Has Honda's run - run out?

ateixeira

With a 3000 mile interval I'm sure dino is fine. But with those longer intervals is becomes a lot more important.

-juice

dino001

I know, buyt there are other compelling reasons of using synthetics in case of turbos, such as film viscosity, temperature resistance, etc. Turbos are scrolling at five times engine speeds - it is nice to provide them with good lubrication, wouldn't it?

ateixeira

You're preaching to the choir. :shades:

-juice

dino001

Allright then. I find it amazing that the manufacturers cave so much into the marketplace condition in terms of required/recommended maintenance. Everywhere else they practically force customers to use certain brand and grade of oil and here they leave it up to the dealers. Then of course Chryslers' turbos die in large numbers, VW develop sludge and coking. OF course opinions of short lifespan of turbos follow.

Yet, Subaru still put 7500 mile interval with no specification on oil quality. I wonder if Honda/Acura and Mazda do the same on their turbos.

varmint

Sorry Juice, but I see many more common elements with the Acura RL. Note the large section of wood trim, split center console, binnacle clusters, metallic waterfall, shape of the NAV screen, etc.



The Tribeca has a similar Y shaped dash, but it's much more 'swoopy' and the details are very different.

ateixeira

7500 is the "B" interval that almost noone qualifies for, though.

varmint: indeed. Bob also pointed out the lead times weren't long enough for much influence to occur.

-juice

ateixeira

I think what made me think Tribeca is the gauges that sort of pop out of the dash. The RL's are recessed.



It looks like a bustiere:



Or maybe I watched Moulin Rouge one too many times.

-juice

ateixeira

Now that I look at them again, the RL looks "T" shaped, while the MDX is more "Y" shaped, like the Tribeca. The wood trim drops down toward the center console, the RL's doesn't.

The RL is also more toned down, no metal trim on the door handles, either.

Perhaps they met Subaru half way. :P

-juice

imidazol97

I recommend more exercise and cold showers.

ateixeira

rockylee

http://www.acura.com/

click under "future vehicles" for pics and new features.....

Rocky

fintail

The greenhouse of the uglified new CRV reminds me of the pukeworthy Ssangyong Rodius ...not a pretty sight....voted the ugliest car on the road in England.

rockylee

YUCKY fintail. :surprise: That is what the Chin-E cars will look like.

Rocky

explorerx4

remember the old expression, 'there is no substitute for cubic inches?'.
what i think you mean is, honda can't make competitive power with their N/A engines. they just need to add more cylinders.

fintail

SAIC owns 49% of Ssangyong, so you're on the right track. Sadly, that thing could easily be in our future. I have to wonder how those things stay in business in Europe, especially in England where the brand and especially model is the butt of jokes.

rockylee

You ain't a kiddin' fintail.

Rocky

habitat1

"remember the old expression, 'there is no substitute for cubic inches?'."

Actually, I think is was "no replacement for displacement". And, I believe that expression must have been coined by a "Big Three" engineer that didn't know how to do anything but add cubic inches or cylinders. They still don't. And that's just one of the long list of reasons that they are no longer very "big".

Honda got 120 hp per liter out of the original 9,000 rpm, 2.0 liter S2000. Their revised 8,000 rpm 2.2 liter engine is still 109 hp/liter. That's right in the league of the Ferrari 430 (4.3 liters, 8,800 rpm, 483hp, 112 hp/liter). And if Chevy and Dodge matched Honda's output, their Z06 and Viper would be pumping out 840 hp and 1000 hp respectively. As it is, neither of those 7.0 liter V8 and 8.3 liter V10 engines has a measurable actual performance advantage over the "little" 3.8 liter 6 cylinder 911S with "only" 355hp.

No, there is a replacement for displacement, if you actually have engineers that are good enough to find and exploit it. Honda is in pretty good company with Porsche, Ferrari and BMW in this capability. This is not to say that I wouldn't like to see a V8 in a sport version of the RL to compete with the 550i. But I suspect that Honda/Acura would need less than 4.5 liters to do what the little 3 require 7+ liters to achieve.

explorerx4

no need to get all defensive. the way is see it, honda wanted the new mdx to have 300 hp. the engineers looked at it, and decided to make the engine bigger, hence my comment.
isn't this acura/honda's first 300 hp engine?

john500

Your point is valid and well stated, however, let's look at some numbers in detail:
2006 Honda S2000 torque = 162 ft lbs, hp = 237
2006 Ferrari torque = 343 ft lbs, hp = 483
Corvette Z06 torque = 470 ft lbs, hp = 505
Dodge Viper torque = 535 ft lbs, hp = 505

The Honda and Ferrari engines have very low torque/hp ratios relative to the Corvette and Viper (on the order of 0.7 for the Honda and Ferrari compared to near 1 for the Chevy and Dodge). Although there are many tricks to extract power, if one stays with fewer cylinders the engineer usually must resort to a large stroke component (the H in a right circular cylinder volume calculation). The result is a large penalty in torque for naturally aspirated engines. This means that for two equal cars (equal hp/weight ratios with the stated torque/hp ratios), the Honda driver will have to MUCH better than the Chevy driver or the Honda driver will likely lose every race. There is some truth in the adage about no replacement for displacement.

habitat1

You are correct, it's hard to get more torque out of a naturally aspirated engine without increasing displacement. On the other hand, those torque advantages, for whatever reason, don't necessarily translate into performance advantages, at least not proportionally. According to Motor Trend's 2005 test of the base Corvette and 911 S:

Corvette 400hp/400 ft-lbs, 3,267 lb curb weight, 0-60 in 4.4 sec.
911S 355hp/295 ft-lbs, 3,283 lb curb weight, 0-60 in 4.2 seconds.

The 911S was tested by another magazine and beat the Viper 0-60 by 0.1. (4.1 to 4.2) The tests I've seen of the Ferrari 430, put it damn close to the Enzo in performance and a couple of rungs above the Viper and Z06, in spite of a substantial torque deficit.

I'm not suggesting that torque is bad, per se. But if it comes at the expense of a massive 6-7+ liter engine that starts sucking wind at 6,000 rpm, then there is the Honda/Ferrari/Porsche/BMW alternative that competes quite effectively. And I guess it's my personal bias that the latter approach often results in a more refined better engineered vehicle overall at least with respect to sports cars, coupes and sedans.

Now, with respect to an SUV hauling a 5,000 lb boat, I do think more displacement would be a good thing. Perhaps even a high output diesel engine. In this application, the substitute for torque is a burned up engine if it gets overworked trying to move all that weight from a dead stop or up and down hills.

carlisimo

Gearing somewhat aleviates the problem. If a 6000rpm engine and a 9000rpm engine make the same power and have a perfectly flat torque curve, we can assume the former makes 1.5x as much torque.

But to make redline in each gear happen at the same miles per hour, all you have to do is give the second engine gearing that's 1.5x tighter. So at the wheels, you end up with the exact same amount of torque. Unless I'm wrong... they'll match up perfectly (in an idealized world).

It's like how a small engine in 1st gear pulls harder than a big engine in 2nd.

john500

That is an impressive 0-60 mph time for the Porsche and I agree with you in principle. One of the reasons that I tend to be more lenient on the "beast cars" (ie ones that I view as having too much power) is that the fuel economy does not improve significantly with the lower # of cylinders or smaller displacement engines. Take the examples that you gave. The Porsche is EPA listed as 18-26 mpg for a 6 cylinder and the base Corvette is listed as 18-28 mpg for an 8 cylinder. In principle, the smaller displacement engine with fewer cylinders should get better fuel efficiency. Track testing and EPA fuel efficiency data empirically suggests to me that pushing smaller engines to extreme performance comes with some inefficiencies. Perhaps what Carlisimo stated is the reason - its all in the gears.

sensai

First, the 911 is AWD which means faster launches and faster 0 to 60 times, check the 0 to 130/150mph if you want to see which car is making more power.

Next, as someone just pointed out, gearing makes a big difference performance. But, as was also pointed out, it comes at the expense of gas mileage. Check the gas mileage ratings of a 240hp S2000 vs a 400hp Corvette...

6-7+ liter engines start sucking wind at 6,000 rpms? That is completely ignorant, the LSx engines are one of the hardest pulling engines at the top of their rpm range. And stop with the tired hp/l crap. At the end of the day, most large displacement engines make more hp and torque and get good if not better fuel mileage. Not to mention the LSx engines make more power per pound (which is an actual useful measurement) than any of those high hp/l engines.

varmint

Next, as someone just pointed out, gearing makes a big difference performance. But, as was also pointed out, it comes at the expense of gas mileage. Check the gas mileage ratings of a 240hp S2000 vs a 400hp Corvette...

That's only if you measure fuel economy in the same manner as the EPA. In many other tests, the S2000 has performed better on the highway than the EPA cycle suggests.

anythngbutgm

I pull a solid 27mpg with mine. 20 miles per day (all backroad) and an occasional highway jaunt on the weekends. The best I've ever gotten was 31mpg when I first got it and did a bunch of highway miles.

That's my data point. :shades:

habitat1

First, the 911 is AWD which means faster launches and faster 0 to 60 times

The 911S tested was RWD. The comparable AWD "4" versions are, on average a little slower due to added weight and lower drivetrain efficiency.

"Check the gas mileage ratings of a 240hp S2000 vs a 400hp Corvette..."

I'll give it to GM, they know how to play the EPA ratings games, with a "skip shift" system that forces shifts from 1 to 4 and putting a 6th gear that is essentially a highway only overdrive (it can't pull more than 4,200 rpm and even 5th gear can't reach redline). The reality is if you drive the car like most people do, those EPA estimates are completely unachievable, especially the city ones. A business associate with a base Corvette gets 14-15 mpg on the same "mixed" driving that I get 17-18 on with my 911S and used to get 22-23 with my S2000. .

"And stop with the tired hp/l crap. At the end of the day, most large displacement engines make more hp and torque and get good if not better fuel mileage. Not to mention the LSx engines make more power per pound."

Look, I'm not arguing against the laws of physics. More displacement should be able to produce more power. I'm just arguing against the "crap" engineering of GM, Dodge, et al, where that's all they know how to do - and not very well. The only other vehicle I am aware of with the 8.0 liter displacement of the Viper is the Bugatti Veyron. With 1,001 hp and 922 ft-lbs of torque. Argue your hp per pound with the owner of one of those.

So, if any Honda/Acura models need more power, then displacement is one place to look. But hopefully, they will keep pushing along their other engineering options open as well, since they actually have them.

sensai

I'll give it to GM, they know how to play the EPA ratings games, with a "skip shift" system that forces shifts from 1 to 4 and putting a 6th gear that is essentially a highway only overdrive (it can't pull more than 4,200 rpm and even 5th gear can't reach redline). The reality is if you drive the car like most people do, those EPA estimates are completely unachievable, especially the city ones. A business associate with a base Corvette gets 14-15 mpg on the same "mixed" driving that I get 17-18 on with my 911S and used to get 22-23 with my S2000.

You have to be really trying with the LS2/7 to get the skip shift to engage (between 18 and 22mph with under 20% throttle in first). It hardly effects overall gas mileage. They can do a deeply geared 6th gear because the engine has the torque to do so. Try that in a low torque high hp/l car and you will lug it to death. And there are plenty of people that get the rated or better gas mileage in a Vette (or any other LSx car), it depends on how it is driven. Obviously any hard driven 400hp car is going to use more gas than a 240hp car, more mildly driven is another story. BTW, LSx cars do reach top speed at there redline in 5th.

Look, I'm not arguing against the laws of physics. More displacement should be able to produce more power. I'm just arguing against the "crap" engineering of GM, Dodge, et al, where that's all they know how to do - and not very well. The only other vehicle I am aware of with the 8.0 liter displacement of the Viper is the Bugatti Veyron. With 1,001 hp and 922 ft-lbs of torque. Argue your hp per pound with the owner of one of those.

Crap engineering? Another ignorant statement. How is a physically small, light weight, very efficient, 400/500hp engine crap engineering? Are you going to call the M5's V10 crap? After all, it is larger, heavier, not as powerful, and get's horrible fuel economy compared to the LS7 (yes the car's weight factors into that). And why do you hp/l guys have to resort to Ferrari's and Bugatti's, cars with engines costing 10 times as much as a Viper/Vette's engine, to prove a point? Do they not teach the KISS (keep it simple stupid) concept in high school any more? It is sad when a meaningless number means so much to people, and not the end result...

john500

Does anyone know of a company that buys a car new with zero miles on it, stores it in the dark under an atmosphere of nitrogen containing desiccant, and then sells it 10-20 years later? I had a friend who used to do that with baseball and hockey sports cards.

I'd like to get a 1994 Honda Civic Si hatchback with 0 miles on it and a 1988 or so Pontiac Fiero with 0 miles on it to add to my "museum". Can you get "kit cars" of these models?

ateixeira

Neither was deemed collectible when they were new so that's very, very doubtful. Think about the cost of storage, the time value of money (opportunity cost), etc.

Real estate would be a better investment.

-juice

carlisimo

There may be a Chinese company out there building new 1992 Civics =].

gee35coupe

is fun, when it comes down to everyday DOHC vs. OHV engines, most Japanese I4 engines will beat GM's OHV V6's hands down when it comes to efficiency, space-saving, and refinement. While getting similar performance. I guess that's why GM is just about the final holdout with the OHV engine in bread and butter cars. Everyone else has gone DOHC.

explorerx4

maybe the chinese should reprise those '92 civics. they seem to be better than what we have seen, so far.

explorerx4

my mother has an '03 malibu with a v6. i was able to match the epa 33 mpg highway mileage on a few trips from hartford ct to boston and back. there are some good size elevation changes on I-84 and I-90(mass pike), so it is not ideal for maximum gas mileage.
of course, i used to the the Ted Williams tunnel was the best thing since sliced (Nissen) bread.

robertsmx

the way is see it, honda wanted the new mdx to have 300 hp. the engineers looked at it, and decided to make the engine bigger, hence my comment.

Honda could extract 300 HP or more from 3.0-3.2 liter V6, but they couldn't defy the mechanical limitations of ICE. It certainly won't be possible to achieve 100 HP/liter at mere 6000 rpm, where mainstream vehicles are expected to deliver their peak power.

As for adding displacement, note that not only did the displacement went up by 0.2 liters, the specific peak power output went up from 73 HP/liter to 82 HP/liter and specific peak torque from 72 lb-ft/liter to 75 lb-ft/liter.

If the 3.7/V6 were getting more power only courtesy of additional displacement, the increase should be simply proportional, meaning, about 267 HP/264 lb-ft as opposed to 300 HP/275 lb-ft.

Getting more power isn't always the issue. Getting more from less usually is.

robertsmx

The Honda and Ferrari engines have very low torque/hp ratios relative to the Corvette and Viper

Having a broader and flatter torque curve will result in lower torque (lb-ft)/power (hp) ratio. To prove the point:
Acura TSX 2354 cc/I-4: 205 HP/165 lb-ft
Honda Accord 2354 cc/I-4: 166 HP/161 lb-ft

Although there are many tricks to extract power, if one stays with fewer cylinders the engineer usually must resort to a large stroke component (the H in a right circular cylinder volume calculation). The result is a large penalty in torque for naturally aspirated engines.

True. Coincidentally, Corvette's 6.0/V8 has a bore/stroke ratio of 1.1:1 (large bore, short stroke). OTOH, Honda S2000's 2.2/I-4 has it at 0.96:1 (small bore, long stroke) which goes against the conventional wisdom in a high revving engine design. By comparison, a typical high revving motorcycle engine would have a ratio closer to 2.0:1.

The TSX engine actually has one of the longest strokes I have noticed in recent years, at 99 mm (with a bore of only 87 mm).

carguy58

it seems like they are doing ok although I did get a little shaken because their June 06 sales were flat when compared to June 05 sales and August 06 sales declined from August 05 sales. However Honda did outsell Chrysler in July 06 for that month. I wonder if Honda didn't have alot of cars to clear out for the 06 model year in August so thats why sales were down for the month vs 05 figures. Perhaps Honda cleared out alot of 05 Civics last year to make room for the redesigned 06 model has partly to do with it. I do know August was a weak month for autosales overall. Even BMW dropped by 3,000 units last month vs August 05 figures and BMW always nets month over month increases in sales.

Honda could use a redesigned Accord right about now.

allcarsrcool

What if there was a new de sol, accord wagon and hardtop convertible... what if...

varmint

Last year, Honda was fairly competitive with the incentives. They had to compete with all the employee pricing initiatives.

carguy58

"Last year, Honda was fairly competitive with the incentives. They had to compete with all the employee pricing initiatives."

Oh yeah I forgot about the emplyoee pricing thing. I usually think about the Domestics when I though about last years summer Employee pricing.

rockylee

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=117002

Rocky

timothyaw

This is a good wake up call for Honda. I've said that their lackluster car designs and slightly slipping quality is affecting them. Honda, be careful. The next accord better be one sweeet looking, excellent performing, excellent quality vechicle.

qbrozen

4%? Oh no!

Although I'm not sure where your number comes from, if it has any validity, I guess they can take solace in their 3.8% increase according to their year-to-date numbers compared to last year.

nippononly

odd month. The sales numbers were all over the place vs the ame month last year, because last year the market was punch-drunk from the gi-NORMOUS incentives the domestics had been piling on all summer, and so sales were way off across the industry. Toyota, of course, continued a slow and steady increase last year, and this year boosted sales 25% over the same month last year! Pretty impressive.

Honda will need to solve its production bottleneck (barely keeping up with Civic demand, utterly failing to meet Fit demand) before it can hope to take significantly more market share from rivals.

But for a smaller company like Honda, boosting sales almost 4% for the year is what is more important in the meantime. Slow and steady, that is the way you steal the rug right out from under your competitors....

rockylee

Have either one of you heard anything more about the 2009' Acura TL yet ?

I don't want to buy another Acura product, but boy if it's a good looker with SH-AWD that will be very hard for me to resist. :surprise:

Rocky

rockylee

Build the 2007 TL, etc on the Acura website.

Rocky

ateixeira

The Fit is their biggest hit in a while...great timing with gas prices plus they bring in young and first-time buyers. I best most buy another Honda next time around, too.

All this from a design that is several years old and probably cost them next to nothing (costs already had been covered).

-juice

nippononly

Too bad they can't get a production line for the Fit opened in North America sooner than 2008. If they could double the number they made available in the States, I bet they would STILL sell every single one at full sticker (and mark-up in many cases), and it would still have one of the shortest in-inventory times of any model in North America.

ateixeira

Supply and demand is a funny thing.

I bet if they doubled supply prices would actually drop.

I got gas in Virginia last Friday for $1.99 per, and saw it for $1.93. And prices have gone down a few more pennies since then.

Honda would be smart to have flexible capacity. Under $2 per and they're not gonna sell as many as they are now.

-juice

explorerx4

honda does not want to sell lots of entry level vehicles. they need more upmarket sales in the long run.

ateixeira

But you get that by hooking young buyers with a great first car buying experience.

Folks that bought '86 Civics new and now driving MDXs and TLs.

-juice