New Engine for 9th gen Accord

[bugatchi]

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/

[Baldeagle]

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?

[TheGandalf]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

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).

Originally Posted by TheGandalf

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.

[Edaccord08]

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 .

[TheGandalf]

Originally Posted by Edaccord08

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!!!!!)

[Edaccord08]

Originally Posted by TheGandalf

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 .

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by Edaccord08

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.

[Edaccord08]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

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 .

[F23A4]

Originally Posted by fastball

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.

[F23A4]

Originally Posted by jeffislouie

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!

[DCAR777]

Originally Posted by ual2842

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-f...inder-engines/

Looks like a BIG increase in power nearly 40HP!

werd

[Ignition_key]

Originally Posted by DCAR777

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.

[kvndoom]

Originally Posted by Ignition_key

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.

[Ignition_key]

Originally Posted by kvndoom

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?

[Edaccord08]

Originally Posted by Ignition_key

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?

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 .