Acura: Development and Technology News
01-16-2010, 06:07 PM
#2402
how handsome I am
Ah, so you are impressed by the domestic brands mainly because of the improvementa that they have made/will be made. I agree with you, they are definitely going in the right direction.
I guess for me, the new grille design from Acura isn't too offensive to me. I mean, the improvements in other areas are enough to make me not worry too much about the styling. I like the new tech features, the sh-awd, the better fit and finish, the overall ambience inside the cabin of these new Acuras. Engine-wise, it's relatively disappointing because the J series is near the end of its life. They also need to add a coupe to the line up. Other than that, I think they are doing alright. I guess people are disappointed mainly because the improvements made in Acura cars are not as obvious.
I guess for me, the new grille design from Acura isn't too offensive to me. I mean, the improvements in other areas are enough to make me not worry too much about the styling. I like the new tech features, the sh-awd, the better fit and finish, the overall ambience inside the cabin of these new Acuras. Engine-wise, it's relatively disappointing because the J series is near the end of its life. They also need to add a coupe to the line up. Other than that, I think they are doing alright. I guess people are disappointed mainly because the improvements made in Acura cars are not as obvious.
I guess I held Acura to much higher standards, and they just didn't meet my (and many others on this board, for example) expectations as to where the brand should have been today. Aside from our differing point of views on the exterior design of the car, I agree with you about most else you mentioned. I just don't think that their alright right now.. Acura should be much further along than where they are, and its a big disappointment to see them wallowing in mediocrity when they should be on par with a brand like Audi at the very least.
For example, is it right that Hyundai, an econo-brand just 6-7 years ago is offering a flagship-like v8 RWD sedan today, while Acura is still without one?
Of course I picked out just one example to compare and am not comparing both brands as a whole (Acura's luxury product in general is far more developed today than is Hyundai's) but shouldn't Acura have done something like this to further establish them as a serious Luxo brand? Who knows where Hyundai will be in 5-10 years if they continue @this pace...
Just some food for thought.
Congrats on the hybrid Acura. Woopty doo.
01-17-2010, 07:48 AM
#2403
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
I think Honda at one point, as mentioned by many others already, didn't quite know what to do with Acura. As we all know, they tried to become tier-1. They worked on that for a few years, then suddenly the economy crashed, and then the emission regulations just got tougher. The whole V8 thing and halo sports car don't make as much business sense all of a sudden. They want to establish themselves as a green luxury car maker. Yet you can see that some of their vehicles are not so green because of the previous tier-1 goal. I don't know how they will do. But the good thing is that it's a relatively new idea. Heck, even a lot of people here think green luxury is a stupid idea. Time will tell if that will work.
Hyundai on the other hand, is a Korean company (obviously). It makes business sense for them to build the Genesis and Equus. Due to the currency exchange rate, and the increasing labour costs, Hyundai finds that it's harder to make money off economy cars. To get higher profit margin, they need to sell more expensive cars. But they don't want to spend big bucks in establishing a subsidiary brand. So they have these new big luxury V8 RWD sedans.
Hyundai on the other hand, is a Korean company (obviously). It makes business sense for them to build the Genesis and Equus. Due to the currency exchange rate, and the increasing labour costs, Hyundai finds that it's harder to make money off economy cars. To get higher profit margin, they need to sell more expensive cars. But they don't want to spend big bucks in establishing a subsidiary brand. So they have these new big luxury V8 RWD sedans.
01-17-2010, 09:45 AM
#2404
Honda CEO Takanobu Ito announces that Acura will add a hybrid
During the unveiling of the CR-Z at the Detroit Auto Show, Honda CEO Takanobu Ito announced that Acura will be adding a hybrid drivetrain to its models. Ito gave no further insights as to timing or which vehicles would get the systems, but it's safe to speculate that the TSX and TL sedans would be the first recipients of the new system. However, when we spoke to Ito last fall in Japan, he did say that Honda was developing a hybrid system suitable for larger vehicles. It's not clear how much it will differ from the architecture of the current IMA mild hybrid system used in the Civic, Insight and CR-Z, but we do expect the system to come equipped with lithium ion batteries from Honda's new partners at GS Yuasa. Make the jump for a copy of Ito's comments.
Source: http://www.autoblog.com/
During the unveiling of the CR-Z at the Detroit Auto Show, Honda CEO Takanobu Ito announced that Acura will be adding a hybrid drivetrain to its models. Ito gave no further insights as to timing or which vehicles would get the systems, but it's safe to speculate that the TSX and TL sedans would be the first recipients of the new system. However, when we spoke to Ito last fall in Japan, he did say that Honda was developing a hybrid system suitable for larger vehicles. It's not clear how much it will differ from the architecture of the current IMA mild hybrid system used in the Civic, Insight and CR-Z, but we do expect the system to come equipped with lithium ion batteries from Honda's new partners at GS Yuasa. Make the jump for a copy of Ito's comments.
Source: http://www.autoblog.com/
I have included Honda CEO Takanobu Ito's full remarks below.
PRESS RELEASE
2010 North American International Auto Show Remarks by Honda Motor Co., Ltd. President & CEO, Takanobu Ito; and American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Executive Vice President, John Mendel
Takanobu Ito
It's nice to be back in Detroit. I'm excited to be at the show this year as the entire industry continues to fight back against the difficult business conditions. Last year was the 50th anniversary of our business in America. And I want to begin by thanking our customers and the communities where we develop and build our products. This milestone would not have been possible without their support.
Ten years ago, I was working in Ohio at Honda R&D Americas on development of the first generation Acura MDX. This project led us to this Detroit show, because in 2001, our team was honored with the North American Truck of the Year award here at this show. I was also a member of the team that created the aluminum body of the original Acura NSX.
Last year, due to the business conditions and to focus on reducing CO2 emissions, we re-focused some of our product development resources. Now, I'm pleased to say that we will be adding hybrids to the Acura brand. And based on my history in developing several Acura products, I have strong confidence in our ability to advance the Acura brand.
