SSFTSX

Diesel engine advantages.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1088510464&play=1

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I hope it's possible to make the J series DOHC, I mean, they HAD a C32A in the legend with SOHC, then the C32B with DOHC...so I do think it's possible. I'm just wondering if it is worthwhile to do that, or simply design a new engine from scratch.

Edward'TLS

^^^^^ Come on, the J series is hopelessly dated. Honda/Acura's V6 powertrains are falling way behind competitors for the past few years. Please develop a modern one from scratch with all the latest and future gadgets. Use the resources left over from the now defunct F1 racing program.

SSFTSX

Honda is atleast 10 years behind in latest engine tech. It canot perfect turbo engines nor diesel. I have serious doubt for V8.
Honda situation is the representative of general malaise facing Japanese society for past decade. very slow incremental approach of outdated technology.



Nissan situation is different. It is run by Carlos Ghosan not some Japanese bean counter.
Mark my words. Infiniti will be bigger and more prestigous brand than Acura around the world in less than 3 years.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Well,seriously, with a BMEP of 11.9, it's not that bad. At least that's higher than what the VQ37HR with VVEL can achieve!

But then you are right, if they were to add DOHC, a-vtec (or even just i-vtec), DI, they might as well start from scratch....

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

lol, I don't see how Toyota is doing any better with diesel and and turbo engines now....in fact, I believe most European car makers are generally better in making diesel engines, don't you think so?

And...Honda may be behind in engine tech at least 10 years, but take the J37 as an example, its BMEP value is 11.9bar. Let's take a look at the Audi A4 3.2L quattro....hmm..11.4 bar..so..by just using 10 year-old technologies, the J series is able to beat the Audi's 3.2L engine with DOHC, DI, and other "latest engine tech" in terms of BMEP....enough said.

Costco

MEP is an confusing way to explain engine efficiency, mainly because pretty much no one uses it. While it is the real way to determine how good an engine is I think you just lost 99% of the people on here. Hell.... I know engine builders that don't even use MEP!

Toyota is doing everything lately... Honda isn't 10 years behind but they're definitely trailing, not only engine-wise but also with their transmissions. Toyota has created several different 4-cylinders, 6-cylinders and 8-cylinders, and they've even combined the latter two with direct injection in addition to hybrid drivetrains.

That's a novel idea! Time to use what they've learned from racing.

Colin

Well, that racing thing.............not doing so well......................I'd rather they didn't use it.

SSFTSX

Toyota is alot better in terms of fuel efficiency/low end torque. Toyota had 6speed auto in engines from 4 to 8 cylinder diesels. Toyota designs are bland but it does not mean its technology and engines are outdated.






3.2L FSI has better low end torque with fuel efficiency and above all quietness. that alone counts for every thing.
you are simply not differentiating engines which are quiet suitable even at higher rpm for Luxury brand and non luxury engines of Honda which are bolt into Acura.

Costco

Hmmm..... maybe you're right!

dom

The J is still competitive. 305 HP is right there with everyone else. Problem is we're not used to seeing competive from Honda. We're used to seeing class leading HP.

Definitley time for a replacement.

JD23

What about the persistently high unemployment and weak economic growth that is faced by Europe, due to poor economic policies?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

lol, yea that's true...no wonder SSFTSX didn't bother to respond!

Exactly, I do agree that Honda is trailing somewhat, but 10 years behind sounds a little harsh.

I also agree that Toyota has been releasing a lot of stuff recently, since 2006 or so, with 6AT...the new V6, etc. But I think that's how the automotive world works. I mean, their previous V6 was in use for a long time and wasn't very competitive. If I remember correctly, that engine was in use since 1994 all the way till this year - over 15 years of service. It's being replaced now as we all know by the GR as seen in the Camry, ES, and IS. I think the last car that's still using that engine is the RX400h. The J series started life in 1997 if I remember correctly, add 15 to it, and that's 2012. Personally I would like to see a new engine series now, but, I don't think it will happen that soon....

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

How does Toyota compare to Audi in terms of Diesel engines?

Why did you post a link from 2007? Why not post one from 2009? I will do that for you:

http://wardsauto.com/reports/2009/tenbest/

Toyota Motor Corp.: 3.5L DOHC V-6
Balanced, powerful and highly advanced, Toyota’s Lexus V-6 remains one of the best examples of premium-powertrain engineering.

Yup, Toyota once again is in that list....BUT....so is Honda:

Honda Motor Co. Ltd.: 3.5L SOHC V-6
Honda’s 3.5L V-6 in the moderately priced Accord coupe speaks to the enthusiast buyer who wants practicality most of the time, but superior performance all of the time.

Unfortunately, I don't see the 3.2L FSI enigne in that list...I wonder why...I mean, it's supposed to have better low end torque, it's more efficient, and it's quieter than the J series.....according to you, right?

By the way, I go to Costco, I tried to edit my previous post, but I was too late..lol...but yea, BMEP like you said it's one of the most important ways of determining how well an engine is developed/optimize. Since SSFTSX has been talking about how the J series is 10 years behind, I just thought it's fair to bring that into the discussion.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

And here's a dyno from the 07 TL-S:

http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-ar...icle_id=686783

It's developing over 200lbft of torque at the wheels before 2000rpm already. That's 90% of peak torque from 2000rpm all the way to 6500rpm.

SSFTSX, I'm sure the 3.2L FSI engine is capable of that right? Would you be kind enough to show us the dyno of a stock 3.2L FSI engine then?

SSFTSX

It is a off topic but i am going to explain anyway.
Go back to 1994-95. there were 95 yen to a dollar. which is almost the same as in 2009. dollar is world reserve currency where all natural resources are measured hence all the input costs from natural resources to food.

Euro which is representative of Deutsch mark has risen 45% against basket of currencies. So which countries are 45% richer based on standard of living? so why would they need 2 to 3% GDP growth based on debt creation? Remember no credit no GDP expansion.
Europen unemployed is because of generous unemployment benefits, social safety nets, high net immigration and vast supply network industries shift to Eastern Europe and Russia. so you dont need that many workers in High wage countries like Germany to produce cars.

More over Japanese created enormous debt in that period. Japanese always live in fear of collapsing economy. Why not Honda take over Chrysler. it will give them some V8/Diesel tech and expand lineup. But it is reluctance to spend . Make no mistake the gap between EU and Japan auto sector will be increasing with eash passing year. Honda situation is the most hopeless among the Japanese manufacturers. It is not as big as Toyota nor it is internationally integrated as Nissan. so very slow incremental approach.

SSFTSX

here you go. Maximum torque of 216 ft-lb at 3500 rpm. 222 bhp at 6300 rpm at wheels. It is 2006 model year.

http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...h&ChartsID=732

Edward'TLS

The Honda F1 powerplants were good. It was the chassis and aero tuning that let the Honda F1 team down. Most importantly, it clearly showed that even though Honda was very good at building F1 engines, it didn't know how to run a full race team.

The F1 chassis it built had stability problem. The multi-million dollar wind tunnel wasn't calibrated properly. Thus, the Honda F1 cars were simply no match for the other teams.

Edward'TLS

I had been hoping that, with Honda's engine tuning expertise, the J32 (or at least the J35) putting out 305 HP, not from the J37. It's a no brainer to generate more HP from larger engine displacement, virtually all auto makers on earth know how to do it.

As for comparison,

Acura 3.7L-V6 *** 305 HP, 273 lb-ft
Lexus 3.5L-V6 DI * 306 HP, 277 lb-ft
Cadi 3.6L-V6 DI ** 304 HP, 273 lb-ft
Infini 3.7L-V6 **** 330 HP, 270 lb-ft

It's kind of hard to think the J-series is still competitive.

JD23

I must be missing something, or I have a different definition of competitive. The Lexus and Cadillac engines have virtually idential output, while the Infiniti has significantly higher hp, but slightly less torque. Although the Acura engine is certainly not superior, I don't see why you would say it isn't competitive.

mg7726

yes, it's time to put the J-series to the pasture! :P it's time to build a new DOHC engine for the future.

are you kidding? pneumatic valve system, 7-speed carbon composite gearbox, honeycomb composite structure on chassis, sequential automatic, carbon brake systems.

i'd be happy if they put ONE of these technologies into an Acura product! ok, let's not bitch about the price...

exactly, real changes were evidenced by this years race debut...not only that, but bullshit F1 politics with regards to their race engine's lower output.

SSFTSX

All these engines are not the same.
VW CC 4MOTION with just 280bhp from 3.6L will beat any TL -SHAWD with 305bhp in any road test all the way up to 130mph. so even at higher speeds TL bhp does not have any advantage.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

That's actually at the hub, as stated in the link you have provided:

"The cutting edge dynamometer concept includes direct-coupled, hub-mounted dynamometers and a groundbreaking measuring system that brings the measurement accuracy to an unequalled level."

http://www.rototest.com/rototest-dynamometer.php

I'm sure you know that there's less losses by measuring power/torque at the hub than at the wheels.

The 3G TL's 3.2L V6 " puts down 235-240 hub hp" and 215lbft of torque according to Shawn Church@TOV. However, it makes about 10lbft less at 3500rpm. Here is the link:
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-ar...icle_id=719873


You will also find that the 08 Accord V6 6MT running regular gas makes 268hp and 248lbft of torque at the hub. For your information, Honda rated this engine at 268hp and 248lbft....at the crank.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

From C&D (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test)

Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 15.7 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 34.9 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.8 sec @ 97 mph
C/D observed: 18 mpg

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/..._awd_road_test
Zero to 60 mph: 6.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 15.8 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 35.4 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.8 sec @ 97 mph
C/D observed: 19 mpg

I don't know man, it seems to be the TL would pull ahead slightly at first, then keep the advantage till about 80mph. Then the Passat's 6AT advantage comes in, and stops the pull there. At the 1/4 mile mark, both would cross the line together at more or less the same speed. Then the Passat would slowly creep away, but very very slowly.

And did you notice something? 19mpg vs 18 mpg in a in the real world.

SSFTSX

TL has summer rated tires while it is not mentioned about Passat. and we dont know about test conditions. And 25hp is big difference.



Edmunds have achieved better results.

TL is alot slower and on Edmunds test not achieving any better fuel economy.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=153144

so in one magazine test it is draw but in other Magazine test. VW CC is clear winner in speed.

Costco

Yeah, you're right but the confusing thing is even though road car and F1 chassis design is really different with regards to obvious restrictions and compromises made, IMO Honda chassis tuning is excellent for their road cars, there's no other explanation as to why their cars are usually underpowered (at least in regards to torque) and at times with other handling handicaps, such as inferior tires compared to its competitors, etc. yet manage to keep up or even perform better on the track. Plainly obvious when the same two drivers end up from being bottom of the barrel results-wise to being the top two at the beginning of the next season.

So I don't know... also we can't be too sure if they're going to assimilate their F1 technologies into their road car line up just yet. It almost seems their F1 team has been disbanded longer than they've been back. One thing's for sure.... Ferrari definitely didn't wait to integrate, though there is a measure of exclusivity with them. DSG has become synonymous with dual-clutch transmission, like Kleenex and tissue. That definitely doesn't hurt VW/Audi's marketing.

Either way we're not going to have another Honda F1 team for a while

Costco

IMO one of the best tests of true "speed" without some outside factor like traction issues interfering is the 5-60 street start. It matters less which car has better tires, and which car has a better AWD system.... those things simply don't matter because most cars usually get traction almost immediately. This relates to roll racing, as lame and retarded as I think it is, to determine which truly is the faster car, it works well. And in that C&D test, the VW was slightly slower. But as you said, it is down by 25 horsepower.

I've experienced this myself..... my car will light up the tires from a standstill in 1st and 2nd if I sidestep the clutch and I don't try to fight it, but if I start off around 5 mph and floor it...... well it still does the same thing BUT traction is regained a lot faster. Also, if you notice, usually cars with AWD usually turn in better 0-60 and 1/4 times than FWD/RWD cars with similar power ratings, but when you factor in the street start, usually the FWD/RWD cars are nearly equal or sometimes even better.

Colin

Actually I was kidding. Honda has always said the main goal of racing is not the direct transfer of technology (though it does sometimes happen). But rather the training of it's engineers with the crucible of racing.

JD23

The Edmunds time for the TL is the slowest published result by far. I know you want to use this time because it supports your argument, but please show some intellectual integrity. If possible, the best approach is to take the median published time for both cars, to remove the error present in a single website's results. The results are still inconclusive, so the CC is not the clear winner for speed.

SSFTSX

here is another one.

Colin

We did get Magnesium gearboxes for the TSX so that's close. And believe it or not, the RL used (still uses?)Honeycomb structure a long time ago...
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/757/releases/48

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

SSFTSX, I go to Costco and JD23 already answered part of your concern - both Passat and TL are not limited by traction due to their AWD systems, if traction is still a concern to you, there's the 5-60mph, in which the TL is slightly faster, and also, Edmunds numbers are extremely slow. I hope you didn't forget, but Edmunds got one of the slowest times for the Audi A4 3.2 Quattro too. Here is the link:

http://www.edmunds.com/audi/a4/2009/testdrive.html

0 - 60 (sec): 6.9
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 15.0 @ 94.7

On the other hand, in Car and Driver, they got 0-60 in 5.7s, and 1/4 mile at 14.3@100mph. Here is the link:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ttro_road_test

So do you still want to use Edmunds number?

Now, I'm sure you will say something like, "So from the link you posted from C&D, the A4 is much faster than the TL SH-AWD, 14.3 vs 14.8 quarter mile." Well first of all, the TL being tested in C&D only had 483 miles on it, vs 2847 miles on the Audi. That's a huge difference. Second, as mentioned before, Jeff at TOV obtained the following results from the TL with more miles on it.

0-60mph: 5.9
1/4 mile: 14.3@97.2 and 14.4@98.2

These are uncorrected values (corrected values from mags are usually faster). And here is the link: http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-messa...sage_id=809066

SSFTSX

In C&D test It is draw.
In Edmunds Test CC is clear winner.
In Motorweek Test CC is winner.
Unless you can show more tests where TL is winner. Reasonable conclusion can be made that CC is faster despite 25bhp less with less torque.
A4 is 3.2 so it lacks the torque of 3.6L engine so not correct comparision.

SSFTSX

You have to understand EU version of VW CC comes with 295bhp and 7 Speed DSG but it will costly for United States. That car is alot faster more in 0-5.6 second range. 6speed Auto will not help TL alot as it is outdated engine.
Now burden of proof is on you where Acura TL is faster despite having more bhp.

Colin

What does this have to do with a Honda Diesels/Hybrids? Sigh, typical

LuvMyTSX

Let's get back on topic here guys.

Edward'TLS

[QUOTE=Edward'TLS;
Acura 3.7L-V6 *** 305 HP, 273 lb-ft
Lexus 3.5L-V6 DI * 306 HP, 277 lb-ft
Cadi 3.6L-V6 DI ** 304 HP, 273 lb-ft
Infini 3.7L-V6 **** 330 HP, 270 lb-ft[/QUOTE]

Yes, I guess we're thinking of competitveness in different angles. Your angle is to do with using engine displacement to hide engine output inefficiency, whereas my angle is to do with comparing output power over engine displacement, and Honda was once used to be among the best in tuning for HP/litre figures.

Note that the Lexus and the Cadillac V6's can turn out equivalent engine output as the Acura 3.7L, but with only 3.5L and 3.6L respectively; whereas with the same 3.7L displacement, the Infiniti V6 can turn out 25 HP more than the Acura.

Even auto makers from developing countries know how to generate more HP from increased engine displacement, there is nothing so-called "Advance" in it.

For the past five or so years, competitors have been busy at work inventing and/or incorporating new engine technologies to increase engine outputs, whereas Honda/Acura has also been busy but at boring out the cylinders to increase displacements rather than going for "Advance" technologies, such as direct gasoline injection, etc. That's why I don't think that the J-series is competitive in this modern auto world, especially coming out from Honda.

Edward'TLS

Never mind, I'll rather Honda spending the money on the NSX-replacement, 6 or 7 speed dual-clutch auto transmissions, V8/V10 engines, RWD chassis, RWD-biased SH-AWD, etc, etc., rather than burning mega money in F1 racing which had achieved virtually nothing.

dom

I see your point and agree the J needs to be replaced. But lets look at it this way. All of those other engines (except maybe the VQ?) have direct injection and a DOHC design and yet the SOHC Honda engine without DI is right there with them in HP and TQ.

All I'm saying is their making the most of what they have available.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I have already showed you a few tests where the TL is about as fast as the Passat. I have never said it's faster. I have always said it's about the same. I will make a summary, from my links, and your links.

C&D, that's a draw, agree.
For the Passat CC:
Edmunds: 0-60: 6.3s (6.0 with 1ft rollout) 1/4 mile: 14.5 @ 98.2
Motorweek: 0-60: 6.1s 1/4 mile: 14.6 seconds @ 98 mph
Motortrend: 0-60: 6.6s 1/4 mile: 14.9 sec @ 95.9 mph (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ior_specs.html)



For the TL:
Motorweek: 0-60: 5.5s (est)
Road and Track: 0-60: 6.3s 1/4 mile:14.8@96.7mph (http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=7232)
HondaTuning: 0-60: 5.5s (http://www.hondatuningmagazine.com/n...awd/index.html)
TOV: 0-60: 5.9s 1/4 mile: 14.3@97 -98mph

I see that you also like to post dynolicious time, well, I will post one for the TL too.

0-60: 5.54s (from Wavehogger on this forum, you can find more info on this in the 4g forum, he ran many times and he has been consistently getting 5.5 - 5.9s) Here is the link to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGuLxGBmOTc