Honda Car Forum

ACAR wrote:
> Dr Nick wrote:
>
>> I actually just told him to go test drive an Acura RSX, I didnt' even
>> realzie they were as cheap nas they are. might be worth it just for the
>> benefits of owning an acura (better warranty, maintence agreement etc)
>>
>> the WRX is out of his price range, as well as the Nissan X (honestly I
>> wouldn't recommend a nissan, their quality has gone WAY down hill in my
>> opinion, I used to own a maxima)
>
> Toyota Scion tC may be another viable car if you can find one. The $20K
> Scion uses a 2.4 L engine which should produce sufficient torque

eh? dude, what is it with you and this notion of torque and
automatics??? what problems have you experienced with automatics and on
what vehicles?

> to
> make an auto trans car a little sporty.
>
> [All the Infiniti owners I know are pretty happy with their cars, esp.
> the G35 which is built on the same platform as the Z.]
>

jim beam wrote:
>
> eh? dude, what is it with you and this notion of torque and
> automatics??? what problems have you experienced with automatics and on
> what vehicles?
>
Any economy car with an auto trans will conspire to keep engine RPM
well away from the sporty range in order to maximize mpg. Unless you've
got some torque at low RPM (not a Honda strength) the car's gonna be a
slug - but fuel efficient. The auto trans driver seeking sporty
performance is better served by seeking a broad, relatively strong
torque profile, even at the expense of top end horsepower. People buy
horsepower but they drive torque.

A manual trans driver has a lot more control and can better utilize a
small displacement engine - Honda S2000 being a prime example.

ACAR wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> eh? dude, what is it with you and this notion of torque and
>> automatics??? what problems have you experienced with automatics and on
>> what vehicles?
>>
> Any economy car with an auto trans will conspire to keep engine RPM
> well away from the sporty range in order to maximize mpg.

say what? have you any idea how fuel injection works? do you have
broken fingers preventing you from touching the shift selector?

> Unless you've
> got some torque at low RPM (not a Honda strength) the car's gonna be a
> slug - but fuel efficient.

utter b.s.

> The auto trans driver seeking sporty
> performance is better served by seeking a broad, relatively strong
> torque profile, even at the expense of top end horsepower.

so don't buy a honda! i'll take the top end horsepower any day.

> People buy
> horsepower but they drive torque.

what a chintzy little catch phrase. so when i beat the socks off people
trying to drive on torque, [because i don't have any /and/ my civic is
an automatic] is that a ripple in the space-time continuum of the
universe, or it just the fact that it's horsepower that gets the job done?

>
> A manual trans driver has a lot more control and can better utilize a
> small displacement engine - Honda S2000 being a prime example.

you're confused - you're criticizing automatics for torque issues, but
it's not the transmission that's responsible, it's the motor. honda
automatics are not planetary gear sets, hence the losses for both sticks
and autos are about the same. modern automatics with electronic control
are just as quick off the line as a stick. up to about 60, i can keep
up with any ricer kiddie with my stock automatic d15 because foot down,
it red-lines, just like it's designed to. if you're criticizing
automatics for drivability and control, there's an advantage with a
closer ratio 5-speed vs a 4, but that's regardless of an automatic
configuration. and personally, i have no problem pre-selecting ratios
when i want control.

you need to actually drive a honda automatic some time. if it doesn't
red line, there's a maintenance issue - it's not an automatic
transmission design issue.

jim beam wrote:
> >>
> > Any economy car with an auto trans will conspire to keep engine RPM
> > well away from the sporty range in order to maximize mpg.
>
> say what? have you any idea how fuel injection works?

Are you saying that fuel consumption is identical whether I drive a
road (same speed) in a higher or lower gear?

The two overdrive gears in my car are there expressly to maximize mpg
by allowing me to drive at low RPM. Throttle response is worse in 6th
than in 4th because at low RPM I've got a lot less torque on tap.

> > People buy horsepower but they drive torque.
>
> what a chintzy little catch phrase.

You might want to look that one up. It has a long history (not with
Honda fans, of course).

so when i beat the socks off people
> trying to drive on torque,

This, of course, is done at the track where the other guy actually
knows you're racing.
>
> >
modern automatics with electronic control
> are just as quick off the line as a stick.

For the majority of cars/drivers on the road, this is true. Keep your
foot planted and a properly functioning auto should hold to redline
before shifting.

Now how about the 99% of the driving time when you're not drag racing?
Inexpensive cars are all built for economical operation and their
transmissions will shift into a high gear as soon as they can.

> and personally, i have no problem pre-selecting ratios
> when i want control.

it's your car.

Autos built for manual control vary in their design but the best give
sporty drivers all the control they need. AFAIK, none of these
manual-shift autos are available at the price point we're discussing.

ACAR wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>>> Any economy car with an auto trans will conspire to keep engine RPM
>>> well away from the sporty range in order to maximize mpg.
>> say what? have you any idea how fuel injection works?
>
> Are you saying that fuel consumption is identical whether I drive a
> road (same speed) in a higher or lower gear?

no guy, and nor were you. either you're failing to articulate your
original point [whatever that may be] or you're trying to wriggle out of
the fact that there's no inherent output difference between a honda auto
and a honda stick.

>
> The two overdrive gears in my car are there expressly to maximize mpg
> by allowing me to drive at low RPM. Throttle response is worse in 6th
> than in 4th because at low RPM I've got a lot less torque on tap.

ok, this is where you show you don't know what you're talking about.
lower revs != lower consumption. and only a kid with no driving
experience would attempt to criticize a motor for "lack of torque" when
trying to pull too high a gear. how old are you btw?

>
>>> People buy horsepower but they drive torque.
>> what a chintzy little catch phrase.
>
> You might want to look that one up. It has a long history (not with
> Honda fans, of course).

but it's not original to you guy - it's a marketing slogan from one
company with sluggish engines competing with another company that has
engines that fly.

>
> so when i beat the socks off people
>> trying to drive on torque,
>
> This, of course, is done at the track where the other guy actually
> knows you're racing.

eh?

> modern automatics with electronic control
>> are just as quick off the line as a stick.
>
> For the majority of cars/drivers on the road, this is true. Keep your
> foot planted and a properly functioning auto should hold to redline
> before shifting.
>
> Now how about the 99% of the driving time when you're not drag racing?
> Inexpensive cars are all built for economical operation and their
> transmissions will shift into a high gear as soon as they can.

what? just like stick drivers do too? makes no sense. the reason i
show well against ricers is precisely because they don't know when to
shift properly - my automatic is programmed to shift perfectly, and
better than any human can too.

>
>> and personally, i have no problem pre-selecting ratios
>> when i want control.
>
> it's your car.

and i know how to drive it! just because you've never driven an
automatic and definitely don't know /how/ to drive one, gives you
absolutely ZERO basis to criticize.

>
> Autos built for manual control vary in their design

not on hondas they don't. the transmissions are identical. the only
difference is the control system.

> but the best give
> sporty drivers all the control they need. AFAIK, none of these
> manual-shift autos are available at the price point we're discussing.
>
what price point is that? the prelude had tiptonic-style "manual
control" on the auto. every other auto honda gives a driver excellent
control by moving the selector lever and using the throttle pedal.

so, what about your other snippage? are you going to address the fact
that your criticism is based on a misunderstanding of control systems
and that you don't understand that a given motor will have the same
output regardless of the transmission it's bolted to?

jim beam wrote:
>
> >
> > Are you saying that fuel consumption is identical whether I drive a
> > road (same speed) in a higher or lower gear?
>
> no guy, and nor were you.

Yeah, I was. See repeat performance below.
>
>
> ok, this is where you show you don't know what you're talking about.
> lower revs != lower consumption.

Are you saying that fuel consumption is identical whether I drive a
road (same speed) in a higher or lower gear?

>
> so, what about your other snippage? are you going to address the fact
> that your criticism is based on a misunderstanding of control systems
> and that you don't understand that a given motor will have the same
> output regardless of the transmission it's bolted to?

I understood the OP was searching for a sporty ride with an auto trans.
I stated a torquier engine provides a sportier drive. I stated that
auto trans in economy cars tend to maximize economy by shifting into
high gear as soon as possible.

Can you defeat that by holding at wide open throttle? Sure. How many
idiots drive like that on a routine basis?