[GTO]

So me and Shantanu were chatting the other night, and comparing Vtec 0 - 100 times with other cars. Thats when Shantanu mentioned that the Accord 4 cylinder is actually faster than the V6!!

I did some quick research, and yes..the I-4 is much faster than the V6. About a half second in the 0 - 100 dash. I can hear you saying "Duh!" the V6 is an automatic. Yes indeed. But so what? It has got a whopping 80 Horsepower advantage! The V6's 221 bhp is 57% more power than the 141 bhp of the 4 cylinder version. Also automatic transmissions of the new millenium are not like the lazy ones of the 80's. They are quicker, smoother and far more efficient. In some cars, the autobox is actually quicker than the stick-shift.

Autocarindia Roadtests:

I-4 Version

0 - 60 : 4.01 seconds
0 - 100 : 8.98 seconds

V6 Engine

0 - 60 : 4.72 seconds
0 - 100 : 9.46 seconds

As you can see, the V6 is 7/10s of a second slower to the 60 kph mark. But accelerate on, and the difference is a half second to the 100 [img]http://www.team-bhp.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/***.gif[/img]

Now lets go on to the original American spec versions of the Honda Accord. The V6 is rated at 240bhp or 8% more than its Indian counterpart. And the 4 cylinder powers at 160 bhp or 13% more power than the Indian I-4.

Guess what?

The V6 is faster by a mile.

V6 EX : 0 - 60mph - 6.84 seconds
I-4 : 0 - 60mph - 7.95 seconds.

Whats up?

GTO

[ajmat]

weight ?
Was the I4 manual ?

[Dippy]

Interesting figures those . How bout gettin a V6 and a 4 ourselves and using the Gtech for some fun

Cheers

[Shan2nu]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (GTO @ June 16 2004,20:41)]The V6 is faster by a mile.

V6 EX : 0 - 60mph - 6.84 seconds
I-4 * * : 0 - 60mph - 7.95 seconds.

Whats up?

Well that 6.84 sec time is for the M/T Accord V6 coupe. On basis of that, i thnik the Indian V6 with a M/T should manage early 7 secs for the 0-100.

Regards...
Shan2nu

[Turbo_charged]

(Well that 6.84 sec time is for the M/T Accord V6 coupe. On basis of that, i thnik the Indian V6 with a M/T should manage early 7 secs for the 0-100.)
But u forgot that accord v6 coupe is a 2 door version less weight and plus they indian version has a detuned engine for low octane petrol .and plus the v6-at available in south east asia without the detuned engine does o-100 in 8.0sec(source from autocar -malaysian )magazine,..so all does think does matters

[Shan2nu]

Well yeah TC but look, if an A/T 240bhp V6 can manage 8 secs. Can't a M/T 221bhp V6 manage 7-7.5 secs?

Remember the M/T is way quicker than the A/T. No doubt you have more power but the M/T will be faster.

The difference between the M/T i-4 and the A/T i-4 was 2.39 secs. So if the A/T V6 does 9.46, you can easily remove another 2 secs for the M/T. So that brings us to 7.5 secs.

Regards...
Shan2nu

[ACM]

An old thread which was never conclusive.

How does the previous generation second iteration i.e. 2007 face lift compare? vs:

So how is the post face lift 2007 V6 3.0 (221 bhp) 5 speed AT 7th gen vs. the 2008 2.4
(177 bhp) AT 8th gen. The previous gen face lift version 3.0 also seems to have more features than the current Gen accord from 2008-20011 (pre 8th gen face list) (like cruise control, steering mounted controls, indicator stalks on side mirrors etc.)

The interest is from the thought of picking up another vehicle (preowned to beat depreciation as this will not be a long term vehicle) that is reliable (Enough of Skoda and TATA for a while) and yet fun over the next two years. Have many times thought of getting the V6 (though a petrol just does not make for good financial logic for me with 70-95kms per day.) but then don't want to pass by a generation of good vehicles just due to Petrol and Diesel price differential, so plan to allocate a specific amount towards extra fuel loss over 2 years (maybe about Rs. 2L) and then just go ahead and have some fun. Anyways the petrol vehicles do depreciate much faster so a good deal can be had there.

[vyasachetan]

Mod Note : There are several spelling & grammatical errors in your posts. This negatively affects the forum experience for other readers.

Kindly ensure that you proof-read your posts prior to submission. Also, it would be a good idea to use spell-checkers.

[avisidhu]

Originally Posted by ACM

The interest is from the thought of picking up another vehicle (preowned to beat depreciation as this will not be a long term vehicle) that is reliable (Enough of Skoda and TATA for a while) and yet fun over the next two years. Have many times thought of getting the V6 (though a petrol just does not make for good financial logic for me with 70-95kms per day.) but then don't want to pass by a generation of good vehicles just due to Petrol and Diesel price differential, so plan to allocate a specific amount towards extra fuel loss over 2 years (maybe about Rs. 2L) and then just go ahead and have some fun. Anyways the petrol vehicles do depreciate much faster so a good deal can be had there.

Interesting you bumped this thread. Just two days back, came across a seemingly well mantained V6 having Chandigarh regstration, 60K odd done and 2006 or so make. Asking price was being quoted as 5.5L, but I'm pretty sure the final amount will be much less post negotiations. I was in a hurry so couldn't take a test drive, really want to get behind the wheel some day and see what those 200 plus horses are capable of At sub 5L bucks, its incredible vfm for an enthusiast, if he can afford the fuel bills.

(PS: No intention of buying the vehicle, just saw the V6 badge and thought of checking with the dealer. Let me know if anyone is interested and I'll go check again)

[ACM]

Actually for 12000 kms a year I feel you should just retain the V6. Nothing to beat it and even financially selling it and getting diesel will not be justified. Though a 2007 V6 would have been better with the 5 speed AT and better FE.