[home][rumors and news][model release matrix][dealer network][desktop calendar][exhaust notes][tov forums][links][search][sponsors][garage][login]

Tire Rack Upgrade Garage
 Search for a Dealer:
 Canadian Flag US Flag
 Honda Acura
 ZIP  
Honda announces changes for 2019 Civic, including new Sport trim
More.......................
When is the 2019 Accord arriving in showrooms? Maybe not until 2019
More.......................
American Honda Reports July Sales Results
More.......................
Official statement from Honda concerning flooding of Celaya factory
More.......................
News from the dealer side: 2019 HR-V, Fit, and Insight production impacted due to flooding in Celaya
More.......................
2019 Honda HR-V updated with styling tweaks, Apple CarPlay/Android Auto, and available Honda Sensing
More.......................
2019 Acura MDX Arrives with Luxury and Performance Upgrades Plus First A-Spec Variant
More.......................
SPIED IN EUROPE! Civic Type R refresh
More.......................
Clarity --> Re: Clarity BEV
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: Red Bull Racing Confirms Gasly for 2019
Join Discussion......
RDX --> Re: Sat in an Advance - Complaints
Join Discussion......
Accord --> Re: Cash incentives for the Canadian Accord?
Join Discussion......
Strictly Technical --> Re: CEL problems
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Re: 2009 Honda S2000 Edition 100
Join Discussion......
Fuel Cell Technology --> Re: The FB Clarity FCEV group is full of shit
Join Discussion......
Sales Experiences --> Re: Questions regarding: lease, then buy option
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Accord 2.0 touring or TLX V6 Tech FWD
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: Alonso Quits F1
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Re: Alaska Airlines plane hijacked
Join Discussion......
Ridgeline - General Talk --> Re: Ridgeline outlasts Taco in Death Valley Torture Test
Join Discussion......
Spy Shots --> Re: Honda Passport prototype caught in Los Angeles
Join Discussion......
Type R --> Re: DC-R
Join Discussion......
RDX --> Re: RDX & Honda Passport
Join Discussion......
First Drive: 2019 Honda Insight
Read Article....................
2019 Honda Insight PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Acura RDX
Read Article....................
2019 Acura RDX Features & Specifications
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery - 2019 Acura RDX Advance
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery - 2019 Acura RDX A-Spec
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
  TOV News > HONDATA Dyno Test: 2018 Accord Sport 2.0T 6MT > > Re: still less HP than V6?

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - [1]
Author
    
outersquare
Profile for outersquare
still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-22-2017 20:57
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
https://www.hondata.com/flashpro/flashpro-accord-2013-v6

Presumably that is the same dyno;

3.5L 289 HP, 263 lbft
2.0T 265 HP, 301 lbft

Down 24 HP, up 38 lbft

I guess we'll see reflash versus reflash soon.

Hondarulez
Profile for Hondarulez
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-22-2017 21:49
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Sounds about right and explains why the new 2.0t 10at is a bit faster than by 6at. The new Accord is what, 100lb lighter? Add in 4 extra ratios and more torque and it adds up.
TonyEX
Profile for TonyEX
And 38+ ft lbs.. [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-23-2017 00:43
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
A DCT on this baby... a DCT and SH-AWD.... that's all it needs.

Plus, perhaps a tune for 91 octane.

outersquare wrote:
https://www.hondata.com/flashpro/flashpro-accord-2013-v6

Presumably that is the same dyno;

3.5L 289 HP, 263 lbft
2.0T 265 HP, 301 lbft

Down 24 HP, up 38 lbft

I guess we'll see reflash versus reflash soon.



Mechanic
Profile for Mechanic
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-23-2017 07:50
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
OK, I'm favorably impressed. No doubt Honda has tested this motor under all sorts of conditions, determined to ensure it will be reliable and, equally important, durable in the hands of John Q. Public and his spouse. We'll know a lot more in a year or so after the mechanically indifferent have abused and neglected this engine and the 1.5-liter for a while. Ford was the stalking horse with the 3.5-liter turbocharged engine in the F-150. Now it's Honda's turn in the barrel. I wish them well.
Mechanic
Profile for Mechanic
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-23-2017 08:03
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Forgot to ask: Anyone peak at the owner's manual for these cars yet? I'm really curious as to whether Honda's sticking with 0W-20 for these puppies. I doubt it, but what do I know?
Grace141
Profile for Grace141
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-23-2017 08:29
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Found it on Page 613. Honda does indeed recommend 0w-20.

http://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/pubs/OM/AH/ATVA1818OM/enu/ATVA1818OM.PDF

They claim it's motor oil, at least. The Mobil 1 0w-20 I use sloshes about in the jug like water. I'm curious about the average miles people are seeing for the changes per the MM.

