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 only Lamboghini in my town, which I came across many times in our traffic jam rush hour, usually turns into ...
The NSX v1 was never about power, or out-performing anybody's numbers, it was about the technological challenge and the purity of the driving experience in excellent comfort and with everyday car reliability.
In other words, not a DSC [male appendage swinging competition] :)
If the NSX v2 delivers "average" supercar performance, and retains as much purity of driving involvement that the eSH-AWD allows, it will hit Honda's targets. Not saying it will hit every-bodies target!
I believe the Legend with the SH-AWD could just about match a GT-R 35 in handling, IF it had the horsepower and sports suspension!
sadlerau wrote: The NSX v1 was never about power, or out-performing anybody's numbers, it was about the technological challenge and the purity of the driving experience in excellent comfort and with everyday car reliability.
But it was a bit embarrassing to have the RX-7 beat it at the track back then early 1990s. Wasn't at least partly the reason for the NSX Type R to come about?
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.
1) You still haven't answered my question. Why can Ford, Toyota and Subaru do it, but Honda can't, when they all three have the EXACT same rule set and Ford, Subaru and Toyota are all at a disadvantage to Honda relative to their target? Are you going to actually answer the question, or are you going to continue to pretend it doesn't exist?
2) You assume that because I don't agree with your assessment of Honda's decisions that I must be "irrational." The logic in that is still flawed to the core.
I can sit here all day long and name off businesses that were at the top of the market and made "rational" business decisions that cost them their existance. Hell, I can name at least 10 in the car manufacturing business, and I can probably name 5 since Honda has been successful. "Rational" decisions are not automatically prudent ones.
3) I can also make the case that if Honda had provided an Insight and CR-Z that people actually wanted, then they would have sold more of them and then Honda would have more resources to build a true low priced sports car in the US. The problem with your product centric viewpoint is that shitty product doesn't sell, no matter how hard you cram it down their throats.
I could also make the strong case that if Honda hadn't invested in the CR-Z, Insight, Element, Ridgeline, ZDX, 1st gen RDX, RL, Crosstour, none of which has met expectations, that they could have taken that several billion and invested it in a true low cost sports car to sell. And they might not have made money either way, but at least one would have kept a hard core group of Honda fans happy. It is mildly entertaining that you try to call me out for speculating, but then brush the existing 8 products that have NOT met expectations under the rug. To top it off, you take the stance that the consumer is to blame for the product being shitty. A fine day indeed. Here is an even better solution: Honda could have not invested the billions in the above product, and not even built a pure sports car. Instead, they could have kept a worthwhile and Si worthy powertrain in the Si, increased interior quality across their entire product line, improved sound isolation and then still have hundreds of millions, if not billions left over to weather the rainy day. Call me stupid, but I am pretty sure that spending billions of dollars on product that nobody wants (and which anyone with an semblance of common sense could see was undesirable in the market) isn't exactly "rational" from a business standpoint.
P.S. For every one CR-Z owner you can find that thinks the CR-Z is a great little car, I can find roughly 10-20 (if not more) 8th gen Si owners that think their car is also a great little car. So how can you legitimately attempt to sit there and tell me that 100-150K Honda owners don't matter, but 15,000 do; while simultaneously preaching to me about "rational" business decisions? In fact, to put it in even better perspective, you could combine nearly every single product in the above list's total sales, and still not equal the number of 8th gen Si owners. But they don't matter because they might not like what Honda is selling.
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.
I don't have a problem with them trying new things. I don't have a problem with them failing. However, their failings are NOT inspirational. They are motivational. Whoever posted that picture posted it in an attempt to hold it up and say "look at what Honda can do, and how can ED be a bad name, when it was inspired by this?"
That doesn't inspire anything other than admitting you suck, going back and trying again.
If someone were trying to motivate with Honda's racing pedigree, they would have done so by posting Honda's F1 cars that were actually positive achievements. Or Indy, or any other form of motor sport Honda has been in.
But the original NSX actually did match or outperform its competition. Handling wise and acceleration wise it was more than a match for the 964 911 (which was making about 247 hp at the time the NSX launched). It also was on par with the Ferrari 348. A few hp less, but a little lighter to compensate.
So you had a car that was completely competitive with its peers in all the headline numbers, matched or beat them in price (the 964 was a touch more expensive), and offered a heretofore unseen level of reliability and usability in an exotic sports car.
Will the next NSX do that? I seriously doubt it. In the attempt to go green it is so inherently compromised that it will not match performance numbers for any of its peers IMO.
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.
Try again.
If I were all about numbers, I wouldn't be defending an engine that had LESS HP and LESS torque than the engine that replaced it. Flaw #1 in your argument.
I didn't just mention the Porsche. I also mentioned about 5 high revving NA cars that don't have a single battery other than the lead-acid battery used to start the thing.
Also, let's compare Porsche's hybrid effort to Honda's...we have the 918 vs the Insight, Civic, and CR-Z. IF Honda manages to materialize an actual NSX (at least Porsche has rolling mules), it will have slightly more than half the HP, well more than half the weight (inferior power to weight ratio), and will likely not return the MPG (although I have to say that 70+MPG on the Porsche's part is probably unlikely). So really, the only thing the NSX may have going for it would be cost. Unless Honda commits to a course of action they have all but completely abandoned, I don't see the NSX being all that exciting either. P.S. The numbers were estimations and they still readily stomp the ever loving shit out of what Honda has. In fact, I would be surprised if the NSX could muster the numbers of the Boss 302 or 911 GT3.
If this is what you are going to bring, you might want to pack up and go home now.
notyper wrote: But the original NSX actually did match or outperform its competition. Handling wise and acceleration wise it was more than a match for the 964 911 (which was making about 247 hp at the time the NSX launched). It also was on par with the Ferrari 348. A few hp less, but a little lighter to compensate.
So you had a car that was completely competitive with its peers in all the headline numbers, matched or beat them in price (the 964 was a touch more expensive), and offered a heretofore unseen level of reliability and usability in an exotic sports car.
Will the next NSX do that? I seriously doubt it. In the attempt to go green it is so inherently compromised that it will not match performance numbers for any of its peers IMO.
SC
Shawn....
The NSX is green only in that it bypasses a mechanical interface to power the front tires.
Indeed, the future will be in electric motors within each wheel.. likely very light weight armatures within a ceramic construct and the "powertrain" might be a hydrogen fuel cell.
(I think I had a post about that on TOV like five years ago or so... technical forum...).
Thing is, with all those stupid politicians around us, the ICE is a dead horse. Whether we like it or not...
Imagine... Porsche Panamerica Plug In Hybrid... 3 cylinder BMW (NOT the Isseta...).
Sorry. the "peers" are simply behind the curve... they won't be around in 15 years either..... IMHO, HMC is actually ahead of the curve on this.
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.
These threads are ridiculous.
Losing points fast here too. Pretty soon, you might be in the negative by my estimation.
8th gen Si owners who love their cars are all over as well. The difference is they outnumber the Crosstour, CR-Z, ZDX owners my several orders of magnitude. The 8th gen Si actually sold its entire allotment of cars each month, and was usually production constrained, which was evidenced by the fact there weren't many just sitting around. When you could find one, there sure as hell wasn't a pile of several thousand sitting on the hood. That is completely opposite of those cars you mention which have NOT met their targets.
Second, you might want to read back into the thread you are posting in. It usually pays to do your homework before opening your mouth.
I already own an 8th gen Si. I also own a DOHC VTEC Honda from the years you tell me to buy one from. Sad thing is that I WANTED a 9th gen Si until I found out they neutered the powertrain and made the interior cheap as crap. So not only am I a high revving owner bitching, but I had every intention of actually BUYING the 9th gen Si, unlike every person in this thread jumping all over my case.
Also, you mention the Del Sol in an attempt to create a strawman. Just because we didn't want those, doesn't mean we didn't want DOHC VTEC or high revs. DROVES of people bought Integras, Civic Si's (at least ones with high redlines), Preludes, and many more would have bought others if they were offered. The Del Sol is an attempt to make your argument appear valid, and the only thing ridiculous in this thread is your attempt at diversionary tactics.
And the primary difference from Honda's change, and those you mentioned is that those you mentioned might be reducing cylinder count, but they sure as hell aren't reducing technology and performance and then making excuses for it. Example: N20 vs N52.
A Scion FR-S costs 24.93k, incl.dest.
A Honda Si coupe starts from 23.1k, incl.dest.
Difference is almost 2k, man.
Actually, the Si coupe with all seasons starts at 22.5K.
But the FR-S/BRZ is still a better deal IMO. My 09 Si also stickered for more than that, I would still rather have it as well. Again, you have to focus on the trees so that you can not be forced to see the forest.
The point wasn't an exact dollar amount (didn't even look them up). The point was that I don't have to stretch that far financially to get a high-revving NA engine in a sporty car, because there are about 4 of you in here that simply refuse to admit that it doesn't take millions of dollars in retail price to get an engine that Honda SHOULD be able to offer vs the competition.
Here is the thing. Here is what I see.
Some of us, or least I don't neccessary think Honda is going backward.
Soichiro once said that corporations should have its own philosophy and it should be reflected in their company policy, not just 100% going after their profit. Well something like that.
They're following still his legacy. Just as Soichiro did with cccv back then to curb polutions from cars' tail pipe, they doing for CO2, today.
Ok, before you'll jump up and down,
No, no, no, they are not out there to fix the problem.
No, no, no, they are not out there to save the planet.
They're not a non-profit organization or UNISEF. They still need profits to survive. It's just they follow some kind of direction in what they do or produce in their company policy.
To use more less toxic plastic is the part of it. To go green with greenhouse gases is the part of it, too, when they can. They're not just doing so solely because of Government's emissions regulations.They, at least AHM think the same along with the most of established scientific institutions around the world.
You might say that is bullcrap. Maybe. It may not be a good business practice. But that's part of why they do what they do, I think. And the eNSX would fit in that. So it may well disappoint you, many of you. I don't personally think so, though. I still think it would be as good as the original NSX, of course not power wise.
Where are their other sports cars? Where do they fit in? They will fit in along this line, I guess.
However what many people are forgetting is this. I remember some time ago that Honda anounced they will increase their efforts in grassroot motorsports initiatives or something like that? Maybe they're more into grasshopper motorsports than rice racers on the public street with their products. I don't know.
Will they succeed as business? Will they make it? I don't know. If they don't they wil go bankrupt. That's what happens in free market. Right?
And I still like them because,
CR-Z. not because the car itself but its basic concept of two conflicted objectives, mpg & sportsness. That's the car only Honda could have made and they did.
They've put an LSD in the Si not the ILX.
ED engine family, Atkinson and regular engine in one(?), technical brilliance.
Crosstour. What a beauty. I mean the outside.
ASIMO, of course.
owequitit wrote: 1) You still haven't answered my question. Why can Ford, Toyota and Subaru do it, but Honda can't, when they all three have the EXACT same rule set and Ford, Subaru and Toyota are all at a disadvantage to Honda relative to their target? Are you going to actually answer the question, or are you going to continue to pretend it doesn't exist?
2) You assume that because I don't agree with your assessment of Honda's decisions that I must be "irrational." The logic in that is still flawed to the core.
I can sit here all day long and name off businesses that were at the top of the market and made "rational" business decisions that cost them their existance. Hell, I can name at least 10 in the car manufacturing business, and I can probably name 5 since Honda has been successful. "Rational" decisions are not automatically prudent ones.
3) I can also make the case that if Honda had provided an Insight and CR-Z that people actually wanted, then they would have sold more of them and then Honda would have more resources to build a true low priced sports car in the US. The problem with your product centric viewpoint is that shitty product doesn't sell, no matter how hard you cram it down their throats.
I could also make the strong case that if Honda hadn't invested in the CR-Z, Insight, Element, Ridgeline, ZDX, 1st gen RDX, RL, Crosstour, none of which has met expectations, that they could have taken that several billion and invested it in a true low cost sports car to sell. And they might not have made money either way, but at least one would have kept a hard core group of Honda fans happy. It is mildly entertaining that you try to call me out for speculating, but then brush the existing 8 products that have NOT met expectations under the rug. To top it off, you take the stance that the consumer is to blame for the product being shitty. A fine day indeed. Here is an even better solution: Honda could have not invested the billions in the above product, and not even built a pure sports car. Instead, they could have kept a worthwhile and Si worthy powertrain in the Si, increased interior quality across their entire product line, improved sound isolation and then still have hundreds of millions, if not billions left over to weather the rainy day. Call me stupid, but I am pretty sure that spending billions of dollars on product that nobody wants (and which anyone with an semblance of common sense could see was undesirable in the market) isn't exactly "rational" from a business standpoint.
P.S. For every one CR-Z owner you can find that thinks the CR-Z is a great little car, I can find roughly 10-20 (if not more) 8th gen Si owners that think their car is also a great little car. So how can you legitimately attempt to sit there and tell me that 100-150K Honda owners don't matter, but 15,000 do; while simultaneously preaching to me about "rational" business decisions? In fact, to put it in even better perspective, you could combine nearly every single product in the above list's total sales, and still not equal the number of 8th gen Si owners. But they don't matter because they might not like what Honda is selling.
Okay, well...
1). Where are the CO2 reduction commitments from Ford, Toyota and Subaru? Of the high-revving engines produced by those companies what are the deltas in the redlines of those engines compared to Honda's engines? What are the specific outputs of those engines? What are the real world MPG returns of those engines when tested under the same conditions? Where are their fuel cell cars, sensible and inexpensive hybrids, and gasoline engines offering comparable power from smaller displacements?
2.) I've never claimed any one posting in this thread is irrational. I've been pointing out that no one gets to pick and choose the specs to complain about without taking them in the proper perspective of all of the factors. CAFE numbers for the companies do vary because of conditions outside the control of the companies.
3.) So what products do Americans want? If you ask any buyer in the US what cars should be produced the common answer is the Prius or some such enviro-friendly product. Americans are all in favor of the other guy doing the right thing. The best selling car in the US this year will probably be the F150 again so we know where that goes. Americans want to reduce oil imports. Americans want to save the environment. Americans want to be ready since we've seen "peak oil" and that inconvenient truth blather. Is it good business sense to ignore all of those factors or are the other companies just following their five-year plans which they update every year hoping the legislation and markets will change?
4.) I disagree 100% about the mix of cars and trucks sold by Honda today not being worthwhile. The problem is execution. The number one lesson of the 1990's, especially with the near death of the Porsche firm you started this discussion with, was one of product diversification being required for survival as an independent company and I'll bet no one here wanted to see Honda bought out by Mitsubishi or Fuji. If every last one of those Hondas which disappoint you and others on TOV had been a sales hit right out the door TOV would be overflowing with "hey, Honda has the coolest pickup for the regular homeowner" or "look at the Germans copying that Acura luxury cross-over".
Finally, I've never said anything of the sort that any Honda owner, or more correctly, any Honda buyer doesn't matter. The important part here is Honda must focus on the people who will buy its new products now and every last brainiac market study in the media in the US says it's fewer young people, fewer males, fewer automobile enthusiasts and more women, more professionals, more middled-aged customers. None of us on TOV made that up.
I see Honda today as a company that made a strong stand on the environment and is now facing pressures from all sides in the form of buyers who don't really want intelligent products but rather cool cars, people who never buy Honda products but believe their opinions still count such as the folks in the media, a performance enthusiast base here on TOV which is at odds with its new focus on economical cars for the average customer, and governmental forces which seem like good ideas that are almost never executed in rational ways.
Wrong Tony. The worm has already turned on the CO2 argument. Sure, it or the son-of-CO2 will make a zombie-like return in 20-30 years. There are always people who want to tell you how you can live and they'll latch onto any rationale for implementing their way.
But people can only afford to get all misty about saving the spotted owls when they have enough to eat and can live in relative comfort/luxury. When the economy sucks, they say F*** that and buy what works best and, sorry little Delta Smelt, if its between you and me, you've got to go. They're not buying the whole CO2 = death argument that the enviro-commies have been selling. And if you pay attention to the technical climate sites, every day there's more information coming out completely debunking the load of crap that the enviro-weenies have tried to feed us.
I told you guys years ago that the "evil CO2" crowd was full of it. They had no real data, their conclusions were based on flimsy and incomplete models, and, as it turned out, they were proven to be serial liars, dissemblers and black-listers as well.
Now we find that US is sitting on perhaps the largest oil reserves in the world, and new exploratory and extraction techniques are finding more and more resources world wide. Do you really think politicians aren't going to put their finger in the wind and change their stances? C'mon, they're politicians, that's what they do (o.k., maybe not in Europe, but they're even worse off than the US is and, like California, places like France keep digging deeper).
My big complaint on this topic several years ago was that Honda's strategic planning and assessment folks were operating about 5 years behind the curve. They still are.
sadlerau wrote: The NSX v1 was never about power, or out-performing anybody's numbers, it was about the technological challenge and the purity of the driving experience in excellent comfort and with everyday car reliability.
In other words, not a DSC [male appendage swinging competition] :)
If the NSX v2 delivers "average" supercar performance, and retains as much purity of driving involvement that the eSH-AWD allows, it will hit Honda's targets. Not saying it will hit every-bodies target!
I believe the Legend with the SH-AWD could just about match a GT-R 35 in handling, IF it had the horsepower and sports suspension!
That is not correct. The NSX was designed to outperform its main competitor from Ferrari. The NSX main target and what it was specifically designed to beat was the Ferrari 328/348. The NSX was originally going to have less power and a less advanced engine and it was decided that would not be enough power to satisfy enthusiasts and to compete and beat the Ferrari 328/348. The 3.0 liter engine was DOHC, featured for the first time Vtec, and had titanium connecting rods all to give it the power and performance to justify the looks and price.
It was pretty much unheard of for a NA 3l V6 to get 270hp at that time or put out its performance numbers, even today those are pretty impressive numbers for a NA 3 liter V6. The increased the size of the engine to 3.2L and gave it a 6 speed to be able to compete with the 355 Ferrari and Porsche updating the 911.
If the NSX was just about purity, comfort, and reliability then they would have just used a 4 cylinder in a smaller lighter car. If the new NSX is about purity and reliability they certainly would not be using some complicated e-SHAWD powertrain.
Also one of the biggest reason the NSX sales and interest tapered off significantly was because it no longer had enough power and performance to compete with the Ferrari 360-430/911 turbo-GT3 especially considering its price kept creeping up and there were no significant updates. Honda basically left it to die because they did not want to give it the power updates it should have got.
People are not going to drop a lot of money just for a sports car that is pure and comfortable or gets good gas mileage if it does not make the power and have the performance to compete.
notyper wrote: Wrong Tony. The worm has already turned on the CO2 argument. Sure, it or the son-of-CO2 will make a zombie-like return in 20-30 years. There are always people who want to tell you how you can live and they'll latch onto any rationale for implementing their way.
But people can only afford to get all misty about saving the spotted owls when they have enough to eat and can live in relative comfort/luxury. When the economy sucks, they say F*** that and buy what works best and, sorry little Delta Smelt, if its between you and me, you've got to go. They're not buying the whole CO2 = death argument that the enviro-commies have been selling. And if you pay attention to the technical climate sites, every day there's more information coming out completely debunking the load of crap that the enviro-weenies have tried to feed us.
I told you guys years ago that the "evil CO2" crowd was full of it. They had no real data, their conclusions were based on flimsy and incomplete models, and, as it turned out, they were proven to be serial liars, dissemblers and black-listers as well.
Now we find that US is sitting on perhaps the largest oil reserves in the world, and new exploratory and extraction techniques are finding more and more resources world wide. Do you really think politicians aren't going to put their finger in the wind and change their stances? C'mon, they're politicians, that's what they do (o.k., maybe not in Europe, but they're even worse off than the US is and, like California, places like France keep digging deeper).
My big complaint on this topic several years ago was that Honda's strategic planning and assessment folks were operating about 5 years behind the curve. They still are.
SC
Shawn... we've agreed on these things for years.
But, as it now stands, the little Delta Smelt.. a non native fish.. is still killing the Central Vally. Drive through it, see all the fallow arable land.
The EPA, DOE, DOJ, you name it.. they are the like Orwell's Ministries (Truth, Love, Peace, Plenty)... in that they are ANTI what they are supposed to be for.
And flimsy evidence? Lack of evidence never stopped any of those politicians, environmentalist, powergrabbers, UN ministers...
Just today, Obama announces "the Prison Rape Elimination Act".... See? WTF? Economy anyone? Heck no..
You assume that Truth will win.. sadly this is not common in human history.
Because of this, I think HMC is actually more pragmatic that we give it credit for. Now, if "ABO" wins this fall.. well, then we might see more K engines in NA.
The truth will always out Tony. It's just a matter of on what time scale. It's too early to call November, but dear leader is certainly in trouble because no matter how much you tell people it's getting better, if I doesn't match their reality they'll call BS.
Public opinion has already flipped on AGW. People no longer believe that man plays a primary role, or that it's particularly important. Yes, we are screwed here in Cali. It'll take a complete collapse in another 5-10 years to fix that. Why do you think I opened the Vegas shop? The writing is on the wall in 20 ft high neon letters.
sadlerau wrote: The NSX v1 was never about power, or out-performing anybody's numbers, it was about the technological challenge and the purity of the driving experience in excellent comfort and with everyday car reliability.
In other words, not a DSC [male appendage swinging competition] :)
If the NSX v2 delivers "average" supercar performance, and retains as much purity of driving involvement that the eSH-AWD allows, it will hit Honda's targets. Not saying it will hit every-bodies target!
I believe the Legend with the SH-AWD could just about match a GT-R 35 in handling, IF it had the horsepower and sports suspension!
That is not correct. The NSX was designed to outperform its main competitor from Ferrari. The NSX main target and what it was specifically designed to beat was the Ferrari 328/348. The NSX was originally going to have less power and a less advanced engine and it was decided that would not be enough power to satisfy enthusiasts and to compete and beat the Ferrari 328/348. The 3.0 liter engine was DOHC, featured for the first time Vtec, and had titanium connecting rods all to give it the power and performance to justify the looks and price.
It was pretty much unheard of for a NA 3l V6 to get 270hp at that time or put out its performance numbers, even today those are pretty impressive numbers for a NA 3 liter V6. The increased the size of the engine to 3.2L and gave it a 6 speed to be able to compete with the 355 Ferrari and Porsche updating the 911.
If the NSX was just about purity, comfort, and reliability then they would have just used a 4 cylinder in a smaller lighter car. If the new NSX is about purity and reliability they certainly would not be using some complicated e-SHAWD powertrain.
Also one of the biggest reason the NSX sales and interest tapered off significantly was because it no longer had enough power and performance to compete with the Ferrari 360-430/911 turbo-GT3 especially considering its price kept creeping up and there were no significant updates. Honda basically left it to die because they did not want to give it the power updates it should have got.
People are not going to drop a lot of money just for a sports car that is pure and comfortable or gets good gas mileage if it does not make the power and have the performance to compete.
Actually Lexus it wasn't until the F430 that the NSX was eclipsed by the entry level Ferraris. Even though the 360 had more power at close to similar weight 0-60 and 1/4 times were within 0.1-0.2 secs of each other even though at that point the 360 was almost double the price.
Also the 348 was never a target as it was being developed at the same time as the NSX ,but Honda was testing against the 328 for sure. You sure about the Vtec first as from what I've read Vtec was on a Japanese Civic first but the NSX was the first US car to Vtec from Honda.
It's going to be interesting if NSX 2.0 can compete with the 458 while having HP ratings of a F430.
It's perception that the 290 in the NSX was underperforming. It was time for an update though and with the 02 facelift it really should have gotten at least a 3.5L and front fenders that would allow larger rubber but like you said Honda left it to die;-(
owequitit wrote: 1) You still haven't answered my question. Why can Ford, Toyota and Subaru do it, but Honda can't, when they all three have the EXACT same rule set and Ford, Subaru and Toyota are all at a disadvantage to Honda relative to their target? Are you going to actually answer the question, or are you going to continue to pretend it doesn't exist?
2) You assume that because I don't agree with your assessment of Honda's decisions that I must be "irrational." The logic in that is still flawed to the core.
I can sit here all day long and name off businesses that were at the top of the market and made "rational" business decisions that cost them their existance. Hell, I can name at least 10 in the car manufacturing business, and I can probably name 5 since Honda has been successful. "Rational" decisions are not automatically prudent ones.
3) I can also make the case that if Honda had provided an Insight and CR-Z that people actually wanted, then they would have sold more of them and then Honda would have more resources to build a true low priced sports car in the US. The problem with your product centric viewpoint is that shitty product doesn't sell, no matter how hard you cram it down their throats.
I could also make the strong case that if Honda hadn't invested in the CR-Z, Insight, Element, Ridgeline, ZDX, 1st gen RDX, RL, Crosstour, none of which has met expectations, that they could have taken that several billion and invested it in a true low cost sports car to sell. And they might not have made money either way, but at least one would have kept a hard core group of Honda fans happy. It is mildly entertaining that you try to call me out for speculating, but then brush the existing 8 products that have NOT met expectations under the rug. To top it off, you take the stance that the consumer is to blame for the product being shitty. A fine day indeed. Here is an even better solution: Honda could have not invested the billions in the above product, and not even built a pure sports car. Instead, they could have kept a worthwhile and Si worthy powertrain in the Si, increased interior quality across their entire product line, improved sound isolation and then still have hundreds of millions, if not billions left over to weather the rainy day. Call me stupid, but I am pretty sure that spending billions of dollars on product that nobody wants (and which anyone with an semblance of common sense could see was undesirable in the market) isn't exactly "rational" from a business standpoint.
P.S. For every one CR-Z owner you can find that thinks the CR-Z is a great little car, I can find roughly 10-20 (if not more) 8th gen Si owners that think their car is also a great little car. So how can you legitimately attempt to sit there and tell me that 100-150K Honda owners don't matter, but 15,000 do; while simultaneously preaching to me about "rational" business decisions? In fact, to put it in even better perspective, you could combine nearly every single product in the above list's total sales, and still not equal the number of 8th gen Si owners. But they don't matter because they might not like what Honda is selling.
Okay, well...
1). Where are the CO2 reduction commitments from Ford, Toyota and Subaru? Of the high-revving engines produced by those companies what are the deltas in the redlines of those engines compared to Honda's engines? What are the specific outputs of those engines? What are the real world MPG returns of those engines when tested under the same conditions? Where are their fuel cell cars, sensible and inexpensive hybrids, and gasoline engines offering comparable power from smaller displacements?
2.) I've never claimed any one posting in this thread is irrational. I've been pointing out that no one gets to pick and choose the specs to complain about without taking them in the proper perspective of all of the factors. CAFE numbers for the companies do vary because of conditions outside the control of the companies.
3.) So what products do Americans want? If you ask any buyer in the US what cars should be produced the common answer is the Prius or some such enviro-friendly product. Americans are all in favor of the other guy doing the right thing. The best selling car in the US this year will probably be the F150 again so we know where that goes. Americans want to reduce oil imports. Americans want to save the environment. Americans want to be ready since we've seen "peak oil" and that inconvenient truth blather. Is it good business sense to ignore all of those factors or are the other companies just following their five-year plans which they update every year hoping the legislation and markets will change?
4.) I disagree 100% about the mix of cars and trucks sold by Honda today not being worthwhile. The problem is execution. The number one lesson of the 1990's, especially with the near death of the Porsche firm you started this discussion with, was one of product diversification being required for survival as an independent company and I'll bet no one here wanted to see Honda bought out by Mitsubishi or Fuji. If every last one of those Hondas which disappoint you and others on TOV had been a sales hit right out the door TOV would be overflowing with "hey, Honda has the coolest pickup for the regular homeowner" or "look at the Germans copying that Acura luxury cross-over".
Finally, I've never said anything of the sort that any Honda owner, or more correctly, any Honda buyer doesn't matter. The important part here is Honda must focus on the people who will buy its new products now and every last brainiac market study in the media in the US says it's fewer young people, fewer males, fewer automobile enthusiasts and more women, more professionals, more middled-aged customers. None of us on TOV made that up.
I see Honda today as a company that made a strong stand on the environment and is now facing pressures from all sides in the form of buyers who don't really want intelligent products but rather cool cars, people who never buy Honda products but believe their opinions still count such as the folks in the media, a performance enthusiast base here on TOV which is at odds with its new focus on economical cars for the average customer, and governmental forces which seem like good ideas that are almost never executed in rational ways.
Grace, you still have not answered the question, and now you are merely attempting to divert the topic.
1) The original question still stands without an answer. How is it that Honda is seemingly unable to provide high-revving engines (and per your own defense, not able to even maintain revs), and yet Ford, Toyota and Subaru can not only eclipse Honda's rev numbers, but can still meet the very same regulations that Honda must meet? Further, they must meet the same regulations while being at a larger disadvantage relative to the targets created by those regs...
You are attempting to add a corporate CHOICE to an equation that didn't include it in the first place. Any voluntary CO2 reduction targets that Honda has implemented over Ford, Toyota or Subaru do NOT factor into CAFE, EPA, CARB or any of the various other government entities with which you have attempted to place the blame for Honda's poor performance. Now that Honda has committed to that course of action, and it has become clear that it is hampering the competitiveness of many of their products, I would argue it is proving to be a bad decision. IMO, it is a mistake for Honda to put greenness above all other characteristics of their product.
You can not exempt Honda relative to the competition for making choices that aren't necessarily mandated. You certainly can't attempt to add it to a defense based on what is required.
2) Let's take a look at the Mustang versus the Civic Si. The Civic Si has a 2.4L with 201HP and 170 lb-ft. That works out to just shy of 84 HP/L (a 16% reduction from the K20). The Mustang GT has 420HP from a 5.0L, which gives them exactly 84 HP/L. So the 5.0 in the Mustang GT matches the Honda's specific output, and redlines only 300 RPM less despite being over twice the size. For torque, the Si musters 70 lb-ft per liter (pretty much identical to the K20's output), but the Mustang delivers 390 from 5.0, soundly trumping the K-series with 78 lb-ft/L (an 11% improvement). So realistically, the delta in redline is 4%, they are even matched in HP/L and the Mustang clobbers the K24 in torque/Liter. I would say that puts the Mustang pretty on par with the K24 in terms of specific output metrics. To be fair to the K series, the 5.0 does get more power strokes per crank rotation, which naturally bolsters torque. However, it is clear that through increased technology, Ford has taken an engine format that has traditionally trailed Honda's high outputs and made it better Honda's results. And, I can step into one for about $7K over the Si, so Ford has also unquestionably done it at an affordable price point. In the case of the Boss 302, those figures are slightly higher in HP and lower in torque. HP/L is just shy of 90 HP/L and torque is slightly lower than the regular version at 76 lb-ft/liter. Clearly, the regular GT is tuned slightly more for cost and torque, while the relatively lightly breathed upon 5.0 in the Boss is well stomping the K24 in both measures, while still providing a 6% increase in redline. Somehow, Ford manages to produce both cars (and the regular GT in fairly significant quantities of 40-60K per year), while working to meet the same mandate and deadline Honda has. How do they do that? More technology, not less. Pulling technology out of engines as a means to contain cost at the expense of all else was the domain of the domestics 10 years ago. Now, Ford and GM are literally stuffing their engines with technology that SHOULD have been commonplace on Honda's engines a decade ago, had they maintained their previous trajectory. Now, we have Honda PULLING technology out of their engines in chase of some bogus CO2 claim based on a mathematical paper excercise. It is a sad day when Ford builds a stonking torquing pony car that obliterates Honda's forte of high revs, and high specific output. Note that Ford did this without using DI. Also, if the logic of removing technology to improve emissions hold true, then why don't old engines meet current standards? It is just a ridiculous premise.
2) Let's look at the FR-S/BRZ. It has a 2.0L 4 banger that produces 200HP and 151 lb-ft. That essentially matches the K20 in HP, but beats it by 5 lb-ft per liter in torque. It also produces both peak values at a lower RPM, but still manages to rev to 7500, which again is 6% better than the K24. So here is Subaru and Toyota, whose traditional forte is turbo fours/sixes stomping the crap out Honda in their traditional area of strength. According to fuel economy.gov, this engine is able to match all of the metrics of the Si. There aren't a published results yet on the EPA site for emissions.
Also, this "Honda has no choice because of EPA/CAFE." crap is getting old, so we are going to blow that open right now. I had read enough articles over the years to suspect this excuse was bunk, but I just read a whole bunch more, and there really is no merit to your argument, especially in the short term, and especially with relation to the K24 vs the K20 argument.
1) In order to meet the ULEV-II tier of the 2012 Si, the 2009 Si would need the following improvements:
NOx - 0%
CO - 50%
NMOG - 40%
PM - 0%
HCHO - 37%
So while it is convenient to pretend that the K20Z3 is some disgusting pile of environmentl destruction, we are talking very small total amounts of pollutant (2g/mile CO vs 355g/mile CO2), and relatively large % in several areas. However, the K24Z7 is able to meet those standards with relatively small changes compared to older versions, so logic stands to dictate that not only could the K20Z3 also be made to match, but probably stands a better chance based on smaller displacement. Shawn might be able to better elaborate on what technologies would help which areas, as that is not my area of expertise, nor do I care to read about it at this time.
As for greenhouse gasses, the K24 manages a 4% reduction vs the K20Z3 hardly ground shattering. Since GHG is completely the result of burning fuel, and smaller engines burn less fuel per combustion event, there is no logical reason to believe that a smaller engine with higher power density couldn't somehow be made to produce less GHG emissions in their testing cycle. Of course, this has been proven by Honda for the last 30-40 years, and call me crazy, but I don't buy that the laws of the universe have suddenly shifted just because Obama was elected (even though he would probably like you to think so).
According to the cars.com article, Honda already cleared their 2016 CAFE target by 2011, so to argue that in the short term Honda has to have the K24 in the Si (which accounts for a minuscule percentage of Honda's total score anyway) is just wrong.
To top it off, Hyundai passed them despite adding MORE performance cars, more V8 models, and more sporty versions of existing cars since 2009. Considering Hyundai has lower total sales (even including Kia, they are about even with Honda), telling me that Honda can't do one fun engine is still bullshit.
3) If Honda were producing hybrid cars that people actually WANTED to buy, then they wouldn't even have to worry about it, because the much higher average MPG over the much higher number of total sales would bolster their CAFE score even more, not to mention the effect axing all of the big heavy fuel inefficient crap would have. If they cut the ZDX, Crosstour, Ridgeline and RL, their score would most certainly also rise more than what the Si would drag it down (assuming it couldn't be improved, which we know is false). That doesn't count all of the altering footprints they could do, or the fact that CAFE apparently isn't completely mandated either.
I never said anything about niche proliferation being a bad thing. Some of Honda's greatest cars where "niche" vehicles. But you are denying my point that if Honda had avoided niche vehicles that make absolutely no sense, they would have had more than enough cash to build an Si that actually gave more performance, and they could have put more money into the areas they have been under attack for lately (like interiors) and still come out in the same relative financial position. In fact, you could even say a BETTER financial position because the improvement in reviews, perception and feedback would have removed a lot of the headwind they have had lately. There is a large difference between producing niche vehicles and horrible niche vehicles. I knew right off that the Crosstour and ZDX weren't going to sell. I thought the Element was a stupid idea in 2001. Why would you build a vehicle for 21 year old males with no job? I hoped the CR-Z was going to do better, but with the severely lacking power, and very mediocre MPG, I knew it wouldn't deep down. Once denial was peeled away, I learned to deal with it. I also new the Insight wasn't going to work. Too cheap, to unrefined, to slow, to mediocre in the MPG department. Again, denial was there for a spell, but eventually sales took care of that.
Honda has essentially invested literally BILLIONS of dollars in vehicles that will NEVER come close to breaking even. And yet, you are haranguing me about wanting a few modifications to a K20Z3 in the Si. Even a small displacement bump for the moar torks guys would have been fine by me (2.2L on the K20Z3 head would just shut up "the K24Z7 has more usable torque" guys. You attempt to further invalidate my point by pointing to all of the happy CR-Z and Insight owners (as if that justifies screwing the Si owners), and when you get called on it, you try to pretend you didn't discount a group of owners.
4) I don't presume to know what Americans want, but they have made it quite clear they don't want green crap stuffed down their throats on the false illusion it is going to save the planet and save them money. Hybrids still have no reasonable pay-off horizon which is why there is not a lot of repeat hybrid owners. We also have a fire in the state here that has pumped out enough CO2 to probably offset what the cars will produce for a year, so MMGW is still total bullshit, and more people are figuring it out.
5) The same "brainiacs" telling Honda what to build, are the same ones that said the 2013 Civic cheapness was a good idea, the CR-Z would sell, the Insight was perfect and the ZDX would be a halo. They are the ones that told Honda the Crosstour looked good and would increase sales by 20-30K and that building a plastic trucklet thing for unemployed 21 year-olds with no job was a good idea. You'll have to forgive me for not agreeing with Honda's marketing department, especially when other companies more traditional products are chipping away at Honda's lunch by being more like Honda's old conventional products. All the college grads in the world don't replace common sense.
Finally, being more or less a Gen Y'er, there are several HUGE flaws to your logic on gen Y. First, they do like technology, but they also like quality. For them, technology is not necessarily just iPods and Bluetooth. They aren't buying because they have no jobs. Thus Honda either has to plan for them in the future and cater to their existing customers now, or lose more billions. I can assure you that when the time comes, Gen Y people will mirror previous generations closely in a lot of ways. They want build quality, value, and high levels of technology as a means to improve an outcome. Sounds a lot like Honda did 20 years ago, doesn't it? They aren't necessarily against gas engines, but they aren't necessarily for them either. Gen Y will be much more value conscious. The days of loose credit and speculation will be largely gone, as will living beyond their means. That lifestyle is what has them where they are now, and they already show signs of behaving differently. They save, they pay cash, they do not trust the financial industry. Look to the depression generation if you want to figure out Gen Y. We are much more likely to save and pay cash vs running up the charge card. That said, we often will go for the smaller when we could have the larger. Take me and the Si. I didn't NEED an Acura, or a fully loaded Accord, or a V6 6MT. I wanted a fun car that was still practical, but was well built, reliable, good looking and had a lot of unique character. The same thing I have wanted in all of our Hondas. My sisters (both solidly Gen Y) are much the same way, as are their friends. Boomers and Gen X can't figure out Gen Y because they don't get why people wouldn't want to continue their ways. They think they need a new form of "bling" (in the form of gizmos) rather than solid, sensible product. Again, an area Honda used to excel (and where Hyundai is increasingly going). Honda needs to go backward to move forward. That doesn't mean solely gas engines, tin boxes or plebian features. It means products that make sense, and actually produce results. A 120HP hyrbid that only gets 37MPG is NOT the kind of crap Honda needs.
sadlerau wrote: The NSX v1 was never about power, or out-performing anybody's numbers, it was about the technological challenge and the purity of the driving experience in excellent comfort and with everyday car reliability.
In other words, not a DSC [male appendage swinging competition] :)
If the NSX v2 delivers "average" supercar performance, and retains as much purity of driving involvement that the eSH-AWD allows, it will hit Honda's targets. Not saying it will hit every-bodies target!
I believe the Legend with the SH-AWD could just about match a GT-R 35 in handling, IF it had the horsepower and sports suspension!
That is not correct. The NSX was designed to outperform its main competitor from Ferrari. The NSX main target and what it was specifically designed to beat was the Ferrari 328/348. The NSX was originally going to have less power and a less advanced engine and it was decided that would not be enough power to satisfy enthusiasts and to compete and beat the Ferrari 328/348. The 3.0 liter engine was DOHC, featured for the first time Vtec, and had titanium connecting rods all to give it the power and performance to justify the looks and price.
It was pretty much unheard of for a NA 3l V6 to get 270hp at that time or put out its performance numbers, even today those are pretty impressive numbers for a NA 3 liter V6. The increased the size of the engine to 3.2L and gave it a 6 speed to be able to compete with the 355 Ferrari and Porsche updating the 911.
If the NSX was just about purity, comfort, and reliability then they would have just used a 4 cylinder in a smaller lighter car. If the new NSX is about purity and reliability they certainly would not be using some complicated e-SHAWD powertrain.
Also one of the biggest reason the NSX sales and interest tapered off significantly was because it no longer had enough power and performance to compete with the Ferrari 360-430/911 turbo-GT3 especially considering its price kept creeping up and there were no significant updates. Honda basically left it to die because they did not want to give it the power updates it should have got.
People are not going to drop a lot of money just for a sports car that is pure and comfortable or gets good gas mileage if it does not make the power and have the performance to compete.
Your assertions about the powertrain are incorrect.
Honda's engineers had met the original performance target with a 250HP SOHC 3.0L V6 based on the unit in the Acura Legend. The first application of VTEC was in the B16 that debuted in the 1989 Civic SIR, and Honda was eager to expand and market the technology, so the decision was made to add it to the NSX. The necessitated fairly extensive structural changes, including increasing the length of the car so that the new DOHC engine would fit in the engine bay. They also had to tilt the engine slightly sideways, so that they could minimize the length of the required increase. It proved to be a fortuitous change, but was not originally part of the plan. Ironically, the car was actually more stable aerodynamically, but it also took more flak for being styled with slightly odd proportions as a result of the longer butt.
sadlerau wrote: The NSX v1 was never about power, or out-performing anybody's numbers, it was about the technological challenge and the purity of the driving experience in excellent comfort and with everyday car reliability.
In other words, not a DSC [male appendage swinging competition] :)
If the NSX v2 delivers "average" supercar performance, and retains as much purity of driving involvement that the eSH-AWD allows, it will hit Honda's targets. Not saying it will hit every-bodies target!
I believe the Legend with the SH-AWD could just about match a GT-R 35 in handling, IF it had the horsepower and sports suspension!
That is not correct. The NSX was designed to outperform its main competitor from Ferrari. The NSX main target and what it was specifically designed to beat was the Ferrari 328/348. The NSX was originally going to have less power and a less advanced engine and it was decided that would not be enough power to satisfy enthusiasts and to compete and beat the Ferrari 328/348. The 3.0 liter engine was DOHC, featured for the first time Vtec, and had titanium connecting rods all to give it the power and performance to justify the looks and price.
It was pretty much unheard of for a NA 3l V6 to get 270hp at that time or put out its performance numbers, even today those are pretty impressive numbers for a NA 3 liter V6. The increased the size of the engine to 3.2L and gave it a 6 speed to be able to compete with the 355 Ferrari and Porsche updating the 911.
If the NSX was just about purity, comfort, and reliability then they would have just used a 4 cylinder in a smaller lighter car. If the new NSX is about purity and reliability they certainly would not be using some complicated e-SHAWD powertrain.
Also one of the biggest reason the NSX sales and interest tapered off significantly was because it no longer had enough power and performance to compete with the Ferrari 360-430/911 turbo-GT3 especially considering its price kept creeping up and there were no significant updates. Honda basically left it to die because they did not want to give it the power updates it should have got.
People are not going to drop a lot of money just for a sports car that is pure and comfortable or gets good gas mileage if it does not make the power and have the performance to compete.
Your assertions about the powertrain are incorrect.
Honda's engineers had met the original performance target with a 250HP SOHC 3.0L V6 based on the unit in the Acura Legend. The first application of VTEC was in the B16 that debuted in the 1989 Civic SIR, and Honda was eager to expand and market the technology, so the decision was made to add it to the NSX. The necessitated fairly extensive structural changes, including increasing the length of the car so that the new DOHC engine would fit in the engine bay. They also had to tilt the engine slightly sideways, so that they could minimize the length of the required increase. It proved to be a fortuitous change, but was not originally part of the plan. Ironically, the car was actually more stable aerodynamically, but it also took more flak for being styled with slightly odd proportions as a result of the longer butt.
owequitit I think you will find that the use of DOHC heads did increase the wheelbase, but the longer butt [which IMHO is the car's weakest design feature] was instigated in an effort to create more boot space for the US market.
lexusgs I did not say the NSX was any slower than it's introductory competition, just that power and straight line performance were not critical to the design ethos of the NSX v1. I think you will find that Honda's targets for the day were to "match" the rivals in straight line speed terms, but outperform them from a handling point of view. The real horsepower numbers will be forever tainted by the in-accurate reporting of those numbers back then. [My NSX 3.2 recently had Comptec headers and a Cold Air Intake added to the aftermarket muffler system. It was dynoed soon after a F355, rated at 380hp, my "modified" car {rated at 290hp} put down 263hp, the Ferrari 275hp.
The NSX until this century would hold it's own, not necessarily outperform. In other words not a DSC car :)
In the words of a fellow NSXPrimer, the NSX is not a poor man's Ferrari, but a smart man's Ferrari!
owequitit wrote: Grace, you still have not answered the question, and now you are merely attempting to divert the topic.
Owe, the answer is right there in all of the conditions affecting the specs for the '12 Civic Si.
- A full mix of Honda cars selling in unsatisfactory numbers for CAFE calculations with unknown results for future products.
- Ramping up CAFE MPG requirements.
- A shifting market for the Civic in general.
- Honda forces in Japan and the US disagreeing on the size and role of the Civic in the US.
- The introduction of the Fit to the US market allowing the Civic to grow in size.
- Honda's green commitment.
- The 2008 financial meltdown.
- The introduction of the '12 Si to the US market with what we now know to have been a pre-ED, one model year drivetrain assuming the '13 Civics get the ED tech. I'll point out that not a single K20 person on TOV ever suggested the K24 in the '12 Si was a new engine but rather a quick swap from the TSX. If you give the engineers the benefit of the doubt it's this very factor that makes the most sense.
And none of the above even attempts to bring into play the understanding that Honda can build what it wants to build.
I apologize for not reading the remainder of your comments. I don't disagree with your comments or data, only your conclusions. No one here has ever suggested that Honda can't build a high-revving engine, a highly fuel efficient engine, a clean high-revving engine, or even a Mustang GT. When you mix all of the conditions in the changing regs and the market from the mid-2000's together it's Honda that was at the biggest disadvantage and that was after Honda lead the charge for the changes. And let's be honest about Toyota and their "green car company" claim which apparently means only their cars and not the Tundras, Sequoias, Land Cruisers, LX-whatever.
And no one should believe Honda just wants to kill off the car enthusiast because that would have been much easier than the path they're currently on. All they really would need to do is shut everyone here up and produce more plastic hub caps. The fact that the entire mix of Honda and Acura cars and trucks in the US is pretty consistently rated in reviews means what they're producing is exactly what they intend to produce - it's not like there is one single product that is the black sheep of the family. I don't know what my opinion is of "smart luxury" or whatever but they seem to be consistent about it. I still think that if Honda would just bring in a style guru or even hire Ital Design for a week much of the negativity would be addressed.
Grace141 wrote: The fact that the entire mix of Honda and Acura cars and trucks in the US is pretty consistently rated in reviews means what they're producing is exactly what they intend to produce - it's not like there is one single product that is the black sheep of the family.
Depending on how you define "black sheep", I would say that a car like the ZDX might qualify. With sales of 71 in April, spread among roughly 250 Acura dealers, the ZDX does not seem to appeal to very many people.
If the ZDX is exactly what the Acura brains intended to produce, maybe they should seek more suitable work in a not-for-profit organization.
sadlerau wrote: The NSX v1 was never about power, or out-performing anybody's numbers, it was about the technological challenge and the purity of the driving experience in excellent comfort and with everyday car reliability.
In other words, not a DSC [male appendage swinging competition] :)
If the NSX v2 delivers "average" supercar performance, and retains as much purity of driving involvement that the eSH-AWD allows, it will hit Honda's targets. Not saying it will hit every-bodies target!
I believe the Legend with the SH-AWD could just about match a GT-R 35 in handling, IF it had the horsepower and sports suspension!
That is not correct. The NSX was designed to outperform its main competitor from Ferrari. The NSX main target and what it was specifically designed to beat was the Ferrari 328/348. The NSX was originally going to have less power and a less advanced engine and it was decided that would not be enough power to satisfy enthusiasts and to compete and beat the Ferrari 328/348. The 3.0 liter engine was DOHC, featured for the first time Vtec, and had titanium connecting rods all to give it the power and performance to justify the looks and price.
It was pretty much unheard of for a NA 3l V6 to get 270hp at that time or put out its performance numbers, even today those are pretty impressive numbers for a NA 3 liter V6. The increased the size of the engine to 3.2L and gave it a 6 speed to be able to compete with the 355 Ferrari and Porsche updating the 911.
If the NSX was just about purity, comfort, and reliability then they would have just used a 4 cylinder in a smaller lighter car. If the new NSX is about purity and reliability they certainly would not be using some complicated e-SHAWD powertrain.
Also one of the biggest reason the NSX sales and interest tapered off significantly was because it no longer had enough power and performance to compete with the Ferrari 360-430/911 turbo-GT3 especially considering its price kept creeping up and there were no significant updates. Honda basically left it to die because they did not want to give it the power updates it should have got.
People are not going to drop a lot of money just for a sports car that is pure and comfortable or gets good gas mileage if it does not make the power and have the performance to compete.
Your assertions about the powertrain are incorrect.
Honda's engineers had met the original performance target with a 250HP SOHC 3.0L V6 based on the unit in the Acura Legend. The first application of VTEC was in the B16 that debuted in the 1989 Civic SIR, and Honda was eager to expand and market the technology, so the decision was made to add it to the NSX. The necessitated fairly extensive structural changes, including increasing the length of the car so that the new DOHC engine would fit in the engine bay. They also had to tilt the engine slightly sideways, so that they could minimize the length of the required increase. It proved to be a fortuitous change, but was not originally part of the plan. Ironically, the car was actually more stable aerodynamically, but it also took more flak for being styled with slightly odd proportions as a result of the longer butt.
owequitit I think you will find that the use of DOHC heads did increase the wheelbase, but the longer butt [which IMHO is the car's weakest design feature] was instigated in an effort to create more boot space for the US market.
lexusgs I did not say the NSX was any slower than it's introductory competition, just that power and straight line performance were not critical to the design ethos of the NSX v1. I think you will find that Honda's targets for the day were to "match" the rivals in straight line speed terms, but outperform them from a handling point of view. The real horsepower numbers will be forever tainted by the in-accurate reporting of those numbers back then. [My NSX 3.2 recently had Comptec headers and a Cold Air Intake added to the aftermarket muffler system. It was dynoed soon after a F355, rated at 380hp, my "modified" car {rated at 290hp} put down 263hp, the Ferrari 275hp.
The NSX until this century would hold it's own, not necessarily outperform. In other words not a DSC car :)
In the words of a fellow NSXPrimer, the NSX is not a poor man's Ferrari, but a smart man's Ferrari!
The increase was primarily the result of the engine. The side effect was stability. I haven't read anything official that confirms it was for extra boot space, and Brian Long's book doesn't mention it either.
owequitit wrote: Grace, you still have not answered the question, and now you are merely attempting to divert the topic.
Owe, the answer is right there in all of the conditions affecting the specs for the '12 Civic Si.
- A full mix of Honda cars selling in unsatisfactory numbers for CAFE calculations with unknown results for future products.
- Ramping up CAFE MPG requirements.
- A shifting market for the Civic in general.
- Honda forces in Japan and the US disagreeing on the size and role of the Civic in the US.
- The introduction of the Fit to the US market allowing the Civic to grow in size.
- Honda's green commitment.
- The 2008 financial meltdown.
- The introduction of the '12 Si to the US market with what we now know to have been a pre-ED, one model year drivetrain assuming the '13 Civics get the ED tech. I'll point out that not a single K20 person on TOV ever suggested the K24 in the '12 Si was a new engine but rather a quick swap from the TSX. If you give the engineers the benefit of the doubt it's this very factor that makes the most sense.
And none of the above even attempts to bring into play the understanding that Honda can build what it wants to build.
I apologize for not reading the remainder of your comments. I don't disagree with your comments or data, only your conclusions. No one here has ever suggested that Honda can't build a high-revving engine, a highly fuel efficient engine, a clean high-revving engine, or even a Mustang GT. When you mix all of the conditions in the changing regs and the market from the mid-2000's together it's Honda that was at the biggest disadvantage and that was after Honda lead the charge for the changes. And let's be honest about Toyota and their "green car company" claim which apparently means only their cars and not the Tundras, Sequoias, Land Cruisers, LX-whatever.
And no one should believe Honda just wants to kill off the car enthusiast because that would have been much easier than the path they're currently on. All they really would need to do is shut everyone here up and produce more plastic hub caps. The fact that the entire mix of Honda and Acura cars and trucks in the US is pretty consistently rated in reviews means what they're producing is exactly what they intend to produce - it's not like there is one single product that is the black sheep of the family. I don't know what my opinion is of "smart luxury" or whatever but they seem to be consistent about it. I still think that if Honda would just bring in a style guru or even hire Ital Design for a week much of the negativity would be addressed.
Grace, you didn't read the rest of the comments because you can't respond to them. You have had about 10 opportunities and can produce nothing but diversion and smoke. Chalk one up to me.
Yes, actually, you did repeatedly say Honda couldn't build high revving engines because of CAFE. If you would like a thread wide breakdown about how YOU repeatedly made that statement, you let me know, and I will show you your own words with clear intent. It is the same bogus excuse you and all the other "Honda can do no wrong" crowd have been using all along.
Honda doesn't need to neuter the Si to ramp up CAFE score. They need to dump the shitty product that doesn't sell. The Si is inconsequential either way (especially given the meager increase in measured MPG x sales volume compared to the 8th gen; which is exactly how CAFE is measured). Again, you can't counter the argument.
Your assertion about the K24 MIGHT make sense if there was something to replace it. There isn't. The only thing close is another Accord optimized 2.4L, only this time it features DI and MIGHT increase power. More than likely, the regular Civic and hybrid will get new powertrains, while the Si will soldier on with the K24 for the remainder of the run. We don't even know what the 2.4 produces, but we do know it is crippled by the same hippie loving compromises as the current engine.
The Fit argument is invalid. The Civic didn't grow, and it didn't gain weight. This is more smoke, and attempting to pass Honda's issues off as solely those of styling is even bigger B.S. in the context of this discussion. Forget not that I actually LIKE the current Civic's styling, so no, it wouldn't stop all of the bitching. We have owned several Hondas that weren't impressive in the looks department. The fact that you attempt to chalk Honda's issues largely and predominantly up to styling show just how disconnected from reality you and your fellows are. Styling is certainly an issue, but it is far from the only one.
owequitit wrote: Grace, you didn't read the rest of the comments because you can't respond to them. You have had about 10 opportunities and can produce nothing but diversion and smoke. Chalk one up to me.
It would nice if we could keep our ego's out of these topics.
Then maybe they woudn't go on for 5 pages.
:)
sadlerau wrote: The NSX v1 was never about power, or out-performing anybody's numbers, it was about the technological challenge and the purity of the driving experience in excellent comfort and with everyday car reliability.
In other words, not a DSC [male appendage swinging competition] :)
If the NSX v2 delivers "average" supercar performance, and retains as much purity of driving involvement that the eSH-AWD allows, it will hit Honda's targets. Not saying it will hit every-bodies target!
I believe the Legend with the SH-AWD could just about match a GT-R 35 in handling, IF it had the horsepower and sports suspension!
That is not correct. The NSX was designed to outperform its main competitor from Ferrari. The NSX main target and what it was specifically designed to beat was the Ferrari 328/348. The NSX was originally going to have less power and a less advanced engine and it was decided that would not be enough power to satisfy enthusiasts and to compete and beat the Ferrari 328/348. The 3.0 liter engine was DOHC, featured for the first time Vtec, and had titanium connecting rods all to give it the power and performance to justify the looks and price.
It was pretty much unheard of for a NA 3l V6 to get 270hp at that time or put out its performance numbers, even today those are pretty impressive numbers for a NA 3 liter V6. The increased the size of the engine to 3.2L and gave it a 6 speed to be able to compete with the 355 Ferrari and Porsche updating the 911.
If the NSX was just about purity, comfort, and reliability then they would have just used a 4 cylinder in a smaller lighter car. If the new NSX is about purity and reliability they certainly would not be using some complicated e-SHAWD powertrain.
Also one of the biggest reason the NSX sales and interest tapered off significantly was because it no longer had enough power and performance to compete with the Ferrari 360-430/911 turbo-GT3 especially considering its price kept creeping up and there were no significant updates. Honda basically left it to die because they did not want to give it the power updates it should have got.
People are not going to drop a lot of money just for a sports car that is pure and comfortable or gets good gas mileage if it does not make the power and have the performance to compete.
Your assertions about the powertrain are incorrect.
Honda's engineers had met the original performance target with a 250HP SOHC 3.0L V6 based on the unit in the Acura Legend. The first application of VTEC was in the B16 that debuted in the 1989 Civic SIR, and Honda was eager to expand and market the technology, so the decision was made to add it to the NSX. The necessitated fairly extensive structural changes, including increasing the length of the car so that the new DOHC engine would fit in the engine bay. They also had to tilt the engine slightly sideways, so that they could minimize the length of the required increase. It proved to be a fortuitous change, but was not originally part of the plan. Ironically, the car was actually more stable aerodynamically, but it also took more flak for being styled with slightly odd proportions as a result of the longer butt.
owequitit I think you will find that the use of DOHC heads did increase the wheelbase, but the longer butt [which IMHO is the car's weakest design feature] was instigated in an effort to create more boot space for the US market.
lexusgs I did not say the NSX was any slower than it's introductory competition, just that power and straight line performance were not critical to the design ethos of the NSX v1. I think you will find that Honda's targets for the day were to "match" the rivals in straight line speed terms, but outperform them from a handling point of view. The real horsepower numbers will be forever tainted by the in-accurate reporting of those numbers back then. [My NSX 3.2 recently had Comptec headers and a Cold Air Intake added to the aftermarket muffler system. It was dynoed soon after a F355, rated at 380hp, my "modified" car {rated at 290hp} put down 263hp, the Ferrari 275hp.
The NSX until this century would hold it's own, not necessarily outperform. In other words not a DSC car :)
In the words of a fellow NSXPrimer, the NSX is not a poor man's Ferrari, but a smart man's Ferrari!
The increase was primarily the result of the engine. The side effect was stability. I haven't read anything official that confirms it was for extra boot space, and Brian Long's book doesn't mention it either.
CRV-9's translation:
"It got very busy with the development with the change of the engine to DOHC VTEC.
Because the engine-head became bigger, the straight-mount became the 5 degree tilted-mount toward the rear. Besides shaving around the engine to create an extra space, the wheel-base had to be extended 30mm. Even 30mm, 3cm, the calculated values of body strength had to be recalculated. The whole design had to be readjusted. "
If anything, boot space will be reduced by the bulge around the 'spare wheel' space in the bulkhead for the rearmost bank.
![[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}
