2005 RL specs

[boyRacer]

Originally posted by: Vic
300hp = 300hp

Being fixated on the number of cylinders an engine has (or its displacement) instead of its actual power output is the surest way to prove that you are a total idiot when it comes to cars and engines.
Semi-trucks only have 6 cylinders and they seem to do just fine.

Seriously though, you may as well go buy a 150hp Suzuki car because it has a 6 cylinder *hums Route 66*
Ideally, the best powerplant is small, efficient, and powerful -- that is the engineering ideal.
IIRC the early Ford flathead V8's weighed 500+ lbs and put out 60hp. Hey, better go buy one though 'cause it's a V8... we all know any V8 is better than any engine with less cylinders

Hey... its America... MORE is always better.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Vic
300hp = 300hp

Being fixated on the number of cylinders an engine has (or its displacement) instead of its actual power output is the surest way to prove that you are a total idiot when it comes to cars and engines.
Semi-trucks only have 6 cylinders and they seem to do just fine.

Seriously though, you may as well go buy a 150hp Suzuki car because it has a 6 cylinder *hums Route 66*
Ideally, the best powerplant is small, efficient, and powerful -- that is the engineering ideal.
IIRC the early Ford flathead V8's weighed 500+ lbs and put out 60hp. Hey, better go buy one though 'cause it's a V8... we all know any V8 is better than any engine with less cylinders

300HP is NOT 300HP all the time.


Show me a full-size pickup with a 3.5 liter 300HP V6...
Then show me a full-size pickup with a 5.6 liter 305HP V8

If you can't tell the difference, you need to be shot. A theoretical 3.5 liter 300HP V6 full-size truck would get R@PED by the 5.6

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic
300hp = 300hp

Being fixated on the number of cylinders an engine has (or its displacement) instead of its actual power output is the surest way to prove that you are a total idiot when it comes to cars and engines.
Semi-trucks only have 6 cylinders and they seem to do just fine.

Seriously though, you may as well go buy a 150hp Suzuki car because it has a 6 cylinder *hums Route 66*
Ideally, the best powerplant is small, efficient, and powerful -- that is the engineering ideal.
IIRC the early Ford flathead V8's weighed 500+ lbs and put out 60hp. Hey, better go buy one though 'cause it's a V8... we all know any V8 is better than any engine with less cylinders

the real problem is that horsepower is completely f-ing meaningless. horsepower is merely an expression of torque.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Too bad the GS430 is fugly.

Fugly?

looks like a G35 that had a few too many cheeseburgers

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Too bad the GS430 is fugly.

Fugly?

looks like a G35 that had a few too many cheeseburgers

Yeah, looks kinda bloated

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: NFS4

300HP is NOT 300HP all the time.


Show me a full-size pickup with a 3.5 liter 300HP V6...
Then show me a full-size pickup with a 5.6 liter 305HP V8

If you can't tell the difference, you need to be shot. A theoretical 3.5 liter 300HP V6 full-size truck would get R@PED by the 5.6

Only if they had the same or similar engine design/efficiency.

Otherwise, we aren't talking about a full-size truck here, where low-end torque for heavy-duty usage is critical. This is a luxury car -- the most it's gonna pull besides itself is 4 people and a few suitcases.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: NFS4

300HP is NOT 300HP all the time.


Show me a full-size pickup with a 3.5 liter 300HP V6...
Then show me a full-size pickup with a 5.6 liter 305HP V8

If you can't tell the difference, you need to be shot. A theoretical 3.5 liter 300HP V6 full-size truck would get R@PED by the 5.6

Only if they had the same or similar engine design/efficiency.

Otherwise, we aren't talking about a full-size truck here, where low-end torque for heavy-duty usage is critical. This is a luxury car -- the most it's gonna pull besides itself is 4 people and a few suitcases.

How hard is it to understand that larger luxury cars should come with V8's or greater? It's just a common convention.

People saying that it shouldn't matter that it has a V6 is about as obtuse as saying that the car should only come with cloth seats if they "feel" as good as leather. And it's for this reason why the current RL has sold like crap.

