Here is a little tid-bit of info I read from Car & Driver...

"At the top of the line is a redesigned 3.5-liter V-6, which features cylinder shutdown and a two-stage oil pump. With at least 308 hp and 266 lb-ft of torque, this engine delivers more power than Honda’s existing 3.7-liter engine and should yield a fuel-economy improvement of about 10 percent."

Source: http://blog.caranddriver.com/honda-finally-adds-direct-injection-to-its-v6-and-four-cylinder-engines/

Looks like a BIG increase in power nearly 40HP!

Doesn't take away from the fact that the car is still hideous.

I will wait to hold judgement before I see the production model and the interior.

Doesn't take away from the fact that the car is still hideous.

If the car isnt far from the current production model minus the foglights, would you consider your current car hideous also? Just Sayin :puke:

I will wait to hold judgement before I see the production model and the interior.

+1


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app

i think the car looks awesome minus the front fognights which will definately NOT make it into production, thaat being said, i know it will be a great looking car

Just ****s that after all the mods i have motor to motor it's probably the same as the 9th gen accord. :(

Just ****s that after all the mods i have motor to motor it's probably the same as the 9th gen accord. :(

Just think if you added your mods to that motor where your current output would be? Just food for thought. I am more than likely going to trade my lease in early to get the new body style when it comes out.

Just ****s that after all the mods i have motor to motor it's probably the same as the 9th gen accord. :(

they saw your car, j.....

Just ****s that after all the mods i have motor to motor it's probably the same as the 9th gen accord. :(

That's life I guess. Once Honda introduced new technologies it was obvious that bolt-ons to older motors would pale in comparison.

Too bad they still didn't add a LSD so the extra power is pretty much as good as wasted. Definitely wasted if bolt-ons are applied. And really not much extra torque either. I do wonder what the % loss will be from the crank to the wheels.

Plus DI engines are even noisier. Last thing I want, MORE noise in my cabin, this damn car is noisy enough as it is.

Cant imagine how crappy the interior will be. Finish & touches have gone downhill since 2009 on the Accord Coupe. Then 2012 I test drove when the dealership offered me a "trade up" was, well, sad. Very plasticky compared to mine.

I'm losing no sleep over the extra power.

Too bad they still didn't add a LSD so the extra power is pretty much as good as wasted. Definitely wasted if bolt-ons are applied. And really not much extra torque either. I do wonder what the % loss will be from the crank to the wheels.

Plus DI engines are even noisier. Last thing I want, MORE noise in my cabin, this damn car is noisy enough as it is.

Cant imagine how crappy the interior will be. Finish & touches have gone downhill since 2009 on the Accord Coupe. Then 2012 I test drove when the dealership offered me a "trade up" was, well, sad. Very plasticky compared to mine.

I'm losing no sleep over the extra power.


The reason for the small increase in torque is because a 3.5L cannot create much more torque than this without forced induction. It's all to do with volumetric efficiency. HP figures can go up but torque is pretty close to its max for this size of normally aspirated engine.

well those numbers don't seem right , since they mention 3.7L which is only in Acura line up here what TL does right now .

Horsepower @ rpm (SAE net)

* 280 @ 6200 rpm: TL
* 305 @ 6300 rpm: TL SH-AWD

Torque @ rpm (lb-ft)

* 254 @ 5000 rpm: TL
* 273 @ 5000 rpm: TL SH-AWD

It is better than current 3.5L but not 3.7L , at least not with a spec of 308 hp and 266 lb-ft

The 2.4L they compare CR-V which has one of lowest hp/TQ , a TSX or SI does

201 hp@ 7000 rpm and 170 (lb-ft)@ 4300 rpm

At least the TQ is up a bit which will help with drive-ability .

Uh-Ohhh. The following is a quote from:

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/11/honda-previews-new-engine-lineup-direct-injection-and-cvts-coming.html

“As for the V6 engine, it will replace both the current 3.5-liter and 3.7-liter engines, combining the best technologies of both, including a cylinder deactivation system while gaining direct injection. Honda provided a preliminary, and conservative, estimated power output with 310-hp and 265 lb-ft of torque, with a much stronger torque band.”


Did you catch the including cylinder deactivation system part? Does that mean Honda will no longer make the dual cam lobe VTEC 3.5-liter engine? Will all V6 Honda engines be VCM engines with DI? First a CVT and now POTENTIALLY no real VTEC? Did Honda just exit the performance market? Somebody please tell me Honda will continue to mate the 6MT to a true VTEC V6 engine....please?

With current valve-train layout , they can't have both AFAIK . Unless they can get multiple oil passages in the rocker shafts . What i don't understand is why they don't go to a DOHC layout on V6 . they would get a much better/broader power band with some better emission options (egr ) .

I thought for sure when they would move to DI they would go DOHC too, for space in center of combustion chamber and up (single cam is right down middle of head ,leaves less center space for DI and ignition ).DOHC leaves space right above combustion for plugs, DI etc plus you can add VTC .

We have to wait for more info to see what engine goes were , Honda, Acura, models etc .

Uh-Ohhh. The following is a quote from:

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/11/honda-previews-new-engine-lineup-direct-injection-and-cvts-coming.html

“As for the V6 engine, it will replace both the current 3.5-liter and 3.7-liter engines, combining the best technologies of both, including a cylinder deactivation system while gaining direct injection. Honda provided a preliminary, and conservative, estimated power output with 310-hp and 265 lb-ft of torque, with a much stronger torque band.”


Did you catch the including cylinder deactivation system part? Does that mean Honda will no longer make the dual cam lobe VTEC 3.5-liter engine? Will all V6 Honda engines be VCM engines with DI? First a CVT and now POTENTIALLY no real VTEC? Did Honda just exit the performance market? Somebody please tell me Honda will continue to mate the 6MT to a true VTEC V6 engine....please?

At the '13 Accord coupe unveil, Honda did in fact, confirm that the 6MT will still be available. So, I am guessing they are advertising their latest and greatest technologies that will be on the V6 automatic...... while the V6 6MT will carry on with a more traditional V6. I would bet that the 6MT gets direct inject while retaining dual cam lobe VTEC, while the automatic will continue with VCM and cylinder deactivation.

Since Honda confirmed the V6 6MT will continue, I still see the J35A soldiering on, with the only addition being DI.

What I CANNOT imagine, however, is how this car is going to perform with 310 hp and the 6MT if Honda doesn't use a limited slip diff.... at 271 hp my Accord barely stays glued to the road when you drop the clutch in 1st gear. Maybe they'll finally get some serious rubber - these stock Michelins are crap for the power output of the drivetrain.

At the '13 Accord coupe unveil, Honda did in fact, confirm that the 6MT will still be available. So, I am guessing they are advertising their latest and greatest technologies that will be on the V6 automatic...... while the V6 6MT will carry on with a more traditional V6. I would bet that the 6MT gets direct inject while retaining dual cam lobe VTEC, while the automatic will continue with VCM and cylinder deactivation.

Since Honda confirmed the V6 6MT will continue, I still see the J35A soldiering on, with the only addition being DI.

