A replacement for displacement

[Tosh]

Originally Posted By: ClarkB
Originally Posted By: javacontour
As a car enthusiast, I cannot help but be impressed in the progress made in 40 years in the automotive world.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have one of those big cube muscle cars.

But I can also appreciate how far we've come since 1970, and give props where they are deserved.

Modern carmakers, including Honda deserve credit for the advances we've made since 1970, IMO.


Well said javacontour.

Today's engines are far advanced and improved from yesteryear's. The simple fact I was trying to bring out in my apples to oranges comparison is that today's cars go just as fast as yesterday's muscle cars with 1/2 the displacement.

If you can get over the fact that they don't make as much torque (but quite obviously make up for it on the upper end of the RPM range) when you stomp the peddle you are closer to understanding how different, and for 95% of all normal uses, better today's engine are.

Clark

I agree with progress being made between 1970 and 1991 (think: '91 SAAB 9000 Turbo, Acura Legend, BMW M5), but think it's effectively stood still since then. What do cars have now they didn't have in 1991? GPS and HID? Big whoop!

 

[javacontour]

It hasn't stood still. While the motor technology hasn't changed all that much, there have still been some changes. Variable port intakes are more common, with two sets of runners to tune for best airflow, likewise for exhaust. Emissions have been greatly reduced even since 1991. OBD-II is a benefit, as the common codes are unified, meaning fewer readers for folks who want to DIY.

There are advances in stability control, airbags, traction control and other things as well.

The introduction of Hybrid technology is a good thing.

There are still lots of innovations since 1991 that have improved the automobile, while leaving out GPS and On-Star.

 

[Win]

I don't have any issues with higher revving engines - the short stroke V12 in my Xj12 sounds pretty fierce as it winds up (it also has stump pulling low end torque, the 4L80E is programmed to launch in second gear unless it's in sport mode, and the redline is to protect the torque convertor - not the engine). I just don't think a low torque engine is really made any better by producing its low torque at a high rpm.

It's a shame the Contour did not do better here - Americans clamor for better cars from domestic automakers, Ford gives them a home run small car, and they turn up their collective noses at it ....

 

[javacontour]

I did my part, I owned 3 of them

 

[glennc]

Originally Posted By: Win
But, really, 162 lbs/ft, 168 lbs/ft, what's the big deal? Either way, it's nothing to get excited about, no matter how high an rpm it winds up to. As far as I am concerned, a high winding gutless engine is just a more annoying version of a gutless engine.


An engine that makes exactly half the torque at exactly double the rpm can run gearing exactly half as tall. In that case both engines would supply exactly the same torque to the wheels. The only way you could tell them apart would be the sound.

What is more important to the feel of the acceleration is the torque curve. If it peaks low then gradually tapers off, it feels like a torquey engine. If it builds steadily to a high peak it feels like a high-revving engine. But in either case you could get exactly the same feel with different numbers, higher or lower, and a compensating change in gearing.

Some good examples of very torquey modern engines are the low pressure turbos, which can provide peak torque at below 2,000rpm. I believe the Audi family of 1.8T and 2.0T engines are like this. Another great modern torquer that we are not yet able to enjoy here in the US except in extremely limited applications so far is the turbodiesel. BMW's 3.5l for example is rated at something like 300hp and 500lb-ft of torque (I may be off on the torque a bit but it's in the ballpark and huge). That is very serious low-down pulling power that would put just about any muscle car of the '60's/'70's to shame in any contest without ever revving past 4500.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Tosh
I agree with progress being made between 1970 and 1991 (think: '91 SAAB 9000 Turbo, Acura Legend, BMW M5), but think it's effectively stood still since then. What do cars have now they didn't have in 1991? GPS and HID? Big whoop!


I don't think that's very accurate at all.

The V12 in my 1994 Xj12 is pretty plain vanilla - 2V SOHC, 4 speed auto transmission, ram horn intakes; mechanical throttles; [censored] Marellli ignition system, no torque control (it could use it), no electronic suspension or stability control; a bunch of computers all wired together with wire; conventional steel body panels and frame welded and bolted together, two airbags.

