Consumer Reports: "Disappointing ION"...

Blah blah wrote:
>
> Specially low-end oomph? Pfft...I know what I'm talking about, I dont
> buy trucks/suv's that need to be whined out to 5000rpm to reach their
> powerband to get a load moving. Get with it. You might enjoy working an
> engine at ridiculously high and wastefull rpms but I do not. Its just
> more wear and tear.
>
> Lets see... Peak torque at 3600rpm's or peak torque at 4500rpms. Which
> engine will have to be screeming to keep up with the other? I'd rather
> have torque down low where I need it and use it the most. Not only that
> but less engine rotations draw less fuel and air and make for better
> mileage. 4500rpm's to reach peak torque in a suv is a wasteful.

If you are only looking at the peak torque, you don't know
the whole story. It is possible that the Honda V-6 has a
very flat torque curve and that it has plenty of torque at
3600 and 4500. Without a torque curve you can't know the
whole story. For this engine, as used int he Pilot, Honda
claims a "broad torque cure" that "provides plenty of torque
across a wide rpm range."

Regards,

Ed White

....last time I was at the Honda dealer I noticed the '04 S2000 no longer
has the 9,000 rpm redline. I'm guessing they're aiming for more torque,
however it still doesn't make it's full torque until 6500 r's and full
hp until 7800 r's. Things that make you go hmmmm...

Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> Honda make an engine with *torque*????
>
> They excel at engines with their torque and HP peaks being uselessly
> high for a street car. Witness the S2000, the car that's downright
> dangerous to merge onto a highway with unless the engine's going at
> least 6 grand.
>
> Given the way Hondas are now, I'd hate to imagine what they'd be like
> without VTEC (which is a ****ty way to vary timming anyway), given
> VTEC's supposed advantage is a broader powerband, though it's only real
> advantage is marketing.
>
> Oh yes, and is it too much to ask for an automatic that can make up it's
> mind what gear it's in?

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 07:00:59 -0700, Jonnie Santos
> wrote:

>...last time I was at the Honda dealer I noticed the '04 S2000 no longer
>has the 9,000 rpm redline. I'm guessing they're aiming for more torque,
>however it still doesn't make it's full torque until 6500 r's and full
>hp until 7800 r's. Things that make you go hmmmm...

They bumped up the displacement from 1997cc to 2157cc by lengthening
the stroke.

Dav2.718

David Hungerford wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 07:00:59 -0700, Jonnie Santos
> > wrote:
>
>
>>...last time I was at the Honda dealer I noticed the '04 S2000 no longer
>>has the 9,000 rpm redline. I'm guessing they're aiming for more torque,
>>however it still doesn't make it's full torque until 6500 r's and full
>>hp until 7800 r's. Things that make you go hmmmm...
>
>
> They bumped up the displacement from 1997cc to 2157cc by lengthening
> the stroke.
>
> Dav2.718

Didn't know - thanks.

I've never driven one (but would like too), however after seeing
Mitsubishi's Evo with 19lbs of boost and 271 hp for $26k I think the
Zero (insert sarcasm) would be more of a hoot to drive.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:40:16 -0700, Jonnie Santos
> wrote:

>David Hungerford wrote:
>
>> [On the S2000]
>>
>>
>> They bumped up the displacement from 1997cc to 2157cc by lengthening
>> the stroke.
>>
>
>Didn't know - thanks.

np. The latest issue of Car & Driver says it "...provides much better
midrange response, and the longer stroke brings operating RPM down
from the stratosphere."

>I've never driven one (but would like too), however after seeing
>Mitsubishi's Evo with 19lbs of boost and 271 hp for $26k I think the
>Zero (insert sarcasm) would be more of a hoot to drive.

Yeah, that'd be a trip. I'm not looking for anything that hot and I'm
a small wagon fan (current ride is a '94 SW2), so I'm fairly annoyed
at Mitsubishi for their decision to not put the manual tranny in the
Lancer Ralliart Sportback. (Meanwhile, the Mazda 3 would be $18k
equipped how I want it...hmmm.)