What I CANNOT imagine, however, is how this car is going to perform with 310 hp and the 6MT if Honda doesn't use a limited slip diff.... at 271 hp my Accord barely stays glued to the road when you drop the clutch in 1st gear. Maybe they'll finally get some serious rubber - these stock Michelins are crap for the power output of the drivetrain.

It not hp that would change that, it be TQ and its up only 10 ft-lbs .

Honda Accord designers has gotten mad with power. Competitors are focusing on fuel economy and 4 cyl turbo engines while the accord is trying to be a muscle car or a TL. WTF is wrong with Honda and WTF do they need a 300 hp for a supposed to be family car? They are going backwards and their Accords are getting uglier and uglier. I am done with them.

Honda Accord designers has gotten mad with power. Competitors are focusing on fuel economy and 4 cyl turbo engines while the accord is trying to be a muscle car or a TL. WTF is wrong with Honda and WTF do they need a 300 hp for a supposed to be family car? They are going backwards and their Accords are getting uglier and uglier. I am done with them.

You should buy a Pious. :banana:

You should buy a Pious. :banana:

haha +1

Honda Accord designers has gotten mad with power. Competitors are focusing on fuel economy and 4 cyl turbo engines while the accord is trying to be a muscle car or a TL. WTF is wrong with Honda and WTF do they need a 300 hp for a supposed to be family car? They are going backwards and their Accords are getting uglier and uglier. I am done with them.

10 bucks says while Honda is increasing power they're also increasing fuel economy. The automatics will have auto stop engines when you come to a complete stop, there will be a hybrid that will certainly provide excellent fuel economy, there will be a CVT on the 4 cylinder, and those will more than make up their overall CAFE standards for any negligible fuel economy increases on the 6MT V6 coupe which is really the only one that doesn't have great fuel economy as it is right now (although I do average about 27 mpg overall so colour me impressed).

You may want to wait until final EPA figures are out on a the new Accord. Something tells me non-hybrid 4 cylinder models will be well over 40 mpg, the V6 will be in the low-mid 30s, and the hybrid will be in solid 50 mpg range. All that WITH increased performance.

Now really, is that a bad thing? Didn't think so.

Besides, I see you have a V6 6MT...... tell me you care THAT much about fuel economy ;)

You may want to wait until final EPA figures are out on a the new Accord. Something tells me non-hybrid 4 cylinder models will be well over 40 mpg, the V6 will be in the low-mid 30s, and the hybrid will be in solid 50 mpg range. All that WITH increased performance.

Now really, is that a bad thing? Didn't think so.

Besides, I see you have a V6 6MT...... tell me you care THAT much about fuel economy ;)

I see what ur saying but I'm doubting the 40 mpg for the 4 cly. Maybe 35 tops and I see the 6 cyl remaining around 30. I could be wrong though.

I see what ur saying but I'm doubting the 40 mpg for the 4 cly. Maybe 35 tops and I see the 6 cyl remaining around 30. I could be wrong though.

Read up on the plans for the 3 power trains in the new Accord:

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/10/2013-honda-accord-coupe-concept-detroit-2012/

They are most definitely targeting class-leading fuel economy standards across the board, including the V6. Maybe the last few years Honda lost sight of their principle foundation of innovative ways to be fuel efficient AND fun to drive, but it most certainly appears they've found their way back to the core of their heritage and history.

The plug in hybrid looks very promising. Taking what makes the Volt the Volt, and applying it in a more user friendly and less intrusive way. While the Volt is designed to go up to 35 miles electric only, and the Accord will only go 10-15 miles at up to 62 mph, Honda's version seems to me like the more realistic use of a plug in.

If you're doing city only driving, why not just make the all electric mode less mileage and quicker to recharge? I had a feeling GM jumped the gun on the Volt by advertising how it will work 2 years before it went into production. I guarantee you Honda engineers were in attendance when the very first Volt concept was unveiled, and they scrambled home that very night to work on something that would use that application that wasn't such a lifestyle adjustment to use (having to charge the Volt 8 hours to get a full charge, and when the juice runs out the gas that runs the IC engine only serves to run the electric motor, while Honda's version directly couples the IC engine to the transmission on the switchover from electric to gas-electric).

Accord will never get 40mpg with what they mentioned IMO . there at 34 now, stop start won't help HW mpg so it just DI and CVT . My guess is around 37 or so which is not bad for Accord size . Once you get into 30+ you would need more drastic measures IMO, like smaller engine , less weight or smaller size . There just not enough change there to get big boost IMO, ever % gets harder an harder to eek out .
To get 40 mpg they would need close to a 20% increase ,thats is a lot .

PS: this is on the 2.4L gas models, not hybrid models .

Does this DI engine need more frequent oil changes compared to naturally aspirated engine.

Does this DI engine need more frequent oil changes compared to naturally aspirated engine.

I don't see why that would change , if any it might need less, at least as far as fuel into oil as the injectors are only on right before combustion, when piston is close to top . So there a chance less fuel would leak past rings before igniting , but i doubt it be much of a difference .
One thing DI are more prone to needing valves cleaned as the port injectors would normal keep them clean and now there no fuel entering before the valve to keep them clean . Some systems use 2 injectors (one port other DI ) .

Does this DI engine need more frequent oil changes compared to naturally aspirated engine.

No. DI stands for direct injection, it's just a different form of fuel injection from multi-port. The engine is still naturally aspirated.

general fuel injection types
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_injection#Direct_injection

More detailed

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

PS: Accords now use sequential multi-point fuel injection . I am not sure if honda's new DI will not be using a throttle body to reduce pumping losses .

Looking at the Honda press release, again. It does clearly say that the 2.4 will be from their new earthdreams line with DI. But it only says the V6 will be re engineered. It does not specify DI nor that it will be from the new line...

Maybe the last few years Honda lost sight of their principle foundation of innovative ways to be fuel efficient AND fun to drive, but it most certainly appears they've found their way back to the core of their heritage and history.



