[home][rumors and news][model release matrix][dealer network][desktop calendar][exhaust notes][tov forums][links][search][sponsors][garage][login]

Tire Rack Upgrade Garage
 Search for a Dealer:
 Canadian Flag US Flag
 Honda Acura
 ZIP  
Acura announces new "PMC Edition" models, to be "hand-crafted" at the PMC
More.......................
American Honda reports March 2019 sales
More.......................
2020 Accords already appearing in dealer order system
More.......................
Is Acura going to reveal a new Legend at Pebble Beach this year?
More.......................
Honda reports February Sales
More.......................
Honda revealing production RWD prototype of Urban EV Concept at the Geneva International Motorshow
More.......................
BBC: Honda set to close Swindon factory in 2022
More.......................
Nikkei: Honda enters agreement with CATL for battery supply contract through 2027
More.......................
CR-V --> Re: CR-V MMC guesses
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Tesla is killing Panasonic!(breaking front page of all Japanese papers today)
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: I'M BACK IN THE HONDA GAME!!!!!
Join Discussion......
Spy Shots --> Re: On my way to work...
Join Discussion......
Civic --> Re: Considering Sport Touring HB: Any advice?
Join Discussion......
Type R --> Re: 2020 Phoenix Yellow CTR spotted.
Join Discussion......
Ridgeline - General Talk --> Re: Bye Bye
Join Discussion......
Fuel Cell Technology --> Re: Damn Germans... getting H2
Join Discussion......
Sales Experiences --> Re: Purchased Prices??
Join Discussion......
Repair and Maintenance --> Ebay Turbo Was All I Could Afford
Join Discussion......
The Tire Rack: Wheels and Tires Forum --> Re: The Temple of VTEC - Honda and Acura
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Four bucks for 87 octane
Join Discussion......
IMA/Hybrids --> Re: Batteries marketplace?
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Genesisís CRX concept
Join Discussion......
Accord --> Re: 2018 Accord 1.5T Sport CVT Impressions
Join Discussion......
2019 Honda Passport PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
2019 Acura NSX PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Acura ILX
Read Article....................
2019 Acura ILX PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Honda Pilot
Read Article....................
2019 Honda Pilot PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
TOV Forums > Civic > > Re: I chose the Si over the GTI

Go to:

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - 1 [2] 3
Author
  Post New Thread
owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-16-2019 01:01
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
TonyEX wrote:
Dren wrote:
Other than the fact my 2016 6-6 was a manual and had a nice engine, it wasn't anything near sporty. It plowed, rolled excessively, and just wasn't fun to drive unless going straight. A rear sway upgrade improved the roll quite a bit. That car could have really benefited from a more Si approach to the suspension and the seats. I was happy to trade it in. I also don't care for the cable link shifters. I much prefer the feedback a linkage shifter gives. My Ridgeline is more fun to drive in the corners.


Our Ridgeline BE is more fun through the corners because it feels stable and the rear end torque vectoring allows you to really tuck the nose in without washing out. The suspension is well tuned. It's limits are actually pretty mind boggling when you see those high profile tires (which oddly help), it's size and shape (*). If only it had up to par brakes.

The Accord 6-6 was a weird car. I suppose if you got used to it and drove it as your only car for a long time you would be fine. But, if you were driving other Honda cars with clutches, and better suspensions, you'd immediately recognize the problem... Accords, by and by, are not sporty Hondas. They may be sporty on the sporty side of Cardom, but there are many other Hondas that ride firmer and have better behavior.

Heck, our Odysseys, specially when we went with replacement Bridgestones (RE750s, EL42s), were really good handling vehicles, with exceptional steering and loud pedal feedback and control. I could toss them into the edge of four wheel drifts and go around turns better than the 6-6 Accord.

The CRVs and RDXs didn't have that. Surprisingly, really. But the RDXs suspensions were much better buttoned down.

Yes, the J30 was an awesome engine and in a straight line, from 5mph and on up the Accord 6-6 was a blast. But if you hit a bump or had to do a turn... the cars was bouncy, the seats did not hold me in place, the steering was overboosted, etc, etc... I never felt comfortable in that car unless I was burning rubber or taking the motor to redline on a freeway merge.

(*) Is this a truck?





Yet again, you have ZERO experience with the Accord in question. And with all do respect to Dren, I had to laugh a little bit. The Accord is not an Si, but it isn't a wallowy turd either. It prefers high speed sweepers over the tight stuff, but once it takes a set, it actually does suprisingly well. About the same as your beloved 2013 Si, with a little more initial movement. Also, the perception of roll is largely in the slipperiness of the seats versus boat level roll.

But your truck is still a 6' tall truck with high CG and high profile, low grip tires, despite how much you want to church it up. It drives nice_for a truck_.

TonyEX
Profile for TonyEX
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-16-2019 21:55
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
Dren wrote:
Other than the fact my 2016 6-6 was a manual and had a nice engine, it wasn't anything near sporty. It plowed, rolled excessively, and just wasn't fun to drive unless going straight. A rear sway upgrade improved the roll quite a bit. That car could have really benefited from a more Si approach to the suspension and the seats. I was happy to trade it in. I also don't care for the cable link shifters. I much prefer the feedback a linkage shifter gives. My Ridgeline is more fun to drive in the corners.


Our Ridgeline BE is more fun through the corners because it feels stable and the rear end torque vectoring allows you to really tuck the nose in without washing out. The suspension is well tuned. It's limits are actually pretty mind boggling when you see those high profile tires (which oddly help), it's size and shape (*). If only it had up to par brakes.

The Accord 6-6 was a weird car. I suppose if you got used to it and drove it as your only car for a long time you would be fine. But, if you were driving other Honda cars with clutches, and better suspensions, you'd immediately recognize the problem... Accords, by and by, are not sporty Hondas. They may be sporty on the sporty side of Cardom, but there are many other Hondas that ride firmer and have better behavior.

Heck, our Odysseys, specially when we went with replacement Bridgestones (RE750s, EL42s), were really good handling vehicles, with exceptional steering and loud pedal feedback and control. I could toss them into the edge of four wheel drifts and go around turns better than the 6-6 Accord.

The CRVs and RDXs didn't have that. Surprisingly, really. But the RDXs suspensions were much better buttoned down.

Yes, the J30 was an awesome engine and in a straight line, from 5mph and on up the Accord 6-6 was a blast. But if you hit a bump or had to do a turn... the cars was bouncy, the seats did not hold me in place, the steering was overboosted, etc, etc... I never felt comfortable in that car unless I was burning rubber or taking the motor to redline on a freeway merge.

(*) Is this a truck?





Yet again, you have ZERO experience with the Accord in question. And with all do respect to Dren, I had to laugh a little bit. The Accord is not an Si, but it isn't a wallowy turd either. It prefers high speed sweepers over the tight stuff, but once it takes a set, it actually does suprisingly well. About the same as your beloved 2013 Si, with a little more initial movement. Also, the perception of roll is largely in the slipperiness of the seats versus boat level roll.

But your truck is still a 6' tall truck with high CG and high profile, low grip tires, despite how much you want to church it up. It drives nice_for a truck_.



WTF?

I'm writing about the 05 Accord 6-6 which we had for two years and 50K miles.

Have you driven that one?

In fact, have you driven an Accord 6-6? You get to the point where the powertrain overwhelms the chassis.

If you want a good handling Accord, I suggest you try driving a TSX Wagon Tech.

Everything else is a relative barge.

You know, we drive a lot of Honda cars. And we swap them very often.

You might also want to try a Ridgeline with AWD. I believe you'll have to eat your words. It may LOOK like a truck, but underneath it's a unibody, which means it handles MUCH better than ANY body on frame vehicle.

Jeez.






TonyEX
Profile for TonyEX
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-16-2019 21:57
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
TonyEX wrote:
owequitit wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
Dren wrote:
Other than the fact my 2016 6-6 was a manual and had a nice engine, it wasn't anything near sporty. It plowed, rolled excessively, and just wasn't fun to drive unless going straight. A rear sway upgrade improved the roll quite a bit. That car could have really benefited from a more Si approach to the suspension and the seats. I was happy to trade it in. I also don't care for the cable link shifters. I much prefer the feedback a linkage shifter gives. My Ridgeline is more fun to drive in the corners.


Our Ridgeline BE is more fun through the corners because it feels stable and the rear end torque vectoring allows you to really tuck the nose in without washing out. The suspension is well tuned. It's limits are actually pretty mind boggling when you see those high profile tires (which oddly help), it's size and shape (*). If only it had up to par brakes.

The Accord 6-6 was a weird car. I suppose if you got used to it and drove it as your only car for a long time you would be fine. But, if you were driving other Honda cars with clutches, and better suspensions, you'd immediately recognize the problem... Accords, by and by, are not sporty Hondas. They may be sporty on the sporty side of Cardom, but there are many other Hondas that ride firmer and have better behavior.

Heck, our Odysseys, specially when we went with replacement Bridgestones (RE750s, EL42s), were really good handling vehicles, with exceptional steering and loud pedal feedback and control. I could toss them into the edge of four wheel drifts and go around turns better than the 6-6 Accord.

The CRVs and RDXs didn't have that. Surprisingly, really. But the RDXs suspensions were much better buttoned down.

Yes, the J30 was an awesome engine and in a straight line, from 5mph and on up the Accord 6-6 was a blast. But if you hit a bump or had to do a turn... the cars was bouncy, the seats did not hold me in place, the steering was overboosted, etc, etc... I never felt comfortable in that car unless I was burning rubber or taking the motor to redline on a freeway merge.

(*) Is this a truck?





Yet again, you have ZERO experience with the Accord in question. And with all do respect to Dren, I had to laugh a little bit. The Accord is not an Si, but it isn't a wallowy turd either. It prefers high speed sweepers over the tight stuff, but once it takes a set, it actually does suprisingly well. About the same as your beloved 2013 Si, with a little more initial movement. Also, the perception of roll is largely in the slipperiness of the seats versus boat level roll.

