Has Honda's run - run out?

nippononly

and its weather conditions are exactly the reason AWD is beginning to take off. Plus, Subie especially has been VERY successful at promoting it as a safety feature, which it is to a limited extent, and right now safety sells big-time.

But there is a reason Subie doesn't sell well in LA, or Phoenix, or Houston, or Miami. And why Subie's are one of every two cars on the roads in places like Vermont, Washington, and Massachusetts. That speaks louder than anything else, I think, to the limits of AWD's potential. Subaru has been doing all AWD, all the time for a decade now. That is long enough on average for the fleet to turn over, and yet it has not made inroads in those sun belt places I mentioned.

My objection to AWD is not cost, which sure doesn't matter much on these expensive cars. But I like small light cars and AWD is very much dead weight for cars like that. On a car that weighs 4000 pounds anyway, what's 4200? I can buy that argument. Honda used to be the lighter leaner company though. I think those days are gone? It is hard to sell "light and lean" to American luxury car buyers - they want "fat and fast".

I very much disagree with the notion that AWD is always the superior drive system. It is tons of fun for dirt road rallying (no-one will be doing THAT in their RLs or GS430s) and useful in places with tons of rain or snow. The rest of the time (like in LA or Phoenix for instance), give me RWD any day. In those conditions AWD saps engine performance and fuel economy, without providing a tangible benefit.

newcar31

If you apply full throttle and the tires chirp, you've exceeded the limit of traction with your RWD or FWD vehicle. I'd argue this happens routinely.

Gotta have AWD then, I guess. Lol. I'm arguing about the point that AWD "is superior for most driving conditions"

I conceded that it's superior for some driving conditions, but hardly most.

My Miata is fun, don't get me wrong, but I can't floor the throttle until the steering wheel is close to pointing straight. And if I let off the throttle mid corner, it's Spin City. ESP can address some, not all, of these issues.

Oh no! You wouldn't want to hang the rear end out on a Miata, that'd be no fun!

The Miata is one of those cars that would be absolutely ruined if it were AWD. You may think power oversteer is an "issue" that needs to be addressed, but some people think it's an asset, especially in a car like a Miata. If my old Mustang 5.0L was AWD, it wouldn't have been nearly as fun as it was.

andre1969

even the bigger ones, 200 lb can make a lot of difference. For one thing, your typical 4000 lb car today probably has a GVWR of around 5000 lb, so adding 200 lb just cut your load capacity by 20%. The days when you had those big 1500-1700 lb or more spreads between a car's GVWR and its curb weight are long gone.

But even more than that, won't that extra stuff end up sapping more of the engine's power? For example, adding 200 lb to the body of a car is a whole different story than adding 200 hp to the car's driveline, with all that extra stuff just waiting to sap power on the way from the engine to the wheels.

nippononly

exactly.

And in all of this, another point is just occurring to me. If Honda will differentiate the Acura line by making it all AWD, then that means we will never be able to get an AWD Accord? If AWD continues to gain popularity as it has been, won't that be a limiting factor on the Honda cars in the future?

ateixeira

Not just snow. It rains a lot in parts of Florida. Not much in SoCal or Arizona, though. I'd give you a pass if you lived there.

The impact on, say, a Civic, is huge. 10% more cost, 3mpg, maybe 8% more weight.

RWD fun - gotcha, though, because with AWD you can have your cake and eat it.

The Miata can get the tail out, sure, but just as you can have fun with it you can also lose it. And the only way to explore the limits is to take that risk and be at that edge.

With AWD, you can indeed get the tail loose, and I do just that. But it's safer - AWD shifts power to the front axle and pulls you out of the skid. So you can stay on that edge longer, and it's a lot harder to really lose it.

So it's more controllable and more fun to boot.

With good skill, you can get the Miata in a controlled oversteer and wag the tail one time.

With the same skill, you can a Subaru's tail about 3-4 times (in one single turn). The tail gets loose, then power shifts to the front and pulls you out of the skid, then you pendulum in the other direction, and again power shifts to the front and pulls you out again.

You can do donuts with AWD also. Not that I do.

-juice

newcar31

Rain also

The benefits of AWD in the rain are nowhere near as great as they are in the snow or ice.

So it's more controllable and more fun to boot.

Are you saying than an AWD Miata would be more fun than the current RWD version?

I don't agree, and I'll bet there are many others who wouldn't either. The Miata is very easy to power oversteer without being anywhere near "the edge". It's a lot harder to get the tail out on an AWD car and you need a lot more power to do it. You'll be trying awfully hard to get the tail out with anything less than a WRX, and even the WRX chassis is dialed in more biased more towards FWD style understeer than RWD style power oversteer.

andre1969

in a FWD car? In reverse?

varmint

Me too.

The ATTS system on the Prelude was similar in that it distributed power from one side to the other during cornering. SH-AWD also does the side to side thing. So, at that level, they are similar. However, SH-AWD does that trick using electromagnetic clutch plates, and makes it happen with the rear wheels, not the front. And, of course, SH-AWD also distributes power front to back, while ATTS was restricted to the front only.

I believe ATTS weighed in around 200 lbs. SH-AWD weighs about 220 lbs. And in a vehicle with SH-AWD, the weight is added to the tail, not the nose.

The "gussied up Accord" I was referring to is the TL not the TSX. Sorry about that. The TSX would be a "gussied up European Accord".

The TL outsold the 3 series last year. I think it was somewhere around 70K units for the year. The TSX sells well, but not even close to that kind of volume. More like 20-25K units.

andre1969

but won't ANY differential redistribute power to the side that it needs to be during cornering? If that weren't the case, then every time a car took a corner it would either spin the inner wheel or drag the outer one!

varmint

The one remaining problem (IMO) with AWD is that the weight of the engine is still mounted fore of the front axle. The dominant steering trait for most AWD is still understeer, although it tends to be less pronounced than a FWD car. So, a good RWD car will still have the advantage of weight balance. And, as has been pointed out, AWD systems add extra weight.

To compensate for that remaining deficiency, AWD does have other advantages.

All-weather traction is one (which could also be marketed as a safety benefit). And I agree that this advantage is less of a factor in the sun belt. But it is increasingly an advantage in other markets. The Ford 500 sells far more AWD units than they predicted. About 50% if what I've been reading is correct.

Scambling is another advantage. When a good AWD vehicle loses traction, it can slide around a corner. Many are surprised to see that the WRX skid pad numbers are often between .74 and .78 Gs. Heck my CR-V pulls down those numbers. But the car is fun to drive because it will scramble around a corner with all wheels churning. The WRX doesn't have grip like most mags like to report. It has tenacity. Andre just asked about donuts, but I'd like to introduce him to four-wheel drift.

Also, many AWD systems will proportion torque the rear axles when the throttle is stomped upon. Going into a corner, you might have to fight understeer, but, when coming out of a corner, you can use as much throttle as the floor pan will allow - with all the traction Bob mentioned above.

But not all AWD systems are created equal. With the ability to distribute torque from one side to the other, SH-AWD takes AWD to the next level. RWD cars cannot do that (yet). Extra power to the outside rear wheel pushes the nose inside during cornering. That helps to counter the remaining problem with AWD - that weight balance thing mentioned at the top. Does it eliminate the weight distribution problem? Nope. But it comes closer than anything short of RWD.

I don't think AWD is the ultimate drivetrain. Each design has its own advantages and it's up to the designers to fit the right tool for the job. But I do think the SH-AWD system employed by Acura has the potential to transform the whole line in a very short amount of time, and with minimal capital investment. Going to RWD would have been far costlier with little difference in the final product.

varmint

Most cars have an open differential.

Power takes the path of least resistance, so it leaks out to the side that is moving faster. However, it does not power that wheel any harder than is needed to make the turn. SH-AWD pushes that outside wheel harder, creating what they call an inward yaw moment. The rear of the car pushes the front inside.

Put your two hands as far apart as possible on a the handle of a shopping cart. Push with only your right hand and watch where the nose of the cart goes. It's that simple.

anonymousposts

I think the RL is a great car. I would buy it over a GS as well. Would also buy it over the M45, 5-series, CTS, etc. I might take a second look at a Mercedes E-class but would probably still buy the RL once cost and reliability were factored in. What some people are missing is that with competition the way it is there is no "perfect" car for everyone any more.

FWIW: The plastic in the GS was harder than the RL. The door sills were hard plastic in the GS and the dash was barely soft. The outside is too non-descript and the price-tag too high for me to choose it over the RL.

newcar31

So, it's the interior plastic hardness, hard plastic door sills, and the exterior looks (subjective) that make you pick the GS over the RL? Ooookay. I would've thought you'd say something about the NAV and AWD, since it's easy to get lost in those snowstorms down in Georgia. The price isn't all that different. A few $K at the $50K price point ain't much. I think the main factor in your choice is the nameplate, but that's just me.

I can understand the styling part though, afterall, I didn't even consider an Accord simply because of it, but faulting a car for hard plastic door sills? How often do you look at and touch those?

anonymousposts

If I'm paying $50,000 for a car I want to door sill to feel better than that of my $22,000 Accord EX-L. It's not just the door sill. When I sat in the GS the first thing I noticed was how hard the dash seemed. WAAAY different than the upscale soft-touch materials in our 94 LS and our 95 GS300.

The NAV & AWD are other factors but I was responding to the post that said there weren't hard interior plastics in the GS. In fact, there are. I also do not like the drop-down "infrequently used" switches in the GS.

davem2001

Both the GS and the RL are great cars...It's pretty silly to act like someone is "wrong" for liking one better than the other.... It's like mint chocolate chip ice cream vs. rocky road ice cream.... I like mint chocolate chip better, so everyone else should, too, and if they don't they're wrong!

Kirstie_H

Don't forget tonight's member-to-member chat - it's open mic night, so come and discuss whatever's on your mind.

6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET. Drop by for live chat with other members. Hope you can join us!

kirstie_h

ateixeira

Andre: yes, or you cheat and use the hand brake to get the tail out a little.

And by the way, absolutely, an open differential will have your inside tire spinning. Take any FWD/open diff car to autocross and you'll find that out on the first lap.

Would a Miata be more fun with AWD? If it had enough power.

It all depends on the context. The Miata requires light weight to be fun, so that's not a good application, so probably not.

My original NA is pretty fun and neutral, but Mazda actually dialed a little more (i.e too much) understeer on the NB models, so they're less fun.

In rain it's not hard to get an AWD to wag the tail, in snow it's very easy.

If you're on the power and hit a pebble in the Miata in a turn in the rain or snow, it'll spin pretty quickly. :surprise:

-juice

newcar31

"If I'm paying $50,000 for a car I want to door sill to feel better than that of my $22,000 Accord EX-L."

Well, to each his/her own. I wouldn't notice the door sill so much as a $22,000 Accord EX-L keeping pace with me in my RL from a stop light.

andre1969

limited slip differentials available on FWD cars? Or has traction control pretty much taken the place of a limited slip differential?

gee35coupe

I guess that $19k (before discounts) Neon SRT-4 has you in a real quandry. Luckily we can get past ONE aspect of a car when judging.

It's amazing BMW could sell any of those sub-200 hp 525's for $42k stripped. And I do mean stripped compared to the RL. And I bet a $18k Accord LX will give that car a run.

At least the Benz E350 is comparable...No wait, they come pretty strippo too before you add the "packages" to match the RL. At least they have real power now.

Shoot most all 6 cylinder mid size luxury cars have the Accord V6 to look out for do I guess they are all noticing Accords and Altima V6's. Those cars must all offer something other than 0-60 times. And the RL offers it all for less.

But I'm hoping for a IS250. That's where Honda is failing in my book. I'd take even a AWD small entry-lux from Acura. Especially if they are gonna go into turbos.

newcar31

The Neon is a totally different kind of car.

