Has Honda's run - run out?

saugatak · June 2004

I follow your points but I think Newcar is right on this one. Even if the engine is placed in front of the front axle, such that weight shifts on the drive wheels upon acceleration, won't that weight continue to move back toward the rear?

So the weight on the drivewheels phenomenon you're talking about should only be momentary and of not much benefit.

I always thought Honda shoved the engine so far up to maximize cabin space. I've always felt that Honda made the best economy FWD cars for this reason. Not only did they perform well and were reliable, you had a surprising amount of interior space, especially when comapred to a RWD car.

newcar31 · June 2004

"Even if the engine is placed in front of the front axle, such that weight shifts on the drive wheels upon acceleration"

There really isn't any additional weight to shift to the drive wheels of a FWD car. So what if the engine is sitting in front of the front axle? The weight is still concentrated on the front wheels. If weight really does shift to the drive wheels of a TSX, where is it shifting from when it was already concentrated on the front wheels?

saugatak · June 2004

I'm not the one making the argument. I'm just trying to make sense of robertmx's argument.

I think robertsmx's point is that when the weight shifts to the rear, some of it shifts onto the front drive wheels.

My response to robertsmx is, even if that is true (and I'm not saying robertsmx is correct), that weight shift should continue until it goes to the rear wheels.

newcar31 · June 2004

Oh, I know you're not. I know what robertmx is trying to say too, and the idea that weight shifts to the drive wheels of a FWD car if the engine is in front of the front axles, even if momentarily, is not correct, because the weight was already on the front wheels to begin with.

jerrywimer · June 2004

By moving the engine further forward, the amount of force being lifted off of the front wheels is lessened. I think this is the point robertsmx is trying to make. However, weight is still being transferred away from the front wheels and onto the rear wheels. The only real difference is how much of the weight is transferred for x amount of acceleration / force applied.

PF_Flyer · June 2004

I'd have to say the weight on the front wheels decreases in a FWD car during acceleration, and without looking at the math, common sense tells me that it has to decrease by about the same amount it would in a comparable RWD vehicle. There certainly would be SOME difference because of the weight of the driveshaft/differential, but I'd wager that's minimal where the tires meet the road.
Assuming I've kept my tires inflated properly and not been running on bald ones, I've chirped the tires starting up at lights far more with FWD vehicles than I ever did with RWD. Anecdotal for sure, but being that I never was one to try and "lay rubber", I think it's an interesting observation.

PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

badgerfan · June 2004

Man you guys sure get wound up over the weight shift issue. It does not matter so much where the engine CG is located as where the CG is of the entire car. As long as the CG is between the front and rear wheels, any acceleration is then going to increase down force on the rear wheels and decrease it on the front. You will never see any car designed in which the CG of the entire car is in front of the front wheels, or it would tip forward and land on its nose when standing still.

Front engine rear wheel drive cars will usually have a CG that is back a bit further than front engine front wheel drive cars, so the shift to the rear may be a bit higher for the rear wheel drive car. I would guess unless you are talking about very high rates of acceleration the front wheel drive car will still have more down force on it's front wheels than a rear wheel drive car, as there is quite a large bias in static load on the front to begin with.

Is this so hard to understand?

newcar31 · June 2004

"Is this so hard to understand?"

For one person here, yes, it is.

varmint · June 2004

Jerrywimer says it best. The weight of the engine will shift rearward. In the case of the TSX, this means that weight will shift rearward to both the front and rear wheels. The front wheels retain some of the weight, they do not gain any. So, instead of 20% going to the rear wheels, it may only 18-19%.

Robertsmx is not suggesting that the front of the car gets heavier, as Newcar has interpreted it. Only that the impact of weight shift is reduced.

Badgerfan is also correct in pointing out that the CG for the entire car is what matters. Of course, having the engine farther up front just means that the CG is farther up front. So it's kind of a technicality.

On the issue of why Honda has the engine mounted in front of the axle, I suspect that packaging and safety are the answers. If Honda wanted to increase grip for acceleration, they could increase the contact patch with wider tires. That seems like a much easier solution to me. Moving the engine forward has too many drawbacks for balanced handling.

