By on June 9, 2017

2018 Next Generation Honda Accord Camo - Image: HondaThe 10th generation of Honda’s venerable Accord will debut for 2018 without a V6 engine option.

A few months later to the all-new midsize party than the next-generation 2018 Toyota Camry, the new Accord will not follow the Camry’s entrenched path of providing customers with a base four-cylinder and a V6 upgrade.

Instead, Honda will make do with the 1.5-liter turbocharged four already under the hood of the 10th-generation Civic and the fifth-generation Honda CR-V. As an upgrade, Honda will offer the 2.0-liter turbocharged unit from the 2018 Honda Civic Type R. In both cases, Honda has not yet revealed the power output. Honda will continue with an Accord Hybrid, as well.

But the V6 is a goner.

The outgoing Honda Accord’s optional V6 engine was a 278-horsepower 3.5-liter with 252 lb-ft of torque. Fuel economy, according to the EPA, measured 21 miles per gallon in the city; 33 highway with the six-speed automatic.

In the all-new Accord that Honda says will debut later this year, the basic 1.5T — a non-VTEC powerplant — will be linked to either the continuously variable transmission or a six-speed manual. The 2.0T, on the other hand, will be offered with both a 10-speed automatic or a six-speed manual.

Honda says only about 10 percent of Accord buyers were choosing the V6.

Honda began offering a V6 engine in the Accord for the 1995 model year. That 170-horsepower 2.7-liter unit was superseded by a 200-horsepower 3.0-liter V6 in 1998 and a 240-horsepower 3.0-liter in 2003. Displacement grew to 3.5 liters in 2008. In the CR-V, the current 1.5T produces 190 horsepower. The Civic Type R’s 2.0T is a 306-horsepower powerplant.

Honda says the new Accord will feature “a dramatically lower and wider appearance” after going through a new-from-the-ground-up redesign. Its engines are built in Anna, Ohio; the 10-speed automatic hails from Tallapoosa, Georgia. The Accord’s assembly plant is in Marysville, Ohio.

Next Generation Honda 2.0-liter direct injected DOHC Turbo with i-VTEC(R) - Image: HondaAs for the Accord Coupe, there’s no word yet on timing. At a Civic Type R event in Montreal, Quebec, Honda spokesperson Sage Marie told TTAC’s Mark Stevenson, “Stay tuned.”

On a retail basis, Honda says, the Accord has been America’s best-selling midsize car in each of the last four years. The Camry has claimed overall sales leadership in 15 consecutive years.

With no V6 in the Accord, America’s midsize segment’s six-cylinder engine options will be limited to the Camry, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, and Subaru Legacy.

[Images: American Honda]

Timothy Cain is a contributing analyst at The Truth About Cars and Autofocus.ca and the founder and former editor of GoodCarBadCar.net. Follow on Twitter @timcaincars.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

132 Comments on “2018 Honda Accord Kills the V6, Adds Type R Engine...”


  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    We knew this was coming folks :(

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Christ on a bike. F*** you Honda.

    “Subaru Legacy”

    Hate to be pedantic, but its an H6 IIRC.

    • 0 avatar
      LeMansteve

      He called it a six cylinder, not a V6.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      What difference does it make?

      Honda has been falling down a precipitous hill in terms of quality control, reliability, long term durability, trim quality, and mechanical NVH attention for a while now.

      They’re even going the route of turbochargers attached to plain vanilla commuter vehicles, which will drag their engine/cooling system reliability even further downhill.

      Honda, much like it’s re-badge/faux up-badge Acura division, is a dried up carcass of its former self during its glorious heights period.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        Comparing tests of the Accord V6 and the Malibu 2.0T Premiere on Motor Trend, the Malibu best the Accord V6 on just about every metric. Including braking and fuel economy.

        • 0 avatar
          Acubra

          It is not just about numbers.
          Feel, durability, service life, comfort. These are not immediately measurable – especially in new cars.

          • 0 avatar
            Rocket

            Precisely.

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            Especially the durability factor.

            As I’ve said on here before, this is going to open up other options for sure!

            The day that Honda cedes the market..to TOYOTA!!! In other news, that was a PIG in the air over the freeway on my drive home!!! (When I wasn’t yelling “[c]an a fvkcing TURDO do * THIS? *” And planting my right foot to the carpet when traffic and enforcement allowed!)

            They could use Soichiro’s remains to drill clear to the center of the earth at this point!

            That’s all I’ve got for now; anything else I have to say wouldn’t make it past the comment moderation, and would probably get me banned faster than Bertel could ever do!

