siegen

Good review.

Looks like someone took a current 3-series coupe, lowered it, put ugly aftermarket side mirrors on it, and an ugly front headlight conversion. But then the whole dimensions of the thing look off. Looks like they put the shell of the car on about 6 inches too far back, and then just said "f it" and cut new holes of the wheels.

For some reason, it looks like it has old minivan syndrome. I can't put my finger on it, maybe it's the shape or black painted pillars.

Not by much, and that's the problem. The car is advertised and marketted based off of its fuel economy, which is supposed to be around 60mpg. Yet from my own observations it's more around 45mpg (surfing Prius owner's sites/forums and www.fueleconomy.gov), and I was just watching the news, and they said Consumer Reports rated its city mileage in the mid to high 30's. Giving the Prius the benefit of the doubt, and say it does average 45mpg. You can buy a new Civic, equally equipped and same size, for a few grand less, and acheive high 30's. And consider if Consumer Reports is right, or you just have a lead foot, the difference between the hybrid Prius and gasoline Civic is next to nothing. It's just not worth it, and thankfully the new EPA regulations will prove it. I'm sure Toyota will do something so it doesn't take as big of a hit, like actually improve the real world performance of the car, at 60-70 mph.

But 100% of Toyota cars don't get their EPA rated mileage Seriously though, are they including all of the trim levels or just the manual ones (base models)? I'd assume they're not including any automatics (either Toyota or Chevy) since those usually get a few ticks less mpg (like 29mpg for the V6 Accord LX Auto).

2008 is too long to wait! Think of how many Prius's will already be out on the roads by then!!

It does get tiring with Honda getting all these awards and definately not deserving any of them at all. I only wish I could prove it using subjective viewpoints and personal opinion, rather than direct comparisons, facts, numbers, and actually going out and viewing the vehicles in person and driving them.

Apparently Honda's Alabaster Silver Metallic wasn't dull enough, so she had to switch to the Toyota, which holds the industry benchmark in most boring color lineup, something they're very proud of.

Their marketting says otherwise. But maybe that's just Canada, eh? :)

Wow, we did get off track there. :blink: :Toyota: Damn lying bastards! 2hp is 2hp! I'll go test drive one and ask the saleman how much HP it makes. To which he will definately reply "270HP". Then I'll say: "Hmm, it feels more like 268 HP, are you sure?". lol

The axle ratio doesn't really say anything. You need to take each gear ratio and multiply by the final drive, to get the actual TQ multiplication in each gear. Then if you want to take it to the next step, find an accurate dynochart of each engine, and make a thrust curve chart (showing how much actual TQ is being put to the ground in each gear up to a certain MPH). Then you will be able to see which one is faster based off gearing. Of course then things like traction, drivetrain loss, aerodynamics, and other factors come into play. Just from looking at that information, it could be either cars game, they look very similar.

Do you have more information on the specifics of the test?

Does it fly?

Man, the new Camry has a lot of nice features. The engines are powerful and the mileage is still good. I hope Honda has something really big planned for the Accord in 2007-8. Because I don't know if the 3.0L in the current Accord is going to be able to complete, with lower output and lower mileage than Toyota 3.5L.

I don't consider Toyota a great engine manufacturer. They can build high tech advanced engines, they have the technology (like their F1 engines), but they choose the more cost-effective route instead. If gmrebirth is correct, and they put the same damn engine into their Camry and Lexus car, then that is a perfect example of this.

Yes it is. Maybe my expectations of Toyota are too high.

The Lexus runs best on premium fuel, because it uses more aggressive timing, C/R, piston design, etc. Toyota recommends regular for the 210 hp Camry because they designed it to run off of regular (87 octane). This is very common. Generally someone who is buying a Lexus will have more cash or won't mind paying more for fuel. The Toyota on the other hand, will appeal to a lot more buyers who do not want to spend anymore than they have to at the pump. The required fuel is often times a selling point between two very similar cars, as it effects the overall ownership cost of the car. The Lexus will be faster due to the modifications to the engine, but will require a higher octane rated fuel. It does not matter that they are the same displacement or have a similar engine code. Just because a manufacturer gives an engine a similar engine code, does not mean it is similar. Honda has 3 different versions of their k20 engines (all 2.0L) ranging from 160-220hp. You wouldn't know the difference unless you looked at the whole engine code and knew the difference between k20a, k20a2, and k20a3. "Minor tuning" can account for those big differences in same-displacement engines. Like I said above, differences in intake, exhaust manifold, head design, timing, compression ratio (the higher end models usually require higher octane), and when a VVT mechanism is involved, the differences can be even more. In Honda's case, they have two very different versions of their vtec mechanism. One aimed at economy and one aimed at performance. You can guess which engines get which version :)

You're looking at that statement in the wrong way. If a car requires 91 octane, it's because its compression ratio, timing, or other variable require it. If you use less than the required octane, the knock sensor will have the ECM retard the timing, to prevent knocking (preignition). If a car requires 87 octane, if you use a higher octane rated fuel, it will not increase performance. The only circumstances under which using a higher rated octane than the manufacturer suggests to increase performance, is if the manufacturer made a mistake and rated it too low to begin with. The Camry probably does not have the same engine as its Lexus counterpart. The Lexus probably has a better flowing head, intake manifold, exhaust manifold, etc. It probably has changes in its timing and c/r to increase power (which is why it requires higher octane rated gasoline). Why they both rated the same before the new SAE standards, I don't know.

Hmm. Do you have proof of the different octane usage? From my understanding, the difference in the new SAE testing standards had to do with accessory usage during the tests. Now cars are tested with all accessories running (or something to that effect). There's a good possibility that the Toyota uses belt driven accessories, while the Lexus has electric accessores (electric A/C and P/S pumps), which have less drivetrain loss than their belt-driven counterparts. That would give results like the difference in HP/TQ from the Toyota to the Lexus after the new SAE testing numbers. Unless Toyota didn't choose the correct octane originally, it would not effect the output of the engine.

The weight is important, but Aerodynamics play a big role as well. The Corvette has a very small frontal area compared to the Cadillac, and the rear windshield slope doesn't create drag like a normal sedan or coupe does (air doesn't detach from the contour of the body so much). I imagine the underbody has significant improvements when compared to a Cadillac as well, since the Corvette is designed to see speeds well over 100mph. This is probably why you see the most difference in the highway mileage.

I think people are referring to "revs easily" when the car is in a gear. It boils down to engine power, having a flat torque curve, and gearing. A car that has a flat TQ curve will rev evenly and quickly up to its redline (how quickly depends on the gearing and the TQ amount). A car that has its TQ drop off after its early peak will not rev as easily since the acceleration either tops off or slows down as the car revs higher (depends on how fast the TQ drops compared to the RPMs). Hondas almost always have flatter TQ curves than their non-VVL/VVT counterparts, and usually make a peak HP number that occurs much later because of this (as long as the TQ curve stays flat, the HP will keep rising as RPMs rise, hp = tq * rpm / 5252). So that is why you always hear people saying they "rev easier".

Thanks for that pdf Evoc. Probably the image that goes along with owning one of the "big trucks". Or the idea of safety. I imagine as Honda stays in this segment longer, they will gain consumer confidence.

The way Dodge advertises it though, you'd think it was something amazing. Has the design changed much since it was originally introduced for automotive engines?

I don't know, moon roofs are very nice, I wouldn't give mine up. The Mazda3 costs considerably more and gets considerably less mileage. The Mazda3 and Civic EX are aimed at opposite ends of this segment. The Civic Si would have been a better comparison to the Mazda3, aside from the number of doors.

Sorry Razor, I was getting you and Reg a little mixed up. I didn't miss the point though. GM is good at making engines with low end TQ that still get very good mileage. Honda designs engines very differently. I think 95% of the people on this board who bash the Civics for not making a high peak TQ number (without looking at the displacement and curb weight), do not understand how a car and all of its components work together (transmission, unsprung weight, electric-drive accessories, etc). I also think 95% of the people that bash Honda's in general haven't even driven one. My 1.8L makes enough TQ in the low RPMs (below 3krpms) to get my 2700lb car around town very quickly, and still get 27mpg (which is above its EPA rated city mileage). I do have a direct comparison, which is a 2.0L Ford Escort which I drive almost every week, and is significantly slower around town, yet weighs 250 lbs less, has a peak TQ number that occurs over a 1450rpms sooner (at 3750 rpms), and has a cam profile that favors the low rpms. Both cars have similar mileage (78k and 87k) and gears (5sp manual). Shouldn't the Escort be faster below 3krpms at part throttle? Putting a more aggressive profile camshaft(s) into a GM engine won't give the same effect, because low rpm power and idle will suffer. The variable valve lift mechanism gives these Honda engines very flat TQ curves (like I showed on page 10) as compared to a one TQ curve/one cam profile engine. This mechanism is not the same as a VVT mechanism, which only varies the timing. I think it has more to do with cost and profit than being behind in technology. GM could incorperate a lot of technology into their engines if they wanted to, but they do not have the ability to mass-produce the engines and keep them price competative. Honda has been doing it since the 80's (high technology head designs that is), they have F1 to test new technologies, and they don't have as much overhead as GM does (with the unions and all).