siegen

The gearing and lower weight of the Civic make up for the lower TQ amount, and people who are looking for this kind of car will pay just as much attention to the EPA mileage numbers (24/32 vs 30/40) as the TQ numbers. The test drive of course will be the deciding factor, and the Civic doesn't have a big disadvantage in the "butt-dyno" area that you may think. The curb weight of the Civic is 2,690, while the Cobalt is 3,216 (these are both the auto version sedans). Then looking at the gearing (with final drives calculated in): Civic 1st - 11.83 2nd - 6.81 3rd - 4.53 4th - 3.20 5th - 2.33 Cobalt 1st - 10.74 2nd - 5.88 3rd - 3.63 4th - 2.47 The Civic has more torque multiplication in 1st gear, yet its 5th gear is taller than the Cobalts 4th gear. In 1st gear at peak TQ, the Civic will be putting 1514 lb-ft of TQ to the front wheels, while the Cobalt will be putting 1664 lb-ft of TQ to the front wheels. Not that big of a difference considering the big difference in curb-weight, the Civic will probably be faster from light to light with a minimal load of passengers (things become different with a full passenger load and 200 lbs of luggage though). And as you already see in the dyno overlay I posted, if they decide to take a couple trips to the red line on some back roads (it could happen!), they will be very pleased with the Civic's higher rev limit and more linear TQ distribution. Packaging? Come on, stop guessing and go to the manufacturers websites and compare features. Performance? I just gave you all the performance information, like I said there's more to a car than its engine. Engines? Honda's engines have been top notch for decades, why would this engine be any different? The price is just right, room is a little less than the Cobalt, and styling is completely subjective. If you ask me, the Cobalt's design is good and solid, but dated.

Why not? The engine is only one part of what makes a car go, not the whole. If you are judging a car entirely by its engine, you are missing the big picture.

128 TQ is just fine for a 1.8L engine, and is equivelant to the 155 TQ the 2.2L engine makes, except the Honda engine has a more linear curve and makes closer to its peak TQ throughout the rev range when compared to the GM engine.

:bowdown: TOYOTA Just playin... :Toyota:

I smell a Troll :)

What? The NSX is distinctly Japanese, and does not look Italian what-so-ever. Italian super cars of that time were boxy, straight-cut and large. The fact that Honda chose to go a completely different route than the usual big engine in a big sports car, and instead went with a super-light, high revving, naturally aspirated car (mid engine none the less), shows a hell of a lot more creativity than the Corvette, doesn't it? Don't get me wrong, the Italian super cars weren't and aren't ugly, but they do not resemble the NSX. Talking about monkey see monkey do. Nice headlights on the Corvettte, wonder where they got the idea from. The NSX was the ultimate Japanese super car when it came out. The fact that the Type R version (JDM only unfortunately) is often compared to other 2000+ super cars, and is still holding its own, despite being a 15 year old design with only moderate chassis and suspension imporvements, is pretty good, don't you think? The new NSX will hopefully be released in the next 2 years, and we can compare that to the current version corvette.

This thing looks like a rediculous version of some vehicle I would find while playing Halo on my friend's Xbox.

The numbers aren't going to match, because they're just numbers. The only comparison I've ever found that had both an NSX and a Corvette in it I can't find anymore. It was the one where they were comparing the Corvette to the Camaro, NSX to S2000, etc, to see if the more expensive car was worth it compared to their lower models. I'm sure someone here has it bookmarked. It showed lap times for all cars. The NSX, S2000, and a bunch of the other cars were in the wet though, if I recall, not sure if the Corvette was. Someone post that up if you have it. The only thing I could find was this video by Best Motoring, which has a slightly outdated comparison. It was the 5.7L V8 powered Corvette vs the previous version Type S NSX. The Corvette averaged 3.3 seconds slower per lap on Motegi. Oh, and before you say it, yes the Z06 will blow the pants off the old 5.7L corvette. But the new NSX Type R will also blow the pants off that old NSX Type S. And any U.S. comparison will likely be reviewing the even slower American NSX. Anyways, you asked when an NSX ever beat a Corvette on a test track, and there you have it :) The Evo 7 averaged 5 seconds faster than the Corvette, and it is the older version as well. The current Evo 9 MR ($36,584) costs half as much as the Corvette Z06 ($67,095), and puts down some very respectable numbers. Maybe because the NSX didn't come out until 1990. The NSX does not sell well because it is expensive, and I don't think a single person would have it any other way. It is rare and that's what makes it so good. Just like the S2000, Honda did not design it to be cheap to build. That means hand built engines, highly tuned suspensions with hundreds of hours of R&D, advanced chassis technology, and incredible performance for their package size. They designed the NSX to be perfect and sell in small quantities. They aren't trying to make money off of these cars, that's what Civics and Accords are for (duh). It is not underpowered either, and neither is any Acura, what the hell are you talking about? The high end K-series engines have the most performance for their size of any naturally aspirated engine. The RL boasts better acceleration times than a great number of V8 powered lux sedans. 0-60 in 6.7 seconds, and a very powerful V6. The TL is even faster due to less weight, and the TSX has been handing BMW's ass to them for quite some time in the SCCA World Challenge. Soul-less? What, like a Corvette has a soul? They're a dime a dozen, I think I see one or two every single day in my 5 mile drive to work.

Thank you Cspec. I overlayed the TQ curves. It's odd because the Civic dyno says right on it that it peaks at 128TQ, yet the graph only shows it peaking at 123TQ. So there's probably a little margin for error. From looking at it, it looks like the Civic's TQ curve is actually flatter and doesn't fall off as bad after 5k rpms. Remember we're only comparing the shape of the TQ curve, not the actual numbers. The Civic is definately less, but it is also almost half a liter smaller. I don't suppose you can rummage up an '06 Accord I4 dyno? It would be a 2.4L, more comparable to the 2.4L ecotec. In fact, the only 2.2L engine Honda has, and it's not quite 2.2 at 2.157L, is the S2000 engine. And I don't think the F22C would make a very good comparison to this engine, lol. Also, from looking at that graph of the Ecotec, I can see they do have VVT, because of the two distinct TQ curves. I found a GM site explaining it somewhat. Does anybody have a more in depth description of its workings? Does it effect cam lobe profiles at all?

Unfortunately manufacturers do not give us any sort of dyno graph, only the peak numbers, so we will have to guess based off of the rpm numbers they give us and the displacement. You are thinking in the correct direction though. Does GM/Chevrolet have a cam-shift or cam timing mechanism in their Ecotec engines? Unfortunately finding 4cyl comparisons is hard, since most Organizations go for the 6cyl comparo's, but I will look for some performance numbers. I was comparing EPA vs EPA. The Honda vehicles usually do very good in respect to their EPA ratings. An 2005 Accord may be harder to find, but will also save you a few grand compared to the 2006 model.

You can't compare the Baja 1000 to a drag race. A lot of the other trucks didn't finish, and it's not uncommon. I think the point they were trying to get is that the Ridgeline did as well as the other trucks, despite being a Honda, having a Honda designed unibody chassis, and having so much criticism from everybody that it's not a real truck and can't off-road worth a damn. They showed that the suspension, tires, and gearing are the main off-road limiting factors (like some magazine reviews have reported), and not the chassis or the badge on the grille. 100% of the people that do serious off roading don't have stock suspension, tires, ride height, differentials or a lot of other things for that matter, even if they own a Jeep or other "good off-roading" vehicle to begin with. I did notice that they danced around the fact that they got stuck at the big hill. Believe me, it annoys me probably more than you guys when someone is overly evangelical about Honda. I'm not entirely interested in trucks, I just like to play the devil's advocate. Edit: And I agree that the "It's a Honda" comment is rather lame <_<

The base model Civic (with 5sp Auto) costs $15,360 and gets 30/40 mpg. The base model Malibu (with 4sp Auto) costs $17,999 and gets 24/32 (more comparable car to the Accord). A more comparable car to the Civic would be the Cobalt. The base model Cobalt Sedan (with 4sp Auto) costs $15,340 and gets 24/32 (the manual gets a little better mileage, but most Sedan buyers will want an automatic). The base model Accord gets 24/34 with a 5sp Auto and costs $19,025 (a little better than the Malibu, but the base model Accord also costs about a grand more than the Malibu). I'm not going to compare features though, you can do that here and here. I will say one thing though, the Accord gets better mileage and has a more powerful higher displacement engine (comparing the 4cyl's). 166 @ 5800 HP and 160 @ 4000 TQ vs 144 @ 5,600 HP and 155 @ 4,000 TQ

That's exactly what was said in the article: "While the tire choice was excellent for the silt crossing and high-speed sections, the sidewalls of the tire were not strong enough to resist the constant battering and slashing from the bigger rocks in the infamous Matomi Wash south of San Felipe. " They weren't trying to hide anything. You must be referring to this article. Something tells me the truck went through a lot tougher conditions than the stock shocks were designed to handle. Road-test vehicles usually get the sh*t beat out of them.

Exactly. Only a small amount of Toyota's cars are put together in the U.S., while a lot of the parts are still being imported from Japan and other places (like you stated). Then there are the cars that are assembled entirely and then imported from Japan. Toyota may make a few assembly plants in the U.S. and employ a few 100k workers, but a lot of their parts come from outside the country, where-as an American manufacturer would get more of their parts inside the U.S. It's just Toyota marketting bull.

Is the bug-eyed front ends becoming a trend on all Toyota's? Something about the size and placement of the front headlights.

AWH man dat's da shiat! Hook me up wit a SKYLINE from JAPAN!! MAAAAN comon, I only got like 5 bucks doh. I be shiftin wit my left hand and goin down da drive throughs bakwards! Hell yeah! Seriously, is advertising allowed on this board?

I was indeed joking. I don't like Toyota at all, and I wish they would stop trying to take over. Their Truck commercials are funny though. :Toyota:

I know. I didn't even bring up Honda in the first place. I'm a Toyota fan after all. Go Toyota! Take the evil American corporations down and assimilate their workers!! It's too late now, recalls or not Toyota is taking over!

I didn't say anything about Honda, and I could care less about Automatic transmissions, lol :lol: Toyota has been growing very fast over the last couple years, and this is what happens when they can't keep up. They're trying to expand quickly in every direction. If Honda or GM did the same thing, chances are they would have trouble as well, although GM may fair better considering they've already been much larger than they are now.

I wonder how these numbers compare to other manufacturing plants.

They're just growing too fast, and this is exactly what happens. If they had slowed it down and not been so pre-occupied with taking down GM, their reputation in the long run would be much better. Aside from all these recalls, I can gaurantee that there are plenty of other mistakes and problems that go unfixed, either because it's not worth it to recall them, or they aren't big enough to notice. Things like inproperly installed gaskets, seals, trim, to un-torqued bolts and nuts, are all things that happen when assembly line workers are pushed and new inexperienced workers are employed in massive numbers. These are the kind of problems that will show up when the current cars get in their 80's to 90k miles 6-8 years down the road (and stuff starts falling off literally), and are what makes people switch from Toyota to another brand when they're looking for a new car. Unfortunately, Toyota's mistakes in the last 6 months will cost them for many years to come, and are not limited to these recalls.

Why does Toyota always place the headlights so high up on the car? It makes the front ends (the Yaris as well) look bug eyed, at least to me.

Man things are getting nasty in here. Back to the Civic that everybody loves!!! :lol: Dealer pricing has just been released on the '06 Si! MSRP is indeed a shade under 20k like Honda promised. Here's a TOV article with more detail. As long as dealers don't gouge on pricing or give significant discounts on the Cobalt, the Si will come in at $19,990, while the Cobalt SS (equiped with side air bag, sun roof, and premium sound system options) will come in at $23,475 (both before destination). I couldn't find the LSD option for the Cobalt, so I don't know if that is included in that price, or if it's an additional dealer charge.

What bothers me is how the EPA ratings for the Prius went from 52/45 in 2001 - 2003, to 60/51 in 2004, and yet people report only a 1 point increase in average MPG between the two year ranges. That is according to www.fueleconomy.gov. I also checked www.priuschat.com, a Prius owner's club, and it seems like mid 40's is very common, even for people who are going very easy on the throttle. Then there are the mid 50's people and the occasional 60 mpg person, but after reading through some posts, high mileage like that is not very common. To compare, the Insight with manual transmission, which is rated by the EPA between 61/70 and 61/66 (depending on year) MPG, gets in the 60's or higher, regardless of city or freeway, according to www.fueleconomy.gov and about 16 users who have reported their mileage.

I think he was being sarcastic :)