What on earth makes you think that Honda has found their way back exactly?
The 4 cylinder model comes with a CVT. That sure sounds like a fun to drive car....
There was a day when you could pick up a CRX, Prelude and Civic in Si trim that would be fun to drive and fuel efficient.
Now all we have to choose from in the "fun to drive" category is a Civic Si that hangs on to revs for too long between shifts, has the worst, cheapest interior I saw at the auto show (the Suzuki had a better interior), and was panned by many auto journalists for being only slightly better engined while losing most of the feel through the steering wheel (calling it "disconnected" and "video game like") and a warmed over 8th gen V6 coupe.
I'd say they are further from the core of their heritage and history than ever before. Any car company that puts a CVT in a car does so to increase fuel economy. It does not increase fun or performance. Honda has been off the rails for a while now and it appears that they don't mind releasing a new vehicle and then redesigning it a year later because they were too conservative and made bad choices (a la Civic).
Meanwhile, Toyota made their Camry superior to the Accord Sedan in every way - better materials, better fuel economy, better build quality, and better performance. Toyota is going after the fuel efficient and fun to drive crowd with the excellent Scion FR-S. The Civic was a failure and it *should* have woken up Honda's executive team. It appears to me that it has not.
I love my 7th gen. I doubt I'll be buying another Honda (maybe a CR-V for the wife - it seems to be the only vehicle in their lineup unaffected by the corporate junk monkeys) next time I have a chance (which will be in October). Why? Because Honda has been gradually letting their styling, performance, materials and technology get overtaken by other car manufacturers intent on advancing the modern automobile.
How else do you explain their nav system being generations behind the competition? How else do you explain the cheapness that now exists in their materials? How else do you explain that an automobile manufacturer long considered the enthusiasts driver's affordable choice plopping a CVT in a car that, despite only offering a 5 speed automatic (as opposed to a 6 speed auto), was reviewed as being "almost telepathic"?
Honda continues to get lazy and apathetic. The only way to correct this nonsense is to NOT buy a warmed over "new" 9th gen car that is nearly identical to the 8th gen.
I'll reserve my final judgment until the cars hit the dealerships and I can take a look and test drive them, but I don't think applauding mediocrity is a good idea.
Some say that the modern automobile is nearly perfect and that there isn't much more we can expect. I say that's a bunch of bull spit. If Hyundai can get close to 300 hp out of a 4 cylinder with a turbo and radically redesign their entire lineup, so can Honda. If Ford can take a massive risk with the redesign of the Ford Fusion (which, in 2013 form, I think is spectacular), so can Honda. If Chevy can make the economy car (Cruze) seem almost luxurious, so can Honda. If Toyota can improve the styling and materials in the Camry so much so that even I'd consider owning one, so can Honda. If Scion can put out a fun, back to basics car like the FR-S, so can Honda.
Instead, Honda put out the ugly and awful Venza competitor (months after Toyota, btw), the Accord CrossTour. Instead, Honda dumped a bunch of development cash into the crappy and pointless CR-Z. Instead, Honda took the engine from the TSX and put it in the Civic Si while actually putting cheaper materials in and doing an almost imperceptible exterior redesign. Instead, Honda is going to make a CVT standard (which no one asked for or wanted).
Something is wrong at Honda, my friends. It's time to stop pretending it's all going to be okay and send a strong message.
Honda SHOULD be about performance, reliability, quality, and innovation, not following the pack, barely good enough, and cheapening materials to pinch a few pennies.
Having spent too much time in the Honda section at the Chicago Auto Show, I can tell you with confidence that aside from the CR-V, they do not have a single class leading vehicle anymore. The new Accord wasn't even the feature there. The CR-V with a giant stuffed bear was. Honda's folks begged people to jump in and take a picture. Meanwhile, the Accord Coupe looked so much like the current version that I walked back and forth between the two and had a hard time telling the difference.
Of course, you are entitled to believe what you want. I just don't think that anything Honda is doing is that big of a deal. As others have pointed out, what's the point of the extra power if there is no LSD to help put it on the ground?

jeffislouie

I certainly enjoyed reading your pationate post. I mostly agree with you.
As you mention, it will all come down to test driving the cars once they come out (the coupe is growing on me even though it is impossible to consider it a re-design).

About Honda's other cars, I am very happy with the new Ody, I still beleive the car is overall superior to the other vans, but the gap keeps closing and the others now provide even more gadgets than Honda. The CR-V also looks great, but with the future arrival of my third kid:banana:, it is either Ody or Pilot for my wife.

For years I've been a loyal Honda customer, but if the 9th gen doesn't really capture my attention once I test drive it, I will certainly be paying a visit next door to Ford (I might take a look at the ILX but the current info doesn't really stirr my interest). I will definitely still not look at the Camry, I don't like the new one, eventhough that gadget wise is pretty much up there, the exterior just gives me the creeps:thumbsdow. In toyota's defense, at least they seem to have tried harder than Honda.
If the new model doesn't cut it, I will indeed send my message by taking my business elsewere.:paranoid:

Seriously? CVT can do whatever it is designed to do. If they tune it for fuel efficiency, then it is slow, but like any gear ratios, it can be tuned to be sporty. Hate the designers, not the engineering behind it. It's just like hybrid technology. The hybrids that do not have small engines are faster than the non-hybrid versions. The Accord, for instance, was 1 second faster on 0-60 due to it. Look at how it is being used in high-end sports cars even. It just seems like people don't understand technology, and how it is versatile.

Seriously? CVT can do whatever it is designed to do. If they tune it for fuel efficiency, then it is slow, but like any gear ratios, it can be tuned to be sporty. Hate the designers, not the engineering behind it. It's just like hybrid technology. The hybrids that do not have small engines are faster than the non-hybrid versions. The Accord, for instance, was 1 second faster on 0-60 due to it. Look at how it is being used in high-end sports cars even. It just seems like people don't understand technology, and how it is versatile.

There isn't any successful hybrid sports car in production. Those hybrid supercars are mostly concepts. Most of them don't use the same hybrid technology as a Prius. They're considered hybrids because they use electric motors to give them AWD.

I don't think anyone would relate CVTs with fun and performance. I don't know what they can or can't do to CVTs, but it's more of the fact that people consider manuals to be "fun".

Is the V6 Accord Hybrid 1 second faster to 60 than a regular V6 Accord or an I4 Accord?

There isn't any successful hybrid sports car in production. Those hybrid supercars are mostly concepts. Most of them don't use the same hybrid technology as a Prius. They're considered hybrids because they use electric motors to give them AWD.

I don't think anyone would relate CVTs with fun and performance. I don't know what they can or can't do to CVTs, but it's more of the fact that people consider manuals to be "fun".

Is the V6 Accord Hybrid 1 second faster to 60 than a regular V6 Accord or an I4 Accord?

First two words of cuation: my knowledge of CVTs is limited and I still haven't driven a car fitted with it but....

The CVT is engineered to hold the engine spinning at it's most efficient speed, while varying the ratio to attain the speed.
I understand most of them have a "semi-automatic" program where the driver can select through pre-program gear ratios to simulate a normal transmission.
Often, I've heard, shifting through this "gears" is slow and takes the fun out of it (I've heard the same of a bunch of semi-autos, including a few with double clutchs).

Honda is promosing that their CVT will be able to manage these shifts more quickly that other transmissions out there. If they succeed in this (it is not the same to say it than to do it), it might be good things (for those who want I understand the manual will still be offered, but might be as hard to find as it is today).
So for all the people using automatics, I think this transmittion won't make too much of a difference, but will add the posibility of prentending to drive a stick. Granted it should be weird to listen to a MOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, insteado of MOOOAAAA MOOOAAA MOOA of regular automatic trannys but I think, at least on my case I wouldn't mind... :thumbsup:

My too cents (and please not, I have been wrong before and will be wrong again in the future :lmao:

Seriously? CVT can do whatever it is designed to do. If they tune it for fuel efficiency, then it is slow, but like any gear ratios, it can be tuned to be sporty. Hate the designers, not the engineering behind it. It's just like hybrid technology. The hybrids that do not have small engines are faster than the non-hybrid versions. The Accord, for instance, was 1 second faster on 0-60 due to it. Look at how it is being used in high-end sports cars even. It just seems like people don't understand technology, and how it is versatile.

