Drive Accord Honda Forums banner
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey folks,

Absolute car noob here, I currently own a 2007 Civic EX, and it has lasted me for a good 15 years and 350k, its going strong but its time to replace it. I was going to get a 2019 2.0L accord (sport or touring) and was doing some research, I expected my maintenance costs to go up considering it was a fancier car but while doing some research I learned this accord has a turbocharged engine, and have learned turbocharged engines are not as reliable. I was wondering if this means that I will have:
  • significantly more expensive maintenance?
  • a car more sensitive to problems?
  • A car that won't last as long?
I really assumed that this accord would also last a nice 15 years and 350+km, like my civic, but its disheartening to know this isn't the case. I would love some clarification,
 

·
Registered
2010 Honda Accord (LX)
Joined
·
320 Posts
Obviously in reliability a newer Honda won't compare to something like your 07 Civic, but I don't think the 2.0T is known for extreme problems or anything. Of course, it hasn't been around for too long, so there's not as much data on longevity.

Though I wouldn't blame only the turbocharged engine for a lack of reliability. Honda as a whole has gotten less reliable in the past few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: enne

·
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A
Joined
·
10,093 Posts
I really assumed that this accord would also last a nice 15 years and 350+km, like my civic, but its disheartening to know this isn't the case.
Says who?

I was wondering if this means that I will have:
  • significantly more expensive maintenance?
  • a car more sensitive to problems?
  • A car that won't last as long?
More expensive maintenance? Maybe. Maybe not.

More sensitive to problems? No.

A car that won't last as long? Maybe. Maybe not. Reposting from https://www.driveaccord.net/threads...-87-for-june-2021.500370/page-30#post-6815888:

Yes, the turbos have more things to go wrong but turbocharging is hardly new. I remember my father-in-law driving a turbocharged 1986 Ford Thunderbird with a stick, when I first met my wife. Honda may not have a ton of experience with them, but Honda does a lot of R&D on engines and I'm sure they've been learning all about turbocharging.
Some people think this is Honda's first time doing turbocharged engines. They had a turbocharged engine in the City/Jazz during the early '80s and in the 1st gen RDX starting in 2006. I haven't read/heard of any major engine problems with them. There are lots of 1st gen RDX's still on the road that are pretty much trouble free with 150K, 200K, and more miles on them.

@Midnight Mystery Meat has (had?) a 2007 RDX with over 250K

Midnight Mystery said:
As long as you keep up with maintenance, they will be fine. This applies to every car, not just turbocharged ones.

Yep! My [2007] RDX is at 311K miles and runs strong!

I drive it hard too! :)

 

·
...and Pearl was her name...
2020 Accord Hybrid Touring pearl white
Joined
·
109 Posts
If you are afraid of the turbo, have you considered a hybrid in a base trim. Or one of the higher trims?
Reliable is it’s middle name plus out of this world mpg’s. Something that you probably need if you’re driving 20k+ Km a year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
If you are afraid of the turbo, have you considered a hybrid in a base trim. Or one of the higher trims?
Reliable is it’s middle name plus out of this world mpg’s. Something that you probably need if you’re driving 20k+ Km a year.
A great suggestion but I really wanted that 2.0L performance coupled with honda reliability

Says who?


More expensive maintenance? Maybe. Maybe not.

More sensitive to problems? No.

A car that won't last as long? Maybe. Maybe not. Reposting from https://www.driveaccord.net/threads...-87-for-june-2021.500370/page-30#post-6815888:
Appreciate the comment, so basically your conclusion is as long as I keep up with good maintenance I can get some good distance out of the car

Obviously in reliability a newer Honda won't compare to something like your 07 Civic, but I don't think the 2.0T is known for extreme problems or anything. Of course, it hasn't been around for too long, so there's not as much data on longevity.

Though I wouldn't blame only the turbocharged engine for a lack of reliability. Honda as a whole has gotten less reliable in the past few years.
Thats disappointing to hear that reliability just isn't the same. Can we equate the 2.0L reliability to the V6 accords?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,147 Posts
You don't get the big engine option if you're worried about the cost. Big engine will burn more fuel and rubber, will cost more to buy and insure and to keep on the road. (Still nowhere near a turbo audi)

You pay if you wanna play.

