|
|
|
|
 |
ClementZ
 |
|
Lots of us are complaining about the overhangs.
I personally don't see the problem with them, most people shopping for a luxury sedan will.
Every Legend/RL has been based on an Accord platform, which is FF, and will inherently have larger overhangs.
If Honda made this car FR, or at the very least, longitudnal FF, I assume that the overhang problems would be, at the very least, reduced.
But why hasn't/doesn't/won't Honda build an FR sedan platform? Too much money? Not enough necessity?
I wanna hear your thoughts.
|
Chocs
|
|
I think Honda is just full on chasing efficiency at the moment. It all comes down to packaging, space, and drivetrain losses.
|
silverTL6
|
|
^ drool
Imagine how different it'd be now if their Tier 1 plans weren't scrapped. We'd have a v10 NSX, v8 RLX, maybe even a TLX with an optional v8 and ILX with an optional v6. sigh....
|
danielgr
|
|
ClementZ wrote:
Lots of us are complaining about the overhangs.
I personally don't see the problem with them, most people shopping for a luxury sedan will.
Every Legend/RL has been based on an Accord platform, which is FF, and will inherently have larger overhangs.
If Honda made this car FR, or at the very least, longitudnal FF, I assume that the overhang problems would be, at the very least, reduced.
But why hasn't/doesn't/won't Honda build an FR sedan platform? Too much money? Not enough necessity?
I wanna hear your thoughts.
|
- only real performance advantage vs. FWD shows for cars past at about 300hp or more, of which Honda barely sell any, and actual advantages can barely be felt on the road unless you are a street drifter.
- it compromises crash safety (makes it much more difficult to achieve good crash protection because of the longitudinal engine position), packaging (forces to have a very long hood, and has a pretty intrusive transmission tunnel), and poor weather handling (which can only be partially tamed with extremely intrusive electronics).
People tend to forget that in the past most cars were RWD, and FWD were introduced later because they offered so many advantages for the vast majority of people. If you want to race and are not allowed to use AWD, then RWD is absolutely the way to go. If you are BMW or Mercedes and your core business are high-end luxury cars with mind-blowing torque/power, RWD is absolutely the way to go. Then again, whenever those makers start thinking smaller (Mini, B-series, etc.) they go back to FWD, yet they tend to share as much as possible with other guys because they can't really afford to invest it all on their own.
If you are Honda, the world's 7th or 8th automaker, and your most powerful car makes 310Hp and sell about a few thousand of those a year, it wouldn't make much sense to build a platform that would offer nearly no benefits for your cars while loading them with unnecessary compromises. Moreover, it wouldn't take you anywhere since there is no way you could use that as a differentiation point with all the existing and well established players at that game. So you'd better try something else, which is what they are doing.
Obviously, that doesn't mean from time to time (once a decade) you cannot offer you a special present like the S2000 or the NSX (and the next NSX will be RWD-based AWD). But a "platform"? That's a completely different thing.
|
Waldo
|
|
danielgr wrote:
A few reasons in short:
- only real performance advantage vs. FWD shows for cars past at about 300hp or more, of which Honda barely sell any, and actual advantages can barely be felt on the road unless you are a street drifter.
- it compromises crash safety (makes it much more difficult to achieve good crash protection because of the longitudinal engine position), packaging (forces to have a very long hood, and has a pretty intrusive transmission tunnel), and poor weather handling (which can only be partially tamed with extremely intrusive electronics).
People tend to forget that in the past most cars were RWD, and FWD were introduced later because they offered so many advantages for the vast majority of people. If you want to race and are not allowed to use AWD, then RWD is absolutely the way to go. If you are BMW or Mercedes and your core business are high-end luxury cars with mind-blowing torque/power, RWD is absolutely the way to go. Then again, whenever those makers start thinking smaller (Mini, B-series, etc.) they go back to FWD, yet they tend to share as much as possible with other guys because they can't really afford to invest it all on their own.
If you are Honda, the world's 7th or 8th automaker, and your most powerful car makes 310Hp and sell about a few thousand of those a year, it wouldn't make much sense to build a platform that would offer nearly no benefits for your cars while loading them with unnecessary compromises. Moreover, it wouldn't take you anywhere since there is no way you could use that as a differentiation point with all the existing and well established players at that game. So you'd better try something else, which is what they are doing.
Obviously, that doesn't mean from time to time (once a decade) you cannot offer you a special present like the S2000 or the NSX (and the next NSX will be RWD-based AWD). But a "platform"? That's a completely different thing.
|
Superbly written explanation. This needs to be saved and referenced every time the question arises.
|
TurkMan71
|
|
Waldo wrote:
danielgr wrote:
A few reasons in short:
- only real performance advantage vs. FWD shows for cars past at about 300hp or more, of which Honda barely sell any, and actual advantages can barely be felt on the road unless you are a street drifter.
