[Baldeagle]

Nice! The 2.0T has decent performance! DA adjusted the 2.0T Accord is solid 14.1s 99-100 mph car. That is fast for a family sedan! It’s the same as a BMW 330i, Audi A4, Cadillac ATS V6, Alfa Romeo Giulia 2.0T, 2.0T Camaro, and faster than a Mercedes C300. All those cars tout themselves as performance cars too. Thanks for sharing.

By the way, I see you have an ATS-V and S4 in your garage. Very nice! The fact that someone who appreciates higher pedigree cars selected an Accord speaks very highly of the Accord. Always interested to hear any comparison between the Accord and those performance cars.

 

[Baldeagle]

Excellent point.

FYI: "DA" means Density Altitude, as the air density and altitude (above sea level) of where you are running will affect your quarter mile times. Sometimes THAT is why the same car set-up will run such different times and lead to debates on forums- one guy ran in Denver (high altitude and maybe cooler temperatures), and one in Miami (almost at sea level and usually warmer air).

The DA "adjustment" is very detailed and takes these factors into account to make an accurate comparison.

Not to belabor this point, but you can go to the site below for this information.

DA Calculator - Density Altitude Calculator - DragTimes.com

For example you can select “Great Lakes Dragway,” plug in 10/23/18 and see that at 5:53pm it was 41.0°F, 86% humidity with a barometric pressure of 30.34”Hg. If you plug that info into their calculator it will automatically show you density altitude, which in this case was 815 feet below sea level. If you then plug the car’s actual time/speed into their calculator it will adjust the time/speed to show what it would have been at about 70°F, 30.7”Hg, 60% humidity and at sea level. (This is what all the car magazines do too.)

If you normalize the 40°F temps to about 70°F, the Accord is a solid 14.0 to 14.1 second car at 100 mph, which is what the car mags claim it should be.

 

[Baldeagle]

My ATS-V has some mods and is just stupid fast (With a drag radial it's a mid to high 10 second car). My wife's S4 is gorgeous and is pretty much stock with the exception of some cosmetic modifications. Her car is probably a mid to high 12 second car out of the box.

A ten second quarter! Compared to an Accord, that is crazy fast for a road car. I don't mean to hijack this thread and to also post a video previously posted, but here is a video of my run against a Cadillac CTS-V. It "only" pulled an 11.2 @ 123 mph and made my car look molasses slow. Perspective is a good thing.

 

[Baldeagle]

Thanks for sharing. Not to the state the obvious, but we need to start altitude adjusting our times and speeds. Just like cool and dry weather boosts performance, warm and humid weather hurts it. According to:

DA Calculator - Density Altitude Calculator Bradenton Motorsports Park - DragTimes.com


at 5:53pm in Bradenton it was 79°F, 82% humidity, with 29.93” of Hg at 19’ of elevation. That implies an altitude adjustment of 1,653 feet above sea level and converts a 14.0s @ 100.3 mph run to a 13.74 @ 102.23 mph run. That makes more sense for Stage-2 2.0T Accord. Your modified 2.0T is more than a 100 mph car!

 

[Baldeagle]

In my opinion I don't think their is any need for it to be that scientific, or to be adjusting our times.

For myself, and likely the majority of owners, they care about what they see in front of them, not something that an online calculator tells them.

If i personally went to the drag strip and ran a 13.7, i would be telling everyone i ran a 13.7, because i did. I wouldnt be telling people I ran a 14.0 after the online tool correction.

In a similar sense, you can correct his car to a 100+ MPH trap speed, but he hasn't actually done that yet.

That would be similar to putting your car on a Dyno, having it pull 230 WHP, but then going out and telling everyone the car made 250 WHP because it was a hot day when you dyno'd it, it really didnt.

Does this make sense?

Everyone lives in their own micro environment, your circle of friends likely goes to the same track as you, and the same dyno as you. So the results that happen in your own environment with your own locale and friends are really the truth in your world, not an adjusted value.

I respectfully disagree. In ¼ miles races, tenths of a second and 1-2 mph mean everything. When you describe your performance to others, do you tell them you ran about a 14 second quarter? No. You tell them you ran a 13.9 or 13.8 second quarter because that 1/10th of a second has great significance. Think about how much money people spend on mods to make their cars 1/10s to 2/10s faster. In a race, 2/10ths of a second at 100 mph is about 30 feet or about two car lengths. If one car beats another car in a quarter mile race by two car lengths that is a very clear victory.

