V8 for future flagship
12-11-2006, 10:01 AM
#1
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Michigan
Age: 67
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V8 for future flagship
12-11-2006, 10:39 AM
#2
My only car is a Bus
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,254
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Interesting article but Acura seems slow. The TL should have had the RL's SH-AWD when it came out in 2004. Now it will have to wait until 2008. The RL will not be re-designed until 2009. By the time Acura 'catches up' with everybody they, too, will have moved on to the next big thing. The MDX is a hot seller and the TSX, surprisingly, continues to grow in sales but the RL, RDX, and TL seem to flounder.
Let us hope that there is not such a big wait.
Let us hope that there is not such a big wait.
12-11-2006, 11:15 AM
#3
Senior Moderator
It's about bloody time!
Honda has seen the American market....and they are (conservatively, as always....2009 MY???) finally responding.
Honda has seen the American market....and they are (conservatively, as always....2009 MY???) finally responding.
12-11-2006, 09:40 PM
#5
AcurAdmirer
I don't mean to be negative, but Acura doesn't need to just drop a V-8 into the RL, they need to drop in one with enough power to properly handle a car of its weight.
Honda is so focused on 'smaller and economical' that I fear they'll consider it more important that it's a V-8 than that it has competitive power. But if they come out with, say, a 290 or 300hp V-8 they'd still be 30-50hp behind the competition and not supplying enough additional power to even notice.
IMO, if they put in a V-8 just for the sake of saying it's a V-8, they might as well just keep the V-6. The public these days is responding to luxury sedans that also offer performance, so I'd say 335-350hp is about the minimum they need to shoot for. That would put them in the same general league as Infiniti, Lexus and the Germans.
.
.
Honda is so focused on 'smaller and economical' that I fear they'll consider it more important that it's a V-8 than that it has competitive power. But if they come out with, say, a 290 or 300hp V-8 they'd still be 30-50hp behind the competition and not supplying enough additional power to even notice.
IMO, if they put in a V-8 just for the sake of saying it's a V-8, they might as well just keep the V-6. The public these days is responding to luxury sedans that also offer performance, so I'd say 335-350hp is about the minimum they need to shoot for. That would put them in the same general league as Infiniti, Lexus and the Germans.
.
.
12-11-2006, 10:04 PM
#6
Three Wheelin'
Random Thoughts for My Acura Brethren
1) It's not the hp, it's the torque. BMW tends to put out engines with less hp, more torque and people don't have a problem buying the cars.
2) If the TL had SH-AWD, it would be just as heavy as the RL, which would hurt performance, and it would be almost as expensive. The ultimate solution would be to switch Acura sedans to RWD once and for all.
3) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first, then how would they differentiate the RL?
4) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first and there were problems in the AWD system, then we would have a situation similar to the defective transmissions in the previous-generation TL/CL.
5) A V10 would be even better!
1) It's not the hp, it's the torque. BMW tends to put out engines with less hp, more torque and people don't have a problem buying the cars.
2) If the TL had SH-AWD, it would be just as heavy as the RL, which would hurt performance, and it would be almost as expensive. The ultimate solution would be to switch Acura sedans to RWD once and for all.
3) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first, then how would they differentiate the RL?
4) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first and there were problems in the AWD system, then we would have a situation similar to the defective transmissions in the previous-generation TL/CL.
5) A V10 would be even better!
12-11-2006, 11:30 PM
#7
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jhr3uva90
Random Thoughts for My Acura Brethren
1) It's not the hp, it's the torque. BMW tends to put out engines with less hp, more torque and people don't have a problem buying the cars.
2) If the TL had SH-AWD, it would be just as heavy as the RL, which would hurt performance, and it would be almost as expensive. The ultimate solution would be to switch Acura sedans to RWD once and for all.
3) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first, then how would they differentiate the RL?
4) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first and there were problems in the AWD system, then we would have a situation similar to the defective transmissions in the previous-generation TL/CL.
5) A V10 would be even better!
1) It's not the hp, it's the torque. BMW tends to put out engines with less hp, more torque and people don't have a problem buying the cars.
2) If the TL had SH-AWD, it would be just as heavy as the RL, which would hurt performance, and it would be almost as expensive. The ultimate solution would be to switch Acura sedans to RWD once and for all.
3) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first, then how would they differentiate the RL?
4) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first and there were problems in the AWD system, then we would have a situation similar to the defective transmissions in the previous-generation TL/CL.
5) A V10 would be even better!
With Acura, its always going to be about horsepower. - not torque. They love building high revving engines.
RWD,...let's keep dreaming. Like the V8, it will happen in another four years.
Trending Topics
12-12-2006, 10:02 AM
#8
AcurAdmirer
Originally Posted by jhr3uva90
Random Thoughts for My Acura Brethren
1) It's not the hp, it's the torque. BMW tends to put out engines with less hp, more torque and people don't have a problem buying the cars.
2) If the TL had SH-AWD, it would be just as heavy as the RL, which would hurt performance, and it would be almost as expensive. The ultimate solution would be to switch Acura sedans to RWD once and for all.
3) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first, then how would they differentiate the RL?
4) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first and there were problems in the AWD system, then we would have a situation similar to the defective transmissions in the previous-generation TL/CL.
5) A V10 would be even better!
1) It's not the hp, it's the torque. BMW tends to put out engines with less hp, more torque and people don't have a problem buying the cars.
2) If the TL had SH-AWD, it would be just as heavy as the RL, which would hurt performance, and it would be almost as expensive. The ultimate solution would be to switch Acura sedans to RWD once and for all.
3) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first, then how would they differentiate the RL?
4) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first and there were problems in the AWD system, then we would have a situation similar to the defective transmissions in the previous-generation TL/CL.
5) A V10 would be even better!
But for most of us 0-60 sells even better, since it's a real-world measure of how the power gets to the wheels under freeway on-ramp conditions. Therefore, they'll need to make sure any such engine delivers on its hp promises.
As for the oft-mentioned V-10, I don't know what keeps this dream alive. The cost would absolutely be prohibitive, even if Honda wents nuts and built one appropriate for an RL-class car. It's feasible for a limited-run NSX-type halo car, but unless Honda/Acura suddenly chose to go head-to-head with V-12 Bimmers and Benzes in the $100,000 price range, it ain't ever gonna happen.
.
.
12-12-2006, 11:01 AM
#9
Safety Car
What they need is a real flagship car. And the RL is not it. They need a LS based Lexus size car with RWD/AWD and V8 Power. They also need to have a optional V8 for the RL with the V6 like Infiniti does and Lexus for the GS.
This will help move Acura into the more luxury car market.
This will help move Acura into the more luxury car market.
12-12-2006, 12:01 PM
#10
2012 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe
Originally Posted by pimpin-tl
What they need is a real flagship car. And the RL is not it. They need a LS based Lexus size car with RWD/AWD and V8 Power. They also need to have a optional V8 for the RL with the V6 like Infiniti does and Lexus for the GS.
This will help move Acura into the more luxury car market.
This will help move Acura into the more luxury car market.
12-12-2006, 12:04 PM
#11
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
Originally Posted by jhr3uva90
Random Thoughts for My Acura Brethren
1) It's not the hp, it's the torque. BMW tends to put out engines with less hp, more torque and people don't have a problem buying the cars.
2) If the TL had SH-AWD, it would be just as heavy as the RL, which would hurt performance, and it would be almost as expensive. The ultimate solution would be to switch Acura sedans to RWD once and for all.
3) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first, then how would they differentiate the RL?
4) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first and there were problems in the AWD system, then we would have a situation similar to the defective transmissions in the previous-generation TL/CL.
5) A V10 would be even better!
1) It's not the hp, it's the torque. BMW tends to put out engines with less hp, more torque and people don't have a problem buying the cars.
2) If the TL had SH-AWD, it would be just as heavy as the RL, which would hurt performance, and it would be almost as expensive. The ultimate solution would be to switch Acura sedans to RWD once and for all.
3) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first, then how would they differentiate the RL?
4) If Honda had put SH-AWD in the TL first and there were problems in the AWD system, then we would have a situation similar to the defective transmissions in the previous-generation TL/CL.
5) A V10 would be even better!
1.) hmm do you mean Mercedes Benz? I think they are the ones making more torque than hp. BMW is similar to Honda in a sense that they emphasize on high revving and horsepower. Think M3, M5, etc. Even the more common bimmers tend to have more hp than torque. Also, just like many Hondas, their torque curves are pretty flat.
2.) I think you are right about the weight problem. But price, I'm not sure. As you can see, the RL employs a lot of very expensive light weight materials in the car to compensate its long list of features. But in the TL, the materials are quite a bit heavier but it carries less standard features. So, if Honda were to put the SH-AWD into the current TL, then yea, the weight would be pretty much the same as the RL. But that won't make the TL as expensive as the RL. If you put in the SH-AWD into the TL, plus employing a lot of light weight yet expensive materials, than the TL will not gain too much weight, but the price would increase dramatically. However, I doubt that the Sh-AWd is super heavy anyways. The RDX is about the same weight as CX7, Murano, and X3 even though it's fully equipped with many standard features. But yea, it wouldn't hurt to have a RWD platform but I'm not too sure if Honda is going to do that or not as that would make Acura too similar to BMW/MB.
3, 4, agree completely.
5.) V10 in RL, that's cool, may be......RL Type R?
12-12-2006, 03:18 PM
#12
05 slate grey e500 AMG sp
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: St Simons Island Ga
Age: 59
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike_TX
I don't mean to be negative, but Acura doesn't need to just drop a V-8 into the RL, they need to drop in one with enough power to properly handle a car of its weight.
Honda is so focused on 'smaller and economical' that I fear they'll consider it more important that it's a V-8 than that it has competitive power. But if they come out with, say, a 290 or 300hp V-8 they'd still be 30-50hp behind the competition and not supplying enough additional power to even notice.
IMO, if they put in a V-8 just for the sake of saying it's a V-8, they might as well just keep the V-6. The public these days is responding to luxury sedans that also offer performance, so I'd say 335-350hp is about the minimum they need to shoot for. That would put them in the same general league as Infiniti, Lexus and the Germans.
.
.
Honda is so focused on 'smaller and economical' that I fear they'll consider it more important that it's a V-8 than that it has competitive power. But if they come out with, say, a 290 or 300hp V-8 they'd still be 30-50hp behind the competition and not supplying enough additional power to even notice.
IMO, if they put in a V-8 just for the sake of saying it's a V-8, they might as well just keep the V-6. The public these days is responding to luxury sedans that also offer performance, so I'd say 335-350hp is about the minimum they need to shoot for. That would put them in the same general league as Infiniti, Lexus and the Germans.
.
.
12-12-2006, 05:27 PM
#13
AcurAdmirer
Originally Posted by ssim3
Honda would not come out with a V* rated at the same power as the 6, if they were going to make a statement with a V8 they would have a long time ago. They will think it through & do it right. Or stay with a lighter more economical 6.
But you might be surprised how many people think 300hp is outrageous, and more than enough for almost anything. (Of course, I don't agree!) But given that, I could see Honda figuring ... "Well, the customers want a V-8, and we could keep the same powertrain components if we hold it to 300hp. How's about we give 'em a 300hp V-8 and hype the additional cylinders, torque, responsiveness and technology?"
And since they've never really played the performance game (note the continuing use of FWD and 6-cylinder engines), I can see this happening. Especially since additional hp will require beefing up drivetrain components and re-engineering a lot of stuff.
Now, one alternative might be a multi-displacement scheme like Chrysler and GM are trying out - deactivating a couple of cylinders on light load. That would let them keep on playing the economy game and still supply some power. It would still require some beefing up, but not as much.
It's fun to speculate ...
.
.
12-12-2006, 06:15 PM
#14
Pro
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Henderson, NV
Age: 49
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be nice "if" Acura would have a RWD platform. However, unless Honda lets Acura be it's own boss on the direction of products it will never happen.
I'd be willing to bet that Acura has wanted a V8 for years but HMC wouldn't let it happen as they couldn't/ wouldn't make a business case for it.
I tend to see Acura as being a stepchild for Honda. Honda mentions and likes it but doesn't allow Acura to go to the "ball" with the other companies.
Acura could not only have a great flagship model with all of the features and the size befiting a luxury sedan but where is that platform coming from? Honda of course but would Honda let there be a large platform developed? That one platform could be used with the flagship, downsized for the RL, down sized again for the TL, and somewhere inbetween the TL and RL for a coupe. Only the TSX need be FWD and on the Accord's platform. That platform (Accords) could be used for Accord, TSX, JDM Accord (assuming the TSX/JDM/Euro Accord are separated so the TSX can be an Acura in Japan and else where), Inspire, and Accord Touring models.
Acura does need to do something and that is something we can all agree upon.
I'd be willing to bet that Acura has wanted a V8 for years but HMC wouldn't let it happen as they couldn't/ wouldn't make a business case for it.
I tend to see Acura as being a stepchild for Honda. Honda mentions and likes it but doesn't allow Acura to go to the "ball" with the other companies.
Acura could not only have a great flagship model with all of the features and the size befiting a luxury sedan but where is that platform coming from? Honda of course but would Honda let there be a large platform developed? That one platform could be used with the flagship, downsized for the RL, down sized again for the TL, and somewhere inbetween the TL and RL for a coupe. Only the TSX need be FWD and on the Accord's platform. That platform (Accords) could be used for Accord, TSX, JDM Accord (assuming the TSX/JDM/Euro Accord are separated so the TSX can be an Acura in Japan and else where), Inspire, and Accord Touring models.
Acura does need to do something and that is something we can all agree upon.
12-12-2006, 06:21 PM
#15
Three Wheelin'
In a way, Acura is the stepchild of Honda Motor Company (HMC). Why? Because the luxury car market is not growing, especially in North America. My guess is that HMC would rather put more resources into altenative-fuel engines, robotics, and jet planes than the shrinking luxury car market. Based on HMC rising stock price, the market seems to agree.
This is very unfortunate, though. I would love to see an Acura response to the new Lexus LS 460.
This is very unfortunate, though. I would love to see an Acura response to the new Lexus LS 460.
12-12-2006, 06:55 PM
#16
My only car is a Bus
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,254
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I do not believe Honda would develop a platform for an Acura luxury car as Lexus did with their LS. Honda faces a real problem if you compare where the Accord is to go over the next 5 years vs. where Acura is going to go. As things stand right now, the Honda is starting to bump into Acura (Accord vs. TSX and Pilot vs. RDX). So perhaps the TL will become an AWD platform... where does this lead the Accord, which is seeing its sale decline in the face of competition from cars such as the Camry?
And what happens to the RL? Perhaps Acura hopes the MDX and RDX will push up the ceiling their cars can sell for, thus creating room for the RL. I am doubtful that they will take the steps needed to bring their models in line with Lexus and Infiniti, which seems to be overtaking them in terms of 'fun to drive' qualities.
I think what happens over the next 2-3 years will determine the future of Acura.
The MDX is the best car Acura makes right now, in my opinion. Whether the RL and a V8 will be included in this is anybody's guess.
And what happens to the RL? Perhaps Acura hopes the MDX and RDX will push up the ceiling their cars can sell for, thus creating room for the RL. I am doubtful that they will take the steps needed to bring their models in line with Lexus and Infiniti, which seems to be overtaking them in terms of 'fun to drive' qualities.
I think what happens over the next 2-3 years will determine the future of Acura.
The MDX is the best car Acura makes right now, in my opinion. Whether the RL and a V8 will be included in this is anybody's guess.
12-12-2006, 07:03 PM
#17
Three Wheelin'
I believe all Acuras will eventually become AWD. That's how the Acura brand will differentiate itself from the Honda brand. Acura will essentially become the Japanese Audi.
As far as the Accord "bumping into" the TSX, that's probably because they are the same car. The TSX is the Accord in Japan and Europe, so there will be similarities.
What will happen to the RL? Who knows?
As far as the Accord "bumping into" the TSX, that's probably because they are the same car. The TSX is the Accord in Japan and Europe, so there will be similarities.
What will happen to the RL? Who knows?
12-12-2006, 07:50 PM
#18
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DC area
Age: 56
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accord and TSX Same Car: NOT!
I had the misfortune of having a TSX for a loaner today while my RL was in the shop getting the rear view camera installed. The TSX is nothing like the Accord. It feels much smaller, lighter, and rougher than my buddy's new Accord. You couldn't pay me to drive a TSX; if I couldn't afford an RL, I might settle for an Accord, though.
12-12-2006, 07:55 PM
#19
Three Wheelin'
Euro/Japanese Accord (TSX) has a harder suspension for a sportier feel, which Europeans tend to prefer. This is why the North American market gets its own Accord: because we're different from other places. This is also why I think North America would probably need its own RL, instead of the same car that Europe and Japan get.
12-12-2006, 08:43 PM
#20
AcurAdmirer
Originally Posted by CL6
I do not believe Honda would develop a platform for an Acura luxury car as Lexus did with their LS. Honda faces a real problem if you compare where the Accord is to go over the next 5 years vs. where Acura is going to go. As things stand right now, the Honda is starting to bump into Acura (Accord vs. TSX and Pilot vs. RDX). So perhaps the TL will become an AWD platform... where does this lead the Accord, which is seeing its sale decline in the face of competition from cars such as the Camry?
And what happens to the RL? Perhaps Acura hopes the MDX and RDX will push up the ceiling their cars can sell for, thus creating room for the RL. I am doubtful that they will take the steps needed to bring their models in line with Lexus and Infiniti, which seems to be overtaking them in terms of 'fun to drive' qualities.
I think what happens over the next 2-3 years will determine the future of Acura.
The MDX is the best car Acura makes right now, in my opinion. Whether the RL and a V8 will be included in this is anybody's guess.
And what happens to the RL? Perhaps Acura hopes the MDX and RDX will push up the ceiling their cars can sell for, thus creating room for the RL. I am doubtful that they will take the steps needed to bring their models in line with Lexus and Infiniti, which seems to be overtaking them in terms of 'fun to drive' qualities.
I think what happens over the next 2-3 years will determine the future of Acura.
The MDX is the best car Acura makes right now, in my opinion. Whether the RL and a V8 will be included in this is anybody's guess.
It would be folly for Honda/Acura to try to build an LS-beater. There is a limited market for the LS class, and Honda hasn't laid the groundwork to build such a car anyway. As has been stated here so many times, Honda has built its car business on a philosophy of smaller/more economical, and it simply isn't positioned engineering-wise or production-wise to build a full-blown big-boat lux sedan. It could be a fiasco.
I personally think Acura needs to make the next-generation RL more like the Infiniti M-class, giving it:
1. An available V-8 of at least 4.5 liters and about 335-350hp, along with
2. A standard V-6 like Honda's existing 3.7-liter, with about 300hp, and
3. With SH-AWD optional on both models.
As much as many current owners like SH-AWD, at least half the country (below the Mason-Dixon Line) sees it as breasts on a boar hog. Look at Infiniti M sales - VERY few AWD's sold in the South and lots in the North. Yes, we know it's a handling thing, too, but that's simply lost on most people and it adds cost. Make it optional and bring the base price down. Ditto for the bigger engine ... people who don't want the extra hp or don't want to pay for it shouldn't have to.
As it is, having the AWD standard and having only one engine choice slots the RL into a narrower market.
One more thing: How is it that the RL is an inch longer than the Infiniti M, but has 6.2 cu. ft. LESS interior volume and 1.8 cu. ft. LESS trunk room? Where the hell IS it? The M has a 4" longer wheelbase, but it's also 2" narrower than the RL. I can't figure out where the space is lost, but Acura needs to find it.
I still say - Build a good enough RL and they will come.
.
.
12-12-2006, 09:02 PM
#21
Three Wheelin'
Whatever Honda/Acura does, they should NOT put a V8 engine with a FWD car.
12-12-2006, 10:49 PM
#22
2012 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe
The Lexus LS has evolved into the flagship it is today. If I remember correctly I think the LS originally sold for ~$30K (not adjusting for inflation). The 2nd gen Legend could have easily evolved that way, but unfortunately it didn't. Lexus continued to invest in the LS, continually refining it and moving it upmarket. The 1st gen RL did some major damage to the RL/Legend ever being a true flagship. Sure it was reliable, but in many ways it became more invisible with more sedate performance. Meanwhile, the LS got more content, became a more of a technological showcase.
The only claim-to-fame the first RL had was being know to offer a mass-market Navigation system.
The only claim-to-fame the first RL had was being know to offer a mass-market Navigation system.
12-13-2006, 12:11 AM
#23
Three Wheelin'
Sorry, but I must disagree with GoHawks on one point. The LS was never a $30K car. From conception, the LS was meant to compete the S-Class for the price of an E-Class. Even at 1990 prices, that would be well past $30K.
I agree with GoHawks about the first RL, though. That car was from the "bad old days" of Acura.
I agree with GoHawks about the first RL, though. That car was from the "bad old days" of Acura.
12-13-2006, 11:37 AM
#24
My only car is a Bus
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,254
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I never said Acura should make an 'LS beater' only that they need to develop a platform that is unique as the LS is. By this I meant LARGER than the other cars. I think if the current RL was a big longer this would help. The backseat of the RL is tight for sure, legroom and headroom. If you look at the original LS, it is still a great car but was more like the RL was in 96 or 98. The LS moved on while the RL basically did not change for 8 years or so. Lexus continued to work on their cars while Acura 'got lost' sometime in the late-90s until quite recently. Maybe that has to do with who was running Honda/Acura during that time.
I would love to know the top 10 reasons why people did not buy an RL.
I would love to know the top 10 reasons why people did not buy an RL.
12-13-2006, 11:58 AM
#25
Safety Car
I still drive a 1995 2G Legend today and love it.
I just could not bring myself to buy a 1G RL. It was so boring....I felt there was nothing to recommend to it except the nav system. No VTEC, same old 4 speed tranny, soft suspension, etc. It was bigger than the Legend, but soft and slow (not that the Legend was all that fast or tightly sprung, mind you--which gives you the idea of how bad the RL had become in my eyes--of course I only test drove a 1996 RL, and was sorely disappointed, so much so that I was not even tempted to drive the "redesigned" refresher model in 2000.
I had hoped early on that the 3G Legend would move more toward BMW territory, a higher performance luxury car, instead it became a lower performance Lexus wannabe (meaning a weak imitation of the 1G Lexus LS).
After owning a 1G and 2G Legend, and now a 2G RL, I do agree that Honda had lost its way with the 1G RL.
I just could not bring myself to buy a 1G RL. It was so boring....I felt there was nothing to recommend to it except the nav system. No VTEC, same old 4 speed tranny, soft suspension, etc. It was bigger than the Legend, but soft and slow (not that the Legend was all that fast or tightly sprung, mind you--which gives you the idea of how bad the RL had become in my eyes--of course I only test drove a 1996 RL, and was sorely disappointed, so much so that I was not even tempted to drive the "redesigned" refresher model in 2000.
I had hoped early on that the 3G Legend would move more toward BMW territory, a higher performance luxury car, instead it became a lower performance Lexus wannabe (meaning a weak imitation of the 1G Lexus LS).
After owning a 1G and 2G Legend, and now a 2G RL, I do agree that Honda had lost its way with the 1G RL.
12-13-2006, 12:18 PM
#26
Three Wheelin'
Basically, Acura needs FULL SIZE SEDAN above the current RL. Since the Global Midsize Platform cannot be stretched any larger than the RL, a new platform it needed. Perhaps a Global Full Size Platform should be created and it should be flexible enough to also be used for a somewhat large midsize car (new RL). That platform should be able to accomodate a V8 or V10 engine and a 6-speed automatic transmission. That platform should also support RWD and SH-AWD.
The question, of course, if whether Honda would be willing to invest in such a platform. Would it be worth it to them?
The question, of course, if whether Honda would be willing to invest in such a platform. Would it be worth it to them?
12-13-2006, 12:46 PM
#27
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
People here sure brought up some very good points!
I think Honda does have the technology and money to invest and build a larger/more luxurious sedan than the RL. I could imagine that platform can be derived into at least 2 cars; one for the upcoming RL, one for the "real" flagship model. I mean that's how other prestigous auto makers work. They build one platform and share across many cars. Look at Infiniti G35 and the M35/45. Even if they don't share the same platform, they share the same components. Look at BMW, their 3.0L engine is used in the 3 series, X3, Z4, 5 series, etc. But Honda is working on that already, like SH-AWD in RDX and MDX, 3.5L engine in the TL Type S.
But no doubt, I think Honda did a great job with the 2G RL. It's very brave of Honda to bring out a totally different RL than the 1G one. May be the 3rd gen RL we will see a 4L+ V8!
I think Honda does have the technology and money to invest and build a larger/more luxurious sedan than the RL. I could imagine that platform can be derived into at least 2 cars; one for the upcoming RL, one for the "real" flagship model. I mean that's how other prestigous auto makers work. They build one platform and share across many cars. Look at Infiniti G35 and the M35/45. Even if they don't share the same platform, they share the same components. Look at BMW, their 3.0L engine is used in the 3 series, X3, Z4, 5 series, etc. But Honda is working on that already, like SH-AWD in RDX and MDX, 3.5L engine in the TL Type S.
But no doubt, I think Honda did a great job with the 2G RL. It's very brave of Honda to bring out a totally different RL than the 1G one. May be the 3rd gen RL we will see a 4L+ V8!
12-13-2006, 12:49 PM
#28
Three Wheelin'
Oh yeah, Honda has the resources to make this happen. The question is whether the luxury car market is a priority for them.
12-13-2006, 02:35 PM
#29
Pro
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Henderson, NV
Age: 49
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acura= Stepchild to Honda.
The next TSX is coming soon and mybe displayed at one of the up coming Auto shows. A MMC RL should be shown too and my guess on that one is NY. By looking at the RDX and to a greater degree the MDX we can see where Acura maybe headed (after the TSX and TL I thought the same thing about the RL and was wrong).
Acura knows what it needs to do but does Honda care? A V8 is needed and a larger RL with more room is a must.
I have all but given up hope for RWD car other then a sports car.
The next TSX is coming soon and mybe displayed at one of the up coming Auto shows. A MMC RL should be shown too and my guess on that one is NY. By looking at the RDX and to a greater degree the MDX we can see where Acura maybe headed (after the TSX and TL I thought the same thing about the RL and was wrong).
Acura knows what it needs to do but does Honda care? A V8 is needed and a larger RL with more room is a must.
I have all but given up hope for RWD car other then a sports car.
12-13-2006, 02:45 PM
#30
Three Wheelin'
The TSX will be whatever HMC of Japan makes the EuroJapanese Accord to be. Acura has little to do with the TSX's development. Also, Acura has little to do with the RL's development. However, like Precision Crafted said, the MDX and RDX do show where Acura is trying to go. They are trying to establish themselves in the SUV market first, since that's what Americans want (regardless of gas prices).
Also Acura doesn't need a larger RL. It is the same size as the BMW 5 Series (a little bigger, actually) and the other midsized sedans with which the RL competes. Acura really needs a separate, FULL SIZE sedan. I don't see that happening, unfortunately.
Let's face it, HMC is focusing its efforts on markets that will grow, both short term and in the future. That's why they are devoting more resources to fuel-cell and other alternative vehicles and fewer resources (or no resources) on gasoline-guzzling engines. Is Acura's brand cache suffering as a result? Of course. Is HMC suffering overall? Nope.
Also Acura doesn't need a larger RL. It is the same size as the BMW 5 Series (a little bigger, actually) and the other midsized sedans with which the RL competes. Acura really needs a separate, FULL SIZE sedan. I don't see that happening, unfortunately.
Let's face it, HMC is focusing its efforts on markets that will grow, both short term and in the future. That's why they are devoting more resources to fuel-cell and other alternative vehicles and fewer resources (or no resources) on gasoline-guzzling engines. Is Acura's brand cache suffering as a result? Of course. Is HMC suffering overall? Nope.
12-13-2006, 05:18 PM
#31
VSA Rocks
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike_TX
IMO, if they put in a V-8 just for the sake of saying it's a V-8, they might as well just keep the V-6. The public these days is responding to luxury sedans that also offer performance, so I'd say 335-350hp is about the minimum they need to shoot for. That would put them in the same general league as Infiniti, Lexus and the Germans.
Unfortunately, I believe the "V-8" status will be primarly for marketing purposes as it was with some of the J-motors that Honda has made. Keep in mind that Honda was highly reluctant to even sport a V-6 almost a decade ago.
Why?
It really wasn't consistent with the Honda brand image. What comes to mind when the Honda name is mentioned? Relability, quality, efficiency, and value are at the top of the list. The first cars to come to mind are most likely the Civic or Accord -- not exactly your flashy types.
When it came time to build a V-6 in the Legend and Accord, they did what you described: A "V-6 for the sake of making a V-6." Take a look at the J-series motors today: a SOHC design with no variable cam timing. VTEC is only on the intake cam lobes. I'm surprised they even bothered with 4 valves per cylinder.
The "Honda purists" were probably thinking that they could acheive the power wanted by customers without the displacement or need for 2 more cylinders. For example, take a look at the K20a motor in the EuroR and ITR making over 100 hp/liter. The Civic had retained 1.6 liters for more than a decade and continuously made more power with every release. Want more torque off the line? Give it a more aggressive final drive that lands you back in the peak torque area. Honda was always good at not following the "in crowd" and making their own rules.
In my opinion, the concern within Honda about releasing a V-8 was valid and I'm a bit dissapointed in the announcement of it. It simply isn't consistent with the brand where "efficiency" and "value" are at the top of the list of core values nor do I think it would help the sales of the RL. I remember one of the senior officers of Honda commenting on the sluggish RL sales, "People are simply not willing to fork up $50,000 for a brand they don't associate as being high-end."
In many ways, a V-8 in a Honda is like having an innocent Paris Hilton.
For those who mentioned the "T" word for justifying a V-8, keep in mind that us message board junkies are not your average consumer. Very few of them would even know the difference between HP or torque, especially when approaching the +$50k market where a tax write-off takes priority over anything.
12-14-2006, 11:20 AM
#33
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
Originally Posted by Black_6spd
Good points.
Unfortunately, I believe the "V-8" status will be primarly for marketing purposes as it was with some of the J-motors that Honda has made. Keep in mind that Honda was highly reluctant to even sport a V-6 almost a decade ago.
Why?
It really wasn't consistent with the Honda brand image. What comes to mind when the Honda name is mentioned? Relability, quality, efficiency, and value are at the top of the list. The first cars to come to mind are most likely the Civic or Accord -- not exactly your flashy types.
When it came time to build a V-6 in the Legend and Accord, they did what you described: A "V-6 for the sake of making a V-6." Take a look at the J-series motors today: a SOHC design with no variable cam timing. VTEC is only on the intake cam lobes. I'm surprised they even bothered with 4 valves per cylinder.
The "Honda purists" were probably thinking that they could acheive the power wanted by customers without the displacement or need for 2 more cylinders. For example, take a look at the K20a motor in the EuroR and ITR making over 100 hp/liter. The Civic had retained 1.6 liters for more than a decade and continuously made more power with every release. Want more torque off the line? Give it a more aggressive final drive that lands you back in the peak torque area. Honda was always good at not following the "in crowd" and making their own rules.
In my opinion, the concern within Honda about releasing a V-8 was valid and I'm a bit dissapointed in the announcement of it. It simply isn't consistent with the brand where "efficiency" and "value" are at the top of the list of core values nor do I think it would help the sales of the RL. I remember one of the senior officers of Honda commenting on the sluggish RL sales, "People are simply not willing to fork up $50,000 for a brand they don't associate as being high-end."
In many ways, a V-8 in a Honda is like having an innocent Paris Hilton.
For those who mentioned the "T" word for justifying a V-8, keep in mind that us message board junkies are not your average consumer. Very few of them would even know the difference between HP or torque, especially when approaching the +$50k market where a tax write-off takes priority over anything.
Unfortunately, I believe the "V-8" status will be primarly for marketing purposes as it was with some of the J-motors that Honda has made. Keep in mind that Honda was highly reluctant to even sport a V-6 almost a decade ago.
Why?
It really wasn't consistent with the Honda brand image. What comes to mind when the Honda name is mentioned? Relability, quality, efficiency, and value are at the top of the list. The first cars to come to mind are most likely the Civic or Accord -- not exactly your flashy types.
When it came time to build a V-6 in the Legend and Accord, they did what you described: A "V-6 for the sake of making a V-6." Take a look at the J-series motors today: a SOHC design with no variable cam timing. VTEC is only on the intake cam lobes. I'm surprised they even bothered with 4 valves per cylinder.
The "Honda purists" were probably thinking that they could acheive the power wanted by customers without the displacement or need for 2 more cylinders. For example, take a look at the K20a motor in the EuroR and ITR making over 100 hp/liter. The Civic had retained 1.6 liters for more than a decade and continuously made more power with every release. Want more torque off the line? Give it a more aggressive final drive that lands you back in the peak torque area. Honda was always good at not following the "in crowd" and making their own rules.
In my opinion, the concern within Honda about releasing a V-8 was valid and I'm a bit dissapointed in the announcement of it. It simply isn't consistent with the brand where "efficiency" and "value" are at the top of the list of core values nor do I think it would help the sales of the RL. I remember one of the senior officers of Honda commenting on the sluggish RL sales, "People are simply not willing to fork up $50,000 for a brand they don't associate as being high-end."
In many ways, a V-8 in a Honda is like having an innocent Paris Hilton.
For those who mentioned the "T" word for justifying a V-8, keep in mind that us message board junkies are not your average consumer. Very few of them would even know the difference between HP or torque, especially when approaching the +$50k market where a tax write-off takes priority over anything.
I thougt the J-series engines have VTEC, which is a cam-changing variable valve timing mechanism. So, wouldn't the word "changing" means variable? Or do you mean that these engines don't have i-vtec which includes continuous cam phasing?
Also, I think Honda is also recognized as one of the best engine makers in the world, but then this may not be well known to everyone.
12-14-2006, 12:42 PM
#34
VSA Rocks
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by iforyou
I agree with most of your points. But I have some questions.
I thougt the J-series engines have VTEC, which is a cam-changing variable valve timing mechanism. So, wouldn't the word "changing" means variable? Or do you mean that these engines don't have i-vtec which includes continuous cam phasing?
Also, I think Honda is also recognized as one of the best engine makers in the world, but then this may not be well known to everyone.
I thougt the J-series engines have VTEC, which is a cam-changing variable valve timing mechanism. So, wouldn't the word "changing" means variable? Or do you mean that these engines don't have i-vtec which includes continuous cam phasing?
Also, I think Honda is also recognized as one of the best engine makers in the world, but then this may not be well known to everyone.
Here's a great illustration showing the difference between the former "VTEC" and the newer "i-VTEC" in the K-series motors:
In short, the i-VTEC design now allows the cam angle to be continuously adjusted under a given condition to optimize power and lower emmisions. While this might not mean much to your average driver, this was groundbreaking in the tuning world where simple bolt-ons can make a world of difference.
12-14-2006, 04:24 PM
#35
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
Yea, I understand that the i-VTEC is a more advanced system than the VTEC. But I was just a little bit concerned about this statement from your last post:
"Take a look at the J-series motors today: a SOHC design with no variable cam timing..."
So I guess you meant to say there's no "continuous" variable cam timing, am I correct? Cause IMO, 2 stages is still considered as variable. So I didn't get why you said the J-series has no variable cam timing.
Anyways, I agree, it would be awesome if Honda developes a new V6 engine completed with DOHC, i-vtec, and direct injection.
"Take a look at the J-series motors today: a SOHC design with no variable cam timing..."
So I guess you meant to say there's no "continuous" variable cam timing, am I correct? Cause IMO, 2 stages is still considered as variable. So I didn't get why you said the J-series has no variable cam timing.
Anyways, I agree, it would be awesome if Honda developes a new V6 engine completed with DOHC, i-vtec, and direct injection.
12-14-2006, 05:44 PM
#36
VSA Rocks
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by iforyou
So I guess you meant to say there's no "continuous" variable cam timing, am I correct? Cause IMO, 2 stages is still considered as variable. So I didn't get why you said the J-series has no variable cam timing.
"Cam timing" or "cam advance" refers to the position of the valve relative to the stroke position of the piston. Since air travels in pulses in an engine, changing the amount of air/fuel that's injested at the right RPM can benefit emmissions and power.
The J-series motor doesn't have a VTC mechanism tied to the ECU.
"Cam stages" is simply the engine's ability to switch over to a different cam profile adjacent to the primary lobe. This could be accomplished with or without variable cam timing.
The J-series motors have this only on the intake side.
12-14-2006, 06:40 PM
#37
1) Step up the build quality!
2) Optional engines (no more than two) a standard 3.5L V6 or a 4.0+L V8
3) Optional drivetrains (SH-AWD or FWD)
4) More distinctive/classy styling with the RL (interior is beautiful though)
5) Make cars more performance tuned....leave the granny mobiles with Honda
2) Optional engines (no more than two) a standard 3.5L V6 or a 4.0+L V8
3) Optional drivetrains (SH-AWD or FWD)
4) More distinctive/classy styling with the RL (interior is beautiful though)
5) Make cars more performance tuned....leave the granny mobiles with Honda
12-15-2006, 01:21 PM
#39
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
Originally Posted by Black_6spd
I think you're mixing up the two.
"Cam timing" or "cam advance" refers to the position of the valve relative to the stroke position of the piston. Since air travels in pulses in an engine, changing the amount of air/fuel that's injested at the right RPM can benefit emmissions and power.
The J-series motor doesn't have a VTC mechanism tied to the ECU.
"Cam stages" is simply the engine's ability to switch over to a different cam profile adjacent to the primary lobe. This could be accomplished with or without variable cam timing.
The J-series motors have this only on the intake side.
"Cam timing" or "cam advance" refers to the position of the valve relative to the stroke position of the piston. Since air travels in pulses in an engine, changing the amount of air/fuel that's injested at the right RPM can benefit emmissions and power.
The J-series motor doesn't have a VTC mechanism tied to the ECU.
"Cam stages" is simply the engine's ability to switch over to a different cam profile adjacent to the primary lobe. This could be accomplished with or without variable cam timing.
The J-series motors have this only on the intake side.
When the first J series engine came out, I don't think Honda had i-VTEC yet. While most other car makers had VCT which is a cheap but not as effective way of increasing power/efficiency, Honda was using VTEC, which is a totally different system. I guess if we want to see a i-VTEC V6 engine from Honda, we will just need to wait.
12-15-2006, 02:03 PM
#40
Safety Car
Originally Posted by Texas
Diesels may show up before a V-8...torque with decent mileage..honda is working on them now...
"Equipped with a 228-hp, 3.0-liter inline-six turbo-diesel engine, the 330d makes less horsepower than the 255-hp, 3.0-liter naturally aspirated gas engine in the 330i. On the other hand, the turbo-diesel engine twists out a massive 369 pound-feet of torque, 149 more than the 3.0-liter gas engine and nine more than the 4.8-liter gas-powered V-8 in the 750i. All that torque is primarily due to the turbo-diesel’s high combustion pressures. With that much torque and an easily accessible power curve, the 330d actually felt faster in day-to-day driving.
"To test the acceleration of the 330d against its gas-fed counterpart, we headed to the track. In acceleration, the 330d proved to be a near match for the 330i despite its slight power-to-weight-ratio deficit — 13.6 pounds per horse versus the diesel’s 15.3. The 228-hp diesel took six seconds to go from 0 to 60, and the quarter-mile fell in 14.5 seconds at 97 mph. A few pounds lighter and packing more horsepower, a 255-hp 330i we tested took 5.6 seconds in the 0-to-60 run and posted a 14.4-second quarter-mile time at 98 mph. It might feel faster, but the 330d is actually a bit slower...
"...So which would we choose? Fact is, we remain purists, and what we love is listening to a high-revving engine, working a gearbox, and digging the spurs into a car that loves to run. The 330d’s torque and 44-percent-better fuel economy are compelling, but the overall experience isn’t as involving. Having said that, we do recognize that the 330d is better suited for nearly everyone else. We just wish BMW would give us the opportunity to decide."
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...-bmw-330d.html