Well, I believe what you are saying does reflect 'the press consensus' out there, and yet I am totally oblivious to that kind of ranking. I have no interest whatsoever of driving my decision of car buying based on 'prestige' of the brand I am choosing. That element is outnumbered and outranked at least by the following criteria (given good styling and other basics):
I must confess I sometime groove into 'dream mode' and think of one or two exotic cars from Mayback to the latest Maserati hotrod but that's about it. Then I immediately think that for the first it would be my chaffeur not me to do the driving while for the second I would not really get a kick out of it unless I was to regularly visit a racing track facility! So once again I would immediately strike back to the purpose of this post thread: the 2005 Acura RL. Is there progress in really knowing what models will be available? I was hoping more rumors would suggest of the hybrid model availability by now (although the January 2005 mentioned in ealrier posts does not make much sense to me since until now Honda people has denied rumors that the hybrid model will be part of the lineup for the fall release!). Pleaspost on if you have news!!
I know there are those who believe that Lexus matches the "prestige" enjoyed by the likes of MB and BMW, but I truly believe that most people recognize the Germans are a step above. I don't mean to deny that Lexus produces some ultra-reliable, refined, and luxurious vehicles, but I don't think the brand commands the same respect as MB or BMW. As for sales figures, each Lexus model is priced thousands less than its German counterparts—I think that price advantage plays a major role in Lexus' success. While I can appreciate the reliability and refinement of Lexus vehicles, I find them extremely dull, so I prefer the other two Japanese luxury brands (even as they are less "prestigious" than Lexus). This brings me to the new RL.
The car's styling, while not as sporty as that of its smaller siblings, is sharp. The interior looks great. And it seems as though the RL will outperform anything in its price class, even without a V8. Like the rest of the Acura lineup, the 2005 RL presents excellent value in an exciting package, something Lexus has yet to offer (in my opinion, of course).
Exactly...most of Mercedes' models are priced above 50K (despite the C-Class' many variants) when the majority of Lexus' sales and modles are in the 35-45K range with just two vehicles the RX and ES racking up most of the sales.
Lexus has done the unthinkable according to some now retired German executives from MB, Porsche, BMW and Audi, but they still aren't even close in image or prestige to MB or BMW when you start talking about higher end cars...especially Mercedes-Benz. Mercedes holds the clout in countries where there are no Lexuses.
Lexus doesn't have any V12, M, AMG like cars or anything to even compare to the gee-whiz cars from BMW or Mercedes-Benz.
I'll give Lexus credit though they know what they're doing, now if they'd jazz up the driving experience and styling a bit w/ some gee-whiz models of their own.
Lexus will continue to out-do Acura and Infiniti however, because they're going global in 2005-06 while Acura will forever remain a US brand. Infiniti has similar global plans, but ahh...Nissan's pockets aren't as deep as Toyota's.
"Lexus doesn't have any V12, M, AMG like cars or anything to even compare to the gee-whiz cars from BMW or Mercedes-Benz."
For the moment, yes. But there are strong indications that Lexus plans to get deadly serious about injecting some real performance into its cars, and also moving the brand further up market. The first of these is the rumored "GT" cars, which will use a combination of larger, more powerful gasoline engines, combined with next generation electric power, to compete with the likes of Motorsport and AMG Gmbh. After that, another rumor is that around the '08 model year, Lexus plans to introduce either a V12, or a big hybrid V8 "super LS" to compete with the likes of the S600 and 760Li and A8 6.0 W12. Lexus NA recently did a study asking its customers if they would be interested in a car starting above $70K, and from what Ive heard, the answer was yes.
And wouldnt you know it, the ugly cars just keep right on coming. 5, Z4, 6, X3, its like if Pontiac's entire line was comprised of various versions of the Aztek. I have to admit I was a little surprised by Edmunds review of the X3. Its the first time I can ever remember reading a review that negative of any BMW product.
I actually kinda like the 5-Series and 6-Series, but only in darker colors it seems (a grand excuse). They still have the shark-look BMWs have been known for. The big gasp will be heard around the world sometime next year when the new 3-Series is shown to the world. This is their most critically acclaimed product. I mean the one that every other single car maker including Mercedes and Audi have tried to defeat. Will they tone down the Bangle-Bustle for this car? I can't wait to see. I do think the Bangle looks works completely (in any color) on the Z4 though.
i like the new 5, execpt the rear, same with the 7, love it, except the rear. one option for me is to go with a 2 year old CPO 7 (now that the bugs are weeded out and i'm not scared of idrive) or go with something really great value for money, like the RL... anyway, its another 6 months to a buy, so who knows what will happen till then.
I don't like the rear on the new 5-series. It looks like an after thought and looks incoherent. Although it has a major weakness (I dislike the trunk "sitting on a gap" visible from the side), 7-series is a better execution overall.
Back to RL, I would love to see how this car looks in darker colors, and better yet, in person.
. . .no I am not calling anyone a liar, first off. I thought it would be somewhat of a catchy title and indirectly I am referring to the use of lists and statistics to prove a perhaps unprovable point.
It is sorta like the "truth" that John Kerry voted to raise taxes 350 times -- well, this is technically true, but hardly anyone would "count things" thusly in order to come up with these figures. Likewise, I suspect that the list: reliability, crash worthiness, ride quality and performance/price ratio might be as true as the 350 votes to raise taxes are true -- that is from a certain perspective.
The spirit of what Steve suggests, I agree completely with. I'll even go so far as to say his list is "dead on accurate and true" even though I have no clue if it really is ranked and itemized properly. It feels right -- and here is the qualifier -- for the "spirit" of the the kind of buyers who, apparently, are attracted to cars from certain manufacturers and/or certain geographies.
There is a list of criteria, surveyed, re-surveyed and re-re-surved regularly and frequently by all manufacturers. Indeed, it is my best guess that manufacturers "hire" JD Powers and other statistical analysis companies to gather and compile such data into "meaningful" information (lists perhaps?)
So, I am, anecdotally, hardly scientifically, coming to the conclusion -- and this is the broadest of broad generalizations (and it is accurate insofar as it is "just my hunch") -- that those who are interested and repeat buyers in (mainly) Japanese cars, actually do put reliability in their top ten buying criteria, and apparently in their top five criteria.
On the other hand, based as noted above, buyers of European cars (and perhaps I should add this EXTRA qualifier -- repeat buyers of European cars) do NOT place reliability in their top five buying criteria -- and, this is really stretching the point, perhaps not even in their top nine.
I participate and lurk in several of these forums. Being 52 and having no children at home and having a working-professional (attorney)wife, I have lots of free time to read lots and lots (too many probably) automotive magazines (from the US and Europe). The conclusion I can reach, based on Steve's list, is that numbers 2 through 4 probably would be on a European car buyer's top 5 or top 10 buying criteria. I cannot imagine reliability, however, ever coming into the top 5.
Now, this is certainly NOT because we European car buyers don't want more reliability -- I can assure you that we do want our cars to be more reliable. When pressed to free-hand write a list of criteria, however, well (gulp) reliability just doesn't LEAP to our minds in the top 5 "compelling" reasons -- indeed, although Steve's #4 I mostly agree with, I would probably be somewhat more likely to edit it to just say "performance" and leave out the price ratio portion.
Based on what I have seen, BMW's, Mercedes and some Audis, Jaguars, Saabs and Volvos do not have a terrific performance/price ratio. As my wife exclaimed after having test driven two BMW's, one Mercedes and an Audi (a 330xi, 330i, C320 and A4 1.8T quattro Ultra Sport), "where is the extra $10,000 in the BMW and Mercedes -- what could possibly account for such a price gap?"
My answer: Image, Reputation, Exclusivity, perhaps, just perhaps Snob Appeal. An Audi, to this very day, to some folks is "a Volkswagen that knows Somebody." Audi, is "in" the Premium class -- on paper and certainly in other parts of the world; but, here in North America, Audi is still "not quite" perceived as a member of the Premium class, even though the current A8L and the upcoming A6 seem poised to crank Audi up a notch or two into Premium territory (check back next year, this time and see if the new A6 has raised Audis image perhaps "almost" to BMW-levels.)
Anyway -- I read the posts from several of the European town halls, as noted -- and other than a few rants about some horrible expensive mechanical bit that has gone south and perhaps some poor treatment of the customer by the odd dealer -- most of the Euro car buyers seem to be interested in Performance: of the suspension, engine, transmission, and chassis. The discussions include forays into modding, replacing tires and wheels, suspension bits and exhaust systems. Chest pouding pertaining to "the changes made to the base car" are hardly rare.
Discussions that include high performance driving events, both sanctioned and, er, casual, yea, casual, pepper the Euro car chat sites -- moreso, by far, than the sites dedicated to the Premium Japanese cars.
Apparently both European and Japanese car buyers (in the Premium class) like "gadgets and gizmos" -- the European buyers seem willing to seek out new and improved aftermarket gizmos moreso than the Japanese buyers.
I could, and you'll probably thank me for not, go on, attempting to support my, as noted, unscientific analysis -- I could cut and paste bits and pieces of postings from Acura and Lexus and Audi and BMW -- who knows, it may even convince you that my observations actually do have merit.
They will, I'll wager, not make you push reliability down to #7 or #10 on your top 10, especially, if, like Steve, it is currently #1 on your list.
