|
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Page - 1 2 [3] 4 5 |
|
|
Hondarulez
 |
|
330R wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
Well, I guess P54 is very passionate of Honda. Some of his posts are a bit biased but he also admitted that Honda is not perfect.
He is not saying things such as:
The CR-Z a rocket;
The Civic has the best interior quality in class;
RWD is for losers;
No one needs 8000rpm redline
All he's saying is currently Honda doesn't offer many products that car enthusiasts want. He also wants to see more sporty cars and new technologies from Honda.
It's just that in this forum, a lot of people seem to only focus on the negative things. P54 is simply trying to point out the positive things that Honda does. He's not exactly hiding the negatives.
The point is, some Honda enthusiasts like to focus more on the positive facts (like P54 and me). We try to understand why Honda is making decisions that are not good to car enthusiasts. On the other hand, there's another group of people who focus mainly on the negative things, and that inevitably makes things sound even worse. Just different POV.
|
If 330R is biased toward vehicle dynamic performance, emotive driving enjoyment, and Honda showing they're really trying, I have to say P54 is biased toward Honda financial performance, green technologies, press releases/spin, and downplaying the loss in spirit/prowess.
He didn't try to say the Civic has the best interior quality in class, but he sure posted across 4-5 subforums that the Civic interior is the least toxic. That's an achievement, but not everyone wants it shoved down their throat, and it comes at the expense of quality look and feel. It remains to be seen how well it holds up.
His defense that Honda doesn't have an engine with an 8000rpm redline is, well by golly, the competition doesn't, either. In essence, he is saying no one needs it. If no one offers it right now, then it can't be that important. It's the way I feel about most car salesmen, the way P54 comes across: if it's not for sale anymore, it's not important. If it is for sale, talk it up. If it's coming in the future, talk it up some more.
Read his opening comments...
P54 laments that people won't stop talking about the older Hondas. If you notice, he tries to sell the new cars by saying he thinks people would prefer them to the old, if driven back to back. This is in spite of the fact most of us have driven both the old and the new, and we still love the old, as well as perhaps the new or the recent. He says, well Honda is changing with the times, but so is the competition, and the things people used to care for (or the selling points, he calls them) aren't so important anymore. Notice, more casting away the old, trying to convince us the new is right, and get with the times. He then attempts to rip from the headlines, apologize for Honda's lack of technical advancements, or, for example, removing technology from the K24 engine:
| young and older buyers are more interested in "cool" stuff & features than technological "wizardry" |
That comes right out of the discussions about Acura's clinics and research into the ILX; the youth don't care about engineering advancements; they care about connectivity.
I start to agree with P54 in a way, when he says not all recent products have been a home run (who could deny that?) and that essentially without failure, Honda cannot find its footing and reach for the next achievement. Also that in trying to regain their footing, they have overreached (see decontenting Civic, unceremoniously shoving their mojo into the Supplies closet).
But yes, I think he does try to hide the negatives. He relegates any criticism of Honda to "griping" and in doing so attempts to forgive the fact there are too few examples of 6AT-equipped models, absolutely no 8000rpm thrill rides, missing 6MTs with each passing year (to streamline manufacturing/assembly), and, here's the doozies, "just because" some models lack the right plastics... I guess that's one way of saying 'outright sucks'... or [because some models lack] design does not make Honda a sudden looser [sic]. That's P54 sneaking in some pretty important things to people. We sit inside our cars to drive them. And who wants to spend twenty five thousand dollars on a dog's dinner? Design is actually important. I don't think TOV expects Pininfarina design, but not reminding people of a Dodge Neon or Toyota Corolla, or in the case of the 2013 Accord Coupe Concept, a 2008 Accord Coupe, would help.
Yes, I'm so negative. Hondarulez, man, I was at the point you're at, I dunno, 3 or 4 years ago, something like that. The, 'why is Honda doing this' and trying to reason it out with an optimistic approach. Maybe it's just because of how long I've been following them (which is no time at all compared to a lot of folks), and the timing of that period, if that makes sense. Around to be aware of and partake in the glory years, to learn of the even glorier years before that, and to witness the failings of the late oughts. I don't want to focus on the negative. So where is the positive - for enthusiasts? It's NOT electric cars.
|
In a sense, P54 and myself (as well as some others) are a different kind of Honda enthusiasts than you and some others. I guess you guys are more "strict" than us! The reasons that we come up with, are simply excuses to you guys. For us, the negatives have already been pointed out, there's no real need to keep on beating a dead horse. On the other hand, you guys already know what Honda is good at and is doing right (or at least I hope you guys know), so you guys would prefer criticizing the shortcomings. At the end of the day though, we all want Honda to produce fun-to-drive cars with the Honda spirit.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
sugaki wrote:
It's such a lame strawman given by posters like P54, who think that "Honda enthusiast" means somebody who wants to plop in a K20A into every single car.
In spite of Honda's utter failures, they do make some good cars. The Crosstour for all of its pointlessly ugly "styling" is spot-on in dynamics (had they opted for a more normal style I think it would've done well, a shame). CR-V is to me still the undisputed CUV king. Accord... well I think it got too big.
But Honda clearly dropped the ball on a lot of its cars. The CR-Z is a really good example.
Take the Hyundai Veloster, which in spite of its terrible driving dynamics, sells really well. Is it fast? No, the throttle response (esp tip-in) is dead. Does it handle well? No, in rough surfaces the thing can't hold the road at all. So why does that thing sell well? Because it understands what enthusiasts want--even if it ends up not delivering the goods.
Contrast that to the CR-Z, which screams design-by-committee. Has a better manual tranny than the Veloster, but the thing feels so dull. For all its marketing a Fit feels more tossable. You just get the sense driving it that Honda brass said "hey, let's not get *too* crazy with this car."
It's not about Honda catering to the enthusiasts, because enthusiasts can be wrong. But what had made Honda a Honda through the years is that it marched to the beat of its own drum... which Honda clearly hasn't been doing. It stopped listening to its own engineers and to what the "public" thought. Why did the Civic Si switch to K24? Has nothing to do with emissions, in spite of their BS (a K20A can pass ULEV-II with flying colors). It's because Honda thought a K24 would be more appealing to the mass-market.
