Wow, glad I'm not a Honda fanatic anymore. They lost my interest a few years back. Honda is quickly becoming = to BORING.

I still find it interesting that Hyundai is pushing RWD and V8/V6 engines while Honda can't seem to realize they need them. Only time will tell who's right.

YOU BASTARDS !!

Come out with a small v10 !!

Honda does realize that in a couple years, the global economy will be back up and then they'll just have to spend even more money to restart some of these things, right? It's one thing to put things on hold when money is tight, it's another thing to kill a project.

Honda will seem like a genius with their 4 and 6 bangers in a few years when gas is $8/gal and the Big-3 is ancient history with their big bore V-8's.

Honda climbed steadily to the top of the pile by keeping their cars fuel efficient (comparitively speaking) when the rest of the manufacturers were scrambling to put out more displacement and horsepower in the face of ever increasing fuel prices.

Even Toyota (after resisting for decades) fell into the trap with their big displacement trucks and Lexus models that they can't give away now.

Like it or not, fuel prices will drive automotive design and innovation for the rest of our lives. Or at least until alternative technologies can replace fossil fuels. Until then, fuel efficiency is the name of the game. Only millionaires will eventually be able to afford big displacement cars with monster horsepower. And even then they'll probably be behind glass in a museum.

I applaud Honda for having their heads on straight and doing what is necessary to remain competitive and solvent in this difficult time. Now if they could only get a little flashier with their designs. But hey, what do I know? They seem to have done pretty damn well without them.

@k1dude

What do you have against fast, fun, and powrefull cars?

Its a shame k1dude that 'big bore V-8' gets the same mileage then, let's say the 2.2L in the S2000. Or how about the Evo's engine? The engine in my GTO is 3 times the size making 37% more horsepower and 32% more torque and get's the same gas mileage?

Last I checked too, GM (mostly) and Ford seem to be climbing to the top when it comes to both power and gas mileage.

As for Honda killing stuff, they are the only luxury brand that is all FWD/AWD and doesn't have a v8. "Some Honda engineers felt the engine was too big, heavy and unnecessary. " That is funny, since a GM small block like the LS3 weighs 415 lbs. The Honda S2000 engine weighs 326 lbs. Size wise, a GM small block is same size or smaller then a Honda v6. As for the necessity, well, already touched on that.

@Avatar:

Well said.

Even at $8/gallon for gas you'll still see many sports cars and trucks on the road. Not everyone drives all that much, hell some of my friends drive a couple hundred miles a week max. If paying $8/gallon of gas breaks your budget and you're not in a delivery business there's something else wrong with your spending.

With the S2000 marked for deletion, Honda's only "Sports" car will be the Civic SI which runs a 1/4 mile in the upper 14's with a "more efficient engine". Chevy trippled the size of the engine and get's about 75% of the mileage and ludicrous amounts of power out of it.

I'd say Chevy has the superior design there.... Honda blew it with the performance scene with the introduction of the K Series of engines. While they are more potent then the old B series they had to compete against cars with turbos and increased displacement. Not something even Honda could do, so they have to drop out of the sport segment...

Avatar:

S2000 - 5.8s 0-60, 19mpg city, 30mpg highway
G8 - 5.7s 0-60, 11mpg city, 25mpg highway

@ k1dude:

The gas will never be $8/gallon because there are cheap ethanol being mass produced starting this year in Mexico and it will gradually replace much of gasoline in future...so there will be plenty of gasoline in stock and price is likely to decrease. With advance in battery technology, OPEC will realize that increasing the gas price will kill themselves...

I think we have finally found away to destroy the Japanese car industry. Just let them take the advice from people on this board. Rear wheel drive V-8's is the same advice you've been giving to the big three for years. Ya, and how about a competitor for the Hummer. That'll do it.
Are you guy's General Motors exec's?

truth is if someone buys a $100,000 car they expect power.. if they buy a car that caliber I'm pretty sure gas mileage isn't their biggest worry. Putting V8's into cheap cars is dumb, into expensive cars as they keep getting heavier is a great idea.. just make it efficient.

viewwin, where exactly did you get your numbers?

G8 GT 15/24 Gas Mileage
0-60 5.3s-5.4s

S2000 18/25 Gas Mileage
0-60 6.1s-6.4s

But here is another nasty little fact. A G8 GT weighs in at 3995 lbs. An S2000 weighs 2855 lbs. That makes those numbers above even sadder.