I have "discovered" why this "condition" seems to be: The European cars are overwhelimingly leased for relatively short term periods (equal to or less than 39 months). Most of these Premium cars from Europe come with 100% free maintenance for 3 or 4 years and an appropriate number of miles somewhere between 36,000 and 50,000.
Most of these Premium cars from Europe include free loaner cars when your car is in for service or warranty work. Most of these brands also wash and vacuum your car when they work on it and they survey owners relentlessly afterwards which, for those of you with any Psychology courses under your belt will trigger the Hawthorne Effect -- simply surveying the customers improves the perceived quality of the Brand [sic].
So, I conlclude saying that Steve's list is probably true and accurate here -- but is also probably irrelevant to the buyer of a Premium European car -- and, to repeat, almost certainly irrelevant to the repeat buyer of a Premium European car.
I suspect this is hard to imagine for you if you are used to and/or proud of keeping a car over 50,000 miles. I have no clue what that is like. I kept one, once, to 49,500 miles and I was counting the miles as I drove into my Audi dealer to roll right into my brand new Audi -- which I also kept for less than 3 years or 50,000 miles.
According to my dealer, I am "typical" -- indeed in 1988 Audi coined the term "the three year test drive" -- and to this day, that phrase represents almost 90% of their customers (as in about that percentage leases for equal to or less than 39 months.)
So both types are right -- just as both sides are correct when they say John Kerry voted 350 times for a tax increase (so say the Republicans) or when they say this statistic is innacurate when taken in context (so say the Democrats).
We're all truthful and accurate or we're all lying liars telling lies.
I enjoyed reading your reply entirely but I wanted to comment on the fact that due to the late time of my posting I unintentionally left out a clear statement that those 4 criteria were my subjective ones. I am happy that my oversight led to a very nice development (namely your comments on my post) and I agree with you that the criteria may be shared among repeated Japanes car buyers and not among those favoring purchase of the European brands. It is probably superfluous to state that I rank among members of the first group and yet as previously admitted I enjoy the occasional drive on european cars (rwd models).
btw I agree about your general point of number/statistic manipulations as well! In my lineof businessin (medicine/science) in fact we joke that the only problem with any data analysis is that of finding the right statistical analysis tool (zillions of them out there: paired, unpaired, weighed and not, meta analysis techniques etc...) with the problem being that innacurate selection means that your scientific/statistical 'determination/results' are technically correct (meaning number chruncing follows the rules of whatever tool you have chosen) but you conclusion (interpretation of those numbers) can be meaningless. I spent in fact a few words in this regard to make my point over the controversy pitching CR vs. JD Powers reports in the Accord post! Like you said, using Sen Kerry example, you can lie any way you want using numbers (attempting to gain credibility exploiting the association most of us make with the unambiguos qualities of mathematical logic). The reality is that only matching those numbers with appropriate analysis templates yelds meaningful results. Well, we all know politicians are not very concerned with being meaningful anyway! lol
The tone on most of these boards -- where the cars cost over $35K, to pick a point -- is thoughtful even when there is disagreement.
I have been seriously considering looking at the new Acura RL SH-AWD (when it finally makes it to the dealers). But I must tell you and others who care to comment, that the spirit of many of the comments about Acura and Lexus -- to just cite two, not to exclude other fine brands -- seems to have so much to do with their being at some level of perfection as that relates to reliability.
I see a lesser amount of energy spent on other aspects of auto ownership -- performance for example, as I mentioned in the prior post.
One of my associates to bring this line of thinking to a close took three cars out for test drives, a Lexus ES 300, a Chrysler 300C and a Cadillac CTS. He also took out an Acura TL, but his wife said "too small." BTW he bought the CTS.
His comment to me was, that the Japanese cars, espcially the Lexus were probably the highest quality, best fit and finish and "perfect" in every way -- except they were not "engaging."
I don't know, exactly if that is the same as boring but it kinda reminds me of Jay Leno's comments about the Premium Japanese cars which echoed that sentiment.
When I first started driving European cars, my boss at the time (in 1977) told me "German cars have solid valve lifters, they require adjustment; and, these cars are best appreciated by people who love to lift the hood and tinker with their cars -- Germans designed these cars and it shows." He would change his own oil, plugs and was always on the hunt for some new performance enhancer to install on his BMW "Bavaria" or his Audi Silver Fox or his Porsche 944 turbo.
Different strokes. I wonder if I'll fit in with the culture of the Acura RL, that is? I love to tweak my 2.7T Audi's engine, tires, wheels, suspension, etc. I look forward to visiting the service department at my dealership and just talking with the service manager, himself an Audi and Porsche tweaker/modder.
When I test drove the IS300, I liked the car, but as the man said "it just didn't engage me. . ." In fact the salesrep spent almost the entire time telling me about the reliability of the car, rather than the performance. The BMW salesrep, two weeks ago, spent virtually all of his words describing the HP, torque, torque curve, final drive ratio, the "short shifter" in the Performance Package option and "oh by the way, 100% of all maintenance is included, now back to discussions of handling, acceleration and chassis dynamics." The differences in the approaches is night and day one insists you look under the hood, the other doesn't even bring it up but points out the cool clock integrated in the dashboard. I mean no disrespect and do not claim that one is superior -- it is just that one has greater appeal to me!
Reading Consumer's Reports where the description beyond the sheer numbers of accelerative capability is "adequate" or "ample" tells me nothing. The passion just doesn't seep through. The handling beyond some statistical notation is said to be "capable" where the auto magazine says "this XYZ corners like it's on rails -- at high speeds on back road twisties, it goes like a snake in a rat hole" or words to that effect. I don't know if that makes the point, but one is almost entirely E=MC (squared) and one is "whoooooooooosh" as we make the jump to light speed! My anecdotal observation is that European car buyers (German mainly) prefer the latter when talking about their cars. Frequency of repair and usable life of the standard spark plugs only rarely comes up as a point of discussion.
Reliability is one thing I do want, but I will not substitute reliability for performance. I hope this apparently non-Japanese-car-buyer trait (I said apparently) makes sense, if, for instance, that really does at least in part describe your "reasons for buying."
Like I said, I plan to test the new Acura RL with SH AWD and 300HP! I hope it will be involving in every sense of the word.
Thoroughly engaging reads. For the most part I agree with you, even though I happen to sit on the Japanese side of the fence. Sorry about the CTS. Too bad. Hehe. In any case, I would argue that Japanese cars can be "tweaked" more than any other. The current tuning craze that is so popular with the kids these days was built on the Honda Civic, and NOT an A4 1.8T.
Companies like AEM, Spoon, Comptech, Injen, Greddy, Jackson Racing, A'PEXi, HKS, Skunk2 Racing, ACT, Neuspeed, Venom, etc. are more than willing to sell you hi-perf cross drilled brake rotors, cold air induction and ram air systems, TT kits, superchargers, racing calibrated ECUs, highflow exhaust systems and cats, shocks, sway bars, racing clutches and lightweight flywheels, LSDs, and short throw shifter kits to turn that stock IS300 into a 500hp asphalt burner.
Before you think I don't get out much, I have seen the movies:
The Fast and the Furious and also 2 Fast 2 Furious. . .
I, think, therefore, I am at least able to say I am aware of what you are talking about. . .perhaps not to your level.
Yet, my premise, my observations, my "anecdotal evidence and conclusions" come more from a general perusal through the various, for lack of a better name, Town Halls (not limited to Edmunds, either).
Those who participate on them, and of course I do include you, are generally "keen to speak about performance" on the European message boards and, um, "less keen" to do so on the non-European boards.
Just an observation and perhaps a conclusion that, hopefully, has merit or at the very least will stimulate some good old debate (and apparently it has done this, at least).
The description of someone tuning and maintaining their rides was me many years ago. Today, my routine is to check the air, fluids and wash the car every couple of weeks. Every 6 months, wax. Gone are the days of mods on a beetle, 510, 96, 2002, 144 with sway bars, carb/injector tweaks...
...now, I'm prouder of the repair record v. the lap time. Someone said it better than me, I'm on the side of the fence that keeps the car for 7 years.
Or maybe, haven't hit a decent mid-life crisis yet!
Anyway, what is appealing to this long time driver of a '96 rl is the '05 has everything I would have asked for in an improved version. Well, maybe a 6 speed auto manual would have been nice, but the 5 sp beats my 4 sp all day. It would be hard to convince me to go to another marque based on owner experience with car and dealer.
As for brand recognition, those surveys are done across the population for general concensus. If surveying only the owners of $35k+ imported autos, I imagine lexus would take top honors, followed by bmw then MB based solely on the # of each of those cars sold here. In europe, guess it would be BMW, MB then Audi.
Me too. I'm a little bit old to buy an S2000 or IS300 and start spending $10,000 on mods, body kits, wings, etc. Plus the other guys at the office would think me more than a little strange. However, I am extremely interested by these little cars. I saw an internet video of a 1\4 mile drag race with a Civic vs. a Viper. Laughable right? Ordinarilly yes. But the Civic won, with the help of a big turbo and some N20 of course.
Lexusguy, you were right about the civics. Started noticing a few years back how many young guys were bombing around in civics tuned, lowered and striped. when I was 1st driving in the late '60's, most of the mods were on the muscle cars and beetles.
true confession -- am looking to sell my '96 rl not because I want to sell it, but because my company has ordered a company car for me. an impala. while I am not looking forward to having an impala for my daily driver, the thought of having somebody else pick up everything related to car costs is pretty nice. also, in a year or so, think I'll be looking for a weekend driver and an old z3, s2000 or mustang conv seems nice.
Well guys, I am enjoying this 'new page' in the post. I believe that we are going to set a nice tone on expressing one's opinion in the best possible way! Going on specifics for each one of you I guess I am in agreement with what each of you is saying. We clearly give preference to those aspects of car ownership that give us the highest 'satisfaction' and we cope with the fact that probably there is no single car that can give us 'it all'. Once again is when we fine tune to select the 'balanced solution' we individually prefer that our path may diverge a bit.
I recognize the european cars give you that extra kick on fast starts and accelaration that is not easy to find in Japanese vehicles.
I agree also that the pinnacle of technical execution on a lux cruiser may belong to Lexus, but still my actual 'voting with the wallet' goes to Honda products
Not that I feel any justification is due but since we are exchanging our ideas in this post I can suggest tha part of my preference is driven by the desire to contain 'capital expenditures'.
Yep! I may also have lost some of that desire for engine tweaking (or I may have transfered that labor of love in high-end electronic gizmos, such as having my own wireless network from the party room to the swimming pool, media servers to hear my 20,000 songs (all encoded from legally bought CDs), etc). Most certainly I go into new car buying ~ every 5 years (with a 1 year step apart for the 2 vehicles we own) and I hate to apportion more than 80K for the fleet ( I still have to send the small ones through college and all that jazz). So with that self imposed cap I really work hard to find the best bang for the back, and honestly the lure of Honda/Acura products is too strong to resist for me.
So now that I bared my soul you can see how tantalizing is to hear that for 50K I can put myself in a new RL (I will be in the market at the end of 2006, now I am enjoying my 2003 Accord EX-L) with a lot of the things I like a new tranny that can kick 70% of engine trust to the rear axle, drive like curving roads did not exist and sip on gasoline like a beach goer with his ice cold lemonade (well I am not sure this last 'figure of speach' will work for everybody but if the hydrid model comes along that lemonade may last year around! lol).
But once again I believe loving other cars outside the Honda stable is perfectly legit and I would not mind driving several of them myself. It is just that when it said and done I seem to go back to an Honda car!
So sorry to hear that. They used to do a similar thing at my office, but I convinced the headcheese to pay into an extra "car fund" to our salaries each year, rather than continuing to buy us Ford Tauruses. EVERYONE thanked me for that. Literally overnight, the lot went from pretty much all Ford Taurus to LS (mine), XJ8, an E500, two 540is, a CLK500, and a C320. Everyone is much happier.
Steve, I absolutely agree with you, the new RL looks to be a fantastic car, the best Acura yet. (and the TL is no slouch.) I'm also very interested in the new M45. 1400% increase in front end rigidity over the G35 FM platform! Plus zero front end lift like the G (.27cd) Someone posted an Autoweek review of just an early test mule, and they were VERY impressed. Handling is supposed to be a major step up from the G. Also, the autobox has been recalibrated, with wider ratios and a shorter final drive. I smell Euro killer.
Regarding mods and performance, honestly the cheaper [non-permissible content removed] cars like the Civic and Supra are the favorite of modders, not the German cars.
Not too many people are going to spend $50k+ on a car, mod it out and then race it. My bro, who is a mechanic and does this stuff, tells me older generation Honda Civics are the favorite of modders b/c the shell is so light.
Lower it, put in a turbo v4/i4 and it flies. His modded Civic can hit 180 real fast and blows away McLarens and Porsches easy. Before that the VW bug was the favorite of modders because it was the lightest car around. Of course, the bug was also completely useless in a crash.
Believe it or not, the key thing to sheer speed is not the engine, it's to be light. Even a weak v4 can overpower a v8 if the car is light enough.
Luxury accoutrements in the MB and BMW like CD players, air cond, catalytic converts, etc. tack on 200 to 300 pounds of weight which directly impacts acceleration. Plus all the sound deadening materials, the thicker and higher quality but also heavier European steel used in these cars also drags down their performance.
You have to remember that the Euro sites you look at are populated by enthusiasts who are not representative of the general population. IMO, which I can't prove one way or the other, most people buying MB or BMW do so for the prestige, not for the performance.
You're sort of correct. Except, the Supra is not a light car. Far from it. 3,505lbs. The 3000GT was a real porker, close to 2 tons in curb weight. By contrast, a 330i is 3,285lbs. And an A4 1.8T, despite the perception of being heavy because of the AWD system, is actually only 3,252lbs. I think the reason you dont see super tuned BMWs or Audi's is because of the cost, not necessarily the weight. These cars are world renowned for their handling, so I dont think its lbs thats holding them back. The BMW and Audi badge are considered luxury brands here. In Europe, they sell every day cars, like the A3, which is probably a popular car to tune there, like the Golf is here.
Ultimately I think the reason Japanese cars are the popular ones to tune though, are because they started it first. Not that Americans havent, but a different kind of tuning, we made hotrods, they put in turbos and wing kits. Drift racing came straight from Japan.
think back to the time when the civic si of the past (i think 88-91), crx, were so dirt cheap when handed down by parent to child or sold as second hand... so tuning made absolute sense.
as for the bmw, will i buy a 3 again? surely, will i buy a 5 or 7, ummm unsure, that's where the RL comes in.
Brilliant post(s) markcincinnati! Your comments have added a refreshing element of logic, civility, insight, and superb prose which is, to say the least, rare on most message boards. That said, and having already placed a deposit on an 05 RL but not being the most technically or mechanically astute individual I have a question:
Is it unreasonable to expect a 300hp VTEC to wring out more that 300 ft lbs of torque below the 4000 rpm range? Is this possible? And should that be the case - would that be equal to the performance of a V8 with similar power specs? The reason I pose this question is because Honda/Acura, being keenly aware of the criticism of not having a V8 in their arsenal, just might make a statement to the automotive industry to the effect - "We've always maintained that a V6 is adequate and we shall now demonstrate the veracity of our point via the 05' RL sedan which will render moot the notional concept that V6 powered automobiles cannot keep up with and in many instances exceed the performance of V8 powered cars..." or something to that effect.
I trust my fellow readers do not find my comments too naive...but the brother has to know!
I assume somewhere that the HP and Torque specs are detailed. Frankly, within reason, I could care less about the number of cylinders and to a lesser extent the HP. Torque however is a different matter.
Torque is what we buy and Horsepower is what we quote. I guess the bragging rights du jour require something north of 250 HP and certainly 300HP is a number that makes for good ad copy.
However what is important is the torque curve -- somewhat even more than the actual torque.
Let's say the torque of the new engine is 250 and it reacheds that peak at 2,000 rpm. That might feel more impressive than 300 at 3,800 rpm; and, the 0-60 time would (all things being equal) probably be better for the former than the latter.
Insofar as torque and number of cylinders is concerned, I would think that a V8 engine rated at 270 foot pounds of torque @ 3,500RPM and HP of 300 @ 5,500 RPM would "perform and feel the same" as a V6 with identical or very similar specifications.
The V8 is, IMHO, needed for "marketing" -- personally I don't need it for power or milage. Indeed, I have had three great V8 cars over the past 6 years -- their main contribution to my pleasure behind the wheel has been NOT from their accelerative force or any other measurable (in seconds) performance issue, rather the ONLY laudible attribute of the V8 was the sound. The sound of an Audi 4.2 V8 at wide open throttle is fantastic, humbling, impressive, grin inspiring, etc.
The funny thing is, to make the point: the Audi A6 with a 2.7T V6 @ 250HP and 258 foot pounds of torque and a 5 speed automatic is quicker than the Audi A6 with a 4.2 V8 @ 300HP and 295 foot pounds of torque and a 5 speed automatic.
The argument goes, "yea but. . .at speeds over 90 miles an hour, the V8 really comes into its own and is stronger than the V6." Technically true, but practically speaking, what is the point again?
The new 300HP Acura RL engine, assuming it has a usable and impressive torque curve, will have nothing to be ashamed of in the real world. But, in the "perception is reality" world that sometimes gets in the way of "real reality" well, Honda might have been advised to have engineered a V8 for no other reason than "bragging rights."
Since I do plan to keep this new Acura on my short list, I can only speak for myself, I will not delist the Acura simply by virtue of its lack of two extra cylinders.
For the fun of it, take a look at the Volvo S60 Type R 6spd manual: AWD, 300HP, 295 foot pounds of torque (below 2,000 RPM) from a 2.5 liter 5 cylinder -- and a pretty sweet sounding one at that (well, until you get past about 5,500 rpms, where it starts to sound a little, uh, "coarse.")
As Mel Brooks says, "it's all about moichendizing. . ."
RL is likely going to get a revised version of the 3.5-liter V6 unit found in the MDX. Now, in MDX, the engine delivers 265 HP @ 5800 rpm and 253 lb.-ft @ 3500 to 5000 rpm (90% or more of torque is available from 2000 rpm).
So, at low thru mid range, the engine output should be the same if not better. The gain will be from mid range and above. A broader (and slightly higher) torque curve will be responsible for the additional 35 HP or so. But being lighter (by 700 lb. compared to MDX), the feel would be different. I’m guessing that the peak torque output would be rated 260 lb.-ft. And, 90% or so of it will be available at 2000 rpm.
So, torque is going to be near the top compared to its six-cylinder competition. But, 300 HP would close to the sedans with V8 competition. IMO, as much is a V8 about bragging rights, so is having horsepower as well. And that’s okay.
jeff88: Am thinkng that the vtec will not equal horsepower with torque. Most appear to be 5-10% reduced, i.e., 300 HP w/ 280 ft lbs. at peak.
A well-designed engine will typically return 70-75 lb.-ft for each liter of displacement. A 3.5-liter should be able to deliver 245-260 lb.-ft at peak (slightly more, if emissions, mileage, NVH etc. are not a concern).
VTEC, and systems like it, try to maintain a near peak torque for extended range of engine speed. The broader the range, the more difference would exist between peak torque “value” and peak horsepower “value”.
The new 300C engine 340HP 390 foot pounds of torque.
And, as we all know diesel engines often have massive torque even if they have relatively normal HP.
Acura and Honda are both currently (rumor) contemplating the complaints about their products -- which I have been told include "lack of fresh product" -- leading to the mean age of Honda buyers approaching the "danger" zone (and that would be what over 35?) in terms of the future.
Of course this concern hits Toyota and Honda both and I'll wager that there will be some serious catch up from these Japanese mfgrs.
The Cadillac example -- near extinction, i.e. -- is apparently well known by these manufacturers and they are fulminating remedies to this situation.
I suspect that while a V8 is certainly within Honda's capabilities to develop, that the need to refresh the Acura RL in content and style exceeded the need for the bragging rights of a V8 -- price could have been a factor too. And, besides, when you can legitimately publish 300HP in your marketing literature, you can more or less downplay the source of that power. No lies, mind you, but let the people assume.
I had a fellow in my A6 4.2 and I needed to merge on an interstate with some alacrity, so I floored the car and it surged forward with "grace, fury and power (and a wonderful sound)" and my passenger said, "wow that is great for a V6" -- as he assumed my 2001 Audi A6 just HAD to be so equipped.
If the test drive of the new RL is as I suspect it will be, the need to disclose the number of cylinders (unless asked of course) will be rendered moot. Or as my friend says, "mute."
Roertsmx, was using the mdx stats for my earlier comment about hp v torque for acura vtec.
Good points all about hp v torque v weight for comparison puposes. the last component of the formula is gearing (which is why I like a 6 sp v 5 sp for with the chance for a higher top end for highway mileage, yet enough gears from 1st on to maximize power usage.) the rl with 5 should be plenty for most driving. pure greed on my part; "moichendizing" differentiation for acura leads me to want more. & why shouldn't one want 0-60 under 7 seconds with an achievable mileage range of 20 - 30 mpg city/highway. especially with projected gas prices continuously rising due to refinery limitations.
...if Honda developed a 3.5 liter version of its 2.2 liter commonrail turbo-diesel (Euro Accord), it would deliver 220 HP, and 390 lb.-ft @ 2000 rpm. The Accord 2.2-liter CTD-i is rated at 140 HP/245 lb.-ft.
Mark, Thank you for the education on HP and Torque, it's beginning to crystalize now...Revealing was your insight given on the quickness of a 2.7T V6 vs a 4.2 V8 Audi. After having read your initial post and reviewed a few others I've discovered that it's not unusual at all for the HP figures to be eclipsed by the torque numbers. Given that Acura boldly claimed at the 04' NY Auto show that the new RL will offer performance that "...cars in its class simply cannot match..." leads me to believe that the torque curve and overall performance will indeed be phenomenal! Anything less will severely bruise Honda's reputation for engineering prowess and make them the laughing stock of the automotive industry. However, having been a loyal and satisfied customer of Honda/Acura for many years, something tells me they will deliver the "goods" - there's simply too much at stake for them not to...
When Acura says things like "performance the others cannot match", they are not making a specific claim. They could be talking about 0-60, or the 1/4 mile, or 50-70 mph passing, or track lap times, or cornering, or lateral grip, or... well.... just about anything.
I have so enjoyed reading this discussion for at least the past week. You guys are really well informed, debate civilly, and are willing to learn from each other. This line of conversation is a great example of the atmosphere we love in Town Hall. Cheers!
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
I don't think Honda make diesel engines, do they? The 2.2 liter I-CTDi engine used in European Accord is Honda’s first in-house diesel engine. Honda’s “purchased” diesel is used in European Civic (the engine deal between Honda and GM, where Honda supplies GM with gasoline V6 engines in exchange for Isuzu 1.7 liter CTD-I for European Civic).
Ah, on the Supra you have to realize that it IS heavy, but blessed with a wonderfully durable/strong engine. Supras are the choice for SERIOUS engine mods and turbo upgrades due to this strength, as 6-700 HP can be made fairly easily, and there are numerous examples of 1000hp+ specimens.
One more thing...Can you elucidate on the nuance of a "torque curve"? Exactly what is it and what qualifies such a curve to be, as you state, "impressive"?
you want a flat torque curve. a "curvy" torque curve means that you get power at certain rpms but not at others.
generally, a straight 6 or I6 provides the flattest torque curve because the engine is inherently balanced, i.e., the natural vibrations caused by cylinders on one side are cancelled out by equal and counterbalancing vibrations by the cylinders on the other side.
it's why BMW prefers straight 6's for the 3 and 5 series. it's also why Chevy Trailblazer/GMC Envoy have the best engines in their class even though just about everything else on those SUV's is not quite up to par.
I know of no flat torque curves, hence the name, curve -- however, I agree that what is desired (by the driver) is a flat torque curve. Yet, let's take an example of a flat cure that would be, shall we say, unimpressive: 270 pound feet peak @ 3,800 - 4,500 RPM with 90% of peak available @ 3,600 RPM. Zzzz! Boring (to make a point).
First off, let's state that for the size, weight, class, gearing, etc of these cars (Premium and/or near luxury "mid-size" or "super mid-size") that the manufacturers for marketing reasons and for performance reasons (which are also part and parcel of the marketing mix) want to be able to market a minimum of 250+HP. Yet, they also want to make certain the car feels powerful -- this feeling comes almost exclusively from torque. Torque is generally not mentioned in ad copy for reasons that must have something to do with the fact that for most folks it is less meaningful, I suspect.
So, torque as an absolute fixed number is probably required to be in a similar range and that would probably mean 225 to 275 foot pounds (peak). Many factors, most notably breathing, can raise this number, flatten the curve and make the peak number "come on" at relatively low rpms.
So our new engine is going to come out at 300HP at, for sake of argument, 6,000RPM. It will be advertised as a "potent 300HP engine," the RPMS will not be listed except in the fine print.
The engineers will want to make the torque either as high as is possible or "come on" quickly -- and ideally they will attempt to do both.
An impressive torque curve for this mythical engine might be: 270 foot pounds from 2,000 - 5,000RPM (of course the explanation would indclude a graph showing that EXACTLY 270 pound feet are not available over the full 3,000 RPM range, but are visually (on the graph) are approximately a straight line.) Such a low (the engine speed at which it is first achieved), flat (the range of low to high engine speed at which this torque figure is maintained) and high numeric torque value (and 270 foot pounds is a high number, relatively speaking) would be impressive and contribute to the car's capability to accelerate from 0 - 60mph (the holy grail numbers) in under 7 or 6 seconds, based on gear ratios, final drive ratios and weight of an unladen swallow (thank you Monty Python).
The "tricks" that can be played to achieve certain accelerative numbers include -- the engineering prowess (EP) to make the torque number larger, the EP to make the torque number happen at low rpms, the EP to make the peak torque number available over as broad a range of engine rpms as possible, the selection of a lower (higher numerically) final drive ratio, the selection of gear ratios or number of gears as in 4,5 or 6 forward speeds and finally making the car a light a possible.
Of course the gear ratio choices can make a relatively anemic engine accelerate the car to 60mph rapidly -- but the cost is that the engine must run at much higher RPM's than would an engine that had more torque at lower RPMs -- often such a trade off means that the engine can run at 1,000 or more RPM's higher than a more powerful engine -- and sometimes this translates into poorer milage, a lower top end, more wear and tear on the engine, etc.
This phrase "there's no replacement for displacement" is probably being shouted by those who question Honda for putting a 300HP 6 cyliner engine in the new Acura. Theoretically, at least, an 8 cylinder engine producing 300HP would be "less taxed" to do so, could run more slowly, sip fuel, bla bla bla.
The Audi 1.8T motor can be "easily" tuned to 350HP -- it is a 4 cylinder engine. By the way, the engine does have to work pretty hard to get to that much HP. Conversely the new hemi engine from Chrysler is barely breaking a sweat to achieve 340 HP.
High torque figures (from smaller engines, relatively) requires at the minimum "high volumetric efficiency" in the combustion chambers to compensate for the lack of displacement. It always gets back to the need for real displacement in cubic inches (or metric) or volumetric displacement (how much air and fuel can be sucked and or blown into the combustion chamber, compressed, ignited and evacuated -- and how fast can this take place?)
All engines involve some compromise -- the impressive engine will have something like this (thinking of today's marketing needs): ~ 250 - 300+HP at 5 - 6,500RMP; 225 - 300 foot pounds of torque peak over an RPM range that is fairly broad (2,000RPM's at least, e.g., 2,000 to 4,000RPM or 3,000 to 5,000RPM) and, if possible has the bulk of the number coming on at very low RPMs (2,000 - 2,500 for 90% of peak torque, for example, in context with the breadth noted in the example).