I tried to respond to this three times last night, but my iPad kept crashing. So here goes:
While I appreciate the technology of the CVT, it is not an enthusiasts choice. You said that it can be tuned to be sporty, but that's not entirely true. A CVT keeps the engine revving close to redline. They are used primarily for fuel efficiency purposes with the added benefit being smoothness (since there is no traditional shifting). However, it is NOT new technology and has been around since 1886, though it was first conceptualized by Da Vinci in 1490. The only "new" aspect to the CVT is that auto manufacturers recognized that it could slightly improve efficiency and started putting them in fuel efficient, definitely NOT sporty, vehicles. This is where they belong. If the CVT belonged in high performance vehicles, I'm certain that it would be employed by BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini as well as in modern racing series, including F1, Indy, and NASCAR. But it hasn't been. Which should tell you something.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this decision by Honda is that it reaffirms the idea that Honda is NOT listening to their fans OR their customers.
What do I mean? Virtually every reputable car magazine in the United States has said that the Accord is an excellent, sporty option. While these magazine's reviews have critiqued Honda's odd insistence on sticking with the excellent 5 speed automatic (often described as "telepathic"), each one has suggested that Honda add a cog and make it a 6 speed automatic. When Honda introduced the 8th gen, many of us Honda fans wondered why they didn't make a 6 speed automatic standard fare, especially since the 6 speed automatic is now pretty much the norm, with 7 and 8 speed automatic transmissions now making their way into high end brands.
Beyond that, some of us enthusiasts have been wondering why Honda hasn't developed and deployed a 6 speed DSG type transmission when VW, and now Ford, has.
So the magazines begged for a 6 speed auto and the fans and Honda enthusiasts dreamed of a 6 speed auto or DSG. Naturally, Honda listened and decided to put a.......CVT in their cars?
If I wanted a CVT in my family sedan, I'd have bought an Altima. But I didn't. And I don't. So I didn't. And I wont. Thanks to Honda's stupid decision, I now have to purchase a manual (which is fine for me most of the time, but requires that I teach my wife to drive stick - always good for a marriage) or look elsewhere.
Beyond that, Honda refuses to listen to the critics, reviewers and owners about style, technology, and technology. The 8th gen was a big step from the 7th gen. We expected an actual redesign. Instead, Honda did everything on the cheap, a mistake repeated after the dismal failure they experienced with the new Civic, and did a mild redesign. Yeah, the engine changes seem nice. But the car is far too close to the 8th gen car. So close, in fact, that at the Chicago Auto Show, I spent more than half an hour trying to distinguish any major changes from the 8th gen coupe to the 9th gen coupe. Yes, the fog lights look interesting, but those won't make it to the actual production vehicle. Beyond that, it's all minor cosmetic changes.
Meanwhile, Honda continues to lose market share and customers as brands like Toyota improve their Camry, a direct competitor to the Accord, by overhauling the exterior and vastly improving the interior with superior materials and technology. How long have people been complaining that the Honda nav unit is way behind the times? Why didn't THAT change in the 8th gen? Because Honda is coasting.
Clapping loudly at the new car is ridiculous and reinforces bad behavior by Honda, who have lost their way and turned their back on their roots.
As for your argument for the Hybrid Accord, the problem is simple - and it does not involve people failing to understand the benefit of technology. Most people who buy hybrids pay more for superior fuel economy, not acceleration. The idea, as marketed by the green folks, is that a hybrid engine can produce excellent fuel economy without making a car undriveable. Honda experimented with a hybrid system in the Accord that made the car faster, but resulted in a very, very marginal bump in fuel economy. People didn't buy it because they saw the word "hybrid" and the expectation was a huge boost in fuel economy, but they didn't get that boost. They got a bump.
That's not to say that a performance hybrid is or was a bad idea. It was more that Honda failed to effectively communicate the message of the vehicle - better performance WITHOUT the penalty. Some day, this idea will return. If marketed properly, it will likely succeed.
I am not a luddite. I appreciate technology. But the CVT belongs on a penalty box car aimed at maximizing fuel efficiency. It's a step backwards. If Honda made it an option, in other words making it a choice for consumers to make between a 6 speed auto and a CVT, they'd likely find that the take rate of the CVT would be astonishingly low and would realize that producing the CVT is pointless. Instead, they forced it down their customers collective throats. As a result, they've added another reason that, aside from the CR-V, I am unlikely to end up purchasing an Accord for my next car.
I was considering the Civic Si until I sat in one at the auto show and was angered by the cheapness of the materials used. Beyond that, the Si holds on to revs for a frustratingly long time, making shifts less precise and the car itself less sporty than it could be.
My friend, it is a little odd to proclaim that a CVT is a technological advance when Honda still isn't offering a LSD, a high quality navigation system, or any number of other advances being embraced by their competitors.
Respectfully, the CVT is not an advanced technology waiting for stubborn, technology averse customers to come around to. It's an old technology available on many cheap and crappy cars. Cars with CVT transmission moo their way to speed, forcing the occupants to listen to engine noises that most would find unpleasant. Instead of the "rhhhaaAAAAA, RhaaaAAAAA, Rhaaaaa" we normally associate with rapid acceleration, the CVT sounds like "rhhhhaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA A". Next time you hop in your car, rev the engine almost to red line and keep it there for 8 seconds. This is what the next Accord will sound like every time you try to go to 60 miles an hour.

jeffislouie

I certainly enjoyed reading your pationate post. I mostly agree with you.
As you mention, it will all come down to test driving the cars once they come out (the coupe is growing on me even though it is impossible to consider it a re-design).

About Honda's other cars, I am very happy with the new Ody, I still beleive the car is overall superior to the other vans, but the gap keeps closing and the others now provide even more gadgets than Honda. The CR-V also looks great, but with the future arrival of my third kid:banana:, it is either Ody or Pilot for my wife.

For years I've been a loyal Honda customer, but if the 9th gen doesn't really capture my attention once I test drive it, I will certainly be paying a visit next door to Ford (I might take a look at the ILX but the current info doesn't really stirr my interest). I will definitely still not look at the Camry, I don't like the new one, eventhough that gadget wise is pretty much up there, the exterior just gives me the creeps:thumbsdow. In toyota's defense, at least they seem to have tried harder than Honda.
If the new model doesn't cut it, I will indeed send my message by taking my business elsewere.:paranoid:

Respect. I didn't mention the Odyssey because it isn't something I need right now. My brother and his wife own one and I can attest to just how fantastic it is. It is, in my opinion, the best minivan/people carrier out there. I'd rather have one of those than any SUV out there. My first car was our family minivan and I loved it very, very much. There was nothing like piling 5 friends in my minivan and cruising about. They drive well, get reasonably good fuel economy, and offer an exceedingly acceptable tradeoff. The Ody has very few downsides. Especially if you don't care about the whole silly "soccer mom" nonsense pushed on us by the more fashionable folks. Personally, I don't.
I certainly didn't mean to exclude the Ody, it just slipped my mind because it isn't on my radar. We're still waiting for law school to finally be over so we can pop out a few kids of our own. If we end up with more than 2, and Honda doesn't take a similar dump on their minivan, we'll definitely shop Honda for the Ody. If not, my wife adores the new CR-V. The new magic seats, ride height, and features all appeal to her. I thought this was pretty cool considering her current ride is an 08 Equinox LTZ with every single option. I have nicknamed it her monster truck because of the massive turning radius, overall "big-ness", and 16 mpg average. Plus, it's not exactly the most reliable car.

Is the V6 Accord Hybrid 1 second faster to 60 than a regular V6 Accord or an I4 Accord?
Oh yeah, it's faster. Just google it.
I think that not only low demand but some potential techical issues with this car cut the sale.

People act like new technology is inferior because people use it in weird ways. And they dismiss good uses (Accord, NSX, etc). CVT is probably the future, just not in this form, lol. My wife's Sentra is great for her, and she loves CVT, but it isn't tuned for performance for sure.

I guess the main key to figure is how to make a CVT make 'manual' changes quick enough to feel sporty.
Again talking from theory: a CVT would stay close to the red line only during hard acceleration trying to use the best engine speed for Max torque and Hp, and the a the lowest speed while cruising to improve mpg.
I would the push this as far as to say that for high end cars with 7 or 8 gears the logic is the same, just that manufacturers know how to make the shifting pretty fast.
A ctv has theoretically an infinite number of gear ratios so whoever comes with the quickest way to simulate these shifts on cvt wind the race?
What dayathink? Is my theory right or am I full of it?:dunno:

I guess the main key to figure is how to make a CVT make 'manual' changes quick enough to feel sporty.
Again talking from theory: a CVT would stay close to the red line only during hard acceleration trying to use the best engine speed for Max torque and Hp, and the a the lowest speed while cruising to improve mpg.
I would the push this as far as to say that for high end cars with 7 or 8 gears the logic is the same, just that manufacturers know how to make the shifting pretty fast.
A ctv has theoretically an infinite number of gear ratios so whoever comes with the quickest way to simulate these shifts on cvt wind the race?
What dayathink? Is my theory right or am I full of it?:dunno:

Nope, that's exactly right. I think a lot of it has to do with the technology evolving first too. I don't think its current implementation will be able to get where we want it. In 10 years maybe we can do what you're talking about perfectly.

Good to know I am not totally lost with the theory.
I agree, I don't think the technology is there yet. So it will be interesting to see how honda's claim fare. Will they take a step in the right direction or fall short and disappoint. I keep saying lets wait and see, although in reality I am not all that patient.... I have an instant gratification issue!
I like all the hondas I have and had overall so I will remain optimistic about their future.

Some interesting ideas here.
Do I think it will be the transmission of the future? No, I don't.
The reason I think it wont is simple: the CVT has been around longer than the automatic.
There is a reason it was brought back, and I don't believe it was performance. From what I understand, the CVT is inherently weaker than other transmissions precisely because of the way it needs to be designed.
While Nissan has a ton of money invested in the technology and has hooked it into the powerful Maxima, I've driven one and wasn't impressed. Especially after having driven automatic (older) versions. Perhaps the weirdest thing is step-off, where the car feels like it has a slipping transmission. Next, the engine winds up almost to redline and stays there until you've reached your desired speed. Most engines are raucous and a little rough up there, making the auditory stimulus rather unpleasant and odd. The guy who owned the car invited me to use the alternate mode, where the CVT pretends to be an automatic. Problem is, these fake gear ratios don't improve acceleration all that much and feel like fake shifts.
That said, aside from Maxima (and it's baby brother the Altima), no other car manufacturer employs the CVT on anything resembling a sporty or enthusiasts car.
The idea behind the CVT is that the infinite gear ratios can match engine output to gearing to provide the best use of power (in theory). However, I firmly believe that the main benefit to the CVT is fuel economy and the secondary benefit is smoothness. According to commercials by Nissan, you can put a full coffee cup in your cup holder, nail it, and not spill a drop due to shifting. That's what enthusiasts love. The ability to not spill your drink.
Another concern is the reliability issues. A google search will provide you with plenty of concern. In most manual transmissions, the clutch takes most of the wear and is easily replaced. Most automatic transmissions last more than 200k miles without needing repair. As for CVT's, well, the jury is still out. Some folks believe that the CVT will not last as long as a standard manual or automatic transmission. If one of the belts in the CVT fails, it's quite an expensive repair.
Perhaps the dirtiest little secret is that the CVT has higher internal losses, meaning less of that power advantage theoretically gained through a step less transmission makes it to the wheels. Add to that the fact that torque and power curves have been flattening in most engines, and the CVT stop making much sense.
Just as an example - BMW's turbo straight six makes max torque around 2k rpm. The torque curve is pretty flat right until around 5.5k rpm, when it starts to drop off. Horsepower doesn't approach max until around 5.5k rpm, but it's fairly close (around 225 hp at the wheels) starting around 4250.
VW's excellent 2.0 turbo has a similar power band. Max torque comes in around 1800 rpm and is flat right up to red line.
Granted, this seems to be a turbo thing. With turbo's going into a lot of vehicles as a way to make power and improve MPG, the CVT isn't that great of a fit in terms of what the future holds.
The manual transmission is best. DSG's are second best. 6, 7, 8, etc. speed automatics are next, followed by the CVT in terms of actual performance. I believe that this is also the order of likelihood of future transmissions.
A DSG allows for faster shifting as well as the ability to shift for yourself or let it act like a slushbox. Plus, the DSG technology is reliable, cheaper to repair, and more robust. My brother used to own a 2010 GTI with the DSG and my time behind the wheel left me impressed - almost enough for me to forget all the problems my old GTI gave me.
I guess it boils down to what you, as an individual, prefer. If your goal is fuel economy and you can't manage to avoid spilling drinks because your automatic transmission is just too jerky, the CVT makes a lot of sense. Where I live, the bulk of Altima's are sold to the elderly, and the idea of a super smooth transmission appeals to them, especially with the demise of the old school Buick barge.
In terms of enthusiast driving, I have a hard time believing that an enthusiast would prefer a CVT over a DSG. Or even a solid automatic. While I haven't driven a CVT on a racetrack (has anyone? I doubt it.), my experience driving manuals and DSG's aggressively left me wondering how a CVT would ruin the experience.
I think the CVT serves a purpose on econoboxes and hybrids, but I don't see it as the transmission of the future. I see it as the transmission of the past. Perhaps the biggest issue I have with Honda's plans is that their 5 speed automatic was excellent. A 6 speed would have been better. A dual clutch unit would have been amazing. A CVT? Well, that's out of left field. As I've said before, no one was asking for it.
To me, the whole CVT thing is like the compact flourescent bulb. No one asked for it, but now we're all supposed to get it. The old bulb was fine. Break a CFL and you have trouble. Is it more efficient? It depends. It's more expensive, but lasts a little longer. The light isn't as natural. When you turn them on, it takes a little bit for them to get to maximum brightness. Some folks say it's the bulb of the future, others go to great lengths to avoid it and buy regular, old fashioned light bulbs.
My guess is that Honda knew they weren't changing the styling all that much. They knew they weren't going to add a lot of technology to the interior. They knew that they weren't going to wow the car world. They knew that their Civic launch was an abysmal failure and had planned the same generational changes for the Accord. So someone called an audible with the idea being that adding a CVT meant that people wouldn't be so quick to point out that they haven't kept up in terms of technology and styling to their competition. It's a BRAND NEW TRANSMISSION, they thought....
I say meh. I say it's going to make their car more of a follower than a leader. I say some dipstick in the marketing department decided that the Accord can't compete with Camry, so the Altima is a good target. Nothing says success like taking aim squarely at the middle....

jeffislouie,

Could you try to form your posts a bit more organized? I think you have some good things to say but your paragraphs run together and that makes it difficult to read.

