The are great cars, but like I said, such big cars are probably not ideal for being a performance car. Sure, you can always add power and have better suspension, a stronger chasis to overcome its physical short comings (for the most part, size and weight), but naturally a car of that size and weight is not as good as a smaller car (plain physics). Of course these cars perform better than 90% of cars that are smaller and more suitable to be a performance car, but look at how much money it cost the auto makers to make these cars perform the way it does, and how much they charge you. So why do they make it? Because people want them.

but do you see these cars often? Not really. Why? Obviously it's the price, not only that, because at such a price tag, it defeats the attractiveness and selling point of these cars (which is a combination of very good performance and a family hauler, like you pointed out). However, if you think about it, if someone can afford such a high priced car, why not just get a real sports cars for the weekends, AND another (or more) car for the family?

I guess it's also that 'cool' factor, where you can brag about your family hauler faster than 80% of the other cars on the street (sort of like having a 500hp SUV or something). Or maybe perhaps for an occasional thrill.

It would proably make sense (for the automaker, although personally I don't think so) for a car like , say, the Altima to have lots of power just because that's what people want. I mean hey, a family hauler with all that power for 25k? why not right? Again, this is not what I think, but what the typical consumer wants.... I personally think the Altima v6 is really an overkill.... and it was the true beginning of this hp war.

Sure I would like an E55 or M5.... but I think an E320 (or even E240, which is not sold in the US) will do..... same goes for the M5 and RS6

I think at the end these discussions boils down to what you personally value. Some people want 'adequate'...some people want 'more', or 'extra'

Anyway, I think with the recent hype over big engines and such, I think we're going back into the muscle car era..back in the 70s (?).... maybe in 5-10 years it'll become Honda's time again, where sporty cars with smal engines dominate...

 

Check out the Allison V-1710, dram, which in spite of the 'V' moniker is an in-line 12. The Germans also had something like it, I believe - a Jumo or something like that. Based on my recollections, as a young boy, it was wrestling it into a seriously modified vehicle that brought about the saltiest language and took the lion's share of the rum.

 

Of course....it does no matter who drives it, owns it, or in what car, it always takes the top 5 spots on indy everytime. Is it the best? I think so, at least for now. The honda V6 compares and surpasses many V8's imagine if honda had a V8 base on the Indy V8....It would be a wonderful thing

 

I'm still convinced that people don't understand the design concept behind Honda's engines. Honda engineering provides for good, usable, docile performance in the lower rev ranges for day to day driving that is adequate, but not stunning. At the same time, it provides better mileage and ease of maintenance as the trade-off. For higher performance, Honda allows an owner the option of diving into the higher rev range to tap into the power (hence the idea behind VTEC).

No one can honestly say the RL's performance is inadequate for day to day use. They're just flat out kidding themselves if they say that. If you really want to feel the power, then you have to be willing to delve higher into the rev range to get to it. Don't like the philosophy, don't buy the car.

 

Hm. One site refers to this engine as an "inline V", whatever that is; other aviation sites call it a "V-12". The photos look like a V configuration. It is interesting whichever it is, though-- I didn't know anyone had tried liquid cooled aircraft engines back then.

My original post should have said "No such automotive engine was ever produced.", although I would've been willing to bet that none had been produced, period. Your mechanic friend's engine must have been really something!

 

Well said. But I hope the hp war continues. I was often told by my elders, It is better to have and not need than to need and not have. I rather have the extra power even if I don't always use it. A lot of things in life we don't really need. A car for starters is one of them. We won't die without a car. But it sure makes life a whole lot easier.

 

So by that quote you should rather drive an 89 corolla than an RL, beacuse:

" It is better to have [money] and not need than to need [money] and not have"

 

I couldn't care less about the 300hp the V6 in my RL produces.. i'd just like a bit more TORQUE out of it.. it's too sluggish on the highway with overtaking.

Also, a V8 would prolly run a little 'slower' rpm-wise, which would be nice for the fuel consumption (i have been getting about 13mpg out of my RL since i got it)

Tracer

 

If your RL is sluggish and getting 13 MPG I'd take it back to the dealer to see what is wrong.

 

Ummmm, consistently placing high in a league where only 3 engine manufacturers are allowed to participate doesn't really impress me (nor does Indycar in general since Tony George ruined it). That's kind of like saying "red" is the best color to bet on in roulette because it comes up about half the time.

