[melchor1106]

We have a 2004 Accord with a 3.0 liter v6. We also have a 2010 Crosstour with a 3.5 liter v6.

The 3.0 liter v6 makes 240 hp at 6,250 rpm and 212 lb-ft of torque at 5,000 rpm. The 3.0 liter v6 powers an accord sedan that weighs aprox 3,217 pounds.

The 3.5 liter v6 makes 271 hp at 6,100 rpm and 254 lb-ft of torque at 5,000 rpm. The 3.5 liter v6 powers a Crosstour 4wd that weighs aprox 4,070 pounds.

The accord sedan has an automatic transmission. With me driving it, and using a digital stop watch, I can consistently achieve a 0 to 60 time of somewhere between 6.5 and 7.8 seconds. The air temp, humidity, and engine tune conditions varied during the six years I’ve tested. The faster times always came in the winters on cold dry days.

The Crosstour also has an automatic transmission. With me driving it, and using a digital stop watch, I can consistently achieve a 0 to 60 time of somewhere between 7.9 and 8.7 seconds. Air temp has always been hot and the humidity has always been high. (I’ve only had the CT since August 4)

Both vehicles do OK with 0 to 60 runs. Heck, who can really complain about a 4wd drive station wagon that hits 60MPH in less than 8 seconds! However, I do feel that the sedan performs better in passing situations. When I press the gas, it simply jumps out. Yet with the Crosstour, it lags a bit until the rpm’s build. I wonder if that “lag” in the Crosstour is because of the cylinder deactivation system or because of the added weight? Or both?

What are your thoughts?

 

[melchor1106]

BTW, my sabre 1100cc weighs approx 583 pounds and with the engine mods, makes about 72 hp and 80 lb-ft of torque. It can get to 60MPH in a little over 4 seconds. BUT the airconditioning is poor, and it leaks when it rains.

 

[Army Dad]

BTW, my sabre 1100cc weighs approx 583 pounds and with the engine mods, makes about 72 hp and 80 lb-ft of torque. It can get to 60MPH in a little over 4 seconds. BUT the airconditioning is poor, and it leaks when it rains.

Roger dodger on the rain issue. My guess on the cars is the weight difference. Also the 3.0 may have a shorter stroke, going way back to the 60's, 70's, the shorter stroke engines were usually better off the line. Probably doesn't apply these days. And what if any are the gear ratios for 1st, and 2nd between the vehicles?

 

[CCT]

Roger dodger on the rain issue. My guess on the cars is the weight difference. Also the 3.0 may have a shorter stroke, going way back to the 60's, 70's, the shorter stroke engines were usually better off the line. Probably doesn't apply these days. And what if any are the gear ratios for 1st, and 2nd between the vehicles?

I've studied the gears in both cars (I just sold my '06 V6 Accord) and concluded that the gearing is very similar. The '06 Accord revved slightly lower in top gear than the Crosstour.
I've also noticed that the transition between 3,4 and 6 cylinders in the Crosstour isn't quite as seamless as I thought. I can detect some 'change' or hesitation (as slight as it is) when accelerating from an ECO cruise to a higher speed that requires more cylinders.

As far as quickness between the 2 -- I suspected that the '06 3.0 V6 was marginally faster than the new Crosstour and, altho the weight would have the most to do with that, I'm now thinking that the cylinder deactivation has something to do with it also.

Not enough to bother me per se, but enough that I can detect something on cylinder transition.
C.

 

[Army Dad]

From zero to 60 the car, with the hammer down, should be in full six cylinders from the 'get go' shouldn't it? The ECO doesn't appear through acceleration, I believe it kicks in when you level off at cruise speed.

 

[melchor1106]

From zero to 60 the car, with the hammer down, should be in full six cylinders from the 'get go' shouldn't it? The ECO doesn't appear through acceleration, I believe it kicks in when you level off at cruise speed.

I think he was referring to the performance when passing. I know that when I add throttle to pass, it seems to take a bit for the engien to rev into its sweet zone.

Of course, I realize that the Crosstour is not designed to be a racer. I'm not trying to use it as one either. Plus, I am not unhappy with its performance. I am just comparing the two hondas. It will be intersting to compare the Accord to the Crosstour in the snow. I imagine that is where it will really do well.

So far I can say:

I like the solid feel of the CT on the interstate. It feels more planted than the Accord.

I like the interior room. It is much bigger than the 2004 Accord on the inside. That makes the family more comfortable.

I like the design of the controls and displays.

AND now that the subwoofer is fixed, the stereo is kicking.

 

[CCT]

Quite right about my reference to the cylinder deactivation -- that from a cruising state to an acceleration situation there is something (very minor) that's noticeable on the transition. It seems to be a little more detectable at lower speeds to me.

True on the performance diff between the Accord and CT, tho, IMO attributed to weight. But that adds to its better ride and solid feel.
Pretty hard for that extra heft to keep up to the relative lightweight Accord despite the extra ponies and torque.
I think it does very well for hauling an extra 800-1000 lbs around.

Agreed on the ride, interior layout, and size......This is a big, well deigned, well planted vehicle.
I'm impressed --

Colin.

 

[Army Dad]

Sorry for the misread there CT. But, no Attention Deficit D here. Look, a squirrel!!!

 

[CCT]

Sorry for the misread there CT. But, no Attention Deficit D here. Look, a squirrel!!!

LOL....... -- I know the feeling; but the fault was mine since I was a little off topic there anyway.....

C.

 

[melgottlieb]

just traded my 2008 ex 6 cly for the accord crosstour 6cyl ex-l have approx 1000 miles on it -- did not push accelleration for the first 600 as instructed. just tried to see how it takes off and find myself disappointed. My 2008 6cy sedan would take off like a bat out of hades and even leave rubber as it took off. not so with this one.
has anyone else noted a significant performance difference. The 2008 accord v-6 almost acted like a turbo as all 6 cyls kicked it.

from spec's on line the weight difference is only 300 lbs, and 0-60 time 7.5 sec for crosstour and 7.0 sec for sedan--

any thoughts??

 

[CCT]

My '06 was only about 3200lbs so I'm not surprised that it was a little quicker than the 4050lb. CT.
C.

 

[Army Dad]

I added my own weight and figured it out pretty quickly, car is almost overgrossed!

 

[chefmark]

Both vehicles do OK with 0 to 60 runs. Heck, who can really complain about a 4wd drive station wagon that hits 60MPH in less than 8 seconds! However, I do feel that the sedan performs better in passing situations. When I press the gas, it simply jumps out. Yet with the Crosstour, it lags a bit until the rpm’s build. I wonder if that “lag” in the Crosstour is because of the cylinder deactivation system or because of the added weight? Or both?

What are your thoughts?

I agree, the CT does have a lag time when passing or just getting on the highway. It does seem that once the RPMs get up the torque picks up and the CT is off and running.

 

[melgottlieb]

2006 v6 vs 2010 ct

the 2006 v6 in this thread did not have the variable cyl mgnt to my knowledge-- therefore it would not have a lag-- the 2008 v6 sedan with variable cyl mgnt that I had did have that slight lag and then it took off like a banshee.

my 2010 CT doesnt have the lag-- it takes off w/o that slight hesitation but not like the 2008 did.

hopefully this vehicle has a learning effect like one of the recent chevy's SUV's i had and adapts to the driving style-- if so it may appear to have more take off and go in the future.

 

[melchor1106]

the 2006 v6 in this thread did not have the variable cyl mgnt to my knowledge-- therefore it would not have a lag-- the 2008 v6 sedan with variable cyl mgnt that I had did have that slight lag and then it took off like a banshee.

my 2010 CT doesnt have the lag-- it takes off w/o that slight hesitation but not like the 2008 did.

hopefully this vehicle has a learning effect like one of the recent chevy's SUV's i had and adapts to the driving style-- if so it may appear to have more take off and go in the future.

None of us have "lagging" when leaving a dead stop. We are talking about being at speed and then pulling out to pass. We seem to have all agreed that the "lag" in the CT (as compared to my 2004 v6 Accord) is from the added weight (almost 1,000 pounds) and perhaps partly from the Variable Cyl Management.

-fred

 

[CCT]

None of us have "lagging" when leaving a dead stop. We are talking about being at speed and then pulling out to pass. We seem to have all agreed that the "lag" in the CT (as compared to my 2004 v6 Accord) is from the added weight (almost 1,000 pounds) and perhaps partly from the Variable Cyl Management.

-fred

affirmative, f.
C.

 

[chefmark]

None of us have "lagging" when leaving a dead stop. We are talking about being at speed and then pulling out to pass. We seem to have all agreed that the "lag" in the CT (as compared to my 2004 v6 Accord) is from the added weight (almost 1,000 pounds) and perhaps partly from the Variable Cyl Management.

-fred

This is where paddle shifters would be nice, One tap down and off you would go

 

[melchor1106]

This is where paddle shifters would be nice, One tap down and off you would go

I was playing with the floor shifter tonight, and I accidently bounced it off the rev limiter. I hope I didn't hurt anything. There's only a little over 1,000 miles on that engine.

 

[CCT]

I was playing with the floor shifter tonight, and I accidently bounced it off the rev limiter. I hope I didn't hurt anything. There's only a little over 1,000 miles on that engine.

No worries on the 'bounce', F,. It's insurance against damage, and the 1k should have given enough initial break-in.
It's good to make the pistons 'reach' occasionally...

C.

 

[melgottlieb]

affirmative, f.
C.

was not referring to lag from a dead stop-- btw-- I just tried it as if passing-- do not notice a lag --

the Zoom effect i was referring to was on take off starting off and then punching it-- the 2008 v-6 with variable gave a turbo type effect whereas the CT just accelates.