Turbo-4 vs. V6
02-09-2018, 12:22 PM
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Age: 42
Posts: 3,490
Received 849 Likes
on
605 Posts
Turbo-4 vs. V6
So my brother is looking to buy a new car. He drives about 120 miles round trip to work and back - about 600 miles per week so economy is important. He's open to pretty much any brand and asking me for advice on make/models and engine configuration. One of the main options he's been wondering about getting a car with a turbo-4 vs. a V6. We've had some discussions about it but I figured I'd get some feedback around here. And before someone suggests a hybrid or electric car, he's already decided against that. He also doesn't want some econobox. He makes a decent salary and doesn't want to drive a tin can. Something with some power but fair economy at the same time. Also, only about half of his commute is highway. The rest will be city driving.
I've never owned a turbo-4, but in my experience with 4-cyl vs V6 cars, I've noticed negligible differences in mileage. And that's with non-turbo 4's. My 4-cyl's (TSX, Nissan Altima and Honda Accord) all got 25-30mpg's. Sometimes I could eek out 32 MPG on my 5MT Accord. My V6's ('06 and '12 TL) also got around 25-28 MPG with the 6MT '06 TL pushing 30-32 MPG on several occasions. I seem to be pushing around 27-28 MPG on my '12 TL with about 60/40 highway/city since KTuner but that might just be a coincidence.
I've read about a dozen articles touting the Turbo-4 as more efficient but the V6 as more potentially more reliable due to the absence of a turbo (another part to potentially fail) and the additional stress of a turbocharged engine. But the V6 is also heavier and most MPG estimates show the V6 getting less mileage. My experience may be due to driving style. Who knows. I'm looking to get opinions or experiences others might have with a turbo-4 car vs V6. I'm steering him toward a V6 Toyota or Honda (Lexus and Acura included). But he's thinking that cruising with a Turbo-4 (not hitting turbo all that much) might be better. Thoughts?
I've never owned a turbo-4, but in my experience with 4-cyl vs V6 cars, I've noticed negligible differences in mileage. And that's with non-turbo 4's. My 4-cyl's (TSX, Nissan Altima and Honda Accord) all got 25-30mpg's. Sometimes I could eek out 32 MPG on my 5MT Accord. My V6's ('06 and '12 TL) also got around 25-28 MPG with the 6MT '06 TL pushing 30-32 MPG on several occasions. I seem to be pushing around 27-28 MPG on my '12 TL with about 60/40 highway/city since KTuner but that might just be a coincidence.
I've read about a dozen articles touting the Turbo-4 as more efficient but the V6 as more potentially more reliable due to the absence of a turbo (another part to potentially fail) and the additional stress of a turbocharged engine. But the V6 is also heavier and most MPG estimates show the V6 getting less mileage. My experience may be due to driving style. Who knows. I'm looking to get opinions or experiences others might have with a turbo-4 car vs V6. I'm steering him toward a V6 Toyota or Honda (Lexus and Acura included). But he's thinking that cruising with a Turbo-4 (not hitting turbo all that much) might be better. Thoughts?
02-09-2018, 12:28 PM
#2
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,123
Received 4,824 Likes
on
2,571 Posts
It depends on the make/model of car and the output of the engines.
The following 4 users liked this post by Sarlacc:
02-09-2018, 12:38 PM
#3
Team Owner
New Accord Touring 2.0T. Let the car do all the talking.
The following users liked this post:
teh CL (02-09-2018)
02-09-2018, 12:39 PM
#4
Team Owner
New turbo engines will last a long time. As long as an NA engine? Maybe. Maybe not. But I don't think it will be unusual to hit 250k miles. Will it me it to 500k? Maybe not.
The following users liked this post:
losiglow (02-12-2018)
02-09-2018, 12:43 PM
#5
Drifting
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Age: 42
Posts: 3,490
Received 849 Likes
on
605 Posts
I told him he should test drive the Accord 2.0T. That's definitely on the list. He's also interested in the 9th gen w/ the 3.5L.
I told him he should just get a TL like mine but he thinks it's a bit too big
I told him he should just get a TL like mine but he thinks it's a bit too big
Last edited by losiglow; 02-09-2018 at 12:45 PM.