 

Not really. I'm talking about it the arena of buying cars. If you want to get that technical we don't need cars at all. A car is a luxury and I know a lot of people that can not afford a car let alone a nice one. With your philosophy it's almost like if you are making a $100,000 a year and looking at someone making $ 1,000,000 a year and saying that is just sick. That is just overkill. What does a person need with that type of money? When in actualality they don't need that much money. But neither do you at a $ 100,000 salary. A person making $ 30,000 a year could easily tell you that, and the snowball could just keep rolling down. The point is if you drive an RL with 300 hp you have no right the call that overkill or a BMW M5 with 500 hp. Because the fact of the matter is that you don't need a RL, TL, M5, E55 or even a Ford Escort, no matter what the hp is. They all are a luxury to have. You could be riding the bus.

 

I didn't dissagre, I was just trying to use an example to make this " It is better to have and not need than to need and not have" not true, just like you said above.

 

Good point. If honda does produce a V8 it will for sure be one of the best, I'm happy with a 300hp V6, but without a manual 6 speed there is no justice.

 

The whole point is you can't knock someone for indulging in something such as HP or Torque if you are indulging in something yourself ( A $50,000 sedan). Neither one of us need any of them. They are wants not needs. The RL comes witha lot of goodies but I don't say hey you you have XM, Real Time Traffic, Navigation ect. that is just overkill. That's the point I was trying to make. No hard feelings.

 

while i was checking out the new GSs, a 50 something year old lady came to pick hers up. so there goes your grandpa analogy.

 

I'm talking about the majority. You are being sarcastic. I once saw an old lady and an old man in a E55(03-05 model). They had to be pushing 80 years old, and the lady was driving. She had the big dark glasses on and her back was humped. She had to be doing about 50 mph. We all know that's not the typical E55 owner or driver. Just because a few old people drive a certain car doesn;t mean all people that drive the car are old. You got the point but I know the truth hurts. You took the remark as a negative. Like the guy mentioned earlier he is a grandpa. Don't be ashamed of it. Be proud of what you are. If the RL does attract an older audience than the cars mentioned earlier, then Acura should build a sedan to be the spicier of the bunch. To compete directly with the M45, 545, GS430. Just my opinion.

 

Well, it's never about NEED, but more about WANT. I would get a V8 for the smooth, yet gushing power delivery feel, not to beat 99% of the cars 0 to 60.

 

 

What's wrong with beating 99% of the cars?

 

My last car had a V8 (94 Tbird), but it was heavier than my CL by about 400lbs. The CL has 60 more hp, and it's a 6spd, so that helps, but I do miss the low end torque sometimes.

I don't see myself buying a 4 banger for a daily driver, but I don't see anything wrong with a 300hp V6, especially if it's attached to SH-AWD

 

Damn...you americans are power crazy. It's gonna be great when cars are getting 8 mpg and people are bitching about gas prices yet in the next breath will bitch how they want another 8 cylinders and 400 extra hp.

I'm far from being a bigtime evironmental guy who is fuel efficient (my main hobby is boating which guzzles gas like crazy and I did get an RL which is poor on gas) and I do like fast cars but shit, even I think the car stuff is getting out of hand. The HP war is crazy and it is doing nothing but making people want more every year. I fully expect cars in the RL's class to be pushing 500 hp within 5 years. Insane.

All I know is I feel pity for the poor saps who will inherit this world after all of us die because our jizzfest over powerful cars has consumed most of the oil and has fugged up the environment more than it already has.

I also feel pity for the poor saps who drive around some of you who feel the need to open up your 4 second 1/4 mile car while on public roads to I guess show off to others about how big and bad you are for choosing to spend money on that car rather than another car that may be slower. Grow up...and realize that is ALL the car shit is about. Some ego thing done in a "I made a better choice than you" type deal to try and impress strangers.

Humans...

 

I started this thread with the title "I don't need a V8". One of my points was why do you need a V8, and if you think you do, why stop at a V8. Why not a V10, V12 or V16. I agree that the power war is getting out of hand.

I started driving (legally) in 1961 and lived through the horsepower race of the muscle cars in the 60's. You would do good to get 12-14 mpg on the highway. Most people who bought imports did so because of the better gas mileage. Now that the imports are bigger and have bigger engines, many get worse mileage than many of the American cars, but they all get better mileage, considering weight and engine size, than they did then.

You state "you americans" yet you sound just like us. If fact I thought you would be american since you also live in North America. I'm not really trying to be critical of you and I agree with a lot of your points.

BTW my favorite hobby is also boating, but I have a sailboat. Gets excellent mileage. It has an inboard diesel and I use about 6 to 7 gallons per year.

 

So its okay to get a V-6 with 300hp but not a V-8 with 300hp? So would u have bought the RL if it had less power?
Town Cars had 210hp V-8s for the longest but for those that know, there is no replacement for displacement for stock cars. The S2000 may make 240hp but it will never match the smoothness of a 240hp VQ V-6. The new VQ may make 280hp but will never match the smoothness of the old 282hp 540 BMW.

I do agree that the HP was in some instances is nuts but you cannot argue what car makers have offered for 20 years in this segment.