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            “[c]an a fvkcing TURDO do * THIS? *”

            Apparently some of them can:

            http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-honda-accord-v-6-sedan-test-review

            http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-volkswagen-gti-dsg-automatic-test-review

            http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-malibu-20t-test-review

            Best stick to the linear power curve and aural quality arguments.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          9 out of 10 sold Malibu 2.0Ts will be Chinese refrigerators by the time 5 of 10 Accord V6s sold are still on the road at 150K miles.

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          …At the track, the 2017 Chevrolet Malibu with the 2.0-liter turbo hit 60 mph in just 5.7 seconds and finished the quarter-mile in 14.3 seconds at 99.4 mph…

          Great googly moogly.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Just for reference folks the current V6 Impala is 0-60 in 6.3 seconds, 14.9 seconds at 95.9 mph.

            Although I think I know which one I’d rather drive coast to coast.

          • 0 avatar
            nels0300

            Motor Trend says the 2017 Malibu quick times are attributed to the new GM/Ford 9 speed auto. The 2016 was pretty much the same, just a different transmission.

            Put the Honda J35 behind that new GM/Ford 9 speed and throw it in the Malibu, guarantee it’s quicker than the turbo 4.

          • 0 avatar
            ShillelaghBaron

            The 2002 Acura rsx type-s could run that quarter mile time 15 years ago with a 2.0 and no turbo

      • 0 avatar
        jalop1991

        “Honda has been falling down a precipitous hill in terms of quality control, reliability, long term durability, trim quality, and mechanical NVH attention for a while now.

        They’re even going the route of turbochargers attached to plain vanilla commuter vehicles, which will drag their engine/cooling system reliability even further downhill.

        Honda, much like it’s re-badge/faux up-badge Acura division, is a dried up carcass of its former self during its glorious heights period.”

        Preach it, brother. Amen. A-MEN!

        • 0 avatar
          bd2

          While Honda (and Acura) has been dropping in the reliability rankings as they have been adding new powerplants and transmissions, out of the Japanese Big 3, are doing the best when it comes to sales of their core products (can’t say the same for Acura).

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            Ask Jack B about his wear and tear items before 50,000 miles. Stuff that should maybe be replaced at 150,000 miles in most cars.

      • 0 avatar
        wumpus

        “They’re even going the route of turbochargers attached to plain vanilla commuter vehicles, which will drag their engine/cooling system reliability even further downhill.”

        Oddly enough, during its “glorious heights period” a Honda engine, turbocharged out the wazoo, was pretty much a requirement to get on the podium of F1. But good luck finding anything you could buy turbocharged by Honda for the next several decades.

      • 0 avatar
        ToyotaSequoia02

        I had a 2009 Pilot that was a total turd. The VCM system killed the engine – twice! Traded it in the second time. I lost a lot of respect for Honda after that debacle.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      Hopefully this will be the only generation of Accord to bear the mark of Obama.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    They Porsche 718’d the Accord.

    Oh well, no sweat off my back, since they never offered it with the stick in the sedan body, or an LSD in ANY body. All the more reason to pony up for the A-Spec TLX.

    • 0 avatar
      nels0300

      Honda did offer a manual transmission V6 sedan in 2006 and 2007. You can tell because they have Acura TL wheels and a red V6 badge.

      I owned one. Its one of the reasons why I wasn’t that impressed with the current Accord Sport 6 speed. That J30 was a beast.

  • avatar
    Superdessucke

    I have the Accord Sport with the 6-speed and I do not miss the V6 power. It is actually a pretty quick car. I will reserve my fu until I see whether they’re going to offer the Type R engine with a manual. If they are I’m not concerned.

    ** I should try reading some time. It looks like both power plants will be offered with the 6-speed manual. I am not concerned.

    • 0 avatar
      LeMansteve

      “In the all-new Accord…the 2.0T will be offered with both a 10-speed automatic or a six-speed manual.”

      • 0 avatar
        Superdessucke

        Yeah, I caught that after I posted. I stand corrected. Depending on how much it weighs this actually could be a very fun car to drive.

        • 0 avatar
          LeMansteve

          Considering the car hasn’t even been released yet, I’m frankly surprised (in a good way) that Honda is even saying they will offer a 2.0T + MT combination on the Accord.

          For reliability and smoothness, I assume the Accord 2.0T will be a detuned version of the 2.0T used in the Civic Type-R. Even still, it will probably have at least +75ft-lbs over the current 2.4, and at a much lower RPM. Should be a riot to drive with a stick shift.

          • 0 avatar
            Malforus

            Now the question all reasonable people should be asking:
            And why exactly could they not fit that engine into the 2017/2018 Civic Si?

          • 0 avatar
            LeMansteve

            @Malforus

            It’s not a matter of “they couldn’t” put the 2.0T in the new Si. Clearly, the 2.0T fits into a Civic and can work.