But your truck is still a 6' tall truck with high CG and high profile, low grip tires, despite how much you want to church it up. It drives nice_for a truck_.



WTF?

I'm writing about the 05 Accord 6-6 which we had for two years and 50K miles.

Have you driven that one?

In fact, have you driven an Accord 6-6? You get to the point where the powertrain overwhelms the chassis.

If you want a good handling Accord, I suggest you try driving a TSX Wagon Tech.

Everything else is a relative barge.

You know, we drive a lot of Honda cars. And we swap them very often.

You might also want to try a Ridgeline with AWD. I believe you'll have to eat your words. It may LOOK like a truck, but underneath it's a unibody, which means it handles MUCH better than ANY body on frame vehicle.

Jeez.





I would also suggest a first gen TSX MT. I almost bought one. It was low on power but otherwise is was awesome.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-17-2019 02:30
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
TonyEX wrote:
owequitit wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
Dren wrote:
Other than the fact my 2016 6-6 was a manual and had a nice engine, it wasn't anything near sporty. It plowed, rolled excessively, and just wasn't fun to drive unless going straight. A rear sway upgrade improved the roll quite a bit. That car could have really benefited from a more Si approach to the suspension and the seats. I was happy to trade it in. I also don't care for the cable link shifters. I much prefer the feedback a linkage shifter gives. My Ridgeline is more fun to drive in the corners.


Our Ridgeline BE is more fun through the corners because it feels stable and the rear end torque vectoring allows you to really tuck the nose in without washing out. The suspension is well tuned. It's limits are actually pretty mind boggling when you see those high profile tires (which oddly help), it's size and shape (*). If only it had up to par brakes.

The Accord 6-6 was a weird car. I suppose if you got used to it and drove it as your only car for a long time you would be fine. But, if you were driving other Honda cars with clutches, and better suspensions, you'd immediately recognize the problem... Accords, by and by, are not sporty Hondas. They may be sporty on the sporty side of Cardom, but there are many other Hondas that ride firmer and have better behavior.

Heck, our Odysseys, specially when we went with replacement Bridgestones (RE750s, EL42s), were really good handling vehicles, with exceptional steering and loud pedal feedback and control. I could toss them into the edge of four wheel drifts and go around turns better than the 6-6 Accord.

The CRVs and RDXs didn't have that. Surprisingly, really. But the RDXs suspensions were much better buttoned down.

Yes, the J30 was an awesome engine and in a straight line, from 5mph and on up the Accord 6-6 was a blast. But if you hit a bump or had to do a turn... the cars was bouncy, the seats did not hold me in place, the steering was overboosted, etc, etc... I never felt comfortable in that car unless I was burning rubber or taking the motor to redline on a freeway merge.

(*) Is this a truck?





Yet again, you have ZERO experience with the Accord in question. And with all do respect to Dren, I had to laugh a little bit. The Accord is not an Si, but it isn't a wallowy turd either. It prefers high speed sweepers over the tight stuff, but once it takes a set, it actually does suprisingly well. About the same as your beloved 2013 Si, with a little more initial movement. Also, the perception of roll is largely in the slipperiness of the seats versus boat level roll.

But your truck is still a 6' tall truck with high CG and high profile, low grip tires, despite how much you want to church it up. It drives nice_for a truck_.



WTF?

I'm writing about the 05 Accord 6-6 which we had for two years and 50K miles.

Have you driven that one?

In fact, have you driven an Accord 6-6? You get to the point where the powertrain overwhelms the chassis.

If you want a good handling Accord, I suggest you try driving a TSX Wagon Tech.

Everything else is a relative barge.

You know, we drive a lot of Honda cars. And we swap them very often.

You might also want to try a Ridgeline with AWD. I believe you'll have to eat your words. It may LOOK like a truck, but underneath it's a unibody, which means it handles MUCH better than ANY body on frame vehicle.

Jeez.








You are talking about an Accord that was over a decade old compared to the car he mentioned. As in they had NOTHING in common except the base V6 design (and even then, the new one is WAAAAAY more powerful and flexible). Yet again, you act like a normal Honda is made of unobtanium. At least the Accord was actually rare, as opposed to the Acura stuff that you always try to pretend I can't walk into a dealership and test drive...

Second, yes, actually I HAVE driven a 7th gen 6-6 coupe. Several in fact. And yes, it was a land barge. But the 9th gen was not. It wasn't an Si, but it was leaps and bounds beyond the 7th gen 6-6. Also, despite the fact that it has an extra 40-50 hp and a lot more torque, the 9th gen puts the power down VASTLY better than that 7th gen 6-6 did. It has bigger tires, wider tires, wider track, lower C.G., firmer suspension, etc. It could still use an LSD and it can spin the tires at will, but it isn't that hard to hook it up either.

Finally, I have driven the Ridgeline. And the Pilot. And the CR-V. They ALL drive like vehicles that have a much higher CG, high profile all season tires, and the Pilot and the Ridgeline especially drive like they are a lot heavier than the Accord. They drive very well _for what they are_ but they are not like a car. There is a day that goes by that I don't run across some numbnuts in a truck (especially some Ridgeline owners of both gens) that thinks they are going to out turn a lowly "Accord" when they are trying to run me over on an on ramp or some other such non-sense. The Ridgeline drives great _for_a_TRUCK.

P.S. The real issue is your constant grandiose claims about whatever it is you have at that second.

P.S.S. As for the TSX wagon, it was woefully underpowered. No thanks.

P.S.S.S. I have an Accord 6-6 sitting in my garage. I came from an 8th gen Si. Of course the Si was more responsive and maneuverable, and had a better initial set, but the Accord really hangs on more than you would expect and it is a lot more neutral that you would expect once you get it set. There is a little more initial roll as a result of its more road friendly tune, and IMO the rear sway is too small, but most of the perception of roll is actually the lack of support from the seats. That said, it actually really likes relatively tight roads with sweeping turns. If only Honda didn't have to neuter Honda because Acura is has become so irrelevant that they can't fully unleash the Honda product.

The last Accord coupe had the same 2 fundamental dynamic shortcomings that EVERY current Honda/Acura product has (save the NSX). ZERO steering feedback and shitty brakes. Honda really needs to get their shit together in the braking department, and they really need to get their shit together in the steering department. I haven't driven a Honda product since the mid-00's that has had decent steering feedback. They haven't gotten their head wrapped around EPS yet.

P.S.S.S.S.S. The HR-V also actually handles pretty well for what you would actually expect, but when it comes down to brass tacks, the Accord will run away from that in corners too. In almost all cases, I find myself slowing down in corners not because the car can't do it, but because it just isn't prudent to do it.

RMTRADER
Profile for RMTRADER
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-17-2019 10:42
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
owequitit wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
Dren wrote:
Other than the fact my 2016 6-6 was a manual and had a nice engine, it wasn't anything near sporty. It plowed, rolled excessively, and just wasn't fun to drive unless going straight. A rear sway upgrade improved the roll quite a bit. That car could have really benefited from a more Si approach to the suspension and the seats. I was happy to trade it in. I also don't care for the cable link shifters. I much prefer the feedback a linkage shifter gives. My Ridgeline is more fun to drive in the corners.


Our Ridgeline BE is more fun through the corners because it feels stable and the rear end torque vectoring allows you to really tuck the nose in without washing out. The suspension is well tuned. It's limits are actually pretty mind boggling when you see those high profile tires (which oddly help), it's size and shape (*). If only it had up to par brakes.

The Accord 6-6 was a weird car. I suppose if you got used to it and drove it as your only car for a long time you would be fine. But, if you were driving other Honda cars with clutches, and better suspensions, you'd immediately recognize the problem... Accords, by and by, are not sporty Hondas. They may be sporty on the sporty side of Cardom, but there are many other Hondas that ride firmer and have better behavior.

Heck, our Odysseys, specially when we went with replacement Bridgestones (RE750s, EL42s), were really good handling vehicles, with exceptional steering and loud pedal feedback and control. I could toss them into the edge of four wheel drifts and go around turns better than the 6-6 Accord.

The CRVs and RDXs didn't have that. Surprisingly, really. But the RDXs suspensions were much better buttoned down.

Yes, the J30 was an awesome engine and in a straight line, from 5mph and on up the Accord 6-6 was a blast. But if you hit a bump or had to do a turn... the cars was bouncy, the seats did not hold me in place, the steering was overboosted, etc, etc... I never felt comfortable in that car unless I was burning rubber or taking the motor to redline on a freeway merge.

(*) Is this a truck?





Yet again, you have ZERO experience with the Accord in question. And with all do respect to Dren, I had to laugh a little bit. The Accord is not an Si, but it isn't a wallowy turd either. It prefers high speed sweepers over the tight stuff, but once it takes a set, it actually does suprisingly well. About the same as your beloved 2013 Si, with a little more initial movement. Also, the perception of roll is largely in the slipperiness of the seats versus boat level roll.

But your truck is still a 6' tall truck with high CG and high profile, low grip tires, despite how much you want to church it up. It drives nice_for a truck_.



WTF?

I'm writing about the 05 Accord 6-6 which we had for two years and 50K miles.

Have you driven that one?

In fact, have you driven an Accord 6-6? You get to the point where the powertrain overwhelms the chassis.

If you want a good handling Accord, I suggest you try driving a TSX Wagon Tech.

Everything else is a relative barge.

You know, we drive a lot of Honda cars. And we swap them very often.

You might also want to try a Ridgeline with AWD. I believe you'll have to eat your words. It may LOOK like a truck, but underneath it's a unibody, which means it handles MUCH better than ANY body on frame vehicle.

Jeez.








You are talking about an Accord that was over a decade old compared to the car he mentioned. As in they had NOTHING in common except the base V6 design (and even then, the new one is WAAAAAY more powerful and flexible). Yet again, you act like a normal Honda is made of unobtanium. At least the Accord was actually rare, as opposed to the Acura stuff that you always try to pretend I can't walk into a dealership and test drive...

