2006+ Honda Civic Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The latest model, 08+ or whatever it is.

I am looking for some input on the 2 litre petrol engine, both with manual and automatic gearbox.

- Are you happy with the performance?
- What kind of fuel consumption are you seeing?
- Are you happy with the engine from a smoothness, noise etc perspective?


Before everyone shouts "buy a diesel", the road tax over here is higher on diesels and in Sweden they don't sell Accord diesels with satnav (although it may be possible to do a special order), so although it is an option, I'd also like any input available on the 2.0 petrol.

If anyone knows - when did this engine come out?
I.e. is it an old or new design?
 

·
Strong in me The Force is
Joined
·
765 Posts
My dad has recently bought a 2.0 autogear. There was a special offer here in Belgium: only 19.900 euro for a brand new one, including some nice extra's like heated seats, dual zone automatic airco, auto wipers, auto lights, USB audio interface,...
The car drives silent, nice, smooth, very comfy, NOT sporty, but most certainly not lazy either. Handling is decent, you have a good feel and feedback in all circumstances. Trim is at a higher level than the civic, the materials used are way better too.
Boot space is not overwelming. Even when the rear seats are folded down, the opening from the boot to the interior is rather small. The wheel arches are just to big to have decent boot space.
The auto gearbox is good, but not super. It has paddles to change manually, too.
Fuel consuption varies: on long, smooth rides 7.8l/100km will do. On short, local city trips it more like 9.0l/100km or even more.
Overall my dad is very pleased with the car, especially when you take in account the price.

K.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
I drive an Accord Tourer 2.0 MT.
Options: Premium audio, Satnav, rear view camera, heated seats, auto dimming mirror, iPod interface, 17 inch Quartz alloys, etc... Basicly everything you might want to have, except for LKAS, CBMS, ACC, leather and Xenon.

The R20A3 is essentially the same engine as the R18A2 found the Civic, only with a bigger stroke. I am a former Civic 1.8 owner and I love this two-faced engine: smooth as silk and high-revving and racy at your request.
However, it feels different in the Accord. The flywheel seems heavier, which makes it even smoother, but a little less rev-happy. It fits the Accord. If you like the 1.8, you'll like the 2.0 as well.

The Accord 2.0 has more than enough power, but I think it's a little less quick than the Civic 1.8. I did some calculations. See attached PDF.
The gearbox is perfect, as you'd expect from a Honda. The steering is not as tight as the Civic, but probably more relaxing when driving long distances and possibly at high speeds (@ autobahn).

Fuel consumption:
Accord (10.000 km): 8,20 L/100km or 34,45 MPG (UK).
Civic (72.000 km): 7,62 L/100km or 37,09 MPG (UK).

My opinion: great car, great engine, get all the options.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
My opinion: great car, great engine, get all the options.
Yes, if I do go for it, it would be with all the options apart from the LKAS stuff which is a lot of money and not really anything I feel that I need.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Yes, if I do go for it, it would be with all the options apart from the LKAS stuff which is a lot of money and not really anything I feel that I need.
I would like to have ACC though. For B-roads.

But indeed. Not for the money they're asking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
What kind of revs do you have at 120 km/h in 6th?
Engine RPM = vehicle speed / wheel circumference * gear ratio * final drive ratio

(120 km/h / 3,6 = 33,333 m/s) / (225/45R17 = 1,9927 meters) * 60 seconds * (6th gear = 0,720) * (final drive = 4,388) = 3.170 RPM

My speedo over reads consistently by about 7%.


EDIT: got the tire size wrong, should be:
(120 km/h / 3,6 = 33,333 m/s) / (225/50R17 = 2,0634 meters) * 60 seconds * (6th gear = 0,720) * (final drive = 4,388 ) = 3.062 RPM
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Engine RPM = vehicle speed / wheel circumference * gear ratio * final drive ratio

(120 km/h / 3,6 = 33,333 m/s) / (225/45R17 = 1,9927 meters) * 60 seconds * (6th gear = 0,720) * (final drive = 4,388) = 3.170 RPM

My speedo over reads consistently by about 7%.
What an excellent reply. I love data! :D
 

·
R.I.P - (User sadly passed away)
Joined
·
9,228 Posts
I really like the look of the Accord Tourer, but the premium for the 2.4 over the 2.0 is just gob-smacking - extract from Honda Norway below


  • 2.0 i-VTEC Executive : NoK 438,400
  • 2.4 i-VTEC Executive : NoK 573,400
That's nearly the price of a Jazz in difference ! ...

When I buy my next car, I think I'll be going the personal import route - probably from Denmark - as their car taxes are excruciatingly high, all the manufacturers press their pre-tax prices to the floor, so if I was going to spend that sort of money here, there must be savings to be had (all very dependent, of course, on exchange rates) ...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I really like the look of the Accord Tourer, but the premium for the 2.4 over the 2.0 is just gob-smacking - extract from Honda Norway below


  • 2.0 i-VTEC Executive : NoK 438,400

  • 2.4 i-VTEC Executive : NoK 573,400
That's nearly the price of a Jazz in difference ! ...

When I buy my next car, I think I'll be going the personal import route - probably from Denmark - as their car taxes are excruciatingly high, all the manufacturers press their pre-tax prices to the floor, so if I was going to spend that sort of money here, there must be savings to be had (all very dependent, of course, on exchange rates) ...
Here it is not that bad, only 18 500 SEK (£1800) to "upgrade" to a 2.4 from a 2.0 with the same gearbox.

However, obviously the fuel economy is not as good in a 2.4 and a 2.4 AT is slower 0-60 than a 2.0 MT (not that this matter much in real life).

The power curve of the 2.4 shows that it only really gives a lot more power at the peak, the data is not very impressive for 200 hp engine.

Having said that - I have not driven one yet, which is why I was asking for some elaboration on the "buy a 2.4" comment.
 

·
R.I.P - (User sadly passed away)
Joined
·
9,228 Posts
Here it is not that bad, only 18 500 SEK (£1800) to "upgrade" to a 2.4 from a 2.0 with the same gearbox.

However, obviously the fuel economy is not as good in a 2.4 and a 2.4 AT is slower 0-60 than a 2.0 MT (not that this matter much in real life).

The power curve of the 2.4 shows that it only really gives a lot more power at the peak, the data is not very impressive for 200 hp engine.

Having said that - I have not driven one yet, which is why I was asking for some elaboration on the "buy a 2.4" comment.
I should have mentioned that the Executive versions here, are only available as 'AT' - and I much prefer a manual gearbox ...

So, both model availability and price would make me look seriously at the personal import route - strictly the "Holy Petrol" versions, of course ! ...

(Maybe not from Denmark, but perhaps from Germany \ Netherlands) ...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I should have mentioned that the Executive versions here, are only available as 'AT' - and I much prefer a manual gearbox ...

So, both model availability and price would make me look seriously at the personal import route - strictly the "Holy Petrol" versions, of course ! ...

(Maybe not from Denmark, but perhaps from Germany \ Netherlands) ...
Here there are model restrictions too, especially if you want navi.
Preliminary info is that for '10 only 2.4 auto's will be available with navi, which is even more limited than in '09.

The manual in the Accords is very nice.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top