|
|
|
|
 |
typer_801
 |
|
Looks like there's still someone with a pulse over at Buick....
2013 Buick Verano Turbo packs 250 HP, available six-speed manual
Doesn't say if it comes with the hyper-struts or a LSD. Since it doesn't, it probably won't but those would be very nice additions.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/12/2013-buick-verano-turbo-packs-250-hp-available-six-speed-manual/#aol-comments
In the press release they went after the new ILX.
More than 90 percent of the Verano Turbo's peak torque – more than 234 lb.-ft. – is available between 1700 to 5500 rpm. Its closest competitor, the 2013 Acura ILX 2.4L, offers a peak of 170 lb.-ft. of torque.
"The 2.0L turbo engine was designed for refinement, higher output capabilities and reduced noise," said Amy Joss, Ecotec 2.0L assistant chief engineer. "The way it sounds, the power delivery and the refined character are all fitting of a luxury sedan with a fun side."
In December, Buick's 2.0L turbocharged Ecotec engine was named one of WardsAuto World's 2012 10Best Engines for North America. At the time, the publication's editor-in-chief, Drew Winter, said: "This engine delivers a level of power and sophistication that redefines Buick."
|
AcrA6spdMT
|
|
|
I'll take my k24a2 with a 6MT over some turbocharged nonsense anyday :p
|
Chris David
|
|
AcrA6spdMT wrote:
I'll take my k24a2 with a 6MT over some turbocharged nonsense anyday :p
|
Really? An extra 50 or so HP doesn't appeal to you?
I have no interest in the Verano (I like the Focus ST), but I can see a lot of advantages to a 2 liter turbo engine.
|
JP
|
|
Chris David wrote:
AcrA6spdMT wrote:
I'll take my k24a2 with a 6MT over some turbocharged nonsense anyday :p
|
Really? An extra 50 or so HP doesn't appeal to you?
I have no interest in the Verano (I like the Focus ST), but I can see a lot of advantages to a 2 liter turbo engine.
|
6.2s for 0-60mph on a 250hp and 260lb-ft luxury car aren't that quite slow?
It would appear that is tending to be just like Regal GS.. 270hp - 295lb-ft and way more slow than TSX V6...
Source for numbers:
http://www.insideline.com/buick/verano/2013/2013-buick-verano-turbo-gets-250-horsepower.html
|
Hondarulez
|
|
If the Verano performs like the Regal GS, then it will not be that fast given the hp rating.
The 270hp/295lbft Regal GS 6MT at 3732lb does 0-60mph in 6.2s and 1/4 mile in 15s@97mph (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-buick-regal-gs-test-review)
For comparison, the 2002 TL-S 5AT with 260hp (more like 245hp under new SAE standards) at 3500lb has the same 0-60mph time and 1/4 mile in 14.8s@96mph (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/acura-32tl-type-s-short-take-road-test).
The Verano Turbo has 20 less hp and 35lbft less torque, but it's also about 300lb lighter. I'd imagine the Verano Turbo is as fast as the Regal GS. It's faster than the ILX 2.4, but not convincingly faster. It'd interested to see if there's any improvement when the ED comes out.
|
JP
|
|
Hondarulez wrote:
If the Verano performs like the Regal GS, then it will not be that fast given the hp rating.
The 270hp/295lbft Regal GS 6MT at 3732lb does 0-60mph in 6.2s and 1/4 mile in 15s@97mph (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-buick-regal-gs-test-review)
For comparison, the 2002 TL-S 5AT with 260hp (more like 245hp under new SAE standards) at 3500lb has the same 0-60mph time and 1/4 mile in 14.8s@96mph (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/acura-32tl-type-s-short-take-road-test).
The Verano Turbo has 20 less hp and 35lbft less torque, but it's also about 300lb lighter. I'd imagine the Verano Turbo is as fast as the Regal GS. It's faster than the ILX 2.4, but not convincingly faster. It'd interested to see if there's any improvement when the ED comes out.
|
2.4L ED, 240hp :) I wish!!! lol
|
DrWhiner
|
|
Didn't Buick initially say the Verano (non-turbo, I guess) competes with A3, S40, and Lexus IS250?
According to C/D, the turbo version will have the same wheels and tires as the NA one.
The Buick Verano (non-turbo) EPA rating: 21/32/25 (from Fueleconomy.gov)
C/D observed: 21 mpg
0 - 60 mph 8.2 sec. (GM claims about 8.0 sec)
5 - 60 mph 8.7
1/4 mile 16.3 @ 86 mph
C/D test car: 3,484 lb.
I won't be surprised if the Verano turbo weighs 100 to 150 lb. more than an Accord V6 M6.
The Buick Regal GS MT EPA rating: 19/27/22 mpg
C/D observed: 22 mpg
Hondarulez wrote:
The 270hp/295lbft Regal GS 6MT at 3732lb does 0-60mph in 6.2s and 1/4 mile in 15s@97mph (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-buick-regal-gs-test-review)
|
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
typer_801 wrote:
Looks like there's still someone with a pulse over at Buick....
2013 Buick Verano Turbo packs 250 HP, available six-speed manual
Doesn't say if it comes with the hyper-struts or a LSD. Since it doesn't, it probably won't but those would be very nice additions. |
Depending on the pricing, the Verano's worst enemy might not be the ILX, but Cadillac's ATS. The top range Verano has a base MSRP of around 26k, while the ATS is going to start at around 34k. If adding the turbo-4 to the Verano brings it close to 30k, that is going to be a problem for GM. The Verano that C&D tested topped $28.5k.
