By on October 17, 2017

2018 Honda Accord Touring 2.0T - Image: HondaWe learned in June that the 10th-generation Honda Accord, launched this fall for the 2018 model year, would lose its optional V6 engine. The impact in the marketplace would scarcely be felt, as the overwhelming majority of buyers didn’t select the V6 engine, which had steadily become an option only at the top end of the range.

Honda also made clear that the conventional Accord lineup would still include manual transmissions, would not include a coupe bodystyle, and would be exclusively linked to turbocharged engines. The basic 1.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder, rated at 192 horsepower and 192 lb-ft of torque (at 5,500 rpm and 1,600 rpm, respectively) provided an upgrade from the 2017 Accord’s 2.4-liter naturally aspirated four-cylinder, which produced 185 horsepower and 181 lb-ft of torque at significantly higher rpm.

Meanwhile, the 278-horsepower, 252-lb-ft 3.5-liter V6 is replaced by a 2.0T detuned from duty in the Civic Type R. The 2018 Accord loses 26 horsepower (and at 6,500 rpm, needs 300 more revs to hit peak bhp) but adds 21 lb-ft of torque while producing peak twist just off idle at 1,500 rpm, 3,400 rpm sooner than in the old V6. Paired now to a 10-speed automatic and not the six-speed of 2017, and tipping the scales with around 120 fewer pounds in top-spec guise, the 2018 Honda Accord 2.0T is expected to be only marginally more fuel-efficient than the old V6.

But what about acceleration?

2018 Honda Accord Touring 2.0T - Image: HondaIn Car And Driver’s first test of a 2018 Honda Accord 2.0T Touring with the 10-speed automatic and not the optional six-speed manual, the new car accelerated from nought to 60 miles per hour in 5.5 seconds, passing the quarter-mile marker in 14.1 seconds at 102 mph.

That’s quicker than the ninth-gen Accord V6 with an automatic.

One-tenth of a second quicker.

The previous Accord did the same deeds in 5.6 seconds and 14.2 seconds, respectively, at a quarter-mile trap speed of 101 miles per hour. One wonders, quite rightly, what the Accord V6 would have done with the 10-speed automatic.

The new Accord wasn’t quicker in every acceleration test. From 5-60 mph, perhaps a better real-world off-the-line test, the old Accord V6 was three-tenths of a second quicker to 60 than the new car. 30-50 mph and 50-70 mph tests also reveal a quicker Accord in V6 than 2.0T format, albeit by just three-tenths and two-tenths of a second. The new Accord does reach high speed more rapidly, hitting 120 mph in 20.9 seconds, about a second quicker than the old car. The new car was also somewhat more broken in than the old car, with 1,809 more miles on its odometer. (The 2016 Accord in C/D’s tests had fewer than 1,000 miles under its belt.)2017 Honda Accord Sedan Touring - Image: HondaCar And Driver observed identical highway fuel mileage, but the 24 mpg overall observed result was a pair of em-pee-gees better than the old V6. Honda expects the new Accord 2.0T to be rated at 22 mpg city and 32 mpg highway at worst; 23/34 at best, but the EPA’s final verdict is not yet in. The 2017 Honda Accord V6 was rated at 18 mpg city and 28 mpg on the highway with a six-speed manual and topped out at 21 mpg city; 33 mpg highway.

The character of the engines will undeniably be markedly different even if the on-paper differences are marginal. The real-world mileage improvements won’t be strikingly noticeable, either, particularly if 2.0T drivers dip deep into the boost. The good news for enthusiasts of sporty Hondas is the price at which one can snag the hi-po car.

In the 2017 model year, the least costly V6-powered Accord was the $31,870 EX-L V6.

The 2018 Accord’s big motor is linked to a six-speed manual in Sport trim at $31,185, or $685 less than the old V6’s starting point. The 10-speed automatic is a no-cost option.

[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 and Instagram.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

59 Comments on “The 2018 Honda Accord 2.0T Is, in Fact, Quicker Than a 2017 Honda Accord V6...”


  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    I already regret not filling my driveway with naturally aspirated Accords.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      +1

    • 0 avatar
      nels0300

      It’s not too late, 2017s are still on lots.

    • 0 avatar
      Quick Double Nickel

      @Todd – your sentiment is exactly the reason I pulled the trigger on a 2017 EX-L V6 earlier this year. The 2.0T will ultimately be the quicker car, especially with a tune, but the buttery-smooth power delivery of the V6, combined with the beautiful sound the V6 makes at higher RPMs has not made me regret my decision to go with the 2017 vs the 2018. Expect to see 325hp fairly easily out of the 2.0T with a tune, whereas the V6 is maxed at around 300hp with readily-available bolt-ons, maybe 310hp with a tune.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      MT just ran the new Accord against the new Camry and the Accord – both versions – easily topped the Camrys.

      Accord 1.5T v Camry 4:

      “Holistically, though, there’s no comparison. The Accord is more comfortable, spacious, and luxurious than the Camry. It’s quieter, rides and handles better, and drives more elegantly. It offers superior technology with a more user-friendly interface. Simply put, Toyota built a better Camry, but Honda built a better car.”

      Accord 2.0T v Camry V6

      “Once again, it’s a clear win for the Accord. It’s quicker, handles better, and is more enjoyable to drive fast. It also rides better and costs less for more stuff, and you can even get it with a manual transmission. That’s two for two for Honda.”

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        “and you can even get it with a manual transmission.”

        While enthusiasts are happy about that, Mr. & Mrs. America couldn’t possibly care less about that detail.

  • avatar
    EAF

    Todd – you can still fill your driveway up with TLXs!

  • avatar
    jmo

    This, I assume, will be way more “driveable” for the average buyer vs. the V-6. Keeping in mind of course that 80% of Accord V-6s have never once hit the red line, so most of that engine power goes untapped.

    • 0 avatar
      kvndoom

      Mine did! That second VTEC kick was orgasmic! That J35 was a glorious thing…

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      I don’t think this can be repeated enough. Around here, complain about a lack of manuals, a preponderance of crossovers, whatever, and you’re an out of touch enthusiast who doesn’t get how normal people use their cars. But V6s seem to have slipped through as a pet cause that’s not subject to the same honest evaluation (but oh, can they tell you why smaller engines are so grossly inferior, the same way as the rest of us brown manual wagon advocates can defend our preferences).

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        @Maymar:

        If you’ll be on my side, I’ll be on your side.

        • 0 avatar
          Maymar

          For you ajla, absolutely – may Our Blessed Lady of Acceleration deliver unto you a limitless supply of V8s.

          That said, I have no empathy for anyone who buys the big engine and then tries to merge on the highway at 40mph.

      • 0 avatar
        Holly Mrkvicka-Moore

        This is on-point. My mom actually/indeed drove a brown, manual, VW Jetta SportWagen TDI and LOVED that car for four years and over 80k miles. But the buyback money was, in the end, all too lucrative.

        I, too, have been the recipient of lectures as to why a V6 engine is superior to a turbocharged 4-cylinder, etc. I politely sit and listen. Later, I depart from work in my 1.5L turbo Civic hatch, which has perfectly adequate power for my daily needs.

  • avatar
    LeMansteve

    More torque much sooner and 4 more gears. I feel like the 2.0T should be more than 0.1s quicker than the old V6.

    For durability and traction purposes, is torque limited in 1st gear?

    Is the transmission geared higher than the old 6-speed unit?

    In any case, the real benefit of the 2.0T is having ALL the torque available at relaxed merging speeds, without the need to have to wind the engine up.

    The wail of the Honda V6 will be missed, though.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    “The 2018 Honda Accord 2.0T Is, in Fact, Quicker Than a 2017 Honda Accord V6”

    Kind too late to a party, TTAC. Its all over youtube.

  • avatar
    Caboose

    This weekend, while my beloved LS430 was in for extended service (time for a timing belt), Lexus offered me an NX200t… because the 23-year-old singleton working the rental counter thought that would be the best choice when I said I had three car seats and showed up with my three kids to match. Whatever.

