|
|
|
|
 |
MarkR
 |
|
siegen wrote:
MarkR wrote:
Haha my thread I started really got off rail. Well well, alot of good reading.
Ok, I've must have missed the reviews (see, I live outside the US).
As cars are more expensive here I guess the buckets are wider/bigger therefore Honda gets compared to alot of cars. A Accord 2.4 (your TSX) costs as much as a basic 3-series/A4/Passat and therefore naturally it gets compared.
I am looking forward to the CVT, maybe it's nice. I just hope the euro-Accord can do 0-100 and 80-120km/h as swiftly as a 2.0T Passat or Audi. It doesn't need to be faster.
Right now, whatever you want to claim, if you drive the Accord 2.4 like any normal everyday driver between 1500-4000rpm the 2.4 NA engine is a dog compared to forced inducted engines.
I know, soon someone will jump the thread again and claim that the Accord is a fast as a VW or C&D got the V6 manual to do a 0-62 under 7 if they really let it scream.
|
Yeah the thread got side-tracked but I think your initial post was an interesting one so I'm trying to bring it back.
The A4 and 328i are about $10k to $15k more expensive than the Accord in the USDM, and the new Accord is notably faster than the outgoing model. It is quite impressive actually:
2013 Accord Sedan 2.4L 6MT Sport
6.6 second 0-60
15.3 second 1/4 mile
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-four-cylinder-manual-test-review
2013 Accord Sedan 3.5L 6AT Touring
5.6 second 0-60
14.1 second 1/4 mile
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-sedan-v-6-test-review
Not sure if there is a test of the 3.5L 6MT Coupe yet, but I bet it's even faster than the 3.5L 6AT Sedan.
I've driven the A4, A3, and Golf with 2.0L turbo and I don't like the way the engines feel and their power delivery. I own a 3.0L (naturally-aspirated) A4 right now and whenever the dealer gives me a base-engine VW/Audi loaner I cringe.
I've also driven both the current and previous generation TSX 2.4L in 6MT and AT, as well as two CVT 2013 US Accord 2.4L (Sport and EX). I really like the way the K24 feels compared to the VW/Audi 2.0 turbo. It doesn't have the mid-rpm surge in power, but the power delivery overall is more consistent and immediate. I like the idea of not having all the extra components associated with a turbo as well.
|
I think 6.6 0-60 (if it translates to 7.0 0-62 is very good and no need for more, I', happy if the Euro Accord will do that). I hope that the overtaking power is also there, 60-120km/h.
I have to say that Honda works magic, since very few cars nowadays get their vehicles below 7secs with under 200hp and FWD (how do they get the grip the first 2secs?, it must have massive torque to make up later in the sprint compared to the RWD/4WD counterparts that can dump most of the power during first second)
|
DrWhiner
|
|
siegen wrote:
MarkR wrote:
Haha my thread I started really got off rail. Well well, alot of good reading.
Ok, I've must have missed the reviews (see, I live outside the US).
As cars are more expensive here I guess the buckets are wider/bigger therefore Honda gets compared to alot of cars. A Accord 2.4 (your TSX) costs as much as a basic 3-series/A4/Passat and therefore naturally it gets compared.
I am looking forward to the CVT, maybe it's nice. I just hope the euro-Accord can do 0-100 and 80-120km/h as swiftly as a 2.0T Passat or Audi. It doesn't need to be faster.
Right now, whatever you want to claim, if you drive the Accord 2.4 like any normal everyday driver between 1500-4000rpm the 2.4 NA engine is a dog compared to forced inducted engines.
I know, soon someone will jump the thread again and claim that the Accord is a fast as a VW or C&D got the V6 manual to do a 0-62 under 7 if they really let it scream.
|
Yeah the thread got side-tracked but I think your initial post was an interesting one so I'm trying to bring it back.
The A4 and 328i are about $10k to $15k more expensive than the Accord in the USDM, and the new Accord is notably faster than the outgoing model. It is quite impressive actually:
2013 Accord Sedan 2.4L 6MT Sport
6.6 second 0-60
15.3 second 1/4 mile
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-four-cylinder-manual-test-review
2013 Accord Sedan 3.5L 6AT Touring
5.6 second 0-60
14.1 second 1/4 mile
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-sedan-v-6-test-review
Not sure if there is a test of the 3.5L 6MT Coupe yet, but I bet it's even faster than the 3.5L 6AT Sedan.
I've driven the A4, A3, and Golf with 2.0L turbo and I don't like the way the engines feel and their power delivery. I own a 3.0L (naturally-aspirated) A4 right now and whenever the dealer gives me a base-engine VW/Audi loaner I cringe.
I've also driven both the current and previous generation TSX 2.4L in 6MT and AT, as well as two CVT 2013 US Accord 2.4L (Sport and EX). I really like the way the K24 feels compared to the VW/Audi 2.0 turbo. It doesn't have the mid-rpm surge in power, but the power delivery overall is more consistent and immediate. I like the idea of not having all the extra components associated with a turbo as well.
|
Well, I guess the "base-engine VW/Audi loaner" in N. Am. would still be of a higher trim than "basic 3-series/A4/Passat" in Europe, just in case it's not clear to every reader.
|
P54
|
|
owequitit wrote:
P54 wrote:
owequitit wrote:
I didn't read beyond the first part because you clearly still are lacking in comprehension. Come back and try again when you actually understand what Benbess and I were talking about.
P.S. As a hint, the 1.3 second improvement you keep quoting refers to 0-60 time. Our conversation was about 1/4 mile times and trap speeds, which makes them two completely different measurements. I said he would be crazy to expect any more than a .5 second improvement in the QUARTER MILE time. Guess what, automatic to automatic it was a .4. It was a similar amount for the manuals, so again, thanks for proving me right. |
Responding to my post without reading it first and then accuse me for lack of reading comprehension is quite telling about you. Maybe if you took the time yourself to read what others and yourself said you will find out who is lacking.
This is third time, maybe you get it this time, if not I guess you are to preoccupied with writing instead of reading the post you reply too.
I will now prove you wrong since you insist you are right.
1. You did not have a 1/4 mile discussion with benbess.
2. benbess wrote about weight and 0-60 in all his posts, not 1/4 mile and trap speed.
3. benbess made a guess, you respond with calling him silly and inventing numbers.
4. You either have reading comprehension problems or since you insist that your wrong is right you are plain stubborn.
FACTS:
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1085878&page_number=1&news_item_id=1085496
benbess wrote:
| Bottom line is that I expect acceleration from 0-60 to be faster by almost 1 second compared with the 2012. But that's just a guess. We'll soon see. |
owequitit responded:
You are just inventing numbers at this point.
As a rule of thumb, each 100lbs of weight lost or gained will affect 1/4 mile time by about .1 second. So expecting anywhere near a second is silly. Even with the CVT, the lower weight and the slight increase in torque (with a likely commensurate loss in top end, uncles Honda has a second, higher output), it will MAYBE a half second faster. |
benbess talk about 0-60, you respond with how 100 lbs. weight loss only lowers the 1/4 mile with 0.1 sec. then you go on saying " Even with the CVT, the lower weight and the slight increase in torque.....it will MAYBE a half second faster."
Unless you lack in reading comprehension or understanding of what benbess talked about how can you twist this to be 1/4 mile discussion when in fact he mentioned 0-60? When you are saying that MAYBE 0.5 sec. faster, it naturally would be in regard to 0-60 that benbess mentioned and you called him silly and inventing numbers. His guess was better than yours, yet he did not call you out silly and inventing numbers.
MORE FACTS:
Motor Trend test:
2013 EX-L Navi 3343lb. : 185 HP 0-60mph: 7.6 sec, 1/4 mile 15.9 sec. @ 90.2 mph
2010 Accord EX 3361 lb: 190 HP 0-60 mph 8.9 sec. 1.4 mile 16.6 sec @ 86.0 mph
Automatic to automatic the 2013 has 5 less HP, 18 lbs less weight, 0-60 1.3 second faster, 1/4 mile 0.7 sec and 4.2 mph faster.
Manual to manual the 2013 is 1.3 sec faster from 0-60 too. According to Car and Driver.
Since by your own words 1/4 mile time is affected only 0.1 sec. per 100 lb. and the 2013 vehicle tested is only 18 lbs less the improved performance should come from engine/transmission. Or would you claim weather? If 5 less HP and almost equal weight vastly improves performance results Honda must have done something right.
Stop being so bitter at Honda that you can't see where they have improved, even beyond your expectations, maybe that is your biggest pill to swallow.
Stop burying the facts with outright lies and name-callings.
Don’t let your pride, bullying and too many words bury the original intent of the message.
|
P54, you fail again.
1) Yes I DID have a 1/4 mile discussion with Benbess. It was quoted right in the freaking quote you keep trying to use against me. Hence my statements about reading comprehension. Now, try just one more time to go back and re-read the paragraph YOU quoted. The words "quarter mile" ares right in the first or second sentence. Not exactly rocket science.
The difference between you and me is that I am getting pissed off because we are 10 posts down the road from where we started and you still can't comprehend a basic statement in the English language, and yet you are trying to make it my problem. You might need to get a tutor because I simply can't make it any more spoon fed for you. There is absolutely no way I can help you understand at this point.
You might want to go back and re-read your facts as well. Car and Driver was exactly in line with what I claimed. Weight was 100lbs less.
However, that doesn't account for aero or transmission, which were NOT part of my original conversation with Atomiclightbulb regarding engine performance.
Unfortunately, in your attempt to be Dudley Do-Right and fight everyone else's propaganda battles for them, you probably missed that to.
At this point, you have clearly proven to every single member of this board that you are a shill, a dimwit, and a douchebag. I am done. You won. You can't even comprehend basic English, so clearly, you are so far beyond my intellect that there is no way I can even match it.
You have just become the new 80Honda and regardless what you do, say, etc, I will not respond. You could be on fire in the Pacific ocean and I will just let you drown. We can only hope the board is saved from your insufferable bullshit by the ban stick.
Good bye P54.
P.S. Honda is fixing the Civic because their actual customers aren't happy, so all of that work you have done in the last year was wasted. Enjoy.
|
=====================================================================
Seems like you either do not read what is posted or still do not understand what you and others post. To help you out I'll keep it short this time, maybe it will be within your attention span:
benbess wrote:
| Bottom line is that I expect acceleration from 0-60 to be faster by almost 1 second compared with the 2012. But that's just a guess. We'll soon see. |
owequitit responded:
You are just inventing numbers at this point.
As a rule of thumb, each 100lbs of weight lost or gained will affect 1/4 mile time by about .1 second. So expecting anywhere near a second is silly. Even with the CVT, the lower weight and the slight increase in torque (with a likely commensurate loss in top end, uncles Honda has a second, higher output), it will MAYBE a half second faster. |
English is my second language, however I have no trouble understanding:
1. benbess mention 0-60 time. expects 1 second improvement.
2. You say he invent numbers, call him silly for guessing 1 sec.
3. You mention 1/4 mile time affected by 0.1 sec per 100 lbs.
4. You say EVEN with CVT, less weight and more torque it MAYBE will be 0.5 sec. faster.
If I ask how many apples are in the bag and you answer 5 oranges you failed to answer the question.
If benbess mention 0-60, YOU say 1 sec. is silly, however say MAYBE 0.5 sec if weight etc. is favorable anyone would understand your 0.5 sec. refer to benbess guess of 0- 60 time. He initiated, you responded and then your response should obviously be to his 0-60 time.
benbess never mentioned 1/4 mile or trap speed like you claim, he did not discuss that with you or you with him. You responded to his 0-60 time expectations. Stop lying.
If you can't respond to honest fact without resorting to accusations, harassment and bad-wording others and post after post make mention of your dislike of others you are the one who should be banned.
Instead of an honest response you resort to endless explanations and a tirade of words as to bury the facts in dung. Just check the BOLD in your response to my post above.
I did no mention of your discussion with Atomiclightbulb, only calling you out on your remark to benbess, calling him silly and inventing numbers for making a guess.
According to Motor Trend the 2013 Accord, with only 18 lbs. less weight and 5 HP less performed better than his guess, 1.3 sec better 0-60 than the 2010. Guess who is silly and inventing numbers?
|
330R
|
|
owequitit wrote:
This is...funny???
|
The post right above the picture's first appearance was.
|
owequitit
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
2nd part:
Gm's problems started with cheapening component content to save $.10 a car. That logically progressed in stuff that was so cheap and crappy that it didn't last or was "unreliable." |
I strongly disagree with this. GM's quality problems went far beyond progressively saving a dime and then another dime, until the product was unreliable.
GM vehicles were junk in the 70's and 80's (and perhaps even before then) as a result of numerous factors.
Their R&D centers didn't thoroughly test designs as well as the Japanese did. My older co-workers who owned GM vehicles from that era still joke that anyone who purchased those cars in their first model year was basically de-bugging a beta prototype for GM.
GM's manufacturing operations were a disaster. Documented very thoroughly in this in-depth radio report: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi
The factory culture at GM demanded that the assembly line keep moving even when problems occurred (in Japan, line workers had the authority to halt the line if something was wrong). Cars left the factory with all kinds of assembly errors. A team of workers would later try to correct the errors, but I think there's no way they could have caught them all before the vehicles were shipped out to dealers.
Management was shoddy, and Unions were shoddy. In the report linked above, workers admitted that they were lazy and often didn't care about quality. Drug and alcohol abuse at the one GM plant in Fremont was common. The management and unions viewed each other as enemies and didn't cooperate to make a better product.
When GM asked Toyota to fly union members out to Japan for training, and implement Japanese manufacturing practices, quality at the Fremont GM plant (NUMMI) was just as good as the Japanese factory. A NUMMI Corolla was as good as a Toyota City Corolla. GM tried to implement NUMMI methods at its other plants, with little success because plant management or unions didn't cooperate, and GM didn't have Toyota's supply network.
So I believe that GM's quality problems probably had more to do with careless engineering design, bad manufacturing practices, and unmotivated line workers than parts that were a dime cheaper.
Also, GM overpromised health care benefits to Union workers! They made a bad business decision which forced them to squeeze every penny because they could not stay price competitive with non-Union labor unless they reduced costs somewhere else.
Cheaper parts don't mean the car won't be reliable or last. It depends on what those parts are!
For example, when I look at a 9G Civic, I don't see any indication that there are bad manufacturing practices or careless engineering. The interior plastics and materials are cheap and junky -- that is not in question -- but they are assembled with just as much care and arguably more precision than the 8G Civic. Panel gaps and alignment were much more exact in the the 9G that I test drove last year. Arguably, the hard plastics are more scratch resistant/durable than the stuff in the 8G Civic (there are numerous complaints about plastics in the FA5 that would scuff with only minor impact).
18 months after the 9G Civic went to market, I see a minimal number of complaints on carcomplaints.com and Honda forums concerning the 9G Civic.
|
You can disagree all you want. We used to own pretty much exclusively GM product, and the reliability suffered due to cheapening parts long before they were in financial trouble.
Ultimately, it was the inability to maintain sales that brought the house of cards down. The other costs were high, but the bigger problem was that there weren't the margins and sales to support it. The German car industry is a prime example of this as they have historically had VERY high employee costs, and yet still managed to make ends meet. The biggest difference was that rather than focus on short term savings and gains, they focused on long term reputation and profit margin. That allowed them offset the high costs with higher revenues. GM's strategy only worked for a time and became this self-feeding cycle of decline. Once the costs went past the revenues (roughly when the economy collapsed in 2008) the house fell. It was well known that GM had quality crushing management for many years and instead only focused on ever cheaper cars.
Yes, those other components all played a role. But the largest player was GM's strategy of cost cutting.
And yes, reliability and quality ARE inexorably linked. You can only cut price so far before quality has to suffer. This is why Autozone parts don't last as long as OEM Honda ones. It is why more expensive electronics tend to last longer than cheaper ones. It why many high end items hold up better long term. Extra cost isn't always about brand name or higher profit margin (although those are also linked).
|
owequitit
|
|
330R wrote:
owequitit wrote:
This is...funny???
|
The post right above the picture's first appearance was.
|
Personally, the picture was hilarious. The other post was entertaining as well.
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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}
