Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Midsize Sedans 2.0

1…134135137139140…544

Comments

  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    Maybe 10 sec. 0-60 based on the 150hp, but also something that will feel quicker than it is (because of the torque).

    I don't know about that. I'd wager more like mid to high 8s for that run. That's a lot of torque for a FWD car so I hope they do something else to reduce the torque steer that is inevitable.

    It kinda surprises me in that Honda didn't diesel a V6 and get something like MB does with their 3.2 6 cylinder, 200+hp and 400 lb. ft., a car that really does pretty well both in the drag races and at the fuel pump

    They are, but it wasn't in that article. This article suggests that they will use their new diesel tech on an SUV like the Pilot. That is why I eluded to the Honda SUV/CUVs getting diesel in '09 as well. I would expect those to be V6 versions probably similar to the 200 HP and 400 ft-lbs the Benz makes. Give me 25+ mpg in the city in a Pilot, or dare I say even a Ridgeline, and I'll certainly visit the Honda dealer when shopping in '09.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    If that's the same photo that has been floating around the net, the DIN-sized electronics device lower in the center stack that looks out of place is a taxi meter. This is a shot of a Korean taxi version.

    Well let's hope it is just that!

    Although, that looks like a pretty darn fancy taxi meter to me. Cabbies must have it real good over in Korea. :shades:
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Since the Accord hybrid would get better mileage than the regular Accord,why would they discontinue the hybrid?

    Because nobody bought them. Remember the Accord was a V6 hybrid - it wasn't a fuel miser.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The interior obviously created picking the mind belonging to Lexus' RX330. The center of the dash is almost a carbon copy, add to that the half wooded steering wheel, and wood trim.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    It started with Veracruz, while looking at Lexus RX.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Accord will get 155 HP/260 lb-ft version of 2.2-liter i-DTEC engine. That should enable it to run 0-60 in 8s, far from being slow. There will be another higher output version of the engine, with 180 HP/320 lb-ft, but likely reserved for higher performance trim in Europe.

    V6 diesel is also supposed to happen, but will likely be limited to light trucks (Odyssey, Pilot and Ridgeline).
  • mz3smz3s Member Posts: 17
    That front clip looks like a 90s Toyota Crown. I was never a fan of this car, but... yeah, I'm still not a fan of this car.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    The Accord hybrid was (as Hondas aren't) not a true hybrid - in the Accord's case a V6 with cylinder deactivation (a system now used in all the V6s) and a supplementary electric motor that really served only to make the car even quicker that the regular V6. FE was not significantly better, in that the car was not a true hybrid in the same way as the Camry/Altima hybrids. And sure, at 4 or $5/gallon acceleration may become a secondary consideration, although I would suggest to you that gas prices in Europe exceed even $5 and there is still a market for something other than 'appliances'. Diesel technology is such that a diesel Accord wouldn't necessarily have to be dull. My comment was only some disppointment that Honda chose the 'appliance' path with a 150hp 4 banger, the FE better be good to put up it.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    That should enable it to run 0-60 in 8s, far from being slow
    at the risk of starting an interminable debate about hp and torque - I would suggest to you that this car will only 'feel' like its running in the 8s, and actually be slower than its 2.4 liter gas engined cousins pulling a car that should be heavier than the already bloated Accord- much like the E320CDI is slower (and heavier) than the E350 although it feels 'peppier' and delivers much better FE of course. I guess we'll have to wait to see how the car tests but it is HP (torque applied over time) that is still the primary influence on any car's ability to accelerate. The Accord diesel, IMO, would be an easier 'sacrifice' for most folks to make if, as I said earlier, they could offer it at 200hp+/400 lb.ft (probably requiring a v6) and somewhere around 30 mpg overall because then at least the car would be fun to drive. I believe that Honda with a 150hp Accord diesel will have the same sort of acceptance issues that the VW Rabbit/Golf/Passat have had for years.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    You are focusing on peak numbers. Performance is determined by average power that is delivered to the wheels during any run. Torque curve from a diesel engine tends to be much higher than comparable gasoline engine, but it is also narrower. The upside to this downside is that the peak power is very close to average power during any run (a fact).

