Comments by "Perhaps" (@NoEgg4u) on "MotorWeek" channel.

I have yet to find a way to do so, that does not void the manufacturer's warranty.
1
The ¼ mile times were almost 1 second too slow. The is probably due to one or more of the following: -- The car was left in its default driving mode (the mode when the car is started). You must press the "Sport" button, in order to have the transmission shift for best performance, as well as increasing the turbo boost. In the default driving mode, the car compromises some of the performance, in favor of better fuel economy (not what you want when conducting a "performance" test). -- The "Traction Control" was left in its default driving mode (the mode when the car is started). You must press the "Traction Control" button to turn it off, in order to get the best acceleration. -- The tires were cold. Was a burnout done, to help the car launch? -- The driver is not up to the task, or had a bad run. Does MotorWeek do multiple runs, to ensure they are getting the best that the car has to offer? By the way, the slalom test was probably also done in the default driving mode. In "Sport" mode, the suspension stiffens up and the car gets lowered a bit (I believe).
1
erozpl01 People who care: -- The host of the video. He reviewed the car's performance. He did so, because he cares, and knows that his viewers care; not because he does not care. -- The car's engineers care. They did not add a turbo for nothing. They did not supply some cars with a 1.5 liter engine, and some cars with a 2.0 liter engine, because no one cares. -- People who have a family, and need the room of a full size sedan, and cannot afford a Ferrari on-the-side. So they compromise, and get a sedan that has a focus on performance. -- People who enjoy learning about all kinds of cars. -- People who take their Accords to the race track. -- People who reprogram their Accords to remove all manner of retardation, which results in nearly 100 additional horsepower. -- Any number of other people who have reasons that we do not know about. Are you thumbing your nose at performance related Accord topics because you are envious of those that have them? Or are you thumbing your nose at performance related Accord topics because you are a spoiled super-car owner?
1
@Lucille69caddy "If a car can’t run adequately without all of those gadgets, then it’s a POS. Whatever happened to driver intervention?" How did you conclude that the Honda Accord can't run adequately without all of those gadgets?
1
@Lucille69caddy "Must I explain?" No. Must I explain that youtube comments are optional? "Well, you seem to have a lot of excuses as to why this car is so “slow”" I made no excuses. I provided facts, none of which stated or implied that the car was slow. You just made that up. In your first reply, you wrote: "If a car can’t run adequately without all of those gadgets, then it’s a POS. Whatever happened to driver intervention?" I replied and wrote: "How did you conclude that the Honda Accord can't run adequately without all of those gadgets?" Your next reply was a response. It was not an answer. 2nd request: How did you conclude that the Honda Accord can't run adequately without all of those gadgets?
1
@Lucille69caddy "Ok, clueless is as clueless does, lol", writes the clueless person. "“Sport mode, traction control, default driving mode”, etc. If you need all of these nanny state options to optimize driving a car, you are INEPT." Again, you responded, and did not answer the question: 3rd request: "How did you conclude that the Honda Accord can't run adequately without all of those gadgets?" Since you are clueless, or perhaps trolling, I will explain to you why your reply was a response, and not an answer. The question was about the Honda running "adequately". Note the adverb "adequately", which you asserted the car cannot do without the gadgets. In your last response, you changed the topic to "optimizing" the Honda. Try and answer the question about "adequacy"; that according to you, the car needs gadgets to be "adequate".
1
@Lucille69caddy "I’ve come to the conclusion that PERHAPS you just like to hear (in this case see) yourself speak (text). See what I did there? 😳Probably not😆" Your above reply is yet another response, and not an answer. After I took the time to spell out how you, who was labeling me as clueless, that you were clueless. After I laid it out for you, you woke up. A person with integrity would apologize for their name calling, and their misunderstanding of the written words. Based on your last reply, you are not a person of integrity. You chose to continue being obnoxious. You are doubling down on a losing hand. You are digging a deeper hole. Like so many losers, you are not alone with your "keep digging" strategy. 4th request: How did you conclude that the Honda Accord can't run adequately without all of those gadgets? You wrote it. You just made it up. You lied. Each of your replies, where you refuse to back up your "run adequately" claim, proves my point that you made it up and you lied. Why not reply again, without answering the question. Maybe if you keep not answering, you will trick me? It did not work 3 times in a row. Maybe the 4th time you will pull the wool over my eyes?
1