2008 Honda Accord: How About a Civic V6 Instead?

Everything you say makes sense, but Honda will never do it. They have enlarged all their models because they believe that is what the American consumer wants. The Civic si is their performance model and is in line with their philosophy of high revving small displacement engines. I would love to see a Civic turbo diesel variant myself, but I doubt we ever will.

I like the Accord's size but hate the wrapper.

I am with you, I wish auto maker can stop increasing the size of all their cars. I guess it is their way to upsell ignorant people. I do agreed it is a great way to do that.

Want to compare old and new Accords? I've had three, starting with a silver 1976 Accord 5-speed.

Yep, this was the first year the Accord was made. Bought it new for $3,995—shortly before dealers discovered ADMs. It had a serial number under 6000. I traded my 1974 Honda CB550-Four in on it; no joke, the dealer took my bike in as a trade.

That '76 1600cc CVCC-powered Accord had 76 horsepower, and the carb would flood on a warm day after driving it, and then parking it. Starting would then be a real hassle (floor the gas pedal—hold it down, and crank until it starts).

That car was considerably smaller than the current Civic, or even a 10-year-old Civic for that matter.

Sorry, your dad's Accord must be Canadian, they were called EX-R.

Why, so you can drive a whole 70 mph and beat everyone to the next red light? And bitch "gas is expensive, let's drill everywhere" at every opportunity? I have got a better idea -- how about a 1.2l 3-cylinder plus some driving skill for a change?

the only advantage a 210 hp v-6 civic would have is that it would have a lot more torque...but the weight of the engine would make it less balanced than an si, and it would probably have to were a civic s or gt type badge.

but to me, it would not present a good move, as its mileage would be around that of a regular si and just be a bit faster...and as evidenced by the jdm h23 and h22 and by the bigger k series engines, all honda needs to do to make the civic torquier is keep the weight down and not increase displacement.

the current civic si is as fast as the new accord v-6 anyway.

while the accord has moved away from its roots, i think a lot of cars have. but if a car like the mazda 6,which is a lot bigger than a 90's accord, gets criticized for being to small, how is honda suppossed to gain acceptance with an accord that is the size of a civic?

THINK people.

Honda needs to release it's damn A-VTEC technology that it touted over a year ago and yet has dissapeared off the face of the planet.

Honda, one of the world's foremost engine experts for a long time, seems to have dissapeared off the world stage in engine development since ~2001/2002.

We had the K20A2 in 2001 (RSX Type S) and the s2000 engine in 1999 (which made 120 HP per liter)....and then we had the ~2003 Accord V6 3.0 liter, which made 240 HP on regular fuel.

6 years later their TSX engine is stale, their SI engine does well for the times but it's essentially just a slightly refreshed 7 year old engine, their first turbocharged engine utilizes variable vane technology but no direct injection, is a gas hog, and hasn't been used in any other applications (hello, new TSX anyone?).

Their Accord engine has gone to the motto "there's no replacement for displacement" and is not exactly a celebrated engine by any means...it's just par for the pack.

The Fit and regular civic offer the best engines Honda has, but they don't excite people like Honda used to when it released their SI models (90s), Type R model, S2000, RSX Type-S, and 2003 Accord V6.

I think either Honda needs to release their supposed A-VTEC technology soon or something similarly impressive and exciting in the engine department.

As an 06 Civic SI owner, I can say with confidence that this engine has alot to give....with just intake and exhaust modifications it can drop to a 14.0-14.2 quarter mile. But it needs more than just tweaking.

Anyway....I'd like to see Honda release an engine of around 2.0 liters in size (for the Civic SI) with the same fuel ecomomy but a nice bump in torque. I can only imagine they'd have to utilize direct injection and/or other technologies to get this.

Joe

VVK- because people expect their vehicles to have more response than say... a thermostat. A 3 cylinder engine would have to be revved to death and probably wouldn't get better gas mileage.. in fact, probably worse (see the JDM Nissan Cube's real world MPG.) In the real world you have to do things like merge into traffic (usually going from 40 to 70 at a good clip.. see the Smart entry) and pass people in an expected amount of time.

James- If you want a V6 Civic, why not just get the Civic Si? Sure it has no torque, but it's a Honda.

