Sorry, owe I took your thread title literatly.
I thought you're telling Honda to literaly walk up to Porsch to tell them they can't do what they do. you know it happens.
Ithought you wanted Honda to use a V8 from HSV010, 9,***rpm engine for their next NSX, of course retuned for street legal, for $800k.
I've been telling you from the day one to move on if you don't find anything you like from Honda. You only can buy what out there.
(Please don't ever make fun of Honda's F1 efforts. They are the only company to rotate their company engineers to exposed to F1, actual work. They still held on to Soichiro & Fujisawa's legacy. Motorsports is literaly not just racing on weekends for them. If you do your absolute best it does but it doesn't matter if you win or not. Remember the video?)
owequitit wrote: Grace, you have to hand pick facts about emissions and CAFE in order to build your argument.
Perhaps you guys don't understand because you don't spend the time looking at the stuff some of the enthusiasts do, I don't know.
There you go again with the definition of enthusiast as if you are an enthusiast and I am not. Look, I appreciate your thorough explanations of your opinions and the facts you base them on. Everyone here appears to as well. We can all agree that no Honda engine from the past ten to fifteen years has been terribly dirty nor an inefficient powerplant for the applications they were intended and that includes the Si engine. It was a remarkable design for its time. No one here is using regulations or state mandates to explain away the actions of a car company. It's the entire mix of market forces which is to blame for what we see from Honda.
I'll be honest here and say my opinion of the K20 being dropped from the Si in favor of the K24 is evolving due to the announcement of the Earth Dreams technology. No one here has claimed to work for Honda and factually stated the reason for the change in drivetrain so we're all making what we believe to be logical assumptions. I believe even more that Honda intended the '12 Civics to all meet the ULEV standard and realized the CAFE numbers they had to meet so when they designed the original 9th Gen car as a bigger car they decided the K24 was appropriate. When they rebooted the 9th gen as a warmed-over 8th gen they were too far down the road on the supply side to go back to the K20. Knowing the ED tech would soon be adopted they chose the TSX motor for a stopgap solution. It makes perfect sense from the business side.
Yes, all manufacturers have the same CAFE regs facing them but the resultant MPG numbers calculated by those regs differ. All manufacturers must meet the same CARB mandates if they want to sell cars in California and a few other states but how the mix of products sold by each manufacturer is determined differs. All manufacturers source portions or all of their products from countries offering lower costs of manufacturing but some have made stronger commitments to building in the US the products they sell in the US. All manufacturers have made commitments to environmental concerns but we know the results differ sharply. And, trust me on this, all manufacturers are capable of building engines many folks here would describe as high revving and would probably do so if it were a sensible approach for their product mix. In terms of what my guesses are for Honda meeting the CAFE regs, I would guess Honda doesn't plan on buying credits from other manufacturers and I would guess Honda isn't banking current credits for future years.
It's when you combine all of the above factors just as the folks who run Honda or any company must do everyday that some of this makes sense. Honda introduced the Insight to the US and its sales are a major disappointment. Honda introduced the CRZ to the US and its sales are miniscule. And sales of the V6 Accords are very strong in the US. What you get with Honda is a mix of products being sold which puts them at a disadvantage in meeting the CAFE regs for 2010, 2011, 2012, and onward - as we know, the 2016 CAFE regs ramp up each year. My point all along was the K24 Si returned a few extra MPG in the EPA tests while attaining the ULEV rating Honda seems to want. There is no proof from anyone here that the K20 could return more MPG while being made cleaner just as there is no proof that Honda didn't try to make the K20 cleaner and more efficient. My guess would be Honda or any manufacturer could make any engine meet a specific target provided all criteria are available for adjustments.
Finally, no one here has stated they know what the manufacturing costs are for any of the products Honda or any company sells. Operating an individual production line for a component comes down to more than fixed costs for the parts themselves just as the folks working in the plants know the difficulty in adjusting output to meet a specific demand. We can all agree that using the K24 in the Si is probably cheaper but we will disagree that Honda wasn't prepared to add $500 to the sticker on the Si to keep the K20 available or that the work could be justified anyway now that we know the K20 would be replaced by ED tech.
One question that always bothers me about the desires for high revving engines. Why limit yourselves to 8k RPM and not something higher? Honda has built powerplants in the past with redlines up to 18k RPM with a reliable production drivetrain up to 9k. Why not ask Honda for an Si having a 10k redline or 11k?
You are blowing MY intent with the word "enthusiast" way out of proportion. Don't forget that I was the one who stood up for the Mugen Si because JDM enthusiasts couldn't recreate it for less money. To which I was flamed to no end. However, I am over it. You can get pissed off about it all you want. I really could care less. I am supposed to be sensitive to people not liking my label of "enthusiast," but I should also have no problem with people calling me "boy racer" and "ricer" all day long because I don't like an Accord engine as Honda's only enthusiast offering. Tough shit. I made the enthusiast comment in relation to your posting history, where you normally don't get revved up about anything Honda does sporty road car wise, and your apparent lack of experience tuning, racing, etc. You can like Honda cars just fine, and you may even enjoy the way they drive, and you might even like some of the "sporty" ones. But your typical history here is not on the same level as the guys like Shawn who literally make a living off of these cars in an aftermarket capacity. It isn't like me who seeks to learn why a K20 was able to do certain things, but XX engine was not, what VTEC does, what VE is, or TE is, etc. Enthusiast you may be, but there are many levels and forms of enthusiast. I am speaking more of the people who understand why the K20 is what it is, and how the K24 lacks in comparison.
It doesn't make perfect sense from the business side. That is like saying the Insight made perfect sense from the business side. Or the ZDX, or the Crosstour, or the CR-Z. They didn't put them into production because they thought they were stupid... You keep driveling the same mantras over and over, so I am going to simplify it for you:
Ford sells more trucks, and more large cars with worse MPG than Honda. They have fewer ULEV models, fewer MPG leaders, and more total volume than Honda. Your theory on CAFE and MPG is still bunk because Ford is further than Honda from meeting the target, and yet, the Mustang is a high-revving NA engine. The Boss 302 is even more high revving, and even more along the lines of what I am speaking of.
VW is in the same position relative to Honda as Ford. So is Subaru...
Your last question is a Red Herring designed as a question. We aren't clamoring for 18.5K redlines because with the reciprocating masses, piston speeds and drivability characteristics of an F1 engine, it wouldn't make for an enjoyable DD. Just because 18.5K is unrealistic in a DD car, doesn't mean that 8K is.
10K is most likely unreasonable, while there is a huge wealth of proof and experience to show that 8K (or even 8.5-9K) is not. Furthermore, with Honda's PROVEN technology, much beyond 10K would probably start to have larger compromises for drivability and flexibility compared to their 8-9K counterparts, assuming there weren't any structural considerations.
You can cling to the argument that "we have no way of knowing" what the K20 would have been done, and then you can continue to portray it as wishful guess work. But, again, we know what effect EGR has on engines. It is well proven and documented in SAE papers. We also know what effects VTC on the exhaust side has; and is also well proven in SAE papers. We know what dual catalysts would do, we know what DI does, and we know what higher compression ratios and different internals do. Those are also unquestionably documented and proven. So while we can't say that a K20 with the above technolgies would provide XXX.XX HP and XXX.XX torque and XX lbs/mile CO2, we can draw a very strong estimation based on known data. Since Honda's laws of physics are the same as everyone else's, it is simply a fallacy to claim otherwise. IIRC, the K20 needed about a 5-10% reduction in CO2 to match the K24Z7. We know that DI, VTC, and EGR alone would have bridged that gap. They probably could have done it without DI.
I also reject your premise that ED is some solution to the enthusiast problem, because based on the data Jeff provided, there is NOTHING that is slated to replace ANY of Honda's enthusiast focused engines. The only hope is the DOHC 1.8L that doesn't have a cast in exhaust manifold, but according to the press material, it is intake VTEC only, which mostly precludes the type of deep, top end breathing such an engine would require. If ED does for Honda's CAFE score what you claim it should, then an enthusiast focused engine would be but a blip on Honda's CAFE radar. Sorry, but based on their recent constant cheapening of interior, features, build quality, model proliferation and everything else, I still believe cost reduction is the only excuse that holds any water at all.
P.S. To blame the Insight and CR-Z for the lack of a proper sporty Honda is just more non-sense. Perhaps if Honda could actually conduct adequate model planning in this day and age, they wouldn't have 8 models that don't sell (which are now number greater than the models that do).
Maybe if they built more of what people want instead of more of what makes "business sense" they would sell more cars. Honda used to PUMP out cars that people wanted. THAT made business sense because they actually sold them. Honda also used to clear every liberal emissions hurdle with ease while still being able to keep enthusiasts enthused.
Wow. Neither of us knows the other which means our opinions can both be considered bunk. Let's set a baseline here by my being okay with baseless assumptions of my enthusiasm for automobiles. And that it is a fact that I can make rational assessments of business decisions made by a car company and that they can be separate from my personal opinions of what Honda should build. I would only suggest that the attacks made on TOV be dialed back a bit because there are other sites more in tune with the K20 enthusiast. The last I checked the masthead states TOV is for Honda and Acura enthusiasts.
For anyone who might be interested, if the Insight had been a sales hit and if more people had embraced the CRZ (I bet most of us who have driven a manual shift CRZ would agree it's a great little Honda car) there would have been more options for Honda to sell a true low-priced sports car in the US.
BachelorFrog wrote: Seriously, what wrong with ED name? Correct me Im wrong, but int the name is inspired by this?
That was the worst F1 car Honda ever campaigned? What is that supposed to inspire? Failure?
Daring to fail is part of Honda's legacy, or DNA. That is what made them successful. They dare to try new stuff, challenge the establishment for the sake of learning how things work. And like CRV-9 said, they rotate their engineers so new engineers can learn by hands down experience. Failure in peoples eyes by looking at results only might hide the fact that Honda learnt new stuff that can be used in production. When Honda pulled F1 the car they developed won the following year, not because of engine choice because if that was so then other teams with Mercedes could have won. Honda focused heavily on aerodynamics and car itself. They developed a winning formula. Look to HondaJet, world leading in every aspect of it, don't you think in 25 years of developing it they went through many failures first in order to achieve the end result? And this with a company with no former experience in aircraft manufacturing. Don't you think things they learned there can come to use in building cars, light weight and aerodynamics, just like Asimo is influencing the car business.
owequitit wrote: So Porsche can manage to put a 9200RPM 562HP V8 in this car, and still get it to meet emissions requirements (in a hybrid no less)
You understand, right, that this thing likely passes emissions simply because it's a hybrid?
If Honda did the same thing, everyone on this forum would be up in arms about the batteries, multiple electric motors, "automatic"-only transmission, electronic nannies, et al.
Your headline is dead on. Honda better tell Porsche that sports cars aren't allowed to be hybrids! TOV says so. (Until there is a singular stat that can be disseminated from the bigger picture in order to push an agenda.)
1) How do you know it doesn't pass emissions without the hyrbid?
The F12, Aventador, 458, 911 GT3 certainly do, and not a single one of them is hybrid.
2) The only reason nobody is bitching about the R18 being a hybrid is because it makes nearly 800HP. We aren't stuck at a power level that Corvette was doing over 5 years ago, or just barely more than a stock Mustang GT or Boss 302 (at <$40K). Porsche is releasing a hybrid that is holy shit fast, i.e. it doesn't abandon its sports car credentials in the name of green technology, it EMBRACES them. We are talking a car that just might give a Veyron a pretty fair run for the money, and even when the battery runs out, you still have a 600HP sports car.
Let's be realistic in admitting that the R18 isn't even the same universe as the next NSX because even with gas only operation, it will STILL have something around 100-150HP more than the NSX. At $700K should it be in the same universe, probably not. But at least Porsche has the balls to be serious about it. If rumors floating around about the NSX are to be believed, then the NSX 2.0 will have about 100HP less than most real sports cars at a fraction of the price. So for Honda's sake, I sure hope they take whatever V6 they are installing and boost the shit out of it for the production version, because they clearly don't have the moxy to put the NA technology into it, and even if they did, at 3.5L it would be nowhere near where it SHOULD be.
Your argument seems to be about numbers, numbers, numbers. Frankly I didn't know Honda fans were all about the numbers, horsepower especially. I always thought there was something about a Honda that just made it more special than numbers would suggest. But here you're all about max horsepower and don't mind the hybrid batteries, bragging "and even when the battery runs out, you still have a 600HP sports car." It sounds to me like you'd be more of a GT-R fan. Ask notyper how fine he would be with 600hp and the dead weight of all those batteries. Everything is a compromise.
Speaking of numbers, you seem to be having a hard time with them. It's called the 918, not R18. The price was announced to start at $845k, not $700k. The horsepower from the engine is 562, not 600, for a total output of 759, not 800.
owequitit wrote: So Porsche can manage to put a 9200RPM 562HP V8 in this car, and still get it to meet emissions requirements (in a hybrid no less)
You understand, right, that this thing likely passes emissions simply because it's a hybrid?
If Honda did the same thing, everyone on this forum would be up in arms about the batteries, multiple electric motors, "automatic"-only transmission, electronic nannies, et al.
Your headline is dead on. Honda better tell Porsche that sports cars aren't allowed to be hybrids! TOV says so. (Until there is a singular stat that can be disseminated from the bigger picture in order to push an agenda.)
1) How do you know it doesn't pass emissions without the hyrbid?
The F12, Aventador, 458, 911 GT3 certainly do, and not a single one of them is hybrid.
2) The only reason nobody is bitching about the R18 being a hybrid is because it makes nearly 800HP. We aren't stuck at a power level that Corvette was doing over 5 years ago, or just barely more than a stock Mustang GT or Boss 302 (at <$40K). Porsche is releasing a hybrid that is holy shit fast, i.e. it doesn't abandon its sports car credentials in the name of green technology, it EMBRACES them. We are talking a car that just might give a Veyron a pretty fair run for the money, and even when the battery runs out, you still have a 600HP sports car.
Let's be realistic in admitting that the R18 isn't even the same universe as the next NSX because even with gas only operation, it will STILL have something around 100-150HP more than the NSX. At $700K should it be in the same universe, probably not. But at least Porsche has the balls to be serious about it. If rumors floating around about the NSX are to be believed, then the NSX 2.0 will have about 100HP less than most real sports cars at a fraction of the price. So for Honda's sake, I sure hope they take whatever V6 they are installing and boost the shit out of it for the production version, because they clearly don't have the moxy to put the NA technology into it, and even if they did, at 3.5L it would be nowhere near where it SHOULD be.
Your argument seems to be about numbers, numbers, numbers. Frankly I didn't know Honda fans were all about the numbers, horsepower especially. I always thought there was something about a Honda that just made it more special than numbers would suggest. But here you're all about max horsepower and don't mind the hybrid batteries, bragging "and even when the battery runs out, you still have a 600HP sports car." It sounds to me like you'd be more of a GT-R fan. Ask notyper how fine he would be with 600hp and the dead weight of all those batteries. Everything is a compromise.
Speaking of numbers, you seem to be having a hard time with them. It's called the 918, not R18. The price was announced to start at $845k, not $700k. The horsepower from the engine is 562, not 600, for a total output of 759, not 800.
And speaking about numbers, how many do they plan to sell? 500? 1000?
owequitit wrote: So Porsche can manage to put a 9200RPM 562HP V8 in this car, and still get it to meet emissions requirements (in a hybrid no less)
You understand, right, that this thing likely passes emissions simply because it's a hybrid?
If Honda did the same thing, everyone on this forum would be up in arms about the batteries, multiple electric motors, "automatic"-only transmission, electronic nannies, et al.
Your headline is dead on. Honda better tell Porsche that sports cars aren't allowed to be hybrids! TOV says so. (Until there is a singular stat that can be disseminated from the bigger picture in order to push an agenda.)
I read in a few British Car magazines that early test drives of the 918 were pretty disappointing and they said the battery/hybrid was the main culprit adding unnecessary weight and complexity to a very good V8. They could tell just be driving it the car felt compromised and not pure. It still early in its development phase but the people who drove it were saying it would be better if they shaved several hundred pounds off of it and ditched the hybrid and left it a pure NA V8, they could ruin a great car just for a "green" image. Porsche is also now saying the car will not be able to get the fuel economy originally predicted. They may just be better off ditching all the complex heavy hybrid/green tech they are putting in the car for just a KERS system.
Speaking of GT-R, I have said it before and I will say it again...Honda can put as much green shit in their NSX as they want, but it better be able to run with that Nissan for the price.
However, this approach is really a win-win for Honda, much like the CR-Z is, when it comes to their "direction". The hybrid tech is really a good excuse to hide behind when the car doesn't deliver, because it isn't "apples to apples".
DCR wrote: Speaking of GT-R, I have said it before and I will say it again...Honda can put as much green shit in their NSX as they want, but it better be able to run with that Nissan for the price.
However, this approach is really a win-win for Honda, much like the CR-Z is, when it comes to their "direction". The hybrid tech is really a good excuse to hide behind when the car doesn't deliver, because it isn't "apples to apples".