There are cars in the same price range and same class as the RL that offer comparable luxury and are way faster. Cough...M45...cough...GS430. Everyone has an opinion, but the fact is Acura's Japanese peers have seriously outgunned the RL. That's not debatable and that's not comparing Neons to Mazda6s, it's comparing Infinitis to Acuras to Lexuses.

The Germans have always been more expensive.

carlisimo

The current Integra type-R has a limited slip (same car as our RSX-S but with slightly more power and that diff). It's more common as an aftermarket add-on for autocrossers.

After all, traction control prevents spinning by applying the brakes or cutting power; a limited-slip does so by applying power.

chrisducati

The only Honda that ever had my interest was the Civic. When Honda decided that Americans were to dumb to know the difference between a Macpherson strut front suspension and a wishbone one is when they lost me as a prospective buyer. The new Civic is so dull my mother even noticed the difference.

gee35coupe

I thought they were all 4 door sedans. I mean if you want to apple to apple...Those cars aren't AWD and are more expensive when equipped to match the RL. The AWD version of the GS will not have the power of the RL and still cost more when equipped. So again when you compare the RL to it's peers I.E those cars that offer the same things that it offers, it's still the cheapest and performs admirably. The may "outgun" it but they also outprice it.

I mean with cars like the Altima SR-T or the Mazima out there, you will always be looking out no matter what V6 mid size you get. Nissan has put that VQ in everything they build.

gee35coupe

American proved they were too "dumb" to notice struts long before that. The Civic was the only compact to have them. Heck if you want to apply that logic, Americans don't care about IRS at all since the Corolla is selling like gangbusters on a rear axle. I don't think MOST folk in the compact arena care about clipping apexes.

chrisducati

Your right... If it starts and doesn't give any problems then they do not care what it drives like or any details... ask my office co-workers if they have Fwd or Rwd and they can' t tell you. "um I can't tell the difference" Ugh.

gee35coupe

How many times have you seen someone describe a 4 cylinder as a V4? LOL.

andre1969

it just depends on what you're used to. I can tell the difference between the independent rear suspension in my Intrepid, versus the leaf springs in my old Mopars, versus the coil springs in my old GM cars. But when it comes to little cars, they all ride rough enough to me that I can't tell if it's IRS or solid axle. I'm sure if I spent more time in various small cars, I'd be able to start telling the difference, though.

newcar31

Those cars aren't AWD and are more expensive when equipped to match the RL.

So it all comes down to doo dads, AWD, and the Acura name. Thought so.

We're on Edmunds here. Remember that.

Gimme the V8, and you can have the window shade, NAV, AWD, fancy wipers, and whatever else. It's not like the M and GS have cloth seats and roll up windows.

nowakj66

Any idea what the next Honda model to go hybrid will be?

chrisducati

LOL...or a V6 when they have a straight six.... A lady at work was telling me about her Cherokee and that it had a V6. I said "Oh so it's like a 1986 ?" and she said no it was only like five yrs old... I told her it was a straight six then and she wouldn't believe me. Insisted it was a V6. At that point I wondered if she even knew the difference. So after work we popped the hood and sure enough there sat that old Rambler straight six. :P I had to explain what V6 meant. She was pretty smug and didnt even know why it mattered which way the cylinders were arranged.

nippononly

the MDX?

mariner7

"Americans don't care about IRS at all since the Corolla is selling like gangbusters on a rear axle. I don't think MOST folk in the compact arena care about clipping apexes"

That's why Honda made the mistake. Civic buyers used to care about IRS and apex.

Not anymore, most drivers of latest Civic are women and older folks, I notice.

andre1969

than just the independent rear suspension. The Corolla also has a much stronger standard engine than the Civic, and for many, a much better seating position. Seating position was the main reason my uncle picked a Corolla, and having sat in both of them, I find the Corolla to be more comfortable.

Also, at least when my uncle was car shopping, it was much easier to find a cheaper-model Corolla than a Civic. Most of the Civics were loaded to the gills. So, yeah, maybe it doesn't have IRS. But in the overall scheme of things, IRS is just a little part of the equation to the vast majority of buyers.

mariner7

In the 80's and early 90's, Honda dominated F1, winning many championships, gaining rep as the world's best engine maker.

