Get rid of the Accord V6 - Drive Accord Honda Forums

Go Back   Drive Accord Honda Forums > Honda Accord Main Forums > General Drive

Drive Honda Accord Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-10-2014, 08:30 AM
enchantedsky enchantedsky is offline
2nd Gear
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 76
Thanks: 3
Thanked 24 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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old 04-10-2014, 10:01 AM
vlad777 vlad777 is offline
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3  
Old 04-10-2014, 01:49 PM
ChrisQ80's Avatar
ChrisQ80 ChrisQ80 is offline
03-SSM-AV6-6MT
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 678
Thanks: 131
Thanked 150 Times in 130 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
1998 Honda Civic HX 5MT (work/beater)

My Accord 6-6

239whp 216wtq Hondata Flashpro
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to ChrisQ80 For This Useful Post:
pauly (04-14-2014)
  #4  
Old 04-10-2014, 04:30 PM
Kamdog's Avatar
Kamdog Kamdog is offline
4th Gear
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: New York
Posts: 443
Thanks: 25
Thanked 75 Times in 53 Posts
Because Honda doesn't have too. There are no 400+ HP cars for Honda to average in to their mix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5  
Old 04-10-2014, 05:31 PM
squid42 squid42 is offline
1st Gear
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 4
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
V6 sounds better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6  
Old 04-11-2014, 06:17 AM
HondaBob HondaBob is offline
5th Gear
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 683
Thanks: 10
Thanked 38 Times in 36 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, 220,000 miles
1998 Accord LX Sedan 5-speed, Heather Mist Metallic, 235,000+ miles; went to live with my youngest son.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7  
Old 04-12-2014, 03:50 AM
Baldeagle's Avatar
Baldeagle Baldeagle is offline
6th Gear
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 1,567
Thanks: 70
Thanked 152 Times in 110 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, 6-6
2007 Accord Sedan EX-L w/Nav, 6-6 (sold)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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)
  #8  
Old 04-12-2014, 04:26 AM
ezshift5's Avatar
ezshift5 ezshift5 is offline
6th Gear
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ..Freeport (CA)
Posts: 1,766
Thanks: 2
Thanked 8 Times in 8 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)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9  
Old 04-12-2014, 06:10 AM
Flyboy's Avatar
Flyboy Flyboy is offline
Out of Control
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 2,960
Thanks: 9
Thanked 219 Times in 177 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 I4 San Marino Red
2000 Accord Coupe V
6
San Marino Red 172,000 miles and still counting!
2007 Fit Sport Silver 56,000 miles and going strong.
Previous Honda: 1994 Accord Wagon Red, 1988 Prelude White, 1981 Accord 4 Door Ivory
Previous Cars before Honda: 73 Mazda RX2, 63 VW Bug, 63 Alfa Romeo 2600 Spyder, 70 Toyota Crown, 59 Vauxhall Victor (worst car ever produced, a pre Yugo, Yugo)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10  
Old 04-12-2014, 06:15 AM
Dan Dan is offline
6th Gear
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,456
Thanks: 27
Thanked 26 Times in 24 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)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11  
Old 04-12-2014, 06:47 AM
Baldeagle's Avatar
Baldeagle Baldeagle is offline
6th Gear
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 1,567
Thanks: 70
Thanked 152 Times in 110 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, 6-6
2007 Accord Sedan EX-L w/Nav, 6-6 (sold)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12  
Old 04-12-2014, 07:05 AM
squid42 squid42 is offline
1st Gear
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 4
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Makes me wonder when Honda will do direct injection in the V6ens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13  
Old 04-12-2014, 07:56 AM
Miker's Avatar
Miker Miker is offline
< "Elvira"
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 979
Thanks: 162
Thanked 120 Times in 104 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 Black Pearl US
DuPage, Illinois
"vita est brevis, vado pro V6"

CHH Horn upgrade
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14  
Old 04-12-2014, 08:35 AM
dparky's Avatar
dparky dparky is online now
CVT
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 543
Thanks: 37
Thanked 55 Times in 51 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, Grille & B Pillars
19mm TL RSB

To Do List
Roof Spoiler wrapped in Gloss Black
Touring Headlights
Touring Tails
Audio Upgrade
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15  
Old 04-12-2014, 08:43 AM
dparky's Avatar
dparky dparky is online now
CVT
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 543
Thanks: 37
Thanked 55 Times in 51 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, Grille & B Pillars
19mm TL RSB

To Do List
Roof Spoiler wrapped in Gloss Black
Touring Headlights
Touring Tails
Audio Upgrade
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
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:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
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:

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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:31 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.