[fzr100098]

Dyno Testing the Honda Accord's New Turbo Motor Against the Old V6

The new Honda Accord is only available with a 2.0-liter turbo four-cylinder. How does it compare to the old 3.5-liter V6? We hit the dyno with both to find out.

www.roadandtrack.com

This article makes me smile because the author is so clearly a fanboi of the V6, but I think the entire article is horseshit. They didn't test the turbo engine fairly and make bogus/unsubstantiated claims about 40-120 times. The fact is the 2.0T consistently posts quicker 1/4 mile times (13.9 per C&D)

How many have run a V6? Any videos? I look for them but they never want to run....

 

[TypeR_801]

I owned both, the V6 6MT was signficantly faster. Look to the trap speed for the HP advantage of the V6 on a roll. The 6MT cars were in the 103mph range. A stock 2.0T 6MT is only 98 mph (both per Car & Driver). It feels like every bit of that difference driving. The 2.0T 10AT is faster than the 6MT and puts it close to the old V6....mostly depends if you're running against a 6MT V6 (fastest) vs some 6AT version (the Touring Sedan being the slowest with those HUGELY heavy 19's). I think the 2.0T 10AT will beat the V6 Touring Auto's consistently. Trap speed ranged from 103 mph (V6 6MT Coupe to 99mph (V6 Touring Sedan), pretty significant difference and why it matters which one you're running against.

 

[TypeR_801]

btw-their article may be 100% accurate, they're just likely cherry picking facts to support their claim. For example, 1/4 mile times are largely dictated by traction and gearing. We know the 2.0T has a significant gearing advantage over the older cars. It also has more torque particularly early in the RPM band. Those coupled with the ability to leave with boost (brake torquing) is why the 2.0T's are often knocking down lower ET's than the old V6 cars.

Alternatively, if you negate that gearing advantage of the 2.0T by starting from a roll and also get it into higher rpms (where it actually has less torque than the V6), it's not suprising that on a 40-120 run the V6 car would be faster....it's does have about 25 more hp.

 

[fzr100098]

No V6 has broken into the 13s in the 1/4 mile that I've seen https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a25348777/2018-honda-accord-reliability-maintenance/

"On its first trip to the test track, the Accord proved that it is not your typical family sedan when it ran from zero to 60 mph in 5.7 seconds and made the quarter-mile in 14.3 seconds at 100 mph. With Hankook all-season tires wrapped around the Accord's 17-inch wheels, skidpad grip and braking from 70 mph were more average, at 0.86 g and 183 feet, respectively. When we tested it again after 40,000 miles, the Accord was 0.4 second quicker to 60 mph and through the quarter-mile—breaking into the 13s in the latter measure, a remarkable achievement for a family sedan. It also came to a stop from 70 mph 17 feet shorter on the same rubber." Senior online consumer editor Rich Ceppos, a man with a lifetime of racing experience, surprised many when he complained about the Accord having too much power. "It burns rubber all the time," he wrote in the logbook'

 

[fzr100098]

"25 more hp" is claimed, but Hondata has seen these cars (2.0T) make about 265 whp bone stock

Turbo cars are prone to heat soak on a dyno

 

[TypeR_801]

The V6 6MT Coupe did a 14.0 @ 103 mph back in 2013 when it was new. I can tell you, just like the long term 2018 Accord, the V6 motors loosened up and made more power. Mine felt considerably stronger as the miles piled on. It would wax my low mileage garage queen AP2 S2K on a roll.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15116120/2013-honda-accord-coupe-v-6-manual-test-review/

 

[azrael69]

"25 more hp" is claimed, but Hondata has seen these cars (2.0T) make about 265 rwhp bone stock

Turbo cars are prone to heat soak on a dyno

But sir...power is yay...but the Accord has FWHP.

 

[fzr100098]

The V6 6MT Coupe did a 14.0 @ 103 mph back in 2013 when it was new. I can tell you, just like the long term 2018 Accord, the V6 motors loosened up and made more power. Mine felt considerably stronger as the miles piled on. It would wax my low mileage garage queen AP2 S2K on a roll.

If there is a 13s V6 (stock) out there, I'd like to see it

Anyway, the V6 is a great engine, but its heavier (with poor weight distribution), evil handling, and can't get off the line - those were the main reasons I picked the 2.0T, and I went to the dealership with the intent of buying a used (2017) V6 - couldn't do it, especially when they were asking about 22-23k, (my 2.0T was 28k)

When I need real power I jump in the SS Camaro with the ATS chassis - great handling and 415 rwhp - goodbye Accords!

 

[azrael69]

If there is a 13s V6 (stock) out there, I'd like to see it

Anyway, the V6 is a great engine, but its heavier (with poor weight distribution), evil handling, and can't get off the line - those were the main reasons I picked the 2.0T, and I went to the dealership with the intent of buying a used (2017) V6 - couldn't do it, especially what they were asking about 22-23k, (my 2.0T was 28k)

When I need real power I jump in the SS Camaro with the ATS chassis - great handling and 415 rwhp - goodbye Accords!

You can run Erzsebet...you may be not too pleased when you can't get away...!

 

[TypeR_801]

The 2018+ Accord is a massively better vehicle (styling, tech, chassis, etc), but the V6/6MT combo was simply wonderful and is leaps and bounds better than the new motor/tranny combo (ignoring fuel economy). C&D described the engine/transmission as a 'peerless powertrain'.

And yes, the old car didn't handle as well (I upgraded to the HFP suspension and added a Progress Rear Bar) and the new chassis is still better. BUT the old car was far easier to launch. Basically, just slip the clutch off idle, mat the gas and you're gone. If it was wet, start in second and you could still run a sub-7 second 0-60 as Jason did (in his Engineering Explained road test). Roll on acceleration was much better too. 3rd gear was a weapon from say 35-75 mph, great for overtaking traffic without drama in typical everyday situations.

 

[fzr100098]

The 2018+ Accord is a massively better vehicle (styling, tech, chassis, etc), but the V6/6MT combo was simply wonderful and is leaps and bounds better than the new motor/tranny combo (ignoring fuel economy).

"Better" is entirely subjective in this case - by what measure? Not anything with a stopwatch or yardstick (i.e. nothing quantitative, which is all that really matters)

And yes, the old car didn't handle as well (I upgraded to the HFP suspension and added a Progress Rear Bar) and the new chassis is still better. BUT the old car was far easier to launch.

I have the 10 speed and launch just fine - not afraid of any stock V6 out there. Keep the rpms up in sport mode and roll on is fine, lag is virtually non existent

Normally I'm pro big n/a engines but in the fwd case it's more of a liability. V6s are dying. In fact V8/10s are dying, but enough enthusiasts will keep them alive for awhile, passenger car V6s are mediocre engines in general with possible exception of the beloved BMW and Toyota motors

 

[TypeR_801]

Here’s a 13.4 @ 105 in an 9th gen V6 6MT since you’ve never seen a sub 14. I think he later clarified it was on stock tires w/pressure reduced to ~20 psi.

 

[fzr100098]

That's good, but it's at a drag strip with lowered tire pressures (and car may be modded) - here's a 13.5 2.0T so again it's right there

 

[azrael69]

That's good, but it's at a drag strip with lowered tire pressures (and car may be modded) - here's a 13.5 2.0T so again it's right there

I ran at Honda Day on a standard tire pressure of 32 psi and some mods...maybe I have one that may be a bit zippy...!

<start watching at 14:44>

 

[azrael69]

 

[TypeR_801]

Here's why it makes sense why a V6 would take a (stock) 2.0T on a roll, but NOT from a stand-still. Dyno charts of both motors, showing the substantial torque advantage of the 2.0T under 4800 rpms. That coupled with the gearing advantage of the 10AT is why we generally see stronger, more consistent 1/4 times with the newer cars (it simply launches more effectively). That said, trap speed and roll on power should be in favor of the V6 as it has more torque (stock for stock) above 4800 rpms.

https://www.driveaccord.net/threads/2-0-turbo-vs-v6-comparison.500450/#lg=thread-500450&slide=0

If you're watching the shift points on the 2.0T 10AT (upper right hand corner of Hondata Drag video), they all occur above 4800 rpms, so the torque advantage it has only exists in first gear or on an initial kick down (rolling), but once WOT running through the gears it's at a deficit to the V6 (again, stock for stock).

 

[fzr100098]

14.3 (ambient temp?) - not bad for a low cost tune and 93 octane gas, imagine if this car had limited slip. Too bad Honda doesn't release a Type R Accord with the bigger turbo, 10 speed, and limited slip

 

[azrael69]

 

[fzr100098]

^ king of useless posts no one responds to

 

[azrael69]

^ king of useless posts no one responds to

Where's your car old man? Why not meet up and we can line up and see if all of your opinionated magic is just useless smoke or you actually have balls to go with it? Just like I thought...a joke you are...yes indeed.