Drive Accord Honda Forums banner

What can the V6 accord beat

15K views 104 replies 34 participants last post by  Markus 
#1 ·
if a V6 accord was fully modded to the rim... which car could it beat in a race... realistically...??? just curious...
 
#56 ·
Ummmm ... links don't work. And even if they did, thinking-people take dyno numbers and consider them logically. And I'll stand by my statement that without increasing volumetric efficiency an extra 40 wtq is dreamland.
 
#57 ·
I hear you man.. Links are blocked by Forums..

Like look at my Dyno's..

Who would have thought i would have made so much Tq out of UR underdrive Pulley.. ? and the P2R ported intake runners.

I mean, It's hard to believe but some Now a days "today's" car are coming more and more limited from factory.. It's like look at the gensis 2.0T, from a Simple Full Cat-back and ECU tune Stage 1, it gains 60 whp, and 40's Twq
 
#60 ·
But turbo cars are totally different. Their volumetric efficiency is already much higher than that of a NA car and simply tuning to increase boost or fuel in a turbo car makes a huge difference. Remember that your car is not forced induction and you haven't had a tune done and that not all dynos are properly calibrated nor accurate, and results can vary due to operator error. This is why I say you have to take dyno readings and apply logic and common sense and physics to them.

While I'm convinced that your mods so far have helped a little, I'm skeptical of the gains the dyno says you have. And I'm even more skeptical that you'll see another 40 tq on top of what you already have. No way these gains are going to be cumulative.

It simply defies logic and physics that a PCD and downpipe on a NA car is going to net the same tq gains as a tune on a turbo car.
 
#70 ·
This conversation about "potential" torque motivated me to look at other cars. The numbers below show various cars and their torque to displacement ratio.

Car................Displacement......HP......Torque......TQ/liter
Accord............... 3.5..............271.......251..........71.7
Acura TL 3.7....... 3.7..............305.......273..........73.8
Corvette Z06....... 6.0..............505.......407..........67.8
Lexus IS 350....... 3.5..............306.......277..........79.1
NIZMO 370Z....... 3.7..............350.......276..........74.6
Porsche 911GT3... 3.8..............435.......317..........83.4

The stock Accord makes 71.7 lb-ft per liter. In comparison a Porsche GT3 makes 83.4 ft-lbs per liter. If BPearl's car makes an additional 40 hp and 40 lb-ft, it would now have 311 hp and 291 lb-ft at the crank. That would mean it makes 83.1 lb-ft per liter, the same as a race designed Porsche.

Accord................. 3.5....... 311....... 291....... 83.1

Although very hard to believe those simple mods could equal Porsche's mega-buck engine's efficiency, I suppose it could be real. It is still less than Hyundai's amazing new 2.0 liter DI engine which produces 93 lb-ft per liter. That engine epitomizes volumetric efficiency.

Hyundai............... 2.0....... 200....... 186....... 93.0


But bottom line, engine output does not directly translate to added performance. I'd really like to see some official time slips from a drag strip. After all, that's really want the OP wants to know.
 
#72 ·
The stock Accord makes 71.7 lb-ft per liter. In comparison a Porsche GT3 makes 83.4 ft-lbs per liter. If BPearl's car makes an additional 40 hp and 40 lb-ft, it would now have 311 hp and 291 lb-ft at the crank. That would mean it makes 83.1 lb-ft per liter, the same as a race designed Porsche.



Although very hard to believe those simple mods could equal Porsche's mega-buck engine's efficiency, I suppose it could be real.
I suspect BPearl's numbers are either errors from the dyno itself or errors from the dyno procedure (different tie down points, ambient temps, cooling fan placement, etc.) between tests. The few new bolt on components are not, IMO, going to increase VE THAT much. And if anybody thinks adding PCD and downpipe is going to give ANOTHER 40 lb.ft of torque beyond what BPearl has now then I think they're dreaming. That would make it 331 lb.ft. at the crank or 94.6 lb.ft. per litre. Not going to happen.
 
#71 ·
I can take a v6 camaro and mustang. Enough for me. :D And I stomped an auto g35 before the mods. Even though it isn't made to race, it is still fun to surprise people...
 
#73 ·
#74 ·
That's more than just no cats. That's an engine built from the ground up and bears no resemblance at all to the type of mods BPearl has or is contemplating. Still an interesting build, though.
 
#75 ·
yeah i'm just saying it is merely an interesting example of max torque output from a specific displacement.

however B series is something like a 20 y/o engine architecture now.


http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=193388

that is an interesting 3.2L NSX vs 3.2L TL dyno..the TL actually makes more torque despite the supposedly crappier valvetrain
 
#76 ·
#79 ·
It's funny to read all kind of opinions. So many people here keep calling BS when another drivers said they beated another car...Here's a few of my races since the past 2 years. Still BS??
http://www.youtube.com/user/BiggyD2K

Here's another guy I saw last year who ran 13.7@103 almost bone stock. He ran under 13.5s at the end of the summer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtE8chKtf40
What is this suppose to show? The first video just shows the gauges .. what is this suppose to tell us?