IMHO, all of this makes the TSX fairly impressive. It's a FWDer with an engine mounted in front of the axle and yet it still has great handling. Not too shabby.

Now, who hear thinks that lack of acceleration is the reason why Honda sales dipped momentarily?

newcar31 · June 2004

"In the case of the TSX, this means that weight will shift rearward to both the front and rear wheels. The front wheels retain some of the weight, they do not gain any."

These are contradictory statements. If the front wheels do not gain any weight, then how can weight shift to both the front and rear wheels? Hmmm...the front wheels don't gain any weight, yet weight shifts rearward onto the front wheels?

"Robertsmx is not suggesting that the front of the car gets heavier, as Newcar has interpreted it."

He isn't? Yes he is.

Robertsmx:

"If most of the frontal weight sits in front of the axle, when the vehicle accelerates, that extra weight goes on top of the driving wheels. OTOH, if the frontal weight sits after the front axle, it takes away the traction from the front wheel."

And

"If most of the frontal weight sits in front of the axle, when the vehicle accelerates, that extra weight goes on top of the driving wheels."

badgerfan · June 2004

Hondas sales have dipped lately for I would guess a variety of reasons. The continued shift from cars to SUV's and trucks is one, with many competitors having a larger range of offerings. Stronger and more competitors than ever, both in cars and SUV's. Better quality from nearly all competitors. Strong pricing pressures from the competition as well which to date Honda has not tried to meet except with hidden dealer incentives which may or may not get passed on to the consumer. Civic has somewhat fallen out of favor with a few missteps in the handling/performance/styling end. Accord likely has turned off some customers with its big styling difference from previous generations and having one of the smaller trunks compared to competitors. Odyssey is getting long in tooth and new offerings from Toyota and DC are maybe taking some of Odyssey sales. Automatic transmission recalls have also given Honda a recent black eye in the press as well.

In summary, not one big issue but a lot of issues are involved.

nippononly · June 2004

"On the issue of why Honda has the engine mounted in front of the axle, I suspect that packaging and safety are the answers". And mainly packaging, if it comes to that. Maximize cabin space in a subcompact package, and you will suck in the buyers.

Having driven the TSX, I will say the handling is excellent, but my concern would be not in the whole weight shift thing, but rather in how much more nose-heavy it makes the car to have the engine IN FRONT of the axle. Folks like Nissan have mounted the engine behind the axle in an attempt to make handling more neutral and reduce understeer, haven't they?

I mean the thing with the TSX is, lots of cars in its price range will beat it in a straight-line race. Honda should focus on the handling characteristics of its small cars more than the power race, IMHO.

robertsmx · June 2004

In Nissan's case, by mounting the heavier components towards the middle, may have resulted in massive torque steer that is often brought up.

newcar31 isn't ready to get my point, so I will leave that discussion for now.

newcar31 · June 2004

I completely understand your point and I am saying that you are wrong. Give up and admit it, even though it's obvious that is going to be impossible for you to do.

I think you know you're wrong.

nippononly · June 2004

but torque steer is not affected by front-to-rear engine placement, right? Isn't it affected by uneven side-to-side placement, as well as the lengths of the axles providing the power to the wheels? One of the many reasons FWD isn't as good. Once Honda slaps a really powerful engine in an SH-AWD car, I will be very curious to see if the system's use of the rear wheels at launch will eliminate any trace of torque steer for the pros.

robertsmx · June 2004

Nippononly,

Torque steer would be caused by lack of traction but with ample torque going to the drive wheels.

newcar31,

No, I know what my point of contention is. You don't. Let us just leave this at that (unless you really want to argue upon it then I will be willing to spend more time elaborating on it).

varmint · June 2004

Badgerfan - Yeah, I think there are a large number of reasons for Honda's dip in sales. The biggest (right now) is probably their resistance to incentives. That last question in my post was more or less a call to get us back on topic.

Newcar - The point is that weight on the drive wheels is retained, not added. Don't try to weasel your way around it using semantics and quotes taken out of context. Read it again. Robertsmx may not be the most eloquent in expressing the notion, but he is ultimately correct. The farther forward the CG is, the less impact weight shift will have on traction.

