Pontiac G6
03-01-2006, 01:08 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Mar 1 2006, 01:26 PM
I think you're just proving my point. Under normal circumstances for 95% of the population, the Accord I4 is going to do better than the G6 V6 for fuel mileage. The only time it might not be so apparent is in very high speed driving, where the V6 will probably work a lot less. That kind of driving is both rare and generally illegal.
You're giving a bunch of reasons, which are fine, but they still add up to the same ending - the Accord gets better mileage in every "real world" case except Consumer Reports' little story/test.
And yes, the Accord makes 160 hp (rated), though it's actually closer to 170 hp under the old system.
Would you disagree that, for most people, the Accord will get better mileage? Or are you just trying to point out the rare times when the two potentially are somewhat close in mileage?
You're giving a bunch of reasons, which are fine, but they still add up to the same ending - the Accord gets better mileage in every "real world" case except Consumer Reports' little story/test.
And yes, the Accord makes 160 hp (rated), though it's actually closer to 170 hp under the old system.
Would you disagree that, for most people, the Accord will get better mileage? Or are you just trying to point out the rare times when the two potentially are somewhat close in mileage?
Perhaps you are correct in assuming the web sampling of G6 drivers and Accord drivers is sufficient to assume that the Accord would deliver better real world mileage but the data is not conclusive.
Another way to look at it is the G6 can deliver the same mileage should you chose to drive it that way. At the same time it can deliver more power should you choose to use it.
160 sounds right. The 170 under the old system was 170 when Honda was being an optimist. GM was pessimistic when they rated the 3500. Under the new rules it gained 1 pony.
03-01-2006, 01:45 PM
#32
Actually, dyno tests have shown the motor was UNDERrated from the factory. They never claimed 170 hp - that's what everyone else figured it really was based on dyno results. Honda has never claimed it to be 170 hp.
03-01-2006, 03:38 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Mar 1 2006, 02:45 PM
Actually, dyno tests have shown the motor was UNDERrated from the factory. They never claimed 170 hp - that's what everyone else figured it really was based on dyno results. Honda has never claimed it to be 170 hp.
03-02-2006, 05:29 AM
#34
Honda has underrated motors minorly a number of times. That way, during the mid-model changes, they can claim a small bump in horsepower without actually doing anything. 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post