|
|
|
|
 |
computernerd
 |
|
I thought about contributing to that other thread but it's been hijacked and taken in all kinds of directions, so I just decided to start a new one. I'm an old fan boy who currently owns 2 Honda's from the glory days: a 2006 Accord and a 2004 Pilot. I've watched in disappointment as a company that once led the industry in power train technology stood still for 9 years as everyone passed them by. I officially renounced my Honda fan boy status 2 years ago. So I was excited to hear that Honda was about to make a major technology announcement. When I finally read the announcement, I have to admit that I was a little disappointed at first but as I have digested it more, I have begun to feel my fan boy urges returning. I focused on the 2.4 liter class engine and CVT transmission because, at least here in the US, that's the "money shot" that will be the volume power train in both the Accord and CRV and what I will most likely buy. I have to admit that what I really wanted (expected) was a downsized, direct-injected, turbo charged 1.6 liter engine with A-VTEC i.e. throttle-less infinitely-variable valve lift like BMW's valvetronic. I was also expecting a DSG instead of a CVT. But as a looked at the numbers, I realized that Honda's engine cranks out almost the exact same power as Ford's 1.6 liter ecoboost engine but will likely be more durable. I was still disappointed with the CVT as I have not liked any of the ones that I have driven (Audi A4, Nissan Altima and Cube) the cube was particularly horrid. You get a lag when you first tip into the throttle and the monotonic drone when you accelerate is annoying. After reading driving impressions elsewhere (that's right someone broke the embargo)
http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/12/01/tokyo-motor-show-hondas-new-technology-put-to-the-test/
It appears that Honda has solved the throttle tip-in problem and their CVT also has stepped gear changes so there's no drone. I see only one disadvantage to Honda's approach vis the turbocharging approach. With turbocharging there is usually no V6 option. Hyundai's Sonata and Ford's 2013 Fusion are both designed to accept 4 cylinder engines only, saving weight. The upgrade engine in both cases is a turbocharged 2.0 liter. With Honda's approach the upgrade engine, I presume, will still be a V6. I doubt the Accord will get the new, hybrid SH-AWD because of cost. So I presume it will just be a direct-injected 3.5 with a regular automatic since it's unlikely that the CVT will handle 300 horses. In my case though, I will be deciding between the next gen Accord with the 2.4 and CVT and the next gen Ford Fusion with the 1.6 liter ecoboost for my next ride. I'm not quite back to being a fanboy, but there's hope. It will only be one Honda this time though. My wife is up for a new car first and the current Pilot is just too ugly and is already off her short list. It's going to be a Dodge Durango or Ford Explorer for her. Oh, and if the people at Honda are reading this, how about giving us the new Diesel in the United States? And what ever happened to A-VTEC? I'm guessing there wasn't enough room in the cylinder head for that and direct injection.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
The thing about the 1.6 litre Ford turbo (and the turbo in the Chevy Cruze for that matter) right now is that they are not returning anything near their rated EPA mileage, the delta between those engines vs. competitor engines is quite large. You can see this on Insideline's long term road tests, etc.
I don't really see a problem with the NA option right now. The new Camry V6 is a masterful strike against the Hyundai Sonata, so I would expect Honda to use whatever technology makes the most sense from a cost and real world EPA perspective.
|
danielgr
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
The thing about the 1.6 litre Ford turbo (and the turbo in the Chevy Cruze for that matter) right now is that they are not returning anything near their rated EPA mileage, the delta between those engines vs. competitor engines is quite large. You can see this on Insideline's long term road tests, etc.
I don't really see a problem with the NA option right now. The new Camry V6 is a masterful strike against the Hyundai Sonata, so I would expect Honda to use whatever technology makes the most sense from a cost and real world EPA perspective.
|
The second thing on the 2.0T vs V6 thing is that I'd be surprised if those overly complex beefed up DOHC 2.0 Turbo engines are any lighter than Honda's SOHC V6 ones... (taking the whole drivetrain related systems as a whole).
I would welcome though ayone bringing any data to this conversation.
Personally, I've driven many mainstream small turbos and larger NA engines, DSGs and CVTs, and I sure know which I prefer for a mainstream everyday AT car. Obviously, I'm talking about Honda NA engines and Honda's CVTs vs. what I've seen in the competition. I do know both NA engines and CVTs can be horribly implemented...
|
computernerd
|
|
danielgr wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
The thing about the 1.6 litre Ford turbo (and the turbo in the Chevy Cruze for that matter) right now is that they are not returning anything near their rated EPA mileage.
...I would expect Honda to use whatever technology makes the most sense from a cost and real world EPA perspective.
|
I'd be surprised if those overly complex beefed up DOHC 2.0 Turbo engines are any lighter than Honda's SOHC V6 ones... (taking the whole drivetrain related systems as a whole).
I would welcome though ayone bringing any data to this conversation.
Personally, I've driven many mainstream small turbos and larger NA engines, DSGs and CVTs, and I sure know which I prefer for a mainstream everyday AT car...
|
I respectfully disagree with both of you. In terms of data I offer the following: (1) When they first tested the Sonata, Motor Trend reported that Hyundai claimed that half of the 130 pound weight saving over the previous model was due to the decision to use 4 cylinder engines only http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_1002_2011_hyundai_sonata_se_test/viewall.html . (2) Let's take a look at VW and compare a model that uses a V6 as its upgrade engine (the Passat) and one that uses a 2.0 T as its upgrade (the Beetle). Comparably equipped, the V6 Passat is heavier by 225 pounds (3221 to 3446) than the 2.5. The 2.0 T Beetle is only 103 pounds heavier (2939 to 30242). This stands to reason. The heaviest parts of an engine are the block, crankshaft, and head. In a V6 these are all going to be about 50% heavier than a 4. This whole notion of "real world" mileage also makes no sense. The mileage each individual gets from a car has so many variables: how heavy their right foot is, road conditions, tire pressure, even altitude will effect these numbers. That's why the EPA has a test where each car is tested under identical conditions. And as they say: "these numbers should be used for comparison only, your mileage may vary". And I tell you what... one of the best powertrains I've ever driven is a VW GTI with the 2.0 T and a DSG. You can question the reliability and durability of this powertrain, but little else, just read the reviews. BMWs turbocharged 4 has also been getting raves and this engine will replace the NA inline 6 across their range.
|
owequitit
|
|
computernerd wrote:
danielgr wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
The thing about the 1.6 litre Ford turbo (and the turbo in the Chevy Cruze for that matter) right now is that they are not returning anything near their rated EPA mileage.
...I would expect Honda to use whatever technology makes the most sense from a cost and real world EPA perspective.
|
I'd be surprised if those overly complex beefed up DOHC 2.0 Turbo engines are any lighter than Honda's SOHC V6 ones... (taking the whole drivetrain related systems as a whole).
I would welcome though ayone bringing any data to this conversation.
Personally, I've driven many mainstream small turbos and larger NA engines, DSGs and CVTs, and I sure know which I prefer for a mainstream everyday AT car...
|
I respectfully disagree with both of you. In terms of data I offer the following: (1) When they first tested the Sonata, Motor Trend reported that Hyundai claimed that half of the 130 pound weight saving over the previous model was due to the decision to use 4 cylinder engines only http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_1002_2011_hyundai_sonata_se_test/viewall.html . (2) Let's take a look at VW and compare a model that uses a V6 as its upgrade engine (the Passat) and one that uses a 2.0 T as its upgrade (the Beetle). Comparably equipped, the V6 Passat is heavier by 225 pounds (3221 to 3446) than the 2.5. The 2.0 T Beetle is only 103 pounds heavier (2939 to 30242). This stands to reason. The heaviest parts of an engine are the block, crankshaft, and head. In a V6 these are all going to be about 50% heavier than a 4. This whole notion of "real world" mileage also makes no sense. The mileage each individual gets from a car has so many variables: how heavy their right foot is, road conditions, tire pressure, even altitude will effect these numbers. That's why the EPA has a test where each car is tested under identical conditions. And as they say: "these numbers should be used for comparison only, your mileage may vary". And I tell you what... one of the best powertrains I've ever driven is a VW GTI with the 2.0 T and a DSG. You can question the reliability and durability of this powertrain, but little else, just read the reviews. BMWs turbocharged 4 has also been getting raves and this engine will replace the NA inline 6 across their range.
|
A couple of notes:
1) The weight added to the structure of the car required to accept a V6 is there, but it is marginal. The crash requirements of today add far more material to the chassis than does the slight amount of extra space required for the engine. The fact that the J series (and this new V6, which is CLEARLY based on the J series) are as compact as they are makes the point even more moot. The reality is that in every dimension accept height, the J series very closely fits into the same size envelope as the K24. Yes, the block is wider, but it also contains all of its manifolds within the dimensions of the block (exhaust manifolds are tucked under the heads and intake manifold is obviously in the V. If you look at a 4 cylinder Accord vs a V6 Accord, you see that the majority of space saved in the 4 cylinder is actually between th engine and firewall. Since pretty much all of the competitors are using an engine mounted ahead of the differential, this would be largely true of J series vs any of the competitors.
The other case in point, is that by virtue of being extremely compact, the J series (and by function, the new V6) are very lightweight. They likely add about a 100lbs over the I4 powertrain, which probably puts it on par with any of the turbo 4 bangers in the category. You can't just assume block mass (which if you have ever lifted a naked aluminum Honda engine block, you would know is not a large % of total engine weight), you have to also assume all of the auxilliary equipment required to run said turbo, which includes the turbo itself, the heavier duty exhaust manifold, the intercooler and plumbing, etc etc etc. Yeah, there is probably a little bit of extra structure required for the Accord, but it is nowhere near what other companies attempt to make it sound like is there. I think most of the weight difference is probably attributable to engine and other parts, less so than structure.
Further evidence that the weight discussion is partly bunk is the actual curb weights of the cars. Compare the weights of the Sonata 2.4 vs the Accord 2.4, and you will see that they are nearly identical in weight (Accord actually measures lighter when fully loaded), despite the fact that the Accord is actually larger by a few inches.
When comparing turbo 4 to V6 Sonata vs Accord, the Accord is about 200lbs heavier than the Sonata. I am sure a large % of that can be chalked up to V6 engine mass (probably about half). Who knows where the other weight is added. So you lose some in the weight department, but you gain a smoother, more refined engine, with less internal stress that will provide similar performance. The current VCM J series is slower than the Sonata 2.0T, but I don't think the next one will be if they are actually solving the power deficiencies of VCM, which they seem to be.
2) The other part I tend to disagree with is the delta spread on FE for forced induction vs NA engines. Forced induction engines have a much larger history of having a greater variance between max MPG and minimum MPG. That is simply by virtue of the fact that when a small engine is offboost, it behaves like a small engine, and when it is on boost, it quickly starts to drink fuel like a larger engine. That isn't to say that driving habits play no role, but they certainly become more critical with a large delta on the FE. Also, while the engine itself may be getting rave reviews, there is no way to differentiate what % of the FE gain is from the engine, and what % is from weight loss, aero improvements, friction reductions etc. BMW optimized a whole lot more than just a new engine to the 3 series, so it is impossible to break down what accounted for what, unless they provide a detailed accounting.
Personally, I would rather take the ~100-200lb weight penalty of a V6 powertrain and have a better sound, smoother engine, and better response through the rev range than I would a turbo 4.
3) As for FE, it is pretty well known that VCM doesn't deliver very well for the tradoffs. While the Accord I4 delivers equal/slight superior real world MPG vs Hyundai's 2.4, the V6 does not fair as well against the turbo 4. However, with the new VCM implementation on the "new" V6, I expect that will change.
|
computernerd
|
|
owequitit wrote:
computernerd wrote:
danielgr wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
The thing about the 1.6 litre Ford turbo (and the turbo in the Chevy Cruze for that matter) right now is that they are not returning anything near their rated EPA mileage.
...I would expect Honda to use whatever technology makes the most sense from a cost and real world EPA perspective.
|
I'd be surprised if those overly complex beefed up DOHC 2.0 Turbo engines are any lighter than Honda's SOHC V6 ones... (taking the whole drivetrain related systems as a whole).
I would welcome though ayone bringing any data to this conversation.
Personally, I've driven many mainstream small turbos and larger NA engines, DSGs and CVTs, and I sure know which I prefer for a mainstream everyday AT car...
|
I respectfully disagree with both of you. In terms of data I offer the following: (1) When they first tested the Sonata, Motor Trend reported that Hyundai claimed that half of the 130 pound weight saving over the previous model was due to the decision to use 4 cylinder engines only http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_1002_2011_hyundai_sonata_se_test/viewall.html . (2) Let's take a look at VW and compare a model that uses a V6 as its upgrade engine (the Passat) and one that uses a 2.0 T as its upgrade (the Beetle). Comparably equipped, the V6 Passat is heavier by 225 pounds (3221 to 3446) than the 2.5. The 2.0 T Beetle is only 103 pounds heavier (2939 to 30242). This stands to reason. The heaviest parts of an engine are the block, crankshaft, and head. In a V6 these are all going to be about 50% heavier than a 4. This whole notion of "real world" mileage also makes no sense. The mileage each individual gets from a car has so many variables: how heavy their right foot is, road conditions, tire pressure, even altitude will effect these numbers. That's why the EPA has a test where each car is tested under identical conditions. And as they say: "these numbers should be used for comparison only, your mileage may vary". And I tell you what... one of the best powertrains I've ever driven is a VW GTI with the 2.0 T and a DSG. You can question the reliability and durability of this powertrain, but little else, just read the reviews. BMWs turbocharged 4 has also been getting raves and this engine will replace the NA inline 6 across their range.
|
A couple of notes:
1) The weight added to the structure of the car required to accept a V6 is there, but it is marginal. The crash requirements of today add far more material to the chassis than does the slight amount of extra space required for the engine. The fact that the J series (and this new V6, which is CLEARLY based on the J series) are as compact as they are makes the point even more moot. The reality is that in every dimension accept height, the J series very closely fits into the same size envelope as the K24. Yes, the block is wider, but it also contains all of its manifolds within the dimensions of the block (exhaust manifolds are tucked under the heads and intake manifold is obviously in the V. If you look at a 4 cylinder Accord vs a V6 Accord, you see that the majority of space saved in the 4 cylinder is actually between th engine and firewall. Since pretty much all of the competitors are using an engine mounted ahead of the differential, this would be largely true of J series vs any of the competitors.
The other case in point, is that by virtue of being extremely compact, the J series (and by function, the new V6) are very lightweight. They likely add about a 100lbs over the I4 powertrain, which probably puts it on par with any of the turbo 4 bangers in the category. You can't just assume block mass (which if you have ever lifted a naked aluminum Honda engine block, you would know is not a large % of total engine weight), you have to also assume all of the auxilliary equipment required to run said turbo, which includes the turbo itself, the heavier duty exhaust manifold, the intercooler and plumbing, etc etc etc. Yeah, there is probably a little bit of extra structure required for the Accord, but it is nowhere near what other companies attempt to make it sound like is there. I think most of the weight difference is probably attributable to engine and other parts, less so than structure.
Further evidence that the weight discussion is partly bunk is the actual curb weights of the cars. Compare the weights of the Sonata 2.4 vs the Accord 2.4, and you will see that they are nearly identical in weight (Accord actually measures lighter when fully loaded), despite the fact that the Accord is actually larger by a few inches.
When comparing turbo 4 to V6 Sonata vs Accord, the Accord is about 200lbs heavier than the Sonata. I am sure a large % of that can be chalked up to V6 engine mass (probably about half). Who knows where the other weight is added. So you lose some in the weight department, but you gain a smoother, more refined engine, with less internal stress that will provide similar performance. The current VCM J series is slower than the Sonata 2.0T, but I don't think the next one will be if they are actually solving the power deficiencies of VCM, which they seem to be.
2) The other part I tend to disagree with is the delta spread on FE for forced induction vs NA engines. Forced induction engines have a much larger history of having a greater variance between max MPG and minimum MPG. That is simply by virtue of the fact that when a small engine is offboost, it behaves like a small engine, and when it is on boost, it quickly starts to drink fuel like a larger engine. That isn't to say that driving habits play no role, but they certainly become more critical with a large delta on the FE. Also, while the engine itself may be getting rave reviews, there is no way to differentiate what % of the FE gain is from the engine, and what % is from weight loss, aero improvements, friction reductions etc. BMW optimized a whole lot more than just a new engine to the 3 series, so it is impossible to break down what accounted for what, unless they provide a detailed accounting.
Personally, I would rather take the ~100-200lb weight penalty of a V6 powertrain and have a better sound, smoother engine, and better response through the rev range than I would a turbo 4.
