Pete Acura could easily make an engine like this if they wanted in there sleep drop a couple of turbo's in the J series and guranteed its peak would be near 400 HP, Acura is very cautious about there reliability image and turbos are not known for realiability they are testing the waters with the RDX and look at the output they are getting out of a 4 banger. The Ecco boost will be the downfall of Ford unless this was something in the making and tested for years if it's just a solution to the economy without going through strenuous quality testing it will be bad.

 

Let's face it, Acura is always lagging behind when it comes to powertrain and engine technology. For years Acura has prided themselves as being a progressive and technology-driven automaker, yet they couldn't even produce a frickin' V8 in the last 10 years! Even lowly "Hyundai" beat them to the punch with a 375 hp V8 produced in-house! These days, there is no excuse why the 4G is stuck with an antiquated 5sp auto. Other automakers are coming out with direct injection, 7-sp/8-sp trannys, dual-clutch, superchargers, etc......while Acura's answer to increasing power is to simply increase displacement and thereby, hurt fuel economy. Seems like Acura is still stuck in the 90's. I thought I never see the day when Ford comes out with a higher tech engine than Acura.

 

Choosing not to build a V8 and can’t build a V8 are different. I find it pretty hard to believe with the engineering power at Honda, they don’t have the technology to build a V8? I doubt it.

I think it is a good decision for Honda not to introduce V8 when globally speaking every car manufactures are down grading and instead, spending resources developing alternative fuel powertrains. Why spend resources/time on R&D and marketing when the whole trend of large displacement engine is declining. Dumping more resources on V8 would be stupid for Honda.

Unlike Hyundai, Honda/Acura is already a well established brand here in US and globally. They do not need to prove themselves by building a V8 and the overall company strategy for Honda and Hyundai is just different.

I’m sure Ford’s Ecco-Boost is a sweet engine. I mean, what turbo charged engine isn’t sweet? But again, Honda is in the business because they build reliable products with reliable technologies. Look at the various problems BMW happening with their 3 liter twin turbo. Good thing they are BMW, so they can get away with it. Ford is definitely a new player in making mass produced turbo charged engines. I’m curious in the long run how well the engine will hold up. Ford is not BMW; they cannot afford reliability issues with this engine. If this fails, again they will be known as (Fix Or Repair Daily).

The only car IMO who consistently makes good force induced engine is VW/Audi. Their DI turbo 4 is awesome. I miss that engine. Damn if only the frigging Mark VI came out sooner…..

 

.... it's used in the Indy Racing League series. The first year Honda powered the entire starting grid at the Indianapolis 500, they made track history because there wasn't a single retirement due to engine failure.

Honda KNOWS how to make a V8.

 

Agreed, Honda is not a stranger to the high-cylinder engines.

They have (or had) an F1 car with a V10 engine as well.

They're feeling out reliability on the K-series with a turbo, for both the reliability of the turbo and the K-series on FI. Having had an RDX as a loaner, I think they went in a bit too cautiously with delaying the boost for so long. It would be an excellent engine if they just let the boost come on right away. I'm still surprised they put the V6 in the TSX instead of the turbo 4.

I think a single turbo J-series would be interesting, and I wouldn't be surprised to see one in the next TL. A 2012/2013 Type-S with it might be a bit too soon, but it'd be interesting none the less.

 

Pete knows this. Declarative statements like "always lagging" "couldn't even" "Seems like Acura is still stuck in the 90's." are his way of trying to get a reaction.

And V-12s! Also don't forget about the amazing 1.5 liter V-6 capable of well over 1000 hp in qualifying trim.

I'd add Porsche to the list of companies who have made the Turbo a part of their brand identity, perhaps even more so than Audi/VW

 

Looks like it worked, eh Colin?.


The problem with Acura has always been that they build very high quality and competent vehicles, but they seldom, if ever do anything to elevate themselves from the competition. The RL is a perfect example. Acura had years to do something special with the RL.....they had the technology to do it......but no, they were just happy maintaining the status quo. This is why Acura will always be "entry-level luxury" to most people no matter what they come out with in the future.

 

Oh yeah, I'm really flying off the handle here.

 

And this is a problem why?

Endless time and electronic ink is devoted to recommending changes to help Acura/Honda do better. Ever stop and take a look at how well they have done and are doing overall? They could take bigger risk seeking bigger rewards or...failure. I don't pretend to know what they should do but things could certainly be much worse.

The ugly cars with outdated glass automatic transmissions can't last forever. I think Honda has done very well over the past 50+ years. Afterall, they could be like Chrysler-GM-American Motors, etc.

 

God I hate when these horrible TL threads find their way into car talk.

New TL owner: "OMG teh TL is sooo much better then evarthing!!11"

Everyone else on earth: "It looks like a beluga whale though"

New TL owner: "OMG shutup TROLL!!! TL looks bestest than you azzhole!1!@ "

 

Acura blows now.

/end.

 

Wasn't this a thread about a Buick?

 

OP your original post reminded me that some companies produce what I call "driver's cars" [like how you describe the TL], and others produce nice cars that aren't quite "driver's cars"...its all about the feel, the control, the finesse. even though Buick gave one hell of an attempt, I can be the first to tell you, they are many generations away from producing a great driving car.

now the Taurus SHO has the performance numbers, but again, is it really a driver's car?? does it have the finesse and feel and control you get with the TL as the OP described.

good write up OP!

 

Have you even driven the new Lacrosse or the new SHO? Jesus Christ.... your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

Congratulations. You are now in the same company as water-s, msl82, and a couple of others not even worth mentioning.

 

Why does this stupid shit always find its way to car talk?

80% of the posts from the TL retards is so biased or misinformed is not even funny, its just sad.

Keep this crap over with them.

 

lol, i was asking a question. just like buick, nice attempt there my friend but FAIL [as i agree with OP].

ANYWAYS, OP drove the TL and Buick and chose TL, so I can safely say Buick is not yet a driver's car w/o having to drive it but trusting OP.


NOW back to my simple question costco cant answer: is the SHO really a driver's car or is it like a Benz IMO: just a nice car, with a "big" power engine, comfort, speed, but no finesse, throttle response etc??

its a question! and I would love to here Americans finally produced an amazing sedan!

 

And I can safely say Jews are evil without ever meeting one but trusting Hitler.

Fuck you are retarded.

 

wow. im trusting someone's word...since when is hitler a trustworthy guy??

you guys ruin every thread over nothing.

 

wow...really...I mean really...

 

 

I remember years back when I had my Accord EX (4 cyl) and my dad needed a car. He wanted cheap, so we took a Ford Contour out. What a POS! I was real disappointed in that if the US Car makers want to compete, they have to do better.

Looks like this is the case again. Tall order if they want the Lacrosse to compete against a TL or ES. Is someone at Buick that are in developement even try driving a TL or ES????? That maybe the problem there? How can you compete if you have no idea that your competitors are so far in front?

 

1). http://www.edmunds.com/buick/lacross...testdrive.html

Vehicle Tested: 2010 Buick LaCrosse CXS
Pros: Stylish interior, quiet cabin, spacious backseat, confident handling.
Cons: Transmission can be hesitant to downshift <--not a refined driver's car

2).http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4325072.html

Part of the credit for the powertrain's refined behavior is the solid structure it's bolted to. Federico says the LaCrosse's body has a higher percentage of high-strength steel than any other GM product. Road impact is barely audible. A tight chassis is always a critical partner to a good suspension system. After all, how can you control a wheel's movement if the part it's bolted to isn't rock-solid? The LaCrosse has excellent body control with none of the heaves and bobs that used to plague past Buicks. The Michigan roads we drove were mostly straight so we don't have a perfectly clear idea of the car's handling limits. But based on what we experienced, it's likely quite competent. The LaCrosse is no sport sedan, but it's not meant to be one. And as one might expect from a Buick, the car does ride beautifully. <---not a refined driver's car

3).http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test

The steering feel is rubberier than that of most sport sedans, but it’s pleasantly weighted and offers a degree of feedback absent in Buicks of the last forever or so, and we doubt Buick expects many LaCrosses to go autocrossing anyway. Dive into an on-ramp at seven-tenths, and the LaCrosse feels competent and its body stays mostly flat, but a full-scale assault will reveal the LaCrosse’s inner Serta, and speed gives way to howling understeer. Adjustable dampers with a Sport mode are available, but they weren’t fitted to our test car. The brake pedal is likewise firm, but goes soft under a heavy foot. Braking to a standstill from 70 mph takes a responsible—but not particularly aggressive—181 feet. <---not a refined driver's car

4). ETC!


all i am saying is it was a nice attempt, but Buick just doesn't have the experience to create the full package yet. it looks nice, drives nice, is comfortable, but it is NOT a car to go nuts over in how it drives [i could care less if it drives fast or not]. driver's car = if it has that correct feel, the right control, etc like from many competitors the Buick Lacrosse is trying to compete with.



but wait guys! i totally trusted people's words on the internet as quoted above, im totally wrong. im so sorry


wait im arguing over a shitty buick, what a waste of time...

 

Ugly, fat, overweight... uh, which car were we talking about again?

Screw you, I don't want this in the 3G forum! All the misinformation belongs here!

 

 

This is pretty much what turned me off from the car when I saw the first slew of commercials for the Buick. They reference the Lexus ES350 at least 5 times before the commercial is over. It kind of reminds you of those carbon copy products that are kind of marketed as "cheap alternatives" that aim to replicate something everyone wants or owns. They don't really try to push that it has something unique about it...

 

 

Holy dumbass Batman!

 

comeback of the year!

That was frickin' awesome!

 

You sir, just went full retard.

 

thanks guys, i appreciate all the kind words. im just glad i dont suck as much as the new buicks. no im not making a joke.

 

That's disappointing. I think the only American sedans I would really look to test drive are the CTS, CTS-V, and the SHO.

If you thought the TL was fast, I think the TSX V6 is actually faster 0-60 since it weighs less, and the G37 sedan kills both the TSX V6 and TL off the line.

 

So because its not a sports sedan it sucks? You're an idiot...

 

 

Speaking of the new SHO..............

12.75 with basically a tune.

http://www.stangtv.com/forum/new-tau...rter-5952.html


Terry

 

it just doesn't live up to its rivals. its undeniably a decent looking, probably comfortable and good drive. my point is that it obviously lacks finesse and refinement due to other companies having more experience in what american companies are starting to attempt...so yeah, no "sport car" feel and control, and the Buick Lacrosse looks as much like an idiot in the car world as I do in this thread.

/thread.

 

^ For a bit i was feeling bad that people were calling you names... but yea.. now.. not so much.

 

How can you make such a claim having never even driven one? Go and actually test drive the car before making claims such as "doesn't live up to it's rivals" or "lacks finesse and refinement". You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

 

So even you're admitting that you're an idiot....more so than ever, I find it hard to take your opinion seriously. Just quit while you're ahead, you're only digging yourself deeper.

All I can say is that throughout the 90's and 00's there wasn't a single Buick that piqued my interest, whatsoever.... until now. After the discontinuation of the SHO models, I had zero interest in the Taurus, until this most recent generation.

Just keep puttering along though, its kinda funny. I know you think we're all idiots and that you're the smart one.

 

no im the dumb one for venturing into trusting what every single review on the internet says: im agreeing with you smart people. FINALLY, buick built a nice looking, decent ride, but why would i have to drive it when all the big name reviews admit that the car lacks that proper feel of a true luxury ride. its not there.

the good is that American companies are obviously on their way and I actually might test drive something once 1-2 generations of the lacrosse go by from now.

that is all. im not disagreeing with you guys, just looking at it in a different way.

from the forum jackass,
Luigi

 

i was trying the right way to say the same thing! The guy didn't troll at all...ahahaa.
Acura is happy with doing OK....that is about it. Whomever things that their new design language is good...well , I honestly don't know how to react to that...good for them!