JZ

How long was it before the NSX got the manual tranny?

Weren't there specific reasons why the auto couldn't have the 3.2L?


I guess this would be a slightly different scenario since Acura probably planned this from the start with the NSX vs. the 6 speed for the CL may have been more of an afterthought. Who knows.

EricL

The 1991 introduction of the NSX has the manual 5-speed and was released a number of months before the 4-speed auto.

YES! The acura folks said the auto could NOT handle the extra power from the 3.2L variant.

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure that Acura was surprised at how many younger buyers liked the car.

I'm having a beer and you -- having a few? (j/k)

provench

Wouldn't we expect to see some of the car mags, etc. get their hands on the CLS 6-speed? I mean in a month the dealers are going to know the options and in March/April the cars will start hitting dealers.

Surprise there have not been any spy photos or cars given from Acura to the car mags to "hype them up" ... what's up?

nt5k

they could give the cl 400hp for all i care, as long as it remains FWD with atrocious weight distribution and crappy tires it will remain a piece of trash.. ie. e36 m3 240hp, wrx 227hp all will eat the cls for lunch..

power means crap without control..

provench

Hmm - why do you own one - enjoy riding around in a piece of trash car?

Seriously ... I think we just all want to see the car get better ... going to things like 6-speed and adding HP (effeciently - Honda/Acura know no other way) is a good start I think. Let's again don't loose track of the cost factor that I happen to think Acura is managing VERY well ...

EricL

You should see what a car with a few mods and sticky tires will do provided the turns are similar to those on Mulholland and/or Sunset -- forget about the 15 MPH hairpins (I had a Bimmer, so I know what it can do.).

BTW -- I'm talking about the big grin drifts possible with a good RWD, just ultimate traction (with conditions)...

JRock

A: When you combine headers, CAI, and the MM, the dyno we have to go by dictates the total gain from those does not ever exceed 30-35hp IIRC.

B: Just because they are engineering the manual to be able to handle 295hp doesn't mean the car comes STOCK w/ 295hp. Hell I don't think they've done ANYTHING except make it a manual:

12% drivetrain loss is a normal difference between auto and manual, and if 12% added to 260 equals 295, then there you go.

Zapata

uh adding manual wouldn't give us 260. It might give us more HP at the wheel with the current setup but it wouldn't help the engine produce more horsepower. We might get 225 or 235hp @ the wheel instead of the 195 or 200 we are at right now.

JZ

Personally, I think it would be more of a kick in the gut to Nissan if Acura kept the 3.2L engine and bumped it to 295hp. That would basically say, "look how much more power we can produce using a significantly smaller engine".

Whether or not the 295hp 3.2L could better the 1/4 mile times of the Max would remain to be determined, although I think it could because the lack of torque could be made up for by dropping the clutch and we all know that VTEC gives superior top-end power. I suspect if the car was a 3.5L there would be no question that this outcome wouldn't be the case. At 295hp you would expect about 260ftlb of torque, so that would be pretty nice.

Zapata

Oh no doubt, honda is always doing shit like that. I would LOVE for honda to completely blow nissan out of the water with a 3.2L engine @ 295 hp. 3.5L would work as well because nissan is only getting 260 out of the Max....but who knows maybe nissan is holding( i doubt it) a little something back as well.
3.5L 295/260 would be insane. with mods you COULD move it to like 320/275 setup. Add a SC to that......holy smokes!. The possibilities are endless so lets just wait and see

Collective27

My opinion on all this....

I do think that its possible for us to get a 3.5 liter, becuase of the fact that the 2003 RL's will most likly be geting a V8. If they werent doing this to the RL I dont think they would do this because of the fact that the RL, there "flagship" model is already underpowered and it would be stupid for them to take there top of the line engine and put it into a car that is only the middle of there lineup. Also in terms of the NSX, that is geting a facelift for 2002, which should be out soon, and a re-design for 2003 with a V8 most likely also. They are, like some other people said, prob. doing this becuase of Toyota and Nissan's increases in power. But again, lets see what for comfermation on all this.

provench

Kahn Man - did you hear anything further on this from your friend?

Kahn Man

I sent him an email asking him to clarify whether the 295hp is their design spec or the actual engine hp, and whether the thing's attaching onto a 3.2 or a 3.5L. I'll let you know as soon as I hear back. (Provided that @home survives)

nt5k

because i own it for what it is.. a comfortable, quick cruiser.. that's it.. adding more power to the platform wont do anything, i already notice torque steer on hard launches and with 62% of 3550 lbs in the front the car is hard to control.. the problem i have with honda is their obsession with fwd. if FWD is so great why is the nsx and s2k RWD? how many race cars do you guys know that are FWD? (real race cars, F1, etc..) can u imagine a F1 car with insane hp going to the front?

if honda wants to fight the bmws and mercs like lexus is doing they will move to RWD otherwise they will be stuck going up against nissan.. and hell even subaru ( a tiny company compared to honda) is able to create a car that can battle with cars from the likes of audi.. the simple fact is power is not always what makes you faster. control will make you faster then simple turning up the hp meter.. but then again most people on here seem to be interested in straight line speed which is as fun a watermelon seed spitting contest to me..

JRock

Hang on there....

What is the claimed power output of our car currently, by Acura?

260hp.

If they throw in a manual tranny that would equate to 12% more driveline efficiency, they might try claim 295hp instead of 260hp because the car would dyno 12% more horsepower to the wheels because of the manual tranny, maybe?

Either way, I think what that guy told Kahn Man is that it would EQUATE to 295hp because of the 12% less loss in the drivetrain.

I don't think Acura is going to claim 295hp though.

Either way, I love the irony in the name Kahn Man.

Zapata

First of all, who the hell is talking about a REAL race car? The consensus of this board remains that the CLS is luxary-sport couple. Take the CLS for what is and if you are soooooo annoyed at the torque steer and weight factor, blah, blah, blah, blah go and buy your self and NSX or an M3. What the hell do you expect? Even tiny little subaru knows that the WRX and the CLS are completely different cars that are ment for completely different things.

How much do you really know about acura and the mission of the company? Acura was created as a higher end line of Honda. I don't think it was ever Acura's intention as a company to offer a line of cars that would go head to head with every make that BMW and Mercedes offers. What Acura has does is make great cars that offers a potential buyer a vehicle that won't break the bank on the purchase price and won't suck them dry at the pump. Only the lowest lines of the BMW and Benz will give you something close in comparison to what Acura offers. Yet even with the entry level vehicles that other manufactures provide, they still can not match overall value of fun and economy that Acura/Honda will provide. Honda/Acura picks its battles. S2000 and NSX serve as examples. The s2000 is far and away the best roadster on the market. NSX is underappreciated by the majority of the U.S. market that wants the days of push-rods and hemi's back. Ironically, NSX will launch itself ahead of the pack with the new i-vtec 8. Watch, nothing will be able to touch the NSX.

Honda as a whole has always made vehicels that make sense and which adhere to what the logic of the market. The majority of people in the U.S. do not perfer a RWD platform. Although RWD does offer some advantages, the disadvantages persuade a majority of car consumers a reason to buy a FWD or AWD.

Acura shits on nissan so don't even go there. Nissan wishes it could be Acura.

Zapata

yeah i didn't notice the name thing until somebody else mentioned it hehe You are correct they will not say the output is 295.

mdaniel

Right. Lets not forget that the CL is based on the Accord. And the reason its such a good value (ie. cheaper) is that it shares a lot of parts with the Accord. The Accord is Honda's bread and butter. The Accord will never go RWD because doing so would shut out a huge part of the North America market due to the weather. Therefore, one of two things will happen. Either the CL will stay on the Accord platform and stay FWD. Or they'll develop a new platform for it and jack up the price $10 grand. Then you may as well get a BMW. I suspect #1 will win.

nt5k

well, im just amazed at the good job honda has done of brainwashing all of you..
the point of 295hp or whatever is performance right? so what good is it if it goes to waste spinning tires or being nearly impossible to control..
adding power is not the best way to make up for the deficiencies of a platform. sure the nsx is hot and what not but the vette does the same thing at half the cost.. and im not even sure what acura's 'vision' is, i didn't even realize they had one.. to me it seems like mostly great marketing.. what are people to assume after they see the cl-s carving up the mountains in their recent commercials.. to me it seems like the acura lineup is a half-assed attempt at performance.. if it wasn't why would most of you be spending a tons of cash on new tires/wheels/springs/rollovers.. and untill they go for it all out they will always be a 'close but no cigar' alternative to other cars..

Zapata

It is painfully obvious that you don't know and don't seek to understand the vision of Acura.

Brainwashed? What honda has done is provide a fantastic car for the money. If you polled the members on this board, then they would most likely tell you that the CLS was not their only choice. In fact, members probably considered other cars including BMW and Lexus. I think that if they wanted pure performance they would have went another route. Yet, so many people, as I did, chose the CLS not because it was in the pantheon of performance cars but because it provided some performance and some luxary at an affordable price. You have this idea in your head that CLS is some how a performance car. It is not. Modifying with performance parts does inherently make the CLS a perfomance car; Rather, adding power merely contributes to the sportiness of the car. Acura could not have known that the CLS would appeal to such a young audience and thus building the CLS with all out performance in mind didn't happen. Thus, you have spinning tires and body roll etc., An analogy to illustrate my point, just because i go to the gym and lift weights, watch my diet closley and attempt to put on muslce weight and lose fat does NOT mean that I am attempting to become a body builder or qualify for the olympics. I am attempting to make what I have, better. Get the idea?