After reentering F1 several years ago with BAR, almost everyone expected Honda to pick up its winning ways. So far Honda hasn't won a race with BAR, and ll the trends are pointing downward. After finishing 2nd in 2004, Honda fired its Irish team manager, who's known as the European Roger Penske. The result: after 3 races of the 2005 season, Honda hasn't scored a single point.

In the second race (Maylasian GP), both Hondas retired very early because of engine problems. During its heyday, Honda had one engine failure in the whole season.

What's worse, Toyota came out of nowhere to be second in the standings. Looks like Toyota gets the better of Honda in everything these days. The one who won all 3 races, none other than Renault! It's not a fluke either, Renault has a glorious F1 history, winning 100 races with its own engines.

Others have caught up and surpassed Honda in F1 engine technology, the highest level around. Off the track that has happened as well. In the comparo of V6 luxury cars (RL, E, etc), Motor Trend calls two engines thrashy when pushed. Those 2 belong to STS & RL. I don't recall that ever happened to a Honda engine before.

gee35coupe

So that Honda engine technology is still being recognised.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2004/12/21/308485.html

I think the thing that gave the Corolla the edge was the styling. It looks like a baby first gen GS300. Especially when equipped with the TRD spoilers and wheels. AS far as the driving position I can't agree becuase I can't fit my 6'6' frame behind the steering wheel. The Civic coupe and sedan are pretty much bland as lukewarm tap water when you have eye candy like the Mazda3 and Corolla to look at. I think that is the Civic's biggest issue.

I don't know how you can not find a strippo Civic. They only come in a few iterations and each model comes mono-spec. There's really no such thing
as a "loaded" Civic from the factory.

newcar31

I don't like the Corolla's seats either. The bottom cushion is too short for taller people. I had one for a rental and I almost took it back because it was so uncomfotable. I was surprised by the engine too, it's not too smooth and sounds like a coffee grinder at high rpms.

I don't like the Corolla's styling either. It looks tall and narrow.

andre1969

there's a lot I DON'T like about the Corolla, but if forced to choose, I'd have to take it over a Civic, simply because it's more comfortable for me. I agree about the engine...to be honest my uncle's Corolla's engine sounds as coarse and unrefined as anything GM has ever thrown at us! Now maybe my ear is more tuned towards preferring bigger engines, so I might be subconsciously biased. But still, I've heard the Honda 2.4 in an Accord, and it sounds smooth. Of course, going from a 1.8 to a 2.4 might have a bit to do with it!

When it comes to styling, I'd say they're both about equal...too tall, narrow, and tipsy-looking. The one thing the Civic has going for it is the coupe model, which is about as sexy as a Civic can be!

davem2001

Actually, theoretically, the 1.8 should be smoother than a 2.4, not the reverse. All else being equal, the smaller engine would have less reciprocating mass.

I've never driven either one, but I like the looks of the Corolla better than the Civic, personally. Not a huge fan of the current Civic - I hope the '06 is better.

newcar31

All else being equal, yes. But the smaller 4 cyls usually don't have balance shafts. I don't know why, but the magical displacement is 2.0L. 2.0Ls come with or without balance shafts, but engines smaller than 2.0L usually don't have them and engines larger than 2.0L usually do.

davem2001

Does the 2.4L in the Accord have balance shafts? I'm not sure...I guess it does...

andre1969

in engine displacements where it's worthwhile to just go from a big 4-cyl to a small V-6? I know that, as a general rule, as 4-cyl engines got larger they would get rougher, but I figured they found ways to work around that nowadays. Seems like the biggest that 4-cyl engines tend to get is around 2.5-2.6 liters. Doesn't Toyota have a 2.7 truck 4-cyl, though? The smallest 6-cyl I can think of, off the top of my head, would be the old Ford Falcon 144 CID, which I guess would come out to around a 2.3/2.4 liter? It wasn't long though, before a 170 CID and 200 CID version came out, though, and I think the Ford 250 might have even been the same block. Or was the Ford 250 the bigger inline-6 that they used in their full-sizers for awhile in the 60's? The one that started off as a 240 CID or so?

davem2001

Mazda had a sports coupe with a 1.8L V6 - I forget the name of the car...I can picture it in my mind but I forget the name! I considered getting one, but bought an Integra instead.

On the other end of the spectrum, Porsche had a 3.0L inline 4 in the last 944 (I think they called it a 968 then). It had balance shafts for sure.

Generally, around 2.5L is the 'crossover point' - anything bigger is a 6, anything smaller is a 4.

andre1969

called the MX-3 or something like that? I can picture it too, but just can't remember its name. Come to think of it, didn't the Mazda Millenia have a V-6 that was fairly small-displacement? It was still a 2.something, but pretty small for the size of the car.

davem2001

It looked vaguely like a Geo Storm from the rear 3/4 view - it had a "bubble" glass hatchback.

I think the Millenia engine was 2.5L - slightly small for a V6.

Now that I think about it, there were also V12 race engines that displaced only 3.0L, so that would be like a 1.5L V6

stickguy

MX-3. Looked like a toad, and had a 1.8l V6. The millenia was 2.5l.

I think Ferrari in the old days had a 2.0l V12! Musta reved like a motorcycle engine.

I never saw the point of that 1.8l, since the MX-3 was a fairly small car, and more suited for a 4 cyl.

The Toyota truck engine is 2.7l I think Porsche ended up at 3.0l with the 944 variants (968?).

Other than smoothness, doesn't a big 4 tend to have more torque than a small 6 (same displacement)?

A big 4 can be very nice. The Accord engine is sweet, as is the 2.4l in my Scion (basically the Camry engine).

davem2001

I think the 1.8L in the Mazda was just for marketing - I'm pretty sure (going from memory) it made the same or less HP than the 1.8L 4cyl in the Integra. I think the "base" MX-3 had a 1.6L inline 4 and the V6 was an option (again, going from memory)

I'd say, all else being equal, a big 4 would have more torque, would be cheaper to build, and would probably get better gas mileage.

The small 6 would probably be smoother, rev higher, cost more, probably have less torque.

It's sort of a marketing thing - the "average Joe" carbuyer would automatically think the 6 is better, whether it actually is or not

newcar31

I didn't understand the 1.8L V6 either in the MX3. I had a chance to beat the hell out of one for a couple hours. It was really really smooth and refined, but it wasn't all that fast.

Since the 1.8L was a version of the 2.5L (from the 626, MX6, Probe), I didn't understand why they didn't put the 2.5L in there, since it pretty much drops right in. It was probably marketing reasons more than common sense. You can't have the MX3 out-do the MX6. There are people who do the 2.5L swaps into the MX3. That'd be a fun little car.

I've driven the 968 Porsche too, which wasn't too impressive. They had one at Morries Mazda here in Minneapolis and I drove it on the same day I took an RX7 twin turbo for a spin. Both were used. I liked the RX7 A LOT better and it was cheaper than the 968 with less miles. It's probably one of my favorite cars ever made.

The Millenia had a 2.3L and a 2.5L. The 2.3L was the supercharged Miller cycle engine. I don't know what the deal is with Mazda and weird engines.

And yes, the 2.4L Accord has balance shafts.

carlisimo

Maybe the MX-3 was too narrow for an I-4? Dunno what sort of suspension it used but that could be a reason.

H-4's (boxers) like Subaru's are inherently balanced; no problems getting 2.5L displacement out of those.

I'm impressed by the revs that Honda gets out of the TSX's 2.4L. Big displacement without compromising Honda's character; cool stuff. Rumors are the next Civic type-R will get an engine like that, but it's probably the upper limit. This generation or the next may have the last naturally aspirated four cylinder type-R engine. I hope Honda has something up their sleeves.

newcar31

Maybe the MX-3 was too narrow for an I-4? Dunno what sort of suspension it used but that could be a reason.

For the last year or so, the MX3 was only available with an I4. The base engine in the MX3 was always an I4.

I think the 1.8L V6 was cool, but I think the MX3 might have been better off with a turbo I4 for the top engine.