02-09-2018, 01:18 PM
#6
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,123
Received 4,824 Likes
on
2,571 Posts
Ps. If he is looking at accords. I wouldn’t call the Chevy volt a “tin can”
02-09-2018, 02:18 PM
#7
Moderator
No budget listed, but a 2015+ Mercedes C300/400/450 can return mid-20s to mid 30s with the turbo 4 & turbo 6.
E Class may be similar with the same engines, with a slight drop for the extra weight.
CPO Cs around here run in the mid $20-30k range depending on options.
E Class may be similar with the same engines, with a slight drop for the extra weight.
CPO Cs around here run in the mid $20-30k range depending on options.
Trending Topics
02-09-2018, 02:39 PM
#8
Ex-OEM King
And before someone suggests a hybrid or electric car, he's already decided against that. He also doesn't want some econobox. He makes a decent salary and doesn't want to drive a tin can. Something with some power but fair economy at the same time. Also, only about half of his commute is highway. The rest will be city driving.
The output of a motor is the ability of that motor to convert fuel (gas) into motion. A specific volume of gas has a specific amount of energy that can be extracted from it, minus the efficiency of the engine. A modern turbo 4 is going to utilize a turbocharger to shove more air into the cylinder so that you can spray more gas to get a bigger bang because again, more gas = more energy. You can't spray more gas into a 4 cylinder NA car because not enough air to blow it up so the solution is to either A.) add displacement to existing cylinders and therefore have a slower response time of the engine or B.) Add more cylinders to add more displacement and a better response time. In the past, option B was largely the way to go for obvious reasons. Because of the advancement of turbo technology, you now have 4 cylinder engines that (when on boost) create as much power as a NA V6 because they consume as much fuel as a V6 to make that happen. The upside is that when not on boost (cruising), they only consume as much fuel as a NA 4 cylinder so you get the best of both worlds. In any case, comparing the two is largely a futile attempt at rationalizing something you inherently already know you want.
tl;dr: It doesn't matter if you have similarly powered engines. Get a diesel or hybrid if he wants to have better overall economy on his commute.
02-09-2018, 02:41 PM
#9
Generally notice that turbo 4-cylinders get worse city mileage than a similar V6, and somewhat better highway. I haven't sat down and compared any specifically though.
I agree that it does depend. I mean for instance if you offered me a V6 Mustang or the Ecoboost, I would pay more for the Ecoboost.
One thing to consider is a most 4-cylinders will require premium, or they should at least. Manufacturers may say 87 is perfectly fine, and it might be, but you'll be getting less power and maybe even fuel economy on anything less than premium.
I agree that it does depend. I mean for instance if you offered me a V6 Mustang or the Ecoboost, I would pay more for the Ecoboost.
One thing to consider is a most 4-cylinders will require premium, or they should at least. Manufacturers may say 87 is perfectly fine, and it might be, but you'll be getting less power and maybe even fuel economy on anything less than premium.
02-09-2018, 02:45 PM
#10
Fahrvergnügen'd
I have a 2015 VW Passat 1.8T Wolfsburg and I can get 40mpg on the highway at 65-70mph with regular gas.
Generally, mixed driving is definitely near 30 overall.
I just wish the car wasn't so Spartan.
Generally, mixed driving is definitely near 30 overall.
I just wish the car wasn't so Spartan.
Last edited by charliemike; 02-09-2018 at 02:49 PM.
02-09-2018, 02:51 PM
#11
Drifting
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Age: 42
Posts: 3,490
Received 849 Likes
on
605 Posts
Generally notice that turbo 4-cylinders get worse city mileage than a similar V6, and somewhat better highway. I haven't sat down and compared any specifically though.
I agree that it does depend. I mean for instance if you offered me a V6 Mustang or the Ecoboost, I would pay more for the Ecoboost.
One thing to consider is a most 4-cylinders will require premium, or they should at least. Manufacturers may say 87 is perfectly fine, and it might be, but you'll be getting less power and maybe even fuel economy on anything less than premium.
I agree that it does depend. I mean for instance if you offered me a V6 Mustang or the Ecoboost, I would pay more for the Ecoboost.
One thing to consider is a most 4-cylinders will require premium, or they should at least. Manufacturers may say 87 is perfectly fine, and it might be, but you'll be getting less power and maybe even fuel economy on anything less than premium.
02-09-2018, 02:59 PM
#12
The marketing speak about turbo 4’s making V6 or V8 power while returning 4 cylinder fuel economy is bullshit (IME), that’s not so say it can’t be more efficient than a V6 with the same power, but there is more to it than that. Like a lot of people are mentioning, it depends a lot on driving style but IME 4 cylinder turbos return the same fuel economy as V6’s and in some cases even worse.
This is more of an SUV example but it’s relatable. The 2010-2012 Hyundai santa fe had a 3.5l V6 engine rated at 276hp while the newer generation 2013+ santa fe sport weighed 200 pounds less and had a 2.0l turbo 4 rated at 269hp. If you go on to the Hyundai forums you’ll see that people who had the older santa fe with the V6 actually got much better fuel economy than those with the turbo 4 and complain because the EPA rated the newer santa fe’s with the turbo as more fuel efficient. My theory is these people were driving their turbo 4’s like their V6’s and when you drive a turbo 4 hard it can return worse economy than a comparable V6 (in some not all cases of course).
So another thing like others have said is that it depends on what specific car you are talking about. This takes me back a few years ago when V6’s and V8’s were king and people were always asking about V6 and V8 fuel economy and in a vast majority of cases the V8 returned nearly equal or sometimes better economy because the engine had to work less. So there really is no straight answer of one is better than the other.
In my personal opinion I like both types of engines and it really depends on the car. Smaller cars tend to handle better with lighter turbo 4 engines while saddling a lighter car with a heavier V6 can really throw off the dynamics. But in a big car I want V6 or V8 power....so again it is very car specific.
This is more of an SUV example but it’s relatable. The 2010-2012 Hyundai santa fe had a 3.5l V6 engine rated at 276hp while the newer generation 2013+ santa fe sport weighed 200 pounds less and had a 2.0l turbo 4 rated at 269hp. If you go on to the Hyundai forums you’ll see that people who had the older santa fe with the V6 actually got much better fuel economy than those with the turbo 4 and complain because the EPA rated the newer santa fe’s with the turbo as more fuel efficient. My theory is these people were driving their turbo 4’s like their V6’s and when you drive a turbo 4 hard it can return worse economy than a comparable V6 (in some not all cases of course).
So another thing like others have said is that it depends on what specific car you are talking about. This takes me back a few years ago when V6’s and V8’s were king and people were always asking about V6 and V8 fuel economy and in a vast majority of cases the V8 returned nearly equal or sometimes better economy because the engine had to work less. So there really is no straight answer of one is better than the other.
In my personal opinion I like both types of engines and it really depends on the car. Smaller cars tend to handle better with lighter turbo 4 engines while saddling a lighter car with a heavier V6 can really throw off the dynamics. But in a big car I want V6 or V8 power....so again it is very car specific.
02-09-2018, 02:59 PM
#13
Fahrvergnügen'd
But I got a tune for mine and was able to get 365hp out of a stock EB engine without going too crazy.
02-09-2018, 03:05 PM
#14
Team Owner
This is true. those MPG tests are done while having a feather lite foot on the throttle. But once you start opening it up, your fuel economy tanks. You CAN get decent fuel economy in an STi if you stay off the boost. You CAN also burn through 65L of premium in 300km, like a few of my friends do with their STis on the regular, if you're mashing that throttle 
The thing with a turbo 4 is that you potentially can stay low in the boost and maintain pretty good economy numbers. Likely a bit better than a comparable V6. But yeah, when you open them up- either one- you likely get more or less the same efficiency.
The thing with a turbo 4 is that you potentially can stay low in the boost and maintain pretty good economy numbers. Likely a bit better than a comparable V6. But yeah, when you open them up- either one- you likely get more or less the same efficiency.
02-09-2018, 03:05 PM
#15
Latent car nut
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Age: 68
Posts: 7,844
Received 2,005 Likes
on
1,407 Posts
The marketing speak about turbo 4’s making V6 or V8 power while returning 4 cylinder fuel economy is bullshit (IME), that’s not so say it can’t be more efficient than a V6 with the same power, but there is more to it than that. Like a lot of people are mentioning, it depends a lot on driving style but IME 4 cylinder turbos return the same fuel economy as V6’s and in some cases even worse.