I have not seen the Acura's numbers, it is my educated guess that they will have to fall within these parameters or that 300HP number will be somewhat of a "yawner."
We buy torque, we sell HP, we brag about HP, we grin for torque.
Torque makes the world go round. . .well, OK, maybe that's a little over the top.
A flat torque curve deviates little from its peak value over a broad range of engine speeds. Click here to see a dynograph, from dynospotracing.com, of Acura NSX 3.2/V6 SC. In these cases, it doesn’t matter where the peak torque arrives, because the torque output over an extended range is virtually the same.
With flat torque curve comes a continuously (and consistently) rising power curve, which is what you want.
The power (read bhp) exerted by any rotating object is the torque it exerts multiplied by the speed at which it rotates. this is foot-pounds multiplied by radians/second. A radian is a distance around an arc divided by the length of the radius (feet per foot). It is a different measure from "degrees" around an arc.
1 hp = 550 ft-lbs/sec = 550 (ft-lbs)x(rad/sec) comes from an old english arbitary point set about what a horse would weigh.
since 1 rad/sec = 60 rad/min this equals = 33,000 (ft-lbs)x(rad/min)
horsepower = rpm x torque / 5252 torque = 5252 x horsepower / rpm
what this all means, is that despite i being a fan of honda engines, there is really never a replacement for displacement, but at the same time, that displacement is meaningless in big bore engines that can't scream up to any decent rpm. this is also why, you can strive to "tune" the torque "curve", but you can rarely "tune" a horsepower curve directly atleast... also i think i can safely say, if you are somebody who likes to keep pushing your car to the limits, then you want an engine that can scream up to higher rpm's and are better off running behind hp (bhp) rather than "torque".
Agreed! The quality posts by markcincinnati, lexusguy, robertsmx, jeff88, steveaccord, saugatak, ksoman, and others make this particular message thread simply reek with excellence! I really appreciate them sharing their knowledge and insight with me and others who aren't quite up to snuff in the automotive technical arena. I'm rapidly becoming a more educated consumer and I just wonder if engineering management types from Honda/Acura read these posts to get a feel for what their potential customers want in their products. Again...thanks for the absolutely superb posts!!!
Wow - nice description. You nailed what I was trying to get at for gearing with a 5/6 sp. It sure is nice to get up to speed fast and even nicer to run at 80 mph at somehwere less than 2500 rpm with a 6 cyl, less than 2100 rpm with an 8. that translates into the 30 mpg range for a reasonably slippery body style.
recently had an s40 rental and achieved 34 mpg back and forth from houston to dallas over fairly flat terrain. running at 80 mph, the 5sp s40 4 cyl turned 2900 rpm which is identical to my 4sp rl v6. I would have gotten 24-25 mpg for the same trip w/ the acura; both runing on premium gas. with a higher top end gear at 2400, my mileage likely would have been around 28-31 mpg, about a 15% improvement. with premium costing around 1.90 per gallon locally, one could easily reduce fuel costs annually by $200, reduce emissions, reduce fuel stops etc. Over a large population, that's a lot less smog and costs that could be plowed elsewhere in the economy.
Since I've just decided to run for president, the platform will be for more, taller gears to balance the budget...
Honda will be launching redesigned Odyssey this Fall, and rumor is that its 3.5 liter V6 will now have “VCM” (Variable Cylinder Management, Honda’s version of “Displacement On Demand”). VCM has been available in Japanese market Honda Inspire (American Accord with minor exterior cosmetic changes, “Acura interior” and 250 HP 3.0 liter V6).
VCM turns off one bank (three cylinders) of the V6 during cruising/idling. Combine this with the tall final drive, and the mileage obtained should go up by 15-20% (which may translate to 30 mpg for a 4500 lb, 250 HP, minivan!).
Honda has also introduced its own version of Direct Injection currently used in a small minivan called Stream. Compared to other DI engines in the market which can go as lean as 40:1 (air/fuel ratio), Honda claims that its “I-VTEC-I” engine can go to 65:1. Stream uses the same basic engine as the base RSX (Integra in Japan), 2.0 liter I-4, but with “I-VTEC-I” instead of “I-VTEC”.
While weighing 600 lb. more than the Integra, and with less slippery body, the mileage estimate is higher for the minivan (15.0 km/liter compared to 14.4 km/liter). I doubt we’re going to see I-VTEC-I in a Honda/Acura V6 anytime soon though.
Comments
That's the feel I get.
1) reliability
2) crash worthiness
3) ride quality
4) performance/price ratio
I must confess I sometime groove into 'dream mode' and think of one or two exotic cars
from Mayback to the latest Maserati hotrod but that's about it. Then I immediately think that for the first it would be my chaffeur not me to do the driving while for the second I would not really get a kick out of it unless I was to regularly visit a racing track facility!
So once again I would immediately strike back to the purpose of this post thread: the 2005 Acura RL. Is there progress in really knowing what models will be available?
I was hoping more rumors would suggest of the hybrid model availability by now (although the January 2005 mentioned in ealrier posts does not make much sense to me since until now Honda people has denied rumors that the hybrid model will be part of the lineup for the fall release!).
Pleaspost on if you have news!!
The car's styling, while not as sporty as that of its smaller siblings, is sharp. The interior looks great. And it seems as though the RL will outperform anything in its price class, even without a V8. Like the rest of the Acura lineup, the 2005 RL presents excellent value in an exciting package, something Lexus has yet to offer (in my opinion, of course).
-- Mark
Lexus has done the unthinkable according to some now retired German executives from MB, Porsche, BMW and Audi, but they still aren't even close in image or prestige to MB or BMW when you start talking about higher end cars...especially Mercedes-Benz. Mercedes holds the clout in countries where there are no Lexuses.
Lexus doesn't have any V12, M, AMG like cars or anything to even compare to the gee-whiz cars from BMW or Mercedes-Benz.
I'll give Lexus credit though they know what they're doing, now if they'd jazz up the driving experience and styling a bit w/ some gee-whiz models of their own.
Lexus will continue to out-do Acura and Infiniti however, because they're going global in 2005-06 while Acura will forever remain a US brand. Infiniti has similar global plans, but ahh...Nissan's pockets aren't as deep as Toyota's.
M
For the moment, yes. But there are strong indications that Lexus plans to get deadly serious about injecting some real performance into its cars, and also moving the brand further up market. The first of these is the rumored "GT" cars, which will use a combination of larger, more powerful gasoline engines, combined with next generation electric power, to compete with the likes of Motorsport and AMG Gmbh. After that, another rumor is that around the '08 model year, Lexus plans to introduce either a V12, or a big hybrid V8 "super LS" to compete with the likes of the S600 and 760Li and A8 6.0 W12. Lexus NA recently did a study asking its customers if they would be interested in a car starting above $70K, and from what Ive heard, the answer was yes.
I guess Lexus has no intentions on staying put like Acura huh...lol.
M
M
M
ksso
Back to RL, I would love to see how this car looks in darker colors, and better yet, in person.
It is sorta like the "truth" that John Kerry voted to raise taxes 350 times -- well, this is technically true, but hardly anyone would "count things" thusly in order to come up with these figures. Likewise, I suspect that the list: reliability, crash worthiness, ride quality and performance/price ratio might be as true as the 350 votes to raise taxes are true -- that is from a certain perspective.
The spirit of what Steve suggests, I agree completely with. I'll even go so far as to say his list is "dead on accurate and true" even though I have no clue if it really is ranked and itemized properly. It feels right -- and here is the qualifier -- for the "spirit" of the the kind of buyers who, apparently, are attracted to cars from certain manufacturers and/or certain geographies.
There is a list of criteria, surveyed, re-surveyed and re-re-surved regularly and frequently by all manufacturers. Indeed, it is my best guess that manufacturers "hire" JD Powers and other statistical analysis companies to gather and compile such data into "meaningful" information (lists perhaps?)
So, I am, anecdotally, hardly scientifically, coming to the conclusion -- and this is the broadest of broad generalizations (and it is accurate insofar as it is "just my hunch") -- that those who are interested and repeat buyers in (mainly) Japanese cars, actually do put reliability in their top ten buying criteria, and apparently in their top five criteria.
On the other hand, based as noted above, buyers of European cars (and perhaps I should add this EXTRA qualifier -- repeat buyers of European cars) do NOT place reliability in their top five buying criteria -- and, this is really stretching the point, perhaps not even in their top nine.
I participate and lurk in several of these forums. Being 52 and having no children at home and having a working-professional (attorney)wife, I have lots of free time to read lots and lots (too many probably) automotive magazines (from the US and Europe). The conclusion I can reach, based on Steve's list, is that numbers 2 through 4 probably would be on a European car buyer's top 5 or top 10 buying criteria. I cannot imagine reliability, however, ever coming into the top 5.
Now, this is certainly NOT because we European car buyers don't want more reliability -- I can assure you that we do want our cars to be more reliable. When pressed to free-hand write a list of criteria, however, well (gulp) reliability just doesn't LEAP to our minds in the top 5 "compelling" reasons -- indeed, although Steve's #4 I mostly agree with, I would probably be somewhat more likely to edit it to just say "performance" and leave out the price ratio portion.
Based on what I have seen, BMW's, Mercedes and some Audis, Jaguars, Saabs and Volvos do not have a terrific performance/price ratio. As my wife exclaimed after having test driven two BMW's, one Mercedes and an Audi (a 330xi, 330i, C320 and A4 1.8T quattro Ultra Sport), "where is the extra $10,000 in the BMW and Mercedes -- what could possibly account for such a price gap?"
My answer: Image, Reputation, Exclusivity, perhaps, just perhaps Snob Appeal. An Audi, to this very day, to some folks is "a Volkswagen that knows Somebody." Audi, is "in" the Premium class -- on paper and certainly in other parts of the world; but, here in North America, Audi is still "not quite" perceived as a member of the Premium class, even though the current A8L and the upcoming A6 seem poised to crank Audi up a notch or two into Premium territory (check back next year, this time and see if the new A6 has raised Audis image perhaps "almost" to BMW-levels.)
Anyway -- I read the posts from several of the European town halls, as noted -- and other than a few rants about some horrible expensive mechanical bit that has gone south and perhaps some poor treatment of the customer by the odd dealer -- most of the Euro car buyers seem to be interested in Performance: of the suspension, engine, transmission, and chassis. The discussions include forays into modding, replacing tires and wheels, suspension bits and exhaust systems. Chest pouding pertaining to "the changes made to the base car" are hardly rare.
Discussions that include high performance driving events, both sanctioned and, er, casual, yea, casual, pepper the Euro car chat sites -- moreso, by far, than the sites dedicated to the Premium Japanese cars.
Apparently both European and Japanese car buyers (in the Premium class) like "gadgets and gizmos" -- the European buyers seem willing to seek out new and improved aftermarket gizmos moreso than the Japanese buyers.
I could, and you'll probably thank me for not, go on, attempting to support my, as noted, unscientific analysis -- I could cut and paste bits and pieces of postings from Acura and Lexus and Audi and BMW -- who knows, it may even convince you that my observations actually do have merit.
They will, I'll wager, not make you push reliability down to #7 or #10 on your top 10, especially, if, like Steve, it is currently #1 on your list.
I have "discovered" why this "condition" seems to be: The European cars are overwhelimingly leased for relatively short term periods (equal to or less than 39 months). Most of these Premium cars from Europe come with 100% free maintenance for 3 or 4 years and an appropriate number of miles somewhere between 36,000 and 50,000.
Most of these Premium cars from Europe include free loaner cars when your car is in for service or warranty work. Most of these brands also wash and vacuum your car when they work on it and they survey owners relentlessly afterwards which, for those of you with any Psychology courses under your belt will trigger the Hawthorne Effect -- simply surveying the customers improves the perceived quality of the Brand [sic].
So, I conlclude saying that Steve's list is probably true and accurate here -- but is also probably irrelevant to the buyer of a Premium European car -- and, to repeat, almost certainly irrelevant to the repeat buyer of a Premium European car.
I suspect this is hard to imagine for you if you are used to and/or proud of keeping a car over 50,000 miles. I have no clue what that is like. I kept one, once, to 49,500 miles and I was counting the miles as I drove into my Audi dealer to roll right into my brand new Audi -- which I also kept for less than 3 years or 50,000 miles.
According to my dealer, I am "typical" -- indeed in 1988 Audi coined the term "the three year test drive" -- and to this day, that phrase represents almost 90% of their customers (as in about that percentage leases for equal to or less than 39 months.)
We're all truthful and accurate or we're all lying liars telling lies.
I enjoyed reading your reply entirely but I wanted to comment on the fact that due to the late time of my posting I unintentionally left out a clear statement that those 4 criteria were my subjective ones. I am happy that my oversight led to a very nice development (namely your comments on my post) and I agree with you that the criteria may be shared among repeated Japanes car buyers and not among those favoring purchase of the European brands. It is probably superfluous to state that I rank among members of the first group and yet as previously admitted I enjoy the occasional drive on european cars (rwd models).
btw I agree about your general point of number/statistic manipulations as well! In my lineof businessin (medicine/science) in fact we joke that the only problem with any data analysis is that of finding the right statistical analysis tool (zillions of them out there: paired, unpaired, weighed and not, meta analysis techniques etc...) with the problem being that innacurate selection means that your scientific/statistical 'determination/results' are technically correct (meaning number chruncing follows the rules of whatever tool you have chosen) but you conclusion (interpretation of those numbers) can be meaningless. I spent in fact a few words in this regard to make my point over the controversy pitching CR vs. JD Powers reports in the Accord post! Like you said, using Sen Kerry example, you can lie any way you want using numbers (attempting to gain credibility exploiting the association most of us make with the unambiguos qualities of mathematical logic). The reality is that only matching those numbers with appropriate analysis templates yelds meaningful results. Well, we all know politicians are not very concerned with being meaningful anyway! lol
See you!
Steve
I have been seriously considering looking at the new Acura RL SH-AWD (when it finally makes it to the dealers). But I must tell you and others who care to comment, that the spirit of many of the comments about Acura and Lexus -- to just cite two, not to exclude other fine brands -- seems to have so much to do with their being at some level of perfection as that relates to reliability.
I see a lesser amount of energy spent on other aspects of auto ownership -- performance for example, as I mentioned in the prior post.
One of my associates to bring this line of thinking to a close took three cars out for test drives, a Lexus ES 300, a Chrysler 300C and a Cadillac CTS. He also took out an Acura TL, but his wife said "too small." BTW he bought the CTS.
His comment to me was, that the Japanese cars, espcially the Lexus were probably the highest quality, best fit and finish and "perfect" in every way -- except they were not "engaging."
I don't know, exactly if that is the same as boring but it kinda reminds me of Jay Leno's comments about the Premium Japanese cars which echoed that sentiment.
When I first started driving European cars, my boss at the time (in 1977) told me "German cars have solid valve lifters, they require adjustment; and, these cars are best appreciated by people who love to lift the hood and tinker with their cars -- Germans designed these cars and it shows." He would change his own oil, plugs and was always on the hunt for some new performance enhancer to install on his BMW "Bavaria" or his Audi Silver Fox or his Porsche 944 turbo.
Different strokes. I wonder if I'll fit in with the culture of the Acura RL, that is? I love to tweak my 2.7T Audi's engine, tires, wheels, suspension, etc. I look forward to visiting the service department at my dealership and just talking with the service manager, himself an Audi and Porsche tweaker/modder.
When I test drove the IS300, I liked the car, but as the man said "it just didn't engage me. . ." In fact the salesrep spent almost the entire time telling me about the reliability of the car, rather than the performance. The BMW salesrep, two weeks ago, spent virtually all of his words describing the HP, torque, torque curve, final drive ratio, the "short shifter" in the Performance Package option and "oh by the way, 100% of all maintenance is included, now back to discussions of handling, acceleration and chassis dynamics." The differences in the approaches is night and day one insists you look under the hood, the other doesn't even bring it up but points out the cool clock integrated in the dashboard. I mean no disrespect and do not claim that one is superior -- it is just that one has greater appeal to me!
Reading Consumer's Reports where the description beyond the sheer numbers of accelerative capability is "adequate" or "ample" tells me nothing. The passion just doesn't seep through. The handling beyond some statistical notation is said to be "capable" where the auto magazine says "this XYZ corners like it's on rails -- at high speeds on back road twisties, it goes like a snake in a rat hole" or words to that effect. I don't know if that makes the point, but one is almost entirely E=MC (squared) and one is "whoooooooooosh" as we make the jump to light speed! My anecdotal observation is that European car buyers (German mainly) prefer the latter when talking about their cars. Frequency of repair and usable life of the standard spark plugs only rarely comes up as a point of discussion.
Reliability is one thing I do want, but I will not substitute reliability for performance. I hope this apparently non-Japanese-car-buyer trait (I said apparently) makes sense, if, for instance, that really does at least in part describe your "reasons for buying."
Like I said, I plan to test the new Acura RL with SH AWD and 300HP! I hope it will be involving in every sense of the word.
Companies like AEM, Spoon, Comptech, Injen, Greddy, Jackson Racing, A'PEXi, HKS, Skunk2 Racing, ACT, Neuspeed, Venom, etc. are more than willing to sell you hi-perf cross drilled brake rotors, cold air induction and ram air systems, TT kits, superchargers, racing calibrated ECUs, highflow exhaust systems and cats, shocks, sway bars, racing clutches and lightweight flywheels, LSDs, and short throw shifter kits to turn that stock IS300 into a 500hp asphalt burner.
The Fast and the Furious and also 2 Fast 2 Furious. . .
I, think, therefore, I am at least able to say I am aware of what you are talking about. . .perhaps not to your level.
Yet, my premise, my observations, my "anecdotal evidence and conclusions" come more from a general perusal through the various, for lack of a better name, Town Halls (not limited to Edmunds, either).
Those who participate on them, and of course I do include you, are generally "keen to speak about performance" on the European message boards and, um, "less keen" to do so on the non-European boards.
Just an observation and perhaps a conclusion that, hopefully, has merit or at the very least will stimulate some good old debate (and apparently it has done this, at least).
...now, I'm prouder of the repair record v. the lap time. Someone said it better than me, I'm on the side of the fence that keeps the car for 7 years.
Or maybe, haven't hit a decent mid-life crisis yet!
Anyway, what is appealing to this long time driver of a '96 rl is the '05 has everything I would have asked for in an improved version. Well, maybe a 6 speed auto manual would have been nice, but the 5 sp beats my 4 sp all day. It would be hard to convince me to go to another marque based on owner experience with car and dealer.
As for brand recognition, those surveys are done across the population for general concensus. If surveying only the owners of $35k+ imported autos, I imagine lexus would take top honors, followed by bmw then MB based solely on the # of each of those cars sold here. In europe, guess it would be BMW, MB then Audi.
true confession -- am looking to sell my '96 rl not because I want to sell it, but because my company has ordered a company car for me. an impala. while I am not looking forward to having an impala for my daily driver, the thought of having somebody else pick up everything related to car costs is pretty nice. also, in a year or so, think I'll be looking for a weekend driver and an old z3, s2000 or mustang conv seems nice.
Going on specifics for each one of you I guess I am in agreement with what each of you is saying. We clearly give preference to those aspects of car ownership that give us the highest 'satisfaction' and we cope with the fact that probably there is no single car that can give us 'it all'. Once again is when we fine tune to select the 'balanced solution' we individually prefer that our path may diverge a bit.
I recognize the european cars give you that extra kick on fast starts and accelaration that is not easy to find in Japanese vehicles.
I agree also that the pinnacle of technical execution on a lux cruiser may belong to Lexus, but still my actual 'voting with the wallet' goes to Honda products
Not that I feel any justification is due but since we are exchanging our ideas in this post I can suggest tha part of my preference is driven by the desire to contain 'capital expenditures'.
Yep! I may also have lost some of that desire for engine tweaking (or I may have transfered that labor of love in high-end electronic gizmos, such as having my own wireless network from the party room to the swimming pool, media servers to hear my 20,000 songs (all encoded from legally bought CDs), etc).
Most certainly I go into new car buying ~ every 5 years (with a 1 year step apart for the 2 vehicles we own) and I hate to apportion more than 80K for the fleet ( I still have to send the small ones through college and all that jazz). So with that self imposed cap I really work hard to find the best bang for the back, and honestly the lure of Honda/Acura products is too strong to resist for me.
So now that I bared my soul you can see how tantalizing is to hear that for 50K I can put myself in a new RL (I will be in the market at the end of 2006, now I am enjoying my 2003 Accord EX-L) with a lot of the things I like a new tranny that can kick 70% of engine trust to the rear axle, drive like curving roads did not exist and sip on gasoline like a beach goer with his ice cold lemonade (well I am not sure this last 'figure of speach' will work for everybody but if the hydrid model comes along that lemonade may last year around! lol).
But once again I believe loving other cars outside the Honda stable is perfectly legit and I would not mind driving several of them myself. It is just that when it said and done I seem to go back to an Honda car!
Steve, I absolutely agree with you, the new RL looks to be a fantastic car, the best Acura yet. (and the TL is no slouch.) I'm also very interested in the new M45. 1400% increase in front end rigidity over the G35 FM platform! Plus zero front end lift like the G (.27cd) Someone posted an Autoweek review of just an early test mule, and they were VERY impressed. Handling is supposed to be a major step up from the G. Also, the autobox has been recalibrated, with wider ratios and a shorter final drive. I smell Euro killer.
Regarding mods and performance, honestly the cheaper [non-permissible content removed] cars like the Civic and Supra are the favorite of modders, not the German cars.
Not too many people are going to spend $50k+ on a car, mod it out and then race it. My bro, who is a mechanic and does this stuff, tells me older generation Honda Civics are the favorite of modders b/c the shell is so light.
Lower it, put in a turbo v4/i4 and it flies. His modded Civic can hit 180 real fast and blows away McLarens and Porsches easy. Before that the VW bug was the favorite of modders because it was the lightest car around. Of course, the bug was also completely useless in a crash.
Believe it or not, the key thing to sheer speed is not the engine, it's to be light. Even a weak v4 can overpower a v8 if the car is light enough.
Luxury accoutrements in the MB and BMW like CD players, air cond, catalytic converts, etc. tack on 200 to 300 pounds of weight which directly impacts acceleration. Plus all the sound deadening materials, the thicker and higher quality but also heavier European steel used in these cars also drags down their performance.
You have to remember that the Euro sites you look at are populated by enthusiasts who are not representative of the general population. IMO, which I can't prove one way or the other, most people buying MB or BMW do so for the prestige, not for the performance.
Ultimately I think the reason Japanese cars are the popular ones to tune though, are because they started it first. Not that Americans havent, but a different kind of tuning, we made hotrods, they put in turbos and wing kits. Drift racing came straight from Japan.
as for the bmw, will i buy a 3 again? surely, will i buy a 5 or 7, ummm unsure, that's where the RL comes in.
ksso
Is it unreasonable to expect a 300hp VTEC to wring out more that 300 ft lbs of torque below the 4000 rpm range? Is this possible? And should that be the case - would that be equal to the performance of a V8 with similar power specs? The reason I pose this question is because Honda/Acura, being keenly aware of the criticism of not having a V8 in their arsenal, just might make a statement to the automotive industry to the effect - "We've always maintained that a V6 is adequate and we shall now demonstrate the veracity of our point via the 05' RL sedan which will render moot the notional concept that V6 powered automobiles cannot keep up with and in many instances exceed the performance of V8 powered cars..." or something to that effect.
I trust my fellow readers do not find my comments too naive...but the brother has to know!
Lexusguy, could not agree with you more -- would much rather have an "allowance" than a company car, particularly a non-taxed allowance.
Hi Ksso.
Torque is what we buy and Horsepower is what we quote. I guess the bragging rights du jour require something north of 250 HP and certainly 300HP is a number that makes for good ad copy.
However what is important is the torque curve -- somewhat even more than the actual torque.
Let's say the torque of the new engine is 250 and it reacheds that peak at 2,000 rpm. That might feel more impressive than 300 at 3,800 rpm; and, the 0-60 time would (all things being equal) probably be better for the former than the latter.
Insofar as torque and number of cylinders is concerned, I would think that a V8 engine rated at 270 foot pounds of torque @ 3,500RPM and HP of 300 @ 5,500 RPM would "perform and feel the same" as a V6 with identical or very similar specifications.
The V8 is, IMHO, needed for "marketing" -- personally I don't need it for power or milage. Indeed, I have had three great V8 cars over the past 6 years -- their main contribution to my pleasure behind the wheel has been NOT from their accelerative force or any other measurable (in seconds) performance issue, rather the ONLY laudible attribute of the V8 was the sound. The sound of an Audi 4.2 V8 at wide open throttle is fantastic, humbling, impressive, grin inspiring, etc.
The funny thing is, to make the point: the Audi A6 with a 2.7T V6 @ 250HP and 258 foot pounds of torque and a 5 speed automatic is quicker than the Audi A6 with a 4.2 V8 @ 300HP and 295 foot pounds of torque and a 5 speed automatic.
The argument goes, "yea but. . .at speeds over 90 miles an hour, the V8 really comes into its own and is stronger than the V6." Technically true, but practically speaking, what is the point again?
The new 300HP Acura RL engine, assuming it has a usable and impressive torque curve, will have nothing to be ashamed of in the real world. But, in the "perception is reality" world that sometimes gets in the way of "real reality" well, Honda might have been advised to have engineered a V8 for no other reason than "bragging rights."
Since I do plan to keep this new Acura on my short list, I can only speak for myself, I will not delist the Acura simply by virtue of its lack of two extra cylinders.
For the fun of it, take a look at the Volvo S60 Type R 6spd manual: AWD, 300HP, 295 foot pounds of torque (below 2,000 RPM) from a 2.5 liter 5 cylinder -- and a pretty sweet sounding one at that (well, until you get past about 5,500 rpms, where it starts to sound a little, uh, "coarse.")
As Mel Brooks says, "it's all about moichendizing. . ."
So, at low thru mid range, the engine output should be the same if not better. The gain will be from mid range and above. A broader (and slightly higher) torque curve will be responsible for the additional 35 HP or so. But being lighter (by 700 lb. compared to MDX), the feel would be different. I’m guessing that the peak torque output would be rated 260 lb.-ft. And, 90% or so of it will be available at 2000 rpm.
So, torque is going to be near the top compared to its six-cylinder competition. But, 300 HP would close to the sedans with V8 competition. IMO, as much is a V8 about bragging rights, so is having horsepower as well. And that’s okay.
A well-designed engine will typically return 70-75 lb.-ft for each liter of displacement. A 3.5-liter should be able to deliver 245-260 lb.-ft at peak (slightly more, if emissions, mileage, NVH etc. are not a concern).
VTEC, and systems like it, try to maintain a near peak torque for extended range of engine speed. The broader the range, the more difference would exist between peak torque “value” and peak horsepower “value”.
And, as we all know diesel engines often have massive torque even if they have relatively normal HP.
Acura and Honda are both currently (rumor) contemplating the complaints about their products -- which I have been told include "lack of fresh product" -- leading to the mean age of Honda buyers approaching the "danger" zone (and that would be what over 35?) in terms of the future.
Of course this concern hits Toyota and Honda both and I'll wager that there will be some serious catch up from these Japanese mfgrs.
The Cadillac example -- near extinction, i.e. -- is apparently well known by these manufacturers and they are fulminating remedies to this situation.
I suspect that while a V8 is certainly within Honda's capabilities to develop, that the need to refresh the Acura RL in content and style exceeded the need for the bragging rights of a V8 -- price could have been a factor too. And, besides, when you can legitimately publish 300HP in your marketing literature, you can more or less downplay the source of that power. No lies, mind you, but let the people assume.
