Drive Accord Honda Forums banner
41 - 52 of 52 Posts

·
Sealed with ceramic coat
Joined
·
132 Posts
40 free'd up HP would be quite noticeable
I doubt if Honda engineers would agree.

2003 V6/6MT Accord - 0-60 in 5.9 sec (240 HP)
2016 V6/6MT Accord - 0-60 in 5.8 sec (278 HP)

The '16 Accord was slightly heavier but also had a steeper final drive ratio to increase acceleration. With the same final drive the '03 Accord would have been equal to or quicker, despite having less peak horsepower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
I doubt if Honda engineers would agree.

2003 V6/6MT Accord - 0-60 in 5.9 sec (240 HP)
2016 V6/6MT Accord - 0-60 in 5.8 sec (278 HP)

The '16 Accord was slightly heavier but also had a steeper final drive ratio to increase acceleration. With the same final drive the '03 Accord would have been equal to or quicker, despite having less peak horsepower.
true. But the 9th gen can do 32+MPG highway(look at the mpg thread some folks are pulling better numbers than the 4cyl because of the VCM)

and that 2003 is lucky if it gets 25

Does this mean i'm more likely to see gains in fuel efficiency?

freeing up 40 hp is roughly 14.3% of the car's total power and could translate to 5% better fuel efficiency or 1.6-2 extra mpg, so 33.6-34+ mpg vs that thirsty 25mpg accord

2000$ in fuel

the old accord uses 20-30% more fuel 400-600$ more in fuel a year for worse performance, so it seems like most of the gains in cars have been in efficiency despite them getting heavier and heavier every year

i considered the infinity G37 which has a big thirsty v6, but decided against it due to unknown reliability, and it being thirsty.
 

·
Sealed with ceramic coat
Joined
·
132 Posts
true. But the 9th gen can do 32+MPG highway(look at the mpg thread some folks are pulling better numbers than the 4cyl because of the VCM)

and that 2003 is lucky if it gets 25

Does this mean i'm more likely to see gains in fuel efficiency?

The point is that a 35-40 HP gain at high rpm is too small to be worthwhile, considering the cost, time and effort.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter · #44 ·
The point is that a 35-40 HP gain at high rpm is too small to be worthwhile, considering the cost, time and effort.
why do most dynos show gains across the entire rev range?

is it because the faster you go the more exponential the weight savings effect on performance is, and at lower speeds you don't notice much, so basically unless you are going fast enough to get to the high end you dont get much benefit, and those gains only show up on dynos where the car is pushed wayy beyond normal speed limits, so realistically, i'd only be getting 25% of that 40 hp at any point

say 50% of speed means you're only gaining 20HP, but if you go 100% speed then you gain the full 40HP, the faster you are going the more the weight loss benefits,(dynos are skewed because those gains only show up under max engine load which doesnt apply to normal driving)

i get what you're saying. But isn't all acceleration high rpm? and could a tune adjust the rpm so you actually do get more use out of your weight loss?

also, you have to quantify the reduced wear on brakes, the slightly better mpg, etc yeah, it's negligible, but its still 60-80$ a year in fuel, its still 20Hp most of the time, and 50$ for 1Hp is the going rate

or am i wrong lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,682 Posts
The point is that a 35-40 HP gain at high rpm is too small to be worthwhile, considering the cost, time and effort.
I had a 7th gen 6-6 and now an 8th gen 6-6. While both cars may have similar 0-60 times, the 7th gen 6-6 trapped at about 98 mph verses 102 mph for the 8th/9th gen V6 6MT. That 4 mph difference in trap speed equates to about 40 hp. V6-6MT Accords are severely traction limited. The extra 40 hp doesn’t make a noticeable difference until after the wheels stop spinning and the car gets traction. That is why the 0-60 times are similar. But above 40 mph the 3.5L 6-6 is noticeably faster than the 3.0L 6-6. That 35-40 hp is not a small gain. You can feel it.

However is it worth the cost, time and effort to add 40hp from modifications? What if it cost $3,000-$4,000 (forged wheels, new tires, tune, intake, pulley, exhaust)? And what if 80% of that extra power can only be used at illegal speeds? Given those compromises, I might agree with you that it is probably not money well spent. But others may disagree.
 

·
Sealed with ceramic coat
Joined
·
132 Posts
I had a 7th gen 6-6 and now an 8th gen 6-6. While both cars may have similar 0-60 times, the 7th gen 6-6 trapped at about 98 mph verses 102 mph for the 8th/9th gen V6 6MT. That 4 mph difference in trap speed equates to about 40 hp. V6-6MT Accords are severely traction limited. The extra 40 hp doesn’t make a noticeable difference until after the wheels stop spinning and the car gets traction. That is why the 0-60 times are similar. But above 40 mph the 3.5L 6-6 is noticeably faster than the 3.0L 6-6. That 35-40 hp is not a small gain. You can feel it.

However is it worth the cost, time and effort to add 40hp from modifications? What if it cost $3,000-$4,000 (forged wheels, new tires, tune, intake, pulley, exhaust)? And what if 80% of that extra power can only be used at illegal speeds? Given those compromises, I might agree with you that it is probably not money well spent. But others may disagree.
The gears in your car are different than 2003. If you stepped down to 3.28:1 final drive your trap speed would fall below 100 mph.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
I had a 7th gen 6-6 and now an 8th gen 6-6. While both cars may have similar 0-60 times, the 7th gen 6-6 trapped at about 98 mph verses 102 mph for the 8th/9th gen V6 6MT. That 4 mph difference in trap speed equates to about 40 hp. V6-6MT Accords are severely traction limited. The extra 40 hp doesn’t make a noticeable difference until after the wheels stop spinning and the car gets traction. That is why the 0-60 times are similar. But above 40 mph the 3.5L 6-6 is noticeably faster than the 3.0L 6-6. That 35-40 hp is not a small gain. You can feel it.

However is it worth the cost, time and effort to add 40hp from modifications? What if it cost $3,000-$4,000 (forged wheels, new tires, tune, intake, pulley, exhaust)? And what if 80% of that extra power can only be used at illegal speeds? Given those compromises, I might agree with you that it is probably not money well spent. But others may disagree.
true so which car is worth spending more money on, the 3 second car that is wayy over the speed limit in 3 seconds, or the mid 5 second car where after 5.5 seconds you are way over the speed limit. You could say the 5.5 second car is almost twice the length of enjoyment/torque

with this type of car, you get a small taste of performance, i think expecting high torque at normal driving speeds is just too much to ask, most likely for any car under 50K

Someone could argue that, a super-fast car is a total waste of money because its only 3 seconds of fun, too fast to viscerally register, what it comes down to is being after the handling, the scenic quality of the road, the corners, for example, if you are in an open desert highway, top speeding seems pretty boring, whereas a low speed on a backroad seems exciting because trees and your objective perspective is more responsible for the sensation of "speed".

for example if a car was way over the limit in 2 seconds, that kind of seems pointless.



also, tracking a car that is your daily driver is pretty wreckless as you will be tempted to find your car's limit(especially knowing that 80% of its potential is completely locked up in normal driving conditions), and when you do find your car's limit, you may be out of a car, so that could be pretty damn expensive. That is most likely what happens when you take a 17-20K car and give it the power of a 50,000$ car, you compromise the handling that you would also need to balance properly and therefore tracking your car could be completely ruinous.

There are plenty of youtube videos of track-day disasters, folks save up for their dream car, figure out its wayy overkill for normal driving conditions, decide to take it to the track, and then have quite a ruinous experience when things go "off the beaten path". If tire tread, temp, and everything is not lined up properly and you do not have a professional set up i think its ruinous,

So not only do you need 50K for a fast car, but you need another 50K for a new car when you ruin your new car. Damn.

https://youtu.be/BmoEIyw1HFU?t=158
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,682 Posts
The gears in your car are different than 2003. If you stepped down to 3.28:1 final drive your trap speed would fall below 100 mph.
The 7th gen had smaller tires. They were 215/50-55s verses 235/45-18s. That offset a lot of the final drive difference. My 7th gen would hit 60 mph at redline in second gear and my 8th gen is 58-59 mph. The difference in speed going from third to fourth gear might have been 2-3 mph (85 mph in the 8th gen verses 87-88 mph in the 7th gen). On the road the gearing was very close.
 

·
2020 best year
Joined
·
4,209 Posts
Maybe it's not all that difficult for an EV to have a classical ICE simulation mode, best of both worlds perhaps?
EVs don't need a transmission, though, and the torque still starts to taper off during high RPM range.

And unless it comes with a clutch pedal and an H-pattern shift gate, it's not an authentic experience. Paddle shifters are not nearly the same.

See bold - At 4415 miles, yeah, I didn't need a clutch yet - nor do I at 60k. :wink

And for the resurfacing, that is not a requirement. I've replaced a couple clutches over the years, and never touched the flywheel. Besides, a lightweight flywheel is not very street friendly, rpms drop like a rock, so you are speed shifting ALL the time.
There are flywheels of different grades, some more street-friendly than others.

But I guess since you have no problems with your UD pulleys, the gains may be similar with some heavier(but still lighter than OEM) flywheels with less instalation cost.

It would depend how heavy the stock rotors are, if you are saving 8 lbs per corner that is quite significant but 900$ for 5 lbs... maybe not

it also depends if the weight reduction efforts would have a compound effect with the bolt-ons , like combined with boltons and tune the weight reduction could add an extra 20% or so, or not. No way to know unless you take the gamble i guess, or if you do more research into the dynamics and then conclude that you would be OK with even the most conservative gains.

Even though the rotor seems like its close, the axle is fairly lengthy, so there is still quite a bit of leverage required and the lightweight pulley + installation is around 250$+shipping plus 100$ labor, minimum.

The rotors add up to more weight loss in total than a pulley imo, and dont seem like such a bad deal after all, but it depends how bad the stock situation is, if they aren't that heavy then yeah bad whp/$$ ratio

it looks like rotors average 150 a piece, so 600$, - the 350 you'd have to blow on the racing pulley which brings you back to 250$ the same point but possibly for more gains.
I think how apparent the gain also depends on how torquey your car is.

A 4 pound-per-corner saving is probably much more apparent on my RX-8(which is actually less torquey than an I4 Accord) than a V6 Accord simply because the V6 Accord is a lot more torquey.

true so which car is worth spending more money on, the 3 second car that is wayy over the speed limit in 3 seconds, or the mid 5 second car where after 5.5 seconds you are way over the speed limit. You could say the 5.5 second car is almost twice the length of enjoyment/torque

with this type of car, you get a small taste of performance, i think expecting high torque at normal driving speeds is just too much to ask, most likely for any car under 50K

Someone could argue that, a super-fast car is a total waste of money because its only 3 seconds of fun, too fast to viscerally register, what it comes down to is being after the handling, the scenic quality of the road, the corners, for example, if you are in an open desert highway, top speeding seems pretty boring, whereas a low speed on a backroad seems exciting because trees and your objective perspective is more responsible for the sensation of "speed".

for example if a car was way over the limit in 2 seconds, that kind of seems pointless.

also, tracking a car that is your daily driver is pretty wreckless as you will be tempted to find your car's limit(especially knowing that 80% of its potential is completely locked up in normal driving conditions), and when you do find your car's limit, you may be out of a car, so that could be pretty damn expensive. That is most likely what happens when you take a 17-20K car and give it the power of a 50,000$ car, you compromise the handling that you would also need to balance properly and therefore tracking your car could be completely ruinous.

There are plenty of youtube videos of track-day disasters, folks save up for their dream car, figure out its wayy overkill for normal driving conditions, decide to take it to the track, and then have quite a ruinous experience when things go "off the beaten path". If tire tread, temp, and everything is not lined up properly and you do not have a professional set up i think its ruinous,

So not only do you need 50K for a fast car, but you need another 50K for a new car when you ruin your new car. Damn.

https://youtu.be/BmoEIyw1HFU?t=158
You know what they say: Driver mods before car mods.

It's really apparent when you see those Mustangs crashing into the crowds. Sure, the car itself has some flaws that don't help, but the idiots driving them also don't know how to handle the power.

A much safer place to start would be an Autocross event. I participated twice in my RX-8 this year. You can participate with any car as long as it passes safety inspections(I have seen anything between an old Golf and a BMW i8 in my local one), and you generally won't pass 60 MPH. Plenty of room for error as well. It helps you understand your car better, for sure, but realize that power doesn't mean as much there - handling and skill mean much more.

It's pretty noob-friendly and doesn't cost too much(the most expensive part being the helmet, really).
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: AccordDriver_

·
Registered
Joined
·
586 Posts
200366HFP did you notice any or more vibration when your A/C comes on with the light weight pulley. The stock one has a small rubber band in there and I did not know if you would notice any more A/C vibration with the lighter pulley with no rubber band. As for fly wheels I can tell you from when I had my vet. That you can loose a lot of weight with a lighter flywheel and it will make a huge difference. You will loose pounds with a lighter flywheel. Only problem with it is the lighter it is the harder it is to keep from stalling when starting from a start. You have to rev the engine and feather the clutch a bunch to get moving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,682 Posts
I think how apparent the gain also depends on how torquey your car is.

A 4 pound-per-corner saving is probably much more apparent on my RX-8(which is actually less torquey than an I4 Accord) than a V6 Accord simply because the V6 Accord is a lot more torquey.
I believe it is not the power of the engine but the weight of the car that determines the effective change in HP to maintain the same weight-to-power ratio based on weight reduction.

If a 2,800 lbs car has 200 hp, it has a 14.0:1 weight-to-power ratio. If that car owner reduces its weight by 100 pounds (static or a 2X multiple of rotating weight), it now weighs 2,700 lbs. That 2,700 pound car with the same 200 hp engine now has a 13.5:1 weight-to-power ratio and is correspondingly faster. For the “stock” 2,800 pound car to have the same 13.5:1 ratio (same acceleration), it would need 207.4 hp. That extra 7.4 hp represents an effective power gain of 3.7% associated with a reduction of 100 lbs on that car.

But what if that 2,800 lbs car had a 400 hp engine? After losing the same 100 pounds, the 2,700 pound car with 400 hp would have a weight-to-power ratio of 6.75:1. For the 2,800 pound car to have the same ratio it would need 414.81 hp. That extra 14.81 HP represents the same 3.7% gain. The % change does not change based on engine power.

But what if the car weighed 3,800 pounds? That 100 pound reduction would yield an effective gain of 5.4hp on based on a 200 HP engine and 10.8hp on a 400 hp engine. Both represent a 2.7% power gain to maintain the same weigh-to-power ratio. The heavier car benefits less (fewer HP gained) from the same amount of weight reduction, which make perfect sense.

This only goes to show how hard it is to put a number on how much “effective” HP a car gains for a given amount of weight reduction, at least using this “ratio” approach.
 
41 - 52 of 52 Posts
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