Second, yes, actually I HAVE driven a 7th gen 6-6 coupe. Several in fact. And yes, it was a land barge. But the 9th gen was not. It wasn't an Si, but it was leaps and bounds beyond the 7th gen 6-6. Also, despite the fact that it has an extra 40-50 hp and a lot more torque, the 9th gen puts the power down VASTLY better than that 7th gen 6-6 did. It has bigger tires, wider tires, wider track, lower C.G., firmer suspension, etc. It could still use an LSD and it can spin the tires at will, but it isn't that hard to hook it up either.

Finally, I have driven the Ridgeline. And the Pilot. And the CR-V. They ALL drive like vehicles that have a much higher CG, high profile all season tires, and the Pilot and the Ridgeline especially drive like they are a lot heavier than the Accord. They drive very well _for what they are_ but they are not like a car. There is a day that goes by that I don't run across some numbnuts in a truck (especially some Ridgeline owners of both gens) that thinks they are going to out turn a lowly "Accord" when they are trying to run me over on an on ramp or some other such non-sense. The Ridgeline drives great _for_a_TRUCK.

P.S. The real issue is your constant grandiose claims about whatever it is you have at that second.

P.S.S. As for the TSX wagon, it was woefully underpowered. No thanks.

P.S.S.S. I have an Accord 6-6 sitting in my garage. I came from an 8th gen Si. Of course the Si was more responsive and maneuverable, and had a better initial set, but the Accord really hangs on more than you would expect and it is a lot more neutral that you would expect once you get it set. There is a little more initial roll as a result of its more road friendly tune, and IMO the rear sway is too small, but most of the perception of roll is actually the lack of support from the seats. That said, it actually really likes relatively tight roads with sweeping turns. If only Honda didn't have to neuter Honda because Acura is has become so irrelevant that they can't fully unleash the Honda product.

The last Accord coupe had the same 2 fundamental dynamic shortcomings that EVERY current Honda/Acura product has (save the NSX). ZERO steering feedback and shitty brakes. Honda really needs to get their shit together in the braking department, and they really need to get their shit together in the steering department. I haven't driven a Honda product since the mid-00's that has had decent steering feedback. They haven't gotten their head wrapped around EPS yet.

P.S.S.S.S.S. The HR-V also actually handles pretty well for what you would actually expect, but when it comes down to brass tacks, the Accord will run away from that in corners too. In almost all cases, I find myself slowing down in corners not because the car can't do it, but because it just isn't prudent to do it.



The Civic Type R has shitty steering and brakes?

"the same 2 fundamental dynamic shortcomings that EVERY current Honda/Acura product has (save the NSX). "


Vtec_rally
Profile for Vtec_rally
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-17-2019 18:37
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I'd say this is a decent exemplification of the 7th gens V6 6speed Accord's capabilities from Matt Farah from the Smoking Tire.
https://youtu.be/dVR1R2zC9kw
I find him reputable with regard to his critiques of cars.
The video is 1 year old.

It should be noted that the model featured in this video is a mid cycle refresh version. They had some suspension tweaks made to them and this gentlemans car has an aftermarket sway bar added to it. I've taken similar twisties as posted in this video without the escalations and felt completely comfortable in the car up to 8/10ths. The 7th Gen is by no means a land barge @ approximately 3300 pounds and straight line performance of 5.8 seconds recorded by various publications for the 0 to 60 time when it was new, which was good for the time for this type of car.

I would totally rock Michelin Super Sports on this car. No doubt the 9th generation is improved upon from every aspect, that's how it should be or Honda's engineers aren't doing their job right. Though added weight and VCM on the 3.5 liter engine could be seen as negative aspects. But, the 9th Generation 6 speed coupe is definitively tighter from a suspension standpoint. I do think I like the analogue aspect of the steering feel of 7th gen. better though.

I'm not sure how a Ridgeline has entered into the conversation with its higher centre of gravity and added weight. Though I understand how torque vectoring 4wd could help around the twisties. It's still a truck though regardless of its construction build, unibody or body on frame.

Dren
Profile for Dren
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-18-2019 09:37
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Owe is right about the seats in the Accord. Seats with any sort of semblance of side bolsters would help a lot. I slid around all over the place in mine when cornering. A rear sway upgrade helps a lot in that car, so much so that you'd expect a sporty variant to already have it stock. I never could find a good sitting position that was both comfortable and made the clutch easier to operate. In the optimal position to operate the clutch, the steering wheel blocked the speedometer. I'm glad others like them, I didn't. Then again, the least sporty car up to that point that I owned was a Civic Si. It is telling though that I enjoy pushing my Ridgeline through the corners more than the Accord. Yes, it's still a truck, but it is rewarding to drive unlike the Accord was. The only thing rewarding in the Accord was finally getting the hang of the damn clutch pick-up point. I still get to enjoy wringing out that 3.5 in my Ridgeline, too.

I'm pretty sure the MT versions don't have VCM.

Design
Profile for Design
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-18-2019 15:20
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
JeffX wrote:
Design wrote:
JeffX wrote:
Our Si is just over a year old now, and I find it to be aging very well. I like it more every time that I drive it (which isn't very often).

This past weekend I took it for a spin to fill the tank. 276 miles on that tank cost me $21 of premium ($2.65/gal) fuel. Not too shabby. With the Type R as my "daily" it seems like the Si should be a huge letdown to drive, but I don't find that to be the case at all. The Si still has a great chassis, and that LSD makes it more fun. And I've grown accustomed to the characteristics of the turbocharged 1.5L. With the enhancement of a reflash (Hondata in my case) it delivers VERY satisfying pull in just about any gear. When you're running in normal (not Sport) mode, it runs in a boost mode that's slightly below stock boost levels, but it still feels more responsive than what I remember from stock. I can't tell if it's because of the reflash or just that the car has simply broken in and maybe even a stock car would deliver similar responsiveness. Also I'm probably a lot more accustomed to the boost onset delay by now too.

The exhaust note is tuned nicely - most of these 1.5Ts don't really sound too amazing, but in the Si they've really managed to give it a pretty nice note. I should put that exhaust and a 6MT/LSD on our CR-V :). The Si's shifter falls somewhere between a standard Civic 6MT and the Type R's in feel, though I'd say it's closer to the Type R's end of the spectrum, with a nice mechanized feel and short throws.

Once you get past the fact that it will never have the top end rush feel of an old-school DOHC VTEC engine, it's easy to find things to like about it, though. Fuel economy is hella impressive. The midrange punch makes this thing downright zippy in traffic. Hopefully it will prove to be a reliable and inexpensive powertrain over the long run.



I just hit 19 months on mine. Still enjoy it. Only gripes are the buzzy behavior in the upper RPMs, rev hang, and boost delay between shifts. I haven't been able to resolve the rattle in the A-Pillar either. But I'll probably just add some foam tape and be done with it.

I just need to bite the bullet and get a conservative tune, if only to maintain boost between shifts. It's a real buzzkill under WOT.

Everything else about this car continues to be adequate to great. And people continue to be amazed that these can be had for under 23K. In the future... I think if Honda adds a slightly larger turbo and variable lift to counter the throttle response, this little 1.5T would be a pretty decent fit. Though going 2.0T is what everyone wants.



yes, the Flashpro calibration that I've installed has no lift shift and it also has the rev hang delete. 2 little things that make a big difference. But so does that massive surge in torque. You have to be careful though because with the highest level of tuning available (stock) you can overwhelm the stock clutch. +6psi should be safe for most cars. +9psi seems okay on ours but I don't press the issue too much, and in fact the car is driven in "normal" mode the vast majority of the time.




Good to know. Yeah, not too concerned about the torque as my driving habits are fairly conservative. I think some of this has to do with the CDV and the intended slip it's designed to create.

I've been hearing more and more that disabling rev hang can actually be a bad thing over time, due to the net increase in crankcase pressure and the associated vapors it may induce. Seems that a catch can is all but required, though even that may not trap the a lot of the vapors and the inherent risk for additional deposits.

Wonder if Shawn or Daniel have anything else to add?

TonyEX
Profile for TonyEX
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-18-2019 20:22
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Dren wrote:
Owe is right about the seats in the Accord. Seats with any sort of semblance of side bolsters would help a lot. I slid around all over the place in mine when cornering. A rear sway upgrade helps a lot in that car, so much so that you'd expect a sporty variant to already have it stock. I never could find a good sitting position that was both comfortable and made the clutch easier to operate. In the optimal position to operate the clutch, the steering wheel blocked the speedometer. I'm glad others like them, I didn't. Then again, the least sporty car up to that point that I owned was a Civic Si. It is telling though that I enjoy pushing my Ridgeline through the corners more than the Accord. Yes, it's still a truck, but it is rewarding to drive unlike the Accord was. The only thing rewarding in the Accord was finally getting the hang of the damn clutch pick-up point. I still get to enjoy wringing out that 3.5 in my Ridgeline, too.

I'm pretty sure the MT versions don't have VCM.



I don't want to bother replying to Owe, it's a losing proposition filled with non sequiturs.

Anyhow, the Ridgeline is fun to drive, it goes around turns as in one piece, it just needs bigger brakes. That is its biggest shortcoming, IMHO. As you note, it feels more of a piece than those 6-6 Accords of the mid 00s.

It comes down to balance. It's not all about power, or about the clutch, it comes down how the whole car comes together.

You know, our '14 and '15 iMMD sedans were actually fun to drive at speeds under 60 mph if you used the "power" switch. Our Odysseys too were fun to drive. Heck my 77 Civic CVCC was a blast to drive -no power but aftermarket radial tires...

It's not the power, but how it's put to the ground.

Oh, btw, the Ridgeline on the highway is quite fast. Normally I drive by feel and ear (no CC) but on the truck that offers a range of 75 to 85 mph.. that feels the same. I always catch myself going much faster than I expected. It must be the long wheelbase and overdrive?




