the DA forum rules.



I am inclined to think that TommyPenguin was stating the facts, but that's just me. :dunno:


This will be my final and last warning to you.

Remove the defamatory comments stated about me in this thread.

Delete my membership.

If you do not comply I will take action that will force you to do so.

This will be my final and last warning to you.

Remove the defamatory comments stated about me in this thread.

Delete my membership.

If you do not comply I will take action that will force you to do so.


Barking threats is a great idea... What are you going to do go to the police, tell them you were racing your car on city street, posted about it on a car forum. Then was told by members on the forum it was dumb and illegal and you aren't mature enough to admit it was wrong. I think you'll find yourself on the short end of that stick if you try to take action.

Delete my membership.

As you wish, banned.

For future reference, any posts that have an inkling of a personal threat in them will be considered grounds for an instant ban.

I used 93 octane in my 7th gen V6 with good results. Gas mileage was consistently higher with premium by an average of almost 2 mpg (24 vs. 22 in the summer), and I could definitely feel a difference in low-end torque. In fact, the reason the mileage was so much better with 93 was that I didn't have to use as much throttle to get the same acceleration.

I no longer have the data, but I used an Auterra OBD scan tool to measure the timing advance with both fuels and found that the engine ran significantly more timing advance at low rpms with the premium fuel. IIRC, on 87 octane the timing would drop to 12 degrees at low rpm under WOT and would then steadily climb up to a maximum of 24 degrees in VTEC. With 93 octane, the timing curve would only drop to a minimum 19 or so at low rpm and then steadily build to a maximum of 25 degrees in the VTEC range. That would probably explain why I could hear some mild pinging at low rpm on 87 octane under heavy loads, but not when I used premium.

Someone should do some datalogging with an 8G V6 (and I4, too) and see what happens when you switch to a higher (or lower) octane. I would, but I sold my OBD scan tool years ago when I realized it had served its purpose and was no longer needed.

I believe vtec.net also tested premium on the 7th gens and it showed the 10hp improvement (along with low end boost) that you're alluding to. It likely has to do with VCM but these gains are non existent on the 8th gens. Provided we don't have the info below 4200 rpm, from there on up the only real gains are from 6000-6200 rpm. So, for most that's not really worth it unless you are WOT.

Keep in mind that 8th Gen test is far from scientific. Only two tests taken one week apart. Plenty of variables that could mess with the numbers.

true, but I don't think we can expect the same gains with the 8th gen VCM V6 (perhaps the coupe 6-6 sees the same gains with premium since it uses the traditional vtec system)

Keep in mind that 8th Gen test is far from scientific. Only two tests taken one week apart. Plenty of variables that could mess with the numbers.

30-40 degree temp drop could be easily explain the 10hp difference. I agree, the only way to verify premium does a thing would be for someone to do a dyno pull on almost an empty tank on 87 and then fill up with 91 and get dynoed the same day.

Keep in mind that 8th Gen test is far from scientific. Only two tests taken one week apart. Plenty of variables that could mess with the numbers.

x2 . The differences I felt in 93 were definitely below 4200rpm anyhow.

Yet every 6-6 dyno I have seen is at least 240. That would imply less than ~9% drive-train loss from the crank (rated 268/271 bhp for 8th gen' Accord V6 6spd. coupes), which is very efficient. Personally speaking, I'd venture to say that those dyno's of the 8th gen' Accord V6-6spd. coupes were w/ 93-octane premium unleaded fuel, not 87-octane regular unleaded fuel.

If I wanted real performance, the Honda Accord in ANY variation would not have been on the long list..Much ado about nothing..Well said. But, you have to realize that a few of the Accord enthusiasts posting, many of them owners of V6-VCM or V6-6spd. Accords, have the Accord as their primary vehicle; whereas those like you/me/others/etc' likely have other vehicles in our stables which may be more performance-oriented, so the Accord serves a different role for us in particular in our day-to-day lives.

I don't think you'll find any difference. This engine is not designed to take advantage of higher octane gas.thats not what the manual tells u.......premium gas helps hp,mpg's and burns cleaner.It's proven running 93 octane gas increases HP and TQ by TOV. Whether the small increase is worth or even noticeable is another discussion.I did notice a very pleasing improvement in throttle response when using premium, but none in fuel efficiency, so I reverted back to regular. Its true what next says, its been proven and even stated by honda engineer that its 'good for about 10 more hp'

The 8th gen' Accord V6-6spd. coupe has shown measurable/notable gains on the dyno numerous times. Whether or not an 8th gen' Accord V6-VCM A.T.sedan can show such gains, I'm can't recall at the moment.


