Drive Accord Honda Forums banner

41 - 60 of 87 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
If the tuned guys are pulling better 60 foot times then me, then how am i doing the same times as them? If they got off the line better then me, then they should start pulling away easy with 50 extra HP, except their not?

As an example, the slip posted above for a Hondata Stage 2 tune plus a PRL Intake

13.983 @ 99.31mph
2.175 60’

Versus Stock tune and stock intake.. Not down just 1 mod, but 2 different mods.

13.91 @ 102 mph
2.3 60 foot.

If its not the initial traction or hit off the line, then im pulling away on the big end
Because the heat and humidity in FL is a completely different ballgame than NH. That's what all the arguing about correcting numbers is about. Your numbers are very impressive for a stock car, no doubt. Let's just keep an eye on this thread and see some numbers this winter before coming to final conclusions. I'm very interested to see a Stage 2 tuned car run with the temp in the 40s-50s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,188 Posts
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.

 

·
Enthusiast
Joined
·
122 Posts
My recommendation for this post or as a general sticky in the performance section, why don't we make a "top 10" post. Nothing but time slips, the top 10 fastest get listed on the board and constantly updated as people become faster and knock others down

Example

1. Susy, 13.99 @ 102, Ktuner S2
3. Paul, 14.00 @ 98, stock
3. Ryan, 14.01 @ 100, stock
4.

Etc etc

Something basic and simple... Name, time, and mods. Backed up by the time slip picture.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Why not post both? Or at least post the weather and other information necessary to make the DA conversion. This way people can reference whichever numbers they choose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Had a great time @ BMP (Bradenton Motorsports Park) yesterday with Casey & Eddie. Here are my times I posted, with my best 1/4 mile run of 13.766 @ 101.77 MPH. (2.276 60') Outside temperature was at 76 degrees & humidity @ 94%. My current modifications are Hondata Stage 2 Flash & PRL Stage 1 Intake. I did not adjust my tire pressure, and left it at the factory settings of 36 PSI. Full interior/spare tire/tools, and random things in my trunk. Not too shabby.
- Date: 11/1/2018
- Location: Bradenton, FL (Tampa)
- Temperature: 76 degrees
- Model: 2.0T Sport
- Transmission: 10AT
- Mods: Hondata Stage 2 Flash, PRL Stage 1 Intake
- Vehicle Prep: No modifications to tire pressures (factory settings @ 36 psi), full interior & spare/tools in trunk, stock turbo (would think this is assumed, but with people slowly swapping out for the CTR turbo, I think this is a good detail to be added)
- Best time / Worst time (followed by verified time slips): Please see original post.

If mods can help edit my original post with my additional details, that would be fantastic. Thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter #46
Had a great time @ BMP (Bradenton Motorsports Park) yesterday with Casey & Eddie. Here are my times I posted, with my best 1/4 mile run of 13.766 @ 101.77 MPH. (2.276 60') Outside temperature was at 76 degrees & humidity @ 94%. My current modifications are Hondata Stage 2 Flash & PRL Stage 1 Intake. I did not adjust my tire pressure, and left it at the factory settings of 36 PSI. Full interior/spare tire/tools, and random things in my trunk. Not too shabby.
- Date: 11/1/2018
- Location: Bradenton, FL (Tampa)
- Temperature: 76 degrees
- Model: 2.0T Sport
- Transmission: 10AT
- Mods: Hondata Stage 2 Flash, PRL Stage 1 Intake
- Vehicle Prep: No modifications to tire pressures (factory settings @ 36 psi), full interior & spare/tools in trunk, stock turbo (would think this is assumed, but with people slowly swapping out for the CTR turbo, I think this is a good detail to be added)
- Best time / Worst time (followed by verified time slips): Please see original post.

If mods can help edit my original post with my additional details, that would be fantastic. Thank you.
Had you added to the list in my first post Sameer. You’re good to go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,188 Posts
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
 

·
Enthusiast
Joined
·
122 Posts
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.

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
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,188 Posts
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.
 

·
Enthusiast
Joined
·
122 Posts
You must keep in mind similiar to the touring scenerio above, the EXL also has additional luxuries.

The Sport 2.0 10AT weighs 3377 pounds
The EXL 2.0 10AT weights 3362 pounds

The difference is literally 15 pounds. That's the weight of a Thanksgiving turkey.

For example the traditional rule of thumb is it takes 100 pounds to make a 0.1 difference in the quarter mile.
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.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

·
port & polish everything
Joined
·
1,562 Posts
very nice, looks like DP and tune picks up a lot of MPH and thus WHP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,188 Posts
- 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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
- 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
Are you using the no lift shift feature with your tuner? This has to be worth a few mph since the boost stays built between shifts.

Also, for reference, your ET and trap speed is identical to what a Civic Type R runs. Very nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
I decided to do some more appropriate test runs tonight.
This time i unloaded all my work equipment from the trunk and also the spare tire, lowered the tire pressure to 28psi, then 22psi and dialed the launch a little better. By the 2nd run it dead hooked 2nd gear. With a better tire and not the factory goodyears i'm sure it's got a better time.
1st run was [email protected] with a 2.3 60ft, 2nd run cut a 2.1 60ft and a [email protected]
We'll see if i have more time in the following months to try again.

Temp: 59deg

20190111_213144.jpg
IMG-20190111-WA0020.jpg

Videos:




Are you using the no lift shift feature with your tuner? This has to be worth a few mph since the boost stays built between shifts.

Also, for reference, your ET and trap speed is identical to what a Civic Type R runs. Very nice.
This time i did. 2 days ago with my first runs i wasn't trying too hard but more like measuring things.
 

·
port & polish everything
Joined
·
1,562 Posts
Excellent results, good job beating that G37 it looks like. This is faster than a Tesla Model 3, almost as fast as the original Tesla Model S P85+, Lexus ISF/RCF. In fact the trap speed pips the P85+, which would be great for roll races. With just intake/downpipe/tune, this is running with cars that cost twice as much. Not to mention you can still swap to the Type R turbo.

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-3/2018/exclusive-tesla-model-3-long-range-first-test-review/
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-s/2013/2013-tesla-model-s-p85-review-verdict/
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/lexus/rc-f/2015/2015-lexus-rc-f-first-test/
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/lexus/is-f/2012/2012-lexus-is-f-first-test/
 
41 - 60 of 87 Posts
Top