Nippononly - Right. The transverse engine placement results in most of the conditions that contribute to torque steer.

However, with only 30% of the available torque up at the front end (during abusive acceleration), torque steer won't be a problem. As some like to say, "you need torque to have torque steer".

Right now, I'm thinking the ultimate layout would be a front mid-engine (like the S2000) driving the rear wheels, with a device like SH-AWD distributing power to the outside rear wheel.

newcar31 · June 2004

"No, I know what my point of contention is. You don't. Let us just leave this at that"

You aren't getting off that easy. Not after telling me things like I'm stuck in 1st gear and I need help understanding. Not that you haven't illustrated your false point already, but could you do it one more time, so I can refute it one more time? Don't switch up your story now and make me go dig up your quotes again....

talon95 · June 2004

"unless you really want to argue upon it then I will be willing to spend more time elaborating on it"

Please don't... this topic has been effectively argued to death and far beyond.

If ever an exchange has called for "agreeing to disagree", it's this one. Neither of you is going to yield, so why do you insist on continuing to try?

newcar31 · June 2004

"Newcar - The point is that weight on the drive wheels is retained, not added."

That's not what robertmx was saying. Go back and read.

"Don't try to weasel your way around it using semantics and quotes taken out of context."

Go read the statement in context then. They're still there for you and everyone to read. It doesn't change the meaning of the statements that I quoted.

"Read it again."

You read it again.

"Robertsmx may not be the most eloquent in expressing the notion, but he is ultimately correct."

The issue isn't robertsmx's communication of an idea, it's the idea that he's communicating that's wrong.

newcar31 · June 2004

Here is one of robertmx's complete posts. Nothing is taken out of context:

"Weight will transfer rearward. That is no-brainer. But how, and how much depends on the chassis set up.

If you're wondering about "how", let me clarify. If most of the frontal weight sits in front of the axle, when the vehicle accelerates, that extra weight goes on top of the driving wheels. OTOH, if the frontal weight sits after the front axle, it takes away the traction from the front wheel.

Weight shift pattern isn't an issue here, how it affects traction is."

The incorrect statement in this post is:

"If most of the frontal weight sits in front of the axle, when the vehicle accelerates, that extra weight goes on top of the driving wheels."

WRONG! The weight does not "shift" onto the drive wheels. The weight was already being supported by the drive wheels. Just because an engine sits in front of the front axle doesn't mean that the engine weight isn't meeting the road at the front tires.

nippononly · June 2004

"Torque steer would be caused by lack of traction"

again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not, as I have had cars that exhibited torque steer, and it is not caused by wheel slippage. At least, that is not what people are referring to with the term "torque steer". They are referring to the car's tendency to pull to one side under hard acceleration with both tires stuck to the ground.

varmint: "As some like to say, "you need torque to have torque steer".
LOL! You have a good point there. :-)

scape2 · June 2004

CRV recall for air bag issues...

saugatak · June 2004

Torque steer would be caused by lack of traction but with ample torque going to the drive wheels.

What?

Not only do you not understand weight shift under acceleration, you clearly don't know what torque steer is.

The explanation for torque steer can be found in these links.

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/editors/technobabble/9909scc_te- - chnobabble/

http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/handling/tech_handling_- 6.htm

gee35coupe · June 2004

Huh?
http://www.hondabeat.com/sales_stats.php

Not as a company. Trying to change the subject.

nippononly · June 2004

issue of "Automobile" says in the news section that Honda has decided that its bread and butter models are now more important than a car with a halo that no-one seems to see, and there will be no next NSX. Sad. Apparently dealers in the U.S. want a $40K Boxster-fighter instead. Who can blame them, I guess.

The magazine reminds the reader that CRX and Prelude are both gone, and mentions that the future of the S2000 after this generation is in doubt as well, and it makes me think, what happened to the "sport company" that used to be Honda? Is it turning into a smaller Toyota? Are big-time sales of Pilots, TLs, and Accords so much more important, that they have become the bottom line?

robertsmx · June 2004

And Acura has responded to questions regarding the next NSX, and that suggests it is here to stay. Who thought Automobile could be wrong? :-)

It appears to be just a speculation on their part.