 

[zCypher]

I agree with NFS4.. V8
But I don't see Honda doing that any time soon.

 

[Vic]

<- doesn't like leather interiors

Seriously, too much maintenance or it cracks, too cold in the winter, too hot in the summer, and cloth has more grip. Most cars don't have real leather anyway, but fake "leatherette" (read: "fancy vinyl") which they sell as leather.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

The TSX is the Euro Accord.

Duh That's the point. There will be three "Accord sedans" after Acura gets done. TSX, TL, RL.

Originally posted by: rbloedow

It's not an issue of not being able to do it, it's an issue of choosing to do it or not. Honda will do what is best for themselves - obviously they don't believe there's a significant enough market to justify building a V8 ordeveloping a new platform when most buyers and the mojority of their sales will do just fine with their current V6 and Accord platform.

They must love the smell of their own bullsh!t Look at the sales of the V6 powered RL. Then look at the sales of the V8 powered competition.

I didn't say that there wasn't a market, but obviously Honda doesn't bleieve that there is.

 

[puffpio]

They need to smoosh 2 S2000 motors together and share the same crank! THE END! 4 or 4.4L V8 Ferrari killer

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

The TSX is the Euro Accord.

Duh That's the point. There will be three "Accord sedans" after Acura gets done. TSX, TL, RL.

Originally posted by: rbloedow

It's not an issue of not being able to do it, it's an issue of choosing to do it or not. Honda will do what is best for themselves - obviously they don't believe there's a significant enough market to justify building a V8 ordeveloping a new platform when most buyers and the mojority of their sales will do just fine with their current V6 and Accord platform.

They must love the smell of their own bullsh!t Look at the sales of the V6 powered RL. Then look at the sales of the V8 powered competition.

I didn't say that there wasn't a market, but obviously Honda doesn't bleieve that there is.

Which I why I said Honda is full of it

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

What happened to the hybrid V6 that was supposed to be part of the new RL's driveline? Was that hearsay?

Also to add to those who said that "Nissan created a RWD platform for this..why can't Honda?"...that's not exactly true in a sense.

Nissan always had a RWD platform, and untill the late 70s..ALL their cars were RWD.

Honda on the other hand, has been a motorcycle manufactuere that decided to try out making super small city cars, such as the Civic CVCC. From there, they came to where they are today. Clearly, making small & efficient cars has been their design philosophy and they are sticking to it.

As far as the American luxury car market requiring a V8, well that's what your personal opinion. You could be right and sales may suffer...but on the other hand maybe Honda anticipates a very substantial hike in fuel prices in the next few years and beleives that people will run in droves to buy more efficient cars.

Personally, I think they should have slapped in a slightly larger V6 version of their diesel 4 currently used in the Euro Accord. The curent 4-cyl makes around 278tq and is very clean and very smooth. It could make aroun 400tq and maybe 300hp while having 40mpg.

 

[NFS4]

As far as the American luxury car market requiring a V8, well that's what your personal opinion. You could be right and sales may suffer...but on the other hand maybe Honda anticipates a very substantial hike in fuel prices in the next few years and beleives that people will run in droves to buy more efficient cars.

You may THINK that it is personal opinion, but it's pretty much FACT.

Volvo S80 -- crap seller
Acura RL -- crap seller

All of the other luxury makers have the common sense to put V8's or larger in their large luxury sedans:

Audi
BMW
Cadillac
Chrysler (300C)
Infiniti
Jaguar
Lexus
Lincoln
Mercedes
Volkswagen
etc...

It's just common convention. Just as we in American EXPECT for our steering wheels to be on the left side of the car and for our full-size half-ton pickups to have V8 engines (Titan, F-150, Silverado/Sierra, Ram, Tundra) and for our muscle cars to be RWD and V8 (or V10) powered (Mustang, Camaro, GTO...Corvette, Viper) and for our REAL 4WD vehicles to have low-range.

You can try to justify Honda's actions all you want, but when it comes down to it, they need a V8 or Acura will NEVER be considered a luxury player. Hell, they aren't even now. None of their cars scream luxury and they all feel more like alternatives to Honda vehicles rather than being a "step up."

Just as it's convention for the guy to propose to the girl, luxury sedans REQUIRE V8's or greater or be prepared to be shunned or laughed off the golf course

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

but on the other hand maybe Honda anticipates a very substantial hike in fuel prices in the next few years and beleives that people will run in droves to buy more efficient cars.

i thought we'd taken care of that myth.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

but on the other hand maybe Honda anticipates a very substantial hike in fuel prices in the next few years and beleives that people will run in droves to buy more efficient cars.

i thought we'd taken care of that myth.

I'd like to have Honda's crystal ball...so I could SMASH IT!!!

 

[thomsbrain]

if it has 300 HP and at least 6 cylinders for smoothness, i could care less if it's a V6, V8, or Vmillion.

personally, i LIKE to wind an engine up to get the power. to me an engine topping 6K and pulling harder than ever is far more exciting than an engine that blows its load down low and then weezes its way through the last couple thousand RPM. if you don't have some phobia about reving high or adversion to hearing the engine, there's no reason why you can't go just as fast with an engine that makes its power up high. that's why we have transmissions: to keep the engine in the power band. in fact, you could even say it's an advantage, because a car that makes its max power/torque at 6,000 RPM can make that power through a shorter gear at any given speed than can a car that makes its max at 3,000 RPM. Same power + shorter gear + same speed = faster. Obviously the big engines tend to have broader power bands, so all things are not equal, but if the power bands were comparable, the higher reving engine would be preferable.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
if it has 300 HP and at least 6 cylinders for smoothness, i could care less if it's a V6, V8, or Vmillion.

personally, i LIKE to wind an engine up to get the power. to me an engine topping 6K and pulling harder than ever is far more exciting than an engine that blows its load down low and then weezes its way through the last couple thousand RPM. if you don't have some phobia about reving high or adversion to hearing the engine, there's no reason why you can't go just as fast with an engine that makes its power up high. that's why we have transmissions: to keep the engine in the power band. in fact, you could even say it's an advantage, because a car that makes its max power/torque at 6,000 RPM can make that power through a shorter gear at any given speed than can a car that makes its max at 3,000 RPM. Same power + shorter gear + same speed = faster. Obviously the big engines tend to have broader power bands, so all things are not equal, but if the power bands were comparable, the higher reving engine would be preferable.

that is great, but none of those characteristics make for a 4000 lb luxury car. V6s aren't even all that smooth compared to V8s. they've gotten better but the power delivery isn't as smooth. plus, most of the luxury V8s have pretty small cylinders and rev in the same ranges as most V6s. take the GS, for example (i know, its an inline 6, but since the inline is a superior design to a V6 the V is just that worse off).

Standard Engine....3.0L 220 hp I6.....4.3L 300 hp V8
Horsepower........220 @ 5800 RPM......300 @ 5600 RPM
Torque (lb-ft).......220 @ 3800 RPM......325 @ 3400 RPM

peak power is at just about the same rpm, and peak torque is a little lower on the 4.3... but its 100 ft lbs more!

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
if it has 300 HP and at least 6 cylinders for smoothness, i could care less if it's a V6, V8, or Vmillion.

personally, i LIKE to wind an engine up to get the power. to me an engine topping 6K and pulling harder than ever is far more exciting than an engine that blows its load down low and then weezes its way through the last couple thousand RPM. if you don't have some phobia about reving high or adversion to hearing the engine, there's no reason why you can't go just as fast with an engine that makes its power up high. that's why we have transmissions: to keep the engine in the power band. in fact, you could even say it's an advantage, because a car that makes its max power/torque at 6,000 RPM can make that power through a shorter gear at any given speed than can a car that makes its max at 3,000 RPM. Same power + shorter gear + same speed = faster. Obviously the big engines tend to have broader power bands, so all things are not equal, but if the power bands were comparable, the higher reving engine would be preferable.

Luxury car buyers are a funny breed. They want fast cars but they don't like mashing the gas. Go figure.....