2013 i4 accord 185 hp at 6800 rpms?

[II Kings 9:20]

Originally Posted by outersquare

Actually several points here about the 2013, it already makes ~20 lb-fts more at ~500 rpms lower than the 2012s.
Additionally, the CVT can in theory just peg the engine near redline and keep it there.


That said I am not going to give up my 8th gen since the older engine has higher peak power (190 HP) and higher redline (7100 RPM). That and the double wishbone thing.

Let me try to convince you to give up the 8th Gen (The Buckeye Nation manufacturing plant needs all the sales it can muster ).

The peak power and 300 RPM higher may matter on a track but with los ninos in the back seat you'll never notice.

Re: The Double wishbone- Drive the new one. In theory the wishbones should provide better handling (not just numbers on the skid pad/slalom) but the question is how does the new car drive in your hands vs your car. If the new car indeed drives better then buy it, if your car drives better then keep it assuming all of the usual and customary factors are already settled.

[grover432]

Originally Posted by II Kings 9:20

Let me try to convince you to give up the 8th Gen (The Buckeye Nation manufacturing plant needs all the sales it can muster ).

The peak power and 300 RPM higher may matter on a track but with los ninos in the back seat you'll never notice.

Re: The Double wishbone- Drive the new one. In theory the wishbones should provide better handling (not just numbers on the skid pad/slalom) but the question is how does the new car drive in your hands vs your car. If the new car indeed drives better then buy it, if your car drives better then keep it assuming all of the usual and customary factors are already settled.

Well put. We need to keep in mind what and who these cars are designed for. They are race cars, they aren't sports cars and they aren't dragsters. They are designed to meet the needs of families or older folk who want to economical and reliable transportation. Given that I doubt even 1% of the purchasers care what the HP, Torque or 0 - 60 times are much less the skip pad values unless they translate into a significant difference in handling.

I thought the V6 Touring I drove handled well although not as nimbly as our 2003. But is is larger, quieter and better isolated from the road. In my mind a good car for the price and a vast improvement over our 2003 and a significant improvement over last year's model.

[talon95]

Originally Posted by outersquare

Actually several points here about the 2013, it already makes ~20 lb-fts more at ~500 rpms lower than the 2012s.
Additionally, the CVT can in theory just peg the engine near redline and keep it there.


That said I am not going to give up my 8th gen since the older engine has higher peak power (190 HP) and higher redline (7100 RPM). That and the double wishbone thing.

Having gone from a gen 8 V6 to a gen 9 I4, I'm in a position to comment on this.

I can't come up with an apples to apples comment since I had a V6 gen 8 rather than an I4. But after hearing how much more powerful the gen 9 Earth Dreams I4 is as compared to the 190 hp gen 8 I4, I decided to see if I'd miss the V6 if I went to a gen 9 I4. Let me say that I don't miss the V6 at all. The I4 may not be a match for the gen 8 V6, but it's got plenty of power nonetheless. And seeing 6 - 7 MPG better gas mileage under the same driving conditions is a great bonus.

If you want another opinion and some exact numbers, here's what Inside Line had to say:

"Our 2013 Honda Accord test car whirred its way to 60 mph in 7.8 seconds (7.5 seconds with 1 foot of rollout as on a drag strip). That's a full second better than the old Accord four-cylinder. The quarter-mile, too, is quicker in the new car. The traps whistle past in 15.8 seconds at 91.2 mph, a milestone that required 16.4 seconds in last year's model."

The "last year's model" to which they refer was a 2012 Accord EX with the 190 hp I4, the very engine that you have.

Car and Driver also showed the gen 9 to be faster, though the difference was less than IL (gen 8: 0-60 in 8.2 sec, 1/4 mile in 16.2 sec @ 87 mph; gen 9: 7.7 sec, 16.1 sec @ 91 mph, respectively).

As for handling, the gen 9 has a much sportier feel and carves through curves readily even when pushed hard. While still pretty nimble, the gen 8 felt larger and heavier (which it was) and the heavier engine up front probably contributed.

For the record, Car and Driver shows .84 g and 43.1 mph slalom for gen 8 vs. .87 g and 39.1 mph slalom for gen 9. All of the cars in the latest test had numbers in the 39 mph range except for the Fusion's 41.2 mph, whereas all of the cars in the earlier test turned in numbers in the 42 - 43 mph range. Perhaps weather conditions or different drivers explain the difference. But CR did give the Accord 9 out of 10 points for both handling and ride, tying the Fusion for first place in those areas.

IL had the gen 8 at .83 g and 63.4 mph slalom and the gen 9 at .83 g and 65.5 mph slalom, so their numbers were a bit better for gen 9.

I realize that even with the same mag or website, comparing numbers across tests is less than a science due to differing conditions and drivers, etc. But the numbers do suggest that despite the specs, the gen 9 engine is at least competitive with the gen 8, and that the gen 9 is still a great handling car, despite swapping McStruts for DBW.

If anything, it might be worth your while to try a test ride in a gen 9 I4. It appears that your concerns may be unwarranted. You don't have to buy one, but there's nothing wrong with seeing for yourself.

[13SedanEXL]

Originally Posted by II Kings 9:20

I had a street/race GTV6 that redlined at 8500- I bought it that way from a nut in WI who raced it at Road America-I never raced it but it was sweet going past 8,000 but I never cruised at that RPM and I may have taken your post as if you routinely cruise at that RPM as opposed to rourtinely hitting it which is vastly different.

Bingo! Hit, not cruise. Sorry for any confusion brother.

[II Kings 9:20]

Originally Posted by 13SedanEXL

Bingo! Hit, not cruise. Sorry for any confusion brother.

Yep, got it

[shadow85]

Originally Posted by talon95

Having gone from a gen 8 V6 to a gen 9 I4, I'm in a position to comment on this.

I can't come up with an apples to apples comment since I had a V6 gen 8 rather than an I4. But after hearing how much more powerful the gen 9 Earth Dreams I4 is as compared to the 190 hp gen 8 I4, I decided to see if I'd miss the V6 if I went to a gen 9 I4. Let me say that I don't miss the V6 at all. The I4 may not be a match for the gen 8 V6, but it's got plenty of power nonetheless. And seeing 6 - 7 MPG better gas mileage under the same driving conditions is a great bonus.

...
If anything, it might be worth your while to try a test ride in a gen 9 I4. It appears that your concerns may be unwarranted. You don't have to buy one, but there's nothing wrong with seeing for yourself.

Is the new I4 as smooth and quiet as the old V6? How does the car feel when loaded down with the AC on?

[ual2842]

I myself rev to 6500 and have some fun accelerating in 1st and 2nd. Most of the time when I top 6500 in 2nd I am at highway speed and will just ease my way through the last three gears. Is fun to hear my engine though. Also living in Canada I only have a few good months so got to enjoy them as much as possible!

[talon95]

Originally Posted by shadow85

Is the new I4 as smooth and quiet as the old V6? How does the car feel when loaded down with the AC on?

The I4 is generally very smooth. The only time when it proves to be less smooth than the V6 is at idle, where you can feel a bit of minor vibration. This seems to be typical of Honda I4 engines... I've experienced it in 2 CR-Vs and a Civic of recent vintages. A small price to pay for the dramatically improved gas mileage, IMO.

As for quiet, again the I4 is a bit louder, but to me, the sound is a good one... much like the V6 when you wind it out. With the I4, the sound starts at a lower RPM. To me, kind of adds to the sporty character.

Can't really speak to the loaded w/AC question, due to cool weather in my area. Little opportunity to test the AC at load. Without AC, the engine seems plenty powerful with 3 people in it (the most I've had so far).

Hope that helps...

[Rattmann]

Sonata Turbo is 275HP from 4 cylinder and 200Hp from regular 4 cylinder.
Why cant Honda BEAT THAT?
I mean to say that Hyundai has a better MPG as well!!

185HP and CVT is NOT ACCEPTABLE of a HONDA Accord!!!

[deznium]

Don't like any Sonata.. poor visibilty and bad ergonomic design.. I just don't feel comfortable paying $25K for a car that hasn't proven itself and has no legacy like the Accord/Camry.... I don't buy or fall for the bait... You guys can praise your Sonata's but I'm gonna always for a Honda...

Sonata has some steering issues and that car felt really weird and loose at high speeds when I test drove it..

[Markus]

Originally Posted by deznium

Don't like any Sonata.. I just don't feel comfortable paying $25K for a car that hasn't proven itself and has no legacy like the Accord/Camry....

Fortunately for Honda not everyone feels the way you do. If everyone shared your feelings the original Accord would not have sold at all back in 1976/1977.

I don't buy or fall for the bait... You guys can praise your Sonata's but I'm gonna always for a Honda...

Bait? Are you serious?

I too was overly smug and chose Accord over Sonata because of Honda's alleged reliability superiority. I made a mistake. My Accord is the least reliable car I've owned. Hope yours is more reliable than mine.

[talon95]

Originally Posted by Markus

I too was overly smug and chose Accord over Sonata because of Honda's alleged reliability superiority. I made a mistake. My Accord is the least reliable car I've owned. Hope yours is more reliable than mine.

My first Accord (a 2000 EX-L V6) was disappointing from a reliability standpoint. Within 2 months after delivery, they were replacing the AT. Later, they had to replace the torque converter in the transmission they had replaced earlier.

Because of the other aspects of the Accord that I really liked, plus an all new transmission for 2003, I decided to take one more chance on a 2003 EX-L V6. Most reliable vehicle I ever owned. The only warranty work I had was a precautionary recall for transmission lubrication... never had any symptoms or problems related to it. As a result of my experience with that car, I developed a strong sense of loyalty for Hondas.

My 2008 EX-L V6 (yes, I'm consistent to a fault...) was a bit less reliable than the 2003, but still very good. I had a TSB for the front suspension performed to eliminate a rattle, and the rear brake pad issue for which I paid but was reimbursed. Aside from that, the car was trouble free and I was very satisfied.

Sorry your experience with the 2008 wasn't as good as mine. Unfortunately, no manufacturer is perfect... even Honda, as I found out with my first one.

[Markus]

Originally Posted by talon95

Unfortunately, no manufacturer is perfect... even Honda, as I found out with my first one.

I agree with you and this is exactly my point - buying a new Honda does not mean you'll get a perfectly reliable car. Just as buying a new Hyundai does not mean you'll have problems.

[II Kings 9:20]

I agree wuth the design issue with the Sonata. I have no problem buying Hyundai and LOVE the Genesis which I have driven extensively.

The swoopy Sonata has severe short window syndrome like the Taurus and LaCrosse.

I felt like I was sitting in a Jacuzzi with a ball cap on-THAT friends, is not acceptable.

Sit in the back of a LaCrosse-I GUARANTEE YOU WILL STRILE YOUR HEAD WHILE GETTING IN until you figure out how to articulate yourself into the car, not as bad with the Sonata but still there.

There is a price to pay for flashy desigsn and I'll take "boring". Frankly I find the Accord far from boring. I think it is handsome much in the way BMWs are handsome. That is all opinion. Banging your head getting into these tight low slung swoopy cars is fact. I'll add, once in, the Lacrosse is roomy, you just cant see anything. Sonata is tight getting in, and tight once you are in.

Engine noise can be a beautiful thing-who wants a quiet Ferrari or Porsche- I like to hear some noise under acceleration even in a family car. The I4 is indeed a pleasant note and I agree at idle not as silent as a V6 as expected.

[buff1]

I have to say the Sonata style already looks dated to me. I did test drive the Sonata and I thought it was a nice car but it didn't seem to have the drivetrain refinement of the Accord.

On a side note I'm loving the ride/handling balance of the Sport but am not impressed with the lack of all-day comfort from the driver's seat.