I've tried both 87 and 93 and there's no difference.You obviously mean mean "there's no (notable/appreciable) difference to me." Dyno it & let us know. Till then, it's butt-dyno conjecture. Personally speaking (again), it's likely not even worth it as you already have performance-based vehicles in your stable & the Accord is a commuter/daily-driver for the wifey, FWIRC.

I am sure you enjoy the shifting.......Its just not for me on this car.

But then again if i could get an automatic on my V Star bike I would have it as well...I HATE all clutching....give me a set of paddles without a manual clutch, I am all over it.If Acura offered a modern equivalent of their past CL 3.2L, ie. a TL analog that is 2-doors w/ a V6-6spd. A.T. & paddle-shifters, it'd be right up your alley. As far as what it'd look like, no comment... :naughty:

... and not to mention a (manual) 6spd. transmission on an Accord is truly a great driving experience. Honda/Acura has been nothing short of awesome w/ their (manual) 6spd.'s in the 2nd gen' Legend coupe & Legend GS sedan, RSX Type-S, 3rd gen' TL & TL Type-S, NA2 NSX, 7th gen' Accord coupe/sedan & 8th gen' Accord coupe, AP1/AP2 S2000, 6th gen' Honda Civic Si coupe/sedan.

I've had the fortunate experience on-occasion to have driven many high-performance sports-coupes, sports-sedans, sports-cars ranging from domestic muscle to premium imports to exotics/super-cars, and the Honda/Acura (manual) 6spd. transmissions are absolutely awesome, not to sound redundant but I sincerely mean it. . .

Why bother with V6?
Save $$ and buy L[I]4 with proven high rev[v]ing i-VTEC!For some, the Accord is their only vehicle & perhaps they wish to get some excitement/performance out of it. I know that if I didn't have a torque'y S.U.V. & a high-performance sports-car, I'd be keen for a V6-powered Accord.

Nuff sed.

Sorry for derail.... and arguably the most boring high-performance enthusiast vehicle on the market, when it comes to the track/road-course & spirited driving. Balls'out speed potential & handling, but hardly an engaging/exciting drive. . .


BTW... MrGlicko, you expressed your view & made your point known to Hittman. Not once, not twice, perhaps not even thrice. Meaning, let it go & move-on-dot-com. Hittman stated his personal opinion (in a comical/humorous way, by his own admission) & then even stated a self-posted disclaimer here (http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showpost.php?p=584808&postcount=19):

Hittman: "Just kidding...sorta. Settle down... have a laugh. :D "


30-40 degree temp drop could be easily explain the 10hp difference. I agree, the only way to verify premium does a thing would be for someone to do a dyno pull on almost an empty tank on 87 and then fill up with 91 and get dynoed the same day.I've seen it done (twice) in-person what you suggested, as scientific/empirical as possible considering any/most controllable variables/conditions/factors. The 8th gen' Accord V6-6spd. coupe did show measurable/documentable gains on the dyno, to a degree that was appreciable/notable to the drivers.

IF I owned an 8th gen' Accord V6-6spd. coupe, I would consistently run premium/super unleaded fuel (91/93 octane), and obviously seek-out any/all gas-stations of a brand that I prefer (Shell) who have minimal or no ethanol content (easier said than done). . .

Osiris, as always, well said. :thmsup:

We need more people like you on this forum.

While its an old dog, I bet you'd have some fun driving my '97 Bonneville. :D That car has some serious low end pull for a 205 HP push rod dinosaur.

Edit: In the winter I run 93 OCT in the Bonn. but only get 14-16 MPG. Summer 18-19 on Reg.
Darned - Reb got banned before I could show him the real first FWD kicker Bonneville. Brandy-new in 87 - that car was scary-fast. Of course, hit the happy pedal to o much and you'd not necessarily stay in your lane. :lmao: Sorry about the quality of the photo - it's a scanned snapshot image. Not too many digital cameras around back then. :naughty:

Oh, well - back to the original discussion..

andy