There's also the turbo life. If your driving patterns don't agree with the turbo, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. If you don't know what that means, play it safe and get a Camry (not saying it in a bad way, nothing wrong with driving a camry)
 

·
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A
Joined
·
10,093 Posts
Thats disappointing to hear that reliability just isn't the same. Can we equate the 2.0L reliability to the V6 accords?
Newer vehicles (not just Honda's) have more tech compared to what we saw in 2007, so there are more things that can fail or act up -- think infotainment system, parking sensors, forward collision cameras, etc. -- beyond the engine or transmission.

If you want to avoid those potential problems, get as basic and simple a vehicle/trim as you can. If you want a new Accord, that will be the LX trim but you won't find it with the 2.0T engine as it's not offered as an option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
There's a lot more electronic stuff on a 2019 Accord than on a 2007 Civic. For that reason alone, the potential for problems might be higher for the 2019 compared to your 2007. That doesn't mean that a 2019 Accord isn't going to be as reliable as a 2007 Civic... but there's a lot more that could break or malfunction as the car ages.

The HondaSensing, for example. The system is complex, has a lot of expensive components, and can likely be a pain to repair if it breaks.

Another example would be the several threads where people have complained about a Christmas-Tree amount of lights being triggered on the dashboard...which sometimes can be traced down to something as simple as a battery that's in need of replacement.

The 2.0t Accord is a great car- don't get me wrong- but it's likely going to be more difficult to diagnose and repair as the car ages. A 2007 Civic is pretty simple by comparison. As a result, the cost of diagnosing and repairs in general might be more costly over a fifteen year period.

You will enjoy driving a 2.0t Accord- especially the Sport trim. It's a blast to drive and has a really nice set of standard features. The Touring trim has even more features- but it's not as sporty or fun to drive compared to the Sport trim.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,817 Posts
If you're that worried about the turbo,et al... but you wanna drive something with some "pop", get a 9th gen. V6...if, you can find one, that is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
Newer vehicles (not just Honda's) have more tech compared to what we saw in 2007, so there are more things that can fail or act up -- think infotainment system, parking sensors, forward collision cameras, etc. -- beyond the engine or transmission.

If you want to avoid those potential problems, get as basic and simple a vehicle/trim as you can. If you want a new Accord, that will be the LX trim but you won't find it with the 2.0T engine as it's not offered as an option.
Almost any newer car will have much more technology compared to just a few years ago, as you said. The problem is that the long-term reliability of some of all of the new safety gear and technology is relatively unknown. How reliable will all the HondaSensing be when we start seeing tons of Accords with that equipment with 100,000+ miles on the odometer? It's not just Honda- you'll have the same unknowns with the Camry, Mazda 6, and most competitors.

Normally I would agree with your statement about buying an LX to minimize the technology... but I'd probably say that it's pretty safe to move up to the Sport trim with the 2.0t engine. You'd get the larger engine- and the 10-speed is so much better in terms of driving compared to the CVT. There's minimal reliability concerns with the additional features of the 2.0t Sport- a moonroof, heated seats and outside mirrors, full keyless entry, and blind spot monitoring.

The 2.0t and 10-speed are the great unknowns. I'm not really concerned with the 2.0t engine- Honda usually produces really good engines. Will the 10-speed automatics be reliable long-term? No one knows. There haven't been many issues that have been reported so far. A few reports of failure, but nothing on a large scale that would indicate that those failures were anything other than isolated incidents.... at least so far.

With that said, there just aren't a lot of examples that have racked up tons of miles yet... and the ones that have lots of miles are generally cars that have lots of highway miles... which aren't really hard on transmissions.

We'll see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Hey folks,

Absolute car noob here, I currently own a 2007 Civic EX, and it has lasted me for a good 15 years and 350k, its going strong but its time to replace it. I was going to get a 2019 2.0L accord (sport or touring) and was doing some research, I expected my maintenance costs to go up considering it was a fancier car but while doing some research I learned this accord has a turbocharged engine, and have learned turbocharged engines are not as reliable. I was wondering if this means that I will have:
  • significantly more expensive maintenance?
  • a car more sensitive to problems?
  • A car that won't last as long?
I really assumed that this accord would also last a nice 15 years and 350+km, like my civic, but its disheartening to know this isn't the case. I would love some clarification,
Your first sentence states you are a car noob and then you go on to say you learned turbocharged engines aren't as reliable. What's your source for learning that? Because that person is wrong. There's a difference between a car that is designed with a turbocharger from the factory and someone who adds a turbocharger onto a naturally aspirated vehicle later on. The first is reliable, the latter is a coin toss. Is a turbocharged engine more complex than a naturally aspirated one? You bet. There's more parts... But it doesn't make it any less reliable. I wish people would stop saying a turbocharged vehicle is less reliable because it's turbocharged.

Let's think here for a moment... Every diesel motor in a passenger vehicle these days is turbocharged. Without the turbo, diesels are molasses. But yet, these turbocharged engines outlast nearly every other thing on the road. It's the build quality, design, and upkeep of the motor that makes a motor reliable. It's too early to say whether the 2.0T is reliable or not simply because it hasn't existed that long. Give it another 5-10 years and we can have a better conversation about reliability of this motor. Anyone who says this motor is reliable or isn't reliable is talking pure speculation.

What I will say is don't get used to your vehicle lasting 350k miles. That's an outlier case, not the norm. I will say, from what I've seen and experienced, most vehicles should last 200k miles these days if you are on top of maintenance. Anything after that is a coin toss. Of course, you can make a vehicle last a million miles if you wanted... How deep are your pockets?

Hope you got a car built on a Tuesday instead of a car built on a Friday afternoon. 😁
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
There's a lot more electronic stuff on a 2019 Accord than on a 2007 Civic. For that reason alone, the potential for problems might be higher for the 2019 compared to your 2007. That doesn't mean that a 2019 Accord isn't going to be as reliable as a 2007 Civic... but there's a lot more that could break or malfunction as the car ages.

The HondaSensing, for example. The system is complex, has a lot of expensive components, and can likely be a pain to repair if it breaks.

Another example would be the several threads where people have complained about a Christmas-Tree amount of lights being triggered on the dashboard...which sometimes can be traced down to something as simple as a battery that's in need of replacement.

The 2.0t Accord is a great car- don't get me wrong- but it's likely going to be more difficult to diagnose and repair as the car ages. A 2007 Civic is pretty simple by comparison. As a result, the cost of diagnosing and repairs in general might be more costly over a fifteen year period.

You will enjoy driving a 2.0t Accord- especially the Sport trim. It's a blast to drive and has a really nice set of standard features. The Touring trim has even more features- but it's not as sporty or fun to drive compared to the Sport trim.
interesting, I would have thought the sport and touring would have driven the same? Why is sport more fun?

Your first sentence states you are a car noob and then you go on to say you learned turbocharged engines aren't as reliable. What's your source for learning that? Because that person is wrong. There's a difference between a car that is designed with a turbocharger from the factory and someone who adds a turbocharger onto a naturally aspirated vehicle later on. The first is reliable, the latter is a coin toss. Is a turbocharged engine more complex than a naturally aspirated one? You bet. There's more parts... But it doesn't make it any less reliable. I wish people would stop saying a turbocharged vehicle is less reliable because it's turbocharged.

Let's think here for a moment... Every diesel motor in a passenger vehicle these days is turbocharged. Without the turbo, diesels are molasses. But yet, these turbocharged engines outlast nearly every other thing on the road. It's the build quality, design, and upkeep of the motor that makes a motor reliable. It's too early to say whether the 2.0T is reliable or not simply because it hasn't existed that long. Give it another 5-10 years and we can have a better conversation about reliability of this motor. Anyone who says this motor is reliable or isn't reliable is talking pure speculation.

What I will say is don't get used to your vehicle lasting 350k miles. That's an outlier case, not the norm. I will say, from what I've seen and experienced, most vehicles should last 200k miles these days if you are on top of maintenance. Anything after that is a coin toss. Of course, you can make a vehicle last a million miles if you wanted... How deep are your pockets?

Hope you got a car built on a Tuesday instead of a car built on a Friday afternoon. 😁
Thanks for this, yea I was just googling around about 2L accord maintenance and stumbled on another article so I thought I would ask. You make great points thanks!
 