Somewhere along the way (cough Ito), the company stopped catering to itself, and more to focus groups and what the "market" thought. It's spawned crap like the ZDX, a pointless attempt to predict the market, instead of taking ownership of its own market.
|
Honestly, I don't think people who buy velosters are true car enthusiasts......a true car enthusiast should look deeper to see exactly what kind of car he or she is getting. A true car enthusiast would look at the chassis, gearbox, driving dynamics, ride comfort, user-friendliness, styling, performance, handling, etc. In general, the people who buy Velosters are simply attracted to its unique styling and its "supposed good value." It can seat 4 people comfortably while being able to attract attention from others at less than $20k. Hyundai understands what young consumers want, not enthusiasts. Enthusiasts would rather spend a bit more money to buy FR-S, BRZ, GTI, MS3, etc.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
owequitit wrote:
notyper wrote:
Just to comment on the whole engines thing, I'd like to point out some examples of pretty stellar engines that the competition is offering. These engines show that you can still offer high revving engines that are full of character and performance, and do so at a price that is still within reach of the average buyer:
1. Ford Coyote V8. A 5 liter engine (625cc/cylinder), the basic version is available for as little as $30k in the Mustang GT. It uses DOHC, VVT on both intake and exhaust, and port injection. It produces 412 (now 420 hp) and revs to 7000 rpm. It is reliable, powerful and a very fun engine to drive. In the spirit of Honda's former Type-R improvements, a version of this engine is offered in the Boss 302 model ($40k) which produces 444 hp and revs to 7500 rpm. Both engines will easily accomodate an additional 500 rpm of revs if so desired, but don't necessarily produce any more power in doing so. This is a really good engine, and revs like no sub-$50k large displacement V8 has any right to.
2. Nissan VQ37VHR. 3.7 liters (616cc/cyl). This is Nissan's current high end workhorse V6. Found in the Nissan 370Z ($31k starting), the Infiniti G37 and M37, and I think one other model. Basic versions are rated at 328-332 hp and rev limit at 7600 rpm. The Nismo version (which may just be an ECU flash) is rated at 350 hp and rev limits at 7700 rpm (these are actual values in the ECU - redline is set at 7500 on the tach, both engines will rev safely to 8000 rpm). It uses DOHC with VVEL, which is infinitely variable lift, duration and phasing, along with port injection and a dual throttle body, split intake manifold. Probably the last of the VQs, it is reliable, revs quite easily, produces a lot of power, and has finally gotten the fuel efficiency of the VQ lineup into line with the competition. It's still a bit vibratory, but that's been a VQ issue for years. It's probably better suited to the Z than the Infiniti lineup, but it's a strong, fun engine.
Aside from these two examples (which I chose because they are pretty affordable), the new Subaru/Toyota 2.0 flat four looks pretty good. Rev limit is set at 7500 rpm, produces 100 hp/liter, and has a nice flat torque curve (except for a hole at 3500-4500 rpm). Certainly not a K20 (it seems a bit torquier down low, but the K20, even rated the same, pulls away up top), but hey, this is a brand new engine designed to rev relatively high. The current 4cyl in the Miata is also decent. Only 170 hp (same hp/L as the 2012 Civic Si K24 - 589cc/cyl), but a 7500 rpm rev limiter as well.
The point being that is Ford, Nissan, Subaru, Toyota and Mazda can all offer these 7500+ rpm engines that meet emissions specs, then certainly, if they wanted to, the engine masters at Honda could still be giving us high revving engines that produce stellar power, low emissions and fuel economy. I'm not ready to say that when it comes to NA engine expertise that the engineers at Ford and Nissan have surpassed the Honda guys. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to believe that choice, not inability, is the reason for Honda's disappointing engine direction. I've grown to appreciate the VQ37VHR in my G37 - it's a good solid engine that has been bulletproof for me, but I'd much rather have a smoother, more fuel efficient, more powerful (and even higher revving) version from Honda.
I think this last statement reflects the disappoinment best. So many of us have bought cars from other companies here, yet we'd much rather be able to buy a similar car from Honda that is competitive feature/spec wise, yet offers Honda-ness. They just won't make one for us.
SC
|
I also thought it might be noteworthy to mention that in the case of the VQ, Nissan is dealing with engine architecture that is based on a design that debuted in the mid-90's. While I understand that they have likely replaced or redesigned every part of the engine, it still goes to show that if Nissan can take an engine that old and make it compliant, surely Honda could do it with an engine that is smaller, and more efficient to begin with. They just weren't willing to try, which is the unfortunate feeling I am getting from all of their latest products in most areas outside of the powertrain as well.
|
I have the impression this is the path that Honda is going with their new ED 3.5L. I haven't really heard much about that engine.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
Grace141 wrote:
The big factor here that no one knew about when the K20-K24 Si debate began was the upcoming ED tech. It would have made no sense to spend the money on continuing development on an engine line only to stop offering it a year or two later. It's clear now that the K24 Si is a stopgap offering. The better question now is if there will be a new ED-tech Si.
I still go back to the regulations in place in the US for the reason behind the switch to the K24. I think we're overlooking the current Honda car mix in the US was developed with the goal of selling a lot more hybrids. Seeing the use of 0w-20 oil and plastic underbody panels on the '12 Accord makes me wonder just how close Honda is to failing to meet the ramping up MPG regs. In hindsight, provided the volume of '12 Si's being produced Honda might as well have continued to offer the K20 and then not produced any of them.
I don't believe anyone ever claimed the K20 Si couldn't have been made emissions compliant but rather the problem was all of the regs combined. The K24 Si is not only cleaner but also helps Honda's MPG bottom line while offering additional power in the ranges most people spend most of their time driving the car. No one here has ever debated the changes in the character of the Si which resulted from the K24. To say Honda could have updated the K20 to match the K24 Si would be saying it could go from LEV status to ULEV while improving MPG whatever percent the K24 provided which is a pretty tall challenge.
I need to research the Ford and Nissan engines more to see just how clean they are. The CARB regs are of little help in comparing them to other cars because of how the ratings are defined and I think Honda's CO2 efforts to be so far out in left field as to make a comparison useless but I'm curious. I too think the Mustang and G engines are pretty amazing considering the current environment in the US of performance car drivers being frowned upon. The fact that GM threw what they had at the Camaro and Ford pretty much matched them easily is a good sign of what the Coyote program has to offer.
|
Looking at the path the ED engines are taking, if there is a performance variant I doubt you'll ever see the 8K redline ever again.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
rev2damoon wrote:
DCR wrote:
Veloster sales are confusing. I see these things everywhere now, and saw two on the way to work today. It is amazingly ugly up close.
|
LOL. It is remarkable, isn't it? I always try to get a look at the driver in an effort to try to guage the demographic bying these.
|
I think it's essentially the same demographic that used to buy Hyundai Tiburons. It is indeed confusing, because you would have to put up with the incredibly stupid design (like rear passenger heads being hit by the rear hatch... not to mention rain dropping on the back seats and heads) and subpar performance figures because you like the way it looks. What kind of people actually like the way it looks? I have to wonder
|
Jesse
|
|
P54 wrote:
Like ITO said, first make money, then we develop cars for the whiners....oops, I mean enthusiasts.
|
Ito said that? That is disgusting IMO. He should be sacked - along with those in the top management. I know that money is essential for a company to survive but to prioritize it over the rest is totally against Soichiro's vision. No wonder Honda is losing its identity - because they put money first! And talk about a person who was involved in developing the NSX 1.0.
|
Fan Koni
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
Looking at the path the ED engines are taking, if there is a performance variant I doubt you'll ever see the 8K redline ever again.
|
Why is that? What about the 1.8 & 3.5?
|
danielgr
|
|
Fan Koni wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
Looking at the path the ED engines are taking, if there is a performance variant I doubt you'll ever see the 8K redline ever again.
|
Why is that? What about the 1.8 & 3.5?
|
And yes, none of them will have sky-high redlines, nor would any of their potential buyers be attracted by such, just as no regular Accord/Civic buyer would like to pay for a full performance DOHC VTEC engine; simply not what they are looking for.
Now, having those SOHC and intake-only K series didn't prevent Honda in the past to make the performance derivatives, so I don't think whatever the ED stuff is can be considered as a serious indication by itself. There have also been rumours on the NSX making about 100Hp/L, which wouldn't be a crazy thing for its supercar credentials and would require a redline pretty close to the 8k ceiling.
Just to make it clear though, I do share CarPhreakD opinion in that the days of the 8K redlines might be close to an end, yet:
1) don't think we have enough info to claim it yet,
2) still hope (as I'm sure he does) it ain't the case.
PS: Just asking, does BMW still make any 8K redlined car? Or have they already switched their whole line-up to forced induction? Toyota doesn't make their high-reving engines either so... is there anyone left in the world?
(I'm asking about recent models, not those that are over 4-5years old and simply have not been replaced yet).
|
P54
|
|
Jesse wrote:
P54 wrote:
Like ITO said, first make money, then we develop cars for the whiners....oops, I mean enthusiasts.
|
Ito said that? That is disgusting IMO. He should be sacked - along with those in the top management. I know that money is essential for a company to survive but to prioritize it over the rest is totally against Soichiro's vision. No wonder Honda is losing its identity - because they put money first! And talk about a person who was involved in developing the NSX 1.0.
|
Don't take one saying and build your opinion on that without understanding the whole story. Honda has been hard hit lately and being independent is costly. What ITO meant was due to economic downturn caused by many factors outside the control of Honda they first had to put priority on surviving, make money so they could have the money necessary to develop enthusiast cars. Remember that not only did Honda get hit by economic downturn, natural disasters but they also spent hundreds of $ millions, maybe billions ? on the F1 program and MotoGP and other racing involvement is expensive too. Honda cancelled the NSX, however came out with the HSV-010GT. Then this year ITO committed to the new NSX to be built in USA, a car even more true to the first NSX than the one they cancelled. And He did that despite the 2 natural disasters that hit them hard financially. And putting the HondaJet into production is expensive too. Because ITO was involved in the NSX 1.0 you can be sure the NSX 2.0 will be more in the spirit of the 1.0 and way better than the one they cancelled.
So when ITO said they had to make money first He meant they had to overcome the financial obstacles, get the company financial sound. restructure etc. before they could spent $ on limited production high cost development projects. Did he not also say they would make the EV-STER too.
Bear in mind, He has only been there about 2.5 years. New cars, engines, drive-trains take some time to develop. And when earthquake hits, tsunamis and flooding comes on top of all the other problems you should appreciate that ITO committed to the NSX, especially that it will be developed and built at a new site in USA, and they will build it for racing too.
Honda pulled the NSX and TypeR and SI claiming it was due to emission standards. Now some people think how come Honda could not make the engines to comply and get all worked up. Honda know more than we do and one thing we might miss out on is that if Honda internally knows the engines even if updated will have big problems for coming standards next few years and therefor decide to pull them rather than spending money on engines that might only last 2-4 more years. With all the new stuff coming up they might have decided to build brand new engines that will last at least ten years into the future.
Remember that Soichiro himself almost bankrupted the company, he needed other men to calm him down and make wise financial choices.
|
P54
|
|
Danielgr said:
PS: Just asking, does BMW still make any 8K redlined car? Or have they already switched their whole line-up to forced induction? Toyota doesn't make their high-reving engines either so... is there anyone left in the world?
(I'm asking about recent models, not those that are over 4-5years old and simply have not been replaced yet). |
BMW has said all their future cars will be 3 cylinders. Is it not a good thing that Honda went from I4 turbo in the RDX to a V6? What would the response have been if they were the first to switch to 3 cyl. turbo, on the RDX?
|
Jesse
|
|
P54 wrote:
Jesse wrote:
P54 wrote:
Like ITO said, first make money, then we develop cars for the whiners....oops, I mean enthusiasts.
|
Ito said that? That is disgusting IMO. He should be sacked - along with those in the top management. I know that money is essential for a company to survive but to prioritize it over the rest is totally against Soichiro's vision. No wonder Honda is losing its identity - because they put money first! And talk about a person who was involved in developing the NSX 1.0.
|
Don't take one saying and build your opinion on that without understanding the whole story. Honda has been hard hit lately and being independent is costly. What ITO meant was due to economic downturn caused by many factors outside the control of Honda they first had to put priority on surviving, make money so they could have the money necessary to develop enthusiast cars. Remember that not only did Honda get hit by economic downturn, natural disasters but they also spent hundreds of $ millions, maybe billions ? on the F1 program and MotoGP and other racing involvement is expensive too. Honda cancelled the NSX, however came out with the HSV-010GT. Then this year ITO committed to the new NSX to be built in USA, a car even more true to the first NSX than the one they cancelled. And He did that despite the 2 natural disasters that hit them hard financially. And putting the HondaJet into production is expensive too. Because ITO was involved in the NSX 1.0 you can be sure the NSX 2.0 will be more in the spirit of the 1.0 and way better than the one they cancelled.
So when ITO said they had to make money first He meant they had to overcome the financial obstacles, get the company financial sound. restructure etc. before they could spent $ on limited production high cost development projects. Did he not also say they would make the EV-STER too.
Bear in mind, He has only been there about 2.5 years. New cars, engines, drive-trains take some time to develop. And when earthquake hits, tsunamis and flooding comes on top of all the other problems you should appreciate that ITO committed to the NSX, especially that it will be developed and built at a new site in USA, and they will build it for racing too.
