Yup, make it a little bigger and stuff in a high-zoot V8, plus all the techno goodies, with a sporty edge to it, and the buyers will flock in.
Just look at how may Q45s Infiniti sold!
This actually brings up a point I believe in. The "middle class" (near luxury/sport sedan) cars have gotten so good, and are enough cheaper than the big boys, that it is real hard to jsutify moving up in class.
BMW 5/7, Infiniti M/Q, Merc. E/S, maybe Audi A6/A8 come to mind. The smaller car is so good, that it is hard (at least to me) to justify an extra $20K or whatever for the big one, unless it is mostly for status.
Hence the TL/RL problem for Acura. If they are too close in mission, the TL will cannibalize sales given the rpice differential, especially since Acura (or Infiniti) doesn't have the brand cachet of BMW or Mercedes.
The RL has 300hp in its current version. It sold well initially when launched but now you can get one heavily discounted. I've ridden in one a few times and though it is a nice vehicle, I'd be hard pressed to drop 45 large on what I consider a AWD Accord with heavy cream. Not say it is bad, just overpriced. Make the RL the size of an S class, put a V8 in it and then it may be worth it.
May be Honda needs to stop educating people about it. They seem to provide too much information than is necessary, especially in a badge conscious segment.
this is kind of repost by me. if honda(acura) wants to play in the big leagues, they need to have a v8 rwd car. low sales figures for the RL show that. they just have to admit it and design one. my neighbors, many of whom drove hondas, all moved onto brands other than acura. not one went from honda to acura. one went from dodge to acura. one replaced their accord with another accord.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I think it stands a good chance of succeeding. Now that the Civic has moved up-market, the Fit will fill the old Civic's slot. Think Civic of about 15–20 years ago in terms of market slot.
I went from Honda to Acura. The TL is so much nicer than an Accord EXV6. The 06 Accord restyle is lame. I tried to like the 06 Accord but its flat out plain and nondescript looking. Zero flair or appeal in my book. So for the low 31s there's the TL. But I guess I'm not in your neighborhood.
When looking at the Acuras I didn't even consider an RL.
Thanks for that post. I did not know Quattro Audis were so different from FWD Audis.
I guess there's no way to keep FWD-style interior room with SH-AWD, so they might as well make an RWD car based on an SH-AWD chassis just to make the traditionalists happy. Better yet, let Mugen do it.
And market better. With the lesser forms of AWD being so common, no one knows that SH-AWD is anything special.
What should be the next engine developed by Honda and why?
The possibilities would include the V8 (of course) for use in the RL, MDX, and Ridgeline, with potential for the Pilot, as well. Another less popular idea for the US market (but still viable elsewhere) would be a turbo-diesel V6 for the Legend and MDX overseas and possibly the Ridgeline here. How about a new small V6 (to replace the 3.0L J-series) for the CR-V and TSX? Or maybe a larger V6 (3.8-4.0L) for the trucks? Then there's the plan to build a V10 for the next exotic.
Or... should Honda forget about cylinders and displacement and put the first HCCI engine into production?
As much as I am not a huge fan over large displacment motors, I think a V8 would be the most useful and could spread out over a range of vehicles. Ridgline and RL could benefit greatly in performance and street cred (Putting a sock the Big 3 truck buyers critical mouths)
As far as sixes go, the 3.0 could be phased out for the 3.2 in the Accord/Ody, while the 3.5 could be bumped a few liters to cover larger vehicles (Base model RL, more low end grunt for the Ridgeline/MDX/Pilot).
Would also like to see more diesels come to market in vehicles like the CRV/Element and maybe the Pilot... I don't know where this new V10 is going to end up, but it's going to get interesting when it comes to market... :shades:
I would like the Ridgeline, Pilot, MDX and Odyssey to get a 4.0L V6. I would like it to be a DOHC unit, with a timing chain, and tuned to run on regular gas.
Yes, this is what Nissan and Toyota have, and I think it's the perfect size engine and configuration for these (midsize) vehicles.
I would also like to see it hooked up to a 6-speed automatic, with man-u-matic capability.
Fit will serve a purpose for Honda - bring in first-time buyers, younger folks. Even if it doesn't do much volume, it will succeed at bringing new blood into dealerships.