 

Here is some food for thoughts:

1. If two engines had the exact same output and power delivery, generally speaking the one with fewer cylinder(s) is more reliable because it has less moving parts.

2. Peak power does not paint a complete picture. Power delivery, fuel consumption, reliability, cost, etc. need to be taken into consideration as well to evaluate the worthiness of a particular engine.

3. Cars are a luxury. I would take public transportation if public transportation were better.

Cheers!

 

Not necessarily. I'll bet an OHV V-8 has less moving parts than a DOHC V-6, for example.

 

Yes, no one needs a V8 but it's sure is nice when it's available (A6, 5 series, E class, M, GS).

In the case of the M and the GS, price and fuel consumption are nearly the same as the RL, but lack the content.

And I agree that the RL engine needs more torque (flatter torque curve/output).
The M and GS V6 variants both feel more powerful even though they have less HP on paper.

 

Hey, I'm a V8 guy. I think the Chevy SBC is one of the greatest powerplants ever introduced and the mods I've made to my 'vette and the amount of track time I spend reinforce what a wonderful motor a V8 can be. BUT . . . as has been pointed out on a number of other threads (as so many seem to devolve into a discussion of Acura not offering a V8) the other cars that are considered RL competitors have a majority of their orders with something other than the V8. Yes, they offer the V8 but it's a relatively small number of those cars that are ordered with it.

In full auto mode, off the line, the lack of torque in the RL is noticeable. However if one engages the manumatic mode and uses the wonderfully positioned paddle shifters it is easy to keep the RL "on the pipe" (I'm dating myself - back then it meant something entirely different than being the mayor of D.C.) and it becomes a bat out of hell. Understand, then, it's not simply a function of the available power from the motor but the function of the automatic transmission - which seems to be set to be quite conservative, perhaps understandably, and probably for reasons of obtaining the best fuel economy. Remember that your powertrain doesn't start and end with the powerplant - it's how it gets to the driven wheels. I think the RL V6 is way more potent than these discussions have given it credit. When I'm just doing normal city driving it's in full auto; when I need something more I engage the manu-mode and use the paddles. How many of the RL competitors even offer that?

 

Less moving parts, yes. Less friction and parasytic loss, maybe not.


But it's not fair comparing apples and oranges. I said few cylinders, holding all else constant, equate to fewer moving parts.

So for that, you have to compare a pushrod V8 with a pushrod V6. They are the same design. The fewer cylinders tend to yield less parts.


Compare a DOHC V6 to a DOHC V8. You can see the differece

 

The paddles are very hard to use, especially when you are transitioning the wheel. This is because the paddles are fixed on the wheel, not the steering column, and they move with the wheel instead of staying fixed.

When you are moving the wheel rapidly, it is very hard to maintain the orientation of the wheel to hit the paddles.

With the Ferrari F1, the paddles are fixed to the column, and stay at 3 and 9 o'clock regardless of steering wheel position. This makes it much easier to shift.


I find myself using the console shifter more often than the paddles.

 

Ahh, but that's not what you said. It may be what you meant to say, but I have no way of knowing what you were thinking - just what you wrote:

"Originally Posted by g6civcx
Here is some food for thoughts:

1. If two engines had the exact same output and power delivery, generally speaking the one with fewer cylinder(s) is more reliable because it has less moving parts."

I'm not seeing the "holding all else constant" clause there, g6civcx.

 

Sheesh, some things are just so obvious that they don't need to be stated.

 

That is why I said generally speaking. The purpose of the exercise is to figure out which engine is more reliable given two identical outputs.

When considering reliability, there are generally two (2) things I look for: cylinder pressure and parasytic loss.

Perhaps it is unfair to say the extra cylinders come with extra moving parts, but keep in mind that the purpose of the overhead camshaft is to reduce parasytic loss, albeit with more moving parts.

The pushrod design is very simple, but it generates a lot of heat with the big pushrods having to travel long distances.


Take displacement caps into consideration. F1 regulates the maximum displacement so you can't just pound on the displacement.

There are V8, V10, and V12 engines that were used at some point. Generally speaking, the more exotic V10 and V12 engines were able to squeeze out a little more output, but at the cost of more moving parts. Cylinder pressure tends to be inconsequential since Ferrari and such are very good with engine design.


So in summary, for low-power applications such as endurance racing, I generally want smaller displacement engines for reliability. For high power applications (600+ bhp), I want a higher displacement engine since you will be stressing the smaller displacement engine a lot more for that power output.


Question: have you ever disassembled an engine before?

 

Yah. More importantly, I put them back together, too.

 

You are a better person than I am then. I tend to have a few extra parts leftover.

Nothing important though, just some rods and bolts, and maybe an extra piston or two

 

Always nice to have spares.