I get your viewpoint about micro-environments. In head to head competitions on the same day everything evens out. But to state “my car ran a 13.9 second quarter” is different than stating “my car IS a 13.9 second quarter mile car.” I'll argue that we state our times because we want the "IS" label. Sometimes atmospheric conditions work for you and sometimes against you, by a lot. For the numbers to have real meaning, they need to be adjusted. 1/10s of a second and 1-2 mph matter. (Also, when you dyno an engine it is normally adjusted, for the same reasons.)

 

[Baldeagle]

Hey Baldeagle, do you mind doing an altitude adjustment on the times I posted? Would be interested to seeing these numbers. :notworthy:salue:

Based on 76°F, 29.33”Hg, 94% humidity and 19’ elevation, density altitude is 2,169 feet above sea level. That would convert a 13.76 @ 101.77mph run to a 13.416 @ 104.643 mph run.

We all know that a stock 2.0T Accord is a 14.0 second 100 mph car. If someone runs a stock Accord in cold weather and gets a better time/speed than that, great. You ran it. Tout it! Feel good about it.

Here’s a question. If someone in an Accord ran a quarter mile race down a hill and made a 13.1 @ 109 mph run, is it right for him/her to use those numbers as a proxy for how powerful his/her car is? I’ll argue no because of the advantage that hill provided. Bragging rights are only meaningful if the numbers have true meaning. Please don’t tell me there is no ego boost involved in stating “my car pulled a 13.9s quarter.” Like that hill, favorable weather creates an advantage. If you were the one who had slower times because of hot weather, you'd want to DA adjust. The problem is that no one wants the adjustment to work against them. I get that. But it shouldn't be selective, particularly if your goal is to know the "real" performance of your car.

Real performance is perhaps most important in comparing tuned and stock Accords. To compare a stock 13.9s Accord at 40°F to a Stage 2 tuned 13.8s Accord at 85°F and conclude the tune does very little is inaccurate. If the two cars raced next to each other on the same day, the tuned Accord would probably be .6 seconds faster. It would also justify the $500 cost of the tune. That is why we need to DA adjust times for a level playing field.

 

[Baldeagle]

I suppose we just see differently on this subject. Much like the conversion tool is a scientific calculator, the track itself is also a scientific measuring tool that's calibrated specifically to gain accurate information. I've never in my entire life heard someone say to me that they run XYZ but in reality it should be XYZ instead due to the conversation.

There are many world class racers out in the world, NHRA, the whole 9, they go to a racetrack, bust out a time and the time you see is what goes in official record books and wins official races, trophies, money, ETC - they don't convert all their race cars times to a different value.

Are some race tracks faster then others? Sure, but that's just how the world works.

If you had two cars going for the same world record, one car ran a 8.9 in Florida and the other car ran a 9.0 in Denver, a mile+ above sea level... the 8.9 florida car would still be the world record holder, fastest car, trophy winner ETC...


But anyway, switching gears here..

Prior to the accord i owned a Dodge SRT4, full bolt ons, tuned, had a big turbo kit on it, the whole 9 -- The fastest i ever got that car was mid 13s, but it trapped 110+ MPH, mainly because it was spin city.. I remember i literally got beat by a guy driving a ford crown vic one time because i couldn't hook up, it was just spin city. Coming from that platform to the accord, i can now appreciate a lower amount of power, but actually being able to get that power to the ground and turn it into movement, versus just a burnout contest. I guess my point is just throwing as much power at something as possible (tune) will not always yield the best results

I must agree with you that the pros do not DA adjust. The time/speed they run is recorded as is. No disagreement there. But please let me continue to play devil’s advocate. Below are videos of two different stock Accords. Both runs were in warmer, humid weather on regular fuel. Both Accords recorded 14.4s quarters @ ≈98 mph.

My question is when comparing an Accord to a V6 Camry, Audi A4, BMW 328, 2.0T Camaro, GTI, etc., which numbers should you use? Is it a 14.4 second quarter run at 98 mph (on regular) in warm weather or a 13.8 second run at 102 mph (on premium) in cold weather? They are both the identical cars. Both times/speeds actually happened. But which metric most accurately describes a stock 2018 Accord? I’ll argue that just as much as the Accord is not a 98 mph car, it is not a 102 mph car either. It is in between. By the way, the difference between a 98 mph and 102 mph trap speed in an Accord is probably about 30 wheel horsepower, of which about 10hp came from running premium and the other 20 hp from colder/denser air.

To me, this entire subject comes down to how you intend to use the data. Why are we posting our times? If it’s about fun and bragging rights, your way is best; state the real numbers. But if it is about a fair comparison to other cars, or tune v. no tune, DA adjusting will provide the more accurate gauge of the car, especially with such large temperature differences. As I’m sure you can tell, that is my goal with this data.

 

[Baldeagle]

I'm not sure if this is the proper place to ask this but how would the 2.0 Sport compare in the quarter vs the EX-L stock?

