By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
With the option packages ok I understand put Nissan has as crazy as option packages as Mazda and Nissan gets away with it and have no clue why. Would I prefer if Mazda went back to a DX, LX, ES trim level package? Yes. I would prefer if Nissan went back to their GXE, SE, and GLE packaging as well.
"Just like I said. People on Edmunds hate the give the Camry and Corolla no respect while the dealers are empytin and the factory keeps on hummin.' I;ll take the real world paying customer over the Edmunds "enthusiast" any day.
I said Toyota is a fine automaker. Their latest verions of the Corolla and Camry just don't to it for me. With the Corolla the tall back end I'm not going for it. I;m 5'7 I don't think the driving position of the Corolla suits me either. I like the size of it and the interior though. With the Camry The 92-96 and 97-01 models are decent looking cars. The new one's looks tipsy, the interior has been cheapened. Also Toyota gave incentives for 03 and 04 Camry's(1500 dollar rebate) so they really weren't really in that much of a demand.
I don't know if you can call me an enthusiast since I like Honda but I;m just saying what I like. Young buyers like me are fickle. Toyota has aging buyers and that has been a problem that has been worrying them about for a few years now. Young buyers do not buy their cars with the exception of the Scion TC. I wanted to buy an 01-02 Celica too so I am not bias against Toyota. Having a sports car and the winters we have in Jersey worried me so I passed. If the product is there I;ll buy it. I don't care what automaker it is. I;m just saying the lastest Camry and Corolla don't to it for me. Toyota has a good repuation for quality and that is a big selling point for their core buyer. With me its 2004 a car is a car basically. This is not the 80's/early 90's anymore. Its basically a level playing field with a few exceptions.
Many people on Edmunds have complained about the Accord's rear end. I've owned 2 sedans and a coupe. I can't remember the last time I looked at the rear of my car(actually that changed yesterday after someone rear ended Anony) but I sure love my XM radio, luminescent gauges, awesome leather seats, and smooth drivetrain. There are few family sedan interiors that compare to the Accord and it goes downhill after that.
Carguy, I agree with you about Toyota. But you also can't argue with the numbers they are generating right now. Not just here either, worldwide.
I gotta quit tryin to type in the dark.
You know what's really funny? Not too long ago, I remember seeing low mileage 00 Civic Si's for around $16K. USED.
I cannot believe the prices for used versions of the last generation Civic Si. THAT was a sweet ride. Nice styling, wishbone suspension, and a screamer Honda engine.
My friend used to have one and I remember riding in it all the way down to Chicago. The engine revved kind of high on the freeway, but it was smooth, and very fun.
And yes, stock ones command top dollar used. Some are still getting what they paid for them new if the miles are low.
I would SERIOUSLY love to have a magic wand so I could go back in time and have Honda release the current SI using the current coupe body style instead of the hatch they did release. I bet it would have been impossible to keep on dealer lots (instead of sitting sometimes six months or more the way the current model has) if sold in limited quantities like all its competitors. In fact, if they had done that and reduced the sticker $1500 or so, they would have sold the 15K per year they wanted to, I am sure. But mainly I would be curious to see just how much the mini-minivan looks really hurt it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The previous hatches looked better than the current one and nothing like a Pokemon or mini-mini-van IMO.
The current Si is perhaps the most underrated vehicle in its class, IMO.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I understand that, but either way, I didn't pull the 4500 RPM figure based on what gear I was in. Even when I'm in 1st or 2nd gear merging onto the freeway, my TL doesn't have very much oomph (relatively speaking) until VTEC kicks in around 4500 RPM.
The Vette/GTO are similar. 405 pound feet at only 4400 rpm. You don't need to drop gears to move this thing.
Don’t be fooled by engine torque without considering gearing. A vette is capable of near 10 second acceleration from 50 to 70 mph if you don’t drop the gears. Do you think that is good enough to “move” you?
Don't worry I wasn't fooled. I said the Vette/GTO was similar, as in similar to the GTP, as in just dropping out of overdrive.. ie, shifting to 5th. I said the vette didn't need to drop gears (plural). But whatever, (I've been in a Z06 and a GTO)
Now, if you care about low end power only, obviously you don’t care for high power. In that case, a diesel is all that you really need. However, regardless of how much torque you’ve got on hand, in city driving, you’re unlikely to go past 3000 rpm so a miniscule difference in low end power isn’t going to make a difference. And thrust is compensated for by gearing. Don’t believe me? Check out the gearing.