"But then I climb in the enormous back seat and look into the enormous trunk. Or I behold all the luxurious bells and whistles Honda has added to make this EX-L V6 a junior Acura. "

Accord has a small trunk for an EPA large car. The only midsize car with a smaller trunk is the Sebring. Also, what "luxurious" features does the Accord have that the Altima/6/Camry lack? Almost every midsize car can be equipped similarly to a loaded Accord. Why does Honda get so much credit for doing things that everyone is doing?

The Civic Si is not as fast as a V6 Accord (at least not according to Edmunds).

However, a 6 cylinder engine in a Civic is a bad idea. There would be too few takers to make it worthwhile. The only small cars that had 6 cylinder engines were early 90's domestics like the Chevy Caviler and Dodge Shadow, and that was only because the domestic 4 cylinder engines were not (and are not) competitive.

Besides the Honda dealers want a reason to try and up-sell people into an Accord. Civic not fast enough, check out the Accord. You can hardly blame Honda for bloating the car and adding so many features, the family sedan market is cut throat, and if they don't play the game they get left behind.

"...because people expect their vehicles to have more response than say... a thermostat"

Greatness. I will remember and use it.

Same old song. If I said I saw a really nice dark blue on a car, it would have nothing to do with whether a dark red, green, black or charcoal was a nice color. The blue would look nice. That would be my point. The Accord has nice features. It is not an issue of comparison between the Accord and any other car in its class. Is it really getting an over-abundance of undue praise? Jeez. Joe, I think I agree with you, though. I'd like to see some new frontiers blazed. I must also gripe about their manual gearboxes lately; losing some of the feel they were once famous for.

"Man, this car is a big car."

You are far from alone is having that as a recurring impression. Every time my Dad pulls his '08 Accord into my driveway, those are the first words out of my mouth.

Unlike you, however, I am somewhat underwhelmed by the Accord's interior space. Oh it is quite roomy, don't get me wrong, but it LOOKS so much bigger on the outside than my Altima 3.5, and drives so much bigger as well, that I expected a noticeable difference in interior elbow room. Going from one vehicle to the next, I don't notice much difference at all - front or back, driver or passenger. I THINK the Accord feels a bit more spacious, but part of me wonders if that is only because I'm SUPPOSED to think that.

Overall, I find it regrettable that Honda has adopted the "bigger is better and more bigger is even more better" approach to automotive design. With the Altima and Maxima, Nissan has actually come out with vehicles that are SMALLER than the models they replace. Thank heavens for that.

As for the luxury features - I can't think of anything the Accord brings to the table that isn't available on most of its competitors. Toys are nice, but they do nothing to distinguish this vehicle.

A V6 Civic - not sure I like the idea and I doubt it is ever going to happen. If Honda comes out with a small-displacement V6, it's going to go in the TSX, not the Civic. Which is about the only thing that car needed. Instead, Honda gave it more size, more space, more weight and more toys. See the trend yet?

Jaeger

I would only go with a 6-cylinder Civic if Honda pulled a BMW/Porsche and did something like a 2.4 liter or 2.5 liter 6-cylinder....low overall mass/cylinder and higher revving capacity. It would fit into their overall persona too. Considering how much power Porsche is pulling out of 2.7 liter flat sixes nowadays (IIRC, their 2009 direct injected 2.7 liter is going to produce 265 HP....but I could be wrong about the engine size), Honda could definitely make a solid engine out of it...

Also, regarding the Canard "Hondas have no torque".

When will this thing die? It started when Honda was releasing engines of 1.8 liter or 2.0 liter design that were overpowering their competitors 2.4 or 2.5 liter engines.....since Torque is primarily a function of the amount of air capable of being pushed into the cylinder, the competitors had more torque because of their 20-25% larger displacements.

They actually have fantastic torque comparative to their size due to their high compression ratios.

Maybe I should start saying "90s detroit iron had no horsepower" since their comparative engine size yielded little in the way of HP vs. the smaller engined variants.

But then I'd just be a HP per liter type of guy, and who wants that?

Joe

This entry pushes a couple of my current auto related hot buttons.

Why must cars constantly get bigger? Why does the new Accord have to be bigger than the old? If Honda feels the need for a larger car, introduce a new model, ala the Toyota Avalon back in the 90's.

I want off the horsepower wagon too. The many small engined cars I have owned over the years were slow (very slow) compared to even ordinary cars like the Accord, Camry, and Altima. But in the end, a 10 second 0-60 sprint is fine. Do you really need to out run the car next to you every time?

What I want is better transmissions that make use of the ample power that most engines make.