And the second race is pathetic .. the cobalt was obviously way late on his response .. give me a break. 13's seems average for the 6-6's from what I remember people saying about the 1/4 mile runs but maybe I heard wrong ..

And what do you mean almost bone stock? All bolt ons? No forced induction?

I just don't see why this is such a big debate.
 
#81 ·
A V6 accord can beat another V6 accord with a fat driver. :naughty:
 
#87 ·
Thank you for the correction. English is my second language, I'm trying my best to write everything correctly.

If you're referring to BPearl's list:
350z
Maxima 3.5 newer body
330i
328i
all honda's.. meaning, Civic, SI's, and the rest of the crap
All Nissan's.. Meaning regular car's not there SuperCar's..
8th gen Accord 6-6(head-to-head w/ my 20's)
s2000
s2000 w/ exhaust, headers, nos ( i got whored )
GTI
mini
Gs300
Gs350
Sc300
coblt
stock str-4
G35
old/new SE-R
I think the 350z, Maxima, BMWs, Lexus and G35 are considered to be in higher class and more expensive than our Accord. The rest of this list is pretty much lower or in the same class depending on the Accord options you choose. If you take in consideration the power, performance and gas mileage, I would take the Altima coupe 3.5L, Eclipse 3.8L, Genesis coupe 3.8L as our real competitor in the same category and price as the Accord V6-6.
 
#88 ·
There is also a huge different between the auto and manual.....
 
#93 ·
I dont think the accord can beat the genisis.

It has a lower stance, a wee lighter, and has better gears than the Accord.

Both cars having the same mods taken in account... genisis still is the winner.

Just a bit small for our needs and long term usage may show many weaknesses of the build.

A lot of cars show usage through the years... I like to take strolls through the wrecking yards week after some good storms to see how well 2 year and older cars hold up.

No american named car unless it is babied really stands out, unless you'r willing to pay for the more expensive models.

Ford cars never impressed me on builds, but trucks do have good builds in all 3 manufactures. It is a shame that full sized trucks are built better than most cars.

Not that trucks haul and are work horses.
 
#94 ·
We can't beat 335i, with my 6-6 I wouldn't be afraid of a 328i. Also, 99-04 mustangs gt aren't all that much quicker than we are, almost a drivers race.
 
#97 ·
Theres a big difference between the best time pulled off in stock trim and what the average drive can pull off in the 1/4. Just because someone somewhere pulled a 13.8 once doesn't mean everyone on this forum with a stock 6-6 can run 13.8s all day. Not putting anyone down, just stating a fact.
 
#99 ·
Jorge what are you talking about I can bitch slap my 6-6 and make it furious to do 5.2 seconds LMAO jk man
I agree with all above
 
#101 ·
Torque brake your auto v6 accord and you can pull on a 6-6 accord or other cars for a while if the other driver isn't good. Of course, that's abusing your tranny and not good a good thing to do.

I keep saying this over and over. If you want faster car, just buy it from the start instead of always wanting a faster car or modding the h3ll out of a slow car. Speed wasn't an issue when I got mine so auto was ok for me. If I wanted speed, I would've gotten 335 or G37 instead of an accord.
 
#102 ·
+1

Well I may be spending a few dollars to mod, but not over the top to go faster.

Just make it a wee bit more fun to drive. I have my limits of 2K and that be it.

Then again I still would not find a more enjoyable car for the price and what ever mods i have.

Again it does not take a lot to get a wee extra... To really see an improvent over lets say 270Hp, you need another 50hp... and so on, and so on... but for every so on the cost exponentialy increases to the point of why did I spend sooooo much money when I could have bought a V8. :eek:)
 
#105 ·
To continue from my previous thread, let's calculate the VE of Jorge's engine with all his mods.

Dyno claims 234 whp @ 5900 RPM. From the baseline dyno the drivetrain is eating up 271-211 = 60hp. This makes the final crank hp 234+60 = 294hp.

Equation for volumetric efficiency is:

VE = ( 9411 x HP x BSFC ) / (DISPLACEMENT x RPM)

BRAKE SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION (BSFC) is generally .44 - .45.

Using .45 for BSFC and plugging in the HP numbers of 294 @ 5900 RPM gives you a VE of 98.6%. It is almost unheard of to have a normally aspirated engine with VE of greater than 85-90% and yet somehow, according to the dyno results, Jorge's engine has a VE of 98.6% ???? This is just another example of incorrect dyno readings IMO.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top