Honda Car Forum

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:26:21 -0500, Pars <"sdaro(remove)"@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:47:01 -0500, Pars <"sdaro(remove)"@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The quality gaps between manufactures are tightening up. Honda does make
>> >one of the best 4 banger engine in the market (and considering gas prices,
>> >it's perhaps the most important engine design). However, since other
>> >manufactures are also beginning to produce decent 4 banger engines, the
>> >real fight will be in chassis design and Toyota is ahead of the game in
>> >that department. Something like the Lotus Elise is too expensive for the
>> >mainstream market, but the Celica comes close.
>>
>> Toyota "ahead of the game" in suspension? They're McCheapstrut is well
>> known for blowing the shocks in the latter half of the 1st 100K miles. IMO
>> the Accord is one of the best mid-size sedan suspensions in the business
>> with excellent handling and low-wear characteristics.
>
>In my last post, I said 'chassis', not 'suspension'... Granted Accord's
>suspension is one of the best out their. Only the best handling cars tend to have
>the double wishbone up front. I personally think the double wishbone is a 'most
>have' on a front drive car.

Oops sorry, I always tend to think of the suspension as part, the active
part, of a chassis. So by superior, you mean weight for weight, stiffer
frame? S'funny but as I've looked at Integra write-ups over the years --
I've owned all 3 models but am currently balking on the latest(RSX in US)
-- they've always made much of the "improved stiffer chassis/frame"; it
always makes me wonder how they got it so F/U in the previous model.:-)

>Regarding the McCheapstrut, both the Celica and Civic have the same cheap crap
>suspension in the front. Even with the inferior suspension design, the Celica has
>still manage to become on the most sporty front drives on the market while the
>Civic is a reliable point A to B commuter. The reason that the McCheapstrut works
>on the Celica is do to it's extremely light but strong body/chassis which
>compensates for the inferior suspension components. It's too bad that Honda has
>to fatten the Civic by about 300lb in order to match the kind of handling found
>in the much lighter Celica.

I think I'd compare the Celica with the RSX rather than the bread 'n'
butter Civic - maybe the Civic Si? Is it the RSX you're referring to with
the 300lb of fat? The RSX has supposedly beefed up suspension mount points
and other stiffening to the frame, compared with the Civic. I haven't
looked at a Celica recently but a coupla years back it seemed to me that to
get similar features/equipment to an Integra I'd have had to add a few $K
of options - possibly that's part of the weight difference.

From what I hear, based on competitive analysis by others, as far as
chassis and especially suspension geometry, Mazda is ahead of everybody at
the moment with the 3s and 6s.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

>
> >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:47:01 -0500, Pars <"sdaro(remove)"@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The quality gaps between manufactures are tightening up. Honda does make
> >> >one of the best 4 banger engine in the market (and considering gas prices,
> >> >it's perhaps the most important engine design). However, since other
> >> >manufactures are also beginning to produce decent 4 banger engines, the
> >> >real fight will be in chassis design and Toyota is ahead of the game in
> >> >that department. Something like the Lotus Elise is too expensive for the
> >> >mainstream market, but the Celica comes close.
> >>
> >> Toyota "ahead of the game" in suspension? They're McCheapstrut is well
> >> known for blowing the shocks in the latter half of the 1st 100K miles. IMO
> >> the Accord is one of the best mid-size sedan suspensions in the business
> >> with excellent handling and low-wear characteristics.
> >
> >In my last post, I said 'chassis', not 'suspension'... Granted Accord's
> >suspension is one of the best out their. Only the best handling cars tend to have
> >the double wishbone up front. I personally think the double wishbone is a 'most
> >have' on a front drive car.
>
> Oops sorry, I always tend to think of the suspension as part, the active
> part, of a chassis. So by superior, you mean weight for weight, stiffer
> frame? S'funny but as I've looked at Integra write-ups over the years --
> I've owned all 3 models but am currently balking on the latest(RSX in US)
> -- they've always made much of the "improved stiffer chassis/frame";

I've noticed the same, chassis stiffness hasn't been paraded as much as in the past. I
suppose that manufacturing process has gotten to a point where stiffness is not a huge
problem. However, improving strength while keeping weight down can be a daunting task
especially when brittleness comes into play.


> it
> always makes me wonder how they got it so F/U in the previous model.:-)
>
> >Regarding the McCheapstrut, both the Celica and Civic have the same cheap crap
> >suspension in the front. Even with the inferior suspension design, the Celica has
> >still manage to become on the most sporty front drives on the market while the
> >Civic is a reliable point A to B commuter. The reason that the McCheapstrut works
> >on the Celica is do to it's extremely light but strong body/chassis which
> >compensates for the inferior suspension components. It's too bad that Honda has
> >to fatten the Civic by about 300lb in order to match the kind of handling found
> >in the much lighter Celica.
>
> I think I'd compare the Celica with the RSX rather than the bread 'n'
> butter Civic - maybe the Civic Si? Is it the RSX you're referring to with
> the 300lb of fat? The RSX has supposedly beefed up suspension mount points
> and other stiffening to the frame, compared with the Civic. I haven't
> looked at a Celica recently but a coupla years back it seemed to me that to
> get similar features/equipment to an Integra I'd have had to add a few $K
> of options - possibly that's part of the weight difference.

Actually, it's more like 244lb (not 300lb), which is the weight difference between a
Civic LX coupe vs the Civic Si(R) Hatch. Also, the Celica GT is about 300lb lighter
then the Civic Si(R) and is significantly more nimble then the Si(R). It's strange
that there has never been a comparison test between the Si(R) and Celica GT. Both car
are priced at $24K in Canada. Considering that Edmunds.com is least likely to be
intimidated by the manufactures, I would have expected them to pick-up the gauntlet.

>
> From what I hear, based on competitive analysis by others, as far as
> chassis and especially suspension geometry, Mazda is ahead of everybody at
> the moment with the 3s and 6s.

I'm surprised that there isn't more Mazda 3s on the streets here in Toronto. As a high
volume seller, the 3s should have out striped the Mini Coopers by now. (It's too bad
that the Mini have such a poor maintenance record, otherwise I'd be salivating over
the prospect of getting one). I guess the reason for the poor Mazda turn out could be
attribute to the fact that Honda has it's claws sunk deep into Toronto. So, it'll
probably take some time before the loyal consumer see the light. From what I'm
hearing, the 2006 Civic isn't going to be much of an improvement over the current
model. If that's the case, I won't feel any regrets when 'Honda Nation' no-longer
resides in Toronto.


Rgds, Pars

>
>
> Rgds, George Macdonald
>
> "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??