Where's Honda heading?

Home  \  Asian Imports  \  Where's Honda heading?

Where's Honda heading? Seriously. They just recently released the new Civic SI with the 197hp and it costs 5-10k less then the RSX-S. Basically they are competing with themselves. Also, Honda is rumored to kill off the RSX in a year or two. And Honda is also developing a Turbo I4, maybe for the RDX, or maybe for the new redesigned TSX. So is Honda aiming at the Evolution, or STi? With a turboed 2.4L I4 and rumors to give the new TSX the VTM-4 AWD system, its looks like Acura is aiming to dethrone the STi and Evo.

Is Honda slowly starting to walk down Nissan's path? I mean Honda is starting to build larger engines now, are they completely abandoning their ideals; fuel efficency, and emission levels? (Nissan does not care about fuel efficency at all, look at their Armada, and Infiniti Q56 (essentially the same truck, but still, that thing guzzles gas), all they care about now is horsepower.) Since they are building a V10 for the new NSX, and Honda president said if they are going to build a V10 for the NSX, they might build a V8 for the Ridgeline. That means they can put the V8 in the RL to compete with the M45 and BMW 5 series. Also, the V8 may mean V8 power for the new MDX arriving in late 2007/ early 2008. I mean these new engines completely change Honda's image.

What do you people think about Honda changing their image so radically? That's if they do change.

posted by  aerith

im pretty sure it isnt going to be an NSX anymore, theyre nameing it something else now, so i think the nsx is discontinued. V10, wher'ed u hear that, thats big.
honda probably wants 2 guzzle as much gas as it can b 4 it runs out maybe?

posted by  Walt

Since the horsepower restriction for production cars has been lifted in Japan recently they will be looking to get more power and it's best to start from an engine with a higher displacement.

I don't think Honda will do well gainst the Sti's and Evos straight away. The 2 cars have had at least 10 years of development to make a really good 4WD platform for rallying.

Anyway Honda showed Formula 1 the way for turbocharged engines back in the late eighties so if they do turbo their new lineup of cars it won't be that much of a shock.

V10? Why not. Just because they have been building small engines for their lineup of cars so far doesn't mean they won't try more cylinders. And for the last 10 years Honda/Mugen has been running V10 formula 1 engines so they do have what it takes to do so.

posted by  fudge

The market for the rsx is not there, same reason the prelude was discontinued. Everybody wants SRT-4 performance, teh RSX can't deliver. I think this is the reason for turbo...

I seriously doubt Acura is aiming for the Evo/STi market. Those are "no-compromise" performance beasts. Acura = luxury, they are aiming for G35x sedan and others in their class.

Bigger engines are better, more torque:)

posted by  importluva

4WD? Really. Never heard of an Evo with 4WD.

posted by  Oomba

i think it will be nice that they are actually gonna start doing something different

posted by  black_plague

And you call yourself a Mitsubishi fan :ohcrap:

All Lancer Evolutions have 4 wheel drive!!

posted by  fudge

Well, the TSX is a better platform to build a AWD rally car on then the lancer that Mitsubishi used to build the Evo off. The TSX has a great suspension set-up for a stock semi-lux car. If Honda/Mugen teamed up to work on a Turbo 2.4L I4 with either SH-AWD or VTM-4, it may not be as good as the STi/Evo, but it'll be a competitor.

Honda is starting to understand the limits of FWD, it realizes the 270hp is the max they can put out on the FWD stock TL platform without comprimising handling and ride. But, Honda is a stubborn company, they know RWD handles better in high performance situations, but they don't want to. So, they are probaly going to skip RWD and go directly to AWD. Look at the RL, the SH-AWD system is even more advanced then the GTR's legendary ATTESA system.

One of my friends who works at Acura told me their plan is to give the TL SH-AWD, and give the RL either a V8 or a Hybrid powered V6 to compete with the other V8's in its class. So, if it goes hybrid V6, then its 300 crank hp 3.5L V6 paired with a electric motor with 63hp? Electric motors give much more torque at low RPM's, so that will give the atmospheric V6 revving engine some low end oomph. And if Acura does decide to give the TL SH-AWD, then its 258-270 crank hp with AWD, all car enthusiasts says the TL's only gripe is its FWD setup. Then it would no doubt cause G35 buyers to cross shop. The TL has a better interior, its more comfortable, and if it features AWD, then it would be a great selling vehicle.

Since the TL is Acura's bread and butter vehicle. The TL is Acura's # 1 selling vehicle, then Acura would make an effort to improve it in order to compete with BMW's new 3 series, and Lexus' new IS350. And giving it SH-AWD would almost gaurantee a 20% better sales number, i think Acura would do it.

posted by  aerith

I was always under the assumption they had AWD. 4wd in a car is stupid.

posted by  Oomba

AWD and 4WD is the same :screwy:

posted by  fudge

I saw about a year or so ago Honda had a concept for the late models of the current Accord Coupe to be available with a turbo. I don't know if that is now going to be coming out since with their trend of time they are 1/2 through their Accord models. But it was just a concept so it doesn't mean that what i saw will happen.

Also the ridgeline needs a v8. I love honda but im sorry, anyone who buys a huge suv/truck that size w/o a v8 is retarted.

W/o AWD cars there would be no rally cars. Maybe you don't like it but i love seeing those cars drift around corners at high speeds. :thumbs:

posted by  GonnaDie4TheGov

The Civic Si doesnt cost $5k-$10k less than an RSX-S. Honda says the Civic Si will be start under $20k (probably $19,800 from what ive seen) while the RSX-S starts at $23,800 (so thats a $4k difference). With the RSX-S you get more luxury features plus the Acura badge adds on a few thousand :thumbs:
The RSX is being axed by no later than next year. So honda will not be competing with Acura... Plus you have to tihnk while you can get an RSX-S for a hundred below msrp, you'd be lucky to get a new Si for a few hundred ABOVE msrp (my local dealer has currently marked up pre-orders at the $21k mark for the non navi Si's).

Honda is not going to get away from their image of mpg kings, they can build bigger motors but still get better effiency than any other manufacturer. Plus the new Civic's 1.8L gets 2mpg better overall than the last 1.7L Civic. With the 2.4L Accord you get 30mpg OVERALL (My 2.2L 90 Accord usually gets maybe 26-27mpg overall). Heck even with the 3.0L V6 Accord you get 30mpg on the highway, thats damn near what my 2.2L Accord gets, but the V6 is pushing 260hp (on the old rating system) while my Accord has 125hp.

Honda isnt aiming at the Evo or STi...yet. No plans to. The RDX is supposedly going to get a turbo K series (but thats in a small car-based SUV - like the CR-V). I believe the RDX will compete well against the Forester 2.5XT though :thumbs:

The TSX wont get AWD for a long while. It isnt even due for a full redesign for another 2-3 or so years. And Honda only says it MIGHT get AWD then. I think it will since they say the 2008 Accord (full redesign of the Accord) even might get AWD as an option. But if the TSX gets AWD and that turbo K series, with a price tag of just over $30k, it might be a good competitor for the MAzdaspeed 6...not an STi or Evo IX/X.

Honda is walking down their own path, they wont follow Nissan's misscomings.

posted by  thunderbird1100

It will still be named the NSX. If it wasnt it wouldnt sell as good (you wouldnt believe the hardcore NSX fans out there).

posted by  thunderbird1100

Sales of the RSX has been great for Acura, contrary to what you say. They are axing it for now because they want to develop a better sports coupe based on the new Civic chassis that is coming out...now. Expect to see the return of an RSX-esque car in 2-3 years.

Also bigger engines are not always better, especially in FWD's mostly. Bigger engines = more torque = more wheelspin and torque steer. Dont beleive me? Take a ride in a 2.5 Sentra SE-R.

posted by  thunderbird1100

The Ridgeline sales disagree that it's stupid to have a V6 in it. You have to understand the Ridgeline isnt meant to compete with the F150. IT's meant to compete against SUV's with beds like the Envoy XUV/Explorer Sport Trac and such. The Ridgeline is nothing more than a massaged Pilot with a small bed. But they will have a V8 for it as soon as they have on for the RL. Which means not for another 3 years or so.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I guess i was told wrong about the RSX. It doesn't matter to me, i never did like the RSX.

As for the torque steer, thats why FWD sucks so bad. Ive seen it happen on the spec-v. But it has what 175-185 tq?, most hondas don't even have 150...

posted by  importluva

ALL new '06 Hondas less the Civic and Insight (RSX is you count that) have AT LEAST 162tq (according to the old rating system).

This includes the:
2.4/3.0 Accord and Accord Hybrid
2.4 CR-V
3.5 Odyssey
3.5 Pilot
3.5 Ridgeline
2.2 S2000
(Acura)
2.4 TSX
3.5 MDX
3.2 TL
3.5 RL

Suprisingly the 165tq Accords have no toruqe steer to speak of. Even the 218tq 3.0 V6 Accord doesnt have much torque steer. The worst torque steer Honda/Acura is the 5AT TL. That's with 238 crank tq. It's noticeable but very manageable, not nearly as bad as the 180tq(?) Spec-V.

posted by  thunderbird1100

No they arent.

AWD is full time, 4WD isnt. AWD has 3 differentials, 4WD has 2. 4WD is harder to turn with for that reason.

posted by  Oomba

thunderbird, you words are wise. I just hope that your predictions would come true. I sure don't want to see Honda sacrifice their ideals for horsepower. The 2008 Accord is getting AWD? Damn, that means i have to wait another year, i thought that Acura would be releasing the AWD TL in 2007. I enjoy my car so much, i plan to pick up the AWD TL once it comes out.

The Ridgeline actually has the best rigidity of any pickup out there. You can spend much more on big pick up trucks or whatever, but they won't be as ridgid as the Ridgeline. The Ridgeline has Unibody construction with a ladder frame, can any other pick up say that? Plus, in one of Honda's demonstrations, the V6 Ridgeline out accelerated the V8 F150, both with 5000lbs of dead weight to haul in a trailer. The practicality of the Ridgeline makes it a good seller, you get pick-up versatility without sacrificing comfort. I've sat in all the newer pick-ups. Not even the full sized Nissan Titan offers as much cabin space for the people in the back seats, or the comfortable seats the Ridgeline offers. And , plus do you really need a V8 with a mid sized pick-up?

posted by  aerith

I would like to correct something, the torque steer is found in the 6M version, and not the 5AT version of the TL. Trust me. I know, i live with it every day.
And it is pretty manageable, well, as long as you either ease up on the gas a bit, or if you don't ease up; just have both hands on the wheel. And its only noticeable when you accelerate hard on uneven ground, like gravel or a pothole.

posted by  aerith

The 2008 Accord is said to MAYBE get AWD as an OPTION, not standard. Obviously be an option on the upper end EX most likely. I havent heard much on AWD for the TL since like you said it may get AWD for the mid-gen model change for the 07 year. The Ridgeline is definatley a great ride. I've heard the rumored size the Honda V8 might be is between 4.2L-4.6L (obviously it will be fuel efficent for its size...Honda trait). MY guess is since Honda said the V8 depends on the V10 I bet it will be just the V10 with two cylinders taken away. So assuming the current size projection for the V8 that means the V10 will likely be between 5.4L-5.6L (obviously the V10 is for the NSX) and I'd be willing to project if given that size it will produce upwards of 450-500hp for the V10, can you say welcome back NSX? I believe the ~4.4L V8 should make around 340-350hp in the RL and a little less in the Ridgeline (more torque in the Ridgeline obviously).

posted by  thunderbird1100

So then if the NSX (i do love this car) gets a v10, then it will be competing against exotics wouldnt it? I dont see why honda should hold back for fuel economy at that point. OR will it? :confused:

posted by  Walt

Who gives a shit about fuel economy if you have 90k to buy a car

posted by  Oomba

People who spend 90K and left very little money spare?

posted by  fudge

Fuel efficency was never a concern with the NSX to begin with, why would it be now? It's a pure hand-built exotic sports car...

posted by  thunderbird1100

I have never done any research on it so i didn't know that. I've seen it on the road and it reminds me most the the chevy avalanche which is pretty big so i thought it was slow considering the power to weight ratio. But hey, i have no problem saying i didn't know and i was proven wrong, Thats how you learn :thumbs:

posted by  GonnaDie4TheGov

Your Message