Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Has Honda's run - run out?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That and in most cases a sweet, smooth, loves-to-rev character.
There is something to be said for SOHC vs DOHC, as there is less inertial mass when you want to rev the engine.
What is it with styling in the '00s? Bangle set the tone five years ago and it has been straight into the toilet for the whole industry ever since.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I may go out on a limb here and say that the latest styling is driven by either
A. The quest for new fresher ideas over the typical "jellybean" look through the 90's
B. Function before form. Safety requirments such as pedestrian friendly noses and stringent impact requirments.
Or could be that they manufacturers are allowing alcohol consumption during lunch breaks?
Bob
Design considerations, against needs. That is where the decision lies. Besides, what has DOHC versus SOHC got to do with timing chain? Are you suggesting that DOHC with timing belt didn't/don't exist? It is yet another design consideration.
While I would love to see Honda deliber a brand new V6 family with all the frills, I'm not going to challenge the decision makers at Honda. I don't know enough! All I care about is a smooth revving, powerful engine, that runs forever while delivering good fuel economy.
Sure, timing chain could result in lower maintenance costs over 100K and around 200K miles, but that by itself does not dictate my decisions.
Timing chain vs timing belt: I prefer a timing chain over a timing belt. Having said that I'm fully aware that my WRX has a timing belt, so that didn't sway my purchase of that vehicle. Do I wish it had a timing chain? Yes.
And no, a timing chain has nothing to do with whether it's SOHC or DOHC. I never said it did.
Bob
They were way farther ahead of the game in the early 90s, when they had already reached 200hp in 2.0L engines. They haven't really been able to improve on those numbers, but the engines have gotten better in every other way. The new base Civic's engine, at 140hp and 40mpg, is a pretty good achievement too. (The Corolla gets the same mileage but with less weight, and its weaker too.)
I hope they have something revolutionary in their pipeline once again.
That said, Honda has used potential of DOHC layout, when looking at engines that rev past 7000 rpm. 1994-1997 Accord I-4 was 2.2 SOHC with upto 145 HP, Prelude (and variants of Accord in other markets) got 7000+ rpm 2.2 DOHC with 195-220 HP.
1998-2002 Accord I-4 was 2.3 SOHC with upto 150 HP, some variants of Accord (Japanese market) got DOHC version with 200 HP.
Now, neither Accord, nor TL or RL or Odyssey, or MDX, or Pilot or Ridgeline would benefit from revability past 7000 rpm, would they?
What SOHC has offered to Honda is compact size, and lighter weight. Performancewise, they are up there! If they weren't, I would agree with you.
Power potential? What good is DOHC in Corolla if it gets 123 HP, while Civic's SOHC gets 140 HP? What good was Camry's 190 HP 3.0/V6 DOHC when Accord was getting 240 HP from 3.0/V6 SOHC?
What good is Mazda/Ford Duratec 3.0/V6 DOHC when its gets 220 HP at 6300 rpm, whereas Honda's 3.0/V6 SOHC got 240 HP at 6250 rpm (way more power at lower rpm). Did I miss something?
Acura RL's 3.5/V6 SOHC gets 290 HP at 6200 rpm... Cadillac 3.6/V6 DOHC gets 252 HP at 6500 rpm.
My concern is the J35 in the larger vehicles, which is being matched or bettered by other mid-size V6s. The competition is ramping up. Most vehicles in the class where the MDX and RL live are offered with a V8. Now, I don't think Acura needs to take the same route. But if they're going to stick with the V6, it had better be have six extremely feisty cylinders.
Same with the Ridgeline and the Pilot. Many of the competitors have 4.0L V6 or offer a V8 option. If Honda is going to stick with the V6, it's got to be better than the others.
I don't care how Honda enhances these engines. They could go DOHC, increased displacement, turbo, IMA hybrid, HCCI, nitrous oxide, or add Juice's critter on a treadmill. So long as the end result is more powerful, smooth, and fuel efficient. Based on what we've seen with the more recent uses of the current J35, I don't think they can get there with simple tweaks. It needs a more significant boost for the next generation.
It's not so much a matter of which competing engine has more potential. It's more the case of Honda being arguably the best engine maker in the world. They have an image to uphold. I see the current 3.5 V6 as merely treading water. Yeah, it's a good engine, but it's not up to what they're capable of. Not by a long shot.
I expect Honda engines to "walk on water," so to speak. Maybe that's not fair, but they have only themselves to blame for putting out such fabulous engines in other vehicles.
