I liked the Fiero. I had a silver, base model '84 Fiero back in the early
90's. My father is a mechanic and bought it for $400 with a bad tranny in it. He rebuilt the tranny and gave it to me to drive. It had the plain steel wheels with the stock beauty rings. Even though it was the first year Fiero, it was real dependable. That 2.5 iron Duke was one of the strongest 4 bangers ever, albeit not a very spirited engine. Too bad GM didn't put the high revving Quad 4 in it!
Similar cars from that era which I liked also were the '85 to '90 Subaru XT (wedge shaped, very cool, available in AWD Turbo), Toyota MR2 (4AGE 16V DOHC 1600cc engine that redlined at 7500), Corolla GT-S (same engine as the MR2), Nissan Pulsar NX, Isuzu Impulse, and the Mitsubishi Starion.
Two friends of mine bought new white Corolla GT-Ss. The first was kind of boxy with square headlights. The second (a couple of years later) was sleeker with pop-up headlights. Both of these cars looked great in white, and the second one was one of the first cars I noticed where the factory painted everything body colored (incl. mirrors). These Corollas were really sharp looking, IMO.
Someone who worked in the same building bought a new red Dodge Conquest TSi (aka Mitsubishi Starion). Man, I loved how this car looked! It's hard to find decent pics of these cars today and even when I do, the car looks a little dated. But I remember how they made my jaw drop the very first time I saw them. Not too many cars do this to me anymore, although maybe being in my late-'30s I'm just not as interested.
Simply put, the Ion is a mediocre car. Saturn is so close to be a complete failure, wouldn't it be the VUE's revival, thanks to Honda's V6.
Of course, what I said is not objective. And I don't think that a car's evaluation has to be objective. the car has to show balance, enough to make you forget about the car's weak points. In the case of the Ion, it can't.
My theory is that the Ion is just too ugly, compared to the '96 to '02 SL series and compared to the new Civic, Kia Sephia, Dodge Neon, etc.. It looks better than the Corolla though. The '96 to '99 Saturns, IMHO, were wonderfully styled.
The honda v6 isnt special believe me. Its power band is way to high for a suv.
IMHO the ones you named off are far behind saturn in looks. Hell saturns way ahead of most of those in crash test and thats not an opinion. Kia's are coffins period. People buy Kia's because their stupid enough to fall for that 10yr warranty crap. Nothing else is a factor to them. There are 2 Ion body styles anyhow. The coupe and sedan look nothing alike.
Specially low-end oomph? Pfft...I know what I'm talking about, I dont buy trucks/suv's that need to be whined out to 5000rpm to reach their powerband to get a load moving. Get with it. You might enjoy working an engine at ridiculously high and wastefull rpms but I do not. Its just more wear and tear.
Lets see... Peak torque at 3600rpm's or peak torque at 4500rpms. Which eng> You obviously don't know what you are talking about. It has specially > low-end ooomph.
They excel at engines with their torque and HP peaks being uselessly high for a street car. Witness the S2000, the car that's downright dangerous to merge onto a highway with unless the engine's going at least 6 grand.
Given the way Hondas are now, I'd hate to imagine what they'd be like without VTEC (which is a shitty way to vary timming anyway), given VTEC's supposed advantage is a broader powerband, though it's only real advantage is marketing.
Oh yes, and is it too much to ask for an automatic that can make up it's mind what gear it's in?
To the contrary of popular belief, all Honda have a relatively flat torque curve. Even the B16a on old Civic Si. Except that with sub 2L and specialized vehicles like S2000, we are not talking about an high value.
But the big 4 like the 2.3-2.4L and V6 are fairly torquey at low-end.
I owned a non-VTEC and a VTEC Accords. The VTEC one had a much better sound at high RPM and was slightly more powerful. Behind the obvious marketing value, there is a technical point with VTEC. Now with i-VTEC std on RSX/Si-R/Accord 4 cyl., the variable timing system is no longer at only high RPM.
If you are only looking at the peak torque, you don't know the whole story. It is possible that the Honda V-6 has a very flat torque curve and that it has plenty of torque at
3600 and 4500. Without a torque curve you can't know the whole story. For this engine, as used int he Pilot, Honda claims a "broad torque cure" that "provides plenty of torque across a wide rpm range."
I've never driven one (but would like too), however after seeing Mitsubishi's Evo with 19lbs of boost and 271 hp for $26k I think the Zero (insert sarcasm) would be more of a hoot to drive.
np. The latest issue of Car & Driver says it "...provides much better midrange response, and the longer stroke brings operating RPM down from the stratosphere."
Yeah, that'd be a trip. I'm not looking for anything that hot and I'm a small wagon fan (current ride is a '94 SW2), so I'm fairly annoyed at Mitsubishi for their decision to not put the manual tranny in the Lancer Ralliart Sportback. (Meanwhile, the Mazda 3 would be $18k equipped how I want it...hmmm.)
The Pilot engine is a 3.5 L V6 so compare it to something similar, say the 3.4L V6 in the Chevy Venture.
The Chevy engine produces 210 ft*lb at 4000. The Honda engine produces 242 ft*lb at 4500.
The Chevy engine produces 185hp at 5200. The Honda engine produces 240hp at 5400.
As pointed out, the Honda has a very flat torque curve and certainly has more that 210 ft*lb at 4000. In fact, I would wager that it has more power at any rpm. It isn't uncommon for a VTEC engine to have
90% of peak torque from ~2500 to near redline. (Don't know about this particular engine.)
Some people think that hen you increase the torque at higher rpm without affecting torque at lower rpm that this somehow makes the engine worse. They are stupid.
This is such a sweeping statement that it is pretty hard to respond to. I dont know which Hondas or domestics you have driven. But even taking it at face value, so what? I dont think you will find many Honda fans who think that taking the engine to high rpms is a burden. If it bothers you, don't buy one.
There isn't?
I don't think that it is Honda's fault that Chevy is still selling 10+ year old engine technology, but OK...
I would bet that the Honda has less than 220 ft*lb at 3200. Your complaint seems to be that the Honda produces too much torque at higher rpm, not that it delivers too little at 3200.
Uh, 240 - 200 = 40 (That is 20% more for the Honda.)
So it kicks ass by producing 20% less hp and 10% less torque?
What is involved in "dealing with" VVT (and lift BTW)? There is no extra maintenance and the system has essentially perfect reliability - never heard of a failure.
Could you enlighten us regarding your experience with how engines that produce the same power at lower rpm and more power at higher rpm are worse?
I don't have a torque curve for the 3.5, but here is an independent measurement (taken through the wheels) for the Honda 3.0.
formatting link
that the engine produces 185 - 195 ft*lb (ie, at least 95% ofpeak torque) at any rpm between 1900 and 6100. Torque at 1500 rpm isabout 90% of peak. When you figure in a 10% loss through the drivetrain, the lower end of the torque curve is just about identical tothe GM motors you posted at the bottom end (despite 14% lessdisplacement.) At the top end, the Honda is still producing 90% ofpeak torque at 6400 - 600 rpm past the GM redline. The result is 60to 70 additional hp but you don't *have* to use if you just want toequal the GM's performance. Here is a torque curve from a VTEC 4 to further illustrate the broad torque peak:
The S2000 was changed this year because the perfect sportscar had no bottom end. Everyone who I've talked to who's driven one says the same thing - at low RPMs, it's a dog.
They work so much that GM is now purchasing V6s from Honda. I don't agree with your last part. GM said recently that after one year, they are very pleased with the deal. It has contributed to increase dramatically the VUE sales.
ffrom my experiance honda customers are not any brighter. they treat their cars like refrigerators like every one else. just give it some thought as to what happens when you rev an engine higher than what would be considered normal mr satyr. you draw more air and fuel and work the engine harder and create more friction. all of that is an impediment to being more effeciant. what is the point of a smaller displacement engine if it has to move as much air as a larger displacement engine to make up for what it lacks. i think that was the point being made.
no and thats probably a good thing when it comes to repairs, if those engines ever need it.
no but from my experiance gms techs got it good. no timing belts to replace, no pulling off a bunch of other belts just to replace a silly timing belt. gm was using coil packs in the 80s. honda kept running caps and rotors for ever. those damn timing chains in gm v motors last for ever. i dont know how many jumped timing belts i have delt with. gm has kept it simple and still keeps their old technology efficient. since its old tech parts have to be easy to find instead of waiting for parts to arive in the shop from who knows
i think he ment it kicks ass because it is not impeded by cumbersome technology that i deal with all to much.
hell yeah that vvt has alerted many honda drivers that there was something wrong. if they did not bring their cars in on those check engine lights they would lock those engines up. that vvt solenoid needs oil to work. without it there would be no warning to low oil levels because the oil pressure sending unit will be happy with way less than a quart of oil in the system. give it up for vvt. now if only those pesky pcvs would stop failing and sucking oil out of the crank case it wouldnt be as much of a problem. although the vvt does make itmore crowded in there.
yeah give it up for engine wear and more suck and blow. if it wasnt for vvt honda engines would still be dogs. whats funny is gm has their ls1 which makes monster power but gets over 30mpg. strange is it not? and its amazingly easy to change the plugs on them from what ifound with one rare experience i got to workon 1. the more i see of gm things the more i think displacement and less moving parts is the way to go. i guess thats why honda engines keep getting bigger. i once read where a 2000 something firebird in 6th gear doing 65mph on the highway would pull itself upto 80mph without touching the gas pedal do to so much engine torque. i do not know of any hondas thta are able to do that.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.