RE: Honda Accord Euro R (CL7) | Spotted

[IntriguedUser]

JJJ. said:

Nice car's those Accords, all the better it's a Euro R in championship white. The last one I saw for sale was just over £6k a year ago so this seems pricey.
As for the lack of torque, well it's not lacking any considering it's a N/A 2.0L with what's considered the best four pot mass produced engine ever, their bulletproof too.

I think a nice 2.4 manual with uprated suspension would possibly hit the sweet spot as a cheap daily driver.

Edited by JJJ. on Tuesday 21st March 18:08

Oh yes, had a 2.4 ex, sunroof, heated seats, paid £1600 for it in September 2020

[JJJ.]

IntriguedUser said:

JJJ. said:

Nice car's those Accords, all the better it's a Euro R in championship white. The last one I saw for sale was just over £6k a year ago so this seems pricey.
As for the lack of torque, well it's not lacking any considering it's a N/A 2.0L with what's considered the best four pot mass produced engine ever, their bulletproof too.

I think a nice 2.4 manual with uprated suspension would possibly hit the sweet spot as a cheap daily driver.

Edited by JJJ. on Tuesday 21st March 18:08

Oh yes, had a 2.4 ex, sunroof, heated seats, paid £1600 for it in September 2020

Is it a manual? If so how does it drive? I've driven an auto and it was excellent but never got the chance to try a manual.

[Jon_S_Rally]

TheJimi said:

I've had cars with the following Honda VTEC engines:

B16a
H22a
K20a

In all three, you can pull cleanly from 30-40mph in the highest gear, without issue. The idea that VTEC engines, especially the full fat versions, are a pain to live with due to lack of torque, is utter nonsense. Unless your expectation is to be riding a vast wave of torque, then yes, that expectation will fall flat, and you'll find it a pain.

Edited by TheJimi on Tuesday 21st March 13:27

_ppan said:

I've been to the UK a few times and back then, say 6 years ago, people were driving pretty decent. Guess they are all racing drivers now? Back then I could easily shift at low gears to get along with my 1.6 B16A DOHC VTEC. There was no need to rev at all to keep up with regular traffic. Even making a fast pass or so would require me to rev further than 5000-6000 back then. Of course I would. I'd stretch it to the red line (when the engine was warm). Just because. Maximum fun.

These days, when I drive a 1.0 turbo VAG piece of junk I'm easiest fastest of all. But I'd be no match for any decent non-VTEC/VVC/whatever N/A 2.0.

It's largely personal preference at the end of the day. Of course this car isn't going to be a snail, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that it would be unusable, but it clearly wouldn't have the flexibility of something turbocharged, or with a larger normally-aspirated engine.

As a similar comparison, I borrowed a friend's MK7 Fiesta ST a couple of years ago. At the time, I had a Clio 197. Both great cars and, at the very limit, there probably wouldn't be much between them. However, the additional mid-range torque of the Fiesta meant it was much easier to make progress when you were driving in normal conditions. Overtaking was easier, and you could accelerate briskly without needing the number of revs or gear changes you'd need in the Clio. Getting back in the 197 afterwards made it feel lethargic and hard work. The flip side of that of course was that, for a Sunday morning blast, I would still have taken the Clio every time, because it was more exciting when you were in the mood for it. Some people would no doubt be happy to compromise some ease of use for the sake of having a revvy, normally-aspirated engine, but the additional flexibility offered by something turbocharged is undeniable, especially nowadays, where they are far more responsive than they were back in the '80s and '90s. For a do-it-all car, it does make more sense for most people.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this Accord - I actually like it a lot and wouldn't begrudge anyone buying it - but, at this money, you could be in a BMW 335i or similar, so you'd have to really want the Type-R experience. It's a cool and interesting car, but it's definitely niche. There's nothing wrong with that though - different strokes for different folks.

[_ppan]

Jon_S_Rally said:

It's largely personal preference at the end of the day. Of course this car isn't going to be a snail, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that it would be unusable, but it clearly wouldn't have the flexibility of something turbocharged, or with a larger normally-aspirated engine.

I agree that it's personal preference. Some don't like to shift, some don't like to shift in a-b ride, some like to shift all the time. The flexibility comes down to how often one would need to shift. Which also depends on the engine characteristic. My old B16A didn't mind to start accelerate in 5th from 1500rpm. Obviously with some less shift but it did. Many people think VTEC is all about no torque down low. It's just the oppposite; VTEC allows you to have both torque low down and in the upper rpm range. Also depends on how you drive. If you overtake regularly ánd don't like to shift at all or in a-b rides then yes, turbo torque down low would be better for those occasions.

What surprises me, everytime a discussion like this occurs, is that people keep suggesting the high revving N/A car doesn't do st unless you trash it and therefor need a turbo car to keep up with regular traffic(implying that a high revving N/A car is unfit for that purpose). But that's such nonsense. I started out with a 60hp Vauxhall Combo which sometimes needed a trashing for some overtaking or so. After that I got a 90hp 1.3 N/A car and never did I feel compromised anymore in daily traffic. Back then I was still about quick driving (not racing obviously) in daily traffic and it worked fine.

Jon_S_Rally said:

As a similar comparison, I borrowed a friend's MK7 Fiesta ST a couple of years ago. At the time, I had a Clio 197. Both great cars and, at the very limit, there probably wouldn't be much between them. However, the additional mid-range torque of the Fiesta meant it was much easier to make progress when you were driving in normal conditions. Overtaking was easier, and you could accelerate briskly without needing the number of revs or gear changes you'd need in the Clio. Getting back in the 197 afterwards made it feel lethargic and hard work. The flip side of that of course was that, for a Sunday morning blast, I would still have taken the Clio every time, because it was more exciting when you were in the mood for it. Some people would no doubt be happy to compromise some ease of use for the sake of having a revvy, normally-aspirated engine, but the additional flexibility offered by something turbocharged is undeniable, especially nowadays, where they are far more responsive than they were back in the '80s and '90s. For a do-it-all car, it does make more sense for most people.

I'm not anti turbo at all, owning a Ford 1.0 EcoBoost and really liking it for what it is. I've driven a 700HP GT-R - it was crazy in positive ways. My first ride in a tuned car ever was in a 300hp MY99 Subaru Impreza Turbo GT. It was absolutely marvelous. And I think you're right that for an a-b car, given all other variables are the same in ones life and car a turbo'd smaller capacity engine would make more sense, even though how much more would depend on your situation. So I do agree.

Jon_S_Rally said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this Accord - I actually like it a lot and wouldn't begrudge anyone buying it - but, at this money, you could be in a BMW 335i or similar, so you'd have to really want the Type-R experience. It's a cool and interesting car, but it's definitely niche. There's nothing wrong with that though - different strokes for different folks.

It indeed really depends on what you look for. There are several reasons why I wouldn't buy a 335 for the money besides engine type. It's just a totally different car in many respects I do agree with your earlier comment that I'd probably have a look at an FD2-R for this money.

Edited by _ppan on Wednesday 22 March 11:25

[Black S2K]

TheJimi said:

Maccmike8 said:

The lack of torque makes day to day a bit of a pain.

I've had cars with the following Honda VTEC engines:

B16a
H22a
K20a

In all three, you can pull cleanly from 30-40mph in the highest gear, without issue. The idea that VTEC engines, especially the full fat versions, are a pain to live with due to lack of torque, is utter nonsense. Unless your expectation is to be riding a vast wave of torque, then yes, that expectation will fall flat, and you'll find it a pain.

Edited by TheJimi on Tuesday 21st March 13:27

I actually found it an advantage in slow traffic or slippery roads - the cars do not feel highly-strung until you swap cam followers.

The H22A with 'short' box felt like a torque monster, TBH. Could've done with a sixth ratio, mind!

[IntriguedUser]

JJJ. said:

Is it a manual? If so how does it drive? I've driven an auto and it was excellent but never got the chance to try a manual.

Drove great, about 8 seconds to 60mph, and 20 seconds to 100mph. With a Reflash, which lowers vtec to 4500, and increases redline to 7500, the 0 to 60 went down to 7.6 second, and 0 to 100mph down to 17.6 seconds. The remap only adds about 5 to 6 bhp top end, but increase mid range by 25-30bhp. This is where the reduction in time comes from, the mid range.

The gearing is a tad too long imo, and there's not much VTEC when you hit 6200 rpm as the redline is 7000!

I've had an accord type R CH1 and Prelude 2.2 Motegi (H22A8 red top) and the K24 doesn't feel near as raw as those engines.

But sticking to the manual vs auto, the gearbox was great, just too long on the gearing. I've moved onto a Volvo S60 2.0T Auto

[JJJ.]

IntriguedUser said:

Drove great, about 8 seconds to 60mph, and 20 seconds to 100mph. With a Reflash, which lowers vtec to 4500, and increases redline to 7500, the 0 to 60 went down to 7.6 second, and 0 to 100mph down to 17.6 seconds. The remap only adds about 5 to 6 bhp top end, but increase mid range by 25-30bhp. This is where the reduction in time comes from, the mid range.

The gearing is a tad too long imo, and there's not much VTEC when you hit 6200 rpm as the redline is 7000!

I've had an accord type R CH1 and Prelude 2.2 Motegi (H22A8 red top) and the K24 doesn't feel near as raw as those engines.

But sticking to the manual vs auto, the gearbox was great, just too long on the gearing. I've moved onto a Volvo S60 2.0T Auto

Cheers for the feedback, it's interesting. Sort of sorry I didn't buy
a manual 2.4 back in the day.

[havoc]

cerb4.5lee said:

ChrisCh86 said:

Not sure that I'd want such a low torque engine in a family setting, as we've been spoiled by turbos - but still I'd love to have a go.

Torque (lb ft): 152@6,000rpm...that wouldn't be much fun as a daily for me either. You have to be constantly flogging it to death if you wanted to get a shift on I reckon.

You've got >130lb ft from mid-2,000s, and that plateau goes all the way to 8,000rpm. It's the kick-up when VTEC hits that make them seem like that torque is also ridiculously peaky, but it's not.

Factor in gearing and it's got as much wheel-torque as a 320d, and over a much broader range.

I've run the FD2 successor for 10 years, and it's never had a problem keeping up with give-and-take traffic on the motorway, and I've never had to downshift to keep up with a normal (4-pot) diesel exec.

You want to make progress, sure you need to use the gears and the revs. But that's the point.

[_ppan]

havoc said:

You've got >130lb ft from mid-2,000s, and that plateau goes all the way to 8,000rpm. It's the kick-up when VTEC hits that make them seem like that torque is also ridiculously peaky, but it's not.

Many think Honda chose a crossover point that is actually too high so you feel that kick. Kind of experience over ideal settings. Hence most tunes on DOHC VTEC lower the VTEC point causing a smoother cross over with no kick but a faster car.

[cerb4.5lee]

havoc said:

cerb4.5lee said:

ChrisCh86 said:

Not sure that I'd want such a low torque engine in a family setting, as we've been spoiled by turbos - but still I'd love to have a go.

Torque (lb ft): 152@6,000rpm...that wouldn't be much fun as a daily for me either. You have to be constantly flogging it to death if you wanted to get a shift on I reckon.

You've got >130lb ft from mid-2,000s, and that plateau goes all the way to 8,000rpm. It's the kick-up when VTEC hits that make them seem like that torque is also ridiculously peaky, but it's not.

Factor in gearing and it's got as much wheel-torque as a 320d, and over a much broader range.

I've run the FD2 successor for 10 years, and it's never had a problem keeping up with give-and-take traffic on the motorway, and I've never had to downshift to keep up with a normal (4-pot) diesel exec.

You want to make progress, sure you need to use the gears and the revs. But that's the point.

I wasn't very fond of my E92 M3 as a daily and that offered 414bhp at 8300rpm and 295Ib/ft torque at 3900rpm. So I know that one of these could possibly drive me mad in fairness. This isn't anywhere near as heavy as the M3 was though to be fair in comparison.

I genuinely had to work the arse off the M3 if a 320d booted it in front of me...because nothing happened in the M3 at low revs(not helped because it weighed 1650kg though).

I'm not saying these won't keep up with traffic or that they feel incredibly slow, but the way that the power/torque is delivered isn't something that I'd want or enjoy in a daily. That is just my personal preference though. These have the lower weight on their side as well, so I presume that they don't feel as bad as the M3 can low down in comparison.

[havoc]

_ppan said:

Many think Honda chose a crossover point that is actually too high so you feel that kick. Kind of experience over ideal settings. Hence most tunes on DOHC VTEC lower the VTEC point causing a smoother cross over with no kick but a faster car.

They did in the hot versions of the older B-, H- and F- engines, but the iVTEC in the K20s was smoother. Still hear the clear tone change, but there's no deliberate kick.

cerb4.5lee said:

I wasn't very fond of my E92 M3 as a daily and that offered 414bhp at 8300rpm and 295Ib/ft torque at 3900rpm. So I know that one of these could possibly drive me mad in fairness. This isn't anywhere near as heavy as the M3 was though to be fair in comparison.

Fair 'nuff. That engine, if it was less grenade-y, would be ideal for me.

(And yes, you would go mad with a nat-asp Honda then - it's not old-school VTEC, but equally I'm not going to pretend it's got the mid-range pep of a modern turbo motor.)

Edited by havoc on Wednesday 22 March 20:08

[Bathroom_Security]

Love them

Wouldn't own one, perhaps a little too niche for me. What other JDM st boxes can you get for that? DC5?

Don't see many around

[horsemeatscandal]

Just got off the phone with them. Calling to discuss specifics on Monday.

Partner's just booked a house viewing too. This pint of rhubarb cider has gone to my head...

[MightyBadger]

TheJimi said:

I've had cars with the following Honda VTEC engines:

B16a
H22a
K20a

In all three, you can pull cleanly from 30-40mph in the highest gear, without issue. The idea that VTEC engines, especially the full fat versions, are a pain to live with due to lack of torque, is utter nonsense. Unless your expectation is to be riding a vast wave of torque, then yes, that expectation will fall flat, and you'll find it a pain.

Edited by TheJimi on Tuesday 21st March 13:27

Had the H22a in a Prelude, great engine.

[Dadoc2001]

Having done the B18a Vti Civic, H22a red top Prelude and K20a in the EP3 and FN2 in the 'noughties' I still hanker for another.

There is a well looked after EP3 and CL1 near me and every time I see them I'm on the selling sites looking at them.

Just kick myself with prices now. Remember considering a well looked after/upgraded/lady owner EK9 from a friend of a friend 5-6 years ago and decided it wasn't the right time. She was selling it at 7k. What a I am!

[havoc]

Dadoc2001 said:

Just kick myself with prices now.

You and me both.

Sold a tidy, FSH UK DC2 with working aircon and <100k miles for £3,600 back in 2013. Started thinking I wanted another one back in 2019, then Covid hit and I got made redundant, which over the next 5-6 months soaked up a lot of our savings. Since then prices have gone even sillier than they were 4 years ago.

[horsemeatscandal]

Putting a deposit down on this as we speak. Anybody want to buy a nice, well looked after MX5?

[Mark-C]

horsemeatscandal said:

Putting a deposit down on this as we speak. Anybody want to buy a nice, well looked after MX5?

Good work

[Hippea]

horsemeatscandal said:

Putting a deposit down on this as we speak. Anybody want to buy a nice, well looked after MX5?

Nice one! Did you go to view it?

[horsemeatscandal]

Hippea said:

Nice one! Did you go to view it?

I did not. I'm an entire country away from them haha! Got loads of details and further photos/videos of the car from them. Refundable deposit down.

I do enjoy my MX5 but between this, a DC5 and an FD2, we're in the 'dream attainable car' category and opportunities don't come up very often, so fk it.