Dav2.718

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:56:20 -0400, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>
>
>Blah blah wrote:
>>
>> Specially low-end oomph? Pfft...I know what I'm talking about, I dont
>> buy trucks/suv's that need to be whined out to 5000rpm to reach their
>> powerband to get a load moving. Get with it. You might enjoy working an
>> engine at ridiculously high and wastefull rpms but I do not. Its just
>> more wear and tear.
>>
>> Lets see... Peak torque at 3600rpm's or peak torque at 4500rpms. Which
>> engine will have to be screeming to keep up with the other? I'd rather
>> have torque down low where I need it and use it the most. Not only that
>> but less engine rotations draw less fuel and air and make for better
>> mileage. 4500rpm's to reach peak torque in a suv is a wasteful.
>
>If you are only looking at the peak torque, you don't know
>the whole story. It is possible that the Honda V-6 has a
>very flat torque curve and that it has plenty of torque at
>3600 and 4500. Without a torque curve you can't know the
>whole story. For this engine, as used int he Pilot, Honda
>claims a "broad torque cure" that "provides plenty of torque
>across a wide rpm range."
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed White

The Pilot engine is a 3.5 L V6 so compare it to something similar, say
the 3.4L V6 in the Chevy Venture.

The Chevy engine produces 210 ft*lb at 4000.
The Honda engine produces 242 ft*lb at 4500.

The Chevy engine produces 185hp at 5200.
The Honda engine produces 240hp at 5400.

As pointed out, the Honda has a very flat torque curve and certainly
has more that 210 ft*lb at 4000. In fact, I would wager that it has
more power at any rpm. It isn't uncommon for a VTEC engine to have
90% of peak torque from ~2500 to near redline. (Don't know about this
particular engine.)

Some people think that hen you increase the torque at higher rpm
without affecting torque at lower rpm that this somehow makes the
engine worse. They are stupid.

I've been away for a few so I lost this thread but since its been
brought up...
> >If you are only looking at the peak torque, you don't know
> >the whole story. It is possible that the Honda V-6 has a
> >very flat torque curve and that it has plenty of torque at
> >3600 and 4500. Without a torque curve you can't know the
> >whole story. For this engine, as used int he Pilot, Honda
> >claims a "broad torque cure" that "provides plenty of torque
> >across a wide rpm range."
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Ed White

All the honda's I've driven had always needed to be reved much HIGHER
than the domestics i've driven to get moving with the same gusto.

>
> The Pilot engine is a 3.5 L V6 so compare it to something similar, say
> the 3.4L V6 in the Chevy Venture.

EERRRrrrr
Wrong, nothing simular about those. You are compairing a 4 valve per
cylinder engine to a 2 valve per cylinder engine.


> The Chevy engine produces 210 ft*lb at 4000.
> The Honda engine produces 242 ft*lb at 4500.
>
> The Chevy engine produces 185hp at 5200.
> The Honda engine produces 240hp at 5400.

Since there isnt a 4valve per cylinder engine try compairing to one that
"is" the same size and "is" just as new and not dating back to the early
90's. Try the G6's 3.5L.

HP 200@5600
TQ 220@3200 <<< right where it ought to be.
No peddle smashing to get moving from a stop light or merging on the
highway. Gee...Amazing how pushrod technology is still kicking ass. 10hp
less 22lb ft less torque "but" 12 less valves and 3 less cams and 3 feet
less of timing chain... Not to mention no VVT to deal with.

> As pointed out, the Honda has a very flat torque curve and certainly
> has more that 210 ft*lb at 4000. In fact, I would wager that it has
> more power at any rpm. It isn't uncommon for a VTEC engine to have
> 90% of peak torque from ~2500 to near redline. (Don't know about this
> particular engine.)
>
> Some people think that hen you increase the torque at higher rpm
> without affecting torque at lower rpm that this somehow makes the
> engine worse. They are stupid.

So I'm stupid for voicing the things I have experienced myself "first
hand"? Oookay.

Btw heres gm's torque curve for the 3.4L, I'll wait for honda's 3.5
http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpower...la1_curves.htm
That is if they put out any truthful figures unlike nissan.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:00:54 GMT, Blah Blah > wrote:


>All the honda's I've driven had always needed to be reved much HIGHER
>than the domestics i've driven to get moving with the same gusto.

This is such a sweeping statement that it is pretty hard to respond
to. I dont know which Hondas or domestics you have driven. But even
taking it at face value, so what? I dont think you will find many
Honda fans who think that taking the engine to high rpms is a burden.
If it bothers you, don't buy one.

>> The Pilot engine is a 3.5 L V6 so compare it to something similar, say
>> the 3.4L V6 in the Chevy Venture.
>
>EERRRrrrr
>Wrong, nothing simular about those. You are compairing a 4 valve per
>cylinder engine to a 2 valve per cylinder engine.
>
>> The Chevy engine produces 210 ft*lb at 4000.
>> The Honda engine produces 242 ft*lb at 4500.
>>
>> The Chevy engine produces 185hp at 5200.
>> The Honda engine produces 240hp at 5400.
>
>Since there isnt a 4valve per cylinder engine

There isn't?