As I look at the market today, at Honda, we have the advantage of being a very global company with strong operations worldwide, including the growing markets of China and Asia. Further, Honda has the advantage of three major business areas – including automobiles, motorcycles and power equipment products. Together, our global makeup and great product diversity provide us strength and flexibility in difficult times, helping us manage the ups and downs of any one market or product segment, while keeping Honda in the black financially.
Our three business lines also make us the leading engine producer in the world. This has provided Honda with tremendous expertise in the area of power plant technology but also a deep sense of responsibility to advance technology in order to reduce CO2 emissions that contribute to global warming.
For engineers, this is perhaps the most challenging time in the history of the auto industry. At Honda, our focus is on being at the very forefront in the area of environment and energy technologies. And we have taken up the challenge to reduce CO2 emissions through the advancement of various electromotive technologies.
We understand electric vehicle technology as well as anyone. Honda developed the EV Plus electric vehicle in the 1990s and leased it to individual customers in California. Now, we are conducting research on a short-distance battery electric vehicle as a "city commuter car." Battery technology continues to be a barrier to mass market use. But we're studying the U.S. market with a view to introducing this commuter car in the future.
We continue to believe that a fuel cell electric vehicle is the ultimate solution to reduce CO2 emissions. A fuel cell car IS a full electric vehicle. But rather than use electricity from the grid, a fuel cell vehicle generates electricity on board and refills more quickly. The development cost must come down and there must be a major expansion of the hydrogen fueling infrastructure. But make no mistake. As a vehicle, the Honda FCX Clarity is ready now. Further, Honda is unique in making long-term investments to develop the refueling infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles.
This month, we will begin operation of a next-generation solar hydrogen station at our Los Angeles R&D center. This compact system was designed for daily home refueling of a fuel cell electric vehicle. Honda engineers were able to eliminate the compressor entirely to greatly reduce the size of the system to fit in the user's garage. The potential of a solar hydrogen station is one reason a fuel cell electric vehicle is the ultimate eco-car – the best path to reduce CO2.
But in the near term, the most important approach to cut CO2 emissions is expanding the use of hybrid electric vehicles. To increase the opportunity for more customers to choose a hybrid we must be able to meet different needs with family, luxury and sporty hybrid vehicles. We will apply hybrid systems which are compact, lightweight and affordable to a wider range of products in the near future.
It won't be easy to create fun and affordable products that achieve a dramatic reduction in CO2. But we embrace this challenge. Honda is a company that loves creating new things for people. We are working in a comprehensive way dedicated to research and development of next-generation technologies in every field, to create products that bring joy to our customers and lead the way in reducing CO2 emissions.
My first assignment in the U.S. came in the early 1980s. I was a young engineer, developing the chassis for the first generation Honda CRX. You might remember it as the "pocket rocket". I remember CRX as a vehicle that demonstrated that a car can be both sporty and fuel efficient.
Times have changed, but the idea of developing vehicles that are both fun to drive and fuel efficient is alive and well.
Today, it is my pleasure to introduce, for the first time, the production version of a new sport hybrid car that further demonstrates the potential of the Honda hybrid system and our commitment to offer both fun and fuel efficiency in one dynamic package. Thank you.
Source: http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/13/h...-add-a-hybrid/
01-17-2010, 04:11 PM
#2406
Punk Rocker
Anytime I hear somebody bring up CO2 emissions I automatically tune them out. I'm so sick of this "war" on CO2. The amount my car emits doesn't matter to the atmosphere any more than if I fart on a windy day...
01-18-2010, 07:49 AM
#2407
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
"...but now it is official: the EU has new CO2 limits for cars. The numbers remain the same: automakers will have to sell an array of cars that produce an average of 130 g/km in 2015. This limit will be gradually implemented: 65 percent of the fleet should be compliant in 2012, 75 percent in 2013, 80 percent in 2014 and 100 percent in 2015..."
http://green.autoblog.com/2008/12/18...-industry-ask/
I guess they don't have much choice.
http://green.autoblog.com/2008/12/18...-industry-ask/
I guess they don't have much choice.
01-18-2010, 08:31 AM
#2408
Senior Moderator
01-20-2010, 08:06 PM
#2409
<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v172/Littlearthquakes/?action=view¤t=AcuraGL3.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v172/Littlearthquakes/AcuraGL3.jpg" border="0" alt="Acura"></a>
01-21-2010, 04:19 AM
#2410
i just don't get the Acura designers. they dont know how to finish a product. if i could do this, using their design language, why can't they? The power plenum grille is just a fiaso. There are so many other ways to make a 5 sided grille look good and they can't even do that.
<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v172/Littlearthquakes/?action=view¤t=AcuraGL3.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v172/Littlearthquakes/AcuraGL3.jpg" border="0" alt="Acura"></a>
<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v172/Littlearthquakes/?action=view¤t=AcuraGL3.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v172/Littlearthquakes/AcuraGL3.jpg" border="0" alt="Acura"></a>
The new Opel Insignia?
01-21-2010, 08:23 AM
#2412
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Somewhere out there
Age: 46
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-21-2010, 01:48 PM
#2413
Senior Moderator
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/21/r...id-powertrain/
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...M04/301189931#
2011 sounds too soon. And with this statement...
I wouldn't expect anything before 2012.
The TSX is already 3600+lbs. It frightens me to think what a Hybrid version will weigh.
Closely following Honda CEO Takanobu Ito's admission at the Detroit Auto Show earlier this month that the Acura brand would soon jump head-first into the deep end of the hybrid waters comes a report from Automotive News suggesting that the entry-level TSX sedan would be the first such model from Honda's luxury brand so equipped.
AN's source is an unnamed Acura dealer who says the hybrid technology will grace the TSX's engine bay starting in 2011. TSX not your cup of tea? Fret not. John Mendel, American Honda Motor Co. executive vice president for auto sales, says that there will be more Acura hybrid models to follow – though, for what it's worth, there won't be any V8 engines any time soon.
Ironically in light of Acura's recent addition of giant metal beaks, company spokesman Gary Robinson adds, "The idea of the big, bad luxury sedan with the shiniest grille has become a little uncouth." Robinson adds that Acura isn't in the business of "making compromises," insinuating that future cars from the automaker will combine fuel efficiency with appropriate performance and luxury.
