Automotive

2018 Honda Accord To Be Unveiled July 14

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 13th, 2017 3:18 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jul 28, 2006
1258 posts
71 upvotes
Toronto
Wish it had a traditional mechanical shifter instead of this electronic button shifter...
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jan 7, 2007
19158 posts
2744 upvotes
Poormond Hill
Another example of why small turbo fours are no replacement for a V6. Less weight and more gears and only a negligible benefit. I wonder how the V6 would fared if Honda had given it the same treatment as Toyota did with their V6.
A life spent making mistakes is not only more memorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 1, 2008
11279 posts
1508 upvotes
Toronto, Ontario
sandikosh wrote:
Oct 14th, 2017 8:13 am
Another example of why small turbo fours are no replacement for a V6. Less weight and more gears and only a negligible benefit. I wonder how the V6 would fared if Honda had given it the same treatment as Toyota did with their V6.
Honda doesn't have a modern V6 though. The J35, despite having been updated, is ancient. Just look at the J35 being used in the TLX and RLX and the performance and efficiency it brings to those two vehicles.
Deal Addict
Jul 20, 2005
1888 posts
216 upvotes
geokilla wrote:
Oct 14th, 2017 10:47 am
Honda doesn't have a modern V6 though. The J35, despite having been updated, is ancient. Just look at the J35 being used in the TLX and RLX and the performance and efficiency it brings to those two vehicles.
I thought this turbo for Honda was new too?
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 1, 2008
11279 posts
1508 upvotes
Toronto, Ontario
Takada wrote:
Oct 14th, 2017 11:03 am
I thought this turbo for Honda was new too?
It is, and that's why it is far more efficient than the J35 it is replacing.
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jan 7, 2007
19158 posts
2744 upvotes
Poormond Hill
geokilla wrote:
Oct 14th, 2017 10:47 am
Honda doesn't have a modern V6 though. The J35, despite having been updated, is ancient. Just look at the J35 being used in the TLX and RLX and the performance and efficiency it brings to those two vehicles.
Even if the current V6 is ancient, why not develop a new one? They have the lineup to offset the costs. Odyssey. Ridgeline. Pilot. Accord. RDX. MDX. RLX. TLX. Those cars alone is worth about 300K - 400K in sales every year.
A life spent making mistakes is not only more memorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jan 7, 2007
19158 posts
2744 upvotes
Poormond Hill
geokilla wrote:
Oct 14th, 2017 11:24 am
It is, and that's why it is far more efficient than the J35 it is replacing.
No, it's not far more efficient. Read the Car & Driver article posted by Alanbrenton.
Ostensibly, Honda opted for the 2.0-liter turbo for reasons of fuel economy, not performance, but the company expects the new Accord Touring’s EPA ratings to come in at only 22 mpg city and 32 mpg highway (versus the 1.5-liter’s 30/38-mpg EPA estimates with the CVT). That’s comparable with the best ratings for last year’s V-6 model, which were 21 mpg city and 33 highway. Indeed, in our highway fuel-economy loop running a steady 75 mph, the new car achieved 35 mpg, which is precisely what the last V-6–powered Accord managed.
A life spent making mistakes is not only more memorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Apr 21, 2004
41603 posts
10236 upvotes
sandikosh wrote:
Oct 14th, 2017 11:38 am
Even if the current V6 is ancient, why not develop a new one? They have the lineup to offset the costs. Odyssey. Ridgeline. Pilot. Accord. RDX. MDX. RLX. TLX. Those cars alone is worth about 300K - 400K in sales every year.
8th gen autos had issues with VCM. Don't know if Honda was able to fix it on the 9th gen.

Fuel efficiency requirement is likely the culprit and VCM may be problematic down the line as the rarely used cylinder bank experience some issues when the car is doing highway driving predominantly.

Electric cars are going to shine, especially those from Toyota. Looking forward to the Tokyo Motor show.
Deal Addict
Jan 8, 2007
1841 posts
430 upvotes
Calgary
sandikosh wrote:
Oct 14th, 2017 8:13 am
Another example of why small turbo fours are no replacement for a V6. Less weight and more gears and only a negligible benefit. I wonder how the V6 would fared if Honda had given it the same treatment as Toyota did with their V6.
If you look at the two articles side by side you will see it's not a negligible benefit. Turbo Accord is quite a bit faster, handles a lot better because it's lighter and they achieved 3 mpg better with it overall.

2018 2.0T:
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.6 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 20.9 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.4 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 102 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 126 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 170 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.88 g

*stability-control-inhibited

C/D FUEL ECONOMY:
Observed: 24 mpg

2016 V6
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.6 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 22.5 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.0 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.4 sec @ 99 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 128 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 176 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g

C/D observed: 21 mpg
Newbie
Apr 3, 2013
83 posts
24 upvotes
Vancouver
aleks wrote:
Oct 14th, 2017 6:19 pm
If you look at the two articles side by side you will see it's not a negligible benefit. Turbo Accord is quite a bit faster, handles a lot better because it's lighter and they achieved 3 mpg better with it overall.

2018 2.0T:
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.6 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 20.9 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.4 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 102 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 126 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 170 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.88 g

*stability-control-inhibited

C/D FUEL ECONOMY:
Observed: 24 mpg

2016 V6
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.6 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 22.5 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.0 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.4 sec @ 99 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 128 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 176 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g

C/D observed: 21 mpg
V6 has better passing, more reliable as turbo 4's will have valve and cylinder head fouling in the form of "gunk" and carbon buildup.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Apr 21, 2004
41603 posts
10236 upvotes
batista99 wrote:
Oct 14th, 2017 9:56 pm
V6 has better passing, more reliable as turbo 4's will have valve and cylinder head fouling in the form of "gunk" and carbon buildup.
Did Honda fix VCM issues on the 9th gen V6 autos?

http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/86-9t ... ans-5.html

I think the turbos may be less problematic down the road. Why Honda replaced the V6 is likely because of VCM issues and to meet fleet fuel efficiency requirements. Over at DriveAccord, people already mentioned that if the 10AT was put into the V6, it will likely have been faster than the 2.0L.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 1, 2008
11279 posts
1508 upvotes
Toronto, Ontario
Any Honda dealer in the GTA getting one tomorrow? Hoping it arrives before the 27th so I know whether or not to spend money on winter tires for my Acura TLX.

Top