Great marketing? Are you evaluting Acura? The greatest criticism of Acura on this board has been the lack of marketing and the lack of creativity in their marketing. IF you look closely at the commercials, then you will see that the market Acura is going for is the person who is in their late 30's and 40's. Also, the music in the background is jazz. The CLS is pictured elagantly driving through hilly country with some personality. If Acura intended to market the CLS as a performance car, then Acura would have had something like the WRX or RSX-S commercials. Hence, nobody should really be suprised that the CLS lacks in some performance. Most of the people on this board were able to draw those observations.

Why would I purcahse a NSX over a Z06? The Z06 is a muslce car trying to be a supercar and the NSX has been a supercar since its inceptoin I'm afraid that the Z06 will start to creak and rattle after 10k miles. On the other hand, the NSX which is HAND BUILT will not have that problem. One is a product of formula 1 racing and the other is product of a big engine. Talk about throwing power at something huh?

Zapata

yeah i don't think Acura will go with a new platform and jack the price up. I see more and more CLS on the road every day. A co-worker just leased the CLS after riding in mine. One more co-worker is strongly considering purchasing the 6 speed when it comes out. Like all honda's (maybe not the RL) the CLS is a great value purchase.

Kahn Man

Alright. Here's his response. I guess it puts the 3.5L theory to sleep...

"295hp is the actual Hp of the engine on a dyno. We really don't care what the HP is, just the torque. We design our clutches to handle at least 1.3 times the max engine torque. The engine is indeed a 3.2L, although I do not know the changes. All I do know is that some of our employees went to the engine plant in Anna, OH last Thursday to observe the installation of clutches to the engines and even though they took cameras to document the process, Honda said that they could NOT take pictures since the engine was not in production yet. This would lead me to believe that there are changes to the engine which can be noted from the exterior since pictures were not allowed."

I think I'll change my screen name to "Mr Honestypants," Kahn Man doesn't do much for your credibility.

mdaniel

What a about converting out engine to DOHC? Don't they typically rev higher and produce more HP in the higher revs? If they could keep the HP curve linear for another 1000 rpm and tweak the exhaust and intake, that could explain another 35HP. Remember, Honda is known for high reving engines that produce a lof of HP if not torque. So adding HP by adding revs makes a lot of sense.

laser1180

I seriously do not know whats wrong with yall people!!! Yall had been talking about 2003, remember guys, 2001 just barely over with 2002 out, and yall talking about 2003? isnt that a little bit too obsess??? Who cares if 2003 will have 295 or even 300hps, or 6spd, who cares, its not out yet! Don't predict anything until it's officaly out! But it's OK to fantansize about it!

gavriil

No one mentioned the possibility of the iVtec concept applied on a SOHC engine. Think about it. There is a lot of HP hidden in iVtec(although torque is not benefited much). If it is a 3.2 liter engine, the iVtec possibility becomes more probable.

Otherwise, it is our known massaged 3.2. Meaning, better headers and reworked intake with some remapping of the ECU. That should do it, especially if the max HP came at 6500 rpm instead of 6100 rpm.

All of the above though would mean that the 232 lb-ft of torque would be either untouched or very slightly upped. Significant increases in torque come mainly by increasing the displacement in normally aspirated engines. There is no other way. Which means that we should not expect torque steer and tire spin becoming more of an issue of what it is today.

For the drag racers out there. Let's face it folks. Few races take place from standing. They usually start at 30, 40, 50 mph and on. And that is where you need as much HP as you got (plus good gearing, unlike our auto tranny today). Torque steer and tire spin are not issues there.

cnatra

It would sure be EASY to drop the 3.5L in there for more power!

the 3.0L Accord V-6 , the 3.2L TL/CL V-6 & the Odyssey/MDX 3.5L
V-6 are all the same 60 degree block.

Only minor variations in bore & stroke seprate these motors.
(obviously the 2 stage intake & special cylinder liners & higher compression pistons of the type S motors are different)

I could be wrong but I don't think there is ANY difference in deck height. Just different bores for the cylinder liners & different crankshaft/rod combinations.

BUT if the Odyssey/MDX is getting 240hp & 240-245 lb-ft. out the 3.5L motors a little change in the crankshaft & connecting rods would easily bump the 3.2 TL/CL motor the required 261cc's
for the 3.5L displacement.
The question is will the longer stroke allow as high a redline
as the 3.2L Types S cars?

280+hp seems realistic no?

What's a new M3 these days? 333hp out of 3246cc's ?

Zapata

ah the voice of information! hehe where have you been?

Juker008

HAAAAAAAAAAAA (evaporate)HAAAAAAAAAAAAA


TRELOS

Juker008

Do not take this offensivly, ur post was very true.
But if they were building the clutches to handle future hp increased then don't u think that they would take the SC in mind and add alittle more (like 50) extra hp handling to that clutch.

