Get rid of the Accord V6 - Drive Accord Honda Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
post #1 of 66 Old 04-10-2014, 08:30 AM Thread Starter
2nd Gear
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 76
Thanks: 3
Thanked 25 Times in 14 Posts
Get rid of the Accord V6

Get rid of the Accord V6, and make it a turbocharged i4 for better fuel economy. BMW did it with 328i, why not Honda?

A common myth is that Honda mechanics believe that turbocharging an engine decreases its overall life expectancy, so that's why Honda probably sticks to naturally aspirated engines which are supposedly more reliable. But how true is this?
enchantedsky is offline  
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 66 Old 04-10-2014, 10:01 AM
1st Gear
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 46
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Because turbo will always lug, therefore V6 is better

2012 Accord EX-L coupe 6-6
vlad777 is offline  
post #3 of 66 Old 04-10-2014, 01:49 PM
03-SSM-AV6-6MT
 
ChrisQ80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 983
Thanks: 192
Thanked 224 Times in 186 Posts
Look at Honda's reliability compared to other brands. Smart people won't own a BMW out of warranty, unless money is no object.

Personally I'd rather have a powerful N/A car built than a turbo. I think an engine should make all of it's power all of the time. I like N/A.

2003 Accord V6 6MT
Factory OEM kit/spoiler/fogs. 35% window tint. DC CAI, 3.7 Intake manifold and TB, coolant bypass, RV6 Jpipe, Borla Cat back, TL ECU tuned on Hondata Flashpro, Ingals tq dampner, JDM DC5-R 6mt shift knob, TL-S rear sway bar, H&R sport with Koni adjustables. Black housing headlights, gloss black roof. TSX A-spec wheels, Bf Goodrich sport comp2 tires. 240whp 216wtq

1998 Honda Civic HX 5MT (work/beater)
ChrisQ80 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to ChrisQ80 For This Useful Post:
pauly (04-14-2014)
post #4 of 66 Old 04-10-2014, 04:30 PM
5th Gear
 
Kamdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: New York
Posts: 748
Thanks: 49
Thanked 124 Times in 95 Posts
Because Honda doesn't have too. There are no 400+ HP cars for Honda to average in to their mix.
Kamdog is offline  
post #5 of 66 Old 04-10-2014, 05:31 PM
1st Gear
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 5
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
V6 sounds better.
squid42 is offline  
post #6 of 66 Old 04-11-2014, 06:17 AM
6th Gear
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,034
Thanks: 26
Thanked 72 Times in 64 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlad777 View Post
Because turbo will always lug, therefore V6 is better
"Lag" not "lug"?

2013 Accord Sedan EX-L Nav., Basque Red Pearl
2004 Odyssey EX-L, Havasu Blue Metallic, 235,000 miles
1998 Accord LX Sedan 5-speed, Heather Mist Metallic; went to live with my youngest son. Died Jan. 2015 with 246,000+, (right front axle broke).
HondaBob is offline  
post #7 of 66 Old 04-12-2014, 03:50 AM
Out of Control
 
Baldeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 2,199
Thanks: 165
Thanked 337 Times in 251 Posts
I just came from a GTI (turbo I4) and regularly drive a good friendís 2013 BMW 528i. The power delivery of Hondaís 3.5-liter V6 is far superior to BOTH engines. It has much better throttle response and a more linear power delivery.

The primary benefit I read about turbocharged engines is better fuel economy but Iím not sure if that is true. I averaged about 29 mpg in my GTI and about 27 mpg in my 6-6. (I donít know the actual mpg for the 528i but I am sure it is less.) The problem with the GTI and all other turbo charged cars I know is that it requires premium fuel and my 6-6 runs on regular. When you factor in the lower cost of fuel, the overall fuel cost was the same in both cars. But my 6-6 is larger (+350 lbs) and faster (almost one full second to 60 mph.) To me this proves a turbo I4 has no efficiency advantage over a good V6.

Also turbocharged engines are complicated and HOT. They are good for short bursts of power but not something you can confidently drive hard for sustained time. Go up a steep mountain pass for a half hour under boost and youíll risk cooking something. No problem in a V6.

