- Aug 8, 2001
- 2,471
- 152
- 106
Yea, not a big fan of trying to save fuel with those small displacement turbos. Could be wrong, but I still dont trust the long term reliability. And in real life, they really dont get spectacularly better mileage than a well designed non-turbo. I think the makers are just trying to squeeze out another mpg or two for the fuel economy standards. I think hybrids are the way to go for good fuel economy. They seem reliable and prices are reasonable now.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the turbo 4s either but I ended up with one because that's what everyone seems to be doing in this class. The mileage savings are honestly negligible, and in practice I think all of these changes for a few extra mpgs are actually causing more harm in practice. I also don't like 8 speed transmissions... I have yet to find a good one, yet that's what the market is doing if they're not already using CVTs. They're often tuned so heavily towards fuel savings that I have to accelerate harder to get the transmission into a lower gear in order to get moving the way I want. I didn't have to do this with other transmissions, and I'm sure I'm completely negating positive effects the transmission has on mileage by driving the way I do to overcome the terrible shift points.
The 8 speeds and turbo 4s just reek of things done to get the numbers to look better, even if in actual use nothing has changed (and maybe is even worse).
Yea, not a big fan of trying to save fuel with those small displacement turbos. Could be wrong, but I still dont trust the long term reliability. And in real life, they really dont get spectacularly better mileage than a well designed non-turbo. I think the makers are just trying to squeeze out another mpg or two for the fuel economy standards. I think hybrids are the way to go for good fuel economy. They seem reliable and prices are reasonable now.
I'm not going to lie...I was skiddish with the newer Honda engines (earth dreams) and CVTs
and then worlds most uncomfortable seats.
This point, at least, is kind of an individual thing. To be fair.
Lacking lumbar support depends on the options package. My Acura has them. I think there's a Civic "Touring" that has most of the luxury goodies.Fair enough, but they don’t have adjustable lumbar support, at all, period.
Unless your back is shaped just right for the seat it doesn’t feel good. It’s not usually something you catch in a test drive either.
I know my post is kind of a rant, I’m just not happy with the car. I expected a lot more from it and from Honda.
Lacking lumbar support depends on the options package. My Acura has them. I think there's a Civic "Touring" that has most of the luxury goodies.
Really? That sucks. Maybe the Accord does. Harrumph.I have a Touring. No adjustable lumbar.
honda's make only a few good things IMO.
They make great 4 bangers, non turbo.
VTEC... "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG"
They are always at least 5 years ahead technology wise vs everyone else....
But transmissions and v6's are something they are not too well versed in.
I had 2 transmissions jobs on my Acura Legend... and another 3 on my TL.
After that i didn't care about technology and went Nissan / Infiniti.
But transmissions and v6's are something they are not too well versed in.
They're Bush administration era transmissions had a lot of failures. They're better.
They make some very good basic V6 engines; it's when they try to get clever that they screw it up.