boe_d

I was reading a few rumors that suggested the Honda Accord may get a turbo in 2016 on a few models to give it quicker acceleration while keeping fuel consumption down. I haven't been in a turbo since I was a kid in high school (one of my friends had one). At that time the turbo on that car seemed to be risky choice since it had some problem with cooling. The thing could accelerate though.

I don't know enough about cars to know if turbos are still much of a risk for maintenance or not.

jeich182

I had a brand new Jetta 1.8T as a rental a couple months ago. While the engine was very smooth and I loved the torque it was a major annoyance when the engine would drop out of 'boost' with upshifts at certain speeds. It was like the air went out of the balloon and you had to inflate it again (maybe not far off as an analogy). In the case of that car fuel economy was decent but many, many modern turbos fail to achieve the promise of greater efficiency in the real world. IMHO Honda has a leg up by "staying behind", now their NA engines stand out as shining examples of efficiency and responsiveness while delivering good acceleration. I'm getting 28MPG around town in my TLX V6 with plenty of power and zero lag. I'd drive one if I had to but I'll take a smooth, responsive, and efficient J series over a turbo any day.

BEAR-AvHistory

N/A's are a dying breed & Honda is way behind everyone else in making the move to FI. Possibly because they are still running 15 year old engines. There are no major brands that don't have turbo engines somewhere in their product line.

These are not the turbos from years past since they are developed from the ground up as turbos. The modern ECU has done very well in enabling them to perform in DD applications.

SSFTSX

Edmunds has tested new NX200T which is same weight class as RDX. Not only is less fuel efficient but also slower than RDX with smaller tires. and RDX is non DI engine.

saturno_v

Yes, it is amazing how the Japanese that mastered the turbocharged engines in the late 80s and early 90s (their FI of the era were considered the state of the art for turbos) when the Germans would not touch it with a 10 foot pole, they got left so far behind on this.

The big V6s (Lexus, Acura, Infiniti) can somewhat still hold their own against the turbocharged engines because of their large displacement but when you get down to the 4 bangers it's no contest....the 4 cylinder TSX that I once had as a loaner was truly painful as DD........that engine would shine in a ~2000 lbs car on a race track thanks to its beautiful high redline but on a heavy daily driver sedan it sucked big time.

So, going back to the OP, yes Honda (and the other Japanese brands) need turbocharged engines pronto.

Rocketsfan

I'm happy so far with my NA V6 in terms of the mileage and performance, so as long as they don't take away from mileage, performance and reliability, they can do whatever they want - I couldn't care less if they have 10 squirrels in the engine bay workin' it.

SSFTSX

That 4 banger is Non DI with 5speed auto pulling 3500lbs car that is wider than BMW 3 series with all season tires. I don't think any 2.0T German can match newer 2.4L Honda fuel efficiency and reliability.

WheelMcCoy

But are they VTEC squirrels?

I still prefer NA engines, but turbos have gotten pretty good. The Germans seem to have mastered it with no noticeable lag and power delivery at low rpms. Engine reliability and longevity remains to be seen though.

saturno_v

The new DI engine does not seem to have changed much in terms of power and torque compared to the old one.

The 3 Series is very fuel efficient and the turbocharger actually helps that.

Nobody anymore, frankly, cares about anymore in terms of long term reliability, the vast majority in the luxury segment lease anyway and you have extended warranties that covers you if you want to.

In terms of ease of drive in daily use that TSX I drove could not touch a 320i and I do not think the TLX 4 bangers changes that much on that...the torque is simply not there.

jshaw

Change the 4cyl to FI. Let the punters deal with the turbos. Let the 6cyl stay NA.

KeithL

I would buy a Turbo as long as it was not the 1G RDX turbo, that was like a light switch with the way power came on. While Honda has done an amazing job with normally aspirated engines, the future indicates forced induction. And sure not all implementations are great or even better than their aspirated counterparts, but as they gain experience the manufacturers will get better at it.

tlxsteve

no.

SSFTSX

TSX engine is old from early 2008 with transmission even older. and price for loaded car is $8k cheaper than BMW 320i.
how do you know TLX does not change much with similar tire setup?
Accord 6MT with heavier 235/18 gave 29mpg on C&D long term test. No BMW 3 series can touch that figure even with 8speed auto and similar high tread tire setup.

Accord 6MT with 40k miles.
0-100 mph in 17.7 second.
0-120mph in 28 second.
The higher the speed the higher performance gap .
2013 Honda Accord Sport Sedan Long-Term Test Wrap-Up ? Review ? Car and Driver

BMW 320i 0-100mph in 18.4.
21mpg fuel economic. complete Joke.
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...3-bmw-320i.pdf

TLX has better torque and power delivery than Accord 6MT. it need right tire setup like Pilot Sport AS 3.

JM2010 SH-AWD

No. Our '13 Accord with 2.4/6MT has been clocked in a couple of tests at 6.6 0-60. It easily gets 40 mph highway when temps are 60 degrees plus. It averages around 30 or so in combined driving. I can't think of a reason I'd want to put up with the added issues of a turbo on that car, for example.

Nedmundo

Sure, I'd like a well-implemented turbo TLX, especially if it preserved some of the classic VTEC acceleration surge as rpms climb. Thanks to linear power deliveries designed to feel more like NA motors, IMO some modern turbos actually don't feel as fast as they are (328i, Focus ST), and I wouldn't want Honda/Acura to adopt that approach. Keep the VTEC character with more torque spread across the rpm band and a nice power gain, and I'm good. (And let's have 6MT while we're at it.)

And good turbos can provide huge efficiency gains on the highway, because all the torque allows for very tall top gears. (I suspect the I4 TLX's 8DCT provides this too.) My 2001 Saab 9-5 Aero, for example, weighed 3600 lbs., and with 230 hp and 258tq could deliver 33 highway. Some owners reported 35. Keep in mind this was late 1990's technology; modern turbos are often better. My lighter, less powerful TSX doesn't match this, because at highway speeds it's turning about 500 rpm higher.

Mike_TX

To answer part of the OP's question, turbos don't cook themselves like the ones we knew in the 70's and 80's. Advances in metallurgy, better oil flow, and intercooling fixed that, and you're now seeing turbos everywhere with no problems. In fact, Ford is staking their whole reputation on their Eco-Boost engines.

I wouldn't mind seeing a small, low-boost turbo mated to the 3.5l V6 to give it more upper-end punch, as long as it didn't result in lag down low. One of the modern bypass systems that don't engage the turbo and don't impede exhaust flow until higher rpms would be nice.

.
.

Shiratori1

If you think that the eco-boost engines haven't had problems, then I have a lot of sand to sell you in saudi arabia.

KeithL

One advantage some overlook is that forced induction usually mean more torque lower in the RPM band. The thing I love most about my A6 is the supercharger brings all the torque on at 2900 RPMS while the V6 TLX hits its peak at 4500 RPM and the 2.0 Turbo bring it on around 1900 RPMs. I'll take low end torque all day long for day to day driving.

Prado

I prefer, and would take, a V6 over a similarly powered I4 Turbo. From a manufacturing perspective I am curious if it would actually cost less to built a Turbo I4 vs a modern V6 like the TLX has. I have my doubts.

Gen4MDX

^^^^
This

Colin

Although they're both forced induction, I view Turbos and Superchargers differently since they generally deliver power differently. I had both at one time, a MR2 Supercharged and later an MR2 Turbo. The SC was far more drivable (if less powerful) with instant power delivery.

I would love to see someone 'copy' they way Toyota did it back then. They used an A/C type magnetic clutch to decouple the supercharger when you didn't need it to reduce parasitic drag. Back then, it was vacuum operated but I'd imagine today we could control engagement much better.

CARLOS10

Honda is the most stubborn car company. Its my cent, but Honda dont want to deal with
230,000 turbos out in the street. And half of these ownwers tuning the engines to more HP.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

I'm going to go with that's not the reason why.

jterp7

if honda cares more about linearity, shouldn't they just add a SC to the TLX...to continue with the japanese S4 theme

Quandry

And the potential warranty claims (after engine tuning) each of which would have to be thoroughly investigated. This could be a nightmare. Seems to make business sense to avoid.

Colin

Generally I'd say you're correct. However, it's likely it had some bearing on the lack of turbos so far. But clearly, they're on the way.
Yeah, but it seems like there is zero development on the SC front for HMC. IMO, they're focused on turbos and hybrids, not unlike Formula One which they're rejoining next year... I would love to see these combined in a road car, electric motors on the bottom end, and the turbo for the top end.

Right, because people NEVER take the chip out to return it to stock before bringing it in for warranty claims...

CARLOS10

Honda wont never compromise his core products aka Accord, Civic, Crv with a turbo engine.
These engine will be the excuse to trash these products, and Honda smartly will never
give that chance.

Alexboculon

Not true, my previous car was a 3-series and their move to turbo was one of the deciding factors that brought me to Acura instead of just upgrading to a new BMW. Yes, turbo makes a car faster while remaining efficient, but the reliability issue is significant.


People say things like "you have a warranty," or "just lease it," but that is BS in my opinion. Sure, the turbo won't break in the first couple years so it won't impact my personal ownership experience, but it has a major impact on the selling experience.


Think about it: would you want to buy a used BMW from me with 100k miles, knowing it's still on the original turbo and is out of warranty? I think not, and this is a major reason BMWs have had terrible resale value even before they moved to turbos. I predict that their resale now will be worse than ever.