I never said I only care about low-end gearing. At least we agree that the differences are miniscule though, that was my original point, as I was saying you wouldn't need to revv the Malibu more than the Accord.
And gearing isn't everything. Yeah, it can compensate, but there are still tradeoffs. Put 2 passengers in the car, and then try to pass pople while going up a hill, and you'll realize that torque/hp really are important.
Also, the WRX has short gears, so it it blazing quick from 0-60, but you'll find that it doesn't have the appropriate gearing to race people past triple digits. Not that it matters, as discussing racing is another discussion altogether.
It's like we'd like to think we know what other people want. Or perhaps what we think other people should own.
So everyone go out and buy a Lotus Elise so they are plentiful as used cars a couple of years from now. Ya sissies. ;-)
-juice
Link to absolute silliness
What year and model of TL are you driving? My Gen 6 Accord V6 behaved pretty much as you describe, with a very noticeable surge in power when the VTEC kicked in at 4500 RPM. That V6 had the 2-Stage VTEC, with a low RPM stage and a high RPM stage. The generation of TL prior to the 2004 model used the same VTEC design.
My Gen 7 Accord V6 (as well as the 2004+ TL) has the far more flexible 3-Stage VTEC, with a stage for low, mid and high RPM. The middle stage kicks in at 2500 RPM, with the high stage still kicking in at 4500 RPM. With the improved mid-range power provided by stage 2, the transition to stage 3 results in a steady ramp-up of power, without the very obvious transition that came with the 2-stage VTEC. The result is a much more linear power curve than provided by the 2-stage setup.
But the point I was making is something of a grass-is-greener argument. We got a coupe with the last gen Si and the enthusiasts said, "Give us back the hatch!". We got a hatch with the current model and now people are saying, "A coupe would be better!"
Maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't with the type of body on the car.
I'm not saying that. I don't really care, as long as it looks decent.
"Maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't with the type of body on the car."
I agree. The problem is the price and the way it looks.
Like I said before, Honda had no problems selling the last Si for MSRP.
;-)
See, we always find something to whine about!
-juice
I don't understand what Edmunds audience has to do with anything really. Either you have the appropiate product to sell or you don't for your core buying audience. Honda did not have the correct product for the latest version of the SI.
If you can't make the chat, post your RSVP in the "meet up" topic.
Thanks!
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
The SUBARU CREW chat is on TONIGHT. Stop in for a holiday visit! Check out the schedule
- it was said to have a peaky engine with no torque especially by people who think HP is for marketing and torque is for acceleration. Honda addressed the issue by providing more torque.
- it was blasted for not having ABS. Honda addressed the issue by not only making ABS standard, but also added electronic brake distribution.
- it looked no different from Civic coupe, and traditionally, Si has been a hatchback. Honda addressed that too!
So, what exactly does Honda need to deliver as the “correct product” as you put it
- a screaming peaky engine (relatively speaking, since now, even with 200 HP engine, it is likely to get compared to turbo charged SRT-4, Ions and like). We’re back to square one.
- ABS isn’t going anywhere, so no longer an issue either way.
- Back to coupe form. That’s what we liked about the old Si compared to older Si HB, right?
IMO, there is more involved than just having “correct product”. And that is marketing.
If you can drop one, you can drop two. Why does it matter how many gears you drop to accelerate?
I was saying you wouldn't need to revv the Malibu more than the Accord.
To get 200 horses, you will have to. Especially considering that Accord V6 is designed rev high, keeping it at lower rpm only add to less wear. Not all engines are designed to same specs, BTW. Engines heavy on low end torque will have little attention to detail at the top end (sometimes a part of cost savings as well).
And gearing isn't everything. Yeah, it can compensate, but there are still tradeoffs. Put 2 passengers in the car, and then try to pass pople while going up a hill, and you'll realize that torque/hp really are important.
