jkksacto Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 Hello, I'm new to this forum and I have a question regarding the performance comparisons between the '97 Accord (with a stock, 4 cyl. VTec engine), and a '97 Accord (with a stock Honda Accord V6 engine). I've searched quite a few places on the internet over the past 4 days and haven't been able to find anything. (I guess the cars are too old). Tried Road & Track, Hot Rod Magazine, Motor Trend, Car & Driver, and can't find any specs anywhere. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if anybody can give advise me on how these two identical cars compare (in road test), using these two, different engines. Many thanks, My Best, jeff kim - Sacramento, California Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kegger Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 I think the V-6 SE has like 50 more ponies, and a slightly beefed up suspension. Other than that they are bout the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkksacto Posted December 1, 2006 Author Share Posted December 1, 2006 I think the V-6 SE has like 50 more ponies, and a slightly beefed up suspension. Other than that they are bout the same. Yes, I realize the v6 has more hp (about 50) but due to the fact that it's an all aluminum engine, sometimes weight (or lack of it), plays an important factor in the actual road testing performance. I wasn't aware that the v6 had beefed up suspension. Still, I wonder how the v6 equipped car compares against the car w/the 4 cyl. vtec engine. Also, is the v6 a vtec engine, too? I.e., does it use a valve timing change to produce faster engine response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Here is a weight comparison for the stock 1997 accord's: 1997 Honda Accord DX Sedan MT 2921 1997 Honda Accord DX Sedan AT 2855 1997 Honda Accord EX Sedan MT 3020 1997 Honda Accord EX Sedan AT 3086 1997 Honda Accord EX V6 SDN AT 3285 1997 Honda Accord LX Sedan MT 2965 1997 Honda Accord LX Sedan AT 2965 1997 Honda Accord LX V6 SDN AT 3219 1997 Honda Accord EX CPE MT 3031 1997 Honda Accord EX CPE AT 2965 1997 Honda Accord LX CPE MT 2921 1997 Honda Accord LX CPE AT 2855 1997 Honda Accord SE CPE MT 2921 I'm not really sure what you are looking to read as far as a road test between the 2 vehicles. The V6 and the i4 aren't that far apart except for horsepower/torque, so they are going to drive the same except for that. Even an extra 300 lb's isn't going to make a difference, because the driver's/passenger's could make a difference, there. How much difference do you notice between your car with an empty tank and a full tank of gas? That's kind of what the comparison would be like IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkksacto Posted December 1, 2006 Author Share Posted December 1, 2006 Here is a weight comparison for the stock 1997 accord's: 1997 Honda Accord DX Sedan MT 2921 1997 Honda Accord DX Sedan AT 2855 1997 Honda Accord EX Sedan MT 3020 1997 Honda Accord EX Sedan AT 3086 1997 Honda Accord EX V6 SDN AT 3285 1997 Honda Accord LX Sedan MT 2965 1997 Honda Accord LX Sedan AT 2965 1997 Honda Accord LX V6 SDN AT 3219 1997 Honda Accord EX CPE MT 3031 1997 Honda Accord EX CPE AT 2965 1997 Honda Accord LX CPE MT 2921 1997 Honda Accord LX CPE AT 2855 1997 Honda Accord SE CPE MT 2921 I'm not really sure what you are looking to read as far as a road test between the 2 vehicles. The V6 and the i4 aren't that far apart except for horsepower/torque, so they are going to drive the same except for that. Even an extra 300 lb's isn't going to make a difference, because the driver's/passenger's could make a difference, there. How much difference do you notice between your car with an empty tank and a full tank of gas? That's kind of what the comparison would be like IMO... So Jeffro, are you saying that in speed test between equal accords (one using the 4 cyl. vtec and the other using the v6), one would probably not notice much difference is speed, acceleration, etc? You say they're "not far apart except for horsepower/torque" but I find that horsepower and torque make quite a difference in the top speed, acceleration, quickness, 1/4 mi, etc. So, when you say they're not far apart, what actually, do you mean? Were you referring to road handling? (I'm guessing here because you didn't specify). Here's a question: How much difference would there be if these two cars ran a quarter-mile? What would be their e.t.'s and top speeds? Thanks for the info, anyway. Much obliged, jeff -sacramento, calif. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Obviously a v6 is going to be faster from having more horsepower. As far as handling, they're going to be pretty much the same. Top speed and acceleration all go hand in hand with the amount of horsepower a car has... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkksacto Posted December 4, 2006 Author Share Posted December 4, 2006 Obviously a v6 is going to be faster from having more horsepower. As far as handling, they're going to be pretty much the same. Top speed and acceleration all go hand in hand with the amount of horsepower a car has... That's not entirely true. Weight of the car, weight transfer on acceleration, gear ratios, "horse power and torque curves," different cam ratios, lift and duration of valves, can all add up to "sometimes," big differences in the overall road testing results of "otherwise" identical cars, with different engines and suspension setups. And, the smaller (vtec) engine is not necessairly going to "lay-down and die" in a test against the other. That's why I asked the question: "which car is faster in road testing?" Actual road tests DO play important roles in evaluating a car's performance. (That's why they have "actual road tests"). I think it's a little on the naive side to merely say: "Obviously a v6 is going to be faster from having more horsepower." (What if the vtec has 10.5:1 high-dome racing pistons, with a short stroke, compared to flat 8.0:1 low-compression pistons for the v6?). If you've ever been to the track you can see some big differences in smaller engines, especially when you compare-quick revving, short-strokers to long-stroke, torque engines. And I'm not comparing breathing induction systems, either. These days where engine sophistication involves so many difference aspects of an engines (and car's "actual ability" to transfer raw HP to the tires), see's many contradictions to an engine's performance in similarily equipped vehicles. My suspicion is that there's not more than a second (or two's) difference in times between these two cars ET's, in the quarter mile. And, that may be a lot of time for full-blown, Top Fuelers, but not necessairly when you're comparing stock 4 bangers against stock, 60 degree v6's: I.e., pitting a 145 hp Vtec 4 to the '97's, 170 hp v6. And, they're probably going to be running in the high 15's, at least, if not slower. In addition, I disagree. I don't think handling will be the same in these 2 cars. Weight distribution differences between the two car (having different size engines), may produce enough weight imbalance in one of them to make it much better handling. The v6 probably weights more than the vtec. Therefore, if the two cars are/were equally balanced to begin with, the front end of the v6 equipped car will be heavier, over balanced in the front, than the other. That produces a much greater weight imbalance. (and no, heavier duty shocks and coil springs in front won't cure, but they will help). If the cars were equally balanced at first, then the v6 equipped car is now front-end-heavy and will probably understeer more drastically and "plow it's front end." Why? Because Hondas already tend to understeer because they're front-wheel-drive cars. (It's one of the characteristics of front-wheel drive vehicles). They just don't have room for heavier front suspension and they also have heavier front ends (to begin with) because of the engine, tranny, transaxle setup, brakes, etc. What a load! That's also why Porsche 911's are notoriously known for just the opposite: They are rear engined: (heavier in the rear-end), and therefore do the opposite: "Oversteer" (where the back end wants to come around" in a corner. But that's another story. It works for them). The Vtec 4 cyl. will probably out handle the v6 just because it's less front-end-heavy, more center balanced, lighter. and it's enertia will have less tendency to want to go straight. Extra weight at the front of a car makes a big difference in a car's handling abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Actual road tests DO play important roles in evaluating a car's performance. (That's why they have "actual road tests"). I think it's a little on the naive side to merely say: "Obviously a v6 is going to be faster from having more horsepower." (What if the vtec has 10.5:1 high-dome racing pistons, with a short stroke, compared to flat 8.0:1 low-compression pistons for the v6?). If you've ever been to the track you can see some big differences in smaller engines, especially when you compare-quick revving, short-strokers to long-stroke, torque engines. And I'm not comparing breathing induction systems, either. Obviously if you're going to be running 10.5:1 compression, you aren't going to be stock anymore. I thought you were talking stock handling? You're reading awfully far into a comparison for someone who isn't too specific in what he is looking to compare. I've given you the weight differences which you mentioned wanting. What exactly do you want to know? A v6 is going to be quicker stock. A 4-cylinder is going to be slower. A v6 is heavier, but not by much, so handling is going to be comparably similar, a difference that could be made up by having a passenger, for example. Do you want to know what the compression ratio is compared to the two? Do you want to know which has a softer suspension? I think most answers could be answered quite logically comparing the two engines. Honda wasn't changing much more than the engine between the two... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkksacto Posted December 4, 2006 Author Share Posted December 4, 2006 I suppose you're right. I thought the 4 cyl., Vtec engine would give the v6 a run for it's money in the quarter mile. AND..., If that were the case, I wouldn't see much reason for buying the "more expensive-to-run" gas guzzler v6, over a vtec. Therefore I could look more carefully into buying a used Accord with the vtec engine over the gas-burning v6. (I'm sure the v6 would burn more gas and I don't want that). So, I figured if the vtec performed almost as well as the v6, then why buy a v6 when there's the more economical and (almost as fast) vtec's out there. That's why I wanted to know the quatermile comparisons between both cars: ET's, top speed, and winner. But, can't find any info giving me any quatermile comparisons between the two engines. No actual data and results of such a test. Alas! So, I still don't know the results. Which would you buy? Jeff k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Matteu Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Sorry to reply so late, I am new to the forum. I wanted to add an owner’s perspective. Current Ride: 1997 Accord EX-V6 w/ C27A 2.7L SOHC PGM-Fi 166 bhp @ 5600 165 ft-lbs @ 4500 3285 lbs 19/25 mpg Previous Ride: 1987 Accord EX w/ 2.0L SOHC CVCC 98 bhp @ 5600 2541 lbs 19/25 mpg I reality, I get an average of 24.67 mpg. In reality, the V6 will pin you to the seat more than the I4, but not as much as a 2000 Porsche GT2 Ruf. The both handle similarly, easy to bog down nose heavy, but difficult to over steer. Both get approximately the same miles per gallon, I got 24.67 with the 1987 and the same with the 1997. Main differences: I can go just as fast by myself in the V6 as I can with a car full of people, in the I4 I cannot. Reason: torque. Japanese V6s are becoming more popular with teams like Royal Purple’s Toyota Solara V6. Perhaps in the future, people will start to look back to the C series to find ways to beef up the tranny to tolerate more horsepower. Currently, it would not be a stretch to slip a supercharger under the intake manifold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 i own a 97 accord with f22 vtec. in all reality the i4 can be as impressive as the v6. depends on what your plans are for the car. both are fun cars to drive i have driven both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.