Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1605606608610611728

Comments

  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    If Honda was the only company with a 3,600 pound car today or the only car with a V6 I would say you have a point.

    You have a point about the weight, but the point your trying to make about the V6 is falling on deaf ears. Not all V6's were created equal. Back in 2003, Honda's V6 was so far superior to other V6's at the time, it's not even funny. Even Honda's own V6 got upped by 20% more HP in 2003.
  • suydamsuydam Posts: 986
    Actually the weight is an issue for a lot of cars these days. The car makers want the brakes lighter and smaller to help with fuel economy, but they have more mass to move around. Should help that the 2013 Honda is lighter than the 2012. If you look around on other forums people complain about brakes wearing out faster than they used to.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    But he was saying that Honda isn't the only one with overweight cars these days, but yet not everyone has reports of short-lived OEM brake pads.

    A very minor issue in the grand scheme of things. I'd rather replace my Honda's brakes at 40K miles rather than my Dodge's head gaskets, for example.
  • suydamsuydam Posts: 986
    True, a minor issue. But he's wrong that its just Honda. Time will tell how all parts of the 2013 hold up. I'm going on a good past history statistically.That's all anyone can do.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,781
    edited July 2013
    EX is not the top of the line for the Accord. It goes: LX, Sport, EX, EXL, EXL Navi, EXL Navi V-6, Touring V-6.

    So the EX is the mid-level model. I don't think the EX has ever had a leather wrapped steering wheel, and so you can't blame the bean counters for that one. L stands, of course, for Leather, and that's where you get the leather steering wheel. The new model this year, the Sport, surprisingly has it too.

    In any case, a good aftermarket leather steering wheel cover can always be added. Check Pep Boys. Top rated leather for steering wheel c. $25. No biggie.

    Honda added thousands of dollars of equipment to the 2013 Accord compared to the 2012, but only raised the price by something like $150. In other words, for the most part the bean counters lost.

    For instance, compared to the base 2012 Accord LX the 2013 Accord LX adds: alloy wheels, direct injected engine, more advanced transmission, Advanced Compatibility II body with super high grade steel (the only best selling car to ace the IIHS crash test), bluetooth, pandora/integration w/smart phone, back up camera, higher mpg, bigger trunk, much quieter/more sound insulation, etc.

    In my opinion, the only thing we lost that's of any importance is the ski pass through in the back seat. The bean counters got that one, but I can easily live without it in trade for all the other stuff.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,733
    So get the turbo if 198 hp isn't enough for you. Sheesh. Five years ago, how many base trim mid-sized family sedans had at least 198 hp?

    It's amazing to me how much power some people think they need in a family sedan. As if they spend all their time drag racing.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    Aftermarket leather looks a little cheesy on steering wheels. You can buy an entire new leather wheel for $136 from several places online. I may go that route.

    While I have noticed that my brakes wobble a tad under some conditions now that I have 164k miles on my 2007 Accord, I still am on my original front pads. ;) Can't complain too much about that. I expect my '13 will do just as well.

    Agree on power. My I4's are much faster than I ever need (stick shift helps a lot). Can't imagine a v-6.
  • Well the Fusion 2.0 turbo certainly doesn't need anymore power! I wasn't sure that its 240hp would be enough for me, but honestly, unless you are planning to use your family sedan for drag racing, or towing a trailer, you don't really need as much power as you think you do. Anywhere in the neighborhood of 200hp is more than enough to move fast. If you think you need more power than that in a midsize sedan, the only current model for you is the Chevy SS, otherwise you should be looking at fullsize sedans!
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    Well the Fusion 2.0 turbo certainly doesn't need anymore power! I wasn't sure that its 240hp would be enough for me, but honestly, unless you are planning to use your family sedan for drag racing, or towing a trailer, you don't really need as much power as you think you do.

    That's because it has 270 ft-lbs of torque at low to midrange rpm. It actually has more torque than the 3.5 v6 used in the Taurus. If it had 240hp, with say only 200 ft-lbs of torque at over 4k rpm, it wouldn't feel nearly as powerful.
  • Well it's certainly got power to spare. Even at 100mph it's nowhere near its limits, except for the speed limiter kicking in at 120mph, otherwise it would easily top out at 160mph. Just a tap on the gas at 60mph boosts it up to 80mph so fast I'm almost afraid to floor it. Anything with a V8 in it will leave it in the dust, but not without a fight, so I don't have any problems getting it up to highway speeds onto crowded freeways with short entry ramps. If torque is more responsible for all that than hp is, then I'd definitely pay more attention to torque ratings when shopping for a new car. I'm very pleased with the performance of my car, the difference between it and the Ford Probe GT that I used to drive is truly amazing!
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,781
    It was about tie:

    http://autos.yahoo.com/news/penalty-speeding-loss-fuel-economy-160000931.html

    Model 55 mph 65 mph 75 mph
    Accord CVT 49 mpg 42 mpg 35 mpg
    Fusion Hybrid 49 41 36
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,738
    It depends at what rpm's the torque is made. Engine management software allows small engines to make lots of torque at lower rpm's.
    My Fusion has the 2.0 and I don't think I've had the engine much over 4k rpm's yet, but I haven't felt the need to do it.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,733
    Well duh.

    Other studies have been published on this point over the years, but I'll bet a lot of drivers will take the extra hour (for a 200 mile trip) and pay the extra $5 to $7. Imagine for example a business person driving to a customer meeting. That extra hour with the customer, or working on other business, would probably be worth far more than $5-7 to them.

    Anyway, most major highways and freeways outside city limits in my state (MN) are posted at 65-70 mph. Certainly will use less gas driving the limit than, say, 75+, but 55 wouldn't be advisable. And if the limit is 55, driving 75 would be begging for a ticket, as well as unsafe if most traffic is near 55.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,738
    Hybrids have an advantage in stop and go driving. Have results of that?
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    Find it interesting that the I4 Accord can match the hybrid Fusion in steady mpg (understood the Fusion would do better in stop and go) while at the same time nearly matching the 2.0 Turbo to 60 mph (besting it if the 6.6 second stick Accord is used).

    Even the V-6 Accord gets about the same mpg as the 1.6 liter Fusion on CR tests.

    Very unimpressed with ecoboost.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,781
    edited July 2013
    The news is not that going faster lowers your mpg, it's that at 65 mph an Accord CVT gets the same mpg as a Fusion hybrid.

    A 2008 Accord (which I also own) gets about 5-8 miles per gallon less on the highway than the new model. On highway trips in my 2008 Accord we get about 29-31mpg. In similar highway trips in the 2013 Accord we get 37-39 mpg. That's a fairly good jump for one generation. That's esp. true considering that interior room in the 2013 is essentially the same, the trunk is larger, and acceleration is faster.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,733
    The news is not that going faster lowers your mpg, it's that at 65 mph an Accord CVT gets the same mpg as a Fusion hybrid.

    No news there either. Everyone knows the main advantage of hybrids wrt fuel economy is in city driving, not highway. On the highway, the hybrids are running on their ICE powerplants. And they have a weight disadvantage to a comparably-sized regular ICE vehicle.

    Let's compare the Accord CVT driving through rush-hour city traffic to the Fusion hybrid. I bet the results will be different. ;)
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,781
    dudley: agree that ecoboost seems overrated. They are great engines, but for mpg and acceleration ultimately they don't seem to compete with direct injected normally aspirated engines of a larger size.

    I saw an article a year ago saying that in 10 years something like 70-80% of engines would be turbos of various kinds. Given the added complexity and cost of these engines, I wonder if that's a good idea.

    Honda Accord LX 4-cyl. 49 mpg 42 mpg 35 mpg
    Ford Fusion 1.6 4-cyl. 41 mpg 36 mpg 30 mpg
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,669
    but I'll bet a lot of drivers will take the extra hour (for a 200 mile trip) and pay the extra $5 to $7.

    I agree...going faster is better. Highway 130 here is 85...so you go a comfortable 90. I know it uses much more gas than going 55, but time is much more valuable.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,781
    edited July 2013
    "Let's compare the Accord CVT driving through rush-hour city traffic to the Fusion hybrid. I bet the results will be different. "

    To use your words: "Well duh."
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,733
    Just watch out for those wild pigs crossing the road! Hit one of those at 90, and it will cause quite a mess. :sick:
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,006
    Heat and speed ups your chances for a blowout greatly. Not fun!
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,733
    Yeah, especially at 90 mph! And it's pretty hot down there in Central TX.

    I see a huge drop off in FE after 60-65 mph. I can only imagine what the FE would be at 90. But, I'll likely never know as the max speed limit within a 1000 mile radius of me is 70, and when I visit Central TX I plan to stay off 130.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,669
    very true...there are quite a few of them. My wife had one hit the side of her mini-van going down a country road. The pig was small and the dent was big; she was only going 40 mph.

    mmmm...meat :)
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    more advanced transmission

    We'll agree to disagree on that one. Though I haven't drove Honda's CVT yet. Let's see if they last longer than Nissans' CTV's known to have a life expectancy under 50K miles.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    The power is needed for passing all the left lane campers and slow mergers out here in CA.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,781
    andres3 wrote: "more advanced transmission

    We'll agree to disagree on that one. Though I haven't drove Honda's CVT yet. Let's see if they last longer than Nissans' CTV's known to have a life expectancy under 50K miles."

    As you say, we'll have to agree to disagree. Although until you've driven the Accord CVT I don't think you can really say whether you like it or not. Honda poured a lot of R & D into a the high tech composite material of the belt, which was the main weak point in terms of durability for Nissan's CVT. Honda also has much better sound and computer simulated "shift feel" than Nissan's CVT. Car magazines seem to confirm this.

    For instance, here is Car and Driver from several months ago:

    "The 2.4-liter is quieter at idle than some other direct-injection engines with their clattering high-pressure injectors, particularly Hyundai’s. And the Honda likes to rev, sounding healthy and full throated at its 6400-rpm power peak. But it’s the CVT’s tuning that makes the Accord feel fleet. The typical rubber-band delay has been minimized, and the throttle responds curtly when you ask for acceleration (although sometimes with some audible transmission whine at high revs). In mountain snakers as well as on city streets, the CVT works so efficiently that it all but disappears...."

    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-sedan-first-drive-review
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,733
    edited July 2013
    If you need more than 198 hp to pass an LLC or a slow merger, you need remedial driving lessons.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    CA has high traffic levels so there is often not much room to pass unless you have a BURST of high HP.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    I love the sounds of those reviews, and Honda is a great company overall. If they nailed the CVT, kudos to them. Time will be the ultimate test though. We'll see for sure in 5-10 years how the CVT's are holding up.
Sign In or Register to comment.