Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Acura RL

1133134136138139352

Comments

  • saugataksaugatak Posts: 488
    I'd have to disagree with you there. Torque in the high rpms produces more horse power (ability to do work over time) than torque in the lower rpms. For example, 5 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpms is worth only 1.9 hp. While 5 lb-ft @ 5,000 rpms is good for 4.7 hp. The higher you go in the RPM band, the more power is generated with the same amount of torque.

    You're right, but riddle me this? How often is a Honda automatic tranny going to let you hit 5,000 rpms?
  • ranaldranald Posts: 147
    You're right, but riddle me this? How often is a Honda automatic tranny going to let you hit 5,000 rpms?

    From personal experience- anytime you want.

    Anyone with any reasonable experience driving an auto should be adept at using the amount of throttle to give the transmission cues as to what to do, shiftwise.

    P.S. The fact that you have to play charades with your own transmission is highly annoying (and is why my next car will be a manual) but you definitely can do it.
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    I have to agree with ranald on that one. In my own LS or XKR, it's called pushing the pedal all the way down if you want the engine to redline. The Jag offers an auto\manual, but the J-gate is so clunky and worthless, I think the car actually performs better in regular drive. I won't go back to a stick though, I like being able to pull up to a red light on a hill without having to worry if there is a car on my car's rear bumper that I'm going to slam into. Plus they just arent fun in the kind of regular stop and go driving I do. Autosticks or better yet, an SMG is much easier to live with.
  • legendmanlegendman Posts: 362
    May we assume that the P255/35R20 size tires shown on the RL prototype are just for show? I have to assume as much because these are "summer only" performance tires. There are no other weather rated tires offered in this size on TireRack.

    These tires start at about $280 and go to $355 each! (see tirerack.com)

    Ouch!
  • saugataksaugatak Posts: 488
    Sounds like you guys are willing to abuse a Honda tranny in ways that I wouldn't.
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    20 inch tires on a production Acura wont happen. Tires that big are noisy, bad handlers, and they actually hurt acceleration. I would expect 17 or 18" wheels in the real world.
  • starkystarky Posts: 7
    17 inch all season tires will be standard equipment with a possible (dealer installed)18 inch option available.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Then, I have been abusing the transmission in my 98 Accord for about 101K miles now.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    How do you arrive at a ceiling of “5000 rpm”, beyond which the output from engine becomes useless? Clearly, you’re not considering impact of gearing, or don’t understand how it does. For reference, S2000 barely gets past 20 mph at 5000 rpm in first gear. It is not quite the same for every car. Some cars will exceed 30 mph! Actually, as tall gearing as is in my Accord, it gets up to close to 35 mph.

    But there is more to it than just first gear. If you’re cruising at 60 mph in fifth, at 2300 rpm or so, and depress throttle to accelerate, the transmission will switch to the second or third gear, and the revs will jump up to 4500 rpm or so, as you start to accelerate to overtake a slow moving vehicle. Another instance where you want more horsepower and you don’t get it by keeping the engine at low rpm.

    Let me make an analogy here. A big displacement engine is like a weightlifter…A small displacement engine is like a sprinter….

    A very poor analogy and suggests nothing. You need a minimum amount of energy to get a work done. Just because an engine displaces more doesn’t mean it will need less energy to do the job, or would it?

    There are a multitude of efficiencies related to an engine, and one of them is the volumetric efficiency. If an engine displaces 3.0-liter, it doesn’t mean it always displaces 3.0-liters. Mechanical inefficiencies will tend to vary how much air gets in (and out). For sake of simplicity, let us assume that volumetric efficiency is 100%, so an engine always breathes in to fill the cylinders.

    Then comes the aspect of air to fuel ratio. If at an instance the engine runs at AFR of 15.00:1, would the fuel required to combust 2.0-liter air be more than the fuel required to combust in, say, a 2.5-liter engine? If the efficiencies of both engines are identical, you would expect the 2.5 to burn 25% more fuel, but also develop 25% more power.

    Now, to get back to the topic (“RL”), but continuing with “engine discussion”, here is an interesting comparison based on rumored numbers for RL, and based on supposedly official numbers for STS

    Acura RL
    3.5-liter V6: 300 HP @ 6200 rpm, 260 lb.-ft @ 5000 rpm; Red line: 6800 rpm

    Cadillac STS
    3.6-liter V6: 255 HP @ 6500 rpm, 252 lb.-ft @ 3200 rpm; Red line: 6700 rpm

    The Acura V6 gets an additional 45 HP at lower engine speed, clearly indicating that the engine is making more torque in the mid range thru the top end. At the low-end, they seem to be on par. And given that, the Cadillac V6 appears to be peaky, compared to the Acura V6, while both use their own versions of variable valve timing.
  • saugataksaugatak Posts: 488
    Then, I have been abusing the transmission in my 98 Accord for about 101K miles now.

    No you haven't b/c you said you hardly ever drive over 3,000 rpm. Stop changing your story.

    Re my Weightlifter vs. Sprinter analogy, it's being used to describe my gut feeling that the 3.5L SOHC v6 in my MDX is underpowered for this size and weight vehicle. I'm not trying to prove anything. IMO a bigger displacement engine with DoD would give more power and better gas mileage, city or highway.

    I don't understand your comparo of the Acura RL's 3.5L v6 vs. GM's new DOHC 3.6L v6. Nobody even knows the specs of the RL's 3.5 v6. We're all just guessing at this point. Production numbers may be significantly different.

    Besides, you're comparing a 3.5L v6 that Honda has specially designed for the RL to a modular engine that GM has designed to be used in FWD, RWD, and AWD cars along with having different displacements (from 2.8 to 3.8L). Also, GM has built in failsafe and low maintenance technologies into its v6 (same stuff as in the Northstar), which probably have a negative impact on performance.

    Furthermore, while Honda is focusing on peak HP, GM has focused on maximizing low end torque as max torque is available at 3,200 rpm and
    according to this article "90 per cent of the 3.6-litre engine's torque is available from as low as 1600rpm, all the way to 5800rpm."

    http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news_reports/gmengine.htm

    Now THAT is an impressive torque curve.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    No you haven't b/c you said you hardly ever drive over 3,000 rpm. Stop changing your story.

    When did I say I never drive over 3000 rpm? I said, most of my driving involves sub-3000 rpm driving, and that is a fact! But, I do cross 5000 rpm (several times a day, if driving on freeway), but as a percentage of total driving time, that is minimal. This shouldn’t be too hard to digest.

    Re my Weightlifter vs. Sprinter analogy, it's being used to describe my gut feeling…

    Like I said, bad analogy. In fact, it doesn’t apply at all!

    I don't understand your comparo of the Acura RL's 3.5L v6 vs. GM's new DOHC 3.6L v6. Nobody even knows the specs of the RL's 3.5 v6.

    I never said it was official. Read my last post again.

    Besides, you're comparing a 3.5L v6 that Honda has specially designed for the RL
    I didn’t know that. Where did you learn about it? As of now, I think RL will use the J35A. Regardless, comparing output of two engines, with nearly identical displacement and in competing cars makes perfect sense to me, regardless of them being “modular design or not”.

    Furthermore, while Honda is focusing on peak HP, GM has focused on maximizing low end torque as max torque is available at 3,200 rpm and according to this article "90 per cent of the 3.6-litre engine's torque is available from as low as 1600rpm, all the way to 5800rpm."

    I knew you’d mention this. If the Cadillac 3.6/V6 does produce 226 lb.-ft at 1600 rpm (90% of 252 lb.-ft), it is indeed a good output. But, how do you know it is producing more torque than the Acura (RL) 3.5/V6 at 1600 rpm?

    Now, we don’t know anything about RL engine, but we do know about MDX engine (and can safely assume the RL engine will be a derivative of the same). And MDX engine seems to produce 310-315 Nm (about 230 lb.-ft) at 1500 rpm (refer the dyno from several posts ago). And that doesn’t impress you?

    Even if we assume Acura 3.5/V6 produces same torque at low end (under 3500 rpm) as the Cadillac 3.6/V6, it is producing more torque beyond that as well! So much for emphasis at the low end, when it is possible to emphasize it across the rev range.
  • saugataksaugatak Posts: 488
    Feel free to make all the comparos you want to a production engine vs. an engine that doesn't even exist yet.

    As for my analogy, it's not meant to be a primer in engine management. It's meant to show my GUT feeling that the 3.5L SOHC v6 in the MDX is underpowered in terms of low end torque for a car the size of the MDX. I think it'll be fine for the RL, though, due to lower weight.

    Let's stick to the RL. This ain't a "Non-Existent Honda Engine vs. GM's DOHC 3.6L v6" thread.
  • legendmanlegendman Posts: 362
    >17 inch all season tires will be standard equipment with a possible (dealer installed)18 inch option available.<

    Are you able to devine an actual tire size? I'd like to look them up.
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    I have never found the MDX to feel underpowered. Its fast enough to beat the RX300 and ML, keep up with the XC90 T6 and X5 (6), and slaughter a Taureg V6, which definitely IS underpowered.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,049
    It would be, in my opinion, a mistake of some minor proportions, but a mistake nevertheless to bring this car from the show car 20" wheels down to 17" wheels. A set of, relatively speaking, sensible shoes with a wheel size of 18" would make the right image, stance and statement for this car.

    Also, going to 45 series tires would allow enough comfort and sportiness to make both camps happy especially if the customer could choose between UHP all season tires and UHP/Max performance summer only tires.

    17" wheels at "this class" are OK but 18" wheels are certainly becoming the expectation...even the Chrylser 300C has 18" wheels (although the tire size on that baby are, um, odd. . . .)

    Just a thought. . . .
  • saugataksaugatak Posts: 488
    How about I revise my statement this way:

    Flattening the torque curve at above 5,000 rpms is a LOT less useful than flattening the torque curve below 5,000 rpms, especially if one has an auto tranny.

    Re underpowered, it's a matter of opinion. I think the MDX is fine after you get into 2,000 rpms in 2nd gear, but below that point, the engine really strains to move such a heavy car.

    I'd like to have more low end torque. For example, the 275 ft-lb in the 4.2L I6 Trailblazer engine would do it for me.
  • bmwcccbmwccc Posts: 234
    Lexus Guy

    I think the new 3 series in Julu 05' should be nice, sounds like it will be similar to the old 5 series and 3 series combined.

    Here is a link to the available engine options for the 3 series.

    http://www2.autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=3043&ca- tegoryId=10

    later
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    A turbo on a BMW? Now thats interesting. Why go to the trouble of developing that V-10 if they're just going to turbo an 8? I dont get that.
  • saugataksaugatak Posts: 488
    The article says the turboengines won't be used for the 3 series.

    Maybe for the 4 series? Maybe for the M3 or M4?

    I find it odd that BMW is going for turbo as well, since they're pretty hard-core about naturally aspirated engines. Their marketing literature is filled with putdowns of turbo, claiming that turbolag ruins the "instant response of a true BMW" or other marketing gobbledygook.
  • l943973l943973 Posts: 197
    I was looking at the 05 RL video on their website. The new RL seems to have a 7000 RPM redline.
Sign In or Register to comment.