I would only put DexVI in the Honda if the oil company recommends it. For example, Pennzoil Platinum LV is DexVI approved but Pennzoil also recommends it for DW1 applications. I have been using it for the past 3 or 4 years in my Odyssey and it works well...and seems to perform a little better than DW1 for towing a trailer (DW1 seemed to break down after a few towing trips whereas the shifts remained smooth with the PPLV). Otherwise DW1 worked fine for normal driving, so I would go this route unless you need a more robust fluid for specific conditions.
I'll alert you to what I posted in another Honda thread:
If it specs DW-1 and before making a decision I would seriously look at the differences in chemistry between DW-1 and Valvoline MaxLife ATF:
Original Honda DW-1â„¢ (Part # beginning with 08200-):
Boron - 272
Silicon - 4
Sodium - 3
Calcium - 353
Magnesium - 204
Phosphorus - 2
Zinc - 320
[email protected] - 6.93 cSt
Commentary and Opinion: The chemical signature for this ATF is essentially the same as Honda's Z-1 fluid and is indicative of fluids used in Automated Manual transmissions. To the author's knowledge, no Step-Shift ATF chemical signature compares. Notable is the level of the Zinc compounds needed for the internals of Automated Manual transmissions.
Owners' of Step-Shift automatic transmissions should avoid using this product in any Step-Shift automatic transmission.
Label - Valvoline MaxLifeâ„¢ (Part # beginning with 773):
Boron - 272
Silicon - 2
Sodium - 8
Calcium - 230
Magnesium - 3
Phosphorus - 579
Zinc - 3
[email protected] - 5.91 cSt
Commentary and Opinion: The chemical signature for this ATF is indicative of the later Dexron and Dex/Merc series of ATF's based on the original Dexron through the Dexron III(H)) and Dexron VI series of ATF's. It is closely comparative to the GM Dexron VI formulations as well as to their own Dexron VI offering, and can be classified as a low Viscosity ATF. What is notable is a boost in the Ant-Wear Phosphorus compound of about 200 ppm.
The manufacturer claims coverage, or "Suitable for Use in" (no equivalency claims) for Honda/Acura's Z-1 and DW-1. I do not see how this could be the case when compared to the DW-1 analysis above.