skapig
Profile for skapig
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-23-2017 10:05
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I'm curious if fuel dilution ends up being a factor.
notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-23-2017 11:24
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Fuel dilution tends to be less of a problem on DI engines than PI engines. That said, I'm not a fan of 0w-20 for anything but fuel economy. I'd be running a 0w-30 with my driving style at a minimum

SC

notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-23-2017 11:25
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Fuel dilution tends to be less of a problem on DI engines than PI engines. That said, I'm not a fan of 0w-20 for anything but fuel economy. I'd be running a 0w-30 with my driving style at a minimum

SC

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-24-2017 01:33
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
It'll be interesting to see what it does on 91 octane. The J35 definitely gains some HP and torque, and it looks like it was probably ~5-7 without the open element intake based on the V6 dyno.

It's also interesting to see that output curves are as expected. The 2.0T is much stronger below about 4K, but the V6 holds on longer (which obviously explains the higher HP number). Interesting that by redline, the V6 is making almost 40 lb-ft more than the turbo 4. I am sure the 2.0T will pick up more power more easily though.

I need to go see if I can find a 2.0T locally yet to test.

fatbloke
Profile for fatbloke
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-24-2017 04:40
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
outersquare wrote:
https://www.hondata.com/flashpro/flashpro-accord-2013-v6

Presumably that is the same dyno;

3.5L 289 HP, 263 lbft
2.0T 265 HP, 301 lbft

Down 24 HP, up 38 lbft

I guess we'll see reflash versus reflash soon.


Yes but as you pointed out what's more important for most is more torque, what's the total obsession with horse power, is it an American thing?

Maximania
Profile for Maximania
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-24-2017 05:06
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
fatbloke wrote:
outersquare wrote:
https://www.hondata.com/flashpro/flashpro-accord-2013-v6

Presumably that is the same dyno;

3.5L 289 HP, 263 lbft
2.0T 265 HP, 301 lbft

Down 24 HP, up 38 lbft

I guess we'll see reflash versus reflash soon.


Yes but as you pointed out what's more important for most is more torque, what's the total obsession with horse power, is it an American thing?



Often times it's quite the opposite, fatbloke. Torque is a staple of the American (engine) way

Sasker
Profile for Sasker
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-24-2017 14:18
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Increasing torque is easy: Use bigger displacement (old American way), or use boost (current trend). Given a set amount of torque, getting higher HP requires enabling the engine to rev higher. This often implies more advanced technology, something few companies have been able to do reliably. The old Honda was a good example of that.

High torque is meh, because anybody can do it. A high-revving engine is indeed something to boast about because it takes work and technology.



notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-24-2017 16:11
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Sasker wrote:
Increasing torque is easy: Use bigger displacement (old American way), or use boost (current trend). Given a set amount of torque, getting higher HP requires enabling the engine to rev higher. This often implies more advanced technology, something few companies have been able to do reliably. The old Honda was a good example of that.

High torque is meh, because anybody can do it. A high-revving engine is indeed something to boast about because it takes work and technology.





I agree, but let's be honest about this Honda 2.0T. It's a pretty impressive engine. When it comes to output this thing is as good as any 2.0 liter turbo on the market right now. And getting 300+ lbs-ft of torque at 1500 rpm while still making good power is not that easy. A lot of manufacturers (Ford, Hyundai, etc.) are still working to produce 2.0T engines that match up well with the best (VW, BMW and maybe now MB). Honda appears to have done their homework on this 2.0T. We may (with good reason) lament the bigger, smoother J35 and its passing, but within the context of the market, the K20C is a really good engine based upon what we've seen so far.

SC

None
Profile for None
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-24-2017 20:36
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Sasker wrote:
Increasing torque is easy: Use bigger displacement (old American way), or use boost (current trend). Given a set amount of torque, getting higher HP requires enabling the engine to rev higher. This often implies more advanced technology, something few companies have been able to do reliably. The old Honda was a good example of that.

High torque is meh, because anybody can do it. A high-revving engine is indeed something to boast about because it takes work and technology.






I have NO desire to drive around in traffic needing 5000 rpm just to move my car. Sorry, I'll take torque at 1500 rpm all day long.

poooot
Profile for poooot
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-24-2017 21:14
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I think I’m missing something here. The first graph on the link you provided is for stock vehicle with “low octane” (which could mean 87?), and reports 224.8 hp, while the second graph is with 91 octane and reports 289.1 hp. The 2.0T dyno being compared was done with 87 octane not 91. Does it still compare to the second graph?
fatbloke
Profile for fatbloke
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-25-2017 04:18
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Sasker wrote:
Increasing torque is easy: Use bigger displacement (old American way), or use boost (current trend). Given a set amount of torque, getting higher HP requires enabling the engine to rev higher. This often implies more advanced technology, something few companies have been able to do reliably. The old Honda was a good example of that.

High torque is meh, because anybody can do it. A high-revving engine is indeed something to boast about because it takes work and technology.




So you don't need it but hey I can boast about it! Really in a Honda Accord! What a waste of time effort and money.

superchg2
Profile for superchg2
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-25-2017 06:06
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
notyper wrote:
Sasker wrote:
Increasing torque is easy: Use bigger displacement (old American way), or use boost (current trend). Given a set amount of torque, getting higher HP requires enabling the engine to rev higher. This often implies more advanced technology, something few companies have been able to do reliably. The old Honda was a good example of that.

High torque is meh, because anybody can do it. A high-revving engine is indeed something to boast about because it takes work and technology.





I agree, but let's be honest about this Honda 2.0T. It's a pretty impressive engine. When it comes to output this thing is as good as any 2.0 liter turbo on the market right now. And getting 300+ lbs-ft of torque at 1500 rpm while still making good power is not that easy. A lot of manufacturers (Ford, Hyundai, etc.) are still working to produce 2.0T engines that match up well with the best (VW, BMW and maybe now MB). Honda appears to have done their homework on this 2.0T. We may (with good reason) lament the bigger, smoother J35 and its passing, but within the context of the market, the K20C is a really good engine based upon what we've seen so far.

SC


Compared to the K20Z3's peak torque (139) in the 8th gen Si, the K20C's 300+ ft.lbs. (stock) of torque at 1500 r.p.m. looks pretty impressive.


Pseudomaniac
Profile for Pseudomaniac
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-25-2017 23:33
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I'd question if the right 1:1 gear is selected, or if the dyno co-efficient is correct.

Mercedes isn't getting this much on the tap out of their 2nd generation of 2 liter turbos, and you know the Honda is going to be built to go 80-100k without too many surprises even if neglected.

Maybe skeptical from too many F1 races the last few years, but me-thinks these are 10-15% on the high side.

Dren
Profile for Dren
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-26-2017 07:14
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
superchg2 wrote:
notyper wrote:
Sasker wrote:
Increasing torque is easy: Use bigger displacement (old American way), or use boost (current trend). Given a set amount of torque, getting higher HP requires enabling the engine to rev higher. This often implies more advanced technology, something few companies have been able to do reliably. The old Honda was a good example of that.

High torque is meh, because anybody can do it. A high-revving engine is indeed something to boast about because it takes work and technology.





I agree, but let's be honest about this Honda 2.0T. It's a pretty impressive engine. When it comes to output this thing is as good as any 2.0 liter turbo on the market right now. And getting 300+ lbs-ft of torque at 1500 rpm while still making good power is not that easy. A lot of manufacturers (Ford, Hyundai, etc.) are still working to produce 2.0T engines that match up well with the best (VW, BMW and maybe now MB). Honda appears to have done their homework on this 2.0T. We may (with good reason) lament the bigger, smoother J35 and its passing, but within the context of the market, the K20C is a really good engine based upon what we've seen so far.

SC


Compared to the K20Z3's peak torque (139) in the 8th gen Si, the K20C's 300+ ft.lbs. (stock) of torque at 1500 r.p.m. looks pretty impressive.




Especially since it's only running about one bar of boost on 87 octane. The K20Z3 required premium.

Honda was a bit late to the down sized, down sped turbo trend, but they've done an excellent job with the end product.

notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-26-2017 12:21
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Pseudomaniac wrote:
I'd question if the right 1:1 gear is selected, or if the dyno co-efficient is correct.

Mercedes isn't getting this much on the tap out of their 2nd generation of 2 liter turbos, and you know the Honda is going to be built to go 80-100k without too many surprises even if neglected.

Maybe skeptical from too many F1 races the last few years, but me-thinks these are 10-15% on the high side.



Gear ratio doesn't matter. Doug uses an older correction factor to keep all their dyno tests over the years on the same plane (they've been dynoing at our shop since I opened in 2002 - they have more dyno data on the harddrive than anyone else - by far). Newer factors are 4% lower, but that still puts the car right at 300 lbs-ft. Even on a conservative dynojet this thing will still put down 285-290 lbs-ft.

As for Mercedes, you're not seeing any of those with a manual trans. A torque converter and fluid pump are going to steal away some power. And AFAIK, the CLA45 still crushes the Accord in any acceleration measure (10+ mph trap speed in 1/4) so the extra 120hp it's rated at means something.

I think the best comparison would be the BMW 328/330i. Comparing the 8AT to the Accord 10AT (both C&D) you get:

BMW - 3566 lbs

Zero to 60 mph: 5.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.1 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 27.2 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.4 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.9 sec @ 99 mph

Accord - 3419 lbs

Zero to 60 mph: 5.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.6 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 20.9 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.4 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 102 mph

Outside of 0-30 off the line (which the Accord still does amazingly well at for a FWD car) the Accord stomps the BMW every which way. It's rated at 12 hp and 15 lbs-ft more (again on 87) and weighs 4% less. The trap speed would indicated a 10% diff in power to weight, and that's about what the rated power and weight specs show.

If we look for BMW 328i dyno plots we can see that the N20 is seriously underrated as well. Dynojet plots exist showing 235-245 whp and 250-260 lbs-ft of torque.

https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/dyno-tested-2013-cadillac-ats.html

(test shows gm 2.0t vs. bmw 2.0t on dynojet)

SC

gtton
Profile for gtton
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-27-2017 03:25
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
According to your Hondata link, those are not the stock HP & torque figures for J35Y1 V6 Accord under "A stock vehicle with low octane fuel."
Based on the dyno numbers from Hondata, the K20C4 2.0T is up in both HP & torque vs the J35Y1.

Pseudomaniac
Profile for Pseudomaniac
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-27-2017 18:17
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Agreed the MT wins on parasitic, although R&T got substantially lower numbers on the AT (not on a chassis dyno). They never could get the trans into a cooperative dyno mode, (AHEM, Honda....how about a pedal dance or some buttons?) so results aren't completely conclusive.


Pseudomaniac
Profile for Pseudomaniac
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-27-2017 18:18
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
The Blue is the old J35 - the black the new 2.0T.
notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-27-2017 18:56
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Pseudomaniac wrote:
Agreed the MT wins on parasitic, although R&T got substantially lower numbers on the AT (not on a chassis dyno). They never could get the trans into a cooperative dyno mode, (AHEM, Honda....how about a pedal dance or some buttons?) so results aren't completely conclusive.




There is a proper pedal dance (well ebrake, brake pedal and VSA button) that we use). You'll note they use the J1349 correction which is our preferred correction these days (especially for cars made after 2006). It reads almost precisely 4% lower than the correction used in the Hondata test. So you'd be looking at 252 whp which is pretty close to the R&T results. And take into account this is a Dynapack which removes wheels/tires which is worth another 3-4% depending on wheel/tire/alignment choices.

Don't forget that little bump on the Hondata test either. Useful for bragging rights but meaningless in terms of accel.

SC

TonyEX
Profile for TonyEX
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-29-2017 13:34
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
notyper wrote:
Sasker wrote:
Increasing torque is easy: Use bigger displacement (old American way), or use boost (current trend). Given a set amount of torque, getting higher HP requires enabling the engine to rev higher. This often implies more advanced technology, something few companies have been able to do reliably. The old Honda was a good example of that.

High torque is meh, because anybody can do it. A high-revving engine is indeed something to boast about because it takes work and technology.





I agree, but let's be honest about this Honda 2.0T. It's a pretty impressive engine. When it comes to output this thing is as good as any 2.0 liter turbo on the market right now. And getting 300+ lbs-ft of torque at 1500 rpm while still making good power is not that easy. A lot of manufacturers (Ford, Hyundai, etc.) are still working to produce 2.0T engines that match up well with the best (VW, BMW and maybe now MB). Honda appears to have done their homework on this 2.0T. We may (with good reason) lament the bigger, smoother J35 and its passing, but within the context of the market, the K20C is a really good engine based upon what we've seen so far.

SC



I rented an Infinity QX30 AWD with its 7DCT and 2.0T.... not only was the engine unobtrusive, meaning neither bad nor particularly powerful -mostly forgetable and just enough, but it was a complete gas hog.




rocky
Profile for rocky
Re: still less HP than V6? [View News Item]    (Score: 1, Normal) 12-31-2017 08:10
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
outersquare wrote:
https://www.hondata.com/flashpro/flashpro-accord-2013-v6

Presumably that is the same dyno;

3.5L 289 HP, 263 lbft
2.0T 265 HP, 301 lbft

Down 24 HP, up 38 lbft

I guess we'll see reflash versus reflash soon.



Interesting that the dyno numbers exceed Honda's official numbers.

So many variations of tune of the V6 that a single point isn't the whole story. Take a look at the Pilot. These are Honda numbers

2013 Pilot 250hp/253ftlbs@4800
2017 Pilot 280hp/262ftlbs@4700

Suppose someone will look out the dyno numbers for the Type R Civic.


 
Thread Page - [1]
Contact TOV | Submit Your Article | Submit Your Link | Advertise | TOV Shop | Events | Our Sponsors | TOV Archives
Copyright © 2018 Velocitech Inc. All information contained herein remains the property of Velocitech Inc.
The Temple of VTEC is not affiliated with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TOV Policies and Guidelines - Credits - Privacy Policy
30 mobile: 0