Accord 18 pics released...TLX killer?
#481
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
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.
The following users liked this post:
2012wagon (10-14-2017)
#482
You are rare in not being a Luddite
most people cant accept things changing in the future
most people cant accept things changing in the future
#484
Stunningly beautiful
#485
Banned
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.
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.
#486
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
75-mph highway driving: 35 mpg is not that bad I only get 31mpg @ 72mph. 500+ mile range is good for any road trip.
#487
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 10-15-2017 at 04:50 PM.
#488
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
you can't spell sore taint without saintor
The following 4 users liked this post by Majofo:
#489
Senior Moderator
#492
Banned
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.
Last edited by Saintor; 10-16-2017 at 08:44 AM.
#493
Banned
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.
Last edited by Saintor; 10-16-2017 at 08:43 AM.
#494
Burning Brakes
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.
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.
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.
#495
Banned
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.
The following 2 users liked this post by rockstar143:
BEAR-AvHistory (10-16-2017),
CoquiTSX (10-16-2017)
#497
Lola
#498
Latent car nut
iTrader: (2)
The following 3 users liked this post by horseshoez:
#500
Burning Brakes
Hahaha. Owned.
The following users liked this post:
BEAR-AvHistory (10-16-2017)
#501
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
The following users liked this post:
Shadow2056 (10-16-2017)
#502
Burning Brakes
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.
The following users liked this post:
BEAR-AvHistory (10-16-2017)
#503
Banned
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.
.
.
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.
#504
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by Saintor
You can whine all day, yet it is actually no better than a TLX V6.
It's better in price and bang for your buck.. plus looks plus ...list goes on
The following users liked this post:
Shadow2056 (10-16-2017)
#505
Burning Brakes
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.
#506
Banned
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
#507
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Dirty H-Town, Amerikkka
Posts: 28,432
Received 7,772 Likes
on
5,045 Posts
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.
The following 2 users liked this post by cu2wagon:
BEAR-AvHistory (10-16-2017),
Majofo (10-16-2017)
#508
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
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.
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
Shadow2056 (10-16-2017)
#509
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 10-16-2017 at 11:21 AM.
The following users liked this post:
pyrodan007 (10-16-2017)
#510
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
#511
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
Stage 2 tune should result in +100 / +150... Where's the EPA numbers for that??
#513
Burning Brakes
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.
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.
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.
#514
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 10-16-2017 at 12:12 PM.
#516
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 846 Likes
on
526 Posts
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.
The difference is right here.
2T - TORQUE 273 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm
V6 - TORQUE 252 lb-ft @ 4900 rpm
The V6 horsepower advantage at the top end is not enough to overcome its extra weight & the 2T torque advantage down low until the end of the quarter mile. The V6 will get to 130 in just a little more time then the 2T takes to get to 120.
C&D posted this Zero to 60 mph: 2T 5.6 sec - 1.5T 6.6 sec
2T - TORQUE 273 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm
V6 - TORQUE 252 lb-ft @ 4900 rpm
The V6 horsepower advantage at the top end is not enough to overcome its extra weight & the 2T torque advantage down low until the end of the quarter mile. The V6 will get to 130 in just a little more time then the 2T takes to get to 120.
C&D posted this Zero to 60 mph: 2T 5.6 sec - 1.5T 6.6 sec
On paper, about as quick to 60 as the TLX V6 PAWS.....granted, the latter starts to pull away slightly as the speed climbs.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...wd-test-review
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...wd-test-review
The 2.0T seems to help with making the car handle better by making the front end lighter.
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.
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.
#517
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
The following users liked this post:
rockstar143 (10-16-2017)
#518
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.
#519
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
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.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 10-16-2017 at 12:37 PM.
#520
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.
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.