The "apples to apples" approach is critic/reviewer/internet-forum issue, not one that applies to Honda. You can be as cynical as you want, but they sure don't build a car to an excuse. They build what they want to build.
And you can ask every single person on TOV who actually owns a CR-Z, and they will tell you it is just the greatest car. So the non-hybrid people and the high-redline people and the car magazines can complain all they want, but the actual owners are happy as can be. Just as the owners of the 290hp V6 NSX were happy as can be, even when the Viper had a 450hp V10 and the critics called the Acura overpriced, underpowered, and outdated. Sure everyone's coming back around to the NSX now, but there was at least a decade when it was looked down upon - or overlooked at best.
Hate them or not, the actual owners of the Crosstour are immensely satisfied, and the actual owners of the ZDX are immensely satisfied, and the owners of the Ridgeline are immensely satisfied. Not everyone will have their way, and not everyone will be satisfied, and the forums will always have something to complain and argue about. But just because a company doesn't make a car to your specs or the way you would doesn't make them wrong.
As Neal thinks, and I too believe, there is no better time to be a car lover. The great cars range from all over the price/horsepower scale and come from all manufacturers. Rather than bitch about the cars we hate or our one dream car that one manufacturer doesn't make, why don't we buy the cars we like and talk about them?
Honda made tons of great high-revving cars, so why doesn't the OP buy one of those? The NSX, the 8th Si, the S2000, Integra, any 93-00 DOHC VTEC, a Type-R. Or the S600/S800. Any Honda sportbike. Or the 918 in two years, if that's such a marvel. Or the LFA, which is half the cost! Or the Boss Mustang. Or the FR-S.
If your dream car exists, buy it. If you're waiting for your dream car, you will never be satisfied. Because if the redline is 7500, you will want 8000. If it has struts, you will want wishbones. If it weighs 2900lbs, you will want 2700lbs. If it has electric power steering, that sucks. Sedan? If only it were a coupe. Hybrid? No way. $29K? Too high. And on and on, ad infinitum.
And used, as those cars were perfect? Sorry, gotta be new.
BMW just introduced their 134hp 3-series. Less horsepower than a Civic.
BMW just introduced their 101hp 1-series. Less horsepower than a Fit. This of course is just a stop-gap until the next FWD 1-series. Which will also drop the 4cyl for a 3cyl.
FWD 3cyl BMW? Idle-stop on every Porsche? Lamborghini dropping manual transmissions and building an SUV? Ferrari doing AWD and battery hybrids?
The entire automotive landscape is changing, and Honda fans on a Honda forum are giving Honda Motor Company a hard time about their "drastic changes" like fuel efficient naturally-aspirated engines and CVT and 6MT transmissions and hybrids. Realtime 4WD, hatchbacks, coupes, wagons, minivans, Si's, 2-seaters, SOHC, DOHC, 4cyl, 6cyl... So much has changed, I don't even recognize the company anymore.
I think what you people really want is 1994 back. Ain't gonna happen. Though you're welcome to buy a 1994 del Sol VTEC with the redline and specific-hp you want. But you won't. Because, for starters, you didn't even want it then.
Potenza wrote: And you can ask every single person on TOV who actually owns a CR-Z, and they will tell you it is just the greatest car. So the non-hybrid people and the high-redline people and the car magazines can complain all they want, but the actual owners are happy as can be. Just as the owners of the 290hp V6 NSX were happy as can be, even when the Viper had a 450hp V10 and the critics called the Acura overpriced, underpowered, and outdated. Sure everyone's coming back around to the NSX now, but there was at least a decade when it was looked down upon - or overlooked at best.
Hate them or not, the actual owners of the Crosstour are immensely satisfied, and the actual owners of the ZDX are immensely satisfied, and the owners of the Ridgeline are immensely satisfied. Not everyone will have their way, and not everyone will be satisfied, and the forums will always have something to complain and argue about. But just because a company doesn't make a car to your specs or the way you would doesn't make them wrong.
Yes Crosstour, ZDX, and CR-Z owners may be immensely happy with their cars but that doesn't do a whole lot of good when Honda doesn't sell enough of those models to really make money [not saying they're losing money, but they're not selling like gangbusters either]. I'm sure there were immensely happy Aztek owners out there too, doesn't mean that the Aztek wasn't a colossal blunder.
I agree that just because Honda doesn't make a car to fill every single person's desire, doesn't mean gloom and doom. The problem is that Honda has turned it's back on many people who were immensely happy with Honda as a brand. People who've owned multiple Hondas and influence others to buy Hondas. People who have come to love what Honda was about, only to see Honda steadily get farther and farther away from those things.
If your dream car exists, buy it. If you're waiting for your dream car, you will never be satisfied. Because if the redline is 7500, you will want 8000. If it has struts, you will want wishbones. If it weighs 2900lbs, you will want 2700lbs. If it has electric power steering, that sucks. Sedan? If only it were a coupe. Hybrid? No way. $29K? Too high. And on and on, ad infinitum.
That's the problem, people are not asking for a Civic Si with 300 hp that revs to 10k. Or even a Civic that revs to 9k. People simply want Honda to stop moving backwards and trying to convince us that their cost-cutting measures are actually an improvement. That's what got them in trouble with the 9th gen Civic, which thankfully they're addressing.
I think what you people really want is 1994 back. Ain't gonna happen. Though you're welcome to buy a 1994 del Sol VTEC with the redline and specific-hp you want. But you won't. Because, for starters, you didn't even want it then.
Really? The Del Sol, the wet noodle compromised chassis that was developed to be the 3rd gen CRX? The car that Honda of America thankfully rebadged so as to not insult CRX lovers any more than they had to? That car? Surely you jest.
Potenza, I think you set up a bunch of strawmen in your post that simply don't reflect the discussion here.
I think that JMU R1 said it best when he posted, "People just simply want Honda to stop moving backwards and trying to convince us that their cost cutting measures are actually an improvement"
I find it funny that you mention the Del Sol, which as JMU R1 pointed out, was a flop because it went away from what made the CRX great in the first place. The chassis was floppy, it was nearly as heavy as a GS-R (about 150 lbs lighter) with 2 fewer seats and no trunk space, and it was not even a true convertible. If Honda had simply evolved the CRX and put a B16 in that, I think they would have had a major winner on their hands (I shopped a 1 year old DA GS-R and a new Del Sol VTEC before I bought a DC2 GS-R in 1994. If I could have gotten a B16 CRX for around $18.5k with a 160 hp engine and 2300 lbs, I probably would have bought that instead).
Personally, I really like the Ridgeline, and I agree that, bar the looks, the Crosstour is a good vehicle. But they don't sell, Honda has let the Ridgeline wither on the vine (instead of taking a good core and improving it), and the Euro Accord wagon restyled to match up with the US Accord would have been a better choice - just look at how popular the TSX wagon is becoming.
In some ways, it seems that there is a core of brilliant people inside Honda who occasionally sneak a really good car through the stodgy management and beancounters. But then the bureacracy catches up with them and they get stifled and the car rots. Witness the CRX to Del Sol transition, the refusal to update the DC2 Integra for 8(!) fricken years, the NSX and S2000 being left to stagnate with the only major changes being the addition of 157cc of displacement to try and stop people who wouldn't buy one in the first place from creating bad press (I like the F22, and for racing its a faster engine in most classes, but it's not the right engine for the S2000 as a consumer vehicle). Then there's the USDM EP3 Civic Si (even as the rest of the world got that chassis and body as a Type-R), or the 9th gen Civic where they took a solid product and let some jackass mess it up for all the wrong reasons (the whole more torque B.S. showed its head on the EP3).
All in all, if I had to sum up the issue here, it's manifold:
1) Good products get left to rot instead of undergoing continuous improvement.
2) Honda listens to the wrong people too often instead of to their existing customer base (the Moar Torks folks for example).
3) Too many niche products in areas that offer no halo - niche products are usually not big money makers, but if you do them in the right segments (high end luxury, sports cars, efficient hybrids ala the original Insight) they can offer tremendous benefits for the brand.
Potenza wrote: Though you're welcome to buy a 1994 del Sol VTEC with the redline and specific-hp you want. But you won't. Because, for starters, you didn't even want it then.
Really? The Del Sol, the wet noodle compromised chassis that was developed to be the 3rd gen CRX? The car that Honda of America thankfully rebadged so as to not insult CRX lovers any more than they had to? That car? Surely you jest.
So you're saying that RPM redline is just a tiny fraction of a much larger picture of this thing we can all automobile? Thank you.
notyper wrote: ...just look at how popular the TSX wagon is becoming.
I'd like to offer up that I think the "surge" in TSX wagon interest and sales is almost entirely a reaction to the trending disappointment with the ILX.
Yet I can almost imagine the PR spin of May and June sales numbers for both...
Potenza, I think you set up a bunch of strawmen in your post that simply don't reflect the discussion here.
I think that JMU R1 said it best when he posted, "People just simply want Honda to stop moving backwards and trying to convince us that their cost cutting measures are actually an improvement"
I find it funny that you mention the Del Sol, which as JMU R1 pointed out, was a flop because it went away from what made the CRX great in the first place. The chassis was floppy, it was nearly as heavy as a GS-R (about 150 lbs lighter) with 2 fewer seats and no trunk space, and it was not even a true convertible. If Honda had simply evolved the CRX and put a B16 in that, I think they would have had a major winner on their hands (I shopped a 1 year old DA GS-R and a new Del Sol VTEC before I bought a DC2 GS-R in 1994. If I could have gotten a B16 CRX for around $18.5k with a 160 hp engine and 2300 lbs, I probably would have bought that instead).
Personally, I really like the Ridgeline, and I agree that, bar the looks, the Crosstour is a good vehicle. But they don't sell, Honda has let the Ridgeline wither on the vine (instead of taking a good core and improving it), and the Euro Accord wagon restyled to match up with the US Accord would have been a better choice - just look at how popular the TSX wagon is becoming.
In some ways, it seems that there is a core of brilliant people inside Honda who occasionally sneak a really good car through the stodgy management and beancounters. But then the bureacracy catches up with them and they get stifled and the car rots. Witness the CRX to Del Sol transition, the refusal to update the DC2 Integra for 8(!) fricken years, the NSX and S2000 being left to stagnate with the only major changes being the addition of 157cc of displacement to try and stop people who wouldn't buy one in the first place from creating bad press (I like the F22, and for racing its a faster engine in most classes, but it's not the right engine for the S2000 as a consumer vehicle). Then there's the USDM EP3 Civic Si (even as the rest of the world got that chassis and body as a Type-R), or the 9th gen Civic where they took a solid product and let some jackass mess it up for all the wrong reasons (the whole more torque B.S. showed its head on the EP3).
All in all, if I had to sum up the issue here, it's manifold:
1) Good products get left to rot instead of undergoing continuous improvement.
2) Honda listens to the wrong people too often instead of to their existing customer base (the Moar Torks folks for example).
3) Too many niche products in areas that offer no halo - niche products are usually not big money makers, but if you do them in the right segments (high end luxury, sports cars, efficient hybrids ala the original Insight) they can offer tremendous benefits for the brand.
SC
4)
Wasn't that a 16bhp B16 DOHC in the Euro CRX-SiR and Civic-SiR, huh? I recall that Paul de Frere owned one and he drove it from Paris to his home in SE France. He wrote that it was the fastest drive he ever had done, faster than any of his Porches.
The delSol VTEC was too late.
I agree that AHM too often does the Fiero thing.. by the time they finally get the car fixed they nix it...
Examples....
No CRX/Civic SiR
No Accord SiR
Vigor AT.
CRX Si to delSol... no VTEC until the last year.
8 year run of 3rd gen Integra.
Initial rejection of the first gen CR-V after dropping the Civic wagon.
Not selling the first gen Odyssey V6 in the US (shipped to JDM).
No effective marketing of the first gen I4 Odyssey.
No MT5 in the Accord Wagon.
Late into the market with the V6 Accord (this could be an engineering/marketing issue from Japan).
Acura marketing in the mid to late 90s, dropped the Legend name.
2.2CL
2.5TL
The mess with the 3.2TL and RL
Nine year run of the 3rd gen Integra (OK, partly forgiven by the ITRs).
take a breath....
Killing the Prelude after offering the Type SH.
Never a Civic R in the US
Element never updated. Element SC was great, so go kill it.
AHM not buying into the Jazz/Fit... no production in the US.
Killing the CL after coming out with a CL-S MT6....
Creating a TL and an RL that compete (hmm.. see 3.2TL and RL before).
Power Plenum
Putting tiny tires on the EP-3 and whacking its redline.
Power Plenum
ZDX
Cross Tour
Not marketing the Accord Hybrid
Not marketing the Insight, Civic Hybrid
Ceding the hybrid marketing crown to Toyota
Not updating the Ridgeline.
Well... there you go.
I have to say that "Honda" has done brilliantly despite its own best efforts not to do so.
Crazy, huh?
now... I got this crazy idea... Crosstour Type R. Kill them with ugliness and speed. I think it needs an ITR like tall real spoiler.
In your opinion, which automaker is the most innovative today and which automaker is listening to their enthusiasts?
Gilbert
notyper wrote: I'm right there with JMU R1.
Potenza, I think you set up a bunch of strawmen in your post that simply don't reflect the discussion here.
I think that JMU R1 said it best when he posted, "People just simply want Honda to stop moving backwards and trying to convince us that their cost cutting measures are actually an improvement"
I find it funny that you mention the Del Sol, which as JMU R1 pointed out, was a flop because it went away from what made the CRX great in the first place. The chassis was floppy, it was nearly as heavy as a GS-R (about 150 lbs lighter) with 2 fewer seats and no trunk space, and it was not even a true convertible. If Honda had simply evolved the CRX and put a B16 in that, I think they would have had a major winner on their hands (I shopped a 1 year old DA GS-R and a new Del Sol VTEC before I bought a DC2 GS-R in 1994. If I could have gotten a B16 CRX for around $18.5k with a 160 hp engine and 2300 lbs, I probably would have bought that instead).
Personally, I really like the Ridgeline, and I agree that, bar the looks, the Crosstour is a good vehicle. But they don't sell, Honda has let the Ridgeline wither on the vine (instead of taking a good core and improving it), and the Euro Accord wagon restyled to match up with the US Accord would have been a better choice - just look at how popular the TSX wagon is becoming.
In some ways, it seems that there is a core of brilliant people inside Honda who occasionally sneak a really good car through the stodgy management and beancounters. But then the bureacracy catches up with them and they get stifled and the car rots. Witness the CRX to Del Sol transition, the refusal to update the DC2 Integra for 8(!) fricken years, the NSX and S2000 being left to stagnate with the only major changes being the addition of 157cc of displacement to try and stop people who wouldn't buy one in the first place from creating bad press (I like the F22, and for racing its a faster engine in most classes, but it's not the right engine for the S2000 as a consumer vehicle). Then there's the USDM EP3 Civic Si (even as the rest of the world got that chassis and body as a Type-R), or the 9th gen Civic where they took a solid product and let some jackass mess it up for all the wrong reasons (the whole more torque B.S. showed its head on the EP3).
All in all, if I had to sum up the issue here, it's manifold:
1) Good products get left to rot instead of undergoing continuous improvement.
2) Honda listens to the wrong people too often instead of to their existing customer base (the Moar Torks folks for example).
3) Too many niche products in areas that offer no halo - niche products are usually not big money makers, but if you do them in the right segments (high end luxury, sports cars, efficient hybrids ala the original Insight) they can offer tremendous benefits for the brand.
notyper wrote: ...just look at how popular the TSX wagon is becoming.
I'd like to offer up that I think the "surge" in TSX wagon interest and sales is almost entirely a reaction to the trending disappointment with the ILX.
Yet I can almost imagine the PR spin of May and June sales numbers for both...
notyper wrote: ...just look at how popular the TSX wagon is becoming.
I'd like to offer up that I think the "surge" in TSX wagon interest and sales is almost entirely a reaction to the trending disappointment with the ILX.
Yet I can almost imagine the PR spin of May and June sales numbers for both...
In my case, I was getting tired of the CRV. I wanted something that handled better and is a little bit larger. We really don't need the AWD.
There is no ILX or Civic wagons... the Odyssey is too big and expensive... The Crosstour (nice actually) is too big and.. ahem... ugly.
The TSX wagon has been in the back of my mind for a while and as things stand it's not much more than the CRV. Expensive? Yowza! That it is.. but oh well.
owequitit wrote: So Porsche can manage to put a 9200RPM 562HP V8 in this car, and still get it to meet emissions requirements (in a hybrid no less)
You understand, right, that this thing likely passes emissions simply because it's a hybrid?
If Honda did the same thing, everyone on this forum would be up in arms about the batteries, multiple electric motors, "automatic"-only transmission, electronic nannies, et al.
Your headline is dead on. Honda better tell Porsche that sports cars aren't allowed to be hybrids! TOV says so. (Until there is a singular stat that can be disseminated from the bigger picture in order to push an agenda.)
I read in a few British Car magazines that early test drives of the 918 were pretty disappointing and they said the battery/hybrid was the main culprit adding unnecessary weight and complexity to a very good V8. They could tell just be driving it the car felt compromised and not pure. It still early in its development phase but the people who drove it were saying it would be better if they shaved several hundred pounds off of it and ditched the hybrid and left it a pure NA V8, they could ruin a great car just for a "green" image. Porsche is also now saying the car will not be able to get the fuel economy originally predicted. They may just be better off ditching all the complex heavy hybrid/green tech they are putting in the car for just a KERS system.
You mean the test drives... in development mules? People are complaining about a 150+hp power boost? Are you kidding me? What's next, are they going to complain about turbochargers?
Potenza, I think you set up a bunch of strawmen in your post that simply don't reflect the discussion here.
I think that JMU R1 said it best when he posted, "People just simply want Honda to stop moving backwards and trying to convince us that their cost cutting measures are actually an improvement"
I find it funny that you mention the Del Sol, which as JMU R1 pointed out, was a flop because it went away from what made the CRX great in the first place. The chassis was floppy, it was nearly as heavy as a GS-R (about 150 lbs lighter) with 2 fewer seats and no trunk space, and it was not even a true convertible. If Honda had simply evolved the CRX and put a B16 in that, I think they would have had a major winner on their hands (I shopped a 1 year old DA GS-R and a new Del Sol VTEC before I bought a DC2 GS-R in 1994. If I could have gotten a B16 CRX for around $18.5k with a 160 hp engine and 2300 lbs, I probably would have bought that instead).
Personally, I really like the Ridgeline, and I agree that, bar the looks, the Crosstour is a good vehicle. But they don't sell, Honda has let the Ridgeline wither on the vine (instead of taking a good core and improving it), and the Euro Accord wagon restyled to match up with the US Accord would have been a better choice - just look at how popular the TSX wagon is becoming.
In some ways, it seems that there is a core of brilliant people inside Honda who occasionally sneak a really good car through the stodgy management and beancounters. But then the bureacracy catches up with them and they get stifled and the car rots. Witness the CRX to Del Sol transition, the refusal to update the DC2 Integra for 8(!) fricken years, the NSX and S2000 being left to stagnate with the only major changes being the addition of 157cc of displacement to try and stop people who wouldn't buy one in the first place from creating bad press (I like the F22, and for racing its a faster engine in most classes, but it's not the right engine for the S2000 as a consumer vehicle). Then there's the USDM EP3 Civic Si (even as the rest of the world got that chassis and body as a Type-R), or the 9th gen Civic where they took a solid product and let some jackass mess it up for all the wrong reasons (the whole more torque B.S. showed its head on the EP3).
All in all, if I had to sum up the issue here, it's manifold:
1) Good products get left to rot instead of undergoing continuous improvement.
2) Honda listens to the wrong people too often instead of to their existing customer base (the Moar Torks folks for example).
3) Too many niche products in areas that offer no halo - niche products are usually not big money makers, but if you do them in the right segments (high end luxury, sports cars, efficient hybrids ala the original Insight) they can offer tremendous benefits for the brand.
SC
4)
The Civic is selling well (and a large part of that is strangely... because of the i-MID?). On the cost cutting point though, it's not just the Si that's been neutured, I think even long-time mainstream Honda fans would look at the 9th generation and can't help but be disappointed. However, the car is really inexpensive, and that probably swayed them.
owequitit wrote: So Porsche can manage to put a 9200RPM 562HP V8 in this car, and still get it to meet emissions requirements (in a hybrid no less)
You understand, right, that this thing likely passes emissions simply because it's a hybrid?
If Honda did the same thing, everyone on this forum would be up in arms about the batteries, multiple electric motors, "automatic"-only transmission, electronic nannies, et al.
Your headline is dead on. Honda better tell Porsche that sports cars aren't allowed to be hybrids! TOV says so. (Until there is a singular stat that can be disseminated from the bigger picture in order to push an agenda.)
I read in a few British Car magazines that early test drives of the 918 were pretty disappointing and they said the battery/hybrid was the main culprit adding unnecessary weight and complexity to a very good V8. They could tell just be driving it the car felt compromised and not pure. It still early in its development phase but the people who drove it were saying it would be better if they shaved several hundred pounds off of it and ditched the hybrid and left it a pure NA V8, they could ruin a great car just for a "green" image. Porsche is also now saying the car will not be able to get the fuel economy originally predicted. They may just be better off ditching all the complex heavy hybrid/green tech they are putting in the car for just a KERS system.
You mean the test drives... in development mules? People are complaining about a 150+hp power boost? Are you kidding me? What's next, are they going to complain about turbochargers?
Yes, they said the development mule felt heavy and compromised and not very pure. They said it was obvious Porsche had to do so much to deal with/dissipate heat from the batteries/motors and they felt the overly complex hybrid system was holding the engine back from a purity standpoint. Remember that 150hp is not going to be constant and will be at the penalty of several hundred extra pounds. They were wondering if all the complexity, weight, and cost for the hybrid system to give it a green image was really worth it on a super sports car after the test drive.
Potenza wrote: Though you're welcome to buy a 1994 del Sol VTEC with the redline and specific-hp you want. But you won't. Because, for starters, you didn't even want it then.
Really? The Del Sol, the wet noodle compromised chassis that was developed to be the 3rd gen CRX? The car that Honda of America thankfully rebadged so as to not insult CRX lovers any more than they had to? That car? Surely you jest.
So you're saying that RPM redline is just a tiny fraction of a much larger picture of this thing we can all automobile? Thank you.
Potenza,
I was shocked today when I drove by an Honda dealer, they had a 2012 Honda Civic Si on the front lawn with a big sign in the windshield, 1500,00$ rebate...
Some individuals had to wait for months before they got their reliable, intoxicating, high revving Si's from the previous generation.
They are the same cars, so why is the new one, equipped with the bigger and torquier engine on the front lawn with money on the hood?
Underestimating the power of the redline, you are.
DCR wrote: Speaking of GT-R, I have said it before and I will say it again...Honda can put as much green shit in their NSX as they want, but it better be able to run with that Nissan for the price.
However, this approach is really a win-win for Honda, much like the CR-Z is, when it comes to their "direction". The hybrid tech is really a good excuse to hide behind when the car doesn't deliver, because it isn't "apples to apples".
I am concerned about that too. Ito may just use the excuse since it is a hybrid and gets better fuel economy then most high performance sports cars it should not be compared to them or it does not need to perform at their level. He may be much more concerned and make it a top priority for it to make some silly "green statement" then for it to have the power and performance buyers are going to demand and expect from it.
The NSX better have the power and performance or it is going to fail and will do a lot of damage to the Honda brand, this car being in the Avengers and getting top celebrities on a Superbowl add is going to have high expectations.
As far as people loving their CRZs, most people love the cars they buy, as they personally researched them and test drive them before hand and it fit what they wanted even if the car has many compromises to others, especially enthusiasts who wanted more power and performance and were not all that concerned about fuel economy or wanted to own a hybrid.
You can sell anything if its cheap enough. When you can lease a 6 month old new model for $220/month with nothing down, people will buy it. Interestingly, the only car that seems to be leasing for noticeably less is the Jetta at $159/month, but it requires $2k down and a longer term (39 vs. 36) so the cost is about the same.
@Gilbert
I'm hard pressed to name a "best" company for this. But for me, I've been really impressed that Toyota/Lexus/Scion has been coming out of their funk. It's the little things, but they matter. The Camry isn't so dumbed down anymore in terms of the drive, the corporate 2.5 liter I4 is a very solid and powerful engine, the FR-S is a breath of fresh air, the addition of the F-type cars for Lexus, defeatable traction control and, while I'm not a fan, the LFA at least says "We are here!". They're not out of the woods yet, but they at least appear to have woken up.
I've also been impressed with the strides that Audi has been making in livening up their cars. They've always had great interiors, but now they're creating some really solid powerplants (the 3.0 TSFI engine is a really bitchin engine) and they've actually improved the handling of the vehicles dramatically. I'm still too scared of their reliability to invest $50k in an S4, but I have a lot more respect for their enthusiast offerings now (TT-S, TT-R, S4, etc.)
I think that Ford is poised to be in a really good position. The Mustang is an incredible value, and is actually a lot of fun in most situations. It's really a better overall car than the Camaro in almost every way (except apparently that buyers like the looks of the Camaro better as it continues to lead in sales). The introduction of the new GT500 is poised to reset expectations of performance/$$$. The new Focus ST looks like a really cool hot hatch and Ford has offered a turnkey racecar version of it as well. The Ford SVT Raptor is a truck owners dream as a turnkey off-road terror. There's really a lot to admire from this company. We're also hearing that the Ecoboost 3.5 V6 is going to find its way into the next Mustang too, which should make for a crazily tuneable car.
Potenza wrote: Though you're welcome to buy a 1994 del Sol VTEC with the redline and specific-hp you want. But you won't. Because, for starters, you didn't even want it then.
Really? The Del Sol, the wet noodle compromised chassis that was developed to be the 3rd gen CRX? The car that Honda of America thankfully rebadged so as to not insult CRX lovers any more than they had to? That car? Surely you jest.
So you're saying that RPM redline is just a tiny fraction of a much larger picture of this thing we can all automobile? Thank you.
A 'tiny fraction'? Not at all. Obviously if you get a lot of the other major things wrong, the engine is unlikely to be a saving grace. Conversely, a lot of the other attributes could be good, but if the engine is a let-down, at best you're going to have milquetoast, uninspiring car. For a niche model like the Si, people need to be excited about it.
As I said before, if Ford got rid of the V8 Mustang, the fans would be storming the gates of Dearborn. It would be equally silly if Ferrari switched to turbo inline-4's. With performance cars, the engine character matters.
In the case of the Si, they gave us an engine that doesn't feature the fun character of the previous Si engine, doesn't offer an improvement in absolute power, doesn't have the same modification potential of the K20Z3, and doesn't even come close to offering similar torque to the more torquey competitors in its segment. How is that an improvement?
Yeah you don't need to rev it to get going but that used to be part of the fun. If that part of the fun is removed, might as well get a Focus ST, Mazdaspeed3, or GTI.
Like many have said, all Honda would need to do is drop a decently revvy K22 in the Si that pushes 220 hp (or more) and that would probably be enough for the Honda faithful. The 9th Gen Si handles pretty well, looks good, and is a touch lighter than before. All Honda needs to do is put a more deserving engine in it.
DCR wrote: Speaking of GT-R, I have said it before and I will say it again...Honda can put as much green shit in their NSX as they want, but it better be able to run with that Nissan for the price.
However, this approach is really a win-win for Honda, much like the CR-Z is, when it comes to their "direction". The hybrid tech is really a good excuse to hide behind when the car doesn't deliver, because it isn't "apples to apples".
I think it's a pretty good direciton. The only Lamboghini in my town, which I came across many times in our traffic jam rush hour, usually turns into the petrol station everytime I see it. I will bet the owner is thinking, "the NSX with the hybrid thingie is looking pretty good right now", because even if he has the money to pay for all the petrol he is probably sick of turning into the petrol station every day. Or maybe not, I don't know.
Don't ask me why the guy likes driving th lambo in traffic jams. Too mmuch money than sense.
I agree that in terms of getting people to say 'WOW' the NSX better out run the GTR.
![[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}
