All along, I thought that Honda still made a real nice engine, with a good balance of power/economy, but it was the styling and suspension that was draggin the Civiic down!
I really though the engines were perfectly adaquate for the Civics mission. Getting too hung up on numbers ignores how they work in the real world.
Not that more HP and torques aren't good things! Just don't give up a big chunk of gas mileage.
I think the original Acura Legend only had 170hp, remember those? The new Civic will be half way between the Integra and the Legend!
It'll definitely make room for a 100-110hp Honda Fit. Those cars please customers in Brazil and in the UK, I just saw a survey that put it on top in terms of happy customers.
I haven't looked at the Civic lately, but did glance at Corollas recently (being at the T dealer). A stick Rola was 41 highway (LE or SE, not a strippo), maybe 34 city? The AT was lower, but still something like 36 highway. Not too shabby, since it has a reasonable amount of power.
If the Civic EX stick (6 speed in that too, or just the Si?) can rate at 34/40 ish, with performance comensurate with 140 HP, it will be a hard package to beat. I assume, of course, that it will be a slick and refined powertrain too.
Heck, the stick Accord does something like 26/34 EPA, and that's a heavier car with a much bigger motor!
that reminds me. When the Integra first came out, I still had my '85 Colt. A whopping 68 HP IIRC. At least it was a stick (and no AC or PS to bog it down). Wonder how I survived?? Well, down shifting into 3rd to pull the long hills on the PIP helped..
Thought I died and went to heaven when I upgraded to a Mazda 323 with 82 HP and 92ish torque. Actually a good performing car.
Ah, the beauty of light weight! Which brings me to my OT gripe, cars today are getting incredibly porky (a 3,300+lb Jetta? it's only 173" long). And from Honda, a 4,500# Odyssey.
Yes, engines are much better, HP is up, and somehow economy is staying level at least. But, it weight was cut, they could use smaller engines, and get really good MPG. Today's 115hp engine in a 2,100# car would be plenty quick. Not so good when they push 2,900.
Yeah, I know that people want features, and safety is heavy. I just like to grumble.
That's kinda what I'm thinking. I'm not concerned about the amount of power a 1.8L engine would produce. I'm wondering how much they can advance fuel economy and emissions using a block derived from a relatively old architecture. Realistically, the top of the engine is where Honda works their magic, but the basic design of the block does have some say in the matter.
Yeah, I said up in post 4562...it's hard to build a car with the structure to get a 5 star rating and do well in the IIHS offset test, etc... and have it come in as a featherweight! Unless you are going to exotic materials, which you can't do in the Accord or Civic price range...
Shoot, in college I got around in a 3 cylinder 48hp Chevy Sprint. It wasn't even the 55hp engine that came later.
Know what's funny? That engine had 6 valves. Yes, 6. VW's 1.8T has 5 valves for each cylinder.
But it also got me 45mpg during the Gulf War price spike.
The Fit is probably bigger and certainly a lot more powerful. Image is the big question mark, will Honda be seen as a good corporate citizen for offering an efficient runabout, or will it be ridiculed by the motoring press?
aw c'mon, I haven't seen a Fit up close and personal or anything, but look at what else is currently being sold in this segment: the Rio? The Accent?? The Aveo for goodness sake? And the xA, perhaps Fit's best competition. Fit won't be able to match any of those for price except xA, I am sure, but I bet it will be a better car dynamically than the lot of them. I really hope that since this is Honda it will have superlative fuel economy as well.
stickguy: Civic is still one of the lightest cars out there in its class, if not by much. Of course, it is no coincidence that the lightest cars in the group (Corolla and Civic) also get the best mileage by far.
At present, stick-shift Corollas get 34/41 and automatics get 30/38. By contrast, Civics only get 32/38 stick (32/37 for the EX) and 29/38 for the auto (31/38 for EX). I was thinking if Honda could do the power boost and still pull somewhere around 35/40 for stick and auto, that would be about right. I don't see foresee any of the major competitors challenging this figure any time in the next five years. The only exception is what Toyota might do with the Corolla for 2008.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
...on another messageboard, I saw some slightly blurry shots of what is supposed to be the 2006 Accord. The car was photographed in a parking garage from the rear.
People have complained about the Buick-like taillights of the current Accord.
