Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Integra Type R's, Celica GTS, Prelude Sh, Eclipse GT, Which car is better
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
i also drove the celica and i wasnt impressed with it. ive driven all of the other cars. maybe im biased because everyone in my house drives a honda but if i had a choice i would definatly go honda. see what most people dont know is honda has engineered there cars so well to get maximum horsepower out of there engines. look at the new s2000 by honda. it has 120 hp per liter. without turbo. you ill not see a factory installed turbo on a honda. they dont need it. think about it a 240 hp 4 cylinder 2 liter naturally aspirated engine. thats amasing. now all other imports have put a turbo charger on at least one model. honda doesnt have a single one. with means a honda will outlast any other import that has a turbo because turbo wears an engine alot. also peope dont know how to take care of it. it will also get better gas mileage. and it has the same hp rating as other turbo charged cars in its class.
so if i had a choice i would pick either the prelude or the integra
Eclipse reminded me of driving Accord, which is already the car that I drive, to get real sporty character, Prelude does it well. Superb shifter, nice, broad torque band, and high rev excitement, with uniqueness to go with it, at a reasonable price tag.
108.3 x 1.8 = 195HP
Try comparing the characteristics of Prelude 2157 cc/I-4 DOHC VTEC and NSX 3180 cc/V6 DOHC VTEC. You will see how the same engineering concept works! (as you'd expect 1.48 times larger engine to perform). Also, Honda also makes 3180 cc/V6 NSX with 380 HP (that is 120 HP/liter) for GT racing.
Accord V6 is 3.0/V6 SOHC VTEC, it is not, in anyway, similar to NSX 3.0/V6 DOHC. It is as different, as Accord 2157 cc/I-4 SOHC VTEC (previous generation Accord EX with 145 HP) is from Prelude 2157 cc/I-4 DOHC VTEC (currently 200 HP).
In fact, Acura 3.5RL runs on 3473 cc/V6 SOHC which is similar to Honda DX 2253 cc/I-4 SOHC in engineering (minus refinement), both develop same kind of HP and torque numbers.
There are certain design parameters, when kept equal, often results in similar output, regardless of number of cylinders. So if Honda did make a 3.0/V6 DOHC VTEC based on S2K's design, it would develop 360 HP and about 230 lb.-ft of peak torque (knowing that Honda already makes the NSX 3.2/V6 with 380 HP).
Honda Inspire/Saber (Japanese versions of the TL with 2.5 and 3.2 liter V6's). The 2.5/V6 uses the same engineering, and gets 200 HP @ 6200 rpm (80 HP/liter), exactly what you'd expect from a V6 engine having displacement 1.57 times that of Civic's displacement (multiply 1.57 by 127 and it is almost 200 HP!!). The difference is in peak torque though, the V6 develops peak torque from about 3000 rpm to 5000 rpm (peak 177 lb.-ft @ 4600 rpm). Now if this design is carried forward to Accord V6, we will have an engine with 240 HP in low 6000 rpm!
Also, when youre looking at numbers, numbers dont tell anywhere near the whole story, if you're just looking at peaks. A 200 HP peak at 8000 RPM isnt nearly as impressive if it's putting out 150 HP at 7000 rpm, or 100 HP at 3500 rpm.
So if improving high end performance kills low end torque, where does VTEC come into picture?
Find me another LEV normally aspirated 2.0 liter gasoline engine, that atleast matches these numbers,
119 lb.-ft @ 1000 rpm
138 lb.-ft @ 3000 rpm
147 lb.-ft @ 4500 rpm
(forget the numbers in the higher rpm).
I'm sure you're few of those who actually believed MT (or C&D) when they said shifting S2K at 5500 rpm will get 0-60 mph in 12 seconds. 400 lb. heavier Accord coupe does it in 8.1 seconds.
Civic Si has 111 lb.-ft because an engine with 1597 cc displacement is behind it. Don't get confused as to why Civic Si was faster than Cougar V6 in drag race, just something that actually happens.
What is your basis for saying... "as engines get larger they become less efficient".
Camry 3.0/V6, 194 HP (non-LEV): 65 HP/liter
LS400 4.0/V8, 260 HP (pre-VVT version): 65 HP/liter
GS300 3.0/I-6, 225 HP: 75 HP/liter
GS400 4.0/V8, 300 HP: 75 HP/liter
There are hundred of examples I can give to prove my point, can you? Then look at your foot.
so expect a post from me tomorrow to be posted around 3:30- 4 pm easternt daylight time
see ya
another reason the s2000 and other hondas have a high hp rating is because of the compression ratio. the lowest i believe on a honda engine is 8.5:1 or 9:1 im not too sure of the numbers if someone wants to look up on that for me. also judas, the vtec is a variable valve timing sytem. (you probably knew that) it is desiged to have a regular "efficient" cam at lower rpms and a "lumpy" cam as you put it at higher rpms. thats what makes the honda engines have higher hp too. and thats what makes it sacrifice higher torqe according to you. and your right
but i still believe that honda engines are the best engines out there. they may lack torque but they have the higher revving engines and thats what gives them higher speed and better gas mileage. it gives them better gas mileage because at the lower speeds it doesnt have the torque to waste gas. ( i hope what i said made sense )
that is not true hp. its a hp additive so to speek. its just like drinking coffee in the morning to wake you up. once the caffine is over your tired again. its the same thing. so listen to what i say. comprehend what im saying. im talking abou a naturally aspirated engine putting out 120 hp/l. no turbo no surpercharger. obvioulsy you dont possess any true knowledge if you cant understand a simple term like naturally aspirated. thats all were talking about. if you want to compare hp/l in turbo carged or supercharged engines then lets go with a drag racer. it uses a 426 hemi which is 7 liters. but it puts out over 1000 hp. how many hp/l is that figure it out. then you will see that honda is truly superior when it comes to hp per liter. and maybe youll learn a thing or two about true hp that comes from naturally aspirated engines.
MT didn't test S2000 doing 0-60 in 12 seconds, if they shifted at 5500 rpm, it was their assumption that is not far from what most people would think, before they can actually test one.
Why don't you want to argue on numbers, where we can have facts and base our opinions on, rather than making unwarranted conclusions larger engines are inefficient!
Larger engines can be, atleast, as efficient as their smaller designs, and remember, I did say "atleast". Coming down to practical examples, again, BMW has a design that enables them to get 100 HP/liter from 3.2/I-6. Do you think it would not be possible to get similar numbers, using same design, from a 6.1 liter/V12? (that's about twice the size of original design). Take it from me, 103 HP/liter this time (627 HP for McLaren F1), and that's an existing normally aspirated BMW engine, but neither is street legal.
Efficiency of an engine really depends on who designs it, and some automakers make a name, most don't.
If Suzuki makes a reliable, fun to drive 1.3 liter/180 HP engine, normally aspirated, I'll admire their engineering abilities. Efficiency is another way of looking at output. Some engines can develop 100 HP/liter at 7500 rpm, others get it in 8000 rpm, then I'll say, the 7500 rpm engine is more efficient (indicates better torque curve). Similarly, I don't expect a Honda 3.5/V8 to make 120 HP/liter in 8000 rpm, but it can make 115 HP/liter (hence 400 HP), an engine, I'm guessing, will power the 2002 NSX.
Don't forget NASCAR engines, 358 c.i., put out something like 700 hp. And that's to the rear wheel.
Also, there are some really cool motorcycle engines that scream too. I'm not a stat-dude so I can't quote the hp, but I know it's high.
The spec, which you touched on, that is most important is what is usable. That spec is LOW END TORQUE. Note I didn't say peak or horsepower, but low end torque. And when you factor that in the choice is not HONDA or ACURA, but Toyota. The reliable Toyota, nice, strong low end torque.
1181 and robertsmx, trivia time, what does torque do for you, in a car?
P.S. I like Hondas. too.
Before you start calling people "dumb" let facts roll to you first.
1. There is a difference between motorcycle engine design and car engine design. This would not be true if we were talking Honda's first car, S500 that actually used a motorcycle engine (extremely short strokes allow for high revs, but poor torque). Talk normally aspirated, street legal (to top it off, LEV), that beats S2000's powerplant, in torque output (call it efficiency), as well as HP/liter.
2. So you do accept that larger displacement need not be inefficient. I wasn't talking truck engines either. For a performance engine, number of cylinders must increase with displacement. But you may still find it difficult to digest that 3.0/V6 based of S2K can produce 360+ HP and 230 lb.-ft torque. Let me know if you can't. I'm sure even Honda will have problem getting 800 HP out of 8 liter/V10, but quite easy for them to do it with 16 cylinders.
