Consumer Reports: "Disappointing ION"...

I think it's more an issue of his bike just not having the omph. Mine's
got a 95 inch motor, worked heads, 11.5:1 compression, cam, pipes, etc.
His is stock save for a cam and pipes. And oh yeah, 15 cubes smaller,
plus his bike's a bit heavier...

 

Fit-and-finish aside, this is one of my favorite styled automobiles...

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.

 

You mentioned a couple of my all-time favorites!

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.

Competition 1, Saturn 0.

 

Objectively, other than the gripers who should never have bought one,

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.

 

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. It has specially
low-end ooomph.

 

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
engine will have to be screeming to keep up with the other? I'd rather
have torque down low where I need it and use it the most. Not only that
but less engine rotations draw less fuel and air and make for better
mileage. 4500rpm's to reach peak torque in a suv is a wasteful.

 

Honda make an engine with *torque*????

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?

 

Absolutely.

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."

Regards,

Ed White

 

....last time I was at the Honda dealer I noticed the '04 S2000 no longer
has the 9,000 rpm redline. I'm guessing they're aiming for more torque,
however it still doesn't make it's full torque until 6500 r's and full
hp until 7800 r's. Things that make you go hmmmm...

 

They bumped up the displacement from 1997cc to 2157cc by lengthening
the stroke.

Dav2.718

 

Didn't know - thanks.

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.)

Dav2.718

 

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.

 

I've been away for a few so I lost this thread but since its been
brought up...
All the honda's I've driven had always needed to be reved much HIGHER
than the domestics i've driven to get moving with the same gusto.

EERRRrrrr
Wrong, nothing simular about those. You are compairing a 4 valve per
cylinder engine to a 2 valve per cylinder engine.

Since there isnt a 4valve per cylinder engine try compairing to one that
"is" the same size and "is" just as new and not dating back to the early
90's. Try the G6's 3.5L.

HP 200@5600
TQ 220@3200 <<< right where it ought to be.
No peddle smashing to get moving from a stop light or merging on the
highway. Gee...Amazing how pushrod technology is still kicking ass. 10hp
less 22lb ft less torque "but" 12 less valves and 3 less cams and 3 feet
less of timing chain... Not to mention no VVT to deal with.

So I'm stupid for voicing the things I have experienced myself "first
hand"? Oookay.

Btw heres gm's torque curve for the 3.4L, I'll wait for honda's 3.5
http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/gmpow/la1_curves.htm
That is if they put out any truthful figures unlike nissan.

 

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.
http://sohc.vtec.net/article_files/113992/03tovaccord6mtdyno.jpg
Note that the engine produces 185 - 195 ft*lb (ie, at least 95% of
peak torque) at any rpm between 1900 and 6100. Torque at 1500 rpm is
about 90% of peak. When you figure in a 10% loss through the drive
train, the lower end of the torque curve is just about identical to
the GM motors you posted at the bottom end (despite 14% less
displacement.) At the top end, the Honda is still producing 90% of
peak torque at 6400 - 600 rpm past the GM redline. The result is 60
to 70 additional hp but you don't *have* to use if you just want to
equal the GM's performance.

Here is a torque curve from a VTEC 4 to further illustrate the broad
torque peak:
http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/8542/02sidyno-02.gif

 

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.

Ahh, I wish my harley could reach tose #s. as it is, it's about 1/2 of
that. Actually, Vs a same size Honda car motor, it makes more or less
the same HP and better torque. So much for an antique pushrod design*...

Pushrod engines can still compete. Everyone bashes GM for still making
them, but they WORK, and for the most part, about as good as anything
else. It's like minivans - Detroit's don't have 5 speed autos, Tokyo's
do. Well, nobody care how many gears a minivan tranny has, but they do
care if it shifts constantly, which is the biggest problem with the
existing computer controlled 5 speed autos.

*Yes, I've ridden the amazing 600 cc crotchrocket. They're a JOKE until
they hit 2 grand below redline, at which point they're nothing really
special either.

 

Pushrod engines can still compete. Everyone bashes GM for still making

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.