Any Honda Car enthusiasts?

[Varborta]

Anyone knows when will the next Accord be released in U.S?
If they stick with the 4yr cycle then it would be this year anyone know or has leaked info?

 

[Poontos]

VTEC.net

 

[The LIdless Eye]

Hondas are no-torque pieces of sh*t

 

[Zenmervolt]

The LIdless Eye, thank you for your well documented and insightful comment. I imagine this must be the result of years of research and comparison.
</sarcasm>
Varborta, I expect that the next Accord will be a 2002 model, though it's not inconceivable that it will be a 2003 model. Personally I'll stick with my faithful 1988 Accord, 20% of my 1 million mile goal is already accomplished, why start over?

Zenmervolt

 

[dcdomain]

It should be this year, but it's rather late, and there have been no announcements. I guess with all their resources devoted to the MDX and Civic recently, now the RSX, the TL-S, and the soon to be announced RL... they are a little thin.

I would say the new Accord should be released alongside the RL or a little afterwards. Afterall Toyota is already thinking of the new Camry... Honda wouldn't want to fall behind.

 

[ElFenix]

new accord would actually be released alongside a new TL/CL. since the CL just underwent an update and skipped the 2000 year, i wouldn't expect that for a while. the current accord isn't that old of a design. though there is a mid-life styling update this year or next.

heres the real question: the RSX is going to have an ITEC engine, replacing the venerable VTEC design. now when will this engine make its way to the accord/CL/TL platform? and will it be worth it to put off a purchase that could happen in may/june? i'm expecting better torque and power numbers from the new engine, but enough to off set the TL-S? the other consideration is that the TL-S will have higher insurance rates than the TL. but it sure is nice hitting that peak torque at 1200 lower rpm. and 260 hp would do me good, i think.

 

[dcdomain]

Hmmm, I thought the new TL and CL model were on their way? In 2003 as a 2004? That's why I've been thinking how bad it would be if I got the TL Type-S and then the new TL comes out a year later. However, I'm not sure if they'll release a Type-S right when they release the new model. That's what they usually do with the Civic right? They release the SI in mid life of the model to get some interest.

If the redesigned TL is indeed coming out so soon, will they have the new I-VTEC engine? I'm not sure... maybe they would want to keep in exclusive to the RSX and work on it further before they put it in any other cars.

Anyway, it sucks, I always want to wait and wait. And with cars and computers, that sucks! New stuff is always on the horizon. I'm gonna say screw it and just grab the TL Type-S. (but damn the Jaguar X-Type is looking good)

 

[Cpt. Duke]

The LIdless Eye, I'm curious, what kind of car do you drive?

 

[shiznut123]

A 1985 pinto?

 

[thEnEuRoMancER]

I was wondering, is Honda HR-V (Joy machine) marketed in US at all?

 

[xarmian]

i have a 1984 Honda Accord LX.. just pushed it over 160,000 miles It's amazing what Honda had back then though, cruise control, power windows/locks, i put in keyless entry, it's a great car

 

[The LIdless Eye]

1DJCherny:

I drive a car with a real engine: '95 Firebird Formula
5.7L V8 with 275hp and about 300 ft-lbs torque.

(BTW, i looked up the honda darling, the acura inegra type-r with a whopping
128 ft-lbs torque)

 

[Descartes]

The Lidless dolt:

So, you drive a WT high-school reject car? Wow, I'm impressed.

 

[The LIdless Eye]

Descraps: You're on. What do YOU drive? I'm sure it'll look good in
my rear-view mirror.

 

[Cpt. Duke]

>>>I drive a car with a real engine: '95 Firebird Formula
>>>5.7L V8 with 275hp and about 300 ft-lbs torque.

>>>(BTW, i looked up the honda darling, the acura inegra type-r with a whopping
>>>128 ft-lbs torque)


What kind of mileage you get with that real engine? Acura's certainly don't have that much torque, but they're far more advanced than some 30 year old American design...

I don't want to start a huge flame war, but you got to admit, American cars aren't exactly a model of top engineering.

 

[ElFenix]

the northstar v8 is a nice piece of engineering work. and the firebird gets EPA 18/26, the TL gets 19/29. the firebird isn't that much of a gas hog in comparison. the RL gets worse mileage than the firebird, gets less HP and torque by a wide margin, and takes premium gas. i don't call that better engineering. the TL-S gets 232 ft-lbs@3500, which isn't bad for a 3.2 liter 6. thats 500 rpm below the formula, btw. of course, its no where near the formula's 340 ft-lbs. wtf!?!? an asstek costs $24k!?!? now i'm amazed GM managed to sell 12,000 of the things! (i'm looking at a list of pontiacs, btw, for the confused)

 

[Varborta]

What honda car or toyota Nissan car do you guys look forward coming out this yr?

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

I'm looking forward to the Sentra SE-R (180hp/180tq) and the new Z (260+hp). Also the new Xterra is coming out with a S/C V6 pushing 210hp and 246tq!

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<(BTW, i looked up the Honda darling, the acura inegra type-r with a whopping 128 ft-lbs torque)>>

You think the Integra Type R is the &quot;Honda darling&quot;!? Excuse me for a moment. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OK, better now.

The real &quot;Honda darling&quot; is the Honda NSX (FYI, Acura only exists in the US), or if you really want to stretch things the S2000. I want to know how much torque your beloved GM can get out of the 1.8 litre displacement that the Integra has while achieving the same HP figures. Most people understand that engine design is a matter of tradeoffs, your firebird may make 320 ft*lb of torque, but I'll bet it redlines around 5500 RPM and makes relatively little power above 4500 RPM. GM decided that low-end torque was more important than high RPM horsepower. I'm not saying that the firebird is short on HP, but it could make a lot more HP if some of that torque was sacrificed and the engine optimized for high RPM operation. I find it interesting that you compare a 5.7 litre V8 to a 1.8 litre I4, seems to me you are comparing apples to oranges. A proper comparison would be to compare a GM 1.8 litre I4 with the Integra's 1.8 litre I4, and in that case the Honda comes out ahead. My 13 year old Accord with a 2.0 litre I4 wastes my friend's 1994 2.2 litre I4 Cavalier in stoplight drags, but I never pretend that my Accord could even hold a candle to a V8 powered car. What I am saying is this; get your comparisons straight.

Zenmervolt

 

[Bojo]

In case anyone didn't bother checking out VTEC.com or missed this article check this out
Honda Insight record fuel economy run

It gets 2.3 Litres per 100 KM

How bloody amazing is that? That'd be like 100 miles per gallon or something for the US members.

Does anyone actually know anyhting about the new Accord? Any leaked stuff?

 

[Viperoni]

The reason why GM went with big torque down low is because it's easier to drive.
I know this for a fact because I have a 1986 Pontiac Parisienne (Chevy 5.0l 305ci V8).

150hp @ ~4500rpm
250lb/f torque @ 2400rpm

Obviously, it's not a car to race, but I know for a fact that what I just drove about 3 horus ago (Niagara Falls to Toronto, ~110km drive), I NEVER shifted out of 4th gear, and I was accelerating and passing people pretty nicely at about 75mph. And I drive a whole week on a tank of gas, although my tank is 25 gallons
Sure it is an old car, has 280k (about 180k miles), but it's VERY reliable (only 2 breakdowns on the road).

The reason why I've never had to dig into the engine?
I don't have to rev high in normal driving.

When I was driving, I noticed that most cars had to shift to get into the power range to pass me, however I didn't have to.
So while I never touched 3000rpm the whole trip...the other cars were pushing 3500rpm commonly.
So not only are their engines getting worn, but also their transmissions.
Sure cars are &quot;made better&quot; these days, but you CANNOT say a car that shifts and revs higher WILL last longer, because that's nearly impossible.

 

[Cpt. Duke]

>>>&quot;you CANNOT say a car that shifts and revs higher WILL last longer&quot;

why not? if the design of the engine is superior, who cares if it's running at higher rpms?

Let's be honest, most American cars can hit 100,000 - 150,000 miles, while most Japanese can go from 150,000 to 200,000, and many German/Swedish cars can go even higher. Why is this? Better design.

 

[lupin]

not another honda high HP/liter vs. American V8 torque thread...



<< I drive a car with a real engine: '95 Firebird Formula >>



This time the V8 defender really sounds like a stubborn &quot;V8 is the best&quot; butthead.

 

[kumanchu]

hmmm jeez a firebird formula. thats going to be cheap on your wallet for gas eh? and wait, even if you have more torque at the flywheel, there are 2 factors that you forget about for speed.

1.)weight- yur ass weighs a LOT more than a type r
2.)efficiency- american drivetrains have terrible efficiency of putting down power to the wheels from the flywheel.

not to mention, you think you can take the twisties as fast as a type r? eh? huh? I DiDN't THINK SO!!!

 

[ElFenix]

<< Let's be honest, most American cars can hit 100,000 - 150,000 miles, while most Japanese can go from 150,000 to 200,000, and many German/Swedish cars can go even higher. Why is this? Better design. >>



where'd you get that fact? anecdotal evidence does not count.