Traction Control on 4 Cyl Accord?

I'd really like to by a 4 cylinder Accord, but I want traction
control.

Traction control is available with the V6, but I don't want to send
any more money to the Arabs (fuel costs) than I have to. The 4 cyl
Accord has good fuel mileage for its class.

If they can make it for the V6, why can't they put it on the 4
cylinder? Does Honda have any plans to make traction control
available for the 4 cyl Accord?

(I may eventually buy a less desirable GM mid-size just to get
traction control. Come on Honda. How about it?)

 

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

The 4-cyl saves you, at most, 5mpg over the V6. At 12,000 miles a year and
$1.50 gas prices, times 50% of our gas comes from Alaska, etc. and is not
imported: $60 difference. Over the life of the car you'll spend between
$300 and $600 more on fuel. Is that really worth it to satisfy your little
political squabble?

 

Don't drive like a retard during the winter and you won't need traction
control. Take the money you saved by not buying the V6 and take some
driving lessons. I've never talked to anyone who had traction control and
liked it. All it does is trigger the rev limiter when the front wheels slip
so you lose power. Christ, you can do that yourself, just take your foot
off the gas a bit. There I just saved you a couple thousand bucks.

 

I drive a Saturn with traction control and it works well in snow.
Sean is wrong about "All it does is trigger the rev limiter when the
front wheels slip
so you lose power." Traction control also applies the brakes to the
slipping wheel so that the opposite wheel gains torque. You get
2-wheel drive rather than one-wheel drive and that IS helpful in snow!

Most Americans are ignorant about traction control. Front wheel drive
with traction control is almost as effective as 4 wheel drive, but
without the high center of gravity and the weight of another drive
train. And yes, some of us think that even a small improvement in gas
mileage is important. So traction control isn't just for "retards."

 

When I did I ever say I was an American? I'm Canadian, so I know what I'm
talking about when it comes to snow. Also, why do you think that almost
every car with traction control has a button to turn it off? Maybe because
the car companies realize that there are many situations where traction
control is detrimental? Traction control is in the same league as ABS.
Learn to drive properly, and you'll never need it.

 

My statement that most Americans are ignorant about traction control
still stands. It was not a reflection on Sean. I'm sure Canadians,
in general, are more informed than Americans on this issue.

Imagine the right side of a car is stuck in a snow bank and the left
side is on bare pavement. Most cars will just spin the wheel in the
snow. A car with traction control will apply the brakes to the
spinning wheel. The other wheel gets the torque and you get the car
moving. How is that a bad thing?

As for the turn off switch, if both wheels are stuck, you can turn off
the traction control to achieve a "rocking" action to help get your
car free. Also, perhaps some people like to spin their tires. But
overall, traction control and ABS are worth the extra cost.

 

It's worth considering there are three types of traction control.

With a front wheel drive car, like the Accord, the traction control usually
take the form of a limited slip differential, or LSD. This system does
nothing more than lock the differential when one of the drive wheels grossly
outspeeds the other. When activated on tarmac, it produces an odd, twitchy
feeling to the cars handling. But in a low traction environment, it
effectively creates a solid axle.
Don is describing a different system where tractive power and braking power
is applied intelligently to different drives wheels. I'm in the U.K. so I
don't know about the drive axle layout of a Saturn, but I'm guessing it's
rear wheel drive.
The third version which has been touch on already does nothing but cut the
engine power. In Formula 1 for example, traction control does nothing more
elegant than cutting the spark to one or two cylinders.

Now, my Accord, a 2 litre Executive doesn't have traction control. It is
useful, it's one of those things you never know about until you use and
frankly, one can't have enough safety weapons in ones armoury.

Paul

 

Consider the Focus with the AdvancedTrak package. It includes traction
control and MUCH MORE IMPORTANT an ESP system that will help you to stay on
path if you are skidding.

Personnally, I would prefer an Accord without it.

 

(I may eventually buy a less desirable GM mid-size just to get

If you are prepared to do so, why don't you just settle for an Accord V6
with traction control? Its fuel consumption is among the best for a V6,
with a low 11.2L/100km city.

BTW, traction control is standard on Acura TSX, but it is even more
expensive than an Accord V6.

 

Don't bother. The traction control on the V6 is useless at best.

 

I wish to recant my statement of yesterday. Or at least clarify it.

The V6 traction control is useless when there is *some* traction (i.e. wet
road).

It works quite well when there is very little traction, like in the snow, as
I discovered this morning.

 

save the money and buy a set of snow tires for the winter
double the life of the stock tires.

my traction control didn't help me out of my icey driveway
last winter...still had to rock my way out a few times