People here complain about the ILX 2.4L, and rightly so IMO, but the Verano's starting point is much worse.
- It's heavy. At 3484 lbs for a higher level leather trimmed model, roughly 500 lbs. more than the ILX 2.4L. The turbocharging equipment is likely going to increase that.
- The Verano does not have a fully independent rear suspension. Torsion bar.
- It's FF, and has an FF weight distribution.
- Like the ILX, there's no limited-slip differential. Have fun spinning the wheels when cornering, because that 260 lb-ft of torque is going to overwhelm the tires.
Against the FR setup ATS, which has a fully-independent suspension, the Verano will have no chance. For those who can't or won't stretch for an ATS, but want performance and a nice interior, the Ford Focus ST offers both at a lower price.
|
iceman6
|
|
|
I agree about the weight and the primitive suspension, but I'm still very interested. The Ford Focus has no back seat, so it's off my list.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
typer_801 wrote:
Looks like there's still someone with a pulse over at Buick....
2013 Buick Verano Turbo packs 250 HP, available six-speed manual
Doesn't say if it comes with the hyper-struts or a LSD. Since it doesn't, it probably won't but those would be very nice additions. |
Depending on the pricing, the Verano's worst enemy might not be the ILX, but Cadillac's ATS. The top range Verano has a base MSRP of around 26k, while the ATS is going to start at around 34k. If adding the turbo-4 to the Verano brings it close to 30k, that is going to be a problem for GM. The Verano that C&D tested topped $28.5k.
People here complain about the ILX 2.4L, and rightly so IMO, but the Verano's starting point is much worse.
- It's heavy. At 3484 lbs for a higher level leather trimmed model, roughly 500 lbs. more than the ILX 2.4L. The turbocharging equipment is likely going to increase that.
- The Verano does not have a fully independent rear suspension. Torsion bar.
- It's FF, and has an FF weight distribution.
- Like the ILX, there's no limited-slip differential. Have fun spinning the wheels when cornering, because that 260 lb-ft of torque is going to overwhelm the tires.
Against the FR setup ATS, which has a fully-independent suspension, the Verano will have no chance. For those who can't or won't stretch for an ATS, but want performance and a nice interior, the Ford Focus ST offers both at a lower price.
|
oh man....260lbft, FWD, 6MT, no LSD, turbo lag......that's not a good combo....lol.
|
NSXforever
|
|
The Verano has gotten really solid reviews and this engine has also gotten solid reviews. If the price is around 26k, you can have 240hp or 150hp ILX.
Buick is on a tear and the Acura/Buick battle will be interesting.
|
CivicB18
|
|
For the record, GM's 2.0T is quite good. I've sampled a lightly modified Saturn Sky Turbo and a Cobalt SS and the engine left a positive impression. If only Honda would have invested more in the former K23t.
Suggested EarthDreams K23t applications:
- CRV. The K23t would have been a good option for folks who prefer more squirt for the CRV, say making 240hp/265ftlbs.
- ILX 6MT. Same output as CRV with LSD and suspension/chassis enhancements.
- Base RDX engine. The V6 RDX would use the ED 310hp V6.
- 2.3t would replace the V6 TSX.
Acura certainly could use some diversity in the engine department!
~Patrick
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
NSXforever wrote:
The Verano has gotten really solid reviews and this engine has also gotten solid reviews. If the price is around 26k, you can have 240hp or 150hp ILX.
Buick is on a tear and the Acura/Buick battle will be interesting.
|
Guess you haven't been paying attention to Buick's continuing decline in sales.... They are on a tear alright... a tear to join Pontiac and Oldsmobile...
From Autonews:
"Buick sales have dropped for seven straight months, tied with Cadillac for the longest losing streak among the 41 brands sold in the United States. But unlike Cadillac, which has two new nameplates coming this summer, Buick doesn't have new or redesigned vehicles riding to the rescue. "
http://www.autonews.com/article/20120528/RETAIL07/305289970#ixzz1xcxoAcrp
|
CarGuyLee
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
NSXforever wrote:
The Verano has gotten really solid reviews and this engine has also gotten solid reviews. If the price is around 26k, you can have 240hp or 150hp ILX.
Buick is on a tear and the Acura/Buick battle will be interesting.
|
Guess you haven't been paying attention to Buick's continuing decline in sales.... They are on a tear alright... a tear to join Pontiac and Oldsmobile...
From Autonews:
"Buick sales have dropped for seven straight months, tied with Cadillac for the longest losing streak among the 41 brands sold in the United States. But unlike Cadillac, which has two new nameplates coming this summer, Buick doesn't have new or redesigned vehicles riding to the rescue. "
http://www.autonews.com/article/20120528/RETAIL07/305289970#ixzz1xcxoAcrp
|
Yeah except that article forgot the new encore. Not that I think it will = big sales but it's always make you wonder when they leave out something as obvious as that.
I don't expect the Verano to big a sales hit either, like the ILX. It is interesting to see how many I see out near where I work. A huge retirement community.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
NSXforever wrote:
The Verano has gotten really solid reviews and this engine has also gotten solid reviews. If the price is around 26k, you can have 240hp or 150hp ILX.
Buick is on a tear and the Acura/Buick battle will be interesting.
|
The car itself came from the Opel Astra, which isn't a bad car to begin with. GM simply applied the "Buick" treatment to make the Verano more luxurious (ie, lots of sound deadening materials hence the high weight).
If you go to the buick website and build a Verano that is similarly well equipped as the base ILX, it's around $25k (convenience group + moonroof). Car and Driver said the Verano Turbo should start at below $30k. I'd imagine a Verano Turbo that is as well equipped as the ILX 2.4 will be around the $30k mark. I can see a base Verano Turbo starting at $26k, but that will not be as well equipped. I guess we will see.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
CivicB18 wrote:
For the record, GM's 2.0T is quite good. I've sampled a lightly modified Saturn Sky Turbo and a Cobalt SS and the engine left a positive impression. If only Honda would have invested more in the former K23t.
Suggested EarthDreams K23t applications:
- CRV. The K23t would have been a good option for folks who prefer more squirt for the CRV, say making 240hp/265ftlbs.
- ILX 6MT. Same output as CRV with LSD and suspension/chassis enhancements.
- Base RDX engine. The V6 RDX would use the ED 310hp V6.
- 2.3t would replace the V6 TSX.
Acura certainly could use some diversity in the engine department!
~Patrick
|
IMO, the main issue with the K23T is the lack of direct injection. Direct injection is needed to raise the compression ratio and thus the efficiency of the engine. Problem with DI is carbon deposit build up. Unlike other manufacturers, Honda doesn't want to keep their reputation of building good engines intact.
Another thing is, for Honda at the very least, there's really no reason to use a turbo 4. Others use turbo 4 to replace V6 to get better EPA numbers. Honda on the other hand is more interested in real world results. If one insists on looking at EPA figures, then look no further than the new RDX. It replaced the k23t with the good old J35. Sure, it has VCM, 6AT, and a simpler AWD system, but still, the EPA ratings got much better. For comparison, the RDX AWD gets EPA combined 22mpg, that is exactly the same as the Q5 2.0T with 8AT. The added benefits of the V6 are that the engine is smoother and there's no turbo lag.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
|
It seems like the Verano Turbo will just be a Verano with stiffer front suspension. There will be no hiper struts, adaptive dampers, LSD, brembo brakes, sporty tires. It's kind of similar to the ILX 2.4 I guess where the turbo version is simply a higher powered version of the based car, instead of a high performance version.
|
CivicB18
|
|
Hondarulez wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
For the record, GM's 2.0T is quite good. I've sampled a lightly modified Saturn Sky Turbo and a Cobalt SS and the engine left a positive impression. If only Honda would have invested more in the former K23t.
Suggested EarthDreams K23t applications:
- CRV. The K23t would have been a good option for folks who prefer more squirt for the CRV, say making 240hp/265ftlbs.
- ILX 6MT. Same output as CRV with LSD and suspension/chassis enhancements.
- Base RDX engine. The V6 RDX would use the ED 310hp V6.
- 2.3t would replace the V6 TSX.
Acura certainly could use some diversity in the engine department!
~Patrick
|
IMO, the main issue with the K23T is the lack of direct injection. Direct injection is needed to raise the compression ratio and thus the efficiency of the engine. Problem with DI is carbon deposit build up. Unlike other manufacturers, Honda doesn't want to keep their reputation of building good engines intact.
Another thing is, for Honda at the very least, there's really no reason to use a turbo 4. Others use turbo 4 to replace V6 to get better EPA numbers. Honda on the other hand is more interested in real world results. If one insists on looking at EPA figures, then look no further than the new RDX. It replaced the k23t with the good old J35. Sure, it has VCM, 6AT, and a simpler AWD system, but still, the EPA ratings got much better. For comparison, the RDX AWD gets EPA combined 22mpg, that is exactly the same as the Q5 2.0T with 8AT. The added benefits of the V6 are that the engine is smoother and there's no turbo lag.
|
I'm fully aware of how DI works and its pros and cons. But the lack of direct injection wasnt the greatest issue with the K23t. It was actually the 5AT and its long ratios. Adding a 6AT to that engine would have improved a lot of drivability issues with this engine while improving performance and efficiency. People act like direct injection alone makes a huge difference in efficiency when in fact it doesnt. Better gearing, tweaks to the VVT system etc etc have proven to offer more real world efficiency gains vs direct injection. Those solutions are also much cheaper to implement.
Having a turbo 4 would give Acura a more diverse engine lineup and sharing that engine with a higher trim CRV would make it more justifiable in terms of cost. It would also allow smaller applications like the ILX to have a much more powerful version to make that car more desirable. A V6 won't fit in a Civic platform.
In terms of Honda wanting to keep their reputation intact, I don't know if youve been paying attention but the EarthDreams engine have direct injection. I'm sure Honda has engineered some kind of system so carbon buildup isnt an issue. DI is coming but as I said earlier a revamped K23t or a new 2.0t variant would be a great offering in several applications.
~Patrick
|
Hondarulez
|
|
CivicB18 wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
For the record, GM's 2.0T is quite good. I've sampled a lightly modified Saturn Sky Turbo and a Cobalt SS and the engine left a positive impression. If only Honda would have invested more in the former K23t.
Suggested EarthDreams K23t applications:
- CRV. The K23t would have been a good option for folks who prefer more squirt for the CRV, say making 240hp/265ftlbs.
- ILX 6MT. Same output as CRV with LSD and suspension/chassis enhancements.
- Base RDX engine. The V6 RDX would use the ED 310hp V6.
- 2.3t would replace the V6 TSX.
Acura certainly could use some diversity in the engine department!
~Patrick
|
IMO, the main issue with the K23T is the lack of direct injection. Direct injection is needed to raise the compression ratio and thus the efficiency of the engine. Problem with DI is carbon deposit build up. Unlike other manufacturers, Honda doesn't want to keep their reputation of building good engines intact.
Another thing is, for Honda at the very least, there's really no reason to use a turbo 4. Others use turbo 4 to replace V6 to get better EPA numbers. Honda on the other hand is more interested in real world results. If one insists on looking at EPA figures, then look no further than the new RDX. It replaced the k23t with the good old J35. Sure, it has VCM, 6AT, and a simpler AWD system, but still, the EPA ratings got much better. For comparison, the RDX AWD gets EPA combined 22mpg, that is exactly the same as the Q5 2.0T with 8AT. The added benefits of the V6 are that the engine is smoother and there's no turbo lag.
|
I'm fully aware of how DI works and its pros and cons. But the lack of direct injection wasnt the greatest issue with the K23t. It was actually the 5AT and its long ratios. Adding a 6AT to that engine would have improved a lot of drivability issues with this engine while improving performance and efficiency. People act like direct injection alone makes a huge difference in efficiency when in fact it doesnt. Better gearing, tweaks to the VVT system etc etc have proven to offer more real world efficiency gains vs direct injection. Those solutions are also much cheaper to implement.
Having a turbo 4 would give Acura a more diverse engine lineup and sharing that engine with a higher trim CRV would make it more justifiable in terms of cost. It would also allow smaller applications like the ILX to have a much more powerful version to make that car more desirable. A V6 won't fit in a Civic platform.
In terms of Honda wanting to keep their reputation intact, I don't know if youve been paying attention but the EarthDreams engine have direct injection. I'm sure Honda has engineered some kind of system so carbon buildup isnt an issue. DI is coming but as I said earlier a revamped K23t or a new 2.0t variant would be a great offering in several applications.
~Patrick
|
I never thought the RDX with the K23T to be having drivability issues. There's turbo lag when you step on it, but it's similar to a Q5 2.0T. I agree that 6AT would help immensely, especially if the engine doesn't have much low end torque. We have already witnessed how the new 6AT has helped the MDX, Odyssey, and new RDX in terms of acceleration. Fuel economy gain is minimal though (1 mpg better overall in the MDX I believe). The thing is, the 5th gear on the 5AT was already very long. Engineers can't gear the 6th gear on the 6AT much longer.
DI alone doesn't make a huge difference for NA engines. But it does for turbocharged engines. The CR of the 1st gen RDX is only 8.8:1. Audi Q5 2.0T is at 9.6:1. That's a 10% difference, which IMO is pretty significant. That, along with with 3 more gears, a lighter curb weight, and some other things, account for the significant EPA differences.
I believe the K23T does not even fit in the TSX, let alone the Civic. You might say Honda could've designed the K23T and the Civic so that they are compatible. But the same can be said with the J series and the Civic. There's actually a kit that you can buy to retrofit a J series into an EK Civic (EG too, but you might need to cut a hole on the hood). The J series is one of the most compact V6 engines out there in the market. I believe someone said it's actually smaller than some turbo-4 engines. With a turbo 4, you need to worry about intercooler, the extra piping, the turbo system itself, etc that all take up space and weight.
Of course I know the ED has DI. And that's my point. ED is coming out soon, that means it's not quite ready yet. So perhaps Honda has figured out a way to eliminate carbon build up, but it's not available at this very moment.And that means they cannot have K23T with DI at this very moment. Perhaps that is something they will look at in the future? Perhaps they will come up with a turbo 4 engine that can truly replace a V6 without any side effects?
|
owequitit
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
NSXforever wrote:
The Verano has gotten really solid reviews and this engine has also gotten solid reviews. If the price is around 26k, you can have 240hp or 150hp ILX.
Buick is on a tear and the Acura/Buick battle will be interesting.
|
Guess you haven't been paying attention to Buick's continuing decline in sales.... They are on a tear alright... a tear to join Pontiac and Oldsmobile...
From Autonews:
"Buick sales have dropped for seven straight months, tied with Cadillac for the longest losing streak among the 41 brands sold in the United States. But unlike Cadillac, which has two new nameplates coming this summer, Buick doesn't have new or redesigned vehicles riding to the rescue. "
http://www.autonews.com/article/20120528/RETAIL07/305289970#ixzz1xcxoAcrp
|
You say that as if Acura's sales have been on a tear lately...
|
CivicB18
|
|
Hondarulez wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
For the record, GM's 2.0T is quite good. I've sampled a lightly modified Saturn Sky Turbo and a Cobalt SS and the engine left a positive impression. If only Honda would have invested more in the former K23t.
Suggested EarthDreams K23t applications:
- CRV. The K23t would have been a good option for folks who prefer more squirt for the CRV, say making 240hp/265ftlbs.
- ILX 6MT. Same output as CRV with LSD and suspension/chassis enhancements.
- Base RDX engine. The V6 RDX would use the ED 310hp V6.
- 2.3t would replace the V6 TSX.
Acura certainly could use some diversity in the engine department!
~Patrick
|
IMO, the main issue with the K23T is the lack of direct injection. Direct injection is needed to raise the compression ratio and thus the efficiency of the engine. Problem with DI is carbon deposit build up. Unlike other manufacturers, Honda doesn't want to keep their reputation of building good engines intact.
Another thing is, for Honda at the very least, there's really no reason to use a turbo 4. Others use turbo 4 to replace V6 to get better EPA numbers. Honda on the other hand is more interested in real world results. If one insists on looking at EPA figures, then look no further than the new RDX. It replaced the k23t with the good old J35. Sure, it has VCM, 6AT, and a simpler AWD system, but still, the EPA ratings got much better. For comparison, the RDX AWD gets EPA combined 22mpg, that is exactly the same as the Q5 2.0T with 8AT. The added benefits of the V6 are that the engine is smoother and there's no turbo lag.
|
I'm fully aware of how DI works and its pros and cons. But the lack of direct injection wasnt the greatest issue with the K23t. It was actually the 5AT and its long ratios. Adding a 6AT to that engine would have improved a lot of drivability issues with this engine while improving performance and efficiency. People act like direct injection alone makes a huge difference in efficiency when in fact it doesnt. Better gearing, tweaks to the VVT system etc etc have proven to offer more real world efficiency gains vs direct injection. Those solutions are also much cheaper to implement.
Having a turbo 4 would give Acura a more diverse engine lineup and sharing that engine with a higher trim CRV would make it more justifiable in terms of cost. It would also allow smaller applications like the ILX to have a much more powerful version to make that car more desirable. A V6 won't fit in a Civic platform.
In terms of Honda wanting to keep their reputation intact, I don't know if youve been paying attention but the EarthDreams engine have direct injection. I'm sure Honda has engineered some kind of system so carbon buildup isnt an issue. DI is coming but as I said earlier a revamped K23t or a new 2.0t variant would be a great offering in several applications.
~Patrick
|
I never thought the RDX with the K23T to be having drivability issues. There's turbo lag when you step on it, but it's similar to a Q5 2.0T. I agree that 6AT would help immensely, especially if the engine doesn't have much low end torque. We have already witnessed how the new 6AT has helped the MDX, Odyssey, and new RDX in terms of acceleration. Fuel economy gain is minimal though (1 mpg better overall in the MDX I believe). The thing is, the 5th gear on the 5AT was already very long. Engineers can't gear the 6th gear on the 6AT much longer.
DI alone doesn't make a huge difference for NA engines. But it does for turbocharged engines. The CR of the 1st gen RDX is only 8.8:1. Audi Q5 2.0T is at 9.6:1. That's a 10% difference, which IMO is pretty significant. That, along with with 3 more gears, a lighter curb weight, and some other things, account for the significant EPA differences.
I believe the K23T does not even fit in the TSX, let alone the Civic. You might say Honda could've designed the K23T and the Civic so that they are compatible. But the same can be said with the J series and the Civic. There's actually a kit that you can buy to retrofit a J series into an EK Civic (EG too, but you might need to cut a hole on the hood). The J series is one of the most compact V6 engines out there in the market. I believe someone said it's actually smaller than some turbo-4 engines. With a turbo 4, you need to worry about intercooler, the extra piping, the turbo system itself, etc that all take up space and weight.
Of course I know the ED has DI. And that's my point. ED is coming out soon, that means it's not quite ready yet. So perhaps Honda has figured out a way to eliminate carbon build up, but it's not available at this very moment.And that means they cannot have K23T with DI at this very moment. Perhaps that is something they will look at in the future? Perhaps they will come up with a turbo 4 engine that can truly replace a V6 without any side effects?
|
I wasnt suggesting a proposed turbo 4 to replace a V6 but rather offer such an engine in the applications aforementioned.
In regards to the K23t, I believe the 5AT was that drivetrains weakest link as the closer ratios of a 6AT and some other improvements/refinements could have made that engine really good. Unfortunately, Honda didn't see it in the same light.
~Patrick
|
DrWhiner
|
|
Acura May sales +62% YTD +11%
|
owequitit
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
Acura May sales +62% YTD +11%
|
And that value is where compared to 5 years ago? IIRC, it is about half. So that is like saying good job for raising your sales and still being 40% below where you were before you released all the new controversial models. It is easy to take a short term snapshot and make it look good. The truth is that Acura's performance still sucks compared to even a few years ago. Pointing to Buick's bad results doesn't justify Acura's, and it certainly doesn't mean that the Verano with more power is an inferior car to any Acura product.
To be honest, Buick has a lot of problems, but they have had them for a long time. so to expect them to reverse right away is not realistic.
|
HondaFan1990
|
|
owequitit wrote:
DrWhiner wrote:
Acura May sales +62% YTD +11%
|
And that value is where compared to 5 years ago? IIRC, it is about half. So that is like saying good job for raising your sales and still being 40% below where you were before you released all the new controversial models. It is easy to take a short term snapshot and make it look good. The truth is that Acura's performance still sucks compared to even a few years ago. Pointing to Buick's bad results doesn't justify Acura's, and it certainly doesn't mean that the Verano with more power is an inferior car to any Acura product.
To be honest, Buick has a lot of problems, but they have had them for a long time. so to expect them to reverse right away is not realistic.
|
Well if Buick gets a pass for having problems, why doesn't Acura? Both sales aren't anything special but Buick's continual spiral of less sales is "alright" of sorts and nothing should be expected to turn around soon, but Acura, whose sales aren't what they used to be 5 years ago but actually improving is "wrong"? Buick started to turn around (slowly) with the introduction of the Enclave and Lucerne. If I'm not mistaken, the Lucerne came out in 2006, Enclave in 2007 or so. Now they have the new Regal and Verano also. Pointing at Acura and telling them about themselves before "controversial models" does nothing. You won't always be "on top". You will fall and stumble and then pick yourself up, hopefully. Buick has been trying to turn themselves around from the "old people's brand" since those two aforementioned models and Acura has been trying to find themselves in that same amount of time from their sales peak to their decline as of late. Buick seems to have found some mojo and Acrua does too if the RDX, NSX and RLX have anything to say for it. Time will tell, but pointing at Acura in defense of the pointing at Buick gets us nowhere.
And what models does Acura have that's so controversial? The ZDX comes to mind and that's it. Certainly not the ILX. What would be wrong with that car that shouldn't agree with most people? Or maybe it's styling.....which is subjective....cause I know people that thought the 04-08 TL was ugly and LOVE the current body....
|
DrWhiner
|
|
And how does Buick 's current sales compared to its best year, which it probably sold more than one million.....
P.S. Did Acura sell 115k+ vehicles in the first five months of 2007? I think not.
|
mobis21
|
|
|
The Verano is incredibly boring looking. I'm sure the suspension is set to flat florida retirement village, and why oh why is it almost 3500 lbs. That's small SUV weight.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
CivicB18 wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
For the record, GM's 2.0T is quite good. I've sampled a lightly modified Saturn Sky Turbo and a Cobalt SS and the engine left a positive impression. If only Honda would have invested more in the former K23t.
Suggested EarthDreams K23t applications:
- CRV. The K23t would have been a good option for folks who prefer more squirt for the CRV, say making 240hp/265ftlbs.
- ILX 6MT. Same output as CRV with LSD and suspension/chassis enhancements.
- Base RDX engine. The V6 RDX would use the ED 310hp V6.
- 2.3t would replace the V6 TSX.
Acura certainly could use some diversity in the engine department!
~Patrick
|
IMO, the main issue with the K23T is the lack of direct injection. Direct injection is needed to raise the compression ratio and thus the efficiency of the engine. Problem with DI is carbon deposit build up. Unlike other manufacturers, Honda doesn't want to keep their reputation of building good engines intact.
Another thing is, for Honda at the very least, there's really no reason to use a turbo 4. Others use turbo 4 to replace V6 to get better EPA numbers. Honda on the other hand is more interested in real world results. If one insists on looking at EPA figures, then look no further than the new RDX. It replaced the k23t with the good old J35. Sure, it has VCM, 6AT, and a simpler AWD system, but still, the EPA ratings got much better. For comparison, the RDX AWD gets EPA combined 22mpg, that is exactly the same as the Q5 2.0T with 8AT. The added benefits of the V6 are that the engine is smoother and there's no turbo lag.
|
I'm fully aware of how DI works and its pros and cons. But the lack of direct injection wasnt the greatest issue with the K23t. It was actually the 5AT and its long ratios. Adding a 6AT to that engine would have improved a lot of drivability issues with this engine while improving performance and efficiency. People act like direct injection alone makes a huge difference in efficiency when in fact it doesnt. Better gearing, tweaks to the VVT system etc etc have proven to offer more real world efficiency gains vs direct injection. Those solutions are also much cheaper to implement.
Having a turbo 4 would give Acura a more diverse engine lineup and sharing that engine with a higher trim CRV would make it more justifiable in terms of cost. It would also allow smaller applications like the ILX to have a much more powerful version to make that car more desirable. A V6 won't fit in a Civic platform.
In terms of Honda wanting to keep their reputation intact, I don't know if youve been paying attention but the EarthDreams engine have direct injection. I'm sure Honda has engineered some kind of system so carbon buildup isnt an issue. DI is coming but as I said earlier a revamped K23t or a new 2.0t variant would be a great offering in several applications.
~Patrick
|
I never thought the RDX with the K23T to be having drivability issues. There's turbo lag when you step on it, but it's similar to a Q5 2.0T. I agree that 6AT would help immensely, especially if the engine doesn't have much low end torque. We have already witnessed how the new 6AT has helped the MDX, Odyssey, and new RDX in terms of acceleration. Fuel economy gain is minimal though (1 mpg better overall in the MDX I believe). The thing is, the 5th gear on the 5AT was already very long. Engineers can't gear the 6th gear on the 6AT much longer.
DI alone doesn't make a huge difference for NA engines. But it does for turbocharged engines. The CR of the 1st gen RDX is only 8.8:1. Audi Q5 2.0T is at 9.6:1. That's a 10% difference, which IMO is pretty significant. That, along with with 3 more gears, a lighter curb weight, and some other things, account for the significant EPA differences.
I believe the K23T does not even fit in the TSX, let alone the Civic. You might say Honda could've designed the K23T and the Civic so that they are compatible. But the same can be said with the J series and the Civic. There's actually a kit that you can buy to retrofit a J series into an EK Civic (EG too, but you might need to cut a hole on the hood). The J series is one of the most compact V6 engines out there in the market. I believe someone said it's actually smaller than some turbo-4 engines. With a turbo 4, you need to worry about intercooler, the extra piping, the turbo system itself, etc that all take up space and weight.
Of course I know the ED has DI. And that's my point. ED is coming out soon, that means it's not quite ready yet. So perhaps Honda has figured out a way to eliminate carbon build up, but it's not available at this very moment.And that means they cannot have K23T with DI at this very moment. Perhaps that is something they will look at in the future? Perhaps they will come up with a turbo 4 engine that can truly replace a V6 without any side effects?
|
I wasnt suggesting a proposed turbo 4 to replace a V6 but rather offer such an engine in the applications aforementioned.
In regards to the K23t, I believe the 5AT was that drivetrains weakest link as the closer ratios of a 6AT and some other improvements/refinements could have made that engine really good. Unfortunately, Honda didn't see it in the same light.
~Patrick
|
I can see your point.
It's just that, from my understanding, the idea to use a smaller, boosted engine (ie. turbo 4 to replace V6) is to get better fuel efficiency. For manufacturers, if they can do with less, then they will probably go that way. So, if they can get by with a NA-4, and a V6, then they will probably skip the Turbo-4. Similarly, if they can get by with a NA-4 and a Turbo-4, then they will probably not have a V6. This is obviously assuming the turbo-4 and V6 have similar power ratings.
In your previous post(s), you mentioned that a better K23t (ie. DI, 6AT, other tech, etc) would be decent for the CR-V, TSX, and ILX. I think that would depend on how much better the K23T would be. I'm guessing to you, a turbo-4 is better because of theoretically better mpg and it's lighter/smaller. I'm saying that a refined K23T is probably not much lighter/smaller than a J series, and it will probably take quite a bit of work to get better mpg.
|
CivicB18
|
|
Hondarulez wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
For the record, GM's 2.0T is quite good. I've sampled a lightly modified Saturn Sky Turbo and a Cobalt SS and the engine left a positive impression. If only Honda would have invested more in the former K23t.
Suggested EarthDreams K23t applications:
- CRV. The K23t would have been a good option for folks who prefer more squirt for the CRV, say making 240hp/265ftlbs.
- ILX 6MT. Same output as CRV with LSD and suspension/chassis enhancements.
- Base RDX engine. The V6 RDX would use the ED 310hp V6.
- 2.3t would replace the V6 TSX.
Acura certainly could use some diversity in the engine department!
~Patrick
|
IMO, the main issue with the K23T is the lack of direct injection. Direct injection is needed to raise the compression ratio and thus the efficiency of the engine. Problem with DI is carbon deposit build up. Unlike other manufacturers, Honda doesn't want to keep their reputation of building good engines intact.
Another thing is, for Honda at the very least, there's really no reason to use a turbo 4. Others use turbo 4 to replace V6 to get better EPA numbers. Honda on the other hand is more interested in real world results. If one insists on looking at EPA figures, then look no further than the new RDX. It replaced the k23t with the good old J35. Sure, it has VCM, 6AT, and a simpler AWD system, but still, the EPA ratings got much better. For comparison, the RDX AWD gets EPA combined 22mpg, that is exactly the same as the Q5 2.0T with 8AT. The added benefits of the V6 are that the engine is smoother and there's no turbo lag.
|
I'm fully aware of how DI works and its pros and cons. But the lack of direct injection wasnt the greatest issue with the K23t. It was actually the 5AT and its long ratios. Adding a 6AT to that engine would have improved a lot of drivability issues with this engine while improving performance and efficiency. People act like direct injection alone makes a huge difference in efficiency when in fact it doesnt. Better gearing, tweaks to the VVT system etc etc have proven to offer more real world efficiency gains vs direct injection. Those solutions are also much cheaper to implement.
Having a turbo 4 would give Acura a more diverse engine lineup and sharing that engine with a higher trim CRV would make it more justifiable in terms of cost. It would also allow smaller applications like the ILX to have a much more powerful version to make that car more desirable. A V6 won't fit in a Civic platform.
In terms of Honda wanting to keep their reputation intact, I don't know if youve been paying attention but the EarthDreams engine have direct injection. I'm sure Honda has engineered some kind of system so carbon buildup isnt an issue. DI is coming but as I said earlier a revamped K23t or a new 2.0t variant would be a great offering in several applications.
~Patrick
|
I never thought the RDX with the K23T to be having drivability issues. There's turbo lag when you step on it, but it's similar to a Q5 2.0T. I agree that 6AT would help immensely, especially if the engine doesn't have much low end torque. We have already witnessed how the new 6AT has helped the MDX, Odyssey, and new RDX in terms of acceleration. Fuel economy gain is minimal though (1 mpg better overall in the MDX I believe). The thing is, the 5th gear on the 5AT was already very long. Engineers can't gear the 6th gear on the 6AT much longer.
DI alone doesn't make a huge difference for NA engines. But it does for turbocharged engines. The CR of the 1st gen RDX is only 8.8:1. Audi Q5 2.0T is at 9.6:1. That's a 10% difference, which IMO is pretty significant. That, along with with 3 more gears, a lighter curb weight, and some other things, account for the significant EPA differences.
I believe the K23T does not even fit in the TSX, let alone the Civic. You might say Honda could've designed the K23T and the Civic so that they are compatible. But the same can be said with the J series and the Civic. There's actually a kit that you can buy to retrofit a J series into an EK Civic (EG too, but you might need to cut a hole on the hood). The J series is one of the most compact V6 engines out there in the market. I believe someone said it's actually smaller than some turbo-4 engines. With a turbo 4, you need to worry about intercooler, the extra piping, the turbo system itself, etc that all take up space and weight.
Of course I know the ED has DI. And that's my point. ED is coming out soon, that means it's not quite ready yet. So perhaps Honda has figured out a way to eliminate carbon build up, but it's not available at this very moment.And that means they cannot have K23T with DI at this very moment. Perhaps that is something they will look at in the future? Perhaps they will come up with a turbo 4 engine that can truly replace a V6 without any side effects?
|
I wasnt suggesting a proposed turbo 4 to replace a V6 but rather offer such an engine in the applications aforementioned.
In regards to the K23t, I believe the 5AT was that drivetrains weakest link as the closer ratios of a 6AT and some other improvements/refinements could have made that engine really good. Unfortunately, Honda didn't see it in the same light.
~Patrick
|
I can see your point.
It's just that, from my understanding, the idea to use a smaller, boosted engine (ie. turbo 4 to replace V6) is to get better fuel efficiency. For manufacturers, if they can do with less, then they will probably go that way. So, if they can get by with a NA-4, and a V6, then they will probably skip the Turbo-4. Similarly, if they can get by with a NA-4 and a Turbo-4, then they will probably not have a V6. This is obviously assuming the turbo-4 and V6 have similar power ratings.
In your previous post(s), you mentioned that a better K23t (ie. DI, 6AT, other tech, etc) would be decent for the CR-V, TSX, and ILX. I think that would depend on how much better the K23T would be. I'm guessing to you, a turbo-4 is better because of theoretically better mpg and it's lighter/smaller. I'm saying that a refined K23T is probably not much lighter/smaller than a J series, and it will probably take quite a bit of work to get better mpg.
|
Again I'm not suggesting a revamped K23t/K20t should replace a V6 but could be implemented in a few smaller applications such as a base engine for an RDX which will eventually recieve the ED 310hp 3.5 V6. A turbo 4 would be a great base engine for the RDX and maybe even bring the price of entry down a bit. Connect it to a 6AT or that 7DCT and it could be quit a package. The CRV, ILX Type S and the TSX could also use it to spread cost. It could also be used across the pond as turbo 4's are quite popular there.
Again, Acura has to think on a global scale as they can't afford to just cater to the U.S. and Chinese markets. With that said a more diverse engine lineup would help the brand become desirable in markets yet to be penetrated by the brand. The more volume the brand can sell the more profits can be made and the more independent and sustainable the brand can become. The end result is better products that differrentiate themselves even further from the Honda brand.
~Patrick
|
owequitit
|
|
HondaFan1990 wrote:
owequitit wrote:
DrWhiner wrote:
Acura May sales +62% YTD +11%
|
And that value is where compared to 5 years ago? IIRC, it is about half. So that is like saying good job for raising your sales and still being 40% below where you were before you released all the new controversial models. It is easy to take a short term snapshot and make it look good. The truth is that Acura's performance still sucks compared to even a few years ago. Pointing to Buick's bad results doesn't justify Acura's, and it certainly doesn't mean that the Verano with more power is an inferior car to any Acura product.
To be honest, Buick has a lot of problems, but they have had them for a long time. so to expect them to reverse right away is not realistic.
|
Well if Buick gets a pass for having problems, why doesn't Acura? Both sales aren't anything special but Buick's continual spiral of less sales is "alright" of sorts and nothing should be expected to turn around soon, but Acura, whose sales aren't what they used to be 5 years ago but actually improving is "wrong"? Buick started to turn around (slowly) with the introduction of the Enclave and Lucerne. If I'm not mistaken, the Lucerne came out in 2006, Enclave in 2007 or so. Now they have the new Regal and Verano also. Pointing at Acura and telling them about themselves before "controversial models" does nothing. You won't always be "on top". You will fall and stumble and then pick yourself up, hopefully. Buick has been trying to turn themselves around from the "old people's brand" since those two aforementioned models and Acura has been trying to find themselves in that same amount of time from their sales peak to their decline as of late. Buick seems to have found some mojo and Acrua does too if the RDX, NSX and RLX have anything to say for it. Time will tell, but pointing at Acura in defense of the pointing at Buick gets us nowhere.
And what models does Acura have that's so controversial? The ZDX comes to mind and that's it. Certainly not the ILX. What would be wrong with that car that shouldn't agree with most people? Or maybe it's styling.....which is subjective....cause I know people that thought the 04-08 TL was ugly and LOVE the current body....
|
Buick doesn't get a pass... that is why all of you and your fanboy friends are in here bashing what a piece of crap the Verano is...
So to turn your own logic around on you, if Buick doesn't get a pass for shitty product, why should Acura?
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
Because Ito is the best thing since sliced bread???
Neither of them deserve a pass, but to be fair Buick's big 'comback' consisted of selling more vehicles to rental fleets so Buick has never seen an uptick in consmer sales. And the Verano is a rehash of a 5 year old Opel. Luckily Acura is just rehashing a year old civic and charging too much for it.
Someone had posted that the 'new' Enclave is going to cause sales to uptick but it is really just a refresh of the current vehicle.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 3 |
| |
|
![[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}