Wrong. Gearing makes the horses useful, and engine torque meaningful. This is true in an empty vehicle or loaded to the brim.
Not sure it would see alot - maybe attract some Subaru customers, but atleast Honda could claim to sell pick-ups.
Any Honda execs reading this? This is next big thing, the "el Accord Camino".
Because our ORIGINAL discussion was about fuel economy. In day to day driving, I was saying I'm probably getting better fuel economy in my Supercharged V6 than my wife's TL, because I don't need to revv the engine nearly as much, even though I drive quite spiritedly, which was counter to your claim that these engines only get good fuel economy if you drive like a grandma.
And gearing isn't everything. Yeah, it can compensate, but there are still tradeoffs. Put 2 passengers in the car, and then try to pass pople while going up a hill, and you'll realize that torque/hp really are important.
Wrong. Gearing makes the horses useful, and engine torque meaningful. This is true in an empty vehicle or loaded to the brim.
No, you are wrong. Gearing is a torque multiplier. It multiplies the torque you have, but it isn't free. The gears don't just pull power out of the air. The heavier the car, the more work the engine has to do. Gearing helps to a point. It makes it so you use the available power more effectively. However, there comes a point, when you simply don't have enough power even after multiplication.
I can rig up all the gears to make such that I can have a foot peddle in the car, and use that to accelerate the car. The gearing will multiply the torque than my legs can muster, and make it so I can move the car. That doesn't mean I'll be able to move the car particularly fast, or efficiently, but I'll be able to move it. Now lets say I can move it just fine. You think I'll still be able to move it, if I put my boat on the tow-hook?
Just like when you peddle your mountain bike up a steep hill, and you put it in first gear. You can peddle really hard and go maybe 5 mph. Now if I was he-man (more torque), I could peddle up that same hill with more authority. THAT was my point.
I don't get what you mean. Could you videotape a demonstration for us please? =]
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/pontiac/grandprix/100398510/specs- - - .html?tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Pontiac*
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/acura/tl/100449883/specs.html?tid- - - =edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Acura*
The TL already commands a 1 mpg advantage on paper.
http://www.cardomain.com/id/choppastyle03
The TL puts out at least 190 lb/ft from 2000 rpm through 6200 RPM. Couple that with the extra cog in the tranny I doubt the TL would have any problem needing to rev to get out of it's own way.
Funny thing about the 3800 SC in the GTP is that the torque decreases quickly as you rev it. It may have more torque than the TL in the beginning, but the higher you rev the efficiency of the TL starts to pay off. Since the GTP isn't a CVT, it's at a disadvantage as the revs build.
http://www.southfloridapulleyhq.com/SFPH/wbody/ie_rt_downpipe_cat- - .htm
Fortunately, that's not as hard to do as people think, mostly because of the EPA mandate for low-sulfur motor fuels for all 50 states by September 2006. Without worries about sulfur compounds in motor fuels that could corrode engine components in a way akin to the effects of sulfuric acid, Honda could apply common-rail pressurized direct fuel injection and new catalytic converters that reduce emissions and "burn off" diesel particulates at the same time so the engine at least gets Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle certification.
The result could be very interesting: an Accord with the 2.2-liter I-4 i-CTDi engine would actually be faster than the Accords powered by the K24 engine, and because diesel engines have their forte in low-end torque, it could improve the performance of the Element and CR-V (or whatever replaces the CR-V), too. And the vehicles will get 25-35% fuel economy, too. :-)
One possibility is a new 3.5-liter V-6 i-CTDi turbodiesel for the Ridgeline light truck, Pilot and MDX SUV's and the Odyssey minivan. Can you imagine a Odyssey minivan getting 27 mpg city, 33 mpg highway with the i-CTDi engine? People would line up to buy such a vehicle.
It has WAY more torque than the TL in the beginning and WAY more peak torque which translates into effortless acceleration--which is what I think is avs007's point. The TL can accelerate fast too, but not nearly as effortlessly as the GTP. I used to have a modified LX 5.0L Mustang, so I know exactly what he is talking about. You can blow other cars away and the engine doesn't even break a sweat. Hondas are not like that. Keep in mind that the dyno graph on that site is power at the wheels. Their baseline #s show that the stock 1997 Grand Prix is actually under rated for torque. That stock 1997 Grand Prix is putting down 273 lbs-ft at the wheels. WOW!
-We have gone over this before but I don't know about a car that Honda wants to slot under the Civic. The next generation Civic just needs improvement to match the competition. Another car that is slotted under the Civic is a questionable move to me. Next generation Civic 4dr might be roomier than the current 4dr model. Remember the bigger a car gets exterior styling suffers. I think the coupe model with the Civic is what Honda needs to be concerned about though. The Civic Coupe model is what most young Civic buyers buy anyway. Usually the coupe model is less roomier than the sedan model so will exterior styling suffer with the coupe model as much as the sedan model? I don't think so what is he reason for a car slotted under the Civic?
-Will Honda have to discount current generation Accords? Last year at this time Honda sold 371,000 Accords. This year it has slipped to 348,000. I think that is a big sales drop-off by Honda vehicle standards especially for the Accord.
-Honda has styled a winner with the current Oddy. The front end looks a mix of 04 Toyota Sienna and 01 Acura MDX. The back looks like a hatchback which I like. So Honda/Acura in the past few years has styled winners like the 01 MDX, 04 TL, and 05 RL. What happened with the current Accord sedan and CR-V? It looked like Honda was scared to do a total revision of exterior styling with the current CR-V. With the 03 Accord Sedan we have debated that many times on this board.
You can tell Honda's not worried. The end of the year clearance was very weak this year. It seems like the 04's disappeared and the 05's appeared. No big discount commercials or anything in the Atlanta area.
And actually the torque curves actually cross at around 4000 rpm. After that the TL starts making more torque than the GTP. Since when younail the throttle MOST transmissions downshift, the TL would get put in the heart of the power band, while even if the GTP didn't downshift, any increase in engine speed would mean less power. The faster is goes the less available power. And if the GTP transmission DID downshift it would actually be creating a situation where the car would be slower.
To cut to the chase though. Edmunds got 19 mpg int the 04 GTP and 21mpg in the 04 TL 6 speed manual.
Since we ARE on Edmunds where we all would get a manual tranny when available, I guess the TL wins.
I'll bet they are. Regardless of how the TL is selling, I think it's kinda funny that you think no one at Honda is wondering about the drop off in sales of the Accord.
"And actually the torque curves actually cross at around 4000 rpm. After that the TL starts making more torque than the GTP"
That was avs007's point, you don't NEED to nail the throttle on the GTP to get moving quickly. As far as I know, the TL and the GTP both idle below 1000 rpm. Which car is more powerful off idle and in the RPM range that most people usually use? The GTP. By a long shot. Now, if everyone started off at 4000 rpm....
We know they both pull 0-60 in the 6.5 to 7.5 range. I'd like to see 1/4 mile and 30-60 and 60-80 times for each car. Since the GTP is making the least amount ot torque at the point where it's making maximum horsepower... That's kinda wacky.
If you would check the number of Accords sold last year compared to this year and the increase in TL's from this year from last year,it's almost even at 20,000.
http://automobiles.honda.com/info/news/article.asp?ArticleID=2004- - 120151841&Category=currenthonda
They stopped importing Accords from Japan and started to rely strictly on NA production. Just like with the Pilot and Ody, if you are selling everything you build, the numbers depend more on production capacity. If anything, the lack of supply will keep Accord prices a little higher than if the market were flooded.
The TL would benefit from a CVT just like the GTP would. The only difference is where in the RPM range that most of the power is made. The GTP is down low, the TL is up top. Simple. You say that as engine speed builds, the GTP loses power. Likewise, everytime the TL upshifts, it loses power. All a CVT does is keep the engine in the power range. It wouldn't benefit the GTP any more than it would a TL.
"After 4000 RPM the TL will be making more torque AND hp than the Grand Prix."
Are you sure? The GTP hp peak is 260 hp at 5200 rpm.
"If you would check the number of Accords sold last year compared to this year and the increase in TL's from this year from last year,it's almost even at 20,000."
So what? The TL and Accord are different vehicles.
"If anything, the lack of supply will keep Accord prices a little higher than if the market were flooded."