If this is a spy shot of the 2006 Accord, then the Buick-like taillights are gone...but what takes their place is not an improvement, in my book. (Look at the taillights of the Civic Si concept to get an idea of their appearance. That approach doesn't look right on an Accord sedan.)
might be an improvement! I would also hope they give the car a few square edges for '06 - everything just looks so "bulgy" right now. The hood needs a leading line - at the front this car looks like it is in the process of disappearing into the ground.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Haven't been here in a while, took me a while to catch up on all of the comments.
"The ironic thing about your comment is that from '94 on, 1.8L and 140 hp is EXACTLY the size and output of the Integra's base engine. I wonder if they just brought it forward, modified with i-VTEC to vastly improve the old car's emissions and mpg?"
Looks like G35 was spot on predicting the 1.8L. I read the new Motor Trend and saw that too.
Anyway, I seriously doubt it's the same old 1.8L from the old CR-V and Integra and it's not a variation of the 1.7L either.
I'd guess it will be a 1.8L version of the K-series with SOHC and I'm sure it'll get at least 40 mpg on the highway with a stick, which is good considering the gas prices.
Now, lets hope they don't pull a 03' Accord with the new Civic. I hope it looks decent.
"There's a tuner market for the 1.8L already in place and waiting. It's an engine everybody is familiar with and ready to customize. Although the K20 they'll be using in the Si coupe is an award winning engine for aftermarket tuning, the fact that a basic el-cheapo Civic is equally tune-ready would be a good move."
Like I said above, I doubt it's a variation of the 1.7L or the old 1.8L. It's going to be a K-series 1.8L.
On another note, I'm glad to see Accord sales slipping. That design doesn't deserve good sales and Honda needs to know that, because that's the only way they're going to fix it.
I hope the new Acura RL gets it's butt kicked in sales by the new Lexuses and Infinitis. I'd take the new GS or the new Infiniti M over the RL. IMO, Acura messed up big time by not offering a V8.
from the first moment the RL was released that it would shine for two minutes and then fade back once more. The new M45 was coming along right behind it, a bigger and faster car, and the G35 had just been upped to the same power level for thousands and thousands less. Not to mention the fact that Lexus is revamping its ENTIRE line over a year or two right now. The Passat is moving way upmarket for '06, and will have a 280+ hp 3.6L engine within a year, again for thousands less than the RL. And even the Cadillacs are gradually coming into their own - CTS-v to be had for the same money (and with a manual shift, yessss!), CTS with the 3.6 for a great deal less. Even Audi gives it a decent run for the money.
The RL is a glory of engineering, but the only things they were really able to trumpet about it were not related to the drive - the standard bluetooth and the first DVD stereo with real-time traffic updates for the NAV system. That is great, but is it better to drive? That used to be what Honda was about. But I think when cars get to this size and level of sophistication, Honda is a little out of its element. And most of the professional comparos that have occurred have had something else in first place, even within six months of the RL's release. I am glad to see it selling decently (at least it was, I haven't checked lately) just because I am a Honda fan generally speaking, but without the RWD and perhaps the V-8, their future is limited in the luxury world.
newcar: so you're positive the Civic's 1.8 next year will not be an evolution of the current 1.7? What makes you so sure? As for looks, I don't think they will "do an Accord" (just watch that become an expression, LOL!): if past behaviors are anything at all to judge by, it will look very similar to the "concept" they have already showed, and the sedans will follow the family look of the coupes. And those look pretty darn good to me, way better than the current look anyway.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"so you're positive the Civic's 1.8 next year will not be an evolution of the current 1.7?"
Well, I'm not positive. I said that "I'd guess" it will be a K series engine. It seems to make the most sense, because then all of the engine compartments can be the same, they can make all Civic engines at the same place with the same or similar tooling, and it's the newest Honda 4 cyl architechure. I don't see why they wouldn't be K series engines.
Big deal about the tail lights. The main thing is the way the Accord drives, and it drives very well, indeed. I'd still take my Accord EX-L sedan over anything else currently competing against it............Richard
I have to agree that the Accord is a very nice car to drive. I probably would have ended up with another one (I used to have a 97 Accord Special Edition) if Infiniti hadn't discontinued their I35 and offered a $2000 Manufacturer-Dealer Incentive, which dropped the price of the car to the same price as an Accord EX-V6, give or take a few hundred bucks.
From what I've read, they made a conscious decision NOT to offer a V8 in it or go with RWD, after much internal debate...I doubt Honda will ever offer a V8, especially now with gas prices going up, I think the HP race has ended..
The biggest problem with the RL, IMO, is the styling. It's not as good looking as a TL or even a TSX... Other than the AWD there's nothing really compelling about a RL over a TL that costs something like $15K less.
especially now with gas prices going up, I think the HP race has ended..
I don't think the gas prices matter so much in the class that the RL competes in. I mean, really, what's a few MPG mean to a customer that spends $50K for a car? Every single article I've read about the RL mentions the lack of a V8.
Like I said above, from what I read Honda really debated internally whether or not to go with a RWD V8 that would be more of a direct competitor to the GS430, M45, E500, etc... but in the end they went with a V6 - which they thought fit better with Honda's "green" image.
Same with the new Ridgeline, instead of making a 'traditional' truck like Nissan and Toyota, they went their own way and came up with something different.
The V6 in the RL makes 300Hp, so it's not exactly a total slouch anyway...
Maybe what they should have done (and maybe will do in the near future) is have a "performance hybrid" option for the RL, similar to what they have in the Accord.
Yes, the enthousiast rags all harp on the V8 issue, but the RL has been doing very well in the comparisons anyway, especially considering it is priced like the 6 cyl. models of the compitition.
Besides, the V8 models tend to sell in much lower numbers (at least with Lexus and BMW) than the 6s do. I think the V8 is more of a status/halo thing, not something they really need to have to make the RL successful.
Now, if they wanted to move up a class and compete with the 7 series, A8, LS430, then they would need a V8 at least!
In the long run, (most) buyers are still going to decide based on the perceived value (what they get for their money), emphasis on comfort/styling/performance/price, etc. Some people may require the status of the V8, most people will be happy with the combo of the V6 (300 hp aint really too shabby), better mileage, and tons of goodies for the price. If they add a V8 and increase the price 10%, will there be a big swing to the new model? WHo knows?
As long as they are selling what they plan to, Honda will be happy.
Yeah, good point - for the price that the RL goes for, you can't get any of it's competition with a V8 anyway....the V8 versions are maybe $10K more
Again, it's not competing with the S-class or the 7 series or the Lexus LS...
If you compare an RL to it's V6 competition (the 530, the E350, the M35, the STS V6, GS300, etc) 300hp isn't shabby at all...
If they wanted something to compete with the 545, the E500, the GS430, etc... they would be better off going with a "performance hybrid" instead of a V8 anyway... that would be more "high tech", "greener", "cooler"...
Where the RL falls down (for me anyway) is it's styling... Again, styling is just subjective, but I think the TL looks better and is about $15K cheaper.
...that you could get the M45 (V8) for the same price as the RL? Could be wrong though. Maybe it was in the Edmunds comparo that had the M45 and RL in it?
If you put the comparable options on the V8 models (that you probably will never actually see at a dealership), they run quite a bit more. The M35 in theory starts at $39,995, but you can easily option one up to 50K.
These cars aren't like old muscle cars, where people bought strippers with the big engine. V8 models are going to move loaded for the most part.
Probably has more equipment? Acura tends to sell them one way: loaded. Nav is the only option, right? I bet if you equip the others they'd cost at least a few grand more.
RL should add a hybrid option, V6+hybrid = near V8 performance.
nippon: xA is doing OK, xB sells better actually. I think Honda could price a Fit at around that price range ($14k equipped) if it's built in Brazil and not Europe.
The RL actually even has the Navi standard, which I could definitely live without...I never get in the car and drive around aimlessly without knowing where I'm going...
Anyway, if I were buying a $50K car, the lack of a V8 wouldn't bother me at all - I'd rather save some money initially and throughout the life of the car at the pumps....I'd probably pick between the RL and the AWD version of the Lexus GS
These cars aren't like old muscle cars, where people bought strippers with the big engine.
Even without all of the optional equipment, the M45 and GS430 are hardly "strippers".
Probably has more equipment? Acura tends to sell them one way: loaded. Nav is the only option, right? I bet if you equip the others they'd cost at least a few grand more.
Yup, like I said, with the RL, you get a V6 with everything standard for the price of a V8. NAV, sattelite radio, are standard on the RL.
I'd rather save some money initially and throughout the life of the car at the pumps
In the Edmunds test, the GS430, the M45, and the RL all got 15 mpg. Edmunds said that they really had to hammer on the RL to get it going, which is probably why the mileage stunk and negates any fuel mileage advantage for the V6. And if you're spending $50K for a car, why worry about what amounts to peanuts in gas savings?
Good catch on the AWD, I think in most competitors, it's an option for the V6 models, and N/A on the V8s.
I'm a firm believer in Apples-to-apples content in price comparisons, so you really have to add AWD and NAV to the others if you talk price.
In a snow storm in Vermont, you get stuck and lost and the V8 is useless. AWD gets you home safely and the NAV is there since the planned route is closed due to the snowy conditions.
LOL! Ok, maybe never is an exaggeration, but seriously - 99% of the time, you get in the car, you know exactly where you're going - work, grocery store, movie theatre, restaurant, etc... If you're going someplace you haven't been to before, you probably have directions or went to Mapquest before you leave the house.... I can see Navi having some benefit, but not $2000 worth or whatever exactly it costs as an option... I don't have it on my TL
Also agree, I'm in the snow-belt - I'm not buying a RWD car - I want either FWD or AWD.
I think the "spied" taillights are an improvement. Just not a huge improvement. Honestly, I wasn't expecting such a dramatic change. And, of course, that pic might not be an Accord at all. There are bits and pieces which certainly resemble stock parts, but it's such a lousy photo you really can't be sure.
When you consider what the RL was last year and what it is now, you can't argue that the car is not something of a success. Sales are up something like 200%. Did it topple the entire industry? Nope. But it has earned several high rankings when compared against the best of the class.
I think the trouble with the RL is the heft of the chassis. Great engine, best AWD system on the market, good suspension, and too much weight for it all.
I doubt very much this RL will ever top the charts, but it signals the return of Acura to the upper eschelon. Relatively speaking, the car only needs tweaks. A hybrid or V8 would be enough to make both buyers and enthusiasts take notice. So, while this RL will not dominate, it is in a comfortable position.
Also, as the technology trickles down, I think the RL will get more attention. A TL with SH-AWD is pretty much a given. I expect the MDX will also get it, as well. Each time that happens, the mags will report, " Now, with the same SH-AWD from the RL..." Assuming those vehicles get a positive report card (I see no reason why they wouldn't), it will create something of a halo around SH-AWD.
Good catch on the AWD, I think in most competitors, it's an option for the V6 models, and N/A on the V8s.
I'm a firm believer in Apples-to-apples content in price comparisons
Well, if you like apples to apples comparisons, you can't really compare the GS430 and M45 to the RL because the V6 in the RL doesn't compare to the V8s in the other two. Even though the GS430 and RL both have 300 hp, the RL gets dusted by the GS because of torque and weight. In the Edmunds test, the M45 and GS430 were A LOT faster than the RL.
The AWD and NAV in the RL aren't "free" even though they're standard. I look at it as Acura forcing those options on you, and at $49K with a V6, you're definately paying for them. I may not speak for everyone, but I'd take a V8 in this class over AWD and NAV, which is pretty much what it comes down to when you're comparing the RL to the GS430 and M45.
Also, you really should get snow tires for any of those cars if you live in the snow belt, and if you don't live in the snow belt, the AWD is pretty much useless extra weight IMO. I can't see most people pushing these cars to the handling limit in dry conditions where AWD might help.
to Honda's approach of selling every car fully loaded is that if you don't want or need all that stuff, why would you pay more for it? I would rather have the M45 or GS430 and skip NAV and AWD right from the start. Now I don't know what else those cars lack in their base forms, but as noted above, they are most certainly not "stripped". I don't need butt-massaging rear seats and whatever else you can get either. For that kind of money, I would prefer the big V-8 with TONS more torque and RWD.
Now the performance hybrid angle is a very good one, and Honda should probably get right on that. The 0 rpm torque of the electric portion of the system could make a world of difference to the way the car launches.
As for mpg of the V-6 vs the V-8, the point of no return may have been reached. Look at the Ridgeline - they went with the V-76 to save gas? It is rated 16/21! A Tacoma V-6 4x4 longbed with way more torque is rated at like 15/19. The 4x2 is rated 17/21 - BETTER than the Ridgeline. And both Tacomas have a longer (although narrower) bed than the Ridgeline.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I went to the article that newcar31 is referring to, expecting to see the RL in last place in the comparo, and I find ....
Basically, for all intents and purposes, it was a tie. Still, on paper, it's the Lexus that comes out on top. ... But the Acura RL has run a very close second, very close, and the Infiniti M45 Sport a close third.
