Honda Car Forum


 

Go Back   Honda Car Forum - Accord Parts Civic Tuning Acura Racing > Honda Acura > Acura

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 27 Mar 2008, 01:49 pm
Frank
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cars are getting bigger, heaver, uglier and consumes more gas.

The Nissan GT-R is awesome and so will be the new V10 front engine "NSX."
But do we need 500hp monsters doing 0-60mph under 3.5 sec and over 200mph on
the street? I would prefer the old mid-engine NSX both in styling and fuel
efficiency with a combine city/highway of 18mpg. That's what my kid gets on
his Civic Si.

A few years back Acura was talking about the new "NSX" with performance like
this but with a fuel efficiency of something like 40mpg. What were they
talking about?


Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 28 Mar 2008, 12:52 am
rll
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Cars are getting bigger, heaver, uglier and consumes more gas.

I agree.

I own a 1997 NSX and consider it to be the best car ever built. It was hand
built with matched components and delivers over 20 mpg in average driving.
Its performance is extraordinary and I also agree that these 500+ hp cars
are overkill.

The NSX was the first production car to have titanium connecting rods and an
8000 rpm redline. With its mid-engine handling, it was used as the model
for the McClaren F1. In fact, Honda was the first choice for the engine
builder, but Honda refused. BMW was the second choice.

The new NSX will be much more conventional, not hand built and front
engined. It is an economic business choice by Honda. I've read Honda never
made money on the NSX. It just cost too much to build. The assembly-line
new NSX will have a profit margin.

My advice is to buy a nicely preserved original NSX. It is the most
dependable super car ever built.

- Russ in Santa Barbara

" Frank" <noreplay@nothome.net> wrote in message
news:6fSdnewfGfrHcXbanZ2dnUVZ_uyinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> The Nissan GT-R is awesome and so will be the new V10 front engine "NSX."
> But do we need 500hp monsters doing 0-60mph under 3.5 sec and over 200mph
> on the street? I would prefer the old mid-engine NSX both in styling and
> fuel efficiency with a combine city/highway of 18mpg. That's what my kid
> gets on his Civic Si.
>
> A few years back Acura was talking about the new "NSX" with performance
> like this but with a fuel efficiency of something like 40mpg. What were
> they talking about?
>



Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 28 Mar 2008, 06:01 am
Tegger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Cars are getting bigger, heaver, uglier and consumes more gas.

" Frank" <noreplay@nothome.net> wrote in
news:6fSdnewfGfrHcXbanZ2dnUVZ_uyinZ2d@comcast.com:

> The Nissan GT-R is awesome and so will be the new V10 front engine
> "NSX." But do we need 500hp monsters doing 0-60mph under 3.5 sec and
> over 200mph on the street? I would prefer the old mid-engine NSX both
> in styling and fuel efficiency with a combine city/highway of 18mpg.
> That's what my kid gets on his Civic Si.



He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that car,
then.


>
> A few years back Acura was talking about the new "NSX" with
> performance like this but with a fuel efficiency of something like
> 40mpg. What were they talking about?
>



No idea. Maybe a hybrid version?

If you don't like gas swilling behemoths, you can always buy a Fit.
Nobody's forcing anybody to buy a V10.

And it's not a question of "need".If we were reduced to buying things only
on the basis of "need", all the things that make life fun would be gone.
The things that make life fun satisfy our /desires/.

I find it interesting that the V10 is happening considering Honda's
previously-stated intention to never build anything bigger than a V6,
because anything bigger wouldn't be "green" enough (that's why the
Ridgeline only has a V6 in a market dominated by V8s).

There is some merit to the concept of a V10 of moderate displacement:
Smaller cylinders mean better control over emissions, which dovetails
nicely with Honda's core philosophies.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 28 Mar 2008, 06:20 am
ACAR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Cars are getting bigger, heaver, uglier and consumes more gas.

On Mar 27, 2:49 pm, " Frank" <norep...@nothome.net> wrote:
> The Nissan GT-R is awesome and so will be the new V10 front engine "NSX."
> But do we need 500hp monsters doing 0-60mph under 3.5 sec and over 200mph on
> the street? I would prefer the old mid-engine NSX both in styling and fuel
> efficiency with a combine city/highway of 18mpg. That's what my kid gets on
> his Civic Si.
>
> A few years back Acura was talking about the new "NSX" with performance like
> this but with a fuel efficiency of something like 40mpg. What were they
> talking about?


While the old NSX was a fine car, my 2003 Corvette 6-speed manages to
eek out 27 mpg when used for my daily commute (mostly highway). It
gets about half that when I drive it for "pleasure." I've had one
mechanical issue with the car that was taken care of by Chevy at zero
cost to me. Certainly, the Corvette handles much differently than the
NSX but there's no doubt that it is faster around any racetrack, costs
much less to buy and apparently is more fuel efficient. I hear the
2008 Corvette, despite making 430 HP (vs 350 HP in my 2003) is even
more fuel efficient, handles better and is a more comfortable car.
True, not the snob appeal, excuse me - exclusivity, of the NSX but GM
has shown some dedication to the sports car while Honda let both the
NSX and S2000 die slow and agonizing deaths.

Unlike Honda, GM is building its sports car to become lighter weight,
more powerful, better handling and consume less fuel. While I think
the Honda Accord is the best, low-cost family sedan available right
now, I gotta give GM credit where credit is due. From what little has
been leaking to the Press regarding the next generation Corvette, it
will not be a mid-engine car (too expensive) but rather the same
layout as now but on a new, smaller frame. I wouldn't be surprised to
see a significantly smaller base engine achieving well over 30 mpg
highway.

Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 28 Mar 2008, 08:56 pm
Russell Lombardo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Cars are getting bigger, heaver, uglier and consumes more gas.

I will try to be as gentle as possible, but comparing a Corvette to an NSX
or any supercar is not reasonable. A Corvette uses 50-year old technology,
a pushrod engine, I thin it still has rear leaf springs!, it is plastic
inside -- an interior similar to a Chevette. I looked at Corvettes and
walked away thinking how could they sell these things. They are simply
inferior to a supercar in every conceivable way. They are manufactured on
an assembly line.

Of course, Corvettes are noisy and relatively quick in a straight line, but
at high speed, like all pushrod engines, they run out of power. My NSX
would rev much higher, but the rev limiter limits rpm to a bit over 8000,
and it is pulling even harder once the VTEC kicks in at around 6000 rpm. If
you have never driven a true supercar, you may think a front-engine car is
impressive. One drive in a mid-engine true supercar and your opinion will
be forever changed.

There was a test done by one of the car magazines that tested several cars
including the NSX and Corvette, as well as the 911, and jokingly a Camaro.
The test was 0 to 150 mph to 0. The only car that beat the NSX was a Viper.
Nothing else beat the NSX. It is a true supercar, holding its value as no
new Corvette does. I have owned my NSX for 5 1/2 years now, and it is worth
at least as much as I paid for it. It has never been in the rain, and of
course, never in snow. This is not much of a hardship here in California as
it only rains perhaps 10-20 days per year.

I guess it's good that more people don't comprehend the value of supercars
like the NSX -- I couldn't have afforded one. Of course, now that I have
one, let the prices increase!

I will post the 0-150-0 in a new post.

- Russ in SB



On 3/28/08 4:20 AM, in article
aaccb234-328c-47fe-ba0a-02e8a50c3e16...oglegroups.com, "ACAR"
<dimndsonmywndshld@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 27, 2:49 pm, " Frank" <norep...@nothome.net> wrote:
>> The Nissan GT-R is awesome and so will be the new V10 front engine "NSX."
>> But do we need 500hp monsters doing 0-60mph under 3.5 sec and over 200mph on
>> the street? I would prefer the old mid-engine NSX both in styling and fuel
>> efficiency with a combine city/highway of 18mpg. That's what my kid gets on
>> his Civic Si.
>>
>> A few years back Acura was talking about the new "NSX" with performance like
>> this but with a fuel efficiency of something like 40mpg. What were they
>> talking about?

>
> While the old NSX was a fine car, my 2003 Corvette 6-speed manages to
> eek out 27 mpg when used for my daily commute (mostly highway). It
> gets about half that when I drive it for "pleasure." I've had one
> mechanical issue with the car that was taken care of by Chevy at zero
> cost to me. Certainly, the Corvette handles much differently than the
> NSX but there's no doubt that it is faster around any racetrack, costs
> much less to buy and apparently is more fuel efficient. I hear the
> 2008 Corvette, despite making 430 HP (vs 350 HP in my 2003) is even
> more fuel efficient, handles better and is a more comfortable car.
> True, not the snob appeal, excuse me - exclusivity, of the NSX but GM
> has shown some dedication to the sports car while Honda let both the
> NSX and S2000 die slow and agonizing deaths.
>
> Unlike Honda, GM is building its sports car to become lighter weight,
> more powerful, better handling and consume less fuel. While I think
> the Honda Accord is the best, low-cost family sedan available right
> now, I gotta give GM credit where credit is due. From what little has
> been leaking to the Press regarding the next generation Corvette, it
> will not be a mid-engine car (too expensive) but rather the same
> layout as now but on a new, smaller frame. I wouldn't be surprised to
> see a significantly smaller base engine achieving well over 30 mpg
> highway.
>


Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 28 Mar 2008, 09:56 pm
Frank
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Cars are getting bigger, heaver, uglier and consumes more gas.

>
>
> He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that car,
> then.
>

Most of the driving is in San Francisco. Something like 80% city, 20%
highway.


Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 28 Mar 2008, 10:30 pm
Yoda
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Cars are getting bigger, heaver, uglier and consumes more gas.

On 2008-03-28 21:56:31 -0500, " Frank" <noreplay@nothome.net> said:

>>
>>
>> He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that car,
>> then.
>>

> Most of the driving is in San Francisco. Something like 80% city, 20%
> highway.


He may have a point - unless he's driving totally leadfooted the whole
time, which is a possibility, he should be doing better than that. My
rsx, which is almost totally leadfooted city driving gets around 25 mpg.
--
-----------------------------
I only talk like that in the movies

Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 29 Mar 2008, 07:35 pm
Frank
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Cars are getting bigger, heaver, uglier and consumes more gas.


"Yoda" <yoda@Dagobah.net> wrote in message
news:2008032822302716807-yoda@Dagobahnet...
> On 2008-03-28 21:56:31 -0500, " Frank" <noreplay@nothome.net>
> said:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that
>>> car,
>>> then.
>>>

>> Most of the driving is in San Francisco. Something like 80% city, 20%
>> highway.

>
> He may have a point - unless he's driving totally leadfooted the whole
> time, which is a possibility, he should be doing better than that. My rsx,
> which is almost totally leadfooted city driving gets around 25 mpg.
> --
> -----------------------------
> I only talk like that in the movies
>


Thanks. No, he doesn't have a lead foot. My other son does and redline it
all the time on his 98 GSR and still gets 32mpg. (80% highway, 20% city) Go
figure!

Anyway taking the Civic Si to the dealer on a recall and have them look at
the gas consumption too.



Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 31 Mar 2008, 06:23 am
ACAR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Cars are getting bigger, heaver, uglier and consumes more gas.

On Mar 28, 9:56 pm, Russell Lombardo <rll_...@cox.net> wrote:
> I will try to be as gentle as possible, but comparing a Corvette to an NSX
> or any supercar is not reasonable. A Corvette uses 50-year old technology,
> a pushrod engine, I thin it still has rear leaf springs!, snip


yet the 2008 Corvette gets around a track pretty well for half the
price of a NSX.

some define supercar by the specifications
others define it by performance

Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 31 Mar 2008, 10:25 am
Yoda
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Cars are getting bigger, heaver, uglier and consumes more gas.

On 2008-03-29 19:35:01 -0500, " Frank" <noreplay@nothome.net> said:

>
> "Yoda" <yoda@Dagobah.net> wrote in message
> news:2008032822302716807-yoda@Dagobahnet...
>> On 2008-03-28 21:56:31 -0500, " Frank" <noreplay@nothome.net>
>> said:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that
>>>> car,
>>>> then.
>>>>
>>> Most of the driving is in San Francisco. Something like 80% city, 20%
>>> highway.

>>
>> He may have a point - unless he's driving totally leadfooted the whole
>> time, which is a possibility, he should be doing better than that. My rsx,
>> which is almost totally leadfooted city driving gets around 25 mpg.
>> --
>> -----------------------------
>> I only talk like that in the movies
>>

>
> Thanks. No, he doesn't have a lead foot. My other son does and redline it
> all the time on his 98 GSR and still gets 32mpg. (80% highway, 20% city) Go
> figure!
>
> Anyway taking the Civic Si to the dealer on a recall and have them look at
> the gas consumption too.


It could be something as minor as underinflated tires - I was having
exceptionally bad mileage for a while, and although they looked fine,
one of the tires was about 8 lbs low, which was causing my mileage to
drop to an average of 22 mpg. So if there are several in this state,
you could get down to 18 pretty quickly...
--
-----------------------------
I only talk like that in the movies

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can you put bigger engine in Civic 97' ? niteshadow12 Honda Technical 4 24 Sep 2007 08:36 am
bigger tires, 2003 TL? Charles T. Low Acura 4 14 Jan 2006 05:12 am
bigger tires, 2003 TL? Anonymous Acura 0 21 Dec 2005 05:00 am
Brakes Bigger rotors or just slotted and or cross drilled? Beerman182 Honda 3 6 24 Jun 2005 09:32 pm
94 Accord EXR consumes too much gas Cosmin N. Honda 2 3 27 Feb 2004 10:08 am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:28 pm.


Attribution:
Honda News | Autoblog
Powered by Yahoo Answers




Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 © 2011, Crawlability, Inc.
HondaCarForum.com is not affiliated with Honda Motor Company in any way. Honda Motor Company does not sponsor, support, or endorse HondaCarForum.com in any way. Copyright/trademark/sales mark infringements are not intended or implied.