|
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Page - 1 2 [3] 4 5 |
|
|
CarPhreakD
 |
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
So what's your take on the rest of the statement that you truncated? Agree or disagree?
I guess where I was going is that when did Honda last have an entirely new engine series compared to thier competitors? Also the talke about new powertrains which leads to just how much you have to change to call someting a new powertrain?
I also think there was some talk to what Jeff saw in person was basic engine blocks that are currently in use. (Specifically the 3.5) Once again, how much time does it take to develop an new engine? As others have mentioned and I mention here others have been able to design entire new engines that are comperable or better to what Honda will not even fully introduce in the very near term. There have even been discussions how honda is having to kill the higher revving engines to meet fuel economy goals like in the current Civic SI.
|
They are not simply old engine blocks with new heads. While I don't have any data to back this up, the new blocks appear to be quite a bit stiffer- I'm not sure if that's because of the alloy (new foundry process) or if it's an internal design mechanism.
Regardless, just looking at the engines you can see they aren't the same. The ED engines aren't meant to be high performance engines, but they do appear to be "all new".
You're also being a bit crass with IMA. Unless you've already forgotten about the NSX and RL.
As for the discussions on the VCM + 6AT, I think I mentioned this way before when folks first started complaining about the VCM system (when was that? 2008?), but common sense would dictate that the system works best in a narrow range, and compromises power in the low range. So it's only natural that a transmission with more ratios would only help both in efficiency and in acceleration.
|
owequitit
|
|
notyper wrote:
Ok, I'm going to jump in here on the technical side:
1. Regarding 5AT vs. 6AT. Honda isn't achieving what everyone else is achieving despite having one less gear. Yes, the economy might be on par, but in general, acceleration suffers. Despite superior power on paper, the 5AT cars are/were somewhat slower than the 6AT competition in many instances. Even worse, they feel even worse than the numbers suggest. The big gaps between gears leave you caught out at critical times. Even with the comparatively generous torque of the K23T in the RDX, the 5AT gaps caused it to go from class leading acceleration from 0-70, to mid pack from 70-100, or on kickdown intervals.
And you want to keep things simple? Then why is Honda still using the inferior "Hondamatic" automatic transmission design? It is more complex, less efficient and less reliable (and larger and probably more expensive) than a traditional planetary gearset automatic. It's simply a historical legacy of Honda not wanting to license any patents and not being able to come up with anything better. Is that really the best way to do business? Go 10 miles to avoid using the toll road that will get you there in half the distance and time? Personally, I don't like automatics, so I never cared too much, but maybe if Honda hadn't spent so much time and money developing an inferior competitor to the planetary gearset, they wouldn't have had the reputation and bank account damaging 5AT recalls and might have been able to give us some proper enthusiast rides.
2. Cylinder heads: I agree that the head is the critical component of performance. But what you guys are forgetting is that Honda has been on a trend of dumbing down its head. The current K24 head is a 230 hp restrictor plate. Compare this to the old K20 and K24 heads which would support 300+ hp naturally aspirated with no modifications.
And while the head is the prime mover of power, Honda has also been dumbing down their blocks and cranks. Tolerances are increasing, features are being deleted. They are coming (have already come) back to the pack instead of continuing to innovate.
As regards direct injection, Honda not using this has been, I think, a positive. The long term costs and maintenance issues associated with DI are still very questionable and the gains on naturally aspirated engines are very small.
Ask yourself this: Where does Honda lead in powertrain technologies today?
-Forced induction? Nope.
-CVT? At present, no, Nissan seems to be in front there.
-Multigear automatics? Nope.
-Automated manuals? Nope.
-Valvetrain technologies? Nope. BMW, Fiat, Nissan are all using arguably more advanced technologies. I'd give Honda more points here for VTEC, but the fact remains that they're backing away from DOHC VTEC which has been their primary performance driver.
-Specific output? Not really a good metric, but they used to lead here, not anymore.
-Fuel economy? Maybe. Not on EPA though and it's hard to score points on real world results even if the EPA ratings are known to be problematic.
-Direct injection? No. Again, I'm not a fan, but they are certainly well behind the curve on this.
Compare this to the past. Honda used to have the most advanced valvetrains and cylinder heads. Had the highest specific output, and even the more pedestrian cars had amazing numbers. Fuel economy was almost always class leading.
I don't see how anyone could argue against the assertion that Honda has gone backwards in their biggest area of expertise. They didn't just get passed, they put the car in reverse.
SC
|
For the record, I do agree. That has been abundantly clear.
But Honda is not the only one using mostly existing engine blocks, which was really my point I guess.
|
Potenza
|
|
notyper wrote:
-Valvetrain technologies? Nope. BMW, Fiat, Nissan are all using arguably more advanced technologies.
|
|
Hondu
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Tony,
Do you agree that disagree that the process and culture is critical to the final product? If so, therein lies the crux of the problems that have faced Honda in the past and are you confident they have fixed these problems>
On the engineering side, my point was that Honda at one point led in engineering but have fallen behind. If Honda could have built a proper six speed they would have done so and been further ahead of the competition as you have pointed out they have gotten a long life out of their engines. Honda chose to spend more money on creating more intracate A/C compressors and lifeless electric power steering to achieve the same MPG they could have gained with a 6 speed auto. Does this jive with simpler?
And Honda used to known as a Hardware company, which set them apart from others. If Honda loses this, How is Honda different than any of the other manufacturers? Does Honda still want to dance to the beat of a different drummer or does Honda just want to be a slightly smaller Toyota? I would argue that Honda is wasting resrouces on resurrecting the Japanese auto market instead of spending money on its largest market (US) or the growth markets (BRIC countries). My gut feeling that in 10-20 years Honda will be gone because of the globalization of the business.
Btw, you never answered the question as to if you preferred to drive the SI with a K24 or your old ITR.
The reason I asked about watches is that they can be compared to the car industry. Certain watch brands are known for certain things; i.e., build quality, price point etc. I was trying to see if you would compare the auto makes to different watches and understand how you compared which watch to which car manufacturer. Just an exercise for discussion purposes.
|
We actually agree on many fronts.
Let's for a second think about the history of HMC/AHM
Phase 1: An engineering company
Phase 2: The rise of marketing and design
Phase 3: The Revenge of the Bean Counters
Phase 4: Nature Strikes Back
Phase 1: An engineering company
Honda used to be an engineering led company, they turned out excellent designs on a clockwork basis (*), their designs had the look and precision of a Swiss watch... just look at the gauges in a mid 90s Acura. Wonderful and simple.
But this attitude got them into financial trouble often. Under the engineers, there was no real marketing, thus AHM and HMC missed on some really big opportunities:
(1) No V6 in the Accord until the very late 990s.
(2) No V6 in the first Odyssey (even though it was built in NA for export to Japan)
(3) Rejection by AHM of the first gen CRV.
(4) Eight year model run for the 3rd gen Integra.
(5) No SiRs in North America until the 97 ITR- which sold poorly because it did not have AC, rear wiper, radio... 99 ITR fixed that, but too late.
(6) delSol.
(7) The complete brand mismanagement of Acura which eventually led, in the late 90s, to AHM reorganizing the whole thing.
Now then, however bad some of their designs were, though, this is The Company that attracted all of us. Because no matter how they screwed up for the mass market, for us enthusiasts, this was The Company From Heaven... reasonable designs, great designs, reasonable prices, world class ergonomics, outstanding quality and reliability.
But, the company was becoming too big for this situation to continue, hence...
Phase 2: The rise of marketing and design
As the company grew they decided to get serious... mostly about bean counting... and design/marketing except on the later two they... well... screwed up. At the beginning, though, the company was quite profitable so they decided to "do" markering and design.. you know.. to become a Full Auto Manufacturer as Toyota Motor Sales likes to say in their ads.
The marketing led decisions in the Y2K era were as bad in many cases as the ones the engineers had made.
(1) No initial acceptance of the Jazz for NA
(2) No marketing support for the hybrids, AT ALL.
(3) No support for the Element
(4) Too much emphasis on niche cars (CT, ZDX, Ridgeline...)
(5) NA cars got too big
(6) Internecine competition between the TL and RL.
(7) Demise of the RSX-S
(8) Softer suspensions
(9) Less MT availability
(10) Devotion to Global Warming and CO2 emissions.
And of course. the Grand Daddy of them all.. or HOW TO REALLY, REALLY BLOW YOUR BRAND...
Except that for us enthusiasts, the marketing faux pas were much worse than the engineering led ones. Marketing panders to the mass market so that the really good cars and the trim levels we wanted didn't come.
Engineering still moved on though.. they did very well in the Honda Jet, ASIMO, Civic GX, Fuel Cell, Clarity, SH-AWD.. pretty much any place were Honda Engineering was given free reign they kept delivering world class products.
It's just that for Honda Automobiles, Engineering was hobbled, destroyed, obliterated by fundamentally bad marketing and God Awful (lack of) Design.
So.. the company was wasting money and suddenly... CREDIT CRISIS.. The Bean Counters looked an and said.. Aw Shit..
Phase 3: The Revenge of the Bean Counters
HMC, AHM, HoE all realized that cheap credit was gone. Credit was gone. Motorcycle sales in the US evaporated... car sales... well GM and Ford and Chrysler were giving cars away, Toyota for the first time was losing money and cutting back...
Creditgeddon.. CarmaSalesGeddon....
At the same time, a radical Progressive US Administration was introduced.. anti car, anti gas, pro union...
So the bean counters decided to step in. CUT, CUT, CUT, save... the company become profitable Very much so.. but they did so by cutting back on investment. For a couple of years they really did cut back.
(1) Reduced the workforce
(2) Cut back on R&D
(3) Cut back on manufacturing costs ( less trim levels, lowered content).
(4) CUT BACK ON EVERYTHING POSSIBLE, leverage current products
(5) Increase efficiency as much as possible
But a funny thing happened.. The Credit Krunch in the US was not as bad as expected. Mostly because the size of our market insulates us a bit, the devaluation of the dollars vis a vis strong currencies like the Yen, and the fact that other economies were/are worse than others.
So the bean counters seriously overreacted. Around '10 you could see the first hint.. Our '11 CRV, for example, no longer had the little blue LED overhead light.
They also were working on their vendors... cutting costs, cutting distribution costs..
Anyhow, by then it was becoming obvious that the Bean Counters and Scary Cats has gone too far.. so they started to realize their fiasco... but then
Phase 4: Nature Strikes Back
That's right folks... just as Honda was still selling cars in the US.. and making profit.. just as they could re-start their R&D and let the engineers have a go at it...
EARTHQUAKE STRIKES Japan
Aw Shit! Most of our distributors are geographically "singled sourced". WTF!
In the effort to cut costs... many distributors were no geographically diverse, so a natural disaster would dry up the supply of parts. Then in the fall, you get the double whammy
FLOODS in THAILAND.
Again. And this time it was not just Honda, but many in the electronics industry realized their folly as well.
All of these things kept the managers busy, no real time to think so much about the product.
Today
So what happened then... in '12
THE SHIT HITS THE FAN and CR lowers the boom...
The mess with the US Civic... the '12 Civic was/is still a good car but it was price decontented.. then the ILX gets introduced and the whole marketing structured is completely screwed up....
That's right game fans. Fundamentally, I think Honda has the products, and the fixes are not hard to get.
Longer term though, they have to go back and give their engineers more say over the company. Hopefully ED will be a good technology and AHM will cut back on the "lower, wider, heavier" idea and return to a technological leader.
IMHO, HMC/AHM have the expertise, it is the spirit that needs to be unleashed.. Marketing and Finance need to take their proper place.
If not.. well, I still like Honda cars... other than a Ford F150 I don't know what other car I'd buy...
|
In the past it was a virtual no brainer that I would be buying a Honda product. So, for the first time in about 10 years, I just realized I would probably not be buying another Honda product again for myself to drive. I'm about 90% certain my next car will be a BMW 1-series (before they convert it to a 4-cyl turbo) because I desire a NA engine. As an engineer, the technical prowess of Honda was always a selling point and attraction for me. Now, not so much. To say I am disappointed is an understatment.
Next Honda I will probably buy will be a Fit for my daughter when she turns 16 (5 years from now). But for myself, probably never again.
|
notyper
|
|
Potenza wrote:
notyper wrote:
-Valvetrain technologies? Nope. BMW, Fiat, Nissan are all using arguably more advanced technologies.
|
|
VVEL. Infinitely variable lift and duration, combined with continuously variable cam phasing on both intake and exhaust valves. Used on the VQ37VHR engine in the G and M class vehicles and the 370Z. I think I've commented about it here before, but it gives that engine a very Honda-like character. Bottom end torque is actually not quite as peppy as the earlier VQ35 engines with just VVT (the J37 actually feels more responsive under 3000 as well), but after 3000 rpm the torque curve is almost ruler flat to 7000 rpm and the power doesn't fall off even at 7500 rpm.
I don't know how expensive the tech is to implement (it is complex), but it seems to work very well.
SC
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
notyper wrote:
Potenza wrote:
notyper wrote:
-Valvetrain technologies? Nope. BMW, Fiat, Nissan are all using arguably more advanced technologies.
|
|
VVEL. Infinitely variable lift and duration, combined with continuously variable cam phasing on both intake and exhaust valves. Used on the VQ37VHR engine in the G and M class vehicles and the 370Z. I think I've commented about it here before, but it gives that engine a very Honda-like character. Bottom end torque is actually not quite as peppy as the earlier VQ35 engines with just VVT (the J37 actually feels more responsive under 3000 as well), but after 3000 rpm the torque curve is almost ruler flat to 7000 rpm and the power doesn't fall off even at 7500 rpm.
I don't know how expensive the tech is to implement (it is complex), but it seems to work very well.
SC
|
You have just hit one of the nails on the head!
Honda has spent who knows how much on 'green' technologies to reduce 'global warming' and 'poison CO2' gasses that may have been spent on other projects. Remember they threw out an entire revamp of the Acura brand to Tier 1 status because it doesn't ft Ito's 'green' vision.
Who knows, maybe this will pan out. If it does, then it is bad for the enthusisists.
|
CarmB
|
|
In regards to using technology already developed in new products, the most important aspect of Honda's success that transcends styling and even raw performance is reliability.
If Honda's products are above average in reliability it's that the company has been working hard on refining its technology for a long time. Having done so, what logic is there in abandoning all that work on such refining in order to claim that something is entirely new. At the end of the day the average consumer just wants a car that performs well and does so for a very long time. Even though reliability and an overall sense of something well engineered seems like a small thing at the time of purchase, it plays a big part in fostering brand loyalty and hence impacts sales over the long haul.
Besides, the more thorough shopper is going to care about boring stuff like residual value and cost of ownership, both of which are served well when a more evolutionary approach is taken. Good engineering holds up and doesn't get discarded that quickly. It's proven and that matters.
In the end, the average consumer couldn't care less how a particular unseen component compares to what came before. Why should anyone care? You pay for a certain grade of performance and you expect reliability out of a Honda. How that's achieved, exactly, is beside the point.
So many are getting all excited about all the bells and whistles, styling flourishes, etc. being offered up by competitors but all that fades into insignificance three, four, five years into the ownership cycle. Then you start looking at how reliable your car is proving to be or what you can get for it if you're inclined to trade it for something else. That's the point at which Honda's products still shine and as long as that's true, there will be a healthy market for their vehicles.
|
Hondu
|
|
CarmB wrote:
In regards to using technology already developed in new products, the most important aspect of Honda's success that transcends styling and even raw performance is reliability.
If Honda's products are above average in reliability it's that the company has been working hard on refining its technology for a long time. Having done so, what logic is there in abandoning all that work on such refining in order to claim that something is entirely new. At the end of the day the average consumer just wants a car that performs well and does so for a very long time. Even though reliability and an overall sense of something well engineered seems like a small thing at the time of purchase, it plays a big part in fostering brand loyalty and hence impacts sales over the long haul.
Besides, the more thorough shopper is going to care about boring stuff like residual value and cost of ownership, both of which are served well when a more evolutionary approach is taken. Good engineering holds up and doesn't get discarded that quickly. It's proven and that matters.
In the end, the average consumer couldn't care less how a particular unseen component compares to what came before. Why should anyone care? You pay for a certain grade of performance and you expect reliability out of a Honda. How that's achieved, exactly, is beside the point.
So many are getting all excited about all the bells and whistles, styling flourishes, etc. being offered up by competitors but all that fades into insignificance three, four, five years into the ownership cycle. Then you start looking at how reliable your car is proving to be or what you can get for it if you're inclined to trade it for something else. That's the point at which Honda's products still shine and as long as that's true, there will be a healthy market for their vehicles.
|
Yes, Honda's are known for their reliability. One problem though, is that other makes are catching up to them and there is no longer a huge separation. If they keep cutting costs and cheapening their engines, this advantage could slip to nil. The old Crown Vic was reliable because it never saw any real changes for 20 years, do you want Honda to become that? I doubt it.
The thing about great engineering, is you can develop cutting edge technology AND design in the longevity/reliability. Saving money by just improving reliability and forsaking new technology is a game losing path. With the old Honda, you used to get both together.
|
CarmB
|
|
Have the others caught up? I'm talking about long-term reliability not initial fit and finish. That's something that takes many years to determine and for now I'm not prepared to assume the competition will hold up as well.
Cars are expensive and I'm going to need proof of long-term reliability, not unsubstantiated claims.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Hondu wrote:
Yes, Honda's are known for their reliability. One problem though, is that other makes are catching up to them and there is no longer a huge separation. If they keep cutting costs and cheapening their engines, this advantage could slip to nil. The old Crown Vic was reliable because it never saw any real changes for 20 years, do you want Honda to become that? I doubt it.
The thing about great engineering, is you can develop cutting edge technology AND design in the longevity/reliability. Saving money by just improving reliability and forsaking new technology is a game losing path. With the old Honda, you used to get both together.
|
I don't think that is entirely true... there's a raft of issues with automakers that have gone to Direct Injection... and Ford is having issues with its six speed manual transmission and its Microsoft sourced in vehicle system.
Often times the "reliability" numbers automakers will quote are the "initial satisfaction" numbers... Now, I'll grant you that automakers have gotten better at keeping the car running for the first three months... but after that.
Then, you said you want a 1 series... hmm.... good luck with that Bimmer.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Jeff wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Jeff wrote:
What's really shocking to me is how the 6AT makes the VCM V6 actually feel fairly potent. I just can't get over how quick the new RDX is. It seriously feels like the quickest VCM-equipped Honda or Acura I've ever driven. I mean, numbers-wise I don't think it's far off of a base '12 TL with the 6AT. |
Jeff, do you think there is something different about the RDX's implementation of VCM?
I remember one of the articles in the Exhaust Notes section compared the dyno charts of the Accord J35 engines. The J35 VCM had very poor mid-range power compared to the J35 in the Accord Coupe V6+6MT.
Acura refers to the RDX's VCM as "VCM-II", but I am unable to discern exactly what the difference is between the original VCM and "VCM-II".
|
VCM II is the one with 3-4-6 cyl operation. In theory it's supposed to allow the engine to operate in cylinder cut mode more frequently. But interestingly, the new ED V6 engine is killing that version of VCM and they're going back to VCM-I.
|
Does the Crosstour have VCM-II? Whatever it is, it's quite transparent unlike the VCM-I in our '07 Odyssey.
Every so often, I'll the ECO light on the dash but I really don't notice anything. And off the line the car feels strong and quick, running to the redline quite nicely.
Perhaps with ED they feel that the Atkinson cycle at low rpm and VCM-I are sufficient to provide the torque and efficiency.
|
TonyEX
|
|
notyper wrote:
Potenza wrote:
notyper wrote:
-Valvetrain technologies? Nope. BMW, Fiat, Nissan are all using arguably more advanced technologies.
|
|
VVEL. Infinitely variable lift and duration, combined with continuously variable cam phasing on both intake and exhaust valves. Used on the VQ37VHR engine in the G and M class vehicles and the 370Z. I think I've commented about it here before, but it gives that engine a very Honda-like character. Bottom end torque is actually not quite as peppy as the earlier VQ35 engines with just VVT (the J37 actually feels more responsive under 3000 as well), but after 3000 rpm the torque curve is almost ruler flat to 7000 rpm and the power doesn't fall off even at 7500 rpm.
I don't know how expensive the tech is to implement (it is complex), but it seems to work very well.
SC
|
Shawn... It's always easy for an automaker to sell technology for an expensive car... what is hard is to make that technology available first in the entry level cars...
Honda used to do just that. VTEC was introduced in the Civic, not the Accord. CVCC was introduced on the Civic in an era when it was a darn "inexpensive" car (I won't call it cheap).
I'm hoping for those days to come back again. The days when Honda sold cars with the "highest technological value per dollar" in the world.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
Hondu wrote:
CarmB wrote:
In regards to using technology already developed in new products, the most important aspect of Honda's success that transcends styling and even raw performance is reliability.
If Honda's products are above average in reliability it's that the company has been working hard on refining its technology for a long time. Having done so, what logic is there in abandoning all that work on such refining in order to claim that something is entirely new. At the end of the day the average consumer just wants a car that performs well and does so for a very long time. Even though reliability and an overall sense of something well engineered seems like a small thing at the time of purchase, it plays a big part in fostering brand loyalty and hence impacts sales over the long haul.
Besides, the more thorough shopper is going to care about boring stuff like residual value and cost of ownership, both of which are served well when a more evolutionary approach is taken. Good engineering holds up and doesn't get discarded that quickly. It's proven and that matters.
In the end, the average consumer couldn't care less how a particular unseen component compares to what came before. Why should anyone care? You pay for a certain grade of performance and you expect reliability out of a Honda. How that's achieved, exactly, is beside the point.
So many are getting all excited about all the bells and whistles, styling flourishes, etc. being offered up by competitors but all that fades into insignificance three, four, five years into the ownership cycle. Then you start looking at how reliable your car is proving to be or what you can get for it if you're inclined to trade it for something else. That's the point at which Honda's products still shine and as long as that's true, there will be a healthy market for their vehicles.
|
Yes, Honda's are known for their reliability. One problem though, is that other makes are catching up to them and there is no longer a huge separation. If they keep cutting costs and cheapening their engines, this advantage could slip to nil. The old Crown Vic was reliable because it never saw any real changes for 20 years, do you want Honda to become that? I doubt it.
The thing about great engineering, is you can develop cutting edge technology AND design in the longevity/reliability. Saving money by just improving reliability and forsaking new technology is a game losing path. With the old Honda, you used to get both together.
|
Just curious, but what makes you qualified to make statements about great engineering? You almost make it sound like you're an engineer or something ;)
Honestly, I don't feel that Honda is that far behind in terms of engine manufacturing. Just because they don't implement the latest in valvetrain tech and engine design principles doesn't mean they aren't competitive, because Honda is still a leader in areas like engine manufacturing and low friction. The only thing I can fault them for is that they committed to hybridization, but until very recently they have not demonstrated that any leadership in this area. And they don't use any petrol turbocharged applications. The RL drivetrain is a potential gamechanger, but only if Honda implements the same eSH-AWD configuration across the lineup.
As for the comments about the handicapped cylinder heads, I'll be honest, it's a perfect configuration for turbocharging (maybe Honda will try integrating a turbo manifold into the cylinder head next...). But we haven't seen it happen yet, and I'm not sure if we ever will.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
notyper wrote:
Potenza wrote:
notyper wrote:
-Valvetrain technologies? Nope. BMW, Fiat, Nissan are all using arguably more advanced technologies.
|
|
VVEL. Infinitely variable lift and duration, combined with continuously variable cam phasing on both intake and exhaust valves. Used on the VQ37VHR engine in the G and M class vehicles and the 370Z. I think I've commented about it here before, but it gives that engine a very Honda-like character. Bottom end torque is actually not quite as peppy as the earlier VQ35 engines with just VVT (the J37 actually feels more responsive under 3000 as well), but after 3000 rpm the torque curve is almost ruler flat to 7000 rpm and the power doesn't fall off even at 7500 rpm.
I don't know how expensive the tech is to implement (it is complex), but it seems to work very well.
SC
|
The problem with VVEL is the stupid amounts of rotating mass (and sideload) from running the extra linkages and eccentric cam. Not a friend to NVH, valvetrain inertia or engine mass for that matter. It reminds me of BMW's VANOS system actually. And just like BMW, I'm not sure why they don't just get rid of the throttle body.
I think if you're going to consider these valve systems, Toyota probably has the one with least compromise- their valvematic system is relatively simply and does not add friction or inertia like the other two systems.
Sometimes I look at BMW and they have all these new toys on their engines. Offset crank, VANOS, electric water pump/afterrun pump, electric thermostat, highly efficient turbocharger pathing, and they don't seem to have optimized all these pieces together quite yet (they're still the benchmark, but some of these pieces seem underutilized in terms of algorithm control... maybe due to patents from other companies)? In contrast, I took a look at Audi's 2.0t the other day, and while the longitudinal configuration is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen (seriously, engine hanging over the front axles and even a bit ahead?), they have a genius implementation of thermal management (the TMU is really a sort of engineering sorcery). I got the sense looking at Audi's engines that they have a better grasp of what they can achieve with available technology and how to exploit it the best, compared to their competitors.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
@Mr. Taggart
Since you think FoMoCo has done all the right things,
tell me this:
Is the DI Duratec engine in 2012 Ford Focus all-new?
or
does it still use an 'old' block?
|
DrWhiner
|
|
Passing time and F.E. from MT:
45 - 65 mph mpg
Cruze turbo 5.1 sec 23.8
Focus 4.4 27.9
Civic 4.6 29.4
Elantra 5.0 25.7
Quite a bit faster than the Cruze or the Elantra and 1.5 mpg better F.E. than the Focus.
The engine rev. @ 60mph of the Focus / Cruze are quite a bit higher than that of the Civic / Elantra, makes me wonder any particular reason for that.
|
owequitit
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
notyper wrote:
Potenza wrote:
notyper wrote:
-Valvetrain technologies? Nope. BMW, Fiat, Nissan are all using arguably more advanced technologies.
|
|
VVEL. Infinitely variable lift and duration, combined with continuously variable cam phasing on both intake and exhaust valves. Used on the VQ37VHR engine in the G and M class vehicles and the 370Z. I think I've commented about it here before, but it gives that engine a very Honda-like character. Bottom end torque is actually not quite as peppy as the earlier VQ35 engines with just VVT (the J37 actually feels more responsive under 3000 as well), but after 3000 rpm the torque curve is almost ruler flat to 7000 rpm and the power doesn't fall off even at 7500 rpm.
I don't know how expensive the tech is to implement (it is complex), but it seems to work very well.
SC
|
The problem with VVEL is the stupid amounts of rotating mass (and sideload) from running the extra linkages and eccentric cam. Not a friend to NVH, valvetrain inertia or engine mass for that matter. It reminds me of BMW's VANOS system actually. And just like BMW, I'm not sure why they don't just get rid of the throttle body.
I think if you're going to consider these valve systems, Toyota probably has the one with least compromise- their valvematic system is relatively simply and does not add friction or inertia like the other two systems.
Sometimes I look at BMW and they have all these new toys on their engines. Offset crank, VANOS, electric water pump/afterrun pump, electric thermostat, highly efficient turbocharger pathing, and they don't seem to have optimized all these pieces together quite yet (they're still the benchmark, but some of these pieces seem underutilized in terms of algorithm control... maybe due to patents from other companies)? In contrast, I took a look at Audi's 2.0t the other day, and while the longitudinal configuration is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen (seriously, engine hanging over the front axles and even a bit ahead?), they have a genius implementation of thermal management (the TMU is really a sort of engineering sorcery). I got the sense looking at Audi's engines that they have a better grasp of what they can achieve with available technology and how to exploit it the best, compared to their competitors.
|
The system can't be that bad, it is still working at 7500+RPM... That is definitely something Valvetronic couldn't do which is the main reason a Valvetronic engine has never been redlined above 7K and why no M cars ever got it...
|
notyper
|
|
The stock rev limiter on the VQ37 is at 7600 rpm. We've got guys running them in race cars regularly exceeding 8000 rpm without issue so they did something right. The rotating parts in the vq37 are beefy too. Rods look like f20c rods.
On the topic of the civic in gear times it gets stomped in other interval tests. The 45-65 test is perfect for it because it can be done in 2nd gear only while most of the 6at cars go to 3rd. Check C&Ds 30-50 and 50-70 times.
SC
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
@Mr. Taggart
Since you think FoMoCo has done all the right things,
tell me this:
Is the DI Duratec engine in 2012 Ford Focus all-new?
or
does it still use an 'old' block?
|
Ok, so I penned practically a thesis paper response when VTEC siezed up on me so I am going to bullet point it for you.
(Koni too)
-Mulally was precient in seeing the looming corporate credit crunch when no one else did.
-Mulally did not take a bailout when Government Motors did and screwed bondholders who were rightful owners to assets and instead gave it union thugs, all while screwing the retirees of companies recently spun off by GM (see all Delco retirees who lost their pensions)
-Mulally surveyed the situation and analyzed the company's strenghts which lead to paring down the size of the company. Knowing your financial situation, company stregnths, and financial outlook makes you a good leader. Changing your strategic direction all the time(See Honda, See Acura, See NSX, See ILX)or succumbing to group think does not make for good management. Neither does not understanding that in tough financial times people do not what cheaper products, but maybe less or a smaller product than before but that will last longer.
-The equity markets seem to think that Mulally is doing a better job than Honda has since he joined Ford. Ford stock is up over 20% while Honda is down almost 4%.
-Ford has caught Honda on a gross margin basis which is pretty damn good.
-Koi wet his pants about a 150 million loss in Europe driven by significantly higher taxes and foreign exchange rates. Operationally they were profitable and gained market share while Honda lost market share. Who is more likely to be profitable in Europe in the long run?
-Koi also gets a hard on about doing business in China which is going to languish for at least the next two years. Koi why don't you google "China ghost cities" and see all the money spent over the past ten years to keep people employed. Lots of capital projects for towns that no one lives in. Ford will probably do ok where they do more business, like Asia, India, and South America.
-Do I care about the block in the new Focus? No. But I care about Honda becoming like every other car manufacturer touting lines like 'new' and 'all new' before even one vehicle has ever been built or sold. Bragging or having to tout future advancements was never part of Honda's DNA. The problem is that they have failed so miserably lately that they are becoming as bad as Government Motors: GM: See the new Camaro that will be out in three to four years. Honda: See the new NSX that will be out in three to four years. Honda USED to not have to try keep interest until other vehicles came out.
-At the end of the day Mulally has lapped Ito and his cronies back in Japan. He has laid out a clear strategy, financial goals, and vision and continues to lead his company in achieving it. Does that mean they produce vehicles I would want to personally own? No. Did I say they have done all the right things? No But does that mean I won't acknowledge that compared to what has happened at Honda and other companies that he has done a good job at what he was hired to do? No.
- I finally admire him to telling the truth about Hybrid's losing huge amounts on a per vehicle basis with batteries running between 13,000 and 15,000 a pop based on power. It is nice to see that he acknowledges the game being played to satisfy governments that have never run a business is costing Ford's investors (other companies as well) a loss of over 10,000 a vehicle. (And Koi, that is maybe why they don't push Hybrids)
You can go back to apologizing for Honda's recent woes now.
|
ClementZ
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Potenza wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
So what's your take on the rest of the statement that you truncated? Agree or disagree?
I guess where I was going is that when did Honda last have an entirely new engine series compared to thier competitors? Also the talke about new powertrains which leads to just how much you have to change to call someting a new powertrain?
I also think there was some talk to what Jeff saw in person was basic engine blocks that are currently in use. (Specifically the 3.5) Once again, how much time does it take to develop an new engine? As others have mentioned and I mention here others have been able to design entire new engines that are comperable or better to what Honda will not even fully introduce in the very near term. There have even been discussions how honda is having to kill the higher revving engines to meet fuel economy goals like in the current Civic SI.
|
But again your big concern here is the block. Honda ran the D-series block for over 20 years and it worked just fine. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal that the 1984 Civic ran a D15 5MT setup while the 2005 Civic ran a D17 5MT setup. I'd say that's the power of "cylinder head updates."
You're asking how much time it takes to develop a new engine block, but I'd still like to know what part of the block you want to be new and improved? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just honestly don't understand. I can understand that "changed" = "new." But I don't think there's a benefit to any of that unless there are specific concerns to address that need improvement.
|
So back to the part that you truncated:
Honda is doing things that may put them on par with what other companies have already done, and does not put them a step ahead of them. In fact as I stated before Honda has been resorting to take the 'Hondaness' out of thier engine lineup. Do you think the current mill in the Civic SI is representative of the type of engine you expect from Honda? Can Honda not produce a high revving engine that can produce decent fuel economy or is Ito too worried about making cars with less CO2 output? Or is Honda too worried about playing the EPA game and now developing products that can game the EPA tests.
My metion of the block is because Honda is touting these 'new' powertrains that will be phased in over three to four years, in which its competitors will not stand still and will continue to improve their products. Is the real improvement because they are making changes to the engines or because they are putting in new transmissions, which they are playing catch up to their competitors.
To Tony's point sure, IF the CVT does what Honda says and IF it is reliable, and IF it delievers significantly fuel economy, and IF it does not have to be replaced if it fails and can be repaired then that is a good thing.
Same for the new auto/manual transmission. Honda has not been know to be the world's best transmission builders and its competitors are not standing still.
Also let's see the costs of these 'new' engines and transmissions. How much time and money has Honda spent in development? If the auto/manual and hybrid bits come from the stillborn HSV then it makes sense to use what they have learned in other products. As far as the CVT, what kind of cost did it take to develop and is it more costly to produce than a traditional auto slush bucket? If it costs more does the customer benefit from some significant improvement in fuel economy.
I guess where I am going is that to me it is all about the semantics of how Honda is using the word 'new' and 'class leading'. Honda has been lagging in technology under the hood and in the cabin for some time now and I have increasing doubts if they have been spending on the things that will put them in a competitive advantage or just put them back in the game.
|
>Lagging behind
Nope. Top, or near the top of class fuel efficiency in all of their vehicles. They didn't resort to DI or 6spd or CVT because they didn't NEED to. Honda was using old ass technology and was STILL competitive. The only reason Honda is changing now, is because I believe they've run out of ways to squeeze power out of these current drivetrains.
>No High Revving Si...
It has nothing to do with fuel economy, or efficiency.
High-revving engines tend to be gutless. The SI was no exception. Honda dropped the RPMs and increased torque because drivers, even Si drivers aren't always pushing their cars to 10 billion RPM to drive to work. It's more manageable and reasonable to have a lower limit, especially if more of it is useable.
>Something about block
Why would Honda change it? There's nothing wrong with it, Honda's never had a block failure before, they're still working etc.
|
P54
|
|
Mr.Taggart wrote: "Honda: See the new NSX that will be out in three to four years. Honda USED to not have to try keep interest until other vehicles came out."
In the case of NSX remember it was about ready to go to production when it was pulled back due to financial meltdown. Then came earthquake, tsunami and flooding.
Honda reconsidered the NSX and came out with a "prototype" of the new NSX with different drive-train and in the spirit of the first NSX. Would you rather have them to be quiet till it was ready?
Regarding the stocks how do you think the market would have been if it was Ford that was hit by natural disasters and massive production cuts.
I think Honda also saw the need, they restructured the company, less people on the board for faster decision making and they have actually made commitments to grow in the midst of all the natural disasters, starting new factories all over the world.
You also wrote:"Neither does not understanding that in tough financial times people do not what cheaper products, but maybe less or a smaller product than before but that will last longer."
Is that not what Honda did with the new Civic, they intended a larger vehicle, delayed it and went with less, smaller vehicle and hopefully it will last as long as the old one. New Accord is smaller too. If new models have more features than before to a lower or same price what is the complaints about?
|
Hondu
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
Hondu wrote:
CarmB wrote:
In regards to using technology already developed in new products, the most important aspect of Honda's success that transcends styling and even raw performance is reliability.
If Honda's products are above average in reliability it's that the company has been working hard on refining its technology for a long time. Having done so, what logic is there in abandoning all that work on such refining in order to claim that something is entirely new. At the end of the day the average consumer just wants a car that performs well and does so for a very long time. Even though reliability and an overall sense of something well engineered seems like a small thing at the time of purchase, it plays a big part in fostering brand loyalty and hence impacts sales over the long haul.
Besides, the more thorough shopper is going to care about boring stuff like residual value and cost of ownership, both of which are served well when a more evolutionary approach is taken. Good engineering holds up and doesn't get discarded that quickly. It's proven and that matters.
In the end, the average consumer couldn't care less how a particular unseen component compares to what came before. Why should anyone care? You pay for a certain grade of performance and you expect reliability out of a Honda. How that's achieved, exactly, is beside the point.
So many are getting all excited about all the bells and whistles, styling flourishes, etc. being offered up by competitors but all that fades into insignificance three, four, five years into the ownership cycle. Then you start looking at how reliable your car is proving to be or what you can get for it if you're inclined to trade it for something else. That's the point at which Honda's products still shine and as long as that's true, there will be a healthy market for their vehicles.
|
Yes, Honda's are known for their reliability. One problem though, is that other makes are catching up to them and there is no longer a huge separation. If they keep cutting costs and cheapening their engines, this advantage could slip to nil. The old Crown Vic was reliable because it never saw any real changes for 20 years, do you want Honda to become that? I doubt it.
The thing about great engineering, is you can develop cutting edge technology AND design in the longevity/reliability. Saving money by just improving reliability and forsaking new technology is a game losing path. With the old Honda, you used to get both together.
|
Just curious, but what makes you qualified to make statements about great engineering? You almost make it sound like you're an engineer or something ;)
Honestly, I don't feel that Honda is that far behind in terms of engine manufacturing. Just because they don't implement the latest in valvetrain tech and engine design principles doesn't mean they aren't competitive, because Honda is still a leader in areas like engine manufacturing and low friction. The only thing I can fault them for is that they committed to hybridization, but until very recently they have not demonstrated that any leadership in this area. And they don't use any petrol turbocharged applications. The RL drivetrain is a potential gamechanger, but only if Honda implements the same eSH-AWD configuration across the lineup.
As for the comments about the handicapped cylinder heads, I'll be honest, it's a perfect configuration for turbocharging (maybe Honda will try integrating a turbo manifold into the cylinder head next...). But we haven't seen it happen yet, and I'm not sure if we ever will.
|
By the way, yes I am an engineer, thanks. My point was more that a company cannot just focus on perfecting their existing technology. They have to invest and develop new products and technology at the same time. There needs to be a balance between the two.
|
DCR
|
|
ClementZ wrote:
>No High Revving Si...
It has nothing to do with fuel economy, or efficiency.
High-revving engines tend to be gutless. The SI was no exception. Honda dropped the RPMs and increased torque because drivers, even Si drivers aren't always pushing their cars to 10 billion RPM to drive to work. It's more manageable and reasonable to have a lower limit, especially if more of it is useable.
|
You don't really believe this do you?
|
Hondu
|
|
CarmB wrote:
Have the others caught up? I'm talking about long-term reliability not initial fit and finish. That's something that takes many years to determine and for now I'm not prepared to assume the competition will hold up as well.
Cars are expensive and I'm going to need proof of long-term reliability, not unsubstantiated claims.
|
Look at the 5 year JD Power results from February this year. I see a Hyundai and Ford on the list, but no Honda Civic or Accord. So I would say other automakers have caught up to Honda.
|
Hondu
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Hondu wrote:
Yes, Honda's are known for their reliability. One problem though, is that other makes are catching up to them and there is no longer a huge separation. If they keep cutting costs and cheapening their engines, this advantage could slip to nil. The old Crown Vic was reliable because it never saw any real changes for 20 years, do you want Honda to become that? I doubt it.
The thing about great engineering, is you can develop cutting edge technology AND design in the longevity/reliability. Saving money by just improving reliability and forsaking new technology is a game losing path. With the old Honda, you used to get both together.
|
I don't think that is entirely true... there's a raft of issues with automakers that have gone to Direct Injection... and Ford is having issues with its six speed manual transmission and its Microsoft sourced in vehicle system.
Often times the "reliability" numbers automakers will quote are the "initial satisfaction" numbers... Now, I'll grant you that automakers have gotten better at keeping the car running for the first three months... but after that.
Then, you said you want a 1 series... hmm.... good luck with that Bimmer.
|
I did not say other automakers are blowing Honda away on reliability or they have no issues, but on average the gap is shrinking. I could also bring up the crappy torque converter issues Honda is having on the Odyssey 5AT, to counter your Ford example. Or their battery issues with the Civic hybrid.
One of the reasons I've always bought Honda's is because they have been bullet proof. I am not buying the Bimmer for the reliability, but because the way it drives. The 128 has decent reliability according to CR by the way, and it really pains me to not have a decent coupe option available to choose from Honda or Acura.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
ClementZ wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Potenza wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
So what's your take on the rest of the statement that you truncated? Agree or disagree?
I guess where I was going is that when did Honda last have an entirely new engine series compared to thier competitors? Also the talke about new powertrains which leads to just how much you have to change to call someting a new powertrain?
I also think there was some talk to what Jeff saw in person was basic engine blocks that are currently in use. (Specifically the 3.5) Once again, how much time does it take to develop an new engine? As others have mentioned and I mention here others have been able to design entire new engines that are comperable or better to what Honda will not even fully introduce in the very near term. There have even been discussions how honda is having to kill the higher revving engines to meet fuel economy goals like in the current Civic SI.
|
But again your big concern here is the block. Honda ran the D-series block for over 20 years and it worked just fine. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal that the 1984 Civic ran a D15 5MT setup while the 2005 Civic ran a D17 5MT setup. I'd say that's the power of "cylinder head updates."
You're asking how much time it takes to develop a new engine block, but I'd still like to know what part of the block you want to be new and improved? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just honestly don't understand. I can understand that "changed" = "new." But I don't think there's a benefit to any of that unless there are specific concerns to address that need improvement.
|
So back to the part that you truncated:
Honda is doing things that may put them on par with what other companies have already done, and does not put them a step ahead of them. In fact as I stated before Honda has been resorting to take the 'Hondaness' out of thier engine lineup. Do you think the current mill in the Civic SI is representative of the type of engine you expect from Honda? Can Honda not produce a high revving engine that can produce decent fuel economy or is Ito too worried about making cars with less CO2 output? Or is Honda too worried about playing the EPA game and now developing products that can game the EPA tests.
My metion of the block is because Honda is touting these 'new' powertrains that will be phased in over three to four years, in which its competitors will not stand still and will continue to improve their products. Is the real improvement because they are making changes to the engines or because they are putting in new transmissions, which they are playing catch up to their competitors.
To Tony's point sure, IF the CVT does what Honda says and IF it is reliable, and IF it delievers significantly fuel economy, and IF it does not have to be replaced if it fails and can be repaired then that is a good thing.
Same for the new auto/manual transmission. Honda has not been know to be the world's best transmission builders and its competitors are not standing still.
Also let's see the costs of these 'new' engines and transmissions. How much time and money has Honda spent in development? If the auto/manual and hybrid bits come from the stillborn HSV then it makes sense to use what they have learned in other products. As far as the CVT, what kind of cost did it take to develop and is it more costly to produce than a traditional auto slush bucket? If it costs more does the customer benefit from some significant improvement in fuel economy.
I guess where I am going is that to me it is all about the semantics of how Honda is using the word 'new' and 'class leading'. Honda has been lagging in technology under the hood and in the cabin for some time now and I have increasing doubts if they have been spending on the things that will put them in a competitive advantage or just put them back in the game.
|
>Lagging behind
Nope. Top, or near the top of class fuel efficiency in all of their vehicles. They didn't resort to DI or 6spd or CVT because they didn't NEED to. Honda was using old ass technology and was STILL competitive. The only reason Honda is changing now, is because I believe they've run out of ways to squeeze power out of these current drivetrains.
>No High Revving Si...
It has nothing to do with fuel economy, or efficiency.
High-revving engines tend to be gutless. The SI was no exception. Honda dropped the RPMs and increased torque because drivers, even Si drivers aren't always pushing their cars to 10 billion RPM to drive to work. It's more manageable and reasonable to have a lower limit, especially if more of it is useable.
>Something about block
Why would Honda change it? There's nothing wrong with it, Honda's never had a block failure before, they're still working etc.
|
Fuel economy is not the end all be all, but if you neuter an engine to get more fuel economy (See VCM) then maybe they should have turned to a 6 speed sooner.
Yeah, the original NSX was gutless, so was the ITR, a bunch or porsches and every racing car out there... Its more usable to the mind numbed masses because they don't have to shift as often and continue to text and cannot be bothered with understanding what it means to not get behind the curve. That kind of knowledge has no other practical purpose. Wait, you get a Cessan Cardinal fully loaded after of center and you really wan't to understand why you don't want to get behind the power curve.
You might want to read a little more thouroughly about the block as to my point, but SC then and dropped a couple ways they have been decreasing the quality of engine blocks.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
ClementZ wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Potenza wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
So what's your take on the rest of the statement that you truncated? Agree or disagree?
I guess where I was going is that when did Honda last have an entirely new engine series compared to thier competitors? Also the talke about new powertrains which leads to just how much you have to change to call someting a new powertrain?
I also think there was some talk to what Jeff saw in person was basic engine blocks that are currently in use. (Specifically the 3.5) Once again, how much time does it take to develop an new engine? As others have mentioned and I mention here others have been able to design entire new engines that are comperable or better to what Honda will not even fully introduce in the very near term. There have even been discussions how honda is having to kill the higher revving engines to meet fuel economy goals like in the current Civic SI.
|
But again your big concern here is the block. Honda ran the D-series block for over 20 years and it worked just fine. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal that the 1984 Civic ran a D15 5MT setup while the 2005 Civic ran a D17 5MT setup. I'd say that's the power of "cylinder head updates."
You're asking how much time it takes to develop a new engine block, but I'd still like to know what part of the block you want to be new and improved? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just honestly don't understand. I can understand that "changed" = "new." But I don't think there's a benefit to any of that unless there are specific concerns to address that need improvement.
|
So back to the part that you truncated:
Honda is doing things that may put them on par with what other companies have already done, and does not put them a step ahead of them. In fact as I stated before Honda has been resorting to take the 'Hondaness' out of thier engine lineup. Do you think the current mill in the Civic SI is representative of the type of engine you expect from Honda? Can Honda not produce a high revving engine that can produce decent fuel economy or is Ito too worried about making cars with less CO2 output? Or is Honda too worried about playing the EPA game and now developing products that can game the EPA tests.
My metion of the block is because Honda is touting these 'new' powertrains that will be phased in over three to four years, in which its competitors will not stand still and will continue to improve their products. Is the real improvement because they are making changes to the engines or because they are putting in new transmissions, which they are playing catch up to their competitors.
To Tony's point sure, IF the CVT does what Honda says and IF it is reliable, and IF it delievers significantly fuel economy, and IF it does not have to be replaced if it fails and can be repaired then that is a good thing.
Same for the new auto/manual transmission. Honda has not been know to be the world's best transmission builders and its competitors are not standing still.
Also let's see the costs of these 'new' engines and transmissions. How much time and money has Honda spent in development? If the auto/manual and hybrid bits come from the stillborn HSV then it makes sense to use what they have learned in other products. As far as the CVT, what kind of cost did it take to develop and is it more costly to produce than a traditional auto slush bucket? If it costs more does the customer benefit from some significant improvement in fuel economy.
I guess where I am going is that to me it is all about the semantics of how Honda is using the word 'new' and 'class leading'. Honda has been lagging in technology under the hood and in the cabin for some time now and I have increasing doubts if they have been spending on the things that will put them in a competitive advantage or just put them back in the game.
|
>Lagging behind
Nope. Top, or near the top of class fuel efficiency in all of their vehicles. They didn't resort to DI or 6spd or CVT because they didn't NEED to. Honda was using old ass technology and was STILL competitive. The only reason Honda is changing now, is because I believe they've run out of ways to squeeze power out of these current drivetrains.
>No High Revving Si...
It has nothing to do with fuel economy, or efficiency.
High-revving engines tend to be gutless. The SI was no exception. Honda dropped the RPMs and increased torque because drivers, even Si drivers aren't always pushing their cars to 10 billion RPM to drive to work. It's more manageable and reasonable to have a lower limit, especially if more of it is useable.
>Something about block
Why would Honda change it? There's nothing wrong with it, Honda's never had a block failure before, they're still working etc.
|
Fuel economy is not the end all be all, but if you neuter an engine to get more fuel economy (See VCM) then maybe they should have turned to a 6 speed sooner.
Yeah, the original NSX was gutless, so was the ITR, a bunch or porsches and every racing car out there... Its more usable to the mind numbed masses because they don't have to shift as often and continue to text and cannot be bothered with understanding what it means to not get behind the curve. That kind of knowledge has no other practical purpose. Wait, you get a Cessan Cardinal fully loaded after of center and you really wan't to understand why you don't want to get behind the power curve.
You might want to read a little more thouroughly about the block as to my point, but SC then and dropped a couple ways they have been decreasing the quality of engine blocks.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
notyper wrote:
The stock rev limiter on the VQ37 is at 7600 rpm. We've got guys running them in race cars regularly exceeding 8000 rpm without issue so they did something right. The rotating parts in the vq37 are beefy too. Rods look like f20c rods.
On the topic of the civic in gear times it gets stomped in other interval tests. The 45-65 test is perfect for it because it can be done in 2nd gear only while most of the 6at cars go to 3rd. Check C&Ds 30-50 and 50-70 times.
SC
|
The beefy components might be the reason why they're still holding in one piece. Have any teams attempted to remove the VVEL system and reverted back to a regular intake cam? What kind of rpms are they seeing then?
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Fuel economy is not the end all be all, but if you neuter an engine to get more fuel economy (See VCM) then maybe they should have turned to a 6 speed sooner.
|
The ED engines are definitely going all-in on the efficiency front. I think the theme for these engines is "useable power with maximum efficiency".
I don't think anybody has said anything about dropping quality on engine blocks. We've mostly been talking about cylinder heads.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
.....
Fuel economy is not the end all be all, but if you neuter an engine to get more fuel economy (See VCM) then maybe they should have turned to a 6 speed sooner.
Yeah, the original NSX was gutless, so was the ITR, a bunch or porsches and every racing car out there... Its more usable to the mind numbed masses because they don't have to shift as often and continue to text and cannot be bothered with understanding what it means to not get behind the curve. That kind of knowledge has no other practical purpose. Wait, you get a Cessan Cardinal fully loaded after of center and you really wan't to understand why you don't want to get behind the power curve.
You might want to read a little more thouroughly about the block as to my point, but SC then and dropped a couple ways they have been decreasing the quality of engine blocks.
|
Honda Johnny Come Lately.... ever heard of CVCC? How about the design of the R engine (maximum pumping efficiency)? What do you think VTEC is all about? Hint.. maximizing efficiency across the RPM range.
Honda is about maximum efficiency. If power is a byproduct, then so be it. In fact, in racing, volume and boost are restricted, so if you can come up with a better mouse trap to extract power from the engine and the ruling powers (and GM) don't object to it... you WIN.... Vide Honda turbo F1 in the 90s.
Decreasing tolerances in the piston is perhaps a detriment for someone like Shawn who lives to push those engines into stratospheric power numbers.
But, if you would, read into how HMC/AHM are DECREASING the FRICTION of the block/piston by treating the cylinders and using updated piston rings.
HMC is going for fuel efficiency.
Now then.. today is Memorial Day so we did our typical 170 mile trip around SoCal to go to cementeries.. In the Crosstour we burnt about 7 gallons of gas, which at 4.40 a gallon is 30 bucks. This was with ECO ON half the time on the freeways and around town.
Wooops!
Trust me, I want efficiency. I don't care if my engine can not be tuned to 400bhp.
Or, if we can get rid of ObamaGasFiasco and gas comes down to 2.5 a gallon, then HELL, Shawn, I'm in your boat... gimme 400 bhp....
See?
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 [3] 4 5 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
