Latest dumping ground thread for yet another V6 vs. 4 cyl turbo debate - Drive Accord Honda Forums
 14Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 31 Old 04-04-2019, 03:09 PM Thread Starter
banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 148
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Latest dumping ground thread for yet another V6 vs. 4 cyl turbo debate

2017 V6s around me are selling for $22-23k (+ fees etc)

After I drove a 2019 2.0T the V6 no longer had any appeal - too much pork over the front axle and slower 0-60. Interior is dated, user interface blows, gauges are antiquated
fzr100098 is offline  
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 Old 04-04-2019, 06:47 PM
4th Gear
 
sandevino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 408
Thanks: 0
Thanked 26 Times in 24 Posts
Send a message via AIM to sandevino
Quote:
Originally Posted by fzr100098 View Post
2017 V6s around me are selling for $22-23k (+ fees etc)

After I drove a 2019 2.0T the V6 no longer had any appeal - too much pork over the front axle and slower 0-60. Interior is dated, user interface blows, gauges are antiquated
Which V6 did you drive? Coupe, sedan, auto or manual?

2017 V6 Coupe 6MT
Still Nght Pearl
CDV-less
sandevino is offline  
post #3 of 31 Old 04-05-2019, 02:40 AM
5th Gear
 
meowcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Coral Springs, Florida
Posts: 701
Thanks: 28
Thanked 56 Times in 51 Posts
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by fzr100098 View Post
2017 V6s around me are selling for $22-23k (+ fees etc)

After I drove a 2019 2.0T the V6 no longer had any appeal - too much pork over the front axle and slower 0-60. Interior is dated, user interface blows, gauges are antiquated
173 pounds more is not that bad. And, the V6 has the bigger sway bar up front to compensate. Does it handle like the 4 cylinder? No, but how many Accord drivers out there are pushing their cars past 10/10ths anyway?
That's what I thought. The V6 in the Accord is simply a jewel.
slimm1469 likes this.

2017 EX-L V6. WOP. 28% Solarguard. Thinkware F50 Dashcam. Otherwise, Bone stock.
There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over.
meowcat is offline  
post #4 of 31 Old 04-05-2019, 07:11 AM Thread Starter
banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 148
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
The new 2.0 is a jewel - extremely smooth and high tech. Better gas mileage (off the boost), quicker, lighter - 4 cylinder motors are Honda's bread and butter. Let's race, you're gonna lose

Quote:
Originally Posted by Throwaway12 View Post
So I will be purchasing a 2017 v6 accord touring coupe next week. One IS auto and other is manual. Which one would last longer and which would you get.
What is the pricing (and miles) for each? The manual is more rare but may be harder to resell. Easier to change fluid in a manual, that is a bonus
fzr100098 is offline  
post #5 of 31 Old 04-05-2019, 08:26 AM
5th Gear
 
meowcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Coral Springs, Florida
Posts: 701
Thanks: 28
Thanked 56 Times in 51 Posts
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by fzr100098 View Post
The new 2.0 is a jewel - extremely smooth and high tech. Better gas mileage (off the boost), quicker, lighter - 4 cylinder motors are Honda's bread and butter. Let's race, you're gonna lose
I don't race my car. And I have the V6, so I've already won.
scar_cle and slimm1469 like this.

2017 EX-L V6. WOP. 28% Solarguard. Thinkware F50 Dashcam. Otherwise, Bone stock.
There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over.
meowcat is offline  
post #6 of 31 Old 04-05-2019, 08:42 AM
Reverse Gear
 
BenzAccord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 962
Thanks: 112
Thanked 68 Times in 62 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fzr100098 View Post
The new 2.0 is a jewel - extremely smooth and high tech. Better gas mileage (off the boost), quicker, lighter - 4 cylinder motors are Honda's bread and butter. Let's race, you're gonna lose
V6 Pros
  • The smoothness and linear power delivery
  • Turn the AC on in the summer, and the engine just shrugs it's shoulders
  • Feels like a different class of car
  • Highway gas mileage

V6 Cons
  • The front-end feels heavy
  • Poorer city gas mileage
  • less confident handling

2.0T Pros
  • Better around town MPG if you lay off the boost
  • Car feels lighter and more balanced
  • Torque, torque and more torque.
  • Manual Tranny available on the sedan - No need to downshift to a lower gear to accelerate quickly

2.0T Cons
  • 14 Gallon gas tank, who's idea was that?
  • Poor off-boost performance on those Hot Humid summer days, especially when the AC is on
  • Your almost certain new addiction to boost will kill your MPG's

I did not comment on performance. My bet is that the V6 does better in hotter weather, and the 2.0T will do better in cooler weather.
meowcat and buddy_maynard like this.

2007 Accord LX-SE 4d 5spd MT Graphite Pearl (sold at 161k)
2015 Accord EX-L V6 4d AT Crystal Black Pearl/Ivory (His)
2015 Accord EX-L V6 4d AT White Orchid Pearl/Ivory (Hers)


Previous Rides
1993 Buick Regal 3.8
1992 Acura Legend LS 4D 5MT
1992 Nissan Maxima SE 4AT
1986 Nissan Maxima SE 5MT
1981 Saab 900 Turbo 4D 3AT "The money pit" $5K+ in repairs in 2 years
1976 Volvo 242DL 3AT "The Vault"
1976 Toyota Corona 4D 3AT "The Oven" black vinyl interior and no A/C
BenzAccord is offline  
post #7 of 31 Old 04-05-2019, 08:57 AM
4th Gear
 
sandevino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 408
Thanks: 0
Thanked 26 Times in 24 Posts
Send a message via AIM to sandevino
The same debate happens on the Mustang and Camaro forums. Which is better... a V6 or turbo I4. No one is right or wrong but EVERYONE has an opinion.

Personally, my ‘17 6-6 coupe is BETTER than any ‘18 and newer Accord. Why? It suits my needs and allows me to play with it both on the highway and the track.

There’s been an aftermarket turbo scene for Honda’s for decades. Honda adding turbos from the factory was a financial play they bet on at the corporate level as their competition did the same. Does this make the stock turbos better? Nope. Does it make them worse? Nope. Personally, I’m not a fan of the factory turbos as they’re small and running high boost. Personal preference. I prefer a larger T3/T4 but that’s my preference.

At the end of the day, your mileage may vary... carry on.

2017 V6 Coupe 6MT
Still Nght Pearl
CDV-less
sandevino is offline  
post #8 of 31 Old 04-05-2019, 09:20 AM Thread Starter
banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 148
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandevino View Post
Personally, my ‘17 6-6 coupe is BETTER than any ‘18 and newer Accord. Why? It suits my needs and allows me to play with it both on the highway and the track
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

Quote:
There’s been an aftermarket turbo scene for Honda’s for decades. Honda adding turbos from the factory was a financial play they bet on at the corporate level as their competition did the same.
Not really a financial play, more the constant quest of balancing power with ever more restrictive emissions and gas mileage objectives. Turbo cars in general are higher risk for the manufacturers

Quote:
Personally, I’m not a fan of the factory turbos as they’re small and running high boost. Personal preference. I prefer a larger T3/T4 but that’s my preference.
Tend to agree with this, I would prefer the turbo on the Type R (or larger), but both sign off fairly early in the rpm band. The manufacturers believe customers want "zero" lag and more low rpm torque, which for a street car does make some sense. Throttle response is very good for stoplight/around town driving
fzr100098 is offline  
post #9 of 31 Old 04-19-2019, 05:59 AM
6th Gear
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,804
Thanks: 173
Thanked 245 Times in 202 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fzr100098 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fzr100098 View Post
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.
sandevino likes this.

2017 Accord EX-L V6 Sedan - White Orchid Pearl/Ivory
KTuner, aFe Pro Dry S, CrystaLux G11 LED Low + High Beams, VLEDS V6 Triton Front Turn Signals + Brake Lights, Philips Xtreme Ultinon Amber Rear Turn Signals, exLED 3K Interior Kit, and Philips LED License Plate Lights
TH23 is offline  
post #10 of 31 Old 04-30-2019, 10:50 AM
2nd Gear
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: The Dalles, Oregon
Posts: 62
Thanks: 2
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TH23 View Post
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.



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.

Should I say more: The video is showing stock vs stock(start video at 6:15 into it), Pimp out the V6-MT with ktuner, down pipe, intake, exhaust, etc, etc. And then flash the 2.0 with a stage 2 (hondata/ktuner only). No competition at all. I will concede past that past 1/4 mile the V6 stock is going to take the 2.0 stock. But not off the line. The 2.0 is closer to 300ft lbs of tq. Stock. Better than Honda rates it. Proven on multiple dyno's. I've already been in this debate. Ive owned both cars. 9th gen Touring, and now the 2.0t sport manual.

Tommy Armour is offline  
post #11 of 31 Old 04-30-2019, 11:09 AM
4th Gear
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Posts: 244
Thanks: 53
Thanked 18 Times in 18 Posts
First... Who cares. Second... "3,2,1 go!" is a horrible metric. Why does anybody really care about this argument?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

Don't mistake activity for accomplishment. 2017 Accord Coupe EX-L, V6
I800C0LLECT is offline  
post #12 of 31 Old 04-30-2019, 11:19 AM
4th Gear
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Posts: 244
Thanks: 53
Thanked 18 Times in 18 Posts
Well that video is just anecdotal evidence

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

Don't mistake activity for accomplishment. 2017 Accord Coupe EX-L, V6
I800C0LLECT is offline  
post #13 of 31 Old 04-30-2019, 11:59 AM
5th Gear
 
visionguru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 907
Thanks: 41
Thanked 67 Times in 63 Posts
There is one important metric that's not discussed in this thread: reliability
Honda V6: largely remain the same for 20 years. We have big data to look into.
Honda 2.0t: pretty new. There could be tons of engine issues as time goes on.

Why? The 4 cylinders may have to be stressed more than 6 cylinders to generate comparable performance. VW has been doing this "T" thing for a long time. When I was shopping for my Audi, I found that the 2.0T version has substantial more engine issues than 3.0T: carbon, oil consumption,..... It may take years before Honda can get it right.

Also, 6 cylinders is just.....smoother.

2007 Accord EX-L V6 @155K Alabaster Silver
2016 Audi Q5 3.0T Premium Plus w/Tech Pkg @12K
Previously:
2005 Honda Accord Hybrid ([email protected])
1989 Honda Accord DX ([email protected])
1984 Honda Accord ([email protected])
visionguru is online now  
post #14 of 31 Old 04-30-2019, 12:21 PM
4th Gear
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 292
Thanks: 1
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Send a message via AIM to BlitzMob
Quote:
Originally Posted by fzr100098 View Post
Let's race, you're gonna lose
lol....HARDOOOOO

Guy lives his life a quarter mile at a time.

2010 Accord Coupe, EX-L V6 MT
BlitzMob is offline  
post #15 of 31 Old 04-30-2019, 12:22 PM
2nd Gear
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: The Dalles, Oregon
Posts: 62
Thanks: 2
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by I800C0LLECT View Post
First... Who cares. Second... "3,2,1 go!" is a horrible metric. Why does anybody really care about this argument?
I care, that's why I traded in the beloved v6. For a 2.0t manual. I thought it was a forum to discuss not argue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I800C0LLECT View Post
Well that video is just anecdotal evidence
That video just shows what would happen with the average driver. Even with the v6 getting the jump. The 2.0 catches and walks away. Even with a track driver, they both stomped on the gas. And the 2.0 walked away both time. Then checking dyno numbers it's the same thing thing 2.0t is superior off the line because of the torque. The 2.0 is a lighter car with close to 300lb ft lbs of torque stock. Honda stock numbers for the 2.0 are underrated according to several dyno's out there. Then you take the v6 with 250ish torque and its heavier. It's not possible for the v6 to win at least 0-60.

This is definitive proof that Honda underrated the new Accord 2.0T from the factory - Alt Car news

That's just stock!!!!

Then if you want to talk about potential with upgrades:

You can modify any Accord v6-mt to the hilt ktune, downpipe, intake, exhaust, everything short of supercharger. And the 2.0 with just a stage 2 flash hondata/ktuner(no xtra mods)will create 380ish ft lbs of torque vs 260 ft lbs of tq on a heavily modified V6-MT. Granted I'm not talking 1/2 mile races. I'm talking where it matters to an everyday street driver. Torque is really all that matters in everyday driving.

1st picture: Major mods on a 9th gen V6-MT(6-6) 290hp/256ft lbs of torque
2nd picture: 2.0 with a stage 2 flash 292hp-377ft lbs of torque.

Am I missing something? Same thing on most every website I read.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2019-04-30 at 1.19.00 PM.jpg
Views:	15
Size:	53.3 KB
ID:	501645   Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2019-04-30 at 9.40.10 AM.jpg
Views:	12
Size:	36.2 KB
ID:	501647  

Last edited by namegoeshere; 05-01-2019 at 01:42 PM. Reason: merge
Tommy Armour 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










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:



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB : Hondata latest tuner for 19 2.0 turbo Accord Marc Hufnagel DriveAccord Classifieds 2 01-04-2019 09:59 AM
FWD vs AWD, Snow Tires, All Seasons debate all in one thread Inspire02 General Drive 15 09-02-2017 05:05 AM
McLaren Thinking of Dumping Honda Markus The Pit 0 08-25-2017 09:20 AM
Dumping my AEM CAI for a Short RAM mattchatwin The 8th Generation 31 06-13-2010 07:52 AM
Very impressed with V6! (yet another mpg thread) SSMV6 The 7th Generation 12 11-14-2005 04:54 AM

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