            I believe Honda decided to use the 1.5T instead for global cost and tax reasons. In addition to material costs, the 2.0T would cost more in countries that tax based on engine displacement. The gap between Si and R would be smaller in those cases.

            1 global engine for the Si means 1.5T.

      • 0 avatar
        kvndoom

        All manuals will be shipped from Ohio to Canada and not sold in their country of origin. :p

    • 0 avatar
      ToyotaSequoia02

      No offense, I’m sure you enjoy the car but 180 HP in a car weighing 3500 lbs seems very low. People complain about the Toyobaru twins with 200 hp for 2600 lbs. 0-60 of seven seconds for Accord Sport isn’t very fast these days. The V6 coupe is a lot faster, (5.8 seconds)and probably fun to drive with the stick.

      I prefer cars with torque that always are ready to go, high revving engines can be fun but for a daily driver I’m over it. Next car will be a G8 GXP, CTS-V or at least a V6.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Well Jack congrats, your V6 6-speed Accord coupe just became a collectors item.

    Dang it this makes me want to buy a Hemi Charger for my next ride.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Disappointing. I expect the 2.0T to be the best four-cylinder engine in the segment, but it’s still going to sound like a four.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      The best four-cylinder engine is like the best gas station sushi.

      The best flat tire that I ever got in February.

      The best mittens to tie fishing lures.

      The best 200 pound plus woman for purposes other than ballast.

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    Welcome to the club – GM Ecotec 2.0T since 2006.

    I guess Jack B. has a classic now?

  • avatar
    Fred

    If only 10% are buying the V6 why even bother with 2.0l?

    • 0 avatar
      Timothy Cain

      10% of Accord is a big number. Also, profit.

    • 0 avatar
      LeMansteve

      1. All other family sedan competition offers 2 engine choices. The one that does not – Mazda – seems to have everyone complaining about lack of a more powerful option.

      2. It’s easy to implement the 2.0T because it has already been developed. In addition to the Civic Type-R, I imagine other Honda and Acura models may use it, too.

      3. Economies of scale. Maybe Honda has some target for 2.0T production volume, and Accord was a key part of hitting that target.

      4. 10% is 10%. Who wants to cut 10% of their sales right out of the gate?

      5. I have to think the “V6” trim levels offer the healthiest profit margins compared to the lower trim levels.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        This goes to show that all those insisting Mazda is seriously held back by not having the 2.5T in the 6 are incorrect. Sure I would like to see a more powerful 6 but it has a limited sales increase.

        • 0 avatar
          TMA1

          It’s been my theory that the V6 gets customers in the door. They may balk once they see the monthly payment, and then settle for the I4, but at least they bought a car. Honda has that, Mazda doesn’t.

        • 0 avatar
          kc1980

          The 6 suffers from a lack of power in general, not the lack of an available 6 cylinder option. Mazda is foolish for only allow in their 2.5 with 270+ hp to be offered in the CX-9 while trying to market themselves As some kind of “premium” brand.

          The Accord is still likely to offer an engine with close to 300+ horsepower. While the 6 can’t crack 184…7.9 seconds to 60 is kinda pathetic for a car with so much potential in the 6

      • 0 avatar
        Fred

        I may have read more into this, but with sedan sales on a “death watch” I’m guessing V6 sales are dropping with them.

        • 0 avatar
          Giltibo

          When it comes to the number of units sold, and the proportion of SUV/Cars sales, don’t forget that almost of the North American Honda plants are flex-based, i.e.able to be used/programmed to make different vehicles on the same line. So it’s a question of deciding to produce what sells better. (For example, HCM2 can make both Civics and CR-V, as well as ELP). Not many car builders have that option…

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      A 10% take rate isn’t bad when you consider that the V6 is a $2000 upcharge that’s only available on the profit padded trims at $32,000 and up, and that those trims where it’s available at all make up only about a third of total Accord volume. Nearly half of the 14,000 new EX-L cars listed on cars.com do have the V6.

      Honda is taking that 10% to the bank and if they don’t then someone else will.

  • avatar
    ajla

    “Six-cylinder engine options will be limited to the Camry, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, and Subaru Legacy.”

    The Fusion offers a V6 too.

    All mid-size 6-cylinders are almost certainly gone by 2020.

  • avatar
    whitworth

    Thanks CAFE

    I’m sure the turbo 4s will be just as good

    • 0 avatar
      Mandalorian

      Probably get the same fuel economy in real world conditions.

    • 0 avatar
      redapple

      AGREED

    • 0 avatar
      bikegoesbaa

      “I’m sure the turbo 4s will be just as good”

      I’m sure they said the same thing when V6s displaced V8s a generation ago.

      They were right.

      • 0 avatar
        Rocket

        Says nobody with a modern V8.