That said, it would be nice if Acura/Honda considers a sports car in 40-50K price range, as well as a luxury sport coupe.

nippononly · June 2004

considering a coupe in that price range, it had better be under the Acura badge, not Honda!

It is true that AHM denied the "rumor" that HSC is dead for good and the NSX will die off in a couple of years.

varmint · June 2004

It is very possible that Automobile was told that the HSC project will be cancelled. It is, after all, only a project car.

That does not mean that the NSX will be cancelled. Instead the NSX may be based on the FG7 concept, the JSC concept, or some other concept that has not been named. I would actually be quite surprised if the HSC were the only concept that Honda was considering.

fjm1 · June 2004

A Ferrari spokesperson called the HSC "feminine" a while back. Did this public humiliation lead to Honda pulling the plug? If Porsche called the S2000 a "weak-kneed red headed step child" will Honda sulk, cry, and give in to the Bavarian bully?

In the realm of exotic engineering Honda's rumored decision to cancel the NSX is akin to lying down and taking it. It's bad enough that the NSX has been relegated to complete loser status in the exotic world because of neglect. To kill it is a travesty.

Honda/Acura has exceptional talent that is being reigned in by bean counters. Sounds all too familiar and signals a car company that may soon see its top talents fleeing to greener pastures.

driftracer · June 2004

of the Sopranos calling Tony Soprano's Porsche Boxster "a Porsche with panties" may have started a catfight....

Maybe that's why Tony whacked him...had him feeling insecure about his wannbe Porsche.

nippononly · June 2004

in the article is that "key decision makers from both Japan and the United States" gave the kibosh to the next NSX. Apparently the dealers are deadly serious about wanting a less expensive sport coupe. Makes sense to me: why have a halo car if there are no sporty cars in the line-up for it to carry a halo for?

Right now they have a medium-size sedan and two big sedans. No coupes except the RSX, which is on the low end anyway and not fit to compete with the sport coupes all the other premium brands have. And all the rest are "trucks".

Anyway, the article also asserts that Honda has been working very hard for well over a year to develop the HSC to be the next NSX, and there was nothing else in the works - that was the exclusive focus.

It also speculates that with Honda now a company building lawnmowers, robots, and other paraphernalia, there is less need to build niche models for the car biz, but rather to keep pumping out the bread and butter to support those other enterprises. That last part is pure speculation, and I sure hope it is not true.

saugatak · June 2004

It also speculates that with Honda now a company building lawnmowers, robots, and other paraphernalia, there is less need to build niche models for the car biz, but rather to keep pumping out the bread and butter to support those other enterprises. That last part is pure speculation, and I sure hope it is not true.

What an odd company. Honda's one of the Japanese Big 3 automakers and it's moonlighting in cars.

mariner7 · June 2004

Honda does need hi performance sports cars, but building them on unique platforms is a LOUSY idea, like NSX & S2000, because of the hi costs. The Nissan approach is the correct one. They're going to build GTR off the same platform as M/G/Z/FX. That platform is making them tons of money, and reducing price of GTR. Nissan can afford to upgrade platform every five years or so, instead of every 20 years or forever for NSX.

Harbour reports: "But Toyota earned $1742 per vehicle, Nissan earned $2402 per vehicle and Honda earned $1488 per vehicle."

Honda fans are under impression that Honda incentives are much lower than Nissan. I read reports that they're about the same. Judging from the profitability, Nissan's incentives, if anything, are lower, that's why they have so much gravy left over.

merc1 · June 2004

I think some of that may have to do with Nissan's cheaper specification in materials in all of their new cars/trucks. Some like the 350Z, G35, Maxima and others are just plain cheapo inside. I think Toyota and Honda spend more money up front.

