Yeah I like my I-phone 7+ & Apple Play but a lot of people in my generation want the old days with rotary dial land lines back. Been driving long enough to have seen automatic transmissions suck, power steering sucks, power brakes suck, hydraulic lifters suck, disc brakes suck, FM car radios suck, unleaded gasoline sucks & so on. The list is ever changing but the more things change the more they stay the same.

 

You are rare in not being a Luddite

most people cant accept things changing in the future

 

Hopefully the photo shows up since I’m using GT to post.

Usually you have a fat ass and a not so lovely face, but, this Accord is the opposite.

 

Stunningly beautiful

 

BTW in the C&D 2.0T test.

C/D FUEL ECONOMY:
Observed: 24 mpg
75-mph highway driving: 35 mpg
Highway range: 510 miles

EPA FUEL ECONOMY (MFR'S EST): [ES-TI-MA-TE]
City/highway: 22/32 mpg [similar to Civic R EPA 22/28]

If it is confirmed, that's bad.

 

75-mph highway driving: 35 mpg is not that bad I only get 31mpg @ 72mph. 500+ mile range is good for any road trip.

 

Hit the post key before I was done DUH

75-mph highway driving 35 mpg is not that bad I only get 31mpg @ 72mph. 500+ mile range is good for any road trip.

C&D said this about the 2016 2.4 Accord in an in depth review

"That result is made all the more impressive by the fact that a four-cylinder Honda Accord Sport also achieved 35 mpg during our highway test"—200 miles drivers maintain a GPS-verified 75 mph, using the cruise control as much as possible,

For the V6 that the Turbo 2T is replacing C&D's observed fuel economy was 22MPG. So the turbo 2T is slightly quicker gets 2MPG better mileage overall than the V6 why is that bad yet matches the old 2.4 engine that it kills in performance over the road at 75MPH?

 

you can't spell sore taint without saintor

 

2018 Toyota Camry XSE V-6 vs. 2018 Honda Accord Touring 2.0T Comparison - Motor Trend

 

well said, Bear.

 

Another reason the Accord was named the Sedan of the Year by C&D.

Here some pics of the Accord Touring. The ones we have are the 1.5Ts. The 2.0s won't be out until November.

 

You can whine all day, yet it is actually no better than a TLX V6. Thanks to its cylinder disactivation, the TLX is rated 34mpg highway and I get better than this routinely with my AWD @ 115-120km/h, Many TLX V6 reports stellar highway mpg as well.

So the Accord now gets a 10sp. (TEN SPEED) transmission in a lighter platform and NO GAIN on the the highway? How ridiculous. This was also realized in the C&D test drive as they rightly mentioned it in their CONS.

 

Interesting to see that Honda 2.0T offers near zero benefit over the fresh Toyota 3.5L.

I saw this Camry red interior (shown in the comparo) in person and it is quite impressive.

 

That's THEIR driving. They drive more on the....performance end. Not daily driver status. They said the same about the 1.5 in the Civic but I've had customers getting close to 50mpg. Get someone who doesn't test out the performance on any car and I'm sure the numbers for fuel economy will change.

 

That's why EPA is the ticket if you want to compare the real deal. Absolutely not impressed by differences of a mere 1 mpg or 0.1s in measured times..

 

I don't think Honda's goal was to impress you.

 

The Accord handles better and has much shorter brake distance thanks to the smaller engine.

 

I believe I saw a memo go by which stated, "One of Honda's recent design goals was to totally piss off Saintor; the more annoyed Saintor is, the better the design."

 

I stand corrected!

 

Once again. As I stated before. Stop going by the numbers on paper. They're not going to do anything for you. They are there for GENERAL numbers. Not actual. The 2016 Accord V6 is rated at 33mpg highway. My sister had one and was getting 42mpg. Once again. Stop going by the paper. If that's all you go by, you'll never buy anything unless it's a sports car and then your thoughts on daily economy cars becomes irrelevant.

Hahaha. Owned.

 

You are definitely new here.
Saintor only knows the world through eZine articles and spec sheets.
Even when the numbers are good, he'll find a way to be obtuse.

 

So ... having a big V6 is also just as pointless since they have the same performance ...
Just embrace the 2.0Toy revolution. Giving up my V6 in the TLX and going to a turbo 4 in my A4 has opened my eyes. Acura is fucked if they don't change things around .... Honda has.

 

Again totally forgetting that the 2018- has a 10-sp,, not that V6 with an old 6-sp.

I couldn't care about irrational claim of Civic "getting 50mpg". This is rubbish and again, EPA is king for comparison, no matter some anecdotes.

 

What's that's saying about those in glass houses?


It's better in price and bang for your buck.. plus looks plus ...list goes on

 

Yeah. Seems like it. Hahaha.

I'm not interested in anyone who just follows only spec sheets with no real experience. Doesn't make for a good conversation. And it's not a "irrational claim". It was actual mileage. Customer showed me the pics of the screen. Same for my sister. Ok. On to the next person. Hahaha.

 

For your information the difference in weight between the Accord, 1.5CVT and 2.0T is HIGHER than the difference between Camry 2.5 and 3.5. And to start with, that Camry 2.5 is already 300lbs+ heavier than the Accord 1.5CVT

 

I tell you hwut, if Acura put up some numbers with their old V6 and 6sp that were better by a mere 1 mpg or even 0.1s in measured times... I would be absolutely impressed.

 

Again, he says EPA is king, which shows he's painfully unaware that the EPA regurgitates nearly 90% of what the mfg claims.
That could be the gamut of being conservative to liberal with those numbers.

The cars teh EPA actually tests are run the fuck out of.. they dog the shit out of them.
Almost every regulatory body that tests the same vehicle gets significantly better numbers in terms of fuel efficiency.
But that info would totally be lost on an obtuse motherfucker.

 

No more needs to be said.

 

 

Stage 2 tune should result in +100 / +150... Where's the EPA numbers for that??

 

if I could have just gotten ah honduh and stage 2 why the hell did I buy that stupid audi?

 

Lol.

Honda has always dumbed down their numbers. Fuel economy. Power. Especially here lately. People putting down consistent 295whp on the Civic. Which, when the math is done, means the Type R is putting down more than the 306hp that Honda says its making crank wise. So I'm pretty sure the new 1.5T and 2.0T will be making more power than Honda says but always better fuel economy than what people can pull out of every magazine and website they find.

 

He is really scoring a lot of points today. Something about the old axiom "when you are in a hole don't keep shoveling". Guess he did not get the memo.

 

I haven't been in too many holes I've wanted to get out of in a big hurry, if we're being honest.

 

That makes more sense. But if you look at the MT test:
2018 Toyota Camry XSE V-6 vs. 2018 Honda Accord Touring 2.0T Comparison - Motor Trend

The MFR EPA estimates are now 23/34mpg.

What's wrong if they got 24mpg observed?

They got 21mpg observed in the 2016 Accord V6 6AT:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...an-test-review

EPA or real world, the new 2.0T Accord AT seems to be better than the old car? And the new car is as fast, if not faster too.

Also, the TLX 2.4 you mentioned has a 8-speed DCT. The Accord uses a CVT. If you look at the old Accord I4 CVT, it's also a a car that does 0-60mph in 7.6s or so.

With cylinder deactivation and a tall 6th gear, the old Accord V6 has always been getting very good mpg on the hwy. In fact, in the real world, the Accord V6 was doing better than many smaller displacement turbocharged cars. I think that's one of the reasons Honda was sticking to the V6 for as long as they did. The J series is still a great sounding engine with good NVH characteristics, powerful enough for a family sedan, and gets decent mpg.

It's actually a typo by C/D. They meant 120mph, not 130mph. You can look at the actual test sheet.

Yea, 103mph ftw! But I have a feeling the 2.0T probably responds to mods better

I think Honda's goal for the 2.0T is to match the previous V6 in performance while getting better EPA ratings. The old Accord V6 6AT was rated at 21/34mpg. The 2.0T 10AT is expected to be rated at 23/34mpg.

The 2.0T seems to help with making the car handle better by making the front end lighter.

The Camry V6 has a power to weight ratio of 12.2lb/hp. The Accord V6 has a power to weight ratio of 13.6lb/hp. That's over 10% difference, yet the Accord is matching the Camry pace. The Accord does have 2 extra cogs but still, there's a significant difference in power to weight ratios. Either the Accord is underrated or the Camry is overrated. And I doubt the Camry is overrated as the performance it's getting is exactly what I'd expect from a 300hp 3650lb car. I'm thinking the Accord is more like 270hp.

 

Hope you did not use a shovel.

 

Agreed. Honda is definitely underrating the Accord 2.0T.

 

So the 2T is also faster to 120mph then the V6, sweet. Wonder if we will be seeing JB4's for the turbos.

Anything that can take weight off the front end of a FWD car is a big plus. I am surprised they did not put the battery in the trunk.

 

You guys see this:


Although rowing your own gears is indisputably more fun, the Honda stick shift’s throws and clutch pedal travel are both long—likely to ease the commute drudgery of a quick-shift box—and this adds a half-second penalty both to the 0–60 and quarter-mile times. One ridiculous point: You must engage the electronic parking brake before you can start the manual-transmission Accord. Patch that, pronto, Honda.