I had a fellow in my A6 4.2 and I needed to merge on an interstate with some alacrity, so I floored the car and it surged forward with "grace, fury and power (and a wonderful sound)" and my passenger said, "wow that is great for a V6" -- as he assumed my 2001 Audi A6 just HAD to be so equipped.
If the test drive of the new RL is as I suspect it will be, the need to disclose the number of cylinders (unless asked of course) will be rendered moot. Or as my friend says, "mute."
Whatever.
Good points all about hp v torque v weight for comparison puposes. the last component of the formula is gearing (which is why I like a 6 sp v 5 sp for with the chance for a higher top end for highway mileage, yet enough gears from 1st on to maximize power usage.) the rl with 5 should be plenty for most driving. pure greed on my part; "moichendizing" differentiation for acura leads me to want more. & why shouldn't one want 0-60 under 7 seconds with an achievable mileage range of 20 - 30 mpg city/highway. especially with projected gas prices continuously rising due to refinery limitations.
Thank you for the education on HP and Torque, it's beginning to crystalize now...Revealing was your insight given on the quickness of a 2.7T V6 vs a 4.2 V8 Audi. After having read your initial post and reviewed a few others I've discovered that it's not unusual at all for the HP figures to be eclipsed by the torque numbers. Given that Acura boldly claimed at the 04' NY Auto show that the new RL will offer performance that "...cars in its class simply cannot match..." leads me to believe that the torque curve and overall performance will indeed be phenomenal! Anything less will severely bruise Honda's reputation for engineering prowess and make them the laughing stock of the automotive industry. However, having been a loyal and satisfied customer of Honda/Acura for many years, something tells me they will deliver the "goods" - there's simply too much at stake for them not to...
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
The 2.2 liter I-CTDi engine used in European Accord is Honda’s first in-house diesel engine. Honda’s “purchased” diesel is used in European Civic (the engine deal between Honda and GM, where Honda supplies GM with gasoline V6 engines in exchange for Isuzu 1.7 liter CTD-I for European Civic).
I had no idea they were that heavy or that powerful.
I can see now why my bro was looking for an old Supra engine to put into the shell of an old, really light car (MG I believe).
That combo would blow just about anything away.
generally, a straight 6 or I6 provides the flattest torque curve because the engine is inherently balanced, i.e., the natural vibrations caused by cylinders on one side are cancelled out by equal and counterbalancing vibrations by the cylinders on the other side.
it's why BMW prefers straight 6's for the 3 and 5 series. it's also why Chevy Trailblazer/GMC Envoy have the best engines in their class even though just about everything else on those SUV's is not quite up to par.
First off, let's state that for the size, weight, class, gearing, etc of these cars (Premium and/or near luxury "mid-size" or "super mid-size") that the manufacturers for marketing reasons and for performance reasons (which are also part and parcel of the marketing mix) want to be able to market a minimum of 250+HP. Yet, they also want to make certain the car feels powerful -- this feeling comes almost exclusively from torque. Torque is generally not mentioned in ad copy for reasons that must have something to do with the fact that for most folks it is less meaningful, I suspect.
So, torque as an absolute fixed number is probably required to be in a similar range and that would probably mean 225 to 275 foot pounds (peak). Many factors, most notably breathing, can raise this number, flatten the curve and make the peak number "come on" at relatively low rpms.
So our new engine is going to come out at 300HP at, for sake of argument, 6,000RPM. It will be advertised as a "potent 300HP engine," the RPMS will not be listed except in the fine print.
The engineers will want to make the torque either as high as is possible or "come on" quickly -- and ideally they will attempt to do both.
An impressive torque curve for this mythical engine might be: 270 foot pounds from 2,000 - 5,000RPM (of course the explanation would indclude a graph showing that EXACTLY 270 pound feet are not available over the full 3,000 RPM range, but are visually (on the graph) are approximately a straight line.) Such a low (the engine speed at which it is first achieved), flat (the range of low to high engine speed at which this torque figure is maintained) and high numeric torque value (and 270 foot pounds is a high number, relatively speaking) would be impressive and contribute to the car's capability to accelerate from 0 - 60mph (the holy grail numbers) in under 7 or 6 seconds, based on gear ratios, final drive ratios and weight of an unladen swallow (thank you Monty Python).
The "tricks" that can be played to achieve certain accelerative numbers include -- the engineering prowess (EP) to make the torque number larger, the EP to make the torque number happen at low rpms, the EP to make the peak torque number available over as broad a range of engine rpms as possible, the selection of a lower (higher numerically) final drive ratio, the selection of gear ratios or number of gears as in 4,5 or 6 forward speeds and finally making the car a light a possible.
Of course the gear ratio choices can make a relatively anemic engine accelerate the car to 60mph rapidly -- but the cost is that the engine must run at much higher RPM's than would an engine that had more torque at lower RPMs -- often such a trade off means that the engine can run at 1,000 or more RPM's higher than a more powerful engine -- and sometimes this translates into poorer milage, a lower top end, more wear and tear on the engine, etc.
This phrase "there's no replacement for displacement" is probably being shouted by those who question Honda for putting a 300HP 6 cyliner engine in the new Acura. Theoretically, at least, an 8 cylinder engine producing 300HP would be "less taxed" to do so, could run more slowly, sip fuel, bla bla bla.
The Audi 1.8T motor can be "easily" tuned to 350HP -- it is a 4 cylinder engine. By the way, the engine does have to work pretty hard to get to that much HP. Conversely the new hemi engine from Chrysler is barely breaking a sweat to achieve 340 HP.
High torque figures (from smaller engines, relatively) requires at the minimum "high volumetric efficiency" in the combustion chambers to compensate for the lack of displacement. It always gets back to the need for real displacement in cubic inches (or metric) or volumetric displacement (how much air and fuel can be sucked and or blown into the combustion chamber, compressed, ignited and evacuated -- and how fast can this take place?)
All engines involve some compromise -- the impressive engine will have something like this (thinking of today's marketing needs): ~ 250 - 300+HP at 5 - 6,500RMP; 225 - 300 foot pounds of torque peak over an RPM range that is fairly broad (2,000RPM's at least, e.g., 2,000 to 4,000RPM or 3,000 to 5,000RPM) and, if possible has the bulk of the number coming on at very low RPMs (2,000 - 2,500 for 90% of peak torque, for example, in context with the breadth noted in the example).
I have not seen the Acura's numbers, it is my educated guess that they will have to fall within these parameters or that 300HP number will be somewhat of a "yawner."
We buy torque, we sell HP, we brag about HP, we grin for torque.
Torque makes the world go round. . .well, OK, maybe that's a little over the top.
With flat torque curve comes a continuously (and consistently) rising power curve, which is what you want.
The power (read bhp) exerted by any rotating object is the torque it exerts multiplied by the speed at which it rotates. this is foot-pounds multiplied by radians/second. A radian is a distance around an arc divided by the length of the radius (feet per foot). It is a different measure from "degrees" around an arc.
1 hp = 550 ft-lbs/sec = 550 (ft-lbs)x(rad/sec) comes from an old english arbitary point set about what a horse would weigh.
since 1 rad/sec = 60 rad/min
this equals = 33,000 (ft-lbs)x(rad/min)
1 revolution=2(pi)radians (where pi=3.14 roughly)
therefore
1 rpm = 2(pi) rad/min
1 hp = 5252 (ft-lbs)(rpm)
horsepower = rpm x torque / 5252
torque = 5252 x horsepower / rpm
what this all means, is that despite i being a fan of honda engines, there is really never a replacement for displacement, but at the same time, that displacement is meaningless in big bore engines that can't scream up to any decent rpm. this is also why, you can strive to "tune" the torque "curve", but you can rarely "tune" a horsepower curve directly atleast... also i think i can safely say, if you are somebody who likes to keep pushing your car to the limits, then you want an engine that can scream up to higher rpm's and are better off running behind hp (bhp) rather than "torque".
ksso
recently had an s40 rental and achieved 34 mpg back and forth from houston to dallas over fairly flat terrain. running at 80 mph, the 5sp s40 4 cyl turned 2900 rpm which is identical to my 4sp rl v6. I would have gotten 24-25 mpg for the same trip w/ the acura; both runing on premium gas. with a higher top end gear at 2400, my mileage likely would have been around 28-31 mpg, about a 15% improvement. with premium costing around 1.90 per gallon locally, one could easily reduce fuel costs annually by $200, reduce emissions, reduce fuel stops etc. Over a large population, that's a lot less smog and costs that could be plowed elsewhere in the economy.
Since I've just decided to run for president, the platform will be for more, taller gears to balance the budget...
VCM turns off one bank (three cylinders) of the V6 during cruising/idling. Combine this with the tall final drive, and the mileage obtained should go up by 15-20% (which may translate to 30 mpg for a 4500 lb, 250 HP, minivan!).
Honda has also introduced its own version of Direct Injection currently used in a small minivan called Stream. Compared to other DI engines in the market which can go as lean as 40:1 (air/fuel ratio), Honda claims that its “I-VTEC-I” engine can go to 65:1. Stream uses the same basic engine as the base RSX (Integra in Japan), 2.0 liter I-4, but with “I-VTEC-I” instead of “I-VTEC”.
While weighing 600 lb. more than the Integra, and with less slippery body, the mileage estimate is higher for the minivan (15.0 km/liter compared to 14.4 km/liter). I doubt we’re going to see I-VTEC-I in a Honda/Acura V6 anytime soon though.