LMAO! The Accord sales drop is due to a supply issue and has nothing to do with a demand issue? Is that what you're trying to say?
Built in the same factory in Marysville, Ohio. That happens to be running at capacity right now. It can only produce 440,000 cars a year. They are almost there.
http://www.hondanews.com/CatID1008?mid=2004051144483
"The Accord sales drop is due to a supply issue and has nothing to do with a demand issue? Is that what you're trying to say?"
To simplify it...Yes. Demand is controlled in part by incentives. There have been very few if any incentives on the Accord this year. I'm sure if Honda threw out a sweet lease deal or more dealer cash the demand would increase. But so far they haven't and it seems they are keeping the supply/demand right where they need to be. Just like when Honda wanted to dump all the 04 Odys. The lease deal on them was stupendous enough to make me buy one. They cleared the lots of the 04's just in time for the 05' intro.
" Are you sure? The GTP hp peak is 260 hp at 5200 rpm."
Did you look at the dyno? Or are we going back and forth between advertised numbers and dyno numbers where it's convenient. That's why I posted dyno numbers so we can see what's going on at the wheels. Neither car makes advertised power at the wheels.
" Likewise, everytime the TL upshifts, it loses power. All a CVT does is keep the engine in the power range. It wouldn't benefit the GTP any more than it would a TL."
Check the dyno for torque peak vs. hp peak for again.
If you can't defend your information(or misinformation), why post?
Why'd they stop building in Japan? You know, I wouldn't expect anything less from the king Honda spin doctor. If Honda could sell as many Accords as they did last year, they'd figure out a way to make them. Bottom line.
"Demand is controlled in part by incentives."
But Accords don't need incentives, right? Is it lack of incentives, or a supply issue? You don't seem to be sure.
"Did you look at the dyno?"
Did YOU look at the dyno? Specifically, what car they were dynoing? It was a 1997 Grand Prix. The new ones are rated at 260 hp. Of course, it would be less at the wheels, but, the dyno sheet would still show a different peak hp from that of the 1997 Grand Prix. Should we look at the 1997 TL?
"Neither car makes advertised power at the wheels."
Lol. NO CAR makes advertised power at the wheels. That's why I specified "at the wheels". Geez.
"Check the dyno for torque peak vs. hp peak for again."
I don't need to check it again.
The TL makes the most of it's torque up high. The GTP makes the most of it's torque down low.
Right?
The TL's power builds as revs increase. The GTP has power right off idle all the way through midrange. Like I said, the power that the GTP makes is a more relaxed power, the power that the TL makes is more high strung. Midrange power is more usable than high end power, unless you like flooring the throttle all the time.
http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=8176
" July exports to North America fell by 28.6% due to increased local production of the Accord"
" But Accords don't need incentives, right? Is it lack of incentives, or a supply issue? You don't seem to be sure."
And there are no cash back incentives on the 05's. And only dealer cash on the 04's. Yet the Accord is still number 2 behind the incentive and fleet sales bouyed Camry. Not bad if you ask me. Let's see, build all the cars you can domestically where it's cheaper, or import them and waste production that can be sent places that don't have factories. Hmmm.
Let's find a dyno for a newer 3.8 V6 then. Here's a 2002.
http://www.dynoperformance.com/search_details.php?ID=296
Seems like a characteristic of this engine is for the torque to decrease as revs build. Can you find a dyno of a 2004 3.8 supercharged GTP or Impala?
As far as comparing to a 1997 TL. I guess you can see why I didn't notice the year of the first dyno since the GM 3.8 has been around for longer than Acura has. My bad. Some companies update thier products with the times. GM is still working on an affordable, smooth running, efficient, environmentally friendly DOHC V6. They buy em from Honda.
The GTP makes all it's torque down low. But no tranmission other than a CVT can stay down low when accelerating. The GTP's torque is quickly decreasing in a linear line as revs build. Where the TL's torque curve builds until it peaks at 209 lb.ft., 190 of which is available from 2500 rpm to 6250 rpm. It looks like the GTP's curve must sharply increase to it's "low-end" peak then quickly drop off as revs build.
It doesn't realy matter though. Edmunds already said they got 2 mph better mpg in the TL than the GTP. EPA rates the TL one MPG better than the GTP. I haven't seen tests separating the cars by any significant difference in 0-60 or 1/4 mile times. So even if the power is "more relaxed" it ain't more efficient. And that's what started this whole debate. Nobody builds engine that run as smoothly at speed as Honda so it doesn't mater if the TL is a few RPM higher than the GTP.
I've never driven a car right off idle. Not even my 00 Silverado. And if midrange power is more usable, the TL also has nost of it's power over most of it's rev range. I don't consider 2500 RPM high strung but I drive cars with engines that were designed in this decade with 4 valves per cylinder and OHC. Excuse me, that type of engine runs that way.
Why? I'm just wondering about carguy's post:
" Last year at this time Honda sold 371,000 Accords. This year it has slipped to 348,000."
Is that because Honda only wanted to sell 348,000 this year? Is that because it is impossible for Honda to make 371,000 Accords for the US like they did last year at this time? I'm just curious.
"Yet the Accord is still number 2 behind the incentive and fleet sales bouyed Camry. Not bad if you ask me."
Nope, not bad, but not as good as last year.
"Let's find a dyno for a newer 3.8 V6 then. Here's a 2002."
You don't get it. The SC 3.8L wasn't at 260 hp in 2002.
"Seems like a characteristic of this engine is for the torque to decrease as revs build."
Yup, I never said otherwise. I was responding to your comment about the difference between advertised hp and hp at the wheels. I said the Grand Prix SC has 260 hp. Then you basically repsonded...."no it doesn't....look at the dyno...bla...bla..bla" Well duh, you have a dyno of a 1997 3.8L S/C with hp at the wheels, of course there is going to be a big hp discrepency. DOH!
"But no tranmission other than a CVT can stay down low when accelerating."
No transmission other than a CVT can stay in high end constantly when accelerating! There are always upshifts that drop the revs.
"I've never driven a car right off idle."
You've never driven a stick?
"And if midrange power is more usable, the TL also has nost of it's power over most of it's rev range."
And the GTP has more midrange power. Heh.
"Nobody builds engine that run as smoothly at speed as Honda so it doesn't mater if the TL is a few RPM higher than the GTP."
Lexus? MB?
"I don't consider 2500 RPM high strung but I drive cars with engines that were designed in this decade with 4 valves per cylinder and OHC. Excuse me, that type of engine runs that way."
Excuse me, OHC was around before pushrod OHV. Lol. Time to get a different car then I guess?
If you can't fathom anything that simple, no point debating anything beyond there. I'm done. And looking at the rest of that useless drivel I'd be wasting my time anyway....OHC before pushrods...LOL. Not to GM.
But they're sending less cars from Japan? Are those factories maxxed out? What's your take on the Civic Si sales in the US? Ran out of capacity? Spin, spin, spin.....
"And looking at the rest of that useless drivel I'd be wasting my time anyway"
Wasting your time? I thought you were always up for a good debate? Lol, I guess you've been beat. Yee hah!
"OHC before pushrods...LOL."
Laugh out loud all you want, it's true. Peugot had one in 1913, LONG before the first pushrod OHV engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_overhead_cam
Damn, I almost forgot about the Mexican factory. How's that one doing capacity-wise? I guess the math isn't as simple as you put it?
http://www.hondanews.com/CatID1004?mid=2004093031310&mime=asc
Honda sales are lower than the 98-03 Accord sales but will end the year as high as if not higher than nearly every previous model year. As posted in a previous link, the TLis made solely in Marysville. So a large portion of production will be removed from the factory maximum of 440,000 this year.
Those production numbers are from August though. Let's see what was happening in August.
http://www.hondanews.com/CatID1007?mid=2004090153335&mime=asc
If you add total sales of the TL and Accord you get 292,000. Divide 440,000 by 12 and multiply by 8 you get about 294,000. Hmmm. Looks like we have about 26,000 non-NA built Accords. The Mexican factory has built only 25,000 Accords in year 2002. Less in the next year. Obviously they would NOT be a major contributor to those numbers.
Honda obviously doesn't expect them to be.
http://www.hondanews.com/catID2005?mid=2004031950133&mime=asc
They are adding Accord production to the Civic plant this year.
