|
|
|
|
 |
CarPhreakD
 |
|
owequitit wrote:
DavidJ wrote:
How difficult would it be, from a technical point of view, to move the front axle 3 inches forward like in your drawing? (And maintain the FWD architecture)
It does wonders to the aesthetics.
|
Theoretically, Honda could do it by rotating the powertrain 180* to put the differential in front of the engine block instead of at the rear, where it is currently located. Or they could just move the diff to the other side of the tranny, which would accomplish the same thing. There might be a few engineering hurdles to clear in terms of packaging and torque management, but if Honda can't clear those, they should exit the business.
That would allow them to still share a lot of componentry and layout technology with lesser cars, while improving weight distribution and not really affecting the ability to package said lesser cars, where they could put the diff back in the rear if they wanted. Wouldn't require more than a change of tranny (the 7 speed DSG is apparently Acura exclusive anyway).
|
That would be an underhood packaging nightmare I would imagine. It would be interesting though... we would see the return of the B-series type engine with the intake at the back and exhaust at the front. But the car and the platform (at least the front subframe) would need to be seriously re-engineered. I think Acura would do well to continue cutting fat from the front bumpers and employing visual tricks.
|
owequitit
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
DavidJ wrote:
How difficult would it be, from a technical point of view, to move the front axle 3 inches forward like in your drawing? (And maintain the FWD architecture)
It does wonders to the aesthetics.
|
Theoretically, Honda could do it by rotating the powertrain 180* to put the differential in front of the engine block instead of at the rear, where it is currently located. Or they could just move the diff to the other side of the tranny, which would accomplish the same thing. There might be a few engineering hurdles to clear in terms of packaging and torque management, but if Honda can't clear those, they should exit the business.
That would allow them to still share a lot of componentry and layout technology with lesser cars, while improving weight distribution and not really affecting the ability to package said lesser cars, where they could put the diff back in the rear if they wanted. Wouldn't require more than a change of tranny (the 7 speed DSG is apparently Acura exclusive anyway).
|
That would be an underhood packaging nightmare I would imagine. It would be interesting though... we would see the return of the B-series type engine with the intake at the back and exhaust at the front. But the car and the platform (at least the front subframe) would need to be seriously re-engineered. I think Acura would do well to continue cutting fat from the front bumpers and employing visual tricks.
|
It wouldn't be that hard.
First, the intake manifold doesn't have to be located in any particular location. They would still have the complete option to put it on the front or the back, and in the case of the J series, it is in the middle either way. In fact, the only packaging change that really needs to occur is moving the output of the tranny to the other side of the case. Yes, the internals of the transmission would have to be relocated and rearranged, but realistically it is minor. Engine location and orientation could remain the same. In fact, just based on where the output for the current transmission is, I would wager that would allow them to move the axle line by something resembling 5-6" without moving the engine an inch.
Obviously, the engine mounts would need to be changed (at least the front and rear mounts would), and some of the accerssories probably relocated to the back. But like I said, those are all relatively minor issues. The powertrain cradle might have to be redesigned slightly, and the rack could probably move to the front, but they all would lend better weight distribution and better aesthetics. It would also allow Acura to maintain crush space with the wheels further forward, which would just fit better. Look how much of an improvement there is with just the 3" change Neal has proposed.
|
ciwai08
|
|
Not to knock the car itself which sounds impressive, but they somehow managed a proportionally better solution with the Prelude:
I'm not talking solely about front overhang, but the distance from base of A pillar to front axle centerline. I don't think its just frivolous internet banter, and sure, seeing the car in motion or at anything other than straight side-on disguises it, but it is a characteristic that some may be totally aware of, while others only subliminally but it is in some way perceivable by consumers as connoting as a premium branded vehicle. Its a big part of a veloster having a better stance than the crz, and why the audi S5 has such classic proportions (while still having relatively long front overhang mind you.) and why the TL and this RLX both miss the mark.
