Printable View
Accord V6
$38,490
Engine: 3.5-litre V6
Power: 202kW at 6200rpm
Torque: 339Nm at 5000rpm
Transmission: Five-speed automatic
Fuel consumption: 10.0L/100km
With the much talked abt VCM, I expected it to do better than 10l/100km.. All figures are just on par with Aurion's 2GRFE. Could be due to its lacking of one gear ratio?
ya, same concern as well, 10.0L/100km just normal consumption compare with its competitors if new Accord's VCM is working well. But i still need to get more detail on it later.
Be interesting to see a dyno graph for this engine, might explain a few things.
I guess time will tell, Claimed fuel consumption figures arent really that reliable, how many people have actually matched a claimed figure on average?!
The few cars i drive differ considerably to what the manufacturers claim was.
Be interesting to see what fuel consumption figures motor magazines obtain
My 96 2.2L Vtec has the same fuel consumption as this 3.5L V6.
To achieve the extra 2kw and 3nm above the Aurion, Honda had to sacrifice fuel consumption lol
It's a bigger car than the Aurion so maybe it weighs a lot more.
Aurion: 1625kg Heaviest
Accord: 1,650 heaviest
25kgs :p
Honda engines love to rev...
One difference is that the Accord has an SOHC engine, while the Toyota has a DOHC engine.
So I guess the Aurion doesn't have variable lift AND variable cam angle (i-VVTi :p)?
It has VVTi, no lift. And fuel economy-wise VVTi on a DOHC engine is much better than i-VTEC on an SOHC engine. You should know why.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroDude
10l/100km is pretty good for that size engine i think, the euro claims 9.1 (2.4l), currently im on 8.4-8.6 with 1/2 city/hwy driving, my bro has the new kluger with he aurion engine in it it has been doing 16-17l/100k, yes its 4wd and should be heavier, but thats a massive difference when they claim 11l/100km kluger, so maybe the 10 for the aurion is ambitious as well
11L/100km is a combined figure though.Quote:
Originally Posted by 80057
Your brother is most likely quoting fuel consumption of just urban driving only.
I'd better rely on ADR figures to tell the "norm"Quote:
Originally Posted by 80057
New cars always consume a lot of fuel when new. My euro consumed around 17L/100k initially (normal driving), now its down to 9.~L/100km. Its gotta be driven for 5000km - 10000km km before judging the consumption, which I think is what many car magazines forget to do when they test drive a brand new car.Quote:
Originally Posted by 80057
Hmm any idea why this is? thats very interesting. true fact? or just what u have recognised?Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroDude
New engines aren't manufactured perfectly so there is a period of wearing-in where engine parts come in contact with each other which causes friction and release metal particles into the oil, and as a result, causes higher fuel consumption.
Was that 17L/100km the first ever tank? Or did you still get that from the 2nd and 3rd tank? I got 11L/100km for my 2nd tank.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroDude
filled up the v6l the other night, 723kms to empty!
just remember what is on the sticker is combined driving. so alot of freeway and some city driving. so most cars will prob read a bit higher than sticker, but on freeway all the time is a different story again!
It was 17L for a few weeks but gradually went down to 9.xL after 10000km if I recall correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
Woo, u mean that V6L's first tank? The result just amazing!Quote:
Originally Posted by UNLS1
I think the 723 is reading from the trip meter??
stop cheating comparing it to an aurion... an aurion is more sporty and the accord is made to contend to the camry lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riviera
camry is basically the same car, comes with the aurion engine in america..
built on the same platform?
As far as i can see its the closest contender to compare
Similar size, power, engine size, fuel economy, features... list goes on
its logical
whats the deal with the aurion being like the big shot when compared to camry?
is its because of its styling that its now like better than the camry
or maybe its going to deminish the camry?
The Aurion and the Camry are the same car and even share some common panels. The front and back panels are different. Only other major difference is that in Australia and some parts of Asia the V6 is reserved for the Aurion whereas in the USA the Camry comes with 4 cylinder and V6.
I doubt the Aurion is in Asia cuz some aussie dude who designed the XR8 designed the Aurion (built from the japanese camry chassis) which means its an aus specific model. unless aus exports them..
Didnt u know the Aurion plays the role of Camry in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, China?Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroDude
Toyota plant in Thailand builds it for that region
EVERYWHERE in asia, the Aurion is called the Camry! I've seen the Aurion in LHD with a 2.0L 4-cyl being used as a taxi in Taiwan. I reckon only Australia and Japan gets the slanty-eyed car that we know as the Camry.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuroDude
The Americans only get the slanty headlight car known as the Camry except they get it as both the 2.4L 4 cylinder and the 3.5L V6.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
ahh it was the TRD version that was designed by the ex-ford guy
The project's exterior design manager was Lee Moran, a former Ford Australia designer. He was chosen by Toyota Styling Australia chief Paul Berninger in 2005. One of Moran’s focuses was to reduce the size of the grille and add emphasis to the front bumper line below it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Aurion#Design
The Aurion is called Camry in Asia, and the Camry we get here is the same as the one in the States, except they get V6 whereas here its reserved for the Aurion. Also I dont think Asia gets the V6 do they?
~edit: My bad, I had only looked at the Malaysian and Singaporean sites. They dont get the V6 but other countries do.
ACCORD V6 = 202Kw / 10.0L on 91 RON
AURION V6 = 200Kw / 9.9L on 95/98 RON
feed the Accord some 98 and you'll get a couple more ponies and a bit better fuel consumption.. and you guys know the difference between 200Kw on paper from Honda versus 200Kw on paper from other manufacturers..
Higher octane does not contribute to more power and/or better fuel consumption. You might get better fuel consumption from the claimed higher density of the Aussie 98 RON petrols, but that's it. The Accord V6 doesn't come with maps for high octane fuel, unlike the Holden engines.Quote:
Originally Posted by VT3C
Where did it say Aurion's 2GRFE needs RON 95/98 to produce 200kw?Quote:
Originally Posted by VT3C
That sounds more like Holden's V8 where the max power is quoted using RON98 :D
^^ nice, I missed that. Aurion takes 91RON as well.
the new V6 sh!ts on the aurion. ive driven both, and the aurion is still bery borig, esp in interior design. much like the camrys.
not only can i match the claimed fuel economy on an o6 civic auto, my average over 40,000km beats the advertised figure by 0.4l/100kmQuote:
Originally Posted by Pumped
i have to strongly disagree with that comment going by personal experienceQuote:
Originally Posted by EuroDude
The Aurion was advertised to have Dual VVTI(whatever that may be - similiar to i-VTEC?) on it's 2GR-FE 3.5 DOHC V6 , plus the Auto Trans is a 6 speed ... As for the claimed fuel consumption - there is always that little message marked with the asterix under a vehicles info booklet...
"ADR81/01 cycle. Actual fuel consumption may vary on driving style and conditions" . -
As for the new Accord V6 , 10.0 litres is decent for a 3.5 i-VTEC sohc v6 that features VCM and weighs around the 1.6 tonne mark ( the 2.4 VTI would struggle ?) . Would have been better though if the Auto was a 6 speed instead of a 5 speed.
dual vvti is just toyotas fancy wording for valve timing for both the intake and exhaust valves. as was stated earlier, even if the aurion is rated at 200kw, it still feels more sluggish than a honda engine rated at the same power. for some reason toyotas feel underpowered for me.. its just like how my 1.6L vtec sohc daily driving civic feels more lively compared to my gfs 1.8l 2007 vvti dohc corolla. compared them both on hills, freeway etc.. maybe for other drivers its fine, but thats just my opinion.
and i think hondas marketing the accord more towards competing with the aurion and the larger cars, in comparisson to the camry. here toyotas got the camry to compete with the mazda 6 and that, where honda has the euro for that category.
aurion equipped with da same engine tat used in da current shape luxus RX350 plus da 6 speed gear box. good power delivery and very smooth to drive.
toyota bring aurion in to aus market is to compete in V6 market. it didnt take long for aurion to become da top 10 selling car in da country. local assembled, $120 fixed service plan for 1st 3 yrs...etc etc
the camry we getting here is da same shape in jap and us. asia gets da aurion shape camry, comes in 4 cylinders engine only
Da saim enjins yoused in da Klooga n da REV4 az wel.
I believe that I could become proficient in this dialect.
Is this how ppl speak in NT? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SPQR
Nah, that seems to be the language spoken in Melbourne S.E. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by boleh
Lili, ar?Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
I find that the Honda engines have to be revved to get the power/torque, whereas other manufacturers (incl. Toyota) has power down low in rev range (that is what matters in city driving and why I'm considering driving a diesel engine after somewhat disappointed with the Euro).
hmm well thats what happened with mine. it took a long time to get down to 9.xLQuote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
guess u havent driven an auto corolla, no power down low at all.. its worse than a CVT Jazz lolQuote:
Originally Posted by ^__^ SM ^__^
you WILL get a slight increase in power from a higher octane fuel.. even without tuning the engine will create more power 'naturally' even just from the combustion process within the cyllinder.. if this was not the case we'd all be running 91RON at the track rather than high-octane 'race-fuel' ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
all of the cars i've owned (honda or not) greatly benefit from a higher-octane fuel.. they too dont have special maps etc. i mean you go buy a stock Jazz VTi and drive it on 91 then fill her up with 98RON and feel the difference !! there's no special ECU tuning involved etc LOL
as for the Aurion on 98RON, my bad if that's wrong, I was informed that the Aurion was making those figures on Premium 98.. I cant find any information to tell me which fuel the Aurion is using to get those figures but I definately know the Honda is on 91RON. IMO you're mad not to run premium on ANY modern Honda - even if it's 'tuned' for 91.. go the 98 !!
but back to my other comment that 202Kw claimed from Honda is goin to mash other manufacturer's with the same figures ON PAPER..
The Aurion makes 200kw on 91RON and 204kw on premium unleaded.
http://goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.n...y?OpenDocumentQuote:
Running on normal unleaded petrol, the 3.5-litre quad-cam V6 produces its 200kW at 6200rpm and has a torque peak of 336Nm at 4700rpm. Power rises to 204kW on premium unleaded, and the ADR 81/01 fuel consumption rating sits at 9.9L/100km when using top-shelf fuel.
I've tested the Aurion before and it was bloody quick.. I mean it's not a sports car but feels almost like one. Overtaking capability was the most impressive.. Cruising at 80kph and needs to speed up to 120? Just put yr foot down and hold the steering wheel tighttttt
My boss has the Aurion hair dresser pack version but, yes, it goes like a shower of soft brown "meteorites" (can we say the "s" word?). And it's reasonably economical. Can't wait to try the V6 Accord.
Depending on what you had for lunch, it's not always brown :zip:Quote:
Originally Posted by SPQR
Corn and seaweed can change that. :zip:Quote:
Originally Posted by boleh
Thats the Fuel consumption showing on my Aurion last night with just average driving.
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...ionMileage.jpg
But I have a happy right foot, so in reality, at the end of a tank, its typically between 10~11l/100km.
we took ours down to lorne average was 7.8.
i still think the aurion is a great car but is still a boring fleet car. the accord interior is so much better on the eye!
can't wait to test how VCM can do on the new accord!
According to redbook the Aurion has both VVTi and lift like the 2ZZ-GE in the Corolla Sportivo / Celica.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
http://www.redbookasiapacific.com/au....php?id=378860
Redbook is WRONG. Go straight to Toyota's website.Quote:
Originally Posted by viper8548
It only alters timing. Doesn't alter lift.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyota Australia website
The ONLY Toyota engine with variable lift is the 2ZZ-GE.
Mr Ng is partially right. Lift is available on Toyota VVTL-i engines.
corolla sportivos a nice car...
LOL @ video.. your car is sparking? hahaha
i hear the stivo gearboxes are crap though, they drop you out of the optimum power range with every shift?
You should see a doctor.Quote:
Originally Posted by boleh
Stock sportivos are like a regular corolla with a powerful engine. Soft suspension. Anyway, what does this have to do with the Euro? The Euro is a slowish car. We are talking about V6 VCM vs 2GR-FE here.
The only toyota VVTL-i engine is the 2ZZ-GEQuote:
Originally Posted by boleh
would valve timing on the exhaust actually make a difference really?
So it seems! You're right, Mr Ng.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
I think the 2GR-FE is more superior to the honda. Achieving the same fuel economy without having such an "intelligent" feature (VCM) in the engine. Only if Toyota decides to put the 2GR-FSE in the aurion...
It depends on the EPR testing conditions. You might find that the it is difficult to achieve the rated numbers on the Aurion but easier on the Accord V6 VCM (just speculating)Quote:
Originally Posted by curik
Wheels Magazine has a similar speculation in the current issue. They think that the test for the fuel economy sticker is not one that shows up the benefits of the VCM.Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
Any new Accord V6 owners out there able to report on fuel economy as yet?
I still running my first tank, combine with hwy and city drive, achieving 12.5L/100km so far and done 430km and still got 1/4 tank to go. I think it will achieve around 650km a tank as its first tank.
The Aurion has a 6 speed Auto while the new Accord has a 5 speed ... could there be a difference here? Plus the Aurion's 6 speed Auto uses "A.I" Artificial Intelligence to monitor revs ... road and driving condition and select the right and hold the gear. But I suppose you could say the same for the Accord as well coz the 5 speed Auto uses "grade logic" shift to select the right gear and hold gears - from uphill , downhill and the signals by the drive by wire gas pedal...
So there is no gear "hunting" which would hurt fuel economy... but comes down again to how you go about it... driving wise.
Just did my first 1000k's and averaged 11.8 L/100klms.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPQR
With very gentle city driving (1/5 throttle) the best I could achieve was high 10's. With 1/2 throttle takeoff to speed limit I averaged around mid 12's.
Good job, EuroBro, I plan to do my first 1k service next week, and got smiliar result as u, hope it can getting better after run in.