        • 0 avatar
          bikegoesbaa

          Given the take rates and comparisons of the 5.0 vs Ecoboost 6 F-150s it would appear that many people who could have either are saying exactly that.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            The 5.0L is purposely under the 3.5EB and the entire vehicle market isn’t Ford trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            raph

            People are easily dazzled by a flurry of technobabble which in the case of the EB engines is very much true.

            They are fine as long as your putting along at an idle but let the tach creep any higher and the engine goes into boost and they are no more efficient or miserly than a comparable V8 (any gains in efficiency from a lower part count is offset by the need to keep a fat air/fuel mixture in an effort to keep the engine from slagging itself even with direct-injection).

            Add twin scroll turbocharged-intercooled-direct injection variable valve timing blah bitty blah to whatever it is and people go gaga for it regardless of the real world performance.

            In the case of Ford they were originally claiming a 30% increase in fuel efficiency while reducing emissions by 15% and to further drive a stake in that the V6 in the GT which Ford laughingly markets under the EcoBoost moniker dispenses with the whole concept completely.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    Implementation is key. The 2.0T Fusion is a case study of how to do this wrong–it’s heavy, thirsty, down 60 rated hp and therefore slow. The Sonata/Optima 2.0T seems to be utterly pathetic and they can’t blame it on weight. The Malibu seems to perform much better.

    A Honda motor with 306hp? You might not like the sound it makes or maybe the repair costs by year 15 or whatever, but if they keep the 306hp tune this car could catch a Fusion Sport without drinking like one.

    • 0 avatar
      zip89123

      My Fusion 2.0T is anything but slow. It does drink gas, probably more than the current Accord V6. I feel Honda is making a mistake dumping the V6.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        It is compared to the V6 Accord, Camry, Altima and the 2.0T Malibu that it competes against. In absolute terms? No, its not a slow car.

        • 0 avatar
          brn

          We seem to be forgetting that the Fusion has a 325hp option with 380ft/lb.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            That would be the Fusion Sport mentioned above, so it isn’t forgotten. It weights 500 pounds more than the current Accord V6 and this mass is seen in the performance stats. Add 30 hp to the Honda and the gap between them would be uncomfortably close.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            30fetch, only so much power can be sent through the front wheels of the Accord with no AWD option and Jack B would be better to tell you that. Enter the Fusion Sport.

            Zig89123, on my 50/50 highway/city commute a 2.0T Buick Envision is getting close to the highway epa of 26 mpg….with torque vectoring AWD and 4,000 lbs. Turbo-4’s reward if you are good with the throttle as the temperatures are warming up. The start/stop feature helps.

    • 0 avatar
      Malforus

      Likely true but remember that a Fusion Sport is a AWD car.

      That’s like comparing the old 2.4 L Honda Accord with a 6-speed to the 2.5L Subaru Legacy with a 6-speed.

      It might seem like apples to apples but its more like apples to pears.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      I’d expect this to be tuned at around 270-280 HP vs the 306 in the Type R.

      I also suspect they’ll sell a few more of these than they currently sell of the V6, due to the change from CVT to 10 speed auto with the engine jump and the smaller gap in fuel economy between a 1.5T and 2.0T than there is between the current I4 and V6.

    • 0 avatar
      bd2

      Manufacturers who want better reliability have cut back on boost/HP.

      See the 2.0T Toyota uses in several Lexus models.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    I suspect this was a move to differentiate the Acura TLX. Other than AWD there wasn’t a very convincing reason to pick an Acura over a V6 top-spec Accord.

  • avatar
    VTECV6NYC

    And with this news, I’ll have owned my last Accord…

  • avatar
    vvk

    This is the best news I heard all year. Not the absence of a V-6, but the presence of a manual! Hallelujah!!!

  • avatar
    TEXN3

    Our 2012 Accord EXL (190hp 2.4l) has been quite stellar and has met expectations for 70k miles. We just got back from a 2000 mile roundtrip and rented a new Impala LT 3.6 (free rental days). Really impressive sedan, best American-brand car I’ve driven in a while.

    However, the thought that most came to mind was that I should have bought an Accord EXL V6 (it was a $3k difference). Don’t need it in most of the northwest (well, my wife doesn’t) but it is sure nice to have when driving through California freeways and 2-lane highways.

    Our next vehicle will be a 4Runner Limited (per wife’s request for midsize SUV and my preference to keep it BOF). However, the Accord may someday be replaced by an EV (heck, I work for the electric utility). The new generation of sedans are just a stop-gap for most people.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      I have had a new gen Impala twice now as a rental, taking a pos 4-banger version with shutter-confusion-stop-restart back to the rental place after approx 12 miles because it was such a lump of sh!t.

      It’s amazing that GM still uses fisher-price grade plastics in the interiors of their “big sedans,” the gauges looked like rectangular leftovers from the AC Delco days, the 2.5 liter corporate motor was a travesty, particularly in the Impala/LaCrosse/XTS, and the vehicle was a tangible, egregious reminder that GM is incapable of positive change, and will always produce second-rate vehicles no matter how many pre-packaged, taxpayer-funded bankruptcies they are allowed.

      GM is a case study in how to run one of the worst corporations in the history of the world, and how to squander each and every second/third/fourth/ad infinitum chance to succeed offered up on a silver plate (that few other corporations ever get).

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        Those plastic hold up to any abuse and look the best when newly dressed with leather conditioning. Want to see soft plastics go to crap with scratches look at the inlaws 2010 Corolla with the scuffed up center console or the 2014 Q7 that had every seat back fully scratched including the dash from soccer kids.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    Looks like it won’t be long and all internal combustion options on mainstream brands will be 1.0 to 2.0 liter 3 or 4 cylinder turbos. Only the premium brands will continue with 6 or 8 cylinder, at least until the beancounters at BMW or Lexus, etc. suggest they be dropped because 80% of the vehicles they sell are 4 cylinders and they can be replaced with a electric motor for big power (e.g. see current Volvo lineup for the coming attraction).

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      We’re turning into Europe, where they have same cars will tiny engines in them. Unfortunately, companies don’t drop the prices like they drop CCs

      • 0 avatar
        wumpus

        No reason to. Empty space is cheap.

        I’m guessing the reason we aren’t getting engines appropriate for America is that there aren’t enough Americans buying new cars. Take a look at new car prices and median incomes and only a few can buy new cars and they trickle down to rest over their increasing long lives.

        Back when every Joe could afford to buy a new car every 3-5 years, you could design US specific engines (and those weren’t all that complex). Don’t try that now.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          It also comes down to the political situation worldwide.

          I leave that for the B&B to contemplate, lest I throw a lit match onto gasoline, fail to issue a “trigger warning,” or get myself banned.

    • 0 avatar
      ahintofpepperjack

      The Hemi engines are going to be around for a while yet, and supposedly their replacement will be an all new Inline 6.

  • avatar
    redapple

    I ve owned 2 Accord EX-L V-6 Accords.
    Really-really liked them. My 2006 was the best car I ve ever owned. Next to the 89 Civic Si. (160,000 miles- never laid a wrench to it.)

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    Don’t forget about the 2.7-liter twin-turbo V6 in the Fusion Sport…which has to be the only car that did away with a V6, and then brought one back.

    Still, Honda is doing a fabulous job these days, and I can’t wait to see this new Accord. Any word on a coupe, or did they kill that off, too? (The Accord is the only FWD coupe left, now that the Camry Solara, G6 Coupe, 200 convertible, Altima Coupe and—was the Eclipse mid-sized?—have died off).

    • 0 avatar
      hpycamper

      If the new Accord looks anything like the new Civic, fabulous won’t be a word that comes to mind when I see it, even if it is nice to drive.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        Fair enough. They are polarizing. But as far as the new Civic goes, after getting used to it, I’ve found myself firmly on the “really diggin’ it” side of the argument.

        • 0 avatar
          kc1980

          They certainly have character, and will never be considered boring. That goes a long way in my book. I especially like the hatchback, though I’m hugely disappointed that no SI hatch is planned.

        • 0 avatar
          tankinbeans

          A friend of mine recently picked up a new Civic hatch in black. It has a blacked out grille and I dare say the blackout helps a little in the looks department. I thought the same of the gillette era Fusion.

          *side note: the new Civic hatch looks less than useless as a hatch, but reminds me more of a fastback.

  • avatar
    thegamper

    With the mid sized sedan death watch going on, expect this to be the last generation of great mid size sedans. Automakers will increasingly lose focus on them as crossovers continue world domination. The current crop and those what were already well into development in the last two years or so might be the pinnacle of the segment.

    As I was wondering if this and even the new Camry would sell in big numbers, I pondered why wouldn’t they offer these in AWD. You know they could, you know that it would increase sales in the snowbelt, mountains, etc. Then it occurred to me that its the same situation as the demise of the wagon. They wont make wagon variants of midsize cars or offer them with AWD because they would rather gouge you on a more expensive crossover. That pretty much sums it all up. Every automaker would rather sell you a more profitable crossover. Period. If there are people who want a sedan, well then…they hope to get your business, but if you are buying into the brand regardless, they have a crossover they would rather get you into.

    My only hope is that crossovers morph over time to resemble station wagons again, which they probably will as more demand for aero improvements, fuel economy, weight savings hit. Calling them crossovers will make them hip, easing the wagon stigma.

    So rest easy, the era of the wagon is approaching. Only problem is that you have to pay an extra 10-20 grand for some plastic cladding, a few extra millimeters of ground clearance and AWD. Because….crossover!