AN's source is an unnamed Acura dealer who says the hybrid technology will grace the TSX's engine bay starting in 2011. TSX not your cup of tea? Fret not. John Mendel, American Honda Motor Co. executive vice president for auto sales, says that there will be more Acura hybrid models to follow – though, for what it's worth, there won't be any V8 engines any time soon.
Ironically in light of Acura's recent addition of giant metal beaks, company spokesman Gary Robinson adds, "The idea of the big, bad luxury sedan with the shiniest grille has become a little uncouth." Robinson adds that Acura isn't in the business of "making compromises," insinuating that future cars from the automaker will combine fuel efficiency with appropriate performance and luxury.
DETROIT -- Acura dealers grieving over the cancellation of plans for V-8s and rear-wheel-drive vehicles may be heartened by the addition of hybrids to their lineup.
Honda Motor Co. CEO Takanobu Ito confirmed that the luxury brand will get hybrid variants. The company declined to give a time frame or say which models will get the technology.
An Acura dealer who spoke on condition of anonymity said a hybrid version of the TSX sedan is planned for the 2011 model year and two other hybrid models will follow soon after.
During an interview at the Detroit auto show, Ito said Honda has yet to complete development of a hybrid system for large vehicles.
John Mendel, American Honda Motor Co. executive vice president for auto sales, said the plan for Acura hybrids "has been around for a while." He said it was "not a quid pro quo" for losing V-8 and rear-drive vehicles that had been promised to dealers at a national meeting two years ago.
Honda executives in Japan had agreed to challenge top-tier luxury brands with V-8 and rear-drive models. But the company scuttled those plans after the economic crisis that began in the fall of 2008.
Mendel declined to give technical details or to say which vehicles would have hybrid variants, but he did say, "There will be more than one."
Using hybrids is appealing to Acura, spokesman Gary Robinson said.
"The idea of the big, bad luxury sedan with the shiniest grille has become a little uncouth," Robinson said. He noted that the Lexus RX 400h has sold well and that luxury customers are lining up for the $87,900 Fisker Karma hybrid sedan and $109,000 Tesla electric Roadster.
Robinson said Acura hasn't decided whether to use hybrid technology only to improve fuel economy or also to use electric motors to boost performance.
"Luxury is not about making compromises," he said. "The key component with the Honda [brand] hybrid has been cost, but with a luxury car we have more options."
Read more: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...#ixzz0dHItGMaH
Honda Motor Co. CEO Takanobu Ito confirmed that the luxury brand will get hybrid variants. The company declined to give a time frame or say which models will get the technology.
An Acura dealer who spoke on condition of anonymity said a hybrid version of the TSX sedan is planned for the 2011 model year and two other hybrid models will follow soon after.
During an interview at the Detroit auto show, Ito said Honda has yet to complete development of a hybrid system for large vehicles.
John Mendel, American Honda Motor Co. executive vice president for auto sales, said the plan for Acura hybrids "has been around for a while." He said it was "not a quid pro quo" for losing V-8 and rear-drive vehicles that had been promised to dealers at a national meeting two years ago.
Honda executives in Japan had agreed to challenge top-tier luxury brands with V-8 and rear-drive models. But the company scuttled those plans after the economic crisis that began in the fall of 2008.
Mendel declined to give technical details or to say which vehicles would have hybrid variants, but he did say, "There will be more than one."
Using hybrids is appealing to Acura, spokesman Gary Robinson said.
"The idea of the big, bad luxury sedan with the shiniest grille has become a little uncouth," Robinson said. He noted that the Lexus RX 400h has sold well and that luxury customers are lining up for the $87,900 Fisker Karma hybrid sedan and $109,000 Tesla electric Roadster.
Robinson said Acura hasn't decided whether to use hybrid technology only to improve fuel economy or also to use electric motors to boost performance.
"Luxury is not about making compromises," he said. "The key component with the Honda [brand] hybrid has been cost, but with a luxury car we have more options."
Read more: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...#ixzz0dHItGMaH
2011 sounds too soon. And with this statement...
Robinson said Acura hasn't decided whether to use hybrid technology only to improve fuel economy or also to use electric motors to boost performance.
The TSX is already 3600+lbs. It frightens me to think what a Hybrid version will weigh.
Last edited by dom; 01-21-2010 at 01:53 PM.
01-21-2010, 02:09 PM
#2414
The sizzle in the Steak
...and to think we could have had a diesel 
01-21-2010, 02:56 PM
#2416
Hmmm, Dealers are usually the last to know such things. Maybe the dealer read it on the internet and then got quoted by another internet site and viola!
Dom, I agree, 2011 sounds kinda close. Its supposed to be a "new or revised model every 12 months" and with the ZDX now, and the Wagon for next Fall, that would make the next cycle a 2011 intro as a 2012 model. Unless... the Wagon is going to the the Hybrid! Bam! We have a new rumor!
Dom, I agree, 2011 sounds kinda close. Its supposed to be a "new or revised model every 12 months" and with the ZDX now, and the Wagon for next Fall, that would make the next cycle a 2011 intro as a 2012 model. Unless... the Wagon is going to the the Hybrid! Bam! We have a new rumor!
01-21-2010, 03:07 PM
#2418
01-21-2010, 04:30 PM
#2419
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Somewhere out there
Age: 46
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if Acura should do this. They could end up embarrassing themselves like Honda has done with it's 2 latest hybrids. A supposed TSX hybrid would have to go up against the HS and if Acura can't get the gas mileage to match the HS, then their once again going to be the butt of too many jokes.
01-21-2010, 04:58 PM
#2421
Not sure if Acura should do this. They could end up embarrassing themselves like Honda has done with it's 2 latest hybrids. A supposed TSX hybrid would have to go up against the HS and if Acura can't get the gas mileage to match the HS, then their once again going to be the butt of too many jokes.
01-21-2010, 06:39 PM
#2423
Race Director
Again, folks at Honda have been drinking too much of the tree-hugger's cool aid. Take a 3500 lb TSX add the hybrid weight/complexity/cost and you end up with what - an overweight car that's gained maybe 3MPG? 