    In case of Accord’s 2.2-liter i-DTEC, 100 HP would be available at just 2000 rpm, which climbs to 155 HP over a span of next 2000 rpm (from 2000 rpm to 4000 rpm). This indicates a relatively flat power curve. With a few assumptions that the diesel will use V6-like gearing, you’re looking at 100 HP at just 13 mph in first gear. OTOH, 100 HP in gasoline powered Accord corresponds to about 23 mph in first gear. Interestingly enough, 13 mph in gasoline powered Accord would also correspond to 2000 rpm, but it would have only 55-60 HP at its disposal. You could work the math upwards for other speeds, like I have, to understand it better.

    Now, I do expect diesel to weigh (realistically) 125-150 lb more than comparable gasoline powered version. And I had that covered in my estimate for 0-60. BTW, you can expect to see it do 0-60 in about 8s with MT. Add almost a second for AT. That would still make it quicker than most four cylinder family sedans and on par with 190 HP Accord. Its got the potential to generate almost 1.7 times as much thrust (100 HP at 13 mph in diesel/~58 HP at 13 mph in gasoline) without weighing 1.7 times.

    Besides, it is not just the feel of being peppier, it would be a fact. Most magazines bog themselves down with measuring 0-60 runs, which I think is one of the most useless measures around. Rolling acceleration matters more but few seem to care about it. Given that diesel might cruise at 2000 rpm at 60 mph in top gear, minor hills that may require a downshift in gasoline version, would be unnecessary in this one, since all it would take is opening the throttle as up to 100 HP would be on tap. With gasoline, the engine will need to be revved up to about 3500 rpm to get 100 HP.

    See... it didn’t need to be about power and torque, just power. :)
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I’m always amused at the sound of someone suggesting IMA not being a true hybrid. A hybrid is a hybrid, when it is capable of being propelled by hybrid power train system. Honda took a simpler approach than most. Instead of an overhauled design, the concept itself is brilliant: Replace the flywheel of an engine with a thin electric motor and voila! The problem is around storage capacity. For packaging, cost and weight reasons, smaller battery pack make more sense, and that was Honda’s approach. Otherwise, they could have used the big motor and battery pack (which is now an ultra-capacitor pack) from EV-Plus currently available around as the FCX.

    With Accord, Honda chose performance model, to address folks like you who keep complaining about less power (you’re doing that against diesel, wanting a V6). I always doubted Honda’s choice for going with hybrid on the top trim, for sale reasons. They should have started with a lesser trim with a lower base price. But I think, diesel would be a better option in bigger vehicles, Accord and above. It will be really interesting to watch Accord Diesel go against Camry/Altima/Aura/Malibu hybrids in the near future.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    I’m always amused at the sound of someone suggesting IMA not being a true hybrid.

    It probably would have been stated better if he had said a "full hybrid" which is probably what he meant. Vehicles like the Prius and Escape Hybrid are considered to be full hybrids while vehicles like the Civic Hybrid are considered to be partial hybrids.

    I don't know who defined what a full or partial hybrid is so please don't shoot the messenger if you don't agree. :shades:
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    "Full" hybrids can run on electric power alone while "mild" hybrids simply shut off the combustion engine when the vehicle stops.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Can these hybrids keep the air conditioner going in the heat of summer, or the heat going in the middle of the winter?
  • prosource1prosource1 Member Posts: 234
    It appears from Hyundai's domestic site info that the Sonata's 2.4 4-cylinder will put out 179 hp.

    The pics in this forum IMO aren't as good as those from Hyundai's site. This is a much improved car. I am interested to drive the new suspension, engines and to see this interior up close.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    The Accord diesel, IMO, would be an easier 'sacrifice' for most folks to make if, as I said earlier, they could offer it at 200hp+/400 lb.ft (probably requiring a v6) and somewhere around 30 mpg overall because then at least the car would be fun to drive.

