Porcelain throne

 

I have a 9.5G, old news. Nothing to see. In a couple of weeks it would be a distant memory.

 

I stopped watching Honda Rick's video once he said fog lights... I'm SOLD!
If that's not luxury, I don't know what is...

 

Half of Acura's non SUVs are on that list ... the new Accord busting through the door with more features and lower price tag will severely hurt future sales.
It's also good knowing the A4 (aka, expensive VW with 2.0Toy) was used for Honda's benchmark. Speaking of which, going to pick her up tonight ... pics to come

 

I wonder what percentage of those dissatisfied with the ILX's acceleration have the newer 2.4L DCT powertrain.

 

Owner of the store treated him

 

In all honesty I think the car looks better pointed up at a 45 degree angle.

 

It's rotated the wrong way, and what's the battery doing under the hood?

 

Adding more weight to the front........exactly what a FWD or any car needs.

 

C/D just posted the instrumented test of the Accord 2.0T 10AT Touring:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ic-test-review

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

For comparison, here are the results of the 2016 Accord V6 6AT Coupe (lighter and faster than sedan):

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.0 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 21.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.8 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.1 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.2 sec @ 101 mph

As expected, while the new engine isn't quite as powerful as the old V6, the new gearbox and the slightly lighter curb weight help ensure the new Accord is at least as fast as the old car, while making massive gains in EPA ratings (I think it's like 21/33mpg vs 30/38mpg).

 

I'll get some more pics for yall tomorrow. This thing drives really well too. Acceleration in the 1.5T is great too. Nice features too.

 

And you saw this?


EPA FUEL ECONOMY (MFR'S EST):
City/highway: 22/32 mpg

No way it will be 30/38... more like 24/36.

....They got only 24mpg observed.


Not really. 0-60mph in 7.6s is almost 1s slower than the NA 2.4 in the TLX.

 

yeah.. I’d like to see it in any color other than this.

 

On paper, about as quick to 60 as the TLX V6 PAWS.....granted, the latter starts to pull away slightly as the speed climbs.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...wd-test-review

 

no clue

with such a sexy beast , I don’t care if the battery is in my lap

 

The difference is right here.

2T - TORQUE 273 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm
V6 - TORQUE 252 lb-ft @ 4900 rpm

The V6 horsepower advantage at the top end is not enough to overcome its extra weight & the 2T torque advantage down low until the end of the quarter mile. The V6 will get to 130 in just a little more time then the 2T takes to get to 120.

C&D posted this Zero to 60 mph: 2T 5.6 sec - 1.5T 6.6 sec

 

Feeling is believing. I've rode in the 2.4 TLX and it was slow. Throttle response is great but the actual acceleration is...lacking. Feels and sounds like it struggles for air to get up to speed. The 1.5t, you have the boost kick in and takes you right up the RPMs. It's about how you FEEL in the car. If you only go by numbers when it comes to performance, you'll never be happy unless its a high end sports car.

I see all this conjuncture about what car is better and the TLX is better. Who here has driven BOTH the TLX AND the new Accord? I've driven both and the 2.4 in the TLX vs the 1.5T in the Accord. The Accord takes the cake. Going back to numbers? TLX 2.4 has 182ft-lbs@4500RPMs where the the Accord 1.5T has 197ft-lbs@1600RPMs to 5000RPMs. Once again, the 1.5T takes the cake. I'll take max torque from 1600 THROUGH 5000RPMs all day long compared to the late engaging 4500RPMs with 15ft-lbs less.

 

Having daily'd a 2.0T for a bit now...I will have to agree on the "feel" making all the difference. It feels quicker and more nimble, it is more engaging to drive because you're not napping when you're low rpm putting around town.

 

And all of the protestations about how the V-6 really comes into its own (relatively speaking) over 120 mph is just grasping at straws.

Most people never approach those speeds on the street. And those that do and brag about it here, well I think we all know what the typical reaction to driving like a moron is. And most people don't track their cars either -- and if they do, they aren't running them on super speedways where they really get to stretch their legs.

 

well said

as Ricky lake and Jenny Jones used to say “it’s all that and a bag of chips”

 

my wife’s 2.0T6MT 2016 wrx now has 37,000 miles. Engine (albeit course) way better power delivery than my 2.4LAcura

the 2.0T6MT Accord is engaging and built with quality


of course I don’t drive over 120mph like all the race Car tlx drivers

 

that is absolutely true, Mike and 2012.
Honestly, everyone is always like man the V the V...and YES, there are days where I'm very fuckyeahmurrica and can do burnouts with ease and go around corners sideways...
but in everyday real life where you don't want to go 160 and/or light up the tires and get arrested...a lighter more economical car can be pretty damn fun.

