Menu
What's new
By:
Advanced search...

"v" type

mikem

mikem

Members
Messages
248
Reaction score
5
Location
Lancashire
Car
accord
Came across a 2 litre V type accord - http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201401030782011/sort/default/usedcars/onesearchad/used%2Cnearlynew%2Cnew/price-from/1500/transmission/automatic/price-to/3000/page/1/make/honda/postcode/pr73hx/radius/1500/keywords/s%20type?logcode=p
What is that about? did not know there was a 2 litre one?
 
Yep, they were exclusively a 2.3 when launched...All for about 6 months until consumers started complaining about the poor fuel consumption so Honda introduced the 2.0 into the lineup, even though there is no difference in economy.

I have a 2.0 Type-V as my daily driver and it's brilliant. Never thought it needed the 2.3 to be honest as the difference in performance is non-existent.
 
The power output between the 2.0 and 2.3 is minimal, like 5 bhp? Not surprised that its not any quicker or powerful, although I ***ume its more Torque-ier
 
BlueVTEC said:
Yep, they were exclusively a 2.3 when launched...All for about 6 months until consumers started complaining about the poor fuel consumption so Honda introduced the 2.0 into the lineup, even though there is no difference in economy.

I have a 2.0 Type-V as my daily driver and it's brilliant. Never thought it needed the 2.3 to be honest as the difference in performance is non-existent.
Click to expand...

OK so how is that different to an s type, 6th gen, were they not 2 litre also?
 
From what I've noticed, the earlier 'Type-V' models (pre facelift - think W and X reg) were 2.0's and the later ones - Y reg - 52 reg were 2.3's.
 
mikem said:
OK so how is that different to an s type, 6th gen, were they not 2 litre also?
Click to expand...

S-type? Doesn't exist on the 6G. S-types are 7Gs. If you mean a Sport, they were very popular in 1.8 guises (especially the facelift) but 2.0's were sold albeit in very low numbers.

@Stephen - No they were 2.3's from the get go, as that was a major selling point of the "prestige" trim level. I've driven lots of 2.3's however and they are easily the worst engine choice for the 6G (Apart from the european 1.6 and Diesels!) as they rev lower than the 1.8/2.0, have no significant increase in power or torque and are much less eager to respond. Dire engine!
 
exec said:
The power output between the 2.0 and 2.3 is minimal, like 5 bhp? Not surprised that its not any quicker or powerful, although I ***ume its more Torque-ier
Click to expand...

Yep, must agree the 2.3 has to have better torque and a better spread of torque over the rev range too. 300cc ain't to sniffed at and I can't imagine Honda off all people producing a 2.3 if there was no point.
 
John M. said:
Yep, must agree the 2.3 has to have better torque and a better spread of torque over the rev range too. 300cc ain't to sniffed at and I can't imagine Honda off all people producing a 2.3 if there was no point.
Click to expand...
I was looking at a V-Type in a local brakers literally earlier in the afternoon. Got to say it's damn classy, a stark comparison to my car's spec. I can only ***ume it's an executive car and like others have said, the "V" I saw was indeed a 2.3 Y reg. Making it 2001?
 
Here's one, might be worth a punt on especially if you want a few bells & whistles. I'd certainly have a look at it if I was in the market.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Honda-Accord-Type-V-Low-mileage-/271366568476?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item3f2eb53a1c
 
John M. said:
Yep, must agree the 2.3 has to have better torque and a better spread of torque over the rev range too. 300cc ain't to sniffed at and I can't imagine Honda off all people producing a 2.3 if there was no point.
Click to expand...

Like I said, after driving both I couldn't feel anything thing in it compared to a 2.0 though. The lower rev limit on the 2.3 sucks for people like me who like a bit of fast progress everynow and then, although my other 6G has a H22 so that fulfills my boyracer mood nicely. :D
 
According to Parkers 2.0 has 184nm of torque and 2.3 has 206nm. Fair amount of more, I guess it's supposed to be a more lazier and quieter engine.
 
exec said:
According to Parkers 2.0 has 184nm of torque and 2.3 has 206nm. Fair amount of more, I guess it's supposed to be a more lazier and quieter engine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 2.3 would have to have more torque alright. I suspect the extra 300cc came from a longer stoke rather than a larger bore? If so, it's probably not as sweet as the 1.8 or 2.0lt but might be ideal for with an auto box and pulling the odd caravan (save us all) etc.
 
I had the F22Z2 which was a 2.2 in the 5th gen Accord and that was a smooth engine.
 
The other advantage of having an early one is the road tax advantage. Before March 2001, it is £126/ 6 months. After March 2001 its £156/ 6 months.

I am on the look out for a 2 litre W/X Type V with sat nav. Anyone know one for sale?
 
I've owned both 2.0l and 2.3l simultaneously a 1999 and 2002 the 2001-2002 type-v was the 2.3l 1999-2000 type-v was the 2.0l i have the original brochures to that effect and the 2.3l was definitely the better of the two for handling and mpg, although the 1999 V reg had a better paint finish and interior build quality i.e the seats didn't wear out as quick and door card/switches fitted better. :mellow: cost cutting exercise, using different manufacturers upon closer inspection :huh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top