    That NX was the very first time I’ve had the opportunity to drive one of these 2.0t I-4 engines that are now in everything. It was peppy enough, I suppose, but in no wise could it be considered a premium-car engine. Good for a GTI, sure. But for a family car that prioritizes ease of driving, comfort, and good NVH? Not so much.

    I know, I know: transmission programming and throttle tuning play a huge role in perceived engine response. But I keep hearing that, if they tuned the lag out of it and made the throttle more natural and linear, then fuel economy would go to heck and obviate the raison d’etre of the engine in the first place.

    I was very happy to be back in my N/A V8; even though it’s no powerhouse it just feels good.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      Toyota’s 2.0T has failed to impress in any vehicle they’ve placed it in. Honda seems to have nailed the small turbo 4, even if that is a smartest-kid-on-the-short-bus argument for some.

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      Oddly, I find the 2.0T in my hyundai sonata the best engine I’ve ever had in my life on a DD… and I’ve owned about 60…

      To me its a marvel of engineering. It drives so much better than my old 3.6L Direct-injected Chevy motor, better than my V8 diesel which is supposed to be a torque king. Better than the V6 in our Porsche. Better than the V6 in my wife’s camaro, the V6 in our 360z, and the I6 in my BMW 3 series, among many others.

      I’m still in awe and I’ve had the car for 2 years.

      All those other cars I’ve owned were FASTER, no question about it, but they didn’t feel faster at all for DD duty. The Hyundai 2.0t in sport mode (normal mode is a bit of a dog) – which probably is no where close to the best 2.0t on the market- has peak torque at 1400 RPM. Never once do you question that it has “endless power”. If you try to gun it on the highway you’ll be disappointed, but I’ve done that 0 times in 2 years. It feels like you have all the power you could ever need. Never do you feel like you are “waiting” for the motor to catch up like you always do on the V6ers.

      My Cadillac for example put down over 300 HP, but you had to be about 6000 RPM. Who the heck gets to 6000 RPM on a dd? I don’t think I ever get over 3000.

      I have race cars for the track, and I’d never say that the 2.0t is a racers engine, but for these DD cars, I’m amazed and I LOVE it.

      I was so amazed I ran all the torque curves of every car I’ve owned, and of all the DDs, the Hyundai 2.0t out torques all the V6s under about 2500 RPM. The thing is, under 2500 RPM is where you feel it and need it for DDs… and then to match, I get 32 MPG commuting. My V6 cadillac was lucky to get 22 mpg.

      Once again- NOT a sports car motor, but a wonderful DD motor. I get why people like them and why they are becoming so popular.

    • 0 avatar
      vvk

      > This weekend, while my beloved LS430 was in for extended service (time for
      > a timing belt), Lexus offered me an NX200t…

      Yeah, probably this has more to do with the fact that you went from a premium rear wheel drive limousine to an economy front-wheel-drive (platform) hatchback.

  • avatar
    r129

    Earlier this month I decided to check out a new 2017 Accord EX coupe with a manual. I didn’t really expect to buy it, but I wanted to drive it and see how much they’re really discounting them. Turns out that at this particular dealer, you can just walk in and get $4500 off without asking, plus 0.9% financing or very favorable lease terms. I expected them to lowball my trade-in, but then they offered more than I expected. Needless to say, I couldn’t resist.

    It seems like there is still a decent selection of all types of Accords on the lots, so for those lamenting the demise of the NA engines and/or coupe, it’s a great time to buy!

    • 0 avatar
      kvndoom

      2016 or -17 EX coupe (6MT of course) in blue is something I strongly desire. I know I’m going to have a very hard time finding one next summer.

      • 0 avatar
        r129

        I would have much preferred blue, but I settled for black. Those are the only two color options for a 6MT EX coupe, which I find a bit ridiculous. At first I thought I would only be happy with the V6, but I’m not really missing the extra power, and it’s nice to average more than 20 mpg on a regular basis. I considered a late model used example, but with the current deals, new seemed to be the way to go. I have no idea what I will replace it with when the time comes.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    That’s impressive, it’s quicker than a GTI and unlike the Ford 2.0T it doesn’t look like it runs out of steam after 40mph.

    Having driven the J35 and Toyota 3.5, though, I don’t see how this is a meaningful improvement. Those sixes pulled well enough at lower revs and built power beautifully while returning real world mileage close enough to this 2.0T to render any differences meaningless.

  • avatar
    kcflyer

    I wonder if they have made any progress on torque steer in the higher power accord? The V6 accord was horrible in this department at full throttle low speed. Much worse than the only comparable vehicle I drove in the same time period, a v6 impala. Both were 2015 models.

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      I wanted a Buick Regal GS, until I felt the awful torque steer. It was awful.

      However, when I drove a bunch of cars in 2016 (I didn’t drive the accord, but drove Mazda, Hyundai and a bunch of RWD), neither the Mazda or the Hyundai had any torque steer that could be felt, probably because of EPS.

      I think EPS helps compensate for torque steer… either that or they are just designed much better than they used to be.

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    I’m not a huge 2.0T fan, but frankly, I think the ire against it in this segment is misplaced. I think a luxury car deserves a luxury car drivetrain, and that ain’t 2.0T in an E-Class/5-series/A6, but a $20-35k family car? I don’t think it’s that big a deal.

    I’ll go test drive an Accord when the time comes frankly because I think the interior looks awesome. And that’s more important in this segment and application.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      A lot more budgets top out at $20-35k family car than do at E-Class. The $750 a month German lease might as well be a Ferrari to most people.

      • 0 avatar
        S2k Chris

        I’m not sure what you’re saying?

        My point was, I’ll criticize a 2.0T in an E-Class or 5-series all day long, but I’m not going to be so critical of it in an Accord that costs half as much. An Accord 2.0T is not the tragedy a 528i 2.0T is.

        • 0 avatar
          Dan

          That lumping the entire $20-35K range of sedans together as “half the price of a real luxury car, so settle for what you’re paying for” is a luxury of not being constrained to that price range. A pleasant powertrain was one of the perks of stretching the extra $100 a month for the top trim Camcord. Not that long ago it was one of the perks of stretching out of a Civic and into a Camcord at all.

          That’s gone now and we’re all poorer for it.

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      One of the problems in the “luxury car drivetrain” world is that even in expensive cars people are demanding fuel economy.

      A 2.0T gives you performance and fuel economy.

      I know many-a-people who are appalled at anything under 30 MPG, even if they are rich as all get out with no financial constraints.

  • avatar
    threeer

    Regardless of 4 or 6 cylinder, can we just all stop and marvel at the fact that a family sedan can pull 0-60 in the mid 5 second range? Not that I’m one to obsess about acceleration times, but that is pretty impressive. I rue the day mankind is relegated to being a mere passenger in a pod. We’ll miss times like this when you can get in (and potentially row your own gears) and rip off some fun stoplight drags.

    • 0 avatar
      JuniperBug

      A thousand times this. The golden age of horsepower is now.

    • 0 avatar
      brucebanner

      I agree. We live in wonderful times.

      I noticed the Acura RLX SH-AWD does 0-60 in mid 4 seconds. That just blows my mind. I can’t wait for it to depreciate. This was read in the motortrend article.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “a family sedan can pull 0-60 in the mid 5 second range?”

      The Charger RT and LS4 cars were doing that 11 years ago.

      Too bad we can’t combine 2008 engines with 2017 transmissions.

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      I wrote a post on a forum about 20 years ago defining a “sports car” as any car that can do the quarter mile in less than 16 seconds.

      several people argued with me that many “sports cars” couldn’t do 16 second quarter miles, and that definition was too narrow.

      I’d love to have that argument today. Is there any car that DOESN’T do 16 second quarter miles?

      We do live in great times. One of the reasons I think a lot of “sports cars” aren’t doing as well as we wish it did is because boring family sedans have so much performance and power that you don’t drive around thinking “my car is slow” every time you go up a hill. I remember when I was a little younger, you’d literally think that because your car would struggle to get up a hill…

  • avatar
    JuniperBug

    I’m also in the camp that feels like it’s a shame that we’re losing the 6 cylinder. I agree that the way a V-6 delivers its power is satisfying.

    At the same time, I wonder whether maybe there will be an advantage in servicing these new turbo engines. I always hated the way transverse V-6 engines have to be shoehorned into the engine bay of family cars, in some cases making simple tasks like changing spark plugs a 3 figure repair bill.

    I haven’t looked in the engine bay of the turbo engines, but maybe they offer a tidier package under the hood.

    • 0 avatar
      nels0300

      Yes, this is a benefit of a turbo 4, especially in a big midsize like the Accord.

      I had a V6 Camry and wasn’t looking forward to doing the rear plugs or the water pump. Toyota shop manual says you need to remove the engine for a water pump replacement, although some claim they can get it out without doing that.

      Everything under the hood of my Camry V6 was in a tight spot….alternator, AC, rear plugs, water pump.

      It was an awesome engine though.

      • 0 avatar
        thornmark

        MT on Honda Accord 2.0T v Camry V6

        “Once again, it’s a clear win for the Accord. It’s quicker, handles better, and is more enjoyable to drive fast. It also rides better and costs less for more stuff, and you can even get it with a manual transmission. That’s two for two for Honda.”

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          It’s nice you’ve found some new dirty magazines to hide under your mattress thornmark, the ninth gen Accord reviews must be getting well worn by now.

          It is hilarious to see something so mundane get someone so excited. I’m not even sure this is the equivalent of Cosmo.

          • 0 avatar
            thornmark

            not excited, but I’m sure it wrecks your world, tiny and inconsequential as it is

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Hey, we’re all tiny and inconsequential once you truly understand geologic time. Some get closer to bucking that trend than others, though, so if magazines preferring one appliance over another is making your world expansive and influential, do tell.

            I’ve got some great quips from CR preferring one wall oven over the other. If I start cutting and pasting quotes here will that finally make me feel whole?

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      My 2.0t was my first 4 cylinder in my LIFE.

      I look in the engine bay and think, “huh? Where is everything”

      Its so empty I can almost sit in it. Got to make life easy to maintain and repair.

  • avatar
    thegamper

    Every time I see the new Accord from any angle other than direct frontal, I see the Chevy Malibu. Not a bad thing as I like the Malibu’s design quite a bit. Neither the Chevy or Honda though have managed to make a truly attractive front end though. Personally, I don’t care how a car gets its performance as long as it works. I agree that certain sounds, feelings are more satisfying than turbo 4. Personally, I would rather have the win at a stoplight sprint than the satisfaction that I own a somewhat smoother powerplant that makes more traditional vroom, vroom sounds.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    I like the lighter weight and love the 2.0T/6MT combination. I’m very curious to drive a 2.0T/6MT car when one shows up. I want to see if it’s as fun to drive as my 2004 TSX 6MT was.

    I agree with S2kChris; a 2.0T in a value car offends me far less than in a luxury car that aspires to specialness.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      $31K with either manual or automatic would make it difficult to want to step up to a $36K minimum V6 Camry. The Honda looks like a great car. Their late arrival to the turbo party seems to have paid off in performance, hopefully it will for durability as well.

  • avatar
    conundrum

    So the automatic 10 speed Accord just barely edges out the old V6 in some acceleleration parameters. Not even within the margin of error though, and the mileage gain is little if any.

    Unfortunately, the new 6 speed manual 2.0t Accord is a dog, as in 14.6/14.8 second quarter mile. Both C/D and MotorTronk agree the manual is much slower.

    Jack Baruth will be chortling away with his V6 manual Accord Coupe. It’ll handily beat all these new versions of the Accord. Look back at road tests, and you’ll see that the huge disparity between the manual and auto versions of the 2.0t in acceleration was NOT present in the V6 versions. The V6 manual was also quicker to 120 mph by over a second.

    Hell, Baruth said his Coupe would walk his brother’s Focus RS from a 40 mph roll. Similarly dropping a new 2.0t Accord automatic from a 40 mph roll with a white-knuckled driver shouldn’t be too difficult, all the while its owner recalling acceleration figures from the mags running through his mind and wondering what went wrong. There’s magazine results and then there’s reality.

  • avatar
    sgeffe


    There’s one dealer of three near me that has no less than ** eight ** 2017 Touring Sedans left! (Mind you, they’re the ones who slap on mud flaps, install trunk trays and all-weather mats, and overcharge for it all, while adding $50 for nitrogen in the tires, then likely run the customer through a four-square to boot!) Only a few Coupes left, and no 6-6s left! (Jack’s probably missed his opportunity in Columbus, as well!) Official on-sale date is tomorrow for the 1.5Ts, and sometime next month for the 2.0Ts, perhaps as late as Thanksgiving weekend!

    Of course, I’ve been clutching my pearls hard enough for them to become diamonds over this whole V6 loss ever since June! But several things are softening the blow a little:

    1. By any measure, all of the reviews from the usual autoporn “journalists” and other pundits alike are saying that this new Accord is the undisputed segment leader, probably a larger leap over the last Accord than the last Accord was over its predecessor (which wasn’t that tough, admittedly; that 8th-Gen Accord was all-‘round crap).

    2. Even the performance is on-par with the V6! (The elephant in the room is always going to be the durability. Also, Honda’s gotta have something more up its sleeve for the future; perhaps a larger base engine, say a 2.2, might be needed in the future if the platform on which the Accord is based couldn’t take a small (3.0T, say) V6, for the NADM in order for the Accord to remain at the top of the class.) And in some of the videos, that 2.0T sounds just like the engine in a 4th-Gen (1990-1993) Accord under heavy throttle! That’s GREAT! (That generation was listed as the B&B’s favorite!)

    3. Had an opportunity to take a CR-V with the 1.5T for a drive, and compared to the last one, that engine transforms the vehicle; after the mid-cycle refresh, it seemed that the CVT and engine were working against each other! There’s nice grunt down low, tractability in the middle, and it doesn’t run real short of breath until speeds that would guarantee a conversation with a constable if one would have happened along. No ‘80s K-car whine either! Would a 2.0T, like in the Accord be better in the CR-V? Even without having driven a 2.0T-equipped Honda, I could definitely answer “yes!” (In fact, rumor control is stating that the next Acura RDX CUV will probably lose its V6, since it shares the basic bones of the CR-V, and frankly, the L15 would have to be smoothed-out quite a bit for Acura duty, so hopefully that 2.0T will be the minimum engine in that vehicle!)

    Would it still have been nice to see how a theoretical J-series V6 with DI and that 10-speed would have done? Certainly! But it looks like Honda got this one right (while Toyota’s mid-court shot didn’t even get near the basket), and as long as the new engines and transmissions don’t show any problem trends over this first model-year, a Radiant Red 2.0T Touring will grace my garage come, say, April, 2019.

  • avatar
    johnny_5.0

    Can we please stop implying that a “tune” is really the only difference between this and the engine in Type R Civic? Different internals, different turbos, etc. “Based on” would be a lot more accurate.

  • avatar
    Superdessucke

    Wow, those acceleration numbers are virtually identical to the 240 horsepower 1995-99 E36 BMW M3 with the 5-speed manual. Of course, those cars are now virtually unsellable to BMW Enthusiasts because they’re so much “slower” than the 321 horsepower European version (though if you actually check the numbers the U.S. car is actually faster until you get over 100 MPH). But I think that is still a very quick car, and is even more impressive coming from a 2.0 liter 4-cylinder family sedan.

  • avatar
    5.7

    You don’t have to purchase the Honda…it is free will and be thankful you have a choice to complain or speak out…


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • redapple: Hatch struts still work? W T Fudge? My sawed off broomstick handle was always in the back.
  • kosmo: “How’s that Ranger Raptor coming, Ford? Oh, it isn’t? I see. Thanks for the mobility scooter,...
  • dividebytube: When I’m down south I’m taken aback by the number of decent looking old trucks and even G...
  • redapple: RED…. Great catch. Love it.
  • teddyc73: What an ugly rear end.

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
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States