Howdy, Stranger!

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





Acura RL

18889919394235

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: 5,111
    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.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    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

    What is your opinion on an engine that gives you strong torque curve at low rpm, mid range and top end? Is it bad idea to get more torque at high rpm even if it doesn't affect the low end, and even if it is "less useful" (as you put it) than "some engine speed" that is supposedly more useful?

    The dyno of Acura 3.5/V6 (which, BTW, is an existing engine) clearly shows engine delivering about 310 Nm at 1500 rpm (310 Nm = 230 lb.-ft), and it continues to develop at least as much until about 6000 rpm. Why would it be better to see a drop in torque curve after 5000 rpm in this case? Explain.

    If it takes a 4.2- liter engine to move you, then there is no point taking this further. But you must realize that a 3.5-liter displacement can do only so much in terms of torque. A 4.2-liter engine displaces 20% more, so if Acura were to develop a 4.2 engine, I would expect it to produce at least 300 lb.-ft (not 275 lb.-ft) at peak.
  • abqhudsonabqhudson Posts: 14
    I was leafing through a 2005 Preview magazine at the store today and read that the 2005 RL would weigh 3893. Sounds heavy to me - hope that this report is in error.

    Jim
  • saugataksaugatak Posts: 488
    What is your opinion on an engine that gives you strong torque curve at low rpm, mid range and top end? Is it bad idea to get more torque at high rpm even if it doesn't affect the low end, and even if it is "less useful" (as you put it) than "some engine speed" that is supposedly more useful?

    As long as it doesn't affect low to mid range, it's OK. I'm not criticizing Honda's work with the TSX. I'm just saying that a significant number of drivers (especially those with auto trannies) are never (or very rarely) going to appreciate the work that Honda put into flattening the torque curve at higher rpms.

    The dyno of Acura 3.5/V6 (which, BTW, is an existing engine) clearly shows engine delivering about 310 Nm at 1500 rpm (310 Nm = 230 lb.-ft), and it continues to develop at least as much until about 6000 rpm. Why would it be better to see a drop in torque curve after 5000 rpm in this case? Explain.

    I never said maintaining a flat torque curve beyond 5,000 rpms was bad. I said that most drivers of automatics will never get above 5,000 rpms, so how useful is flattening the torque curve beyond 5,000 rpms going to be?

    I drive my MDX pretty hard and I never get it above 4,500 rpms. I suppose if I really stomped the pedal I could get it to 5,000 rpms before the shift, but why? Is it safe to drive a 4,500 pound SUV like that?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    If it weighs 3893 lb., it would be 5 lb. lighter than the current RL! The current base model Audi A6/Quattro (220 HP) weighs in at 3880 lb (the V8 adds another 140 lb. or so).

    Rumors have suggested a curb weight of 1700 kg (3750 lb.), but we must also consider all the frills that add weight. For instance, just adding NAV seems to add 20-25 lb. to the curb weight.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I never said maintaining a flat torque curve beyond 5,000 rpms was bad. I said that most drivers of automatics will never get above 5,000 rpms, so how useful is flattening the torque curve beyond 5,000 rpms going to be?

    To them who do (like me). Hey, you can&#146;t blame GM for equipping Corvette with 350+ HP engines, if a person isn&#146;t using the potential. Could you? :-)

    This goes on to say that most large V8 engines are useless (more so than flattening of torque curves at any engine speed). But, I&#146;m aware that you will never agree to it.

    I drive my MDX pretty hard and I never get it above 4,500 rpms. I suppose if I really stomped the pedal I could get it to 5,000 rpms before the shift, but why? Is it safe to drive a 4,500 pound SUV like that?

    What has 5000 rpm got to do with safety? Are you suggesting that the MDX tends to be a bit too powerful past 5000 rpm? Believe it or not, modern engines are being increasingly designed to deliver peak power around 6000 rpm or higher. Even the Trailblazer 4.2/I-6 gets its 270 HP at 6000 rpm. How is it a terrible idea for Acura to get 265 HP at 5800 rpm?
  • saugataksaugatak Posts: 488
    Tell you what. In the interests of ending this pointless discussion, you win.
  • saugataksaugatak Posts: 488
    I've expressed the viewpoint that constantly redlining your engine is a good way to thrash your engine. Several of you have disagreed, saying that modern engines are built to take such punishment.