M

robertsmx · June 2004

Did Nissan's earning/car nearly triple in just one year? Honda has been the leader in earning/car for several years, followed by Toyota.

andre1969 · June 2004

how Nissan is being so profitable with their cars. Last time I looked at one half-way seriously, it was when the '02 Altimas had only been our for a few months. I could've gotten one for invoice at the time. I dunno if that's something you can do with a Camry or Accord just yet! But then again, that's more profitability on the dealer's end, not necessarily the manufacturer's. Maybe Nissans are just cheaper to build than Hondas or Toyotas?

robertsmx · June 2004

I understand what torque steer is, but I should address weight transfer issue first.

Something that isnt being argued against is that weight shifts backwards during acceleration. BUT, do you think the weight that sits in front of the front axle will bypass the front axle? I doubt that. If you have more of the weight sitting in front, the front axle will get more of the weight transferred onto it, than if the weight were to sit behind the front axle. This shouldnt be hard to understand.

Getting back to torque steer, are we discussing the cause, or the result? Engine torque is certainly a part of it, but torque multiplication would be more appropriate in this case. In a car, like Altima 3.5SE (or Sentra SE-R), torque steer isnt as pronounced in higher gears as it is in first. Why?

Greater torque multiplication takes away traction, especially if there isnt enough weight pushing down the front wheels. Enhancing traction is possible by ensuring more weight down on front axle and/or taller gearing and those cars will exhibit less torque steer than otherwise. Acura TL is a car that is being said to have some torque steer with manual transmission (weight split is 60/40). I havent driven one with MT yet, so cant validate it. With auto transmission (weight split is about 62/38), the car doesnt exhibit torque steer. Why is that? The chassis set up is same. Isnt it?

mariner7 · June 2004

Actually Nissan's profits are as good as anyone, besides Porsche, for about three years now.

merc, if the products are perceived as cheap, the market will adjust accordingly, and lots of incentives will have to offer, driving your profits down. That's not happening to Nissan at all.

Nissan's productivity is slightly ahead of Honda/Toyota, some people say it's because Nissan outsource more.

gee35coupe · June 2004

Nearly every model they make has been chided on cheap interior quality. I know I test drove the previous edition Altima, the G35, the 350Z, and the Titan. All of them have a Romper Room feel to them. The design was okay but they just felt cheap.

PF_Flyer · June 2004

The torque steer/weight shift stuff is VERY interesting, but really not what this topic is supposed to be about. Perhaps we need an "automotive physics" topic her to talk about all these matters scientific. With that in mind, here's a link to the place where you CAN continue the weight transfer discussion...

Auto Physics 101

PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

robertsmx · June 2004

Honda has led all automakers over last few years in terms of earnings per year, and seems to maintain the same number (about $1500 per vehicle). Honda is usually followed by Toyota and Nissan comes in at third.

What interests me about the latest Harbour report is the apparent jump in earnings per vehicle for Nissan by at least twice compared to last year (and before that). In case of Toyota, the company added $763 in spending per vehicle last year, and the net profits dropped by 4% (in the USA), still showing an earnings per vehicle improvement by $300 or so? In case of Nissan, net profit was up 1.7% and the same was up 8.8% for Honda compared to last year (also from Harbour Report).

Im not sure how all this adds up.

varmint · June 2004

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Harbour Report only apply to factories in North America? For several years Nissan has had the single most productive factory in the country (in terms of hours spent building the cars). But it was the only factory they have. Has that changed?

Ayway... That's one supercool factory pitted against the average of the four that Honda has here. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's kind of a misleading number if you are trying to draw conclusions about the whole brand.

As for Honda's slip in the rankings, I'd guess it's because they have been spending all the factory budget on new facilities, rather than upgrading the old ones. I think they've added something like six new lines to their existing factories, and four completely new factories within the past 4 years.

varmint · June 2004

I was looking over Acura sales figures yesterday and began to wonder if there is a connection between TSX and TL sales vs those of the Accord. (Yeah, I've been a little slow on this.)

The TSX in particular has really taken off. Originally, that car was selling at MSRP, but I'm reading that dealers are moving on the prices now. Wonder if that has had an impact on Accord sales. In several ways, the TSX does resemble the Accords of old. It may be stealing sales from the new model.

robertsmx · June 2004

I would consider (and am considering) TSX over Accord if I can have one at close to invoice.

But looking at last month's sales numbers, Honda (nearly) made up for lost Accord sales in just one month, selling 43K units in May.

merc1 · June 2004

"merc, if the products are perceived as cheap, the market will adjust accordingly, and lots of incentives will have to offer, driving your profits down. That's not happening to Nissan at all."

Well some of them are perceived as being cheap, this has been documented in the press over and over. In the market however Nissan's designs are so much fresher than what they used to be to the point of this not being an issue, yet. I stress yet because over time cars like the 350Z aren't going to do well in those surveys when material quality and build are examined after 3-5 years.

The new Titan and Armada haven't done as well as Nissan wanted them to do either. The worst offender in interior quality (besides the 350Z), the Altima has been greatly improved for 2005, taking that car off the hook from 2005 onward.

I mean look at the differences between the TL and TSX's interiors compared to the G35's or Maxima's. Big difference.

I still think that Toyota and Honda bake more quality in than Nissan does, thus their profits are slimmer. Especially Toyota.

M

mariner7 · June 2004

You're correct. Harbour surveys only NA factories, so their numbers apply only to NA-made cars, which for the Japanese mean the majority of cars. For Honda, it means many of the Acuras, because isn't TL made in this country now? Most Lexis and Infinitis are still made in Japan. The only Infiniti made here is QX.

merc, a basic maxim in business and any industry is low-quality products don't equate to high profits, especially not high absolute profits. Low quality products may for a while earn high relative profits. Let's take an entirely hypothetical example of Kia and BMW: Kia may make a higher relative profit than BMW, relative to their revenues, but absolutely a Kia car will not make a higher absolute profit than a BMW.

BTW, that's why all sorts of companies are trying to make luxury, hi-quality cars, because that's where the best profits are.

The perception by some is that Nissan doesn't mean the same quality as Honda and Toyota. And yet Nissan makes the highest relative profits of any company this side of Porsche, and it makes much higher absolute profits than Honda and Toyota, at least in US. What I'm saying is, merc, the market is rating Nissan quality to be much higher than the perception of those critical of Nissan cars.

And aren't Nissan resale values caught up to Toyota and right on Honda's tail? That'd say the same tale as the comparative profitability!

talon95 · June 2004

"What I'm saying is, merc, the market is rating Nissan quality to be much higher than the perception of those critical of Nissan cars."

That assumption is arguable... after all, Nissan was rated significantly below Honda and Toyota in JDP's most recent initial quality report, as well as being well below the industry average. And the JDP survey is based on feedback from new Nissan owners (not from people who would be inclined to be critical of Nissans), so the owners who gave them feedback apparently weren't all that impressed by the quality.

The thrust of Harbour's report was that Nissan's per-unit profit is relatively high (at least in the one plant that was reported on) primarily because it takes them less time to build a car than Toyota or Honda. Considering that fact along with their poor showing on the JDP initial quality report, one possible conclusion could be that Nissan is taking shortcuts to achieve the fast build time, shortcuts that may be compromising quality.

carlisimo · June 2004

I like that it's not just accepted, but expected for NSX owners to personalize ("rice up" if you prefer) their cars. It's a niche within a niche.

Anyway, the other day I went with my friend who was test driving Civics and Corollas. I test drove an Si and my first impression was that there was nothing sporty about the view outside. Wasn't low, didn't feel open, and I felt like I was in a very safe padded box. I'm not a big fan of "hunkered down" I guess. The engine sounded great but the steering didn't fight back. It'd make a nice non-Si car (whatever Si stands for).

I'm beginning to agree that Honda has strayed. I haven't sat in an RSX but it doesn't look like much fun... nice design features, but too tall. I hope they don't think their fans can all afford S2000s.

nippononly · June 2004

"whatever Si stands for"...I think the S was originally for "sport", as in sport hatch. The "i" came along later and meant the car was fuel-injected. If memory serves the first Civic SI was the 1986, or perhaps 1985? And the CRX was right around the same time.

The RSX is definitely taller than I would like, but is still SO short compared to all the vehicles on the road right next to me. I feel a little more assured that they will actually see me next to them, compared to the even lower height of the last Integra.

Has Honda's run - run out?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles