How much better is SH-AWD on the TLX compared to the systems in the current line up?
03-28-2014, 09:49 AM
#81
The FWD platform itself is modified to accommodate the SH-AWD package. Honda made a significant investment in additional stampings, jigs & robotic welding software to accommodate the SH-AWD system. Its easy enough to spot just compare the FWD & AWD’s trunk floor. Even the trunks published volume spec is smaller for the SH-AWD cars.
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
You also mention that the car's FWD platform was modified to allow for the SHAWD system to be put in. I can't find any information to support this. In fact since the 3G TL aside from suspension components like control arms and shocks and springs nothing with regard to chassis is shared with any Honda vehicle. I noticed the same with the 4G TL. Nothing across the Honda line is shared with the TL. So floor board aside if they designed the SHAWD differently how does that change anything at all.
Also explain how a RWD platform would help? My understanding is a Longitudinally mounted motor and transmission being under the cabin with the engine over the front axle and a non existent boot with relatively the same cabin space. In which case the TL would be a great performance sedan with no utilitarian purpose.
Why they don't have at least one car in their line up that achieves this does baffle me but that's Honda's mantra.
The following users liked this post:
internalaudit (03-28-2014)
03-28-2014, 09:53 AM
#82
I don't think we're entirely off the same tack; however, I'm speaking only of the SH-AWD system and how it could be improved in the future.
If I'm correct in what I'm reading you've typed, you seem to be counting more systems than SH-AWD in your evaluation of the car's stability.
I'm not looking at AHA and VSA as if they're part of SH-AWD, although I fully agree and admit that the systems are integrated, and fully admit that you're correct about what you have said.
But...what SH-AWD's capabilities could be improved if we found a way to do with the conventional cars what we are doing with the RLX Hybrid SH-AWD, by using the gears and clutches themselves to provide some drag without applying the brakes.
If I'm correct in what I'm reading you've typed, you seem to be counting more systems than SH-AWD in your evaluation of the car's stability.
I'm not looking at AHA and VSA as if they're part of SH-AWD, although I fully agree and admit that the systems are integrated, and fully admit that you're correct about what you have said.
But...what SH-AWD's capabilities could be improved if we found a way to do with the conventional cars what we are doing with the RLX Hybrid SH-AWD, by using the gears and clutches themselves to provide some drag without applying the brakes.
The following users liked this post:
internalaudit (03-28-2014)
03-28-2014, 10:06 AM
#83
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
Well that's the point, the gears and clutches you're talking about is the engine itself. The system still vectors engine braking during deceleration and that in effect causes a similar braking feel. Energy recovery in the RLX isn't going to exist at the expense of locking a tyre if traction is lost under heavy cornering. So the SHAWD does the same if a wheel were to lift off the ground or loose traction it would no longer vector an resistance to that wheel.
But if you "vector engine braking" then what you're talking about is attempting to transmit a lesser amount of forward momentum. If you're engaged to the rotating mass of the engine, whether or not the throttle is being applied, then that is *not* what I'm talking about.
With what you're telling me about, what happens with SH-AWD if you've gone off throttle and clutch in at the same time, say, trail braking in Turn 5 at Summit Point, something like that?
:-)
What I'm talking about is attempting to do something a little more active than that.
I neglected to mention that with VSA turned off, the 4G TL will have lift throttle oversteer. It's not bad, and it's manageable.
But off throttle, it reacts similarly to the way my K20A(*) ITR track car performed, in attitude if not in actual speed.
The 4G TL SH-AWD is certainly not as bad as the RLX P-AWS car in a high performance setting, of course.
I suppose what I'm saying is that you're not wrong...but I don't think that I am, either.
I want the new SH-AWD to be more active than it was on my 4G TL 6-6.
The following users liked this post:
d1sturb3d119 (03-28-2014)
03-28-2014, 10:17 AM
#84
That's clear. Thanks very much for persisting.
But if you "vector engine braking" then what you're talking about is attempting to transmit a lesser amount of forward momentum. If you're engaged to the rotating mass of the engine, whether or not the throttle is being applied, then that is *not* what I'm talking about.
With what you're telling me about, what happens with SH-AWD if you've gone off throttle and clutch in at the same time, say, trail braking in Turn 5 at Summit Point, something like that?
:-)
What I'm talking about is attempting to do something a little more active than that.
I neglected to mention that with VSA turned off, the 4G TL will have lift throttle oversteer. It's not bad, and it's manageable.
But off throttle, it reacts similarly to the way my K20A(*) ITR track car performed, in attitude if not in actual speed.
The 4G TL SH-AWD is certainly not as bad as the RLX P-AWS car in a high performance setting, of course.
I suppose what I'm saying is that you're not wrong...but I don't think that I am, either.
I want the new SH-AWD to be more active than it was on my 4G TL 6-6.
But if you "vector engine braking" then what you're talking about is attempting to transmit a lesser amount of forward momentum. If you're engaged to the rotating mass of the engine, whether or not the throttle is being applied, then that is *not* what I'm talking about.
With what you're telling me about, what happens with SH-AWD if you've gone off throttle and clutch in at the same time, say, trail braking in Turn 5 at Summit Point, something like that?
:-)
What I'm talking about is attempting to do something a little more active than that.
I neglected to mention that with VSA turned off, the 4G TL will have lift throttle oversteer. It's not bad, and it's manageable.
But off throttle, it reacts similarly to the way my K20A(*) ITR track car performed, in attitude if not in actual speed.
The 4G TL SH-AWD is certainly not as bad as the RLX P-AWS car in a high performance setting, of course.
I suppose what I'm saying is that you're not wrong...but I don't think that I am, either.
I want the new SH-AWD to be more active than it was on my 4G TL 6-6.
Turn 5 with throttle and clutch off and you should get immense pleasure from the transitional oversteer that's about to happen!
Ah that makes sense. You want something that's more active rather than reactive in a 6spd for example. I don't see that issue in the auto's but the manuals yeah.
Volvo might be implementing something similar soon. Convert braking effort into reusable energy for later use. That would be really interesting to see. Honda needs to get their shit together both in terms of marketing and cutting edge R&D. These cars have so much potential already.
Can you image a 100bhp kick because you were braking or better fuel efficiency! Wish it could be retrofitted!
Last edited by d1sturb3d119; 03-28-2014 at 10:20 AM.
03-28-2014, 12:08 PM
#85
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
That's the point I'm trying to make. The FWD design of the Unibody structure still has to be able to accomodate a drive shaft to the rear wheels. So how is it an FWD any more?! The car also sends 210 HP to the back wheels while driving at any point in time. So how again is it and FWD platform?
You also mention that the car's FWD platform was modified to allow for the SHAWD system to be put in. I can't find any information to support this. In fact since the 3G TL aside from suspension components like control arms and shocks and springs nothing with regard to chassis is shared with any Honda vehicle. I noticed the same with the 4G TL. Nothing across the Honda line is shared with the TL. So floor board aside if they designed the SHAWD differently how does that change anything at all.
.
You also mention that the car's FWD platform was modified to allow for the SHAWD system to be put in. I can't find any information to support this. In fact since the 3G TL aside from suspension components like control arms and shocks and springs nothing with regard to chassis is shared with any Honda vehicle. I noticed the same with the 4G TL. Nothing across the Honda line is shared with the TL. So floor board aside if they designed the SHAWD differently how does that change anything at all.
.
BTW The "Floor board aside" comment also suggests some remedial work on the word "platform"
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 03-28-2014 at 12:13 PM.
03-28-2014, 12:44 PM
#86
Going Back in Time nearly 120 Years - Funny all those technological breakthroughs.
Ferdinand Porsche was the founder of the Porsche car company. He is best known for creating the first gasoline-electric hybrid vehicle (Lohner-Porsche).
Porsche developed his first cars as electric cars with electric wheel hub motors that ran on batteries.
The Lohner Porsche, fitted with one wheel motor in each of the front wheels, appeared at the World Exhibition in Paris in 1900 and created a sensation in the young automobile world.
The C.2 Phaeton; first unveiled in Vienna, Austria, on June 26, 1898, Porsche had engraved the code "P1" (standing for Porsche, number one, signifying Ferdinand Porsche's first design) onto all the key components.
Porsches car driven by two, electric motors, directly fitted within the front wheel hubs and powered by batteries. This drive train construction was easily expanded to the first four-wheel drive, by simply mounting two more electric motors to the rear wheels, and a four-motor example.
In 1905 Porsche was awarded the Pötting prize as Austria's most outstanding automotive engineer.
Porsche came up with several very successful race car designs. The series of models equipped with superchargers that culminated in the Mercedes-Benz SSK dominated its class of motor racing in the 1920s.
Today: Drive by wire
The Hiroko Fold pre-production model uses a hub wheel that integrates a motor, steering actuators, suspension and braking right inside the wheel, controlled by a drive-by-wire system.
Cars with electronic control of brakes and acceleration provide more opportunities for computerized vehicle dynamics such as:
Active cruise control, where the vehicle can maintain a given distance from a vehicle ahead
Designated FWD Chassis – RWD Chassis – AWD Chassis and the likes are non-existent, they are flexible systems easy adaptable to changes in technology.
The core reason for flexibility and adaptability equals Profit.
Ferdinand Porsche was the founder of the Porsche car company. He is best known for creating the first gasoline-electric hybrid vehicle (Lohner-Porsche).
Porsche developed his first cars as electric cars with electric wheel hub motors that ran on batteries.
The Lohner Porsche, fitted with one wheel motor in each of the front wheels, appeared at the World Exhibition in Paris in 1900 and created a sensation in the young automobile world.
The C.2 Phaeton; first unveiled in Vienna, Austria, on June 26, 1898, Porsche had engraved the code "P1" (standing for Porsche, number one, signifying Ferdinand Porsche's first design) onto all the key components.
Porsches car driven by two, electric motors, directly fitted within the front wheel hubs and powered by batteries. This drive train construction was easily expanded to the first four-wheel drive, by simply mounting two more electric motors to the rear wheels, and a four-motor example.
In 1905 Porsche was awarded the Pötting prize as Austria's most outstanding automotive engineer.
Porsche came up with several very successful race car designs. The series of models equipped with superchargers that culminated in the Mercedes-Benz SSK dominated its class of motor racing in the 1920s.
Today: Drive by wire
The Hiroko Fold pre-production model uses a hub wheel that integrates a motor, steering actuators, suspension and braking right inside the wheel, controlled by a drive-by-wire system.
Cars with electronic control of brakes and acceleration provide more opportunities for computerized vehicle dynamics such as:
Active cruise control, where the vehicle can maintain a given distance from a vehicle ahead
- Collision avoidance, where the vehicle can automatically brake to avoid a collision
- Emergency brake assist, where the vehicle senses an emergency stop and applies maximum braking
- Active software differentials, where individual wheel speed is adjusted in response to other inputs
- Active brake bias, where individual wheel brake effort is adjusted in real time to maintain vehicle stability
- Brake steer, where individual wheel brake bias is adjusted to assist steering (similar to a tracked vehicle like a Bulldozer
Designated FWD Chassis – RWD Chassis – AWD Chassis and the likes are non-existent, they are flexible systems easy adaptable to changes in technology.
The core reason for flexibility and adaptability equals Profit.
The following 2 users liked this post by mylove4cars:
d1sturb3d119 (03-28-2014),
internalaudit (03-28-2014)
03-28-2014, 02:43 PM
#87
Platform sharing among Honda products has been beaten to death so I suggest you do a better job researching, seek & you shall find the backup. Start with Honda has two auto platforms small cat & large car. large car is Accord through & including the RLX/Legend. Maybe just put a call into Honda PR if you have problems with the search function.
BTW The "Floor board aside" comment also suggests some remedial work on the word "platform"
BTW The "Floor board aside" comment also suggests some remedial work on the word "platform"
Besides the front and rear subframe being shared which has the same suspension mounting points, the unibody structure are engineered differently.
Everyone claims that they are the same based on the two looking the same. If one or the other is built to meet different specs and requirements to achieve different results can you call them the same?
If you claim to have the research please present it. I've done the digging to find nothing official, except for car journalists and member's on forums claiming that the two are the same.
The chassis in terms of development are still treated exclusively and the Accords are built differently from the TL's. I tried to search for cutaway's of the chassis but couldn't find anything there either.
How much more re-engineering would do the job? At face value the wheelbase and overall dimensions of both the cars are similar but claiming they are the same is gross underestimation of what needs to be done for these cars.
This isn't some contest of who's right or wrong but if you have the facts I'd love to see them. Based off the official word they cars are engineered differently. The dimensions of both are the same but the implementation of both cars differ vastly especially when putting the power down.
This would be similar to claiming that if two wheels one forged and one cast are both the same because they have the same design. We know for a fact that it isn't true but we only find that out based on technical documents that support the same.
Lets say they didn't share the chassis, both at the subframe and unibody. What then? What change would we see?
03-28-2014, 03:08 PM
#88
I can definitely agree with both of the earlier points, for one thing SH has counter measures in place for lifting off throttle mid turn, I recall one instance where it actually held the rev position for a bit, which may have been to retain more engine torque in the system but at the same time the vehicle did not behave as well as one might expect but now knowing the car's tendencies, one might do things a bit differently. On the other hand, that may actually be a large function of the heavy front based sedan and the car itself, suspension, tires, etc, as opposed to the system alone.
In the earlier noted passage it says that torque is varied under these situations but your not getting full drive torque as you would if on the throttle so besides the VSA acting on the throttle and whatever vectoring taking place, I think that's where the acceleration device might further come into play, however the TL does not have one and instead has fixed gear set that is overdriven 1.7% at the rear vs the front.
That is why I usually concluded that the acceleration device serves to enhance the functions of the system because of the variable overall spin rate (up to 5.7%) and can make these off throttle situations a bit more fluid where the TL and others may rely more on VSA.
However, I would also imagine that there may be situations when having the device can be worse, plus the fact that VSA has only gotten better and more integrated where they can probably work around the issue, and get rid of the device for other reasons such as cost, drivetrain losses, reliability, fuel economy, etc, and the RL is a bit heavier and less aggressive by way of it's suspension in the first place vs the TL, where it would benefit more.
As far as what they do with the TLX and SH, who knows, but it will be interesting to see, maybe an attempt to "simulate" the negative torque effect or better vector like the hybrid version, which aside from aiding regeneration in the RLX hybrid, also enhances the vectoring effect.
To the point about PAWS vs SH, SH is likely better suited for handling, system vs system, but then again, the applications are different cars with different makeups so that tends to go back to what the potential owner is looking for, wants and needs.
As far as the sport differential added to Quattro (and even BMW to an extent), it's very effective, in their own right and as a whole, it is Audi's equal to SH, maybe better in some instances. Keeping in mind, again, that it's reserved as an option to a select few models and those models generally are more sport oriented than a TL or RL to begin with, yet some reviewers preferred the behavior of the SH in comparison to but take nothing away, perhaps only that they should make it available on more models.
To Subaru, I was not aware that they had a proactive function or an active differential at the rear axle, and not all of the models have an active center. Subaru AWD can vary model to model, and their literature doesn't really indicate very clearly how much bias in distribution is achieved front to back and vice versa in those models.
About the feel or drivetrain differences, it's largely individual based and a subjective quality but does have much to do with the overall drivetrain layout and rigidity, as well as weight balance and bit suspension and steering feel, maybe brakes to a very small extent, basically the overall driving feel and demeanor and as a result of it's architecture but I don't think it has everything to do with the torque distribution because most AWD systems don't drive 100% rear or continuously for that matter.
As already noted, maybe just Infiniti's that splits up to the front under spin or loss of traction and that's about it, maybe there are a few others but the front is still engaged and the majority of AWD's split about or near 50/50 anyway and most don't proactively vary this rate, only under slippage or wheel spin variation and of those that do, they don't tend to be continuously heavily rear biased only under set circumstances.
For example it's entirely possible for SH to behave with more rear bias than many RWD based AWD systems in certain circumstances, mostly dry handling but overall, it still feels very much like a FWD vehicle because fundamentally that's what it is, that's where more weight it, but also because it varies when it is more FWD like and when it is more RWD like.
Maybe bad examples because we have two extremes of the AWD world, one very FWD based but actively variable and the other very RWD based but looking at FWD Audi and RWD BMW whose systems distribute about the same at around 50/50 give or take, in most cases. They still tend to show their FWD and RWD tendencies.
Acura had some test mules with SH running different software and they got one to something like 1/99 distribution but I would imagine that in some situations it still had FWD tendencies because of makeup and weight distribution, etc, not because of torque distribution. Not saying that doesn't play it's role but there are others factors as well.
As far as platform sharing, few really have the definition or break down for when they claim it is shared or when it isn't, furthermore nobody really knows to what extent exactly what is shared and what difference that actually makes, objectively speaking anyway. If the conversation is materialized or becomes a matter of materiel or objects, the platforms or their sharing means next to nothing IMO, however if we start saying this means the RL and Accord are interpreted to be closely associated, luxury to mainstream and that sort of status and perception based stuff, then subjectively that can be interpreted or made out to a bad thing, where maybe it isn't, maybe just a matter of opinion.
Typically, the term Accord platform is thrown around and that's it. I don't claim to know exactly what that is supposed to mean in a technical sense, as far as nuts and bolts and research and development and additions, enhancements, reinforcements, etc, and I suspect nobody else really does either, and that's all I'll say and maybe that should be said before anyone wants to label that sort of thing a necessarily good or a bad quality but I'm saying this with the desire to actually know and find out as opposed it just remaining a popular talking point, not actually saying or speaking anything one way or another by itself.
In the earlier noted passage it says that torque is varied under these situations but your not getting full drive torque as you would if on the throttle so besides the VSA acting on the throttle and whatever vectoring taking place, I think that's where the acceleration device might further come into play, however the TL does not have one and instead has fixed gear set that is overdriven 1.7% at the rear vs the front.
That is why I usually concluded that the acceleration device serves to enhance the functions of the system because of the variable overall spin rate (up to 5.7%) and can make these off throttle situations a bit more fluid where the TL and others may rely more on VSA.
However, I would also imagine that there may be situations when having the device can be worse, plus the fact that VSA has only gotten better and more integrated where they can probably work around the issue, and get rid of the device for other reasons such as cost, drivetrain losses, reliability, fuel economy, etc, and the RL is a bit heavier and less aggressive by way of it's suspension in the first place vs the TL, where it would benefit more.
As far as what they do with the TLX and SH, who knows, but it will be interesting to see, maybe an attempt to "simulate" the negative torque effect or better vector like the hybrid version, which aside from aiding regeneration in the RLX hybrid, also enhances the vectoring effect.
To the point about PAWS vs SH, SH is likely better suited for handling, system vs system, but then again, the applications are different cars with different makeups so that tends to go back to what the potential owner is looking for, wants and needs.
As far as the sport differential added to Quattro (and even BMW to an extent), it's very effective, in their own right and as a whole, it is Audi's equal to SH, maybe better in some instances. Keeping in mind, again, that it's reserved as an option to a select few models and those models generally are more sport oriented than a TL or RL to begin with, yet some reviewers preferred the behavior of the SH in comparison to but take nothing away, perhaps only that they should make it available on more models.
To Subaru, I was not aware that they had a proactive function or an active differential at the rear axle, and not all of the models have an active center. Subaru AWD can vary model to model, and their literature doesn't really indicate very clearly how much bias in distribution is achieved front to back and vice versa in those models.
About the feel or drivetrain differences, it's largely individual based and a subjective quality but does have much to do with the overall drivetrain layout and rigidity, as well as weight balance and bit suspension and steering feel, maybe brakes to a very small extent, basically the overall driving feel and demeanor and as a result of it's architecture but I don't think it has everything to do with the torque distribution because most AWD systems don't drive 100% rear or continuously for that matter.
As already noted, maybe just Infiniti's that splits up to the front under spin or loss of traction and that's about it, maybe there are a few others but the front is still engaged and the majority of AWD's split about or near 50/50 anyway and most don't proactively vary this rate, only under slippage or wheel spin variation and of those that do, they don't tend to be continuously heavily rear biased only under set circumstances.
For example it's entirely possible for SH to behave with more rear bias than many RWD based AWD systems in certain circumstances, mostly dry handling but overall, it still feels very much like a FWD vehicle because fundamentally that's what it is, that's where more weight it, but also because it varies when it is more FWD like and when it is more RWD like.
Maybe bad examples because we have two extremes of the AWD world, one very FWD based but actively variable and the other very RWD based but looking at FWD Audi and RWD BMW whose systems distribute about the same at around 50/50 give or take, in most cases. They still tend to show their FWD and RWD tendencies.
Acura had some test mules with SH running different software and they got one to something like 1/99 distribution but I would imagine that in some situations it still had FWD tendencies because of makeup and weight distribution, etc, not because of torque distribution. Not saying that doesn't play it's role but there are others factors as well.
As far as platform sharing, few really have the definition or break down for when they claim it is shared or when it isn't, furthermore nobody really knows to what extent exactly what is shared and what difference that actually makes, objectively speaking anyway. If the conversation is materialized or becomes a matter of materiel or objects, the platforms or their sharing means next to nothing IMO, however if we start saying this means the RL and Accord are interpreted to be closely associated, luxury to mainstream and that sort of status and perception based stuff, then subjectively that can be interpreted or made out to a bad thing, where maybe it isn't, maybe just a matter of opinion.
Typically, the term Accord platform is thrown around and that's it. I don't claim to know exactly what that is supposed to mean in a technical sense, as far as nuts and bolts and research and development and additions, enhancements, reinforcements, etc, and I suspect nobody else really does either, and that's all I'll say and maybe that should be said before anyone wants to label that sort of thing a necessarily good or a bad quality but I'm saying this with the desire to actually know and find out as opposed it just remaining a popular talking point, not actually saying or speaking anything one way or another by itself.
Last edited by winstrolvtec; 03-28-2014 at 03:20 PM.
The following 2 users liked this post by winstrolvtec:
d1sturb3d119 (03-28-2014),
internalaudit (03-28-2014)
03-28-2014, 04:18 PM
#89
I can definitely agree with both of the earlier points, for one thing SH has counter measures in place for lifting off throttle mid turn, I recall one instance where it actually held the rev position for a bit, which may have been to retain more engine torque in the system but at the same time the vehicle did not behave as well as one might expect but now knowing the car's tendencies, one might do things a bit differently. On the other hand, that may actually be a large function of the heavy front based sedan and the car itself, suspension, tires, etc, as opposed to the system alone.
In the earlier noted passage it says that torque is varied under these situations but your not getting full drive torque as you would if on the throttle so besides the VSA acting on the throttle and whatever vectoring taking place, I think that's where the acceleration device might further come into play, however the TL does not have one and instead has fixed gear set that is overdriven 1.7% at the rear vs the front.
That is why I usually concluded that the acceleration device serves to enhance the functions of the system because of the variable overall spin rate (up to 5.7%) and can make these off throttle situations a bit more fluid where the TL and others may rely more on VSA.
However, I would also imagine that there may be situations when having the device can be worse, plus the fact that VSA has only gotten better and more integrated where they can probably work around the issue, and get rid of the device for other reasons such as cost, drivetrain losses, reliability, fuel economy, etc, and the RL is a bit heavier and less aggressive by way of it's suspension in the first place vs the TL, where it would benefit more.
As far as what they do with the TLX and SH, who knows, but it will be interesting to see, maybe an attempt to "simulate" the negative torque effect or better vector like the hybrid version, which aside from aiding regeneration in the RLX hybrid, also enhances the vectoring effect.
To the point about PAWS vs SH, SH is likely better suited for handling, system vs system, but then again, the applications are different cars with different makeups so that tends to go back to what the potential owner is looking for, wants and needs.
As far as the sport differential added to Quattro (and even BMW to an extent), it's very effective, in their own right and as a whole, it is Audi's equal to SH, maybe better in some instances. Keeping in mind, again, that it's reserved as an option to a select few models and those models generally are more sport oriented than a TL or RL to begin with, yet some reviewers preferred the behavior of the SH in comparison to but take nothing away, perhaps only that they should make it available on more models.
To Subaru, I was not aware that they had a proactive function or an active differential at the rear axle, and not all of the models have an active center. Subaru AWD can vary model to model, and their literature doesn't really indicate very clearly how much bias in distribution is achieved front to back and vice versa in those models.
About the feel or drivetrain differences, it's largely individual based and a subjective quality but does have much to do with the overall drivetrain layout and rigidity, as well as weight balance and bit suspension and steering feel, maybe brakes to a very small extent, basically the overall driving feel and demeanor and as a result of it's architecture but I don't think it has everything to do with the torque distribution because most AWD systems don't drive 100% rear or continuously for that matter.
As already noted, maybe just Infiniti's that splits up to the front under spin or loss of traction and that's about it, maybe there are a few others but the front is still engaged and the majority of AWD's split about or near 50/50 anyway and most don't proactively vary this rate, only under slippage or wheel spin variation and of those that do, they don't tend to be continuously heavily rear biased only under set circumstances.
For example it's entirely possible for SH to behave with more rear bias than many RWD based AWD systems in certain circumstances, mostly dry handling but overall, it still feels very much like a FWD vehicle because fundamentally that's what it is, that's where more weight it, but also because it varies when it is more FWD like and when it is more RWD like.
Maybe bad examples because we have two extremes of the AWD world, one very FWD based but actively variable and the other very RWD based but looking at FWD Audi and RWD BMW whose systems distribute about the same at around 50/50 give or take, in most cases. They still tend to show their FWD and RWD tendencies.
Acura had some test mules with SH running different software and they got one to something like 1/99 distribution but I would imagine that in some situations it still had FWD tendencies because of makeup and weight distribution, etc, not because of torque distribution. Not saying that doesn't play it's role but there are others factors as well.
As far as platform sharing, few really have the definition or break down for when they claim it is shared or when it isn't, furthermore nobody really knows to what extent exactly what is shared and what difference that actually makes, objectively speaking anyway. If the conversation is materialized or becomes a matter of materiel or objects, the platforms or their sharing means next to nothing IMO, however if we start saying this means the RL and Accord are interpreted to be closely associated, luxury to mainstream and that sort of status and perception based stuff, then subjectively that can be interpreted or made out to a bad thing, where maybe it isn't, maybe just a matter of opinion.
Typically, the term Accord platform is thrown around and that's it. I don't claim to know exactly what that is supposed to mean in a technical sense, as far as nuts and bolts and research and development and additions, enhancements, reinforcements, etc, and I suspect nobody else really does either, and that's all I'll say and maybe that should be said before anyone wants to label that sort of thing a necessarily good or a bad quality but I'm saying this with the desire to actually know and find out as opposed it just remaining a popular talking point, not actually saying or speaking anything one way or another by itself.
In the earlier noted passage it says that torque is varied under these situations but your not getting full drive torque as you would if on the throttle so besides the VSA acting on the throttle and whatever vectoring taking place, I think that's where the acceleration device might further come into play, however the TL does not have one and instead has fixed gear set that is overdriven 1.7% at the rear vs the front.
That is why I usually concluded that the acceleration device serves to enhance the functions of the system because of the variable overall spin rate (up to 5.7%) and can make these off throttle situations a bit more fluid where the TL and others may rely more on VSA.
However, I would also imagine that there may be situations when having the device can be worse, plus the fact that VSA has only gotten better and more integrated where they can probably work around the issue, and get rid of the device for other reasons such as cost, drivetrain losses, reliability, fuel economy, etc, and the RL is a bit heavier and less aggressive by way of it's suspension in the first place vs the TL, where it would benefit more.
As far as what they do with the TLX and SH, who knows, but it will be interesting to see, maybe an attempt to "simulate" the negative torque effect or better vector like the hybrid version, which aside from aiding regeneration in the RLX hybrid, also enhances the vectoring effect.
To the point about PAWS vs SH, SH is likely better suited for handling, system vs system, but then again, the applications are different cars with different makeups so that tends to go back to what the potential owner is looking for, wants and needs.
As far as the sport differential added to Quattro (and even BMW to an extent), it's very effective, in their own right and as a whole, it is Audi's equal to SH, maybe better in some instances. Keeping in mind, again, that it's reserved as an option to a select few models and those models generally are more sport oriented than a TL or RL to begin with, yet some reviewers preferred the behavior of the SH in comparison to but take nothing away, perhaps only that they should make it available on more models.
To Subaru, I was not aware that they had a proactive function or an active differential at the rear axle, and not all of the models have an active center. Subaru AWD can vary model to model, and their literature doesn't really indicate very clearly how much bias in distribution is achieved front to back and vice versa in those models.
About the feel or drivetrain differences, it's largely individual based and a subjective quality but does have much to do with the overall drivetrain layout and rigidity, as well as weight balance and bit suspension and steering feel, maybe brakes to a very small extent, basically the overall driving feel and demeanor and as a result of it's architecture but I don't think it has everything to do with the torque distribution because most AWD systems don't drive 100% rear or continuously for that matter.
As already noted, maybe just Infiniti's that splits up to the front under spin or loss of traction and that's about it, maybe there are a few others but the front is still engaged and the majority of AWD's split about or near 50/50 anyway and most don't proactively vary this rate, only under slippage or wheel spin variation and of those that do, they don't tend to be continuously heavily rear biased only under set circumstances.
For example it's entirely possible for SH to behave with more rear bias than many RWD based AWD systems in certain circumstances, mostly dry handling but overall, it still feels very much like a FWD vehicle because fundamentally that's what it is, that's where more weight it, but also because it varies when it is more FWD like and when it is more RWD like.
Maybe bad examples because we have two extremes of the AWD world, one very FWD based but actively variable and the other very RWD based but looking at FWD Audi and RWD BMW whose systems distribute about the same at around 50/50 give or take, in most cases. They still tend to show their FWD and RWD tendencies.
Acura had some test mules with SH running different software and they got one to something like 1/99 distribution but I would imagine that in some situations it still had FWD tendencies because of makeup and weight distribution, etc, not because of torque distribution. Not saying that doesn't play it's role but there are others factors as well.
As far as platform sharing, few really have the definition or break down for when they claim it is shared or when it isn't, furthermore nobody really knows to what extent exactly what is shared and what difference that actually makes, objectively speaking anyway. If the conversation is materialized or becomes a matter of materiel or objects, the platforms or their sharing means next to nothing IMO, however if we start saying this means the RL and Accord are interpreted to be closely associated, luxury to mainstream and that sort of status and perception based stuff, then subjectively that can be interpreted or made out to a bad thing, where maybe it isn't, maybe just a matter of opinion.
Typically, the term Accord platform is thrown around and that's it. I don't claim to know exactly what that is supposed to mean in a technical sense, as far as nuts and bolts and research and development and additions, enhancements, reinforcements, etc, and I suspect nobody else really does either, and that's all I'll say and maybe that should be said before anyone wants to label that sort of thing a necessarily good or a bad quality but I'm saying this with the desire to actually know and find out as opposed it just remaining a popular talking point, not actually saying or speaking anything one way or another by itself.
Because of where the engine is located and and how Honda mount's them on the chassis, the car is front heavy. This is why it understeer's. It can still be cured with a little tuning. But this is how Honda has engineered all its cars and mounts the engine in all it's cars, even the NSX. True it's between the axles but it is still transversely mounted.
There are people who have changed it into a longitudinally mounted setup to fit twin turbo's but I'm not sure what the effect on the handling was. Probably not as good given the weight shift.
03-28-2014, 06:08 PM
#90
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
You want to disagree with the automotive press, auto business analysis & the Acura/TL production lines in Maryville its incumbent to prove your minority position that they are all built on different platforms is correct, not the other way round.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 03-28-2014 at 06:17 PM.
03-29-2014, 10:38 PM
#91
2G TLX-S
The Uni body stucture of a car has to be rigid to begin with whether the rear is free wheeling or not. The car has to survive years and years of flexing to maintain its shape.
This is why I say nothing changes because the rear just has its sub frame updated to include the drivetrain that the car is using.
Honda spends money to develop new chassis in the case of the NSX and S2K because of how the engine's are mounted in accordance with the body shape. This is why these platforms are not shared with any cars across the range.
This is why I say nothing changes because the rear just has its sub frame updated to include the drivetrain that the car is using.
Honda spends money to develop new chassis in the case of the NSX and S2K because of how the engine's are mounted in accordance with the body shape. This is why these platforms are not shared with any cars across the range.
Thus what you have said is not entirely true. If all platforms can be so easily adapted for both FWD and RWD usage, then Honda wouldn't need to spend $$$$$ to develop the NEW RWD chassis (or platforms) for the NSX/S2000, but simply to modify (and shorten/lengthen) the existing FWD platforms for the RWD NSX/S2000 applications.
Likewise, if FWD platforms and RWD platforms are interchangeble, then why doesn't Honda simply modify (and shorten/lengthen) the RWD NSX/S2000 platforms for the FWD Civic/Accord/TLX/RLX applications, rather than Honda reusing the age-old FWD world platforms for all it's existing and upcoming vehicles.
The reason is that FWD platforms are for FWD vehicles, and RWD platforms are for RWD vehicles.
Notice where the S2K's engine sits. It is also longitudinally mounted. This isn't just a subframe change, its positioned for the best balance possible. Same with the NSX which has a transversely mounted engine.
Also take into consideration the unibody structure. Honda doesn't make any car's with the same dimensions. That's why they spend the money.
Note how the drive train sits in the car.
Look at how the engines sit on the chassis. This is why they re-engineer the chassis for these car's. They aren't really known for their legroom and comfort. They are designed to be sporty which is why the chassis design changes.
Also take into consideration the unibody structure. Honda doesn't make any car's with the same dimensions. That's why they spend the money.
Note how the drive train sits in the car.
Look at how the engines sit on the chassis. This is why they re-engineer the chassis for these car's. They aren't really known for their legroom and comfort. They are designed to be sporty which is why the chassis design changes.
This engine orientation requirement and the FWD/RWD structural integrity requirement call for dedicated FWD and RWD platforms, and once again defeat the claim that FWD platforms can be used for RWD vehicles and vice versa.
The RL/RLX is sitting on a lengthened Accord world platform, because they are all FWD by design. So platform dimensions are not the excuse for new platform development. FWD and RWD requirements are.
Again AWD on FWD platform as you mention doesn't make sense. Please just do the reading and understand that is not a concept that exists!
When there is drive going to the back wheels and the front wheels that doesn't change the fact that there needs to be good structural rigidity overall.
So the fact that the TL as a base car is FWD doesn't change anything. If they built the TL with an RWD platform in mind, you would have less space in the cabin, non existent trunk and would be completely wasteful given what Acura stand for.
Again the AWD system in the Infiniti is a passive system that sends power to the front only when slip is detected. The TL system is an active AWD system and is always distributing power which is what makes you feel like the car is not as lively to drive. The infiniti system acts like a RWD system and vectors torque using the brakes. Compared to the TL system that is stone age tech but, both have their benefits and both have their disadvantages. Again, the chassis has nothing to do with why the systems do what they do. It is computer controlled! If the TL sent all its power to the back you wouldn't be claiming that it feels like an FWD platform.
The feel you are talking about is computer controlled. Simple as that!
When there is drive going to the back wheels and the front wheels that doesn't change the fact that there needs to be good structural rigidity overall.
So the fact that the TL as a base car is FWD doesn't change anything. If they built the TL with an RWD platform in mind, you would have less space in the cabin, non existent trunk and would be completely wasteful given what Acura stand for.
Again the AWD system in the Infiniti is a passive system that sends power to the front only when slip is detected. The TL system is an active AWD system and is always distributing power which is what makes you feel like the car is not as lively to drive. The infiniti system acts like a RWD system and vectors torque using the brakes. Compared to the TL system that is stone age tech but, both have their benefits and both have their disadvantages. Again, the chassis has nothing to do with why the systems do what they do. It is computer controlled! If the TL sent all its power to the back you wouldn't be claiming that it feels like an FWD platform.
The feel you are talking about is computer controlled. Simple as that!
In addition, up to only 50% engine power can be directed to the front wheels of the Infiniti AWD system, not 100%; because once again, the RWD platform is simply not designed to work for FWD use, and also not designed to work with 100% engine power at it's front end.
As for the SH-AWD sending 100% engine power to the rear wheels, it just CAN'T, without screwing up the structural integrity and vehicle dynamics of it's FWD platform. That day will never come simply because of the FWD limitation as inherited from all FWD platforms. Also, the computer can never fake the drivers as if it can.
If they could, Honda and Audi would have done so long time ago with their SH-AWD and Quattro systems as used on their dedicated FWD platforms.
However, they have already push their AWD-on-FWD-platforms to the limits in trying to mimic RWD by directing up to a max of 70% power to the rear wheels in some applications, but definitely not 100% power.
Like I said earlier, I'm not debating whether the SH-AWD system is a better or worse system than the Infiniti one, nor whether FWD-platform vehicles are better or worse than RWD-platform vehicles.
I simply want to point out that vehicles with AWD-on-RWD-platform can mimic the drive and feel of RWD vehicles due to their abilities to direct 100% engine power going entirely to the rear wheels, with the front wheels solely doing steering control and the rear wheels solely putting power to the ground; and this is not vehicles with AWD-on-FWD-platform is able to duplicate.
I agree that the computer controls the amount of power going to the front and rear wheels for all AWD vehicles; but due to the FWD platform limitations, the SH-AWD/Quattro computer CANNOT send 100% engine power to the rear wheels and so CANNOT fake the drivers as if they are driving a front-steering-rear-drive vehicle.
The following users liked this post:
BEAR-AvHistory (03-30-2014)
03-31-2014, 12:23 AM
#92
Have zero interest in doing any research for you. You don't want to accept that Honda has a global big car platform that includes Accord, TL/TLX & RL/RLX/Legend it then don't.
You want to disagree with the automotive press, auto business analysis & the Acura/TL production lines in Maryville its incumbent to prove your minority position that they are all built on different platforms is correct, not the other way round.
You want to disagree with the automotive press, auto business analysis & the Acura/TL production lines in Maryville its incumbent to prove your minority position that they are all built on different platforms is correct, not the other way round.
Until I see actual proof that is not just opinion based bullshit I'm not going to assume like a lot of people have. If you have the facts back it up. Or else stop arguing.
03-31-2014, 12:47 AM
#93
You hit the nail on the head. These RWD platforms are NOT shared because they are designed from the ground up for RWD vehicles. The NSX platform for mid-engine RWD vehicles, and the S2000 platform for front-engine RWD vehicles. These two RWD platforms CANNOT be used or be adapted for any FWD vehicles across the Honda/Acura range.
Thus what you have said is not entirely true. If all platforms can be so easily adapted for both FWD and RWD usage, then Honda wouldn't need to spend $$$$$ to develop the NEW RWD chassis (or platforms) for the NSX/S2000, but simply to modify (and shorten/lengthen) the existing FWD platforms for the RWD NSX/S2000 applications.
Likewise, if FWD platforms and RWD platforms are interchangeble, then why doesn't Honda simply modify (and shorten/lengthen) the RWD NSX/S2000 platforms for the FWD Civic/Accord/TLX/RLX applications, rather than Honda reusing the age-old FWD world platforms for all it's existing and upcoming vehicles.
The reason is that FWD platforms are for FWD vehicles, and RWD platforms are for RWD vehicles.
RWD vehicles commonly use longitudinally mounted front engines so the drive shaft can go directly from the engine to the rear of the RWD vehicles without using any directional change coupling, whereas FWD vehicles commonly use transversely mounted front engines due to ease and simplicity of packaging.
This engine orientation requirement and the FWD/RWD structural integrity requirement call for dedicated FWD and RWD platforms, and once again defeat the claim that FWD platforms can be used for RWD vehicles and vice versa.
The RL/RLX is sitting on a lengthened Accord world platform, because they are all FWD by design. So platform dimensions are not the excuse for new platform development. FWD and RWD requirements are.
The Infiniti AWD system acts like a RWD system because IT IS. That AWD system is implemented on a RWD platform. The bulk of the engine power is directed to the rear wheels under normal driving, and only when rear slippage is detected then power is distributed to the front wheels; unlike AWD-on-FWD-platform vehicles that are directing the bulk of the engine power to the front wheels under normal driving conditions.
In addition, up to only 50% engine power can be directed to the front wheels of the Infiniti AWD system, not 100%; because once again, the RWD platform is simply not designed to work for FWD use, and also not designed to work with 100% engine power at it's front end.
As for the SH-AWD sending 100% engine power to the rear wheels, it just CAN'T, without screwing up the structural integrity and vehicle dynamics of it's FWD platform. That day will never come simply because of the FWD limitation as inherited from all FWD platforms. Also, the computer can never fake the drivers as if it can.
If they could, Honda and Audi would have done so long time ago with their SH-AWD and Quattro systems as used on their dedicated FWD platforms.
However, they have already push their AWD-on-FWD-platforms to the limits in trying to mimic RWD by directing up to a max of 70% power to the rear wheels in some applications, but definitely not 100% power.
Like I said earlier, I'm not debating whether the SH-AWD system is a better or worse system than the Infiniti one, nor whether FWD-platform vehicles are better or worse than RWD-platform vehicles.
I simply want to point out that vehicles with AWD-on-RWD-platform can mimic the drive and feel of RWD vehicles due to their abilities to direct 100% engine power going entirely to the rear wheels, with the front wheels solely doing steering control and the rear wheels solely putting power to the ground; and this is not vehicles with AWD-on-FWD-platform is able to duplicate.
I agree that the computer controls the amount of power going to the front and rear wheels for all AWD vehicles; but due to the FWD platform limitations, the SH-AWD/Quattro computer CANNOT send 100% engine power to the rear wheels and so CANNOT fake the drivers as if they are driving a front-steering-rear-drive vehicle.
Thus what you have said is not entirely true. If all platforms can be so easily adapted for both FWD and RWD usage, then Honda wouldn't need to spend $$$$$ to develop the NEW RWD chassis (or platforms) for the NSX/S2000, but simply to modify (and shorten/lengthen) the existing FWD platforms for the RWD NSX/S2000 applications.
Likewise, if FWD platforms and RWD platforms are interchangeble, then why doesn't Honda simply modify (and shorten/lengthen) the RWD NSX/S2000 platforms for the FWD Civic/Accord/TLX/RLX applications, rather than Honda reusing the age-old FWD world platforms for all it's existing and upcoming vehicles.
The reason is that FWD platforms are for FWD vehicles, and RWD platforms are for RWD vehicles.
RWD vehicles commonly use longitudinally mounted front engines so the drive shaft can go directly from the engine to the rear of the RWD vehicles without using any directional change coupling, whereas FWD vehicles commonly use transversely mounted front engines due to ease and simplicity of packaging.
This engine orientation requirement and the FWD/RWD structural integrity requirement call for dedicated FWD and RWD platforms, and once again defeat the claim that FWD platforms can be used for RWD vehicles and vice versa.
The RL/RLX is sitting on a lengthened Accord world platform, because they are all FWD by design. So platform dimensions are not the excuse for new platform development. FWD and RWD requirements are.
The Infiniti AWD system acts like a RWD system because IT IS. That AWD system is implemented on a RWD platform. The bulk of the engine power is directed to the rear wheels under normal driving, and only when rear slippage is detected then power is distributed to the front wheels; unlike AWD-on-FWD-platform vehicles that are directing the bulk of the engine power to the front wheels under normal driving conditions.
In addition, up to only 50% engine power can be directed to the front wheels of the Infiniti AWD system, not 100%; because once again, the RWD platform is simply not designed to work for FWD use, and also not designed to work with 100% engine power at it's front end.
As for the SH-AWD sending 100% engine power to the rear wheels, it just CAN'T, without screwing up the structural integrity and vehicle dynamics of it's FWD platform. That day will never come simply because of the FWD limitation as inherited from all FWD platforms. Also, the computer can never fake the drivers as if it can.
If they could, Honda and Audi would have done so long time ago with their SH-AWD and Quattro systems as used on their dedicated FWD platforms.
However, they have already push their AWD-on-FWD-platforms to the limits in trying to mimic RWD by directing up to a max of 70% power to the rear wheels in some applications, but definitely not 100% power.
Like I said earlier, I'm not debating whether the SH-AWD system is a better or worse system than the Infiniti one, nor whether FWD-platform vehicles are better or worse than RWD-platform vehicles.
I simply want to point out that vehicles with AWD-on-RWD-platform can mimic the drive and feel of RWD vehicles due to their abilities to direct 100% engine power going entirely to the rear wheels, with the front wheels solely doing steering control and the rear wheels solely putting power to the ground; and this is not vehicles with AWD-on-FWD-platform is able to duplicate.
I agree that the computer controls the amount of power going to the front and rear wheels for all AWD vehicles; but due to the FWD platform limitations, the SH-AWD/Quattro computer CANNOT send 100% engine power to the rear wheels and so CANNOT fake the drivers as if they are driving a front-steering-rear-drive vehicle.
The reason why they don't just use the S2K platform or the NSX is because of what the cars are designed to do. The ideology behind them is to perform. That is why the engine is located where it is and occupies the space it does.
The cars with SHAWD are not performance cars and are designed to be spacious comfortable and employ good driving dynamics. The TL could not possibly have the engine sitting over the steering rack and still have the space for SHAWD too. The housing of the system required for SHAWD at this time is bulky which is why trunk space is non existent on the TL. They have designed the car to perform well not to be a world class supercar.
Following in that philosophy, and the fact that Honda for some reason doesn't want to build RWD cars across it's line, they have engineered the TL to do what it does.
And at the end of it all with all the understeer complaints that some have brought up in this thread about the TL it still out performs the G37x albeit by a hair in the slalom and skid pad. So why is that people feel like the TL understeer's despite the fact that it still clocks a faster time and higher G's through the slalom.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/cm/roada...Sport_data.pdf
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/specs.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ict/specs.html
The following 2 users liked this post by d1sturb3d119:
internalaudit (03-31-2014),
Litt3 (04-05-2014)
03-31-2014, 08:12 AM
#94
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
The following users liked this post:
d1sturb3d119 (03-31-2014)
03-31-2014, 08:18 AM
#95
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
A majority of Honda are opposed to ever producing a rear wheel drive bias sedan because of an internal safety standard, aside from the fact that it would be very expensive.
It's much easier to design a transverse motor and transaxle to withstand a high speed impact without intruding into the passenger area.
They keep shelving their V8 and V10 engine designs because other motors appear to do the same thing more efficiently and more cheaply. I'm looking forward to how the TLX GT does on May 30th/June 1st, and I'm looking forward with eager anticipation their attempts to put some kind of high performance J Motor in a road going TLX GT.
0_0
Maybe a pipe dream, but it's enough to make me wait until December instead of buying an RLX Hybrid in the summertime.
The following 3 users liked this post by George Knighton:
03-31-2014, 08:51 PM
#96
Won't say that platform design in general doesn't take into effect what they are attempting to do with the final vehicle or vehicles it is largely designed to be used for, that only make sense and better utilizes company resources and benefits the final product. It's smart and makes sense. However, I don't think that totally means they can't successfully use it differently or adapt it for other purposes than what they targeted either, even ones with different drivetrains.
It seems it's one of those yes and no type things and probably just boils down to having a better and more focused platform for what any one company is trying to accomplish rather than wasting the extra resources on something that will maybe only end up being average in their minds, or more compromised and more costly but can be used across the board instead. Instead of allocating the resources to further adaptability, they can better tailor the platform more to what the finished product could benefit from.
Think that has a lot more to do with business models and the company philosophy and extent of their resources or willingness to spend and invest, as no automaker has infinite resources. It may or may not cost that much more just to dedicate different platforms for each car or group of cars, when and more importantly, the finished product will most certainly gain from it with more of a dedicated type of form and function already in mind.
Agree or disagree with the business models and what not, but that is not my point however, that's a different discussion. Again, it's about the likelihood that further adaptation could be done or engineered in there before and after but is it really worth doing? That's not a question for any of us really but more that the company has to ask and answer for themselves and I think many have already decided that one. So while I don't suggest this multiple or cross drivetrain adaptation is easy or feasible, at the same time, it's probably not a matter of can't but more a matter why or it just not making much production or business sense.
To the other point, as far as rear wheel drive feel and AWD on RWD and an ability to be 100% or 99% RWD or close enough, it's a moot point IMO, unless speaking of Infiniti's AWD in particular, because most RWD based AWD's don't typically send 100% power to the rear in any capacity and don't drive 100%, or close to it, in the rear and then transfer to the front as needed in the first place.
Most RWD based AWD's are preset at 50/50 or 40/60, give or take, even RWD BMW and MB. Notice they don't use near or 100% rear even though it would appear everything is in place to successfully do so. So it's likely there is more to the torque bias decision than only the platform design and which wheels they want powered. A lot of that is a function of fundamental drivetrain in use and design of the system and it's components themselves. Infiniti just so happens to make a business decision that they don't want to compromise on the true RWD nature of their vehicles for reasons we may know and those we may not.
BMW and MB, could likely do the same but probably want a more balanced AWD system to begin with that provides better traction in all situations as opposed to being a RWD aid in a sense, since they have dedicated RWD models anyway. All have their advantages and disadvantageous. For the most part, the difference would ultimately appear to be a matter of choice, and goals for the products, especially on the surface. RWD favored or tailored platforms help of course, don't get me wrong, but based on the info, it might not be the single deciding factor in what determines preset torque distributions, nor what totally contributes to the drive feel IMO.
If the particular discussion is only surrounding SH and Infiniti's than perhaps the discussion is more on target but with the exceptions we discussed, the majority of AWD's that are RWD based, don't really exhibit heavy rear drive distributions where and when one would notice or could appreciate it, like in dry handling. The some that are proactive as opposed to reactive, are more beneficial in this regard, but still you will not find even a few that do 100% rear, and of those that can variably get closer, let's say like 70%-85%, it is not continuous, it's instance and situation based only.
Furthermore, many Quattro systems would be considered FWD based but many actually maintain 50/50 or 40/60, which is not mostly FWD and FWIW, it's not hard to get SH operating at mostly 60/40 for normal driving, all it requires is being a little heavy on the gas, and 60/40 is not overly FWD like, not exactly FWD anyway.
Again, Acura ran test mules at almost all RWD with SH and on full time via software and having the clutch packs fully engaged and not variable as it is now, which is even beyond the systems current limitations. I'll try to find the article, it was open to journalists and nobody really had anything to comment but praises and I suspect that the problem with the heavy rear bias for mass production and general ownership purposes was with things like the gas mileage, cost, wear and tear, reliability, and maintenance, over any limitations of the platform but not to say that there are none when using the vehicle in that capacity.
Just that it's hard for it to be the single driving limitation IMO because they don't have a problem sending 70% in the most extreme of situations with lots of stress placed on the platform among everything else, and even 70% to a single rear wheel, and based on test mules there doesn't appear to be a limitation with the system not being able or the platform necessarily, they just don't want that all of the time for whatever reasons. Many alluded to above.
Same for the latest Quattro that can do 85% rear as called for, not sure if that's active or reactive but nontheless, the same concept. At one kind of extreme, 85% rear is ok, why would that amount or more not be ok for normal driving. There must be other reasons why they don't want it that way all of the time.
With regards to the drive feel of the front or rear basis, it may very well be a large component especially with a system like Infinti's compared to SH because you have a very FWD and RWD based systems but like earlier discussed, a lot of the other popular RWD based AWD models are more evenly split yet they may feel more RWD like because of other reasons in addition to some being more rear distributed.
Again, we are talking about a very subjective quality anyway and what one attests to being better to themselves may not be to others and may be attributed to different things by different people but if we consider these things a better picture can be painted as to what it or those things may be, as opposed to knocking one or the other and vice versa for what is a subjective basis and analysis.
I don't disagree that being RWD based in any capacity is going to usually feel more RWD like but I don't attribute that to the same thing as others and also consider other things that can further land to why it may feel one way over another as opposed to it just being FWD vs RWD even though that is a part of it of course. I just tend to extrapolate on the details of that because many can find a RWD that they prefer the drive to a FWD but the opposite can be and is true as well.
Otherwise people start making RWD vs FWD claims and vice versa and that may or may not be true depending on what the specific makes and models are as well as the situations. And all I say is let's look at that, break it down a bit before we paint every RWD or FWD (or AWD versions of) the same or throw all under the bus because of only one or a few examples.
It seems it's one of those yes and no type things and probably just boils down to having a better and more focused platform for what any one company is trying to accomplish rather than wasting the extra resources on something that will maybe only end up being average in their minds, or more compromised and more costly but can be used across the board instead. Instead of allocating the resources to further adaptability, they can better tailor the platform more to what the finished product could benefit from.
Think that has a lot more to do with business models and the company philosophy and extent of their resources or willingness to spend and invest, as no automaker has infinite resources. It may or may not cost that much more just to dedicate different platforms for each car or group of cars, when and more importantly, the finished product will most certainly gain from it with more of a dedicated type of form and function already in mind.
Agree or disagree with the business models and what not, but that is not my point however, that's a different discussion. Again, it's about the likelihood that further adaptation could be done or engineered in there before and after but is it really worth doing? That's not a question for any of us really but more that the company has to ask and answer for themselves and I think many have already decided that one. So while I don't suggest this multiple or cross drivetrain adaptation is easy or feasible, at the same time, it's probably not a matter of can't but more a matter why or it just not making much production or business sense.
To the other point, as far as rear wheel drive feel and AWD on RWD and an ability to be 100% or 99% RWD or close enough, it's a moot point IMO, unless speaking of Infiniti's AWD in particular, because most RWD based AWD's don't typically send 100% power to the rear in any capacity and don't drive 100%, or close to it, in the rear and then transfer to the front as needed in the first place.
Most RWD based AWD's are preset at 50/50 or 40/60, give or take, even RWD BMW and MB. Notice they don't use near or 100% rear even though it would appear everything is in place to successfully do so. So it's likely there is more to the torque bias decision than only the platform design and which wheels they want powered. A lot of that is a function of fundamental drivetrain in use and design of the system and it's components themselves. Infiniti just so happens to make a business decision that they don't want to compromise on the true RWD nature of their vehicles for reasons we may know and those we may not.
BMW and MB, could likely do the same but probably want a more balanced AWD system to begin with that provides better traction in all situations as opposed to being a RWD aid in a sense, since they have dedicated RWD models anyway. All have their advantages and disadvantageous. For the most part, the difference would ultimately appear to be a matter of choice, and goals for the products, especially on the surface. RWD favored or tailored platforms help of course, don't get me wrong, but based on the info, it might not be the single deciding factor in what determines preset torque distributions, nor what totally contributes to the drive feel IMO.
If the particular discussion is only surrounding SH and Infiniti's than perhaps the discussion is more on target but with the exceptions we discussed, the majority of AWD's that are RWD based, don't really exhibit heavy rear drive distributions where and when one would notice or could appreciate it, like in dry handling. The some that are proactive as opposed to reactive, are more beneficial in this regard, but still you will not find even a few that do 100% rear, and of those that can variably get closer, let's say like 70%-85%, it is not continuous, it's instance and situation based only.
Furthermore, many Quattro systems would be considered FWD based but many actually maintain 50/50 or 40/60, which is not mostly FWD and FWIW, it's not hard to get SH operating at mostly 60/40 for normal driving, all it requires is being a little heavy on the gas, and 60/40 is not overly FWD like, not exactly FWD anyway.
Again, Acura ran test mules at almost all RWD with SH and on full time via software and having the clutch packs fully engaged and not variable as it is now, which is even beyond the systems current limitations. I'll try to find the article, it was open to journalists and nobody really had anything to comment but praises and I suspect that the problem with the heavy rear bias for mass production and general ownership purposes was with things like the gas mileage, cost, wear and tear, reliability, and maintenance, over any limitations of the platform but not to say that there are none when using the vehicle in that capacity.
Just that it's hard for it to be the single driving limitation IMO because they don't have a problem sending 70% in the most extreme of situations with lots of stress placed on the platform among everything else, and even 70% to a single rear wheel, and based on test mules there doesn't appear to be a limitation with the system not being able or the platform necessarily, they just don't want that all of the time for whatever reasons. Many alluded to above.
Same for the latest Quattro that can do 85% rear as called for, not sure if that's active or reactive but nontheless, the same concept. At one kind of extreme, 85% rear is ok, why would that amount or more not be ok for normal driving. There must be other reasons why they don't want it that way all of the time.
With regards to the drive feel of the front or rear basis, it may very well be a large component especially with a system like Infinti's compared to SH because you have a very FWD and RWD based systems but like earlier discussed, a lot of the other popular RWD based AWD models are more evenly split yet they may feel more RWD like because of other reasons in addition to some being more rear distributed.
Again, we are talking about a very subjective quality anyway and what one attests to being better to themselves may not be to others and may be attributed to different things by different people but if we consider these things a better picture can be painted as to what it or those things may be, as opposed to knocking one or the other and vice versa for what is a subjective basis and analysis.
I don't disagree that being RWD based in any capacity is going to usually feel more RWD like but I don't attribute that to the same thing as others and also consider other things that can further land to why it may feel one way over another as opposed to it just being FWD vs RWD even though that is a part of it of course. I just tend to extrapolate on the details of that because many can find a RWD that they prefer the drive to a FWD but the opposite can be and is true as well.
Otherwise people start making RWD vs FWD claims and vice versa and that may or may not be true depending on what the specific makes and models are as well as the situations. And all I say is let's look at that, break it down a bit before we paint every RWD or FWD (or AWD versions of) the same or throw all under the bus because of only one or a few examples.
Last edited by winstrolvtec; 03-31-2014 at 09:00 PM.
04-01-2014, 02:20 AM
#97
2G TLX-S
The reason why they don't just use the S2K platform or the NSX is because of what the cars are designed to do. The ideology behind them is to perform. That is why the engine is located where it is and occupies the space it does.
The cars with SHAWD are not performance cars and are designed to be spacious comfortable and employ good driving dynamics. The TL could not possibly have the engine sitting over the steering rack and still have the space for SHAWD too. The housing of the system required for SHAWD at this time is bulky which is why trunk space is non existent on the TL. They have designed the car to perform well not to be a world class supercar.
Following in that philosophy, and the fact that Honda for some reason doesn't want to build RWD cars across it's line, they have engineered the TL to do what it does.
And at the end of it all with all the understeer complaints that some have brought up in this thread about the TL it still out performs the G37x albeit by a hair in the slalom and skid pad. So why is that people feel like the TL understeer's despite the fact that it still clocks a faster time and higher G's through the slalom.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/cm/roada...Sport_data.pdf
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/specs.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ict/specs.html
The cars with SHAWD are not performance cars and are designed to be spacious comfortable and employ good driving dynamics. The TL could not possibly have the engine sitting over the steering rack and still have the space for SHAWD too. The housing of the system required for SHAWD at this time is bulky which is why trunk space is non existent on the TL. They have designed the car to perform well not to be a world class supercar.
Following in that philosophy, and the fact that Honda for some reason doesn't want to build RWD cars across it's line, they have engineered the TL to do what it does.
And at the end of it all with all the understeer complaints that some have brought up in this thread about the TL it still out performs the G37x albeit by a hair in the slalom and skid pad. So why is that people feel like the TL understeer's despite the fact that it still clocks a faster time and higher G's through the slalom.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/cm/roada...Sport_data.pdf
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/specs.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ict/specs.html
Firstly, I want to point out that vehicles with AWD-on-RWD-platform can mimic the drive and feel of RWD vehicles due to their abilities to direct 100% engine power going entirely to the rear wheels, with the front wheels solely doing steering control and the rear wheels solely putting power to the ground; and this is not vehicles with AWD-on-FWD-platform is able to duplicate.
The following is extracted from the BMW site :
Originally Posted by www.BMWusa.com
xDrive offers all-wheel drive peace of mind.
Unlike other all-wheel drive systems, we've built xDrive, BMW's intelligent all-wheel drive system with rear-wheel bias for surefooted grip on slick or uneven roads, without sacrificing the feel of rear-wheel drive. It smartly sends power to the wheel or wheels with the surest footing—and it does so in milliseconds. That means under normal conditions, drive forces are spread out with a rear-wheel bias. But the moment the system senses excessive wheel slip, it subtly shifts torque to meet the changing conditions, offering maximum available traction and superior handling on all surfaces—despite the weather conditions.
Unlike other all-wheel drive systems, we've built xDrive, BMW's intelligent all-wheel drive system with rear-wheel bias for surefooted grip on slick or uneven roads, without sacrificing the feel of rear-wheel drive. It smartly sends power to the wheel or wheels with the surest footing—and it does so in milliseconds. That means under normal conditions, drive forces are spread out with a rear-wheel bias. But the moment the system senses excessive wheel slip, it subtly shifts torque to meet the changing conditions, offering maximum available traction and superior handling on all surfaces—despite the weather conditions.
Secondly, I want to point out that FWD platforms are purposely designed only for FWD applications, and RWD platforms are purposely designed only for RWD applications. The two are not interchangeable, nor can one platform be financially economical enough to be adapted/modified for the opposite use.
Rather than reading over some published design concepts, design theories, and design papers that contain idealistic cases which may not be realizable in the real world and also may not be feasible to be manufactured economically for mass production passenger automobiles. It is best to see what is achievable (realistically and economically) in the real world, by looking at what's going on out there from various automakers.
Certainly, anything is possible for niche automakers that sell ultra-expensive, limited-production automobiles. Therefore, we should look at how world-class automakers, that design and manufacture volume-production passenger vehicles, tackle with their respective automobile platforms.
MB is moving onto just 4 platforms. One for all FWD vehicles, one for all RWD vehicles, one for SUV's, and one for sport cars.
Note that there is no universal platform for both FWD and RWD applications; but that the RWD platform can be shortened and lengthened to be used by almost all RWD Mercedes sedans ranging from compact-sized to large-sized exterior dimensions, as long as they are all rear wheel driven.
Mercedes-Benz Will Switch to Just Four Car Platforms
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/me...rms-78508.html
In addition, the 4matic AWD system on the FWD-platform CLA is a front-biased AWD system, in contrast to the rear-biased 4matic on all RWD-platform Mercedes vehicles. See the similarity between the CLA and Acura/Audi. Even with years of extensive expertise working on only RWD-biased AWD system (AWD on RWD platform), MB has no choice but to resort to a 1st time brand new FWD-biased AWD system for the FWD-platformed CLA, due to the limitations on AWD-on-FWD-platforms being not suitable for 100% engine power all onto the rear wheels, just like Acura and Audi with all their AWD-on-FWD-platform vehicles.
Furthermore, the mid-size Accord sedan is going to be built on a new FWD platform which is currently used by the Fit compact sedan. This shows that a vehicle platform can be shortened or lengthened in order to fit multiple vehicle models that have vastly different dimensions, as long as the driving wheels are located at the same (front or rear) end that the vehicle platform is designed for.
Once again, this shows vehicle dimension is not the deciding factor that warrant developing a new vehicle platform, but FWD/RWD application is.
Honda Civic, Accord and CR-V to Share Platform
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...-platform.html
HONDA'S ACCORD-ION PLATFORM: IT SQUEEZES, STRETCHES TO FIT MANY VEHICLES
http://www.autonews.com/article/1997...-many-vehicles
Autonews.com doesn't work all the time, so I print out the entire article in the following post.
The following users liked this post:
BEAR-AvHistory (04-04-2014)
04-01-2014, 02:36 AM
#98
2G TLX-S
honda's accord-ion platform: It squeezes, stretches to fit many vehicles
dale jewett engineering editor
automotive news
october 27, 1997 - 12:01 am et
marysville, ohio - imagine the car as a tinker toy. To make a change, you just pull off a few parts and put on new ones.
In essence, that is what honda has done with the platform for the new accord.
The arrival of the 1998 accord is the beginning of a wave of new honda and acura products that will have one thing in common: Their basic underbody components.
Over the next four years, many of those same bits from the accord platform will be molded into a minivan, replacements for the acura tl sedans and cl coupes, and possibly even a sport-utility.
Stretching or shrinking a platform is a common way for automakers to create new vehicles at less cost than starting from scratch. But honda has found a way to easily and cheaply vary a platform's width. In the past, changing the width meant an expensive, time-consuming redesign of the vehicle and the assembly line.
By making it easy to change the platform, honda can create very different versions of its vehicles for specific markets and save money by not having to tear up the platform every time.
For instance, the same basic underpinnings for the new u.s. Accord are being used for the japanese and european market versions. But the foreign market versions have distinctly different sheet metal, and a narrower track. In fact, european buyers will be able to choose between the narrower european version or the wider u.s. Version of the accord.
Platforms for those different vehicles will be created by making changes to only three components of the accord platform - brackets on the suspension subframes, and a cross-car beam in the floorpan behind the b pillar.
'with the flexible platform, we're not talking rocket science,' says tim downing, associate chief engineer for the 1998 accord at honda of america manufacturing inc. 'i'd say it's more like the typical honda approach. When you look at the parts you say, 'gee, it's so simple.' but it works.'
varying the width of the accord platform is an important step in creating a flexible vehicle design, says manufacturing consultant jim harbour.
But at the same time, he notes, many manufacturers use the same set of underbody components to create different vehicles. As an example, he cites general motors' w body, which spawns the chevrolet lumina and monte carlo, buick century and regal, pontiac grand prix and oldsmobile intrigue.
'is it unique? I don't think so,' says harbour, president of harbour and associates in troy, mich.
With its many-sizes-for-all approach, honda appears to have cracked the code for building a global car that can appeal to the unique tastes of particular markets.
time for a change
the roots of the new accord's flexible platform stretch back to the launch of the previous accord in 1993.
Even as the 1994 accord was rolling out, honda engineers knew they had a problem.
American consumers did not like that the accord has less room than its prime competitors, the toyota camry and the ford taurus. Yet japanese consumers, who favor sporty, technology-laden cars, thought the accord had grown big and fat.
At the same time, the platform for the previous generation accord was getting long in the tooth - it had been introduced in 1981. It had been stretched, patched and improved over the years. The time had come to start from scratch, downing says.
So engineers from honda's research and development group approached the manufacturing executives at honda's marysville assembly plant to find a better way, downing says.
Honda knew it wanted a vehicle that could easily be modified for different markets, a so-called 'world car,' downing says. But it could not afford a 'world car' price tag.
widening a challenge
honda wanted to make it easy to lengthen or shorten the platform - a rather simple task. A much bigger challenge: Varying the width for different vehicles and markets.
Lengthening or shortening a platform to fit a range of vehicles is fairly common. Toyota, for example, uses a stretched version of the camry's platform for its new sienna minivan. It even goes so far as to build both vehicles on the same assembly line, in georgetown, ky.
For the new accord platform, honda accomplishes this change at a cross beam in the middle of the car. This beam, which stitches the front and rear floorpans together, was primarily added to make the car more rigid and to help it meet side-impact crash standards, downing says. But if honda wants to stretch the platform, it simply uses a bigger piece of steel to create the beam. That makes the flanges on both front and back sides larger. Conversely, as with the accord coupe, honda uses less material to make the beam and the flanges shrink. The coupe is 1.8 inches shorter than the sedan.
Changing a platform's width is a different matter. In honda's view, it is necessary for a vehicle that must appeal in both narrow-road markets such as japan and europe, and the wide roads of the united states. But it is expensive. The reason: Virtually all vehicles have some of their suspension components attached to the body. Widening or narrowing the suspension traditionally means a body adjustment - in essence, a tearing up of the vehicle platform.
For the 1998 accord, honda avoids that problem by having its five-link rear suspension mount entirely to a subframe. So to widen or narrow the suspension, honda just changes two mounting brackets on top of the subframe. Mounting holes in the subframe are elongated. That allows the other suspension pieces to slide in or out as needed.
The range provided by those two adjustments will get honda from the accord coupe to a minivan on one platform, downing says.
one size not for all
in doing so, honda looks to avoid market problems that have bedeviled other automakers.
There have been plenty of so-called 'world cars.'
ford motor co. Tried it in 1981 with the introduction of the escort. Originally conceived as twins, the u.s. And european escorts actually ended up sharing just a handful of parts.
Ford's most recent attempt was the $6 billion it spent on its cdw27 world car program. That investment created the mondeo for europe, as well as the ford contour/mercury mystique for north america, and a new family of four- and six-cylinder engines.
But while the mondeo has been a winner for ford in europe, where its primary design was handled, u.s. Buyers have been turned off by the car's narrowness and smallish back seat. Since launching the contour/mystique in 1995, ford has made at least two revisions to carve out more legroom in the back seat.
In the 1980s, chrysler corp. Was a patron saint for flexible platforms. At one point, virtually every car in its lineup - and even the original minivans - used the k-car underpinnings, notes manufacturing expert harbour.
'the only problem was that they weren't executed very well,' he says.
That may help to explain chrysler's current swing to the other extreme. Every one of chrysler's car families, and virtually every truck family, has its own platform.
Honda, too, has been a practitioner, and a victim, of that one-size-fits-all philosophy.
When the accord first arrived on u.s. Shores in the 1970s, consumers loved its fuel economy and reliability. But over the years, as the big 3 have improved their quality, some buyers have shied away from the accord in favor of roomier competitors.
Until last year, the marysville plant built a station wagon version of the accord that was extremely popular in japan, but barely interested u.s. Consumers.
Harbour says it makes sense that honda would work to commonize many of the underbody components. But he is less quick to dub the accord a 'flexible platform.'
'to the extent that all these vehicles would have a common underbody, you can standardize a lot of things - engine families, transmission families, suspension families - the things people don't see or don't care about,' harbour says.
'but when it comes to building a sedan or a minivan, you're going to have to make more changes. How else would you get a flat floor for a minivan.'
Originally Posted by automotive news
dale jewett engineering editor
automotive news
october 27, 1997 - 12:01 am et
marysville, ohio - imagine the car as a tinker toy. To make a change, you just pull off a few parts and put on new ones.
In essence, that is what honda has done with the platform for the new accord.
The arrival of the 1998 accord is the beginning of a wave of new honda and acura products that will have one thing in common: Their basic underbody components.
Over the next four years, many of those same bits from the accord platform will be molded into a minivan, replacements for the acura tl sedans and cl coupes, and possibly even a sport-utility.
Stretching or shrinking a platform is a common way for automakers to create new vehicles at less cost than starting from scratch. But honda has found a way to easily and cheaply vary a platform's width. In the past, changing the width meant an expensive, time-consuming redesign of the vehicle and the assembly line.
By making it easy to change the platform, honda can create very different versions of its vehicles for specific markets and save money by not having to tear up the platform every time.
For instance, the same basic underpinnings for the new u.s. Accord are being used for the japanese and european market versions. But the foreign market versions have distinctly different sheet metal, and a narrower track. In fact, european buyers will be able to choose between the narrower european version or the wider u.s. Version of the accord.
Platforms for those different vehicles will be created by making changes to only three components of the accord platform - brackets on the suspension subframes, and a cross-car beam in the floorpan behind the b pillar.
'with the flexible platform, we're not talking rocket science,' says tim downing, associate chief engineer for the 1998 accord at honda of america manufacturing inc. 'i'd say it's more like the typical honda approach. When you look at the parts you say, 'gee, it's so simple.' but it works.'
varying the width of the accord platform is an important step in creating a flexible vehicle design, says manufacturing consultant jim harbour.
But at the same time, he notes, many manufacturers use the same set of underbody components to create different vehicles. As an example, he cites general motors' w body, which spawns the chevrolet lumina and monte carlo, buick century and regal, pontiac grand prix and oldsmobile intrigue.
'is it unique? I don't think so,' says harbour, president of harbour and associates in troy, mich.
With its many-sizes-for-all approach, honda appears to have cracked the code for building a global car that can appeal to the unique tastes of particular markets.
time for a change
the roots of the new accord's flexible platform stretch back to the launch of the previous accord in 1993.
Even as the 1994 accord was rolling out, honda engineers knew they had a problem.
American consumers did not like that the accord has less room than its prime competitors, the toyota camry and the ford taurus. Yet japanese consumers, who favor sporty, technology-laden cars, thought the accord had grown big and fat.
At the same time, the platform for the previous generation accord was getting long in the tooth - it had been introduced in 1981. It had been stretched, patched and improved over the years. The time had come to start from scratch, downing says.
So engineers from honda's research and development group approached the manufacturing executives at honda's marysville assembly plant to find a better way, downing says.
Honda knew it wanted a vehicle that could easily be modified for different markets, a so-called 'world car,' downing says. But it could not afford a 'world car' price tag.
widening a challenge
honda wanted to make it easy to lengthen or shorten the platform - a rather simple task. A much bigger challenge: Varying the width for different vehicles and markets.
Lengthening or shortening a platform to fit a range of vehicles is fairly common. Toyota, for example, uses a stretched version of the camry's platform for its new sienna minivan. It even goes so far as to build both vehicles on the same assembly line, in georgetown, ky.
For the new accord platform, honda accomplishes this change at a cross beam in the middle of the car. This beam, which stitches the front and rear floorpans together, was primarily added to make the car more rigid and to help it meet side-impact crash standards, downing says. But if honda wants to stretch the platform, it simply uses a bigger piece of steel to create the beam. That makes the flanges on both front and back sides larger. Conversely, as with the accord coupe, honda uses less material to make the beam and the flanges shrink. The coupe is 1.8 inches shorter than the sedan.
Changing a platform's width is a different matter. In honda's view, it is necessary for a vehicle that must appeal in both narrow-road markets such as japan and europe, and the wide roads of the united states. But it is expensive. The reason: Virtually all vehicles have some of their suspension components attached to the body. Widening or narrowing the suspension traditionally means a body adjustment - in essence, a tearing up of the vehicle platform.
For the 1998 accord, honda avoids that problem by having its five-link rear suspension mount entirely to a subframe. So to widen or narrow the suspension, honda just changes two mounting brackets on top of the subframe. Mounting holes in the subframe are elongated. That allows the other suspension pieces to slide in or out as needed.
The range provided by those two adjustments will get honda from the accord coupe to a minivan on one platform, downing says.
one size not for all
in doing so, honda looks to avoid market problems that have bedeviled other automakers.
There have been plenty of so-called 'world cars.'
ford motor co. Tried it in 1981 with the introduction of the escort. Originally conceived as twins, the u.s. And european escorts actually ended up sharing just a handful of parts.
Ford's most recent attempt was the $6 billion it spent on its cdw27 world car program. That investment created the mondeo for europe, as well as the ford contour/mercury mystique for north america, and a new family of four- and six-cylinder engines.
But while the mondeo has been a winner for ford in europe, where its primary design was handled, u.s. Buyers have been turned off by the car's narrowness and smallish back seat. Since launching the contour/mystique in 1995, ford has made at least two revisions to carve out more legroom in the back seat.
In the 1980s, chrysler corp. Was a patron saint for flexible platforms. At one point, virtually every car in its lineup - and even the original minivans - used the k-car underpinnings, notes manufacturing expert harbour.
'the only problem was that they weren't executed very well,' he says.
That may help to explain chrysler's current swing to the other extreme. Every one of chrysler's car families, and virtually every truck family, has its own platform.
Honda, too, has been a practitioner, and a victim, of that one-size-fits-all philosophy.
When the accord first arrived on u.s. Shores in the 1970s, consumers loved its fuel economy and reliability. But over the years, as the big 3 have improved their quality, some buyers have shied away from the accord in favor of roomier competitors.
Until last year, the marysville plant built a station wagon version of the accord that was extremely popular in japan, but barely interested u.s. Consumers.
Harbour says it makes sense that honda would work to commonize many of the underbody components. But he is less quick to dub the accord a 'flexible platform.'
'to the extent that all these vehicles would have a common underbody, you can standardize a lot of things - engine families, transmission families, suspension families - the things people don't see or don't care about,' harbour says.
'but when it comes to building a sedan or a minivan, you're going to have to make more changes. How else would you get a flat floor for a minivan.'
The following users liked this post:
BEAR-AvHistory (04-04-2014)
04-01-2014, 08:53 AM
#99
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
This "platform" discussion is an esoteric diversion, IMHO, with all respect to the protagonists.
Although it is entirely true that a particular car design will be the starting point for another car design, there are so many changes made from one to another that it is very difficult to see it as a reasonable idea to refer to the two cars as possessing the same platform [sic].
The KC1 design is not based in any reasonably describable way on any other design, although several designs had bearing. It has more in common with the NSX than it has in common with the US Accord.
It's an interesting esoteric diversion, but you're all arguing over nothing, basically. We've used the word platform to mean slightly different things over the decades, too.
Although it is entirely true that a particular car design will be the starting point for another car design, there are so many changes made from one to another that it is very difficult to see it as a reasonable idea to refer to the two cars as possessing the same platform [sic].
The KC1 design is not based in any reasonably describable way on any other design, although several designs had bearing. It has more in common with the NSX than it has in common with the US Accord.
It's an interesting esoteric diversion, but you're all arguing over nothing, basically. We've used the word platform to mean slightly different things over the decades, too.
The following 2 users liked this post by George Knighton:
d1sturb3d119 (04-01-2014),
winstrolvtec (04-01-2014)
04-01-2014, 05:12 PM
#100
Like I said before, all my above posts are not to debate whether the SH-AWD/Quattro (AWD on FWD platform) are superior or inferior systems than the IntelligentAWD/xDrive/4matic (AWD on RWD platform), nor whether FWD platforms are capable of higher or lower handling performance than RWD platforms.
Firstly, I want to point out that vehicles with AWD-on-RWD-platform can mimic the drive and feel of RWD vehicles due to their abilities to direct 100% engine power going entirely to the rear wheels, with the front wheels solely doing steering control and the rear wheels solely putting power to the ground; and this is not vehicles with AWD-on-FWD-platform is able to duplicate.
The following is extracted from the BMW site :
http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/conte...ng/xdrive.aspx
Secondly, I want to point out that FWD platforms are purposely designed only for FWD applications, and RWD platforms are purposely designed only for RWD applications. The two are not interchangeable, nor can one platform be financially economical enough to be adapted/modified for the opposite use.
Rather than reading over some published design concepts, design theories, and design papers that contain idealistic cases which may not be realizable in the real world and also may not be feasible to be manufactured economically for mass production passenger automobiles. It is best to see what is achievable (realistically and economically) in the real world, by looking at what's going on out there from various automakers.
Certainly, anything is possible for niche automakers that sell ultra-expensive, limited-production automobiles. Therefore, we should look at how world-class automakers, that design and manufacture volume-production passenger vehicles, tackle with their respective automobile platforms.
MB is moving onto just 4 platforms. One for all FWD vehicles, one for all RWD vehicles, one for SUV's, and one for sport cars.
Note that there is no universal platform for both FWD and RWD applications; but that the RWD platform can be shortened and lengthened to be used by almost all RWD Mercedes sedans ranging from compact-sized to large-sized exterior dimensions, as long as they are all rear wheel driven.
Mercedes-Benz Will Switch to Just Four Car Platforms
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/me...rms-78508.html
In addition, the 4matic AWD system on the FWD-platform CLA is a front-biased AWD system, in contrast to the rear-biased 4matic on all RWD-platform Mercedes vehicles. See the similarity between the CLA and Acura/Audi. Even with years of extensive expertise working on only RWD-biased AWD system (AWD on RWD platform), MB has no choice but to resort to a 1st time brand new FWD-biased AWD system for the FWD-platformed CLA, due to the limitations on AWD-on-FWD-platforms being not suitable for 100% engine power all onto the rear wheels, just like Acura and Audi with all their AWD-on-FWD-platform vehicles.
Furthermore, the mid-size Accord sedan is going to be built on a new FWD platform which is currently used by the Fit compact sedan. This shows that a vehicle platform can be shortened or lengthened in order to fit multiple vehicle models that have vastly different dimensions, as long as the driving wheels are located at the same (front or rear) end that the vehicle platform is designed for.
Once again, this shows vehicle dimension is not the deciding factor that warrant developing a new vehicle platform, but FWD/RWD application is.
Honda Civic, Accord and CR-V to Share Platform
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...-platform.html
HONDA'S ACCORD-ION PLATFORM: IT SQUEEZES, STRETCHES TO FIT MANY VEHICLES
http://www.autonews.com/article/1997...-many-vehicles
Autonews.com doesn't work all the time, so I print out the entire article in the following post.
Firstly, I want to point out that vehicles with AWD-on-RWD-platform can mimic the drive and feel of RWD vehicles due to their abilities to direct 100% engine power going entirely to the rear wheels, with the front wheels solely doing steering control and the rear wheels solely putting power to the ground; and this is not vehicles with AWD-on-FWD-platform is able to duplicate.
The following is extracted from the BMW site :
http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/conte...ng/xdrive.aspx
Secondly, I want to point out that FWD platforms are purposely designed only for FWD applications, and RWD platforms are purposely designed only for RWD applications. The two are not interchangeable, nor can one platform be financially economical enough to be adapted/modified for the opposite use.
Rather than reading over some published design concepts, design theories, and design papers that contain idealistic cases which may not be realizable in the real world and also may not be feasible to be manufactured economically for mass production passenger automobiles. It is best to see what is achievable (realistically and economically) in the real world, by looking at what's going on out there from various automakers.
Certainly, anything is possible for niche automakers that sell ultra-expensive, limited-production automobiles. Therefore, we should look at how world-class automakers, that design and manufacture volume-production passenger vehicles, tackle with their respective automobile platforms.
MB is moving onto just 4 platforms. One for all FWD vehicles, one for all RWD vehicles, one for SUV's, and one for sport cars.
Note that there is no universal platform for both FWD and RWD applications; but that the RWD platform can be shortened and lengthened to be used by almost all RWD Mercedes sedans ranging from compact-sized to large-sized exterior dimensions, as long as they are all rear wheel driven.
Mercedes-Benz Will Switch to Just Four Car Platforms
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/me...rms-78508.html
In addition, the 4matic AWD system on the FWD-platform CLA is a front-biased AWD system, in contrast to the rear-biased 4matic on all RWD-platform Mercedes vehicles. See the similarity between the CLA and Acura/Audi. Even with years of extensive expertise working on only RWD-biased AWD system (AWD on RWD platform), MB has no choice but to resort to a 1st time brand new FWD-biased AWD system for the FWD-platformed CLA, due to the limitations on AWD-on-FWD-platforms being not suitable for 100% engine power all onto the rear wheels, just like Acura and Audi with all their AWD-on-FWD-platform vehicles.
Furthermore, the mid-size Accord sedan is going to be built on a new FWD platform which is currently used by the Fit compact sedan. This shows that a vehicle platform can be shortened or lengthened in order to fit multiple vehicle models that have vastly different dimensions, as long as the driving wheels are located at the same (front or rear) end that the vehicle platform is designed for.
Once again, this shows vehicle dimension is not the deciding factor that warrant developing a new vehicle platform, but FWD/RWD application is.
Honda Civic, Accord and CR-V to Share Platform
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...-platform.html
HONDA'S ACCORD-ION PLATFORM: IT SQUEEZES, STRETCHES TO FIT MANY VEHICLES
http://www.autonews.com/article/1997...-many-vehicles
Autonews.com doesn't work all the time, so I print out the entire article in the following post.
But leading up to my next point, then there are other things the manufacturer designed that way that are less related, suspension tune, steering weight or feel, tire and rim setup (RWD tends to have a staggered setup, FWD and AWD not), etc, all which can create a lasting effect but are more indirectly related to platform and drivetrain, as we know but just restating.
So it makes total sense that drivetrain typically dictates to platform but a brand could decide to build another for dimension purposes alone as well. Notice MB is dedicating one to sports cars and not simply using the RWD one, that might be a function of dimensions. As it relates to Honda, I would agree that it likely was a factor of vehicle dimensions and also that it's likely the drivetrain they had in mind made the platform obsolete for other purposes because what else were they going to build with it, another of the same thing or close enough.
The other point, is that with few exceptions (Infiniti), most manufacturers RWD based AWD don't actually distribute 100% rear, that should be made very clear. Even BMW and the above example lends to that because they do not distribute 100% rear, they typically bias at 40/60 however. Something many FWD based AWD's even do, Audi for one, and SH can variably achieve that with little to moderate spirited driving, as a couple of examples. I would say as far as torque bias, in many instances there is not much difference or any at all even among FWD based and RWD based but think the feel and tendencies would still be different.
Again, don't want to sound like I'm picking on what your stated or that I necessarily disagree because drive bias of the AWD plays a role in that, I just think it's less than the drivetrain itself and the drivetrain as it may dictate or relate to the platform to varying degrees but I don't claim to be correct in that or know as fact, it may vary and it's just a thought with those examples in mind.
Most would agree that for all intents and purposes FWD is not interchangeable with RWD, and vice versa, not that it could not necessarily be but that the way and format of designing and building and engineering cars in the past and at this time doesn't really allow for that or likely consider it much. I wouldn't rule that out for future purposes though, maybe as technology advances. As we see, even MB is adopting a different streamlined approach, maybe they have seen the light, which is probably for the reasons others like Honda and Toyota do it and that is costs and profits before all else.
Could be a movement headed in that direction if, and a big if, they can get a base platform not only adaptable but strong and light enough, among all else. I'm kidding of course, but I guess we can start taking our shots at MB since they are resorting to more platform sharing and also developing FWD now, the C class is going to be the S, oh no! Or maybe some, as George alluded to, will back off a bit now and it won't be such a bad thing anymore.
They will have to find something else pick on or justify whatever that is they are trying to justify, it really does mean nothing with respects to objectivity and finished product vs finished product, that's where it should start and end and maybe the subjectivity of it will end at I simply prefer this for my actual car that I intend to shop, compare and buy, and we can put the branding and imagery stuff of luxury vs luxury, nonetheless, to rest once and for all but that's a discussion for another time or thread anyway.
Last edited by winstrolvtec; 04-01-2014 at 05:20 PM.
The following users liked this post:
d1sturb3d119 (04-01-2014)
04-01-2014, 05:39 PM
#101
All is relative and FWD – RWD – AWD is part of it!
The Nissan GT-R is the oddest vehicle in the supercar kingdom. Just looking at its specs on paper you wouldn't believe this car is as fast as Nissan (and other independent verifiers) are saying. There is simply no way for it to be that much faster than a Porsche 911 Turbo S – currently its closest competitor as far as performance goes - on the Nordschleife and most other international racing tracks, right?
Both cars have 530 horsepower, are all-wheel drive, have twin-turbocharged six-cylinder engines and sport twin-clutch gearboxes. But that is where the similarities end, because by taking a peek at the details it becomes clear the Porsche should be a clear winner in almost all comparisons. Except... it isn't.
The BorgWarner double-clutch transmission in the GT-R shifts gears in 200 milliseconds, almost as much as a torque-converter automatic, while the PDK gearbox in the Turbo S does it in just 8 milliseconds. Also, in almost every conceivable acceleration test the GT-R is slower than the Porsche, starting with the 3.5 versus the 3.3 seconds from naught to 100 km/h (62 mph) official figures. Last but not least, the current Nissan GT-R weighs approximately 150 kg (330 lbs.) more than the 911 Turbo S.
So, what kind of pact with the devil have Nissan engineers made for the GT-R to completely obliterate cars that cost twice or three times as much? Well, some may call it the devil, while others may call it ATTESA E-TS.
An acronym for Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All-terrain with Electronic Torque Split, the ATTESA E-TS all-wheel drive system is not exact a novelty for Nissan or Infiniti. The version, customized for the Nissan GT-R however, is. To put it into perspective, this is the first and so far the only rear transaxle-based all-wheel drive system for a front engine car.
During a standing start, the system sends only 2% of the available torque to the front wheels and 98% to the rear, essentially making the GT-R a rear-wheel drive car. Thanks to the amount of sensors, clutches and UFO technology Nissan has invested in it, front and rear torque split can change in milliseconds to a maximum of 50:50.
Unlike most conventional all-wheel drive systems and given the transmission's transaxle positioning, the GT-R ATTESA E-TS uses two almost parallel driveshaft’s, with a second driveshaft running slightly to the right of the main driveshaft and engine sending power exclusively to the front wheels through an open differential.
The other driveshaft, or better yet, the main one, goes from the engine to the rear-based gearbox, from where it sends power through a limited slip differential to the rear wheels, therefore varying the left/right torque split at the rear axle. Integrated into the double-clutch gearbox there's a transfer case in which, instead of a center differential lays a center wet multi-plate clutch system. Coincidentally (or not), a similar but obviously less advanced system was used by Porsche in the 959 supercar.
If you think the system is mechanically complicated, wait till you hear about the electronics part. Since the GT-R can mechanically vary the left/right torque split just at the rear axle (thanks to the aforementioned active LSD), the ATTESA E-TS system takes care of that also by sporting a computer controlled array of sensors.
This way, when the ABS sensors pick up that one of the front wheels is spinning too fast compared to the other it is automatically braked, thus mimicking a mechanical limited slip differential. Speaking of sensors and computers, the ATTESA E-TS has its own ECU, which uses information gathered from four ABS sensors, a three-axis G sensor, gearbox and engine ECU sensors to control power in real time to each and every wheel, depending on the driving conditions.
Translated into real life performance, this means that the GT-R's all-wheel drive system is pro-active, just like BMW's xDrive. For example, when entering a corner with full braking power, the transmission ECU will perform an action mimicking an engine brake, while with the help of the sensors the ATTESA E-TS ECU will continuously vary the power sent to each wheel up to a 50:50 torque split in real time.
Since all the sensors present on the car are updated thousands of times per second and most of the moving parts of the all-wheel drive system are made out of light materials (for example, the driveshaft’s are from carbon fiber), the ATTESA E-TS is literally a game changer on a car with the GT-R's credentials. Now, imagine if the car was as light as the Porsche 911 Turbo S and its gearbox changed speeds in the same amount of time as the PDK...
The Nissan GT-R is the oddest vehicle in the supercar kingdom. Just looking at its specs on paper you wouldn't believe this car is as fast as Nissan (and other independent verifiers) are saying. There is simply no way for it to be that much faster than a Porsche 911 Turbo S – currently its closest competitor as far as performance goes - on the Nordschleife and most other international racing tracks, right?
Both cars have 530 horsepower, are all-wheel drive, have twin-turbocharged six-cylinder engines and sport twin-clutch gearboxes. But that is where the similarities end, because by taking a peek at the details it becomes clear the Porsche should be a clear winner in almost all comparisons. Except... it isn't.
The BorgWarner double-clutch transmission in the GT-R shifts gears in 200 milliseconds, almost as much as a torque-converter automatic, while the PDK gearbox in the Turbo S does it in just 8 milliseconds. Also, in almost every conceivable acceleration test the GT-R is slower than the Porsche, starting with the 3.5 versus the 3.3 seconds from naught to 100 km/h (62 mph) official figures. Last but not least, the current Nissan GT-R weighs approximately 150 kg (330 lbs.) more than the 911 Turbo S.
So, what kind of pact with the devil have Nissan engineers made for the GT-R to completely obliterate cars that cost twice or three times as much? Well, some may call it the devil, while others may call it ATTESA E-TS.
An acronym for Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All-terrain with Electronic Torque Split, the ATTESA E-TS all-wheel drive system is not exact a novelty for Nissan or Infiniti. The version, customized for the Nissan GT-R however, is. To put it into perspective, this is the first and so far the only rear transaxle-based all-wheel drive system for a front engine car.
During a standing start, the system sends only 2% of the available torque to the front wheels and 98% to the rear, essentially making the GT-R a rear-wheel drive car. Thanks to the amount of sensors, clutches and UFO technology Nissan has invested in it, front and rear torque split can change in milliseconds to a maximum of 50:50.
Unlike most conventional all-wheel drive systems and given the transmission's transaxle positioning, the GT-R ATTESA E-TS uses two almost parallel driveshaft’s, with a second driveshaft running slightly to the right of the main driveshaft and engine sending power exclusively to the front wheels through an open differential.
The other driveshaft, or better yet, the main one, goes from the engine to the rear-based gearbox, from where it sends power through a limited slip differential to the rear wheels, therefore varying the left/right torque split at the rear axle. Integrated into the double-clutch gearbox there's a transfer case in which, instead of a center differential lays a center wet multi-plate clutch system. Coincidentally (or not), a similar but obviously less advanced system was used by Porsche in the 959 supercar.
If you think the system is mechanically complicated, wait till you hear about the electronics part. Since the GT-R can mechanically vary the left/right torque split just at the rear axle (thanks to the aforementioned active LSD), the ATTESA E-TS system takes care of that also by sporting a computer controlled array of sensors.
This way, when the ABS sensors pick up that one of the front wheels is spinning too fast compared to the other it is automatically braked, thus mimicking a mechanical limited slip differential. Speaking of sensors and computers, the ATTESA E-TS has its own ECU, which uses information gathered from four ABS sensors, a three-axis G sensor, gearbox and engine ECU sensors to control power in real time to each and every wheel, depending on the driving conditions.
Translated into real life performance, this means that the GT-R's all-wheel drive system is pro-active, just like BMW's xDrive. For example, when entering a corner with full braking power, the transmission ECU will perform an action mimicking an engine brake, while with the help of the sensors the ATTESA E-TS ECU will continuously vary the power sent to each wheel up to a 50:50 torque split in real time.
Since all the sensors present on the car are updated thousands of times per second and most of the moving parts of the all-wheel drive system are made out of light materials (for example, the driveshaft’s are from carbon fiber), the ATTESA E-TS is literally a game changer on a car with the GT-R's credentials. Now, imagine if the car was as light as the Porsche 911 Turbo S and its gearbox changed speeds in the same amount of time as the PDK...
The following 3 users liked this post by mylove4cars:
04-01-2014, 06:25 PM
#102
Burning Brakes
^^ dang, that's a lot of info.
04-03-2014, 01:37 PM
#103
ATTESA E-TS.
An acronym for Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All-terrain with Electronic Torque Split, the ATTESA E-TS all-wheel drive system is not exact a novelty for Nissan or Infiniti. The version, customized for the Nissan GT-R however, is. To put it into perspective, this is the first and so far the only rear transaxle-based all-wheel drive system for a front engine car.
Btw: The Porsche 959 won Paris-Dakar with the ATTESA E-TS in the 1980's
An acronym for Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All-terrain with Electronic Torque Split, the ATTESA E-TS all-wheel drive system is not exact a novelty for Nissan or Infiniti. The version, customized for the Nissan GT-R however, is. To put it into perspective, this is the first and so far the only rear transaxle-based all-wheel drive system for a front engine car.
Btw: The Porsche 959 won Paris-Dakar with the ATTESA E-TS in the 1980's
04-03-2014, 04:22 PM
#104
Racer
Thread Starter
Compared to Infiniti's and Lexus' AWD systems (I'm only considering Japanese models), is the SH-AWD installed on the TL / TLX superior? I'm talking about vehicles priced between $35-50k and not some souped up sports car.
04-03-2014, 04:50 PM
#105
http://pressroom.toyota.com/releases...e+models.print
Compared to Infiniti, yes, if safety and traction is your primary concern.
Since it sends power to the back it's a more fun and sporty car to drive but given the slalom figures and lateral G numbers I listed, even with the power being sent to the back it's not as quick on it's feet as the TL. Seems like the TL has better turn in despite how it's engine is placed.
The TL with its system is more complicated. May lead to more issues that you would like to contend with but that's a risk most people take buying AWD.
The following users liked this post:
internalaudit (04-03-2014)
04-03-2014, 05:22 PM
#106
If you want torque vectoring on the rear axle which highly favors handling especially dry but also is remarkably well suited for poor weather driving as is the overall system in general, then yes it is better IMO.
If you want something truer or purer to RWD and RWD feel and don't need the AWD for weather extremes, Infiniti is great, dare I say the best at it as far as the system goes.
The Lexus system is in between, more of a blend between them but leaning towards Infiniti and I think it varies on models but I saw some literature about 80% rear preset on the non SUV models.
Unfortunately we can't have it every which way, such is life.
People tend to knock on the FWD basis idea and all the "Accord" platform stuff but as I'm sure you are aware, SH is a huge factor in what has allowed a typically bigger and heavier car in the TL to handle at the level, if not better, (road courses will vary) of cars like the G and last gen 3 series as well as the S4 despite being down on power, not having the same type of weight distribution and being smaller and RWD, etc.
It has also been said to be bulletproof in the snow and poor weather with a small exception to extreme slippery start ups for a split second or actual second or two, sort of like a FWD would but better and I have never really had a problem, usually VSA kicks in and your off before you know or even paid attention what really happened. That was more of a 6MT function because of the clutch engagement, not as common on autos.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-revi...-tl-sh-awd-6mt
Posted this elsewhere may have seen it but I'll put it here.
Guy talks about the SH and the TL being as good in the deep snow as his new Jeep which are usually dedicated vehicles for those purposes. Only problem in comparison, ground clearance, but that's to be expected.
If you want something truer or purer to RWD and RWD feel and don't need the AWD for weather extremes, Infiniti is great, dare I say the best at it as far as the system goes.
The Lexus system is in between, more of a blend between them but leaning towards Infiniti and I think it varies on models but I saw some literature about 80% rear preset on the non SUV models.
Unfortunately we can't have it every which way, such is life.
People tend to knock on the FWD basis idea and all the "Accord" platform stuff but as I'm sure you are aware, SH is a huge factor in what has allowed a typically bigger and heavier car in the TL to handle at the level, if not better, (road courses will vary) of cars like the G and last gen 3 series as well as the S4 despite being down on power, not having the same type of weight distribution and being smaller and RWD, etc.
It has also been said to be bulletproof in the snow and poor weather with a small exception to extreme slippery start ups for a split second or actual second or two, sort of like a FWD would but better and I have never really had a problem, usually VSA kicks in and your off before you know or even paid attention what really happened. That was more of a 6MT function because of the clutch engagement, not as common on autos.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-revi...-tl-sh-awd-6mt
Posted this elsewhere may have seen it but I'll put it here.
Guy talks about the SH and the TL being as good in the deep snow as his new Jeep which are usually dedicated vehicles for those purposes. Only problem in comparison, ground clearance, but that's to be expected.
The following 3 users liked this post by winstrolvtec:
04-03-2014, 09:53 PM
#107
Acura applied a superb AWD system in the TL/TLX SH-AWD - The amount of torque transmitted to each rear wheel can vary continuously between zero and 100 percent depending on the conditions, this is a faith by itself considering the price of the TL/TLX SH-AWD.
The choice is yours; and if you read between the lines, I believe you will make the right one.
The following 2 users liked this post by mylove4cars:
internalaudit (04-04-2014),
winstrolvtec (04-03-2014)
04-04-2014, 02:58 PM
#108
Racer
Thread Starter
The reason of my post about the Nissan GT-R and the existing technology of the 1980's in the Porsche 959 supercar winning Paris-Dakar is a testimonial how far we have come.
Acura applied a superb AWD system in the TL/TLX SH-AWD - The amount of torque transmitted to each rear wheel can vary continuously between zero and 100 percent depending on the conditions, this is a faith by itself considering the price of the TL/TLX SH-AWD.
The choice is yours; and if you read between the lines, I believe you will make the right one.
Acura applied a superb AWD system in the TL/TLX SH-AWD - The amount of torque transmitted to each rear wheel can vary continuously between zero and 100 percent depending on the conditions, this is a faith by itself considering the price of the TL/TLX SH-AWD.
The choice is yours; and if you read between the lines, I believe you will make the right one.
An Acura with no SH-AWD is just a glorified Honda vehicle to me.
I wonder why the used 2012 TL's in the Canadian market are being listed cheap. Maybe people don't realize that not all AWD systems are made a like and the fuel economy leaves something to be desired.
Hopefully the direct injection and VCM in the TLX will be quite reliable, as well as the SH-AWD. The 9-speed AT with torque converter should be quite reliable compared to DCT's and CVT's.
My 02 Civic (MT) just won't die. The TLX will have to be a 3rd car.
Last edited by internalaudit; 04-04-2014 at 03:04 PM.
04-25-2014, 08:18 AM
#109
Racer
Thread Starter
Just to confirm my current understanding of how good the SH-AWD is, would a V6 SH-AWD handle better than a V6 with P-AWS?
I know there hasn't been any road test results released yet but if the P-AWS is that good, then I'd probably consider the I4 P-AWS and not have to spend more on a base V6.
I know there hasn't been any road test results released yet but if the P-AWS is that good, then I'd probably consider the I4 P-AWS and not have to spend more on a base V6.
04-25-2014, 08:23 AM
#110
^^ If you drive your TLX in the snow (You are a Canadian too), then yes, the SH-AWD will be better to get than the P-AWS. The P-AWS is a step from the FWD in that it will give a better flat cornering capability while the SH-AWD will give you the better cornering ability but also provide traction to the rear wheel.
For me, I never drove my TL in the rain or snow (my baby)....so the SH-AWD is a bit overkill but I could afford it and P-AWS wasn't available at the time. It may come down to the fact that there might be options you really like/want and may only be packaged with the SH-AWD. Time will tell....
For me, I never drove my TL in the rain or snow (my baby)....so the SH-AWD is a bit overkill but I could afford it and P-AWS wasn't available at the time. It may come down to the fact that there might be options you really like/want and may only be packaged with the SH-AWD. Time will tell....
The following users liked this post:
internalaudit (04-25-2014)
04-25-2014, 08:28 AM
#111
Racer
Thread Starter
^^ If you drive your TLX in the snow (You are a Canadian too), then yes, the SH-AWD will be better to get than the P-AWS. The P-AWS is a step from the FWD in that it will give a better flat cornering capability while the SH-AWD will give you the better cornering ability but also provide traction to the rear wheel.
For me, I never drove my TL in the rain or snow (my baby)....so the SH-AWD is a bit overkill but I could afford it and P-AWS wasn't available at the time. It may come down to the fact that there might be options you really like/want and may only be packaged with the SH-AWD. Time will tell....
For me, I never drove my TL in the rain or snow (my baby)....so the SH-AWD is a bit overkill but I could afford it and P-AWS wasn't available at the time. It may come down to the fact that there might be options you really like/want and may only be packaged with the SH-AWD. Time will tell....
After you sell your TL, what you are getting for yourself?
Happy car shopping.
Last edited by internalaudit; 04-25-2014 at 08:32 AM.
04-25-2014, 08:33 AM
#112
No problem....I wanted to keep it simple. I know some members here are much more technical and better at explaining the advantages to both systems but wanted to keep it down to the basics. I am sure if you need more details, others will chime in.
No quite sure yet....its weird to having had an Acura in my garage since 2005 and going from 2 (my TL and RDX) to none. I need time to research, test drive and starting having fun again I'll be around this site nonetheless and keep contributing
No quite sure yet....its weird to having had an Acura in my garage since 2005 and going from 2 (my TL and RDX) to none. I need time to research, test drive and starting having fun again
I'll be around this site nonetheless and keep contributing
04-25-2014, 08:42 AM
#113
Racer
Thread Starter
No problem....I wanted to keep it simple. I know some members here are much more technical and better at explaining the advantages to both systems but wanted to keep it down to the basics. I am sure if you need more details, others will chime in.
No quite sure yet....its weird to having had an Acura in my garage since 2005 and going from 2 (my TL and RDX) to none. I need time to research, test drive and starting having fun again I'll be around this site nonetheless and keep contributing
No quite sure yet....its weird to having had an Acura in my garage since 2005 and going from 2 (my TL and RDX) to none. I need time to research, test drive and starting having fun again
I'll be around this site nonetheless and keep contributing I've also considered the Lexus IS but at 5k miles / 8k kilometer service intervals in Canada, I feel Acura/Honda with it's maintenance minder (10k miles / 16k km) offers the best compromise between fun/reliability (JD Powers, Consumer Reports, etc.) and cost (repair, maintenance and possible scrap/residual value). European cars are too costly to maintain after their warranty ends and not a lot of people can say that they can run their European cars to the ground after eight or more years.
I tend to keep our cars until maintenance becomes exorbitantly expensive, which is why I would always buy the longest extended warranty from Acura/Honda. My 02 Civic (thankfully MT) is still running fine in general but will need a third car one my eldest daughter hits driving age in two years time. An Acura TLX will be a welcome addition since I'm trying to persuade my wife that a TLX will be better in the long run than a 3 Series or a C class.
By then, Honda will have come out with their turbo engines (seems slated to be released for some 2016 models).
Last edited by internalaudit; 04-25-2014 at 08:50 AM.
04-25-2014, 08:50 AM
#114
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
I think that the K Motor P-AWS TLX is going to surprise a lot of people with how well it handles.
Even big name concerns like Consumer Reports discount P-AWS as some kind of gimmick. It's not.
I've got 8,000 miles on my RLX now, and I've had an RLX on the track and, well, it's definitely not a gimmick. It alters the dynamics of a front drive car by an order of magnitude and it allows you to put more power down under duress than you would expect.
One of the more notorious discounts of P-AWS was Consumer Reports basically recommending an Impala over an RLX. The Impala is a great buy and a very nice American car, but to discount P-AWS as a complete gimmick, to the extent that you'd recommend an Impala, belies any hard driving experience whatsoever.
I still pay attention to Consumer Reports, especially because of their long term reliability reports. But they're way off the mark with P-AWS.
They haven't put many miles on their RLX yet. They're going to change their minds. :-)
In the RLX line, definitely, because the electric motors are working even on the off-power wheel to pivot the car more quickly.
In the TLX line, assuming you don't mean snow and ice...probably.
They've made a very nice improvement in how SH-AWD works on the TLX in more gentle maneuvers, and this is something that we were wondering how they'd be able to do it. They have not been able to get it to work on the off power wheel, but if AHA is working on the off power wheel while SH-AWD is working on the outside wheel, it's probably just as well.
So, basically, the answer is yes.
On snow and ice, no contest.
It's a much nicer car than people on public forums think.
You would be amazed how good the TL SH-AWD handles snow and ice. They really got it right and it's a shame the public never understood what a great car that is.
Even big name concerns like Consumer Reports discount P-AWS as some kind of gimmick. It's not.
I've got 8,000 miles on my RLX now, and I've had an RLX on the track and, well, it's definitely not a gimmick. It alters the dynamics of a front drive car by an order of magnitude and it allows you to put more power down under duress than you would expect.
One of the more notorious discounts of P-AWS was Consumer Reports basically recommending an Impala over an RLX. The Impala is a great buy and a very nice American car, but to discount P-AWS as a complete gimmick, to the extent that you'd recommend an Impala, belies any hard driving experience whatsoever.
I still pay attention to Consumer Reports, especially because of their long term reliability reports. But they're way off the mark with P-AWS.
They haven't put many miles on their RLX yet. They're going to change their minds. :-)
In the TLX line, assuming you don't mean snow and ice...probably.
They've made a very nice improvement in how SH-AWD works on the TLX in more gentle maneuvers, and this is something that we were wondering how they'd be able to do it. They have not been able to get it to work on the off power wheel, but if AHA is working on the off power wheel while SH-AWD is working on the outside wheel, it's probably just as well.
So, basically, the answer is yes.
On snow and ice, no contest.
I know there hasn't been any road test results released yet but if the P-AWS is that good, then I'd probably consider the I4 P-AWS and not have to spend more on a base V6.
You would be amazed how good the TL SH-AWD handles snow and ice. They really got it right and it's a shame the public never understood what a great car that is.
The following users liked this post:
internalaudit (04-25-2014)
04-25-2014, 08:58 AM
#115
^^ I don't dispute this statement whatsoever....Its just that my TL (and RDX) were my babies and I like having a car that is PRISTINE! One look at my 3 year old TL and your jaw would hit the floor....I know its crazy as I am not exploiting the car for its virtue but someone will greatly appreciate my anal'ness as they will get a car in extremely preserved shape at a fraction of a new car price.....and he reads this forum too
...and also, I am like you....I think that for people who don't need the SH-AWD, the P-AWS will be great and as you stated, people will be impressed! For me, if I was in the market for a TLX and could have ALL THE FEATURES I WANT in the P-AWS and not have to step up to the SH-AWD, I'd be not hesitant to do so.
...and also, I am like you....I think that for people who don't need the SH-AWD, the P-AWS will be great and as you stated, people will be impressed! For me, if I was in the market for a TLX and could have ALL THE FEATURES I WANT in the P-AWS and not have to step up to the SH-AWD, I'd be not hesitant to do so.
04-25-2014, 09:00 AM
#116
Racer
Thread Starter
^ Thanks George. I guess it will have to be SH-AWD then just to keep up with the 4-5 months of wintry road conditions here in Canada although where I live (Toronto), even FWD + decent winter tires is fine, so P-AWS is just the icing on the cake.
Not sure if P-AWS will be a compliment or detriment during the winter since my moving rear tires left and right, the contact patches may shrink.
Not sure if P-AWS will be a compliment or detriment during the winter since my moving rear tires left and right, the contact patches may shrink.
04-25-2014, 09:04 AM
#117
Racer
Thread Starter
^^ I don't dispute this statement whatsoever....Its just that my TL (and RDX) were my babies and I like having a car that is PRISTINE! One look at my 3 year old TL and your jaw would hit the floor....I know its crazy as I am not exploiting the car for its virtue but someone will greatly appreciate my anal'ness as they will get a car in extremely preserved shape at a fraction of a new car price.....and he reads this forum too
...and also, I am like you....I think that for people who don't need the SH-AWD, the P-AWS will be great and as you stated, people will be impressed! For me, if I was in the market for a TLX and could have ALL THE FEATURES I WANT in the P-AWS and not have to step up to the SH-AWD, I'd be not hesitant to do so.
...and also, I am like you....I think that for people who don't need the SH-AWD, the P-AWS will be great and as you stated, people will be impressed! For me, if I was in the market for a TLX and could have ALL THE FEATURES I WANT in the P-AWS and not have to step up to the SH-AWD, I'd be not hesitant to do so.
I love people like you -- buy new and sell in almost new condition after a few years.
I bought our Accord new but considering buying a used TLX and just buying extended warranty.
04-25-2014, 09:11 AM
#118
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
LOL....
But, anyway, what exactly do you mean?
It's part of the mission of P-AWS to level out the suspension in hard cornering.
This has the effect, as a part of its solution, of giving you more effective contact at the front end, which effectively limits understeer while you are applying relatively large amounts of throttle.
But having said that, we started this talking about snow and ice, and I doubt you'd be travelling at such a rate that it would matter under those treacherous conditions.
The following users liked this post:
internalaudit (04-25-2014)
04-25-2014, 09:35 AM
#119
Racer
Thread Starter
I am not sure what you mean by that, exactly, and I might shy away from the conversation because the last time I talked about contact patches on this site Realtime had to come to my rescue, and the posters didn't even believe HIM!
LOL....
But, anyway, what exactly do you mean?
It's part of the mission of P-AWS to level out the suspension in hard cornering.
This has the effect, as a part of its solution, of giving you more effective contact at the front end, which effectively limits understeer while you are applying relatively large amounts of throttle.
But having said that, we started this talking about snow and ice, and I doubt you'd be travelling at such a rate that it would matter under those treacherous conditions.
LOL....
But, anyway, what exactly do you mean?
It's part of the mission of P-AWS to level out the suspension in hard cornering.
This has the effect, as a part of its solution, of giving you more effective contact at the front end, which effectively limits understeer while you are applying relatively large amounts of throttle.
But having said that, we started this talking about snow and ice, and I doubt you'd be travelling at such a rate that it would matter under those treacherous conditions.
I was wondering whether P-AWS will be a detriment if by moving the rear tires left and right, the contact patch with snow or slush or the groun decreases.
04-25-2014, 10:03 AM
#120
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
We had a very bad winter here and my biggest problem was that I only had potential traction on two wheels, and I'd sometimes have to force the transmission to start in 2nd gear when moving away from a stoplight.
I don't see it as a problem, but from what you've said so far I'd be looking at SH-AWD if I were you.
:-)
I've been through a few Toronto winters, and I'd want SH-AWD, personally.
The following users liked this post:
internalaudit (04-25-2014)