3) As for FE, it is pretty well known that VCM doesn't deliver very well for the tradoffs. While the Accord I4 delivers equal/slight superior real world MPG vs Hyundai's 2.4, the V6 does not fair as well against the turbo 4. However, with the new VCM implementation on the "new" V6, I expect that will change.
|
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. We will get to drive and compare a V6 "Earth Dreams" Accord (will the plain V6 still get that title?) against a 2.0 ecoboost equipped Ford Fusion in about 6 months. The reviews should roll in about then too. With the new Passat in the mix and a new Mazda 6 with SkyActive also coming out next year, the next round of mid-sized sedan comparos should be truly epic. I'll say one last thing though regarding smoothness and refinement. The newer 4s have pretty much eliminated any advantages a V6 has. The difference is that a V6 can achieve the same level of smoothness and refinement without balance shafts. I drove both a 2.0 ecoboost equipped Ford Explorer and a V6. From a smoothness and refinement perspective, Ford's V6 had no advantage over the 4. Try it for yourself. If anything, the 4 might have been a little quieter at high RPM. Automobile Magazine in reviewing a 528i with BMWs new turbo 4 had this to say: "With significantly more torque (over a far larger rev area) and no real loss of refinement in driveability, we're easily sold on the N20-powered F10 5 series." And this is compared to an inline 6, which is even smoother than a V6.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
computernerd wrote:
owequitit wrote:
computernerd wrote:
danielgr wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
The thing about the 1.6 litre Ford turbo (and the turbo in the Chevy Cruze for that matter) right now is that they are not returning anything near their rated EPA mileage.
...I would expect Honda to use whatever technology makes the most sense from a cost and real world EPA perspective.
|
I'd be surprised if those overly complex beefed up DOHC 2.0 Turbo engines are any lighter than Honda's SOHC V6 ones... (taking the whole drivetrain related systems as a whole).
I would welcome though ayone bringing any data to this conversation.
Personally, I've driven many mainstream small turbos and larger NA engines, DSGs and CVTs, and I sure know which I prefer for a mainstream everyday AT car...
|
I respectfully disagree with both of you. In terms of data I offer the following: (1) When they first tested the Sonata, Motor Trend reported that Hyundai claimed that half of the 130 pound weight saving over the previous model was due to the decision to use 4 cylinder engines only http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_1002_2011_hyundai_sonata_se_test/viewall.html . (2) Let's take a look at VW and compare a model that uses a V6 as its upgrade engine (the Passat) and one that uses a 2.0 T as its upgrade (the Beetle). Comparably equipped, the V6 Passat is heavier by 225 pounds (3221 to 3446) than the 2.5. The 2.0 T Beetle is only 103 pounds heavier (2939 to 30242). This stands to reason. The heaviest parts of an engine are the block, crankshaft, and head. In a V6 these are all going to be about 50% heavier than a 4. This whole notion of "real world" mileage also makes no sense. The mileage each individual gets from a car has so many variables: how heavy their right foot is, road conditions, tire pressure, even altitude will effect these numbers. That's why the EPA has a test where each car is tested under identical conditions. And as they say: "these numbers should be used for comparison only, your mileage may vary". And I tell you what... one of the best powertrains I've ever driven is a VW GTI with the 2.0 T and a DSG. You can question the reliability and durability of this powertrain, but little else, just read the reviews. BMWs turbocharged 4 has also been getting raves and this engine will replace the NA inline 6 across their range.
|
A couple of notes:
1) The weight added to the structure of the car required to accept a V6 is there, but it is marginal. The crash requirements of today add far more material to the chassis than does the slight amount of extra space required for the engine. The fact that the J series (and this new V6, which is CLEARLY based on the J series) are as compact as they are makes the point even more moot. The reality is that in every dimension accept height, the J series very closely fits into the same size envelope as the K24. Yes, the block is wider, but it also contains all of its manifolds within the dimensions of the block (exhaust manifolds are tucked under the heads and intake manifold is obviously in the V. If you look at a 4 cylinder Accord vs a V6 Accord, you see that the majority of space saved in the 4 cylinder is actually between th engine and firewall. Since pretty much all of the competitors are using an engine mounted ahead of the differential, this would be largely true of J series vs any of the competitors.
The other case in point, is that by virtue of being extremely compact, the J series (and by function, the new V6) are very lightweight. They likely add about a 100lbs over the I4 powertrain, which probably puts it on par with any of the turbo 4 bangers in the category. You can't just assume block mass (which if you have ever lifted a naked aluminum Honda engine block, you would know is not a large % of total engine weight), you have to also assume all of the auxilliary equipment required to run said turbo, which includes the turbo itself, the heavier duty exhaust manifold, the intercooler and plumbing, etc etc etc. Yeah, there is probably a little bit of extra structure required for the Accord, but it is nowhere near what other companies attempt to make it sound like is there. I think most of the weight difference is probably attributable to engine and other parts, less so than structure.
Further evidence that the weight discussion is partly bunk is the actual curb weights of the cars. Compare the weights of the Sonata 2.4 vs the Accord 2.4, and you will see that they are nearly identical in weight (Accord actually measures lighter when fully loaded), despite the fact that the Accord is actually larger by a few inches.
When comparing turbo 4 to V6 Sonata vs Accord, the Accord is about 200lbs heavier than the Sonata. I am sure a large % of that can be chalked up to V6 engine mass (probably about half). Who knows where the other weight is added. So you lose some in the weight department, but you gain a smoother, more refined engine, with less internal stress that will provide similar performance. The current VCM J series is slower than the Sonata 2.0T, but I don't think the next one will be if they are actually solving the power deficiencies of VCM, which they seem to be.
2) The other part I tend to disagree with is the delta spread on FE for forced induction vs NA engines. Forced induction engines have a much larger history of having a greater variance between max MPG and minimum MPG. That is simply by virtue of the fact that when a small engine is offboost, it behaves like a small engine, and when it is on boost, it quickly starts to drink fuel like a larger engine. That isn't to say that driving habits play no role, but they certainly become more critical with a large delta on the FE. Also, while the engine itself may be getting rave reviews, there is no way to differentiate what % of the FE gain is from the engine, and what % is from weight loss, aero improvements, friction reductions etc. BMW optimized a whole lot more than just a new engine to the 3 series, so it is impossible to break down what accounted for what, unless they provide a detailed accounting.
Personally, I would rather take the ~100-200lb weight penalty of a V6 powertrain and have a better sound, smoother engine, and better response through the rev range than I would a turbo 4.
3) As for FE, it is pretty well known that VCM doesn't deliver very well for the tradoffs. While the Accord I4 delivers equal/slight superior real world MPG vs Hyundai's 2.4, the V6 does not fair as well against the turbo 4. However, with the new VCM implementation on the "new" V6, I expect that will change.
|
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. We will get to drive and compare a V6 "Earth Dreams" Accord (will the plain V6 still get that title?) against a 2.0 ecoboost equipped Ford Fusion in about 6 months. The reviews should roll in about then too. With the new Passat in the mix and a new Mazda 6 with SkyActive also coming out next year, the next round of mid-sized sedan comparos should be truly epic. I'll say one last thing though regarding smoothness and refinement. The newer 4s have pretty much eliminated any advantages a V6 has. The difference is that a V6 can achieve the same level of smoothness and refinement without balance shafts. I drove both a 2.0 ecoboost equipped Ford Explorer and a V6. From a smoothness and refinement perspective, Ford's V6 had no advantage over the 4. Try it for yourself. If anything, the 4 might have been a little quieter at high RPM. Automobile Magazine in reviewing a 528i with BMWs new turbo 4 had this to say: "With significantly more torque (over a far larger rev area) and no real loss of refinement in driveability, we're easily sold on the N20-powered F10 5 series." And this is compared to an inline 6, which is even smoother than a V6.
|
In terms of fuel efficiency, it really depends on how you drive. If you drive in a way so that the engine does not use any boost, then of course, you will get mpg similar to a small engine. However, if you drive a car with a bigger V6 engine slowly, the engine would also shift a lot earlier, and thus doesn't use much fuel as well. In fact, for some cars, the car would start in 2nd gear.
In terms of refinement and smoothness, it's true that these new I4 engines are getting smoother and some are even as smooth as I6/V6. However, that's comparing to older I6/V6 (BMW, Audi, for example). Just imagine what the newest I6/V6 can do in terms of smoothness and refinement.
|
computernerd
|
|
According to the following article, Honda is developing turbocharged gasoline engines:
"Honda officials also said that turbocharged gasoline direct-injection engines will be developed in the future. A source said they should be launched within the next two to three years."
I wouldn't be surprised if the next Accord launches with a NA V6 with the 7 speed dual clutch as its upgrade powertrain and then switches to a smaller displacement turbocharged engine at the MMC.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111207/ANE/111209940/1193
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