TRELOS

provench

Kahn Man - Thanks again for the good scoop! Since all they care about is the torque - can he comment on what they are saying that will be? (I know - I am a greedy dude ) This has been great info ... I am inclined to be trustworthy so I appreciate any forward info on a car that I am most likely going to get anyway.

Guys - I can't wait until about a month when my dealer will get the details ... what they know so far is that it will be a 2003 ... not sure why they would say it if it was not known, but next month when the allocations are done they will have the next level of detail.

Do you think Acura would just release a 6-speed and do nothing else? I mean Acura has had 2 years since 2001 were released in Spring of 2000 - is it really optimistic to think that Acura will pull off another big advancement with 6speed+better tires/wheels/suspension+more HP/torque? Honestly - the ONLY thing stopping them is the marketing dept and not the engineering dept !!

JZ

I hope Provench is right about making some sorely needed changes after 2 years.

I think it would be a waste to just ship out a totally unchanged car with the exception of the 6 speed. It makes you wonder that there is some good stuff in the works since they are being so tight lipped about it. I'd think there wouldn't be such secrecy surrounding the announcement to just put in a manual and call it a day.

I would hope that there might be some changes up front with the lights and that a body kit will accompany the release. Maybe even a slight tweak of the rear lights as well. I think the interior will remain unchanged--things seem to be just fine in there.

I think it would be foolish to not upgrade the front tires, although I have a feeling if the suspension is tweaked at all it will only be very slightly. I think new wheels might alos be in order as someone else mentioned. A 7.5 inch rim would certainly make a big difference in the ability to mount a broader selection of tires.

DDT-TypeS

Man, all you people are obsessing with more HP, MORE HP...

What makes you think the 260HP we have now on the CLS is totally efficient? I mean we do have 260HP...but we can't harness all that horsepower fully. Most is being wasted on the the autotransmission right?

Why doesn't ACURA make the current transmission better by offering better gear ratios...fix that tall 4th gear...perhaps the car would be better at harnessing all that power...

As for a 6-speed manual, like I said before, not many...will buy the 6-speed versus the hi-tech 5-speed automanual.

Acura needs to get a clue...all that HP doens't mean shit if it's all FWD...we have 260HP and we still lose to a freakin' Subaru WRX...embarassing.

Go ahead and argue that it's (lighter, 4wd, and better manual)...the point is, Acura needs to stop doing this bullshit..half ass cars...if it's a cruiser, make it a complete cruiser...if it's a luxury sports car, keep it luxurious (get rid of that cheap fucking plastic dash trim...and that black wood...so damn fake)...and provide better transmission gear ratiio...

This car is a winner..in terms of value..that's about it...it provides sports like acceleration effects...but it is still a FWD, half luxury car that is alot of bang for the buck--I'll admit that.

Enjoy the car as it is...complain to Acura to fix the tranmission problems and gear ratios instead...

nt5k

About freaking time! Finally someone that understands what I've been trying to say..

EricL

Sure, if you mean we get all the good stuff we got now (at the current price), with AWD, would anyone say NO????

cnatra

I've only had my car a month now BUT you hit the nail on the head as far as 4th gear is concerned!!

Way too tall!! It's like 1st-3rd is really stong & then 4th gear , bam way south of the powerband.

My 99' SVT Contour was way stronger above 110mph
It would pull through 120mph easy & reach the 140mph top
end without any drama. Obvioulsy the 5spd manual had more
closely spaced gearing and above 100mph is academic most of the time but it's a little dissappointing. I understand 5th gear being a tall cruising gear but 4th , please!

Anyway, as a new CL-S owner I LOVE my car!!
The fit,finish&refinement is light years ahead of the SVT
& I know it will be a lot more reliable than the Ford was.

2002 CL-S Silver with Ebony interior.

kHmER Co

I would say the two main issues we should push for is #1 6 speed manual transmission #2 RWD!!! this will help the cars preformance dramatically... and #3 maybe body kits ect (more attention for the CL!!) the top two things i want is the RWD and the manual tranny....... does that sound good to anyone else???...... oh yea... DOHC technology wouldnt hurt either... with a little dose of i-VTEC

cnatra

So where is the RWD platform going to come from???

As far as I know Honda only has two (NSX&S2000) & neither is suited for the CL/TL/Accord?

I remember reading all the speculation that the new Integra would use the S2000 platform & go RWD.

What happened??

An RSX with MacPherson struts & FWD.

hmmm

Zapata

you will NEVER see the a RWD drive platform on any honda or acura unless it is a pure performance car. It's a pipedream so go buy a lexus, benz or BMW and be done with it.

cnatra

Yeah, what he said!

gavriil

Busy with work and travel. Thanks Zapata