I suppose I am not so much pro-V6 as much as I am anti-turbo. If the car is smaller and canít fit a ďfatĒ V6 in the engine bay, Iíd much rather have a N/A bigger I4 than a smaller turbo-4. Compare two similarly sized vehicles like a VW CC (200 hp) to an Accord Sport 6MT (189 hp). Both cars are 6.6 seconds to 60 mph but the Sport gets 5-6 mpg better fuel economy on the highway on regular fuel. The 2.4-liter I4 costs less, is more reliable, runs cooler, gets better fuel economy and does not suffer from turbo lag. It has pretty much the same superior attributes as the V6 but on a slightly smaller scale. I really donít see the benefits of a turbo-4.

2012 Accord Coupe EX-L w/Nav, V6-6MT
2007 Accord Sedan EX-L w/Nav, V6-6MT (sold)
Baldeagle is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Baldeagle For This Useful Post:
CDsDontBurn (07-13-2014), HKphooey (04-19-2014), pauly (04-14-2014)
post #8 of 66 Old 04-12-2014, 04:26 AM
6th Gear
 
ezshift5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ..Freeport (CA)
Posts: 1,781
Thanks: 3
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
FWIW: My 6M routinely - highway (not city) calcs upper 30's MPG in 6th gear circa 2150 RPM. No turbo (just a fuel efficient, reliable V-6 - 139,000 on the original plugs)

Try that with a turbo.

ez

2005 Accord EX V-6 Coupe 6M
Taff. White;cargo net;7-24-05

'13 VW JETTA SPTWGN TDI 6M
Build date:03/12/2013 NO NAV
ZERO SUNROOF:CANDY WHITE

1982 VW Rab. Diesel Pickup 5M
Mojave Beige/ac/bedliner/alloys
(sold to restoration outfit)
ezshift5 is offline  
post #9 of 66 Old 04-12-2014, 06:10 AM
Out of Control
 
Flyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 4,272
Thanks: 10
Thanked 392 Times in 307 Posts
Many European countries tax automobiles on the displacement size of the engine. Turbo charging is the only way to get more power without increasing the displacement. Why would anyone want the extra complexity and cost rather than just make a bigger engine? Turbo chargers operate at very high RPM which produce lots of heat and higher pressures which means higher maintenance costs. Some of the extra components are the turbocharger, a waste gate, controller, inter-cooler and associated control parts.

Honda obviously knows how to make turbo chargers because they build world class racing engines but turbochargers don't belong on passenger cars.

2013 Accord Coupe EX-L San Marino Red
2015 CR-V EX Urban Titanium Metallic
2007 Fit Sport Silver 65,000 miles and going strong.
Previous Honda: 2000 Accord Coupe, 1994 Accord Wagon Red, 1988 Prelude White 5 speed manual, 1981 Accord 4 Door Ivory 5 speed manual
Previous Cars before Honda: 73 Mazda RX2 manual, 63 VW Bug manual, 63 Alfa Romeo 2600 Spyder manual, 70 Toyota Crown manual, 59 Vauxhall Victor manual (worst car ever produced, a pre Yugo, Yugo)
Flyboy is offline  
post #10 of 66 Old 04-12-2014, 06:15 AM
Dan
6th Gear
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,554
Thanks: 41
Thanked 40 Times in 35 Posts
Honda makes some of the best engines in the world. The V6 won some awards. but it does suck gas.

3.0-AT (7th Generation)
Dan is offline  
post #11 of 66 Old 04-12-2014, 06:47 AM
Out of Control
 
Baldeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 2,199
Thanks: 165
Thanked 337 Times in 251 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan View Post
Honda makes some of the best engines in the world. The V6 won some awards. but it does suck gas.
I disagree. It does not suck gas. If you put a turbocharged I4 in your car that provided the same level of performance it would deliver essentially the same fuel economy but on more expensive premium fuel.

2012 Accord Coupe EX-L w/Nav, V6-6MT
2007 Accord Sedan EX-L w/Nav, V6-6MT (sold)
Baldeagle is offline  
post #12 of 66 Old 04-12-2014, 07:05 AM
1st Gear
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 5
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Makes me wonder when Honda will do direct injection in the V6ens.
squid42 is offline  
post #13 of 66 Old 04-12-2014, 07:56 AM
"Elvira"
 
Miker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 351
Thanked 275 Times in 226 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlad777 View Post
Because turbo will always lug, therefore V6 is better
Actually that lag is only present with high-pressure turbos. If they would use a low-pressure turbo there would not be any lag in the application of boost.

