colt427

buying a '17 Accord and was told the new gen '18 will not have a V6 option.I didn't ask and don't know if the Touring will continue to have the V6.
I wonder if Honda will keep the V6 in the RDX.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

why?
the civics are wonderful with great gobs of torque down low with the turbo.
if you are afraid of the turbo fiasco of the 1st gen RDX...DONT WORRY! these brand new turbo engines are designed from the ground up...instead of piggy backing on the K24..

have you driven a Ford vehicle with it's ecoboost?
fucking GOBS and GOBS of power!!!!!!!!!!!
their 4500lb trucks and SUV's completely DEMOLISH "sport sedans", EVERY WHERE on the tach. 0-60 and 60-100+!

rosen39

Just rented a 2017 Mustang convertible, and thought it had a V-6. It was the 2.3 liter 4 cylinder eco-boost engine. The V-6 is the "base" engine and the eco-boost engine is the upgrade.

It moves on the highway when you need to pass someone. Still not convinced? Go drive a Volvo XC-90 with the 2 liter 4 cylinder engine. It has over 300 horsepower.

colt427

The Honda V6 is a great smooth running engine.I'd prefer it over a 4 banger with a turbo in a heartbeat.
I driven a new BMW,Audi,Lexus and the 1.5L Civic this week.All with 4 cyl turbo and not one was as quiet and smooth as the V6.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

you're lying!!!

Fords ecoboost will put bus lengths on our archaic v6's.
our v6's make peak torque at 5700-6000 RPM...
where as a turbo will make peak torque at 2000 RPM.

we have to rev the ever living shit out of our V6 to make 250lbs of torque/ feet.

a turbo will have 250lbs/ft in usable RPM range

TacoBello

Seriously, engine noise is your biggest complaint? It's an Accord. It's not a Lexus LS.

More than half of Accords sold in the last 17 years (and way longer) have come with a 4 cylinder engine. Noise has never been a serious complaint of those cars. Now adding a turbo to a 4 cylinder is bad? I get it. It replaces the "higher" end V6, but considering you get WAY more torque down low, and easily more HP up top at more or less the same fuel economy, why in the world wouldn't you want it? People just see losing 2 cylinders as being a downgrade. It's anything but. And as if the V6 doesn't get loud when you start opening it up. Maybe if cruising at 2000 rpm it's silent... but so is a turbo 4 Cyl, turbo.

I dunno. I've driven plenty of 2.0T cars and engine noise was never a complaint of mine. First world problems, maybe? I dunno.

TacoBello

Turbos are the future for all manufacturers. All hail the turbos!

colt427

My biggest complain is a rougher idle and lack of smoothness compared to a V6.That can also be said of Toyota engines..

snorf

I have only had 2 personal experiences with the ford turbos. We rented a fusion (the quietest interior I've ever ridden in to include a Bentley) and a Taurus. We found them to have the power of a 4 cylinder with the fuel economy of a 6 (or perhaps 8) cylinder. We go to Maine a couple times a year and we usually get a camry or altima for a rental. We always average about 35 mpg or more on both those cars. We got 22 mpg on the each of the fords. We basically drove the same roads under the same conditions. The only nice thing we had to say about the Taurus was that after we turned it in we know better than to ever accept another one. I do believe turbos are probably the future for cars in the US, but I truly hope that my experience with these fords will not be representative of what is to be expected.

Comfy

1+ to that. It is besides the fact that when the turbo is being used the fuel economy is much worse than a V6. I get that you don't use the turbo all the time but then it drives and sounds like a regular unrefined four pot. May be they need better sound insulation.

RDX10

I loved my turbo 4 in my 1G RDX, it had a very punchy and strong push when really stepped. I have also driven a multitude of other turbo 4 vehicles (the last being a tuned EVO X with the DCT and something like 350+hp and TQ). Did it feel strong and effortless, yes, did it launch like mad and have gobs and gobs of torque, yes absolutely.

But at the end of the day it did in absolutely no way, shape, or form feel like a V6 or V8. There is just something so "artificial" about turbo 4 engines. Even ones with 300lb/ft at like 1200 rpm feel weird to me despite the massive torque so early on. It is this "fakeness" that just won't do it for me.

colt427

Well stated!

chickdr

Agreed, there there isn't a good substitute for V6 smoothness. Even if the hp/tq numbers are similar I would take the smoothness of the V6 over an FI 4. The sounds are not very luxurious either. When I hear Q5 2.0T's drive by, I am glad I don't own one.

markordx

Will a turbo 4 go , 200k miles without a major repair ? I'm in the wait n see mode. I chose the 3.5, happily averaging 26 to 27 mpg .