I think it is somewhat of an "image" thing ... remember over in the Cadillac thread, shiftright was talking about how bringing out a V-16 would be a PR disaster?
Not that a V-8 would gather that same type of bad press, but I just think Honda doesn't want to build V-8s...
p.s.. on a side note, in autoweek today there was an article that the next gen Lexus LS will have a range-topping model called the LS600h which will be a V8 with a Hybrid boost - apparently equals the performance of a 6.0 liter.
I think Honda should use the hybrid angle strictly for better fuel economy (i.e. Insight, Civic and potentially the Fit which are small fuel-efficient cars already). Performance hybrids are going to pave the way for justifying the continuation of the unnecessary 6,000 pound tank SUV's that the average US citizen currently drives. Additionally, the specs I have seen for the 255 hp 2005 Accord hybrid indicate that it has significantly SLOWER acceleration than the 240 hp 2004 model 6-speed gasoline-powered Accord. In theory, the instantaneous maximum torque of the electric motor sounds good. However, it does not appear to be panning out in the real world. Have you seen performance data that would indicate otherwise? As far as trucks, my opinion is that Honda should build small trucks to infiltrate the Tacoma/Ranger market. Small, lower-priced ($16,000 US) AWD trucks with a Honda badge would sell well.
Well, the thing is, from a strictly economics point of view, it's hard to cost justify the hybrid...If you're only looking at dollars and cents, it's cheaper to just buy a Toyota Echo for $14K than a Prius for $23K..the price difference buys a lot of gas, even at $2.25 a gallon.
I think you will see much more of the "performance hybrid" angle - that is where Lexus is heading, Honda is moving that way with the Accord Hybrid, etc... It's easier to sell hybrid as a "premium" feature than a "gas miser" feature.
p.s. also, generally a 6-speed manual is going to be quicker than a 5 speed auto... I'd be interested to see how the Accord Hybrid compares to an Accord V6 auto - that's more "apples to apples".
I went to the article that newcar31 is referring to, expecting to see the RL in last place in the comparo, and I find ....
You know what, even after I read the whole article I expected the RL to be in last place. If the M45 they tested didn't have the sport package, the RL very well might have been in last place, because the main gripe with the M was the stiff ride.
I said in another thread - I don't put much stock in those comparos.. everyone has their opinion. Whenever they do one in Car & Driver, "fans" of the losing car all write in to whine about the results and "fans" of the winning car write in to gloat...it's sort of dumb, almost like sports fans talking smack about "their" teams.
the downside to Honda's approach of selling every car fully loaded is that if you don't want or need all that stuff, why would you pay more for it? I would rather have the M45 or GS430 and skip NAV and AWD right from the start. Now I don't know what else those cars lack in their base forms, but as noted above, they are most certainly not "stripped". I don't need butt-massaging rear seats and whatever else you can get either. For that kind of money, I would prefer the big V-8 with TONS more torque and RWD.
Seriously, the article says they all 3 finished basically in a tie but if you have to pick an order, the M45 comes in last....so I guess that proves it's much better than an RL...
Lol, that sounds like you, getting all worked up and telling me to "shut up". I don't own a Toyota/Lexus or Nissan/Infiniti so they aren't really "my team".
I just feel that Acura missed the boat with the RL when compared to what Lexus and Infiniti are offering.
Comments
I really though the engines were perfectly adaquate for the Civics mission. Getting too hung up on numbers ignores how they work in the real world.
Not that more HP and torques aren't good things! Just don't give up a big chunk of gas mileage.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It'll definitely make room for a 100-110hp Honda Fit. Those cars please customers in Brazil and in the UK, I just saw a survey that put it on top in terms of happy customers.
-juice
I haven't looked at the Civic lately, but did glance at Corollas recently (being at the T dealer). A stick Rola was 41 highway (LE or SE, not a strippo), maybe 34 city? The AT was lower, but still something like 36 highway. Not too shabby, since it has a reasonable amount of power.
If the Civic EX stick (6 speed in that too, or just the Si?) can rate at 34/40 ish, with performance comensurate with 140 HP, it will be a hard package to beat. I assume, of course, that it will be a slick and refined powertrain too.
Heck, the stick Accord does something like 26/34 EPA, and that's a heavier car with a much bigger motor!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Thought I died and went to heaven when I upgraded to a Mazda 323 with 82 HP and 92ish torque. Actually a good performing car.