Meanwhile, Acura is just as reliable as ever, and I consider my TLX's naturally aspirated 206 hp with 35mpg to be good for the price (factoring in both msrp and resale), so here I am.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

There's nothing wrong with NA to be fair. Some of the best sports cars in the world are not turbocharged, such as many Ferraris, Lamborginis, Corvettes, etc.

For more affordable cars, such as the Honda Accord, the NA engines are competing well. The Accord I4 6MT is capable of 0-60mph in 6.6s, and the V6 in 5.5s. Not only do these engines perform well, they are very economical too, especially in the real world.

That's not to say turbocharged engines are worthless. A well designed turbocharged engine, like the ones from BMW and Audi, perform very well too. But before we make direct comparison to the NA engines, we need to be comparing apple to apple. The 2.0T engines from Audi and BMW are more equivalent to 3.0L NA engine. The 3.0T engines are more like 4.0L NA engine. Since there's no 4L NA engine in the Honda line up, there's simply no contest when it comes to power.

At 4L though, it is probably best to go with a V8 design instead of V6. And this is where going with boosted V6 might make more sense than coming up with a brand new 4L V8 engine.

BEAR-AvHistory

Real life so far @2200 miles. 3.0 liter turbo with 342 bhp, 8spd ZF. Mid 4 second performance level per BMW

Inside Raleigh City limits 22mpg in S & S+ mode. Trip today down to Greensboro & back, all highway @ 78MPH 32mpg in Comfort Mode (default mode). Somewhat longer trip when I brought the new car home from SC, 31MPG.

My N/A 330 also a 3 liter got similar mileage but had about 113 less BHP.

Not the greatest MPG in the world but not bad for it level of performance. Nobody is going to buy one of these things for fuel economy but a non turbo version would not have the same level of performance but pretty similar fuel usage.

Top Lambos & Ferrari are not F/A but they do have to go to high revving 8K+ V10 & V12's to generate the power. Top Porsche, Corvettes & Jaguars are FI.

maharajamd

iTrader: (1)

Modern turbos and modern superchargers deliver power pretty much the same.

It's hard to get out of the early 90s turbo line of thought... Lol

Mr Hyde

MY RDX had the Turbo 4. Everyone can see now what Honda decided would be it's cheaper, and more fuel efficient replacement engine. They had similar power, but much better mpgs from a small V6, so that's the route they went.

That's the reason Honda isn't widely going FI. MPG is a priority for them, and at this point on their mainstream vehicles, they are getting a bigger bang for their buck with other N/A engines.

012TL-GLM

I would rather have supercharged than turbo, but that's just personal preference - I love the blower sound. I had a heavily modded 2000 GTP that I miss to this day

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

There seems to be a conception that when you have more power, fuel economy will be reduced proportionally.

While in most cases, fuel economy will become worse for the same car but with more power, the difference isn't that big, especially on the hwy.

Here's an example:
Accord I4 CVT with 185hp: 36mpg hwy
Accord V6 6AT with 278hp: 34mpg hwy

With nearly 100hp more, the Accord V6 returns just 2mpg less on the hwy. In the real world, there are folks that are getting high 30's to 40's with these cars on the hwy.

It doesn't matter if it's NA or turbocharged, the same applies to both.

Here's an example for the 3 series:
320i 8AT: 36mpg hwy
328i 8AT: 35mpg hwy
335i 8AT: 32mpg hwy

There's a big jump of power (60hp) between each trim as you know. Yet, the higher powered version does not see a huge drop in fuel economy. Specifically, there's only a 1mpg decrease from the 320i to 328i. There's a larger drop for the 335i, but that's probably because the car has larger wheels and a heavier engine (from I4 to I6).

So, I think it's pretty clear that having a whole lot more power for the same car does not always result in significantly worse fuel economy. When the engine has more power, it also means the engine doesn't have to work as hard.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

it's weird to compare horsepower with MPG's.
when you're driving on the highway at a steady state, you're not using a lot of horsepower.

acuranj18

I completely agree. I had a 535 a few years ago that blew the turbo.Thankfully the car crapped out in the driveway after a trip. I got rid of it shortly after it as repaired under warranty. Reliability is more important than anything to me. If that car was disabled on the highway, it would have been ugly.

boe_d

That's one way to look at it - or you could go the other end.

Accord I4 CVT with 185hp: 27mpg cty
Accord V6 6AT with 278hp: 21mpg cty

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Exactly my points. I was responding to BEAR-AvHistory when he said,

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

ahh, it was a counter point!

BEAR-AvHistory

The counter counter point is they both got about 22mpg in 100% Raleigh city driving as did my 410whp 335is. The 335is was down slightly over the road at a usual 28mpg.

If I remember will run econ mode in town for a few days & see what that looks like. Have never bought a car based on MPG so I typically don't think about it except when these threads show up.