A longitudinal drivetrain justifies the functionality of that longer distance, but why couldn't they have done it the way that prelude does with a transverse layout, simply shifting the whole powertrain forward? Front legroom/overall cabin space could've been increased even more. There would be consequences towards center of mass, polar moments and weight distribution, but these are honda designers/engineers we're talking about. They're supposed to do crazy stuff in terms of layout like the fit or the n box that function brilliantly.
|
6SPDTL
|
|
|
Ta DA! You just created a Ford Taurus! Not to be mean but it has similar specs too.... AWD, 365 HP, 30 mpg hwy.... wait a minute.......... maybe this car is not so competitive after all..... :(
|
6SPDTL
|
|
|
http://www.ford.com/cars/taurus/taurusexperience/?topic=ecoboost
|
NealX
|
|
Lost from page 1:
Below are a couple of images: the concept comparisons to scale (a little effort changes Zero to Hero) and RLX vs. RL assuming an increase in wheelbase of 2 inches. The red graft is because there are no current RL images of high quality.
|
NealX
|
|
I don't know much about the 2012 SHO other than it's big on the outside and small on the inside. Looks fine. "A 5 Series sized car with a 3 Series sized interior." ???
|
cksi1372
|
|
Neil - great work, as usual !!!
The subtle changes, especially the line to the gas tank filler, makes this look really good. Changing the wheels and a sportier color does wonders visually. Acura needs to contact you before putting a design out there... ha. I can't believe they intro'd this with those wheels and in the geritol beige color.
|
6SPDTL
|
|
|
I guess that sums it up :) Maybe 7 sized with 5 interior:0 The SHO has impressive performance but it does cost 46K!
|
HONDA AFVM
|
|
Jeff wrote:
HONDA AFVM wrote:
Neal wrote:
Thanks! Guess I'll have to get around to making a wagon (er, Estate) version sometime...
Maybe this would be a good candidate for that "Shooting Brake" thing.
|
Neal, Could you put the concept car directly under your creation so we can see the difference...........I mean I can see it, but I would like to compare it........
|
Here's a quick knockup. Scale may be slightly off since it didn't come directly from Neal.
|
WOW! What a difference.......Not that I don't like the concept car, but no doubt the Neal effect makes it better, with your input of course............:-)
|
NealX
|
|
Anyone who chooses to debut a "flagship" in champagne beige is pretty suspect in my opinion. Even the new Avalon was showcased in a nice red:
|
Ganplosive
|
|
|
I'm absolutely convinced that the RLX with a nice set of rims and a new color would've completely changed perceptions.
|
DCR
|
|
Neal wrote:
Anyone who chooses to debut a "flagship" in champagne beige is pretty suspect in my opinion. Even the new Avalon was showcased in a nice red:
|
I think they boned that front end pretty bad. The lower grille mouth is too large and clashes geometrically with the upper grille. If they wanted to incorporate that, they should have carried the door line through the fender as it is currently, but then "smooth out" the area between the headlight and fogs, and cut the "mouth line" below that all the way around to the other side. The upper triangle where the logo is would have to be reworked in that scenario as well, but the design would have flowed better.
Oh wait...I think I just described the Taurus.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
owequitit wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
DavidJ wrote:
How difficult would it be, from a technical point of view, to move the front axle 3 inches forward like in your drawing? (And maintain the FWD architecture)
It does wonders to the aesthetics.
|
Theoretically, Honda could do it by rotating the powertrain 180* to put the differential in front of the engine block instead of at the rear, where it is currently located. Or they could just move the diff to the other side of the tranny, which would accomplish the same thing. There might be a few engineering hurdles to clear in terms of packaging and torque management, but if Honda can't clear those, they should exit the business.