- it compromises crash safety (makes it much more difficult to achieve good crash protection because of the longitudinal engine position), packaging (forces to have a very long hood, and has a pretty intrusive transmission tunnel), and poor weather handling (which can only be partially tamed with extremely intrusive electronics).
People tend to forget that in the past most cars were RWD, and FWD were introduced later because they offered so many advantages for the vast majority of people. If you want to race and are not allowed to use AWD, then RWD is absolutely the way to go. If you are BMW or Mercedes and your core business are high-end luxury cars with mind-blowing torque/power, RWD is absolutely the way to go. Then again, whenever those makers start thinking smaller (Mini, B-series, etc.) they go back to FWD, yet they tend to share as much as possible with other guys because they can't really afford to invest it all on their own.
If you are Honda, the world's 7th or 8th automaker, and your most powerful car makes 310Hp and sell about a few thousand of those a year, it wouldn't make much sense to build a platform that would offer nearly no benefits for your cars while loading them with unnecessary compromises. Moreover, it wouldn't take you anywhere since there is no way you could use that as a differentiation point with all the existing and well established players at that game. So you'd better try something else, which is what they are doing.
Obviously, that doesn't mean from time to time (once a decade) you cannot offer you a special present like the S2000 or the NSX (and the next NSX will be RWD-based AWD). But a "platform"? That's a completely different thing.
|
Superbly written explanation. This needs to be saved and referenced every time the question arises.
|
Good, but sad, explanation...but I still wonder: Hyundai has had relative success with even more hurdles to overcome. And I know there would be more buyers of a Honda RWD platform than a Hyundai when making an apples to apples, sedan to sedan comparison - heck , I think there would be more Honda (Acura) buyers than Infiniti and Lexus buyers...that's why there are so many frustrated fans out there.
Again luxury isn't suppose to make sense - keep the sense for Honda. I almost wish Honda would let loose Acura, let them make crazy world beating RWD sedans/coupes that we all KNOW they could make, even if it was a money losing venture. At least they'd go out with a blaze of glory, instead of whimpering along...
|
DavidJ
|
|
danielgr wrote:
ClementZ wrote:
Lots of us are complaining about the overhangs.
I personally don't see the problem with them, most people shopping for a luxury sedan will.
Every Legend/RL has been based on an Accord platform, which is FF, and will inherently have larger overhangs.
If Honda made this car FR, or at the very least, longitudnal FF, I assume that the overhang problems would be, at the very least, reduced.
But why hasn't/doesn't/won't Honda build an FR sedan platform? Too much money? Not enough necessity?
I wanna hear your thoughts.
|
- only real performance advantage vs. FWD shows for cars past at about 300hp or more, of which Honda barely sell any, and actual advantages can barely be felt on the road unless you are a street drifter.
- it compromises crash safety (makes it much more difficult to achieve good crash protection because of the longitudinal engine position), packaging (forces to have a very long hood, and has a pretty intrusive transmission tunnel), and poor weather handling (which can only be partially tamed with extremely intrusive electronics).
People tend to forget that in the past most cars were RWD, and FWD were introduced later because they offered so many advantages for the vast majority of people. If you want to race and are not allowed to use AWD, then RWD is absolutely the way to go. If you are BMW or Mercedes and your core business are high-end luxury cars with mind-blowing torque/power, RWD is absolutely the way to go. Then again, whenever those makers start thinking smaller (Mini, B-series, etc.) they go back to FWD, yet they tend to share as much as possible with other guys because they can't really afford to invest it all on their own.
If you are Honda, the world's 7th or 8th automaker, and your most powerful car makes 310Hp and sell about a few thousand of those a year, it wouldn't make much sense to build a platform that would offer nearly no benefits for your cars while loading them with unnecessary compromises. Moreover, it wouldn't take you anywhere since there is no way you could use that as a differentiation point with all the existing and well established players at that game. So you'd better try something else, which is what they are doing.
Obviously, that doesn't mean from time to time (once a decade) you cannot offer you a special present like the S2000 or the NSX (and the next NSX will be RWD-based AWD). But a "platform"? That's a completely different thing.
|
The key phrase here is "If you are BMW or Mercedes and your core business are high-end luxury cars..."
If you want to enter the high-end, then you need it. Honda doesn't. Acura does.
What's the point of Acura, again? Become the Japanese Buick?
|
silverTL6
|
|
danielgr wrote:
If you are Honda, the world's 7th or 8th automaker, and your most powerful car makes 310Hp and sell about a few thousand of those a year, it wouldn't make much sense to build a platform that would offer nearly no benefits for your cars while loading them with unnecessary compromises. Moreover, it wouldn't take you anywhere since there is no way you could use that as a differentiation point with all the existing and well established players at that game.
|
This is precisely Acura's problem - they refuse to go past 310HP (without the help of electric motors), while regular Honda's are slowly getting there. That and the shared FWD platform is why they are still considered fancy Honda's.