01-21-2010, 07:44 PM
#2425
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Somewhere out there
Age: 46
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup...
Honda doesn't have the technology right now to go after the big boys in the hybrid market. BUT they have a golden opportunity to be the one and only Japanese company to sell diesels in the US. That's a niche that could be HUGE for them. Imagine Honda reliability with diesel efficiency!
They need to leave hybrids to Toyota, and invest in getting diesels here pronto.
Honda doesn't have the technology right now to go after the big boys in the hybrid market. BUT they have a golden opportunity to be the one and only Japanese company to sell diesels in the US. That's a niche that could be HUGE for them. Imagine Honda reliability with diesel efficiency!
They need to leave hybrids to Toyota, and invest in getting diesels here pronto.
01-21-2010, 07:49 PM
#2426
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Somewhere out there
Age: 46
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-22-2010, 03:50 AM
#2428
Not sure if Acura should do this. They could end up embarrassing themselves like Honda has done with it's 2 latest hybrids. A supposed TSX hybrid would have to go up against the HS and if Acura can't get the gas mileage to match the HS, then their once again going to be the butt of too many jokes.
Acura hasn't a V8 engine on the pipe, then what to do?
an hybrid technology + standard V6 or V4, can guarantee (as in the Lexus GS450h for ex.) in the next generation of MDX-RL-TL and so on a significant growth in power (from 300 hp of the MDX to a 340-360) without compromising the actual fuel consuming.
01-22-2010, 08:21 AM
#2429
Senior Moderator
Agree, where the same gains could have been achieved with a diet to the car. Honda once again is trying to jump on the band wagon quickly with poor decisions. They change their minds so much they have lost site which direction they are traveling.
01-22-2010, 08:23 AM
#2430
Senior Moderator
I think many people got confused: I don't think that for Acura the aim is getting LESS fuel consuming.
Acura hasn't a V8 engine on the pipe, then what to do?
an hybrid technology + standard V6 or V4, can guarantee (as in the Lexus GS450h for ex.) in the next generation of MDX-RL-TL and so on a significant growth in power (from 300 hp of the MDX to a 340-360) without compromising the actual fuel consuming.
Acura hasn't a V8 engine on the pipe, then what to do?
an hybrid technology + standard V6 or V4, can guarantee (as in the Lexus GS450h for ex.) in the next generation of MDX-RL-TL and so on a significant growth in power (from 300 hp of the MDX to a 340-360) without compromising the actual fuel consuming.
01-22-2010, 08:34 AM
#2431
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Somewhere out there
Age: 46
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why can't Honda remember the failure of the Accord hybrid? Btw the GSh isn't selling well, so why does Acura need a version?
This is just more proof of the mismanagement going on at Honda/Acura. I also doubt that their hybrid system will add "that" much power. It'll add probably only 20-30 horsepower plus 200-300lbs of extra weight. They could have achieved even higher horsepower gains with less added weight by adding a turbo system.
Most of Ford's new cars with Ecoboost engines, get the same gas mileage as the non-Ecoboost versions of the car. Yet at the same time the engine has about 70-90hp more horsepower than the non-Ecoboost version.
Honda would have been better off making a system like that, if they wanted performance (and Ecoboost cars sell WAY BETTER than performance hybrids)
01-22-2010, 09:02 AM
#2432
Burning Brakes
Exactly.
Why can't Honda remember the failure of the Accord hybrid? Btw the GSh isn't selling well, so why does Acura need a version?
This is just more proof of the mismanagement going on at Honda/Acura. I also doubt that their hybrid system will add "that" much power. It'll add probably only 20-30 horsepower plus 200-300lbs of extra weight. They could have achieved even higher horsepower gains with less added weight by adding a turbo system.
Most of Ford's new cars with Ecoboost engines, get the same gas mileage as the non-Ecoboost versions of the car. Yet at the same time the engine has about 70-90hp more horsepower than the non-Ecoboost version.
Honda would have been better off making a system like that, if they wanted performance (and Ecoboost cars sell WAY BETTER than performance hybrids)
Why can't Honda remember the failure of the Accord hybrid? Btw the GSh isn't selling well, so why does Acura need a version?
This is just more proof of the mismanagement going on at Honda/Acura. I also doubt that their hybrid system will add "that" much power. It'll add probably only 20-30 horsepower plus 200-300lbs of extra weight. They could have achieved even higher horsepower gains with less added weight by adding a turbo system.
Most of Ford's new cars with Ecoboost engines, get the same gas mileage as the non-Ecoboost versions of the car. Yet at the same time the engine has about 70-90hp more horsepower than the non-Ecoboost version.
Honda would have been better off making a system like that, if they wanted performance (and Ecoboost cars sell WAY BETTER than performance hybrids)
01-22-2010, 09:09 AM
#2433
Senior Moderator
Exactly.
Why can't Honda remember the failure of the Accord hybrid? Btw the GSh isn't selling well, so why does Acura need a version?
This is just more proof of the mismanagement going on at Honda/Acura. I also doubt that their hybrid system will add "that" much power. It'll add probably only 20-30 horsepower plus 200-300lbs of extra weight. They could have achieved even higher horsepower gains with less added weight by adding a turbo system.
Most of Ford's new cars with Ecoboost engines, get the same gas mileage as the non-Ecoboost versions of the car. Yet at the same time the engine has about 70-90hp more horsepower than the non-Ecoboost version.
Honda would have been better off making a system like that, if they wanted performance (and Ecoboost cars sell WAY BETTER than performance hybrids)
Why can't Honda remember the failure of the Accord hybrid? Btw the GSh isn't selling well, so why does Acura need a version?
This is just more proof of the mismanagement going on at Honda/Acura. I also doubt that their hybrid system will add "that" much power. It'll add probably only 20-30 horsepower plus 200-300lbs of extra weight. They could have achieved even higher horsepower gains with less added weight by adding a turbo system.
