Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Has Honda's run - run out?
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
So the weight on the drivewheels phenomenon you're talking about should only be momentary and of not much benefit.
I always thought Honda shoved the engine so far up to maximize cabin space. I've always felt that Honda made the best economy FWD cars for this reason. Not only did they perform well and were reliable, you had a surprising amount of interior space, especially when comapred to a RWD car.
There really isn't any additional weight to shift to the drive wheels of a FWD car. So what if the engine is sitting in front of the front axle? The weight is still concentrated on the front wheels. If weight really does shift to the drive wheels of a TSX, where is it shifting from when it was already concentrated on the front wheels?
I think robertsmx's point is that when the weight shifts to the rear, some of it shifts onto the front drive wheels.
My response to robertsmx is, even if that is true (and I'm not saying robertsmx is correct), that weight shift should continue until it goes to the rear wheels.
Assuming I've kept my tires inflated properly and not been running on bald ones, I've chirped the tires starting up at lights far more with FWD vehicles than I ever did with RWD. Anecdotal for sure, but being that I never was one to try and "lay rubber", I think it's an interesting observation.
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
Front engine rear wheel drive cars will usually have a CG that is back a bit further than front engine front wheel drive cars, so the shift to the rear may be a bit higher for the rear wheel drive car. I would guess unless you are talking about very high rates of acceleration the front wheel drive car will still have more down force on it's front wheels than a rear wheel drive car, as there is quite a large bias in static load on the front to begin with.
Is this so hard to understand?
For one person here, yes, it is.
Robertsmx is not suggesting that the front of the car gets heavier, as Newcar has interpreted it. Only that the impact of weight shift is reduced.
Badgerfan is also correct in pointing out that the CG for the entire car is what matters. Of course, having the engine farther up front just means that the CG is farther up front. So it's kind of a technicality.
On the issue of why Honda has the engine mounted in front of the axle, I suspect that packaging and safety are the answers. If Honda wanted to increase grip for acceleration, they could increase the contact patch with wider tires. That seems like a much easier solution to me. Moving the engine forward has too many drawbacks for balanced handling.
IMHO, all of this makes the TSX fairly impressive. It's a FWDer with an engine mounted in front of the axle and yet it still has great handling. Not too shabby.
Now, who hear thinks that lack of acceleration is the reason why Honda sales dipped momentarily?
These are contradictory statements. If the front wheels do not gain any weight, then how can weight shift to both the front and rear wheels? Hmmm...the front wheels don't gain any weight, yet weight shifts rearward onto the front wheels?
"Robertsmx is not suggesting that the front of the car gets heavier, as Newcar has interpreted it."
He isn't? Yes he is.
Robertsmx:
"If most of the frontal weight sits in front of the axle, when the vehicle accelerates, that extra weight goes on top of the driving wheels. OTOH, if the frontal weight sits after the front axle, it takes away the traction from the front wheel."
And
"If most of the frontal weight sits in front of the axle, when the vehicle accelerates, that extra weight goes on top of the driving wheels."
In summary, not one big issue but a lot of issues are involved.
Having driven the TSX, I will say the handling is excellent, but my concern would be not in the whole weight shift thing, but rather in how much more nose-heavy it makes the car to have the engine IN FRONT of the axle. Folks like Nissan have mounted the engine behind the axle in an attempt to make handling more neutral and reduce understeer, haven't they?
I mean the thing with the TSX is, lots of cars in its price range will beat it in a straight-line race. Honda should focus on the handling characteristics of its small cars more than the power race, IMHO.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
newcar31 isn't ready to get my point, so I will leave that discussion for now.
I think you know you're wrong.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Torque steer would be caused by lack of traction but with ample torque going to the drive wheels.
newcar31,
No, I know what my point of contention is. You don't. Let us just leave this at that (unless you really want to argue upon it then I will be willing to spend more time elaborating on it).
Newcar - The point is that weight on the drive wheels is retained, not added. Don't try to weasel your way around it using semantics and quotes taken out of context. Read it again. Robertsmx may not be the most eloquent in expressing the notion, but he is ultimately correct. The farther forward the CG is, the less impact weight shift will have on traction.
Nippononly - Right. The transverse engine placement results in most of the conditions that contribute to torque steer.
However, with only 30% of the available torque up at the front end (during abusive acceleration), torque steer won't be a problem. As some like to say, "you need torque to have torque steer".
Right now, I'm thinking the ultimate layout would be a front mid-engine (like the S2000) driving the rear wheels, with a device like SH-AWD distributing power to the outside rear wheel.
You aren't getting off that easy. Not after telling me things like I'm stuck in 1st gear and I need help understanding. Not that you haven't illustrated your false point already, but could you do it one more time, so I can refute it one more time? Don't switch up your story now and make me go dig up your quotes again....
Please don't... this topic has been effectively argued to death and far beyond.
If ever an exchange has called for "agreeing to disagree", it's this one. Neither of you is going to yield, so why do you insist on continuing to try?
That's not what robertmx was saying. Go back and read.
"Don't try to weasel your way around it using semantics and quotes taken out of context."
Go read the statement in context then. They're still there for you and everyone to read. It doesn't change the meaning of the statements that I quoted.
"Read it again."
You read it again.
"Robertsmx may not be the most eloquent in expressing the notion, but he is ultimately correct."
The issue isn't robertsmx's communication of an idea, it's the idea that he's communicating that's wrong.
"Weight will transfer rearward. That is no-brainer. But how, and how much depends on the chassis set up.
If you're wondering about "how", let me clarify. If most of the frontal weight sits in front of the axle, when the vehicle accelerates, that extra weight goes on top of the driving wheels. OTOH, if the frontal weight sits after the front axle, it takes away the traction from the front wheel.
Weight shift pattern isn't an issue here, how it affects traction is."
The incorrect statement in this post is:
"If most of the frontal weight sits in front of the axle, when the vehicle accelerates, that extra weight goes on top of the driving wheels."
WRONG! The weight does not "shift" onto the drive wheels. The weight was already being supported by the drive wheels. Just because an engine sits in front of the front axle doesn't mean that the engine weight isn't meeting the road at the front tires.
again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not, as I have had cars that exhibited torque steer, and it is not caused by wheel slippage. At least, that is not what people are referring to with the term "torque steer". They are referring to the car's tendency to pull to one side under hard acceleration with both tires stuck to the ground.
varmint: "As some like to say, "you need torque to have torque steer".
LOL! You have a good point there. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
What?
Not only do you not understand weight shift under acceleration, you clearly don't know what torque steer is.
The explanation for torque steer can be found in these links.
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/editors/technobabble/9909scc_te- - chnobabble/
http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/handling/tech_handling_- 6.htm
http://www.hondabeat.com/sales_stats.php
Not as a company. Trying to change the subject.
The magazine reminds the reader that CRX and Prelude are both gone, and mentions that the future of the S2000 after this generation is in doubt as well, and it makes me think, what happened to the "sport company" that used to be Honda? Is it turning into a smaller Toyota? Are big-time sales of Pilots, TLs, and Accords so much more important, that they have become the bottom line?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It appears to be just a speculation on their part.
That said, it would be nice if Acura/Honda considers a sports car in 40-50K price range, as well as a luxury sport coupe.
It is true that AHM denied the "rumor" that HSC is dead for good and the NSX will die off in a couple of years.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That does not mean that the NSX will be cancelled. Instead the NSX may be based on the FG7 concept, the JSC concept, or some other concept that has not been named. I would actually be quite surprised if the HSC were the only concept that Honda was considering.
In the realm of exotic engineering Honda's rumored decision to cancel the NSX is akin to lying down and taking it. It's bad enough that the NSX has been relegated to complete loser status in the exotic world because of neglect. To kill it is a travesty.
Honda/Acura has exceptional talent that is being reigned in by bean counters. Sounds all too familiar and signals a car company that may soon see its top talents fleeing to greener pastures.
Maybe that's why Tony whacked him...had him feeling insecure about his wannbe Porsche.
Right now they have a medium-size sedan and two big sedans. No coupes except the RSX, which is on the low end anyway and not fit to compete with the sport coupes all the other premium brands have. And all the rest are "trucks".
Anyway, the article also asserts that Honda has been working very hard for well over a year to develop the HSC to be the next NSX, and there was nothing else in the works - that was the exclusive focus.
It also speculates that with Honda now a company building lawnmowers, robots, and other paraphernalia, there is less need to build niche models for the car biz, but rather to keep pumping out the bread and butter to support those other enterprises. That last part is pure speculation, and I sure hope it is not true.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
What an odd company. Honda's one of the Japanese Big 3 automakers and it's moonlighting in cars.
Harbour reports: "But Toyota earned $1742 per vehicle, Nissan earned $2402 per vehicle and Honda earned $1488 per vehicle."
Honda fans are under impression that Honda incentives are much lower than Nissan. I read reports that they're about the same. Judging from the profitability, Nissan's incentives, if anything, are lower, that's why they have so much gravy left over.
M
Something that isn’t being argued against is that weight shifts backwards during acceleration. BUT, do you think the weight that sits in front of the front axle will bypass the front axle? I doubt that. If you have more of the weight sitting in front, the front axle will get more of the weight transferred onto it, than if the weight were to sit behind the front axle. This shouldn’t be hard to understand.
Getting back to torque steer, are we discussing the cause, or the result? Engine torque is certainly a part of it, but torque multiplication would be more appropriate in this case. In a car, like Altima 3.5SE (or Sentra SE-R), torque steer isn’t as pronounced in higher gears as it is in first. Why?
Greater torque multiplication takes away traction, especially if there isn’t enough weight pushing down the front wheels. Enhancing traction is possible by ensuring more weight down on front axle and/or taller gearing and those cars will exhibit less torque steer than otherwise. Acura TL is a car that is being said to have some torque steer with manual transmission (weight split is 60/40). I haven’t driven one with MT yet, so can’t validate it. With auto transmission (weight split is about 62/38), the car doesn’t exhibit torque steer. Why is that? The chassis set up is same. Isn’t it?
merc, if the products are perceived as cheap, the market will adjust accordingly, and lots of incentives will have to offer, driving your profits down. That's not happening to Nissan at all.
Nissan's productivity is slightly ahead of Honda/Toyota, some people say it's because Nissan outsource more.
Auto Physics 101
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
What interests me about the latest Harbour report is the apparent jump in earnings per vehicle for Nissan by at least twice compared to last year (and before that). In case of Toyota, the company added $763 in spending per vehicle last year, and the net profits dropped by 4% (in the USA), still showing an earnings per vehicle improvement by $300 or so? In case of Nissan, net profit was up 1.7% and the same was up 8.8% for Honda compared to last year (also from Harbour Report).
I’m not sure how all this adds up.
Ayway... That's one supercool factory pitted against the average of the four that Honda has here. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's kind of a misleading number if you are trying to draw conclusions about the whole brand.
As for Honda's slip in the rankings, I'd guess it's because they have been spending all the factory budget on new facilities, rather than upgrading the old ones. I think they've added something like six new lines to their existing factories, and four completely new factories within the past 4 years.
The TSX in particular has really taken off. Originally, that car was selling at MSRP, but I'm reading that dealers are moving on the prices now. Wonder if that has had an impact on Accord sales. In several ways, the TSX does resemble the Accords of old. It may be stealing sales from the new model.
But looking at last month's sales numbers, Honda (nearly) made up for lost Accord sales in just one month, selling 43K units in May.
Well some of them are perceived as being cheap, this has been documented in the press over and over. In the market however Nissan's designs are so much fresher than what they used to be to the point of this not being an issue, yet. I stress yet because over time cars like the 350Z aren't going to do well in those surveys when material quality and build are examined after 3-5 years.
The new Titan and Armada haven't done as well as Nissan wanted them to do either. The worst offender in interior quality (besides the 350Z), the Altima has been greatly improved for 2005, taking that car off the hook from 2005 onward.
I mean look at the differences between the TL and TSX's interiors compared to the G35's or Maxima's. Big difference.
I still think that Toyota and Honda bake more quality in than Nissan does, thus their profits are slimmer. Especially Toyota.
M
merc, a basic maxim in business and any industry is low-quality products don't equate to high profits, especially not high absolute profits. Low quality products may for a while earn high relative profits. Let's take an entirely hypothetical example of Kia and BMW: Kia may make a higher relative profit than BMW, relative to their revenues, but absolutely a Kia car will not make a higher absolute profit than a BMW.
BTW, that's why all sorts of companies are trying to make luxury, hi-quality cars, because that's where the best profits are.
The perception by some is that Nissan doesn't mean the same quality as Honda and Toyota. And yet Nissan makes the highest relative profits of any company this side of Porsche, and it makes much higher absolute profits than Honda and Toyota, at least in US. What I'm saying is, merc, the market is rating Nissan quality to be much higher than the perception of those critical of Nissan cars.
And aren't Nissan resale values caught up to Toyota and right on Honda's tail? That'd say the same tale as the comparative profitability!
That assumption is arguable... after all, Nissan was rated significantly below Honda and Toyota in JDP's most recent initial quality report, as well as being well below the industry average. And the JDP survey is based on feedback from new Nissan owners (not from people who would be inclined to be critical of Nissans), so the owners who gave them feedback apparently weren't all that impressed by the quality.
The thrust of Harbour's report was that Nissan's per-unit profit is relatively high (at least in the one plant that was reported on) primarily because it takes them less time to build a car than Toyota or Honda. Considering that fact along with their poor showing on the JDP initial quality report, one possible conclusion could be that Nissan is taking shortcuts to achieve the fast build time, shortcuts that may be compromising quality.
Anyway, the other day I went with my friend who was test driving Civics and Corollas. I test drove an Si and my first impression was that there was nothing sporty about the view outside. Wasn't low, didn't feel open, and I felt like I was in a very safe padded box. I'm not a big fan of "hunkered down" I guess. The engine sounded great but the steering didn't fight back. It'd make a nice non-Si car (whatever Si stands for).
I'm beginning to agree that Honda has strayed. I haven't sat in an RSX but it doesn't look like much fun... nice design features, but too tall. I hope they don't think their fans can all afford S2000s.
The RSX is definitely taller than I would like, but is still SO short compared to all the vehicles on the road right next to me. I feel a little more assured that they will actually see me next to them, compared to the even lower height of the last Integra.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)