Watch any sporting event in the US, or auto racing, or any type of show with a majority of male viewers and you'll see products advertised to treat Erectile Dysfunction, or as they commonly abbreviate in the ads, ED. Bad move advertising something as ED in the US media.
Who told you that the ED engines presented is all that Honda has for future. Yes, the "Earth Dream" sounds silly in many languages, however we have to give them the benefit of doubt as it might sound good i Japanese. Maybe they used Google translator? ED could also stand for "exceptional durability". Or "experimental design/development." I guess they could have researched more what that means in other languages. Since they have the slogan "Blue sky for our children" they could have called it "Blue sky" engines ("BS" engines for short, that would be more telling in other languages too and indicate it will operate on "natural gas").
You talk about 10 years ago, well 12 years ago Honda brought a 9K rpm, 120HP per liter engine. This little jewel of an engine really fired up the "whiners" and it did not take long before Honda had to up the cc and lower the rpm to please the enthusiasts. Hard to please the enthusiasts, eh?
The new engines will be more FE, have more torque and HP while presenting the power at a broader range. The engines are made for Honda main stream cars.
Now, did Honda tell you about new enthusiast cars? With "Whiiiiner" engines for enthusiasts. You have seen nothing yet, not just drive-train wise but the whole vehicle. You said yourself "Open your eyes." Open them wider and like I said you will be amazed at what is coming. The coming "earth quake" from Honda. With a "tsunami" of enthusiasts following.
BTW, where did you see " top of class EPA fuel economy" in competitors turbo engines? I mean in the real world, not at constant HWY speed. If you want the power from a turbo engine you are also going to pay the penalty in FE. Air do not produce power, you need fuel.
Who told you Honda have quit, given up, surrendered or thrown in the towel? Like I said, you will be amazed. Open your eyes wider, you have seen nothing yet.
All that to say what? "Wait and see?". I'll repeat the question. Where have you seen any evidence that Honda cares about the enthusiast?
I'm waiting.....
You're welcome to pull stuff out of your ass, but dont try and blow smoke up mine mmkay?
BachelorFrog wrote: Seriously, what wrong with ED name? Correct me Im wrong, but int the name is inspired by this?
Be careful there. You might just make the connection between the delayed intro of the ED tech in the Civic and ILX and the problems which put Honda F1 in the middle or back of the pack in F1 during the 2000's.
JMU R1 wrote: I hope the Earth Dreams engines are not a bunch of neutered and boring eco lumps because if they are that probably means we are not going to see any decent Honda performance engines for 7 to 10 years at the least.
You know, if they are neutered turds, I think it will be the last straw for me.
Unfortunately that's the way they seem to be turning out. The V6 might be fine. The inline 4s are commuter engines, not performance engines... their entire architecture points that way.
By the way, the point that Owe is making isn't that we should be comparing our K20s to Porsche engines... the point is that Honda has captured much of that same feeling of high revving, precise driving and feel in something that costed less than $25K. It can be argued when the S2000 was around (and it was truly better than the first gen Boxster), that Honda was one of the best in the business when it came to driving enjoyment.
The fact that the cars longer have such traits that made Hondas endearing is what we're all upset about.
And truthfully, it would not be difficult to update the K20, in a similar vein to those ED engines, to meet emissions standards. Honda left a lot on the table- better catalysts, EGR, exhaust cam phasing, further engine friction reduction including an offset crank, more sophisticated thermal management... it's all THERE, Honda just doesn't want to use it.
notyper wrote: ...
All that to say what? "Wait and see?". I'll repeat the question. Where have you seen any evidence that Honda cares about the enthusiast?
I'm waiting.....
You're welcome to pull stuff out of our ass, but dont try and blow smoke up mine mmkay?
SC
Ay! Talk to Barack... he's the cause.
A militant anti car EPA
A militant anti energy DOE
A militant anti law DOJ
A militant anti business FTC
A militant anti science NASA
A militant anti pragma White House
Until such time as those things change or unless you can power that car with algae, windmills and/or rainbows... what would a manufacturer do?
The smaller ones were given some type of bye by the EPA.. and even then they are building hybrids too.
In the meantime it's all about computer control and efficiency. Gas is at 4.40 a gallon and with The Anointed One's policies is not going down.
Meanwhile the Nanny State is making the cars heavier...
owequitit wrote: ...
Again, the other point you neglect is that nearly everyone but Honda is managing to provide what we want and they are all still meeting the same criteria Honda has to meet.
I don't think they are....
The EPA numbers quoted by many manufacturers are far from the truth -they are gaming it.
The Germans are building hybrids to up their CAFE numbers. Because they are smaller, they were giving a niche number. And they cost a BUNDLE...
In Europe they all do diesel which is a crazy way to achieve efficiency.
In the meantime, Honda has gone mainstream... I mean, during the days you all yearn for, the 90s, AHM survived on the Accord and Civic for almost 90% of the run rate in the US.
Are they perfect.. no, for sure they misread the financial market, the destruction/aid that Obama would lavish with our tax dollars on GM and Chrysler, AHM wasted too much money on strange ideas and then HMC shut the pipeline too much.
On top of that, there was a quake and a flood.
However, HMC seems to be quite profitable right now... and the designs being shown are finally reasonable. ED seems an evolution towards more efficiency and mild hybridization is finally being done with common sense (dual motors and/or eSH-AWD).
Meantime, gas is 4.40 a gallon and there really are not many jobs for young people... who, anyhow, seem to care more about the iPod/Pandora connections than the redline or the number of gears.
Thus... I think we're are turning into dinosaurs talking about MTs and 8000 rpm redlines. Or Don Quijotes fighting the UN Carbon Fighting, Wealth Destroying autocrats.
Oh, yeah.. I've been driving a hybrid for a long time. No, I have not driven an Si for a long time. Just got the insurance quote for what now will be four cars with two kids. We passed on the Si.
notyper wrote: ...
All that to say what? "Wait and see?". I'll repeat the question. Where have you seen any evidence that Honda cares about the enthusiast?
I'm waiting.....
You're welcome to pull stuff out of our ass, but dont try and blow smoke up mine mmkay?
SC
Ay! Talk to Barack... he's the cause.
Honda was de-sporting their lineup way before Obama moved into the White House...
P54 wrote: ... the new NSX for $100+K or the Porsche for $900K....
So, if the NSX-2 is beaten by the Porsche that costs 5 to 9 times more, then Honda is finished??
It is starting to get ridiculous.
What's next?
A comparison test between Civic Si and R8 4.2??
Ask and you shall receive, K20 Civic Type R vs Audi R8:
But seriously, why do the F1 decision makers want to keep higher RPM's?
"Starting 2014, the F1 cars will need to be powered by V6 1.6-litre turbo engine that will be rev limited to 15,000 rpm and not the originally planned 12,000 rpm that generated several concerns about the sound of the motors."
More RPM's, more sound, more entertainment.
Honda F1 sound: V10, more than 18500 rpm
PS4,
Is this what Honda is planning for us? Put it in a CRZ and call it a day!
I hope your not bluffing!
Doctors should recommend engines like this instead of Viagra!
Nah, it was the year before when they coloured the F1 car that ghastly blue/green and black colour, which made it almost invisible on the track. Actually it's on track performance was so abysmal I wish it had been invisible! :)
P54 wrote: What vehicle put Honda on the map as a car manufacturer, the 1300 or the Civic? So the Civic was the successful vehicle that brought many to Honda, not the 1300. The 1300 was the "learning" vehicle. If high rpm is all you look for Honda made 9000rpm cars before the 1300.
Yes, but isn't that my point? I see the similarities today and then. Although I wasn't born in 1973, based on what I read. The Civic was a pretty good decision.
notyper wrote: ...
All that to say what? "Wait and see?". I'll repeat the question. Where have you seen any evidence that Honda cares about the enthusiast?
I'm waiting.....
You're welcome to pull stuff out of our ass, but dont try and blow smoke up mine mmkay?
SC
Ay! Talk to Barack... he's the cause.
A militant anti car EPA
A militant anti energy DOE
A militant anti law DOJ
A militant anti business FTC
A militant anti science NASA
A militant anti pragma White House
Until such time as those things change or unless you can power that car with algae, windmills and/or rainbows... what would a manufacturer do?
The smaller ones were given some type of bye by the EPA.. and even then they are building hybrids too.
In the meantime it's all about computer control and efficiency. Gas is at 4.40 a gallon and with The Anointed One's policies is not going down.
Meanwhile the Nanny State is making the cars heavier...
So.. what would YOU do?
You've hit the nail on the head more than you think here TonyE, especially with Honda, IMO. Couple this with Honda/Acura's market research and you can see why they are doing this...leaving us enthusiasts in the dust. Their next BIG US consumers are the kiddies (Gen Y) that have been indoctrinated into MMGW beyond belief. That Gen also doesn't view cars/performance in the same way past generations have. Hell, most States they can't even drive until 18 now (without a "nanny") and I can't even imagine how many of them don't even know what a manual car is. Ha. My step-son could care less about cars, but mention Apple, Crossfit, or technology and the light bulb turns bright...(no, I'm not proud of this. ha)
I'm not saying I like it or agree with it, but could easily see this as being Honda's reasoning for chopping off their performance parts and leaving us with ED. Here's hoping they at least offer us something in the Acura range...sometime in the next 5 years. Until then, it's off to other manufacturers, unfortunately.
BachelorFrog wrote: Seriously, what wrong with ED name? Correct me Im wrong, but int the name is inspired by this?
Honda surely paid Simon Fuller and his 19 Entertainment company a lot of money for that slogan/concept, so I'm sure they're eager to make full use of it. (But what do those idiots know about marketing? ha ha)
Sure the abbreviation is ED, but as Shawn pointed out, that was already the case for years with BMW's Efficient Dynamics, and I don't think it's hurt them. I've never been too impressed by Porsche Intelligent Performance (PIP), either. But then again, none of these are meant to be abbreviated.
Regardless, I'm not sure we'll even see an Earth Dreams title anywhere - advertising or on car - apart from the engine valve cover. So frankly, unless you are a Honda fan on the TOV forums, and have the urge to abbreviate Earth Dreams, and are uncomfortable with your personal mental association to a medical condition, then I think it's a pretty unimportant point.
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.
CR-V9 wrote: What are you talking about, Wong? What do you mean "every other company", T86? Which company has high-revv engines except $600,000 cars? T86 is 7,000rpm which is the same as 2013 Si's or TSX's 2.4l.
Even Porsche is 5,500 ~ 7,400rpms for $200,000s. What the F...
As for the eNSX, it's all up to how much AHM is allowed to do. Remember it will still be a world car so it will have to meet not only the US regulation but also Euro6, China and JP's regulations. How far above 7,000 will they, can they go?
Your facts are not entirely correct. The FR-S and BRZ both redline at 7500RPM. They are not quite as happy in the top end as a traditional DOHC VTEC Honda, but they are revvy little engines nonetheless. Also, while 7500RPM is not remarkable compared to Honda's traditional standards (which proves Wong's point), it is on par with the H22 in older Hondas, and even produces peak power at about the same RPM.
Second, you are forgetting about cars like the 911 GT3. 7400RPM is what Porsche's REGULAR models do. Their special ones are between 8400-9200RPM (evidenced by the R18 and the upcoming 2013 GT3).
Yet more street legal cars that can meet CAFE/EPA/CARB and still rev to the moon.
So you agree with my suggestion? Do you know how much those their regular cars cost? I'm not even talking about GT3 and R18.
As I said what you guys want is inexpensive high-revv-likeFerrari cars from Honda for Honda price $18k. Whethere you think technically they can do or not don't matter unfortunately.
Oh one more thing, whatever HPD sells are for racing purpose only for grasshopper motor sports, not street legal. You'd have to show your registered race car you're gonna use the parts for and agree to you will not resell the parts you buy to retail. Something like that I think.
The Subaru costs about $1,000 more than the Si to start.
Potenza wrote: Regardless, I'm not sure we'll even see an Earth Dreams title anywhere - advertising or on car - apart from the engine valve cover. So frankly, unless you are a Honda fan on the TOV forums, and have the urge to abbreviate Earth Dreams, and are uncomfortable with your personal mental association to a medical condition, then I think it's a pretty unimportant point.
Actually, I'm hoping that it's a marketing thing that WON'T be stuck on the cars. I found the name odd, but not really appalling or whatever. Just the same kind of odd that can be found by reading through Japanese marketing. 'Skyactiv' is odd too but better. And I don't follow BMW and other manufacturers, so I am not aware they call theirs Efficient Dynamics either (do they stick that on their cars?)
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.
P54 wrote: Here is the solution, buy your Porsche or Ferrari that revs to the moon. Then drive your Honda for the daily commute when you come back to earth.
If you don't have the money for the Porsche and Ferrari then buy a Honda CBR 600 RR that will rev to March, redline starts at 15000 rpm. That little bike will give more rpm thrill than Porsche and Ferrari combined, to a fraction of the cost.
Why in the world is a $100+K car compared to a $20K car??
Honda never said they cannot build a high revving street legal car. They pulled the cars as they had to be upgraded because of new standards and they did not want to spend money on an outgoing model when a new was in the works. That the new one got pulled because of circumstances beyond Honda's control did not deter Honda from developing an even more high performance version yet to come.
Just because competition is making higher revving engines 20 years after Honda does not mean Honda has lost its ability in the engine department. They might rather have shifted focus for the time being, but are still committed to the enthusiast with new vehicles to come.
For all the years with small high revving Honda engines what has been the common complaint? That the engines are peaky, torque-less, gut-less, have to wind it out to perform etc. So for 20 years or more that is what the criticism against Honda has been. How many have complained about how tiresome the Si and R have been, you have to stay between 6-8000 rpm and row the gears. While competition was honored for more low and mid-range power. Now as Honda have put a more user friendly engine in its Si and dropped the redline by a 1000 rpm the complaints are about how it has lost its soul, the high revving nature etc. Eventually Honda will figure out the sweet spot.
I don't want a CBR. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have a bike, but it is one more thing I have to store, buy gear for, and I can't even drive it nearly half the year. Couple that with our extraordinarily high motorcycle accident rate around here, and my statistical probabilities for harm in my day job, and the extra risk is not worth it.
If you want a green car, why don't you go buy a Tesla?
If you want a torque monster daily driver, why don't you go buy a turbo diesel and leave my Si alone?
Grace141 wrote: 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?
I think the reason people are merely asking for 8k rpm redlines is because we're trying very, very hard to stay with Honda. At this point Honda enthusiasts are just asking that Honda doesn't go backwards, and now we can't even get that.
I would love to see a new S2000 with 120+ hp/L or a a crazy production engine that revs to 10k rpm. But there is no sports car. There's no Type-R. All we're left with is the Civic Si. If the Si is going to be the only performance offering from Honda, why can't it at least have the qualities that Honda enthusiasts want? Instead we got a cost-cutter special.
Could you imagine if you were a big Ford Mustang fan, and Ford decided to get rid of the V8 and just gave you a supercharged V6? "It makes similar power, just not as much torque, " would be the excuse from the Ford beancounters. But people who have grown to love the Mustang as a V8 muscle car for generations would HATE IT. There's no way Mustang fans would be happy with a V6 with the same or less performance.
That is in effect what Honda is doing. Watering down what drew us to the cars in the first place. I sincerely hope the Earth Dreams engines turn it around but I'm not terribly optimistic these days.
I would be one of those Mustang fans who lived through the 1979 Turbo-4 Cobra and 1980-81 255 V8 Mustang years. The 157hp 1982 Mustang GT 302 V8 was a welcomed return to horsepower.
It was a hell of a lot more performance that people were getting out of a 65hp Honda Civic... Again, Honda wasn't in a vacuum back then either.
P54 wrote: Why in the world is a $100+K car compared to a $20K car?
Nobody is comparing a $100+k car to a $20k car. What they are saying is you can have a high-reving motor and pass emissions.
Nice try. You make it sound as if the K20 was spitting smog out of it's exhaust, it was not.
When did Honda say they could not make a high revving engine pass emission??
The comparison has been made in regard to what Porsche do with a $100K or $800K car versus the Civic Si. So where is the Porsche with high revving engine for $25K?
When Honda pulled the "R" engine and NSX it was not because they are not able to make a high revving engine to pass new emissions but because they did not want to spend money to update an old design when new vehicles were in the works. Economic crash, earthquake, tsunami, flooding etc has put the new vehicles back and Honda is planning ahead for the 2020 and beyond and hence is developing new drive-trains that will go into the future. Why spend money updating "old" engines instead of putting the money into new development.
What we see now is a transition period while we wait on the new vehicles to come out. You will be amazed.
The only people comparing a $20K car to a $100K or $800k car are you guys trying to build a strawman.
I am actually comparing a $24K car to a $24K car and a $25K car. (2009-2011 Si= $24K, 2012 Si = $24K, BRZ = $25K). Furthermore, while the Mustang GT is a $30-40K car, it also brings RWD, a lot more factory option configurations, and over twice the horsepower, and yet it is affordable by ordinary folks and can even be driven daily.
The only people making non-sensical comparisons are you guys.
That said, I have been told to wait and be amazed for the last 5 years. As it has continued, the opposite is happening and I am getting LESS impressed, more frustrated and more likely to move on. Dismiss that as unimportant all you want. You can only lose so many customers before even the blind fanboys are forced to acknowledge Honda sucks and has gone downhill.
So here. Let me ask you a question:
How long should I wait, and how long is it going to take for me to be amazed?
owequitit wrote: ...
Again, the other point you neglect is that nearly everyone but Honda is managing to provide what we want and they are all still meeting the same criteria Honda has to meet.
I don't think they are....
The EPA numbers quoted by many manufacturers are far from the truth -they are gaming it.
The Germans are building hybrids to up their CAFE numbers. Because they are smaller, they were giving a niche number. And they cost a BUNDLE...
In Europe they all do diesel which is a crazy way to achieve efficiency.
In the meantime, Honda has gone mainstream... I mean, during the days you all yearn for, the 90s, AHM survived on the Accord and Civic for almost 90% of the run rate in the US.
Are they perfect.. no, for sure they misread the financial market, the destruction/aid that Obama would lavish with our tax dollars on GM and Chrysler, AHM wasted too much money on strange ideas and then HMC shut the pipeline too much.
On top of that, there was a quake and a flood.
However, HMC seems to be quite profitable right now... and the designs being shown are finally reasonable. ED seems an evolution towards more efficiency and mild hybridization is finally being done with common sense (dual motors and/or eSH-AWD).
Meantime, gas is 4.40 a gallon and there really are not many jobs for young people... who, anyhow, seem to care more about the iPod/Pandora connections than the redline or the number of gears.
Thus... I think we're are turning into dinosaurs talking about MTs and 8000 rpm redlines. Or Don Quijotes fighting the UN Carbon Fighting, Wealth Destroying autocrats.
Oh, yeah.. I've been driving a hybrid for a long time. No, I have not driven an Si for a long time. Just got the insurance quote for what now will be four cars with two kids. We passed on the Si.
Tony, first, I would like to point out that 50% of our recent Honda purchases fail to even get close to the EPA numbers, so it isn't like everybody else is gaming and Honda is above it. Our VCM Accord is so far off of its sticker value we can't get within 10% of its EPA highway value. Once or twice we were able to get within about 7%, but it is usually closer to a 14% deficit. Sorry, but I am not impressed by that, and I sure as hell am not going to pretend that Honda didn't fuck that up. They better hope to hell that the 13 actually steps it up in the MPG AND performance/drivability department. I will also for, the first time, be putting the Camry SE V6 seriously on the shopping list because they aren't doing any worse that Honda reliability wise, and their approach is more sensical than this current VCM 5AT garbage. By the way, this is the first sale in 20 years that Honda is actually going to have to fight for. They already lost once this year, but since it was to themselves (I bought my 09 Si off lease instead of a 2012, despite the reality that it increased my cost), so they better start to get serious because we have traditionally been Honda only and we are getting tired of the shit. Rapidly.
As for the Germans, only some of them are exempt. There is probably still a lot of legal wrangling because all of VW's divisions were going to be at a disadvantage vs the smaller rivals. Either way, the ONLY part of that whole argument that holds any water at all is the CAFE end, and companies like VW, Honda, Ford, GM, Nissan and Toyota sell enough small, frugal, shitbox cars to offset a couple thousand enthusiast vehicles a year. In fact, ALL of them are building them to their desired demographics taste EXCEPT Honda.
Second, lets be realistic. ED and the cancelled K20 were in the pipe long before the quake or the tsunami. Those were both AFTER the Civic was already on the market, and thus the K24 was already in production, ED was already nearly announced and the enthusiast had already been shafted. The earthquake and tsunami had exactly ZERO bearing on Honda's decision making process with regards to enthusiasts.
Third, Honda's profitability is soon to be reduced IMHO. I do not see the characteristics in their product that fueled their previous long term profitability. I do not believe that their past performance is indicative of future results unless they stop cheapening the crap out of their cars. The CRV signals potential, but it is far from an established trend.
Finally, I also disagree about what kids want. When surveyed, Gen Y'ers consistently look for the fundamental characteristics of generations past. They are simply not as eager to buy it. They are willing to wait and they are proving that willingness whether by force or choice. However, they have also been proving that when they finally do take the plunge, quality, design and leading edge performance are all also important. They have also proven to be hugely brand loyal if they believe the product is right and the company is good. This is completely juxtaposed to Gen X who had virtually zero brand loyalty.
Furthermore, along those lines, why are we investing billions of dollars developing Gen Y products, when we know they can't buy them anyway? On the one hand, I am being told by throngs of people to take it up the tailpipe when I am actually a willing and able customer, but the people I am supposed to cede ground to are not... How does that make any sense at all? That said, I think the BRZ/FR-S will resonate quite well with younger Gen Yers with means. If it does, that will prove the theory that while connectivity is important, it is not the only defining characteristic needed in a car.
Gas at $4.40 doesn't bother me as much as most. First, we are paying about $4 for premium at the moment, and I get around 30MPG which is more than reasonable. Sure the cost has gone up, but not nearly enough to deter me from wanting a car that is fun to drive and has some damn soul to it.
Von Platen said he doesn’t expect Porsche to continue on a trajectory of developing increasingly powerful engines. Instead, he said, advanced powertrain technology and weight-reduction initiatives will allow engineers to continue to expand performance while meeting stiff new fuel-economy edicts.
... the conventional measures of the luxury-performance segments won’t be about engine output or the number of cylinders, he said – it will be about power-to-weight ratio. [...] he insinuates that at Porsche, the drive to continually increase horsepower is over. [...] It’s not a new term, but “responsible performance” is the ground von Platen sees Porsche staking out.
owequitit wrote: 1) "Porsche doesn't have to meet the same CAFE standard."
May be you are on to something, he added:
Porsche’s entire model range must achieve the 35.5-mpg target, but its sales volumes do entitle the company to an extension until 2016 to get within 25 percent of the goal. [i.e. 125 percent of the vehicle’s otherwise applicable foot-print target level]
I think the purpose of the 918 hybrid is "to generate 80 mpg on the New European Driving Cycle."
2) All of these cars must meet the upcoming emmissions standards
Really?
Yes AND no.
AFAIK, only large volume automakers are required to meet the most strigent requirement, others are either treated less strigent or not subject to those requirements.
HAve some good reading from CARB and EPA, plz.
Last but not least, the percentage of sales of Si to Honda [i.e. the impact to fleet ave. etc] and combined with a relatively low price poiint, make it unpalatable to invest in appropriate measures.
Remember what Mugen Europe allegedly said: "Environmental pressures mean naturally-aspirated engines are rapidly being superceded by other engine architectures and technologies. We may never see the like of the K20 in a mainstream production car again”
Was he referring to Ferrari, Porsche, or Lambo.? I think not.
P.S. Ron Rocket: The CTR in the test with a R8 in fact was a CTR Mugen that costs about twice of the regualr CTR.
I wonder if there is a market here for a close to $40k 237 hp 'only' Honda, and how many can appreciate the build, quality it provide and the engineering effort spent [probably the reactions on the net would be: Honda lost its mind, or a Boss V8 is a better value!]?
Von Platen said he doesn’t expect Porsche to continue on a trajectory of developing increasingly powerful engines. Instead, he said, advanced powertrain technology and weight-reduction initiatives will allow engineers to continue to expand performance while meeting stiff new fuel-economy edicts.
... the conventional measures of the luxury-performance segments won’t be about engine output or the number of cylinders, he said – it will be about power-to-weight ratio. [...] he insinuates that at Porsche, the drive to continually increase horsepower is over. [...] It’s not a new term, but “responsible performance” is the ground von Platen sees Porsche staking out.
owequitit wrote: 1) "Porsche doesn't have to meet the same CAFE standard."
May be you are on to something, he added:
Porsche’s entire model range must achieve the 35.5-mpg target, but its sales volumes do entitle the company to an extension until 2016 to get within 25 percent of the goal. [i.e. 125 percent of the vehicle’s otherwise applicable foot-print target level]
I think the purpose of the 918 hybrid is "to generate 80 mpg on the New European Driving Cycle."
2) All of these cars must meet the upcoming emmissions standards
Really?
Yes AND no.
AFAIK, only large volume automakers are required to meet the most strigent requirement, others are either treated less strigent or not subject to those requirements.
HAve some good reading from CARB and EPA, plz.
Last but not least, the percentage of sales of Si to Honda [i.e. the impact to fleet ave. etc] and combined with a relatively low price poiint, make it unpalatable to invest in appropriate measures.
Remember what Mugen Europe allegedly said: "Environmental pressures mean naturally-aspirated engines are rapidly being superceded by other engine architectures and technologies. We may never see the like of the K20 in a mainstream production car again”
Was he referring to Ferrari, Porsche, or Lambo.? I think not.
P.S. Ron Rocket: The CTR in the test with a R8 in fact was a CTR Mugen that costs about twice of the regualr CTR.
I wonder if there is a market here for a close to $40k 237 hp 'only' Honda, and how many can appreciate the build, quality it provide and the engineering effort spent [probably the reactions on the net would be: Honda lost its mind, or a Boss V8 is a better value!]?
As usual, you are unable to address the core argument in its entirety.
What about Ford?
Toyota?
Subaru?
Are they exempt as well?
Also, if you look at the numbers, I would be willing to bet that even having to hit 25% short of their goal of 35.5MPG would give Porsche a large margin of improvement.
One of the other major flaws in your, and everyone else on your side's, argument is Honda's relative position to their required CAFE mandate.
It is really easy to hand pick a quote from an article without considering its relativity to the rest of the world.
After all of the recent bragging in the last 5 years by the MPG nazis on this site, it SHOULD be well known that the only company that needed to improve its CAFE score less than Honda was Hyundai. That said, it should also be well known that Honda needed a lot more improvement on their truck fleet than car fleet, and thus the Si isn't going to have nearly the detrimental effect you all pretend it will. First off, the MPG would be nearly identical to the K24Z7 on a CAFE scorecard because the relatively low volume and the very, very close EPA ratings of the two engines. So your premise STILL does NOT hold water.
Extending the reality just a little further, without breaking out the numbers, it may be a larger improvement for Porsche to reach within 25% of its new goal that it is for Honda to reach 100% of its new goal, simply due to the relative proximity of the goal. Either way, in the face of ~2 million cars per year, you will not convince me that 20-30K (1-1.5% of total sales) is going to have anywhere near the detrimental affect you pretend it will. Honda could improve the MPG of the Accord by 1 and lay waste to the detrimental effect of the Si because of sheer volume (roughly 10X).
Its pretty easy to quote an article. It is apparently a whole different animal to be able to refute the majority of the counter argument, and apparently even harder to refute the actual core of the argument, which is not just solely about redline, but also about retreat from core values, technology, proven product acceptance, cheapening and the overall affect on Honda's health as a company.
![[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}