That would allow them to still share a lot of componentry and layout technology with lesser cars, while improving weight distribution and not really affecting the ability to package said lesser cars, where they could put the diff back in the rear if they wanted. Wouldn't require more than a change of tranny (the 7 speed DSG is apparently Acura exclusive anyway).
|
That would be an underhood packaging nightmare I would imagine. It would be interesting though... we would see the return of the B-series type engine with the intake at the back and exhaust at the front. But the car and the platform (at least the front subframe) would need to be seriously re-engineered. I think Acura would do well to continue cutting fat from the front bumpers and employing visual tricks.
|
It wouldn't be that hard.
First, the intake manifold doesn't have to be located in any particular location. They would still have the complete option to put it on the front or the back, and in the case of the J series, it is in the middle either way. In fact, the only packaging change that really needs to occur is moving the output of the tranny to the other side of the case. Yes, the internals of the transmission would have to be relocated and rearranged, but realistically it is minor. Engine location and orientation could remain the same. In fact, just based on where the output for the current transmission is, I would wager that would allow them to move the axle line by something resembling 5-6" without moving the engine an inch.
Obviously, the engine mounts would need to be changed (at least the front and rear mounts would), and some of the accerssories probably relocated to the back. But like I said, those are all relatively minor issues. The powertrain cradle might have to be redesigned slightly, and the rack could probably move to the front, but they all would lend better weight distribution and better aesthetics. It would also allow Acura to maintain crush space with the wheels further forward, which would just fit better. Look how much of an improvement there is with just the 3" change Neal has proposed.
|
REALLY? NOT THAT HARD? Oi...
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
ciwai08 wrote:
Not to knock the car itself which sounds impressive, but they somehow managed a proportionally better solution with the Prelude:
I'm not talking solely about front overhang, but the distance from base of A pillar to front axle centerline. I don't think its just frivolous internet banter, and sure, seeing the car in motion or at anything other than straight side-on disguises it, but it is a characteristic that some may be totally aware of, while others only subliminally but it is in some way perceivable by consumers as connoting as a premium branded vehicle. Its a big part of a veloster having a better stance than the crz, and why the audi S5 has such classic proportions (while still having relatively long front overhang mind you.) and why the TL and this RLX both miss the mark.
A longitudinal drivetrain justifies the functionality of that longer distance, but why couldn't they have done it the way that prelude does with a transverse layout, simply shifting the whole powertrain forward? Front legroom/overall cabin space could've been increased even more. There would be consequences towards center of mass, polar moments and weight distribution, but these are honda designers/engineers we're talking about. They're supposed to do crazy stuff in terms of layout like the fit or the n box that function brilliantly.
|
I don't think it's a good idea to further exacerbate the front/rear weight distribution. And having your heaviest component in the car moved around greatly effects everything you do, it's just physics. A V6 is a LOT different from the I4 found in the prelude and there's a profound effect on vehicle packaging with that kind of engine (though the RL is quite large). I don't think it's impossible to have the kind of proportions you're talking about with the current layout though, a lot of it is just sheet metal design (though with pedestrian crash regulations it's kind of iffy too).
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
DCR wrote:
Neal wrote:
Anyone who chooses to debut a "flagship" in champagne beige is pretty suspect in my opinion. Even the new Avalon was showcased in a nice red:
|
I think they boned that front end pretty bad. The lower grille mouth is too large and clashes geometrically with the upper grille. If they wanted to incorporate that, they should have carried the door line through the fender as it is currently, but then "smooth out" the area between the headlight and fogs, and cut the "mouth line" below that all the way around to the other side. The upper triangle where the logo is would have to be reworked in that scenario as well, but the design would have flowed better.
Oh wait...I think I just described the Taurus.
|
I think that Acura boned the launch of the RLX with a beige colour scheme too. Why in the world did they do that? If you looked at the Acura youtube video presentation, the car looked really good in black... even that, or silver, or white, like most luxury cars are seen would have been better than beige.
Can you imagine a beige A6? Beige 535i? Beige Nissan M? The thought makes me shudder.
|
carzak
|
|
Neal wrote:
Lost from page 1:
Below are a couple of images: the concept comparisons to scale (a little effort changes Zero to Hero) and RLX vs. RL assuming an increase in wheelbase of 2 inches. The red graft is because there are no current RL images of high quality.
|
The press material says the RLX will be approximately the same length as the RL, and have a 2 inch shorter front overhang. Why does your comparison not show this?
|
HONDA AFVM
|
|
Neal wrote:
Anyone who chooses to debut a "flagship" in champagne beige is pretty suspect in my opinion. Even the new Avalon was showcased in a nice red:
|
Neal, the debut car was Silver, not beige.......At least in the picture it's silver.......
|
NealX
|
|
I don't know. I aligned the 2 pics based on their statement that the wheelbase is approx. 2 inches longer - so looking at the pics you can see that by aligning the center caps of the RLX with about an inch beyond the center line of the RL front and rear - things just land where they do.
I don't think the distance of the camera to car is an influencing factor because we can see a somewhat equal amount of tires on the opposite side of the car. The closer one gets to the car the more tire on the opposite side you'd then see. And from car to car they look about the same.
|
carzak
|
|
Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that the concept car doesn't actually have a two inch longer wheelbase. That would seem to be the only way to have the other statements about length and front overhang be true. But it still looks much longer overall, especially in the rear. Can you line them up exactly for a comparison?
|
NealX
|
|
|
Maybe I didn't describe what I did clearly enough. If the RLX wheelbase is ~2 inches longer that the RL, I illustrated this by scaling the RLX 1 inch beyond either side of the center of each RL wheel. Then you get what you get...
|
NealX
|
|
(I may be trying to suppress images of the actual car...) Wheels and color:
|
MuGen7Modulo
|
|
Neal wrote:
(I may be trying to suppress images of the actual car...) Wheels and color:
|
Special request. Can I see it with NSX wheels? Thanks.
|
carzak
|
|
Neal wrote:
Maybe I didn't describe what I did clearly enough. If the RLX wheelbase is ~2 inches longer that the RL, I illustrated this by scaling the RLX 1 inch beyond either side of the center of each RL wheel. Then you get what you get...
|
I understand. The way you scaled it should show that the RLX is approximately the same length as the RL, and has a shorter front overhang, should it not? That is, if the press release is accurate. But the front overhang looks similar and the rear overhang is much larger, so the car appears longer overall. However, I would imagine if you scale the RLX to have the same wheelbase as the RL, it would have a shorter front overhang, as it's claimed to, and be closer to approximately the same length. So, therefore the concept would not appear to actually have a 2 inch longer wheelbase. Does that make sense?
|
carzak
|
|
|
To be clear, it does appear to have a 1 inch shorter front overhang in your scaled version and is not just "similar" as I said. So that should change to 2 inches shorter if you scale it down to match the RL wheelbase, which is the claim. This again supports my theory that the concept wheelbase it not longer.
|
owequitit
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
DavidJ wrote:
How difficult would it be, from a technical point of view, to move the front axle 3 inches forward like in your drawing? (And maintain the FWD architecture)
It does wonders to the aesthetics.
|
Theoretically, Honda could do it by rotating the powertrain 180* to put the differential in front of the engine block instead of at the rear, where it is currently located. Or they could just move the diff to the other side of the tranny, which would accomplish the same thing. There might be a few engineering hurdles to clear in terms of packaging and torque management, but if Honda can't clear those, they should exit the business.
That would allow them to still share a lot of componentry and layout technology with lesser cars, while improving weight distribution and not really affecting the ability to package said lesser cars, where they could put the diff back in the rear if they wanted. Wouldn't require more than a change of tranny (the 7 speed DSG is apparently Acura exclusive anyway).
|
That would be an underhood packaging nightmare I would imagine. It would be interesting though... we would see the return of the B-series type engine with the intake at the back and exhaust at the front. But the car and the platform (at least the front subframe) would need to be seriously re-engineered. I think Acura would do well to continue cutting fat from the front bumpers and employing visual tricks.
|
It wouldn't be that hard.
