Yes. I purposely didn't look at the model variant. I think it is a fair comparison, since I do not see anything upscale about the touring!
Actually the 2.0 turbo is faster than the v6. There is a good video showing this on redline reviews. It pulls away from the v6. Both of engines are more than fast enough for everyday use.
What would make the 10th gen a better car? I heard the stereo is better but that's about it. What else?
Bah, I'll wait for some official numbers! I can't see it myself. I drove the Civic with that engine and the V6 Accord was definitely faster.
The 10th gen looks okay in person but I still prefer my 9.5 gen design. The 10th gen just looks too common now like a sonata or malibu. The 9th gen definitely turns my head when I see one on the road. I always think to myself "that's a great looking car. Very classy." The 9th gen has the elegance of a Mercedes with the sportiness of a BMW 5 series. Not sure I will ever say that about the 10th gen. It's acceptable but nothing exciting.
That's interesting, but I imagine it's like every other high output 4 cylinder, where you have to rev the snot out of it to get the power. When I think of the usefulness of the power, I always think about how the engine [car] would perform on a curvy altitude-changing road in the mountains. My previous experience tells me that four cylinders have to be revved harder to climb the hills, and there's more downshifting as well. All in all, it makes for a slower ride, and it feels like the engine is going to blow right off its mounts.
With smaller turbos and direct injection that power is accessible at low RPM. That's why these small engines are doing so well. The 2.0L turbo hits max torque at 1500rpm. Matched with that new transmission I'm sure it's a dream to drive. Funny though, it doesn't look that much quicker in the comparisons against the V6. I think 2.0L loses a step due to HP when it's rung out
I test drove the Tourring and it is better over the road, both in ride and handling. The body felt more solid and the car felt more planted. Comparing like-to-like, the turbo 4 and CVT were more responsive than my NA 4 and CVT. Interior quality of material was better and the layout was better.
Honda can't be happy about this, they supposedly knock it out of the park and not a slam dunk repeat customer.
What you drove was a Civic with the 1.5t. Of course the V6 Accord was faster, by a huge margin. We are referring to the new 2.0t in the Accord. Apparently the 2.0t is a bit quicker than the V6. Remember, 273 pound feet of torque at just 1,500 rpm is pretty danged strong. It's actually much stronger than the V6. And no, turbo fours don't have to be "wound up" to get them moving. That's the beauty of turbos, all their power and torque comes on way down in the RPM range so that they don't have to be wound up.
Unlike the cell phone industry, I doubt that Honda expected a rush to dump the last generation for the new one. It's a much bigger financial hit for the buyer.
