Honda Accord > * (split from Golf R thread)

[benyl]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point


No, it's rated @ 14.0. Lowest I've seen is a 13.8 for a magazine review. I believe it is a mid to high 13 second car when it hooks up nicely. It's taken down Audi A4's, Q5 3.0 T, Camry V6, a WRX STI and other cars that run around a 14.0. A legit sleeper for sure.

Not in Calgary.

You might hit 100 mph in the 1/4 on a -25 day, but that would be limited by traction. Breaking 14 seconds would require a perfect launch and probably a tailwind.

On a good day, you car might make 240 hp at the crank, maybe 200 at the wheels.

While I'm sure your car is fast, anything with a turbo and similar HP will walk away from you.

[bjstare]

Originally posted by colinxx235


Something tells me the STI wasn't pushing his car... that or has no clue how to drive/shift cause it would roast you

the other cars you listed are in a much slower class (much like your accord)

[Redlined_8000]

Originally posted by benyl


Not in Calgary.

You might hit 100 mph in the 1/4 on a -25 day, but that would be limited by traction. Breaking 14 seconds would require a perfect launch and probably a tailwind.

On a good day, you car might make 240 hp at the crank, maybe 200 at the wheels.

While I'm sure your car is fast, anything with a turbo and similar HP will walk away from you.

Yeah I agree.

Even my old G35 which was about 330hp could only manage mid 90mph in edmonton. I had intake manifold cat delete catback and tune.

100 mph out of a 280hp accord will be hard.

Turbos>n/a for power in calgary.

[Redlined_8000]

Double post. Dam phone.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by benyl


Not in Calgary.

You might hit 100 mph in the 1/4 on a -25 day, but that would be limited by traction. Breaking 14 seconds would require a perfect launch and probably a tailwind.

On a good day, you car might make 240 hp at the crank, maybe 200 at the wheels.

While I'm sure your car is fast, anything with a turbo and similar HP will walk away from you.

I owned a 1998 LS1 Z28 with 305 hp stock. This 3.5 V6 is not far off from what I recall (albeit with 100 ft lbs/less torque stock.) General consensus is that the 278 hp is more like 290 - 295 at the crank with the stick shift. Very healthy V6. It's fail wheel drive and stick. So that puts drive train loss @ around what 11-12%?

I've owned 240 hp cars. This is not a 240 hp car. And your statement about turbo and similar hp is bs. If you read my post, you'd see that I've beaten a 2014 stock STI (yes, he was trying, couldn't get past my bumper. we did 3-4 pulls from various speeds not from a light due to his grip advantage.) as well as a 2015 Q5 3.0 T, 2014 A4. All turbo cars. I don't really care if you believe me or not..it's more fun if people think it's just a little grandpa put put car Watch the video, look at the trap speed I posted. It's no race car at all, but it is a great troll car.

Sorry for thread derail, anyone know who Reflex Silver Golf R owner is HEYBERT? I'd like to send him a b day card.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[never]

^ benyl is talking about power losses with altitude, not what the cars can make. Do an uncorrected dyno pull and you'll probably be disappointed...with SAE correction, it'll probably be comparable to what the cars are supposed to put out.

Around here, dyno correction factors are usually 1.10-1.15. So that means any pull has 10-15% power added to the numbers to be comparable...so cars are down 10-15% from a pull at sea level (or whatever SAE conditions are). And altitude hits NA cars harder than turbo/blower/nitrous combos.

Before I lived in the Calgary area, I used to hate coming here for race events...cars easily lost 0.5 sec or more in the 1/4, and some MPH too. But at least everyone was on an even playing field.

[GingeRRRBeef]

I thought this was a Golf R thread?

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Pretty sure my Q5 with the 2.0t could take your Accord in a quarter mile race

Let's do it legal! Is your Q5 tuned? Mine does have a significant reduction in wheel weight from stock. 18.6 lbs vs 31 lb stock wheels.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by never
^ benyl is talking about power losses with altitude, not what the cars can make. Do an uncorrected dyno pull and you'll probably be disappointed...with SAE correction, it'll probably be comparable to what the cars are supposed to put out.

Around here, dyno correction factors are usually 1.10-1.15. So that means any pull has 10-15% power added to the numbers to be comparable...so cars are down 10-15% from a pull at sea level (or whatever SAE conditions are). And altitude hits NA cars harder than turbo/blower/nitrous combos.

Before I lived in the Calgary area, I used to hate coming here for race events...cars easily lost 0.5 sec or more in the 1/4, and some MPH too. But at least everyone was on an even playing field.

That's true, but I'm not doing ricer math and I've certainly seen Toma for dyno time before. Just stating that it is absurd to think that a fwd stick car underrated @ 278 is going to make 200 fwhp here even with all that said.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I thought the N/A HP loss was approximately 5% per 1,000 ft of altitude, so that makes Calgary ~17% loss. Then what would drivetrain loss be, ~15%? 290 HP * 0.83 * 0.85 = 204 WHP if I did that correctly. Obviously a very rough calculation.

[Sugarphreak]

....

[gpomp]

I will put money on the Q5. When is this race happening?

[Darkane]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


No this is a Hallow_point Honda accord thread, although I can see your confusion

Mods, please change the title


No tune, but I am rocking the MY2014 which is the year they bumped the horsepower and added a sporty 8 speed auto

I am actually pretty sure it would take an Accord V6

2014 Q5:
0-60mph: 5.8s
1/4 Mile: 14.3 @ 86mph

20xx Accord V6:
0-60mph: 5.9s
1/4 Mile: 14.4 @ 100mph

Kind of a lame drag race, but it would be close... in Calgary, I'd bet the fact that the audi has a turbo will put it ahead of the accord.


OH, but I run colour matched 18" OZ's on mine... lol

Just to add to the trolling and off-topicness:

Accord does 5.6 and 14.0@103

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...al-test-review

The accord will be very close to the Audi at altitude and should fly by at the quarter. Also does the Audi do 96mph in the quarter or 86?

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


No this is a Hallow_point Honda accord thread, although I can see your confusion

Mods, please change the title


No tune, but I am rocking the MY2014 which is the year they bumped the horsepower and added a sporty 8 speed auto

I am actually pretty sure it would take an Accord V6

2014 Q5:
0-60mph: 5.8s
1/4 Mile: 14.3 @ 86mph

20xx Accord V6:
0-60mph: 5.9s
1/4 Mile: 14.4 @ 100mph

Kind of a lame drag race, but it would be close... in Calgary, I'd bet the fact that the audi has a turbo will put it ahead of the accord.


OH, but I run colour matched 18" OZ's on mine... lol

Lol you're a cool guy and I wouldn't want to be a jerk, but I have already beaten a 2014/2015 maybe newer Q5 3.0 T from a roll my factory wheels and winters. The 14.4 is for the automatic and or sedan Accord v6. Mine is the 6 speed man pedal (Sugarphreak approved?) coupe. Lighter and faster. Legit race car yo. So without a tune, I'll bet you lunch for sure. Shit, I've really f&cked this poor thread.

reflex silver Golf R owners are arrogant drivers/midget pussy's based on my personal encounter with HEYBERT in Calgary. Better??

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Mitsu3000gt]

Definitely a difficult car to find numbers on. I can't find anything reliable on 2014+ 2.0T.

Motor Trend got a 2013 Q5 3.0T (Not SQ5) 0-60 in 5.5sec and 1/4 mile in 14.1sec @ 96.5 MPH

C&D got the 2014 diesel Q5 0-60 in 5.8sec and 1/4 mile in 14.6 sec @ 92 MPH

C&D got the 2013 Q5 2.0T 0-60 in 6.9sec and 1/4 mile in 15.3 sec @ 90 MPH, so I assume the 2014+ is a good bit faster with the new engine tune & tranny.

Nothing really too helpful...looks like the only way to find out is a race

[Hallowed_point]

Trap speed owns that Q5 though (100-103 mph vs 90 - 96.5 mph. I'll give him credit, I had to giver to pass him

[Sugarphreak]

...

[benyl]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
I thought the N/A HP loss was approximately 5% per 1,000 ft of altitude, so that makes Calgary ~17% loss. Then what would drivetrain loss be, ~15%? 290 HP * 0.83 * 0.85 = 204 WHP if I did that correctly. Obviously a very rough calculation.

[thread derail!]
haha, I am guessing Hallowed point never read the thread where I said the E46 M3 is slower than dog shit on a hot day.

So let's take his dyno numbers. 256whp. We don't need to even talk about driveline loss as it is built into the number.

I am going to assume here that the number isn't raw and corrected for sea level power.

Official elevation is 3,428 ft.

That would put his car at 212 hp if we take the 5% rule.

The problem is that the density altitude is killer here in Calgary. today is fine. It's cold. It's 2400 ft right now. Good luck with traction.

On a 25 degree day, it can be as high as 7000 ft. That drops power to 170whp.

A turbo car with a MAF, like the STI doesn't compensate as well as a turbo car that has a MAP, like a BMW N54/N55.

The STI will not increase boost pressure as altitude goes up. It suffers like a NA or supercharged engine. It's still better than NA.

The N54/N55 will increase boost pressure to make up for altitude. The N54 (when I had one) would increase boost from the normal 8psi at sea level to 12 psi here in Calgary, especially on a hot day. The N54 made 300hp at sea leve and 300 hp here in calgary, uncorrected.

NA cars like the accord suffer huge on 30 degree days.

[/thread derail!]