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      This isn’t a new idea. There are wagon versions of some current mid-sizers in markets that demand them, like Europe. Such as the Mazda6, or the Optima wagon. But that’s because Europeans aren’t as easy as Americans to push into CUVs. But it will happen there too.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      Making room for AWD puts a hump in the floor for the driveshaft. The almost flat floor in the Accord, Camry, and other cars without AWD leaves foot room for a middle back seat passenger. The almost flat floor leaves room to carry large rectangular objects like flat screen televisions and table tops behind the front seat.

      • 0 avatar
        jalop1991

        “Making room for AWD puts a hump in the floor for the driveshaft.”

        Unless you do what…Honda!…did with the MDX, and drive the rears with electricity.

        Makes perfect sense from the standpoint of packaging, engineering, manufacturing, fuel economy, and maintenance costs.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    I’m surprised Honda is betting the farm on turbocharged engines. Consumer Reports says, “Generally, the turbocharged cars have slower acceleration and no better fuel economy than the models with bigger, conventional engines.”

    Turbos are more complicated, with intercoolers, additional oil lines and intricate plumbing. BMW, Mazda, Subaru and Volkswagen have had severe reliability and durability issues with theirs.

    Prudent purchasers will avoid turbocharging until the technology is well proven.

    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-don-t-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims/index.htm

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      To be fair, Subaru, BMW, and VW can’t build a reliable non-turbo engine either. So maybe it’s not the turbo that’s the problem.

      Mazda hasn’t fielded any turbos for a few years prior to the CX-9 coming out. So it’s hard to say how the SkyActiv turbos will turn out. At least their regular engines work pretty well.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      The idea that turbos aren’t a proven technology in the year 2017 is laughable.

      They weren’t proven in 1987, probably not by 1997, but they are now well into that territory.

    • 0 avatar
      kc1980

      To make a blanket statement that turbos aren’t as fast is just ridiculous. Turbos often offer huge tourqe benefits over their NA counterparts as well. The top range Accord turbo 4 will be faster than the current V6, hands down.

      Turbos are also not even close to being some “new experimental” technology. They have been around for decades.

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        @kc1980…Agreed.. My 2 year old EB Mustang delivers plenty of power. However, as others have mentioned, fuel economy drops off dramatically at highway speeds (70 -80 MPH)

  • avatar
    Rocket

    Sadly, this is probably bad news for the 2019 RDX, and possibly the TLX, too.

    I have no problem with a 2.0T on the options sheet, but I’d still like to see the V6 option on upper trim levels. I don’t care how they compare on the spec sheet, or even on the drag strip, the behind the wheel experience of a turbo four cannot compete with the smooth, linear power delivery of a 6-cylinder in any configuration. (Hear that, Volvo???)

    Maybe instead of switching to 4-cylinder turbos, manufacturers should consider downsizing the V6. Seems like a V6 displacing 2.8 to 3.0 liters would be a nice compromise.

    • 0 avatar
      jalop1991

      “I have no problem with a 2.0T on the options sheet, but I’d still like to see the V6 option on upper trim levels.”

      Those “upper trim levels” will move from being the mainstream nameplate to the premium nameplate–Acura, Lexus, Infiniti.

      For that matter, soft items such as sound deadening and whatnot have moved from the Honda/Toyota level and to get a better overall experience you’ll have to move to the Acura/Lexus level.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        Interesting perspective.

        Does this mean a base car with air, Bluetooth, decent stereo, and wind-up windows may make a comeback?

        The reverse of Jack’s observation from several years ago about luxury touches in a Chevy? (Uhh, Jack, you might want to see how much they’ll give you for that 6-6, and grab a 2017. I have a suspicion that the lines will form quickly!)

        I know to some on this board, that’d be manna from heaven!

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        Jalop1991, I guess you have not driven a modern day turbo-4 lately? They offer more low end torque and better fuel economy on the highway.

  • avatar
    ant

    cheapened instrument gauges no doubt.

    I feel like Honda would have been better off just leaving the accord the way it was for another 5 years.

    Every redesign is just an exercise in lowering manufacturing costs. Fundamentally the Accord doesn’t get any better over time. 5th and 6th gens were just as good, or better than previous, but it’s been all downhill since.

  • avatar
    DearS

    2.0t sound ok with a manual. It should be pretty light and sporty.

  • avatar
    George B

    The J series Honda V6 are nice engines, but the weight distribution is better on 4 cylinder Accords. I’d be curious about the size and weight of the 2.0t relative to the 2017 engine choices. It would be great if deleting the V6 resulted in Honda lowering the hood relative to the beltline. Damn European pedestrian safety standards are making cars too tall.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      That picture says it all.

      My guess is that there’s some sort of airbag system which pops the hood up in the event some iPhone-gazer attempts to Darwin themself in front of the car.

      I like the look! The more I study this, the more this looks to have touches very much like the 4th-Gen of 1990-1993! That Accord DIDN’T have a V6, but the non-VTEC 2.2 loved to rev, and it could still snort like a Bimmer, back when they made BMWs! That look is especially prominent in the front 3/4 view! (That generation is still my benchmark, with my 2013 only a little behind, on account of the few cheaper bits in the interior.)

      Sadly, investigation of the car to which Honda just may have ceded this space reveals that it isn’t even going to have basics common to other mid-level trims throughout the class, e.g., seat memory, fog lights, much less higher-end touches like rain-sensing wipers. (Though I’m the only driver, the memory seat is a Godsend, as every time I’d take a previous car with power seats for an oil change, I’d be fiddling with the seat for a week or more to get it right!)

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      The dohc V6 engines are top heavy vs l-4. Aligning the 4-cylinder close to the firewall should help in relieving weight off the V6 front end.

      Not to mention the 4-cylinder costs is less than a V6 mostly based on the expense of the extra head.

  • avatar
    reclusive_in_nature

    So what’s the cheapest V6 coupe that isn’t a muscle/pony car that a person can get now?

    I absolutely refuse to own another four door or four cylinder car again.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Oh brother. You should add the requirement that it be built in Ohio, and have SOHC VTEC.

    • 0 avatar
      newenthusiast

      I’m not sure which is cheapest, but since you didn’t specifically rule out automatics, off of the top of my head I know the Cadillac ATS has a V6 option, as does the Infinity Q60. Both come in RWD with and AWD option.

      The Nissan 370Z maybe? Its not the same class as it only seats 2, but it has 2 doors and a V6, and isn’t a muscle/pony car.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    I am sure that many people still buying Accords primarily because of the long term reliability, or at least, perceived reliability. And that part just took a hit. Turbo – extra components, more weak links. Small engine/big car – never worked well. If I had choice, I would take slower regular engine over turbo.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      +infinity! (Infiniti??!! :-D )

      We all know that the Civic and Accord have grown in size and weight over the years.

      But let me put this into perspective: taking the hamster-wheel completely out of the equation for a minute:

      1. The base engine for the 2018 Accord, at 1.5L, is as small as the base engine in a 1990 Civic or CRX. CIVIC! Not Accord.
      2. The 2.0 is smaller than the base motor in a 1990 Accord: 2.2L!

    • 0 avatar
      wsn

      @slavuta

      You are imagining things. Honda cars have been (mostly) reliable and that will likely carry over to the turbos. If it’s not ready, Honda won’t make this move.

      Complexity does not equal unreliability. Poor engineering and management (as in Big 3) does.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        “You are imagining things. Honda cars have been (mostly) reliable and that will likely carry over to the turbos”

        You are funny. Honda reliability is a myth. Honda had really bad reliability examples (Passport, Odyssey). Their entire lineup was suffering transmission failures for 6-7 years. They had multiple class-actions against them. They are champions of TSBs. Their very first turbo engines were put on stop-sell month after release. Half year ago my coworker paid $5000 to repair his MDXs engine. We started to check forums and we found that he is not the only one who suffered failed cylinders.

        I owned 1990 Civic – this is what we call today “golden age of Honda”, this is when they earned the reputation. I don’t say it was bad. But it wasn’t any better over 170K miles than my 1998 Protege. In fact, when I recollect issues I had with both, Protege has the upper hand in reliability.

        Do me a favor, leave the world of perception and come back to reality.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          Oddly, I wouldn’t be quite as upset at this turn of events if that turbo was sized like the one in the original RDX, using my logic above.

          And hells yes, Honda has had their fair share of f-ups! Some of which were made worse by the cover-up! Like someone like me who got bit once too many times by GM, I don’t blame them if you choose to look elsewhere. Fortunately, when my 2000 Accord V6’s transmission blew, they covered every penny. Because of the lessons learned on the backs of those Honda screwed-over, they now make a better attempt to make things right. Unlike GM. YMMV, of course!

          I think we can at least agree that the chronic problem frequencies do tend to favor the Toyotas and Hondas of the world, versus the Big Whatever, and even the Koreans, where anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that the best warranty in the business is great — until you try to have a repair covered!

          Even chronic problems on Hondas don’t hit every vehicle: my Dad’s 1999 Accord V6, a year older than my 2000, had a transmission that was like-new for the entire ownership period; never a complaint! My SIL’s power side doors on her 2009 Odyssey never failed, despite that being almost a given; just traded it for a 2017 leftover. Both mine and my Dad’s 6th-Gen Accords had a common EGR problem, and both of us had the peculiar instrument panel backlight failures endemic to that generation: my clock and cruise switch indicator, his odometer. So in some cases, it’s luck.

        • 0 avatar
          Giltibo

          Yeah! But Honda is also known to settle ts issues early on in the model run (most of the time) and responsibly.

          Compared to a sister-in-law of mine who had to through 14 recalls for her 2013 North American SUV, as well as a friend that had to have his transmission software updated 4 times (so far), just to get decent shifting on his own SUV (You must know which type)

          TSBs and recalls are par for the course, it seems, as our vehicles seem to be more and more complex as manufacturers seem to add features and technologies to them – often before they are reasonably sorted out. (I work in the automotive industry and I can attest to that)

      • 0 avatar
        jalop1991

        “Honda cars have been (mostly) reliable”

        If by “Honda cars” you mean “Honda cars with 4 cylinder engines,” then perhaps you’re mostly right.

        But once you add a V6 to the mix, Honda screws it all up. Transmissions are junk, and look up Honda’s VCM (variable cylinder management) that they refuse to give up on DESPITE it being known by everyone to be junk.

        4 cylinders with a manual transmission–that’s Honda’s crown jewel, it’s what built the reputation they’re gliding on now. That reputation was built back when people bought cars and kept them. Honda surfed off that reliability wave at the same time people started leasing and switching out cars every 3 years. Now people are imagining they’re getting the same “Honda reliability” that they got 30 years ago, without any actual data in their lives to back it up because they’re always under 40K miles and under warranty.

        Go ahead, look up VCM. I dare you.

        And if you REALLY want it, I can give you my transmission story. But then, you can look that up, too–I’m not the only one with the same story.

        • 0 avatar
          Sam Hell Jr

          The V6 engines themselves have generally been pretty great. Where Honda has dropped the ball is with the sturdier pieces that have to accompany a bigger block: brakes in particular, other suspension pieces, electronics (1990s DELPHI ALTERNATORS $&+#[email protected]$!!?), etc. Especially when those components were cost-limited by the realities of Accord pricing. More-recent and expensive Honda V6 vehicles like late-model Acuras and Pilots have fared better.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        From Motortrend long term Civic test

        “Three days after the tow truck picked up our car, the dealer told us that our Civic Touring needed a new Transmission Control Module.”

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          @slavuto, check MT’s longterm Pilot with 9-speed trans that got replaced too. The best part is the photo of the Pilot on an empty parking lot of skid marks as they reported the failure.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        @wsn, GM Ecotec turbo-4’s have been dead nuts reliable since being introduced in 2006. Aside from 2013 2.0t in ATS and Malibu pcv letting oil coke on pistons and breaking ring lands, there are few problems getting 360 lb-ft of torque out of them.

  • avatar
    dartman

    …and then the VTEC kicked in yo!….Oh!…Nooooo!!!!!……

  • avatar
    Sam Hell Jr

    The end of the plebe-accessible V6 has been a long time coming.

    Somewhat more interesting to me is the forthcoming end of the big naturally aspirated Fours, which I still think are pretty great powerplants for the North American market.

  • avatar
    Jacob

    Honda says only about 10 percent of Accord buyers were choosing the V6.

    This makes sense. Frankly, the 2.4L 4-cylinder engine is so good, and the V6 is so much more expensive that most people simply went for the reasonably priced 4-cylinder accords. Can’t blame them. I do wonder whether the 1.5L Turbo engine is going to be as good as the 2.4L 4-cylinder beast.

  • avatar
    SuperCarEnthusiast

    I like see what the 2018 Honda sedan end looking like. I hoping a Tesla S and A7 combination.

  • avatar
    volvo

    Late to this comment section but I probably wouldn’t buy a gasoline car unless it has a NA engine. For torque and driving range it seems we will be limited to hybrids or euro style diesels (when they are imported into the US in enough makes and models).

    Lots of comments about the reliability of modern turbos. Glowing reports about the engines making 150K miles. From my point of view I usually keep most of my cars until they break and with proper auto selection, maintenance and some luck I think 300K is not unreasonable to expect.

    My personal experience with turbochargers is that a factory turbocharger was the only way to turn a 300K Volvo redblock engine into a 150K engine.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dal20402: Was terrible when new, is still terrible. Good riddance. Will anyone still be selling a four-speed...
  • Fred: I’ve only lived in the Sierra foothills for a few years and I’m retired. I have an icy road down...
  • dal20402: There’s no snow here (and on the very few occasions when there is, I’m not driving anywhere),...
  • dal20402: The very idea of a FWD coupe is still a failure, but at least these cars are less burn-worthy than the...
  • jack4x: The “base” engine is both more powerful and more fuel efficient? Or is that an error in the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States