Duke wrote: What that is telling me is that I need to shop 2.0T Accords exclusively, so I can avoid the CVT plague.
I think Toyota deliberately made bad CVTs so that everyone would think they were garbage so that Aisin-Warner could continue profiting from marking their planetary automatics.
Drive a CVT in a Subaru or a Caliber/Compass. It's a completely different animal than the garbage some companies (Toyota) dish out
Knurled wrote:Bobzilla wrote: For once, Honda is following Ford.There you are. Ditch the V6s, go with well tuned turbo fours. "I wish my 2-liter Ecoboost Explorer still had a 200hp V8" said no one ever.
That's the thing. Honda's V6 is actually good. I have no idea how a 1.5 liter turbo engine primarily designed to deliver fuel economy is going to be as nice to live with.
Edit: I completely missed the 2.0T part. I still vote no on it.
EDIT2: I literally don't matter here though because I don't see myself even thinking about buying a new car in the next 5 years.
Bobzilla wrote:alfadriver wrote:4-CYL turbos in their mid size sedans? I know GM didn't in the Malibu. Did Ford?Bobzilla wrote: For once, Honda is following the Korean twins. They did that in 2011 with great success. When you design the car to only accept one series of engines and keep lightness in mind you can get 40mpg out of a full size fwd sedan.And are following GM and Ford, since they went turbos earlier than 2011.
Hell, even the new Mazda CX-9 has a turbo 4 (though ours has the Ford-soourced V6). And the CX9 is not even remotely a small vehicle.
Driven5 wrote: My biggest complaint with the modern turbo engines is that in the real world the vast majority still just don't seem live up to their (on paper/in a lab) promise of better fuel economy relative to overall performance compared to a naturally aspirated engine with two more cylinders...Which could have at least made up for them not sounding nearly as pleasant.
If you've got a heavy foot, the turbo vehicle will burn just as much fuel or slightly more (assuming a similar total power output). But if you're pretty light footed or do a lot of highway cruising, it'll burn less due to lower pumping losses at low power outputs.
In reply to Chadeux:
The 1.5T isn't a bad feeling engine in the Civic, although I haven't driven one with a manual so it's hard to really get a feel for it. I can't imagine it doing any worse than the current NA 4cyl most Accords get bought with.
Bobzilla wrote:alfadriver wrote:4-CYL turbos in their mid size sedans? I know GM didn't in the Malibu. Did Ford?Bobzilla wrote: For once, Honda is following the Korean twins. They did that in 2011 with great success. When you design the car to only accept one series of engines and keep lightness in mind you can get 40mpg out of a full size fwd sedan.And are following GM and Ford, since they went turbos earlier than 2011.
2013-Current Malibu was/is offered with the 2.0T
rslifkin wrote: <blockquot
I never had either until the current gen Civic with the 1.5T. It's not great, but it's the only CVT I've ever driven that didn't leave me wanting to push it off a cliff, so clearly Honda did something right.
A good friend of mine just got one too and these were his exact words as well. I had called him to bust his balls about getting a car with a CVT since he is like me and would always opt for a stick with a more performance mindset and he said it's actually very good....
In reply to Rumnhammer:
I'm not surprised other people are liking the combo. Turbos and autos (either torque converter slushbox or CVT, but not DSG) go together very well.
ProDarwin wrote:Bobzilla wrote:2013-Current Malibu was/is offered with the 2.0Talfadriver wrote:4-CYL turbos in their mid size sedans? I know GM didn't in the Malibu. Did Ford?Bobzilla wrote: For once, Honda is following the Korean twins. They did that in 2011 with great success. When you design the car to only accept one series of engines and keep lightness in mind you can get 40mpg out of a full size fwd sedan.And are following GM and Ford, since they went turbos earlier than 2011.
Which is still after 2011 from the Koreans.
EDIT: Looks like Ford did it in 2013 as well. Both after the Koreans. My point still stands. The market is playing catchup to the Korean twins.
I used to have a LeBaron with the 2.5 Turbo and a '89 Probe GT. This looks like a newer version of the same formula, a mid sized, FWD two door with a turbo four and a manual transmission. If I could afford a new car, I might be shopping for one myself, as I'd like to try that recipe in something that isn't either rusted to death from Canadian winters or worn out with over 200,000 miles on the clock.
Are the Korean mid sized cars available with a manual? Or are they automatic only?
rslifkin wrote:Driven5 wrote: My biggest complaint with the modern turbo engines is that in the real world the vast majority still just don't seem live up to their (on paper/in a lab) promise of better fuel economy relative to overall performance compared to a naturally aspirated engine with two more cylinders...Which could have at least made up for them not sounding nearly as pleasant.If you've got a heavy foot, the turbo vehicle will burn just as much fuel or slightly more (assuming a similar total power output). But if you're pretty light footed or do a lot of highway cruising, it'll burn less due to lower pumping losses at low power outputs.
In theory, sure. And yes, I've seen aftermarket turbo cars lose minimal observed fuel economy compared with achieved performance level.
But in the production car world though, the reality doesn't seem to hold up in the same way. The EPA test cycle seems to favor turbocharged engines over naturally aspirated (over diesel), resulting in over-stated ratings. But the majority of real world tests and data compilations I have seen though show no better, if not worse, observed results than their naturally aspirated equivalents.
Maybe the difference is related to most modern (direct injected) production turbo engines being tuned so extremely biased towards low end torque that the engine is running richer more of the time due to being in boost even at lower rpm and loads? I don't know, but regardless, they just don't seem to be living up to the economy side of their promises yet for 'V8 power with V6 economy' or 'V6 power with I4 economy'...Which kind of defeats the purpose IMHO.
If I am going to get something with diesel-like power delivery and an unappealing sound, I'd rather just get something actually diesel powered...At least that way I'll get the real world fuel economy gain to go with it.
Bobzilla wrote:ProDarwin wrote:Which is still after 2011 from the Koreans. EDIT: Looks like Ford did it in 2013 as well. Both after the Koreans. My point still stands. The market is playing catchup to the Korean twins.Bobzilla wrote:2013-Current Malibu was/is offered with the 2.0Talfadriver wrote:4-CYL turbos in their mid size sedans? I know GM didn't in the Malibu. Did Ford?Bobzilla wrote: For once, Honda is following the Korean twins. They did that in 2011 with great success. When you design the car to only accept one series of engines and keep lightness in mind you can get 40mpg out of a full size fwd sedan.And are following GM and Ford, since they went turbos earlier than 2011.
The ghost of SAAB is laughing.
Driven5 wrote: But in the production car world though, the reality doesn't seem to hold up in the same way. The EPA test cycle seems to favor turbocharged engines over naturally aspirated (over diesel), resulting in over-stated ratings. But the majority of real world tests and data compilations I have seen though show no better, if not worse, observed results than their naturally aspirated equivalents. Maybe the difference is related to most modern production turbo engines being tuned so extremely biased towards low end torque that the engine is running richer due to being in boost much more of the time, even at lower loads? I don't know, but regardless, they just don't seem to be living up to the economy side of their promises yet for 'V8 power with V6 economy' or 'V6 power with I4 economy'...Which kind of defeats the purpose IMHO. If I am going to get something with diesel-like power delivery and an unappealing sound, I'd rather just get something actually diesel powered...At least that way I'll get the real world fuel economy gain to go with it.
I can't speak for every turbo car, of course. But looking it up right now, in 2002 the EPA rated my car (a 1.9l turbo four with automatic and a 3000lb car wrapped around it) at 22 city, 30 highway.
In the real world, with the A/C off and winter tires on, I've seen 40 actual MPG on the highway. My last road trip with the gummy summer tires, A/C set to kill, and 75-80mph cruise speed, saw 34mpg. (36 on the dash display, which is a little optimistic)
I can't speak for city because I don't do much city driving other than taxiing to the nearest Interstate. My work commute usually has me at about 26-28mpg though. The engine hardly ever goes over 3000rpm but the touching the throttle gets you 12psi boost. And it doesn't sound like anything except a little whistle when the boost gauge moves to the right.
Knurled wrote:Bobzilla wrote:The ghost of SAAB is laughing.ProDarwin wrote:Which is still after 2011 from the Koreans. EDIT: Looks like Ford did it in 2013 as well. Both after the Koreans. My point still stands. The market is playing catchup to the Korean twins.Bobzilla wrote:2013-Current Malibu was/is offered with the 2.0Talfadriver wrote:4-CYL turbos in their mid size sedans? I know GM didn't in the Malibu. Did Ford?Bobzilla wrote: For once, Honda is following the Korean twins. They did that in 2011 with great success. When you design the car to only accept one series of engines and keep lightness in mind you can get 40mpg out of a full size fwd sedan.And are following GM and Ford, since they went turbos earlier than 2011.
Yeah, SAAB had been doing the whole turbo 4 thing for years before the mainstream automakers caught on. SAAB did offer a few V6T's in the 2000's, but aside from the Saabaru, they were all turbo 4's in the final years.
Another interesting note: I spotted my first Turbo Civic Si this morning on the highway. It was a blue coupe, and it looked GREAT in person. I was afraid that it would look too weird, but no, it looked aggressive and sporty. I didn't know they were out yet. They are going to sell A LOT of these things.
Also, with the center outlet exhaust, I wonder where the fart cannon is going to go? 
Geesh.... they even cribbed the center exhaust tips from the Koreans too! Have they no shame? lol
This baffles me a bit unless they intend on the Ridgeline going turbo 4 as well. I always thought when the J series was developed for torque for the truck (also see 3.5L and 2.7L EB motors) that they lend themselves to be the perfect powerplant for a sedan with sporting intensions. I'll be sad to see the 6 cylinder go.
Honda finally joining the party!
Im petty sure Ford made the fusion with eco-boost and a 6 speed manual. No one bought it though. Im not sure if the awd 2.0t fusions came with a manual though.
In reply to yupididit:
Someone here posted that they saw a 1.6 Ecoboost/manual Fusion in the wild.
yupididit wrote: Honda finally joining the party! Im petty sure Ford made the fusion with eco-boost and a 6 speed manual. No one bought it though. Im not sure if the awd 2.0t fusions came with a manual though.
They DID make that combo for a couple years. I found one about a year ago in Grandma Gold with a stick and thought it might make a nice sleeper. I did some research, and I guess they don't have a lot of ceiling for tuning, but that may have changed by now.
You'll need to log in to post.