I'm old enough to remember the 250cc 6-cylinder and the 125cc 5-cylinder grand prix motorcycle engines from the early 1960s, and the "oval" cylinder 4-cylinder 500cc race bike with 8-valves per cylinder (that had the power of a 500cc V8!), not to mention the 1000cc 6-cylinder CBX street bike from 1979. That's where I'm coming from...
Bob
Yeah, but that engine was making that much power (well, almost - 5 less) way back in late 1997, almost TEN YEARS ago. And the Celica GT version of the same engine, available since late '99, made the same 140 hp the current Civic does, almost SEVEN YEARS earlier. What were the Civics using back then, eh? (rhetorical question)
In '03 Toyota decided to boost fuel economy for the Corolla instead of power, which is why it is lower-powered today. I suppose it will jump up next year with the model update.
I think everyone knows that SOHC and DOHC both have their advantages. Sure, DOHC engines can breathe better, but they also have more inertial mass to speed up when you want to rev the engine quickly.
Honda and Toyota both make good engines, and while the nod perhaps goes to Honda, it isn't a slam dunk or anything. Personally, I take the "extremist view" that I would like to see them both improving fuel economy more than they have been of late. Let's use technology updates for that purpose for a while. And yes, I know they are already the leaders in fuel economy.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My answer: specific output. In other words, HP per liter of displacement. This is obtained from high RPMs in most cases.
Yes, many of them are SOHC, but note that the hottest Type-R models are DOHC, they just reserve those engines for the specials.
Most people here (and consumers too) look at HP, but the achilles' heel is low-rpm torque, not power. And they make the power at high RPMs, a lot of their engines aren't truly quick until you hit 5500rpms (or some similar high number) and they come on-cam.
I'm sure folks might counter with a "show me a 3.0l V6 with more torque" argument, but guess what? Competitors simply offer more displacement, period, and win the torque wars. And while specific output focuses on internal displacement, it would really make more sense to consider external displacement, or engine size. Maybe also the weight of the engine. Those factors matter more for fitment.
The Odyssey is OK, for the van segment the J35 is still fine, though Hyundai/Kia are using a nice 3.8l with more torque and soon Toyota will drop in a gem of a 3.5l. The Ridgeline will have an even tougher time in its class.
-juice
Ten years ago,
Civic used 1.6-liter I-4 SOHC with power output from 106 HP to 127 HP.
Corolla used 1.6-liter I-4 DOHC with 100 HP or, 1.8-liter I-4 DOHC with 105 HP.
Do we still care for power potential from DOHC?
Forget Civic and Corolla, Ridgeline can't match the top Tacoma engine for torque, never mind the Tundra. And I'm talking about the old Tundra, not the new one.
-juice
This is why I quoted a few examples earlier. One of the pairs:
Honda 3.0/V6 (Accord): 240 HP @ 6250 rpm, an SOHC
Mazda 3.0/V6 (Mazda3): 220 HP @ 6300 rpm, a DOHC
Most Honda engines will produce 90% of their peak torque from 2200-2500 rpm onwards. The difference is, that they also maintain a near peak torque when peak power is delivered (hence higher specific output, even though they may be doing so at lower rpm as is the case above).
This is a result of a broad torque curve. THIS is what makes Honda engines great. But people still get stuck in SOHC versus DOHC argument.
Now, if Honda tuned the 3.5/V6 like the 3.0/V6 in Accord, we would see, a 280 HP / 246 lb-ft engine. And that compares well (and would be more powerful) than Toyota's latest 3.5/V6 DOHC. And many are still counting number of camshafts.
J35 may be the best engine in the world, but if the market sees is as inadequate or antiquated, best spells will not help. In horsepower war of today RL faces 300+ engines, so does MDX and Ridgeline. Appearance is everything - if they insist on 6 cylinder, they better add some good doodad to beat Infiniti's or German's V8s and separate themselves from cheaper domestics. In lower segments it is the same story.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
That would be displacement issue, not SOHC versus DOHC. Besides, do we really need DOHC if the engines aren't going for high rpm performance?
Let us look at specific outputs of the two engines:
Ridgeline 3.5 SOHC:
70.5 HP/liter at 5750 rpm; 70 lb-ft /liter at 4500 rpm
Tacoma: 4.0 DOHC:
58 HP/liter at 5200 rpm; 66.5 lb-ft/liter at 4000 rpm
And I can bet Ridgeline engine is producing at least 95% of its peak torque around 3000 rpm. So, if it were a 4.0-liter unit, it would get more torque at lower rpm than does the DOHC in Tacoma.