This is more of an SUV example but it’s relatable. The 2010-2012 Hyundai santa fe had a 3.5l V6 engine rated at 276hp while the newer generation 2013+ santa fe sport weighed 200 pounds less and had a 2.0l turbo 4 rated at 269hp. If you go on to the Hyundai forums you’ll see that people who had the older santa fe with the V6 actually got much better fuel economy than those with the turbo 4 and complain because the EPA rated the newer santa fe’s with the turbo as more fuel efficient. My theory is these people were driving their turbo 4’s like their V6’s and when you drive a turbo 4 hard it can return worse economy than a comparable V6 (in some not all cases of course).
So another thing like others have said is that it depends on what specific car you are talking about. This takes me back a few years ago when V6’s and V8’s were king and people were always asking about V6 and V8 fuel economy and in a vast majority of cases the V8 returned nearly equal or sometimes better economy because the engine had to work less. So there really is no straight answer of one is better than the other.
In my personal opinion I like both types of engines and it really depends on the car. Smaller cars tend to handle better with lighter turbo 4 engines while saddling a lighter car with a heavier V6 can really throw off the dynamics. But in a big car I want V6 or V8 power....so again it is very car specific.
This is more of an SUV example but it’s relatable. The 2010-2012 Hyundai santa fe had a 3.5l V6 engine rated at 276hp while the newer generation 2013+ santa fe sport weighed 200 pounds less and had a 2.0l turbo 4 rated at 269hp. If you go on to the Hyundai forums you’ll see that people who had the older santa fe with the V6 actually got much better fuel economy than those with the turbo 4 and complain because the EPA rated the newer santa fe’s with the turbo as more fuel efficient. My theory is these people were driving their turbo 4’s like their V6’s and when you drive a turbo 4 hard it can return worse economy than a comparable V6 (in some not all cases of course).
So another thing like others have said is that it depends on what specific car you are talking about. This takes me back a few years ago when V6’s and V8’s were king and people were always asking about V6 and V8 fuel economy and in a vast majority of cases the V8 returned nearly equal or sometimes better economy because the engine had to work less. So there really is no straight answer of one is better than the other.
In my personal opinion I like both types of engines and it really depends on the car. Smaller cars tend to handle better with lighter turbo 4 engines while saddling a lighter car with a heavier V6 can really throw off the dynamics. But in a big car I want V6 or V8 power....so again it is very car specific.
02-09-2018, 03:07 PM
#16
Team Owner
and sometimes even ever so slightly improve fuel economy, with added power.
02-09-2018, 03:19 PM
#17
Azine Jabroni
I say turbo the hell out of everything. All day every day.
02-09-2018, 03:19 PM
#18
Then, as charliemike pointed out, there is the whole tuneability factor of turbocharged engines. If you drop a $500 tune on a normally aspirated V6 or V8 you might end up with a slightly higher redline and/or a higher top speed; drop that same $500 on a tune for a turbocharged car and you can end up with some significant gains in both power and torque.
But if I am looking for performance and a certain car comes with either a turbo 4 or naturally aspirated V6 I would take the turbo 4 any day of the week just for the tune ability. I was going to buy a 2011-2012 Audi Q5 a little while back and the 2 engine choices were turbo 4 plus 8 speed or V6 plus 6 speed. I was looking strictly for a turbo 4 because I knew I could slap on an APR tune and also get much better handling.
Perhaps the only performance advantage of naturally aspirated V6’s over turbo 4’s is the exhaust sound. Very few turbo 4’s sound really good, but of course again very car specific because the boxer burble is no joke!
02-09-2018, 03:33 PM
#19
Team Owner
being a young gun at heart, I too prefer the turbo and unlocking its abilities. If I was any bit more responsible or grown up, I'd say V6 
02-09-2018, 03:36 PM
#20
Team Owner
Yes totally. I was going to mention that as well but it’s sort of an aside as the OP seemed focussed on fuel economy vs performance. But yes agreed 100%. How about the best of both worlds and get a turbo 6 and slap a tune on there?
