What do you think of Honda?

[Gil]

Originally posted by The Vanishing Boy
I'm sorry,
I just got carrried away, I don't hate all American cars, I just don't have anything interesting to it. Musclecars, well... in my opinion, I don't react like anybody else as in car guys perspective.

All the muscle cars I like is less than the fingers I have on my right hand:
-2002 Shelby GT500E 'Ellenore'
-1963 Corvette 427 Stingray
-2002 Shelby Cobra Roadster 427 S/C (aka. CSX 4000)

I'm a Ford guy but I know my vettes and there was NEVER a factory 427 in a Vette until 1966. The 1965 was the first Rat-block with 396 cid. The '63's distinguishing feature was the "split window". And it was the first Stingray.
AS for Eleanor. Carrol (Ol' Shel) Shelby will be making them from refurbished 1967 Mustangs. It will not be a Ford-sanctioned endeavor.
I have to agree with SR 780. (not just because he's the team captain). American muscle may not be the hot ticket in the twisties. Although every Camaro I've driven has impressed me with its handling. In a straight line cubic inches=greater torque, and greater torque equals lower ET's.

Now, I'm not saying that the imported stuff is bad. If driven with a modicum of good sense. (the kind you develop, when you have children you don't want to orphan) The current crop of Mitsu's, Hondas, Nissans, Mazdas, and Toyotas, if well cared for, will live forever. My uncle drove a Toyota Corolla 4-dr. For 20-some years and never had the motor apart. I think it had nearly 400K miles on it when it was sold (because my aunt likes bigger cars).

 

[Joey D]

Ya imports can be fast when worked on like my ride. But still give me a good old Camaro anyday. To bad the insurence would kill me or thats what I would be driving. Well either that or a Trans Am.

I have driven my friends Z28 down a road by my house that was twisty and it handled nicely. It was a little ass happy but still i took a sharpe coner that said 25mph on it at 83mph so I was happy with it.

 

[misnblu]

So whats wrong with an ass happy car.
Look at the 911's, really ass happy.
Look at me, really ass happy. :haha:
Just know how to use the opposite lock routine if that ass comes around.
Misnblu

 

[Joey D]

ya I'm pretty ass happy myself

Ya oplocks are good but I don't really know how to do them cause well I've only ever had FF cars and the van I drive sometimes well I'm not getting that sideways.

I can kinda get my Mitsu going sideways but I do it in a parking lot and it doesn't do it really good. And my honda couldn't do it unless I did some ultra wreakless driving.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by misnblu
Nope.
Maybe not Cali only, just a way of saying that is where the bulk of the builders are.
Sorry to offend anyone,.
Misnblu

Not offending (to me) in the slightest.

Although California has quite a bit of tuners, Seattle is definitely the epicenter. There is no parking lot in the city that doesn't have a small gathering of tuner cars within it.

 

[Joey D]

Ya I agree with M5. A lot of guys I talk to about cars are from Seattle.

 

[Max Powers]

Originally posted by streetracer780

The reason I hate Honda is because well they just aren't good cars in my mind.

Aren't good cars? I have a Honda Accord from 1988, it has 240,000 miles on it, and still runs like new. Between my dad and I, we have put less than $500 into it, besides tires. And you're saying that this is not a good car?

 

[Joey D]

I can think of better cars that are just as old or older. My moms Celica that was a 1982 lasted for 290,000 and it still ran when she sold it. The only problem with the car was a small oil leak but that happens to most older cars.

Also I said in my mind. Its just my opinion. You can think they are good cars all you want.

 

[misnblu]

Hey Street, just had our first day of paint ball and had a kickarse day of it.
The first games sucked for me as I was out of the flow for too long but the other games, I kicked some serious butt. Ive got a few trophies myself (welts Im proud of) and those are the ones that didnt break the paint. Man I love it when that happens. hehe
Great day of paintball and playing again next week.
Just thought Id go off topic and let you know.
Misnblu
Oh, sorry to go off topic.

 

[Pupik]

What do I think of Honda?

They make engines for cars, boats, motorcycles, lawn equipment, generators, etc. Not many manufacturers can say that. If it has an internalcombustion engine, Honda probably makes it.

I think that's neat: a company that started out making tiny engines for non-automotive use, eventually took on the might of all other automotive giants and out-sold,out-engineered, and/or out-raced them. For crying out loud, they've several Formula One World Championships with their engines.


Yeah, not every car they make is a real seat-of-the pants thriller; but then again, just because we like racing games and racing cars does not mean the rest of the world gives a hoot about racing from one corner to the next. Honda mades sensible cars, that's what I think.

When I think Honda, I think of new technology that doesn't necessarily have to wait years and years to get corporate approval. I think of neat, efficient, ergonomic design qualities. I like the fact new stuff like hybrid engines and variable valve timing isn't reserved for the elite $50,000+ cars...it's in their average-priced cars.

Usually, when I think Honda, I think the product cannot fail to be a sucess.

-----

When I think of Honda, I think of the Honda Accord LX my family picked out in fall of 1987. We were looking for a new car, so we went to the Miami Auto Show. When I arrived to the Honda stand, we knew the 4-door car of choice was the Accord (my brother and I would have trouble fitting into the Civic of '88).

The salesmen were kind, and even askedmy brother and I what we thought of the car. I asked to see then engine, and the salesmen was quite alright with that. I asked why there were 3 valves per cylinder, how much power there was, how much the car weighed...answered all of them. (But he couldn't answer why a model of the Williams-Honda F1 car wasn't on display.)

In the end, we settled on the Honda (the backup choice was a Renault Medallion!) and picked one up from the dealership about a week or so later. I washed the car when we got home, read the owner's manual (until the Autocourse arrived in the mail) even though it would be another 18 months until I drove the car for real.

What do I not like about Honda?

Not enough drivetrain variety. The S2000 is the only rear-wheel drive car, and the NSX is the mid-engined one.

The NSX has increased by $30,000+ in the past 10 years, and the car has barely changed a bit.

There could stand to be a Prelude-like car that's RWD and yeat light to fill an entusiast niche. It doesn't need to be more than 180-200hp.

A 4WD should really be four-wheel-drive-all-the-time. The Real-Time method employed in the CRV EX is a bad idea. Honda'strying to out-think the weather and road conditions, and it's just not possible.

 

[Joey D]

Nice there Misnblu :thumbsup:


and thanks for your input pupik.

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

That the same reason that I like Honda, Pupik.

thanks for the support.

 

[12sec. Civic]

Well, as many of you know, the S2000 is one of my favourite cars. Styling, which isn't one of my worries, is not a factor on the S2000 because I think it looks totally awesome. I like the Honda engines because they are so linear in their power delivery. The S2000 has low neck snapping torque but that is not the kind of engine I like. I get extremely excited when a car keeps pulling and pulling like a freight train all the way to some astronomical redline, after all, it has been proven that these are the kind of engines most often used in race cars (i.e. High revving, smaller lighter more efficient engines)

The new Accord is also very crisp and perfect, but why would you want all that extra weight? Its a family car, thats why. It may not be a perfect performance machine, but if I had to haul around screaming kids, I would like to add the screaming of that 3.0L VTEC fury to the mix as well. It apparently handles like an FR, the engine has enormous torque for a 3.0 and the 6 Spd is as slick as mixing melted butter with a toothpick.

Honda knows what they are doing, and they build some amazing cars.

The only other Honda I sort of like is the Honda Civic Type-R (2002), I will most likely never drive one unless they bring it to North America, but Top Gear addressed it as an extremely "no-bull****" kind of car which is what I like. The engine is superb (I've driven an RSX) and according to what I've read it has an awesome chassis and suspension etc. Steering feel and all of that is just spot on.

As for Acura, which I wish didn't exist. I wish every Acura and Honda was sold under the name Honda. The NSX is an amazing car, I hope I dont have to explain that. The RSX is probably the best FF car sold in North America ever, and it will give many cars including Mustang GT's a run for their money, and it would walk all over an older Mustang of just about any year older than 1998.

I like the CL and TL Type-S' engine's and they have extremely good performance numbers on paper. Keep in mind, a CL Type-S 6 Spd does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, that is faster than like 90% of cars ever sold. It would blow away a 300ZX Twin Turbo for instance.

Please dont despise Honda in spite of the enormous praise they receive from the public and the people who own them, it isn't without merrit I assure you.

The RL and any SUV or van is just crappy.

 

[Pupik]

What worries me about cars nowadays is that they are getting heavier.

My '88 Accord tipped the scales at about 2350 pounds(according to the manual). Now, the 2003 weighs about 3200 pounds.

Tell me where the added 850pounds comes from? It comes from all the safety features like airbags, side-impact bars, strengthening the chassis....but 800 pounds worth?

 

[Hooligan]

Originally posted by pupik
Tell me where the added 850pounds comes from? It comes from all the safety features like airbags, side-impact bars, strengthening the chassis....but 800 pounds worth?

That's pretty much it. A larger frame, with thicker structural members, added suspension components (mostly hydraulic and electronic), bigger & more powerful A/C.... Try and find a comprehensive list of changes made between this year and last year. That should put things into perspective.

 

[Joey D]

As for Acura, which I wish didn't exist. I wish every Acura and Honda was sold under the name Honda. The NSX is an amazing car, I hope I dont have to explain that. The RSX is probably the best FF car sold in North America ever, and it will give many cars including Mustang GT's a run for their money, and it would walk all over an older Mustang of just about any year older than 1998.

Ya Ya I'd like to race one with the ghetto Stang and once I get her up and running it'll kick any cars ass all day long.

 

[12sec. Civic]

Originally posted by streetracer780


Ya Ya I'd like to race one with the ghetto Stang and once I get her up and running it'll kick any cars ass all day long.

Did you just say that your '86 Mustang would beat an RSX? Ha, yah right. Dont be fooled by the gobs of low end torque because HP is what actually wins the races. An '86 GT has 200hp and about 275TQ but that thing wouldnt touch an RSX Type-S.

The reason alot of Mustang and Camaro owners try and fight to the death that their car is faster than all kinds of Ferrari's and Porsches and especially cars like S2000's is because they have an OHV engine which is notorious for creating a large amount of torque at low rpms. They often get this confused with Horsepower and think they have one of the fastest cars around because Camaro's and older Mustangs DO create some of the highest low-end torque of many cars ever made. Ford and Chevy do this on purpose to "fool" people into thinking that the Camaro and/or Mustang is very fast after they have only blipped the throttle. Take your Stang and rev it up to redline in a few gears and you will quickly realize that it runs out of steam pretty fast whereas an RSX may not pull as hard initially but it KEEPS ON pulling all the way to redline and thus creates more hp which is mass X distance over time, or how much weight an engine can pull a certain engine in a certain increment of time.

 

[Hooligan]

Originally posted by 12sec. Civic
The reason alot of Mustang and Camaro owners try and fight to the death that their car is faster than all kinds of Ferrari's and Porsches and especially cars like S2000's is because they have an OHV engine which is notorious for creating a large amount of torque at low rpms. They often get this confused with Horsepower and think they have one of the fastest cars around because Camaro's and older Mustangs DO create some of the highest low-end torque of many cars ever made. Ford and Chevy do this on purpose to "fool" people into thinking that the Camaro and/or Mustang is very fast after they have only blipped the throttle. Take your Stang and rev it up to redline in a few gears and you will quickly realize that it runs out of steam pretty fast whereas an RSX may not pull as hard initially but it KEEPS ON pulling all the way to redline and thus creates more hp which is mass X distance over time, or how much weight an engine can pull a certain engine in a certain increment of time.

Apparently, there's still some confusion on the definition of horsepower and torque. What's important not to forget that horsepower is a function of torque. That is, you calculate the horsepower curve by first determining the torque curve. When people argue "Horsepower vs. Torque", they might as well be arguing "Meters vs. Feet". It's just another measurement of the force put out by the engine.

The shape of that torque curve is what makes the difference. The total area under the curve is the best view of the engine's potential. The Mustang's low-end torque does indeed make it feel powerful when you blip the throttle, but a look at the engine's torque curve reveals that output quickly falls of around 4,000 rpm. That doesn't make for much power when you want to run the engine hard. It might make towing trailers easier, but -- in stock form -- the GT engine is not meant for racing.

The S2000's engine is a high-revver, without doubt. It's horsepower curve looks like all the horsepower is at the high end (above 6,000 rpm), but a look at the torque curve reveals a near flat line. While it may not peak as high as the Mustang, the total area under the F20C's curve is considerably higher than that of the Ford V8. This makes for a far better racing engine, and thus increases its ability to out-race the GT (if the engine is set in a similar car, etc. etc.).

One last thing: This only applies to drag racing. When the road gets "interesting", pure engine output isn't so important. Chassis setup, suspension, and throttle response (among other things) are what count. So when you say "race", and you mean "drag race".... For example, on a rally stage, the Mustang would do much better than the S2000.

 

[Joey D]

Well I'm not going to go out and rev up the stang cause its old and rough and would most likely explode.

I'm thinking about selling the Spyder and just driving the Stang for a while. I could use some of the cash from the Spyder to fix the Stang up. I'd kick any Honda's ass after that!

 

[misnblu]

Thanks Hooligan, you put everything into perfect perspective and give everyone a better idea of whats what.
Nice rebuttal.
Misnblu

 

[12sec. Civic]

Hey Hooligan, did you quote me in agreeance with me or were you trying too say that I dont understand what HP and Torque is? I know all of the rules and associations between HP and Torque the formula etc.

 

[Gil]

Originally posted by 12sec. Civic



Did you just say that your '86 Mustang would beat an RSX? Ha, yah right. Dont be fooled by the gobs of low end torque because HP is what actually wins the races. An '86 GT has 200hp and about 275TQ but that thing wouldnt touch an RSX Type-S.

The reason alot of Mustang and Camaro owners try and fight to the death that their car is faster than all kinds of Ferrari's and Porsches and especially cars like S2000's is because they have an OHV engine which is notorious for creating a large amount of torque at low rpms. They often get this confused with Horsepower and think they have one of the fastest cars around because Camaro's and older Mustangs DO create some of the highest low-end torque of many cars ever made. Ford and Chevy do this on purpose to "fool" people into thinking that the Camaro and/or Mustang is very fast after they have only blipped the throttle. Take your Stang and rev it up to redline in a few gears and you will quickly realize that it runs out of steam pretty fast whereas an RSX may not pull as hard initially but it KEEPS ON pulling all the way to redline and thus creates more hp which is mass X distance over time, or how much weight an engine can pull a certain engine in a certain increment of time.

Good points, but how do you explain the Torque monster Ford Wagon that my dad had that would pull to over 100mph in second gear? I have many witnessess (some of whom will tell you I was certifiably nuts) get in and I would would make it "kick-down" into 2nd gear and hold the petal to the floor. It would not shift up until it was running about 105.
Granted it had 375HP but was rated at 450lb/ft of torque.
Torque is the important number.
That's why the 240SX is a quick little car. The stock 157 Hp is not the be all and end all without the bigger torque numbers.

 

[12sec. Civic]

Dont get me wrong, high torque is good for overcoming wind resistance and weight but it is not favourable in a true race-bred engine. You need a certain amount of torque just to get moving. That is why a motorcycle can get by on 65 lb-ft of torque and 145hp

 

[misnblu]

12 sec Civic, you sound like you have a hot car. Any pictures??
Nice list of mods too and sound unlike most Civic (so called) tuners.
Misnblu

 

[Magic069]

you have to admit, they are the easiest thing to hook up, you can buy kits, enigine parts, mufflers, just about anything for them at your local 7-11. Oh thank heaven.

 

[12sec. Civic]

Originally posted by misnblu
12 sec Civic, you sound like you have a hot car. Any pictures??
Nice list of mods too and sound unlike most Civic (so called) tuners.
Misnblu

My Civic is in pieces right now and I havent seen it for about a week. It is in my uncles quancet where me and my cousin have been trying to get it working again. It has really been screwing up in the past 6 months. I suppose I could close the hood and take a picture but it doesnt look very amazing from the outside. I am ditching the turbo and I might just sell it as an "abused" Honda in the Auto Trader. The engine has like 60,000km's going on 360,000kms that is how much damage I have done to it. There was a fire under the hood that wreaked havoc on the engine bay and it cost me a fortune re-vamping and buying new wires and stuff. The car is really IMO worth nothing, I would never sell it to a friend!

However, I dont have a digi-cam anyways.

My Jaguar is my pride and joy right now. It is a 1996 Black(Anthracite) with Frost leather...well, read my sig. The only thing I have unique on my car is 1999 XJR rims and tire's and my license is "SWINGER". Oh and mirror tint on all windows other than the front of course. It has a healthy engine that for some reason gets a lot of criticism for being underpowered. But 277 ft-lbs of torque is more than enough.

 

[Simon Tibbett]

I have a Honda Civic (89) and I am making it a racecar. i also have a 98 Accord and it goes quickly and smoothley.

 

[Joey D]

Well now I wouldn't exactly call a Civic a racecar but I'm sure with enough work it could be one. But hey whatever you want to do.

 

[misnblu]

Thats cool 12sec Civic.
Hondas are cool and owned one for 15 years. Got 285,000 miles on it and never once had to get a wheel alignment for it.
Let me put it this way, its the most reliable car Ive ever owned, the most fun Ive had in car and had big plans for it.
Unfortunately, my room mate decided he wanted to see the crashworthiness of the beast and tried it out on the guard rail on the interstate.
I missed it so much, I nicknamed it Misnblu you know the rest of the story.
Anyway, they are good cars and like any car out there, is what you make of it.
Good luck on your cars, no matter what you drive.
Misnblu

 

[1mic]

Originally posted by Option2
Mustang/Camero = nearly 5 liter V8's

S2000 = 2 liter I4


Ever try running a turbo'd Miata? They're oversteering monsters! Not to mention the very poor placement of the intake.

Go to the gay part of your city (Hillcrest, West Hollywood, ect...) you'll see the highest concentration of Miatas of any other part of the US. All you see is Miatas, VW Cabriolets, and 3 series bmw's.. lol

ahha my argument with miatas EXACTLY