The cars it competes with don't have six cylinder engines with 300+ HP engines. Most are between 250-280 HP. Unless you throw in V8 counterparts, then it becomes a whole new discussion (nothing related to SOHC layout, or J-series).
I always thought RL was exactly intended to compete with V8 versions of Q/M, 5-series, E-class and GS. The pitch was: "It is V6 that behaves like V8, so you get it for much less but you won't miss it an keep your money". It failed, but it definitely was there.
If you say no, that's big news to me and would mean major miscommunication from their marketing dept.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Just go to Cadillac's website, and look for STS/V6 with Luxury Performance package. The price starts at $50K. It is no V8, just well loaded, like RL is. Of course, with 255 HP/V6.
Exactly.
So Honda can either increase the engine size, as Bob suggested (4.0l J series?) or go with DOHC, or forced induction, or direct injection. Something.
If Honda does well with SOHC, Honda can do even better with DOHC.
I'm not talking about Ford or Toyota. I'm talking about Honda, and what they can do to make improvements.
-juice
It would have been easy for us to assume that Honda would use a smaller displacement K-series (DOHC i-VTEC) for new Civic. Instead, they went with SOHC i-VTEC. I’m sure they have very good reasons for it. Smaller package and lighter weight coupled to the fact that the engine performs just as well with fuel economy to match are likely to be a major part of the decision.
So, what you're saying is use the SOHC I4 for the smaller vehicles where fuel economy is important. Then use the DOHC I4 for the larger vehicles (CR-V, Accord, Element, TSX, etc.). Have I got that right?
What I'm saying is use the SOHC V6 for the smaller, economical cars and a new (possibly DOHC) V6 for the bigger ones. Same idea. Just move it up the ladder with respect to displacement.
With SOHC you only get one torque peak. If you make it rev high, you'll really lose low-end torque.
(I'll be back with the right answer later)
DOHC seems to be pretty well linked to multivalve engines and VTEC, but it seems that there have been 2-valve DOHC engines and SOHC VTEC engines.
My new answer for what DOHC does is to allow different lift timing for the intake and exhaust valves. And that helps towards optimizing performance at different revs, but in mainstream applications it isn't the only way of doing that.
The Civic Sedan suffers from bland styling. The Coupe is alright looking however. I agree the dash has got to go though.
"The Rigeline is a decent truck, but again, does it have to look like it does?"
Honda has never even designed a pick-up truck before the Ridgeline. Honda will learn I think on how to design a pick-up truck I think in the future.
"The Odyssey again is a good minivan, but the sytling leaves much to be desired."
I think the current Oddessy looks much better on the outside than the 99-04 model. The front end on the current Oddessy is nearly perfect. The back end could use a little tweaking on the styling however.
"The CRV is down-right boring compared to the new RAV 4 and Kia/Hyundai cute-utes."
I agree the current CR-v is pretty bland style-wise but than again its due up for a restyle pretty soon. Than again I don't like the new RAV 4's styling either. The 01-05 RAV4 looked better to me. THe new RAV 4's styling isn't proportioned right for its size.
"Hyundai, Kia, and evewn Suzuki are clsong in faster than Honda thought they would."
Hyundai was on a roll but they messed themselves up on the 06 Sonata restyle. The Sonata is now a popular rental car. Kia-they don't have as many dealerships as Honda has to be a threat to Honda. Suzuki-they are just starting to be a player.
"Nissan and Mazda have already caught up."
Nissan-sure they have distictive styled cars but their quality has declined mostly because of the lackluster quality/reliability of the Quest, Armada, and Titan which were built in Nissan's band new truck plant in Tennesee.
Mazda-great styling but they lack a great reputation for reliability and a bad history of resale values. I do agree though Honda does have to worry about Mazda though.
In concusion, sure Honda has their problems. I think their main problem is the Accord's styling as every poster has pointed out on this board. The current one is just too conservative looking on the outside for today's market.
"Honda may be looking at a few difficult years ahead...."
Only Toyota has gained more sales in the US Year to date wise other than Honda.
Here's my take on Honda/Acura's styling
Pilot- needs a faceleft now.
Accord Coupe-needs alot more pizzaz to its styling.
Accord sedan-way too conservative
Civic Coupe-looks good
Civic Sedan-bland styling
CR_V-redesigned soon. current one is too bland.
TL- nearly perfect
RL- I actually like its syling.
MDX-nearly perfect
Ridgeline-Honda doesn't know how to style a pick-up truck yet.
TSX-its alright but could use more pizzaz particularly on the back end.
S2k-One of Honda's better looking cars that they have styled in their history even though its not my cup of tea. At least its agressive looking though.
Honda had their game on in the 90's. Now their trying to get back on their game.
I think Acura got back on their game with the 01 MDX and Honda has gotten back to where they were in the 90's when they were youthful with the 06 Civic Coupe. The 01 Civic and 03 Accord were kind of set backs in my opinon for the H emblem though more so with the Accord than the 01-05 Civic.
The next Accord will be important for Honda. Honda cannot afford 2 straight consecutive generations of styling duds with the Accord.
It's hard for an automaker to stick its neck out, and when they do, THWACK! The same people that kept saying "boring" are the ones that complain the loudest about the new design going too far.
It's lose/lose.
-juice
The word bland gets tacked onto any Honda that isn't designed to look sporty. I recall one poster who remarked that the Element was typical Honda blandness. (?!?!?!) But most Hondas are not bland.
This is not so say that Honda has not designed bland vehicles. Examples include the Pilot and old Accord. But I think the term has become something of a habit rather than an honest description.
But obviously I'm not in the mainstream; I always thought of the older Mercedes Benzes and BMWs as bland. No sleekness to them, a rather vertical stance, little effort at the rear ends... would it also be blasphemous for me to suggest that the 3-series got a trunk lip after the Civic sedan already had it? And yet it's the TSX that gets called bland.
I think one problem with the Accord was that the late 90s Camry copied the Accord, and the Malibu copied the Camry, so too many big sellers looked alike. Then Honda styled the Civic sedan to look too much like a Corolla. The Acuras of the mid '90s were very common-looking as well.
Nice to see that changing, but I don't think Honda can win over many non-fans.
To me the current TL nobody calls it bland. I haven't heard one complaint about bland styling with the current TL. As a matter of fact I have heard a couple people think its "too sporty looking." I don't find the 1992-1996 Prelude or the 1991-1995 Acura Legend Coupe bland looking either. The 1994-2001 Acura Integra was not bland either.
Um, hate to say it even as a proud Honda fan but the accord copied the Camry in the late 90's. That particular generation of Camry out as a new model for the 97 model year and the Accord of that time was new for the 98 model year. The Malibu never copied the Camry I don;t think but it does look like the Malibu had some GEO styling DNA to it and the GEO Prizm and later called Chevy Prizm always looked like it shared both Chevy and Toyota styling DNA.
"Then Honda styled the Civic sedan to look too much like a Corolla."
Uhhh!!!The Civic and Corolla have always looked very different.
"The Acuras of the mid '90s were very common-looking as well."
Yeah they all look very common but they have aged well I have to say and look modern still.
"Nice to see that changing, but I don't think Honda can win over many non-fans."
I think Honda has won some new customers with the current TL.
Yeah your though I'm not the biggest current generation Accord fan your right the convex/concave fender transition does look unique.
I don't find the Element bland either. It looks to weird to be called bland.
He refuses to put a finger on it, but I think the basic shape/proportion of the vehicle is more important to him than the sheetmetal.
That is something that Honda and Acura used to do very well. For example, except for the beady-eyed headlights, the last Integra had some of the most boringly simple sheetmetal around. There were very few creases, curves, or details to make it stand out. But the low, sleek shape did all the talking. The Vigor/TL and even the old RL were simple, but had a classic shape. As did the Accords and Civics of the 90's.
I think one of the big problems with the current Accord isn't the sheetmetal, it's the shape. The high and chunky back end doesn't jive with the low, pointy nose. (The new tail does help a bit in this regard.) And the thick D pillar adds even more visual mass to the back. This shape is actually less conservative than the Accord it replaced (less bland), but it just doesn't work.
Element is anything but bland, it's the opposite - polarizing.
The Ridgeline is waaaaay out there.
The Insight looks like nothing else. A space-age CRX, maybe, but not bland.
The S2000 looks a bit like a door wedge, but again, it does not resemble any other roadster.
-juice
Your father probably thinks the TL looks look like a kids car (the current TL) because its sportier looking on the outside than the last 2 generation TL's especially the 99-01 TL. The 99-01 TL got wacked for bland styling by one magazine that I read once. I;m not saying the last TL was terrible I;m just saying I think it got wacked for being as other people call it typical Honda blandness.
