GM V8 for Ridgeline. [Archive] - Honda Ridgeline Owners Club Forums

: GM V8 for Ridgeline.


AccordV6
03-12-2005, 02:43 PM
http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/future/honda/honda.html

It almost happened...

In fact, half of the deal did happen. Saturn Vues are now using Honda 3.5 liter V6s.

I want an LS2 powered Ridgeline! :cool:

zero
03-12-2005, 03:49 PM
Very interesting. I wonder why plans for a V8 were shelved.

Or could we see a future Ridgeline with a V8?

1manparty
03-12-2005, 05:31 PM
Perhaps GM got scared. ;) They don't need anymore competition. Honda is a engine company that also makes cars. They sold some 17 million in 2003, and project 20 million in 2005. So for Honda to sell more engines is great for them, no matter where they are going. But who knows, maybe Honda will use someone else's engine in the cars, but I don't think so.

H345
03-12-2005, 06:58 PM
.

Thankfully it was not done .... Honda does not need a gas guzzler V-8 with
poor performance .

The current V-6 layout , with a few " adjustments " will be more than up to
putting the competition away .

Honda has successfully " trashed " 50 years of truck building with their first
venture .... the best is yet to come .

.

Ridge
03-13-2005, 12:42 AM
If you want GM engine, buy a GM truck. I expect to get a Honda engine in my Honda truck. I'm paying the premium for Honda reliability.

delphi7x10
03-13-2005, 01:34 AM
1manparty,

Based on the way Honda engines are scoring in open wheel racing, my guess is that they can make thier own engine if they need a V8, and continue the V6.


Perhaps GM got scared. ;) They don't need anymore competition. Honda is a engine company that also makes cars. They sold some 17 million in 2003, and project 20 million in 2005. So for Honda to sell more engines is great for them, no matter where they are going. But who knows, maybe Honda will use someone else's engine in the cars, but I don't think so.

AccordV6
03-13-2005, 03:11 PM
.

Thankfully it was not done .... Honda does not need a gas guzzler V-8 with
poor performance .

The current V-6 layout , with a few " adjustments " will be more than up to
putting the competition away .

Honda has successfully " trashed " 50 years of truck building with their first
venture .... the best is yet to come .

.

"Gas guzzler V8 with poor performance?"

Compare the performance AND the fuel economy of the new C6 Corvette to the Acura NSX & the Honda S2000 and then get back to me. :rolleyes:

AccordV6
03-13-2005, 03:13 PM
If you want GM engine, buy a GM truck. I expect to get a Honda engine in my Honda truck. I'm paying the premium for Honda reliability.

So a 300 HP, 325 LB-FT, aluminum block/aluminum head V8 that yielded similar fuel economy to the present V6 would be a bad idea. :confused:

Did people who bought "Honda" Passports get Honda anything?

Ridge
03-13-2005, 04:01 PM
So a 300 HP, 325 LB-FT, aluminum block/aluminum head V8 that yielded similar fuel economy to the present V6 would be a bad idea. :confused:

Did people who bought "Honda" Passports get Honda anything?

It can have great specs, but not great reliability. I'm buying Honda and Toyota for their bullet proof reputation. I don't think GM is know for a similar reputation. If they were, their resale value would reflect it....... and I didn't buy a Passport.

AccordV6
03-13-2005, 04:10 PM
It can have great specs, but not great reliability. I'm buying Honda and Toyota for their bullet proof reputation. I don't think GM is know for a similar reputation. If they were, their resale value would reflect it....... and I didn't buy a Passport.

On what set of facts are you basing your ENGINE reliability statements on?

Have you ever been in a vehicle powered by an LS1/LS1 derived engine?

I have. I owned an '99 LS1 powered Z28. The car was lacking in many areas compared to a Honda. The engine was NOT one of those areas. And it's more than just "specs;" it's also seat-of-the-pants. It made my V6 Accord seem slow in comparison while yielding real world fuel mileage that was strikingly comparable.

Ever witness 2,000 RPM @ 92 MPH (in 6th gear) without even having to think about downshifting in order to pass?

Ever see a car pull cleanly in 6th gear with 600 RPM showing on the tach?

GM could learn a lot from Honda.

But Honda could learn a lot from GM about making inexpensive, POWERFUL and fuel efficient V8s.

H345
03-13-2005, 06:25 PM
.

Accord

I think you missed the point - GM was not going to send any Vette parts , just the taxi cab versions .

The high tech "base line" that Honda has established with the RTL has given
the biggest advance in 50 years to the truck industry .

The weight savings with the front drive plus on-call light weight rear drive if/when traction is needed provides 4wd/awd drive with the same weight as
traditional 2wheel drive units .

Engine/Transmission Control Modules are currently upping the ante on hp to
40+ and towing to 6000+ ....... and the truck is only in the first month of
release/sales .

It would be neat if Ford , GM , Chrysler , and others would step up ,
but based on their engineering ( antiques with a new vehicle title )
standards it is not likely .

The next SEMA Show in LV will show more high tech advances from Honda
than anyone would ever imagine , and they will be available by the truck
load - pun intended .

.

AccordV6
03-13-2005, 06:43 PM
.

Accord

I think you missed the point - GM was not going to send any Vette parts , just the taxi cab versions .

The high tech "base line" that Honda has established with the RTL has given
the biggest advance in 50 years to the truck industry .

The weight savings with the front drive plus on-call light weight rear drive if/when traction is needed provides 4wd/awd drive with the same weight as
traditional 2wheel drive units .

Engine/Transmission Control Modules are currently upping the ante on hp to
40+ and towing to 6000+ ....... and the truck is only in the first month of
release/sales .

It would be neat if Ford , GM , Chrysler , and others would step up ,
but based on their engineering ( antiques with a new vehicle title )
standards it is not likely .

The next SEMA Show in LV will show more high tech advances from Honda
than anyone would ever imagine , and they will be available by the truck
load - pun intended .

.

The modifications you discuss aren't exclusive to Hondas or Ridgelines. Virtually every modern engine can see similar power gains (on a percentage basis) with similar mods.

How do you know what engine GM was going to "send?" They would have sent whatever the signed contract specified.

I'm not aware of any "tax cabs" that use LS1/LS1 derived V8s.

But I am aware that GM is now building an aluminum block VORTEC truck engine with LS6 (z06) Corvette heads. Dubbed the 5300 VORTEC HO, it produces 310 HP and 335 LB-FT of torque. I can't even begin to list the performance parts that are available for that, but 350 REAL HP is EASILY obtainable.

GM just introduced a TRANSVERSE MOUNT verison of that same engine for front wheel drive applications (new Impala SS, Monte Carlo SS, etc).

How much does the Ridgeline engine weigh?

I'll bet that it's within 100 pound of the aluminum block/head GM 5.3 liter V8 (~ 480 pounds)

And I KNOW which engine makes more power and more torque.

80honda
03-14-2005, 04:30 PM
No way am I driving a Honda with a GM motor. I don't care how much HP or torque it has.

AccordV6
03-14-2005, 04:38 PM
No way am I driving a Honda with a GM motor. I don't care how much HP or torque it has.

Exactly why is that?

How familiar are you with the Gen III smallblock engines?

Have you ever driven a vehicle that was powered by one?

They're excellent engines, admittedly in need of an equally excellent car.

That Ridgeline would rock with a GEN III V8 without ANY compromise in fuel efficiency.

Small engines in large vehicles aren't all that "efficient." That's becasue they need to rev all the time to compensate for their lack of torque.

Compare the performance and the fuel economy of the new C6 Corvette to the Honda S2000 if you need proof of that. When driven with restraint (and per the EPA), the 'Vette gets SUPERIOR mileage while producing 160 additional horses and nearly 2.5 times the torque.

If that's a "dinosaur" then I guess we need more of them.

jvacierto
03-15-2005, 07:53 AM
Comparing the GM and Honda motors is a tricky practice at best, because both manufaturers are opposites, philosophically speaking. Neither one is better than the other in absolute terms.

GM and the American car manufaturers specialize in big, powerful engines. There's no doubt about that. The C6 engine (I looked it up on the web) is a full 6 liters big. It's powerful enough that it doesn't need to use as much fuel. It also has more horsepower and torque at lower RPM's compared to the S2000 engine.

Honda seems to be more about getting the most out of their small engines. With their VTEC, they can get more than 100HP per liter of engine displacement. As stated already, you have to rev the engine higher to get it, but that's the nature of this beast. The S2000 also has 4 cylinders less than the C6. And the S2000 costs about 10 grand less than the C6. I really think this reflects the Japanese culture and philosophy of getting the most out of thier products. Honda also designs their engines to meet stricter emissions standards, hence the Ridgeline is the first truck to claim low emissions.

And finally, as a practical matter, it was probably easier for Honda to use a pre-existing engine they're familiar with and design around it (transmission, intake, exhaust, etc.) than to take another manufacturer's engine and try to design around it.

I think we also have to remember Honda designed the Ridgeline as a complete package and they weren't trying to design a monster of a truck their first time out. Honda is betting the other features of the truck (the trunk, dentless bed, interior space, etc.) will tip the scales away from the lack of engine power.

AccordV6
03-15-2005, 08:07 AM
Honda seems to be more about getting the most out of their small engines. With their VTEC, they can get more than 100HP per liter of engine displacement.

Making more HP per liter is critical in a racing series where engine displacement is limited by a sanctioning body.

It means NOTHING on the street, where displacement is essentially unlimited.

HP/pound of engine weight and HP/MPG are what I care about on the street. And the C6 Corvette's "dinosaur" V8 trounces the "high tech" @S2000's engine on both counts.

That phenomenon isn't limited to GM, either. Take a look @ the new Hemi powered Grand Cherokee. At 5,000 pounds, it's nearly 600 pounds heavier than the Ridgeline, makes 330 HP, a whopping 375 LB-FT of torque and still matches the Ridgeline's 21 MPG highway while giving up just 2 MPG city.

Honda makes some great vehicles and their overall quality is certainly superior to what one can expect from American car companies. But referring to modern American V8s such as the new Hemi and the various GM LS1 derivitives as "poor performing, inefficient dinosaurs" is just plain ridiculous.

The LS1 in my Z28 Camaro was a PHENOMENAL engine. A friend of mine with an Acura RSX Type S drove my car before I sold it. He was literally shocked @ the level of performance (and handling; mine was a 1LE car.)

Ridge
03-15-2005, 12:08 PM
This is purely psychological. People for the most part don't want a General Motors engine in their Honda. From a marketing perspective, I think it would be a fatal error on Hondas part. People buy Japanese because of the ick factor they have about American cars, even though most Japanese autos are now made in America. The CRV was appealing to me because it is imported from Japan, but it doesn't meet my needs. The memory of bad steel from Detroit is still burned into many peoples memories, and psychologically if you put a GM motor in my Honda, it's like putting a pile of dog crap in my chocolate cake. Honda is renown for their engines. They certainly don't need help from GM.

Business is all about building brand. Few companies have built brand better than Toyota and Honda. Few have done better at running their brand into the ground than GM, Ford, etc. I think this explains partly why people are resistant to your GM motor, accordv6

AccordV6
03-15-2005, 12:16 PM
This is purely psychological. People for the most part don't want a General Motors engine in their Honda. From a marketing perspective, I think it would be a fatal error on Hondas part. People buy Japanese because of the ick factor they have about American cars, even though most Japanese autos are now made in America. The CRV was appealing to me because it is imported from Japan, but it doesn't meet my needs. The memory of bad steel from Detroit is still burned into many peoples memories, and psychologically if you put a GM motor in my Honda, it's like putting a pile of dog crap in my chocolate cake. Honda is renown for their engines. They certainly don't need help from GM.

Business is all about building brand. Few companies have built brand better than Toyota and Honda. Few have done better at running their brand into the ground than GM, Ford, etc. I think this explains partly why people are resistant to your GM motor, accordv6

So you'd have no use for a 300 + HP/325 + FT-LB V8 Ridgeline that got the same or better fuel mileage than the current Ridgeline.... :confused:

How many 350+ HP cars that get 19 city/28 highway do Honda and Toyota build?

Answer: None

vertrkr
03-15-2005, 01:01 PM
How many 350+ HP cars that get 19 city/28 highway do Honda and Toyota build?
Answer: None

The Ridgeline would never get that milage because of it's poor aerodynamics. The reason Honda didn't put the iVTEC VCM engine in the Ridgeline was they found it would rarely be able to use the 3 cyclinder mode because it's just pushing to much air.

AccordV6
03-15-2005, 01:25 PM
The Ridgeline would never get that milage because of it's poor aerodynamics. The reason Honda didn't put the iVTEC VCM engine in the Ridgeline was they found it would rarely be able to use the 3 cyclinder mode because it's just pushing to much air.

A 5,000 pound GMC Silverado 4X4 extended cab gets 15/19 MPG (per the EPA) with the 310 HP/335 LB-FT 5300 VORTEC HO.

A 5,000 pound Grand Cherokee gets 14/21 MPG (per the EPA) with the 330 HP/375 LB-FT Hemi.

But a Ridgeline, which is 500 pounds lighter than either one, couldn't at least equal the current Ridgeline's fuel economy if it used a similar V8 engine? :rolleyes:

What about the Honda S2000? Are bad aerodynamics the issue there, too? That only gets 20 city/26 highway MPG (per the EPA) and makes a mere 240 HP and 162 LB-FT from its "efficient" 2.2 liter 4 cylinder. The 400 HP/400 LB-FT 6.0 liter V8 Corvette, which is 350 pounds HEAVIER, gets 19/28. :eek: And that 'Vette will blow the S2000 into the weeds without even trying.

The same holds true for the Acura NSX. That never got decent fuel economy, relative to its aerodynamics, weight and power output.

High revving, small displacement engines with relatively high specific outputs (HP/liter) simply aren't all that "efficient," despite the hype that people like to throw around. That's because they have to geared very LOW in order to go. And that kind of gearing equates to lots of revs, which are the exponential enemy of fuel efficiency.

I challenge you to name a single Honda or Toyota automobile that can equal or beat the "inefficient" Corvette's 6.0 liter V8 on a HP/Engine weight and HP/MPG basis.

C6 6 speed 'Vette:

400 HP/485 pounds engine weight = .825 HP/Pound

400 HP/ ((19 + 28)/2) = 17.02 HP/MPG

jvacierto
03-15-2005, 02:14 PM
"I challenge you to name a single Honda or Toyota automobile/truck/SUV that can equal or beat the "inefficient" Corvette's 6.0 liter V8 on a HP/Engine weight and HP/MPG basis."

There is none. Honda and Toyota design their engines for different benchmarks compared to GM and the American car makers. Again, it's the different philosophies at work here. HP and MPG are big factors, but others are emissions, engine life, interaction with the rest of the car (through the transmission, for example), price, etc. Each engine has it's strengths and weaknesses.

Out of curiosity, why did you buy a Ridgeline? If HP/Engine and HP/MPG are that important, what made you get the Ridgeline with the inferior V6?

vertrkr
03-15-2005, 02:15 PM
I challenge you to name a single Honda or Toyota automobile that can equal or beat the "inefficient" Corvette's 6.0 liter V8 on a HP/Engine weight and HP/MPG basis...

Barking up the wrong tree, with me at least. I got nothing against GM. My only point was I don't think the Ridgeline would ever get 28mpg no matter what engine you put in it.

H345
03-15-2005, 02:23 PM
.

The RL is directed at a specific audience that the US auto makers did not
recognize or think to exist .

The unique features of the drivetrain , body integrity/chassis rigidity
and interior/exterior design , will be recognized immediately by some and
a few months down the road by many more .

The RL is not perfect , but it is a better starting point than any other
truck builder has dared approach .

The RL does not need a GM motor , a Ford axle , or a Dodge grill to stake
a claim .

Honda has played this high stakes poker game very well .


Unique upgrades :

Visor Vanity Mirror
110VAC Power Outlet
8-Way Power Seat for Passenger
Fire Extinguisher / First Aid Kit
Emergency Strobe Lights Front/Rear
Valentine Radar Detector
Tuneable Mount for LapTop Computer

The staff at H & A could add many more !

.

H345
03-15-2005, 02:57 PM
Accord

This is the Ridgeline Forum .

As a member that likes the RL , and would share "Real Time" upgrades with
like-minded members , you are wasting your time attempting to impress me
with your knowledge of GM .... you could be impressing the GM forums .

The fantasy of a high dollar GM motor in a RL is of no interest to me .... I
only race when someone is paying the bills , and I doubt I could get money
from GM or Honda for such a hybrid (ad)venture .

I do not understand why you would buy the RL if you can do so much better
with other manufacturers and their products , and feel that the RL is so
helpless .

The RL is not for street racing or sanctioned at any track that I know of ,
so why bother with a million or so hp .

.

zero
03-15-2005, 03:34 PM
"it's like putting a pile of dog crap in my chocolate cake"

Classic. I'm going to have to use that one.


Maybe Honda sold their V6 to Saturn to make money and not for a technology trade. I can see AccordV6's point about why you wouldn't want more if you could have it for little or no penalty. However, I will be happy with my truck once I get it, V6 and all.

Ridge
03-15-2005, 03:40 PM
So you'd have no use for a 300 + HP/325 + FT-LB V8 Ridgeline that got the same or better fuel mileage than the current Ridgeline.... :confused:

How many 350+ HP cars that get 19 city/28 highway do Honda and Toyota build?

Answer: None


Again, specs are irrelevent. People are buying brand when it comes to Honda and Toyota. If it has a GM engine which is pretty much the car as far as I'm concerned, I'm no longer really buying a Honda anymore am I? It's a GM car with a Honda badge. If I want this great GM engine, I'll buy a GM vehicle, which I never would. I'd wait for Honda to improve it, and make it themselves.

AccordV6
03-15-2005, 03:59 PM
"I challenge you to name a single Honda or Toyota automobile/truck/SUV that can equal or beat the "inefficient" Corvette's 6.0 liter V8 on a HP/Engine weight and HP/MPG basis."

There is none. Honda and Toyota design their engines for different benchmarks compared to GM and the American car makers. Again, it's the different philosophies at work here. HP and MPG are big factors, but others are emissions, engine life, interaction with the rest of the car (through the transmission, for example), price, etc. Each engine has it's strengths and weaknesses.

Out of curiosity, why did you buy a Ridgeline? If HP/Engine and HP/MPG are that important, what made you get the Ridgeline with the inferior V6?

The engines I mentioned all meet current 50 state EPA emissions standards. That's fully adequate for the majority of the buying public, who couldn't tell you what "ULEV" means.

Ever read the odometers on small block Chevy powered taxi cabs in big cities and talk to the drivers? 300,000 on the original engine (no rebuilds) is not uncommon.

I would call that "sufficient."

And the GEN III GM smallblocks are more robust than that (not to mention vastly more powerful and fuel efficient).

There's nothing inferior about the Ridgeline. In fact, in most ways its superior to the competition, @ least for my needs. My only points were that it could truly benefit from an OPTIONAL V8, that Honda's original plans called for a GEN III GM V8 and that many modern American V8s are hardly "dinosaurs."

Have you ever seen a car/engine pull from 600 RPM in 6th gear without the slightest hint of protest? That's called TORQUE. And big torque means fewer revs to produce the required amount of Power. Revs are the enemy of longevity and fuel efficiency.

My LS1 Z28 6 speed registered an even 2,000 RPM on the tach @ 92 miles per hour. Want to pass? No downshifting required. Want to get 28 MPG? That was no problem either, as long as it was kept under 80 MPH (steady state cruise). Want to move out with the kind of authority that most people have never experienced? Drop it down to 3rd (@ 80 MPH), boot it and GO. :D

weirleigh
03-15-2005, 04:28 PM
People buy Japanese because of the ick factor they have about American cars, even though most Japanese autos are now made in America.

Ok got to take offense at that one :) actually the only reason I would consider buying a Japanese car is that they make so many of there products in North America. Give you an example, I remember the first Honda my mother bought in 91 it was made in Kentucky, my grandfather bought a Ford the same year that for the most part was made in Mexico. Also for those of you that remember the 80s you had Lee Iacocca on the TV all the time saying buy American, I looked under the hood of a Doge and everything was from Mitsubishi?? Any way I don't buy Japanese because of the ick factor with American cars, in the early 80s you may of had a point, American cars were king until them started making crappy compacts to try and compete with imports (my opinion), I think they are pretty close to a level playing field now pros & cons on both sides. :)

AccordV6
03-15-2005, 04:30 PM
Ok got to take offense at that one :) actually the only reason I would consider buying a Japanese car is that they make so many of there products in North America. Give you an example, I remember the first Honda my mother bought in 91 it was made in Kentucky, my grandfather bought a Ford the same year that for the most part was made in Mexico. Also for those of you that remember the 80s you had Lee Iacocca on the TV all the time saying buy American, I looked under the hood of a Doge and everything was from Mitsubishi?? Any way I don't buy Japanese because of the ick factor with American cars, in the early 80s you may of had a point, American cars were king until them started making crappy compacts to try and compete with imports (my opinion), I think they are pretty close to a level playing field now pros & cons on both sides. :)

Survey after survey demonstrates that Toyota and Honda still build the most reliable cars with the fewest defects overall. I've never argued otherwise.

But GM is building some FANTASTIC V8 engines (as I've pointed out above). I'd love to see one in the Ridgeline - preferably the new, transverse mount, 303 HP/325 LB-FT aluminum block/head V8 that was just introduced for the Impala SS, Monte Carlo SS, etc.

AccordV6
03-15-2005, 04:51 PM
Barking up the wrong tree, with me at least. I got nothing against GM. My only point was I don't think the Ridgeline would ever get 28mpg no matter what engine you put in it.

Your taking my quote out of context.

I was comparing the Corvette to the S2000 to demonstrate that large displacement, pushrod V8s engines can be MORE efficient (AND VASTLY more powerful) than "high tech" engines of much smaller displacement. People would "expect" the "high tech" 4 cylinder S2000 (which also happens to be 350 pounds lighter) to get MUCH better mileage than a "dinosaur" 6.0 liter pushrod V8 Corvette. Yet, such is not the case.

And I'm comparing GM V8 trucks/Suvs to the Ridgeline for the same reason.

Look @ this GMC Yukon (weight, HP, torque and fuel economy).

Curb weight: 5,192 pounds
285 HP
295 LB-FT torque
EPA MPG: 16 city/20 highway

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/gmc/yukon/100396521/specs.html?tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsiden av..8.GMC*

That SAME ENGINE in a (~ 600 pounds lighter) Ridgeline, with appropriately matched gearing, would UNDOUBTEDLY yield better mileage (~ 18/22) than the existing Ridgeline (16/21) while simultaneously providing a significant boost in performance. :D

So I ask you, which of those two engines is "high tech" and which one isn't?

Answer: The one with more displacement, 1 cam, "outdated" pushrods and 2 valves/cylinder.

AccordV6
03-15-2005, 05:11 PM
...If it has a GM engine which is pretty much the car as far as I'm concerned...

So a Saturn Vue with the Honda V6 is "pretty much a Honda." :confused:

Ridge
03-15-2005, 06:52 PM
So a Saturn Vue with the Honda V6 is "pretty much a Honda." :confused:

The most important part of it is a Honda. It still has those crappy plastic body panels I've seen shattered holes in many times. I'd rather have a dent.

The Pontiac vibe is pretty much a Toyota Matrix....or is that the other way around.

I've got a Corolla FX16 Sport/GM hybrid. Only had problems with the GM half of it.

I've got a Toy truck straight from Japan. Not one problem ever.

AccordV6
03-15-2005, 06:57 PM
The most important part of it is a Honda. It still has those crappy plastic body panels I've seen shattered holes in many times. I'd rather have a dent.

The Pontiac vibe is pretty much a Toyota Matrix....or is that the other way around.

I've got a Corolla FX16 Sport/GM hybrid. Only had problems with the GM half of it.

I've got a Toy truck straight from Japan. Not one problem ever.

An engine is but one part of the vehicle.

The fact of the matter is that the Ridgeline's fuel economy is nothing to write home about, all things considered.

This FULL SIZE GMC Sierra 4X4 with the 4.8 liter, 285 HP/295 LB-FT torque V8 gets THE SAME mileage (16/21) as the Ridgeline, despite the fact that the GMC is larger and heavier (by ~ 500 pounds). And the GMC does that with a 4 (vs 5) speed automatic.

http://www.gmc.com/specs/specs_content_files/specs_fuel.jsp?brand=sierra&vehicle=1500

I don't care for the GMC as a whole vehicle. But THE ENGINE (LS1 variant) is very nice. Install that engine into a Ridgeline with the 5 speed automatic and you'd see a significant improvement in performance accompanied by a slight improvement (to ~ 18/22) in fuel economy.

That's a hard combination to argue against.

jauten1
03-16-2005, 10:11 AM
Better yet I would like to see Honda make their own version of a V8 engine. That would be a V8 I would be willing to buy. :D

AccordV6
03-16-2005, 10:14 AM
Better yet I would like to see Honda make their own version of a V8 engine. That would be a V8 I would be willing to buy. :D

How many Gen III small-block V8 powered vehicles have you driven?

How much do you know about the engines themselves?

The truck versions are more efficient than the Ridgeline's (HP per MPG)

The Ridgeline would be more powerful AND more fuel efficient if it used the 4.8 liter GM VORTEC V8, just as I demonstrated above.

Brand loyality isn't going to change that fact.

Martin F.Z.
03-16-2005, 02:46 PM
Let's just hope that Honda listens to this discussion here and try out the idea...the V8, that is...

80honda
03-16-2005, 03:08 PM
Just one word about GM truck engines. Piston slap.

AccordV6
03-16-2005, 03:18 PM
Just one word about GM truck engines. Piston slap.

That's two words.

GM sure knows how to make POWER and TORQUE while still getting nice mileage figures though, don't they? ;) Not bad for a "dinosaur."

I noticed that you didn't mention Honda's recent transmission fiasco:

http://www.petitiononline.com/acura/petition.html

And it wasn't THAT long ago that Honda's cars required valve lash adjustments every 15K miles, timing belt "inspections" every 30K miles and timing belt replacements every 60K miles. I personally know of people who spent more than $2K over the life of the car just on those things alone. And NONE of that would have been required had Honda seen fit to utilize self adjusting (hydraulic) tappets and timing chains (a combination that GM has been utilizing for DECADES).

And the potential for mechanic error and resulting future failures is introduced every time an engine is disassembled to even that level...

Then there are those who never bothered to have the belts changed and roasted their engines as a result.

Honda's still playing with solid tappets and belts as far I know. And what's with Honda and the new aluminum oil plug washer @ each oil change? :confused: Does ANY other manufacturer require that?

Do those deficiencies/oddities prevent you from buying new Honda products?

"Piston slap" in GEN III smallblocks hasn't been an issue for 3 years, when the problem was addressed by reducing piston:cylinder wall clearance. And it was never an issue for the overwhelming majority of GEN III engines that have been built to date. I never heard a hint of it in during the 80,000 miles I drove my LS1 Z28.

80honda
03-19-2005, 12:48 PM
Ok, I'll mention the transmission problems.

When second gear teething problems occured in the new 5speed autos in the Odyssey and Acura TL, Honda stepped up, offered a free extended warrenty on the transmission, and inspection/replacement parts.

GM is still fighting and denying Piston Slap.
http://www.pistonslap.com/
http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0409/03/b01-262757.html

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 01:03 PM
Honda stepped up, offered a free extended warrenty on the transmission, and inspection/replacement parts.

These people don't agree with you:

http://www.petitiononline.com/acura/petition.html

And you didn't address the RIDICULOUS "routine maintenane schedules" in Honda's not-so-distant past.

And what about American Honda's sordid legal past (dealer kickbacks, etc)?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C3976%2C00.html

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050127-1410-carloans-settlement.html

Am I not going to buy a Honda in 2006 because of those past events? :rolleyes:

You appear to infer that EVERY one of the millions of GM vehicles with those engines exhibit "piston slap."

I personally know/have spoken with dozens of people who either own or service these vehicles. I've seen and heard thousands of these vehicles on the road and in parking lots. I owned an LS1 Camaro and drove the sh*t out of it for 80K miles without a whimper. I've yet to hear about a single, first-hand account of this problem or exerience it myself (e.g. "piston slapping Chevy Tahoe in a parking lot).

How many "piston slapping" GM vehicles have YOU personally witnessed? :confused:

A small percentage of the millions of vehicles they built had the problem. GM has since addressed the issue with tighter piston/cylinder wall tolerances.

The Ridgeline would be a SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful and slightly more fuel efficient truck it it used the aluminum block/head, transverse mount LS4 V8 that's slated for use in the upcoming Grand Prix GXP. That engine makes 303 HP, 325 LB-FT of torque and features "displacement on demand" (similar to the top line Honda Odyssey. And that engine NEVER requires "valve lash" adjustments and timing belt inspections/replacements, either. :o

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 01:47 PM
girls! girls! knock it off.

I hate to tell you this, but GM is on the way down. I'm sorry to say, but US auto makers are looking bad lately....except Chrysler and somewhat Ford. What is with that Ford 500 fiasco?? Did the designer loose his clay tool 1/2 way through his model?? Not that the Ridgeline is any stunner. I can't name one GM vehicle I would buy but maybe a Vette. I can't even think of a sedan that I would consider owning.

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 01:57 PM
girls! girls! knock it off.

I hate to tell you this, but GM is on the way down. I'm sorry to say, but US auto makers are looking bad lately....except Chrysler and somewhat Ford. What is with that Ford 500 fiasco?? Did the designer loose his clay tool 1/2 way through his model?? Not that the Ridgeline is any stunner. I can't name one GM vehicle I would buy but maybe a Vette. I can't even think of a sedan that I would consider owning.

How is that relevent to the fact that a GM Gen III/IV V8 (4.8 or 5.3 liter) would dramatically improve the Ridgeline's performance while offering no trade-off whatsoever in fuel economy? :confused:

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 02:28 PM
it's not.

But who wants a GM motor in a Honda?? I'm sure Honda is very capable of making a V8. Nissan did it on the first try.