Vtec_rally
Profile for Vtec_rally
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-18-2019 22:01
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Interesting notes, I'll have to take a Ridgeline out for a spin next time I'm at the dealer. I can definitely see the structure of the car being tighter, re: platform flex, then a 13 or 14 year old car. I was very impressed with the lack of body flex from the brand new civic I recently had as a loaner for a month. I'd say it was on par with the new C300 Sport Merc I also daily drive. PS that car has the worst engine note ever it sounds like a VW diesel. Though I'm always amazed at the lack of body flex (I'm not referencing the suspension) that my 05 6 & 6 exhibits, and the overall quality of the car after so many years. That's Honda quality and engineering.

For your reference, see CD tests below, the new Ridgeline gets very close to matching the 03 6 & 6 Accord's skidpad rating .82 for the Accord versus .80 for the Ridgeline. The CD link also references the CL Coupe you had, but in manual set-up. They were also perplexed about why the mid 2000's Accord 6 & 6 didn't include the LSD from the CL as both cars share the same transmission.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15134106/honda-accord-coupe-ex-v-6-road-test/

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15100644/2017-honda-ridgeline-awd-test-review/

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-19-2019 01:22
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
RMTRADER wrote:
owequitit wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
owequitit wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
Dren wrote:
Other than the fact my 2016 6-6 was a manual and had a nice engine, it wasn't anything near sporty. It plowed, rolled excessively, and just wasn't fun to drive unless going straight. A rear sway upgrade improved the roll quite a bit. That car could have really benefited from a more Si approach to the suspension and the seats. I was happy to trade it in. I also don't care for the cable link shifters. I much prefer the feedback a linkage shifter gives. My Ridgeline is more fun to drive in the corners.


Our Ridgeline BE is more fun through the corners because it feels stable and the rear end torque vectoring allows you to really tuck the nose in without washing out. The suspension is well tuned. It's limits are actually pretty mind boggling when you see those high profile tires (which oddly help), it's size and shape (*). If only it had up to par brakes.

The Accord 6-6 was a weird car. I suppose if you got used to it and drove it as your only car for a long time you would be fine. But, if you were driving other Honda cars with clutches, and better suspensions, you'd immediately recognize the problem... Accords, by and by, are not sporty Hondas. They may be sporty on the sporty side of Cardom, but there are many other Hondas that ride firmer and have better behavior.

Heck, our Odysseys, specially when we went with replacement Bridgestones (RE750s, EL42s), were really good handling vehicles, with exceptional steering and loud pedal feedback and control. I could toss them into the edge of four wheel drifts and go around turns better than the 6-6 Accord.

The CRVs and RDXs didn't have that. Surprisingly, really. But the RDXs suspensions were much better buttoned down.

Yes, the J30 was an awesome engine and in a straight line, from 5mph and on up the Accord 6-6 was a blast. But if you hit a bump or had to do a turn... the cars was bouncy, the seats did not hold me in place, the steering was overboosted, etc, etc... I never felt comfortable in that car unless I was burning rubber or taking the motor to redline on a freeway merge.

(*) Is this a truck?





Yet again, you have ZERO experience with the Accord in question. And with all do respect to Dren, I had to laugh a little bit. The Accord is not an Si, but it isn't a wallowy turd either. It prefers high speed sweepers over the tight stuff, but once it takes a set, it actually does suprisingly well. About the same as your beloved 2013 Si, with a little more initial movement. Also, the perception of roll is largely in the slipperiness of the seats versus boat level roll.

But your truck is still a 6' tall truck with high CG and high profile, low grip tires, despite how much you want to church it up. It drives nice_for a truck_.



WTF?

I'm writing about the 05 Accord 6-6 which we had for two years and 50K miles.

Have you driven that one?

In fact, have you driven an Accord 6-6? You get to the point where the powertrain overwhelms the chassis.

If you want a good handling Accord, I suggest you try driving a TSX Wagon Tech.

Everything else is a relative barge.

You know, we drive a lot of Honda cars. And we swap them very often.

You might also want to try a Ridgeline with AWD. I believe you'll have to eat your words. It may LOOK like a truck, but underneath it's a unibody, which means it handles MUCH better than ANY body on frame vehicle.

Jeez.








You are talking about an Accord that was over a decade old compared to the car he mentioned. As in they had NOTHING in common except the base V6 design (and even then, the new one is WAAAAAY more powerful and flexible). Yet again, you act like a normal Honda is made of unobtanium. At least the Accord was actually rare, as opposed to the Acura stuff that you always try to pretend I can't walk into a dealership and test drive...

Second, yes, actually I HAVE driven a 7th gen 6-6 coupe. Several in fact. And yes, it was a land barge. But the 9th gen was not. It wasn't an Si, but it was leaps and bounds beyond the 7th gen 6-6. Also, despite the fact that it has an extra 40-50 hp and a lot more torque, the 9th gen puts the power down VASTLY better than that 7th gen 6-6 did. It has bigger tires, wider tires, wider track, lower C.G., firmer suspension, etc. It could still use an LSD and it can spin the tires at will, but it isn't that hard to hook it up either.

Finally, I have driven the Ridgeline. And the Pilot. And the CR-V. They ALL drive like vehicles that have a much higher CG, high profile all season tires, and the Pilot and the Ridgeline especially drive like they are a lot heavier than the Accord. They drive very well _for what they are_ but they are not like a car. There is a day that goes by that I don't run across some numbnuts in a truck (especially some Ridgeline owners of both gens) that thinks they are going to out turn a lowly "Accord" when they are trying to run me over on an on ramp or some other such non-sense. The Ridgeline drives great _for_a_TRUCK.

P.S. The real issue is your constant grandiose claims about whatever it is you have at that second.

P.S.S. As for the TSX wagon, it was woefully underpowered. No thanks.

P.S.S.S. I have an Accord 6-6 sitting in my garage. I came from an 8th gen Si. Of course the Si was more responsive and maneuverable, and had a better initial set, but the Accord really hangs on more than you would expect and it is a lot more neutral that you would expect once you get it set. There is a little more initial roll as a result of its more road friendly tune, and IMO the rear sway is too small, but most of the perception of roll is actually the lack of support from the seats. That said, it actually really likes relatively tight roads with sweeping turns. If only Honda didn't have to neuter Honda because Acura is has become so irrelevant that they can't fully unleash the Honda product.

The last Accord coupe had the same 2 fundamental dynamic shortcomings that EVERY current Honda/Acura product has (save the NSX). ZERO steering feedback and shitty brakes. Honda really needs to get their shit together in the braking department, and they really need to get their shit together in the steering department. I haven't driven a Honda product since the mid-00's that has had decent steering feedback. They haven't gotten their head wrapped around EPS yet.

P.S.S.S.S.S. The HR-V also actually handles pretty well for what you would actually expect, but when it comes down to brass tacks, the Accord will run away from that in corners too. In almost all cases, I find myself slowing down in corners not because the car can't do it, but because it just isn't prudent to do it.



The Civic Type R has shitty steering and brakes?

"the same 2 fundamental dynamic shortcomings that EVERY current Honda/Acura product has (save the NSX). "




Obviously excepting the CTR and NSX...

Which don't really have "Honda" brakes now do they?

That said, yes, anything short of those two products have pretty underwhelming brakes.

FYI, the BACK brakes on a Volvo S60 are about the same size as the biggest FRONT brakes Honda puts on Honda anything.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-19-2019 01:36
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Dren wrote:
Owe is right about the seats in the Accord. Seats with any sort of semblance of side bolsters would help a lot. I slid around all over the place in mine when cornering. A rear sway upgrade helps a lot in that car, so much so that you'd expect a sporty variant to already have it stock. I never could find a good sitting position that was both comfortable and made the clutch easier to operate. In the optimal position to operate the clutch, the steering wheel blocked the speedometer. I'm glad others like them, I didn't. Then again, the least sporty car up to that point that I owned was a Civic Si. It is telling though that I enjoy pushing my Ridgeline through the corners more than the Accord. Yes, it's still a truck, but it is rewarding to drive unlike the Accord was. The only thing rewarding in the Accord was finally getting the hang of the damn clutch pick-up point. I still get to enjoy wringing out that 3.5 in my Ridgeline, too.

I'm pretty sure the MT versions don't have VCM.



For the record, I have fit well in most Hondas. I have no problem finding a good spot that is comfortable and allows me to work the clutch, so maybe you are outside of their statistical design human. That also includes several long trips.

As for the clutch, the delay valve plays a role, but mostly, it seems it the engine's ability to completely overwhelm the clutch, largely because the delay valve is partly preventing it. As for clutch takeup, I didn't find the transition from my 8th gen Si to take more than a few minutes, and it was NOTHING like the travesty that was the 7th gen's clutch takeup, which I stalled 3 times on the test drive.

As for handling, coming straight from the Si (with rear sway bar) to the Accord, I was actually hugely surprised at how it handled when pushed. It does roll a bit initially (you can feel it is mostly the rear suspension), but once it sets, it actually hangs on really well. Even without the rear sway. I also have such shitty tires on it, that I can't even find an outfit that actually sells them (they came on the car when I bought it CPO). I have no doubt that with a good set of tires, it would be far better. That said, I have run it pretty well all over the west where there are plenty of curvy roads, and it actually gets fun to drive beyond about 3 tenths, when it just feels heavier than it really is. Chalk it up to slower steering, or Honda's EPS programming, but when driving "easy" it doesn't feel like it wants to move. Once you start to lean on it though, it goes a lot better than people expect it to. It LOVES high speed sweepers. The biggest dynamic fault is the same as the one I had with the Si. Lack of steering feel. On the Accord, the brakes are also a much bigger letdown (smaller than the '09 Si, in a car that is much faster and quite a bit heavier...)

As for the Ridgeline, I don't disagree that it is a nice truck and drives pretty well for a truck.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-19-2019 01:41
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
TonyEX wrote:
Dren wrote:
Owe is right about the seats in the Accord. Seats with any sort of semblance of side bolsters would help a lot. I slid around all over the place in mine when cornering. A rear sway upgrade helps a lot in that car, so much so that you'd expect a sporty variant to already have it stock. I never could find a good sitting position that was both comfortable and made the clutch easier to operate. In the optimal position to operate the clutch, the steering wheel blocked the speedometer. I'm glad others like them, I didn't. Then again, the least sporty car up to that point that I owned was a Civic Si. It is telling though that I enjoy pushing my Ridgeline through the corners more than the Accord. Yes, it's still a truck, but it is rewarding to drive unlike the Accord was. The only thing rewarding in the Accord was finally getting the hang of the damn clutch pick-up point. I still get to enjoy wringing out that 3.5 in my Ridgeline, too.

I'm pretty sure the MT versions don't have VCM.



I don't want to bother replying to Owe, it's a losing proposition filled with non sequiturs.

Anyhow, the Ridgeline is fun to drive, it goes around turns as in one piece, it just needs bigger brakes. That is its biggest shortcoming, IMHO. As you note, it feels more of a piece than those 6-6 Accords of the mid 00s.

It comes down to balance. It's not all about power, or about the clutch, it comes down how the whole car comes together.

You know, our '14 and '15 iMMD sedans were actually fun to drive at speeds under 60 mph if you used the "power" switch. Our Odysseys too were fun to drive. Heck my 77 Civic CVCC was a blast to drive -no power but aftermarket radial tires...

It's not the power, but how it's put to the ground.

Oh, btw, the Ridgeline on the highway is quite fast. Normally I drive by feel and ear (no CC) but on the truck that offers a range of 75 to 85 mph.. that feels the same. I always catch myself going much faster than I expected. It must be the long wheelbase and overdrive?






Says the guy interjecting non-sequiturs about how easily his Ridgeline can speed because he can't address any of the fundamental root points... Riiiiighhhhht.

We get it Tony, you blast of Lambos and rockets in your Ridgeline because that In 'n Out sticker makes you fast and gives you magical drifting power in the crosswalk at UCLA, while doing burnouts in all directions and showing a Challenger Hellcat what burning rubber really looks like...

Oh, guess how easily my Accord exceeds the speed limit? It would probably have another 20+ MPH left in it if the damn speed limiter would stop kicking in at 136... Oh and guess how easily my "torqueless" K20Z3 powered Si would also smash the limiter at 135? Easier than you think it would.

JeffX
Profile for JeffX
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-19-2019 10:45
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
RMTRADER wrote:
owequitit wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
owequitit wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
Dren wrote:
Other than the fact my 2016 6-6 was a manual and had a nice engine, it wasn't anything near sporty. It plowed, rolled excessively, and just wasn't fun to drive unless going straight. A rear sway upgrade improved the roll quite a bit. That car could have really benefited from a more Si approach to the suspension and the seats. I was happy to trade it in. I also don't care for the cable link shifters. I much prefer the feedback a linkage shifter gives. My Ridgeline is more fun to drive in the corners.


Our Ridgeline BE is more fun through the corners because it feels stable and the rear end torque vectoring allows you to really tuck the nose in without washing out. The suspension is well tuned. It's limits are actually pretty mind boggling when you see those high profile tires (which oddly help), it's size and shape (*). If only it had up to par brakes.

The Accord 6-6 was a weird car. I suppose if you got used to it and drove it as your only car for a long time you would be fine. But, if you were driving other Honda cars with clutches, and better suspensions, you'd immediately recognize the problem... Accords, by and by, are not sporty Hondas. They may be sporty on the sporty side of Cardom, but there are many other Hondas that ride firmer and have better behavior.

Heck, our Odysseys, specially when we went with replacement Bridgestones (RE750s, EL42s), were really good handling vehicles, with exceptional steering and loud pedal feedback and control. I could toss them into the edge of four wheel drifts and go around turns better than the 6-6 Accord.

The CRVs and RDXs didn't have that. Surprisingly, really. But the RDXs suspensions were much better buttoned down.

Yes, the J30 was an awesome engine and in a straight line, from 5mph and on up the Accord 6-6 was a blast. But if you hit a bump or had to do a turn... the cars was bouncy, the seats did not hold me in place, the steering was overboosted, etc, etc... I never felt comfortable in that car unless I was burning rubber or taking the motor to redline on a freeway merge.

(*) Is this a truck?





Yet again, you have ZERO experience with the Accord in question. And with all do respect to Dren, I had to laugh a little bit. The Accord is not an Si, but it isn't a wallowy turd either. It prefers high speed sweepers over the tight stuff, but once it takes a set, it actually does suprisingly well. About the same as your beloved 2013 Si, with a little more initial movement. Also, the perception of roll is largely in the slipperiness of the seats versus boat level roll.

But your truck is still a 6' tall truck with high CG and high profile, low grip tires, despite how much you want to church it up. It drives nice_for a truck_.



WTF?

I'm writing about the 05 Accord 6-6 which we had for two years and 50K miles.

Have you driven that one?

In fact, have you driven an Accord 6-6? You get to the point where the powertrain overwhelms the chassis.

If you want a good handling Accord, I suggest you try driving a TSX Wagon Tech.

Everything else is a relative barge.

You know, we drive a lot of Honda cars. And we swap them very often.

You might also want to try a Ridgeline with AWD. I believe you'll have to eat your words. It may LOOK like a truck, but underneath it's a unibody, which means it handles MUCH better than ANY body on frame vehicle.

Jeez.








You are talking about an Accord that was over a decade old compared to the car he mentioned. As in they had NOTHING in common except the base V6 design (and even then, the new one is WAAAAAY more powerful and flexible). Yet again, you act like a normal Honda is made of unobtanium. At least the Accord was actually rare, as opposed to the Acura stuff that you always try to pretend I can't walk into a dealership and test drive...

Second, yes, actually I HAVE driven a 7th gen 6-6 coupe. Several in fact. And yes, it was a land barge. But the 9th gen was not. It wasn't an Si, but it was leaps and bounds beyond the 7th gen 6-6. Also, despite the fact that it has an extra 40-50 hp and a lot more torque, the 9th gen puts the power down VASTLY better than that 7th gen 6-6 did. It has bigger tires, wider tires, wider track, lower C.G., firmer suspension, etc. It could still use an LSD and it can spin the tires at will, but it isn't that hard to hook it up either.

Finally, I have driven the Ridgeline. And the Pilot. And the CR-V. They ALL drive like vehicles that have a much higher CG, high profile all season tires, and the Pilot and the Ridgeline especially drive like they are a lot heavier than the Accord. They drive very well _for what they are_ but they are not like a car. There is a day that goes by that I don't run across some numbnuts in a truck (especially some Ridgeline owners of both gens) that thinks they are going to out turn a lowly "Accord" when they are trying to run me over on an on ramp or some other such non-sense. The Ridgeline drives great _for_a_TRUCK.

P.S. The real issue is your constant grandiose claims about whatever it is you have at that second.

P.S.S. As for the TSX wagon, it was woefully underpowered. No thanks.

P.S.S.S. I have an Accord 6-6 sitting in my garage. I came from an 8th gen Si. Of course the Si was more responsive and maneuverable, and had a better initial set, but the Accord really hangs on more than you would expect and it is a lot more neutral that you would expect once you get it set. There is a little more initial roll as a result of its more road friendly tune, and IMO the rear sway is too small, but most of the perception of roll is actually the lack of support from the seats. That said, it actually really likes relatively tight roads with sweeping turns. If only Honda didn't have to neuter Honda because Acura is has become so irrelevant that they can't fully unleash the Honda product.

The last Accord coupe had the same 2 fundamental dynamic shortcomings that EVERY current Honda/Acura product has (save the NSX). ZERO steering feedback and shitty brakes. Honda really needs to get their shit together in the braking department, and they really need to get their shit together in the steering department. I haven't driven a Honda product since the mid-00's that has had decent steering feedback. They haven't gotten their head wrapped around EPS yet.

P.S.S.S.S.S. The HR-V also actually handles pretty well for what you would actually expect, but when it comes down to brass tacks, the Accord will run away from that in corners too. In almost all cases, I find myself slowing down in corners not because the car can't do it, but because it just isn't prudent to do it.



The Civic Type R has shitty steering and brakes?

"the same 2 fundamental dynamic shortcomings that EVERY current Honda/Acura product has (save the NSX). "




Obviously excepting the CTR and NSX...

Which don't really have "Honda" brakes now do they?

That said, yes, anything short of those two products have pretty underwhelming brakes.

FYI, the BACK brakes on a Volvo S60 are about the same size as the biggest FRONT brakes Honda puts on Honda anything.



Actually the brakes on our 2016 CR-V are quite good. I haven't really pushed them hard on our new one yet but they feel about the same otherwise. I don't know if it's because it's a "global" product with lots of sales in Europe or whatever, but they are definitely up to the task.

Dren
Profile for Dren
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-19-2019 12:20
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
For the record, I have fit well in most Hondas. I have no problem finding a good spot that is comfortable and allows me to work the clutch, so maybe you are outside of their statistical design human. That also includes several long trips.



I've fit well in every Honda I've owned. For me to operate the clutch reasonably well, I was seated further back and lower than normal so I had less bend in my knee. I'm 6'-2", but don't have overly long legs. I think it was just an ease of clutch operation for me.

NSXman
Profile for NSXman
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-19-2019 16:14
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Curious the general gripe with brakes here. Are people generally discontented with the stopping power of Honda brakes or the durability? I've had my MDX for a year and have had the rotors resurfaced once. Durability I can see. But of the Hondas/Acuras I've owned, which have been 10, I have never thought they were severely incapable of stopping the car.

I realize that the publications say Hondas take a few more feet to stop in many cases in comparisons, but the "seat of the pants" feel to me has been fine. If I have to keep resurfacing rotors every 15,000 miles, that would be unfortunate.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-20-2019 00:35
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
JeffX wrote:
owequitit wrote:
RMTRADER wrote:
owequitit wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
owequitit wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
Dren wrote:
Other than the fact my 2016 6-6 was a manual and had a nice engine, it wasn't anything near sporty. It plowed, rolled excessively, and just wasn't fun to drive unless going straight. A rear sway upgrade improved the roll quite a bit. That car could have really benefited from a more Si approach to the suspension and the seats. I was happy to trade it in. I also don't care for the cable link shifters. I much prefer the feedback a linkage shifter gives. My Ridgeline is more fun to drive in the corners.


Our Ridgeline BE is more fun through the corners because it feels stable and the rear end torque vectoring allows you to really tuck the nose in without washing out. The suspension is well tuned. It's limits are actually pretty mind boggling when you see those high profile tires (which oddly help), it's size and shape (*). If only it had up to par brakes.

The Accord 6-6 was a weird car. I suppose if you got used to it and drove it as your only car for a long time you would be fine. But, if you were driving other Honda cars with clutches, and better suspensions, you'd immediately recognize the problem... Accords, by and by, are not sporty Hondas. They may be sporty on the sporty side of Cardom, but there are many other Hondas that ride firmer and have better behavior.

Heck, our Odysseys, specially when we went with replacement Bridgestones (RE750s, EL42s), were really good handling vehicles, with exceptional steering and loud pedal feedback and control. I could toss them into the edge of four wheel drifts and go around turns better than the 6-6 Accord.

The CRVs and RDXs didn't have that. Surprisingly, really. But the RDXs suspensions were much better buttoned down.

Yes, the J30 was an awesome engine and in a straight line, from 5mph and on up the Accord 6-6 was a blast. But if you hit a bump or had to do a turn... the cars was bouncy, the seats did not hold me in place, the steering was overboosted, etc, etc... I never felt comfortable in that car unless I was burning rubber or taking the motor to redline on a freeway merge.

(*) Is this a truck?





Yet again, you have ZERO experience with the Accord in question. And with all do respect to Dren, I had to laugh a little bit. The Accord is not an Si, but it isn't a wallowy turd either. It prefers high speed sweepers over the tight stuff, but once it takes a set, it actually does suprisingly well. About the same as your beloved 2013 Si, with a little more initial movement. Also, the perception of roll is largely in the slipperiness of the seats versus boat level roll.

But your truck is still a 6' tall truck with high CG and high profile, low grip tires, despite how much you want to church it up. It drives nice_for a truck_.



WTF?

I'm writing about the 05 Accord 6-6 which we had for two years and 50K miles.

Have you driven that one?

In fact, have you driven an Accord 6-6? You get to the point where the powertrain overwhelms the chassis.

If you want a good handling Accord, I suggest you try driving a TSX Wagon Tech.

Everything else is a relative barge.

You know, we drive a lot of Honda cars. And we swap them very often.

You might also want to try a Ridgeline with AWD. I believe you'll have to eat your words. It may LOOK like a truck, but underneath it's a unibody, which means it handles MUCH better than ANY body on frame vehicle.

Jeez.








You are talking about an Accord that was over a decade old compared to the car he mentioned. As in they had NOTHING in common except the base V6 design (and even then, the new one is WAAAAAY more powerful and flexible). Yet again, you act like a normal Honda is made of unobtanium. At least the Accord was actually rare, as opposed to the Acura stuff that you always try to pretend I can't walk into a dealership and test drive...

Second, yes, actually I HAVE driven a 7th gen 6-6 coupe. Several in fact. And yes, it was a land barge. But the 9th gen was not. It wasn't an Si, but it was leaps and bounds beyond the 7th gen 6-6. Also, despite the fact that it has an extra 40-50 hp and a lot more torque, the 9th gen puts the power down VASTLY better than that 7th gen 6-6 did. It has bigger tires, wider tires, wider track, lower C.G., firmer suspension, etc. It could still use an LSD and it can spin the tires at will, but it isn't that hard to hook it up either.

Finally, I have driven the Ridgeline. And the Pilot. And the CR-V. They ALL drive like vehicles that have a much higher CG, high profile all season tires, and the Pilot and the Ridgeline especially drive like they are a lot heavier than the Accord. They drive very well _for what they are_ but they are not like a car. There is a day that goes by that I don't run across some numbnuts in a truck (especially some Ridgeline owners of both gens) that thinks they are going to out turn a lowly "Accord" when they are trying to run me over on an on ramp or some other such non-sense. The Ridgeline drives great _for_a_TRUCK.

P.S. The real issue is your constant grandiose claims about whatever it is you have at that second.

P.S.S. As for the TSX wagon, it was woefully underpowered. No thanks.

P.S.S.S. I have an Accord 6-6 sitting in my garage. I came from an 8th gen Si. Of course the Si was more responsive and maneuverable, and had a better initial set, but the Accord really hangs on more than you would expect and it is a lot more neutral that you would expect once you get it set. There is a little more initial roll as a result of its more road friendly tune, and IMO the rear sway is too small, but most of the perception of roll is actually the lack of support from the seats. That said, it actually really likes relatively tight roads with sweeping turns. If only Honda didn't have to neuter Honda because Acura is has become so irrelevant that they can't fully unleash the Honda product.

The last Accord coupe had the same 2 fundamental dynamic shortcomings that EVERY current Honda/Acura product has (save the NSX). ZERO steering feedback and shitty brakes. Honda really needs to get their shit together in the braking department, and they really need to get their shit together in the steering department. I haven't driven a Honda product since the mid-00's that has had decent steering feedback. They haven't gotten their head wrapped around EPS yet.

P.S.S.S.S.S. The HR-V also actually handles pretty well for what you would actually expect, but when it comes down to brass tacks, the Accord will run away from that in corners too. In almost all cases, I find myself slowing down in corners not because the car can't do it, but because it just isn't prudent to do it.



The Civic Type R has shitty steering and brakes?

"the same 2 fundamental dynamic shortcomings that EVERY current Honda/Acura product has (save the NSX). "




Obviously excepting the CTR and NSX...

Which don't really have "Honda" brakes now do they?

That said, yes, anything short of those two products have pretty underwhelming brakes.

FYI, the BACK brakes on a Volvo S60 are about the same size as the biggest FRONT brakes Honda puts on Honda anything.



Actually the brakes on our 2016 CR-V are quite good. I haven't really pushed them hard on our new one yet but they feel about the same otherwise. I don't know if it's because it's a "global" product with lots of sales in Europe or whatever, but they are definitely up to the task.



It seems like post 2013 is a LITTLE better, but we are still having persistent rotor warping/deposit issues, so maybe Honda slightly improved the pad formulation. Despite its smaller brakes, our 2013 Accord has had 2 resurfaces in ~70K miles versus 2 in 36K miles like our 2009 did. I do also notice a little more dust though.

It seems like Honda did a double whammy by keeping the rotors small (they have pretty much always been on the "small" side) but then really sealed the deal with the brake pad compounds.

We haven't had any issues with the HR-V yet either, but it only has around 20K miles on it, and it is interesting to note that the brakes are identical to both of our 2013 Accord V6's which have double the power and are carrying an extra 400lbs or so. Oddly, the brakes on the HR-V appear to be LARGER than the current CR-V. Again, I notice more dust with these, so maybe Honda has reformulated the pads.

All I know is that starting with our 2005 Accord, we have had persistent issues with brake wear, warping/pad deposits, and fade if you need more than about 1 panic stop from them.

I just find it odd that the Accord, Pilot, Odyssey, Ridgeline, etc have had pretty widespread brake complaints. Most dealers acknowledge the problem too.


owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-20-2019 00:45
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Dren wrote:
owequitit wrote:
For the record, I have fit well in most Hondas. I have no problem finding a good spot that is comfortable and allows me to work the clutch, so maybe you are outside of their statistical design human. That also includes several long trips.



I've fit well in every Honda I've owned. For me to operate the clutch reasonably well, I was seated further back and lower than normal so I had less bend in my knee. I'm 6'-2", but don't have overly long legs. I think it was just an ease of clutch operation for me.



To be fair, I really liked the driving position of the Si (as well was the interior, and even the exterior (even though it is basically the same goods as the Sport). But I didn't like the super high clutch point on that one, nor did I like the flypaper weighting of it. I find the Accord's position and clutch take up to be more natural, but that is just me.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-20-2019 00:52
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NSXman wrote:
Curious the general gripe with brakes here. Are people generally discontented with the stopping power of Honda brakes or the durability? I've had my MDX for a year and have had the rotors resurfaced once. Durability I can see. But of the Hondas/Acuras I've owned, which have been 10, I have never thought they were severely incapable of stopping the car.

I realize that the publications say Hondas take a few more feet to stop in many cases in comparisons, but the "seat of the pants" feel to me has been fine. If I have to keep resurfacing rotors every 15,000 miles, that would be unfortunate.


A bit of both to be honest. Consider that most of the measured stopping distances on some of the previous Accords were bordering on 190-200 feet from 70MPH. Further, consider that in some cases, Honda was trailing by anything between 10-20 feet, which is really more than one car length. Not an insignificant amount. It has also been an issue with them giving up the ghost after 1 or 2 hard stops in some cases, or at least starting to shimmy really bad.

But then there is the resurfacing issue, which I personally think is linked more to pads than anything else.

JeffX
Profile for JeffX
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-20-2019 10:26
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
JeffX wrote:
owequitit wrote:
RMTRADER wrote:
owequitit wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
owequitit wrote:
TonyEX wrote:
Dren wrote:
Other than the fact my 2016 6-6 was a manual and had a nice engine, it wasn't anything near sporty. It plowed, rolled excessively, and just wasn't fun to drive unless going straight. A rear sway upgrade improved the roll quite a bit. That car could have really benefited from a more Si approach to the suspension and the seats. I was happy to trade it in. I also don't care for the cable link shifters. I much prefer the feedback a linkage shifter gives. My Ridgeline is more fun to drive in the corners.


Our Ridgeline BE is more fun through the corners because it feels stable and the rear end torque vectoring allows you to really tuck the nose in without washing out. The suspension is well tuned. It's limits are actually pretty mind boggling when you see those high profile tires (which oddly help), it's size and shape (*). If only it had up to par brakes.

The Accord 6-6 was a weird car. I suppose if you got used to it and drove it as your only car for a long time you would be fine. But, if you were driving other Honda cars with clutches, and better suspensions, you'd immediately recognize the problem... Accords, by and by, are not sporty Hondas. They may be sporty on the sporty side of Cardom, but there are many other Hondas that ride firmer and have better behavior.

Heck, our Odysseys, specially when we went with replacement Bridgestones (RE750s, EL42s), were really good handling vehicles, with exceptional steering and loud pedal feedback and control. I could toss them into the edge of four wheel drifts and go around turns better than the 6-6 Accord.

The CRVs and RDXs didn't have that. Surprisingly, really. But the RDXs suspensions were much better buttoned down.

Yes, the J30 was an awesome engine and in a straight line, from 5mph and on up the Accord 6-6 was a blast. But if you hit a bump or had to do a turn... the cars was bouncy, the seats did not hold me in place, the steering was overboosted, etc, etc... I never felt comfortable in that car unless I was burning rubber or taking the motor to redline on a freeway merge.

(*) Is this a truck?





Yet again, you have ZERO experience with the Accord in question. And with all do respect to Dren, I had to laugh a little bit. The Accord is not an Si, but it isn't a wallowy turd either. It prefers high speed sweepers over the tight stuff, but once it takes a set, it actually does suprisingly well. About the same as your beloved 2013 Si, with a little more initial movement. Also, the perception of roll is largely in the slipperiness of the seats versus boat level roll.

But your truck is still a 6' tall truck with high CG and high profile, low grip tires, despite how much you want to church it up. It drives nice_for a truck_.



WTF?

I'm writing about the 05 Accord 6-6 which we had for two years and 50K miles.

Have you driven that one?

In fact, have you driven an Accord 6-6? You get to the point where the powertrain overwhelms the chassis.

If you want a good handling Accord, I suggest you try driving a TSX Wagon Tech.

Everything else is a relative barge.

You know, we drive a lot of Honda cars. And we swap them very often.

You might also want to try a Ridgeline with AWD. I believe you'll have to eat your words. It may LOOK like a truck, but underneath it's a unibody, which means it handles MUCH better than ANY body on frame vehicle.

Jeez.








You are talking about an Accord that was over a decade old compared to the car he mentioned. As in they had NOTHING in common except the base V6 design (and even then, the new one is WAAAAAY more powerful and flexible). Yet again, you act like a normal Honda is made of unobtanium. At least the Accord was actually rare, as opposed to the Acura stuff that you always try to pretend I can't walk into a dealership and test drive...

Second, yes, actually I HAVE driven a 7th gen 6-6 coupe. Several in fact. And yes, it was a land barge. But the 9th gen was not. It wasn't an Si, but it was leaps and bounds beyond the 7th gen 6-6. Also, despite the fact that it has an extra 40-50 hp and a lot more torque, the 9th gen puts the power down VASTLY better than that 7th gen 6-6 did. It has bigger tires, wider tires, wider track, lower C.G., firmer suspension, etc. It could still use an LSD and it can spin the tires at will, but it isn't that hard to hook it up either.

Finally, I have driven the Ridgeline. And the Pilot. And the CR-V. They ALL drive like vehicles that have a much higher CG, high profile all season tires, and the Pilot and the Ridgeline especially drive like they are a lot heavier than the Accord. They drive very well _for what they are_ but they are not like a car. There is a day that goes by that I don't run across some numbnuts in a truck (especially some Ridgeline owners of both gens) that thinks they are going to out turn a lowly "Accord" when they are trying to run me over on an on ramp or some other such non-sense. The Ridgeline drives great _for_a_TRUCK.

P.S. The real issue is your constant grandiose claims about whatever it is you have at that second.

P.S.S. As for the TSX wagon, it was woefully underpowered. No thanks.

P.S.S.S. I have an Accord 6-6 sitting in my garage. I came from an 8th gen Si. Of course the Si was more responsive and maneuverable, and had a better initial set, but the Accord really hangs on more than you would expect and it is a lot more neutral that you would expect once you get it set. There is a little more initial roll as a result of its more road friendly tune, and IMO the rear sway is too small, but most of the perception of roll is actually the lack of support from the seats. That said, it actually really likes relatively tight roads with sweeping turns. If only Honda didn't have to neuter Honda because Acura is has become so irrelevant that they can't fully unleash the Honda product.

The last Accord coupe had the same 2 fundamental dynamic shortcomings that EVERY current Honda/Acura product has (save the NSX). ZERO steering feedback and shitty brakes. Honda really needs to get their shit together in the braking department, and they really need to get their shit together in the steering department. I haven't driven a Honda product since the mid-00's that has had decent steering feedback. They haven't gotten their head wrapped around EPS yet.

P.S.S.S.S.S. The HR-V also actually handles pretty well for what you would actually expect, but when it comes down to brass tacks, the Accord will run away from that in corners too. In almost all cases, I find myself slowing down in corners not because the car can't do it, but because it just isn't prudent to do it.



The Civic Type R has shitty steering and brakes?

"the same 2 fundamental dynamic shortcomings that EVERY current Honda/Acura product has (save the NSX). "




Obviously excepting the CTR and NSX...

Which don't really have "Honda" brakes now do they?

That said, yes, anything short of those two products have pretty underwhelming brakes.

FYI, the BACK brakes on a Volvo S60 are about the same size as the biggest FRONT brakes Honda puts on Honda anything.



Actually the brakes on our 2016 CR-V are quite good. I haven't really pushed them hard on our new one yet but they feel about the same otherwise. I don't know if it's because it's a "global" product with lots of sales in Europe or whatever, but they are definitely up to the task.



It seems like post 2013 is a LITTLE better, but we are still having persistent rotor warping/deposit issues, so maybe Honda slightly improved the pad formulation. Despite its smaller brakes, our 2013 Accord has had 2 resurfaces in ~70K miles versus 2 in 36K miles like our 2009 did. I do also notice a little more dust though.

It seems like Honda did a double whammy by keeping the rotors small (they have pretty much always been on the "small" side) but then really sealed the deal with the brake pad compounds.

We haven't had any issues with the HR-V yet either, but it only has around 20K miles on it, and it is interesting to note that the brakes are identical to both of our 2013 Accord V6's which have double the power and are carrying an extra 400lbs or so. Oddly, the brakes on the HR-V appear to be LARGER than the current CR-V. Again, I notice more dust with these, so maybe Honda has reformulated the pads.

All I know is that starting with our 2005 Accord, we have had persistent issues with brake wear, warping/pad deposits, and fade if you need more than about 1 panic stop from them.

I just find it odd that the Accord, Pilot, Odyssey, Ridgeline, etc have had pretty widespread brake complaints. Most dealers acknowledge the problem too.




first gen ridgeline brakes were fine. 2nd gen they downsized them but I didn't really have a problem with them. I imagine they might get too hot if the thing is fully loaded and you need to stop in a hurry, though.

The brakes on our Odyssey were sub-par, IMHO. And as you mention, a lot of previous Accords seem to be a little light in the braking hardware even for spirited street driving, though they slightly upsized brakes on my Accord Sport never gave me any problems.

I think in general, the braking system on the 10th gen Civics is pretty good. Obviously they're incredible on the CTR. On the street, the Si brakes are fine but hard track use will show their limitations. Hopefully the 10th gen Accord benefitted as well.

Design
Profile for Design
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-20-2019 13:56
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NSXman wrote:
Curious the general gripe with brakes here. Are people generally discontented with the stopping power of Honda brakes or the durability? I've had my MDX for a year and have had the rotors resurfaced once. Durability I can see. But of the Hondas/Acuras I've owned, which have been 10, I have never thought they were severely incapable of stopping the car.

I realize that the publications say Hondas take a few more feet to stop in many cases in comparisons, but the "seat of the pants" feel to me has been fine. If I have to keep resurfacing rotors every 15,000 miles, that would be unfortunate.



My only issue with the 10th Gen Si is an inconsistency in the transfer between the pad and rotor. Every once in a while, I get some vibrations under light to moderate braking. And a couple heavy braking cycles seems to clear the issue. I believe Jeff encountered a similar issue with his Si.

The Si's brake fade is a real issue under repeated hot laps. So much that Honda upgraded the pads for preproduction test drives with the media.

superchg2
Profile for superchg2
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-20-2019 15:04
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Design wrote:
NSXman wrote:
Curious the general gripe with brakes here. Are people generally discontented with the stopping power of Honda brakes or the durability? I've had my MDX for a year and have had the rotors resurfaced once. Durability I can see. But of the Hondas/Acuras I've owned, which have been 10, I have never thought they were severely incapable of stopping the car.

I realize that the publications say Hondas take a few more feet to stop in many cases in comparisons, but the "seat of the pants" feel to me has been fine. If I have to keep resurfacing rotors every 15,000 miles, that would be unfortunate.



My only issue with the 10th Gen Si is an inconsistency in the transfer between the pad and rotor. Every once in a while, I get some vibrations under light to moderate braking. And a couple heavy braking cycles seems to clear the issue. I believe Jeff encountered a similar issue with his Si.

The Si's brake fade is a real issue under repeated hot laps. So much that Honda upgraded the pads for preproduction test drives with the media.


Surprisingly, I've had no issues with the brakes on my 8th Gen Si, still on the originals at 85K and 13 years, and the rotors look good.

But then again, we are talking about street driving.


TonyEX
Profile for TonyEX
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-20-2019 20:25
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Vtec_rally wrote:
Interesting notes, I'll have to take a Ridgeline out for a spin next time I'm at the dealer. I can definitely see the structure of the car being tighter, re: platform flex, then a 13 or 14 year old car. I was very impressed with the lack of body flex from the brand new civic I recently had as a loaner for a month. I'd say it was on par with the new C300 Sport Merc I also daily drive. PS that car has the worst engine note ever it sounds like a VW diesel. Though I'm always amazed at the lack of body flex (I'm not referencing the suspension) that my 05 6 & 6 exhibits, and the overall quality of the car after so many years. That's Honda quality and engineering.

For your reference, see CD tests below, the new Ridgeline gets very close to matching the 03 6 & 6 Accord's skidpad rating .82 for the Accord versus .80 for the Ridgeline. The CD link also references the CL Coupe you had, but in manual set-up. They were also perplexed about why the mid 2000's Accord 6 & 6 didn't include the LSD from the CL as both cars share the same transmission.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15134106/honda-accord-coupe-ex-v-6-road-test/

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15100644/2017-honda-ridgeline-awd-test-review/



We really wanted the CL 6-6 with LSD but they were impossible to order, same thing with the TL 6-6... they were simply sold out from the factory production.

I think the Accords of the era were half attempts.

Yeah, the Ridgeline can be fun. ;-)


TonyEX
Profile for TonyEX
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-20-2019 20:36
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Brakes on the smaller Honda cars seem to do fine: Civics, CRX, Integras, RDX, Prelude, CRVs even the RDX -most of the time. The older, smaller Accords too seemed fine.

However, in the larger, mostly V6 powered cars the brakes tend to be underwhelming.

(Note, our TLs, CLs and TLX were mostly fine.... well the first gen 3.0CL was weird. in its own way).

Our long highway trips involved long stretches over mountainous roads, where the brakes can easily overheat on the downhills. The Odysseys used to do fine, but the Ridgeline is an issue. Our RDX uses to do funny things too going down on the North descent of the Shiskiyou Pass on the I5. Also, on the downhills around the Grapevine.

But, the Ridgeline takes the cup. It really, REALLY needs more braking power. Just in normal driving, when someone hit the brakes in front of me, I felt like I was going to run into them.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-20-2019 20:52
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
JeffX wrote:

first gen ridgeline brakes were fine. 2nd gen they downsized them but I didn't really have a problem with them. I imagine they might get too hot if the thing is fully loaded and you need to stop in a hurry, though.

The brakes on our Odyssey were sub-par, IMHO. And as you mention, a lot of previous Accords seem to be a little light in the braking hardware even for spirited street driving, though they slightly upsized brakes on my Accord Sport never gave me any problems.

I think in general, the braking system on the 10th gen Civics is pretty good. Obviously they're incredible on the CTR. On the street, the Si brakes are fine but hard track use will show their limitations. Hopefully the 10th gen Accord benefitted as well.


I was doing some research on what I wanted to do with the brakes on my 2013 6-6 Coupe and I figured out a couple of things.

First, almost every Honda car uses the same 11.1" rear disc and the caliper is pretty much the same as every rear disc Honda back to at least 1990 (They are basically the same rear pad set as my 1990 Accord). It seems the big SUV's and trucks have a 13" rear disc, but I am unsure of the calipers. They do have a 10.2" rear brake they use on the smaller cars.

Then they have several front brake "packages" they seem to be using.

They have their 11.1" kit on cars like the Civic and CR-V with the 10.2" rears. They have an 11.5"/11.1" front rear package on "regular Accords" and they have a 12.3"/11.1" front/rear package on the higher performance cars like the Si and Accord Sport. I believe this is pretty similar to the setup that was on all MMC 9th gen Accords with the 19" wheels (they seem to have come with the wheel package vs the power level because most of the V6's still had 11.5" brakes).

They also have a 12.6"/13.0" Front/Rear setup on the larger SUV's like the Pilot/Passport/Ridgeline. I believe some models of TLX use 12.6" front/11.1" rear, but I haven't looked at Acura beyond that.

Honda has sort of been downgrading brake size again, undoubtedly to chase every last ounce of MPG as the current CR-V actually has SMALLER brakes than the HR-V, which seems silly to me.

When I looked at options, it seems your Accord Sport got 12.3" fronts and 11.1" rears, as well as an upgraded master cylinder. I thought about swapping that into mine, but honestly, I am just going to put better rotors and pads on it and call it a day, and then when I get rid of it in a few years, I will just find something that has better brakes from the factory. Plus, I still suspect that the rumors of the "shimmy" being caused by pad material are likely true, which is why "burning" the brakes off with hard stopping provides temporary relief from the problem.

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect to take my bone stock Accord to the track and be able to lap it without issue (which was validated to be unlikely by C&D's Lightening lap test of the 2.0T Sport), but it would be nice to be able to do a lot of descending on a hill when loaded or more than one or two panic stops before they start to vanish. Plus, there have been other times where you need a panic stop and it just seems marginal (even with "padded" following distances).

I get why they do it, but IMO, brakes are pretty much the #1 safety feature, so it is surprising to see them so undersized in some cases.


TonyEX
Profile for TonyEX
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-20-2019 22:54
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
TonyEX wrote:
Brakes on the smaller Honda cars seem to do fine: Civics, CRX, Integras, RDX, Prelude, CRVs even the RDX -most of the time. The older, smaller Accords too seemed fine.

However, in the larger, mostly V6 powered cars the brakes tend to be underwhelming.

(Note, our TLs, CLs and TLX were mostly fine.... well the first gen 3.0CL was weird. in its own way).

Our long highway trips involved long stretches over mountainous roads, where the brakes can easily overheat on the downhills. The Odysseys used to do fine, but the Ridgeline is an issue. Our RDX uses to do funny things too going down on the North descent of the Shiskiyou Pass on the I5. Also, on the downhills around the Grapevine.

But, the Ridgeline takes the cup. It really, REALLY needs more braking power. Just in normal driving, when someone hit the brakes in front of me, I felt like I was going to run into them.



I should not the TSX wagons were fine too.

Perhaps they use better brakes in the Acuras than in the Hondas?

Grace141
Profile for Grace141
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-21-2019 07:56
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NSXman wrote:
Curious the general gripe with brakes here. Are people generally discontented with the stopping power of Honda brakes or the durability? I've had my MDX for a year and have had the rotors resurfaced once. Durability I can see. But of the Hondas/Acuras I've owned, which have been 10, I have never thought they were severely incapable of stopping the car.

I realize that the publications say Hondas take a few more feet to stop in many cases in comparisons, but the "seat of the pants" feel to me has been fine. If I have to keep resurfacing rotors every 15,000 miles, that would be unfortunate.


If my memory is correct, you have a 3rd generation MDX which I'd assume has the same front brake rotors having ventilation slots at the rotor hats as those on our MDX. Zero brake problems with ours thus far in 60k miles but the pedal travel has been long since it was new. I haven't had to do a full panic stop with the car so I can't say how the brakes do closer to the limit. I can see why people might think the MDX/Pilot/Odyssey brakes take longer distances to stop the cars.

NSXman
Profile for NSXman
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-21-2019 14:36
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Is some of this due to the fact some Hondas have been under tired over the years?
NSXman
Profile for NSXman
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-21-2019 14:37
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
NSXman wrote:
Curious the general gripe with brakes here. Are people generally discontented with the stopping power of Honda brakes or the durability? I've had my MDX for a year and have had the rotors resurfaced once. Durability I can see. But of the Hondas/Acuras I've owned, which have been 10, I have never thought they were severely incapable of stopping the car.

I realize that the publications say Hondas take a few more feet to stop in many cases in comparisons, but the "seat of the pants" feel to me has been fine. If I have to keep resurfacing rotors every 15,000 miles, that would be unfortunate.


A bit of both to be honest. Consider that most of the measured stopping distances on some of the previous Accords were bordering on 190-200 feet from 70MPH. Further, consider that in some cases, Honda was trailing by anything between 10-20 feet, which is really more than one car length. Not an insignificant amount. It has also been an issue with them giving up the ghost after 1 or 2 hard stops in some cases, or at least starting to shimmy really bad.

But then there is the resurfacing issue, which I personally think is linked more to pads than anything else.



Is some of this due to the fact some Hondas have been under tired over the years?

NSXman
Profile for NSXman
Re: I chose the Si over the GTI    (Score: 1, Normal) 03-21-2019 16:48
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
NSXman wrote:
owequitit wrote:
NSXman wrote:
Curious the general gripe with brakes here. Are people generally discontented with the stopping power of Honda brakes or the durability? I've had my MDX for a year and have had the rotors resurfaced once. Durability I can see. But of the Hondas/Acuras I've owned, which have been 10, I have never thought they were severely incapable of stopping the car.

I realize that the publications say Hondas take a few more feet to stop in many cases in comparisons, but the "seat of the pants" feel to me has been fine. If I have to keep resurfacing rotors every 15,000 miles, that would be unfortunate.


A bit of both to be honest. Consider that most of the measured stopping distances on some of the previous Accords were bordering on 190-200 feet from 70MPH. Further, consider that in some cases, Honda was trailing by anything between 10-20 feet, which is really more than one car length. Not an insignificant amount. It has also been an issue with them giving up the ghost after 1 or 2 hard stops in some cases, or at least starting to shimmy really bad.

But then there is the resurfacing issue, which I personally think is linked more to pads than anything else.



Is some of this due to the fact some Hondas have been under tired over the years?



To be specific, I am talking about very conservative tires causing longer stopping distances.


 
Thread Page - 1 [2] 3
Go to:
Contact TOV | Submit Your Article | Submit Your Link | Advertise | TOV Shop | Events | Our Sponsors | TOV Archives
Copyright © 2018 Velocitech Inc. All information contained herein remains the property of Velocitech Inc.
The Temple of VTEC is not affiliated with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TOV Policies and Guidelines - Credits - Privacy Policy
29 mobile: 0