Accord 18 pics released...TLX killer?
#441
Senior Moderator
#443
Senior Moderator
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...
If that's not luxury, I don't know what is...
#444
Burning Brakes
listing of the thrones
https://www.cheatsheet.com/automobil...tml/?a=viewall
https://www.cheatsheet.com/automobil...tml/?a=viewall
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
#445
Senior Moderator
I wonder what percentage of those dissatisfied with the ILX's acceleration have the newer 2.4L DCT powertrain.
#446
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
Owner of the store treated him
#447
Moderator
#448
Team Owner
#449
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
#450
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 846 Likes
on
526 Posts
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).
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).
#452
Banned
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).
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).
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.
Acceleration in the 1.5T is great too.
Last edited by Saintor; 10-13-2017 at 07:46 PM.
#453
#454
Senior Moderator
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).
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).
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...wd-test-review
#455
#456
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
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).
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.
Originally Posted by saintor
Not really. 0-60mph in 7.6s is almost 1s slower than the NA 2.4 in the TLX
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 10-13-2017 at 11:26 PM.
#457
Burning Brakes
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.
The following 3 users liked this post by rockstar143:
#459
Team Owner
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.
The following 5 users liked this post by svtmike:
2012wagon (10-14-2017),
BEAR-AvHistory (10-14-2017),
kurtatx (10-14-2017),
pyrodan007 (10-14-2017),
rockstar143 (10-14-2017)
#460
#461
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
The following 2 users liked this post by 2012wagon:
BEAR-AvHistory (10-14-2017),
rockstar143 (10-14-2017)
#462
Moderator
Chapter Leader (South Florida Region)
Chapter Leader (South Florida Region)
iTrader: (6)
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.
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.
The following 3 users liked this post by rockstar143:
#463
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.
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.
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 .....
The following users liked this post:
rockstar143 (10-14-2017)
#464
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
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.
The following 2 users liked this post by BEAR-AvHistory:
2012wagon (10-14-2017),
rockstar143 (10-14-2017)
#465
Senior Moderator
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.
Price of Touring trim approaches European rivals’, new turbo four achieved no better real-world highway fuel economy than the previous V-6.
Last edited by F23A4; 10-14-2017 at 01:53 PM.
#466
#467
Banned
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
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
Last edited by Saintor; 10-14-2017 at 04:05 PM.
#468
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
No, they didn't. It is written as an estimate.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...t-drive-review
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
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...t-drive-review
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
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
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 10-14-2017 at 04:28 PM.
The following users liked this post:
2012wagon (10-14-2017)
#470
Banned
#471
Moderator
Chapter Leader (South Florida Region)
Chapter Leader (South Florida Region)
iTrader: (6)
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).
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).
The following users liked this post:
2012wagon (10-14-2017)
#472
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
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.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 10-14-2017 at 04:59 PM.
The following users liked this post:
2012wagon (10-14-2017)
#473
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Dirty H-Town, Amerikkka
Posts: 28,432
Received 7,772 Likes
on
5,045 Posts
The following users liked this post:
2012wagon (10-14-2017)
#475
#476
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 ....
#478
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
#479
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
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".
The following 2 users liked this post by BEAR-AvHistory:
2012wagon (10-14-2017),
rockstar143 (10-16-2017)
#480
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".
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".
hilarious!