9G purchase dilemma: color combinations, manual tranny, and CVT

[kvndoom]

Originally Posted by ssmtsx

it looks like the american 6/6 coupe is only going to come in black red or gray.

Are ya shittin' me? Oh well guess Honda really doesn't want any more of my money. No problem! I bet someone else out there will take it!

[Husker]

Originally Posted by kvndoom

I seriously see a 2016 or 2017 Blue 6/6 coupe in my future...

Originally Posted by ssmtsx

it looks like the american 6/6 coupe is only going to come in black red or gray.

Don't know if the Blue Coupe is USA or Canada but it's a 6-6:

[benjaminh]

Originally Posted by atomiclightbulb

I'm pretty much sold on upgrading my 7G Accord to a 9G Accord at some point, but I'm struggling a bit with whether to stay with a manual tranny, or move over to the CVT.

There are two new factors at play for me here: color combinations, and fuel economy. I have driven an Accord with a manual for a long time.

My Accord SE has a silver exterior, and I want something different next time, maybe Basque Red or the new Champagne Frost. Unfortunately, the 9G Accord Sedan is only available with the 6MT in two colors: Alabaster Silver, and Modern Steel (evolved Polished Metal?), both of which have a black interior. I don't want silver again, and I think that Modern Steel with a black interior is a bit too drab, and also too hot in the summer season. The color chart was posted in this thread at vtec.net: http://vtec.net/forums/one-message?m...tem_id=1091517

Also, the fuel economy for the 6MT models is noticeably lower than the CVT models: 24 city 34 highway 28 combined for the 6MT, compared to 27 city 36 highway 30 combined for the CVT. Fuel economy is important to me, and has been a secondary reason that I've drive manual for most of my life. Historically, the manuals beat the automatics in fuel economy, but I'm not so sure this will be the case going forward.

So it comes down to this: I like rowing my own gears. But I can't row my own gears and have a good choice of color combinations. And I want to take advantage of more efficient technology, but only the CVT offers big rather than incremental gains over my current vehicle (which rates 23 city, 31 highway, and 26 combined -- I4+5MT model).

Either way I choose I will be mildly dissatisfied.

For practical reasons I cannot buy the coupe, and I don't want the expense of the V6 model either.

For those of you who plan on buying a 9G, what are your thoughts?

The only way I see out of this is to go CVT on the Accord, which will be my daily driver, and buy a Subaru BR-Z for fun. The wife is sure to veto the second part of this plan, however

To some degree, I'm in your boat. I've almost always driven manuals and consider myself part of the save the manuals crowd. On the other hand, I love the factory navi on my 2008 Accord. I special ordered that with a manual, but as we know a manual has not been an option for a Navi Accord sedan since 2009.

Add to this the fact that the new Honda G-shift CVT only rev.s at c. 1500 rpm at 60mph. That's obviously one of the reasons the hwy mpg is so high. There are a lot of reasons I love manuals, but one of them has always been that I thought I could get better mpg than an auto. That is obviously no longer the case, since I think in 6th gear on the new Honda manual you are pulling more like c. 2400 rpm.

And although my wife can drive a manual, and well, she prefers an auto. Plus my son is learning to drive, and although I've been teaching him to shift I wonder if an auto would be good as he gets his legs driving.

Bottom line is that I'm seriously considering a 2013 Accord EXL CVT navi sedan in Basque red pearl with the white leather interior. Looks sharp!

[ssmtsx]

Originally Posted by Husker

Don't know if the Blue Coupe is USA or Canada but it's a 6-6:

It's canadian. If you look at the pictures of the speedo its in kilometers. The exterior pictures also show front mudguards which only come standard on the Canadian spec units. The color chart posted on TOV only lists the three colors for the american 6spd.

I also want to know if the american coupe is going to get the LED headlights. The blue coupe has em..so I wonder if we will be lucky enough to get them.

[ssmtsx]

[Mechanic]

Originally Posted by benjaminh

. . . Add to this the fact that the new Honda G-shift CVT only rev.s at c. 1500 rpm at 60mph. That's obviously one of the reasons the hwy mpg is so high. There are a lot of reasons I love manuals, but one of them has always been that I thought I could get better mpg than an auto. That is obviously no longer the case, since I think in 6th gear on the new Honda manual you are pulling more like c. 2400 rpm.

No. Both 5th & 6th gears are overdrive ratios in the MT. If anything, the problem will be that 6th gear ratio will be so high (numerically low), that it won't be possible to maintain 60 miles per hour in 6th gear on even a 2% grade. In other words, the MTs will also be turning about 1500 rpm at 60. It's the only way the mileage can possibly be comparable to the CVT.

[benjaminh]

Originally Posted by Mechanic

No. Both 5th & 6th gears are overdrive ratios in the MT. If anything, the problem will be that 6th gear ratio will be so high (numerically low), that it won't be possible to maintain 60 miles per hour in 6th gear on even a 2% grade. In other words, the MTs will also be turning about 1500 rpm at 60. It's the only way the mileage can possibly be comparable to the CVT.

The EPA has rated the hwy mpg of the manual at 2 less than the CVT (34 for 6MT 36 for CVT). I stand by the idea that the CVT will run at significantly lower rpm than the 6MT, but I admit I don't have actual hard numbers for either one at this point.

[Intrepid1]

Originally Posted by benjaminh

The EPA has rated the hwy mpg of the manual at 2 less than the CVT (34 for 6MT 36 for CVT). I stand by the idea that the CVT will run at significantly lower rpm than the 6MT, but I admit I don't have actual hard numbers for either one at this point.

I drive a 2012 Accord EX sedan, 5 speed manual transmission. At about 65 MPH engine turns about 2500 RPM in 5th gear.

When I test drove a automatic transmission EX Sedan, it was turning about 1800 RPM at 65 MPH - if memory serves.

What ever the exact RPMs are at the 65 MPH example speed, the 2012 Accord manual cars are geared very differently than the automatic cars as the MT engines spin way faster than the auto cars at the same speed in top gear.

So I concur with the idea that the CVT engines will spin way slower at speed.

Interestingly, the 2012 Accords are rated the same MPGs - manual and automatic even thought the gearing is way different.

My guess is that on the 5 speed automatic, in addition to the gearing, that the energy to produce the hydralic pressure to operate the transmission has an effect on the MPG.

[Edaccord08]

my LX AT spins around 1700 from what I remember at 60 , but as mechanic mentioned you can't go to low or it will lug, at least with conventional AT .
The CVT may very well have an advantage here as it can vary speed to load and throttle input .
If done right it has potential to really out perform normal AT .
Honda CVT sounds good with torque converter +CVT variable ratios .

[Mechanic]

Originally Posted by Intrepid1

I drive a 2012 Accord EX sedan, 5 speed manual transmission. At about 65 MPH engine turns about 2500 RPM in 5th gear.

When I test drove a automatic transmission EX Sedan, it was turning about 1800 RPM at 65 MPH - if memory serves.

What ever the exact RPMs are at the 65 MPH example speed, the 2012 Accord manual cars are geared very differently than the automatic cars as the MT engines spin way faster than the auto cars at the same speed in top gear.

So I concur with the idea that the CVT engines will spin way slower at speed.

Interestingly, the 2012 Accords are rated the same MPGs - manual and automatic even thought the gearing is way different.

My guess is that on the 5 speed automatic, in addition to the gearing, that the energy to produce the hydralic pressure to operate the transmission has an effect on the MPG.

OK, let's walk through this. First, in your 2012 5-spd MT, the top two gear ratios are 0.880 and 0.647. Your FDR is 4.105. In the 2012 5-spd AT, the 5th gear ratio is 0.566. The FDR is 4.44. At 60 mph, your engine is turning 2230 rpm. Thus, even assuming there were a direct mechanical "rpm gap" between the MT and the AT, the maximum possible AT rpm drop would be approximately 13%. There isn't one, however. The two engine/transmission combinations are within 100 rpm of one another. Honda would kill for such an EPA advantage in the AT. FWIW, the AT gearing is virtually the same in the 2012 CR-V, and the rpm spread between the 2012 MT Accord and the CR-V AT is less than 100 rpm, and that's a consequence of the FDR.

Now, turning to the 5th and 6th gear ratios in the new Accord 6-spd MT, they are 0.83 and 0.686. The FDR is 4.105 (the same as your 2012). So, if anything, in the 2013 MT Accord, 6th gear is very slightly taller than the 5th gear in your car, resulting in 2227 rpm instead of 2230.

That only leaves the CVT gearing to consider. Interestingly, so far none of the 73 reported tests of the 2013 Accord have mentioned engine rpm at any speed other than 80 mph. In that instance, TOV said the engine speed at 80 mph was 2700. That's within a hair's breath of the current 2012 AT at the same speed. Consequently, absent any hard #s, it's reasonable to infer that: 1) There's no way in hell the 4-cyl. engine can be turning 2700 at 80 mph and 1500 rpm at 60 mph. And, 2) If you accept Honda's estimate of approximately a 10% gain in mpg with the CVT, and further accept the possibility of a 10% reduction in engine speed to get that 10% mpg gain (damn unlikely), you're still looking at 2000 rpm, not 1500, at 60 mph. Finally, the current 4-cyl/AT combination turns 1500 at 42 mph in 5th gear. Your estimate of 1500 rpm at 60 mph for the CVT would result in the engine turning less than 1000 (idle speed, in other words) at 42 mph. Not possible.

[UuVeeh]

Many reviewers have said that this CVT is best in business.

[h2pvnus]

I test drive the accord yesterday, and e cvt is good. Especially in the S mode. The throtle and acceleration is definately great.

[jshaw]

Originally Posted by Mechanic

OK, let's walk through this. First, in your 2012 5-spd MT, the top two gear ratios are 0.880 and 0.647. Your FDR is 4.105. In the 2012 5-spd AT, the 5th gear ratio is 0.566. The FDR is 4.44. At 60 mph, your engine is turning 2230 rpm. Thus, even assuming there were a direct mechanical "rpm gap" between the MT and the AT, the maximum possible AT rpm drop would be approximately 13%. There isn't one, however. The two engine/transmission combinations are within 100 rpm of one another. Honda would kill for such an EPA advantage in the AT. FWIW, the AT gearing is virtually the same in the 2012 CR-V, and the rpm spread between the 2012 MT Accord and the CR-V AT is less than 100 rpm, and that's a consequence of the FDR.

Now, turning to the 5th and 6th gear ratios in the new Accord 6-spd MT, they are 0.83 and 0.686. The FDR is 4.105 (the same as your 2012). So, if anything, in the 2013 MT Accord, 6th gear is very slightly taller than the 5th gear in your car, resulting in 2227 rpm instead of 2230.

That only leaves the CVT gearing to consider. Interestingly, so far none of the 73 reported tests of the 2013 Accord have mentioned engine rpm at any speed other than 80 mph. In that instance, TOV said the engine speed at 80 mph was 2700. That's within a hair's breath of the current 2012 AT at the same speed. Consequently, absent any hard #s, it's reasonable to infer that: 1) There's no way in hell the 4-cyl. engine can be turning 2700 at 80 mph and 1500 rpm at 60 mph. And, 2) If you accept Honda's estimate of approximately a 10% gain in mpg with the CVT, and further accept the possibility of a 10% reduction in engine speed to get that 10% mpg gain (damn unlikely), you're still looking at 2000 rpm, not 1500, at 60 mph. Finally, the current 4-cyl/AT combination turns 1500 at 42 mph in 5th gear. Your estimate of 1500 rpm at 60 mph for the CVT would result in the engine turning less than 1000 (idle speed, in other words) at 42 mph. Not possible.

Not to pipe in too much, but doesn't a normal 2 pulley CVT allow for one RPM to apply to quite a wide range of speeds? So 1500@60mph wouldn't have to mean 1000@42mph?

[Mechanic]

Originally Posted by jshaw

Not to pipe in too much, but doesn't a normal 2 pulley CVT allow for one RPM to apply to quite a wide range of speeds? So 1500@60mph wouldn't have to mean 1000@42mph?

My point is twofold. We don't know -- because it hasn't been reported reliably -- what rpm the 4 cyl. turns at various speeds with the new CVT. But we do know what it turns at 80 mph (2700), and it's reasonable to infer from Honda's prior statements re the CVT what it's turning at 60 mph -- i.e., perhaps 10% than with a conventional 5-spd AT -- and that's not 1500 rpm; more like 2k rpm. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine as to engine rpm, as well as how it's accomplished.

See also: http://vtec.net/forums/one-message?m...tem_id=1093975

We should know a bit more later today (9/17) when the car is available to more than just the media.

[Intrepid1]

Originally Posted by Mechanic

OK, let's walk through this. First, in your 2012 5-spd MT, the top two gear ratios are 0.880 and 0.647. Your FDR is 4.105. In the 2012 5-spd AT, the 5th gear ratio is 0.566. The FDR is 4.44. At 60 mph, your engine is turning 2230 rpm. Thus, even assuming there were a direct mechanical "rpm gap" between the MT and the AT, the maximum possible AT rpm drop would be approximately 13%. There isn't one, however. The two engine/transmission combinations are within 100 rpm of one another. AT 65MPH the 2012 5 SPD MT turns 2500 RPM, the 2012 AT turns about 1800 RPM, a 18% difference. Honda would kill for such an EPA advantage in the AT. FWIW, the AT gearing is virtually the same in the 2012 CR-V, and the rpm spread between the 2012 MT Accord and the CR-V AT is less than 100 rpm, and that's a consequence of the FDR.

Now, turning to the 5th and 6th gear ratios in the new Accord 6-spd MT, they are 0.83 and 0.686. The FDR is 4.105 (the same as your 2012). So, if anything, in the 2013 MT Accord, 6th gear is very slightly taller than the 5th gear in your car, resulting in 2227 rpm instead of 2230.

That only leaves the CVT gearing to consider. Interestingly, so far none of the 73 reported tests of the 2013 Accord have mentioned engine rpm at any speed other than 80 mph. In that instance, TOV said the engine speed at 80 mph was 2700. That's within a hair's breath of the current 2012 AT at the same speed. Consequently, absent any hard #s, it's reasonable to infer that: 1) There's no way in hell the 4-cyl. engine can be turning 2700 at 80 mph and 1500 rpm at 60 mph. And, 2) If you accept Honda's estimate of approximately a 10% gain in mpg with the CVT, and further accept the possibility of a 10% reduction in engine speed to get that 10% mpg gain (damn unlikely), you're still looking at 2000 rpm, not 1500, at 60 mph. Finally, the current 4-cyl/AT combination turns 1500 at 42 mph in 5th gear. Your estimate of 1500 rpm at 60 mph for the CVT would result in the engine turning less than 1000 (idle speed, in other words) at 42 mph. Not possible.

FYI - I test drove a 2013 Sport with the CVT, it turns about 1750 at 65 mph