"The Vigor/TL and even the old RL were simple, but had a classic shape. As did the Accords and Civics of the 90's."
Yeah the old RL and VIgor/TL had a nice classic shape but Honda couldn't keep on my simple shaped cars. The market is moving to where looks can easily make or break a sale. Anyway the Vigor and old RL's didn't sell well. I think the Germans and Infinti pushed Acura to go really sporty so thats why the current TL looks the way it does.
"I think one of the big problems with the current Accord isn't the sheetmetal, it's the shape. The high and chunky back end doesn't jive with the low, pointy nose.'
Yeah thats the observation that I have made as well with the current Accord is the back end and front ends on either the 03-05 and 06 models just don't match up well with each other.
I mean with the 03-05 Accord a buick back end meshed a Civic front end. Uhhh it just didn't match up. The 06 looks better but the front still doesn't match the back and its too bland for today's market as I pointed out earlier. I prefer the 98 Accord to the current generation. At least it was proportioned right and the front and back ends matched up well with each other. I;m 26 years old so I'm pretty young too. I prefer the mid 90's Accord(96-97) to any other generation of Accord myself in the styling department.
I;m sorry for my rants but I;m just exprssing my opinion and what the market is doing in terms of looks.
Subaru = ugly
Those words have been associated for so long with these brands that they've taken on a life of their own. So anytime Honda does something new, automatically it's bland; and anytime Subaru does something new, automatically it's ugly.
I've long ago learned to ignore peoples comments about styling (or have tried to), because most of the time they get it wrong, and spew out nothing but the expected clichés.
Bob
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Honda is having a great 2006, but Acura sales are slipping.
Acura needs an injection of vitamin V-8.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/06/01/009377.html
http://www.autospectator.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4559
Acura is rather a dimmer picture than Honda, but as a whole it seems to be OK: TSX, the miracle car, just keeps going up in sales, and TL's sales are subsiding ever so slowly, as is to be expected for a model that is gradually aging. MDX is way off, but perhaps the new model will revive it a bit, who knows. It may also be a victim of the gas prices, although the Pilot is up by a goodly margin, so maybe not. The new RDX should help a bit. The RL is pathetic - is it down to the pace of the old stodgy model?
But hey, Accord is up slightly! And Civic is up a whopping 20% - the new model is doing amazingly well, given it was as much evolution as revolution. Not to mention the polarizing digital dash.
As for Fit, in the "inter-company rivalries" category we find it losing sadly to the new Yaris, with only slightly over half as many sales. :-P
Of course, Honda is limiting Fit production, while Toyota will, I'm sure, build every Yaris the U.S. will eat up.
And on the flip side, despite the new RAV4's wildly successful sales, it is still only neck and neck with the now aged CRV, which is due to be replaced in the fall.
Honda is up 11% for the year so far, while Acura is down almost 6% for the same time period. Acura seems to be forever yoyo-ing, like they can't quite keep all the balls in the air with Acura, whereas Honda stays fairly consistent on the backs of the Accord and Civic (and Odyssey, Pilot, and CRV to a lesser extent), which can be relied on for a steady, high volume of sales year in and year out (even if Accord has slipped a little from its glory days, it is still in the top four most popular cars in the U.S.).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The RL is one confused puppy. No sense in blending premium pricing and a great interior with a totally inappropriate engine.
The MDX and TL are too close to what Honda offers for much less money. Acura needs to offer a real alternative: badge engineering won't work in the long term.
Honda sales reflect the fact they have their market so well targeted.
The Fit is production limited. Most dealers have a waitlist. Honda originally planned to sell 50K units in the US, but dropped that to 42K when they took another look at the supply situation.
Part of the Honda YTD boost comes from the fact that they didn't have a Ridgeline to sell back in the early quarter of last year.
The MDX sustained high sales for a long time. The concept didn't exactly get a warm reception so it's not like people are holding out for that model. They're just shifting towards more fuel-efficient models, moving down a notch, IMO.
Same thing happened to Subaru, the Forester and Impreza were up 18% while the Tribeca was way off its best pace.
-juice
The Pilot just got a MMC and is looking fresh. But it's fuel economy isn't that much better than the MDX. And the Ridgeline's is worse.
Was the Ridgeline supply already in full swing a year ago? I wonder if that number is inflated for that reason.
-juice