Are Honda cars under powered?
 

http://www.honda.ca/HondaCA2006/Mode...2009/Specs?L=E

Take S2000 for example, it only has 237HP and 162Torque. Why is the car so pricey at 50 grand with such low specs? Same with the CSX, TSX, TL, etc their numbers in terms of performance are so low.

Why doesn't Honda put more punch into their cars?

"put more punch into their cars"

one reason why is to keep their cars good on gas, a big selling point for any Honda. what car are you comparing with Hondas? the higher end of Hondas seem to have good powerplants, like the Acura TL or RL. the Accord has a pretty beefy v6 available as well.

Honda built their brand on fuel economy and reliability. HP goes up, those two go down.

Honda does not create sport cars; they're fwd economical cars that are reliable. The problem is, when ppl throw an exhaust (actually, I shouldn't even say exhaust, Muffler or tip is more accurate) on their civic and mistake it for a dragster.

Your point of "underpowered" is also not that accurate. The TL has enough power in its class as does the CSX. You may be thinking that the CSX is $$ and overpriced, but it has adequate power for its perspective buyers. Honda knows this. Everyone Knows this. And they sell. Sometimes, ppl just want a civic with an Acura emblem.

Drive a TSX and S2k and you will find why they have sold well. You neglected the Accord and other vehicles which have more than enough power for a FWD vehicle without the issue of torque steer (yes I know about their SHAWD).

End of the day, Honda does not aim to win HP wars. They never have. The Civic Si back in the hey day, was the darling not because of its 127hp, but because it was nimble and fun to drive (how many j bodies back than did that?).

They do like to equip their cars with small brakes though. Anyone else remember when the EP3 came out with the small tires? That was quite comical.

The S2000 and RSX-S used to have "more" horsepower when they cheated; then SAE hp rating came in...

I got a mini cooper S convertible (172HP, 177ft-lbs) to drive around on the weekend and it's very responsive with the turbo charger. The 0-60mph is very close to the s2000 and gas mileage is pretty much the same as the s2000 or better.

Is just got me thinking why pay 50G for an s2000? I would expect more out of a car for 50G thus I would rather buy an BMW 335i convertible over the s2000 anytime.

I don't mind paying more for a car that looks better (though subjective) and is RWD.

The S2000 is overpriced at Canadian MSRP. Used however, its price starts to make more sense. BTW a 335 cabrio is going to run far north of $50k and is in a different class than a S2000 anyways.

I understand your point, but you need to compare vehicles vs. their direct competition. As someone mentioned, the 335 is north of 50k. I would compare it to the Z4, SLK, Audi TT, Solstice, Mustang, Vette etc..

It stacks up pretty well, while def. not the fastest.

Honda's have never been cheap and you will never see them offering "employee price discounts" anytime soon.

You can pretty much argue that a fox body with 5k dropped into it will blow away.... well you know where I am going.

Pretty good for value, me thinks.

Like when I bought my Si, all other competitors were priced more and equipped less.

Yeah no kidding. I'd much rather have the beast, 240hp ap1 than the 237hp weak sauce ap2.

How does 3 hp turn a "weak sauce" into a beast?

ap1 was consider more lively because it didnt have traction/stability control, and the rear end was more drift happy where as the ap2 was more "tame" and numbed down

AP2 only introduced the VSA/traction on 06 and up. 04-05 AP2 had none of that.

Yes suspension changes were made to the AP2, but I guess I'm not one who thinks that snap oversteer tendencies are a positive thing...

I havent driven a v6 honda product that was good on gas the TL was worse than my trans am.

I always thought the RSX type S was quite powerful in its class.. 210HP for a NA car which isnt bad.

The 4 cylinders aren't good on power if u leave them stock, V6 is decent but uses loads more gas than any competitor V6 without giving much more power, I doubt it's much more reliable than toyota's too which is now being used in the evora :)

And the handling of stock Honda's aren't that great either, for around 30k I'd take a GTI over an SI anyday, more torque, DSG, More solid, tons of other plusses including the engine,

Honda used to be famous for reliability but now not so much, because everyone's engine quality has significantly improved in the last 10 years, even mercedes, (not saying a mercedes is more reliable than a honda, never in a million years...)

Most importantly though, reliability is a subjective thing and so is fuel economy, Prius drivers may find that their toyota doesn't get as good reliability or fuel economy as claimed, but what we can determine is track times :haha: and when it comes to those numbers none of the current stock honda lineup really has what it takes, when you take into consideration things like power:weight, and price.

Remember kids. Be cool--stay in school.

(I haven't even highlighted a bunch erroneous stuff in the quote above).

simple, if you dont like the car, you arent its target market

a mini is a long long stretch off a true sports car like an s2000

and come talk to us about reliability when your mini hits 200k+

honda doesnt need big numbers to sell cars, its all about the soul of them

wat?

i read your post after the other guy made fun of your grammer, and man, you must be fucked

honda has an incredible track record with 4 cylinder motors, they were the first to break the 100hp per litre mark
they were the first to offer variable valve timing on a production car
Honda is a benchmark for reliability and quality of products

a stock civic si is faster around an autoX track than a gti, gti's are fat slow numb pigs, the honda just laques a bit of the tourqe that vw needs a turbo to make, a stock s2000 is still the car to have for AS class autocrossing and has been since 2000 when it came out.

what does price have to do with track times? the ridgeline won the baja 1000 last year in the stock category, integra type R's, s2000's, crx si and ef civic si's are all still winning trophees every year in the states at competition events, and the NSX was described in the early 90's as the car that made the exotics blush, as it would turn the same lap times as their current scrap with 1/3 of the horsepower

all in all, Honda is probably glad you arent out repping their cars, as you have no clue :haha:

some honda's are powered just enough

http://www.motorcities.com/media/ima...-F1-K-640.jpeg

sport cars aren't all about hp, torque, and 0-60.

This thread reminds me of the thread where a guy thinks his v6 Camry is the best sport cars because it can outrun a rx-8 in 0-60, fuel economy, comfort, utilities, etc.


if you've never driven an s2k, you'll never understand. Then again, not everyone likes the s2k's ride feel.

Sure he can outrun the rx-8 on a straight but when it comes to cornering, his camry's is going to wobble like a boat and go overboard lol.

Fully agreed.

It's the "nature" of the car and the thrill you get from driving it that makes it sporty.