2008 Honda Accord EX-L V6: Fuel Economy Update

Bloody awful, and a betrayal of what Honda used to stand for.

Honda is trying too hard to play the horsepower race, and in the process they're losing sight of what made them Honda in the first place.

Chevy Impala, a full size vehicle with 4 speed auto and pushrod V6 would give you similar or even slightly better numbers.

What did the Camry average when you guys had it? This seems low compared to the Camry/Avalon tests I've seen, but then again, they didn't have you lead foots driving...but it does make you wonder, why'd they bother with the cylinder shutoff?

Even the gas cap looks cheap.
 
The lowest tank I've ever gotten was 22.5 in my 2003 Accord Coupe V6 6MT over 350 miles - including 3 dyno pulls, 5 autocross runs and 100% city driving. I average about 27-28 in mixed driving without trying too hard and get 33-35 when I really try.
 
Honda is really, really letting me down. I will certainly not be buying a new Honda product. On the bright side, I'll be keeping my Accord for years to come because I won't long for the new model!

FIRST OF ALL HONDA HAS NOT LET ME DOWN AND ISN"T LETTING ANYONE DOWN. The 4-cylinder in this accord can get up to 35 MPG witnessed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oHj3-PdD0o
 
I own a 2005 Odyssey with VCM and get 19-27 MPG which is amazing for a minivan.
 
Point is it depends how you drive. Two things that might be causeing these low numbers.
1)You are not resetting the trip computer everytime you fillup.
2)You don't use cruise control. I can guarantee you will see 29 MPG on the highway cruising at 70 mph. On driveaccord.net you'll also see many people getting 23-32 MPG on v6 2008 Accords.
 
Camry V6, Avalon, and Rav 4 all get comparably low numbers if you drive with a lead foot. If you want good MPG that's why honda gives you 4-cylinder options. Unless someone post a pic of a guage proving that their camry v6 gets better fuel economy I can guarantee you that the accord is one of the most fuel efficient cars out there if driven properly. SO many people hating on the new accord especially 7th generation owners. 7th gen accord was the ugliest car on this planet by far. irba, a 4 speed will give better MPG since its acceleration isn't that great no matter if its a pushrod or not, besides a 4-sp auto is old technology that's nothing to be proud of.

I've got an '03 Mazda6 with the V6, an old, not very fuel efficient Ford/Mazda design and have never gotten a tank less than 22-23 MPG. Never. And I generally get around 27-30 on the highway. This silly horsepower race needs to stop - how good of mileage would that Accord get if Honda didn't decide it needed 270 HP?

hdriver -- I'm sure the editors are smart enough to reset the trip computer after each fill-up.
 
And cruise control is pretty much useless in LA unless it works at 3 MPH.
 
But yes, it depends on how you drive and the conditions you drive in.

hdriver347
 
you are trying to hard.
and anyone that gives me numbers based on a trip computer is smoking the weed.
 
From every computer i've read about they are always generous by about 2+ mpg.
 
honda in the accord has lost sight of its mpg, its now average at best. the civic is the same way, the cars 10 years ago are rated for about similar milage as today... Talk about not moving forward.
 
The domestic's are playing catch up... but the competion is standing still

sxty8stang, the 2008 Honda Accord would get 25 mpg, with 31 mpg on the highway if it had 190 hp.
And what do you know, you _can_ go down to the dealership and buy a mere 190 hp Honda Accord!
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=24900&browser=true&details=on

opfreak, are you comparing likewise EPA numbers or are the numbers from 10 years ago not corrected for the changed standard?
 
Bender, weight is one thing. Another is that the current car is much bigger. Larger car = bigger hole to punch into the atmosphere.

One good thing about living in the middle east is that you generally don't have to worry about the gas price.
 
Honda is not losing sight. It's just keeping up with V6 versions of other I-WANNA-BE-A-MIDDLE-MANAGER-SOMEDAY segment of the market. Even these dudes can dream about driving an M3 and CSV CR8 or S4.
 
Domestics are kinda nice these days but we are only talking about the CTS, G8 and Malibu. (I won't include saturn in that group). And CSV CR8 kicks ass. Too bad they don't sell most of nice American cars in the States.

I just have to mention it.
 
Doesn't the 4,000+ pound AWD CX-9 get the same MPG with more utility?
 
Yeah the new Accord is failure.

7driver i'd have to check. But whenever I compare I go to fueleconomy.gov. I'm not sure if they recaculated all there numbers from past years.

"Point is it depends how you drive. Two things that might be causeing these low numbers.
1)You are not resetting the trip computer everytime you fillup.
2)You don't use cruise control. I can guarantee you will see 29 MPG on the highway cruising at 70 mph. On driveaccord.net you'll also see many people getting 23-32 MPG on v6 2008 Accords. "
 
Its not the drivers. The car has 268hp and weighs 3600lbs so this is what you get. Almost every V6 car in this class averages 20-22mpg in mixed driving. This is reality and its silly to blame the drivers for this. Honda created a "me too" large V6 car and this is what you get in terms of mileage. Stop with the excuses. Anyone getting 32mpg in a 2008 Accord V6 is either a liar or they are doing ZERO urban or suburban driving. How in the world would the Accord be the only car on the market to handily beat its EPA numbers when we have seen they are largely on target for every car tested?

PS:
 
It doesnt seem like VCM is doing much other than boosting the Accord's EPA ratings. IN the real world it appears the Accord V6s mileage is no better than it's competitors.

cx7lover,
 
The CX9 is not going to pull 21.1mpg combined, just on the highway; however, just to add a caveat to this conversion, my 2005 Ford Freestyle does pull more than 21.1mpg combined, but it's hardly a performance machine.

I agree with 1487: its illogical to always blame the driver. These test cars are driven by numerous people, in countless different driving scenarios. I would take their numbers to be pretty realistic.

And people taking pics of their trip computer is hilarious. I can reset mine drive 10 miles downhill on a stretch of highway and then take a picture of my average mpg showing 40 mpg in my legacy! thats is hardly proof unless they somehow take a picture of the trip meter and average mpg (mine resets the mpg when you reset the trip mileage)

@ texases -
 
From the Edmunds.com Camry LT Wrap-Up:
 
"Fuel economy for the Toyota has been pretty impressive. According to the Camry forums on CarSpace, highway fuel economy above 30 mpg is not uncommon. After 21,000 miles behind the wheel, our best recorded tank was 33 mpg, which came during the Camry's cross-country return."
 
Best Fuel Economy: 33.0 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 15.7 mpg
Average Fuel Economy: 24.9 mpg

Trip Computer MGP Meters are horribly unreliable. My Civic Hybrid's is always lower than the true hand calculation.
 
I'm disappointed in these Accord numbers. Please bring the diesel already.
 
nf

The trip computer MPG numbers on my '02 Corvette are always accurate. I've checked it manually several times, and its always right on the money.

my trip computer seems to be very accurate.
 
THere is nothing to be disappointed in regarding the Accord's mileage. if the EPA combined number is 22 I do not get why people are upset and surprised at 21mpg. Thats exactly where it should be. Comparo tests in MT and on IL have shown similar mileage for V6 accords.
 
Toyota's 3.5L engine is very efficient and tends to produce class leading mileage in every application. Not so for Toyota's 2.4L engine.

*takes a deep breath*
 
I agree with 1487
 
...
 
:)
 
I think VCM technology has alot of promise in delivering additional fuel economy in a standard combustion engine. Much like stop-start technology, alternator de-coupling, and other new advancements. But this Honda engine is not showing the promise of it and does not really appear to be matching Toyota's more powerful 3.5 liter tied with a 6-speed automatic, for either power or economy. How embarassing is that.
 
Joe

Hdriver -
 
Way to make broad, overbearing generalizations about what other people think. Why don't you tone down your rhetoric?
 
I own a 06 Civic SI, and I'm dissapointed in Honda recently. Honda used to be known for some awesome engines...but look at their recent portfolio:
 
k20z3 - Civic SI - Almost the same engine as launched in 2001 in the RSX-S.
 
K24 - New TSX - Ahem....almost the same engine as launched in late 2002 in the first TSX. Now it's gained a little torque and been put in a heavier TSX. Power output is almost identical. And it's unacceptably low power in a 30k application
 
2.3 liter turbo in RDX - This engine was outdone by the Mazda 2.3 DISI engine before the Honda version even debuted. It gets poor fuel economy and doesn't deliver comparable power to it's competitors. It hasn't been used in any other applications yet.
 
2.4 Liter in Accord EX - Probably the best Honda has to offer right now....refined beyond belief, 190 HP on regular gas. But not exciting overall.
 
3.5 liter in Accord Coupe 6-speed - 17/25 mileage? Power that essentially matches the competition? Where's the innovation?
 
3.5 liter in Accord automatic - A powertrain that suffered for the sake of VCM, has less mid-range power than the toyota competition and appears to get less real-world mileage...at the best, it matches Toyota's real-world mileage, but it has alot less mid-range.
 
Honda Fit 1.5 liter - Also a very nice engine, but not showing any true advancements.
 
Honda Civic Hybrid - Again, what's so special? The Prius came out before it and it matches the Prius while offering a lesser overall package (In my opinion).
 
Maybe I'm expecting to much...but where's the direct injection, advanced i-vtec, stop-start technology, alternator de-coupling, brake regeneration, diesels. Where's the new benchmarks in economy and power for the displacement? Why is it that Honda hit 120 HP per liter in an N/A engine ~7-8 years old (the first S2000 was a 2.0 liter with 240 HP displacement), and has not come close since?
 
Where's the beef?
 
Joe

joe:
 
there really isnt anything to disagree about here. They are telling us that the Accord gets 1mpg less than the EPA ratings in combined mileage and I don't see why some folks are angry at Honda for making a car that gets 21mpg with 268hp.
 
I dont know why you and others like to pretend that most of what I post is unreasonable. Because you rarely agree with me doesn't make my positions untenable.
 
someone asked for the diesel but there is no mention of cost. I don't why people cannot come to grips with two facts: 1. diesel is typically more expenisve than gas and 2. diesel powertrains are more expensive and the diesel Accord is likely to be thousands more than a comparable gas model. Honda may disguuse that by adding some other features like they did with the Accord hybrid but either way its not going to be the value leader.

"someone asked for the diesel but there is no mention of cost. I don't why people cannot come to grips with two facts: 1. diesel is typically more expenisve than gas"
 
I assume this would be because only recently (ie last 2-3 years) has diesel been more expensive then gas. It takes time to change a perception.

I think the Accord FE is about right for a 268hp V6 but it is just kind of funny that Honda has to utilize VCM in order to match Toyota's 2GR-FE.

the honda is being raked over the coals for one simple reason.
 
for years honda and its owners have pushed the brand as some fuel efficent god... Esspically when compared vs domestics.
 
the vial has been lifted, and honda is exposded as being phoney.
 
and while we should all know it matchs its epa numbers.
 
that does not change the fact the numbers are still low.

Keep in mind that the Accord is a fullsize, not a midsize. As such, it's supposed to be targeted against the Impala, Taurus, and Avalon. Honda doesn't really have a midsizer anymore. For that, the mileage numbers are impressive.

Opfreak -
 
If the VEIL (no vial)has been lifted, then how exactly was it there before since you are claiming Honda was never superior?
 
My main complaint is that Honda has consistently been a world-class engine producer and they appear to have abandoned that pursuit in the interests of mass-market appeal.
 
1487 - Your posts are 96% hyperbole, castigation, and conspiracy theory. So I joke around when I agree you with :)
 
Joe

estreka, the Accord is only barely a fullsize without the moonroof, it is still a midsize (a large one that is...) with one.
 
Also, market-wise the Accord still competes directly in the same segment as the Camry, Altima, Fusion and Malibu.

Instead of comparing the Accord of a long time ago to the one of today, why not the Accord of a long time ago (~12 yrs, 5th gen) to the Civic of today? The current Civic has More interior room, about the same power (140hp vs 145hp), and about the same exterior diminsions as my '94 Accord. I think performance may even be better. But instead of the crappy 23 city/29 highway mine's rated at, the new Civic is rated at 30 city/40 Highway!!! And as if that weren't enough, it's cheaper by about $5k. Sounds like quite an improvement to me. And yes, I agree that 21 mpg is pretty terrible; my mother gets about 20mpg around town in her Pilot, and she's not a very conservative driver. But then, we don't really have stop/go traffic where we live either.
 
1487- Do you honestly think the manufacturers care about anything other than boosting EPA #'s? But that said, put someone who actually cares about economy behind the wheel on a highway stint, and I guarantee you you'll get at least mid 30's on the highway.
 
*Sorry, forgot to hit the "view all" button before I commented, so I missed some posts*
 
I was thinking the same thing the other day, Joe- Honda hasn't done a whole lot recently (& has even dropped the ball- RDX), except put out ugly vehicles! I've also heard the new Civic engine is pretty lackluster, but it can't be any worse than the old one. And why is it that none of the Asian companies (you know, the "technologically advanced" ones), especially Honda, have direct injection yet?

I don't understand how people can "guarantee" certain fuel economy numbers. It is what it is. The EPA numbers are really just reference numbers; there is no explicit or implicit guarantee. There are so many variables that go into fuel consumption, especially in fleets where a single car has many drivers, that you can't guarantee anything because you can't control all of the variables.
 
It surprises me that people are so up in arms about this car getting somewhere between its EPA city and highway mileage numbers. That's exactly where it should be. There is no significance to the car's mileage being a whopping 0.9 mpg shy of the EPA's combined value. To those who see a significance, I direct you to my first paragraph, where we review that the EPA's numbers are estimates only, not a guarantee.

"for years honda and its owners have pushed the brand as some fuel efficent god... Esspically when compared vs domestics. "
 
Very true. The reality is that Honda's mileage has been better because it's engines have been smaller and they dont make V8s or many trucks. Aside from the civic most Honda vehicles dont acheive noticeably better mileage than their domestic counterparts. The Taurus is much bigger than the Accord and gets 18/28 with no VCM.
 
"1487 - Your posts are 96% hyperbole, castigation, and conspiracy theory. So I joke around when I agree you with :) "
 
That was 100% BS. how would you characterize your posts BTW?
 
"estreka, the Accord is only barely a fullsize without the moonroof, it is still a midsize (a large one that is...) with one.
  
Also, market-wise the Accord still competes directly in the same segment as the Camry, Altima, Fusion and Malibu."
 
Thank you, I was about to say the same thing. The "fullsize" excuse is lame. The Impala is fullsize and gets 18/28 with a 4 speed automatic.
 
"I think performance may even be better. But instead of the crappy 23 city/29 highway mine's rated at, the new Civic is rated at 30 city/40 Highway!!! And as if that weren't enough, it's cheaper by about $5k. Sounds like quite an improvement to me."
 
I dont think the new civic should be praised simply because the 1994 Accord got terrible mileage. With numbers like that I am wondering how Honda has gotten away with being considered a steward of efficiency. The Intrigue with a iron block low tech V6 and hundred of lbs of additional weight got 19/30 in 1998. BTW, the civic suffered one of the biggest drops in EPA ratings with the 2008 system. I believe it's 26/35 under current ratings.

"1487 - Your posts are 96% hyperbole, castigation, and conspiracy theory. So I joke around when I agree you with :) "
  
"That was 100% BS. how would you characterize your posts BTW?"
 
I would characterize mine as 79% sarcasm, 14% dry wit, and 7% unstoppable car nut drivel.
 
But of course I've had maybe 30 different people use the phrase "I agree with Joe" and you've had maybe 700 people tell you to stop taking (or maybe it was start taking) medication.
 
Of course, I just used the phrase "I agree with 1487" in this post. See? There's that dry wit :)
 
Joe

You may compare the Accord to whatever you like, but physics is physics. A large car like the Accord isn't proportional to the Camry et al anymore.
 
It's unfortunate and I'm not happy about it, but the relentless pursuit of one-upmanship has led us here.
 
I know it's barely a fullsize, but it's actually pretty close in dimension to the Avalon (3" shorter).
 
I'd like to see an Accord coupe 4-door.

I thought VCM was supposed to give Honda a significant advantage over its competition? Sure not looking that way so far. Marketing rhetoric meets reality. Ouch.
 
Jaeger

I hear this all the time, but who said VCM was supposed to 'provide a significant advantage over its competition'? I certainly never heard anyone from Honda saying this. I'd love to see a quote or printed materials from Honda to back this and similar statements up.
 
I always understood it that Honda was using VCM to achieve more power without sustaining a fuel economy hit. They were trying to match what Toyota was able to achieve -- big power and thriftyish economy -- without any cylinder-deactivation tricks.

VCM was probably cheaper to develop than an all-new transmission.
 
Honda put VCM on the new generation.
Toyota put an all-new transmission on the new generation.
 
Wait til the two companies put both technologies into one car. Well that's if the customers will pay for the premium of both techs.

Well Toyota didn't use an "all new" transmission, they used the FWD transmission from Aisin.
 
Either way a Honda/Acura. with a new transmission of any sort spells trouble.

"My main complaint is that Honda has consistently been a world-class engine producer and they appear to have abandoned that pursuit in the interests of mass-market appeal."
 
To an extent....yes! I still think Honda produces some interesting world class engines but it seems they arent as aggressive as they used to be when it comes to implementing useful, innovative, simplified technology.
 
I would have been really impressed with Hondas VCM technology if it offered a 2-4 MPG advantage over the competitions V6 engines with NO loss in performance. Thats really what I expected but Honda didnt deliver the goods.
 
On the contrary I get the feeling Honda has something up their sleeve.

Joe - Way to make my assumptions about what goes on in these board correct. We have GM, Chrysler, and Aura lovers looking for every possible place to criticize Foreign auto makers especially Japanese auto makers.
  
"I own a 06 Civic SI, and I'm dissapointed in Honda recently. Honda used to be known for some awesome engines...but look at their recent portfolio:"- This statement shows ignorance. Since when do car companies build a new engine every year? If the engine can be reused with enchancements for 10 years well let it be. The fuel economy is still there and so is the power.
  
"k20z3 - Civic SI - Almost the same engine as launched in 2001 in the RSX-S."
 
What is your point here? Nissan has used its VQ engines for many years. Honda is using its K series.
  
"K24 - New TSX - Ahem....almost the same engine as launched in late 2002 in the first TSX. Now it's gained a little torque and been put in a heavier TSX. Power output is almost identical. And it's unacceptably low power in a 30k application"----
 
If you weren't so close minded you'd know that a TSX type S its on its way with a v6/ or Turbo 4. The K24 in the new TSX has many enchancements and has better midrange torgue etc. enough to compensate for the added weight of the car and still do 0-60 mph in the low 7 secs.
  
"2.3 liter turbo in RDX - This engine was outdone by the Mazda 2.3 DISI engine before the Honda version even debuted. It gets poor fuel economy and doesn't deliver comparable power to it's competitors. It hasn't been used in any other applications yet."
 
How do you know it gets poor fuel economy? DO you own one? Have you even test driven one? I think the answer is no, you make assumptions on what "the web" tells you. Do you not know how many people lie?
  