Most of Ford's new cars with Ecoboost engines, get the same gas mileage as the non-Ecoboost versions of the car. Yet at the same time the engine has about 70-90hp more horsepower than the non-Ecoboost version.
Honda would have been better off making a system like that, if they wanted performance (and Ecoboost cars sell WAY BETTER than performance hybrids)
There is no reason other than the "Bandwagon" reason to have it. Acura is just "Trying" to be like Lexus in "saying" they have a hybrid. So far the added costs involved in making these systems as opposed to the returns just arent worth the cost. "IF" these systems were to yield a large improvement in mileage then sure, but they arent. There are better ways like BMW/Audi?Fords new Ecoboost motors of going turbo charged with smaller displacement motors to achieve high power yet return the mileage of the smaller motors, AND less weight complexity and cost.
01-24-2010, 04:16 PM
#2434
Suzuka Master
Exactly.
Most of Ford's new cars with Ecoboost engines, get the same gas mileage as the non-Ecoboost versions of the car. Yet at the same time the engine has about 70-90hp more horsepower than the non-Ecoboost version.
Honda would have been better off making a system like that, if they wanted performance (and Ecoboost cars sell WAY BETTER than performance hybrids)
Most of Ford's new cars with Ecoboost engines, get the same gas mileage as the non-Ecoboost versions of the car. Yet at the same time the engine has about 70-90hp more horsepower than the non-Ecoboost version.
Honda would have been better off making a system like that, if they wanted performance (and Ecoboost cars sell WAY BETTER than performance hybrids)
I for one hate having to choose between luxury and MPG, I have seen several HS250 here in ATL already there is a market for an economical luxury car. DO I like my TL AWD, sure, but do I need all that power NO! I would gladly trade some of the power for MPG or better yet as stated do like a 2.5 V6 with a turbo or something. I am fine with those that want the HP and pay for it, but there is a market for a sporty riding luxury car that is reasonable on MPG and not needing 300HP!
01-24-2010, 06:44 PM
#2435
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Somewhere out there
Age: 46
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, it appears even Hyundai is going this route with the new Sonata, they will be offering a TDI and a Hybrid later this year, and no V6 option for the new Sonata. I think while to many it may seem foolish now, you have to remmber 2 things, the new CAFE numbers need to be met and my guess is as the economy returns to normal we'll be seeing $4 Rgular gas rather quickly and find it to be the norm, and god forbid we have another storm in the gulf...
I for one hate having to choose between luxury and MPG, I have seen several HS250 here in ATL already there is a market for an economical luxury car. DO I like my TL AWD, sure, but do I need all that power NO! I would gladly trade some of the power for MPG or better yet as stated do like a 2.5 V6 with a turbo or something. I am fine with those that want the HP and pay for it, but there is a market for a sporty riding luxury car that is reasonable on MPG and not needing 300HP!
I for one hate having to choose between luxury and MPG, I have seen several HS250 here in ATL already there is a market for an economical luxury car. DO I like my TL AWD, sure, but do I need all that power NO! I would gladly trade some of the power for MPG or better yet as stated do like a 2.5 V6 with a turbo or something. I am fine with those that want the HP and pay for it, but there is a market for a sporty riding luxury car that is reasonable on MPG and not needing 300HP!
I really think that Lexus is going to do really great with the HS250, but even so I don't think Acura should follow, until they get a hybrid system thats not IMA.
Keith I don't know if you've driven an HS yet, but you should try one with the sporty "Touring" package. Handles better than an IS250 I've heard
. Another nice thing are the technologies available like LED headlights and stuff.
01-25-2010, 03:08 AM
#2436
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
I think one of our moderators, F23A4, has already pointed out that downsizing an engine and then add a turbo isn't all that effective when it comes to improving fuel efficiency. He posted this before:
It seems to me that these turbocharged engines are good at EPA testing though. Looking at the first comparison, 328i vs A4 2.0T Quattro. 328i is rated at 18/28mpg, while the A4 is rated at 21/27mpg. But according to the real-world numbers, the 328i gets better mileage (25mpg vs 23mpg). One would argue that the A4 has AWD. A 328xi would probably get 23mpg too. I don't really see any advantage there in terms of fuel efficiency. I'm not going to go on about the 0-60mph time as the time for the A4 2.0T varies quite a bit. I have seen as low as 5.7s and as high as 6.7s. The 328i has been very consistent at around 6s.
Then look at the Murano vs CX7. The VQ35 isn't known for fuel efficiency. Yet it's still significantly more efficient than the similar-sized CX7. The Murano is also faster. Also check out the S550 vs 750Li. Similar performance, similar fuel efficiency. I really don't see a SIGNIFICANT advantage in fuel efficiency with the use of turbo.
But how do we explain that the new 3.0T engine from Audi is so much more efficient than the 4.2 V8? Well, think about it. It's a new engine. That 4.2L engine is from 2003 or something. The 3.0T engine is brand new with the newest tech from Audi. So it shouldn't be surprising to see improvement in fuel efficiency. No, I'm not saying downsizing + boost is useless at all. All I'm saying is that there are also other improvements/upgrades that help improve fuel efficiency.
As for IMA, the real advantage is the city fuel mileage. Comparing to the Fit, the CR-Z is 8-9mpg more efficient (CRZ CVT vs Fit AT) according to EPA. Whether that's worth the extra $$ and complexity is another matter.
It seems to me that these turbocharged engines are good at EPA testing though. Looking at the first comparison, 328i vs A4 2.0T Quattro. 328i is rated at 18/28mpg, while the A4 is rated at 21/27mpg. But according to the real-world numbers, the 328i gets better mileage (25mpg vs 23mpg). One would argue that the A4 has AWD. A 328xi would probably get 23mpg too. I don't really see any advantage there in terms of fuel efficiency. I'm not going to go on about the 0-60mph time as the time for the A4 2.0T varies quite a bit. I have seen as low as 5.7s and as high as 6.7s. The 328i has been very consistent at around 6s.
Then look at the Murano vs CX7. The VQ35 isn't known for fuel efficiency. Yet it's still significantly more efficient than the similar-sized CX7. The Murano is also faster. Also check out the S550 vs 750Li. Similar performance, similar fuel efficiency. I really don't see a SIGNIFICANT advantage in fuel efficiency with the use of turbo.
