Oh come on, you don't seriously track a Honda Accord do you?
It's not better by any objective performance metric, 0-60 being #1 for me
I hate to break it to you, chief, but the 2.0T is not better (or worse, for that matter) in your precious 0-60 metric.
The 9th gen V6 automatic sedan was consistently clocked in the 5.6-5.8 second range by both Motor Trend and Car and Driver, while the automatic V6 coupe was able to hit 60 in 5.5 seconds when it was tested by Car and Driver in 2013. Even a slightly heavier Touring coupe with the giant 19" wheels was able to achieve a 5.6 second 0-60 time near the end of the 9th gen's life span. The 6-6 usually tested in the 5.6-5.8 second range, but it also ran as quickly as [email protected]
in the quarter-mile which is quicker than even the fastest 10G 2.0T ever tested ([email protected]
The 2.0T/10AT has mainly been in the 5.7-5.8 range, with only one 5.5 second run in an early (pre-production?) Touring model tested by Car and Driver. I'm pretty sure that time was a fluke, as Motor Trend was only able to achieve a best time of 5.7 (same as a 2017 V6 Touring they tested earlier that year) in one test, and 5.8 in a comparison test. Car and Driver later tested an EX-L 2.0T that was 0.2 seconds slower than the Touring they originally tested, despite carrying 107 fewer pounds and wearing lighter 17" wheels. More telling was the fact that the lighter EX-L "only" trapped at 100 mph in the quarter, while the "ringer" Touring trapped at 102 mph. A 2 mph difference in trap speed is significant, and is beyond any margin of error or variability between two examples of the same powerplant, especially when the faster time was recorded in a heavier car with greater rolling resistance (due to the Touring's massive wheels). Motor Trend's quarter-mile trap speeds have been in the 98-99 mph range for the 10G 2.0T/10AT, which makes C/D's 102 mph ringer Touring seem like even more of an outlier.
So the 9G V6 and 10G 2.0T/10AT are practically even 0-60, on average, given the evidence at hand, and they were both able to achieve a best time of 5.5 seconds. It should be noted that the 9G was able to record its best time while carrying an extra 100 pounds over the quickest 10G, and a 9G Touring sedan (3,593 lbs) was only one tenth slower than a nearly-300-lb-lighter 2018 EX-L 2.0T (3,312 lbs). So while the two cars may be similarly quick overall, the V6 is clearly the stronger motor. That fact is even more clear when you compare the 6MT versions of both cars: the V6/6MT smokes the 2.0T/6MT in a straight line.
Another metric that's perhaps even more pertinent to the average driver than 0-60 times is Car and Driver's 5-60 test. The 5-60 test measures a car's acceleration off the line without using any strenuous launch techniques such as clutch dumps with a manual, or brake-torquing with an automatic. In that test, the 2.0T loses to the V6 by quite a bit. While the V6 consistently posted 5-60 times in the 5.8-6.0 range (5.9 on average), the 2.0T/10AT could only manage 6.1 seconds in the case of the ringer Touring, and a lackluster 6.4 seconds for the EX-L 2.0T. So unless you regularly brake-torque your 10G from stoplights, the 9G V6 is quicker off the line.
The 10G may be better than the 9G in many ways (and I'd hope so considering that it's 5 years newer), but the 0-60 performance metric is not one of them.
Let's race, you're gonna lose
Cool your jets there, hotshot. The 2.0T/10AT is soft from a stop due to turbo lag, and doesn't really start pulling hard until the top of 1st gear. The V6 pulls hard instantly, making it somewhat tricky to launch without ridiculous amounts of wheelspin. So if the V6 driver bogs their launch with excessive wheelspin (and there's a decent chance of that happening), the 2.0T will win. However, if the V6 driver gets a clean launch, the 2.0T will fall behind immediately and be forced to play catch-up for the remainder of the race.