    I asked my bro, a mechanic, what he thought and here's a summary of his opinions:

    1. Occasionally redlining an engine is OK because it can help the oil seals to seal. BUT it should not be done prior to completion of break-in period as it will carbonate various engine parts, scratch the pistons, and greatly reduce the life of the engine.

    2. Constantly redlining can only be maintained if you regularly change oil. If you're going to redline your engine constantly, he recommends changing oil every 1,500 miles, or better yet, use Mobil 1 and change it frequently.

    3. You will need to change your timing belt MUCH more frequently if you constantly redline your engine. He recommends checking your timing belt at least once a month if you redline frequently.

    4. High revving will magnify any imperfecton in the engine and often cause a host of related problems. For example, one of his customes who has a leadfoot brought his car to be fixed and it had a small defective area in the manifold. High revving caused that area to warp more and faster than it should have. Because this customer failed to have the manifold replaced, and continued to redline his car, his engine suffered a host of other problems due to faulty intake. Therefore, someone who revs their engine a lot should check it much more frequently to make sure there are no such imperfections.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Posts: 5,111
    . . .at least in my eyes -- a bit.

    Yesterday, I went to Barnes & Noble and made my way around to the magazine section. Since I subscribe to just about anything car related, I often browse to see if there is something I missed.

    Somehow, I let my European Car magazine subscription lapse.

    New issue has both Audi TT and VW R32 on cover -- but the cover declares that inside there is a test of the new Audi A6. I have been reading so much stuff on the A6 and hunting for scraps on the RL and here again another magazine weighing in on the new Audi.

    European Car has not been all that kind to the A6 over the past few years. S6, RS 6 -- oh sure they gush over those. But the so called middle child has often been damned with faint praise or sometimes dis'd altogether.

    So, I opened the magazine half expecting some "left handed" compliments about the new A6, comparisons perhaps to the current (that is to say newest) BMW 5 series or perhaps even MB E class.

    No way.

    Whatever Audi has done has now, seemingly, impressed every editor that is given any column inches. The gushing, normally reserved for cars such as the RS 6 was now being lauded upon the new A6 IN BOTH V6 and V8 guise. Indeed, considerable ink was spent specifically on the V6 equipped car to claim, something like this: "you might think this car with the 3.2L would be a dog -- not so. . . ."

    The tag line was "both sporty and elegant."

    Now, those long term posters here in Acura-for-05-land, ought to know that I, for one, have pretty much narrowed down the next car to be parked in our garage as either the RL or the A6. The recent test drive of the Acrua TL, opening our eyes -- to say nothing of the argument I keep hearing from many on this board who claim that Acura is even more derserving of the phrase than Timex (and you know what phrase that is).

    This article is exactly what is needed NOW about the new RL. I mean, after all, with a $43K base price for the A6 and a $49,650 base for the RL, well, $6,650 will -- even on a German -- buy some pretty sweet option packages.

    I always used to think Audi (and even VW to a certain extent) had their timing all wrong and their ad-packages all wrong. I mean, I cannot even remember the last Audi TV spot I've seen in 2004.

    In any case, this industry seems to thrive on buzz -- where oh where is the Acura buzz.

    I would think, all the constant good press on the A6 has to "wound" the upcoming Acura a little bit, especially since even its most diehard fans, journalists and pundits often call the upcoming RL the "Japanese Audi A6."

    If I were Acura and I had my magic wand, I would be making sure that EVERY auto mag worth mentioning could get its hands on the new RL, sooner rather than later.
  • ksomanksoman Posts: 590
    so who pissed farther?

    geez guys, i think I saw the RL's ~dissapointing if 17"~ wheels turn 40 times and the thing hasn't hit the road!

    Maneesh, I've come to respect your knowledge of honda engines by reading your posts for several years on various edmunds fora, but you gotta let go.

    ksso
    sometimes you are the windshield, sometimes you are the bug!
  • steveaccordsteveaccord Posts: 108
    Hi guys,

    I got this tidbit from another forum and they refer to this link:

    http://www.globalauto.net/clipsheet.cfm?article_id=1866&today- =06/22/04&mode=display&brand_id=3

    The rumor refers to ongoing testing of a V8 prototype that will find several applications in the Acura lineup starting in 2007.

    Ciao, ciao.
Sign In or Register to comment.