My Forester makes adequate power for its size. But it has to have one of the worst calibrated transmissions ever. Need to accellerate to pass? Press on the pedal, hear the engine speed up, get no extra speed, press harder and all of a sudden it drops to 3rd or even 2nd. Before I go on, let head of the inevitable, "get a manual" comments here. Been there done that: VW Beetle (2), Mustang LX 5.0 5-speed, MGB GT, a Sentra SE-R plus at least 15 others. But now I live in a big, crowded city, I drive in heavy traffic 80%+ of the time. Plus, my wife and I have ony 1 car and she can't drive stick. Add it up and it spells automatic.

If my car had a decent 5 or 6 speed auto like the Fit, Mini, Mazda 3, Rabbit and many other cars it would be so much better. Subaru's failure to install a 5-speed auto in the 2009 version is inexplicable.

"However, a 6 cylinder engine in a Civic is a bad idea. There would be too few takers to make it worthwhile. The only small cars that had 6 cylinder engines were early 90's domestics like the Chevy Caviler and Dodge Shadow, and that was only because the domestic 4 cylinder engines were not (and are not) competitive."

The tiny Mazda MX3 from the 90s had a 1.8L V6.

I agreed though, not many people want a V6 in a smallish car.

"By lazyhater on August 27, 2008 10:01 AM

Sorry, your dad's Accord must be Canadian, they were called EX-R.
"

wouldn't a canadian accord be an ex-A (eh)

Only a small, high-revving V-6 would work in a Civic, and it would have to be a sporting model, and it would have to make an exhaust sound like the first NSXs (my God, those things sounded incredible). That is the only way, grasshoppers.

joe, I agree -- Honda used to be known as an engine company. Their engines are still fine, but they're not the standards of their classes anymore like they used to be. I remember when VTEC was introduced -- everyone jumped on that bandwagon. I saw an Integra Type R on the road the other day, and wondered "Damn. I remember when 195 horsepower was the shiznit. And I remember when we could actually say 'shiznit' and not be a dork."

It gives James all the warm and fuzzies because it is a Honda, don't you get it? All those luxurious bells and whistles( what are they?)

Joe:

Talking about torque, I think you are both right and wrong. The old Honda engines were down on torque and the bigger problem was that the torque peaks were so high.

You are right that old domestic engines did not develop as much horsepower, but they got off the line nicely due to the high torque at low rpm.

The Honda engines were excellent at what they were designed for, high rpm. Those overhead valve engines however outdated, get off the line very, very well.

Hey Aurakr,

I think chevy hsa proven the overhead valve design is in no way outdated :)

Good point about older honda engines taking awhile to develop torque. I sometimes forget that since my current (and only) Honda engine gets 90% of peak torque at 3000 rpms, and about 80% at 2000. It pulls nicely from 18mph in 4th gear.

I still think Honda engines are superb engines (mine has over 13k on it's current oil fill and is getting a solid 30mpg cruising at 75mph and doing aggressive "jack rabbit" starts at stoplights, and its the SI model....it needs no maintenance except for oil and air filters for over 100k....and it runs very clean and easy)....but they don't inspire the lust they used to, like the current BMW N54 twin turbo engine does....or even the G35/G37 engine....or the MazdaSpeed 3 engine....etc.

Joe

Joe:

I do agree with you, I was just having a little fun about the overhead valve engines :)

The Honda engines are still superb, the only reason they don't inspire the lust anymore is that you just adjust to that level of excellence.

You know the old saying power corrupts and absolute power corrupts :) Or is it that if you are dying of hunger, anything you eat will taste fantastic no matter what :)

To show you how I've changed, I never used to think that DOHC were better than OHV, but now that two of my last three cars were DOHC, I have learned to enjoy a good run to redline, it is just a weebit higher these days 4000 versus 6500.

I meant 6500 versus 4000. Darn lack of edit button.

By the way, the weather in San Diego is perfect.

I've just been thinking about the ballooning of the 2nd-gen Mazda 6, so I really like James' idea. We're running short on just-right-size cars -- the 1st-gen Mazda 6, 1999-2005 Jetta, the E46 3 Series, the 2002-2007 Impreza. And yeah, I could get a Civic Si sedan if I wanted, but the idea of a Civic sedan with more torque is intriguing. Yes, even if came at the expense of fuel economy.

a 2.5L V6 with 200hp doesn't sound bad, the engine that's in the Civic now is pretty small so I wonder if they have enough space for even a 2.5L V6.