But how do we explain that the new 3.0T engine from Audi is so much more efficient than the 4.2 V8? Well, think about it. It's a new engine. That 4.2L engine is from 2003 or something. The 3.0T engine is brand new with the newest tech from Audi. So it shouldn't be surprising to see improvement in fuel efficiency. No, I'm not saying downsizing + boost is useless at all. All I'm saying is that there are also other improvements/upgrades that help improve fuel efficiency.
As for IMA, the real advantage is the city fuel mileage. Comparing to the Fit, the CR-Z is 8-9mpg more efficient (CRZ CVT vs Fit AT) according to EPA. Whether that's worth the extra $$ and complexity is another matter.
01-25-2010, 08:10 AM
#2437
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
Someone said "most of Ford's new cars with Ecoboost engines, get the same gas mileage as the non-Ecoboost versions of the car;" so in order to verify this claim, I did a little search.
Well, looking at the car and driver's website, here are some facts.
Ford Taurus Limited:
Engine: 3.5L V6 PORT INJECTION
Power: 263hp
Torque: 249lbft
Drivetrain: FWD 6AT
Weight: 4097lb
EPA: 18/28mpg
C/D observed mileage: 23mpg
Ford Taurus SHO:
Engine: 3.5L V6 DIRECT INJECTION Turbo
Power: 365hp
Torque: 350lbft
Drivetrain: AWD 6AT
Weight: 4346lb
EPA: 17/25mpg
C/D observed mileage: 16mpg
Go to their website and verify the above yourself. That's over 40% difference in real world fuel efficiency. Yes, the SHO is 250lb heavier and AWD. And of course, someone will bring up the excuse that these tests were not conducted at the same time and they could be driven differently. But still, 40%+ is a pretty huge different, far from "get the same gas mileage." Also note that the non-turbo version does NOT have direct injection, which typically accounts for ~10% gain in terms of fuel efficiency.
Now take a look at the Audi A4.
A4 3.2 Quattro:
Engine: 3.2L V6 DIRECT INJECTION
Power: 265hp
Torque: 243lbft
Drivetrain: AWD 6AT
Weight: 3860lb
EPA: 18/26pg
C/D observed mileage: 19mpg
A4 2.0T Quattro:
Engine: 2.0L I4 DIRECT INJECTION Turbo
Power: 211hp
Torque: 258lbft
Drivetrain: AWD 6AT
Weight: 3686lb
EPA: 21/27pg
C/D observed mileage: 22mpg
In this case, the turbo version does get better fuel mileage than the V6 model, about 15% better. But, note that the V6 model is 200lb heavier (part of that is due to the V6). Also note that the V6 engine is older than the 2.0T engine. Then take a look at the performance numbers. While both of them would hit 60mph in 5.7s (and that's the fastest time I have seen with the 2.0T, slowest I have seen is 6.7s for the 2.0T), the 3.2L is quite a bit faster after that. For instance, there's a 6mph difference in trap speeds between the two. If you know a little bit about drag racing, you know that's a huge difference. In fact, the 370Z is also 6mph faster than the TL SH-AWD. In this case, is there any real advantage of using turbo? Well, for city driving, may be. You get the extra low end torque while being just as fast up 60mph or so. Also the lighter front end should help handling too (even though the 3.2L model pulls higher g on the skidpad). On the other hand, the 3.2L is faster in other areas, and probably smoother too. I don't see a major advantage using the turbo engine or using the 3.2L engine. Perhaps that's why Audi scraped the 3.2L engine. They can market the car as having "V6 power while being a 4 cyl" and people would automatically think that's more efficient. And I think that works very well, at least on this forum, it works.
Well, looking at the car and driver's website, here are some facts.
Ford Taurus Limited:
Engine: 3.5L V6 PORT INJECTION
Power: 263hp
Torque: 249lbft
Drivetrain: FWD 6AT
Weight: 4097lb
EPA: 18/28mpg
C/D observed mileage: 23mpg
Ford Taurus SHO:
Engine: 3.5L V6 DIRECT INJECTION Turbo
Power: 365hp
Torque: 350lbft
Drivetrain: AWD 6AT
Weight: 4346lb
EPA: 17/25mpg
C/D observed mileage: 16mpg
Go to their website and verify the above yourself. That's over 40% difference in real world fuel efficiency. Yes, the SHO is 250lb heavier and AWD. And of course, someone will bring up the excuse that these tests were not conducted at the same time and they could be driven differently. But still, 40%+ is a pretty huge different, far from "get the same gas mileage." Also note that the non-turbo version does NOT have direct injection, which typically accounts for ~10% gain in terms of fuel efficiency.
Now take a look at the Audi A4.
A4 3.2 Quattro:
Engine: 3.2L V6 DIRECT INJECTION
Power: 265hp
Torque: 243lbft
Drivetrain: AWD 6AT
Weight: 3860lb
EPA: 18/26pg
C/D observed mileage: 19mpg
A4 2.0T Quattro:
Engine: 2.0L I4 DIRECT INJECTION Turbo
Power: 211hp
Torque: 258lbft
Drivetrain: AWD 6AT
Weight: 3686lb
EPA: 21/27pg
C/D observed mileage: 22mpg
In this case, the turbo version does get better fuel mileage than the V6 model, about 15% better. But, note that the V6 model is 200lb heavier (part of that is due to the V6). Also note that the V6 engine is older than the 2.0T engine. Then take a look at the performance numbers. While both of them would hit 60mph in 5.7s (and that's the fastest time I have seen with the 2.0T, slowest I have seen is 6.7s for the 2.0T), the 3.2L is quite a bit faster after that. For instance, there's a 6mph difference in trap speeds between the two. If you know a little bit about drag racing, you know that's a huge difference. In fact, the 370Z is also 6mph faster than the TL SH-AWD. In this case, is there any real advantage of using turbo? Well, for city driving, may be. You get the extra low end torque while being just as fast up 60mph or so. Also the lighter front end should help handling too (even though the 3.2L model pulls higher g on the skidpad). On the other hand, the 3.2L is faster in other areas, and probably smoother too. I don't see a major advantage using the turbo engine or using the 3.2L engine. Perhaps that's why Audi scraped the 3.2L engine. They can market the car as having "V6 power while being a 4 cyl" and people would automatically think that's more efficient. And I think that works very well, at least on this forum, it works.
01-25-2010, 08:44 AM
#2438
Burning Brakes
The reason for using a turbo is not so much because they're looking for better fuel economy than an NA engine. What they are able to do, however, is potentially offer much better performance for a given engine size. In turn, they can make the engine smaller so that it weighs less, returns better overall fuel economy, improves weight distribution and handling, etc. Look at the BMW's V8 engine: the 4.4L twin turbo makes noticeably more power than the 5.5L NA while returning essentially identical fuel economy. For the engine to make that kind of power without a turbo would likely also mean reduced fuel economy.
01-25-2010, 09:40 AM
#2439
Senior Moderator
....
I for one hate having to choose between luxury and MPG, I have seen several HS250 here in ATL already there is a market for an economical luxury car. DO I like my TL AWD, sure, but do I need all that power NO! I would gladly trade some of the power for MPG or better yet as stated do like a 2.5 V6 with a turbo or something. I am fine with those that want the HP and pay for it, but there is a market for a sporty riding luxury car that is reasonable on MPG and not needing 300HP!
I for one hate having to choose between luxury and MPG, I have seen several HS250 here in ATL already there is a market for an economical luxury car. DO I like my TL AWD, sure, but do I need all that power NO! I would gladly trade some of the power for MPG or better yet as stated do like a 2.5 V6 with a turbo or something. I am fine with those that want the HP and pay for it, but there is a market for a sporty riding luxury car that is reasonable on MPG and not needing 300HP!
I don't know how sporty the Lexus HS is (I doubt there's much sport to it), but it's more along the lines of what I'm looking for. It's just too expensive and Corolla-looking.
I would love an AWD hybrid (non-IMA) TSX wagon please.
01-25-2010, 11:09 AM
#2440
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Somewhere out there
Age: 46
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think one of our moderators, F23A4, has already pointed out that downsizing an engine and then add a turbo isn't all that effective when it comes to improving fuel efficiency. He posted this before:
It seems to me that these turbocharged engines are good at EPA testing though. Looking at the first comparison, 328i vs A4 2.0T Quattro. 328i is rated at 18/28mpg, while the A4 is rated at 21/27mpg. But according to the real-world numbers, the 328i gets better mileage (25mpg vs 23mpg). One would argue that the A4 has AWD. A 328xi would probably get 23mpg too. I don't really see any advantage there in terms of fuel efficiency. I'm not going to go on about the 0-60mph time as the time for the A4 2.0T varies quite a bit. I have seen as low as 5.7s and as high as 6.7s. The 328i has been very consistent at around 6s.
Then look at the Murano vs CX7. The VQ35 isn't known for fuel efficiency. Yet it's still significantly more efficient than the similar-sized CX7. The Murano is also faster. Also check out the S550 vs 750Li. Similar performance, similar fuel efficiency. I really don't see a SIGNIFICANT advantage in fuel efficiency with the use of turbo.
But how do we explain that the new 3.0T engine from Audi is so much more efficient than the 4.2 V8? Well, think about it. It's a new engine. That 4.2L engine is from 2003 or something. The 3.0T engine is brand new with the newest tech from Audi. So it shouldn't be surprising to see improvement in fuel efficiency. No, I'm not saying downsizing + boost is useless at all. All I'm saying is that there are also other improvements/upgrades that help improve fuel efficiency.
As for IMA, the real advantage is the city fuel mileage. Comparing to the Fit, the CR-Z is 8-9mpg more efficient (CRZ CVT vs Fit AT) according to EPA. Whether that's worth the extra $$ and complexity is another matter.
It seems to me that these turbocharged engines are good at EPA testing though. Looking at the first comparison, 328i vs A4 2.0T Quattro. 328i is rated at 18/28mpg, while the A4 is rated at 21/27mpg. But according to the real-world numbers, the 328i gets better mileage (25mpg vs 23mpg). One would argue that the A4 has AWD. A 328xi would probably get 23mpg too. I don't really see any advantage there in terms of fuel efficiency. I'm not going to go on about the 0-60mph time as the time for the A4 2.0T varies quite a bit. I have seen as low as 5.7s and as high as 6.7s. The 328i has been very consistent at around 6s.
Then look at the Murano vs CX7. The VQ35 isn't known for fuel efficiency. Yet it's still significantly more efficient than the similar-sized CX7. The Murano is also faster. Also check out the S550 vs 750Li. Similar performance, similar fuel efficiency. I really don't see a SIGNIFICANT advantage in fuel efficiency with the use of turbo.
But how do we explain that the new 3.0T engine from Audi is so much more efficient than the 4.2 V8? Well, think about it. It's a new engine. That 4.2L engine is from 2003 or something. The 3.0T engine is brand new with the newest tech from Audi. So it shouldn't be surprising to see improvement in fuel efficiency. No, I'm not saying downsizing + boost is useless at all. All I'm saying is that there are also other improvements/upgrades that help improve fuel efficiency.
As for IMA, the real advantage is the city fuel mileage. Comparing to the Fit, the CR-Z is 8-9mpg more efficient (CRZ CVT vs Fit AT) according to EPA. Whether that's worth the extra $$ and complexity is another matter.
.For the A4 apples to apples should be compared. The FWD A4 gets 23mpg city and 30mpg highway and 26mpg combined. That's better than most family sedans and the A4 is much faster and much heavier than most family sedans. As C&D said the RWD BMW 3 series gets 18/28 which is much worse than the A4.
Again for the Mazda CX-7 versus Murano C&D's numbers are skewed. A FWD Murano gets 18/23 and a FWD CX-7 gets 18/25. Which is slightly better than the Murano's numbers.
EPA numbers are what matters, not real world. When CAFE numbers are calculated the government is not going to take C&D's word for it when it comes to fuel economy. Turbo engines do better on the EPA test and thats what every manufactures goal is.
Someone said "most of Ford's new cars with Ecoboost engines, get the same gas mileage as the non-Ecoboost versions of the car;" so in order to verify this claim, I did a little search.
Well, looking at the car and driver's website, here are some facts.
Ford Taurus Limited:
Engine: 3.5L V6 PORT INJECTION
Power: 263hp
Torque: 249lbft
Drivetrain: FWD 6AT
Weight: 4097lb
EPA: 18/28mpg
C/D observed mileage: 23mpg
Ford Taurus SHO:
Engine: 3.5L V6 DIRECT INJECTION Turbo
Power: 365hp
Torque: 350lbft
Drivetrain: AWD 6AT
Weight: 4346lb
EPA: 17/25mpg
C/D observed mileage: 16mpg
Go to their website and verify the above yourself. That's over 40% difference in real world fuel efficiency. Yes, the SHO is 250lb heavier and AWD. And of course, someone will bring up the excuse that these tests were not conducted at the same time and they could be driven differently. But still, 40%+ is a pretty huge different, far from "get the same gas mileage." Also note that the non-turbo version does NOT have direct injection, which typically accounts for ~10% gain in terms of fuel efficiency.
Now take a look at the Audi A4.
A4 3.2 Quattro:
Engine: 3.2L V6 DIRECT INJECTION
Power: 265hp
Torque: 243lbft
Drivetrain: AWD 6AT
Weight: 3860lb
EPA: 18/26pg
C/D observed mileage: 19mpg
A4 2.0T Quattro:
Engine: 2.0L I4 DIRECT INJECTION Turbo
Power: 211hp
Torque: 258lbft
Drivetrain: AWD 6AT
Weight: 3686lb
EPA: 21/27pg
C/D observed mileage: 22mpg
In this case, the turbo version does get better fuel mileage than the V6 model, about 15% better. But, note that the V6 model is 200lb heavier (part of that is due to the V6). Also note that the V6 engine is older than the 2.0T engine. Then take a look at the performance numbers. While both of them would hit 60mph in 5.7s (and that's the fastest time I have seen with the 2.0T, slowest I have seen is 6.7s for the 2.0T), the 3.2L is quite a bit faster after that. For instance, there's a 6mph difference in trap speeds between the two. If you know a little bit about drag racing, you know that's a huge difference. In fact, the 370Z is also 6mph faster than the TL SH-AWD. In this case, is there any real advantage of using turbo? Well, for city driving, may be. You get the extra low end torque while being just as fast up 60mph or so. Also the lighter front end should help handling too (even though the 3.2L model pulls higher g on the skidpad). On the other hand, the 3.2L is faster in other areas, and probably smoother too. I don't see a major advantage using the turbo engine or using the 3.2L engine. Perhaps that's why Audi scraped the 3.2L engine. They can market the car as having "V6 power while being a 4 cyl" and people would automatically think that's more efficient. And I think that works very well, at least on this forum, it works.
Well, looking at the car and driver's website, here are some facts.
Ford Taurus Limited:
Engine: 3.5L V6 PORT INJECTION
Power: 263hp
Torque: 249lbft
Drivetrain: FWD 6AT
Weight: 4097lb
EPA: 18/28mpg
C/D observed mileage: 23mpg
Ford Taurus SHO:
Engine: 3.5L V6 DIRECT INJECTION Turbo
Power: 365hp
Torque: 350lbft
Drivetrain: AWD 6AT
Weight: 4346lb
EPA: 17/25mpg
C/D observed mileage: 16mpg
Go to their website and verify the above yourself. That's over 40% difference in real world fuel efficiency. Yes, the SHO is 250lb heavier and AWD. And of course, someone will bring up the excuse that these tests were not conducted at the same time and they could be driven differently. But still, 40%+ is a pretty huge different, far from "get the same gas mileage." Also note that the non-turbo version does NOT have direct injection, which typically accounts for ~10% gain in terms of fuel efficiency.
Now take a look at the Audi A4.
A4 3.2 Quattro:
Engine: 3.2L V6 DIRECT INJECTION
Power: 265hp
Torque: 243lbft
Drivetrain: AWD 6AT
Weight: 3860lb
EPA: 18/26pg
C/D observed mileage: 19mpg
A4 2.0T Quattro:
Engine: 2.0L I4 DIRECT INJECTION Turbo
Power: 211hp
Torque: 258lbft
Drivetrain: AWD 6AT
Weight: 3686lb
EPA: 21/27pg
C/D observed mileage: 22mpg
In this case, the turbo version does get better fuel mileage than the V6 model, about 15% better. But, note that the V6 model is 200lb heavier (part of that is due to the V6). Also note that the V6 engine is older than the 2.0T engine. Then take a look at the performance numbers. While both of them would hit 60mph in 5.7s (and that's the fastest time I have seen with the 2.0T, slowest I have seen is 6.7s for the 2.0T), the 3.2L is quite a bit faster after that. For instance, there's a 6mph difference in trap speeds between the two. If you know a little bit about drag racing, you know that's a huge difference. In fact, the 370Z is also 6mph faster than the TL SH-AWD. In this case, is there any real advantage of using turbo? Well, for city driving, may be. You get the extra low end torque while being just as fast up 60mph or so. Also the lighter front end should help handling too (even though the 3.2L model pulls higher g on the skidpad). On the other hand, the 3.2L is faster in other areas, and probably smoother too. I don't see a major advantage using the turbo engine or using the 3.2L engine. Perhaps that's why Audi scraped the 3.2L engine. They can market the car as having "V6 power while being a 4 cyl" and people would automatically think that's more efficient. And I think that works very well, at least on this forum, it works.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx...Field=Findacar
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx...Field=Findacar
In turn, they can make the engine smaller so that it weighs less, returns better overall fuel economy, improves weight distribution and handling, etc. Look at the BMW's V8 engine: the 4.4L twin turbo makes noticeably more power than the 5.5L NA while returning essentially identical fuel economy. For the engine to make that kind of power without a turbo would likely also mean reduced fuel economy.