"2.4 Liter in Accord EX - Probably the best Honda has to offer right now....refined beyond belief, 190 HP on regular gas. But not exciting overall. "
 
Not exciting? Again have you test driven it to make such assumptions? Hasn't the accord trumped the competition once again in comparison tests?
 
"Where's the new benchmarks in economy and power for the displacement? Why is it that Honda hit 120 HP per liter in an N/A engine ~7-8 years old (the first S2000 was a 2.0 liter with 240 HP displacement), and has not come close since? "
 
Haven't you heard of A-VTEC and its state of develompent? Honda is known for reliability and it isn't going to shove that up its a$$ anytime soon. That's why it is taking HOnda so long to bring out its 6-sp Auto and A-VTEC (which will allow for great power + fuel economy)
 
VCM and reusing engines is the current remedy, but wait till A-VTEC hits the road. Toyota's FE whatever is going to look lame. The J-Series is nearing retirement to or so I have heard.
 
"3.5 liter in Accord Coupe 6-speed - 17/25 mileage? Power that essentially matches the competition? Where's the innovation?"
The innovation is that it CREAMS the competition and can still get 25+ MPG when driven normally. Tell me which competitor can do 0-60 in 5.6 seconds FWD and get good fuel economy?
  
"3.5 liter in Accord VCM, has less mid-range power "
Again, have you test driven it or are you relying on rumors? The 8th Gen is faster than the 7th Gen, gets comparable fuel economy (+its larger) and you still don't see innovation. I think you need glasses. BEsides, like I just said VCM is a partial solution till A-VTEC comes out.
  
"Honda Fit 1.5 liter - Also a very nice engine, but not showing any true advancements."
What advancements is Toyota doing or Gm in 4-cylinders? Honda has the best 4-cylinders still of any manufacturer. You can easily obtain 35MPG in an i-4 accord.
  
"Honda Civic Hybrid - Again, what's so special? The Prius came out before it and it matches the Prius while offering a lesser overall package"
Thanks for showing how close minded and behind you are in news. DO YOU KNOW WHO MADE THE FIRST HYBRID in the USA? HONDA-- INSIGHT! WHO HAS THE FIRST HYDROGEN CAR ON THE ROAD? HONDA--FCX Clarity! So? what's your argument? HAVE YOU not heard a dedicated Hybrid is coming in 2009 which will compete with the prius and offer better mileage than the 2nd gen prius. Have you also heard of the sports Hybrid coming out? Apparently not.
  
Joe, stop trying to fake owning an Si, you've never even driven one. Give up already and just admit you have a Toyota Corolla in your driveway and a Saturn Aura.
 
BTW, the 140 HP Civic's engine is peppy and fun. You should try it. GEts great mileage to. That's why 30K people a month buy a new Civic and 30K people buy a new accord, no matter what these boards say.

"On the contrary I get the feeling Honda has something up their sleeve"
 
I really want to believe that, but I think all that brainpower has been dedicated to things like alternative fuels and the HondaJet. Honda isn't the same company they were in the 90s.

"2.3 liter turbo in RDX - This engine was outdone by the Mazda 2.3 DISI engine before the Honda version even debuted. It gets poor fuel economy and doesn't deliver comparable power to it's competitors. It hasn't been used in any other applications yet."
  
"How do you know it gets poor fuel economy? DO you own one? Have you even test driven one? I think the answer is no, you make assumptions on what "the web" tells you. Do you not know how many people lie?"
 
15 in the city, 20 on the highway, pretty damn bad.
The compression on that turbocharged engine sucks ass, and the DISI in the MS3 and MS6 make more power, and the turbo kicks in at the same time. It's just a better engine than the 2.3 in the Honda.
 
The CX-7 makes the same power with less turbo lag. and I drove them both.

"3.5 liter in Accord VCM, has less mid-range power "
Again, have you test driven it or are you relying on rumors? The 8th Gen is faster than the 7th Gen, gets comparable fuel economy (+its larger) and you still don't see innovation. I think you need glasses. BEsides, like I just said VCM is a partial solution till A-VTEC comes out.
   
 
Oh yeah and the V6 with VCM really does have less mid range, so much for you, you should check the facts.
 
The 2.0L in the Mazda3 is WAY better and returns nearly the same MPG with way more low down torque.
 
Who would fake owning an Si with the fail-six speed, seriously.
 
But for some reason, Driving Television only got low 20's MPG out of a 4cyl accord.
 
The only reason why people(americans) buy Honda's in the masses because they believe that they're reliable, and built well, the best value for their money, which is true to a certain extent.
 
Honda's sell on perception of the brand, as of late they're falling off like Toyota, I mean have you SEEN the new TSX, RDX, RL, CSX(Canada-VOMIT), Pilot????? ALL awful! The RDX is a sales failure along with the RL, and with the redesign it's going to stay that way.
 
Honda can squeeze the most juice out of an N/A 4cyl, only in HP numbers, their engines are bland and low on torque until they get high revving and start making real power, VERY unuseful in the real world.
 
AND, please! Honda doesn't make the best engines at all, the VQ from Nissan is a keeper, Honda needs to go back to the drawing board to make something that they can keep around, like nissan CAN do with their V6.

"the VQ from Nissan"
 
I could be mistaken, but I believe the VQ engine started life as a Renault V4Y. If I understand correctly, Nissan sourced the engine from the French.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWC8cten_7Q
Jeremy explains the origins at 2:55.

hdriver347, please relax. I don't think many people would fake owning a Honda Civic Si, especially if someone were lying, he or she would probably lie him- or herself into the ownership of a crazier/faster vehicle.
 
Joe has a 2006 Honda Civic Si and a 2008 Subaru Legacy 2.5 GT (well, technically it's his wife's). I've seen photos.

Currently the king of the V6s is Toyota's 2GR-series. It is more refine and smooth than the VQ and yet at least equal if not better in the FE department.

"Currently the king of the V6s is Toyota's 2GR-series. It is more refine and smooth than the VQ and yet at least equal if not better in the FE department."
 
Hmm...I drove one of the new Highlanders (a rental) for a week recently. Nice engine actually, it has decent pull off idle and seems to have good torque throughout. Economy seemed decent as well, although I didn't track it too closely.
 
BUT, it definitely was a bit grittier than either of the other two V6's I drive regularly...an 2001 Odyssey and a new CX-9. The latest Edmunds comparo of the Altima/Accord/Camry made the point that the Honda V6 was "far smoother" than either of the competing engines. Now I know what they meant (and they have been talking about the lack of refinement in the VQ35 vs the VQ30 for years...)

"I always understood it that Honda was using VCM to achieve more power without sustaining a fuel economy hit. They were trying to match what Toyota was able to achieve -- big power and thriftyish economy -- without any cylinder-deactivation tricks."
 
Honda ads make a big deal out of VCM and that is likely one reason why people seem to be surprised the mileage is merely average. According to your testing the Accord only matches the camry in mileage on paper. The Aura is rated at 17/26 which is considerably worse than the Accord and yet they are both returning about 21mpg in mixed driving. In spite of all the hype the Accord's mileage is 1mpg better than the Taurus and Impala. The Ford is heavier and the Chevy has a 4 speed automatic and is heavier.

For more evidence that VCM doesnt do much check out the mileage of the new Pilot. With only 250hp it gets 17/23 or 16/22 with a more advanced VCM system than the Accord has. When you factor in the curb weight which is about 400lbs less than the GM lambda crossovers those numbers are hardly impressive, especially when you consider the Pilot has lowest in class hp. For 2009 the GM crossovers get 290hp and will pick up 1 or 2mpg on the highway in spite of being much heavier than Pilot.

I always like reading the rants to people with cars (or car companies) in their names....it speaks volumes right off the bat.

yes, its hard to be considered credible when your name announces you are totally loyal to one brand or totally hate another. what ever happened to "anythingbutgm" or "Toyota4life"?

Toyota4Life is still around. He was ranting somewhere, recently....

"I would have been really impressed with Hondas VCM technology if it offered a 2-4 MPG advantage over the competitions V6 engines with NO loss in performance. Thats really what I expected but Honda didnt deliver the goods."
  
Exactly.
  
Jaeger

well without VCM the Accord's mileage would be worse as evidenced by the coupe. I think it averaged around 18 in a recent MT comparo test. Honda was supposedly known for gaining efficiency by getting more power out of engines smaller then their competitors but the Accord's V6 isnt an example of that. Everyone has a 3.5 or 3.6L V6 and they all get between 17 and 19 in the city and 26 and 29 on the highway.

"I would have been really impressed with Hondas VCM technology if it offered a 2-4 MPG advantage over the competitions V6 engines with NO loss in performance. Thats really what I expected but Honda didnt deliver the goods."
 
If Honda were able to do this, the flipside would be that the engineers at GM and Chrysler who achieved negligible improvements with their VCM, and the engineers at Toyota, Nissan, Ford, etc. who haven't used VCM in production at all are incompetent and missing the obvious.
 
The market is too competitive to leave a 'free' 2-4 mpg on the table for someone else to come along and use to take your sales.

"I hear this all the time, but who said VCM was supposed to 'provide a significant advantage over its competition'? I certainly never heard anyone from Honda saying this. I'd love to see a quote or printed materials from Honda to back this and similar statements up.
   
I always understood it that Honda was using VCM to achieve more power without sustaining a fuel economy hit. They were trying to match what Toyota was able to achieve -- big power and thriftyish economy -- without any cylinder-deactivation tricks."
  
See this link
http://world.honda.com/automobile/report/2005/
  
Honda makes the following statement:
"Variable Cylinder Management (VCM) system
With Honda’s VCM system, all six cylinders are engaged when power is needed (such as startup and acceleration), but three cylinders on one side become idle when the vehicle is cruising or slowing down. This results in improved fuel economy."

in MT the coupe averaged 17.3mpg without VCM. With VCM Honda's V6 is still less efficient than Toyota's V6 and without VCM the 3.5L is just as thirsty as GM's quite thirsty 3.6L DOHC V6.

The Camry's V6/6 spd auto powertrain is superior to Honda's VCM/5sp auto powertrain. Can we all agree with that? Regardless, the Accords mileage seems spot on with the EPA estimates so everyone should be happy. Neither one of my cars have ever averaged at or above their EPA combined ratings- even under the stricter standards.
  
Also, as 1487 stated, the new Pilot's powertrain illustrates the limits of Honda's approach quite vividly. The GM Direct Injection V6 will have 290hp and deliver superior EPA fuel economy all while pulling heavier vehicles.
  
Honda has yet to embrace direct injection which will leave them behind the competition. Direct Injection yields improved power, torque and fuel economy with zero compromises other than higher cost. This is especially so in turbocharged engines and the RDX application really proves this point. Direct Injection enables the compression ratio to approach naturally aspirated levels reducing lag and greatly improving throttle response. In the RDX, you're only getting 2.3L worth of naturally aspirated torque until the boost comes on. In a 4000lbs vehicle, that ain't good. Mazda, Audi and GM all avoid this issue by employing modern technology to a traditional design by abolishing it's worst trait.
 
Another good example would tbe the IS350 vs G35. Compare the EPA ratings of the vehicles as they are similar in weight, power and engine displacement. One has DI and one does not.

"3.5 liter in Accord VCM, has less mid-range power "
"Again, have you test driven it or are you relying on rumors? The 8th Gen is faster than the 7th Gen, gets comparable fuel economy (+its larger) and you still don't see innovation. I think you need glasses. BEsides, like I just said VCM is a partial solution till A-VTEC comes out."
 
Acutally Hdriver, Joe is correct! Its a DYNO PROVEN FACT that the Honda 3.5 VCM equipped Accord V6 5AT takes a hit in the midrange torque department. It loses actually about 30lbft in the midrange which is SIGNIFICANT.
 
The implementation of the VCM system eliminates parts of the high performance mechanicals of the VTEC system. Sure Honda was able to be competitive and match the Toyota V6 in PEAK power but the VCM V6 under the curve numbers cant match the Toyota V6.
 
The Accord V6 6MT V6 (no VCM) is altogether a different story as Id say its the best V6 in its class.
 
2008 Accord V6 6MT vs 2008 Accord V6 VCM 5AT dyno plot:

2008 Accord V6 6MT vs 2007 TL Type-S 6MT dyno plot.

2008 Accord V6 6MT dyno video:
 
http://revver.com/video/475758/tov-video-dynojet-test-of-2008-accord-v6-6mt/
 
2008 Accord V6 (VCM)5AT dyno video:
 
http://revver.com/video/431630/tov-video-first-dyno-test-of-2008-accord-ex-l-v6/

I'd take GM's 3.6L over the non-VCM 3.5L. The low end torque this engine produces is akin to a large displacement pushrod. I wouldn't call any version of Honda 3.5L best in class. Besides, you have to get a manual just to enjoy this engine at full potential unlike the GM, Toyota and Nissan V6s.

"I wouldn't call any version of Honda 3.5L best in class."
  
Well, Ward's did... the Honda 3.5L was named to their annual 10 Best Engines list for 2008.
  
http://wardsauto.com/reports/2008/tenbest/best_engines_focus/

GM's 3.6 makes peak torque at 3200rpm in the Aura/Malibu application which is extremely low for a DOHC engine. That means plenty of usable power in everyday situations and partially explains the why we have seen 0-60 times as low as 5.9secs for the Aura in spite of its mass. I dont know what grounds there would be for declaring the non VCM Honda V6 best in class. In terms of mileage, redline, torque output, technology, etc. its not best in class as far as I can tell.

"Well, Ward's did... the Honda 3.5L was named to their annual 10 Best Engines list for 2008."
 
But did you notice that Toyota's 2GR-FSE and Nissan's 3.7L VQ are also on that list? Between the three of those I wouldn't say the Honda 3.5L is the "best in class".

Oh please- what else is Ward's known for? They don't even test drive cars or give solid reasons for their choices. I'm sure it won simply because of the 3,4,6 cylinder deactivation scheme. Did they mention it doesn't run as efficiently as a Camry V6 which needs non of those gimmicks?
 
The Honda V6 still uses belt driven cams for crying out loud. This 2008- consumers shouldn't have to worry about changing timing belts in an Accord or $50k Acura RL. I always thought Honda was known for prodigious horsepower per liter but now that are adding displacement like it's out of style. While the competitors are pushing out 300+hp with DI or high revs, they're depending on sky high compression ratios and 3.7L to keep up with the Joneses.

"They don't even test drive cars or give solid reasons for their choices."
 
That's simply not true. If you read the article about how they came up with the 10 best list then you'll know that they do indeed drive the cars with the nominated engines.

"That's simply not true. If you read the article about how they came up with the 10 best list then you'll know that they do indeed drive the cars with the nominated engines."
 
I think he meant they dont test cars as part of their mission. They do drive vehicles for their 10BEST list but the criteria for selection is totally subjective and ambiguous. Its a nice accolade to use in your ads but unlike MTCOTY Wards doesnt really lay out a clear set of criteria for their award. "best engines" is even more subjective than "best in class car" since most modern engines that are in the same size class are very similar.

Exactly. We are supposed to accept them as experts yet they don't report any sound impressions or ratings throughout the year. Some quantitative figures would really lend them a little more credibility. I might as well test drive a bunch of cars and publish my ten best engines.

Thank you to those who backed me up to hdriver's ridiculous rants. I didn't really want to post links to pictures with my SI, my oil change analysis on my SI, my hundreds of threads about SIs....
 
Lol. How lame.
 
I think people have pretty muched addressed his criticisms, but I'll reiterate:
 
2.3 liter turbo engine in RDX - Terrible gas mileage, owners consistently report 15-17mpg. Worse than CX-7, which produces more power and has a better overall powerband.
 
Accord V6 3.5 liter w/ VCM - As HondaAcura4 said, dyno proven to have a substantial loss of mid-range power. Honda even admitted that VCM prevented them from some of their tuning potential, specifically in the mid-range. It's a less powerful overall engine due to VCM. Non VCM version gets pretty poor gas mileage.
 
Civic SI engine , 2.0 liter k20z3 - Like I said, I own one. Great engine. But it's ~7 years old now with very few modifications and it's not behind the times.
 
Accord 4-cylinder - I actually complimented this engine, and you tore me a new one for....complimenting it? Weirdo :)
 
I did test drive this engine (5-speed manual 08 Accord EX). Like I said, I believe it's the best 4-cylinder in it's class.
 
Honda has been supposedly ready to launch A-VTEC for quite some time. I've seen no indication of it's debut (though it could be in the new Acura TL). Nor have I seen any specs. It's vaporware until it's out.
 
Honda needs to step up their engine development to grap enthusiasts like myself again. I've been lost to the BMW twin turbos, the Mazda DISI engine, and other awesome engines.
 
Joe

" I might as well test drive a bunch of cars and publish my ten best engines."
 
Nobody is stoping you...
 
Open up a blog and have at it.

"Honda needs to step up their engine development to grap enthusiasts like myself again. I've been lost to the BMW twin turbos, the Mazda DISI engine, and other awesome engines."
 
Its not just those guys, I would say GM, MB and almost everyone short of Chrysler has caught up to Honda if not surpassed them when it comes to engines. The one engine that Honda has that stands out is the 2.4L which makes 177hp, 190hp or 201hp depending on application. That engine doesnt have a lot of competition in terms of output amongst NA engines.

"in MT the coupe averaged 17.3mpg without VCM. With VCM Honda's V6 is still less efficient than Toyota's V6 and without VCM the 3.5L is just as thirsty as GM's quite thirsty 3.6L DOHC V6"
  
1487, you have to consider the 6MT has very close gear ratios which arent great for maximum fuel efficiency. The Accord 5AT ratios are quite long in comparison. Given that this was a test Im sure they werent exactly driving like my grandmother. Id actually like to see a 6AT coupled to the non VCM Accord V6.
  
The more powerful Acura TL Type-S 6MT (286hp) supposedly gets better fuel economy than the Accord yet Accord V6 6MT weighs 120lbs less. I beleive the only differences in these 2 V6's is compression ratio and cams. The TL-S' unit just squeezes out better numbers as seen in the TL-S vs Accord V6 dyno plot above.
  
  
"The Honda V6 still uses belt driven cams for crying out loud. This 2008- consumers shouldn't have to worry about changing timing belts in an Accord or $50k Acura RL."
  
Given the J-series V6 engine architectures age (I think its almost 13 years of age?), it was developed at a time when ALL Honda engine employed belt driven cams. Honda chose belts because they were quieter in operation.
  
"Oh please- what else is Ward's known for? They don't even test drive cars or give solid reasons for their choices. I'm sure it won simply because of the 3,4,6 cylinder deactivation scheme. Did they mention it doesn't run as efficiently as a Camry V6 which needs non of those gimmicks?"
  
Chavis, the Honda V6 that Wards gave the award to was the from the 6MT V6 Accord coupe not the 5AT VCM V6 sedan. I believe the 304hp version of GM's DOHC is on the list as well.
  
"I always thought Honda was known for prodigious horsepower per liter but now that are adding displacement like it's out of style. While the competitors are pushing out 300+hp with DI or high revs, they're depending on sky high compression ratios and 3.7L to keep up with the Joneses."
  
Chavis, the J series V6's were NEVER tuned for maximum output only the DOHC VTEC (VVT and valve lift on BOTH intake and exhaust cams) were tuned for MAXIMUM output. The only high output V6 that Honda has produced would be the 3.0L C30A (270hp) and the 3.2L C32B (290hp) from the departed NSX. Those V6's (for their time)churned out high outputs given their displacement. Keep in mind this was done almost 20 years ago. Both implemented DOHCs and VVT and lift on both intake and exhaust valves and had variable intake manifolds. Honda has acheived similar or more output from their current V6's without resorting to DOHCs or super aggressive VTEC implementation as seen on the NSX units.
  
In case you didnt know there are different stages of VTEC from mild to wild and all VVT systems DONT employ valve lift, most just alter valve timing.
  
"GM's 3.6 makes peak torque at 3200rpm in the Aura/Malibu application which is extremely low for a DOHC engine. That means plenty of usable power in everyday situations and partially explains the why we have seen 0-60 times as low as 5.9secs for the Aura in spite of its mass."
  
Honda V6s make 85-90% of torque in the lower RPM range also as seen by the dyno plots above and the torque curve is pretty flat. It peaks later in the range compared to the Aura/Malibus V6 but its just as potent as far as torque production and given the cars trap speeds the Accord V6 5AT VCM seems to have a better top end as it matched the Camry V6 in Edmunds test.
  
The Honda V6s coupled with the 5AT dont seem as torquey as the competition as Hondas transmission logic and low stall speed of the torque converter make off the line accleration feel a bit lazy. On top of that the electronics reduce engine torque (in some applications) to help axe torque steer. The engines make great torque but the transmissions dont take full advantage of that. This is ANOTHER reason why the manual/V6 Honda combo feel MUCH MUCH MUCH stronger. GM has always used a much more aggressive stall speed and quicker TC lockup.
  
My take is if Honda used DOHCs + a-VTEC + DI with more agressively tuned tranny logic/converter and a 6AT..........Honda clearly has some work to do but for an OLD SOHC intake VTEC only V6 that uses belt driven cams it sure is potent.

I think Honda still makes the better N/A four cylinders on the market, but definitely not forced induction. GM has surpassed Honda in V6 development in my eyes (with their direct injection V6, which Honda doesn't have in either Honda or Acura...). But Mercedes? Maybe I'm forgetting about one of their new engines, but their 3.5 liter and their 3.0 liter is pretty behind the times.
 
Honda built their business on the smoothest 4-cylinders would great output getting great fuel economy. Perhaps they need to focus on that?
 
Joe

"I think Honda still makes the better N/A four cylinders on the market, but definitely not forced induction. GM has surpassed Honda in V6 development in my eyes (with their direct injection V6, which Honda doesn't have in either Honda or Acura...). But Mercedes? Maybe I'm forgetting about one of their new engines, but their 3.5 liter and their 3.0 liter is pretty behind the times."
 
Joe, I agree that GM has surpassed Honda in some areas of V6 development and most certainly in turbocharged 4cyl applications. You also have to realize Honda has never been one to throw in ALL their technology in their "regular" V6's such as the J series V6 as they seem only to ramp it up if maxium power is the initial goal.
 
Hondas philosophy is more of "how can we match the level of power and efficiency WITHOUT having to load the engine up with all this extra technology and weight?" Given that the competition has "caught up" and in some cases passed its time for Honda to take it further.
 
Yes, Honda still holds the crown for N/A 4 bangers. =) A friend of mine has a 2005 n/a Acura RSX-S that made 248whp on a dyno and 162lb ft of torque out of a 2.0L! The mods are the full Hondata K-pro (stand alone engine management), race header, race cat, and full exhaust. Reliability hasnt and will not be an issue as the engine itself retains all its OEM parts. These eninges are pretty good in stock trim and become amazing with little modification.
 
Mercedes has a 305hp 3.5 unit that it will be implemented into all their 3.5 V6 powered vehicles in time. I think the 2008 or 2009 SLK already has this engine. The E and C350s will get it soon.
 
As for the best V6 currently on the market in regular and premium applications....Id have to give that honor to the Lexus 3.5 DI V6 as even with the mandated automatic that thing is a beast. On top of being underated, its smooth, refined, and efficient.
 
If you want to go further than that and include all n/a 6 cylinders I would consider the Porsche 3.6L in the GT3 as it makes 415hp and 300lbft of torque WITHOUT DI and it still pretty efficient considering its HEFTY output and super close gear ratios as it gets EPA ratings of 15 city and 23hwy.

hondaacura- I was well aware of that information. The other retarded fact was that the NSX V6 was 90 degrees just like the engine from the old Legend. My point was that the Honda V6 is old and outdated and is now showing it's obvious flaws. Somehow, the new 3.7L version in the RL finally has incorporated VVT on the exhaust valves even though I've read literature that stated this was impossible to achieve with a single camshaft. My guess is that the valve events are changed in step with the intake side- much like GM's VVT system on their pushrod engines.
  
The VTEC nomenclature makes no sense as it could mean totally different things in different applications- ie i-VTEC in DOHC four cylinders is completely different than i-VTEC in SOHC V6s with cylinder deactivation.
  
Ward's giving an award to the Accord's lowest volume engine just further illustrates their uselessness.
 
Louis- if you're paying, sign me up.

I would agree the 2GR-FSE (Lexus IS/GS350) is the best V6 available. The biggest dud would be the VQ37VHR (G37 Coupe). It's no faster than the old car despite the supposed 330hp. Honda and Nissan both need to go back to the drawing board with clean sheet V6 designs that'll enable the latest technologies to stay competitive

Peak output Acura 3.7 SOHC VTEC vs Cadillac 3.6 DOHC VVT DI.
 
Cadillac 3.6 DOHC VVT DI:
304 hp @ 6400 RPM / 273 lbft at a VERY Acura like 5200 RPM. See that Chavis =).
 
Acura MDX 3.7 SOHC intake VTEC no DI:
300 hp @ 6000 RPM /275 lbft @ 5000.
 
While these only represent peak numbers the Acura V6 does quite well given that it only has 1 small advantage, 1/10th of displacement. The Cadillac has DOHCs, VVT on BOTH intake/exhaust valves and DI. Id like to see dyno numbers for both machines as power under the curve is more important than peak numbers.
 
I would have compared the revamped 2009 Acura RLs SOHC 3.7 V6 as it has VTEC (VVT-L) on BOTH intake and exhaust valves and other enhancements but I dont have any confirmed power ratings.

"The VTEC nomenclature makes no sense as it could mean totally different things in different applications- ie i-VTEC in DOHC four cylinders is completely different than i-VTEC in SOHC V6s with cylinder deactivation."
 
Very true as i-VTEC and VTEC mean different things depending on application. I think Honda uses "i-VTEC" as "intelligent VTEC" as they have really used VVT in more than one area of performance. Very confusing!
 
"I would agree the 2GR-FSE (Lexus IS/GS350) is the best V6 available. The biggest dud would be the VQ37VHR (G37 Coupe). It's no faster than the old car despite the supposed 330hp. Honda and Nissan both need to go back to the drawing board with clean sheet V6 designs that'll enable the latest technologies to stay competitive."
 
If you check out the weight of the Infiniti G37 and the super wide gear ratios compared to the G35C it would appear that Infiniti needs to do a little work. Not a slow car but it should be faster than the G35C it replaced and the new G35 sedan as both are faster. The 335i blows it away in terms of acceleration.
 
On the contrary Infinitis VVE-L system (similar in operation to Hondas upcoming a-VTEC and BMWs Valvetronic) is quite nice as it keeps the torque from slacking in the upper regions of the tach while having a nice curve overall. The bad part is that one might get outran by a Accord V6 6MT with only 268hp as their trap speeds (101-102 mph range!) are nearly identicle. The G37 would porbably slowly pull away at higher speeds.
 
"Ward's giving an award to the Accord's lowest volume engine just further illustrates their uselessness."
 
As I said before, the GM 3.6 DI engine was on the list as well and it is produced in lower numbers compared to the non DI GM 3.6! I wouldnt say Wards is totally useless but I wouldnt consider them super important either.

Is the Acura 3.7L SAE certified? If its not I dont buy the hp rating. The RL has never been a fast car in spite of supposedly being rated at 300hp (initially) and then 290hp. The MDX isnt all that fast either considering its output. All recent GM engines are SAE certified. I am wondering if the Accord V6 really makes 268hp because the Accord certainly isnt any faster than its GM counterparts in spite of weighing less and having more hp. I'm pretty sure the 3.5L isnt SAE rated, at least it wasnt according to the MT midsize sedan comparo.
 
The other flaw of Nissans Vq is gas consuption. Its one of the least efficient V6s on the market, at least in the G35 and G37. The G37 gets 24mpg on the highway which is sad for a V6. The G8 gets the same in spite of weighing 400lbs more and having 385 lb-ft of torque on tap.

"Is the Acura 3.7L SAE certified? If its not I dont buy the hp rating. The RL has never been a fast car in spite of supposedly being rated at 300hp (initially) and then 290hp."
 
Same could be said for either 3.6 CTS as both arent "fast".
 
The current RL weighs 4076 lbs. The combination of weight, long gear ratio 5AT and AWD would certainy put a restraint on acceleration.
 
Under the new SAE testing procedures it made 290 hp, under the old it made 300 hp. The "new" RL 3.7 engine makes 300 hp (SAE) and SHOULD make around the same peak torque as the MDX just with a better curve since it has VTEC on both intake and exhasut valves.
 
"The MDX isnt all that fast either considering its output."
 
The MDX weighs 4600 lbs and is hampered by the same "mild acceleration characteristics" the RL has. OTOH......
 
Quote from Edmunds:
 
"Outgunning all other six-cylinder-powered rivals including the BMW X5, Lexus RX 350 and Porsche Cayenne, the MDX's big 3.7-liter V6 punches out 300 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 275 lb-ft of torque at 5,000 rpm. From a dig, acceleration is a shade soft until the tach needle builds momentum."
 
Quote from Car and Driver:
 
"Forget the ponderous moves you associate with tall vehicles. The MDX is quick on its Michelins (18-inch wheels are standard), accelerating to 60 mph in 7.3 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 15.7 seconds at 90 mph. Braking from 70 mph takes 177 feet, a performance in the top half of its class. Grip, as measured on the skidpad, is 0.84 g, exceptional for a tall car on four-season tires."
 
Doesnt sound slow for a 4600lb V6 luxury SUV/crossover.

"Louis- if you're paying, sign me up."
 
Paying for what? You can open up a blog for free here on Carspace. As matter of fact, for example, here's mine:
 
http://www.carspace.com/blogs/advancepursuit/
 
As for cars, just go to your local dealerships.

louiswei- It was a joke. I already created a blog on the CTS-V a while back but no one seemed to care. As far as test driving cars goes, I don't want to toy with car salespersons if I have no intentions to buy.
 
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/HPT%20Library/HFV6/2008_36L_VVT_DI_LLT_CTS.pdf
 
hondaacura- The 3.6DI's torque curve is fatter and flatter than the port injected version despite it's peak figure being 2000 rpm higher. It kicks out 90% from about 2000rpm all the way to the redline. It's also tuned to run on 87 octane despite it's 11:3:1 compression ratio thanks to direct injection. With J37's 11.2:1 compression under port injection, this engine would like perform adversely without premium fuel and is more susceptible to knocking. With knock sensor intervention, the engine wouldn't run as smoothly or powerfully on a bad tank of gas although that's an extreme example. Interesting enough, the J37 in the MDX has lower compression (11.0:1) and a lower redline (6500 vs 6800) than the version in the RL.
 
Also, as of the 2009 model year, it will outnumber the port injected version as it will be standard in all four Lambda CUVs (Acadia, Enclave, Outlook and Traverse). Most Malibus, Auras, Lacrosses, Equinoxes are sold with their standard power plants with the 3.6 being a more expensive higher trim option.
 
Infiniti needs to understand that high horsepower numbers don't really mean much if your car can't produce- especially against BMW. Despite variable valve lift and larger than normal displacement, it doesn't produce as much torque as the smaller Cadillac and Lexus V6s. BMWs have always been much faster than their horsepower numbers would suggest and now do to alternator decoupling and DI/turbocharging, the gap will grow against the competition. I do know GM has the ability to turbocharge the DI V6 and we'll see Ford's version soon as well so Acura/Honda and Nissan/Infiniti better get on the ball. At least we know Infiniti finally has a 7 spd automatic on the horizon as shown in the new FX50.