Drive Accord Honda Forums banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It's quite obvious that the Accord V6 (at least in the coupe) is underrated by the factory. The folks over at Temple of VTECH (vtech.net) put the 2013 Accord V6 6MT on the dyno, and it produced 258 HP (on an engine that was not yet broken in).

http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?page_number=2&article_id=1131834


I just saw the video they posted of the new RLX with the claimed 310 HP from Acura. When the guys over a Temple of VTECH put that on the dyno, guess what it made: 258 HP. Even the torque numbers were essentially the same (225). The excuses they made were they they couldn't get the car to redline and the wheels were heavy, but they expect that the car could make 272 WHP with the changes. Still

http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=1150994

Although it is a direct injection and they claim that they couldn't get the car to redline (which it probably wouldn't in normal driving conditions), the numbers are very similar. Too similar if you ask me.

Perhaps Honda underrated the Accord V6 because Acura needed to be the "flagship". If I had to guess, the V6 in the Accord coupe (6MT) is putting out about 302-305 HP with a broken in engine.

Also the 6MT transmission is a Godsend.

What are your thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
ive always had cars that claim to be in the 250 to 300 hp by 250 to 300 tq ratings. my coupe with the 6mt would eat any other car ive owned alive ! It wouldnt even be close ! A friend of mine was also a valet for quite some time so ive been in quite a few cars whilst the "hammer" was being "dropped" and I can honestly say that the v6 coupe is a fast car. btw never valet park your car. I refuse to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Both the V6 and I4 are underrated when equipped with a manual trans. I think they did this to offset the automatic and cvt transmission losses that the vast majority of buyers select.

Possibly to save some paper horsepower for the Acura line as well.

My third theory is they did it just for me, so i would really enjoy this car even more. My wife daily's the accord, but i'm surprised each time i take it somewhere by how much power this 2.4l has. Can't imagine how fun a V6 6 speed sedan would be.

A good comparison is to the Mazda 6 sedan, nearly identical specs on paper, yet the accord destroys it by a full second 0-60 and two seconds 0-100. (4 cyl 6MT vs 4 cyl 6MT, since Mazda doesn't build a V6 6 anymore)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
I think it's worth mentioning that the RLX has a good ~500-600 lbs over the V6 6MT Accord coupe, depending on which trim you match up against. Plus, there are minor differences/tweaks with regards to the compression ratio, engine timings, intake, exhaust, the existence of VCM, and even the fuel used where the RLX could really be putting out 310 HP at the crank.

With that said, in my opinion, whether if the engine is underrated at the crank or not is moot; what's more important will always be how much power is being put down to the wheels, unless you have ways to overcome the inefficiencies of any given transmission.
 

·
youtube.com/justahondaaccord
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Were both dynos performed at the same shop and day to make sure its apples to apples comparison?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Were both dynos performed at the same shop and day to make sure its apples to apples comparison?
Same shop, but different days. TOV is consistent in that regard. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
The Accord was 6mt. RLX was an auto. On the 8th Gen V6 Accords, the MT was worth about 20hp over the auto. If they ran a 2014 Accord v6 auto vs the RLX (run to redline to make it fair) then I think the RLX would outshine the Accord by a fair margin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
The Accord was 6mt. RLX was an auto. On the 8th Gen V6 Accords, the MT was worth about 20hp over the auto. If they ran a 2014 Accord v6 auto vs the RLX (run to redline to make it fair) then I think the RLX would outshine the Accord by a fair margin.
Yeah, TOV ran a 2013 Accord Touring first, before the 6MT coupe and RLX, and netted a best effort of 240 WHP:

http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=1123025&page_number=2

There definitely is a ~18 WHP difference, which may or may not be accounted for by the slight improvements made to the RLX. I suppose that is what the extra $18-30K pays for. :naughty:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
wow i was stoked to see the MT numbers then saw the AT numbers... needless to say im disappointed that the AT is that inefficient in power output
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
wow i was stoked to see the MT numbers then saw the AT numbers... needless to say im disappointed that the AT is that inefficient in power output
Which is why the RLX hybrid gets a 7 speed DCT, and not a torque converter - inefficiencies are bad for fuel economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,689 Posts
Which is why the RLX hybrid gets a 7 speed DCT, and not a torque converter - inefficiencies are bad for fuel economy.
Torque converter is not a bad thing. It just needs to have lock-up feature, which most trannies nowadays have for best efficiency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,223 Posts
All of this is very interesting but not necessarily practical. Comparing horsepower and torque between different engines and drive trains is like comparing computer's based on CPU speed and cycles. Driving the cars in the real world and having a large spread sheet recalculate is what's important and determines the user experience. Unless, you are trying to hold Honda's feet to the truth fire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I agree Flyboy. It's not necessarily practical - I just thought it'd be an interesting observation to share.
 

·
Blinded by the light
Joined
·
1,551 Posts
wow i was stoked to see the MT numbers then saw the AT numbers... needless to say im disappointed that the AT is that inefficient in power output
I seriously considered the MT but I do too a decent amount of HW driving, and the loss of at least 4 MPG is somewhat significant when both transmissions are the same price. Overall, even with the HP loss, I appreciate what the AT with VCM is capable of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Its fun to look at charts, but actual real world performance is what matters. In stock trim at least, the Accord Coupe Auto gives up virtually nothing in straight line performance to the manual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
wow i was stoked to see the MT numbers then saw the AT numbers... needless to say im disappointed that the AT is that inefficient in power output
Are the AT numbers really that disappointing though? It's a genuine question. The way I see it is it's just 18 WHP, which, for me, would be hard to tell the difference. The real world performance numbers seem to suggest similar minutia differences as well.
 

·
Blinded by the light
Joined
·
1,551 Posts
Are the AT numbers really that disappointing though? It's a genuine question. The way I see it is it's just 18 WHP, which, for me, would be hard to tell the difference. The real world performance numbers seem to suggest similar minutia differences as well.
You'd probably would notice 18 WHP depending on how well you observe your car when on the gas. The VCM in the V6 auto is hardly noticeable but I feel like I might have slightly better performance if I could disable it in the city. From what I read it's electronically controlled so I don't know why we aren't provided some type of control. :dunno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
You'd probably would notice 18 WHP depending on how well you observe your car when on the gas. The VCM in the V6 auto is hardly noticeable but I feel like I might have slightly better performance if I could disable it in the city. From what I read it's electronically controlled so I don't know why we aren't provided some type of control. :dunno:
I don't doubt that there is a difference, according to our butt-dyno's, but I'm more inclined to believe that these differences need to be objectively measured to really understand beyond a placebo effect.

Here is Car and Driver's 2013 Accord V6 6MT performance numbers:

Car and Driver said:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.4 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 20.0 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.0 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 8.4 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 8.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.0 sec @ 103 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 132 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 186 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.85 g

Link: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-coupe-v-6-manual-test-review
And here are their results for the 2013 Accord V6 sedan:

Car and Driver said:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.9 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 21.2 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 101 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 125 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 178 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 g

Link: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-sedan-v-6-test-review

Comparing the above numbers, the two are pretty evenly matched, as expected. Sure the 6MT coupe is better in some tests, like hitting 100 mph half a second faster. It appears that extra 18 WHP also allowed the 6MT to achieve the 1/4 mile in 14.0 seconds flat at a higher trap speed of 103 mph, over 14.1 seconds @ 101 mph that was achieved by the sedan, but I have to question is it really that noticeable for our everyday driving? Maybe I am a bit desensitized to this performance difference? :dunno:

Besides, to really harness that extra 18 WHP would require driving my car much harder than is necessary; making it even easier to get in trouble. Similar to slapping on an aftermarket intake and exhaust: the throttle response is certainly much livelier, but you really need to drive much harder to notice the sound, and (in my opinion) small power increase.

Going back to the original topic of this thread, all I am saying is the RLX is rated faster because it was purposely tuned to be faster - this way, the heavier car's performance numbers line up properly for marketing reasons. After all, you can't cheat physics: you need more power to move more weight. The FWD RLX performance numbers support this notion as it performs worse in a number of areas compared to the Accord V6 sedan, even though it has the higher rated crank horsepower:

Car and Driver said:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.3 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.1 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.3 sec @ 100 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 133 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 166 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.84 g

Link: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-acura-rlx-fwd-test-review
At the end of the day, any vehicle fitted with a J35 engine (of any variation) will be a great performer. To say one is significantly better than the other in any meaningful way is splitting hairs. Not that there's anything wrong that. :paranoid:
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top