Are you asking because the EX-L has lighter/smaller 17” wheels/tires verses the 19” wheels/tires on the Sport/Touring? If yes, the EX-L's smaller/lighter wheel and tire combo will absolutely improve acceleration, but it is hard to quantify.

In the article below, Car and Driver asked the same question and tested it on a 2.5-liter Golf. Going from 19s to 17s on that car decreased its quarter mile time by 1/10th second, increased its trap speed by one mph and also increased it fuel economy by one mpg.

Given that Honda claims the EX-L gets 1+ mpg better fuel economy than the Touring/Sport (because of the lighter wheels and lighter tires), it is probably safe to say the EX-L is also 1/10th of a second faster in the quarter and traps 1 mph faster. On a drag strip that might be significant but on the road I doubt you can feel it.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/effects-of-upsized-wheels-and-tires-tested

 

[Baldeagle]

It's also not guaranteed to be faster once you factor in the numerous external factors such as who's driving the car, track prep, weather, etc.

Similiar to how not every sport is running the same quarter mile times, they are varying considerably.

One could say that the Sport 2.0 is faster then the Touring 2.0, because the Touring trim is loaded down with a bunch more weight due to the additional features and luxuries that the sport lacks. The touring 2.0 is actually 100+ pounds heavier then a sport 2.0.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

No, I think it is guaranteed. The EX-L has an advantage. If a Sport pulled up to an EX-L, weather and track prep instantly equal out. As far as driving skills go, I don't think they really apply to 14.0 sec quarter mile automatic car. (You brake torque slightly and floor it. The car does everything else. Unless the other driver is texting, reaction time should not account for much difference.) Provided both cars had the same premium fuel, one person in the car, ½ tank of fuel, no extra stuff in the trunk, etc., I’d say 100% of the time the EX-L would very slowly pull ahead of the Sport.

 

[Baldeagle]

- Location: Orlando FL Jan 9/19
- Temperature: 64 degrees
- Model: 2.0T Sport
- Transmission: 6MT
- Mods: Injen SRI, PRL catless DP, Custom tune.
- Vehicle Prep: None. 34-35psi tires, Factory weight plus 200lbs driver, 93oct.

View attachment 497671
View attachment 497673

That is great! 105 mph trap a speed? That puts your car in the same class as a 365HP G70 (106 mph), a 370 HP Dodge Daytona 5.7 (105 mph) and a lot of other dedicated performance cars. To check, this is a tune you did, right?

 

[Baldeagle]

A 109 mph trap speed is simply outstanding for an Accord. Great job.

 

[Baldeagle]

Nice Post - Wow on that one Video where the Mustang came across the Track almost Tagged the Back of Honda Accord . .

You Guys are having Fun . .

A Controlled Environment I need to Hit an empty Runway again , but so Far it Feels like the Accord just Hits a Wall once it is in Seventh Gear - Gearing is So Tall ..
Honda Odyssey running X10 is using 3.61 Gear Accord 2.0 X10 3.55 , Sport is 3.84 Final Gearing .. X10 7th Gear is Big Jump Taller .
Just Wished Honda had made all the Gears 1st _ 6th Taller and then 7th wouldn't be such Big Jump - sending Accord X10 into 8th with More Momentum . . Seems to Hit Wall
in 7th , 8th Area - Possibly it Built in Limiter doing something .. ( Stock )

I get the benefit of close ratios, which the Accord certainly has in the lower gears. But for the record, the Odyssey has longer effective gears than the Accord. Both car's share the same 10AT gearing, and yes, the Odyssey has shorter 3.61 gears verses 3.55 gears for the Accord. But the Odyssey has huge 235/60-18 tires verses 235/40-19 tires for the Accord. While the final drive is 1.7% shorter, the tires are 10.5% larger. That makes the Odyssey's overall gearing 8.8% taller. The Accord will bang through its gears a little quicker, giving it better torque multiplication.

Sorry, but for fun I can’t let this next one go. You stated the Accord hits a wall once in 7th gear. To me, a wall implies you are trying to go faster (floored) but have encountered heavy wind resistance. You want to go faster but the car can't. It's rate of acceleration as reduced to near-zero. At 6,700 rpm, 6th gear goes about 145 mph. That is where 7th gear would start. At 6,700 rpm, 7th gear would theoretically go about 190 mph, far, far above the Accord's drag limited speed, let alone the ECU’s speed limited speed. Are you telling us you took your Accord above 145 mph? (On an empty runway, I get that part.) Even with a tune, I would have thought an Accord would have a drag limited speed around 150-155 mph. Even if 7th gear were super close, I doubt you’d get much more out of the car. And the need for more momentum going into 8th? Where were you going with this?