|
|
|
|
 |
Nick GravesX
 |
|
superchg2 wrote:
Nick Graves wrote:
Heavy, slow & complex, but terrific to watch in action.
Test-driving an 86 next Saturday - we'll find out if someone's finally made a car capable of replacing the fantastic EK4. Honda hasn't.
|
Nick, do you still have your S2000?
|
Oh yes - it's in the garage next to the NSX. Much as I admire the Miata, the S2000 is still a fantastic car.
I might trade it in for an ark though - it's pissing down here & no-ones dying of a heatwave...
It's a possibility that the BR86 might replace the EK4, which has been brilliant over the last 12 years. We'll miss the hatchback & in lousy weather, FWD & DW & good visibility has its advantages...oh, here I go again as to why it's been so good. And perfectly reliable. And more refined than an EK9...
|
Nick GravesX
|
|
DCR wrote:
Well, went to the dealer today to discuss trading in the Civic, and man...they don't want it at all. This has to be the first time I have ever been told flat out "We won't be able to sell it." With the lot loaded with Prius, new and used, I am sure they have a point. I just set up a time tomorrow with a couple who is interested in the car, so I hope I get lucky.
I drove the demo FR-S again today and had just my wife with me this time. The car is just flat out great to drive and feels so planted and tight. This is the first car I have enjoyed driving this much...I honestly couldn't wait to get back in that thing and once in, I didn't want to get out. This time, I had the radio off and fan blowers down so I could listen to the car, and it really sounds great too.
What really impresses me is the shift feel. Coming out of so many Si models, I didn't think the shifting would be close, but sorry...the FR-S is just so fast and snappy through the gates, I honestly do not remember what my Si felt like now, and while I was thinking about that on the drive, I couldn't help but wonder what the hell they could make that is going to get me back.
|
Thing is, its driveline is a very close relative of the S2000's. Make sure you change the diff oil frequently or it will whine!
Anyway, you will never quite match that transmission feel in anything else. And few FWD boxes are as good as Honda one, so we're talking an exceptional standard. The NSX proves a ME can be almost as good as an S2000 change, which is quite a feat. It's a lot to do with the carefully-placed & well-weighted pedals, too.
The idea of Subaru building a slightly softer, cheaper, more practical S2000 crossed with the 'practicality' of an old-skool Integra is so compelling, I hope it really works.
|
DCR
|
|
|
You've got a dream garage. Must suck having to flip a coin on which Honda to roll out. :)
|
Nick GravesX
|
|
DCR wrote:
You've got a dream garage. Must suck having to flip a coin on which Honda to roll out. :)
|
:D
Thanks. It does...
|
DCR
|
|
|
The couple just left, and it seemed like they liked the hybrid. The guy complained of an overly soft suspension and said the car was "floaty". I'm not sure where that came from.
|
owequitit
|
|
|
Saw a white FRS the other day and it was STUNNINGLY gorgeous...
|
Grace141
|
|
Potenza wrote:
Grace141 wrote:
And for packaging I meant interior space. Regardless of what Mazda claimed in 1989 about the MGB being their inspiration the Miata was a dead copy of the Lotus Elan which was a slightly smaller car than the B. Drive a Miata for any length of time and you gain a respect for shoulder room. Not to mention leg room and trunk space.
|
I moved to college and back in the del Sol. Moved quite a few times in total. That trunk was cavernous, and there was even a good amount of storage behind the seats. Try moving in a Miata! haha
Yes, you were right, it was the packaging and other Honda-esque factors that made it appealing to me. I'm not a convertible guy, so I liked the coupe aspect. But the roof panel in the trunk on some warm summer nights was a slick feature. The fact that a SOHC 1.6 could outrun my friend's 1.8 DOHC Miata... a steadfast Honda trait. Fun handling. Fun shifting. Incredible brakes. And didn't burn or leak one single tiny drop of oil, even at 180k miles. Had no serious issues with it over a decade.