>try compairing to one that
>"is" the same size and "is" just as new and not dating back to the early
>90's. Try the G6's 3.5L.

I don't think that it is Honda's fault that Chevy is still selling 10+
year old engine technology, but OK...

>HP 200@5600
>TQ 220@3200 <<< right where it ought to be.
> No peddle smashing to get moving from a stop light or merging on the
>highway.

I would bet that the Honda has less than 220 ft*lb at 3200. Your
complaint seems to be that the Honda produces too much torque at
higher rpm, not that it delivers too little at 3200.

> Gee...Amazing how pushrod technology is still kicking ass. 10hp
>less

Uh, 240 - 200 = 40 (That is 20% more for the Honda.)

> 22lb ft less torque

So it kicks ass by producing 20% less hp and 10% less torque?

> "but" 12 less valves and 3 less cams and 3 feet
>less of timing chain... Not to mention no VVT to deal with.

What is involved in "dealing with" VVT (and lift BTW)? There is no
extra maintenance and the system has essentially perfect reliability -
never heard of a failure.

>> As pointed out, the Honda has a very flat torque curve and certainly
>> has more that 210 ft*lb at 4000. In fact, I would wager that it has
>> more power at any rpm. It isn't uncommon for a VTEC engine to have
>> 90% of peak torque from ~2500 to near redline. (Don't know about this
>> particular engine.)
>>
>> Some people think that hen you increase the torque at higher rpm
>> without affecting torque at lower rpm that this somehow makes the
>> engine worse. They are stupid.
>
>So I'm stupid for voicing the things I have experienced myself "first
>hand"? Oookay.

Could you enlighten us regarding your experience with how engines that
produce the same power at lower rpm and more power at higher rpm are
worse?

>Btw heres gm's torque curve for the 3.4L, I'll wait for honda's 3.5
>http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpower...la1_curves.htm
>That is if they put out any truthful figures unlike nissan.

I don't have a torque curve for the 3.5, but here is an independent
measurement (taken through the wheels) for the Honda 3.0.
http://sohc.vtec.net/article_files/1...ord6mtdyno.jpg
Note that the engine produces 185 - 195 ft*lb (ie, at least 95% of
peak torque) at any rpm between 1900 and 6100. Torque at 1500 rpm is
about 90% of peak. When you figure in a 10% loss through the drive
train, the lower end of the torque curve is just about identical to
the GM motors you posted at the bottom end (despite 14% less
displacement.) At the top end, the Honda is still producing 90% of
peak torque at 6400 - 600 rpm past the GM redline. The result is 60
to 70 additional hp but you don't *have* to use if you just want to
equal the GM's performance.

Here is a torque curve from a VTEC 4 to further illustrate the broad
torque peak:
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/...2sidyno-02.gif

In article >,
Blah Blah > wrote:

> All the honda's I've driven had always needed to be reved much HIGHER
> than the domestics i've driven to get moving with the same gusto.

The S2000 was changed this year because the perfect sportscar had no
bottom end. Everyone who I've talked to who's driven one says the same
thing - at low RPMs, it's a dog.

> HP 200@5600
> TQ 220@3200 <<< right where it ought to be.

Ahh, I wish my harley could reach tose #s. as it is, it's about 1/2 of
that. Actually, Vs a same size Honda car motor, it makes more or less
the same HP and better torque. So much for an antique pushrod design*...

> No peddle smashing to get moving from a stop light or merging on the
> highway. Gee...Amazing how pushrod technology is still kicking ass. 10hp
> less 22lb ft less torque "but" 12 less valves and 3 less cams and 3 feet
> less of timing chain... Not to mention no VVT to deal with.

Pushrod engines can still compete. Everyone bashes GM for still making
them, but they WORK, and for the most part, about as good as anything
else. It's like minivans - Detroit's don't have 5 speed autos, Tokyo's
do. Well, nobody care how many gears a minivan tranny has, but they do
care if it shifts constantly, which is the biggest problem with the
existing computer controlled 5 speed autos.

*Yes, I've ridden the amazing 600 cc crotchrocket. They're a JOKE until
they hit 2 grand below redline, at which point they're nothing really
special either.

> Pushrod engines can still compete. Everyone bashes GM for still making
> them, but they WORK, and for the most part, about as good as anything
> else.

They work so much that GM is now purchasing V6s from Honda. I don't agree
with your last part. GM said recently that after one year, they are very
pleased with the deal. It has contributed to increase dramatically the VUE
sales.