 

exactly

as much as I love my sports cars and two wheelers, there is something about usable daily torque ...


never thought we would use Honda and torque in the same sentence in my lifetime .....

 

Agree 100%.The 1.5T & 2.0T are dialed into exactly what a good solid everyday driver should be. Quick, responsive & a lot less gear changing in town. They will also carry speed over the interstate without breathing hard, have good punch to pass on 2 lane roads. Whats not to like?

 

Interesting observation

Still not at all digging the styling but, I will check out both the 1.5T and 2.0T as soon as my local dealer gets them in.

 

that’s the million dollar question on this thread

 

No, they didn't. It is written as an estimate.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...t-drive-review

And one interesting extract: "no more V-6 thrills." Another way to say that those FI 4-cyl. are dull.

Camry 2.5 vs Accord 1.5T here both 7.6s here, with basically the same fuel economy. Once more, another small displacement FI with zero real-world benefit. And the Camry is 300lbs heavier.
2018 Honda Accord 1.5T vs. 2018 Toyota Camry 2.5 Comparison

 

The part you left out was:

Editor’s Note: The 2018 Honda Accord EX 1.5T utilized in this comparison test was a pre-production unit and not fully representative of the final product with regard to engine tuning, suspension tuning, and build quality.

We will just have to see how it goes when C&D test the 1.6T. The numbers were from their first drive. Their first drive 5.6 second estimate for the 2T was beaten by a tenth when they got to the instrumented test. So they tend to be pretty good with their estimates but if they are wrong the MT number against the Camry puts them where they need to be..

PERFORMANCE (C/D EST):
Zero to 60 mph: 5.6-6.6 sec


C/D TEST RESULTS: 2.0T
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

Observed: 24 mpg
75-mph highway driving: 35 mpg
Highway range: 510 miles

 

 

I didn't leave any part as I was originally responding to somebody about the 1.5T. You on the other side brought false info here. An estimate is not a measured one.

 

chill bro, the new accord doesn't make your TLX any slower!
I just think that it's flashy journalism to equate thrills with the previous V6, as it's all relative, right? For someone with a blown V8, the V6 isn't really thrilling anymore. In actuality, like with anything you get used to...even the V8 doesn't WOW me anymore. Maybe that's why I said what I said...it's redefined what I consider fun aka "thrilling". I have some seriously fun thrills in my 2.0t going around roundabouts etc. Extremely up for interpretation and interesting that you'd use it to support an argument (IMO, also subjective).

 

Excuse me but the MT test car is not a real off the dealers floor Accord. It was a pre-production vehicle. The editors used the words WARNING PRE-PRODUCTION CAR: To be sure people knew the numbers had no value when compared to the final showroom cars. You might be right on the numbers but C&D might be right since they did very well on the 2.0T. With a turbo car a few more PSI could have a big impact if HONDA is not happy with the performance of the pre production car.

I can understand you being down on Turbo cars since they obsolete the N/A V6 in your car but thats just the way thongs are moving to the future. N/A is dead for most brands especially the tier one brands. Once Tier 1 embraced the Turbo it was just a matter of time before they became standard equipment across all car lines.

A factory stock 3 liter turbo can generate 400HP+ while my 5 liter 4 cam 32 valve V8 only generates 500HP.

 

I just had to quote this for posterity. Because yes, turbo == panty dropper.

 

 

you need the TTv12

maybe the next tlx will have it

 

My dad says all IPhone sux. His Motorola from 1997 has better phone voice quality he (my dad) cannot accept that times have moved on ....

 

I guess I was just alluding to the fact that once you define something, it becomes the new normal and it doesn't blow you away anymore. I mean, I respect it and it's fast as fuck...but I'm like, meh, could be faster!

 

Yeah, I notice that. Gotta watch the spelling. One letter can be a big change in meaning. But in reality turbos are HOT.

 

Agree you can get very used to what you are driving. Took a guy who works for my son in law that has a 2017 Cameo SS out for a half hour in the COBRA. About 5 minutes into the run his first comment was Holy S**t. had to tell him we were doing part throttle acceleration & would do a short WOT run when we got to a straight section in the road.

I think in defining the Turbos you really need to define what is improving then appreciate the new technology. With the Accord you have a two liter car that is quicker than a sibling brands' three & a half liter car. Since the one & a half liter numbers are not official at worse case you have the one & half liter car equal to its main competitors two & a half liter N/A engine. In that case the turbo is worth a full liter in performance gain. If C&D's estimated is correct or close the gain is even bigger. Was a time when the "word" was "get a horse" the same type people are now saying "get a N/A engine".

 

horse = n/a engine

hilarious!