Is some of that stuff exciting? No, but it's ownership stuff. And I'm not an armchair auto expert, I'm a car owner. Which is why I keep buying Honda's. Magazine editors choose favorites based on a single drive or two, a couple of laps around a track, immediate cool factor. Enjoyment of ownership is something entirely different. Very few people drive their Miata every day. And that is very much down to packaging.
|
Yeah, I figured that. The Miata was the perfect sports car for the third space in the garage while the Del Sol was the reasonable sporty car you could use as a daily driver. I'll agree with many of the negatives posted here. The Del Sol was a pretty tame little car until the Si version was added. It was a Honda so it was a little too heavy for it's intended purpose. The big difference though was the Del Sol was a daily driver for someone interested in a targa top converible while the Miata revived the lifestyles of the British sports car - neglected on college campuses and apartment complex parking lots or parked in garages and reserved for weekend use. I've no problem either way but the Miata has never been a good all-around daily driver.
The comments about the '02 Si are interesting. Yes, it was an expensive Civic in the US what with, if my memory is correct, a $17,999 sticker price in 2002. That changed quickly with my local dealer writing in big numbers $14,999 on the windshields of the four or five cars that stacked up on their lot. And the interior felt like an upscale Civic because it was compared to what Honda typically gave us Americans. I only had the chance to drive an '02 Si for maybe 15 minutes on a winding road but thought that while it felt tall it was pretty well buttoned down. My feeling at the time wasn't that Honda enthusiasts were test driving the '02 Si and deeming it unworthy but rather people never gave it a chance because, frankly, with the '02-'03 spec of the smaller wheels and those massive headlamps, it wasn't a very good looking car on the Honda dealer lot. The '04 refresh did wonders with the larger 5-lug wheels but the blackout treatment for the headlamps did little in my opinion to make them look like they weren't sourced from a truck.
As for the CRX, all of us remember it being better than it probably was but it was a great little car, regardless of it being a parts bin, FWD sporty Civic. If my wife hadn't talked me into the Integra so we could take friends out for dinner I would have finished the papers I had for the '90 Si I had picked. Still, I'll be honest and say the 2nd gen CRX Si was the only CRX which I would have bought. In 1990, the Civic Si, CRX Si, and the Integra RS 3-door were about the same price - it was easy to pick the Integra for a daily driver.
|
Grace141
|
|
TurkMan71 wrote:
I was working at Honda's ad agency when the del Sol came out...even had a posters of it 'Here Comes the Sun' and my favorite, 'To Air is Human', but I really was disappointed when it came out because I was looking to replace my '88 CRX Si. At first I was intrigued with the del Sol, but when I found out it was just a poser mobile I just saved up my cents and bought an S2000 when it eventually (thankfully) came out - definitely not a poser mobile.
|
Hey, if you worked on the CRX ads before then give yourself a pat on the back. Brilliant stuff.
|
owequitit
|
|
Grace141 wrote:
Potenza wrote:
Grace141 wrote:
And for packaging I meant interior space. Regardless of what Mazda claimed in 1989 about the MGB being their inspiration the Miata was a dead copy of the Lotus Elan which was a slightly smaller car than the B. Drive a Miata for any length of time and you gain a respect for shoulder room. Not to mention leg room and trunk space.
|
I moved to college and back in the del Sol. Moved quite a few times in total. That trunk was cavernous, and there was even a good amount of storage behind the seats. Try moving in a Miata! haha
Yes, you were right, it was the packaging and other Honda-esque factors that made it appealing to me. I'm not a convertible guy, so I liked the coupe aspect. But the roof panel in the trunk on some warm summer nights was a slick feature. The fact that a SOHC 1.6 could outrun my friend's 1.8 DOHC Miata... a steadfast Honda trait. Fun handling. Fun shifting. Incredible brakes. And didn't burn or leak one single tiny drop of oil, even at 180k miles. Had no serious issues with it over a decade.
Is some of that stuff exciting? No, but it's ownership stuff. And I'm not an armchair auto expert, I'm a car owner. Which is why I keep buying Honda's. Magazine editors choose favorites based on a single drive or two, a couple of laps around a track, immediate cool factor. Enjoyment of ownership is something entirely different. Very few people drive their Miata every day. And that is very much down to packaging.
|
Yeah, I figured that. The Miata was the perfect sports car for the third space in the garage while the Del Sol was the reasonable sporty car you could use as a daily driver. I'll agree with many of the negatives posted here. The Del Sol was a pretty tame little car until the Si version was added. It was a Honda so it was a little too heavy for it's intended purpose. The big difference though was the Del Sol was a daily driver for someone interested in a targa top converible while the Miata revived the lifestyles of the British sports car - neglected on college campuses and apartment complex parking lots or parked in garages and reserved for weekend use. I've no problem either way but the Miata has never been a good all-around daily driver.
The comments about the '02 Si are interesting. Yes, it was an expensive Civic in the US what with, if my memory is correct, a $17,999 sticker price in 2002. That changed quickly with my local dealer writing in big numbers $14,999 on the windshields of the four or five cars that stacked up on their lot. And the interior felt like an upscale Civic because it was compared to what Honda typically gave us Americans. I only had the chance to drive an '02 Si for maybe 15 minutes on a winding road but thought that while it felt tall it was pretty well buttoned down. My feeling at the time wasn't that Honda enthusiasts were test driving the '02 Si and deeming it unworthy but rather people never gave it a chance because, frankly, with the '02-'03 spec of the smaller wheels and those massive headlamps, it wasn't a very good looking car on the Honda dealer lot. The '04 refresh did wonders with the larger 5-lug wheels but the blackout treatment for the headlamps did little in my opinion to make them look like they weren't sourced from a truck.
As for the CRX, all of us remember it being better than it probably was but it was a great little car, regardless of it being a parts bin, FWD sporty Civic. If my wife hadn't talked me into the Integra so we could take friends out for dinner I would have finished the papers I had for the '90 Si I had picked. Still, I'll be honest and say the 2nd gen CRX Si was the only CRX which I would have bought. In 1990, the Civic Si, CRX Si, and the Integra RS 3-door were about the same price - it was easy to pick the Integra for a daily driver.
|
The odd appearance of the EP3 Si was minor compared to the lame duck powertrain.
I was in the demographic for that car, and had no interest in owning it over the EM Si from the previous generation. The styling, the price etc all contributed to that in a minor way, but overall, the execution of the car was just very lackluster compared to the car that preceded it. That is why the 8th gen was desireable the moment it debuted, it had all of the required (and realistically expected) characteristics and abilities of the 6th gen Si, even if it might not have been quite as nice as the EP in terms of interior quality. I did find the MMC version to be a lot more attractive and a lot less weird, but overall, the "I wish it had a K20 with real VTEC" stayed, and that was really the deciding factor.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
The problem at the time was that the Civic came out when the RSX Type-S came out (and they were essentially the same car, with the same platform and even same interior space for the most part). I think one of the main reasons they held the Civic back was because they didn't want it encroaching on the RSX's toes.
The MMC EP3 looked pretty good I felt, but the Type-R treatment in the UK was even better (ideally, it would have kept the non-ricey rear lights and kept the projects and everything else). Even then... it still looks like a mini-minivan, but if you're after a Civic hatch, don't mind the cupholders, don't mind the somewhat sloppy 5-speed mounted on the center cluster (and resulting 4.4K revs at 85 mph), and don't mind that the limits for suspension tuning isn't *quite* as high as the 6th/8th gen Civics, I think it's worth a look. They're selling for $5K or so nowadays, which makes them a bargain for a quality hatch.
|
TurkMan71
|
|
Grace141 wrote:
TurkMan71 wrote:
I was working at Honda's ad agency when the del Sol came out...even had a posters of it 'Here Comes the Sun' and my favorite, 'To Air is Human', but I really was disappointed when it came out because I was looking to replace my '88 CRX Si. At first I was intrigued with the del Sol, but when I found out it was just a poser mobile I just saved up my cents and bought an S2000 when it eventually (thankfully) came out - definitely not a poser mobile.
|
Hey, if you worked on the CRX ads before then give yourself a pat on the back. Brilliant stuff.
|
Thanks - I wish I could take credit but i was not a creative, I worked in the product info dept. fresh out of college...great experience at a fun, young, and innovative ad agency at the time. RPA was peaking right when Honda was - a match made in heaven...
|
owequitit
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
The problem at the time was that the Civic came out when the RSX Type-S came out (and they were essentially the same car, with the same platform and even same interior space for the most part). I think one of the main reasons they held the Civic back was because they didn't want it encroaching on the RSX's toes.
The MMC EP3 looked pretty good I felt, but the Type-R treatment in the UK was even better (ideally, it would have kept the non-ricey rear lights and kept the projects and everything else). Even then... it still looks like a mini-minivan, but if you're after a Civic hatch, don't mind the cupholders, don't mind the somewhat sloppy 5-speed mounted on the center cluster (and resulting 4.4K revs at 85 mph), and don't mind that the limits for suspension tuning isn't *quite* as high as the 6th/8th gen Civics, I think it's worth a look. They're selling for $5K or so nowadays, which makes them a bargain for a quality hatch.
|
The 5 speed gearbox alone would have put a perceived and real gap between the RSX and Si. Also, don't forget that the RSX had a lot more luxury and prestige at that point when compared to the Si, because Acura was still a relatively credible luxury brand back then. Funny what 12 more years of nonsense will do. Oddly, for Acura's ~26 years in existance, only about 10 of them have been unquestionably productive, which is pretty sad when you think about it. Not to say they didn't have some good product, but after the 2nd gen Legend, they had roughly as many misfires as they did hits. I really wish they would get their shit together because I know they could do it if they wanted to...
|
owequitit
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
The problem at the time was that the Civic came out when the RSX Type-S came out (and they were essentially the same car, with the same platform and even same interior space for the most part). I think one of the main reasons they held the Civic back was because they didn't want it encroaching on the RSX's toes.
The MMC EP3 looked pretty good I felt, but the Type-R treatment in the UK was even better (ideally, it would have kept the non-ricey rear lights and kept the projects and everything else). Even then... it still looks like a mini-minivan, but if you're after a Civic hatch, don't mind the cupholders, don't mind the somewhat sloppy 5-speed mounted on the center cluster (and resulting 4.4K revs at 85 mph), and don't mind that the limits for suspension tuning isn't *quite* as high as the 6th/8th gen Civics, I think it's worth a look. They're selling for $5K or so nowadays, which makes them a bargain for a quality hatch.
|
For the record, I agree with this point 100%, and I truly believe they did have to cripple the Si to make the RSX seem better.
However, this is one of Honda's major failings (that they have since repeated with the 9th gen Si/ILX, only this time there is no "better" model performance wise to step up to. Unfortunately, Honda is still showing strong signs of "not getting it." If only Honda had used the strategy that has catapulted Audi to the top and exercised the discipline required to do so. Acura keeps stepping on their own (Honda's) toes. They can't do this with the Accord because it makes the TL or TSX look bad, etc.
The only product that Audi has that arguably has the same problem is the A3, and I think that will be cured next time around. Also, Audi has shown excellent discipline in setting up basic expectations for the core product, getting it up to the level of perception it needs to be at, and THEN adding the proliferation of models required to flesh out the line. They added the S models consistently across the range, to build enthusiast acceptance and awareness. I just read an article in Automobile that said now that the core product is at the level it needs to be, and they have the S models (roughly equivalent to MB/BMW's top tier sport models) they are now going to bring every RS model to the states so they can stand fully shoulder to shoulder with the likes of M and AMG. But, they had to establish themselves first. While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
MarkR
|
|
owequitit wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
The problem at the time was that the Civic came out when the RSX Type-S came out (and they were essentially the same car, with the same platform and even same interior space for the most part). I think one of the main reasons they held the Civic back was because they didn't want it encroaching on the RSX's toes.
The MMC EP3 looked pretty good I felt, but the Type-R treatment in the UK was even better (ideally, it would have kept the non-ricey rear lights and kept the projects and everything else). Even then... it still looks like a mini-minivan, but if you're after a Civic hatch, don't mind the cupholders, don't mind the somewhat sloppy 5-speed mounted on the center cluster (and resulting 4.4K revs at 85 mph), and don't mind that the limits for suspension tuning isn't *quite* as high as the 6th/8th gen Civics, I think it's worth a look. They're selling for $5K or so nowadays, which makes them a bargain for a quality hatch.
|
For the record, I agree with this point 100%, and I truly believe they did have to cripple the Si to make the RSX seem better.
However, this is one of Honda's major failings (that they have since repeated with the 9th gen Si/ILX, only this time there is no "better" model performance wise to step up to. Unfortunately, Honda is still showing strong signs of "not getting it." If only Honda had used the strategy that has catapulted Audi to the top and exercised the discipline required to do so. Acura keeps stepping on their own (Honda's) toes. They can't do this with the Accord because it makes the TL or TSX look bad, etc.
The only product that Audi has that arguably has the same problem is the A3, and I think that will be cured next time around. Also, Audi has shown excellent discipline in setting up basic expectations for the core product, getting it up to the level of perception it needs to be at, and THEN adding the proliferation of models required to flesh out the line. They added the S models consistently across the range, to build enthusiast acceptance and awareness. I just read an article in Automobile that said now that the core product is at the level it needs to be, and they have the S models (roughly equivalent to MB/BMW's top tier sport models) they are now going to bring every RS model to the states so they can stand fully shoulder to shoulder with the likes of M and AMG. But, they had to establish themselves first. While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
Well said Owequitit!
The other problem I guess Honda has is that they compare themselves to Hyundai or other similar cars too often nowadays.... "let's try to be better than Hyundai, oh, we forgot the VW group are churning out much better products, oh well, we can say we are better than Hyundai in the spec sheets :)".
Ps. Your post should/will be attacked with "...but Hondas last 20years without oil change, Audis need service every year and something might break year four already!"
The VW group really started to nail it 10years ago, it's amazing all the sports variants they are able to cope with financially.
|
dampflok
|
|
owequitit wrote:
While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
|
superchg2
|
|
dampflok wrote:
owequitit wrote:
While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
|
Most front wheel drive cars are transverse mounted.
|
Nick GravesX
|
|
superchg2 wrote:
dampflok wrote:
owequitit wrote:
While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
|
Most front wheel drive cars are transverse mounted.
|
This is all far too basic;
The Honda Prelude demonstrated that with a well set-back transverse end-on tranny four and 4WS, such a layout can be made to handle beautifully and far better than most crude RWD layouts.
With a transverse or longitudinal vee engine, the mass necessarily sits farther ahead of the axle line, meaning an increased polar moment of inertia. Or dumbell effect.
The only correct place thus is to place the engine behind the axle line, as either with the M-B A-Klasse or inline as the Vigor/Inspire/Ascot/Legend did. Audi is a bit of a fudge, since the differential is far too close to the bellhousing and not nearer the harmonic damper, as was the case with the Hondas.
Unfortunately, Honda now has the same obsession with efficient packaging as made BMC cars roomy, ugly and thus unsaleable in the 1960s. Gooogle BMC 1800 Landcrab or Austin Maxi if you do not remember those cars.
|
Grace141
|
|
The point with Acura has been that for almost 20 years Honda has placed it in the middle ground in price compared to the regular and luxury cars in the US market. It's the whole smart luxury idea with less expensive cars which are hoped to be seen as alternatives to the German options lists. Honda seems to think that smart wealthy Americans don't really want to needlessly spend money if a good alternative is available. No one should expect an Acura to offer the exact same features and tech as a comparably sized Audi nor should anyone expect that Acura to cost as much as that Audi. The people I know who have shopped luxury cars and are willing to spend $50k US or more on a car don't think of a $5k to $10k difference in sales price as trivial.
Frankly, if Acura could nail the exterior styling of the TL I bet they could easily double or triple its sales numbers in the US, beyond even the numbers of the 2nd and 3rd gens, because the demand is there. The issue of run-flat tires by itself would trigger a lot of new sales for the right car. It seems very simple but then Honda gave the US the Acura grill so who knows. They even developed a wonderful AWD system to place themselves in the ballpark and then named it Super Handling-All Wheel Drive like it's a Subaru product instead of something short and sweet like Real-Track or Trac-4.
|
superchg2
|
|
Grace141 wrote:
The issue of run-flat tires by itself would trigger a lot of new sales for the right car.
|
Are you saying that run-flats are a good idea? Many BMW owners say just the opposite.
Here is one owner's comments:
"Why you shouldn't get RFT:
- Lifespan is half of that of normal (even with regular monitor of pressures)
- costs 50% more than normal tyres on average
- the ride is terribly uncomfortable, especially if you have 17" upwards (which actually makes me wonder about their statement of the car suspension being specially designed for the RFT - that's non-sense, did they especially design another or set up the suspension for 17', 18', etc individually??? Obviously not, because my car's vibration is so much on a rougher road that I worry something can easily loosen up and rattles seem to be more prominent as well)
- replace your tyres when you have a puncture (no exception)
- increase the running costs of ownership. normally a tyre lasts you a good average of 80000km. Now you probably have to change it twice before trading the car in for a new one when you didn't have to worry about tyres in the past.
- not all tyre shops have RFT
- not all tyre shops have the necessary equipment to deal with RFT and rims (I know tyre outlets that have broken BMW RF rims with their machines when taking out RFT tyres)
- unpleasant ownership as you always have to worry about getting a puncture and always hoping that the warning does not appear"
|
dampflok
|
|
superchg2 wrote:
dampflok wrote:
owequitit wrote:
While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
|
|
|
superchg2
|
|
dampflok wrote:
superchg2 wrote:
dampflok wrote:
owequitit wrote:
While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
|
|
|
We already covered that ground.
superchg2 wrote:
We will know that Acura is serious about going
upscale(Tier1)
when we hear that they are going to build a RWD sedan.
|
|
BachelorFrog
|
|
Meh! Acura had a chance to make a RWD Legend when they introduced RL with longitudinal configuration...
Now it looks like there wont be a RWD RL and Acura will never be in Tier 1.
|
dampflok
|
|
superchg2 wrote:
dampflok wrote:
superchg2 wrote:
dampflok wrote:
owequitit wrote:
While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
|
|
|
superchg2 wrote:
We will know that Acura is serious about going
upscale(Tier1) when we hear that they are going to build a RWD sedan. |
|
|
superchg2
|
|
dampflok wrote:
superchg2 wrote:
dampflok wrote:
superchg2 wrote:
dampflok wrote:
owequitit wrote:
While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
|
|
|
superchg2 wrote:
We will know that Acura is serious about going
upscale(Tier1) when we hear that they are going to build a RWD sedan. |
|
|
That because of the inherent packaging efficiencies, FWD usually have transverse rather than a longitudinal arrangement. So, the "original Sin" you so aptly refer to would apply to other automaker's transverse mounted drivetrain's as well.
|
Grace141
|
|
superchg2 wrote:
Grace141 wrote:
The issue of run-flat tires by itself would trigger a lot of new sales for the right car.
|
Are you saying that run-flats are a good idea? Many BMW owners say just the opposite.
Here is one owner's comments:
"Why you shouldn't get RFT:
- Lifespan is half of that of normal (even with regular monitor of pressures)
- costs 50% more than normal tyres on average
- the ride is terribly uncomfortable, especially if you have 17" upwards (which actually makes me wonder about their statement of the car suspension being specially designed for the RFT - that's non-sense, did they especially design another or set up the suspension for 17', 18', etc individually??? Obviously not, because my car's vibration is so much on a rougher road that I worry something can easily loosen up and rattles seem to be more prominent as well)
- replace your tyres when you have a puncture (no exception)
- increase the running costs of ownership. normally a tyre lasts you a good average of 80000km. Now you probably have to change it twice before trading the car in for a new one when you didn't have to worry about tyres in the past.
- not all tyre shops have RFT
- not all tyre shops have the necessary equipment to deal with RFT and rims (I know tyre outlets that have broken BMW RF rims with their machines when taking out RFT tyres)
- unpleasant ownership as you always have to worry about getting a puncture and always hoping that the warning does not appear"
|
No, just the opposite. Run-flat tires: actually a decent idea with horrible execution. I'm somewhat surprised BMW hasn't thought of now charging customers extra to install regular tires on their cars.
|
dampflok
|
|
superchg2 wrote:
| dampflok wrote:OK, help me out here. Maybe I misunderstood you. What did you mean to convey by pointing out that most FWD cars have transverse layouts? |
|
|
superchg2
|
|
Grace141 wrote:
superchg2 wrote:
Grace141 wrote:
The issue of run-flat tires by itself would trigger a lot of new sales for the right car.
|
Are you saying that run-flats are a good idea? Many BMW owners say just the opposite.
Here is one owner's comments:
"Why you shouldn't get RFT:
- Lifespan is half of that of normal (even with regular monitor of pressures)
- costs 50% more than normal tyres on average
- the ride is terribly uncomfortable, especially if you have 17" upwards (which actually makes me wonder about their statement of the car suspension being specially designed for the RFT - that's non-sense, did they especially design another or set up the suspension for 17', 18', etc individually??? Obviously not, because my car's vibration is so much on a rougher road that I worry something can easily loosen up and rattles seem to be more prominent as well)
- replace your tyres when you have a puncture (no exception)
- increase the running costs of ownership. normally a tyre lasts you a good average of 80000km. Now you probably have to change it twice before trading the car in for a new one when you didn't have to worry about tyres in the past.
- not all tyre shops have RFT
- not all tyre shops have the necessary equipment to deal with RFT and rims (I know tyre outlets that have broken BMW RF rims with their machines when taking out RFT tyres)
- unpleasant ownership as you always have to worry about getting a puncture and always hoping that the warning does not appear"
|
No, just the opposite. Run-flat tires: actually a decent idea with horrible execution. I'm somewhat surprised BMW hasn't thought of now charging customers extra to install regular tires on their cars.
|
I wonder if BMW's "focus groups" told them that everyone loves run-flat tires?
:)
|
owequitit
|
|
dampflok wrote:
owequitit wrote:
While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
|
This is merely one cobblestone in Acura's path to failure and irrelevance.
Acura has a transverse FWD platform because they CHOSE to. In fact, they chose to junk a multi-million dollar longitudinal platform because they wanted to be cheap. The problem with luxury brands is less about having XXX product with a feature set matching XXX brand than it is about not compromising. People have no problem paying more money for a product that executes. However, they are not so stupid as to spend money on something that clearly doesn't maintain the standard of expectation. Many people might not know that the TL is FWD vs RWD, but they CAN tell that the front end is huge, the overhang is ugly, and the car itself is rather large for not a lot of space. It is a very nice car in many respects, but then again, so are its competitors.
Again, Audi provides a good contrast. Initially, Audi shared the platforms for its cars with the Passat (A4, A6) for the same reason Acura uses the Accord. However, they managed to provide more differentiation between product than Honda has, and they weren't afraid to take the money saved on the platform and spend it on things like interior, powertrain options and AWD across the whole line. They used these slightly cheaper derivative chassis to get the brand back in the game, because it allowed them to spend money in other areas. But rather than try to bank that money and pretend that Audi was on the same level as BMW and Merc, they put it back in the product with the hope that eventually Audi really WOULD be on the same level. Then, with the A8 they started to build unique platforms for their cars, that still used parts bin mechanicals, but put even more distance between Audi and VW. Finally, they switched the lower model VW's to different platforms entirely, with VW going transverse and Audi staying longitudinal. Now they spend a boatload of money on a longitudinal FWD platform that doesn't suck to look at proportionally. It did help weight, but more importantly, the cars now LOOK like real luxury cars without the massive overhang. Plus, with the total weight of the car, they removed roughly one 200lb person from the nose by moving the powertrain back. Now that they have unique platforms, have seperated the brands, upped the prestige of the core product, and built the mainstream lines that are consistent with an overall brand image, they can now start adding the cars that enthusiasts want because the core product is paying the bills.
Then you look at Acura, and they are now re-releasing an Accord based flagship that is down on power, down on prestige and doesn't even have the styling to compensate for it all. The TL doesn't know what it wants to be, the ZDX and ILX are so disconnected from their intended markets it is a joke, and there is no consistency in the brand image. How do the ILX, the FWD base TL, the TL SH-AWD and the RL all fit together? They don't. To top it off, Acura now has 4 models that sit right on top of each other again (RL and TL and ILX TSX). The RL might be fixed, but Acura's being hampered by Honda's need for transverse platforms and Honda being hampered by Acura's inability to seperate itself from Honda will continue until they can provide more definitive differentiation.
If Acura wants to be the new old person Buick, fine. But they need to be consistent. It isn't a wise decision, but it is better than what they are trying to do now, which has absolutely ZERO strategic approach.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
Nick Graves wrote:
superchg2 wrote:
dampflok wrote:
owequitit wrote:
While Acura's and Audi's disciplines are sort of shaping up to be similar (FWD based AWD), Audi is an example of how it SHOULD be done and Acura is the polar opposite.
|
|
Most front wheel drive cars are transverse mounted.
|
This is all far too basic;
The Honda Prelude demonstrated that with a well set-back transverse end-on tranny four and 4WS, such a layout can be made to handle beautifully and far better than most crude RWD layouts.
With a transverse or longitudinal vee engine, the mass necessarily sits farther ahead of the axle line, meaning an increased polar moment of inertia. Or dumbell effect.
The only correct place thus is to place the engine behind the axle line, as either with the M-B A-Klasse or inline as the Vigor/Inspire/Ascot/Legend did. Audi is a bit of a fudge, since the differential is far too close to the bellhousing and not nearer the harmonic damper, as was the case with the Hondas.
Unfortunately, Honda now has the same obsession with efficient packaging as made BMC cars roomy, ugly and thus unsaleable in the 1960s. Gooogle BMC 1800 Landcrab or Austin Maxi if you do not remember those cars.
|
My criticism of Audi's longitudinal layout is that the resulting engine is sitting way over the front axle. The FR weight distribution is currently very goofy.
But I really like the increasing attention to details that Audi offers in their vehicles, even if resale and reliability still seem fairly alien. These are the folks that not only pay attention to the interior, but also how underhood components look and are laid out. For the most part, the application of technology from Audi isn't bleeding edge (a la BMW), but smartly applied- such as their thermal management systems.
|
owequitit
|
|
Grace141 wrote:
The point with Acura has been that for almost 20 years Honda has placed it in the middle ground in price compared to the regular and luxury cars in the US market. It's the whole smart luxury idea with less expensive cars which are hoped to be seen as alternatives to the German options lists. Honda seems to think that smart wealthy Americans don't really want to needlessly spend money if a good alternative is available. No one should expect an Acura to offer the exact same features and tech as a comparably sized Audi nor should anyone expect that Acura to cost as much as that Audi. The people I know who have shopped luxury cars and are willing to spend $50k US or more on a car don't think of a $5k to $10k difference in sales price as trivial.
Frankly, if Acura could nail the exterior styling of the TL I bet they could easily double or triple its sales numbers in the US, beyond even the numbers of the 2nd and 3rd gens, because the demand is there. The issue of run-flat tires by itself would trigger a lot of new sales for the right car. It seems very simple but then Honda gave the US the Acura grill so who knows. They even developed a wonderful AWD system to place themselves in the ballpark and then named it Super Handling-All Wheel Drive like it's a Subaru product instead of something short and sweet like Real-Track or Trac-4.
|
In business, the middle ground is often the hardest place to be. It is very lucrative if done right, but you have to fight a lot harder to protect your real estate, because from a simple strategic point, you have 2 borders to protect versus one.
There is nothing wrong with Acura not pricing as outrageously as the Germans as far as I am concerned. However, if they are going to lower profit margin, then economics dictates that they MUST make it up on volume, and they aren't doing that. You can blame the beak all you want (and I won't dare say it isn't a large factor), but the reality is that the MMC TL looks a TON better with the revised front end, and in and of itself is actually relatively handsome and unique, but there is just no way to visually reconcile the huge front overhang, the bigger rear overhang, and the short wheelbase that makes it look like a refrigerator is perched atop a skateboard. The reality is that higher dollar, discerning buyers tend to have a more keenly developed eye for proportion and visual grace. Audi's ALL look good. Acuras? Not so much. Audi is also a good example of detail execution. Their consistently clean and simple designs PROVE that a car does not have to look like a triceratops on crack to be visually recognizable. Their interiors prove that sweating the details goes a long way toward making people desire your product for those often unquantifiable reasons. Their powertrains prove that a car CAN be AWD and fuel efficient and affordable. Their perceived reliability sucks though, and cost of ownership of any German car is high, so Acura would merely have to come close on the other fronts and then drive the nail in with the reliability/cost of ownership thing. You know, like the 2nd gen Legend, Integra and 3rd gen TL did...
Ironically, the 2nd gen Legend proved that not every car had to be derived from an Accord in order to be luxurious and profitable. That car is every bit as bulletproof as any other Honda, had unique chassis and powertrains, and even dominated the sales charts for quite a bit of its run. It is still one of the most attractive cars produced in the luxury segment, and certainly in Honda's top 5. But the Legend became yet another poster child for Acura's ability to bomb a segment into total silence, only to later have the initiative taken away by the newly invigorated and improved competition because Honda didn't maintain the momentum.
Ultimately, Acura won't be Tier 1 or even near the same plane as the others because Honda has made it very clear they don't have the testicular fortitude required to actually play at that level. They are more than capable of waxing Audi's ass all over the floor, but they simply can't stomach the up front cost (which, IMO, is costing them far more on the backend).
They need a cohesive strategy that actually makes sense (transverse FWD, 4200lb, electric all wheel drive cars that spot 30-50HP to the competition are NOT it), and then they need to spend the money required to stick to it. This willy-nilly sporty one minute, soft the next crap is going to kill them.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 |
| |
|
![[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}
