mmarshall

The coupe has different steering and suspension calibration than the sedan, and lower, wider tires. According to Honda and the specs (I didn't cross-check a sedan), the steering ratio is faster, the power steering pump is set up to provide less boost, giving it more of a BMW-firm feel, the suspension allows less body roll, the tires provide more grip and steering feedback in turns and , and the slightly lower center of gravity makes it a little more stable.

The Accord coupe (not necessarily the sedan), to my senses and the seat of my pants, is the most BMW-like yet in feel of any Japanese-designed mid-sized car....I've driven a number of BMW's and know what they feel like.

But I agee with you that it is not an Asian BMW-M. Its noise level is not high enough, the drive train is too smooth and refined, the torque curve is too peaky, and max HP/torque figures are too low to compete with any M....which would suck its doors off in a drag race or in a really tight turn. The Accord EX-L V6 coupe, IMO, competes more directly with bread-and-butter 330 and 530-series (though, of course, there are no two-door 5-series in the American market).

The most remarkable thing is how the Accord coupe achieves this feel and response with FWD as opposed to the BMW RWD. I was comparing the two mostly in steering feel, ride, body roll, etc.... This is the first Japanese-designed car I've driven since my 1984 non-power steering Mazda of years ago that had such a strong BMW-steering feel to it (non-assisted steering systems, of course, almost always have better feel than assisted ones). But I agree with you that the 3-series would probably have higher cornering limits simply due to the RWD and better overall weight distribution.

I found no glaring quality defects in my test sample like you did, but, admittedly, it was brand-new.....and I didn't have it very long. Sometimes, with a new car, problems show up after you get it home and live with it for awhile.....as in the Honda/Acura transmission issues of a few years ago.

Threxx

Hmm... well the 330 is no longer made as of MY 2007 - it's now the 328i and the 335i (300hp TT 3.0 I6), then of course the M3 (414hp 4.0 V8) I can't comment on the 328i, nor the non-sport package equipped variant of either, but when I drove the Accord Sedan, it just wasn't even in the same galaxy as the 335i Sedan I drove. Granted the 335i was 45k compared to the Accord at 30k, so of course I didn't expect the Accord to compete - and it wasn't ever intend to compete... but I'm only making the comparison based on your commentary that you found the car's chassis dynamics to be BMW like. Maybe I should go check out the Accord coupe while you should go refresh yourself with a 335i sedan or coupe test drive?

mmarshall

Sure.....give us your own review if you want. I welcome automotive opinions.....even if they don't always agree with mine.

(Listening to Jeremy Clarkson, though can sometimes test one's paitience ....and some of the newspaper auto write-ups are, IMO, worthless)

I currently have a request for a VW R32, though.......I'm going to do that one first.

ST430

Curious...are you drinving at 9/10ths to judge that it has BMW-esque response? Drive the accord actually hard and i guarantee you it will show it FWD roots....

Mr. Jones

really, cause according to Honda's website they're not the same engine
http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-...rformance.aspx

Mr. Jones

I've had extensive experience with a 5er and both the Accord 2dr and 4dr varients. The 2dr Accord drives noticiably different than the 4dr, different tires and suspension calibrations. I pretty sure the sedans steering wheel is larger, but if you push the Accord hard you are quickly reminded its still fwd

mmarshall

Well, I review vehicles in typical suburban conditions, because many of the people who will be buying them will end up driving that way. Most people, of course, don't drive on tracks. But I don't just drive like Granny on a review.....I go hard enough to get a good idea of a vehicle's capabilities. I also usually have brand-new vehicles, too, that should not be red-lined.

If you want more info on a vehicle at its limits, then my reviews are probably not the best for you.....you will want to consult Car and Driver or Road and Track. They do much of their testing on race tracks....with vehicles that are already broken in.

In moderately hard driving conditions (the hardest ones I do) the EX-L coupe has a non-M BMW-like feel to its steering....and I have driven BMW's. I stand by what I posted.

Threxx

It has nothing to do with manual or automatic transmissions... the EX 4-cyl models have 190 horsepower while the LX models get 177 horsepower. The motors have all of the same mechanical specifications down to the last details of the valvetrain, compression ratio, displacement, etc. I'm not sure what the differences are though I do know the red line on the EX is 200 rpm higher and there is a different exhaust system that is possibly louder, but this is not apparent to the driver because the EX models use the noise inversion system to counteract excess exhaust, engine, and road noise. The EX 4 and 6 cylinder both have it while the LX does not.

I do wonder if the LX is measurably louder inside since it's lacking this system, or if the noise from the EX exhaust makes up enough of the difference to counteract the noise inversion system's reduction in noise.

Mr. Jones

i wasn't refering to 4cyl engines, there are 2 different V6s. One for the automatics and one for the 6MT

mmarshall

The torque figure on the two different versions of the 4, which is more indicative than high-end HP of what you will actually get for routine acceleration and throttle response, is virtually identical....161 @ 4300 on the LX vs. 162 @ 4400 on the EX. The EX version of the 4 does have a higher redline, but it is 300 RPM higher, not 200 as you said....7100 vs. 6800. And the few auto-mag tests I've red of new Accords note that the redline in all the versions, including the V6, is below the usual for Honda-designed engines.

Horsepower, all else equal, is more of an indication of a vehicle's top speed; torque, its acceleration.

But, as to why the two versions have a 13 HP difference and only 1 ft-lb. torque difference, albeit it a different RPM's, I don't know.....I don't have a definite answer to that. As you note, the specs are otherwise virtually identical except for the fact that the 190 HP version has Active Noise Cancelling and the 177 HP version doesn't...but I don't see how that would affect power. And all Accord engines have recommended 87 Octane. You would probably have to ask a Honda engineer.

(the figures I quoted are from the specs in the brochure that Honda is currently distributing with the vehicle).

mmarshall

No. Threxx is correct. According to the brochure specs, there is ONE V6 for both sedan and coupe, with identical specs.........the specs I quoted in the review. And the V6 in the coupe comes with a choice of 5-speed automatic or 6-speed manual (no manuals have actually been shipped into my region yet, but some are on the way). The V6 sedan has only the automatic.......Honda's reasoning, obviously, being that sedan buyers are less sport-oriented and less likely to want to shift for themselves in the first place.

Mr. Jones

As taken from the link I already posted
http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-...rformance.aspx

5A
"On V-6 models equipped with the 5-speed automatic transmission, the i-VTEC ® system enhances the effect of VTEC® by adding Variable Timing Control™, or VTC.™ And with Variable Cylinder Management™, you get the best of both worlds: fuel-efficiency* and thrilling acceleration."

6MT
"The Accord EX-L V-6 engine’s single overhead camshaft SOHC VTEC® engine is designed to deliver outstanding performance at any engine speed."

No. Mr. Jones is correct

mmarshall

Well, yes and no. The specs DO show a valve timing difference between VTEC and i-VTEC for the manual and automatic versions of the V6, but, unlike the four-cylinder, the power and RPM figures are identical. Like I said above, it is not someting easily explained....and we can go on and on about this, but it will probably take a Honda engineer to explain the details. So my suggestion is let's just leave it at that.

Threxx

The only difference to my knowledge is the variable cylinder management. No manufacturer to my knowledge currenly uses cylinder deactivation of any form on a manual transmission vehicle as it causes issues with jerkiness when the the deactivation and activation occurs, and automatics - especially with electronically controlled throttles, can be designed to absorb this shock to the point where it's not perceivable. With a manual this isn't possible (yet) since it's a direct mechanical connection - no fluid or torque converted to absorb and hide the shock that occurs.

The link you posted also says that the MT only uses VTEC instead of iVTEC - but that seems odd since the power ratings are identical.

mmarshall

It certainly wasn't physically noticeable on the automatic V6 I had.....the drivetrain was too silky for that. The only indication that the cylinder deactivation was in operation was a green "ECO" light under the tach that goes on and off imperceptably.