Why Did Honda De-tune the Civic Type R's 2.0T for 2018 Honda Accord Duty?

Timothy Cain
by Timothy Cain
why did honda de tune the civic type rs 2 0t for 2018 honda accord duty

Launched in mid-June 2017, the 2017 Honda Civic Type R is the first Honda-brand Type R product ever sold in the United States. And after generations of Honda enthusiasts tolerated relatively unimpressive horsepower totals from high-revving four-cylinder engines, Honda didn’t mess around with the latest, turbocharged Civic Type R.

306 horsepower at 6,500 rpm. 295 lb-ft of torque at 2,500 rpm.

Yet before the Civic Type R was even on sale in the United States, we learned that the 10th-generation 2018 Honda Accord would kill the V6 and replace it with, you guessed it, the Civic Type R’s 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder. Incidentally, only a few days after that, we learned that the optional V6 in the Accord’s long-time rival, the new-for-2018 Toyota Camry, would generate 301 horsepower.

Win for Honda? Not so much, as Honda last week revealed a 2018 Accord 2.0T with 252 horsepower and 273 lb-ft of torque.

Huh? What? Why?

Granted, Honda doesn’t claim the engines are identical. The 2.0T, Honda said in the company’s unveiling last week, shares “much of its design with the race-bred 2017 Civic Type R.”

Much. Not all.

But it’s not just that the 2018 Accord lost 54 of the Civic Type R’s horses somewhere between the barn and the track. The new hi-po Accord is also down on power compared with the outgoing Accord V6. Honda doesn’t even hide it, placing the Accord 3.5-liter V6’s specs right smack in the middle of the 2018 Accord’s press release. In 2017, selecting the upgrade engine resulted in 278 horsepower.

Regardless, Honda has the ability to produce a 306-horsepower Accord, so why did the company hold off? It wasn’t just to protect the Type R’s status at the top of the performance heap, though American Honda’s public relations manager James Jenkins did acknowledge that, “There is a small halo effect in having the Type R in our lineup.”

In reality, however, it’s all down to priorities. “For Type R, it’s pretty much all out performance,” Jenkins told TTAC today. “For Accord, it’s not that easy. We need to modify it slightly for that target buyer.”

Though Honda has not yet released fuel economy figures yet, Jenkins pointed to the obvious nature of the two cars’ significantly different efficiency targets.

“We also have to analyze things like vehicle size, transmission, and so on to make the best balance of that motor,” Jenkins says.

Indeed, while the Civic Type R links the 2.0T solely to a six-speed manual, the Accord 2.0T — while available with a six-speed manual — will typically be sending power to the front wheels via a 10-speed automatic.

Combine different behavior with different fuel economy expectations and the Accord’s 2.0T reveals its power in a different manner. Though down on horsepower compared with the Civic Type R, the torque deficit, at only 22 lb-ft, is slight.

Moreover, the Accord’s 273 lb-ft of torque plateaus 1,000 rpm sooner than the Civic Type R’s 295 lb-ft. Besides, the Accord’s torque figure is now 21-lb-ft stronger than the 2017 Accord V6’s, and it peaks at 1,500 rpm rather than 4,900 rpm.

With curb weight falling by 110-176 pounds in the new generation, the 2018 Accord 2.0T will undoubtedly accelerate with even greater force than the outgoing Accord V6.

As for its ability to measure up to the extreme Civic, Jenkins says, “That car is loaded with performance parts that even if the Accord did push out 306 horsepower, the Type R would out perform it.”

No doubt.

[Images: 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.

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 65 comments
  • 3rdCoast 3rdCoast on Jul 21, 2017

    Simple: Accord is detuned for less warranty work while the type R happens to list 1 more hp and 5 more tq than the STI.

  • Kokomokid Kokomokid on May 19, 2018

    It is quite simple. They detuned the engine for the Accord, so it wouldn't need premium gas. Most non-German car companies like to tune their engines for regular, when practical. For the "performance" version of the Honda 2.0 for the Type R, you need premium. Strangely, BMW likes to specify premium for engines that should not need premium at all. A prime example is the 189 hp 2.0 turbo in the Mini Cooper S. That is the most "mild" 2.0 turbo now being sold, and it certainly shouldn't need premium, unless BMW has really bad head designs, or something like that, but they say to use premium.

  • Laszlo I own a 1969 falcon futura 4 door hardtop, original inline 6 and c4 transmission and it still runs to this day.
  • BklynPete So let's get this straight: Ford hyped up the Bronco for 3 years, yet couldn't launch it to match the crazy initial demand. They released it with numerous QC issues, made hay for its greedy dealers, and burned customers in the process. After all that, they lose money on warranties. The vehicles turn out to be a worse ownership experience than the Jeep Wrangler, which hasn't been a paragon of reliability for 50 years. The same was true of the Aviator, Explorer, several F-150 variants, and other recent product launches. The Maverick is the only thing they got right. Yet this company that's been at it for 120 years. Just Brilliant. Jim Farley's non-PR speak: "You don't get to call me an idiot. I get to call myself an idiot first."Farley truly seems hapless, like the characters his late cousin played. Bill Ford is a nice guy but more than a bit slow on the uptake too. They have not had anything resembling a quality CEO since Alan Mulally turned the keys over to Mark Fields - the mulleted glamor boy who got canned after 3 years when the PowerShi(f)t transaxles exploded. He more recently helped run Hertz into the ground with bad QC and a faulty database that had them arresting customers. Ford is starting to resemble Chrysler in the mid-Seventies Sales Bank era. Well, at least VW has cash and envies Ford's distribution reach and potential profitability.
  • Mike Beranek This guy called and wants his business model back.
  • SCE to AUX The solid state battery is vaporware.As for software-limited pack capacity: Batteries are obviously the most expensive component of an EV, so on the rare occasion that pack capacity is dramatically limited (as in your 6-year-old example), it's because economies of scale briefly made sense at the time.Mfrs are not in the habit of overbuilding pack capacity just for fun, and then charging the customer less.Since then, pack capacities have been slightly increased via software because the mfr decides they can sacrifice a little bit of the normal safety/wear margin in the interest of range. We're talking single-digit percentages, not the 60/75 kWh jump in your example.Every pack has maybe 10% margin built into it, so eating into that today (via range increases) means it's not available to make up for battery degradation tomorrow. My 4-year-old EV still has its original range(s) and 100% SOH, but that's surely because it is slowly consuming the margin built into the pack.@Matt Posky: Not everything is a conspiracy to get your credit card account, and the lengthy editorial about this has nothing to do with solid state batteries.
  • JLGOLDEN In order for this total newcomer to grab and hold attention in the US market, the products MUST be an exceptional value. Not many people will pay name-brand money for the pretty mystery. I can appreciate the ambition of selling $50K+ crossovers, but I think they will go farther with their $30K-$40K offerings.
Next