    I think Honda made the mistake of going with a "performance" hybrid, when they used a V6 engine. It obviously didn't work. With the diesel, I think Honda is going in the opposite direction. Fuel economy will be the main attraction for this car, and that IMO will make it a big hit. Honda is NOT going for the "performance" crowd with this one. If you want performance, the V6 (gasoline) version will be for you.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I am not sure whether Civic Hybrid does, but Accord Hybrid did. It didn't require engine to run when climate control had to be on.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    It is an irony that the ability to run solely on electric power has to define a “hybrid”, much less a “full” hybrid. That should make an electric-only vehicle fullest hybrid. :P

    I find terms like parallel and series hybrid far more logical. Some of them can be dual mode (work in either/or mode) while some others might use them both at some point.

    The “full”, “mild”, “true”, “false” or whatever term seem to have come from marketing PR material, propagated by sales folks and magazines. A series hybrid is just as much a “true” hybrid with batteries as without (in which case, it cannot run solely in electric mode), as would be a parallel hybrid or any combination of. “Mild” might be acceptable term however, since the car may rely more on gasoline/diesel engine for a significant portion of operation but even some of them (Civic Hybrid) are capable of running in electric mode under some circumstances, blurring the line.

    But, we might be going well out of the realms of the subject.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    "Full" hybrids can run on electric power alone while "mild" hybrids simply shut off the combustion engine when the vehicle stops.

    That is partially correct if I'm not mistaken. Full hybrids are full hybrids and there isn't much difference between any of them. Mild, or partial, hybrids come in many flavors. You have those which only shut off the engine when stopped. Then there are some which power two wheels with a small electric motor like the GM pickups (totally useless IMO). Then there's those like the Civic which, and corrrect me if I'm wrong, use an electric motor somewhere between the gas engine and wheels to assist the gas motor.

    There are more variations of the mild hybrids IIRC but I think I made my point. ;)
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    this is very simple - diesel powered cars don't accelerate well because the engine is slower to pick up rpm and are in fact rev limited to much lower rpms, so in effect it doesn't put all that torque to good use - which BTW is the mathematical definition of HP - (torque*rpm)/5252. There is a direct correlation between car acceleration times and HP and vehice weight (hp per lb.) and not necessarily with torque. What I am saying is that the 260 lb. ft. lb. will improve the drivability of the new Accord diesel as well as provide the a nice sort of 'kick' on initial throttle application only. It will still be the 150hp (and the extra weight) though that makes it a slow car. Relative to something like a diesel the gas engine puts out more of that usable horsepower simply because it can (and does) rev more freely and quickly. Anybody that has spent anytime with the VW diesels knows what I mean - a car that 'feels' faster than it is.
    Whether it'll beat 10 seconds to 60 I don't know but I also think that the auto buyer is not ready to return to those underpowered 'wundercars' of the 80s and early 90s (or FTM manual trannies) all in the interest of saving 10-15 gallons of fuel a month.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Whether it'll beat 10 seconds to 60 I don't know but I also think that the auto buyer is not ready to return to those underpowered 'wundercars' of the 80s and early 90s (or FTM manual trannies) all in the interest of saving 10-15 gallons of fuel a month.

    I think the Accord diesel engine will be more advanced than those engines of the 80's and 90's. Honda will, I'm sure, pair the engine with a transmission that will get the most out of the package. You may be surprised.
  • bug4bug4 Member Posts: 370
    I have always understood that torque does actually make the car quicker at slower speeds (lower RPMs) - yes?? It just doesn't carry through to higher RPM's / speeds. Do I have this right? Ft/Lbs of torque is a better measure of off-the-line performance than is horse power --- correct?
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668
    ... but I also think that the auto buyer is not ready to return to those underpowered 'wundercars' of the 80s and early 90s (or FTM manual trannies) all in the interest of saving 10-15 gallons of fuel a month.

    I humbly disagree, Captain. When gasoline gets to $5 a gallon, which will be sooner rather than later, 10 to 15 gallons a month translates into $50 to $75 a month. I am already regretting buying a 3.0-liter V6 AWD 2007 Fusion because of its horrific (14.8) in-city gas mileage.

    Indeed, our next car may well be the new four-cylinder diesel from Honda, if and when it arrives on the market, preferably with a six-speed automatic.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Torque by itself is meaningless. I can generate 300 ft/lbs of torque with my arm but I can't generate many RPM. HP is torque x RPM so you can get more HP by increasing torque or by increasing RPM. The advantage of having more torque available at lower RPM is that it makes more HP than having less torque at the same RPM. And when you're doing a 0-60 run you have to get through the lower RPM range before you get to the upper RPM range.

    In the end, it's all about HP. But an engine with more torque at lower RPM will have more HP available off the line.
  • exshomanexshoman Member Posts: 109
    Just saw this on CNNMoney site:

    Malibu vs Camry

    Lots of praise for the new 'Bu.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    From the review:

    From now on, those who go blindly to Honda and Toyota dealers in search of their next mid-sized sedan will be making a serious mistake.

    "From now on"? CNN is a little late to the party with that line. But it's nice to see that they have healthy respect for the new Malibu.

    I don't think it was a coincidence, however, that GM invited the press to the Malibu/Camry comparo before the 2008 Accord was available for testing. ;)
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    ""From now on"? CNN is a little late to the party with that line. But it's nice to see that they have healthy respect for the new Malibu."

    Heck, CNNMoney is making a mistake if they expect the American buying public to see their views. After all, a consumer who pays cash is never wrong.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    $50 to $75 is maybe just an average and may also be more. Certainly can make a difference for a lot of folks. In your case if your Fusion is only delivering 15 mpg for your particular driving conditions and habits, then I would also suggest that this Accord diesel is likely going to get you 'only'about 10 or 12 more mpg in the same conditions. Not to poo-poo the significance of that, have no idea how much you drive, but in these days of our 'appliance' (as one poster contends) 4 door sedans in some cases leaving 'muscle cars' in the dust are we really going to happy with 150hp pulling along 3500-3600 lbs or more. Not that I have any problem with the diesel per se, I really believe that this is where we are heading (near term) but I wish that Honda would have taken a more 'performance' approach instead of just out and out FE. Such things are possible these days even with diesels. If we really wanted appliances, we could all line up to buy the Camry and Altima hybrids, which apparently don't justify their cost premiums especially over the short term. This all said, I'm relatively confident that the Accord diesel will be met with an adoring audience and possibly even some good reviews (from everybody except the enthusiast mags) and sell at some premium over MSRP.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    I have always understood that torque does actually make the car quicker at slower speeds (lower RPMs) - yes??
    no, that torque only makes the car feel quicker, if that torque can not be turned into HP it will have no effect on things like acceleration times. Akirby has it right, in effect, torque is meaningless.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Diesel engines may lack some responsiveness of gasoline engines, but they don’t have to rev higher to have higher average power. So that aspect evens out. What does higher average power get you? It will potentially improve average power to weight ratio which in turn would help improve performance.

    You are trying to make a point on power but getting bogged down by looking at torque, and treating them as independent entities when they are not. The bottom line is, torque is only as good as the power it helps generate. If you know power, there is no need to re-focus on torque that you are doing in that “kick-in” argument.

    If you are aware of characteristics of a diesel engine, you would also know that diesel engines tend to have flatter power curve, whereas a gasoline engine with broader torque curve will have a steadily rising power curve. The former was also a big part of muscle cars until recently. They had lot of torque but peak was usually low but average power was higher than it was in higher revving but equally powerful performance engines.

    If you could operate solely at peak power (155 HP in Accord Diesel, 158 HP in Camry, 169 HP in Malibu or 177-190 HP in Accord) using a CVT, then Accord diesel would have no chance as it will not have that higher average power advantage anymore while also weighing more. But reality is different. Engines operate over a range.

    So, contrary to your belief, a diesel’s usable power is closer to its peak. That is one reason why, despite being heavier and less powerful, the current European Accord Diesel (138 HP) is quicker than European Accord 2.0 (155 HP). It is slower than the more powerful Accord 2.4 (190 HP) however, but not by much.

    For these reasons, don’t expect the Accord Diesel to be a slouch when it comes to performance. It won’t match the performance of most V6 powered versions but with 0-60 in about 9.0s with auto transmission, it will be one of the quicker four cylinder family sedans (by comparison, the new Malibu got it done in 10s).

    What car do you drive?

    Are we really going to happy with 150hp pulling along 3500-3600 lbs or more

    Like I suggested earlier, you won’t be if you only stuck with peak power. In reality, a 3500-3600 lb diesel car is likely to have better power to weight ratio than a similar gasoline powered 3400-3500 lb car. That would be due to higher average power in diesel. Remember, diesel engines don’t have steadily rising power curve, so the average power over operating range is closer to the rated peak power than it is in gasoline powered cars.

    I illustrated this earlier. 190 HP Accord (3400+ lb) or 169 HP Malibu (3400+ lb) have higher peak power, but do would they have higher average power? I don’t know the gearing for Malibu, so I will use the Accord, and apply V6 gearing for the diesel.

    In first gear, Accord Diesel 2000 rpm (100 HP) will correspond with 13+ mph and 4000 rpm (155 HP) will correspond with about 27 mph. Median power accelerating from 13 to 27 mph: 127.5 HP.

    The same speed range will correspond with 2000 rpm (55 HP) and 4300 rpm (130 HP) in Accord 2.4. The median power: 92.5 HP.

    Now, even if the diesel tipped the scale at 3550 lb, it would have 27.8 lb/HP at the median. For gasoline with 3425 lb, it would be 37 lb/HP. Now you know why the diesel would feel peppier.

    Unless the gasoline version operates over a range where its average power is higher than that from diesel, it won’t perform better simply by virtue of having higher peak power or 100 lb less weight. The focus needs to go beyond peak output ratings.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I agree with you. And while to many $50/month may not seem like much, I (and it seems you are too) prefer to look at the bigger picture. Ownership cost over extended time is important or I would just lease a luxury car and pay less per month than I do buying a mainstream car. A $50/month in savings over only 5 years would translate to a whopping $3K savings at the pump.

    But 15 mpg is VERY low for a midsize family sedan. Have you had dealership check out your car? What are your driving conditions?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Engine rpm translates to wheel speed. Torque is related to thrust. Power combines them both. So, torque by itself is meaningless, while simply knowing power can reveal quite a few things. For example, if there are two cars, identical in all aspects but power/torque output, if one of them produces 200 HP on average during a run compared to another that produced 160 HP, even if the second had higher average torque, it will be outperformed by the first by 25% (200/160=1.25).

    Now, this 25% advantage in power doesn’t necessarily imply higher speed (most folks associate power solely with speed and torque with force, and while partly correct, the argument has big flaws). Power by definition relates speed and force. In fact, it balances them. A car with 200 HP (average) may be going 25% faster than another with 200 HP (average). On the flip side, the second car will have 25% greater thrust. So, neither is outperforming the other (200/200=1.00), but compensating in different ways.

    This is why, for traditional performance measurements (acceleration), it is better to relate power and speed. The best way to understand this is to use a CVT setup as it can allow certain power during acceleration (that power replaces the “average” power). Doing so, if we have two similar cars, one produces 200 HP (but only 160 lb-ft) during the run and the other has 160 HP (but 200 lb-ft) during the run, the 200 HP car will out-accelerate the other car with higher torque, and will feel peppier (by 25%).

    The key is in average power generated during a run.
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668
    But 15 mpg is VERY low for a midsize family sedan. Have you had dealership check out your car? What are your driving conditions?

    The revised (lower) EPA rating for this power train, V6, AWD, is 17 mpg city and 24 mpg highway. Yes, the dealer put it on a portable computer at 1,500 miles and everything checked out OK.

    Our in-city driving is stop 'n' go, short hops, but not bumper-to-bumper. Our terrain is as flat as a pool table, the tires are properly inflated and my wife and I are gentle, conservative drivers. I think the AWD is the gas culprit. On the only trip we have taken with it -- 360 miles round trip -- it delivered 26 mpg going and 24 mpg returning.

    The 2007 SEL Fusion is a great car except for this mileage problem, which is of great concern since gasoline is at $3 a gallon and heading north. Fortunately, we don't drive the car all that much: Only have 5,300 miles on it since Dec. 4, 2006.
  • mickeyrommickeyrom Member Posts: 936
    But 15 mpg is VERY low for a midsize family sedan. Have you had dealership check out your car? What are your driving conditions?

    My Optima gets even less MPG in town.14.something.I blame the fact that it never has a chance to warm up,since usually the trips are less than 2 miles.Yes...it is a 4Cyl,and the HP is 161.Plenty peppy enough for me.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    We've been through this many times. His typical commute is very low speed, lots of stop and go and only about 5 miles - hardly enough time to get the engine warmed up. It's not the car - it's the driving.
  • biker4biker4 Member Posts: 746
    Who says the diesel will be that much heavier than the gasser Accord? It all depends on the trim Honda chooses to pair the diesel with. In LX-P trim a 3236lb gasser won't preform much different from a 3300lb? diesel.
    By MMC time when the 4 cyl EX will have 200+HP there might a diff but till then performance won't be a differentiator between any of the 4 cyl Accords.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    I suppose this could be more entertaining than an auto w/out manual overrides, and perhaps a little more convenient than automatics w/ overrides... but I'm not sure I'd find the experience w/ paddle shifters a big deal beyond the novelty of it. Perhaps you're wondering why I'm bringing this up... I saw a pic of the next gen mazda6 and it showed paddle shifters. Of course it's possible these are only for europe and/or Japan since the north america specs have not been released...

    sorry for the supersized pic, but I don't have a way to resize at work...
    image
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    My assumption is based on a few things. I’ve seen Honda’s current diesel engine (which, I believe was a first for using aluminum block) mentioned weighing 375 lb, about 100 lb more than the number I have seen for 2.2-liter used previously in Accord/Prelude. My guess is that the current 2.4 in Accord weighs about the same (or probably is lighter) than the old 2.2.

    Also, to handle the extra torque, a beefier transmission is required. So my guess is that the transmission will be shared with Accord V6, and that may add a few pounds.

    And finally, identically equipped, Accord EX/Diesel in UK weighs about 79 kg more than Accord EX/2.4. That translates to 170 lb. In some applications, the difference is less, so 150 lb would be a logical guess.

    If it is put in LX-P trim which weighs around 3250 lb I believe, then LX-P/diesel would be around 3400 lb. If it is EX trim (about 3425 lb), then the diesel would be 3550-3600 lb. But diesel has more than enough grunt to make up for the additional weight, when it comes to accelerative performance. It will lack some in high HP scenario, but unlikely to be experienced in around town driving. It should get 30-35% better fuel economy (in the real world), however.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Since Fusion uses a reactive AWD system (rear wheels engage only if slippage is detected in the front wheels), I don’t think AWD is the culprit. And I don’t think EPA considers impact from different types of AWD system either. Permanent AWD systems (like Acura’s SH-AWD or BMW’s x-Drive) that keep all wheels engaged at all times are mostly covered, but in reactive system as in Fusion, Escape, CR-V etc (or even proactive/reactive systems like Honda’s VTM-4), they don’t have a test cycle for it. My bet would be that they simply deduct a percentage off for just having an AWD system.

    Now a reactive AWD can have an impact anyway, due to additional weight (logical guess would be 125-150 lb) but it should be negligible. So, if not your car, then your driving conditions might be it. The worst tanks in my 98 Accord over its 183K miles so far returned 23-24 mpg seen for about a year when I lived within 2 miles from office. Otherwise, 26 mpg is the norm in mixed driving (up to 33 mpg at 75 mph on freeway).

    So, driving conditions do affect a lot. In addition, I don’t idle my cars much after cold starts. While a bit longer during winter, 10-15 seconds is the norm. Engine warms up quicker when rolling, I just take care to not be aggressive with the throttle until it does. Despite its age/miles, Accord will warm up in a little over a quarter mile (up to half mile on colder days). That can also help improve fuel economy a bit.

    You could try some of these things, besides less braking (or avoiding it as much as possible), and could see 10-15% improvement. For me, less braking might be helping. I’ve replaced front brake pads only once in my 183K mile Accord (the current pads have 93K miles on them). The rear brake pads were replaced at about 132K miles so they have about 61K miles so far. As a result, even my TL gets me 25-26 mpg consistently. And I'm one of the fastest drivers on the road.
  • motownusamotownusa Member Posts: 836
    I got a chance to drive my friend's Hybrid Accord yesterday. What a powerful car !!!!! Accleration is effortless and you can easily get 35 + mpg. I am surprised the car didn't sell well. Personally, I would definitely prefer the Hybrid Accord over the diesel.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Since Fusion uses a reactive AWD system (rear wheels engage only if slippage is detected in the front wheels),

    Wrong again. Ford's AWD system used in the Fusion, Taurus and Edge will actually predict the need for power to the rear before slippage occurs based on driver inputs (throttle position, etc.). This is far more useful than a reactive only system.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    the only fuel saving technology in the now discontinued Accord Hybrid really was the variable displacement system used to minimize fuel consumption the V6. For 08 this system is now standard on all V6s. As on all Honda 'Hybrids' the electric motors are provided to essentially supplement the gas engine, no to periodically replace it - as on the Toyota system, for example. Since electric motors provide maximum torque at 0 rpm (at startup) the Accord Hybrid is indeed very quick with the additional benefit of that 240hp V6 working on all its cylinders. There is however very little benefit to the system in terms of fuel economy - which I guess is why Honda has had trouble getting folks to pay the extra money for it. The diesel, of course, will change all that and may actually justify an assummed price premium over the standard 4 banger.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I will be curious where "again" came from. But as far as Fusion's AWD system is concerned, this should tell you something you might not be aware of. An excerpt:

    The Ford-developed technology is similar in many ways to the Haldex system, Kurrle says, without revealing exactly what changes were made. “This is a ‘slip-and-grip’ system. It detects the slip of the front wheels and transfers torque, similar to the Haldex system.”
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    boy, do I have some swampland for you - another case of believing some of that seemingly endless publicity. Perhaps you would like to explain how the car can 'know'
    this and can anticipate that icy spot on the road or whatever, thereby correctly guessing something is going to happen before it does. My God, just think about it. Of course, systems like this are reactive, just like SC systems, and not just Ford's.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Just ask him what his mpg was when he drove a Focus, then you will know it is the type of driving and not the car.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Maybe THIS will tell you something that you obviously aren't aware of:

    “What’s really impressive about these systems is that they don’t just react to slip,” says Rodrigues. “They usually prevent that slip from occurring in the first place. By predicting slip and preventing it, the driver doesn’t feel the vehicle slipping and responding. The operation is seamless.”
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Perhaps you would like to explain how the car can 'know'
    this and can anticipate that icy spot on the road or whatever, thereby correctly guessing something is going to happen before it does. My God, just think about it. Of course, systems like this are reactive, just like SC systems, and not just Ford's.

    Ok, try to pay attention this time. Of course the system reacts to an icy spot by sensing a loss of traction in the front wheels and transferring torque to the rear. It has to do that. But what it ALSO does is sense when rear torque is likely to be needed BEFORE slip occurs. How does it do this? Simple. The computer knows the steering angle and the throttle position at all times. If you're accelerating into a turn or just accelerating hard then it knows this before slippage occurs and it can compensate.

    It's not rocket science.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    That is marketing bunk. AWD/4WD vehicles cannot predict slip. They can only react when slip occurs, even before the driver knows it's occuring. How in sam hill for example, can an AWD tell if it's raining and the limits of grip are lower? The obvious answer is they can't. It can only react to a preprogrammed difference in input parameters for the system.

    BMW which IMO has the best DSC type in it's class, cannot predict slip. The system only reacts on inputs so miniscule the driver does not know it.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I see more marketing talk there than technical. What is being done to “proactively” counter slip? There is no mention of that. What I do see is that under non-slip conditions, Fusion’s AWD system doesn’t come into effect.

    No AWD can pre-detect slippage. Some may pro-actively engage all wheels during situations that may induce slippage. Honda’s VTM-4 system used in Pilot has an Acceleration Torque Control module to do that. All wheels are engaged whenever the vehicle is accelerated. Otherwise the system remains reactive, waiting for slip detection and fix (“seamlessly” in marketing speak).

    Does Fusion have something similar that engages all wheels by expecting slippage as opposed to functioning only when detecting one?

    Even then, these systems do not put as much drag on drive line as do those that are engaged permanently (that is one of the ideas behind developing such systems). So, they shouldn’t affect fuel economy as much either.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    The computer knows the steering angle and the throttle position at all times.
    exactly, the computer is REACTING to that steering angle and throttle position, and therefore pushing a little power to the rear wheels. As you say ain't exactly rocket science.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles