Rear Wheel Drive (IE Lexus, Audi) vs Front Wheel Drive (Acura)
#81
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by CGTSX2004
That's not true. If you look at cars like the IS350, it has about as much interior space as a Civic, a lot of it being in part due to the exterior design, but also due to the width of the tunnel needed to house the transmission. On a FWD car like the Civic, there is no need for the transmission tunnel so you can give the front passengers more room in the footwell and in the hip area.
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.
#82
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
but you are assuming they can't spread the costs of developing a RWD car. I see MANY examples of companies with both front AND rear drive models selling successfully.
what doesn't make sense to me is why they would spend so much money to develop such a low volume rwd model that CAN'T spread the development costs, but refuse to spend money to develop a high volume rwd model that CAN spread the costs among many models?
And i'm not arguing they should've not done one but the other considering the s2000 is their anniversary present to us, but why not do BOTH?
to put it simply:
s2000 platform: single model / low volume / high cost = diffult to spread costs.
volume RWD platform: many models / high volume / high cost = very easy to spread costs.
and the rwd platform wouldn't be limited to sports cars as the market has shown that even RWD family sedans sell well.
And another benefit they would have had if they had a volume rear drive platform in their arsenal is they wouldn't be limited to offering only AWD models on higher hp cars, which they will eventually have to do as the TL and TSX continue to be developed to keep up with the competition.
what doesn't make sense to me is why they would spend so much money to develop such a low volume rwd model that CAN'T spread the development costs, but refuse to spend money to develop a high volume rwd model that CAN spread the costs among many models?
And i'm not arguing they should've not done one but the other considering the s2000 is their anniversary present to us, but why not do BOTH?
to put it simply:
s2000 platform: single model / low volume / high cost = diffult to spread costs.
volume RWD platform: many models / high volume / high cost = very easy to spread costs.
and the rwd platform wouldn't be limited to sports cars as the market has shown that even RWD family sedans sell well.
And another benefit they would have had if they had a volume rear drive platform in their arsenal is they wouldn't be limited to offering only AWD models on higher hp cars, which they will eventually have to do as the TL and TSX continue to be developed to keep up with the competition.
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.
#83
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
what doesn't make sense to me is why they would spend so much money to develop such a low volume rwd model that CAN'T spread the development costs,
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.
#84
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
#85
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by dom
Its a mystery to me as well but for some reason Honda seems hellbent on avoiding RWD platforms. Even the next NSX is likely to be AWD.
Acura seems to be following the Audi plan. FWD biased AWD cars.
Acura seems to be following the Audi plan. FWD biased AWD cars.
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.
#86
Overlord
Originally Posted by CGTSX2004
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.
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.
#87
Senior Moderator
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.
- 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.
#88
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by 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.
Yes, but that outlook it slowly swinging back to RWD. It was only what, the mid 70's when FWD became "preferable".
#89
Burning Brakes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
Age: 55
Posts: 1,237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#90
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 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.
- 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.
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".
#92
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
- 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.
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.
#93
Benchwarmer
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#95
Benchwarmer
Originally Posted by waTSX
^^I'm pretty sure it's m x v=f
#96
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
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.
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.
#97
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 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.
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
#98
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^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.
Bottom line: added weight is to the detriment of handling.
#99
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
#102
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by biker
Ah, all those formulas bring back memories of PHY101
Biker, who thought this was a car related thread.
Biker, who thought this was a car related thread.
#104
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
I'm sure there are a handful of those who chose the ES330 over the IS250/350 due to space.
#105
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 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.
I'm sure there are a handful of those who chose the ES330 over the IS250/350 due to space.
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.
#106
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
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.
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.
#107
Driver/Detailer
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.
#109
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#110
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by CGTSX2004
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.
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.
You state basically that because of the extra space RWD requires, it
creates serious challenges for the designers and engineers.
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.
#111
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
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?
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.
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
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.
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.
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.
#113
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
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".
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".
#114
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by 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".
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".
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.
#115
Senior Moderator
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.
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.
#116
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by CGTSX2004
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.
Sure...yeah...Status quo is the way to go!
#117
Senior Moderator
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.
Sure pissed me off.
#118
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 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.
Sure pissed me off.
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.
#119
Senior Moderator
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.
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.
#120
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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!"