If it's reliable, who would bet against them moving up to an Accord or Civic next time, and maybe a Pilot or Acura when they start making real money?
As long as it is value-priced and they have reasonable expectations, it will be a success.
Other vehicles without a segment that have succeeded with low volumes? Mazda5, for instance. They can't keep up with demand despite a stumble (recall) at launch.
Within the Fit's segment, the Yaris has that odd center gauge pod positioning, which could hurt it. Plus the hatch is bare-bones, lesser equipped than the sedan. Nissan's Versa is tough competition since it's a little bigger, but Fit will find a small/loyal fan base.
a 4l torque motor sounds good if they insist on making larger SUVs and trucks.
I would like to see them make something cutting edge, like the VW turbo/supercharged small 4, that can get real good mileage for it's size and power, but that also has pelnty of torque.
I know Honda made their rep on high revving torqueless wonders, but these days, that's a pretty narrow market, exspecailly as cars get heavier.
A diesel for Europe (and someday the US?) Sure.
A V8? I guess it won't hurt Acura, but I IMHO don't think it will make that much of a difference. Even Lexus and BMW sell a relatively small % of their cars (the ones with a choice) as V8s. ANd I don't see Acura coming out with a LS430/7 series competitor.
The RL could use a diet, but it really isn't slow (based on the objective published numbers). If you want it to go faster, use the 4.0l mentioned above, or put a blower on it. SHouldn't be that hard to get it to 325HP and 300lb/ft.
Tough call, though I see a gap between the 2.4l in the TSX and the 3l V6 in the Accord that the turbo engine in the RD-X doesn't quite fill. Americans love cylinder count, so I think perhaps a small V6, even just 2.7-2.8 liters or so, should be next on the list. Emphasis should be on it being light and compact.
They already have the diesels in Europe, so it would be a matter of just certifying those. The CR-V's, for instance. But I'm not convinced the US is ready yet. Seeing a gas attended power wash the greasy area around the diesel pump at the local Shell yesterday tells me that.
V8 goes against their philosophy of efficiency, almost. Even if they made one it would likely be high HP, low torque, and that still wouldn't appease the folks that want the V8 in the first place.
So a compact V6. CR-V needs one to counter the RAV4, Equinox, and Escape. TSX could get it, and even the next Accord hybrid could.
sounds logical, although I'n not that big a fan of the real small V6s, since they tend to have torque issues. Other than cylinder count (mine's bigger..), would it really perfrom much better than the 2.4L Accord motor, and probably get lower mileage to boot?
ANyway, I don't think Honda's problem right now is engines, especially since they get good mileage ratings and gas is expensive. If anything, they need to improve the styling (pizazz factor). Look what it did for the Civic, and the Accord should be next.
Also, on the V6, do you think they wold make something physically more compact than the current 3.0l, or just downsize capacity of that one? Hey, they used to have a 2.7l in the Legend/Accord, so it isn't really anything new.
The J series block (3.0, 3.2, and 3.5) is already one of the smallest blocks in the 3 liter class. While I like the idea of a 2.6-2.8L small V6, I'm not so sure it would really be any better than the J series.
The 4.0L makes a little more sense. I can see it used in the Pilot, Ridgeline, and MDX. Maybe even the RL, if they can refine it. I don't see it being necessary for the Odyssey.
The current 3.5L cannot be bored and stroked to create a 3.8L. As mentioned above, the J series is already a small block. Carve any more from it and the walls between the cylinders would be paper thin.
to all that talk of Honda adding a hybrid powertrain to the RL, supplementing the existing gas engine with 75-100 hp of electrics? I thought that was a strong possibility for the future of this and other high-powered models, and then haven't heard a peep since - that has been what, a year?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I meant they insist on making the large ones they make now, now (god forbid) even bigger ones! The Ridgeline, and I would say pilot, seem more suited to the theoretical 4.0L.
I wanted to approach this from a different angle, let's see where the gaps are in terms of torque. Honda tunes engines quite well to make HP, but let's look at torque, since the smaller engines suffer more there.
I'm using ConsumerGuide as a source, so complain to them if the numbers are wrong.
OK, so let's see. There is a big gap after the Insight, but the Fit's engine will probably fill that so some extent, plus I'm not counting the electric motor, which boosts effective torque already.
Above the 2.0l Si engine, there's about a gap of 20 lb-ft.
But the major gap is actually right above the 2.4l, with a 47 lb-ft up to the next engine. The small V6 I hinted at could potentially fill that gap. But do they need more than 3 V6 displacements? Maybe, maybe not.
Then of course 256 is the current max, and a lot of people here argue some of the trucks could use more than that. Plus there is no V8 at all.
Yeah, I think a top engine would probably serve Honda and Acura better right about now. MDX could get it, RL, Ridgeline. It could get enough volume to justify it.
Other thoughts - Fit makes 105 lb-ft, at least that's what Edmunds is reporting. That does fill the gap above the Insight.
Also forgot the new turbo 2.4l, for the RD-X. But I think that's in the mid 200s in terms of lb-ft of torque. So it basically overlaps with the big V6s.
don't forget to look at where they make the torque. American's seem to have a phobia about revving their cars to get at the power.
Most TSX owners probably never get near the 6K (or whatever) cutover to the Vtec sweet spot, so they might as well be driving the Accord motor, since it seems almost the smae up to 5 or 6 K IIRC.
Peg the next engine as the V10 Mr. Fukui announced a while back. The magazine also states the engine will go into a front/mid-engine vehicle using SH-AWD and targeting the big luxury GTs. (Aston Martin was listed as an example.)
What's more interesting is they claim the platform will be shared with the next RL, though powered via a V8.
All of that is actually somewhat consistent with what Mr. Fukui announced not long ago. It's just that most assumed the V10 vehicle would be a rear/mid-engine super car of the same style as the NSX.
That is why I used torque and not HP. You'll see the 2.4l only gains 4 lb-ft, yet the difference in HP is 10 times that.
There is a reason for that. Torque depends directly on displacement, and about 70 lb-ft per liter can be considered the norm. Power on the other hand throws engine speed into the mix, so the longer high torque can be maintained, the higher gains there will be in power.
Obviously, for Honda to add more torque, they would have to bump up the displacement. A 4.0-liter unit might do it for Ridgeline (about 275-285 lb.-ft) and given that Honda’s typically have flat torque curve (as in current Civic, 90% or more of the peak torque from 2000 rpm to almost 6500 rpm) so it really becomes a mute point where the peak occurs. At the same time, in a truck, I would say there is no need to see a high redline either. Peak power could come somewhere around 5500 rpm like it currently does (at that point, a typical Honda engine can be expected to produce about 68-70 HP/liter, or about 275 HP if it were a 4.0-liter engine).
However, IMO, Honda should develop a 3.5-liter V6 turbo diesel that it could use in European cars (Legend/RL) as well as in Ridgeline here (and Pilot/MDX too). With similar design principles as the current 2.2 diesel, we would be talking 220-225 HP (around 4500 rpm) and almost 400 lb-ft at 2000 rpm.
Now, that would be some serious torque that will take at least a 5.5 to 6-liter V8 to achieve.
I will be surprised if the next NSX is anything but mid-engine/RWD. However, it is possible that Honda might be considering a super sport sedan/coupe with V8 above the RL, while RL also gets some boost at a lower price.
But this car could be something other than a replacement for the NSX. More like a new hi-po Legend starting with the coupe version - the sedan to be added later. A "new" high performance vehicle with drivetrain and chassis to be shared with other top-end vehicles is appealing to me... as an enthusiast, of course. I could never afford one!
They sell them in Brazil, so I've been in a couple. It's a basic economy car, but incredibly space efficient. The rear seat folds up and back, so you can carry tall plants inside. The interior is very versatile.
I think it will find appeal with college students. Honda can call it a success if it brings in enough of those young buyers, because after a good ownership experience they'll be buying...what else, more Hondas and Acuras.
" think it will find appeal with college students. Honda can call it a success if it brings in enough of those young buyers, because after a good ownership experience they'll be buying...what else, more Hondas and Acuras."
When I first saw the Fit, my first reaction was that this would appeal to an older crowd. This was confirmed when I had a 63 year old relative over last weekend, and he picked up an article with pictures of the Fit on our coffee table and went on and on about how great it looked. I figure this car will follow the same path as a lot of the Scions I see in my area - they all seem to be driven by a much older crowd than I think Toyota had anticipated (or would like).
Most of my friends bought stripped base Civics or Sentras back then, the ones with vinyl seats, 4 speed manuals and no right side mirror. Remember those? :sick:
Cheap cars appeal to a wider audience than we might expect.
Young folks want a car (any car) which they can afford to own and operate. Something a little bit funky is preferable.
However, there's a large number of older drivers who recall buying their first car for less than $5,000. To them, the idea of spending $20K on transportation is ludicrous. Something practical, efficient, and inexpensive is what they want. If it looks funky, what do they care? They got over their image hang-ups long ago.
I think that's a big reason why Scions, the Element, and cars like the Fit or Yaris will have a wide spread ion the demographics.
I'm only 37 and I recall ads from the late 70s toting Toyotas in the $3000 range. And those Tercels and Corollas were still running a decade later, for the most part.
I do agree, however, that people wanting to go back to basics will find some relief in these value-packed minis. I'd even consider one for myself as a commuter, though to replace the Miata I'd at least want one of those big open canvas tops.
"Most of my friends bought stripped base Civics or Sentras back then, the ones with vinyl seats, 4 speed manuals and no right side mirror. Remember those?"
I really wish they hadn't bought those! My friends did too, and they're the ones who I could get a cheap college car from, so... yes, I remember them all too well. From this morning's commute.
The Civic CX is SUCH a great car in comparison to the Sentra E, and to the Tercel. I've owned the latter two (I was unlucky) and besides the Sentra's power, the Civic is a million times better in every way. Sure, none of them have tachometers and I've driven them without A/C, but the Civic was the only one with a good interior, very good seats, manual steering a little better than the Tercel and infinitely better than the Sentra, a much more modern look, better sound control, more practicality, way better suspension, much better transmission...
I'm convinced that the cheapest Civics earned Honda a lot of lifetime buyers.
Alas, even the base Fit will be a poor replacement for the $8500 base-model Civic CX hatchback from the late 90s.
Thing about Honda is, they strip away all the features and equipment (even the P/S!) and make the interiors spartan to achieve those low prices, but they never delete one ounce of the core Honda goodness: the excellent engine and transmission, etc. So even the very cheap Hondas can be a good drive.
I wish they would do a base model Fit for the U.S. akin to the low-end model Canada will undoubtedly get, without power anything and not far off that Civic CX of the 90s, and price it around $10 grand. That would be the true successor to a lot of great Hondas from the past. Instead, Hondas are getting expensive.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
nippononly, I'm not sure which late 90s Civic CXs you're referring to, they were priced just above $10K. Consider inflation, and they would be right around $12-12.5K. Coincidentally, Civic DX HB (also devoid of AC, and power accessories) was priced at $12.2K. In year 2006, that MSRP would be comparable to more than $14K.
At $13K, Fit base compares well to those stripped Civic HBs in price, while offering AC, power accessories, more power, better fuel economy, much more safety and features. How is that a poor replacement?
that early 90's Honda have over today's Hondas is the quality of the interior. Other than that the new Civic is WAAAY more advanced than anything Honda was building 10 years ago much less 16 years ago. The new Civic has SAB, SCAB, ABS, yada yada yada. But those early 90's Hondas had soft-touch dashes.
read the Edmunds comparo between the brand new Civic and the years-old Mazda3, and be startled to discover the 3 wins. One of the major raps on the Civic is the interior materials, still not the best in the biz despite how recently it was redesigned. Add to that a generally less sporty demeanor than the 3 and editors' dislike for the two-tier digital dash, and it is no surprise which one comes first.
As for pricing, I can't argue that the new Civic has not exceeded inflation in its price increase, but unfortunately for people who buy at the low end of the market like this, income has not kept pace with inflation, which is why there are more and more "poor" and low-income people in America every year.
For them, Kias and Hyundais, also Aveos have offered a deal on a new car they could swing. In response Toyota has brought out Scions and now the Yaris to offer a basement-priced car people can still buy new. I wish there were a basement-price version of the Fit to put Honda in the running here too, and there certainly could have been quite easily given the high level of feature content in the base Fit. Yet they did not do it. They have done it in the past as recently as the year 2000, with the then-Civic hatches. Yet they did not do it now.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Since Honda has opted to stay away from stripped version of Fit in the USA (but not in Canada), I can only assume they do not see enough sales success to justify investment in that direction. And they may have learnt this lesson from success or failure of Civic CX/DX HB from 1996-2000 era.
At $13K, with good list of features (and supposedly excellent quality inside and out), Fit base appears to be a bargain compared to the stripped Civic HBs IMO. BTW, even Hyundai Accent now starts at $12.5K.
I'd say the Civic's suspension was more advanced back then too. Honda has its priorities slanted the other way... the struts in front allow for electric steering (for mileage?) and a smaller engine bay (more interior space), but they're worse for drivers and especially tuners. The Euro Civic has regressed further and has a torsion beam rear suspension for the (impressive) fold-out-of-the-way rear seats. It suffers from a choppy ride on rough roads.
I'm convinced that the cheapest Civics earned Honda a lot of lifetime buyers.
Agree 100%.
they never delete one ounce of the core Honda goodness
That part I disagree with, the engine made a lot less power (70hp? IIRC, vs. 90-108 for others models) and the manual tranny was a 4 speed rather than 5.
The cars were light and nimble enough that they were still fun to drive, however. And later models even got the double-wishbones.
Uh uh, try again. The CX/DX hatch had 106 hp, with a 0-60 of 8.7 seconds as tested by Edmunds. It was light, it had all the excellent Honda engineering baked right in, it was just missing most features people consider basics these days. But at $9-10K purchase price, people would wind up their own windows if they needed a very inexpensive car.
The 4-speed manuals and 70 hp engines might have been from a decade or so before? I can't remember back that far right off the top of my head. But I went and pulled up these stats from Edmunds for the MY2000 models, the last year of that run I think.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'm going back further than you. Late 80s, basically. I'm not even sure they called it the CX, but the "base" model has a lot less power than the DX and Si back then. I think power ratings were 70, 92, and 108 respectively.
The HX was the fuel miser and I think it made 62 horses. My buddy was shopping for one, and the DX was exactly $300 more, so I told him, that's $10 per horse, get the DX!
then sure, yes, almost 20 years ago the base Civic hatch had a rating of around 70 hp.
I was trying to draw a comparison with the most recent "cheap Civic", which happened to be the CX/DX hatches that finally went away after the 2000 MY. That's not that long ago, a mere five years.
Yet it seems now, Honda no longer wants to draw the entry-level buyer with its least expensive model, preferring instead to make a very well equipped model the lowest-priced Fit, thereby ensuring they can't go lower than $13K for the base price. I am sure this is mostly an attempt to go head to head with the Scion xA and hit Toyota where it hurts, but it sacrifices all those first-time and younger buyers to Kia/Hyundai, Chevy, and Toyota, which buyers will be able to get those automakers' entry level cars for $2-4K less than the Fit.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Comments
Just look at how may Q45s Infiniti sold!
This actually brings up a point I believe in. The "middle class" (near luxury/sport sedan) cars have gotten so good, and are enough cheaper than the big boys, that it is real hard to jsutify moving up in class.
BMW 5/7, Infiniti M/Q, Merc. E/S, maybe Audi A6/A8 come to mind. The smaller car is so good, that it is hard (at least to me) to justify an extra $20K or whatever for the big one, unless it is mostly for status.
Hence the TL/RL problem for Acura. If they are too close in mission, the TL will cannibalize sales given the rpice differential, especially since Acura (or Infiniti) doesn't have the brand cachet of BMW or Mercedes.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Bob
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
if honda(acura) wants to play in the big leagues, they need to have a v8 rwd car. low sales figures for the RL show that. they just have to admit it and design one.
my neighbors, many of whom drove hondas, all moved onto brands other than acura. not one went from honda to acura. one went from dodge to acura. one replaced their accord with another accord.
Bob
When looking at the Acuras I didn't even consider an RL.
I guess there's no way to keep FWD-style interior room with SH-AWD, so they might as well make an RWD car based on an SH-AWD chassis just to make the traditionalists happy. Better yet, let Mugen do it.
And market better. With the lesser forms of AWD being so common, no one knows that SH-AWD is anything special.
The possibilities would include the V8 (of course) for use in the RL, MDX, and Ridgeline, with potential for the Pilot, as well. Another less popular idea for the US market (but still viable elsewhere) would be a turbo-diesel V6 for the Legend and MDX overseas and possibly the Ridgeline here. How about a new small V6 (to replace the 3.0L J-series) for the CR-V and TSX? Or maybe a larger V6 (3.8-4.0L) for the trucks? Then there's the plan to build a V10 for the next exotic.
Or... should Honda forget about cylinders and displacement and put the first HCCI engine into production?
What would you do next?
As far as sixes go, the 3.0 could be phased out for the 3.2 in the Accord/Ody, while the 3.5 could be bumped a few liters to cover larger vehicles (Base model RL, more low end grunt for the Ridgeline/MDX/Pilot).
Would also like to see more diesels come to market in vehicles like the CRV/Element and maybe the Pilot... I don't know where this new V10 is going to end up, but it's going to get interesting when it comes to market... :shades:
Yes, this is what Nissan and Toyota have, and I think it's the perfect size engine and configuration for these (midsize) vehicles.
I would also like to see it hooked up to a 6-speed automatic, with man-u-matic capability.
Bob
Fit will serve a purpose for Honda - bring in first-time buyers, younger folks. Even if it doesn't do much volume, it will succeed at bringing new blood into dealerships.
If it's reliable, who would bet against them moving up to an Accord or Civic next time, and maybe a Pilot or Acura when they start making real money?
As long as it is value-priced and they have reasonable expectations, it will be a success.
Other vehicles without a segment that have succeeded with low volumes? Mazda5, for instance. They can't keep up with demand despite a stumble (recall) at launch.
Within the Fit's segment, the Yaris has that odd center gauge pod positioning, which could hurt it. Plus the hatch is bare-bones, lesser equipped than the sedan. Nissan's Versa is tough competition since it's a little bigger, but Fit will find a small/loyal fan base.
-juice
I would like to see them make something cutting edge, like the VW turbo/supercharged small 4, that can get real good mileage for it's size and power, but that also has pelnty of torque.
I know Honda made their rep on high revving torqueless wonders, but these days, that's a pretty narrow market, exspecailly as cars get heavier.
A diesel for Europe (and someday the US?) Sure.
A V8? I guess it won't hurt Acura, but I IMHO don't think it will make that much of a difference. Even Lexus and BMW sell a relatively small % of their cars (the ones with a choice) as V8s. ANd I don't see Acura coming out with a LS430/7 series competitor.
The RL could use a diet, but it really isn't slow (based on the objective published numbers). If you want it to go faster, use the 4.0l mentioned above, or put a blower on it. SHouldn't be that hard to get it to 325HP and 300lb/ft.
Maybe just bore out the 3.5 into a 3.8?
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
They already have the diesels in Europe, so it would be a matter of just certifying those. The CR-V's, for instance. But I'm not convinced the US is ready yet. Seeing a gas attended power wash the greasy area around the diesel pump at the local Shell yesterday tells me that.
V8 goes against their philosophy of efficiency, almost. Even if they made one it would likely be high HP, low torque, and that still wouldn't appease the folks that want the V8 in the first place.
So a compact V6. CR-V needs one to counter the RAV4, Equinox, and Escape. TSX could get it, and even the next Accord hybrid could.
-juice
ANyway, I don't think Honda's problem right now is engines, especially since they get good mileage ratings and gas is expensive. If anything, they need to improve the styling (pizazz factor). Look what it did for the Civic, and the Accord should be next.
Also, on the V6, do you think they wold make something physically more compact than the current 3.0l, or just downsize capacity of that one? Hey, they used to have a 2.7l in the Legend/Accord, so it isn't really anything new.
I'm back to the 4.ol for the big trucky stuff.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Heck, Mazda made a 1.8l V6 for the MX-4 way back when, though 130hp didn't really cut it.
Give it over 200hp, torque close to 200 lb-ft.
I agree it's more psycological than real, just so the buyer can say "I got a six".
-juice
The 4.0L makes a little more sense. I can see it used in the Pilot, Ridgeline, and MDX. Maybe even the RL, if they can refine it. I don't see it being necessary for the Odyssey.
The current 3.5L cannot be bored and stroked to create a 3.8L. As mentioned above, the J series is already a small block. Carve any more from it and the walls between the cylinders would be paper thin.
-juice
Larger trucks? I'm talking about the size trucks they're currently making. If they make larger trucks, they will need a V8.
Bob
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I'm using ConsumerGuide as a source, so complain to them if the numbers are wrong.
Size, Torque
1.0l, 79
1.3l, 123
1.8l, 128
2.0l, 139-140
2.2l, 162
2.4l, 160-164
3.0l, 211-212
3.2l, 233
3.5l, 240-256
OK, so let's see. There is a big gap after the Insight, but the Fit's engine will probably fill that so some extent, plus I'm not counting the electric motor, which boosts effective torque already.
Above the 2.0l Si engine, there's about a gap of 20 lb-ft.
But the major gap is actually right above the 2.4l, with a 47 lb-ft up to the next engine. The small V6 I hinted at could potentially fill that gap. But do they need more than 3 V6 displacements? Maybe, maybe not.
Then of course 256 is the current max, and a lot of people here argue some of the trucks could use more than that. Plus there is no V8 at all.
Yeah, I think a top engine would probably serve Honda and Acura better right about now. MDX could get it, RL, Ridgeline. It could get enough volume to justify it.
Other thoughts - Fit makes 105 lb-ft, at least that's what Edmunds is reporting. That does fill the gap above the Insight.
Also forgot the new turbo 2.4l, for the RD-X. But I think that's in the mid 200s in terms of lb-ft of torque. So it basically overlaps with the big V6s.
-juice
Most TSX owners probably never get near the 6K (or whatever) cutover to the Vtec sweet spot, so they might as well be driving the Accord motor, since it seems almost the smae up to 5 or 6 K IIRC.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
There are many variants of each engine to I displayed the range of torque.
Saab even uses a turbo V6, now that Honda does turbos, but I don't think that would be ideal for a vehicle like the Ridgeline.
-juice
What's more interesting is they claim the platform will be shared with the next RL, though powered via a V8.
All of that is actually somewhat consistent with what Mr. Fukui announced not long ago. It's just that most assumed the V10 vehicle would be a rear/mid-engine super car of the same style as the NSX.
There is a reason for that. Torque depends directly on displacement, and about 70 lb-ft per liter can be considered the norm. Power on the other hand throws engine speed into the mix, so the longer high torque can be maintained, the higher gains there will be in power.
Obviously, for Honda to add more torque, they would have to bump up the displacement. A 4.0-liter unit might do it for Ridgeline (about 275-285 lb.-ft) and given that Honda’s typically have flat torque curve (as in current Civic, 90% or more of the peak torque from 2000 rpm to almost 6500 rpm) so it really becomes a mute point where the peak occurs. At the same time, in a truck, I would say there is no need to see a high redline either. Peak power could come somewhere around 5500 rpm like it currently does (at that point, a typical Honda engine can be expected to produce about 68-70 HP/liter, or about 275 HP if it were a 4.0-liter engine).
However, IMO, Honda should develop a 3.5-liter V6 turbo diesel that it could use in European cars (Legend/RL) as well as in Ridgeline here (and Pilot/MDX too). With similar design principles as the current 2.2 diesel, we would be talking 220-225 HP (around 4500 rpm) and almost 400 lb-ft at 2000 rpm.
Now, that would be some serious torque that will take at least a 5.5 to 6-liter V8 to achieve.
But this car could be something other than a replacement for the NSX. More like a new hi-po Legend starting with the coupe version - the sedan to be added later. A "new" high performance vehicle with drivetrain and chassis to be shared with other top-end vehicles is appealing to me... as an enthusiast, of course. I could never afford one!
Bob
I think it will find appeal with college students. Honda can call it a success if it brings in enough of those young buyers, because after a good ownership experience they'll be buying...what else, more Hondas and Acuras.
-juice
When I first saw the Fit, my first reaction was that this would appeal to an older crowd. This was confirmed when I had a 63 year old relative over last weekend, and he picked up an article with pictures of the Fit on our coffee table and went on and on about how great it looked. I figure this car will follow the same path as a lot of the Scions I see in my area - they all seem to be driven by a much older crowd than I think Toyota had anticipated (or would like).
Kids these days, they're so spoiled! :P
-juice
Young folks want a car (any car) which they can afford to own and operate. Something a little bit funky is preferable.
However, there's a large number of older drivers who recall buying their first car for less than $5,000. To them, the idea of spending $20K on transportation is ludicrous. Something practical, efficient, and inexpensive is what they want. If it looks funky, what do they care? They got over their image hang-ups long ago.
I think that's a big reason why Scions, the Element, and cars like the Fit or Yaris will have a wide spread ion the demographics.
I'm only 37 and I recall ads from the late 70s toting Toyotas in the $3000 range. And those Tercels and Corollas were still running a decade later, for the most part.
I do agree, however, that people wanting to go back to basics will find some relief in these value-packed minis. I'd even consider one for myself as a commuter, though to replace the Miata I'd at least want one of those big open canvas tops.
-juice
I really wish they hadn't bought those! My friends did too, and they're the ones who I could get a cheap college car from, so... yes, I remember them all too well. From this morning's commute.
The Civic CX is SUCH a great car in comparison to the Sentra E, and to the Tercel. I've owned the latter two (I was unlucky) and besides the Sentra's power, the Civic is a million times better in every way. Sure, none of them have tachometers and I've driven them without A/C, but the Civic was the only one with a good interior, very good seats, manual steering a little better than the Tercel and infinitely better than the Sentra, a much more modern look, better sound control, more practicality, way better suspension, much better transmission...
I'm convinced that the cheapest Civics earned Honda a lot of lifetime buyers.
Alas, even the base Fit will be a poor replacement for the $8500 base-model Civic CX hatchback from the late 90s.
Thing about Honda is, they strip away all the features and equipment (even the P/S!) and make the interiors spartan to achieve those low prices, but they never delete one ounce of the core Honda goodness: the excellent engine and transmission, etc. So even the very cheap Hondas can be a good drive.
I wish they would do a base model Fit for the U.S. akin to the low-end model Canada will undoubtedly get, without power anything and not far off that Civic CX of the 90s, and price it around $10 grand. That would be the true successor to a lot of great Hondas from the past. Instead, Hondas are getting expensive.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
At $13K, Fit base compares well to those stripped Civic HBs in price, while offering AC, power accessories, more power, better fuel economy, much more safety and features. How is that a poor replacement?
As for pricing, I can't argue that the new Civic has not exceeded inflation in its price increase, but unfortunately for people who buy at the low end of the market like this, income has not kept pace with inflation, which is why there are more and more "poor" and low-income people in America every year.
For them, Kias and Hyundais, also Aveos have offered a deal on a new car they could swing. In response Toyota has brought out Scions and now the Yaris to offer a basement-priced car people can still buy new. I wish there were a basement-price version of the Fit to put Honda in the running here too, and there certainly could have been quite easily given the high level of feature content in the base Fit. Yet they did not do it. They have done it in the past as recently as the year 2000, with the then-Civic hatches. Yet they did not do it now.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
At $13K, with good list of features (and supposedly excellent quality inside and out), Fit base appears to be a bargain compared to the stripped Civic HBs IMO. BTW, even Hyundai Accent now starts at $12.5K.
Every time I see a Matrix, I see some middle-aged guy driving it.
Could this be the same for the Fit?
Agree 100%.
they never delete one ounce of the core Honda goodness
That part I disagree with, the engine made a lot less power (70hp? IIRC, vs. 90-108 for others models) and the manual tranny was a 4 speed rather than 5.
The cars were light and nimble enough that they were still fun to drive, however. And later models even got the double-wishbones.
-juice
The 4-speed manuals and 70 hp engines might have been from a decade or so before? I can't remember back that far right off the top of my head. But I went and pulled up these stats from Edmunds for the MY2000 models, the last year of that run I think.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The HX was the fuel miser and I think it made 62 horses. My buddy was shopping for one, and the DX was exactly $300 more, so I told him, that's $10 per horse, get the DX!
-juice
I was trying to draw a comparison with the most recent "cheap Civic", which happened to be the CX/DX hatches that finally went away after the 2000 MY. That's not that long ago, a mere five years.
Yet it seems now, Honda no longer wants to draw the entry-level buyer with its least expensive model, preferring instead to make a very well equipped model the lowest-priced Fit, thereby ensuring they can't go lower than $13K for the base price. I am sure this is mostly an attempt to go head to head with the Scion xA and hit Toyota where it hurts, but it sacrifices all those first-time and younger buyers to Kia/Hyundai, Chevy, and Toyota, which buyers will be able to get those automakers' entry level cars for $2-4K less than the Fit.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)