2018 Honda Accord - no V6 model.
 

Would never give up my V6 for a noisy 4 banger turbo. .. but that's what the industry is calling for.


http://i1341.photobucket.com/albums/...psq2rucwh8.jpg

Had a 2015 V6 press car and on the best of days it would get 14L/100km calculated (indicated 12L/100km). Despite all this "earth dreams" bs, that SOHC is still getting 90's fuel economy figures.
Not sure what turbo 4's you've been driving but I doubt anyone would find a 2017 A4 2.0T to be a "noisy 4 banger". Heck even a Ford Fusion with 2.0T is pretty quiet.

Interesting... purely anecdotal but I got mid 10s in a 2G RDX with cylinder deactivation, and 11s pretty consistently with a 3 liter J series.

lol...noisy 4 banger

I think it's all about marketing or psychological thing.

or could be just a general assumption of less cylinder = noisier

It all depends on the engine and technology.

If you let a random person drive a random car, I doubt they can tell if it's a 4cyl or 6 cyl, or 2.5L or 3.0L, etc..

2018 Honda Accord - no V6 model.
 

my only experience was with the 1G rdx and it's 4cyl turbo. fuckin hated that shit. yah I suppose technology has improved somewhat.... but I personally hate the whining of a 4cyl.

do you even vtak

Average speed? Calculated vs. indicated? I found that the indicated fuel economy was 2L/100km under what I actually paid at the pump. IIRC Aznboi128 saw about 3L/100km difference on the Pilot he reviewed recently

Yeah that car was released 10 years ago and it's absurd that someone still bases their opinion on current cars/tech based on something released 10 years ago. That's like saying smartphone cameras are shit because my old Sony Ericsson W810i took crap pics

That's brutal, I was getting that kind of economy with my oldass Jeep Cherokee. Is this thing insanely heavy or something? I remember getting <8L/100km (highway) with my 5th gen Prelude, so how did Honda forget how to do that over the last 20 years?

Part of the issue is cars have become bigger and heavier... collision requirements etc blah blah

Same reason my 6th gen civic with a swap can rival my GE8 Fit in fuel economy, even with the 94 octane to 87 price difference. Obviously there's numerous reasons, but this I'm sure plays a big part.

The k23 turbo in the RDX can not compare to any recent engines.

oh yeah I hate Mustang and Crown Victoria's V8 because they're too old school and rumble like shit.
That doesn't make Mercedes or Lexus V8 the same.

You're only comparing them with numbers of cylinders.
Maybach V12 and Aventador V12 are completely different too.

Not saying you're lying about RDX 4cyl turbo, but you're kinda generalizing.

I have the same car albeit sedan form, I consistently get better fe on hwy and city than its rated.

Last tank for example I got 8.7L/100k evenly divided between hwy and city. For the record its rated 9.8L/100k combined.

Honda's 3.5L V6 is very smooth revving engine and I'm not biased, my other car being 90' mustang 5.0.

all these smaller engine turbo'ed vehicles are all bullshit for fuel economy.

My dad recently purchased a 2017 F150 XLT with the Coyote 5.0L, same engine as the mustang i believe

He gets the same, if not better milage than my buddies 2016 3.5L ecoboost.

the reason why these trucks are getting so many KM's now is because they have 130L tanks, not because they are so efficient. the Ecoboost is gutless compared to the 5.0 and with getting similar, if not the same milage, theres no reason to buy the ecoboost

Faster unloaded, and notably a whole 1.2 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile pulling a 6400lb trailer is "gutless" compared to the V8?

Edit: And jesus christ, trucks these days running 14 second quarters...

the 3.5 ecboost with 3 people and 3 dirtbikes up the coquihalla felt like it was struggling harder than my 4.6L V8 used to. Basically pinned from the snowshed to the toll booth.

Numbers on paper are fine, but the anecdotal evidence i've seen/felt in both trucks leans otherwise.