Fast forward ten years: The Xj8 I got for the wife was considerably less money, it's got a high compression small V8 that can match the HP of the V12 (but not the torque) and gets 20 mpg around town and 30+ mpg on the highway where the V12 can barely make 11 and 16 mpg; 4V DOHC; variable cam phasing, variable intake tuning; coil on plug ignition, six speed automatic; electronic throttle with traction control; computer controlled suspension that is nothing short of astonishing, fibre optic data bus; airbags out the wazoo; and state of the art construction of aluminum glued together aircraft style - the most rigid car I've ever been in - nothing else even comes close.

As the original poster noted - these ARE the glory days of cars; the progress is nothing short of astonishing by all car makers.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Win
It's a shame the Contour did not do better here - Americans clamor for better cars from domestic automakers, Ford gives them a home run small car, and they turn up their collective noses at it ....


AGREED!
They were too busy falling all over each other to buy other, non-American nameplated sludge pigs, since of course, ALL domestics had to be pure S***.
Sound about right??

My bet is that they will do the same to the new Malibu, despite it being MUCH better looking than (YES, subjective, I know, too bad) superior to, AND more competitively priced than their sacred, beloved Nippon Giant's 'refrigerator on wheels'.
Nope, no brainwashed sheeple in this country.

 

[javacontour]

One of the problems with the Contour is FORD didn't support it.

They wanted to sell SUV's in the late '90s as well pushing the Taurus. So you could get a Taurus for less than the Contour. The Taurus was bigger, and often cheaper.

No wonder it didn't sell.

Dump 'em in rental car fleets and de-content them every year and the car is destined to fail.

 

[glennc]

I remember the Contour finishing below average in magazine comparison tests and also, if I recall correctly, having pretty poor reliability results. I don't mean to bash the Contour but if you are going to bash people for not buying something then it seems that would not be a good one to pick. Looking at resale values, if nothing else, those people made a reasonable decision.

 

[ms21043]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: ms21043
Originally Posted By: byez
Honda S2000 2 Litre 4 cylinder 240 hp with a 9000rpm redline. The replacement for displacement is gearing and/or turbo.


Now that's impressive, 240 horsepower from a NA 2 liter that anyone can drive and it meets all emission requirements.

Listen to this one it sounds great, not so much that guy in the first 30 seconds of the clip.


And the torque number is .... an unimpressive 162 lb/ft @ 6800 rpm. Being a Japanese car, even that anemic number is probably overrated.

That engine would have a tough time busting a tight lug nut loose.


We're not using a S2000 to pull a 25 foot boat here, in a light car the horsepower number is of more relevance. The S2000 will do the 1/4 mile in about 14.3 seconds, not bad. IMO, 120 horsepower per liter without forced induction is impressive. To put that in perspective a 440 cu inch or 7.2 liter engine making 120 horsepower per liter would be making 864 horsepower.

Here's 2 cars with similar weights and torque numbers, one has a higher horsepower rating and is much faster.

1990 Corvette L98: 245 hp, 350 lb-ft, 3380 lb, 3.33:1 FDR
1996 Corvette LT4: 330 hp, 340 lb-ft, 3388 lb, 3.45:1 FDR

1990 Corvette L98: 0-60 6.0s, 0-100 16.9s, 1/4 mi in 14.5 @ 96.5 mph
1996 Corvette LT4: 0-60 5.1s, 0-100 12.7s, 1/4 mi in 13.7 @ 104 mph

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: glennc
I remember the Contour finishing below average in magazine comparison tests and also, if I recall correctly, having pretty poor reliability results. I don't mean to bash the Contour but if you are going to bash people for not buying something then it seems that would not be a good one to pick. Looking at resale values, if nothing else, those people made a reasonable decision.


I don't think I'm bashing the consumers when my opening statement is that not even Ford supported the car.

The car was not as reliable as it's Japanese competitors.

But my bashing, if you must call it that, is reserved for Ford, and their lack of support for the car.

When the car came out, it was met with rave reviews. But people didn't like it, and quality suffered, not to mention de-contenting.

 

[glennc]

Sorry, I was responding to the previous post. Should've quoted.

The Contour was a perfectly good car in a very competitive field as far as I can tell, and the SVT in particular got some fairly good press.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: glennc
Sorry, I was responding to the previous post. Should've quoted.

The Contour was a perfectly good car in a very competitive field as far as I can tell, and the SVT in particular got some fairly good press.


Yes, java, he was referring to me.
And yes, I'm sorry, I went a little overboard on the opinions/criticism.

(Something I promised myself I was NOT going to do on here from now on, as long as I am not provoked by the blind domestic bashers/Nippon & import worshippers.

)

 

[Kernel Potter]

Originally Posted By: javacontour

Which is almost meaningless the way you approached it.

First, you cite SOME number, but say it's not complete, but fail to give any comparative figures for any other car maker.

You bias is exposed, not to mention your methodology flawed.

A better stat would be to look at engines, not cars, as the same engine may be installed in any number of vehicles, and to look at all of the engines for a number of car makers to give a valid comparison.

For all we know, it could be the same engine in those 5 vehicles, and out of all of Hondas engines, only one was impacted by the change in how torque is measured.

Plus, you have to prove that the engine was not changed from the previous year. If you cannot prove that, then your statement is is totally worthless, and in my opinion, simply demonstrates your bias against Honda.

After all, you didn't do the same sorts of research for other brands that you may view more favorably. It appears you found what appeared to you to be a negative, and then stopped doing research, by your own admission.

So it appears your mind is already made up. Which is fine, it's your money.

But I simply want to point out that your criticism is by no stretch of the imagination, objective or balanced.


Javacontour, it's quite hilarious how you hold me to being unscientific regarding my observations on Honda advertised hp figures. There's two strong issues here. (1.)More strict testing by the SAE because they knew they were being played. Not to mention auto companies were being sued for those published figures.

(2.)Horsepower figures going down the very next year in a way not seen since the Gross hp to SAE conversion in 1972. A VERY strong correlation to my claims.

Yet look at the way you've gone on about holding me accountable for my observations and theory. The extent and detail you have gone to in your post makes it look like you're a lawyer working for Honda. It appears you're the one with the serious bias issues. Just look at the fanatical bias in your signature.

 

[1sttruck]

"An engine that makes exactly half the torque at exactly double the rpm can run gearing exactly half as tall. In that case both engines would supply exactly the same torque to the wheels. The only way you could tell them apart would be the sound."

And maybe by how long they last. A friend has a Chevy medium duty tuck with a 350 that is geared to redline at about 55mph in order to handle the load, and the truck is on it's second engine in less than 80k miles. A small car with a small engine for better mileage would be a specialty car for us as we're a family of five with a big dog. When we've purchased a new vehicle it's been to eventually replace the current family vehicle, so each one has needed to be able to haul the family around. The truck was an exception as it was intended to be a large enough vehicle to avoid having to take two vehicles, and it's intended to be the only large vehicle that we'll ever need to buy. A small car with a small engine would end up being used to drive our family up and own the hill that we live on, a task that resulted in a Civic lasting 120k miles.

As the kids move out we can get by with smaller vehicles and will have more models to choose from, but so far I find a higher torque / lower revving engine more useful fow hauling loads, and a higher HP / higher revving engine more useful for faster acceleration. Combustion efficiency seems to result in shorter stroke / higher revving gesoline engines, while diesels seem to do well with lower revs due to higher torque from the higher compression and turbos commonly employed.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Kernel Potter
Yet look at the way you've gone on about holding me accountable for my observations and theory. The extent and detail you have gone to in your post makes it look like you're a lawyer working for Honda. It appears you're the one with the serious bias issues. Just look at the fanatical bias in your signature.

Sorry, but he's right, and your reasoning is slightly flawed -- especially when you start saying that the level of detail in his posts indicates bias, which is absurd.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
And maybe by how long they last. A friend has a Chevy medium duty tuck with a 350 that is geared to redline at about 55mph in order to handle the load, and the truck is on its second engine in less than 80k miles. A small car with a small engine for better mileage would be a specialty car for us as we're a family of five with a big dog. When we've purchased a new vehicle it's been to eventually replace the current family vehicle, so each one has needed to be able to haul the family around. The truck was an exception as it was intended to be a large enough vehicle to avoid having to take two vehicles, and it's intended to be the only large vehicle that we'll ever need to buy. A small car with a small engine would end up being used to drive our family up and own the hill that we live on, a task that resulted in a Civic lasting 120k miles.

In both of these examples, the problem seems to be that the engine was run at or near the envelope for extended periods of time. I don't think it's revs per se, but overall stress (including load) over long stretches of time. The Chevy engine was not made to sit at red line, and the Honda engine was not made to travel long uphill stretches while fully loaded on a regular basis.

That doesn't mean there are no engines that could handle such duty without a problem. If an engine is used for its intended purpose and maintained in the intended manner, it will last as long as intended. Lots of revs, lots of load, or lots of both will not be a problem for an engine that is designed and maintained to handle it.


Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
As the kids move out we can get by with smaller vehicles and will have more models to choose from, but so far I find a higher torque / lower revving engine more useful fow hauling loads, and a higher HP / higher revving engine more useful for faster acceleration. Combustion efficiency seems to result in shorter stroke / higher revving gesoline engines, while diesels seem to do well with lower revs due to higher torque from the higher compression and turbos commonly employed.

Well said.

 

[BuickGN]

I own an Acura TL and I can tell you that the hp was decreased from 280 something to 258 in 06 due to the new hp rating system which caused them to be more honest. I've raced the ex's 05TL with my 06 and my 06 will usually edge it out. Honda cheated with hp ratings, end of story.

I believe the Z06 picked up 5hp from the new ratings.

I like my TL for what it is. I don't like having to downshift two gears just to move around in traffic. I hate that it has no power under 5,500rpm and it's considered one of the torquier Honda products.

The Buick on the other hand feels like it would pull just fine with a direct drive to the axle. I can acclerate effortlessly in OD with the TCC locked at 2Krpm. Open it up and it will put you in the seat harder at 110mph than the TL will from a dead stop.

It's an insult to compare the GS to an Accord. Hondas (and Acuras) are great for getting from point A to point B but they will never be collectable. Don't forget the old Buick ran a 13.8 with it's old hard skinny tires. Put slicks on both cars and watch the Buick run bottom 13s while the Accord will remain unchanged or possibly slower.

From personal experience, I got my V6 Buick into the 12s with less than $300 in engine mods and 11s for ~$1,500. Try that in an Accord. Did I mention 10s on the stock bottom end? For what it took to run 11s in the Buick, the Honda is now running 13.8s.

I think a look at a modern large displacement car like the 505hp 7.0 Z06 would be more appropriate. 10.9 ETs bone stock with drag radials. Sort of blows the Accord away.

 

[rationull]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
A small car with a small engine would end up being used to drive our family up and down the hill that we live on, a task that resulted in a Civic lasting 120k miles.


1sttruck, I can remember you writing this in other posts too and I was always curious, what exactly happened to the Civic after 120k miles? Were the rings shot from having to run in 3rd gear at highway speeds a lot, or did something fail more catastrophically?

I ask this as someone who drives a civic up a big hill every day. I want to know what I have to look forward to

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
I think a look at a modern large displacement car like the 505hp 7.0 Z06 would be more appropriate. 10.9 ETs bone stock with drag radials. Sort of blows the Accord away.


More like 10.9s bone stock on the [censored] stock runflats!!

Low 10.7s on drag radials bone freaking stock!!!

Sort of blows everything/anything (stock) on the road away.
Oh yeah, it turns left and right pretty well also.

All the while getting upper 20s mpg on the highway.

Don't even get me started on the ZR1.
Let's just say there are going to be some VERY embarassed rides costing 10x as much.
So much for 'low-tech' domestic 'inferiority'.






[/quote]