But if I am looking for performance and a certain car comes with either a turbo 4 or naturally aspirated V6 I would take the turbo 4 any day of the week just for the tune ability. I was going to buy a 2011-2012 Audi Q5 a little while back and the 2 engine choices were turbo 4 plus 8 speed or V6 plus 6 speed. I was looking strictly for a turbo 4 because I knew I could slap on an APR tune and also get much better handling.
Perhaps the only performance advantage of naturally aspirated V6’s over turbo 4’s is the exhaust sound. Very few turbo 4’s sound really good, but of course again very car specific because the boxer burble is no joke!
Seriously, I almost get whiplash every time I turn to see the burbling boxer
02-09-2018, 03:49 PM
#21
I had a V6 Mustang as a rental, it's not a bad engine by any means. It just happened to be very muted and dull, though that was perhaps the car's NVH and not my own perception of the engine. But if you really ask me, I would spring for the Coyote since few things sound as good as a Ford V8 for the price.
The following users liked this post:
losiglow (02-12-2018)
02-09-2018, 04:04 PM
#22
Ex-OEM King
02-09-2018, 04:36 PM
#23
Someday, an RS6 Avant+
Fusion Sport or WRX? Sporty and a bit practical. 
02-09-2018, 05:03 PM
#24
No you’re not alone at all! I’m obsessed with the boxer burble and actually do the same thing. I really wanted to try and make my RDX sound like that but it’s the unequal header length that makes the burble so sadly I was getting nothing like it. I wonder if the 6 cylinder boxer engines sound as good, though have never seen it in person. Off to do some you-tubing!
02-09-2018, 05:04 PM
#25
Azine Jabroni
02-09-2018, 05:50 PM
#26
TellinItLikeItIsSince1/06
I drive a turbo-4 - in fact two turbo-4's in the garage. They are quite common now, aren't they? Even Porsche is using Turbo-4's in all 718's...
I see this thread is not much about performance, but I'll add a few comments there anyway. The VW has quite substantial turbo-lag, very irregular gearing when accelerating. The BMW on the other hand has next to no turbo-lag, pretty much feels like a NA 6-cylinder. What I do like about the turbo engine is that it makes more torque than HP (270HP/290TQ stock), and it has a mid-range powerband. It does not have the top-end like my old 3.2CL NA 6, but the BMW has plenty more passing power in almost any gear.
Again, not sure I can add much to the OP's car search, but maybe I'll help support that a Turbo-4 is as good if not better than a NA 6.
I see this thread is not much about performance, but I'll add a few comments there anyway. The VW has quite substantial turbo-lag, very irregular gearing when accelerating. The BMW on the other hand has next to no turbo-lag, pretty much feels like a NA 6-cylinder. What I do like about the turbo engine is that it makes more torque than HP (270HP/290TQ stock), and it has a mid-range powerband. It does not have the top-end like my old 3.2CL NA 6, but the BMW has plenty more passing power in almost any gear.
Again, not sure I can add much to the OP's car search, but maybe I'll help support that a Turbo-4 is as good if not better than a NA 6.
Last edited by '01White3.2CL; 02-09-2018 at 05:53 PM.
02-09-2018, 05:54 PM
#27
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,123
Received 4,824 Likes
on
2,571 Posts
I drive a turbo-4 - in fact two turbo-4's in the garage. They are quite common now, aren't they? Even Porsche is using Turbo-4's in all 718's...
I see this thread is not much about performance, but I'll add a few comments there anyway. The VW has quite substantial turbo-lag, very irregular gearing when accelerating. The BMW on the other hand has next to no turbo-lag, pretty much feels like a NA 6-cylinder. What I do like about the turbo engine is that it makes more torque than HP (270HP/290TQ stock), and it has a mid-range powerband. Now, I do miss the top end of my old 3.2CL NA 6, but the BMW has plenty more passing power in almost any gear.
Again, not sure I can add much to the OP's car search, but maybe I'll help support that a Turbo-4 is as good if not better than a NA 6.
