Honda: Development and Technology News
04-16-2006, 12:02 PM
#404
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 56
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
1) I don't know what it is. I know there was oil burning problems in earlier generations, but currently there is NO evidence of oil burning problems in the current M45, and this car has been out over a year now.
2) You brought up a "certain" problem. Why should it be anyone else's responsibility to disclose something YOU brought up?
2) You brought up a "certain" problem. Why should it be anyone else's responsibility to disclose something YOU brought up?
Finally you say it, although you try to minimize the issue in your phrasing "oil burning problems." The oil burning led to destruction of the engine, and was an indicator of a much more serious issue.
If you bought your M45 with full knowledge of that issue, then you accepted some risk. And that's fine. Just don't cover-up concerns and issues of that car as if it was the obvious choice.
How many miles have current owners racked up in 1 year or less? It's too early to tell. Again, you chose to use "lawyer" speak when you say "no evidence." The phrase means very little.
04-16-2006, 12:18 PM
#405
GEEZER
Cog...you have a PM.
04-16-2006, 12:19 PM
#406
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 56
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Sarlacc
What kind of 2nd grader mind games are you into here buddy. Shit or get off the pot. No cares about who you are or what you think on this board. And your ascinine behaviour only further fuels that ideal.
How much do I have pay a Mega Mod to permenantly just this jackass up?
How much do I have pay a Mega Mod to permenantly just this jackass up?
Please try not to enter discussions or arguments in the 11th hour without researching the history of that conversation.
04-16-2006, 12:23 PM
#407
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Here's one owner:
And then there are the countless FX45 owners who haven't had any problems with later model FX's, and there are some who have had this problem, but nowhere NEAR the scale of the honda tranny problem.
So how am I minimizing this problem calling it an "oil burning problem"?
But anyway, what's this "much more serious issue" that you speak of?
Just passed my 1 Year Anniversary. 16,000 miles. 4 Oil Changes... However.... my dealership offers drop off service at the airport negotiated with an airport park & ride lot. So the savings in parking has offset the cost of the 4 oil changes!
So I am at 4 Oil Changes with dealership... No warranty work... and up a little on the money!
The car has been flawless.
So I am at 4 Oil Changes with dealership... No warranty work... and up a little on the money!
The car has been flawless.
So how am I minimizing this problem calling it an "oil burning problem"?
But anyway, what's this "much more serious issue" that you speak of?
04-16-2006, 12:26 PM
#408
GEEZER
Originally Posted by Cog Neuro Sci
Hey ballboy, get you and your balls out of here and back into the RX8 thread where you can back up your friends who make erroneous statements about the RX8 or INITIATE personal attacks.
Please try not to enter discussions or arguments in the 11th hour without researching the history of that conversation.
Please try not to enter discussions or arguments in the 11th hour without researching the history of that conversation.
04-16-2006, 12:30 PM
#410
GEEZER
Cog, when and if you comeback...please try to be a shade more polite. Enjoy your two days off.
04-16-2006, 04:09 PM
#412
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,128
Received 4,824 Likes
on
2,571 Posts
Originally Posted by 1killercls
Heya numbnuts...you just bought yourself a couple days off.
If that dude is 38 then I'm fucking typing from the womb right now.
04-17-2006, 06:47 AM
#413
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
yeah, so we were talking about the honda v6/v8?
where were these rumors coming from? and are these new engines paired with new platforms (RWD or otherwise)?
Side question: Anyone know if the new volvo s80 V8 is mounted transversely or longitudinally?
where were these rumors coming from? and are these new engines paired with new platforms (RWD or otherwise)?
Side question: Anyone know if the new volvo s80 V8 is mounted transversely or longitudinally?
04-17-2006, 07:37 AM
#415
misanthropist
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Tyson's Corner
Age: 43
Posts: 1,666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Sarlacc
If that dude is 38 then I'm fucking typing from the womb right now.
that was a fun catch up read...
until honda puts some money into making a strong v6/v8 a true RWD, or at least rwd biased awd vehicle, I will continue to look elsewhere, there was nothing wrong with the j series except the wheels it powered
04-17-2006, 11:52 AM
#417
To punish and enslave
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Long Beach, CA
Age: 34
Posts: 2,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 03typeS6spd
that was a fun catch up read...
until honda puts some money into making a strong v6/v8 a true RWD, or at least rwd biased awd vehicle, I will continue to look elsewhere, there was nothing wrong with the j series except the wheels it powered
Honda has an awesome RWD but they only put it in the 2 seaters. At least bring it to the TL 
04-17-2006, 12:49 PM
#418
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by gavriil
Here I disagree.
Every time I drove the VQ, I loved it. I drove it in the Maxima, in the Z, in the G and others. And I am not talking about test drives, I am talking renting these cars for several days.
I still remember how that engine felt in the last Z I drove. I called it a "small V8" in how it felt. Addicting mid-range torque characteristics, in all iterations.
Every time I drove the VQ, I loved it. I drove it in the Maxima, in the Z, in the G and others. And I am not talking about test drives, I am talking renting these cars for several days.
I still remember how that engine felt in the last Z I drove. I called it a "small V8" in how it felt. Addicting mid-range torque characteristics, in all iterations.
100% ESPECIALLY with your 'addicting mid-range torque characteristics' assertion!! 
04-17-2006, 12:52 PM
#419
fap fap fap
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
Side question: Anyone know if the new volvo s80 V8 is mounted transversely or longitudinally?
04-17-2006, 01:25 PM
#420
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by Infamous425
both the v8 and the new inline-6 are mounted transversely
The S80's new I6 is mounted transversely!!! Maybe I'm just drawing a blank due to vacation hangover but is there any other car with a transversely mounted inline 6???
04-17-2006, 01:51 PM
#421
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by F23A4
As an 02 Maxima and 05 Murano owner 100% ESPECIALLY with your 'addicting mid-range torque characteristics' assertion!!
100% ESPECIALLY with your 'addicting mid-range torque characteristics' assertion!! 
04-17-2006, 02:06 PM
#422
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by F23A4
The S80's new I6 is mounted transversely!!! Maybe I'm just drawing a blank due to vacation hangover but is there any other car with a transversely mounted inline 6???
04-17-2006, 03:15 PM
#423
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
You really gotta wonder that IF honda develops a v8...will they mount it transversely or even longitudinally in a FWD based platform? as light as they can make it, that's still a lot of weight stuck over top of the front wheels, plus the weight of SH-AWD considering there'll probably be too much torque for only FWD.
Or will they just say, "Screw it" and develop a RWD based platform specifically for this engine.
But then again, that's IF they develop and produce this V8. they seem to be very wishy-washy...one time saying they will, later saying because of fuel costs that they won't, and on and on.
STUPID ASIMO!
Or will they just say, "Screw it" and develop a RWD based platform specifically for this engine.
But then again, that's IF they develop and produce this V8. they seem to be very wishy-washy...one time saying they will, later saying because of fuel costs that they won't, and on and on.
STUPID ASIMO!
04-17-2006, 05:16 PM
#424
GEEZER
They should just put these in the NSX
04-17-2006, 05:58 PM
#426
And aren't Honda's F1 engines notorious for blowing up? I wouldn't want that in the NSX
04-17-2006, 06:31 PM
#429
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by 1killercls
They should just put these in the NSX
http://northwest.nsxca.org/past/comptech98/comp10.jpg
putting an Indycar engine in NSX =
04-18-2006, 08:05 AM
#432
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by levon1830
I want to see a Honda street legal supercar with a reliable 10,000 rpm redline. 
It can be done, right?
It can be done, right? http://www.hondas600.com/
04-18-2006, 12:07 PM
#433
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2003
Age: 40
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cog Neuro Sci
When Honda's VTEC engines first came out in 1992 with the Civic Si hatchback, I noted to myself that it could be a double-edged sword. That 1.6 liter engine could make 125 peak HP, way more than other engines of the same size back at that time, but the torque seemed low compared to other cars with similar peak HP. But that is exactly the point- compared to other engines with the same peak HP WHEN WE SHOULD be comparing it to other engines with the same DISPLACEMENT.
When the S2000 first came out, I noted to myself that the magazine comments and criticisms were very similar to those about the 92 Civic Si. With further analysis, I concluded it was an unconscious perceptual CHOICE issue. Because Honda engines get so much HP in part through Honda's development of materials to increase redline, people now center their focus on the HP. Thus, we tend to compare Honda engines to other engines based on HP, when in fact we should compare based on displacement. IF WE DID, we would find that Honda engines produce torque that's at the same levels as other engines of the same displacement WHILE ALSO producing more HP (and higher redlines).
So why do we tend to compare Honda engines based on HP rather than displacement? First, HP is ingrained into our society (just like standard scores for the SAT are ingrained into our brains when we should instead be focused on percentile scores). Second, and very importantly, within each market segment, Honda puts in engines with less displacement than competitors in that segment. People are really focused on comparing cars (e.g., RL vs. GS vs. M) and price, and when you do that you're forced to compare an Acura 3.5L V6 to a 4.3L V8 and 4.5L V8. When you do this, and considering Honda pushes the peak HP for any given displacement to at least close to that of their competitors' HP, you're going to see an even greater discrepancy in torque. So Honda engines, for a given market segment) will appear to be close to the lead (but never quite there) in HP and quite a bit behind in torque.
Therefore, the real issue is about displacement. If Honda CHOSE to match the displacement and number of cylinders of Lexus and Infiniti, you can be sure the Honda engine would have comparable torque AND greater HP. The real question is if and when Honda will decide to finally match displacement.
When the S2000 first came out, I noted to myself that the magazine comments and criticisms were very similar to those about the 92 Civic Si. With further analysis, I concluded it was an unconscious perceptual CHOICE issue. Because Honda engines get so much HP in part through Honda's development of materials to increase redline, people now center their focus on the HP. Thus, we tend to compare Honda engines to other engines based on HP, when in fact we should compare based on displacement. IF WE DID, we would find that Honda engines produce torque that's at the same levels as other engines of the same displacement WHILE ALSO producing more HP (and higher redlines).
So why do we tend to compare Honda engines based on HP rather than displacement? First, HP is ingrained into our society (just like standard scores for the SAT are ingrained into our brains when we should instead be focused on percentile scores). Second, and very importantly, within each market segment, Honda puts in engines with less displacement than competitors in that segment. People are really focused on comparing cars (e.g., RL vs. GS vs. M) and price, and when you do that you're forced to compare an Acura 3.5L V6 to a 4.3L V8 and 4.5L V8. When you do this, and considering Honda pushes the peak HP for any given displacement to at least close to that of their competitors' HP, you're going to see an even greater discrepancy in torque. So Honda engines, for a given market segment) will appear to be close to the lead (but never quite there) in HP and quite a bit behind in torque.
Therefore, the real issue is about displacement. If Honda CHOSE to match the displacement and number of cylinders of Lexus and Infiniti, you can be sure the Honda engine would have comparable torque AND greater HP. The real question is if and when Honda will decide to finally match displacement.
Disregarding this guys looney-ness, he has a point.
People are always negative in regards to Honda, for having low-torque, but when they are bagging out the S2K or RSX etc, for having insufficient torque, they are comparing it with cars that have the same or similar amount of horsepower, but with a displacement much higher than the Honda engine.
Therefore, they will always be complaining that the Honda engine has less torque compared with the other engine, that has similar HP figures, as the Honda engine is lower on displacement.
So, when they judge the torque figures , they should judge it with cars of similar displacement. And if and when they do that, they will see that Honda has similar torque figures.
Case in point. People complaining about the S2K's lack of torque.
240 HP out of 2 litres. Alot of HP, but only as much torque as 2 litres of displacement permits.
This is where the unequal comparisons begin. People will compare that 240 HP with other cars that have 240-250HP. Those other cars that have 240-250 HP, will generally be V6's with 3.0-3.5 and even 4.0 litres in displacement. So, of course when they compare the HP numbers of those two different engines, it will seem that the Honda is lacking in sufficient torque, only because it is not measured with engines of similar displacement.
So, in the end, with Honda cracking out insane amounts of HP for a given displacement, they will get negatively judged by having less torque against similar HP cars, when in fact they are not low on torque in regards to their displacement compared with other cars of similar displacement.
Long-winded, but I just had to get it across.
04-18-2006, 01:02 PM
#434
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: El Monte, CA
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
people will always complain about torque in hondas no matter what. an example is the new RL. it makes more power than the m35 yet all i hear is "it has no torque." the gs300 is even more underpowered.
04-18-2006, 01:09 PM
#435
I'm a llama :(
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington
Posts: 4,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by iNteGraz92
people will always complain about torque in hondas no matter what. an example is the new RL. it makes more power than the m35 yet all i hear is "it has no torque." the gs300 is even more underpowered.
The Lexus guys bragging that their GS is better than the RL probably only have the V6.
04-18-2006, 01:22 PM
#436
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by smap
Disregarding this guys looney-ness, he has a point.
People are always negative in regards to Honda, for having low-torque, but when they are bagging out the S2K or RSX etc, for having insufficient torque, they are comparing it with cars that have the same or similar amount of horsepower, but with a displacement much higher than the Honda engine.
Therefore, they will always be complaining that the Honda engine has less torque compared with the other engine, that has similar HP figures, as the Honda engine is lower on displacement.
So, when they judge the torque figures , they should judge it with cars of similar displacement. And if and when they do that, they will see that Honda has similar torque figures.
Case in point. People complaining about the S2K's lack of torque.
240 HP out of 2 litres. Alot of HP, but only as much torque as 2 litres of displacement permits.
This is where the unequal comparisons begin. People will compare that 240 HP with other cars that have 240-250HP. Those other cars that have 240-250 HP, will generally be V6's with 3.0-3.5 and even 4.0 litres in displacement. So, of course when they compare the HP numbers of those two different engines, it will seem that the Honda is lacking in sufficient torque, only because it is not measured with engines of similar displacement.
So, in the end, with Honda cracking out insane amounts of HP for a given displacement, they will get negatively judged by having less torque against similar HP cars, when in fact they are not low on torque in regards to their displacement compared with other cars of similar displacement.
Long-winded, but I just had to get it across.
People are always negative in regards to Honda, for having low-torque, but when they are bagging out the S2K or RSX etc, for having insufficient torque, they are comparing it with cars that have the same or similar amount of horsepower, but with a displacement much higher than the Honda engine.
Therefore, they will always be complaining that the Honda engine has less torque compared with the other engine, that has similar HP figures, as the Honda engine is lower on displacement.
So, when they judge the torque figures , they should judge it with cars of similar displacement. And if and when they do that, they will see that Honda has similar torque figures.
Case in point. People complaining about the S2K's lack of torque.
240 HP out of 2 litres. Alot of HP, but only as much torque as 2 litres of displacement permits.
This is where the unequal comparisons begin. People will compare that 240 HP with other cars that have 240-250HP. Those other cars that have 240-250 HP, will generally be V6's with 3.0-3.5 and even 4.0 litres in displacement. So, of course when they compare the HP numbers of those two different engines, it will seem that the Honda is lacking in sufficient torque, only because it is not measured with engines of similar displacement.
So, in the end, with Honda cracking out insane amounts of HP for a given displacement, they will get negatively judged by having less torque against similar HP cars, when in fact they are not low on torque in regards to their displacement compared with other cars of similar displacement.
Long-winded, but I just had to get it across.
sure, you can compare an RSX type-s with a 2.0 liter engine and 200hp vs. a Hyundai elantra with a 2.0 liter engine and 138hp...but who does this? Cars are compared usually in price and class/size ranges, not by displacement specs.
if you REALLY wanted to compare it this way, then it doesn't look good for the RSX because you arne't comparing it with its peers...like Johnny Knoxville pretending to be retarded to compete at the special olympics. Is it really that much of an accomplishment?
And finally, so what if Honda has been able to achieve higher HP ratings per liter of displacement than rivals for SOME of its engines? that STILL doesn't prove it can achieve the same results with its V6 engines. that STILL doesn't prove it can achieve the same results if it ever decided to produce a V8 engine. And in reality, ANY manufacturer can tune their engines for the highest PEAK hp per displacement volume...but how usable is this power in real world applications? even the s2000 is fairly impractical because of this fact...which is why they increased displacement to 2.2 liters...and it STILL feels like a civic under normal driving. This may be a positive trait for the s2000, but it may be a negative trait under other different applications.
In theory, you can surmise that it's "possible" honda can build an engine with highest hp for any given displacement, but then again it's "possible" they can't as well.
04-18-2006, 02:06 PM
#437
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by smap
Disregarding this guys looney-ness, he has a point.
People are always negative in regards to Honda, for having low-torque, but when they are bagging out the S2K or RSX etc, for having insufficient torque, they are comparing it with cars that have the same or similar amount of horsepower, but with a displacement much higher than the Honda engine.
Therefore, they will always be complaining that the Honda engine has less torque compared with the other engine, that has similar HP figures, as the Honda engine is lower on displacement.
So, when they judge the torque figures , they should judge it with cars of similar displacement. And if and when they do that, they will see that Honda has similar torque figures.
Case in point. People complaining about the S2K's lack of torque.
240 HP out of 2 litres. Alot of HP, but only as much torque as 2 litres of displacement permits.
This is where the unequal comparisons begin. People will compare that 240 HP with other cars that have 240-250HP. Those other cars that have 240-250 HP, will generally be V6's with 3.0-3.5 and even 4.0 litres in displacement. So, of course when they compare the HP numbers of those two different engines, it will seem that the Honda is lacking in sufficient torque, only because it is not measured with engines of similar displacement.
So, in the end, with Honda cracking out insane amounts of HP for a given displacement, they will get negatively judged by having less torque against similar HP cars, when in fact they are not low on torque in regards to their displacement compared with other cars of similar displacement.
Long-winded, but I just had to get it across.
People are always negative in regards to Honda, for having low-torque, but when they are bagging out the S2K or RSX etc, for having insufficient torque, they are comparing it with cars that have the same or similar amount of horsepower, but with a displacement much higher than the Honda engine.
Therefore, they will always be complaining that the Honda engine has less torque compared with the other engine, that has similar HP figures, as the Honda engine is lower on displacement.
So, when they judge the torque figures , they should judge it with cars of similar displacement. And if and when they do that, they will see that Honda has similar torque figures.
Case in point. People complaining about the S2K's lack of torque.
240 HP out of 2 litres. Alot of HP, but only as much torque as 2 litres of displacement permits.
This is where the unequal comparisons begin. People will compare that 240 HP with other cars that have 240-250HP. Those other cars that have 240-250 HP, will generally be V6's with 3.0-3.5 and even 4.0 litres in displacement. So, of course when they compare the HP numbers of those two different engines, it will seem that the Honda is lacking in sufficient torque, only because it is not measured with engines of similar displacement.
So, in the end, with Honda cracking out insane amounts of HP for a given displacement, they will get negatively judged by having less torque against similar HP cars, when in fact they are not low on torque in regards to their displacement compared with other cars of similar displacement.
Long-winded, but I just had to get it across.
A great comparison would be BMW's V10 vs. the LS7. Both have similar HP figures, but the LS7 makes much more torque and more importantly more power under the curve.
04-18-2006, 02:43 PM
#438
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: H-town
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by iNteGraz92
people will always complain about torque in hondas no matter what. an example is the new RL. it makes more power than the m35 yet all i hear is "it has no torque." the gs300 is even more underpowered.
and i agree, the GS300 is underpowered, but that's why there's the GS350 coming out and also the GS430 (or 460)
04-18-2006, 02:57 PM
#439
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by MaximaPower
u dont think a heavy car with AWD like the RL should have more tq?
and i agree, the GS300 is underpowered, but that's why there's the GS350 coming out and also the GS430 (or 460)
and i agree, the GS300 is underpowered, but that's why there's the GS350 coming out and also the GS430 (or 460)
and that's why both the GS and M offer OTHER engine choices. For people who don't care about more torque/power, they get the regular v6. If they want more torque/power, they get the other engine choice.
foolish for Acura to offer only ONE engine choice and expect to please everybody.
04-18-2006, 03:03 PM
#440
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: H-town
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
and that's why both the GS and M offer OTHER engine choices. For people who don't care about more torque/power, they get the regular v6. If they want more torque/power, they get the other engine choice.
foolish for Acura to offer only ONE engine choice and expect to please everybody.
foolish for Acura to offer only ONE engine choice and expect to please everybody.