Comfy

As I was going through these forums my friend shows up unexpectedly in his brand new CRV. I didn't even know that he had bought one, just knew that he was looking for one. Okay so it goes without saying that my test drive was done.
Overall I was impressed with the features, the thoroughly modern look, the digital dash, so many features that I don't have in my RDX such as blind spot monitor, adaptive Cc, auto lane correct, "turbo boost" , and so on. It was an EX-L model and the only feature that my RDX had which this CRV didn't have was navigation. But even that was easily surpassed when my friend connected his iPhone to apple CarPlay and used the phone GPS for google maps. .
Upon starting though, i felt the engine was so rough and unrefined, it didn't change much until I hit the interstate when the general noise drowned out the engine noise. The car was adequately powerful though not as much as the RDX. The turbo boost comes are only around 3800 RPM and by that time you are already very fast. Didn't like the CVT even though it didn't have very pronounced " rubberband effect".
Afterwards, driving my RDX felt so relaxed and serene and powerful that I was glad I chose this car.
Now for me, it simply reinforced my belief that engine is the heart of the car and a smooth and strong heart is worth much more than any other technological gimmicks.

TacoBello

the artificial feeling is the mad torque coming on at full strength, at such low rpm. It just doesn't seem to make sense how a 4 cylinder engine can feel so beefy, so low. A naturally aspirated V6 and V8 can't touch it either, and need to build more rpm to get to the same level. The V6 feels more natural, because the power builds linearly with the sound of the engine building speed, the increasing vibrations, and the exhaust building volume. The turbo four builds power faster than rpm would normally allow it to and engine sound makes it seem.

Acura604

.....if they try to take my V6 .....they will have to pry it from my cold, dead hands.

( or in this case my index finger that presses START )

RDX10

I don't disagree with you. However I appreciate the linear power build up of a V6 coupled with the smoother drivetrain characteristics. The 2016 Sorento comes with a NA I4, a turbo 2.0l I4, and a 3.3l V6. Given the choice between the 2.0l and the V6 I would take the V6 easily. However in a smaller vehicle I would easily take a turbo 4 over a V6.

I think for me it depends on the application. For example Volvo uses a turbo 2.0L I4 in their S90 and XC90. This is ridiculous to me, something that large should not be using a 4 cylinder engine. I don't care if it has a turbo and a supercharger, I don't care that it has 300HP and lb/ft. However in something like the XC60 or S60, sure, bring on the turbo 4! In terms of my RDX, I was VERY happy that it had a turbo 4, if the same year (2007) MDX had a turbo 4 at the time I would not have touched it with a pole.

Comfy

ha ha. That was good one. .

colt427

The XC90 is 4400 lbs too.
A turbo and a supercharger on a 2L.What can go wrong?:wink:

bmllr8

I previously owned a Honda Pilot with a V6 and currently own a VW Jetta with a 4 cylinder turbo which I am looking to replace possibly this year with a RDX. Markedly different cars for certain, but the turbo is much louder in the VW than my Pilot ever was thanks to the Jetta's direct injection which is most noticeable at idle. Also, the power build is not linear in my car, though VW redesigned their turbos starting in 2015 or 2016 to help address that issue. Not hating on turbos because on the highway they work well by having gobs of torque for easy passing (my car's torque peak is at 1700 RPM) and when you get out of the boost for cruise control on the highway the mileage reverts back to an almost economy like 4 cylinder mode (I get about 32 MPG on the interstate). If you drive primarily in the city and suburbs, prepared to be underwhelmed by your mileage unless you really try hard to keep the turbo boost to a minimum. And the comment on turbos lasting to 200k miles... don't know about that, but my under hood temperatures get pretty crazy when I run the engine hard and heat doesn't play well with electronics and rubber hoses/belts over the long run. Certainly these are all things that can be addressed with more frequent part replacements and by taking it easy on the last five minutes of your drive to let the engine cool somewhat before shutting it down. A turbo 4 isn't a deal breaker for me, though a CVT certainly would be.

RDX10

Check that again, it weighs a WHOPPING 4600 pounds in T6 trim (only the turbo/supercharged I4) and a FRICKEN RIDICULOUS 5100 pounds in T8-Hybrid trim (that I4 and 3 electric motors. What could ever go wrong?

colt427

Skidoor

lol..best post of the day.....