hondas are for loosers

"Frank Puck" > wrote in message
t...
>I agree that there are other aspects to buying a car.
> But don't tell me you're ignoring the amounts of HP a given car has.
> My point is that you cannot just compare HP to know how agile a car will
> respond.

The original post and the subject line did much more than just make this
point and is an indefensible over-generalized assumption about Honda owners
and the readers of this group.

Most people who buy cars don't have a clue about the HP/Torque relationship.
More Honda owners likely understand it than those that buy other cars. Most
people who know much about cars and post on this group understand exactly
why Honda engineers design the cars the way that they do. If you want
poorer reliability, poorer fuel economy, and more low rpm torque, get the
VW.

My Ody's torque curve is fine with me. Beat the hell out of the competitors
when I bought it and better mileage, too.

Like I said, if you like the trade offs, buy something else. No need to
insult people who DO understand.

Leonard

If you want to be provocative, at least try not to broadcast in the
thread that you are an idiot (i.e., learn to spell).

At first, I thought that his slpel chekker was broken but then, you
cain't use 'em for the subject line. Well maybe circuitously...

<G>

JT




Dave wrote:
>
> If you want to be provocative, at least try not to broadcast in the
> thread that you are an idiot (i.e., learn to spell).

my wife has a honda (99). she bought it used and uses it to drive to work
every day. it's very dependable.

after reading your post, she is going to trade it. she has always been very
concerned about torque.
"Frank Puck" > wrote in message
m...
I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake.
Because of this experience I take care to consider the torque description of
any potential car I buy.
The max. torque should be available at a low RPM.
And of couse the max. torque should be as high as possible.
The number (in foot-pd) should be similar to the number of HP.
Hondas are good to save fuel -- because of they provide their max. torque at
a too high RPM.
This means that the car has less available power at normal RPMs.
Best example is the 2006 Acura RSX -- the one with 201HP -- max. torque at
7000RPM and it is 140ft-pd.
This engine is not the product of an engineer -- this is an accident.

The 2.0Turbo Engine from VW and Audi provides 200HP but 207ft-pd of torque
at 1800RPM
-- this is an engine made for driving.
Comparing these two engines the 200HP engine of the VW compares to 295HP on
the Acura (207/140*200)
-- probably more since the 140ft-pd are only available at 7000RPM -- whoi
knows what is available at 2000RPM.

I nether met a woman which would care much about the power of a car -- but
there may be exceptions.
I posted this mostly so that people pay attention to such issues.
There are people buying a honda/acura as a sporty car.
HP is not everything -- one can castrate the engine like Honda is usually
doing it.

"stevie" > wrote in message ...
> my wife has a honda (99). she bought it used and uses it to drive to work
> every day. it's very dependable.
>
> after reading your post, she is going to trade it. she has always been
> very
> concerned about torque.
> "Frank Puck" > wrote in message
> m...
> I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake.
> Because of this experience I take care to consider the torque description
> of
> any potential car I buy.
> The max. torque should be available at a low RPM.
> And of couse the max. torque should be as high as possible.
> The number (in foot-pd) should be similar to the number of HP.
> Hondas are good to save fuel -- because of they provide their max. torque
> at
> a too high RPM.
> This means that the car has less available power at normal RPMs.
> Best example is the 2006 Acura RSX -- the one with 201HP -- max. torque at
> 7000RPM and it is 140ft-pd.
> This engine is not the product of an engineer -- this is an accident.
>
> The 2.0Turbo Engine from VW and Audi provides 200HP but 207ft-pd of torque
> at 1800RPM
> -- this is an engine made for driving.
> Comparing these two engines the 200HP engine of the VW compares to 295HP
> on
> the Acura (207/140*200)
> -- probably more since the 140ft-pd are only available at 7000RPM -- whoi
> knows what is available at 2000RPM.
>
>
>
>

leck mich am Arsch

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you want to be provocative, at least try not to broadcast in the
> thread that you are an idiot (i.e., learn to spell).

"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message
...
>>The number (in foot-pd) should be similar to the number of HP.
>
> As a special feature, on all Hondas the horsepower exactly equals foot
> pounds of torque at 5252 rpm.


this is a sign of a castrated engine.
I mean it needs some work to get the max. torque so late.

"SoCalMike" > wrote in message
. ..
> Frank Puck wrote:
>> I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake.
>> Because of this experience I take care to consider the torque description
>> of any potential car I buy.
>> The max. torque should be available at a low RPM.
>
> then buy a ram with a cummins diesel. 400 ft/lb torque at under 2000rpm.
> sweet!


but I dislike diesel engines


>> The 2.0Turbo Engine from VW and Audi provides 200HP but 207ft-pd of
>> torque at 1800RPM
>> -- this is an engine made for driving.
>
> and for burning a quart of oil every thousand miles


my VW GTI 1.8T does not consume any oil -- I never had to add oil until now.
Of course the engine is still quite new -- 30kmiles.
My brother drow my last car (Seat Ibiza Gti (VW engine)) until 125kmiles
before he sold it
and he never reported that the car was consuming oil.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:38:27 GMT, "Frank Puck"
> wrote:

>
>"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>The number (in foot-pd) should be similar to the number of HP.
>>
>> As a special feature, on all Hondas the horsepower exactly equals foot
>> pounds of torque at 5252 rpm.
>
>
>this is a sign of a castrated engine.
>I mean it needs some work to get the max. torque so late.

So, let me get this straight...

Any engine that develops horsepower equal to ft-lbs torque at 5252 rpm
is a "castrated engine." You certainly are knowledgeable about the
relationship of torque rpm and horsepower, aren't you.

"Frank Puck" > wrote in message
m...
> I owned a honda once -- my biggest mistake.
> Because of this experience I take care to consider the torque description
of
> any potential car I buy.
> The max. torque should be available at a low RPM.
> And of couse the max. torque should be as high as possible.
> The number (in foot-pd) should be similar to the number of HP.
> Hondas are good to save fuel -- because of they provide their max. torque
at
> a too high RPM.
> This means that the car has less available power at normal RPMs.
> Best example is the 2006 Acura RSX -- the one with 201HP -- max. torque at
> 7000RPM and it is 140ft-pd.
> This engine is not the product of an engineer -- this is an accident.
>
> The 2.0Turbo Engine from VW and Audi provides 200HP but 207ft-pd of torque
> at 1800RPM
> -- this is an engine made for driving.
> Comparing these two engines the 200HP engine of the VW compares to 295HP
on
> the Acura (207/140*200)
> -- probably more since the 140ft-pd are only available at 7000RPM -- whoi
> knows what is available at 2000RPM.
>
>
>
Let me see. I guess the ideal was my old 71 454 Vette I owned 35 years ago
or so. With 365 hp at 4800 rpm and 500 ft lbs of torque at 3200 it was like
a tractor. Heck, you could let the clutch out at idle without even giving
it the gas and it would chug away. Lousy gas mileage, though. On the other
hand, I guess my 01 Prelude with its 200 hp I4 is not made for driving --
too peaky I suppose and not enough torque at 1500 rpm. Despite the
advice -- I'll stick with my Prelude.