3. Here is my challenge try it first hand rather than being opinion based, get hold of an S2K, change gears at 5500 rpm, and see if it doesn't fly to 60 mph in under 8 seconds (to be more precise, I'll say, expect 0-60 in 7.6-7.7 seconds. If you can't find an S2K to do it, try Integra GS-R, and shift at same rpm (5500 instead of going to 8000 rpm). Expect 0-60 in this case to be between 8.5-9.0 seconds.
4. Navy4, torque is converted by engine into what we call "power". I'm sure you'd be coming back with some explanations. A good engine develops good, flat torque from idling engine speed to redline, if you thought there was such thing as "low end torque", time to learn!
5. Honda engines are more than often misunderstood. Sure, they don't provide Detroit style throttle-in feel, but by no means they lack torque compared to competition with same displacement.
Toyota 2.2/I-4 DOHC: 148 lb.-ft @ 4400 rpm (non-VVTi)
Honda 2.2/I-4 DOHC: 145-147 lb.-ft @ 2750-4750 rpm (non-VTEC).
So yes, there is 1 lb.-ft difference between the two! And neither engine is more reliable than the other, but based on sightings, I still see more mid-80 Preludes on road than Camrys.
FYI, S2000 engine develops atleast 90% of peak torque (i.e. minimum of 138 lb.-ft, remember, we're talking displacement of only 1997 cc here) over about 6000 rpm power band! Now that's racing technology and driveability. It actually develops same torque at 1000 rpm as my Prelude's 2157 cc/I-4!
How much money are you really saving on getting a $25K Mustang over Celica GT-S or Integra Type-R?
Try first hand rather than be opinion based? It's not an opinion. Ive read it in at least 2 car mags, why would they lie when theyre so pro honda nd even pro s2000? What you're saying is 'I don't want to believe what I read in the respected major auto magazine, I'd rather just go on believing what I think even though it's not based on any facts whatsoever'. Have you timed an S2000? Didn't think so.
Torque is converted by engine into what we call power? Thats the WORST, most completely incorrect definition of torque Ive ever heard in my life. Torque measures the engines ability to twist, as in turn the drive shaft. It's not CONVERTED by the engine from anything into anything, its PRODUCED by the engine. No such thing as low end torque? Of course there is, it refers to torque at low RPMs. Are you saying there is not low end torque at low RPMs? You're not making any sense. Did you really just say a good engine has a flat torque curve from idle to redline? NO gas engine has a flat torque curve. They all drop off after they peak. That's why they call it a curve, otherwise it'd be a torque line.
Ill have to check when I get home, but it would really surprise me if the Honda made over 138 lb/ft from 3000 all the way to 9000.
Very few engines that know of produce a flat torque curves. The inertia of the bits and pieces flying around in the engine (among other things), affect the torque output at different speeds. Diesels for example have lots of torque at low end. Some will pull a truck up a hill at idle. Whereas in the case of my GS-R, (or my girlfriend's new Celica GT-S), unless you scream the engine...you don't get a whole lot out of it.
And then there's the definition of stall torque...but I'm getting off topic.
Perhaps I've misinterpreted what you meant...
Judas, there is a distinct difference between muscle cars and sports cars, and those who know the difference will not argue the benefits of one over the other.
if you thought there was such thing as "low end torque", time to learn!
Kinda changed your tune here didn't you? In this statement you accuse someone else of being ignorant while being blatantly ignorant yourself. Yeah, of course its better to have a flat torque curve. It's also better to have your torque peak at less than 7500 RPM or whatever it peaks at on the S2000. It's also better to have more than 153 lb/ft of torque when youre selling a 32,000 performance car. The BMW competetion sure has more torque. So does the Boxter, which makes them more fun to drive.
Yeah, there is a difference between sports cars and muscle cars. I can argue whatever I want to, however, because a) its a free country and b)I could afford an S2000 easily, and when I'm considering purchasing a vehicle I take into account all the different cars that catch my eye. So for me, the S2000 and the Mustang are direct competetion, because I would consider owning both of them.
Why didn't you address your definition of torque? I'm curious how you're going to clarify that one so that it makes even a small amount of sense. I'm also curious on how you can think you know more than I after that definition.
Of course you changed your tune. You said there was NO SUCH THING as low end torque.
Incredible 153 lb/ft? 153 lb/ft isn't incredible. Its good from a NA 4 banger, but its far from incredible considering a $17,000 POS Pontiac Grand Am has more than that.
I didn't want to argue that but since you insist, keep your hopes high till they are straightened up in some real situations, and if you're really considering S2K versus Mustang, you don't know what you want.
Torque:
I don't have another definition of torque, it just means differently to me in that I don't ignore what the engine translates it into. To make it in short, don't make HP look like a meaningless term. There is a reason to why we have two set of measurements for output from an engine, and neither is meaningful without the other. Let me know if engine's capabilities can be deduced from this,
4.6 liter/V8 SOHC, 302 lb.-ft @ 4000 rpm, redline 6000 rpm (Mustang GT). Or,
3.2 liter/F6 DOHC, 221 lb.-ft @ 4500 rpm, redline 7250 rpm (Boxster S)
Do you understand a tiny bit of what I'm saying? There can be a 1.3 liter four banger and a 2.5 liter four banger, they will not develop same torque. Do you think if Honda increased the displacement on the 2.0/I-4, they would still get 153 lb.-ft? Remember, 153 lb.-ft from a 2 liter power plant means 76.5 lb.-ft/liter displacement (and without LEV like most of its competition, it amounts to 80.5 lb.-ft/liter!). If displacement is just bumped up to equal Prelude's (2.2 liter), I'd expect the torque to be between 162-165 lb.-ft.
Honda could have used the originally intended 2.5 liter engine (220 HP) or even one of the engines they already have as 2.5TL in Japan (called Inspire/Saber). The latter is a three stage SOHC VTEC (identical technology as that in Civic EX) develops 200 HP @ 6200 (compare to Boxster's 201 HP @ 6250 rpm) and 177 lb.-ft @ 4600 rpm (compare to Boxster's 181 lb.-ft @ 4500 rpm), but it would make it just another Boxster, not as unique as it stands now, much in line with the first Honda (S500) to celebrate the 50th birthday of Honda as a company (35 years into making cars). It is an F1 car made for the streets.
Do you think Honda should have used CR-V engine instead, in S2000, since it provides peak torque of 135 lb.-ft at only 4500 rpm (peak power of 146 HP @ 6100 rpm), that would allow less than 12 second run to 60 mph if shifted at 5500 rpm? First I don't understand why anyone buying S2K, for what it is, will want to shift early (unless previous experience was a "low end" car), and second, even if anybody wanted to, they will spend 12 seconds to figure out how to keep the revs below 6000 rpm. Shifting at 7500 rpm delivers you 153 lb.-ft and at 5500 rpm, it will deliver 150 lb.-ft, so go ahead! It is a much better number than that in Camry I-4, and even Accord I-4 at the same rpm.
Evenif I was driving BMW M3 (3.2/I-6; 236 lb.-ft @ 3750 rpm) or Acura CL-S (3.2/V6; 232 lb.-ft @ 3500-5500 rpm), I would be shifting either of them past 6500 rpm everytime (although the M3 torque falls considerably at that point, to about 190 lb.-ft, and CL-S's to about 205 lb.-ft). To not have to shift leads to the slush box!
This is a direct quote from the MT article in question. Doesn't say it was a guess, or an estimate, or anything. They did it. And thats what it was. There went one of arguments.
Your right, torque is meaningless without taking into account HP as well, and the HP on the S2000 is pathetic below about 6000 RPMS, which is why its 0-60 is so abysmal when you dont redline the engine every time.
Don't make comments that cannot be supported without facts, and when I bring up facts, you take a corner telling me that the cars don't compete. I'm not disagreeing with that, S2K has a completely different purpose to serve than tow a trailer. Agreed?
Let me take your number, how much torque (hence HP) do you think S2000 engine develops under 6000 rpm? Less than other four bangers that go faster than 9 seconds to 60 despite of being 400 lb. heavy? Don't be clueless and make ignorant comments. Do you think MT tests and puts like, 0-60 in over 8 seconds or under 9 seconds? Or do they say, 8.3 seconds? Keep guessing. I don't believe fact-less statements.
BTW, there are $45K cars that come with even smaller four bangers. FYI, a Lotus Elise dedicated site mentions those sportsters to be brought to this side of the Atlantic, to make them street legal in USA, they will be equipped with Integra Type-R engines from Honda. Hold on, price tag, $55K. That will be S2K competition.
The problem with S2K is its competitiveness with cars that have significantly larger displacements, and more cylinders. Clicks something?
A better place to discuss this will be in coupes section (Honda VTEC ), rather than consuming this space. Hope to see you there. You could even bring your Mustang V8 with you.
At 6000 rpm, S2000 develops 170+ HP (thats more HP than Integra GS-R at 7600 rpm, or Ford 2.5/V6 at 6200 rpm)!
carlady/host