Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Different strokes man. While you may not like Hondas you should at least respect them as an engineering company.
Food for thought:
1999 Mustang GT
260 hp/ 4.6L motor
56.5hp/L
1999 Honda Civic Si
160 hp/ 1.6L motor
100hp/L
Even the 2013 mustang GT is not up to that level of efficiency.
Your right..Honda makes an excellent product, I didnt mean to come off as though it was no good I just dont like them. They could sell a 100mpg car for $5k and I still wouldnt buy one. Honda is too cookie cutter for me and always have been.
I loved Toyota in the 80s and 90s but my love ended with the 90s. The interiors are cheap looking to me and I dont care for the styling.
SUbaru also makes an excellent car. The AWD on them is great and actually handled better than my Jeep did in incliment weather. Only thing lacking was the clearance. I got rid of mine because it was too small and there were too many "lesmobile" jokes.
I liked Nissan up until about 2006, I think their new models are hideous..look at the new Pathfinder, what a joke.
I really enjoy German cars but I also like American. I own a VW, 2 Fords, and a Jeep. AMerican cars have really come around lately with reliability and styling. I still prefer the older models, but thats just me. All in all I think the auto industry is producing some of the ugliest cars, cookie cutter cars I have ever seen.
I have no problem buying a less reliable car if the car fits my personality and needs. I dont really care about consumer reports and such, if I like it I by it. Take care of it and it will last.
Your right..Honda makes an excellent product, I didnt mean to come off as though it was no good I just dont like them. They could sell a 100mpg car for $5k and I still wouldnt buy one. Honda is too cookie cutter for me and always have been.
I loved Toyota in the 80s and 90s but my love ended with the 90s. The interiors are cheap looking to me and I dont care for the styling.
SUbaru also makes an excellent car. The AWD on them is great and actually handled better than my Jeep did in incliment weather. Only thing lacking was the clearance. I got rid of mine because it was too small and there were too many "lesmobile" jokes.
I liked Nissan up until about 2006, I think their new models are hideous..look at the new Pathfinder, what a joke.
I really enjoy German cars but I also like American. I own a VW, 2 Fords, and a Jeep. AMerican cars have really come around lately with reliability and styling. I still prefer the older models, but thats just me. All in all I think the auto industry is producing some of the ugliest cars, cookie cutter cars I have ever seen.
I have no problem buying a less reliable car if the car fits my personality and needs. I dont really care about consumer reports and such, if I like it I by it. Take care of it and it will last.
Cookie cutter is right, I would never buy a newer Honda either. My favorite cars are 90s Honda's, it is definitely a generational thing but they are the modern day chevy small blocks. They make everything for them and parts are easy to come by.
Ford's new vehicles really impress me and I would not hesitate to purchase one if they fit my needs. I have 2 newer VW's and a 99 Civic.
Different strokes man. While you may not like Hondas you should at least respect them as an engineering company.
Food for thought:
1999 Mustang GT
260 hp/ 4.6L motor
56.5hp/L
1999 Honda Civic Si
160 hp/ 1.6L motor
100hp/L
Even the 2013 mustang GT is not up to that level of efficiency.
Oh, God, not the old HP/liter crap again.
It's simply easier to get higher hp/liter from smaller engines. That's why Honda's street cars, even their top hp/liter S2000, could only get HALF the hp/liter of their stock 600cc street bikes! If the S2000 got the same hp/liter as the Honda 600 Fireblade, the S2000 would have been making 400 hp STOCK. Why didn't it? Because as you make the engine larger, it's harder to get hp/liter out of it, but you get MORE overall hp and more overall torque. THAT'S why you use a larger engine with a lower hp/liter.
A little example for you, this engine makes 450 hp/liter:
Would you want it powering your car?
hp/liter is important in racing classes where displacement is limited, and in coutries where displacement is taxed. Other than that, it's barely worth the footnote it takes to mention it. No it does NOT mean a smaller engine is better engineerd than a larger one.
hp/liter is important in racing classes where displacement is limited, and in coutries where displacement is taxed.
That's basically all of Europe, and pieces of Asia as well. Which is why most manufacturers selling in those countries get REALLY good at extracting power out of small engines.
That's basically all of Europe, and pieces of Asia as well. Which is why most manufacturers selling in those countries get REALLY good at extracting power out of small engines.
True, but they still can't escape teh laws of physics and engineering. Simply put, the smaller you make an engine, the easier it is to get a hgher specific output from it. Higher specific output is more a function of engine displacemetn than it is engineering. In N/A form, at least (we're not going to go into forced induction, as that can really skew things).
To put it in perspective, we can talk about Honda. Honda is a great engine building company with much small engine expertise. Their 600cc sportbike engine puts out over 105 hp. MUCH more hp/liter than the Honda S2000 engine. But the S2000 engine makes MUCH more hp and torque than the bike, which is why it's a much better match for the small sports car. Now let's look at Honda's own V6 in the Accord and Acura. It makes way less HP/Liter than the S2000 engine and vastly less hp/liter than the 600cc sportbike engine. But it makes more hp and torque than the S2000 engine or the sportbike engine and has a much flatter powerband, as befits a larger sedan. If it was easy to get the same hp/liter out of an engine regardless of engine size, then there woudn't be that disparity in Honda's own lineup.
I get so tired of the hp/liter fanbois that say silly things like "If Honda made a performance V8, it'd make 700+ hp, because that would be the same hp/liter as their S2000!" No, it wouldn't. So you can't point to a V8 that puts out 60hp/liter and say due to hp/liter, that it's inferior, engineeringwise, to a 4 cyl that puts out 100hp/liter.
Where I live, Tennessee, trucks are part of the culture. Trucks have a certain "cool" factor. Many are, in fact, used for work and more are used for things like "mudding". You just can't go mudding in a little car. I don't drive a truck because they are harder to drive and have poor fuel economy.
I get so tired of the hp/liter fanbois that say silly things like "If Honda made a performance V8, it'd make 700+ hp, because that would be the same hp/liter as their S2000!" No, it wouldn't. So you can't point to a V8 that puts out 60hp/liter and say due to hp/liter, that it's inferior, engineeringwise, to a 4 cyl that puts out 100hp/liter.
Well, I'm sure they get sick of hearing "there's no replacement for displacement, eat my 9.8L V16!" Especially when one can get 300 HP out of a 2L engine if one wants to. And smaller engines also have the advantage of being...well, smaller. They're lighter and take up less space, even if you add a turbo and intercooler. You might be able to get more HP total out of a bigger engine, but it's going to weigh more, which affects your overall power-to-weight ratio. Which, when all is said and done, is REALLY the most important thing.
Well, I'm sure they get sick of hearing "there's no replacement for displacement, eat my 9.8L V16!" Especially when one can get 300 HP out of a 2L engine if one wants to. And smaller engines also have the advantage of being...well, smaller. They're lighter and take up less space, even if you add a turbo and intercooler. You might be able to get more HP total out of a bigger engine, but it's going to weigh more, which affects your overall power-to-weight ratio. Which, when all is said and done, is REALLY the most important thing.
Do you know why they say there is no replacement for displacement? It's about torque. The most torque the Honda S2000 ever had was 165 ft-lbs. While 100 hp/l isn't a bad effort but torque is what gets you going. Large displacement motors provides the torque on the low end meaning you can leave it in a higher gear in a corner and get out quicker without losing traction.
Do you know why they say there is no replacement for displacement? It's about torque. The most torque the Honda S2000 ever had was 165 ft-lbs. While 100 hp/l isn't a bad effort but torque is what gets you going. Large displacement motors provides the torque on the low end meaning you can leave it in a higher gear in a corner and get out quicker without losing traction.
1.6L Gamma-turbo from Hyundai, 195 lb-ft at under 1500 RPM in the Veloster Turbo and Kia Forte5 SX (2014)
2.0L FA20 DI Turbo from Subaru, 258 lb-ft at 2000 RPM in the 2014 North American Forester XT, 295 lb-ft in the Japanese Domestic Market Legacy model at the same RPM (drool).
1.4L Ecotec turbo from GM, 150 lb-ft at 1750 RPM in the Chevy Sonic and Cobalt.
What was that you were saying about more low end torque?
All of the above are torque plateaus and not peaks. The plateaus end north of 4000 RPM
1.6L Gamma-turbo from Hyundai, 195 lb-ft at under 1500 RPM in the Veloster Turbo and Kia Forte5 SX (2014)
2.0L FA20 DI Turbo from Subaru, 258 lb-ft at 2000 RPM in the 2014 North American Forester XT, 295 lb-ft in the Japanese Domestic Market Legacy model (drool).
1.4L Ecotec turbo from GM, 150 lb-ft at 1750 RPM in the Chevy Sonic and Cobalt.
What was that you were saying about more low end torque?
Keyword. Turbo. Do you know the price you pay for turbo provided torque than NA torque? Lag. I'm sorry 3 examples does nothing for your argument. Also the Forester doesn't produce that much torque that low. It maxes out at the number at around 4k RPM. Try again Subaru fanboy. 150 ft-lbs of torque is not much at all. That just tells me that it's slow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