Apparently the Japs don't have the answers anymore either Billo. Honda threatens Japan and stops development on things people have been saying they needed for years. Now it is talking about making the TSX/World Accord the Accord here? They stated that America wants bigger cars then the rest of the world themselves and already rebadge the non-American Accord as a TSX. Guess Honda is going to badge engineering now. Toyota now has its numbers sinking faster then GM and Ford and its sacred Tundra and Sequoia are huge flops.

Well on Honda first:

They killed the RSX, which made the same power as the TSX which is bigger and heavier (than the RSX) and slower than a V6 Accord.... The K series engine can be great (god there are enough fanatics on the internet), but it's more expensive to build up then any B series engine. A V8 is not NEEDED, but a NA V6 is not going to cut it. Look over at Audi/VW, they love to use smaller turbos on I4/V6 designs to get the power and economy of a larger engine. Hello?... did the engineers at Honda only work on F1 cars?

The Civic Si pretty much lost it's crowd in when they started doing the whole hatch thing and K series engines (good god I'd love to meet the person who said the high performance version has to be a hatch....yeah I'm looking at you Subaru...damn ugly ass STi hatch).

Second Toyota:

Toyota's mistake was entering into the truck market, or at least the American truck market. At one time I thought the Hilux sold pretty well in parts of the world not America. But I will say at one time it probably did make some logical sense considering they have had the Land Cruiser for a fairly long time. (Similar weight, engine, powertrain, and size). So it wasn't much of a stretch in the beginning to take what you had and make it work. Now it's just keeping up with the Jones that's killing you.

And Toyota's might be the most boring looking cars on the road right now, but at least they seem to be ugly neutral. While I don't love any of them, I don't hate them either. I had to buy a small car back in 04, and ended up with a Corolla. So far it's been a great little car. I also like the Cobalt at the time (even though the 5 speed auto was garbage). I loved the Impreza, but cost was to high... So yeah sometimes you just need a car that works.

Avatar,

Your turn to be sad.

08 Subaru STi 17/23 Gas Mileage
0-60 4.6s-5.0s

G8 GT 15/24 Gas Mileage
0-60 5.3s-5.4s

S2000 18/25 Gas Mileage
0-60 6.1s-6.4s

But here is another nasty little fact. The STi is all wheel drive so you can drive it year round like a real sports car.

Don't bother comparing the braking and slalom numbers!

well $8 gallon isnt going to happen, hopefully hydrogen fuel cells will be out and mass produced in a couple of years.

as for a market for sports cars, they will always be one. I bought my M3 when gas was about 4.60 a gallon. i only drive it on the weekends since traffic from west los angeles to Burbank is like stabbing yourself in the chest. I ride the metro. lol Many of my friend have littel beaters and for the weekends they have some sort of sports car. Honda is going to wish they had a real sports car in 5 years, but they will be making bank from those hydrogen fuel cells.

Avatar:
Consumer Reports. I guess it is not a fair comparison as the G8 GT was an automatic in their test. But still, the gas mileage is far better than the G8 GT. At fuel economy.gov, people report the S2000 with an average of 25mpg vs. the G8's 20mpg or 25% better.

Subpra, you are aware that the STi is a rally car, not a sports car. I wouldn't consider it sports, nor a G8 GT for that matter. A Subpra on the other hand, yes. But that is RWD, like a sports car should be, like the Vette and Viper for example.

And a G8 GT will pull on an STi like its nothing from a roll. AWD is the reason for a fast 0-60.

Um, viewwin, the G8 GT is only an auto 6. And I wouldn't call it far better. According to fueleconomy.gov, a G8 GT costs $1384 a year to run. An S2000 costs $1371. A G8 GT is a whole lot more car then an S2000, costs less to start with, and only costs $13 bucks more a year to run. Now no one in their right mind would cross shop the two, one a sports car, again RWD Subpra, and the other is more of a cruiser, but the comparison is still sad. How about the fact that a G8 GT makes 52% more horsepower then an S2000?

Fans of US cars need to realize that the world doesn't spin on 1/4 mile times.

Fans of non-US cars need to understand that, when it comes to producing big horsepower through efficiently burning gasoline, US engines have made tremendous strides.

Fans of both sides can cherry pick facts to support their point of view. Unless you step back and take in a larger viewpoint, you're just blowing smoke arguing these things.

yay for kw.

The thing that Honda and Toyota have done well is kill their passionate and exciting cars. Supra, Celica, Prelude, NSX and now the S2000. What do they have left other than daily transportation appliances. Toyota has Scion which isn't all that great and 2 out of their 3 cars are fugly. Lexus IS250 is a great looking sports sedan but most people don't have 35k. Honda has the Civic SI and the Fit. Acura's TSX used to be a great looking not to big not to small high feature sports sedan but look at it now. It looks fat and ugly as do all of their vehicles. They all do make quality vehicles though so don't get me wrong. Reguradless of what gas will be speculated to be in a few years, GM and Ford's European arms have vehicles coming to America soon that are a hell of alot of more fun to drive than a Civic or Corolla, built just as well, get just as good if not better mpg, and have a sporty well built and fun demeanor and are not just appliances. To add, they still have their traditional muscle cars which are not as inefficient as you may think and are a blast to drive.

GM is not really a competitive company. They are subsidized by the US government. That pretty much amounts to cheating.

Whats your point? We are talking about a rat race here. The race to the cheese is life or death. Get it how you get it.

Wow. Talk about apples to oranges comparisons. I notice those of you bashing my post are comparing Honda's highest performance engine (read worse gas mileage) with GM's lowest end V-8 to try and prove a point. Compare apples to apples next time. In addition, I pointed out what dinosaurs the big bore V-8's are and you all keep bringing up the Big-3's smallest bore V-8's as a comparison. How does big-bore equal little-bore in your minds? And why go with a small bore V-8 when Honda's V-6 performs as well if not better?

And where did I ever state sports-cars are a thing of the past? Of course there will always be sports cars. But they will most likely be small volume loss-leaders built for image only. They won't be bread and butter for any manufacturer. I also said you'll probably have to be rich to drive a gas-guzzler in the future. How is that an incorrect statement in any way, shape, or form?

Keep convincing yourselves that V-8's are what everyone wants. That's the same thinking that has put the Big-3 on the verge of bankruptcy. They made the mistake of listening to people like you. Toyota is getting pounded as well because they recently made the mistake of listening to people like you. Honda resisted and they are now reaping the benefits. Sure they are losing money, but they are doing far better than almost anyone else.

Get real.

I wasn't going to post in this thread because earlier you guys were talking about acceleration numbers, which the S2000 lacks comparatively. Now, you're talking about "sports" car. I say the S2000 is damn near the very definition of a sports car. It isn't that fast, that i can't deny, i have one but it sure is sport. More sport than a GTO or an STI that's for sure. Just because its RWD doesn't make it a sports car. Those are just "sporty". I'm sure it'll outhandle or outright beat a G8 or a GTO on any technical track period. It sounds snobby though and my apologies but I gotta defend my car! Btw, I've driven relatively stock supras and they feel like a bus compared to an STI.

I didnt want to jump in here but ill put my 2cents in.
The sti gets terrible fuel economy numbers because its a high rpm car that needs gearing. Cruising rpm is what 3k something like that. Its a very quick car in the corners something the g8 cant match but a corvette makes the s2k cry for its mommy every chance it gets now I know thats not that fair or a compairison but they both use relativly the same engine except the vettes has an extra 60 hp and gets better fuel economy but thats besides the point. Honda is doing well because thye do make bikes and marine engines. Honda got money for the millions of 50s and super 50s theyve sold throughout the world. Sure they make a lot of money on their cars but i bet you they make more then that on their bikes that they sell.

unknown: I used US auto sales only. I didn't include bikes or marine. I used apples to apples when I looked up the numbers.

k1dude:

What are you talking about small bore vs big bore V8 the G8 uses a 6L V8. The largest V8 they make is the small block LS7 at 7L and it's only in the Z06. The difference in bore is .125" and they actually get similar fuel economy. Somewhat shocking considering the LS7 doesn't employ cylinder deactivation.

The big 3 also make V8's with much smaller displacements like Ford's 4.6L. However most American V8 currently in production range for 5-4L-6.2L. So as you can see they are pointing out middle of the road displacement V8's

Those GM LA V8's are smaller externally and lighter than Honda's larger V6's. They have flatter power bands and gobs more power to boot. Reliability is about the same and they are cheaper to make.

So my question to you is exactly how is the V6 better?
The only way I can think of is HP/Liter which is only an advantage on paper in the real world. Take drive in one of GM's LS powered cars and you will understand why Honda needed a V8.

As for the loss of the S2000 I can't believe it took so long it was ugly as sin. Sorry vtfo0lio

RX-7 Guy: You're proving my point. Most of those big displacement (4.4L to 9.4L) V-8 engines are competing with Honda's 3.5L V-6 engine. And the Honda is holding it's own with better or equal fuel efficiency for the same class vehicle. With or without cylinder de-activation the V-6 compares well. And most of the Big-3's fuel efficiency improvements have come too late. Where were they 10 or 20 years ago when Honda and Toyota were eating their lunch?

The only V-8's Honda can't compete with are the souped-up versions that get terrible fuel economy. And Honda doesn't try to compete in those markets. I'm sure Honda's V-6 would compete favorably with twin-turbo's added.

If I'm not mistaken, Chrysler used to make an LA V-8, not GM. Compare the Big-3's mainstream volume leader V-8's to Honda's V-6, they do not have better fuel economy and they are very marginally more powerful if not weaker (LD8, LR4, LY2, LH8, LQ4, LS4, PowerTech, Modular 4.6L, Triton 5.4L) . They do not weigh less either. And reliability of Honda engines is unparalleled.

So why would Honda need a V-8?

Wow! So much arguing over stupid shit.

What matters is that Honda builds the highest quality cars in its segments that actually turn a profit...which is exactly what a corporation needs to do to survive.

I don't see the Dodge Viper or any of the SRT8 cars bringing in the sales for Chrysler or any of the Corvettes raising GM's stock value. While it's nice to have a "halo" car, they're not needed for mainstream auto companies that rely on volume to survive.

Avatar,

"Your" definition of a sports car is a car with RWD? That is the only criteria? All wheel drives like GTR, Audi, Porche, BMW and many others have always been considered "sport cars".

A better defenition of a "Sports Car", on the other hand, is a car designed with high performance or race-like capabilities in mind and equipped for racing, especially a vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering, brakes and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds.

So lets put a real driver like Stig behind the wheel and track some cars. By the way Stig is a pro "sports car" driver whom I assume never drove in Nascar so Google him with BBC or TopGear to find out more.

Car Lap time.
Nissan GT-R 1.19.7
Corvette Z06 1.22.4
Lamborghini Gallardo 1.25.8
08 Subaru WRX Sti 1.28.2
Dodge Viper SRT-10 1.28.5
Ford Shelby GT500 1.30.0
Vauxhall Monaro VXR 1.30.1 (2006 Pontiac GTO)
Honda NSX Type R 1.31.6

Some of these cars, like you say, are RWD and real fast in a straight line which helps them with their times which aren't that great. So considering that fact you can determine they handle like S#@T on a road track, in the canyon or any coastal road or pretty well anywhere except a Kansas state freeway.

So to consider the Vauxhall Monaro, G8, or Shelby GT500 a "sports cars" is rediculous. Its a high powered family sedan or as some would prefer, a muscle car. Yes it will pull on an STi from a roll but who cares?

The only true sports car America produces is the Vette and Viper.

I am sorry k1dude, but Honda's v6's don't touch GM's small blocks.

Honda Ridgeline
3.5L v6 250 hp, 247 ft-lb of torque
Curb Weight 4500 lbs
15/20 MPG
4WD

GMC Sierra
5.3L v8 315 hp, 338 ft-lb of torque
Curb Weight 5350 lbs (for Crew Cab)
14/20 MPG
4WD

2006 Acura TL
3.2L v6 258 hp, 233 ft-lb of torque
Curb Weight 3500 lbs
18/26 MPG
FWD

2006 GTO
6L v8 400 hp, 395 ft-lb of torque
Curb Weight 3700 lbs
15/23 MPG
RWD

2009 TL
3.5L v6 280 hp, 254 ft-lb of torque
Curb Weight 3700 lbs
18/26 MPG
FWD

2009 TL SH-AWD
3.7L v6 305 hp, 273 ft-lb of torque
Curb Weight 3950 lbs
17/25 MPG
AWD

CTS
3.6L 306 hp, 273 ft-lb of torque
Curb Weight 3900 lbs
17/26 MPG
RWD/AWD

A friend of mine has a 2007 TL Type S. Nice car, but it doesn't stand a chance against my GTO and I gladly take the 3 MPG average hit for a whole lot more go and RWD fun. It is certainly more then 'very marginally more powerful' and no chance is it weaker. CTS vs TL is more or less equal. The truck comparo, well, that is embarrassing on Honda's part.

I noticed you mention the LS4 too. Funny story about that. See, the Impala SS used a 3.8L Supercharged v6 for 2004-2005. It made a weak 240 hp, but it must be okay because a lot of people think the super/turbo charging helps gas mileage, 17/26 for those years. In 2006, the 5.3L v8 LS4 replaced it with 303 hp and 16/26 for gas mileage. And for the record, that is more power then the 2006 TL with similar gas mileage. The LS4 needs updating though, GM hasn't done anything with it since 2005 and it is the oldest small block still in use currently. It was set to retire if the Impala went over to Zeta.

@ unknown

The STI is a "high" rev engine? Compared to what? The S2000 will spin to 9k, the STi maxes out at 6500, about 250 more than my Corolla. All 4 cyl engines cruise at least 2500 or more rpms on the highway. My corolla turns 3k @ 75 mph. Most older B series Honda's turned closer to 4k.

I'm still not sure how this thread ended up in so much crap.
Do most people realize it's only been the last few years that you have seen the resurgence of V8's in GM's non-sport cars? The last one I remember was the 96 Impala SS. (not counting the Camaro or trucks). Correct me if I'm wrong. Sure the 80's had plenty of V8 power plants, but they were still coming down off of the muscle car phase of the 70's.

Apples to Apples is either the Malibu vs. Accord or Impala vs. Accord I suppose the Malibu is closer since that is what GM compares it to. Both have similar power and power plants. Frankly Honda doesn't need a V8 for Honda, it needs it for Acura.
Compare an RL against a 5 series. In the lower ranges they are going to be similar-ish. Once you reach the high end 5 series the RL can't hold it's own. A V8 would certainly help this, not to mention RWD (or SH-AWD as a standard feature). Now does Honda have to have a V8 no, they could turbo/super a V6 and get respectable power from it. But Honda has a pattern of not wanting to boost their engines (like the NSX). So frankly, Honda does need to do something if they are going to give the top end of Acura a fighting chance at all.

Subpra, you are aware that Top Gear's track is a short track, so not a lot of room for most of those cars to get up to speed. Of course, we can re-gear all with steep gears so they top out at like 160 mph and they will all rip around the track then. Lotus is a prime example of this. Great track cars, but top out at around 150 mph. So on larger tracks, like the Ring, they lose, big time. Top Gear simply doesn't have time to spend 7+ minutes for each car to go around a track every show.

As for coastal roads, they only exist in America on, you guessed it, the coasts, namely west. Canyon carving also only really takes place in the Rookies. The majority of America is open highway, where AWD just slows you down and saps power. Chances are, if I am playing with someone on the road, it is going to be at a stop light or from a roll and not into a bunch of sudden, sharp bends like on a track. So AWD get's you to 60 mph from a stop, but doesn't help you after that or from a roll and certainly not going to pull you through a turn that isn't there. If the weather isn't all to nice, I just take my truck and leave the toys at home.

Lastly, I didn't say a G8 or GT500 or any of those cars you listed were or were not sports cars, just the STi isn't, the Vette and Viper are. And why do you think it is that Porsche makes the GT2 RWD instead of AWD like the other 911s. They must know something we don't, since the GT2 is the fastest of the 911 family.

Avatar: The 5.3L 4WD Sierra gets 14-17 mpg. That's worse than the Ridgeline's 15-20 mpg.

As you kindly pointed out, the TL gets better mileage than the GTO. But the GTO isn't a current car and it falls under the souped-up category which is outside the parameters of the current argument.

You also kindly pointed out an AWD V-6 TL is comparable to a RWD V-8 CTS.

And improvements to the LS4 has nothing to do with Honda.

You post proved my point once again. Honda doesn't need a V-8.

Can you not read? EPA says that a 4WD Sierra gets 14/19 for a 4 speed auto and 14/20 for a 6 speed auto. I compared the 4WD model since the Ridgeline only comes in 4WD. I used the 6 speed since the Ridgeline comes with a 5 speed, though the 4 speed still isn't that off since the truck makes more power and weighs 800 lbs more. It you like, I can use the 2WD numbers, in which case it gets 15/21 in the XFE, embarrassing the Honda even more.

TL does get better mileage. 17% better to be exact then a GTO of the same year. A GTO however makes 55% more horse power then the same year TL. Who is more efficient now? You also said 'marginally' better power wise, that is more then 'marginally'. And an LS2 isn't souped up in the GTO, it is the standard engine. You want souped up, LS1 vs LS6. Same engine, but LS6 makes more power do to some different internals. Or you can look at a twin turbo set up which can make over 1000 whp on the GTO on pump gas. I don't think a TL with any engine it comes with can make that claim.

Hate to break it to you again, but I showed numbers for the FWD model TL, which the CTS RWD or AWD beats. Then numbers for the AWD TL, which the numbers for a CTS RWD or AWD, MPG and horsepower wise, are exactly the same, though about 200 lbs more curb weight by guessing. Not listed on Caddy's website.

LS4 has everything to do with it, because it is just another small block that you stated "they do not have better fuel economy and they are very marginally more powerful if not weaker" which is a lie.

Thanks for proving you can't read and remember what you said.

One last comparo for you.

RL
3.7L v6 300 hp, 271 ft-lb of torque
Curb Weight 4100 lbs
16/22 MPG
AWD

STS
4.6L v8 320 hp, 315 ft-lb of torque
Curb Weight 4300 lbs
15/22 MPG
AWD

Now the v8 in the STS isn't a small block, but a Northstar, based on an 18 year old design at this point and received a revision in 2000 and gained VVT in 2004. Honda's VTEC was born in 1989, and has since gone through something like 8 revisions, last being in 2006. Even neglected and abandon engines like Northstar v8 does the same gas mileage and gets more power. Then there is this:

550i
4.8L v8 360 hp, 360 ft-lb of torque
Curb Weight 4000 lbs
15/23 MPG
RWD

A6
4.2L v8 350 hp, 325 ft-lb of torque
Curb Weight 4200 lbs
16/23 MPG
AWD

E550
5.5L v8 382 hp, 391 ft-lbs of torque
Curb Weight 4100 lbs
15/22 MPG
RWD

LS460 AWD
4.6L v8 357 hp, 344 ft-lb of torque
Curb Weight 4700 lbs
16/23 MPG
AWD

M45x AWD
4.5L v8 325 hp, 336 ft-lb of torque
Curb Weight 4200 lbs
14/20
AWD

All the above are v8's, getting roughly the same MPG then Honda's v6, all with more horsepower and torque, and are all AWD with RWD bias or RWD. This is what Acura competes against. Still think it doesn't need a v8 and RWD?

You gotta admit, Avatar does have a point. Chevy makes great v8s. I've always respected Chevy small block powaaa. However, I don't think however that Honda is in a situation to make V8s just yet. The strong yen against a weak dollar really hurts them financially. I think Honda's CEO threatened to move their headquarters out of Tokyo or wherever it was to save some bucks.

Back to the point though, Killing the next S2000 is horrible news. S2000's have always been track cars not straight line cars. They were quick for a time though, check the times for a Porsche Boxter in 2000 and compare to an S2k. Look at any SCCA A-Stock class times and you see that the S2k dominates. No car touches it. It is one of the best handling cars of all time. Better than even an FD3S RX-7!!! Yea, Rx-7 guy, I said it!! That car is in a different class though - SuperStock - where all Porsches, Vipers, and Vettes go. Those cars have a good hundred horespower or more than the Honda and S2ks are always nipping at their heels or just flat beating them. Goes to show that Honda makes very well balanced cars huh? Now powerful by any means, even from this Honda guy, but great cars.

And something else you all should point out is the actual torque curve of these engines.

A V8 of even the same hp will have a lower, and probably flatter torque curve than the same hp V6...

More torque down low makes for an "easier" to drive car. Toyota found most people preferred the Celica Gt to the GT-S just because the torque peak came around 1500-2000 rpm less. (Even though the GT only has 130 hp compares to the 170+ of the GT-S).