Honda pulled the NSX and TypeR and SI claiming it was due to emission standards. Now some people think how come Honda could not make the engines to comply and get all worked up. Honda know more than we do and one thing we might miss out on is that if Honda internally knows the engines even if updated will have big problems for coming standards next few years and therefor decide to pull them rather than spending money on engines that might only last 2-4 more years. With all the new stuff coming up they might have decided to build brand new engines that will last at least ten years into the future.
Remember that Soichiro himself almost bankrupted the company, he needed other men to calm him down and make wise financial choices.
|
No, I do understand what you mean and what Ito meant. And no, I don't buy into this whole crisis thing. Honda used the crisis as a scapegoat for their mistakes. Plus I am more inclined to believe that the NSX 2.0 was forced upon Ito - I think if he would have it his way, the second-gen NSX would not be realized.
True, the enthusiast crowd would love Honda to have more than a couple of sport-oriented products. But the reason why the enthusiasts are complaining is because not only Honda axed its sporty products, even the bread-and-butter models are failing (the latest-gen Civic comes to mind again) - are losing the so-called Honda DNA. Why? Money is has become their top priority.
Soichiro almost bankrupted the company. But my point is that with Soichiro in, Honda was primarily focused on producing great products, not achieving record sales. Again now it's more on the money and it's evident: Honda dumb-down the Civic.
|
DCR
|
|
|
I don't think BMW said all of their future cars will be 3 cylinders.
|
FiSH-Chan
|
|
Jesse wrote:No, I do understand what you mean and what Ito meant. And no, I don't buy into this whole crisis thing. Honda used the crisis as a scapegoat for their mistakes. Plus I am more inclined to believe that the NSX 2.0 was forced upon Ito - I think if he would have it his way, the second-gen NSX would not be realized.
True, the enthusiast crowd would love Honda to have more than a couple of sport-oriented products. But the reason why the enthusiasts are complaining is because not only Honda axed its sporty products, even the bread-and-butter models are failing (the latest-gen Civic comes to mind again) - are losing the so-called Honda DNA. Why? Money is has become their top priority.
|
You know what, imo I see it a bit differently. Like someone had said, Honda had to go through a lot he past few years and realize things were tougher situation then expected and I agree they overreacted in several areas especially their largest and most important market (US CIvic).
However besides that, now if I recall correctly, how the NSX came about, it was because Honda was doing VERY WELL and they celebrate by building the NSX. Before that Honda did not really have interesting cars in the 80s (except maybe the CRX and maybe Prelude). In my opinion Ito took out the HSV, and looks like the plan was to work on the NSX eventually once everything had settled down, and once they started doing well financially. However, because of all the negative press as a result of their mistake with the Civic (and along with all the recent US market mistakes), it looks like to me the NSX seems forced to be pushed forward previewed by Ito and the US having to push it to be shown maybe a few years earlier JUST to basicaly show that they have not lost their 'DNA'.
I was taught growing up to not 'celebrate' until you have actually deserved it ie not go on holidays or buy uneeded things until debts and everything else taken care and doing well, etc... so that is how I saw the situation. So i my opinion, Honda is still in this crap situation they are in, they did not fully deserve to celebrate with the NSX yet, but they were force to do it. But hopefully this will improved but we really have to see it yet
|
owequitit
|
|
danielgr wrote:
Fan Koni wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
Looking at the path the ED engines are taking, if there is a performance variant I doubt you'll ever see the 8K redline ever again.
|
Why is that? What about the 1.8 & 3.5?
|
And yes, none of them will have sky-high redlines, nor would any of their potential buyers be attracted by such, just as no regular Accord/Civic buyer would like to pay for a full performance DOHC VTEC engine; simply not what they are looking for.
Now, having those SOHC and intake-only K series didn't prevent Honda in the past to make the performance derivatives, so I don't think whatever the ED stuff is can be considered as a serious indication by itself. There have also been rumours on the NSX making about 100Hp/L, which wouldn't be a crazy thing for its supercar credentials and would require a redline pretty close to the 8k ceiling.
Just to make it clear though, I do share CarPhreakD opinion in that the days of the 8K redlines might be close to an end, yet:
1) don't think we have enough info to claim it yet,
2) still hope (as I'm sure he does) it ain't the case.
PS: Just asking, does BMW still make any 8K redlined car? Or have they already switched their whole line-up to forced induction? Toyota doesn't make their high-reving engines either so... is there anyone left in the world?
(I'm asking about recent models, not those that are over 4-5years old and simply have not been replaced yet).
|
BMW has made a concious strategy shift away from high revs. However, that doesn't make it impossible.
For instance. The Ferrari 458 is new. Not only is it naturally aspirated, but it revs to 9K RPM and beats the F20C's specific output. The 599GTB and GTO are also absolute NA screamers, and they all three pass emmissions. Even more telling is the 599's replacement, which is also an 8500-9000 RPM screamer that makes well in excess of 100 hp/liter, but still manages to pass all mandated emissions requirments. And it isn't even on the market yet, so to claim it will be quickly put to pasture is simply blatantly false. Then you have Lamborghini with the Aventador which is also an 8500-9000 RPM screamer with a high specific output and natural aspiration. It also manages to pass all required emissions regulations. Then there are cars like the McLaren, which is boosted, but still revs to the moon. The Mustang Boss 302 is naturally aspirated and has a FIVE LITER V8 that revs to 7500 and is still making power at that point. The lame assertions that NA engines can't be built to be powerful AND clean is pure unquestionably hogwash. It is a falsely constructed fanboy facade constructed in the name of A) justify why cars must suck in the name of "environmental cleanliness" and B) why Honda doesn't suck for sucking. The cold, hard reality is that the laws of physics didn't change with the advent of the Obama Administration or the green movement. Turbo engines still have technical hurdles the same as NA engines, and they are the same as they always have been. The current set of testing rules and political momentum is in favor of smaller displacement boosted engines simply because it LOOKS better on paper.
The reality is that Honda used to be able to take exotic racing technology and offer it in cheap cars because they were so far ahead of the curve, they could whomp the likes of Ferrari in specific output, power delivery, reliability, emissions compliance and fuel efficiency for less than 10% of the cost. Now they just can't seem to pull it together. Instead, I have a craptastic hybrid option with a twist beam rear end and a marvelous 120HP or a Civic with an Accord engine.
And fear not Daniel, your beloved ED engines will suck even more with not a single performance version in sight, all in the name of saving a completely marginal amount of "polluting" CO2. It really is quite sad when Toyota is making better engines than Honda. Kind of renders Honda obsolete to be honest.
The only hope was the ED 1.8L that didn't have a sucky integrated exhaust manifold, but then they neutered that one with intake VTEC only as well, which makes it no better than the K20.
|
RocketRon
|
|
danielgr wrote:
Fan Koni wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
Looking at the path the ED engines are taking, if there is a performance variant I doubt you'll ever see the 8K redline ever again.
|
Why is that? What about the 1.8 & 3.5?
|
And yes, none of them will have sky-high redlines, nor would any of their potential buyers be attracted by such, just as no regular Accord/Civic buyer would like to pay for a full performance DOHC VTEC engine; simply not what they are looking for.
Now, having those SOHC and intake-only K series didn't prevent Honda in the past to make the performance derivatives, so I don't think whatever the ED stuff is can be considered as a serious indication by itself. There have also been rumours on the NSX making about 100Hp/L, which wouldn't be a crazy thing for its supercar credentials and would require a redline pretty close to the 8k ceiling.
Just to make it clear though, I do share CarPhreakD opinion in that the days of the 8K redlines might be close to an end, yet:
1) don't think we have enough info to claim it yet,
2) still hope (as I'm sure he does) it ain't the case.
PS: Just asking, does BMW still make any 8K redlined car? Or have they already switched their whole line-up to forced induction? Toyota doesn't make their high-reving engines either so... is there anyone left in the world?
(I'm asking about recent models, not those that are over 4-5years old and simply have not been replaced yet).
|
Currently, such technology can only be found on exotic cars, Ferrari, Lambo, Toyota LFA, Audi R8, Porsche GT3, K20 Ariel Atom..if this doesn't change, some Honda cars have become instant classics...
Hiro Toyoda, vice-president of Mugen Euro, said, "Environmental pressures mean naturally aspirated engines are rapidly being superseded by other engine architectures and technologies. We may never see the like of the K20 in a mainstream production car again"
But still, I believe in the "power of dreams" :)
|
owequitit
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
notyper wrote:
Just to comment on the whole engines thing, I'd like to point out some examples of pretty stellar engines that the competition is offering. These engines show that you can still offer high revving engines that are full of character and performance, and do so at a price that is still within reach of the average buyer:
1. Ford Coyote V8. A 5 liter engine (625cc/cylinder), the basic version is available for as little as $30k in the Mustang GT. It uses DOHC, VVT on both intake and exhaust, and port injection. It produces 412 (now 420 hp) and revs to 7000 rpm. It is reliable, powerful and a very fun engine to drive. In the spirit of Honda's former Type-R improvements, a version of this engine is offered in the Boss 302 model ($40k) which produces 444 hp and revs to 7500 rpm. Both engines will easily accomodate an additional 500 rpm of revs if so desired, but don't necessarily produce any more power in doing so. This is a really good engine, and revs like no sub-$50k large displacement V8 has any right to.
2. Nissan VQ37VHR. 3.7 liters (616cc/cyl). This is Nissan's current high end workhorse V6. Found in the Nissan 370Z ($31k starting), the Infiniti G37 and M37, and I think one other model. Basic versions are rated at 328-332 hp and rev limit at 7600 rpm. The Nismo version (which may just be an ECU flash) is rated at 350 hp and rev limits at 7700 rpm (these are actual values in the ECU - redline is set at 7500 on the tach, both engines will rev safely to 8000 rpm). It uses DOHC with VVEL, which is infinitely variable lift, duration and phasing, along with port injection and a dual throttle body, split intake manifold. Probably the last of the VQs, it is reliable, revs quite easily, produces a lot of power, and has finally gotten the fuel efficiency of the VQ lineup into line with the competition. It's still a bit vibratory, but that's been a VQ issue for years. It's probably better suited to the Z than the Infiniti lineup, but it's a strong, fun engine.
Aside from these two examples (which I chose because they are pretty affordable), the new Subaru/Toyota 2.0 flat four looks pretty good. Rev limit is set at 7500 rpm, produces 100 hp/liter, and has a nice flat torque curve (except for a hole at 3500-4500 rpm). Certainly not a K20 (it seems a bit torquier down low, but the K20, even rated the same, pulls away up top), but hey, this is a brand new engine designed to rev relatively high. The current 4cyl in the Miata is also decent. Only 170 hp (same hp/L as the 2012 Civic Si K24 - 589cc/cyl), but a 7500 rpm rev limiter as well.
The point being that is Ford, Nissan, Subaru, Toyota and Mazda can all offer these 7500+ rpm engines that meet emissions specs, then certainly, if they wanted to, the engine masters at Honda could still be giving us high revving engines that produce stellar power, low emissions and fuel economy. I'm not ready to say that when it comes to NA engine expertise that the engineers at Ford and Nissan have surpassed the Honda guys. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to believe that choice, not inability, is the reason for Honda's disappointing engine direction. I've grown to appreciate the VQ37VHR in my G37 - it's a good solid engine that has been bulletproof for me, but I'd much rather have a smoother, more fuel efficient, more powerful (and even higher revving) version from Honda.
I think this last statement reflects the disappoinment best. So many of us have bought cars from other companies here, yet we'd much rather be able to buy a similar car from Honda that is competitive feature/spec wise, yet offers Honda-ness. They just won't make one for us.
SC
|
I also thought it might be noteworthy to mention that in the case of the VQ, Nissan is dealing with engine architecture that is based on a design that debuted in the mid-90's. While I understand that they have likely replaced or redesigned every part of the engine, it still goes to show that if Nissan can take an engine that old and make it compliant, surely Honda could do it with an engine that is smaller, and more efficient to begin with. They just weren't willing to try, which is the unfortunate feeling I am getting from all of their latest products in most areas outside of the powertrain as well.
|
I have the impression this is the path that Honda is going with their new ED 3.5L. I haven't really heard much about that engine.
|
As far as I can tell, it is a J series with DI and the new VCM system.
To be honest, I am happy if the new VCM system works as advertised, but other than that, I don't think it will move the bar much. To be fair, the J series in non-VCM versions is a fantastic engine, so if they can keep that ability AND incorporate VCM, then it is will still be fantastic. The output of 310-315HP seems pretty lackluster given the displacement versus some of the competitors' current V6 offerings. Of course, the flat torque curve will likely help make up for it, and perhaps Honda is sandbagging the output. Still, it is disappointing for them to not have incorporated a lot of the other beneficial technology that would have upped power and made it even more superbly flexible.
|
danielgr
|
|
owequitit wrote:
danielgr wrote:
Fan Koni wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:Looking at the path the ED engines are taking, if there is a performance variant I doubt you'll ever see the 8K redline ever again.
|
|
And yes, none of them will have sky-high redlines, nor would any of their potential buyers be attracted by such, just as no regular Accord/Civic buyer would like to pay for a full performance DOHC VTEC engine; simply not what they are looking for.
Now, having those SOHC and intake-only K series didn't prevent Honda in the past to make the performance derivatives, so I don't think whatever the ED stuff is can be considered as a serious indication by itself. There have also been rumours on the NSX making about 100Hp/L, which wouldn't be a crazy thing for its supercar credentials and would require a redline pretty close to the 8k ceiling.
Just to make it clear though, I do share CarPhreakD opinion in that the days of the 8K redlines might be close to an end, yet:
1) don't think we have enough info to claim it yet,
2) still hope (as I'm sure he does) it ain't the case.
PS: Just asking, does BMW still make any 8K redlined car? Or have they already switched their whole line-up to forced induction? Toyota doesn't make their high-reving engines either so... is there anyone left in the world?
(I'm asking about recent models, not those that are over 4-5years old and simply have not been replaced yet).
|
For instance. The Ferrari 458 is new. Not only is it naturally aspirated, but it revs to 9K RPM and beats the F20C's specific output.
[...]
Then you have Lamborghini with the Aventador
[...]
Then there are cars like the McLaren, [...]
It is a falsely constructed fanboy facade constructed in the name of A) justify why cars must suck in the name of "environmental cleanliness" and B) why Honda doesn't suck for sucking.
[...]The reality is that Honda used to be able to take exotic racing technology and offer it in cheap cars because they were so far ahead of the curve, they could whomp the likes of Ferrari in specific output, power delivery, reliability, emissions compliance and fuel efficiency for less than 10% of the cost.
[...]
And fear not Daniel, your beloved ED engines will suck even more with not a single performance version in sight, all in the name of saving a completely marginal amount of "polluting" CO2. It really is quite sad when Toyota is making better engines than Honda. Kind of renders Honda obsolete to be honest.
[...] |
FWIW:
- Never said anything of what was or wasn't possible, if anything I've said many times that it is only natural for companies to focus in the market priorities, and that companies failing to either adapt or understand their market tend to dissapear. For Ito he made it clear when it looked at the LFA in Tokyo: "That is a dinausaur representing the past, Honda is looking into the future" (my wording). And sure, that doesn't have anything to do with what's possible and what's not, but simply with understanding both your business and your strong points.
- My question about BMW was an honest one, I do not follow closely what comes from Bavaria so I was asking.
- I couldn't give less of a shit about what Ferrari, McLaren or Lamborghini do or don't; Feel free to buy any of those cars if you like them, but don't need to bitch around for any mainstream company not being like them. That said, if you fail to understand the fundamental changes that Ferrari business has undergone since the last time Honda made a car that could challenge a Ferrari (1990) you are certainly missing the big picture... There are few things that can't be achieved with a high-enough price tag; said it like a thousand of times, engineering is not about making the most fancy stuff, but making it at a given price, and Honda has always been one of the greatest engineering companies around. P54 post was a good showcase of that prowess, be it or not of your likes.
- I have no memory of having expressed any strong feelings, nor love, for any ED engine (I'd wait to drive them at the very least before saying that much...). That doesn't mean though I don't applaud Honda for yet again trying something new in the powertrain arena, something unique and Honda-eclusive, as usual.
- I have no memory of having ever lauded any turbo engine, nor asked for Honda to make one of those.
- I have no memory of having ever cared about figures set in a paper, cars specs whatsoever.
- I do not know many Toyota drivetrains I would rather have over similar Honda ones. That ain't saying Toyota doesn't make some of the best engines in the world, and has some of the best automobile tech in the world. I just tend to prefer Hondas for a miriad of reasons that have no place in TOV, so keep them for myself. I sure wouldn't be losing my time in a place for Honda enthusiasts if I preferred Toyota engines, but hey, that's just me.
And now you can keep having nightmares with what you believe I think without me even needing to say anything. As I said other times, to me it's pretty easy to shut up, since I know that whether you guys like it or not the world is not turning back, and it'll keep moving towards something I like more and you dislike more...
PS1: In some ways you guys remind me the film photography lovers in the advent of digital cameras. Needless to say Kodak went bankrupt, Fuji had a pretty hard time moving forward, Minolta was sold to Sony (an electronics giant), etc. On the other obvious side you have the big winners like Canon or Nikkon, and the newcomers like Panasonic or Sony. And yet there are still many purist around that enjoy their film cameras more than they'll ever do with a digital one. And I will never say film cameras should dissapear, nor that I dislike them, but I simply recognize that once the world decides to move-on it does.
PS2: Reminds me also of that Japanese company that has kept focusing in "zoom-zoom" while ignoring development of green tech: Mazda. They were already bought by a foreign corporation that stole all the IP and manufacturing tech they could once, now are risking bankrupcy again... Yet a similarly modest one (OK, a bit bigger, but still one of the smallest in the planet) that made the right choices, has been able to survive anything nature and market has brought, and keeps having a firm look into the future of automobiles while making money, keeping its shares up, its employees at work, and my cars well serviced.
|
sadlerau
|
|
danielgr wrote:
PS1: In some ways you guys remind me the film photography lovers in the advent of digital cameras. Needless to say Kodak went bankrupt, Fuji had a pretty hard time moving forward, Minolta was sold to Sony (an electronics giant), etc. On the other obvious side you have the big winners like Canon or Nikkon, and the newcomers like Panasonic or Sony. And yet there are still many purist around that enjoy their film cameras more than they'll ever do with a digital one. And I will never say film cameras should dissapear, nor that I dislike them, but I simply recognize that once the world decides to move-on it does.
PS2: Reminds me also of that Japanese company that has kept focusing in "zoom-zoom" while ignoring development of green tech: Mazda. They were already bought by a foreign corporation that stole all the IP and manufacturing tech they could once, now are risking bankrupcy again... Yet a similarly modest one (OK, a bit bigger, but still one of the smallest in the planet) that made the right choices, has been able to survive anything nature and market has brought, and keeps having a firm look into the future of automobiles while making money, keeping its shares up, its employees at work, and my cars well serviced.
|
As always Daniel you make some very good points, unfortunately they are not always points that we [the performance enthusiasts] want to hear :(
|
nash24
|
|
what toyota engines are better? the prius, hardly a performance engine or maybe yamaha tuned ones? and you know theres new stuff coming
Once again comparing Honda to companies who only deal in high performance cars, ever seen a ferrari reach 250,000kms and 20 years old? and i wonder how the roof liner would be after that, compare apples with apples.
Lexus made there ferrari rival, how many did they sell? not as many as they wanted and how much did they lose?
Honda had the same thing with NSX version 1 if it had a ferrari badge it would have sold heaps more.
also how do you know the ED v6 will just be a j series with DI and VCM, honda is a secret company much like apple, they hide tech in different cars to keep everyone guessing, thats probably partly the reason people get pissed off on this board because they dont know whats going on and make stuff up or guess and people take the lead...
|
Fan Koni
|
|
BMWs engines are all FI now, redline is normally 7K.
I think the 8cyl TT in the M versions have been changed to about 7200 rpm - which was a disappointment. As it was marketed as going to be higher again prior to launch.
Even AMG is going to go the "downsizing" route.
Back to my question, as I understand still not much is known about the new 1.8 or 3.5? Nor does it seam that FI is totally ruled out by Honda?
|
Nick GravesX
|
|
It's most certainly not. There is still rumour that the Civic Type-R (five-door) will be FI.
Frankly, I think they've no other choice.
As long as it's a DECENT product that GENUINELY adds pizzazz to Bagpuss, it'll be fine...
|
Grace141
|
|
owequitit wrote:
For instance. The Ferrari 458 is new. Not only is it naturally aspirated, but it revs to 9K RPM and beats the F20C's specific output. The 599GTB and GTO are also absolute NA screamers, and they all three pass emmissions.
|
No, they don't pass emissions regs when the playing field is leveled. The only reason they can be sold in the US is because of their very limited quantities. Plus you pay a huge gas guzzler tax on these cars. CARB and our Federal government set the rules so...that's about all I should say there.
It will be interesting to see if Honda can cook up the new NSX to reasonable supercar performance levels while hitting their emissions targets. It's engineering that most here don't appreciate but it's engineering none the less.
|
JeffX
|
|
nash24 wrote:
...
also how do you know the ED v6 will just be a j series with DI and VCM, honda is a secret company much like apple, they hide tech in different cars to keep everyone guessing, thats probably partly the reason people get pissed off on this board because they dont know whats going on and make stuff up or guess and people take the lead...
|
I think you were questioning owequitit re: the ED V6. I was told that it will indeed use the the same basic design as the J-series block. DI + new VCM system is the differentiator. I'm praying that they have worked up a special DOHC head for the NSX version so they can potentially get some more power from it. Or maybe they're cooking up an all new V6 block design... who knows?
|
superchg2
|
|
Grace141 wrote:
owequitit wrote:
For instance. The Ferrari 458 is new. Not only is it naturally aspirated, but it revs to 9K RPM and beats the F20C's specific output. The 599GTB and GTO are also absolute NA screamers, and they all three pass emmissions.
|
No, they don't pass emissions regs when the playing field is leveled. The only reason they can be sold in the US is because of their very limited quantities. Plus you pay a huge gas guzzler tax on these cars. CARB and our Federal government set the rules so...that's about all I should say there.
It will be interesting to see if Honda can cook up the new NSX to reasonable supercar performance levels while hitting their emissions targets. It's engineering that most here don't appreciate but it's engineering none the less.
|
As far as the 458 goes, I believe it does indeed meet emissions regs.
Maranello, July 28th 2009 –
This new Ferrari is also a major leap forward when it comes to cutting emissions. Despite the fact that the new engine is significantly more powerful than the V8s that preceded it, the Ferrari 458 Italia produces just 320 g/km of CO2 and fuel consumption is 13.7 l/100 km (combined cycle), the best in the entire segment.
|
superchg2
|
|
Grace141 wrote:
owequitit wrote:
For instance. The Ferrari 458 is new. Not only is it naturally aspirated, but it revs to 9K RPM and beats the F20C's specific output. The 599GTB and GTO are also absolute NA screamers, and they all three pass emmissions.
|
No, they don't pass emissions regs when the playing field is leveled. The only reason they can be sold in the US is because of their very limited quantities. Plus you pay a huge gas guzzler tax on these cars. CARB and our Federal government set the rules so...that's about all I should say there.
It will be interesting to see if Honda can cook up the new NSX to reasonable supercar performance levels while hitting their emissions targets. It's engineering that most here don't appreciate but it's engineering none the less.
|
As far as the 458 goes, I believe it does indeed meet emissions regs.
"Maranello, July 28th 2009 –
This new Ferrari is also a major leap forward when it comes to cutting emissions. Despite the fact that the new engine is significantly more powerful than the V8s that preceded it, the Ferrari 458 Italia produces just 320 g/km of CO2 and fuel consumption is 13.7 l/100 km (combined cycle), the best in the entire segment."
From Ferrari's website, about the 458
"One of the main objectives with the exhaust was to reduce weight. The catalytic converter is attached to the central section of the exhaust by a flexible element to reduce the amount of vibration transmitted and to thus allow thinner metal to be used. Similarly the pre-catalytic converter has been eliminated, lowering overall weight and reducing back pressure whilst still respecting strict Euro 5 and LEV2 emissions."
|
HondaFan1990
|
|
Hondarulez wrote:
330R wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
Well, I guess P54 is very passionate of Honda. Some of his posts are a bit biased but he also admitted that Honda is not perfect.
He is not saying things such as:
The CR-Z a rocket;
The Civic has the best interior quality in class;
RWD is for losers;
No one needs 8000rpm redline
All he's saying is currently Honda doesn't offer many products that car enthusiasts want. He also wants to see more sporty cars and new technologies from Honda.
It's just that in this forum, a lot of people seem to only focus on the negative things. P54 is simply trying to point out the positive things that Honda does. He's not exactly hiding the negatives.
The point is, some Honda enthusiasts like to focus more on the positive facts (like P54 and me). We try to understand why Honda is making decisions that are not good to car enthusiasts. On the other hand, there's another group of people who focus mainly on the negative things, and that inevitably makes things sound even worse. Just different POV.
|
If 330R is biased toward vehicle dynamic performance, emotive driving enjoyment, and Honda showing they're really trying, I have to say P54 is biased toward Honda financial performance, green technologies, press releases/spin, and downplaying the loss in spirit/prowess.
He didn't try to say the Civic has the best interior quality in class, but he sure posted across 4-5 subforums that the Civic interior is the least toxic. That's an achievement, but not everyone wants it shoved down their throat, and it comes at the expense of quality look and feel. It remains to be seen how well it holds up.
His defense that Honda doesn't have an engine with an 8000rpm redline is, well by golly, the competition doesn't, either. In essence, he is saying no one needs it. If no one offers it right now, then it can't be that important. It's the way I feel about most car salesmen, the way P54 comes across: if it's not for sale anymore, it's not important. If it is for sale, talk it up. If it's coming in the future, talk it up some more.
Read his opening comments...
P54 laments that people won't stop talking about the older Hondas. If you notice, he tries to sell the new cars by saying he thinks people would prefer them to the old, if driven back to back. This is in spite of the fact most of us have driven both the old and the new, and we still love the old, as well as perhaps the new or the recent. He says, well Honda is changing with the times, but so is the competition, and the things people used to care for (or the selling points, he calls them) aren't so important anymore. Notice, more casting away the old, trying to convince us the new is right, and get with the times. He then attempts to rip from the headlines, apologize for Honda's lack of technical advancements, or, for example, removing technology from the K24 engine:
| young and older buyers are more interested in "cool" stuff & features than technological "wizardry" |
That comes right out of the discussions about Acura's clinics and research into the ILX; the youth don't care about engineering advancements; they care about connectivity.
I start to agree with P54 in a way, when he says not all recent products have been a home run (who could deny that?) and that essentially without failure, Honda cannot find its footing and reach for the next achievement. Also that in trying to regain their footing, they have overreached (see decontenting Civic, unceremoniously shoving their mojo into the Supplies closet).
But yes, I think he does try to hide the negatives. He relegates any criticism of Honda to "griping" and in doing so attempts to forgive the fact there are too few examples of 6AT-equipped models, absolutely no 8000rpm thrill rides, missing 6MTs with each passing year (to streamline manufacturing/assembly), and, here's the doozies, "just because" some models lack the right plastics... I guess that's one way of saying 'outright sucks'... or [because some models lack] design does not make Honda a sudden looser [sic]. That's P54 sneaking in some pretty important things to people. We sit inside our cars to drive them. And who wants to spend twenty five thousand dollars on a dog's dinner? Design is actually important. I don't think TOV expects Pininfarina design, but not reminding people of a Dodge Neon or Toyota Corolla, or in the case of the 2013 Accord Coupe Concept, a 2008 Accord Coupe, would help.
Yes, I'm so negative. Hondarulez, man, I was at the point you're at, I dunno, 3 or 4 years ago, something like that. The, 'why is Honda doing this' and trying to reason it out with an optimistic approach. Maybe it's just because of how long I've been following them (which is no time at all compared to a lot of folks), and the timing of that period, if that makes sense. Around to be aware of and partake in the glory years, to learn of the even glorier years before that, and to witness the failings of the late oughts. I don't want to focus on the negative. So where is the positive - for enthusiasts? It's NOT electric cars.
|
In a sense, P54 and myself (as well as some others) are a different kind of Honda enthusiasts than you and some others. I guess you guys are more "strict" than us! The reasons that we come up with, are simply excuses to you guys. For us, the negatives have already been pointed out, there's no real need to keep on beating a dead horse. On the other hand, you guys already know what Honda is good at and is doing right (or at least I hope you guys know), so you guys would prefer criticizing the shortcomings. At the end of the day though, we all want Honda to produce fun-to-drive cars with the Honda spirit.
|
This paragraph, and especially the last sentence, is what it's all about. There is a divide between the enthusiasts on here, but at the end of the day, regardless of how we all get there, we all want the same thing from Honda. We want them to do well, be the best and have something sporty for us also. We shouldn't be attacking from either side....
|
revvin
|
|
We're all Honda fans, so we're all aware of the good things added to new Hondas.
IMO, the criticism is constructive, it's about ways to improve and correcting identifiable, perceived missteps voiced by us, the eventual consumer of these cars.
What's wrong with improving them by voicing our concerns?
Bottomline, you need both push and pull.
|
TonyEX
|
|
FiSH-Chan wrote:
... Before that Honda did not really have interesting cars in the 80s (except maybe the CRX and maybe Prelude). ...
|
Oh man! The 80s? Honda? Nothing interesting?
Dude, in the 80s, Honda was more interesting than Madonna, Prince, Cindy Lauper and Jocko in an orgy video by the Dark Brothers..
The 83 Prelude came up with pop up headlights and a 12 valve head.
The 84 Civic was revolutionary, it also introduced the CRX.
The 85 Civic introduced the Si and CRX Si.
The 81 (82?) Accord 4 door sedan was a homerun.
The 85 Accord came out with pop up headlights.
The 85 Accord introduced the LX-i.
In 86 we had the Legend and Integra. First V6 and a very tasty 1.6L DOHC engine.
The 87 Prelude... hmm.. Road & Track published a test summary that showed the 1988 Honda Prelude 2.0Si 4WS outperforming every car of that year on the Slalom, including all Lamborghinis, Ferraris, and Porsches.
In 89 we got VTEC.
In 89 we got the new Civic and CRX... Si's....SOHC VTEC in the US.
|
sadlerau
|
|
|
Dear Tony, forgive the young ones, for they know not what they speak of :)
|
P54
|
|
DCR wrote:
I don't think BMW said all of their future cars will be 3 cylinders.
|
This is what BMW said:
Peter Nefischer, head of engine development for BMW, has said the automaker is currently working on developing three-cylinder engines to be used across the company's vehicle line. The powerplants would likely be different than the one found in the BMW i8 and wouldn't be partnered with an electric motor. Instead, engineers would turn to forced induction to maintain acceptable power levels. Nefischer said engineers have gone as far as possible with current engine technology, and the next step is smaller, more powerful variants.
So, when can we expect to see a three-cylinder 3 Series hit the streets? According to the report, the vehicle could be here in two years. BMW has already demonstrated the sort of gains that can be made by dropping cylinder count. Just look at the F30 328i with the vehicle's impressive power and fuel economy as an example. Will BMW bring 3 Series to the table with half the cylinders of the tried-and-true I6? Stranger things have happened.
Do you get what he is saying? BMW has gone as far as possible with current engine technology. Next step is downsizing to 3 cylinder engines. Ask yourself, why? Do you think it has anything to do with FE, CO2 levels, emission standards and the like, or just because BMW choose to for no other reason than cost cutting etc, or customers got tired of 6 & 8 cylinders?
Has Honda gone as far as they can go? Has Honda announced 3 cylinder engines to meet future standards? Did not Honda just up the ante with the RDX, from I4 to V6. Did they not announce new engines for next 3 years and none were 3 cylinders? Can Honda still offer V6 and I4 and still have more technology to offer to keep them running into the future?
I wonder how the reaction had been here if Honda had announced 3 cyl. engines across the line, starting with the TSX in 2 years. Would that create a rush of sales next 2 years?
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 [3] 4 5 |
| |
|
![[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}