As for differentiation with established RWD players - reliability, interior design, and driving dynamics would be Acura's wild card. The first two are the reasons why Lexus is able to compete in that segment, and they are quickly catching up on the third.
|
FiSH-Chan
|
|
TurkMan71 wrote:
Again luxury isn't suppose to make sense - keep the sense for Honda. I almost wish Honda would let loose Acura, let them make crazy world beating RWD sedans/coupes that we all KNOW they could make, even if it was a money losing venture. At least they'd go out with a blaze of glory, instead of whimpering along... |
If I were in the market for luxury, I would choose the most sophisticated and best designed car, all the rest is secondary, but a real bonus if they got that part nice too. So far I think the RLX seems to have the sophistication right (hybrid and 4ws), but the design does not stand out.
If the design is like the Mercedes CLS would be nice. I don't really like that design, but somewhere like that to make really make it stand out.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
Nah. Plz no more longitudinal FF nonsense.
It'll not solve any front overhang problem, IMO.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
And RWD is NOT a panacea.
|
ClementZ
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
Nah. Plz no more longitudinal FF nonsense.
It'll not solve any front overhang problem, IMO.
|
The second gen Legend and first gen RL had longitdinal FF layouts and the overhang wasn't bad, and they both had that large firewall space that lux customers go crazy about.
|
ClementZ
|
|
danielgr wrote:
ClementZ wrote:
Lots of us are complaining about the overhangs.
I personally don't see the problem with them, most people shopping for a luxury sedan will.
Every Legend/RL has been based on an Accord platform, which is FF, and will inherently have larger overhangs.
If Honda made this car FR, or at the very least, longitudnal FF, I assume that the overhang problems would be, at the very least, reduced.
But why hasn't/doesn't/won't Honda build an FR sedan platform? Too much money? Not enough necessity?
I wanna hear your thoughts.
|
- only real performance advantage vs. FWD shows for cars past at about 300hp or more, of which Honda barely sell any, and actual advantages can barely be felt on the road unless you are a street drifter.
- it compromises crash safety (makes it much more difficult to achieve good crash protection because of the longitudinal engine position), packaging (forces to have a very long hood, and has a pretty intrusive transmission tunnel), and poor weather handling (which can only be partially tamed with extremely intrusive electronics).
People tend to forget that in the past most cars were RWD, and FWD were introduced later because they offered so many advantages for the vast majority of people. If you want to race and are not allowed to use AWD, then RWD is absolutely the way to go. If you are BMW or Mercedes and your core business are high-end luxury cars with mind-blowing torque/power, RWD is absolutely the way to go. Then again, whenever those makers start thinking smaller (Mini, B-series, etc.) they go back to FWD, yet they tend to share as much as possible with other guys because they can't really afford to invest it all on their own.
If you are Honda, the world's 7th or 8th automaker, and your most powerful car makes 310Hp and sell about a few thousand of those a year, it wouldn't make much sense to build a platform that would offer nearly no benefits for your cars while loading them with unnecessary compromises. Moreover, it wouldn't take you anywhere since there is no way you could use that as a differentiation point with all the existing and well established players at that game. So you'd better try something else, which is what they are doing.
Obviously, that doesn't mean from time to time (once a decade) you cannot offer you a special present like the S2000 or the NSX (and the next NSX will be RWD-based AWD). But a "platform"? That's a completely different thing.
|
And Daniel, thanks for the explanation.
|
Powered by Honda
|
|
Oi!
drama queens...
its not to bad. Over reacting for the sake of over reacting.
you want bad front overhang?
look at any ferrari ever made:
|
Great_Tubimi
|
|
TurkMan71 wrote:
Again luxury isn't suppose to make sense - keep the sense for Honda. I almost wish Honda would let loose Acura, let them make crazy world beating RWD sedans/coupes that we all KNOW they could make, even if it was a money losing venture. At least they'd go out with a blaze of glory, instead of whimpering along...
|
That would take effort. "Less effort" (apparently) = Efficiency.
|
mobis21
|
|
ClementZ wrote:
Lots of us are complaining about the overhangs.
I personally don't see the problem with them, most people shopping for a luxury sedan will.
Every Legend/RL has been based on an Accord platform, which is FF, and will inherently have larger overhangs.
If Honda made this car FR, or at the very least, longitudnal FF, I assume that the overhang problems would be, at the very least, reduced.
I think the only people really worried about RWD platforms are Magazine test drivers and editors. They take cars to a race track and flog the ever loving shitout of them. In everyday driving, I think I prefer FWD or AWD. I have no need for a RWD only vehicle. Maybe if I towed huge heavy trailers, i'd get a big RWD pickup.
But why hasn't/doesn't/won't Honda build an FR sedan platform? Too much money? Not enough necessity?
I wanna hear your thoughts.
|
|
DrWhiner
|
|
ClementZ wrote:
The second gen Legend and first gen RL had longitdinal FF layouts and the overhang wasn't bad, and they both had that large firewall space that lux customers go crazy about.
|
In its final years, it outgrew its platform and handling deteriorated.
I guess that's why Honda went for a tranverse engine and AWD to spread the cost w/ MDX to balance cost and good handling.
|
NickDC5
|
|
danielgr,
You have to look at RWD through the luxury-buyer perspective...
The "performance" advantage vs. RWD is not nearly that simple. First of all, torque steer. This is present even in a K24-powered FWD Honda. And you realize the issues you pointed out with rear-drive can be a problem in bad weather for front-drive too.
RWD getting out of control is more scary to some, but FWD is more likely to lose grip period (what with the front tires receiving lateral and longitudinal forces from power and steering, the vectors adding, causing higher net force, and meaning less total grip under forward acceleration) . Your rear won't step out, but you're still not getting traction. And you're still ruining tires. And you still need some intrusive technology in front drive to keep the front of the car pointed where you want...
Honestly the criticisms of RWD can all be applied to FWD. The fact of the matter is if you look at BMW, they're moving cars. Period. Their cars look good and they have rear-drive. People still buy them. And they aren't as reliable as Hondas.
The FR platform would have development costs, but those would be outweighed by increased Acura sales and less Honda cannibalization. Moreover Honda could save cash trying to advertise ugly Acuras to people who don't want them. The cars would sell themselves if they just looked decently attractive, or at least hinted at luxury roots.
In my opinion, around 180 ft/lbs of torque at the crank is all you want to send to the fronts (Heck, even with 245mm Dunlop Direzza Star Specs, and basic breather mods, my RSX Type-S hopped all over the place on medium/hard launches). And Honda has many cars that reach beyond that in torque output. The biggest issue though is that Honda already sells a TL and RL and TSX. It's called Accord.
You said FWD was introduced later, but you forget that fuel costs are the reason why FWD became popular. FWD is an economy car layout. I say this so much that I'm starting to think people must be sick of me... But economy cars aren't what luxury buyers want. People want economy cars because of money. When you have money, you don't care about MPGs so much as heated leather seats and having fifteen speakers and a car that looks good.
As for the transmission tunnel, you still have a tunnel for the driveshaft in Acura's AWD vehicles. And for the transmission housing, that's the beauty of it! You stretch out the hood for the long engine and transmission, and you get that long, sweeping sports car look.
All of your points are dead-on, so we don't disagree anywhere. My only thing is that all the negatives of RWD apply to FWD, and are in fact multiplied. The real problems with RWD are developing the platform for it, and, to some, winter driving being scary to people. And to that I say the costs for production would be offset in sales. As for winter driving scaring people, have an AWD option.
To people who refuse to get RWD because they're concerned about winter driving, sell them SH-AWD or sell them a Honda.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
NickDC5 wrote:
danielgr,
You have to look at RWD through the luxury-buyer perspective...
The "performance" advantage vs. RWD is not nearly that simple. First of all, torque steer. This is present even in a K24-powered FWD Honda. And you realize the issues you pointed out with rear-drive can be a problem in bad weather for front-drive too.
RWD getting out of control is more scary to some, but FWD is more likely to lose grip period (what with the front tires receiving lateral and longitudinal forces from power and steering, the vectors adding, causing higher net force, and meaning less total grip under forward acceleration) . Your rear won't step out, but you're still not getting traction. And you're still ruining tires. And you still need some intrusive technology in front drive to keep the front of the car pointed where you want...
Honestly the criticisms of RWD can all be applied to FWD. The fact of the matter is if you look at BMW, they're moving cars. Period. Their cars look good and they have rear-drive. People still buy them. And they aren't as reliable as Hondas.
The FR platform would have development costs, but those would be outweighed by increased Acura sales and less Honda cannibalization. Moreover Honda could save cash trying to advertise ugly Acuras to people who don't want them. The cars would sell themselves if they just looked decently attractive, or at least hinted at luxury roots.
In my opinion, around 180 ft/lbs of torque at the crank is all you want to send to the fronts (Heck, even with 245mm Dunlop Direzza Star Specs, and basic breather mods, my RSX Type-S hopped all over the place on medium/hard launches). And Honda has many cars that reach beyond that in torque output. The biggest issue though is that Honda already sells a TL and RL and TSX. It's called Accord.
You said FWD was introduced later, but you forget that fuel costs are the reason why FWD became popular. FWD is an economy car layout. I say this so much that I'm starting to think people must be sick of me... But economy cars aren't what luxury buyers want. People want economy cars because of money. When you have money, you don't care about MPGs so much as heated leather seats and having fifteen speakers and a car that looks good.
As for the transmission tunnel, you still have a tunnel for the driveshaft in Acura's AWD vehicles. And for the transmission housing, that's the beauty of it! You stretch out the hood for the long engine and transmission, and you get that long, sweeping sports car look.
All of your points are dead-on, so we don't disagree anywhere. My only thing is that all the negatives of RWD apply to FWD, and are in fact multiplied. The real problems with RWD are developing the platform for it, and, to some, winter driving being scary to people. And to that I say the costs for production would be offset in sales. As for winter driving scaring people, have an AWD option.
To people who refuse to get RWD because they're concerned about winter driving, sell them SH-AWD or sell them a Honda.
|
I don't think danielgr is pointing out any negatives of RWD. He's simply giving an explanation of why Honda is not adopting RWD for Acura models.
The performance advantage of RWD over FWD is obvious. However, RWD vs FWD is only one aspect to performance. There are other factors such as suspension design & tuning, chassis design, rigidity, and tuning. And up to a certain level, the RWD advantage may not be that big in modern cars. Look at the 3G TL-S, despiting having the worst power to weight ratio and worst tires, it was able to comfortably achieve a faster lap time than a G35S 6MT and IS350 at Willow Springs driven by Keiichi Tsuchiya. Yes it's only one track, but again, the TL-S was only based on the Accord, had less grippy tires, and worst hp/lb ratio. That's enough to show that when tuned right, ~300hp FWD vehicles can be "right up there" with the RWD cars.
Torque steer is found in K24-powered FWD Honda? Like the new Civic Si? Most Honda's with double-wishbone suspensions have minimal torque steer. RSX-S has worse suspension than the DC2 Integra. It's only good for flat road.
There's simply no guarantee that Acura sales will increase with a FR platform. Look no further than Infiniti for comparison. Most of its cars are RWD but Infiniti isn't exactly outselling Acura. And Infiniti is sharing FR platforms with Nissan already.
|
NickDC5
|
|
Well you've got a lot of good points there. I would ask though in what J-series powered cars does Honda employ a double wishbone front suspension? Or even K-series? I thought Honda dropped the double wishbone in Civic with the EM2. So only the littler D and B series engines powered them anyhow. The biggest would've been the B series in the DC5 Integra... which wasn't really known for being a torque monster. More importantly, we're talking about Honda's big expensive luxury models, not its little economy cars. Its econoboxes can be FWD and it fits them. They'll stay cheap and efficient, as they should be.
(If I'm wrong about the double wishbone front suspension though, let me know. I thought Honda was all MacPherson strut now, sadly.)
As for Honda's luxury arm, they are in a different price bracket. And that means more. More, more, more. More size and more engine and more money. Suspension geometry isn't as big of a factor as driveline geometry. Also most of Honda's cars have open front differentials, unlike the Civic Si, which doesn't help. Drive a k24 Element, or TSX, or Accord and you'll feel the wheel tug.
And sure, a specific FWD car can get the same lap time or better than a different rear drive car for a certain driver, on a certain track. That's completely true. But that's the exception to the rule, I'd say, when talking about the broad spectrum of similar vehicles. Sure most drivers don't care at all about this stuff... but you'll see more tire wear quicker on front drivers, even if the lap times start off as identical. Even when Nissan takes their GT-R to the race track, they make it RWD.
As for the comparison in the Japanese magazine, be sure to remember the IS350 has an automatic, which means greater power losses.
1. TL-S 6MT - 1:36:67 sec
2. IS350 - 1:38:24
3. G35 6MT - 1:38:67
(Note how 6MT is indicated beside the TL and G35, but not the IS350? Also the TL-S has more engine than the G35. That explains the results imo. The IS350 was putting down less power than the TL-S, and the G35 )
Similarly, here is a comparison of the 3 cars from Road and Track:
Conclusion
Although you wouldn’t know it by looking at the ratings chart, this was one of the most closely contested battles in recent memory. One small variation here or there could easily have swung the result in a different direction. For example, what if our G35 Sport was equipped with an automatic transmission? What if our driving route consisted of more stretches of Interstate than twisting roads? The answer to these questions will be found on another day, but for now, the Lexus IS 350 is the king of the Japanese sports-sedan hill. But most important of all, these three sedans surpassed our expectations in performance and touring, and have earned the right to shed the “near luxury” moniker. After an extended stint in any one of these cars, “near nirvana” becomes a more apt descriptor.
You make a good point about Infiniti's sales compared to Acura's, because they are pretty similar companies. I ask "What could Acura be doing better?"
And what about what you can't measure? Look at Nissan's sales in comparison to Honda's. Nissan sells fewer cars then Honda. Now, how can you measure how many people bought Infinitis instead of Nissans? The overlap in products is so small that we can only assume not many. I submit that Honda sells fewer than it could cars by making Acura so similar. I guess I can't back up that claim, since you can't measure it, but can we agree it is not just possible, but likely?
At the very least, Acura can claim sales from other competitors, instead of from Honda. Honda sells the Fit currently at a loss because they just don't want to lose the market. I think Acura is holding off on an FR platform because they don't know what the market will want 2 years from now. They abandoned their Tier 1 aspirations when the economy hit the toilet, which I understand. But I think they see that market as forever greener, cheaper. This has them latching on to their FWD-based platforms. They are making good decisions for the short term, but I don't think it's paying off long term.
Acura's sales shrank like crazy over the last few years. Why is that? It can't be fuel economy because they're always on top there. Sales shrank because of design, in my opinion. And if Acura pinned the TL on a more attractive platform, it would've sold better.
This is all speculative, so I apologize for that.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
NickDC5 wrote:
Well you've got a lot of good points there. I would ask though in what J-series powered cars does Honda employ a double wishbone front suspension? Or even K-series? I thought Honda dropped the double wishbone in Civic with the EM2. So only the littler D and B series engines powered them anyhow. The biggest would've been the B series in the DC5 Integra... which wasn't really known for being a torque monster. More importantly, we're talking about Honda's big expensive luxury models, not its little economy cars. Its econoboxes can be FWD and it fits them. They'll stay cheap and efficient, as they should be.
(If I'm wrong about the double wishbone front suspension though, let me know. I thought Honda was all MacPherson strut now, sadly.)
As for Honda's luxury arm, they are in a different price bracket. And that means more. More, more, more. More size and more engine and more money. Suspension geometry isn't as big of a factor as driveline geometry. Also most of Honda's cars have open front differentials, unlike the Civic Si, which doesn't help. Drive a k24 Element, or TSX, or Accord and you'll feel the wheel tug.
And sure, a specific FWD car can get the same lap time or better than a different rear drive car for a certain driver, on a certain track. That's completely true. But that's the exception to the rule, I'd say, when talking about the broad spectrum of similar vehicles. Sure most drivers don't care at all about this stuff... but you'll see more tire wear quicker on front drivers, even if the lap times start off as identical. Even when Nissan takes their GT-R to the race track, they make it RWD.
As for the comparison in the Japanese magazine, be sure to remember the IS350 has an automatic, which means greater power losses.
1. TL-S 6MT - 1:36:67 sec
2. IS350 - 1:38:24
3. G35 6MT - 1:38:67
(Note how 6MT is indicated beside the TL and G35, but not the IS350? Also the TL-S has more engine than the G35. That explains the results imo. The IS350 was putting down less power than the TL-S, and the G35 )
Similarly, here is a comparison of the 3 cars from Road and Track:
Conclusion
Although you wouldn’t know it by looking at the ratings chart, this was one of the most closely contested battles in recent memory. One small variation here or there could easily have swung the result in a different direction. For example, what if our G35 Sport was equipped with an automatic transmission? What if our driving route consisted of more stretches of Interstate than twisting roads? The answer to these questions will be found on another day, but for now, the Lexus IS 350 is the king of the Japanese sports-sedan hill. But most important of all, these three sedans surpassed our expectations in performance and touring, and have earned the right to shed the “near luxury” moniker. After an extended stint in any one of these cars, “near nirvana” becomes a more apt descriptor.
You make a good point about Infiniti's sales compared to Acura's, because they are pretty similar companies. I ask "What could Acura be doing better?"
And what about what you can't measure? Look at Nissan's sales in comparison to Honda's. Nissan sells fewer cars then Honda. Now, how can you measure how many people bought Infinitis instead of Nissans? The overlap in products is so small that we can only assume not many. I submit that Honda sells fewer than it could cars by making Acura so similar. I guess I can't back up that claim, since you can't measure it, but can we agree it is not just possible, but likely?
At the very least, Acura can claim sales from other competitors, instead of from Honda. Honda sells the Fit currently at a loss because they just don't want to lose the market. I think Acura is holding off on an FR platform because they don't know what the market will want 2 years from now. They abandoned their Tier 1 aspirations when the economy hit the toilet, which I understand. But I think they see that market as forever greener, cheaper. This has them latching on to their FWD-based platforms. They are making good decisions for the short term, but I don't think it's paying off long term.
Acura's sales shrank like crazy over the last few years. Why is that? It can't be fuel economy because they're always on top there. Sales shrank because of design, in my opinion. And if Acura pinned the TL on a more attractive platform, it would've sold better.
This is all speculative, so I apologize for that.
|
Thank God that not current Honda's use strut for front suspension! Here are some current FWD models that use double wishbone front suspension:
Acura TSX (K24 & J35)
Honda Accord (K24 & J35)
Acura TL (J35)
Torque steer isn't much of an issue in these models. Now, if these models use the K23T, then perhaps torque steer would've been an issue. There are other FWD cars out there with more torque that have virtually no torque steer. Most of these have special suspension design and/or ecu setting to reduce torque steer. Cars like the Nissan Maxima and Altima have torque steer issue as they use strut suspension.
DC5 uses the K series, not B series.
I drive a 2002 TL-S (with J32 and double wishbone front suspension) and torque steer only becomes an issue if the road is very uneven and I storm on the gas hard.
Again, I'm not trying to say the TL-S will beat the G35S and/or IS350 all the time. All I'm saying is, given the right tuning, in a street vehicle, a high-powered FWD sedan (under 300hp) can be just as good as a RWD model. That's all. I'm not sure why you are talking about tire wear though, since most buyers don't exactly race their MB C350 or BMW 328i or Acura TL FWD. It doesn't exactly apply to most situations.
Nissan takes their GT-R to the race track without the AWD system? I am assuming you are talking about the GT500 race series. I believe AWD is banned after how the old GT-R's used to be dominating the series. Before 2008 in the GT300, the series was dominated by RWD cars. However, in 2008, Subaru came with an AWD machine and dominated everyone. This is not to say AWD is better than RWD. But now, we are talking about pure racing. I don't think that applies to our conversation of luxury vehicles.
The IS350 might have higher power losses, but that does not matter. It's faster car than the TL-S 6MT and G35S 6MT even though it's an automatic. The IS350 is a mid to high 13's car that traps at 104mph. The best I have seen for the TL-S 6MT is 14.1@101mph. That's quite a bit slower than the IS350. FWD launch is not an issue for trap speed as trap speed simply measures raw power (and perhaps drag). What do you mean by the TL-S has more engine than the G35? Did you mean engine power? The G35S 6MT has more engine power if that's you are saying. Also, The G35 6MT is a high 13's car that traps at 102-103mph, which is slightly faster than the TL-S. I wouldn't be using this comparison if I didn't know the facts.
I see your point regarding how Acura is possibly cannibalising Honda in terms of sales and vice versa. Looking at current Acura's models, I can see TSX stealing sales from the Accord somewhat..and may be the RDX is stealing sales from the Pilot. I don't see Accord stealing sales from TL or MDX stealing sales from the Pilot though as the price differences are too great. However, I do see Maxima and G37 fighting against each other somewhat.
I'm not sure why you brought up the Fit...anyways, that model is losing money because Honda isn't making them in North America.
Acura's sales tanked greatly for several reasons:
1.) Poor 4G TL design. The 3G TL was was already declining greatly by 2007. It dropped even further when the 4G TL came out (70000/year to 30000-40000/year now). Everyone saw the success of the 2G and 3G TL, and everyone wanted a piece of the pie. By 2007, 3 series, MB C Class, IS, and G35 all got replaced with much better models. Also, in 2009, A4 and CTS got MMC as well.
2.) Economic downturn
3.) RSX was axed (20000-25000 annually before)
The RSX and TL together were worth 60000 sales annually (RDX adds about 15000/year).
|
NickDC5
|
|
That was a typo. Sorry. I did mean DC2.
I actually own a "K > B" t-shirt hahaha.
|
NickDC5
|
|
|
Also the IS350 will get better quarter mile times because of its launch, not because of its peak WHP.
|
NickDC5
|
|
Ugh, sorry for the triple post.
I brought up the Fit because despite losing money, Honda still sells it because, to paraphrase, they don't want to lose the segment.
They are willing to lose money to keep a segment. Why then will they not put up the costs of an FR platform that can compete in another segment? Seems hypocritical. Lose money to keep a segment for the Fit, but refuse potential losses on other luxury segments?
|
Hondarulez
|
|
That was a typo. Sorry. I did mean DC2.
I actually own a "K > B" t-shirt hahaha. |
No problem :)
Also the IS350 will get better quarter mile times because of its launch, not because of its peak WHP.
|
This is why I posted the trap speed as well (104mph). Trap speed is one of the best real-world methods to see how much power the car is making as it's not affected by the launch much. The reason the IS350 has such good trap speed is also due to its gearing - it's designed to do well for 0-60mph and 1/4 mile. After 100mph, the car is quite a bit slower. That doesn't matter much in a 1/4 mile race or on tracks that don't have super long straightaways.
NickDC5 wrote:
Ugh, sorry for the triple post.
I brought up the Fit because despite losing money, Honda still sells it because, to paraphrase, they don't want to lose the segment.
They are willing to lose money to keep a segment. Why then will they not put up the costs of an FR platform that can compete in another segment? Seems hypocritical. Lose money to keep a segment for the Fit, but refuse potential losses on other luxury segments?
|
For the Fit, they can easily calculate how much they will lose per vehicle and they can control how much they will lose. It can basically be calculated with units sold and profits/losses per unit sold. Profits/losses per unit sold is determined mainly by the exchange rate.
On the other hand, FR platform is not as simple as that. Obviously, there will be research and developmental costs involved (no such costs when just bringing the Fit over). With that platform, multiple models will have to be built upon it to increase profits. Will those models succeed? What if they fail, that will be quite a big loss. Right now, Acura is doing okay in sales. If Acura is doing horribly, say, below 50000 units per year of sales, then I see the need to trying something new - such as FR platform. But right now, Honda doesn't seem to be pursuing the Tier-1 thing anymore. Is FR really necessary then? Perhaps Honda feels that FR is indeed not needed at this stage. Honda probably thinks it's not worth the investment? If they do have a FR platform, with multiple models derived from it, and then these models go on and flop, then the losses will certainly be bigger than just losing money on Honda Fit, which is being sold in limited number anyway.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
1) Honda has severely reduced its Fit export to the U.S.:
May sales: -30% y/y [remember there's a reduction in export from JP after the quake]
Apr sales: -56% y/y
2) The Germans have consolidated their platforms. MB down to two: one FWD, one RWD. VW/Audi: MQB & MLB. BMW, also two, TWO only. All done in the name of shaving costs, while adding content and other tech. There will be severe cost pressure, not only for RWD market, but also FWD market as the German move down market with A/B class, FWD 1-series and A1/A3 sedan [designed specifically for America].
BMW's certain sameness: share and share alike
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/new-cars/auto-news/bmws-certain-sameness-share-and-share-alike/article4217094/
3) Do you know for how long Hyundai has been building RWD cars? Since 1978.
|
BachelorFrog
|
|
Powered by Honda wrote:
Oi!
drama queens...
its not to bad. Over reacting for the sake of over reacting.
you want bad front overhang?
look at any ferrari ever made:
|
Hope you are joking 'cause this is the lamest excuse ever..
|
saitamahonda
|
|
Since I'll never be able to justify to my wife a $100k NSX:
I would gladly pay $50k for an eSH-AWD Acura HSV (or HS"X").
or pay $45k for a FF or RWD Acura HSV (or HS"X").
I would also gladly pay $35K for an RWD S3000 or even an 2+2 FWD Prelude that looks like the HSV-010 form. HPD was developing an S2000 with a V6 stuffed into it, but for what? for the hell of it?
The HSV-010GT is one of the sexiest/badass designs ever to come out of Honda, and I continue to cheer Honda in Super GT500 even after the NSX's departure (ban) from the sport, my favorites being the Weider HSV (formerly Takata DOME) and Raybrig (team kunimitsu).
It would be great to see SUPER GT coverage and Honda's success in this arena here on TOV. Ironically, even Honda Japan doesn't have much coverage of SUPERGT while Subaru, Toyota, and Nissan have dedicated youtube channels to this motorsport.
It's sad considering team Weider was the champion in the HSV's debut season.
http://world.honda.com/HSV-010_GT/
Until then, I'll have to keep myself content with my Tamiya HSV-010GT :)
|
mobis21
|
|
BachelorFrog wrote:
Powered by Honda wrote:
Oi!
drama queens...
its not to bad. Over reacting for the sake of over reacting.
you want bad front overhang?
look at any ferrari ever made:
|
Hope you are joking 'cause this is the lamest excuse ever..
|
And WHY is that a lame excuse. People are arguing they want tiny front overhangs. Why is it ok for Ferrari?
Why doesn't Audi build a RWD platform. Audi has cash bucket loads of money from mama VW, yet Audi sees no point in building a RWD platform, and they are on the path to become the worlds largest luxury brand.
|
NSXforever
|
|
mobis21 wrote:
BachelorFrog wrote:
Powered by Honda wrote:
Oi!
drama queens...
its not to bad. Over reacting for the sake of over reacting.
you want bad front overhang?
look at any ferrari ever made:
|
Hope you are joking 'cause this is the lamest excuse ever..
|
And WHY is that a lame excuse. People are arguing they want tiny front overhangs. Why is it ok for Ferrari?
Why doesn't Audi build a RWD platform. Audi has cash bucket loads of money from mama VW, yet Audi sees no point in building a RWD platform, and they are on the path to become the worlds largest luxury brand.
|
For one that is a mid engine car lol, not some Accord based sedan. Ferrari's are designed for aerodynamics and downforce. They are designed to look exotic and sporty, not luxurious. Its an apples to Rib-eye steak comparison and makes absolutely no sense at all.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 |
| |
|
![[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}