@Bankerdanny: the entire 2009 Subaru Forester is inexplicable if you ask me, but owning a previous model I'll wholeheartedly agree about the stupid transmission. Looks like Honda is doing the same thing with the Accord by replacing it with this large barge.

@Erin Funny what your definition of "right size" cars is. I could never fit friends in the back seat of the 1999-2005 Jetta, and while driving mine I simply felt 'too tall' for the car. (The current version fits like a glove.) The Mazda6 seems just right... and the 2002-7 Impreza was uncomfortably short on leg room, and the controls are a bit on the low side.

Although I like the mid-90's Accords (even with their nasty vinyl headliners), I'll agree with the general buying population and say the 2003-7 model was the high water mark. It was the right size- large enough to have a usable back seat but small enough to be fun (college students still over them.)

Just goes to show you, while some people glorify the tiny cars of 15 years ago, others found them horribly cramped.

A V6 in a Civic.....would make me truly puke. The current line of engine offerings for the Civic are more than adequate and really efficient. Why change that when that is the core of the Civics philosophy? Wouldnt a V6 Civic be seriously "jumping the shark"?

"Accord has a small trunk for an EPA large car."

Yes the Accord is a larger car than its predecessor and its considered a "large car" by the EPA but thats only WITHOUT a sunroof. With a sunroof the EPA doesnt consider it a large car. Thats how close it is.

"I could get a Civic Si sedan if I wanted, but the idea of a Civic sedan with more torque is intriguing. Yes, even if came at the expense of fuel economy."

"James- If you want a V6 Civic, why not just get the Civic Si? Sure it has no torque, but it's a Honda."

High revving, short stroke small displacement engines natrually dont develop an abundant amount of low end torque but I think the Si is actually pretty adequate for its size and configuration. With a few modifications this engine can see a 25-30 ftlbs gain in torque especially in the lower and midrange of the powerband. In the end its a very fun, refined, certainly capable and reliable engine family.

If you want a really fast slightly smaller (than a Accord sedan) V6 Honda car get a 2008 Accord EX-L V6 6MT coupe and let the Civic be a Civic.

"Honda needs to release it's damn A-VTEC technology that it touted over a year ago and yet has dissapeared off the face of the planet."

It should have debuted in the 2007 or 08 model year but Honda had a few bugs to work out still. Joe, I know youre a member of TOV and there is a thread on some a-VTEC patents currently which go into more detail than I can. I actually think we will see the a-VTEC system within the next 2 years and unlike Infinitis version it will be implemented much better and unlike BMWs version it can and will be used in high revving applications.

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=659664

Hey HondaAcura,

Thanks for the link...actually makes me even more confused, as it's now been 3 1/2 years since the A-VTEC patent was filed, 1 1/2 years since the rumors started flying....and here we are with the release of the 2008/2009 accord, 2009 civic, 2009 TSX, pending release of the 2009 TL, and the imminent release of the 2009 Fit....and no A-VTEC murmuring...

So for me, it's still vaporware...albeit promising vaporware. That system combined with direct injection, decoupling alternators, electric water pumps.....i.e. BMW efficient dynamics....would excite me greatly.

I don't think it would be obscene for Honda to release a small displacement 6 cylinder for their civic application...I'd love to see it be an inline six, but I'll save that pipe dream.

Back in 2001, BMW released a 2.5 liter inline six which could easily obtain 30+mpg highway w/ a 5-speed manual tranmission hauling a 3100 pound RWD vehicle....I imagine a Honda version of the same, in a civic application, could manage the same fuel economy, which is essentially what the SI is getting nowadays.

Really, they only have a few choices to keep their SI (which means their sporty-version of the civic) competitive:

1. Turbocharge
2. Supercharge
3. Bigger displacement
4. New significant technology

Joe

P.s. Personally, I want a car with significant torque next....and low-end torque at that. Shame Honda doesn't offer that anywhere right now...

How about the 2.4L, 190HP engine from the Accord. Regular gas, more torque, more HP, but not too much weight.

The Accord and Civic are both bloated wheel base monsters.

Once, while I was out kicking tires, I went to a Honda dealership showroom and sat in one of the large, futuro-egg-shaped vehicles on the floor. While I was looking at the interior, I remarked that the interior was pretty roomy, but a little smaller than I thought the Accord would be. A salesman passing by corrected me, saying, "Oh, no, that's the Civic. We have an Accord on the other end of the room."

I was shocked. To think that the Civic had been enlarged with each model update to the point of being mistaken for an Accord...

karjunkie states: "Everything you say makes sense, but Honda will never do it. They have enlarged all their models because they believe that is what the American consumer wants." I've never heard a more incorrect or uneducated statement regarding an automobile in all my life. If anything Honda is the company least willing to enlarge their cars. Have you noticed they are the only (major) manufacturer without a full size truck or a V8 in their lineup? The problem with the American consumer is he always wants something to be bigger, faster, stronger. He'll say "I really like the Civic but I wish it was bigger and stronger." Duh then buy an Accord instead forcing a maker to enlarge the Civic!!!! True, they made the cars bigger but it's not because Honda wanted to, so why blame them? It's not Honda's fault the American buyers wants are actually different from his needs. (What is the purpose of 1 Hummer model much less 4 anyway?)

Choice.

Actually, I realized that Honda could probably put the current S2000's 2.2 liter engine into the SI (240 HP) and, as long as the weight remained under 2900 pounds, still be very competitive in it's current field.

But I'd rather see Honda add some more advancements anyway :)

Joe

So, you want more Horsepower, more low-end torque, but retain good highway mileage and the compact sedan form factor?

Simple, get a Jetta GLI.

Similar displacement to the Civic EX (same as the SI), more horsepower than either, much more torque everywhere in the power band, and fairly frugal on the highway (30+). Not to mention the fact that 40 more HP and 90+ more lb-ft of torque are only a $400 chip away.

However, there are quite a few people who enjoy wringing Honda's silky 4-Cylinders to redline to achieve maximum rate, and who can blame them? The Civic SI is a lot of fun if you love having a third pedal and consider it a privelage the more you have to use it.

It all comes down to choice in the market place, and that choice is a wonderful thing to have.

elementrace: "I've never heard a more incorrect or uneducated statement regarding an automobile in all my life"????? I guess you don't get out much then. As everyone here has commented, Honda has made the Civic as big as the Accord used to be and the Accord into a "large car" by EPA standards, all in the last 10 years. The fact that they don't make a full sized truck or a V8 is irrelevant. What they do make has grown enormous by Honda standards. Do you consider the Ridgeline, the Pilot and the Odyssey small? 20 years ago they only made small efficient and reliable vehicles with superior technology.

So this is a big car? How small are you guys? Maybe the better question is "How old are you guys?" I learned to drive on a 1968 Chrysler, then drove '71 and'74 Chryslers (all my Dad's cars). Now THEY were big cars! The Accord, which I am considering purchasing by the way to replace an Acura Legend, is pretty small by comparison to the old stuff. There are very few six passenger cars out there today. Accords, Camrys, Mazda 6 etc. are all nice, four passenger cars. I agree that a V6 would upset the balance of the Civic. Why not go the route that VW did with the European Golf GT? Turbo and supercharger. No waiting when you get into the loud pedal.

Nice rebuttal karjunkie. The Civic and Accord should've been kept to similar dimensions (inside and out) over time, and if a larger car was needed, introduce a new model above the Accord. Instead both have grown to the point that now they have to introduce new 'small' cars below them to fill the void.

In the end, Honda's lineup will still have vehicles in each niche, but some of the attributes that many have come to love and expect from each specific nameplate no longer really belong to that nameplate any more.

Almost forgot- don't dismiss the idea that Honda has (grudgingly maybe, but still) moved ahead with the bigger-is-better mentality. The Ridgeline is priced with fullsizers in mind, has some capabilities of fullsizers, including the ability to suck gas, and though smaller, is still pretty large if you look at the (former?) compact class of trucks that Honda'd like you to compare it against.

Likewise with the growth of the Pilot, Accord, and Civic. Most of the manufacturers have been guilty of this trend too. Though Chevy surprised a lot of people when the Caprice / Impala went from large rwd barge to smaller fwd car. It's still technically a full size car, but now greatly reduced in exterior dimension.

Which Honda model has stayed the same or shrunk over the years?

"Accord has a small trunk for an EPA large car. The only midsize car with a smaller trunk is the Sebring. Also, what "luxurious" features does the Accord have that the Altima/6/Camry lack? Almost every midsize car can be equipped similarly to a loaded Accord. Why does Honda get so much credit for doing things that everyone is doing?"

I was comparing our Accord with its smaller predecessors. I never mentioned any competitor. "For most families, there is no doubt that this is a better car than its predecessors." Read more closely.

The Civic SI has the same engine block as the 2.4 liter in the new Accord (and also TSX). So there's no reason they couldn't have a 190hp/160ft/lb Civic. And it would probably still get 32~34mpg hwy. And I would probably buy one. But for whatever reason Honda won't even put the R20 (2.0 liter variant of the current 1.8 liter engine) in the Civic. So I wait for the new Mazda3, or maybe a last gen accord. The new one was too big, I have a Highlander for that.

And who was here saying the current civic has too big an engine and should have a 1.2 liter 3cyl? Ban him. Obvious troll. Or complete douche. Both?

I haven't driven a GLI, but I have driven a GTI. 3 times.

And each time I'm so glad to get back into my 06 Civic SI. Maybe I'm spoiled by so many things it has going right (and annoyed by so many things that it has going wrong), but the VW is just alien. It's ride quality is terribly "rubber banded" to me. It's power delivery is weird...not laggy, but not N/A either. And not all that exciting to me (not that 3/4 of the Civic's rpm band is that exciting either)...

Plus, I realized that I disliked the interior of the GTI. The amorphous wall at the base of the windshield, the too-firm seats (compared to my best-cloth-seats-ever SI seats), and longer-throw rubbery shifter, and 12" clutch throw with variable engagement point.

IDK....

Anyway....I'm probably off of Hondas after this, as they didn't turbocharge the TSX or give it anywhere enough sport...and they uglified it....but I don't really know what else is out there that's right for me.

335i sedan 6-speed? Mebbe. So-so interior and questionable rear-end. Plus 2007 used models may have some questionable drivetrain components.

Porsche Boxster S? I'm not rich enough to own 2 cars.

New G37 sedan 6-speed? Pretty nice....depends how it drives.

New A4 sedan 6-speed 2.0 T may be in the running, again if it drives fun.

I just want a car that is fun to drive in every situation. And is practical enough if my wife and I decide to start a family. And has a low long-term cost to own and is reliable. And gets decent fuel economy.

I mean really, is that too much to ask?

Joe

"Yes the Accord is a larger car than its predecessor and its considered a "large car" by the EPA but thats only WITHOUT a sunroof. With a sunroof the EPA doesnt consider it a large car. Thats how close it is."

I am aware of that. MY point was the trunk is small for a car with those dimensions. The has a 16.6 cu ft trunk with roughly the same length.

Jriz,

I read your blog post. I mentioned the Accord's competitors and never suggested anything different. I was saying that the "luxurious" bells and whistles on the Accord are available on almost every car in this class so the 2008 Accord has no advantage vs it's contemporaries. It goes without saying the 2008 model has more stuff than the old cars. What new car doesn't? As for the trunk it may be bigger vs older Accords (although I dont think its larger than the 2007 car) but its small for a 2008 model with 194" in length and an EPA classification as a large car (w/o sunroof). Hopefully that clears up what I was saying since you were apparently confused.

So Honda Accord EX-Rs were Canada only? How 'bout that. They were often Accord EX-R ALB (anti-lock brakes) before Honda gave in and began referring to it as ABS.

Check it:
http://hamilton.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehicles-cars-Honda-1991-Honda-Accord-EX-R-ALB-Leather-W0QQAdIdZ68397152

Yep, the EX-R was Canada only and my father did indeed have an EX-R ALB.

And 1847, you wrote "What "luxurious" features does the Accord have that the Altima/6/Camry lack? Almost every midsize car can be equipped similarly to a loaded Accord. Why does Honda get so much credit for doing things that everyone is doing?", which clearly implies that I was saying the Accord offers things others do not. If that implication was not intended as you say above, then it was poorly written.

Of course, you shall now respond with "oh yeah, well you're poorly written" or something along those lines. Quite predictable. Dig dig dig.

And with that out of my system, I think I shall go drive the R8 around the block.

"which clearly implies that I was saying the Accord offers things others do not. If that implication was not intended as you say above, then it was poorly written."

If one is totally ignorant of what other midsize cars offer than I suppose what you were saying makes sense but you know what cars in this class offer. My point (once again) is I dont see why any person would be any more impressed with the Accord than any other $30k family car. If it's a "Junior Acura" than so is the Sonata, Altima, 6, etc. In fact, the 2008 model barely offers more than the 2007. I can't even think of anything beyond more power and bluetooth. If there is more let me know. The Accord doesnt offer anything above and beyond what is expected in a modern midsize sedan. Those trunk hinges and non split folding rear seat arent luxurious, that's for sure.

Why not let me provide the responses instead of offering sarcastic predictions of what I might say?

The engine that you are talking about is the 2.5-2.7 liter V6 from the original Acura Legend. I am sure with today's injection technology you could get 200HP out of what was a a 161 HP 2.7 V-6, less with the 2.5, but sure as heck did not drive like it. That car would do a legit 135, and 0-60 in the 8's. Imagine today's version of that engine in a Civic? With VCM?

"Or I behold all the luxurious bells and whistles Honda has added to make this EX-L V6 a junior Acura."

I read this as saying that the 2008 Accord is Acura-Like in it's bells and whistles compared to his 1991 Accord EX-R.

Not that it was any different than any other car in the segment, or offered any difference, just as a comparison to a 17 year old Accord.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Where's freude when you need him.

Joe

I'm in the camp that things a V6 Civic is not appropriate at this time. They already have the Si engine making about 200 hp, so there is really no point in dumping a larger similarly-powered engine in there.

For those who complain about torque, a typical engine will give you about 70 ft-lb per liter. High performance engines will give you more, while low performance engines like pushrod or 2 valve motors will give you less.

Honda Civic Si 2.0L calculated torque 140, actual torque 139. Honda Civic 1.8L calculated torque 126, actual torque 128. Both pretty darn close to where they should be. The only way to increase torque is by forced induction or increased displacement, both of which decrease fuel economy without taller gearing. I think Honda's done the right thing by leaving the 2.0L high revver as the performance option. Good power for a compact car, and respectable fuel economy for the power produced.

Joe, you've probably answered this before, but what sort of average gas mileage do you get from your Civic Si? The EPA combined is 24, which is certainly good for a performance-oriented car.

JRiz -

Oddly, right now, after 13k miles on my currrent oil fill I've suddenly gone from averaging 28mpg to a solid 30mpg on average.

My commute is 32 miles each way (so 64 miles a day). 10 miles is aggressive traffic-light suburban driving (i.e. aggressively accelerate to 50-60mph, cruise for 10-30 seconds, begin slow down). 20 miles is highway cruising at around 75mph, with only moderate traffic. (I take it up to 85 for several miles on there, and have it down to 60 as well).

The last 2 miles is back to traffic lights and parking lot shenanigans...I usually hit 8000 rpms coming out of a slick left-hander in 2nd as I pull up to the parking lot of my office complex :)

On this drive, I've never really averaged less than 28mpg. I did a full tank of shifting below 3000 and cruising below 3000 rpms on the highway...still got 30mpg.

My old commute was back-road bombing where I'd have the ol' girl going sideways at least once a day. I still got 26-27mpg there.

I've never gotten before 24mpg for a tank.

I achieved 34.3 mpg driving from Boston, with a stopover in Manhattan, and then halfway down the jersey turnpike.

Hope that helps....for this car, the EPA average is solidly below what I can easily achieve.

Same commute in my 08 Legacy GT yields about 20mpg with the same style of driving (probably less aggressive, since it's less easy to drive as aggressively).

Joe

Should've been "I've never gotten below 24mpg to a tank" which includes break-in and alot more trafficky driving.

Joe

First Id like to say that this blog acutally contradicts itself quite a bit as Edmunds has stated that the Accord has pretty much "Jumped the Shark" because of its current "large" size. OTOH the author stated that a V6 Civic would make sense. Wouldnt that mean the Civic would "Jump the Shark" also? Why ruin the Civics formula as its proven to be successful in both sales and in overall product execution?

"Actually, I realized that Honda could probably put the current S2000's 2.2 liter engine into the SI (240 HP) and, as long as the weight remained under 2900 pounds, still be very competitive in it's current field."

Joe, the F Series is too expensive to be used in the Civic as the internals are much stronger as they are forged. Plus it was designed specifically for the S2000 which is a RWD car. K series trannies wont bolt up to a F series engines.

The 197hp K20 actually has a much better torque curve as the "i" VTEC makes for better torque producution although the F20/F22 make more peak torque. The powerbands of the F20/F22 are peakier than the K20. I know because I own a 2002 S2000.

Jeff (TOV mod) wrote an article a while back on his driving experience with the JDM Civic Type R (2.0L 225hp/153ftlb)a the Twin Ring Motegi in Japan and he came away really impressed with the overall flexibility of that engine as he stated that the power and performance was MUCH MUCH more accessable compared to what the F20/F22 or what the Si could offer. He actually prefered the less powerful 225hp K20 over both F series engines as it had MUCH MUCH more oompf under the curve.

I guess the only significant advantage the F series would have over the K20s comes down to overall internal stregnth as everything is forged. Some other advantages would be superior oiling at higher RPMS (8500+), superior valvetrain and slightly superior head design. The intake manifold on the K20 is actually superior to the Fs.

In the end if you want more accessable performance from a Civic Si do the usual I/H/E + Hondata reflash or somehow convince Honda to bring over the CTR as a V6 would just ruin the Civics overall mission and concept. Let the Civic be.

Joe, Id advise you to SERIOUSLY look into this as you wouldnt believe the difference these minor modifications make. I drove a friends 07 Si sedan before and after and it was like night and day as I cant even catch him in my S2000!

Quote from Hondata customer: "From stock I have gained 34WHP and 31WTQ with only a custom 3'' exhaust, DC race header, hondata IMG and Hondata reflash. This was all done with factory intake!"

http://hondata.com/reflash_06_civicsi.html

"If anything Honda is the company least willing to enlarge their cars."

Now THAT is truly funny.

Exhibit A - Civic
Exhibit B - Accord
Exhibit C - TL
Exhibit D - TSX

I'm trying to figure out how they could possibly be MORE willing to enlarge their cars.

Hondaacura -

First, thanks!

To your first paragraph, I would remind you that alot of the blog entries are by seperate people....so it's not really contradictory, unless it's by the same person. As far as I'm concerned at least.

I've seriously considered doing the Header/exhaust route....I want to keep my stock intake.

Joe

"To your first paragraph, I would remind you that alot of the blog entries are by seperate people....so it's not really contradictory, unless it's by the same person. As far as I'm concerned at least."

Joe, I was refering to how James (JRiz) talked about how much the Accord has grown and how he said it didnt feel like an Accord anymore compared to the previous smaller models yet he found it ok to slap a V6 into the Civic. Wouldnt that make the Civic feel different than previous models also?

Yes, the Civic has grown quite a bit also but Honda didnt dilute what made the Civic a Civic as the formula is the same, you just get more of it. Its still an efficicient, fun to drive, affordable high quality package.

The Accord sedan however lost the battle to Americanization as its lost a great percentage of its fun to drive characteristics among other things as its not as focused or entertaining as previous models. The shorter Accord coupe however is still an Accord.

mikeolan, I think you missed the part about "driving skill".

Accord should be available with Civic's 1.8l and a 6 speed manual.

CR-V should be available with 2.0l and a manual gearbox.

Civic should at least be available with Fit's 1.5l.

Fit should be available with 1.2l like they are in every other country other than US and Canada.

In Europe a 1.8l Opel Insignia or a 1.4l VW Passat will drive 100 mph every day as a matter of course and will have no trouble moving through traffic. What makes American consumer so different? I see driving skill as the only real difference. On top of having to pay $14/gal for fuel, of course.

Joe - this is totally off-topic, but could you do me a favor? I drove into a parking garage this week, and I noticed that my illuminated door switches were on with the engine, whether the headlights were on or not. I know they stay on after you kill the engine for convenience, but this is not related to that. Just wondering if your Civic did the same thing. I find it hard to believe I never noticed this before. Anyway, thanks if you can check. BTW, I'm in getting to the end of a tank full, and trying to break 40 mpg this time. Should get results by mid week.

"BTW, I'm in getting to the end of a tank full, and trying to break 40 mpg this time."

A co-worker of mine has a 2006 Honda Civic LX coupe 5AT and she stated on a recent trip to Florida she managed to get 42MPG at a steady cruise of around 70MPH. It is possible regardless of EPA estimates.

Siblur - Follow-up with me in a future post :)

Joe

I can't believe I have only seen one small mention of this suggestion -- it was obvious to me when I was reading it (maybe because I'm eager to replace my '01 Civic, and since Honda decided to significantly enlarge the Accord, I have nothing to move to outside of Acura).
Instead of a V6 Civic, why not a 2.4L Civic. Though the Civic SI is a lot of fun, I really think that with the way that most Americans drive, the 2.4L would be much more suited to a performance version. It would have more torque, for better "off-the-line" acceleration, and would compete with the folks at VW (w/ the 5 cyl. engine) and Toyota (2.4 in Scion tC).