siegen

Looks very nice. Showed it to the guys at the shop and they like it a lot (and two of them are big Chevy guys). What's so great about a "Hemi" anyways? :blink: If I have to sit through more Dodge "Hemi" commercials, I'm going to go insane. :wacko:

So you're saying TQ past 5krpms doesn't matter? Even in a family car? The way I see it, there are two ways of building a family-sedan engine (aside from F/I). Use more displacement, so you don't have to worry about high end TQ (since your engine produces the same amount of usable TQ [HP] in the lower rpms as the competition), or you can use less displacement, but use technologies to allow the engine to breathe in the higher rpms, so you can create power on demand and achieve better fuel economy in the low rpms. These are the two different approaches GM and Honda took, and they are very different. In these family sedans, doesn't economy matter more than performance? First you're commenting on how the base Cobalt performs better in WOT tests than the base Civic, then you're saying these cars never see WOT or above 5krpms. Stop contradicting yourself. When I say power on demand, when the throttle is floored (in an auto), the transmission will put the engine into the rev range where it makes the most power. The Civic's powerband is peakier than the Cobalts, but it also has a 5sp transmission, with a shorter gear split than the Cobalt's.

You mean this test right? Haha, what a laugh. They compared the high end Mazda3 sport version against the base model Civic (2.3L vs 1.8L engines). The Civic had a $3,000 less as tested price, and acheived much better fuel mileage than the Mazda3 (despite those lead-feet). This was an "economy sedan" comparison, right? The Civic apparently won then, since economy usually refers to cost and efficientcy. Maybe Edmunds forgot what the comparison was about, or what the Civic is designed for. A better comparo would have been a 4-door Si and the Mazda3. Unfortunately we don't have a 4-door Si (yet?...). You can thank the Civic's flat powerband for that. Or the Cobalt's major drop in TQ at 5,000rpms, no upper rpm performance, which is where small displacement engines need it. A 2.2L equivalent of the Civic's 1.8L engine (even with SOHC and the economy i-vtec) and the same flat TQ curve would put the 2.2L Ecotec to shame (but it wouldn't acheive the 30/40 mileage, which would be the sacrifice). Just look at what Honda did with a 2.2L DOHC vtec engine, 245 HP at the brake hub N/A (that's in the S2000 btw). I agree with you OC. People seem to forget that the Civic is doing much more with less, when compared to other vehicles. That's certainly more innovative than just putting a bigger engine in there.

Wow, even Toyota is going Retro now.

:puke:

But since they aren't going to be testing any of their old engines using the new SAE standard, how would we ever know if they were over rated or not? You have a bit more to learn about dynamometers. That dyno was most likely a roller Dyno (the most common), which reads TQ inaccurately at the wheels. Software has to be used to account for the diameter of the tires, and the gear ratio chosen. The software cannot "delete" the drivetrain (accurately at least). A roller dyno should never be used to compare power between different cars or between different shops and their dynomometers. Roller dyno's sole purpose is to establish a baseline for tuning/modifying, and to track changes in TQ on the same car as the owner changes out parts and adjusts a/f ratios, timing, etc. Roller dyno's are tuning tools for people who don't have access to a Dynopack, they should not be used to compare results between different dyno's. The only fairly accurate dyno is a Dynopack, which attaches directly to the brake hub. The software can accurately account for the gear reduction, and give exact results (as long as the dynopack is adjusted properly).

I hope you detected my sarcasm in my other post ^_^ I got tired of regurgitating Civic information, when nobody was providing any solid counter arguments, so I just gave up. That's what Hyundai accent's are for. :)

It's too bad the sport compact tuner scene consists largely of uneducated and hopelessly blind people with too much money and no idea what they should be doing with it. Who's Angus Mckenzie? I don't read any magazines.

Well actually Autoweek's main viewer base consists of red necks and hill-billies. They rag on the Civic because it doesn't come with a built in shotgun rack in the rear-dash, and the windshield is too swept for their large foreheads. I'm an auto journalist so I would know. B)

Where are you getting this information? I can accept the fact that the Civic Si is an average performer, but the 15.7 is crap. Road & Track got 15.1, so there's no reason why MT couldn't get a similar number. If you compare this car to the RSX Type S (which MT got a 15.1 1/4 in), it weighs a little more, but has a shorter final drive, limited slip dif, wider tires, and front lower TQ mount (less wheel hop) among other chassis improvements. The Civic Si should perform the same or better in a straight line. Maybe that 15.7 was a typo and they meant 14.7?? :AH-HA_wink:

15.7? That's rediculous. R&T tested it at 15.1, and I'm willing to bet money a skilled FWD driver could break into the 14's with that car. They probably couldn't get traction in 1st gear, one of the main problems with any FWD car (they're tricky to launch correctly, which is why the performance times vary greatly from Magazine to Magazine). Man you really like to talk about those 5-60 times huh? :P Did you know getting the best 0-60 or 1/4 mile doesn't involve a "clutch drop"? A skilled driver will feather the clutch to keep the car in a high enough rpm while still transfering as much power to the ground as possible without wheel spin. The Cobalt SS would probably perform better in the 5-60 test than the Civic, due to the low-rpm TQ curve, but the difference won't be huge (the higher redline of the Civic allows it to stay in a higher TQ multiplicating gear ratio to a faster speed longer... if that makes any sense). The Cobalt does have a shorter geared 1st gear though, which I find interesting (considering it is a 5sp and has a lower redline). I looked into it, and the Cobalt comes with a very tall wheel/tire combo to balance it out (giving it a top speed of 31 in 1st gear). The Civic's overall tire height is about an inch less. So the Civic ends up having about the same TQ multiplication as the Cobalt in 1st gear, and at 6500rpms in first gear, it will be traveling at the same speed (31mph), onto it's top speed of 38mph in 1st gear. The reason the Civic's 0-60 times generally suck is because it maxes out at 58mph in 2nd gear, requiring another shift before it completes the test (which makes it take longer). The Cobalt, as with most other 5sp manual transmissions, does over 60 in 2nd gear. Here's some cool speed charts curtesy of Team Integra's gear ratio calculator.

Can you link me the review or is it subscriber only? I'm too lazy to look (didn't find anything under the basic search).

The Sedan doesn't come with the 207 Supercharged engine, where did you find the numbers for it?

Haha. That made it worth reading. I can't believe people are still buying these cars when they only get marginally better mileage than their Sedan counterparts. I'm surprised at how much power the Toyota electric motor puts out. 67hp! wow, I'll have to look into that. With that much power you'd think the Prius could scoot around town entirely on the electric motor, with the gasoline kicking in from time to time to charge the battery when it's needed. They should offer a stripped down 2 door prius, with a 5sp manual, and then they could really get their EPA rated mileage! lol If my memory serves me, the Prius' performance numbers are still lacking when compared to the 5sp Insight. CVT transmissions have come a ways, but they're still a huge drag on the drivetrain when compared to a manual transmission.

#1 by number of vehicles sold, profit, work-force? In the U.S. or the World? Do fleet vehicle sales count? It's hard to specify the #1 manufacturer, because there are so many different categories that a manufacturer could be #1 in. Aside from that, I really don't have any idea :P I assume the number of vehicle sales (including fleet sales) would be the way to rate manufacturers. I don't think it would be too hard to find overall sales figures for both companies and compare. I think it's painfully obvious GM isn't making as much money as Toyota though. From every article I've read it seems as though Toyota hasn't quite taken over the top spot, but will soon. Who knows... :Toyota:

But that's just you. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can list off a plethora of 70's or 80's imports that they love, but will scratch their head when they're asked for good 80's domestics.

Damn... :unsure: If I didn't have to worry about crazy drivers and my own safety, I would happily ride a bike to work (it's only 5 miles).

I just want to reiterate what you said, because it is probably one of the biggest reasons people get bad impressions from Toyota/Honda 4cyl powered cars when first driving them. When I first made the switch from my 2.8 V6 '88 Regal to the 1.6 I4 '93 Civic (long since stolen, lol), I drove around and tried to shift at about 2krpms, and cruise at 1500rpms. I was so used to the way the Buick drove and the other bigger engines cars I drove (mainly trucks), that I was actually driving the Civic wrong and didn't know it. I drove around like that for close to a year, but wasn't unsatisfied at all. It wasn't until my Acura that I actually looked in the manual at the recommended shift points and started logging my mileage, that I realized how these cars are supposed to be driven. Now I shift at 3krpms through the first few gears, and 2.5krpms the rest. I get better gas mileage now than I used to when I shifted at lower rpms (about 28mpg 95% city) and cruising around the city is definately more fun (don't worry, stock exhaust system). Btw, I know a lot of people with higher mileage versions of my car that take it to the red line almost every day, and their engines are still running strong. Must be those tight tolerances heh heh :lol:

They could easily attain a peak TQ of 170 or more by using a 2.4L block instead of the 2.0L block. The 2.4L TSX uses a very similar engine to the RSX and Civic Si, except Honda changed the crank (stroke length) and rods (rod length), essentially "stroking" the engine, to acheive the higher displacement. That was needed because the TSX weighs a bit more, and its intended purpose involves mostly low RPM range driving. Also notice how the red line is over a 1000k less than the Si/RSX Type S. The problem with just using a different stroke and rods in the Si to give it that 2.4L displacement, is its fuel economy will suffer, and the effects of a lower R/S ratio (piston side loading) and the breathing of the engine will lower the rev limit. The car works great as a high revving car, and I think the TSX engine would hurt the feel of the car, aside from lowering the fuel economy. You may surprised, but a lot of the people who buy these cars will spend more time in the upper rpms listening to that wonderful exhaust note than than you think. And for the last time, yes 140 TQ is plenty for around town. The transmission's PRIMARY job is torque multiplication. It can make that 140 TQ into over a 1000 TQ, which is definately enough for around town.

Honda has 139 TQ listed on their site, however an independant dyno done on a Dynopack (reads TQ at the hub) read over 140 TQ and 197 HP peak. I have posted that dyno chart up on this forum twice before (probably somewhere in this thread lol). Funny how the Si doesn't make as much TQ as the Cobalt SS, yet makes close to the same peak HP number and gets very close to the 1/4 mile times despite being N/A and weighing the same. Horsepower is an equation of work (TQ) done over time (RPM). Making TQ in a higher RPM is better than making TQ in a lower RPM. The Si has an incredible TQ curve, which makes over 130 TQ from 2500rpms to 8100rpms (thats 10% of its peak TQ throughout 5600rpms). Gone are the days of the B16 (6th gen Si) high horsepower super peaky powerbands.

If you go to any site that is specific to a certain brand or manufacturer, and ask the members how the media treats their vehicles in comparison to the competition, you will get a lot of the same responce from the members. Why do you think the news always talks about the bad things and not the good? Conversely, if you ask them if their cars are better, you will get plenty of "it’s the best car the world has to offer" responces. Your article is well written and organized, but you need to offer an equal number of credible opposing view points, in order for your article to carry any weight. Additionally, for the excerpts from the members to be credible, they need to be backed up with factual information from a credible source, or likewise they need to be a credible source themselves. The reason magazine reviewers and their opinions are considered credible when reviewing a car by itself (and not directly comparing it) is because they are generally believed to have an extensive amount of knowledge about every car make, and do not need a car to be present in order to compare it (because they should know everything). Whether or not that is always the case though, is something else we need to look into when reading an article or car review. Your article does bring up a lot of good points to discuss.

Times change quickly, and there is a horsepower war going on between every Asian manufacturer thats heating up pretty quick. It appears as though 192 is definitely not V6 power anymore (at least in the media's eyes), and they all make 240+ like you said. A lot of the domestic manufacturers are still in the low 200's with their V6's though (with the exception of some HO engines like the Chev 3.9L V6) , due to the design of the engine and powerband placement. This is not bad, and is actually good for daily driving (how often do these cars get above 5krpms?). The peak TQ occurs earlier, which increases low RPM acceleration, but the engines don't breathe as well in the higher RPM's and the TQ drops off (even with VVT mechanisms, there is still a sacrifice), so they attain lower peak HP numbers (which is a big deal with the media). And those high strung 200hp 4 cyl motors aren't even that high strung anymore (TSX comes to mind). Wow, if that isn't the definition of imature I don't know what is. :metal:

What claims? Looks like they're marketting it against trucks like these: * 2006 Nissan Frontier Crew Cab SE 4X4 * 2006 Toyota Tacoma 4X4 Double Cab V6 Automatic * 2006 Dodge Dakota Quad Cab 4X4 ST * 2005 Ford Explorer Sport Trac 4X4 XLS * 2006 Chevrolet Colorado Crew Cab 4WD LT1 * 2006 Chevrolet Avalanche 1500 4WD If you go to Honda's site and click Compare, those are the trucks Honda selects as "Similar Vehicles" to compare to. Anyways, not to convert this thread into another Ridgeline debate... :Toyota:

Uncompetitive in what segment? They aren't competing against full size trucks like Toyota is with their Tundra.

So where do you get your demographic information anyways? Just using the term "ricers" and "ecoweenies" makes it very hard for me to take you seriously. Comparing just the Sedans, how is the Mazda3 a better buy than the Civic? I think you're basing a lot of your facts on your own personal opinion and not liking the styling of the new Civic. Plus, the base Mazda3 only makes 135 peak TQ, based off of your previous arguments, that can't be nearly enough for an American buyer, right? :)