[bradt93]

I know some people have commented since it won't have a V-6 they aren't interested, but a turbo is powerful, my old Saab 9-3 had one and it was great on gas and smooth. I would say to the die hard V6 lovers on here, give it a chance, I've rode in both a turbo and V-6. I think a turbo is about as powerful as a V-6 if not more.

 

[Blackheart]

I know some people have commented since it won't have a V-6 they aren't interested, but a turbo is powerful, my old Saab 9-3 had one and it was great on gas and smooth. I would say to the die hard V6 lovers on here, give it a chance, I've rode in both a turbo and V-6. I think a turbo is about as powerful as a V-6 if not more.

I've had both, also. Saab 900, Saab 9-3, as well as Saab 9000 Aero, Mazda RX7 twin, Audi A6 Twin, VW Jetta Diesel. BUT, when I can get 180+ HP from a naturally-aspirated 2.4L Honda engine while achieving the mid-upper 30 mpg range in mixed driving, without the added complexity of waste-gates, intake piping, intercoolers, usually "special" oil and usually more frequent oil change requirements, increased fuel-air mixture relationships being monitored by various sensor and adapted to by the ECU, as well as the Turbo and it's housing, ....I'd only get a Turbo for a FUN car, not a long-term workhorse. Diesels excluded...I'd buy a diesel-engine with a Turbo for a long-term workhorse.

In fact, if I were to buy a CR-V today (I'm not), I'd get the LX with the 2.4 NA, instead of one of the "better equipped" models, because I'd be forced to get a turbo. I checked with my local Honda dealers that offer "Lifetime mileage guarantees" on the engine...it doesn't cover the Turbocharger nor its various associated parts. Well, that's a deal-killer, because I don't consider a CR-V to be a "FUN" car.

For those that like the Turbo, I can understand why. But, I don't see enough benefits to justify the additional complexity.

 

[Uncle Luc]

Those that are upset with Honda dropping the V6 might be in for a real nice surprise if they test drive the turbo 10th gen

 

[Kamdog]

I will certainly test drive it. I wouldn't buy one early on, but I would test drive it.

Although I have never leased a car, and typically keep one 10 years and 100+K miles, with the pace of auto advancement, I might lease my next car. If circumstances call for replacing a car next year, I would lease an Accord. I would drive a few competitors back-to-back and pick the best one overall.

 

[seldomseen]

I'm not interested in the '18 Accords...Nonetheless, report back your opinion after you test drive it. Many of the initial reviews of the '18 Civic Si stated the engine's performance was lackluster, so it will be interesting to hear people's opinion on the Accord's turbo options.

 

[sLAKERZ]

Modified Type R turbo engine... Popcorn please.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

 

[bradt93]

I've had both, also. Saab 900, Saab 9-3, as well as Saab 9000 Aero, Mazda RX7 twin, Audi A6 Twin, VW Jetta Diesel. BUT, when I can get 180+ HP from a naturally-aspirated 2.4L Honda engine while achieving the mid-upper 30 mpg range in mixed driving, without the added complexity of waste-gates, intake piping, intercoolers, usually "special" oil and usually more frequent oil change requirements, increased fuel-air mixture relationships being monitored by various sensor and adapted to by the ECU, as well as the Turbo and it's housing, ....I'd only get a Turbo for a FUN car, not a long-term workhorse. Diesels excluded...I'd buy a diesel-engine with a Turbo for a long-term workhorse.

In fact, if I were to buy a CR-V today (I'm not), I'd get the LX with the 2.4 NA, instead of one of the "better equipped" models, because I'd be forced to get a turbo. I checked with my local Honda dealers that offer "Lifetime mileage guarantees" on the engine...it doesn't cover the Turbocharger nor its various associated parts. Well, that's a deal-killer, because I don't consider a CR-V to be a "FUN" car.

For those that like the Turbo, I can understand why. But, I don't see enough benefits to justify the additional complexity.

Yea, GM really dropped the ball with Saab. I don't understand why one of the major car manufactures buy Saab, they could've turned it into one of the best selling brands.

 

[PeterLegend]

I'd like to test drive one for fun lol...sign me up!

 

[200366HFP]

Always have to test the rev limiter on a new car...... Only in a MT of course

 

[skippy69]

Yes,I would test drive it for sure.
I'm afraid Turbos are the future and V-6 and V-8's are going to be a rarity.
For an example.
My wife and I have own 2016 Mazda CX9 AWD and it has a 2.5 Skyactive Turbo/intercooled 4 cylinder.
We recently took a 3,200 mile trip to Eastern Tennessee and North Carolina and never got lower than 26 mpg and topped 30 mpg a couple of tankfuls. Along with 255 hp and 310 ft lbs of torque we had more than enough power for any situation.
We were driving a 2015 Honda Pilot AWD with the 3.5 liter V-6 and once we drove the Mazda we never looked back.
I'm hoping the new Accord will work the same way for Honda.
It should be impressive.
I'm keeping an eye on it.

 

[MarcTheStrong]

Nah Im good. I guess its time for me to move on to Acura for my V6 desires.

 

[Deepo11]

Bought my by V6 a few weeks back and won't be looking back! I know I wanted to stay with V6 and got a steal of a deal so I'm hopefully set for another 15 years!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Slayinit]

If I can find a 2.0L MT Accord then yes, I will give it a test drive and if I like it I will probably drive it home.

 

[MikeNC]

I won’t, but my current Accord is not even 2 years old yet so no interest in a new car for awhile (I keep my cars for 5-10 so may not be ready for a new one until the 11th gen even). I will be following the reviews and news when it comes out though.

I never like to buy the first year if any major redesign anyway. Just feel more confident to let others buy those first year models and see how the reviews and news goes for them. If there are going to be major issues a new car, they tend to surface in the first year or two. Not always the case I know as some big recalls only happen years later, but generally, any fundamental flaws, problems or just universally disliked features tend to crop up early. Especially for a car that sells in the volume the Accord does.

 

[mbk734]

The powertrain is not as important to me as the improved tech features. I want a very simple, smooth, intuitive center console otherwise I will be keeping my 9th Gen. Did not like the dual screens on EX and above in the 9th Gen. Cars are so much like computers nowadays with new tech features. If it is just minor incremental upgrades I am perfectly happy with the 9th Gen. I see the new Camrys are the first car that will be running Linux.

 

[Inspire02]

Already signed up at the Honda site. (Doesn't mean I'll buy one) Maybe I could consider one at the end of the 10th gen run when my car has about 150K on it.

 

[datechbpss101]

I am considering at taking a test-drive of a 2.0L with a 6 speed manual. However, I am now seriously looking at Acura now, as they have the V6 still.

 

[Inspire02]

I am considering at taking a test-drive of a 2.0L with a 6 speed manual. However, I am now seriously looking at Acura now, as they have the V6 still.

Sadly the TLX V6 has the ZF9 which is in FCA products like the 200. That's why I got the V6 Accord.

 

[datechbpss101]

Sadly the TLX V6 has the ZF9 which is in FCA products like the 200. That's why I got the V6 Accord.

I do agree on the transmission that is also in FCA products. But my situation is that I am getting a new car next year though, so more towards the TLX V6, unless if the test drive of the 2.0L (both 6MT and 10AT) will convince me otherwise (I may end up modding the exterior to my likings).

 

[Blackheart]

By the way, the third-party "lifetime guarantee" on the transmission and engine, offered by Hendrick's Honda, reportedly does NOT cover Turbocharger nor it's parts. I wouldn't cover them either, if I were them. Another reason to go with 2.4 NA if the car is meant to be kept for hundreds of thousands of miles.