First, the intake manifold doesn't have to be located in any particular location. They would still have the complete option to put it on the front or the back, and in the case of the J series, it is in the middle either way. In fact, the only packaging change that really needs to occur is moving the output of the tranny to the other side of the case. Yes, the internals of the transmission would have to be relocated and rearranged, but realistically it is minor. Engine location and orientation could remain the same. In fact, just based on where the output for the current transmission is, I would wager that would allow them to move the axle line by something resembling 5-6" without moving the engine an inch.
Obviously, the engine mounts would need to be changed (at least the front and rear mounts would), and some of the accerssories probably relocated to the back. But like I said, those are all relatively minor issues. The powertrain cradle might have to be redesigned slightly, and the rack could probably move to the front, but they all would lend better weight distribution and better aesthetics. It would also allow Acura to maintain crush space with the wheels further forward, which would just fit better. Look how much of an improvement there is with just the 3" change Neal has proposed.
|
REALLY? NOT THAT HARD? Oi...
|
Yeah not that hard. Let's put it into perspective here.
1) All various elements of it have pretty much already been taken care of, they just haven't existed at the same time or on the same car.
2)It isn't going to be any harder than taking a longitudinally mounted transmission, putting an output shaft out the front, a plug on the other end of the diff and then running it forward to a PTO and running a shaft to each front tire, one of which has to pass through an oil pan. That was the 2nd gen Legend.
3)They have mounted the accerssories on the back side of the engine, a la 4th gen Civic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen Integra, and older Accords.
4)They have put the steering rack ahead of the powertrain in the S2K.
5)The have tilted the engines forward, backward and not at all in various vehicles.
6)I didn't say it wouldn't take any work, I said it wouldn't be all that hard, which is where the perspective comes in.
How difficult compared to designing a jet engine that beats other similar engines in FE by 20%, when those competitors have been building jet engines for 50+ years? Not very difficult.
How about optimizing an airframe for maximum aero efficiency, re-creating an engine mount design that they said couldn't be done, creating a natural laminar flow nose out of CF and packaging it efficiently enough to include a full lavatory when most have chemical flush potties and a curtain? Not that hard.
How about compared to getting a 1.5L V6 to turn out 1,500HP and not blow itself up, making an engine that will spend 3-4 hours at 10,500RPM and not fail hardly at all in several hundred thousand miles of racing, keeping a reciprocating 4 cylinder together at 15,000+ RPM with a warranty, or achieving a specific output that would take Ferrari 13 years to beat at 10x the cost?
Doesn't really seem so insurmountable now does it?
The funny thing is, had the old Honda gone to its engineering team and said, "we need this powertrain in the car, but we want more neutral proportions, better weight distribution and tighter packaging," they WOULD have done it. In fact, they did with the 2nd gen Legend, which IIRC was an innovative setup at the time. The real kicker is that they wouldn't have to be told to do it, they would have probably come up with it on their own (how the NSX and S2K were born).
Sorry, but while I may not understand the detail intricacies of rotating the differential on a transmission 180* and then working around the rest of the obstacles, I am sure someone within Honda could figure it out.
|
carzak
|
|
I'm sure they could move the engine back, or orient it longitudinally. But there must be some compelling reasons why they, and most automakers with FWD cars do not. My best guess for the reason they don't is that it allows for the most cabin space by allowing the firewall to be further forward, and not have as much of a tunnel intrusion.
Having the engine forward may also provide more crash safety. If it's able to move backwards more in an impact, it and the subframe can absorb more energy before hitting the firewall and compromising the passenger space. I dunno...
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
owequitit wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
DavidJ wrote:
How difficult would it be, from a technical point of view, to move the front axle 3 inches forward like in your drawing? (And maintain the FWD architecture)
It does wonders to the aesthetics.
|
Theoretically, Honda could do it by rotating the powertrain 180* to put the differential in front of the engine block instead of at the rear, where it is currently located. Or they could just move the diff to the other side of the tranny, which would accomplish the same thing. There might be a few engineering hurdles to clear in terms of packaging and torque management, but if Honda can't clear those, they should exit the business.
