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

Timothy Cain
by Timothy Cain

We 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?

In 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.)

Car 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.

Timothy Cain
Timothy Cain

More by Timothy Cain

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 59 comments
  • Superdessucke Superdessucke on Oct 18, 2017

    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.

  • 5.7 5.7 on Oct 26, 2017

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

  • Lorenzo The unspoken killer is that batteries can't be repaired after a fender-bender and the cars are totaled by insurance companies. Very quickly, insurance premiums will be bigger than the the monthly payment, killing all sales. People will be snapping up all the clunkers Tim Healey can find.
  • Lorenzo Massachusetts - with the start/finish line at the tip of Cape Cod.
  • RHD Welcome to TTAH/K, also known as TTAUC (The truth about used cars). There is a hell of a lot of interesting auto news that does not make it to this website.
  • Jkross22 EV makers are hosed. How much bigger is the EV market right now than it already is? Tesla is holding all the cards... existing customer base, no dealers to contend with, largest EV fleet and the only one with a reliable (although more crowded) charging network when you're on the road. They're also the most agile with pricing. I have no idea what BMW, Audi, H/K and Merc are thinking and their sales reflect that. Tesla isn't for me, but I see the appeal. They are the EV for people who really just want a Tesla, which is most EV customers. Rivian and Polestar and Lucid are all in trouble. They'll likely have to be acquired to survive. They probably know it too.
  • Lorenzo The Renaissance Center was spearheaded by Henry Ford II to revitalize the Detroit waterfront. The round towers were a huge mistake, with inefficient floorplans. The space is largely unusable, and rental agents were having trouble renting it out.GM didn't know that, or do research, when they bought it. They just wanted to steal thunder from Ford by making it their new headquarters. Since they now own it, GM will need to tear down the "silver silos" as un-rentable, and take a financial bath.Somewhere, the ghost of Alfred P. Sloan is weeping.
Next