[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  
American Honda Reports November Sales
More.......................
2019 Honda Passport Makes World Debut: Adventure-Ready All-New 5-passenger SUV at 2018 LA Auto Show
More.......................
LIVE from Los Angeles: TOV's coverage of the 2019 Honda Passport reveal
More.......................
First Look: DNA Collectibles releases Urban EV Concept 1:18 scale model
More.......................
All-New 2019 Honda Passport Starts Adventure with Global Debut in Los Angeles
More.......................
2019 CR-V goes on sale with few changes, nominal price increase
More.......................
2019 Honda Civic Type R and Civic Hatchback Accelerate into Dealerships
More.......................
American Honda Reports October Sales
More.......................
RDX --> Re: RDX anecdote
Join Discussion......
Ridgeline - Modifications --> Re: Rear Door Hack
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> And you thought you were the intended beneficiary of the proposed lower gas mileage rules...
Join Discussion......
Photoshops --> Re: Legend
Join Discussion......
Videos --> Re: The NSX replaces the ZR1
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Aston Martin Valkarie ICE (Cosworth Design)
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: TheStraightPipes youtube car channel reviews
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Re: " The Sedans are coming, the Sedans are coming! "
Join Discussion......
TSX --> Re: TSX+Conti Control Contact AS vs 9" snow
Join Discussion......
Fuel Cell Technology --> Dispenser Issues and Infrared Interface
Join Discussion......
CR-V --> Re: CR-V MMC guesses
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Re: "2019 Toyota Supra Is a BMW Parts Bin Car"
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: World Superbikes Ten Kate Team Bankrupt
Join Discussion......
Civic --> Re: 22 mm Progressive Sway Bar on Civic Si
Join Discussion......
Videos --> Re: Vivid Racing Tune the NSX MkII
Join Discussion......
2019 Acura NSX PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Acura ILX
Read Article....................
2019 Acura ILX PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Honda Pilot
Read Article....................
2019 Honda Pilot PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Honda Insight
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
  TOV Articles > First Dyno Test of 2008 Honda Accord EX-L V6 5AT > > Re: Losses

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - [1]
Author
    
Wizard
Profile for Wizard
Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 11:18
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Even with heavier wheels, I can't imagine ~25% loss when compared against new SAE ratings. Something is not right there.
Wizard
Profile for Wizard
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 11:23
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I'm unsure what breaking-in would do (or lighter wheels), but my "expectations" would be around 225 HP and 210 lb-ft at the wheels. So, the numbers are way down (~20 HP and ~20 lb-ft).

Some of the power loss could be explained (a little) due to it peaking a bit earlier.

JeffX
Profile for JeffX
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 11:29
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Wizard wrote:
I'm unsure what breaking-in would do (or lighter wheels), but my "expectations" would be around 225 HP and 210 lb-ft at the wheels. So, the numbers are way down (~20 HP and ~20 lb-ft).

Some of the power loss could be explained (a little) due to it peaking a bit earlier.



it's weird that the peak shown here would match up with honda's quoted rpm figure, but by the looks of the curve it seems to dip unnaturally early, that's why I was thinking it's probably pulling some timing up top. This car feels pretty quick on the street. In the next few days, I will weigh it, and go out and test it with the driftbox and see what the driftbox calculates for whp.

notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 11:31
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Put some premium in it and see what happens.

Also, we've seen that the newer 4-shaft 5ATs from Honda seem to have slightly higher losses than the earlier trannies.

That said, the result is still a bummer. One can only hope that breakin does some good - but I can't see more than 10 additional hp showing up under best case circumstances.

SC

precisionelite
Profile for precisionelite
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 11:44
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Good Observation on the Premium. However, honda's hp rating was based on regular fuel wasn't it? I think you guys should wait until it's broken in and use a dynapack. I believe it will be more accurate that way. Thanks for the early dyno though!!! You guys always come through for us.
-Greg P

Nakamichi
Profile for Nakamichi
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 11:59
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Why is there such a difference between 4000 and 4200 rpm? Is that part of the dyno test? Or is that what you feel on the road?
danielgr
Profile for danielgr
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 12:03
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Wizard wrote:
I'm unsure what breaking-in would do (or lighter wheels), but my "expectations" would be around 225 HP and 210 lb-ft at the wheels. So, the numbers are way down (~20 HP and ~20 lb-ft).

Some of the power loss could be explained (a little) due to it peaking a bit earlier.


Well, at 207.5Hp, losses aren't 25%, but 22.5%... That's not so bad for an AT tranny with those wheels, as long as Honda is accurately rating their engine.

What you are proposing (225whp) would be a mere 16% of loses, which is certainly too ambitious for most AT cars (most are around 20%).

Past 3.0L V6 dynoed by Jeff was about 4% more efficient if it was really making 240Hp at the crank, but even Jeff at that time was surprised by those numbers, and he concluded that "Honda may truly be sandbagging on the output numbers of this new J30. At nearly 196whp, this car puts down as much or more than a TL/CL Type S motor" (which was rated 260Hp).

All in all, I can't see anything massively wrong with this plots, specially with it being "so green", although, if somebody was expecting it to be "under-rated" it seems it's not.

Don't remember if TOV dynoed the regular Acura TL - AT at the same place...

CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 12:25
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Nakamichi wrote:
Why is there such a difference between 4000 and 4200 rpm? Is that part of the dyno test? Or is that what you feel on the road?


It's just the dyno test.

It's because unlike a manual transmission on a dyno, you have to run the engine at a certain RPM, and then run the engine and hope the transmission doesn't decide to kick down.

The engine seems to be "coughing" in the upper rev range, especially around 6K RPM. So perhaps another 5 or so HP using premium? Or maybe something is up with the computer. I'm not entirely convinced that the overall lower hp rating is due to VCM though. If it breaks in it'll probably only have another 4 hp on tap at the wheels, which I suppose is decent, just nothing groundbreaking.

I would love to see the 6MT coupe tested as well.

JeffX
Profile for JeffX
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 12:48
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
danielgr wrote:
Wizard wrote:
I'm unsure what breaking-in would do (or lighter wheels), but my "expectations" would be around 225 HP and 210 lb-ft at the wheels. So, the numbers are way down (~20 HP and ~20 lb-ft).

Some of the power loss could be explained (a little) due to it peaking a bit earlier.


Well, at 207.5Hp, losses aren't 25%, but 22.5%... That's not so bad for an AT tranny with those wheels, as long as Honda is accurately rating their engine.

What you are proposing (225whp) would be a mere 16% of loses, which is certainly too ambitious for most AT cars (most are around 20%).

Past 3.0L V6 dynoed by Jeff was about 4% more efficient if it was really making 240Hp at the crank, but even Jeff at that time was surprised by those numbers, and he concluded that "Honda may truly be sandbagging on the output numbers of this new J30. At nearly 196whp, this car puts down as much or more than a TL/CL Type S motor" (which was rated 260Hp).

All in all, I can't see anything massively wrong with this plots, specially with it being "so green", although, if somebody was expecting it to be "under-rated" it seems it's not.

Don't remember if TOV dynoed the regular Acura TL - AT at the same place...



the TL 5AT, which is now rated at 258hp with the revised SAE standards, put down 212whp if my recollection serves me.

Wizard
Profile for Wizard
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 13:29
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
danielgr wrote:
What you are proposing (225whp) would be a mere 16% of loses, which is certainly too ambitious for most AT cars (most are around 20%).

Not anymore, not with new SAE ratings (which are already about 4% lower for Hondas in all but, surprisingly, EPS equipped models).

With some losses already accounted for (under new SAE standard), the drive train loss should be lower not same or worse.

xman
Profile for xman
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 15:23
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I think Honda marketing really streched themselves here trying to match Camry's advertised 268 hp to the digit.

If the TL dynos with higher WHP while being advertised 10 hp down, somethings up. I just hope we don't see Honda changing their ratings next year.

JoeFromPA
Profile for JoeFromPA
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 15:35
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Wizard, I know you'll think I'm just jumping on the bandwagon here but...

This is really not a great chart. It's one dyno on an unbroken-in engine, but nonetheless, very concerning.

I would love to see an overlay of this engine's powerband vs. the J30 tested in 2003. Of course, that's really pointless because of the aforementioned automatic transmission difficulties and the fact that with VCM it wouldn't reflect real-world power at low-mid rpm and part throttle.

But I'm really beginning to wonder, what is the advantage to this new engine? It appears to have 16% more displacement than the previous generation and an increase of 24 "crank HP". But it's low and mid-range has been sacrificed (I haven't done an extensive comparison with the J30 graphs available) and it's fuel economy is about the same.

It's acceleration numbers seem to be nearly identical as well, so it's not like it gained pedal-to-the-metal power. So what's up? It seems to have the same flexibility in the low to mid-range, same fuel economy, and same accelerative properties as the J30...

I know the car gained a few hundred pounds, but what exactly is the advantage of this engine?

Joe

Wizard
Profile for Wizard
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 17:24
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Well, there is a point to me creating this thread. There has to be something that has resulted in lower than expected ratings. Otherwise, with that gain in weight, I certainly wouldn't have expected it to turn 0-60 half second quicker than the old Accord V6 did. And did you forget, the 3.5 also got 14% better (observed) fuel economy?

If you want to discuss that, let us stick to the thread we already have, and leave this specifically on the dyno results.

danielgr
Profile for danielgr
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 20:58
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
JoeFromPA wrote:

But I'm really beginning to wonder, what is the advantage to this new engine? It appears to have 16% more displacement than the previous generation and an increase of 24 "crank HP". But it's low and mid-range has been sacrificed (I haven't done an extensive comparison with the J30 graphs available) and it's fuel economy is about the same.


Well, one could say that it's not one of the strongest 3.5L out there regarding low-end torque, but it is certainly torquier than the 3.0L... and that's the main difference...

Other automakers went 3.5L, which are way faster than the old 3.0L in everyday life (i.e. when not pushing your car to the red-line), simply because of their extra torque through the rev-band thanks to their greater displacement.

The main point of this engine is giving you that power/torque with better or similar fuel economy in a heavier car. Also, one could say that this V6 Accord isn't "that fast", but how would it be it had grew-up and remained with the 3.0L?. Some may say "why do they have to make it "bigger-heavier"?, I guess the American market will decide on that. I certainly wouldn't need such a car myself.

About the size, maybe at Honda they thought that there was no need for such a large engine in their current Accord, so that if they were to use a 3.5L, at least they could bring some added value (i.e. making their car bigger). Then they addressed the main problem with the car being bigger/heavier/larger_engine, which is fuel economy, and hence VCM.
So in the end, you don't get a faster car, you get a bigger one that does about as well as the old one both in performance and fuel economy, the main "advantage" being larger.

I anyway still don't get so much criticism on the engine. When it's getting similar or better fuel economy than Nissan&Toyota's and performing decently despite the car being way heavier than its rivals and having a way inferior tranny, it can't be "that bad".

danielgr
Profile for danielgr
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-12-2007 21:46
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Jeff wrote:
danielgr wrote:
Wizard wrote:
I'm unsure what breaking-in would do (or lighter wheels), but my "expectations" would be around 225 HP and 210 lb-ft at the wheels. So, the numbers are way down (~20 HP and ~20 lb-ft).

Some of the power loss could be explained (a little) due to it peaking a bit earlier.


Well, at 207.5Hp, losses aren't 25%, but 22.5%... That's not so bad for an AT tranny with those wheels, as long as Honda is accurately rating their engine.

What you are proposing (225whp) would be a mere 16% of loses, which is certainly too ambitious for most AT cars (most are around 20%).

Past 3.0L V6 dynoed by Jeff was about 4% more efficient if it was really making 240Hp at the crank, but even Jeff at that time was surprised by those numbers, and he concluded that "Honda may truly be sandbagging on the output numbers of this new J30. At nearly 196whp, this car puts down as much or more than a TL/CL Type S motor" (which was rated 260Hp).

All in all, I can't see anything massively wrong with this plots, specially with it being "so green", although, if somebody was expecting it to be "under-rated" it seems it's not.

Don't remember if TOV dynoed the regular Acura TL - AT at the same place...



the TL 5AT, which is now rated at 258hp with the revised SAE standards, put down 212whp if my recollection serves me.


Yeah, I just found that one (link).

Actually, you were also pleasantly surprised by that car...

That said, maybe Honda just found a way to stop losing with new SAE revision what they lost when it was introduced.
After all, not all of their cars were revised down the same way (for the Ridgeline it even had a torque bump if I recall correctly), and while some of their global models got down when compared with other markets (like the RL), some of their recent ones like the R18 Civic are equaly rated everywhere (140Hp).

So maybe both current TL and Accord are making about the same power in your dyno conditions (about 268-270 crank Hp), but the TL had something that make it lose 12Hp under new SAE rev conditions and the new Accord does not have the same problem.

Or maybe Honda was under-rating their engines, and they just stopped doing it, assuming your result here is representative of this engine. New SAE standards even require for a third party to be present and check the stuff when the homologation is done.

notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-13-2007 00:24
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Actually, third party observation and certification is only required for the higher standard in the new SAE spec. I believe it is "certified" power or something. Otherwise, manufacturers are just required to follow tighter testing procedures than in the past.

SC

Odyssey500
Profile for Odyssey500
Can losses be overcome by sifting AT like manual? [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-13-2007 11:57
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Jeff wrote:
Wizard wrote:
I'm unsure what breaking-in would do (or lighter wheels), but my "expectations" would be around 225 HP and 210 lb-ft at the wheels. So, the numbers are way down (~20 HP and ~20 lb-ft).

Some of the power loss could be explained (a little) due to it peaking a bit earlier.



it's weird that the peak shown here would match up with honda's quoted rpm figure, but by the looks of the curve it seems to dip unnaturally early, that's why I was thinking it's probably pulling some timing up top. This car feels pretty quick on the street. In the next few days, I will weigh it, and go out and test it with the driftbox and see what the driftbox calculates for whp.



Hey Jeff, I am just wondering: Since the 05+ Odysseys have VCM gen. 1, does the ody also have a hole in midrange torque, or is this new for gen 2 VCM? By shifting the AT in the Accord like a manual is it possible to take the engine to redline or does the computer still limit reaching past 6,000 Rpms until 20 mph is reached?

danielgr
Profile for danielgr
Re: Losses [View Article]    (Score: 1, Normal) 10-15-2007 11:11
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
notyper wrote:
Actually, third party observation and certification is only required for the higher standard in the new SAE spec. I believe it is "certified" power or something. Otherwise, manufacturers are just required to follow tighter testing procedures than in the past.

SC


You are right, I didn't know if was "optional". That said, now I wonder how can one know what level of certification manufacturers employ, since most of them don't say anything about it.

For example, IHS website has a PR from October 2006 stating that Ford's new 3.5L had been submitted for "SAE Certified Power", but I couldn't find any mention to it in Ford/Lincoln's website.

I wonder if they just dropped the "SAE Certified" values because they were not as good as they expected..., or if they are simply not advertising it. I wonder also if there are a lot of manufacturers actually using that level of "certification".

PS: I'm looking forward for your dyno on the 6MT non-VCM Accord. It would be very nice to have another VCM2 in the same dyno to make side-by-side comparisons. Do you think that will be possible?



 
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
29 mobile: 0