That would allow them to still share a lot of componentry and layout technology with lesser cars, while improving weight distribution and not really affecting the ability to package said lesser cars, where they could put the diff back in the rear if they wanted. Wouldn't require more than a change of tranny (the 7 speed DSG is apparently Acura exclusive anyway).
|
That would be an underhood packaging nightmare I would imagine. It would be interesting though... we would see the return of the B-series type engine with the intake at the back and exhaust at the front. But the car and the platform (at least the front subframe) would need to be seriously re-engineered. I think Acura would do well to continue cutting fat from the front bumpers and employing visual tricks.
|
It wouldn't be that hard.
First, the intake manifold doesn't have to be located in any particular location. They would still have the complete option to put it on the front or the back, and in the case of the J series, it is in the middle either way. In fact, the only packaging change that really needs to occur is moving the output of the tranny to the other side of the case. Yes, the internals of the transmission would have to be relocated and rearranged, but realistically it is minor. Engine location and orientation could remain the same. In fact, just based on where the output for the current transmission is, I would wager that would allow them to move the axle line by something resembling 5-6" without moving the engine an inch.
Obviously, the engine mounts would need to be changed (at least the front and rear mounts would), and some of the accerssories probably relocated to the back. But like I said, those are all relatively minor issues. The powertrain cradle might have to be redesigned slightly, and the rack could probably move to the front, but they all would lend better weight distribution and better aesthetics. It would also allow Acura to maintain crush space with the wheels further forward, which would just fit better. Look how much of an improvement there is with just the 3" change Neal has proposed.
|
REALLY? NOT THAT HARD? Oi...
|
Yeah not that hard. Let's put it into perspective here.
1) All various elements of it have pretty much already been taken care of, they just haven't existed at the same time or on the same car.
2)It isn't going to be any harder than taking a longitudinally mounted transmission, putting an output shaft out the front, a plug on the other end of the diff and then running it forward to a PTO and running a shaft to each front tire, one of which has to pass through an oil pan. That was the 2nd gen Legend.
3)They have mounted the accerssories on the back side of the engine, a la 4th gen Civic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen Integra, and older Accords.
4)They have put the steering rack ahead of the powertrain in the S2K.
5)The have tilted the engines forward, backward and not at all in various vehicles.
6)I didn't say it wouldn't take any work, I said it wouldn't be all that hard, which is where the perspective comes in.
How difficult compared to designing a jet engine that beats other similar engines in FE by 20%, when those competitors have been building jet engines for 50+ years? Not very difficult.
How about optimizing an airframe for maximum aero efficiency, re-creating an engine mount design that they said couldn't be done, creating a natural laminar flow nose out of CF and packaging it efficiently enough to include a full lavatory when most have chemical flush potties and a curtain? Not that hard.
How about compared to getting a 1.5L V6 to turn out 1,500HP and not blow itself up, making an engine that will spend 3-4 hours at 10,500RPM and not fail hardly at all in several hundred thousand miles of racing, keeping a reciprocating 4 cylinder together at 15,000+ RPM with a warranty, or achieving a specific output that would take Ferrari 13 years to beat at 10x the cost?
Doesn't really seem so insurmountable now does it?
The funny thing is, had the old Honda gone to its engineering team and said, "we need this powertrain in the car, but we want more neutral proportions, better weight distribution and tighter packaging," they WOULD have done it. In fact, they did with the 2nd gen Legend, which IIRC was an innovative setup at the time. The real kicker is that they wouldn't have to be told to do it, they would have probably come up with it on their own (how the NSX and S2K were born).
Sorry, but while I may not understand the detail intricacies of rotating the differential on a transmission 180* and then working around the rest of the obstacles, I am sure someone within Honda could figure it out.
|
Owe, the problem is that you're asking Acura to re-engineer an entire vehicle (and I do mean everything, the underhood AVE teams in several companies spend half a year simply looking at the best way to route hosing and wires), and looking at the frame of the Accord, I'm almost certain that it will require some amount of modification. This will mean a great affect on the manufacturing end, and millions of dollars of investment (which, in the context of the NSX, probably isn't that bad). Having the car the way it is now, like it or not, is the simpler and less expensive method to go about it. If they go that route, they probably would be better served making it a RWD vehicle because it wouldn't cost that much extra if you're going that way to add in the shaft tunnel and rear end chassis bracing.
|
owequitit
|
|
carzak wrote:
I'm sure they could move the engine back, or orient it longitudinally. But there must be some compelling reasons why they, and most automakers with FWD cars do not. My best guess for the reason they don't is that it allows for the most cabin space by allowing the firewall to be further forward, and not have as much of a tunnel intrusion.
Having the engine forward may also provide more crash safety. If it's able to move backwards more in an impact, it and the subframe can absorb more energy before hitting the firewall and compromising the passenger space. I dunno...
|
It is mostly packaging. The powertrain being further back is actually beneficial in the crash. Most of the impact is absorbed by the specially designed crumple zones, frame rails and other impact mitigation strategies. Ideally, the impact would be done by the time it got to the powertrain. Otherwise, you have to deal with nearly 1,000lbs of pretty much incompressible metal. This is why you see so much crush space, and thus overhang located in front of the engine on FWD cars. They have to mitigate as much as they can prior to getting to the powertrain. They do have mitigation technology in place should the impact actually reach the powertrain (submarining engine mounts etc), but that is not as preferrable.
The biggest reason is packaging. It does allow more interior space relative to wheelbase, but then again, if they kept all other hard points the same, left the powertrain the same, and put the axle on the front side, then it wouldn't really need to change the length much, and it wouldn't affect the interior dimensions at all. It would get rid of the awkward front side proportions though, and that is a big deal at this price range IMO. Essentially, the end result would be about what Neal has, as it is the same dimension, but the wheel sits further foward. It also would mitigate the pedestrian ugliness because the wheel would mask some of it, and the front could be slightly less upright (pretty much what he has rendered).
|
owequitit
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
DavidJ wrote:
How difficult would it be, from a technical point of view, to move the front axle 3 inches forward like in your drawing? (And maintain the FWD architecture)
It does wonders to the aesthetics.
|
Theoretically, Honda could do it by rotating the powertrain 180* to put the differential in front of the engine block instead of at the rear, where it is currently located. Or they could just move the diff to the other side of the tranny, which would accomplish the same thing. There might be a few engineering hurdles to clear in terms of packaging and torque management, but if Honda can't clear those, they should exit the business.
That would allow them to still share a lot of componentry and layout technology with lesser cars, while improving weight distribution and not really affecting the ability to package said lesser cars, where they could put the diff back in the rear if they wanted. Wouldn't require more than a change of tranny (the 7 speed DSG is apparently Acura exclusive anyway).
|
That would be an underhood packaging nightmare I would imagine. It would be interesting though... we would see the return of the B-series type engine with the intake at the back and exhaust at the front. But the car and the platform (at least the front subframe) would need to be seriously re-engineered. I think Acura would do well to continue cutting fat from the front bumpers and employing visual tricks.
|
It wouldn't be that hard.
First, the intake manifold doesn't have to be located in any particular location. They would still have the complete option to put it on the front or the back, and in the case of the J series, it is in the middle either way. In fact, the only packaging change that really needs to occur is moving the output of the tranny to the other side of the case. Yes, the internals of the transmission would have to be relocated and rearranged, but realistically it is minor. Engine location and orientation could remain the same. In fact, just based on where the output for the current transmission is, I would wager that would allow them to move the axle line by something resembling 5-6" without moving the engine an inch.
Obviously, the engine mounts would need to be changed (at least the front and rear mounts would), and some of the accerssories probably relocated to the back. But like I said, those are all relatively minor issues. The powertrain cradle might have to be redesigned slightly, and the rack could probably move to the front, but they all would lend better weight distribution and better aesthetics. It would also allow Acura to maintain crush space with the wheels further forward, which would just fit better. Look how much of an improvement there is with just the 3" change Neal has proposed.
|
REALLY? NOT THAT HARD? Oi...
|
Yeah not that hard. Let's put it into perspective here.
1) All various elements of it have pretty much already been taken care of, they just haven't existed at the same time or on the same car.
2)It isn't going to be any harder than taking a longitudinally mounted transmission, putting an output shaft out the front, a plug on the other end of the diff and then running it forward to a PTO and running a shaft to each front tire, one of which has to pass through an oil pan. That was the 2nd gen Legend.
3)They have mounted the accerssories on the back side of the engine, a la 4th gen Civic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen Integra, and older Accords.
4)They have put the steering rack ahead of the powertrain in the S2K.
5)The have tilted the engines forward, backward and not at all in various vehicles.
6)I didn't say it wouldn't take any work, I said it wouldn't be all that hard, which is where the perspective comes in.
How difficult compared to designing a jet engine that beats other similar engines in FE by 20%, when those competitors have been building jet engines for 50+ years? Not very difficult.
How about optimizing an airframe for maximum aero efficiency, re-creating an engine mount design that they said couldn't be done, creating a natural laminar flow nose out of CF and packaging it efficiently enough to include a full lavatory when most have chemical flush potties and a curtain? Not that hard.
How about compared to getting a 1.5L V6 to turn out 1,500HP and not blow itself up, making an engine that will spend 3-4 hours at 10,500RPM and not fail hardly at all in several hundred thousand miles of racing, keeping a reciprocating 4 cylinder together at 15,000+ RPM with a warranty, or achieving a specific output that would take Ferrari 13 years to beat at 10x the cost?
Doesn't really seem so insurmountable now does it?
The funny thing is, had the old Honda gone to its engineering team and said, "we need this powertrain in the car, but we want more neutral proportions, better weight distribution and tighter packaging," they WOULD have done it. In fact, they did with the 2nd gen Legend, which IIRC was an innovative setup at the time. The real kicker is that they wouldn't have to be told to do it, they would have probably come up with it on their own (how the NSX and S2K were born).
Sorry, but while I may not understand the detail intricacies of rotating the differential on a transmission 180* and then working around the rest of the obstacles, I am sure someone within Honda could figure it out.
|
Owe, the problem is that you're asking Acura to re-engineer an entire vehicle (and I do mean everything, the underhood AVE teams in several companies spend half a year simply looking at the best way to route hosing and wires), and looking at the frame of the Accord, I'm almost certain that it will require some amount of modification. This will mean a great affect on the manufacturing end, and millions of dollars of investment (which, in the context of the NSX, probably isn't that bad). Having the car the way it is now, like it or not, is the simpler and less expensive method to go about it. If they go that route, they probably would be better served making it a RWD vehicle because it wouldn't cost that much extra if you're going that way to add in the shaft tunnel and rear end chassis bracing.
|
No, the real problem is that it is Acura's top of the line, best effort FLAGSHIP.
The time spent figuring out how to route hoses is still there, regardless where they are, and it would give Honda a chance to flex their flexible design/manufacturing muscle.
Sorry, but if they can turn primarily Accord components into the monstrosity of the ZDX, then they ought to be able to pull it off. Simple as that. Yeah, it will cost more, but then again, they have also had 7 years of time to work this crap out, especially since they shuttered the RWD chassis. What they SHOULD have done is kept the chassis, and reworked all the rest of the car. I am pretty sure they have already spent a large amount of extra money starting over from a clean slate with this new car, and it just doesn't have the proportions it should. It isn't horrible, but it goes back to the point of Acura trying to work around what they really need to save a few bucks.
The current RL is a textbook example of how saving money on the front end doesn't necessarily work out better financially.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 [2] 3 4 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
