A replacement for displacement

[ClarkB]

For What It's Worth:

1970 Buick GS Stage 1
1/4-mile: 13.8 sec
455 cid producing 360 hp and 510 ft-lbs. torque

2008 Honda Accord Coupe V6
1/4-mile: 14.0 sec
212 cid producing 268 hp and 248 ft-lbs torque

If ever there was a modern car that reminded me of a muscle car, this Honda does it.

Obviously not a straight-up, perfect comparison but I think it is fairly accurate. Yes, there were muscle cars made that went faster and the GS could probably go faster with some wrenching on it whereas the Honda, with it's various computer controls, would probably be near impossible to make it run faster. But no muscle car ever went this fast with that small of an engine.

So what is the replacement for displacement? I'm guessing 40 years of technology and innovation are a big chuck of it.

Clark

 

[rriddle3]

...and a lighter weight car? Less weight to hp ratio. BTW, where did those figures come from?

 

[MGregoir]

Well, that GS was rated in gross horsepower rather than net, so it was probably much closer to 300 horsepower.

The Accord weighs around a hundred pounds less, is on radial tires and has traction control plus a lot of weight over those front wheels (nearly as wide as the rear wheels on that GS) to help get that power to the ground. The Accord has less torque but more gears, and the advantage of a computer manipulating the powerband rather than a carb that may or may not be feeding things right. Plus with a driveline that likely has lower parasitic losses, the Accord might not have the brute force but it makes gains everywhere else.

Another is on the top end, the Accord has less frontal area and a lower coeffecient of drag, as well. Most muscle cars were trying to cut through the air with a two by four instead of a sword.

 

[Crashbox]

But IMO there's just nothing like driving a vehicle with a big-block.

 

[MrCritical]

What stands out to me in this is after 38 years of "technology" the Honda only weighs 100 lbs less than a big block Buick?

Manufacturers need to put their money where their mouth is and spend the money on weight reduction, not more efficient engines.

And I'm not just picking on Honda.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: MrCritical
What stands out to me in this is after 38 years of "technology" the Honda only weighs 100 lbs less than a big block Buick?

Try comparing the two in terms of torsional rigidity and crash safety.

 

[ms21043]

Almost 40 years of technological advance will do this. However the Honda IMO, will never look as good as that Buick and will never be a muscle car now or 40 years from now.

 

[ms21043]

BTW, just how much do those Accords weigh? The Buick weighs 4000lbs.

 

[01rangerxl]

It is kind of an apples to oranges comparison. Pit the Accord against a modern vehicle with 7.5L/455 cid of engine... All other things equal (technology, the rest of the vehicle), displacement wins.

 

[cos]

100 lb weight difference? No way, try around 500 lbs.

As for performance, yes they're close out of the box but that Buick could easily be running mid 12's with very little work.

 

[Quest]

IMHO American muscle cars is part of the American history, and it's now one of the collectables.

Technical progress, hall yeah! Modern engines burn cleaner, more efficient, etc. The trouble with weight reduction has to do with ever increasing safety standards (adds weight to the car). You can definitely make an extremely fuel-efficient car (fibre-glass panels, no side-impact beams, no crumple zones, no air bags/SRS, etc.) and you'll ended up like the Citroen 2CV, or a Fiat 500. Yes, you get over 75miles to a gallon but I personally wouldn't wanna ride in one of those cars on American highways.

my 2c's worth.

Q.

 

[rriddle3]

Exactly. I saw a Smart car in a parking lot and thought it was one of those shopping carts with the big built-in plastic cabs for carrying your kids in. No way would I take one of those on a highway.

 

[Rock_Hudstone]

Rerun the test with the Honda engine in the Buick.

 

[MGregoir]

The Honda is 3450 pounds and I have seen the Buick listed around 3550-3600.

 

[Drew99GT]

Is this a joke???

 

[Drew99GT]

Here's replacement for displacement.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qzNdJ3LPu4Y&feature=related

 

[ThirdeYe]

Nice skyline

 

[Shannow]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=120615

 

[ClarkB]

The figures for the Buick came from musclecarclub.com who in turn got their figures from periodicals: Car Craft, Hi-Performance Cars, Hot Rod, etc. The information for the Honda came from Motor Trend's recent comparison of it, the Altima and the Eclipse. They list the weight at 3400 lbs. What I could dig up on the Buick said 3800 lbs.

Since most of you seemed to enjoy that comparison, check out this one.

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Is this a joke???


No it isn't. Cars are now producing more power, putting out fewer emissions, have better economy all with a smaller engine and the cars they power are safer!

Originally Posted By: Rock_Hudstone
Rerun the test with the Honda engine in the Buick.


That would definitely be as sensible as comparing the old cars with new ones! It isn't an apple to apples comparison but the fact is that todays cars can run just as fast as the muscle cars with 1/2 the displacement.

Don't get me wrong, I love the old muscle cars. There is a simple satisfaction with working on your car and being able to improve it's performance (not to mention having room under the hood to work on the engine!) But those days are long gone and the new technology puts today's cars light-years ahead of the muscle cars.

Clark

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: rriddle3
Exactly. I saw a Smart car in a parking lot and thought it was one of those shopping carts with the big built-in plastic cabs for carrying your kids in. No way would I take one of those on a highway.

Please do not compare a Smart to a Citroen 2CV in terms of crash safety.