The 2.0T will get better fuel economy than the V6 if it is driven normally. However the second you try and drive it aggressively those numbers will fall rapidly and be much worse than the V6 if all other cars ever are any indication. This reminds me of when Hyundai switched over from a 3.5l V6 to a 2.0T in the santa fe when they redesigned it in 2013 and on paper the 2.0T was supposed to get MUCH better fuel economy than the V6 but despite losing 200 pounds also, many owners who switched from older 3.3l and 3.5l V6 santa fe’s were on the forums complaining because when they drove the 2.0T like they used to drive their 3.5l V6 it was getting dismal numbers. Unfortunately (fortunately?) you have CAFE down the throats of all automakers and turbo 4’s get very good economy “on paper” but it’s been shown time and time again that they get shit numbers when driven hard.

I would like to see more small displacement turbo 6’s though (think fords 2.7l, BMW’s 3.0, Audi’s 3.0...etc). It’s small enough to get good economy without using the turbos, yet large enough to not need the turbos for moderate acceleration but it still has the capacity to produce big numbers with the turbos help since there is no replacement for displacement.

I owned a 1G RDX and I loved the 2.3T, for what it’s worth I used to see 19mpg on average with pure city driving and I absolutely drove it like it was stolen. I had no qualms with 19mpg city and it being as fast as it was and me driving it as hard as I did. So it’s not always bad.

I’m not the only one to get numbers like that but I couldn’t give less of a fuck if you believed me or not. I have zero reason to lie but rather I should have known talking to an idiot like yourself that I would get a dumbass reply like that one.

The 2.3T was shit. Honda took a naturally aspirated engine and slapped a turbo on it... while they likely beefed some stuff up to handle the boost, the engine was never intended to go that route. And they likely put a super conservative tune on it, which dumped more fuel into the cylinders than necessary, to ensure no one was going into lean conditions and having their engine explode on them.

As already mentioned... his argument is null and void, as he is talking about stuff from the last decade. That engine has very little do to with the new ones.

I really like the 2.3T but I can also say without a doubt that it had A LOT of short comings and things that made you go huh (like the top mount intercooler). It came out on the production RDX in 2007, but I am sure it is even older than that. So yes I agree 100% that you can not at all compare the almost 2 decade old 2.3T to the much more developed 2.0T but trying to have a normal convo with him is pointless, it’s going to go in circles. People only buy cars based on engine sounds, don’t forget that.

That’s a 1G RDX lol

The only retard here is yourself. It is possible to beat EPA numbers, it’s not always the case for all vehicles but it is absolutely possible. Anyways done wasting time on you, feel free to continue living in past decades.

This is what always kills me about some people, literally have seen people pick one car over another because it got as little as 1mpg better than the other one even though they really liked the other vehicle more. Makes you sit and wonder the thought process sometimes.

Still not wasting anymore time on you.

If anyone regularly hits EPA suggested fuel economy, they clearly are driving 10mph below the speed limit and take 3 city blocks to get up to that speed.

lol, but I must be getting fooled... for some reason my foot always stays buried all the way down on the throttle, and yet I can *never* hit those damn EPA numbers!

You Tube

You Tube