Try to double space between paragraphs. It makes posts much easier to read.

Thanks!

Does anyone know if Honda will ever make an accord v6 6Mt sedan again?:dunno:

Does anyone know if Honda will ever make an accord v6 6Mt sedan again?:dunno:

According to their January press release about the 9th Gen, yes they will:
"The 2013 Accord Sedan and Accord Coupe will also be offered with a re-engineered 3.5-liter, 24-valve, SOHC, i-VTEC V-6 engine, paired to a new 6-speed automatic transmission or an available 6-speed manual transmission. The new V-6 engine generates an increase in horsepower and torque over the current model. The 2013 Accord Sedan and Accord Coupe models equipped with the 6-speed automatic transmission will utilize Honda Variable Cylinder Management ™ (VCM™) technology and are targeted to achieve class-leading fuel economy1 along with an overall improvement in fuel economy compared to the outgoing model."

But I guess there's a fair chance they will do it only for the coupe as they do today... I base this on the fact that the press release is for the coupe concept and on the current offering.

Gandalf, you r right. For those who have no idea about engine and thier technology, check out this link to tell the difference between various honda engine technologies.

http://www.honda.co.nz/technology/engine/vcm/

I haven’t read this full thread, so if has been answered already forgive me. Do we know which engine Honda will mate to the 6MT? Is it the VCM, which seems to get all the recent hype? Or is it the previous, more powerful, dual-lobe VTEC engine? Conversely, would Honda mate the VCM engine to the 6MT?

I haven’t read this full thread, so if has been answered already forgive me. Do we know which engine Honda will mate to the 6MT? Is it the VCM, which seems to get all the recent hype? Or is it the previous, more powerful, dual-lobe VTEC engine? Conversely, would Honda mate the VCM engine to the 6MT?

Dude, it's not that I mind trying to help (as much as I can), but in this case you didn't even had to read the whole thread (bear in mind that most of us did).
Just look to posts up and you will find your answer. Or if that is still too hard, I quoted it below. (Let me know if I have to highlihgt it).

According to their January press release about the 9th Gen, yes they will:
"The 2013 Accord Sedan and Accord Coupe will also be offered with a re-engineered 3.5-liter, 24-valve, SOHC, i-VTEC V-6 engine, paired to a new 6-speed automatic transmission or an available 6-speed manual transmission. The new V-6 engine generates an increase in horsepower and torque over the current model. The 2013 Accord Sedan and Accord Coupe models equipped with the 6-speed automatic transmission will utilize Honda Variable Cylinder Management ™ (VCM™) technology and are targeted to achieve class-leading fuel economy1 along with an overall improvement in fuel economy compared to the outgoing model."

But I guess there's a fair chance they will do it only for the coupe as they do today... I base this on the fact that the press release is for the coupe concept and on the current offering.

The way I read it it is same as now, they are still offering 2 engines both new (DI enabled) but it says only the auto gets the VCM, there is no mention of VCM with stick, just like now .

The way I read it it is same as now, they are still offering 2 engines both new (DI enabled) but it says only the auto gets the VCM, there is no mention of VCM with stick, just like now .

Ahhh, that's how I read it when it just came out, since then I re-read it an come to a different conclusion.

The I-4 is the one getting DI (with their new earths dream technology), but they do not make the same claim about the V6, the 3.5 engine will just be revised (not DI and not from their new tech).
And since now they announced a DI-V6 for the Acura RLX, I think Acura will be the brand to premier this, before it tickes down to Honda (I guess we should be grateful they didn't take the same path with the i-4!!!!!)

Ahhh, that's how I read it when I just came out, since then I re-read it an come to a different conclusion.

The I-4 is the one getting DI (with their new earths dream technology), but they do not make the same claim about the V6, the 3.5 engine will just be revised (not DI and not from their new tech).
And since now they announced a DI-V6 for the Acura RLX, I think Acura will be the brand to premier this, before it tickes down to Honda (I guess we should be grateful they didn't take the same path with the i-4!!!!!)

They do have a new 3.5 DI and I bet that is how they claim power and TQ improvements .
I forget were but they had all there powertrain up with photos, 2.4L (some smaller engines too) with 3.5L .
They also showed the CTV bolted to them (4 cylinder versions) .

My guess is Acura will still have power lead as there tuned for 91+ fuel even though basic engine is same, so they get slightly higher CR an slight TQ boost by higher compression and fuel requirements .

We will see when more info comes out .

The way I read it it is same as now, they are still offering 2 engines both new (DI enabled) but it says only the auto gets the VCM, there is no mention of VCM with stick, just like now .

Exactly Ed. That statement claims, “The 2013 Accord Sedan and Accord Coupe models equipped with the 6-speed automatic transmission will utilize Honda Variable Cylinder Management ™ (VCM™) technology.” By exclusion it seems the 6MT will not utilize the VCM engine. If one follows that logic it seems likely the 6MT will connect to the dual-lobe VTEC engine, much as it does now.

Exactly Ed. That statement claims, “The 2013 Accord Sedan and Accord Coupe models equipped with the 6-speed automatic transmission will utilize Honda Variable Cylinder Management ™ (VCM™) technology.” By exclusion it seems the 6MT will not utilize the VCM engine. If one follows that logic it seems likely the 6MT will connect to the dual-lobe VTEC engine, much as it does now.

right, that would be my guess as that is what we have today .

I was hoping they would move to a DOHC version of the V6 .
This would allow DI and spark-plug in center top of head with cams and valves on each side. This would allow also variable valve timing to be implemented .

Maybe this is to much change for them or it might also mean slightly larger engine bay as a DOHC V6 would probably be little wider (head wise) .
I think the combination would bring them well over 300 mark with ease .

jeffislouie,

Could you try to form your posts a bit more organized? I think you have some good things to say but your paragraphs run together and that makes it difficult to read.

Try to double space between paragraphs. It makes posts much easier to read.

Thanks!

Agreed....and again, good read Jeff.

Some interesting ideas here.
Do I think it will be the transmission of the future? No, I don't.
The reason I think it wont is simple: the CVT has been around longer than the automatic.
There is a reason it was brought back, and I don't believe it was performance. From what I understand, the CVT is inherently weaker than other transmissions precisely because of the way it needs to be designed.
While Nissan has a ton of money invested in the technology and has hooked it into the powerful Maxima, I've driven one and wasn't impressed. Especially after having driven automatic (older) versions. Perhaps the weirdest thing is step-off, where the car feels like it has a slipping transmission. Next, the engine winds up almost to redline and stays there until you've reached your desired speed. Most engines are raucous and a little rough up there, making the auditory stimulus rather unpleasant and odd. The guy who owned the car invited me to use the alternate mode, where the CVT pretends to be an automatic. Problem is, these fake gear ratios don't improve acceleration all that much and feel like fake shifts.
That said, aside from Maxima (and it's baby brother the Altima), no other car manufacturer employs the CVT on anything resembling a sporty or enthusiasts car.
The idea behind the CVT is that the infinite gear ratios can match engine output to gearing to provide the best use of power (in theory). However, I firmly believe that the main benefit to the CVT is fuel economy and the secondary benefit is smoothness. According to commercials by Nissan, you can put a full coffee cup in your cup holder, nail it, and not spill a drop due to shifting. That's what enthusiasts love. The ability to not spill your drink.
Another concern is the reliability issues. A google search will provide you with plenty of concern. In most manual transmissions, the clutch takes most of the wear and is easily replaced. Most automatic transmissions last more than 200k miles without needing repair. As for CVT's, well, the jury is still out. Some folks believe that the CVT will not last as long as a standard manual or automatic transmission. If one of the belts in the CVT fails, it's quite an expensive repair.
Perhaps the dirtiest little secret is that the CVT has higher internal losses, meaning less of that power advantage theoretically gained through a step less transmission makes it to the wheels. Add to that the fact that torque and power curves have been flattening in most engines, and the CVT stop making much sense.
Just as an example - BMW's turbo straight six makes max torque around 2k rpm. The torque curve is pretty flat right until around 5.5k rpm, when it starts to drop off. Horsepower doesn't approach max until around 5.5k rpm, but it's fairly close (around 225 hp at the wheels) starting around 4250.
VW's excellent 2.0 turbo has a similar power band. Max torque comes in around 1800 rpm and is flat right up to red line.
Granted, this seems to be a turbo thing. With turbo's going into a lot of vehicles as a way to make power and improve MPG, the CVT isn't that great of a fit in terms of what the future holds.
The manual transmission is best. DSG's are second best. 6, 7, 8, etc. speed automatics are next, followed by the CVT in terms of actual performance. I believe that this is also the order of likelihood of future transmissions.
A DSG allows for faster shifting as well as the ability to shift for yourself or let it act like a slushbox. Plus, the DSG technology is reliable, cheaper to repair, and more robust. My brother used to own a 2010 GTI with the DSG and my time behind the wheel left me impressed - almost enough for me to forget all the problems my old GTI gave me.
I guess it boils down to what you, as an individual, prefer. If your goal is fuel economy and you can't manage to avoid spilling drinks because your automatic transmission is just too jerky, the CVT makes a lot of sense. Where I live, the bulk of Altima's are sold to the elderly, and the idea of a super smooth transmission appeals to them, especially with the demise of the old school Buick barge.
In terms of enthusiast driving, I have a hard time believing that an enthusiast would prefer a CVT over a DSG. Or even a solid automatic. While I haven't driven a CVT on a racetrack (has anyone? I doubt it.), my experience driving manuals and DSG's aggressively left me wondering how a CVT would ruin the experience.
I think the CVT serves a purpose on econoboxes and hybrids, but I don't see it as the transmission of the future. I see it as the transmission of the past. Perhaps the biggest issue I have with Honda's plans is that their 5 speed automatic was excellent. A 6 speed would have been better. A dual clutch unit would have been amazing. A CVT? Well, that's out of left field. As I've said before, no one was asking for it.
To me, the whole CVT thing is like the compact flourescent bulb. No one asked for it, but now we're all supposed to get it. The old bulb was fine. Break a CFL and you have trouble. Is it more efficient? It depends. It's more expensive, but lasts a little longer. The light isn't as natural. When you turn them on, it takes a little bit for them to get to maximum brightness. Some folks say it's the bulb of the future, others go to great lengths to avoid it and buy regular, old fashioned light bulbs.
My guess is that Honda knew they weren't changing the styling all that much. They knew they weren't going to add a lot of technology to the interior. They knew that they weren't going to wow the car world. They knew that their Civic launch was an abysmal failure and had planned the same generational changes for the Accord. So someone called an audible with the idea being that adding a CVT meant that people wouldn't be so quick to point out that they haven't kept up in terms of technology and styling to their competition. It's a BRAND NEW TRANSMISSION, they thought....
I say meh. I say it's going to make their car more of a follower than a leader. I say some dipstick in the marketing department decided that the Accord can't compete with Camry, so the Altima is a good target. Nothing says success like taking aim squarely at the middle....

Great post with which I wholly agree!

Here is a little tid-bit of info I read from Car & Driver...

"At the top of the line is a redesigned 3.5-liter V-6, which features cylinder shutdown and a two-stage oil pump. With at least 308 hp and 266 lb-ft of torque, this engine delivers more power than Honda’s existing 3.7-liter engine and should yield a fuel-economy improvement of about 10 percent."

Source: http://blog.caranddriver.com/honda-finally-adds-direct-injection-to-its-v6-and-four-cylinder-engines/

Looks like a BIG increase in power nearly 40HP!

werd

werd

I can guarantee you that the new Accord will no where near have over 300+ hp

I'm guessing HONDA are targeting around 280~285 tops.

Even with the 8th gen accord they were lower than the Camary and Maxima.

I can guarantee you that the new Accord will no where near have over 300+ hp

I'm guessing HONDA are targeting around 280~285 tops.

Even with the 8th gen accord they were lower than the Camary and Maxima.

Yeah last i read it was in the 280's.

Yeah last i read it was in the 280's.

The 2012 Nissan 3.5 has 280HP

and Guess what?

The all NEW 2013 has the SAME HP.

I'm very certain that the new 2013 Accord will have a slight HP increase instead of the Rumored 300hp. Why would Honda want to step in their own toes (ACURA) with giving the Accord more HP?:dunno:

The 2012 Nissan 3.5 has 280HP

and Guess what?

The all NEW 2013 has the SAME HP.

I'm very certain that the new 2013 Accord will have a slight HP increase instead of the Rumored 300hp. Why would Honda want to step in their own toes (ACURA) with giving the Accord more HP?:dunno:

What they could be doing is using same mechanical parts as possible and just have Acura tuned for 91+ . This saves them from making specific engines for acura . they can probably share quiet a bit .

What they could be doing is using same mechanical parts as possible and just have Acura tuned for 91+ . This saves them from making specific engines for acura . they can probably share quiet a bit .

And it's not even like they haven't, before, lol. There was a time when the V6 accord had 240hp (to match the - then class leading - Altima V6, ironically), and the TL only had 225 (Type-S had a 260hp, but that's different, explained below).

And anyhow, even it if was just a smidgen over 300HP, the TL can be equipped with the 305HP engine (therefore creating the same situation as before, with the base TL having less power than the V6 Accord, but the upgraded one having more).

Don't forget the new 6-speed auto transmission that will not be strong enough to handle the V6, because you know how Honda can screw that up.

Don't forget the new 6-speed auto transmission that will not be strong enough to handle the V6, because you know how Honda can screw that up.

Glad you are back... What was it again that soured you to this point with Honda? Seems to me that in your book whatever they do is going to be the wrong thing.

Don't forget the new 6-speed auto transmission that will not be strong enough to handle the V6, because you know how Honda can screw that up.

I think the new 6 speed auto should be great for the new Accord without many issues like the AT problems they had in the past. I think they most likely have learned thier lesson from past, which is why they have decided to delay putting the 6AT into their Accords until now (when other competitors have had it for several years before they do). I had hoped the new 4cyl would also get the 6AT but it looks like CVT is what they decided to go with. Oh well..

I doubt the V6 Accord is going to have 300hp though. Looking at the numbers of their competitors, I think we are looking at a slight increase at 280or so. Or maybe they'll even forego a few horses, go down to 26x for the sake of better fuel efficiency. Better EPA numbers across the board is what is going to happen for sure.

I think the new 6 speed auto should be great for the new Accord without many issues like the AT problems they had in the past. I think they most likely have learned thier lesson from past, which is why they have decided to delay putting the 6AT into their Accords until now (when other competitors have had it for several years before they do). I had hoped the new 4cyl would also get the 6AT but it looks like CVT is what they decided to go with. Oh well..

I doubt the V6 Accord is going to have 300hp though. Looking at the numbers of their competitors, I think we are looking at a slight increase at 280or so. Or maybe they'll even forego a few horses, go down to 26x for the sake of better fuel efficiency. Better EPA numbers across the board is what is going to happen for sure.

Haha, how are you "doubting" this? It's a done deal. It will have at least 300hp. That is a fact.

Haha, how are you "doubting" this? It's a done deal. It will have at least 300hp. That is a fact.

The stats came in from a Honda Canada dealer rep who was on another Accord forum, and the V6 is rated at 278 hp.

I'd like to know where you got your "at least 300hp. That is a fact" information from.

The stats came in from a Honda Canada dealer rep who was on another Accord forum, and the V6 is rated at 289 hp.

I'd like to know where you got your "at least 300hp. That is a fact" information from.

Check out this sub-forum for the 9th gen. The references to that figure are listed. Direct injection by itself seems to just raise the efficiency to that point with few other changes.

Check out this sub-forum for the 9th gen. The references to that figure are listed. Direct injection by itself seems to just raise the efficiency to that point with few other changes.

What sub forum? Direct link?

The stats came in from a Honda Canada dealer rep who was on another Accord forum, and the V6 is rated at 289 hp.

I'd like to know where you got your "at least 300hp. That is a fact" information from.

A family member is part of the Honda 20 club. He was present at the meeting two weeks ago where they gave the club more insight on the next gen, as well as had the actual cars there for them to see (along with the next Civic). He confirmed to me that the next accord will have 300 hp.

What sub forum? Direct link?

The one we're posting in now.
http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=86

Haha, how are you "doubting" this? It's a done deal. It will have at least 300hp. That is a fact.

Check out this sub-forum for the 9th gen. The references to that figure are listed. Direct injection by itself seems to just raise the efficiency to that point with few other changes.

A family member is part of the Honda 20 club. He was present at the meeting two weeks ago where they gave the club more insight on the next gen, as well as had the actual cars there for them to see (along with the next Civic). He confirmed to me that the next accord will have 300 hp.

I'm sorry, I had to double check the source, and I was wrong... the J35 is rated at 278hp for 2013:

"EX-L V6 (Adds or Replaces the above)
-3.5Litre SOHC 6 Cylinder Engine
-278HP
-17" Aluminum Alloy Wheels
-6 Speed Automatic Transmission with Grade Logic
-Halogen Projector Beam Headlights
-6 Speakers (No Subwoofer)
-Dual Exhaust Finishers "

Now this is a Honda dealer rep for Canada. I cannot imagine Canadian and USA models would vary by 22hp, if any.

I'm sorry, I had to double check the source, and I was wrong... the J35 is rated at 278hp for 2013:

"EX-L V6 (Adds or Replaces the above)
-3.5Litre SOHC 6 Cylinder Engine
-278HP
-17" Aluminum Alloy Wheels
-6 Speed Automatic Transmission with Grade Logic
-Halogen Projector Beam Headlights
-6 Speakers (No Subwoofer)
-Dual Exhaust Finishers "

Now this is a Honda dealer rep for Canada. I cannot imagine Canadian and USA models would vary by 22hp, if any.

The following link is from Car and Driver, in the first post of this thread. It reports 308 for the 3.5L engine.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/honda-finally-adds-direct-injection-to-its-v6-and-four-cylinder-engines/

The following link is from Car and Driver, in the first post of this thread. It reports 308 for the 3.5L engine.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/honda-finally-adds-direct-injection-to-its-v6-and-four-cylinder-engines/

The DI V6 engine will be rated at 308HP, however the Accord is not slotted to receive this engine (at least at launch), it will be probably first be seen on an Acura model (RLX?) before it goes down to the Accord (and Pilot/Ody/CT/Ridgeline).

So from all the chatter, at launch the 9th Gen should have the following engines:
4 cylinders (ED) engine with DI:
LX rated at 183HP
Sport/EX/EX-L rated at 189HP

V6 Engines (new VCM 6-3 instead of 6-4-3) (still not ED):
278HP.

As I always say, I might be wrong, but since Honda still hasn't released the official info, the above info seems to be the consensus based on all the leaks...

-6 Speakers (No Subwoofer)

No Subwoofer on a EXL?!? that suc.ks!

honestly, the engine is too much. I want more of a fuel efficient car. accord just drains too much gas

Debate of how much horsepower for 3.5 liter engine can finally be put to rest.

Official numbers are:

3.5-liter V6 gets a slight horsepower increase to 278 (from 271) while torque decreases marginally to 252 (from 254)

2.4-liter four-cylinder engine delivers 185 horsepower and 181 pound-feet of torque

I was expecting more from direct injection. I guess I can stay happy with my 2009!

I hope those 181lb/ft of torque make noticeable difference when accelerating..

I hope those 181lb/ft of torque make noticeable difference when accelerating..

We won't really know until we drive one (or at least can see the torque chart), but the data looks promissing.
8th gen peak torque is: 162lb-ft@4400rpm EX/EX-L or 161lb-ft@4300rpm LX/LX-P/SE/
9th Gen: 181lb-ft@3900rpm.

Having the peak torque at lower RPMs is going to make the car more lively, and if the torque courve is flat, you might feel that gain even more.

Wow, they must have lengthened the intake runners. That's the whole reason I went for the MDX riser, etc. more torque at lower RPM really makes the car feel lighter. The I4 may be awesome again.