Ah, the beauty of light weight! Which brings me to my OT gripe, cars today are getting incredibly porky (a 3,300+lb Jetta? it's only 173" long). And from Honda, a 4,500# Odyssey.
Yes, engines are much better, HP is up, and somehow economy is staying level at least. But, it weight was cut, they could use smaller engines, and get really good MPG. Today's 115hp engine in a 2,100# car would be plenty quick. Not so good when they push 2,900.
Yeah, I know that people want features, and safety is heavy. I just like to grumble.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Shoot, in college I got around in a 3 cylinder 48hp Chevy Sprint. It wasn't even the 55hp engine that came later.
Know what's funny? That engine had 6 valves. Yes, 6. VW's 1.8T has 5 valves for each cylinder.
But it also got me 45mpg during the Gulf War price spike.
The Fit is probably bigger and certainly a lot more powerful. Image is the big question mark, will Honda be seen as a good corporate citizen for offering an efficient runabout, or will it be ridiculed by the motoring press?
-juice
stickguy: Civic is still one of the lightest cars out there in its class, if not by much. Of course, it is no coincidence that the lightest cars in the group (Corolla and Civic) also get the best mileage by far.
At present, stick-shift Corollas get 34/41 and automatics get 30/38. By contrast, Civics only get 32/38 stick (32/37 for the EX) and 29/38 for the auto (31/38 for EX). I was thinking if Honda could do the power boost and still pull somewhere around 35/40 for stick and auto, that would be about right. I don't see foresee any of the major competitors challenging this figure any time in the next five years. The only exception is what Toyota might do with the Corolla for 2008.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
People have complained about the Buick-like taillights of the current Accord.
If this is a spy shot of the 2006 Accord, then the Buick-like taillights are gone...but what takes their place is not an improvement, in my book. (Look at the taillights of the Civic Si concept to get an idea of their appearance. That approach doesn't look right on an Accord sedan.)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"The ironic thing about your comment is that from '94 on, 1.8L and 140 hp is EXACTLY the size and output of the Integra's base engine. I wonder if they just brought it forward, modified with i-VTEC to vastly improve the old car's emissions and mpg?"
Looks like G35 was spot on predicting the 1.8L. I read the new Motor Trend and saw that too.
Anyway, I seriously doubt it's the same old 1.8L from the old CR-V and Integra and it's not a variation of the 1.7L either.
I'd guess it will be a 1.8L version of the K-series with SOHC and I'm sure it'll get at least 40 mpg on the highway with a stick, which is good considering the gas prices.
Now, lets hope they don't pull a 03' Accord with the new Civic. I hope it looks decent.
"There's a tuner market for the 1.8L already in place and waiting. It's an engine everybody is familiar with and ready to customize. Although the K20 they'll be using in the Si coupe is an award winning engine for aftermarket tuning, the fact that a basic el-cheapo Civic is equally tune-ready would be a good move."
Like I said above, I doubt it's a variation of the 1.7L or the old 1.8L. It's going to be a K-series 1.8L.
On another note, I'm glad to see Accord sales slipping. That design doesn't deserve good sales and Honda needs to know that, because that's the only way they're going to fix it.
The RL is a glory of engineering, but the only things they were really able to trumpet about it were not related to the drive - the standard bluetooth and the first DVD stereo with real-time traffic updates for the NAV system. That is great, but is it better to drive? That used to be what Honda was about. But I think when cars get to this size and level of sophistication, Honda is a little out of its element. And most of the professional comparos that have occurred have had something else in first place, even within six months of the RL's release. I am glad to see it selling decently (at least it was, I haven't checked lately) just because I am a Honda fan generally speaking, but without the RWD and perhaps the V-8, their future is limited in the luxury world.
newcar: so you're positive the Civic's 1.8 next year will not be an evolution of the current 1.7? What makes you so sure? As for looks, I don't think they will "do an Accord" (just watch that become an expression, LOL!): if past behaviors are anything at all to judge by, it will look very similar to the "concept" they have already showed, and the sedans will follow the family look of the coupes. And those look pretty darn good to me, way better than the current look anyway.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, I'm not positive. I said that "I'd guess" it will be a K series engine. It seems to make the most sense, because then all of the engine compartments can be the same, they can make all Civic engines at the same place with the same or similar tooling, and it's the newest Honda 4 cyl architechure. I don't see why they wouldn't be K series engines.
You could certainly be right. I am just glad all the Civics will finally have i-VTEC. Maybe we will finally see the first PZEV Civic...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Replaced by Pontiac taillights! Looked a little like the back of a Grand Prix to me.
The main thing is the way the Accord drives, and it drives very well, indeed.
I'd still take my Accord EX-L sedan over anything else currently
competing against it............Richard
The biggest problem with the RL, IMO, is the styling. It's not as good looking as a TL or even a TSX... Other than the AWD there's nothing really compelling about a RL over a TL that costs something like $15K less.
I don't think the gas prices matter so much in the class that the RL competes in. I mean, really, what's a few MPG mean to a customer that spends $50K for a car? Every single article I've read about the RL mentions the lack of a V8.
Same with the new Ridgeline, instead of making a 'traditional' truck like Nissan and Toyota, they went their own way and came up with something different.
The V6 in the RL makes 300Hp, so it's not exactly a total slouch anyway...
Maybe what they should have done (and maybe will do in the near future) is have a "performance hybrid" option for the RL, similar to what they have in the Accord.
Besides, the V8 models tend to sell in much lower numbers (at least with Lexus and BMW) than the 6s do. I think the V8 is more of a status/halo thing, not something they really need to have to make the RL successful.
Now, if they wanted to move up a class and compete with the 7 series, A8, LS430, then they would need a V8 at least!
In the long run, (most) buyers are still going to decide based on the perceived value (what they get for their money), emphasis on comfort/styling/performance/price, etc. Some people may require the status of the V8, most people will be happy with the combo of the V6 (300 hp aint really too shabby), better mileage, and tons of goodies for the price. If they add a V8 and increase the price 10%, will there be a big swing to the new model? WHo knows?
As long as they are selling what they plan to, Honda will be happy.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Again, it's not competing with the S-class or the 7 series or the Lexus LS...
If you compare an RL to it's V6 competition (the 530, the E350, the M35, the STS V6, GS300, etc) 300hp isn't shabby at all...
If they wanted something to compete with the 545, the E500, the GS430, etc... they would be better off going with a "performance hybrid" instead of a V8 anyway... that would be more "high tech", "greener", "cooler"...
Where the RL falls down (for me anyway) is it's styling... Again, styling is just subjective, but I think the TL looks better and is about $15K cheaper.
Torque-wise, it is a slouch. That's what the mags complain about.
Yeah, good point - for the price that the RL goes for, you can't get any of it's competition with a V8 anyway....the V8 versions are maybe $10K more
The RL starts at $49,670.
The M45 starts at $47,360.
The GS 430 starts at $51,775.
The STS V8 starts at $50,565.
They're all pretty close, the main difference with the RL is you're getting a V6 with everything standard for the price of a V8.
These cars aren't like old muscle cars, where people bought strippers with the big engine. V8 models are going to move loaded for the most part.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
RL should add a hybrid option, V6+hybrid = near V8 performance.
nippon: xA is doing OK, xB sells better actually. I think Honda could price a Fit at around that price range ($14k equipped) if it's built in Brazil and not Europe.
-juice
Anyway, if I were buying a $50K car, the lack of a V8 wouldn't bother me at all - I'd rather save some money initially and throughout the life of the car at the pumps....I'd probably pick between the RL and the AWD version of the Lexus GS
Even without all of the optional equipment, the M45 and GS430 are hardly "strippers".
Probably has more equipment? Acura tends to sell them one way: loaded. Nav is the only option, right? I bet if you equip the others they'd cost at least a few grand more.
Yup, like I said, with the RL, you get a V6 with everything standard for the price of a V8. NAV, sattelite radio, are standard on the RL.
I'd rather save some money initially and throughout the life of the car at the pumps
In the Edmunds test, the GS430, the M45, and the RL all got 15 mpg. Edmunds said that they really had to hammer on the RL to get it going, which is probably why the mileage stunk and negates any fuel mileage advantage for the V6. And if you're spending $50K for a car, why worry about what amounts to peanuts in gas savings?
Good catch on the AWD, I think in most competitors, it's an option for the V6 models, and N/A on the V8s.
I'm a firm believer in Apples-to-apples content in price comparisons, so you really have to add AWD and NAV to the others if you talk price.
In a snow storm in Vermont, you get stuck and lost and the V8 is useless. AWD gets you home safely and the NAV is there since the planned route is closed due to the snowy conditions.
-juice
Also agree, I'm in the snow-belt - I'm not buying a RWD car - I want either FWD or AWD.
I think the trouble with the RL is the heft of the chassis. Great engine, best AWD system on the market, good suspension, and too much weight for it all.
I doubt very much this RL will ever top the charts, but it signals the return of Acura to the upper eschelon. Relatively speaking, the car only needs tweaks. A hybrid or V8 would be enough to make both buyers and enthusiasts take notice. So, while this RL will not dominate, it is in a comfortable position.
Also, as the technology trickles down, I think the RL will get more attention. A TL with SH-AWD is pretty much a given. I expect the MDX will also get it, as well. Each time that happens, the mags will report, " Now, with the same SH-AWD from the RL..." Assuming those vehicles get a positive report card (I see no reason why they wouldn't), it will create something of a halo around SH-AWD.
Davem - Check at Temple of VTEC.
I'm a firm believer in Apples-to-apples content in price comparisons
Well, if you like apples to apples comparisons, you can't really compare the GS430 and M45 to the RL because the V6 in the RL doesn't compare to the V8s in the other two. Even though the GS430 and RL both have 300 hp, the RL gets dusted by the GS because of torque and weight. In the Edmunds test, the M45 and GS430 were A LOT faster than the RL.
The AWD and NAV in the RL aren't "free" even though they're standard. I look at it as Acura forcing those options on you, and at $49K with a V6, you're definately paying for them. I may not speak for everyone, but I'd take a V8 in this class over AWD and NAV, which is pretty much what it comes down to when you're comparing the RL to the GS430 and M45.
Also, you really should get snow tires for any of those cars if you live in the snow belt, and if you don't live in the snow belt, the AWD is pretty much useless extra weight IMO. I can't see most people pushing these cars to the handling limit in dry conditions where AWD might help.
Then compare the 6 cylinder AWD versions of the M, the GS, the E-class, the STS, etc... to the RL
Now the performance hybrid angle is a very good one, and Honda should probably get right on that. The 0 rpm torque of the electric portion of the system could make a world of difference to the way the car launches.
As for mpg of the V-6 vs the V-8, the point of no return may have been reached. Look at the Ridgeline - they went with the V-76 to save gas? It is rated 16/21! A Tacoma V-6 4x4 longbed with way more torque is rated at like 15/19. The 4x2 is rated 17/21 - BETTER than the Ridgeline. And both Tacomas have a longer (although narrower) bed than the Ridgeline.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Basically, for all intents and purposes, it was a tie. Still, on paper, it's the Lexus that comes out on top. ...
But the Acura RL has run a very close second, very close, and the Infiniti M45 Sport a close third.
and the RL is $2000 less.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=104808
Not that a V-8 would gather that same type of bad press, but I just think Honda doesn't want to build V-8s...
p.s.. on a side note, in autoweek today there was an article that the next gen Lexus LS will have a range-topping model called the LS600h which will be a V8 with a Hybrid boost - apparently equals the performance of a 6.0 liter.
I think you will see much more of the "performance hybrid" angle - that is where Lexus is heading, Honda is moving that way with the Accord Hybrid, etc... It's easier to sell hybrid as a "premium" feature than a "gas miser" feature.
p.s. also, generally a 6-speed manual is going to be quicker than a 5 speed auto... I'd be interested to see how the Accord Hybrid compares to an Accord V6 auto - that's more "apples to apples".
You know what, even after I read the whole article I expected the RL to be in last place. If the M45 they tested didn't have the sport package, the RL very well might have been in last place, because the main gripe with the M was the stiff ride.
and the RL is $2000 less.
The M45 starts at $2000 less than the RL.
I said in another thread - I don't put much stock in those comparos.. everyone has their opinion. Whenever they do one in Car & Driver, "fans" of the losing car all write in to whine about the results and "fans" of the winning car write in to gloat...it's sort of dumb, almost like sports fans talking smack about "their" teams.
That's exactly how I feel.
Getting a little testy huh? What good would this discussion be if we couldn't talk about how much better Honda's competition is? Lol.
Whatever....
Seriously, the article says they all 3 finished basically in a tie but if you have to pick an order, the M45 comes in last....so I guess that proves it's much better than an RL...
again, whatever.....
Lol, that sounds like you, getting all worked up and telling me to "shut up". I don't own a Toyota/Lexus or Nissan/Infiniti so they aren't really "my team".
I just feel that Acura missed the boat with the RL when compared to what Lexus and Infiniti are offering.