I see this thread is not much about performance, but I'll add a few comments there anyway. The VW has quite substantial turbo-lag, very irregular gearing when accelerating. The BMW on the other hand has next to no turbo-lag, pretty much feels like a NA 6-cylinder. What I do like about the turbo engine is that it makes more torque than HP (270HP/290TQ stock), and it has a mid-range powerband. Now, I do miss the top end of my old 3.2CL NA 6, but the BMW has plenty more passing power in almost any gear.
Again, not sure I can add much to the OP's car search, but maybe I'll help support that a Turbo-4 is as good if not better than a NA 6.
But like I said, all depends on the make/model.
02-09-2018, 07:24 PM
#28
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Age: 45
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 190 Likes
on
119 Posts
4 bangers sound awful, even with a turbo. I can't do it. That hollow, raspy exhaust drives me insane. If I'm buying a car I'm going to be in for 100 miles a day it has to sound good. V6 or bigger every day. I recently drove the new accord 2.0T for an extended test drive (over an hour including interstate) - omg I hated it! I wrote a review in another thread so won't go into detail but that car was incredibly disappointing on several levels. Honestly if your brother's primary concern is mpg but doesn't want hybrid I'd look at the new civic touring before an accord. I swear that car is built more solid and drives better than the Accord, and majority of owners are reporting +40mpg on the highway. Obviously not as fast as the accord, but a superior vehicle imo, and a heck of a lot cheaper. I'm not up to speed on all the maker's current V6 mpg but they should all be right around 30 highway as that's what the EPA is asking for.
02-09-2018, 08:07 PM
#29
Azine Jabroni
I've heard nothing but good things about VTEC turbos. That being said, "sound" falls pretty far down my list of needs in an engine.
02-10-2018, 01:36 PM
#30
This is kind of where I am as well. Granted I’ve never owned a sports car where I would have a higher priority on sound. My MDX with the J37 actually sounded really good when Vtec kicked in yo, but that was just a massive bonus and not at all factored into the purchase process.
02-10-2018, 03:14 PM
#31
Someday, an RS6 Avant+
Yes. The base version here at the top Subie dealer in the country (Heuberger) is ~ $26.5K. Not bad for the performance you get. And that is with a 6MT.
https://www.bestbuysubaru.com/new/Subaru/2018-Subaru-WRX-Colorado-Springs-e07d60370a0e0a172fe35b29ca914435.htm?searchDepth=3 :45
https://www.bestbuysubaru.com/new/Subaru/2018-Subaru-WRX-Colorado-Springs-e07d60370a0e0a172fe35b29ca914435.htm?searchDepth=3 :45
02-10-2018, 03:19 PM
#32
Team Owner
This is kind of where I am as well. Granted I’ve never owned a sports car where I would have a higher priority on sound. My MDX with the J37 actually sounded really good when Vtec kicked in yo, but that was just a massive bonus and not at all factored into the purchase process.
02-10-2018, 04:31 PM
#33
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
My friend has VA WRX that gets over 35mpg on the highway. His car is tuned to about 350 hp.
Turbocharged engine mpg relies on the drivers driving style. It will get absolutely shit mpg if you get in the boost every single time you get on the gas. It can be very good if you drive like a normal guy.
Turbocharged engine mpg relies on the drivers driving style. It will get absolutely shit mpg if you get in the boost every single time you get on the gas. It can be very good if you drive like a normal guy.
02-11-2018, 02:34 PM
#34
Turbo 4s can be fun and economical. Depends on the tuning, transmission and size of the car of course. My wife's CR-V with the turbo 4 was built for economy, so it's super-boring.
Not sure what type of car he's looking for, but I had a '11 6MT Mini Cooper S and it was probably the most fun car I've owned. Good torque, pretty light weight, amazing handling, and got around 36 MPG. Great size for city driving.
Not sure what type of car he's looking for, but I had a '11 6MT Mini Cooper S and it was probably the most fun car I've owned. Good torque, pretty light weight, amazing handling, and got around 36 MPG. Great size for city driving.
02-11-2018, 03:58 PM
#35
Team Owner
Turbo 4s can be fun and economical. Depends on the tuning, transmission and size of the car of course. My wife's CR-V with the turbo 4 was built for economy, so it's super-boring.
Not sure what type of car he's looking for, but I had a '11 6MT Mini Cooper S and it was probably the most fun car I've owned. Good torque, pretty light weight, amazing handling, and got around 36 MPG. Great size for city driving.
Not sure what type of car he's looking for, but I had a '11 6MT Mini Cooper S and it was probably the most fun car I've owned. Good torque, pretty light weight, amazing handling, and got around 36 MPG. Great size for city driving.
https://www.hondata.com/flashpro-2017-crv
02-11-2018, 04:01 PM
#36
Azine Jabroni
02-11-2018, 04:05 PM
#37
Team Owner
Money well spent, in my opinion
Fairly cheap, safe, easy power. What's not to like?
Fairly cheap, safe, easy power. What's not to like?
02-11-2018, 06:55 PM
#38
Banned
4 bangers sound awful, even with a turbo. I can't do it. That hollow, raspy exhaust drives me insane. If I'm buying a car I'm going to be in for 100 miles a day it has to sound good. V6 or bigger every day. I recently drove the new accord 2.0T for an extended test drive (over an hour including interstate) - omg I hated it! I wrote a review in another thread so won't go into detail but that car was incredibly disappointing on several levels. Honestly if your brother's primary concern is mpg but doesn't want hybrid I'd look at the new civic touring before an accord. I swear that car is built more solid and drives better than the Accord, and majority of owners are reporting +40mpg on the highway. Obviously not as fast as the accord, but a superior vehicle imo, and a heck of a lot cheaper. I'm not up to speed on all the maker's current V6 mpg but they should all be right around 30 highway as that's what the EPA is asking for.
It is unclear what OP's brother uses to drive. It could be helpful. I don't have the feeling that ultimate fuel economy is the top priority.
Sometime, the use of regular gas compensates for 1-2mpg over a better figure that requires premium gas. And V6s have often cylinder disactivation, so they run on 3 when stabilized on highways.
Even with both the same gas, it can gives interesting comparisons. To be clear, Accord 2.0T 255HP and Camry V6 301HP fuel costs and consumption are essentially the same.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39751&id=38882
And of course, between the two the Toyota's powertrain is the one I'd really want; sweet and with some interesting engine note, not something that feels at home in a f* Civic.. Yeah, a TLX V6 could also be his answer, why not.
Last edited by Saintor; 02-11-2018 at 07:06 PM.
02-11-2018, 07:11 PM
#39
Team Owner
too bad the V6 is dead. sorry bruh, better get used to it.
Even if the NHTSA drops the stringent fuel economy standards set out for something like 2026, or whatever it is, they're still higher than what Honda can regularly achieve with the V6. Honda will take every 1 mpg they can, wherever they can, to meet the EPA requirements. Better enjoy your NA V6 while you can. It's the last one from Honda, ever.
but don't worry, Toyota has a perfect Camry V6 waiting for you...
Oh, and for whoever said they travel 100 miles per day and need that V6 sound... how much engine sound do you hear while cruising down the highway? Are you shifting gears every 10 seconds? I'd imagine the car sits in a high gear, low in the rpm band, giving you next to no audible feedback. So... where's the argument?
Even if the NHTSA drops the stringent fuel economy standards set out for something like 2026, or whatever it is, they're still higher than what Honda can regularly achieve with the V6. Honda will take every 1 mpg they can, wherever they can, to meet the EPA requirements. Better enjoy your NA V6 while you can. It's the last one from Honda, ever.
but don't worry, Toyota has a perfect Camry V6 waiting for you...
Oh, and for whoever said they travel 100 miles per day and need that V6 sound... how much engine sound do you hear while cruising down the highway? Are you shifting gears every 10 seconds? I'd imagine the car sits in a high gear, low in the rpm band, giving you next to no audible feedback. So... where's the argument?
02-11-2018, 07:21 PM
#40
Team Owner
also, I call BS on those fuel economy numbers. They rate the 10AT at the same fuel efficiency as the 6MT. that's not even in the realm of possible. And if it was, Honda just added 4 gears into a transmission for absolutely nothing. They could've stuck with a 6AT, removed half the moving parts, development, testing, whatever, and still had the same results. It looks like that website posts generic values for fuel economy, from who knows where. From Honda? The same Honda that claims their 2.0T produces only 255hp at the crank, but in reality, is putting 260hp down at the wheels? Hmmm...