is it just me or are honda's underpowered?

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Slicks

Its so easy to get you guys stirred up...

... and put you guys down

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by Slicks

So its a "performance car" with minivan like acceleration? Impressive!

Minivan? Or fastest "minivan" is the Opel Zafira OPC which does 0-100km/h 7"8 seconds and 231km/h. So it still is slower than the Civic Type-R.

There's something else apart from the figures as Matra has said. And anyway, if you don't like this type of the car there are plenty of other options on the market. It isn't worse, it just is different.

[kingofthering]

Originally Posted by Slicks

So its a "performance car" with minivan like acceleration? Impressive!

A Toyota Sienna can out accelerate a 1980's Z28. Does that make the Chevrolet Camaro a piece of crap?

[clutch-monkey]

^ yes.

[v.6]

Originally Posted by roosterjuicer

i was reading a review of the new TSX while pretending to be working and something hit me...honda vehicles are underpowered.

look at the TSX, its supposed to be an alleged luxury car and the top of the line version (30,000$) packs a measly 201 horsepower.

look at the TL, its a midsize luxury sedan and it costs in the high 30,000$ and it only has 270hp (which is a much better deal that the tsx) but compare that to a CTS which for the same price gets you 304hp and once again the honda is underpowered.

The RL which is acura's flag ship only has 300 hp. compare that with other flagships (7-series, A8, S-class) and the acura comes up waaay short. you can even compare it to middle of the line cars like the CTS, 5-series, E class, C class, 335, ect.. and once again it comes up short.

and of course look at the discontinued nsx. that car was waaaaay underpowered compared to its competition.

so what gives? why do people buy acura's when it seems like everyone else offers so much more for the money.

Having been fined over $500 in one day for speeding on the Miami turnpike in a rented PT Cruiser Iam not sure having "power" is the point. You have to have useable power. Remember the Lambo v Evo in Top Gear programme. On regular town roads the Evo could eat the Lambo in handling and getting the power to the wheels in a usable way. The Honda NSX is 270BHP and 160MPH and one of the best handling supercars in the world (plus traction control for those new owners). You can get the power on the road and use it....maybe what you long for is the unachievable...which Honda certainly don't make or sell. PS You better also check your performance stats claims as the NSX has repeatedly beat the Ferrari 348 and Porsche 911 (and done well against the F355 with Type R) on the track...have a look on YouTube for filmed tests also.

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by kingofthering

A Toyota Sienna can out accelerate a 1980's Z28. Does that make the Chevrolet Camaro a piece of crap?

The evidence I have found supports this. Early 80s Z28s had anemic 150ish hp 2 350s that did 0-60mph in 9+ seconds while the Sienna does it quoted by Toyota in 8.3 and tested at 8.7.

That is pretty funny.

[v.6]

[quote=roosterjuicer;793386]i was reading a review of the new TSX while pretending to be working and something hit me...honda vehicles are underpowered.

look at the TSX, its supposed to be an alleged luxury car and the top of the line version (30,000$) packs a measly 201 horsepower.

look at the TL, its a midsize luxury sedan and it costs in the high 30,000$ and it only has 270hp (which is a much better deal that the tsx) but compare that to a CTS which for the same price gets you 304hp and once again the honda is underpowered.

QUOTE]

An old 2003 2.0 Ltr RSX run by a Honda ECU development team set four new performance records. They calculated should they wish they could get 390 bhp out of the unit.
Hondata Sets Four New Records - Japanese Performance Car News

[Turbo.Jenkens]

Originally Posted by Slicks

So its a "performance car" with minivan like acceleration? Impressive!

This minivan makes a Reventón seem a bit slow too

Back to topic. Ultimately I'd say the market decides if Hondas have enough power . The last time I looked outside I saw plenty of Hondas. If you doubt Hondas prowess go drive an S2000, if that doesn't put a smile on your face you should visit a shrink.

To further support the previous "Honda puts down power better" statements:

1998 NSX 290hp
2003 Mustang Cobra 390hp

Eventhough the Mustang has a bigger engine, more cylinders, forced induction, double the torque, and is intended to be fast in a straight line they still share the same 0-60 time.

[RobPorsche]

Originally Posted by roosterjuicer

i was reading a review of the new TSX while pretending to be working and something hit me...honda vehicles are underpowered.


and of course look at the discontinued nsx. that car was waaaaay underpowered compared to its competition.

so what gives? why do people buy acura's when it seems like everyone else offers so much more for the money.

Depending on what way you look at it, they've either got substantial power or maybe not quite enough. For someone that wants to stomp the pedal and go, some models may just be lacking. When it comes to everyday folks though, people love their hondas. Most new ones have plenty of zip, and even the older ones with less power were good, only because they weighed half of what the new ones do. From my personal point of view (and I like to accelerate quickly), I'm not as happy with new hondas because their power hasn't quite grown as quickly as the fat that they've all seemed to put on (new civic Si comes to mind). That said, I'm still an absolute honda fanatic. I love their high revving engines and still would not settle for a different asian import or domestic marque.

As for the NSX, it had plenty of power for how little it weighed, better believe it .

People like to buy hondas because they are extremely reliable cars and generally get away with fairly low amounts of fuel. That of course is all relevant to how you drive too. Just keep the revs below 5200RPM . That can be easier said than done when they sound soo damn good above that number though.

[v.6]

Plus the VTEC cams come alive above 5300!!!

[Slicks]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

Minivan? Or fastest "minivan" is the Opel Zafira OPC which does 0-100km/h 7"8 seconds and 231km/h. So it still is slower than the Civic Type-R.

There's something else apart from the figures as Matra has said. And anyway, if you don't like this type of the car there are plenty of other options on the market. It isn't worse, it just is different.

I'm over exaggerating.
The guy was boasting about slow acceleration times like they were something special, Im just messing around.

Originally Posted by kingofthering

A Toyota Sienna can out accelerate a 1980's Z28. Does that make the Chevrolet Camaro a piece of crap?

Yes, the 80's Fbodies were pretty shitty.

[Slicks]

Originally Posted by Turbo.Jenkens

To further support the previous "Honda puts down power better" statements:

1998 NSX 290hp
2003 Mustang Cobra 390hp

Eventhough the Mustang has a bigger engine, more cylinders, forced induction, double the torque, and is intended to be fast in a straight line they still share the same 0-60 time.

You need to do a little more research there kiddo. The Mustang weighs around 3900lbs, while the NSX is around 3000lbs...
Then take gearing, and obviously where the weight is located.
Really this whole argument is pretty sad, comparing a $30,000 muscle car to a $90,000 sports car, this is not by any means impressive.

[Rotary.freak]

Originally Posted by Slicks

You need to do a little more research there kiddo. The Mustang weighs around 3900lbs, while the NSX is around 3000lbs...
Then take gearing, and obviously where the weight is located.
Really this whole argument is pretty sad, comparing a $30,000 muscle car to a $90,000 sports car, this is not by any means impressive.

Very true as well. He was just trying to prove the point that power isn't as important as it may seem. BTW nobody's stopping Ford from making the Mustang lighter and more agile, it's just a bad move to do so because it would be expensive for Ford and it would also raise the car's price and that's not gonna fly with the people who want Mustang looks but are never gonna drive the car at it's best to actually see the differences.

[Niko_Fx]

Originally Posted by Slicks

You need to do a little more research there kiddo. The Mustang weighs around 3900lbs, while the NSX is around 3000lbs...
Then take gearing, and obviously where the weight is located.
Really this whole argument is pretty sad, comparing a $30,000 muscle car to a $90,000 sports car, this is not by any means impressive.

Cobras' weigh around 3600lbs actually and original invoice price was over $35,000.... doesn't change anything, just wanted to point that out.

Thing is Slicks, if it comes to "bang for the buck" one can always make a Vette Z06 look like the worst deal ever if you consider that you can get the same accel for much, much less with a modified Fox Body. That analogy would never let anybody appreciate a car like the NSX or the Z06 itself.

An NSX is around $300 per HP, while a Ferrari 360 is in the high $300s and a Gallardo at around $440 per hp.... But I don't see anybody calling them overpriced or underpowered considering their price.

I don't know why it is a "pretty sad" argument, you use that kind of argument but in your favor all the time in here

[Slicks]

Originally Posted by Niko_Fx

Thing is Slicks, if it comes to "bang for the buck" one can always make a Vette Z06 look like the worst deal ever if you consider that you can get the same accel for much, much less with a modified Fox Body. That analogy would never let anybody appreciate a car like the NSX or the Z06 itself.

We're talking stock for stock here.

I don't know why it is a "pretty sad" argument, you use that kind of argument but in your favor all the time in here

The argument of the NSX "putting its power down" by comparing it to a $30,000 muscle car is pretty sad(when they supposedly have the same 0-60 time).