·
...and Pearl was her name...
2020 Accord Hybrid Touring pearl white
Joined
·
109 Posts
So what is your budget? Shallow or deep pockets?

You can always drop new drive train into your Civvy for a quarter of new base anything. Drive it for another 300000 km. That’s your shallow budget.

The HAH comes with a 2.0L engine and has enough spunk to get you in traffic. There’s your deepest pockets budget.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,147 Posts
Your first sentence states you are a car noob and then you go on to say you learned turbocharged engines aren't as reliable. What's your source for learning that? Because that person is wrong. There's a difference between a car that is designed with a turbocharger from the factory and someone who adds a turbocharger onto a naturally aspirated vehicle later on. The first is reliable, the latter is a coin toss. Is a turbocharged engine more complex than a naturally aspirated one? You bet. There's more parts... But it doesn't make it any less reliable. I wish people would stop saying a turbocharged vehicle is less reliable because it's turbocharged.

Let's think here for a moment... Every diesel motor in a passenger vehicle these days is turbocharged. Without the turbo, diesels are molasses. But yet, these turbocharged engines outlast nearly every other thing on the road. It's the build quality, design, and upkeep of the motor that makes a motor reliable. It's too early to say whether the 2.0T is reliable or not simply because it hasn't existed that long. Give it another 5-10 years and we can have a better conversation about reliability of this motor. Anyone who says this motor is reliable or isn't reliable is talking pure speculation.

What I will say is don't get used to your vehicle lasting 350k miles. That's an outlier case, not the norm. I will say, from what I've seen and experienced, most vehicles should last 200k miles these days if you are on top of maintenance. Anything after that is a coin toss. Of course, you can make a vehicle last a million miles if you wanted... How deep are your pockets?

Hope you got a car built on a Tuesday instead of a car built on a Friday afternoon. 😁
Turbocharged engines are more prone to developing turbo issues than atmospheric engines based on the fact that atmospheric engines don't have turbos is how I'm interpreting that statement. Can't disagree; you don't have to worry about something you don't have breaking down.
 

·
8th Gen Believer
Joined
·
4,128 Posts
Who told you turbo engines aren't reliable? I've had two turbocharged cars and both were totally reliable, one over 300k miles, another over 200k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miker

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
interesting, I would have thought the sport and touring would have driven the same? Why is sport more fun?
They are different. The Sport has a sport-tuned suspension that handles really nicely- somewhat at the expense of ride quality. The Touring trim has adaptive dampers with two different driving modes. Normal mode is tailored towards providing a nice ride quality. Selecting 'sport' mode improves handling by a decent amount- but it also changes the gearing and the car accelerates a lot more aggressively- so MPG takes a beating. With a Touring, there's no way to set the dampers into sport mode unless you also put the gearing into the more aggressive mode.

The Sport's suspension is always set to a more sporty mode- as it does not have adaptive dampers- and it's always set on the more sporty side... but you can select eco or normal mode still- so you can get the sportier handling without putting the car into sport mode- which causes MPG to suffer.

Hopefully that makes sense.
 

·
Registered
2019 Platinum Pearl White 2.0 Sport 6MT
Joined
·
183 Posts
I don't mean any offense by this - but based on this post and your other post, why don't you just get another Civic (or maybe a Camry)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,943 Posts
My wife has a 2014 Accord, a 9G, with a naturally aspirated engine, but it does have a CVT. Few of the modern warning things, no radar or adaptive cruise, etc.,

She wouldn't let me replace it with a more modern car. I expect it to easily go another 7 years and another 100K miles with no problemo.

If that’s what you want, look for a 9 Gen 4cyl.

I have had zero problems with the 2.0T/10SP in my Acura.
 

·
Gearhead Girl 🤟
Joined
·
953 Posts
^ agreed.

We have a member on this forum who has almost 600k and another with 824k, granted though that's miles, not kilometers. What's wrong with the Civic that you're replacing it at 350k? Are you just looking for something newer?

On the topic of turbochargers though, if you prefer old school naturally aspirated, you could consider a 9th gen instead (that's 2013-2017).
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top