Accord 2013 features, and how do you put paddle shifters on a CVT?

Still dunno but apparently Nissan has paddle shifters on their CVT!

J.

"blame" the bleating of the auto "journalists" [who only really regurgitate what they're paid to regurgitate]. and follow the money. "fixed ratios" on cvt's reduce fuel efficiency. the very smart people in the oil industry know this. that's why they go out of their way to, um, "influence" crash test regs - so cars get heavier and heavier and suck more gas. modern highly efficient engines aren't giving better gas mileage, they're giving worse because of the huge increases in vehicle weights. cvt's are another direct threat to continuing high national gas consumption, so whip up a ferment of "consumer demand" for something that nixes their efficiency, and you kick the consumption can down the road for another 20 years.

Does that answer the question about paddle shifters? It could just translate to a fixed shift of 1,000 RPM or something from the current speed rather than from one fixed ratio to another, that might make sense. Guess I can go to the Nissan dealer today and ask, or wait a week or so and ask them right at Honda.

I'm as pissed as you about the regs that apparently make it impossible to field a car however small much under 3,000 pounds. Absurd.

Another factor that hurts mileage apparently is the extraordinary high power ratios we expect of even (our 3,000 pound!) economy cars. In

1970 a 10-second 0 to 60 speed was "sporty", now the car mags rate it clearly unacceptable even for mommy cars. Power on tap costs money, costs mileage even when driven gently. And my observation is that a lot of drivers don't use it anyway, mommy drives like mommy even when she's got 350hp under the hood. Perhaps we should be glad, but maybe we can get her a smaller engine?

J.

good observations. and this is a point where i can't decide whether it's simply gross incompetence, or another part of the spectacular and fine grained degree with which the oil industry assaults the consumer's wallet. here in kalifornistan, there are countless examples of exit and on-ramps using the same stretch of road, often only 100yds long. it's insane to safely slow from freeway speed in that distance, and even more insane to merge. now, add two conflicting streams, one slowing and one trying to accelerate in the same lane, in the same short distance, at the same time, and suddenly, having a 0-60 5.3 second car [with associate gas consumption] makes for a lot "safer" driving.

in europe, the land of the lightweight eco-car, such freeway merge ramping is illegal and design regulations determine that both off and on ramps have to be separated by substantially more than 100 yds, and they're not allowed to share the same lane. hence you can safely drive a vehicle with a much smaller engine because you can safely enter and exit a freeway without having to floor the thing all the time.

The biggest problem with my 1987 Accord was that the 100hp 2-liter engine didn't have the oomph to cruise safely at 80mph, which by about

2000 became the prevailing speed anytime a SoCal freeway happens not to be jammed solid. One of the last carbureted cars on the road! Also the last time I drove a manual shift from Honda.

J.

maybe it needed some love to bring it to top form. my civic cruises at

80 with /loads/ of pedal left. i drove back up grapevine headed north this morning at about 3am, and its 1.5 automatic hauled 80 even up that grade no problems.

I thought it had the same zip it had always had, fwiw. Traffic just got faster, on good days. It would *go* faster but had very weak acceleration at that point, and frankly the suspension and tires didn't feel very stable at speed, either. Back in the day it didn't have *much* torque steer or understeer, but certainly much more of both than anything from Honda today. I don't think the new Accords carry much less weight on the front wheels, but if it's 3%-5% better, on top of better geometry that seems to make a big difference.

J.