Volvo used low-pressure turbos on their engines in 2000 (I have one) and the power application is smooth. If you are unfamiliar with low vs high pressure turbos, the low is virtually always "on" therefore you don't have any lag before it starts boosting. You would think "always" being on would hurt the longevity, but there isn't any more degradation as far as I have read or experienced myself.

Longevity depends on how you care for it. Good quality oil, mainly sythetic, and good change intervals will keep the turbo from coking up. The intercooler is simple enough to be left alone. I NEVER performed the turbo cooldown after a drive EVER and nothing detrimental happened to the turbo. They are fairly simple machines.

As opposed to our 6's or the DI I4's here those turbo'd engines DO need 93+ if you really want to get full power out of the engine. That higher compression from all that air really does need that octane. It'll run on 87 but why would you? Let's not turn this into another octane thing though, just concurring that there's your extra cost with a turbo.

As far as extra heat during full out running up hills, long range drives, etc. I can't speak to that. This was a daily driver. Although when I was on another forum for Volvo, there was very little talk about poorly operating turbo's or massive numbers of failures because of a turbo cooking itself. So that extra cost might be caused by how really hard you run it.

Compared to the 3.5 6 in my car now, I get comparatively the same MPG. 33 for the turbo 1.9l I4 5 speed auto(160 hp) and 31 for the 3.5l V6 (278+ hp) 6 speed auto. MPG done old fashioned way and I did say comparatively the same considering the output numbers on both engines and size of engine.

Actually I have more concern about the VCM on this engine causing problems vs a turbo. BUT it's all how you take care of it. If a turbo goes bad it's purely a plug 'n play fix. Not cheap, but easy (kinda like my last GF). VCM goes bad, well I'm not gonna think about that but as far as I can see the mechanics of VCM don't appear to fail. The application of same might screw around with other systems and parts like plugs possibly fouling.

My .03 anyway.

Mike

2013 EX-L V6/6A (no nav) sedan CBP
"vita est brevis, vado pro V6" - Me
"Speak only when you feel that your words are better than your silence." - Anonymous

Please help improve the DA search function by adding tags to your/others posts and threads. Anyone can add tags to any thread. TIA
Miker is offline  
post #14 of 66 Old 04-12-2014, 08:35 AM
CVT
 
dparky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 584
Thanks: 46
Thanked 68 Times in 58 Posts
small displacement turbos dont always mean better fuel economy. with smaller engines you gotta rev them out to get some power, which doesnt translate to meeting EPA estimates. with a larger displacement v6, you dont have to rev them out to get the power, especially since honda enhanced the powerband for the 9th gen.

im quite sure that the v6 in the 9th gen is more efficient than the turbo i4 in the midsize segment anyway..

2013 White Orchid Pearl Accord Sport
35%/30% Llumar Ceramic Tint
OEM Splash Guards
Debadged
LED License Plate Lights
3M Gloss Black Roof, B Pillars & Random Chrome Bits
19mm TL RSB
Gloss Black Roof Spoiler
ExLed Interior Kit 5000k
dparky is offline  
post #15 of 66 Old 04-12-2014, 08:43 AM
CVT
 
dparky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 584
Thanks: 46
Thanked 68 Times in 58 Posts
with a v6 you get a flatter power band and throttle response, especially for the 9th gen v6's. also you gotta take into consideration that with a smaller displacement engines you gotta rev them out to hit full boost. whereas with a v6 you dont have to rev quite as high.

the v6 is as efficient if not more efficient than the 2 liter turbos offered by hyundai/kia/ford. i'll take N/A over a F/I anyday, when it offers the same performance and efficiency.

2013 White Orchid Pearl Accord Sport
35%/30% Llumar Ceramic Tint
OEM Splash Guards
Debadged
LED License Plate Lights
3M Gloss Black Roof, B Pillars & Random Chrome Bits
19mm TL RSB
Gloss Black Roof Spoiler
ExLed Interior Kit 5000k
dparky is offline  
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Drive Accord Honda Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
The answer to the random question may be found under the Off Topic section of the forums and in the "Drive Accord Forums" category.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome