mrdeeno

yeah, i never said that rwd doesn't have an effect on interior space.

what I said was that it's not an actual benefit to consumers...find me the guy who bought the Civic over an IS350 because the passenger space was a benefit to him.

In the subcompact class (i guess compact too), that's where space matters, but then again last time I checked, my RWD car has more room than a civic.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

This isn't something you can ask me. I don't work for Honda. I only know what I'm told.

All I can say is that I see Acura moving towards an AWD only drivetrain for all sedans and possibly even for its coupes too as the new NSX is predicted to be a mid-engined AWD or front-engined AWD car.

dom

Keep in mind that the S2000 debuted in 1999. Well before RWD sedans and sport coupes were all the rage. Back then FWD was still acceptable.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

In the IS's price class, yes, it's not a huge consideration because at that level, cars are more of a luxury than a necessity.

Typically, cars that are a necessity (e.g. the Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, etc.) are all FWD because it is a more efficient package for people who need the space.

mrdeeno

There shouldn't be any problems with FWD biased awd cars if the cars can be executed and marketed right. MOST buyers don't know or care whether their cars is fwd or rwd.

but if I was an automaker, I would choose the most flexible method to produce a cars for now and into the future.

With the limitations inherent in FWD (weight distr., torque limitations, etc.), I would choose to develop my cars off a rwd platform and make AWD an option for those buyers who want bad weather capability. And with a RWD platform, I would be prepared when the HP wars escalate with having to limit myself to AWD.

Beoshingus

FWD is also generally viewed by the public as being safer than RWD. The average soccer mom / family man believes (rightly or wrongly) that FWD is preferrable. This segment of the market is far more lucrative for Honda than the RWD performance car fanboy segment. Honda is simply going where the money is.

dom

AWD has its own slew of problems.

- Weight (SH-AWD apparently adds 300lbs )
- Worse fuel ecomomy (see weight)
- Just something else to break

Ideally you want FWD and RWD platforms that can both handle AWD. Right now I think Toyota has all its bases covered in that respect. Although I don't think there's a AWD Camry in the works.

dom

Yes, but that outlook it slowly swinging back to RWD. It was only what, the mid 70's when FWD became "preferable".

ianS

Well, at least I choose TSX over IS because of the interior space. I think no one like to sit in the middle seat of a RWD(except those big monster), even a 5-series that middle hump on the rear floor is still very borthering me.

mrdeeno

Well, toyota AND nissan have thier bases covered. Toyota uses its FWD platforms mostly under its toyota brand and uses its RWD platforms mostly under its lexus brand.

Same with nissan...they use their fwd platform mostly under the nissan brand and their rwd models under the infiniti brand.

And both have awd systems for both front and rear platforms: sienna/highlander/rx300 is FWD based but have AWD capability. gs300 is rwd based but has AWD capability.

Murano is fwd based and has awd capability. G35 is rwd based and has awd capability.


This is expected of toyota since they have been making money hand over fist. But nissan has only recently started turning things around.

As for honda, they have been making money for a long time, yet its their conservative traditions that are dictating what they will or won't do. These conservative "traditions" are what got nissan into deep-sheet before their turnaround...AFTER abandoning "traditions" and "customs".

Beoshingus

So what are you saying?

waTSX

This is my biggest concern with Acura going to SH-AWD across its product line. Regardless if AWD handles inherently better than FWD, the TSX is already heavy enough, and weight is always the enemy of handling.

Mass x Velocity = Force, right? More weight equals more force to the outside of a turn at a given speed. That can't be good for handling. You physicists out there correct me if I'm wrong.

IlliNorge

I'm not Stephen Hawking, but mass x velocity = momentum. Force = mass x distance. Nevertheless, more momentum in a turn will = rough handling.

waTSX

^^I'm pretty sure it's m x v=f

IlliNorge

After conferring with Mr. Hawking, f=m x a, so we're both wrong Momentum is m x v. I believe work is f / d.

mrdeeno

you're ALL wrong!

force = mass x acceleration (f=ma)

momentum = mass x velocity (p=mv)


But for those non-engineer/phsyics types, acceleration is change in velocity OR direction, so cornering at a constant speed also produces a force.

mrdeeno

damn, you got it first, but you're wrong about work.

work is f x d (a force applied over a distance).

Actually work = f x d cos theta which is the angle between the force and the displacement.

for simplicity's sake, if the force is the same direction as the displacement/distance, the angle theta is 0, cos 0 = 1, so the equation becomes w= f x d x 1. in otherwords, w = f x d

waTSX

^^All right. I think I made my point. Acceleration, velocity, velocity, acceleration. At a given weight and speed, "X" amount of force is generated.

Bottom line: added weight is to the detriment of handling.

waTSX

I hereby sit corrected.

biker

Ah, all those formulas bring back memories of PHY101

Biker, who thought this was a car related thread.

IlliNorge

Actually, the definition of work is trying to recall physics equations from ten years ago.

waTSX

That's what I get for trying to get all scientific on everybody.

n8dog82

Here is your answer. The TSX Realtime Racing cars stomp all over the RWD BMWs.

psteng19

I'm sorry, but you can't compare across classes like that.

I'm sure there are a handful of those who chose the ES330 over the IS250/350 due to space.

mrdeeno

1st... I didn't bring up the civic and IS350...CGTSX2004 brought it up arguing that the civic has more interior space did.

So he is allowed to compare across classes to make his point, but then you bust me for using HIS example to make my counterpoint? Please...

2nd, I don't think there are a handful of people who chose an ES330 over an IS250/350. Most people who want an ES330 were shopping for an ES330, and most people shopping for an IS250/350 were shopping for an IS250/350. I don't think many people would cross shop the two. Lexus was smart by offering both of them in the entry level class so they can cover the more sporty side as well as the very plush side.

If you want similar fwd vs. rwd comparisons, take the TL vs. is250/350 which have the same sporty aspirations.

What i'm saying is that there is no reason why a RWD car in the same class as a FWD car has to have less interior volume. they can EASILY add volume to a rwd car and they can also EASILY remove volume from a FWD car.

Does FWD package more efficiently than RWD...SURE! But the point is it's pretty damn easy to make up the several cubic inches that a RWD car takes up over a FWD car.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Not as easy as you may think. To eliminate the crowding in the front passenger seating area, you have to make the whole car wider. With the rear, to minimize the hump in the center, you have to raise up the rear seating area, which reduces the headroom in the back. To correct that, you have to give the car a taller profile.

All of these things increase the overall size of the car, which in turn adds weight, and creates serious challenges for the designers and engineers.

aaronng

If you have 2 cars, one RWD and one FWD, both with suspension tuned to have the same handling characteristics and handling performance, then when going through a corner with partial or no throttle without breaking front wheel grip, they are both the same. If you are going through the corner with FULL throttle, then RWD is better as your steering wheels do not break traction.

Beoshingus

Don't make me bring LWD back into the conversation.

mrdeeno

They will NOT be the same because all will NOT be equal.

The center of mass of the FWD car will be at the front of the car. The center of mass of the RWD car is closer to the center.

Imagine holding a bowling ball out in front of you while running and trying to make a turn at constant speed. You have to use extra force to turn the ball into the direction of the turn...this extra force being friction/traction in the tires. this is a reason why FWD cars are more likely to understeer.

Now hold the same ball closer to your body. While you're turning, the ball will rotate with you requiring less effort/force on the front turning wheels.

The laws of physics still apply, with or without throttle. will a rwd car understeer? sure, but it's not effected as much as FWD cars are.

mrdeeno

Although i still don't agree with everything you said, i'm not going to argue it but instead present this counterpoint...

You state basically that because of the extra space RWD requires, it And for all the serious challenges for designers and engineers, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, MB, Porsche, etc. etc. etc. has been able to successfully and profitably meet these challenges, while HONDA, a company known for engineering, can't?

Sounds like what you said is more of an insult to Honda than anything.

Look at it this way...depending on what class of cars you're in, you're gonna require different things, more power, more room, more tech, sportiness, etc.

Now take the RL for example, a FWD based car. Now inherently, FWD has more space, but unfortunately they run up against the problem of having too much power to the front wheels...a FWD limitation. So now they have to engineer around this limitation and destroy the inherent advantage of FWD by putting in a driveshaft to the rear and whatever else.

but for all that, they could've started with a RWD platform and not had to worry about AWD.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

On the contrary. If you examine the cars that sell in the greatest volume, they are all FWD. It is only after you reach a certain price point that you start to see RWD cars. The reason for this is obviously that building a RWD car requires a certain level of cost that an only be recouped through sales channeled primarily through a luxury brand name.

Honda has chosen not to pursue this route, just as VW has.

As I pointed out, this is primarily a cost issue. Engineering challenges can be overcome, but they require extra cost and a certain level of compromise.


The RL is FWD based, but in order minimize the intrusion into the cabin, the drive shaft is limited in size and takes up less space than the driveshaft in a RWD car. Plus, the transverse layout of the motor means that there is no transmission tunney to intrude into space for the front passengers.

Personally, I think that the RL has done and excellent job of making use of the advantages of FWD and AWD while eliminating most of the disadvantages of both in terms of handling.

And as for starting with a RWD platform, you have to have a RWD platform and drivetrain available in order not to do that. Honda has neither at this point. To develop one would cost millions that would require pulling funds away from other projects that may prove to be more profitable. Again, for Honda to develop a RWD platform and drivetrain, they would require more than one vehicle that would utilize it in order to make it cost effective. None of the current line-up can be reengineered to accept this new layout currently, which means that in order to make it cost effective, Honda has to wait until several cars are due to be replaced with all new cars.

Beoshingus

mrdeeno

This is the way I look at it.

It was FOOLISH for honda to not have developed a mass production v8 and rwd platform a long time ago.

As time passes and they don't have these things in their arsenal, it will get more and more foolish.

A flexible automaker will be one that has developed resources so they can chase market trends/fads/whatever.

Toyota is a flexible maker. They have economy cars, hybrids, truck platforms, RWD platforms, FWD platforms, i4/v6/v8 engines, etc.

Nissan is a flexible maker. They have eco cars, truck platforms, RWD, FWD, i4/v6/v8 engines, and eventually hybrid tech from toyota.

Honda has eco cars, hybrids, i4 and v6, and a FWD platform. Their "truck" and SUV platform is basically an evolved FWD car platform.

They are very INFLEXIBLE and have a hard time chasing the market. The only thing they can hope for is that what the market wants will align with what they have to offer. The other automakers don't have to hope because they can change what they offer to suit the market.

That's basically my thing on Honda...why they are so hard-on set on maintaining limitations on themselves as their rivals continue to expand.

And last time I looked, Honda is in business to make money, not to maintain conservative traditions and being "green" for the sake of being "green".

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

It's their choice. Why does it matter to you? If Honda chooses to maintain a corporate identity while other companies choose to chase the fads, they have every right to do so.

Regardless of whether Honda produces a V8 or RWD platform, they will always have a set of customers that will buy Honda cars because they like them and don't like cars made by the other manufacturers.

dom

I feel the same way mrdeeno does about what Honda is doing/hasn't done. But I'm so sick adn tired of complaining and hearing about it.

I've just come to terms with the fact that they knwo what their doing, or at least I really hope they know what they're doing. If not, there will be several other manufactueres to meet our needs.

mrdeeno

It matters to me because I was a LOYAL honda/acura customer...up to the point where they didn't offer what i wanted. Yeah, that's the way to keep loyal customers, honda!


"Regardless of whether GM produces an appealing car that can truly rival foreign competition or not, they will always have a set of customers that will buy GM cars because they like them and don't like cars made by the other manufacturers."


Sure...yeah...Status quo is the way to go!

dom

I bet it really pisses you off when you learn that Honda decided to spend millions and millions on development of a plane and plane engines instead of a V8 or RWD platform.

Sure pissed me off.

mrdeeno

I'm not pissed off about that. There's actually a market for jet engines, especially fuel efficient engines in these days of high fuel prices.

what DOES piss me off is that damn ASS-imo.

what the hell is he for? he can shake hands? SO CAN I!!! he can walk down stairs? SO CAN I!!! I think Honda has watched one too many Sci-fi movies.

I can kick ASS-imo's ass anyday. If they wanted to build a robot, they should've built an Ass-kicking robot...so no one would question them. Instead, they built PUSS-imo the handshaking stair walking robot.

dom

Asimo is the future so I can see why they'd spend money there. There isn't a solidified market for robots but there will one day be one so they're just getting a jump.

There are however several jet engine makers so Honda will have some competition. I don't nessesaraly think its a bad idea I just would have first like to have seen more development on the automotive side of things first.

mrdeeno

You mean kinda like the jump they had in the hybrid market? The one where Honda was the first to market with a real production hybird? The one where they were the first and got a head start, and they were considered the "greenest" of the automakers, yet they are getting their asses handed to them by Toyota when it comes to hybrids?

If they wanted a jump, they should've developed a RWD and v8 at least 20 years ago! Or they should've had an SUV in their arsenal 30 years ago. Instead they were late to the SUV party, they were late to the truck party (technically they aren't even there yet), and they haven't even decided to go to the v8 or rwd parties yet.

They don't have a very good track record when it comes to trending the market, so I don't have much faith in Ass-imo being a "jump" for Honda in the future.

Ass-imo is too far ahead of its time and their jump doesn't mean anything that far into the future. I think this is just a case of too many engineering tech-heads running a company and losing sight of why the company exists in the first place.

this reminds me of the story about the overachieving lumberjacks who were busy chopping down trees in the forest and doing a damn good job of it. they were way ahead of meeting their "tree killing" quota! But one day, someone SCREAMED at them to stop chopping because it was discovered they were chopping down trees in the WRONG forest!

The lumberjacks' response was "Shut up and let us work! We're making progress here!"