Math WAS simple. Looks again like they dropped the imports and maxed out U.S. production. Just like I said. I know it's hard to comprehend. But here's the link again.
http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=8176
"July exports to North America fell by 28.6% due to increased local production of the Accord and Civic models while exports to Europe increased by 49.4% due to high demand for the Accord, Accord diesel and Jazz models"
The Japanese factories are feeding Europe.
I never said OHC came before pushrods. What I said was "I drive cars with engines that were designed in this decade with 4 valves per cylinder and OHC". All my cars except my LS400(missed it by a few years) have engines that were designed in the last 10 years. The 3.8 V6 in the GTP has been around for over 30 years.
Where to start...
First of all, I know the EPA rates the TL as having better fuel economy, and is advertised that way. All I was saying was my OBSERVATION, because I happen TO OWN BOTH. And I'm telling you, I'm getting better fuel economy in my GTP than my TL, and I was saying maybe it was because I drive pretty spiritedly.
It's very interesting that you say the torque numbers cross at 4000 RPM. Did you happen to read the part where I said, I didn't have to revv the GTP that high, wheras the TL, I had to revv it to AT LEAST 4500 RPM?
Yes, I understand the TL has 5 cogs in the tranny, but a previous post said that 4th and 5th gear are both overdrive gears. Which means, any type of passing will be using 2nd and 3rd gear, which if you noted earlier, I said was PROBABLY the cause for the poorer fuel economy, as my GTP I didn't need to swing the tach that high, to get going. But even if I did swing the tach, I think it's safe to say the TL will drink more gas at 6800RPM than the GTP will at 6000RPM, as many people have said the TL is a better breather up top. Heck, even when driving very spiritedly, I only go up to 5000 - 5500 RPM or so, the only time I'll hit 6000 is first gear. The TL, I'll peg the tach at 6700 RPM before shifts, because like you said, the TL loves to build power up top... But I assure you, the SC3800 may have a torque curve that isn't nice and flat like the TL, but it still pulls very hard up through 5800 RPM
And yes, the OHC engine is older than pushrod... Pushrod engines weren't invented until 1916, and the OHC engine was invented in 1911. But why argue about which is older? They are "relatively" the same age...
And you say the 3800 V6 has been around for 30 years, and you mention your OHC engine "designed this decade" as if the 3800 V6 is exactly the same today as it was 30 years ago...
The 3800 of today, shares almost nothing with the 3800 of 1962, other than the displacement and bank angle. If the 3800 is so antiquated, and the OHC competition so much better, how did the lowly 3800 beat THE REST OF THE WORLD to ULEV certification for a V6 engine? Why did the 3800 make the Ward's 10 best all these years? Why is it in Ward's 10 Best of the 20th Century? Why is the Honda V6 engine not mentioned? Even Ward's says the 3800 had a complete overhaul in 1995.
And if you read my comments previously, you'll note I said the TL and the GTP were at the same RPM at highway speed. I said my G35 was at a higher RPM... Now don't get me wrong, I love my TL... But don't need to say the rest of the world can't build an engine smoother than Honda. If that's the case, why isn't the J32 engine in Ward's 10 best? Why hasn't the J30/J32 engine EVER made into Ward's 10 best? Besides, a lot of good that smooth engine will do, if Honda continues to build the worlds crappiest automatic. But that's a debate we don't need to get into.
Oh and comparing a 4AT to a 6MT is a bit silly. If you wanted to do that, I could point you to my friends with 6MT LS1/LS2 engines getting better than your 21mpg...
Au contraire... the Honda 3.0L V6 was on the Ward's 10 best list in 2003 and 2004. For 2005, the V6 in the Accord Hybrid took its place.
When it made the list for the first time in 2003, this is how they summed it up...
"Suddenly, there isn't a similarly sized 6-cyl. engine that matches Honda's new 3L V-6. Any way you measure it — power, torque, specific output, refinement — Honda's latest V-6 is a testimony to Honda's core engineering values. It's an engine company's engine."
Ward's 10 Best Engines 2003
And the 3.5L V6 in the Acura RL has joined the 2005 list. So Ward seems to have developed a lot of respect for Honda's V6 designs.