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 02:30 PM
IT IS A TRUCK....not a sports car. Who cares?...it has plenty of power for what it is.......an almost truck.

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 02:31 PM
it's not.

But who wants a GM motor in a Honda?? I'm sure Honda is very capable of making a V8. Nissan did it on the first try.

Nissan's DOHC/32 valve V8 isn't as fuel efficient as the pushrod/16 valve GM Vortec V8 engines.

And I suspect that Honda's wouldn't be, either.

Compare the NSX to the new C6 Corvette in terms of HP, torque and MPG. The "high tech" Acura's little 6 isn't as fuel efficient as the 'Vette's 6.0 liter V8 and the 'Vette trounces the NSX in terms of power and torque.

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 02:37 PM
If you put the Nissan V8 in the Vette what do you think the gas mileage would be?? Probably pretty close right? Low drag..light weight, 2 passengers....goes a long way correct??

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 02:48 PM
If you put the Nissan V8 in the Vette what do you think the gas mileage would be?? Probably pretty close right? Low drag..light weight, 2 passengers....goes a long way correct??

The Nissan TRUCK (Titan) isn't as fuel efficient as the GM Vortec V8 TRUCKS (Silverado and Sierra).

A 310 HP, 5.3 liter V8 4X4 extra-cab Silverado is EPA rated @ 15 city/19 highway.

It weighs a full 5,000 pounds and doesn't have the advantage of a 5 speed auto. (GM is still using a 4 speed auto in that application).

In terms of performance cars, Nissan's 3.5 liter 350Z can't match the 6.0 liter 'Vette in MPG, HP, torque or performance. So how would you expect their 5.6 liter V8 to do any better?

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 02:48 PM
ok..maybe you can help me decide what to buy.

-I want a 4 door truck.
-Full airbags and VSC.
-Navigation
-Satellite radio
-Subwoofer
-Moonroof
-Leather
-Decent gas milage...around 20mpg
-Great relaibility

thanks

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 02:53 PM
well the Nissan V8 is 14/18....one MPG difference.

I'll put it this way....Is the Vette motor in a truck??? What is the mileage on that??

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 02:59 PM
ok..maybe you can help me decide what to buy.

-I what a 4 door truck.
-Full airbags and VSC.
-Navigation
-Satellite radio
-Subwoofer
-Moonroof
-Leather
-Decent gas milage...around 20mpg
-Great relaibility

thanks

If you're happy with the performance then get the Ridgeline.

I wouldn't buy the GM truck either, but that's not my point.

My point is that Honda was originally considering a GM sourced V8 when they first decided to build a truck. Had they done so they'd have a significantly more powerful, better performing truck that was every bit as fuel efficient as the one they're now offering.

In all honesty, a 4.0 liter version of Honda's 3.5 probably would have been fully sufficient. Nissan and Toyota are offering 4.0 liter V6s in similar applications.

The new XTerra, for example, is essentially identical in weight to the Ridgeline, but is EPA rated @ 17/21 (vs. the Ridgeline's 16/21), produces 265 HP and a very robust 282 LB-FT of torque. That just cranked out a 0-60 time of 7.3 seconds in the latest issue of CAR AND DRIVER and turned in an equally impressive 15.9 sec @ 87 MPH through the 1/4 mile. :cool:

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 03:00 PM
OH yeah...a Vette is 2,000 lbs less and aerodynamic.....might that help MPG?? Less work for the motor...less friction??

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 03:03 PM
What I'm saying is if I want performance, I open my garage and get out my Hemi Cuda. But, and I'm not putting topsoil in the trunk.

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 03:04 PM
a Cuda...I wish!!

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 03:05 PM
well the Nissan V8 is 14/18....one MPG difference.

I'll put it this way....Is the Vette motor in a truck??? What is the mileage on that??

Compare trucks with trucks and cars with cars.

I just showed you what GMC's 310 HP 5300 VORTEC HO does. And BTW, that engine is MUCH less expensive to produce than Nissan's 32 valve, DOHC V8.

In terms of performance cars, the new C6 Corvette, with it's "dinosaur" 6.0 liter V8 yields 19 city/28 highway and produces 400 HP. That's 17.02 HP/average MPG.

I challenge you to name ANY other performance car - at ANY price, that can touch that combination of fuel economy and power. (Just for laughs, check out the S2000 and Acura NSX. They aren't even remotely close.) Then check out the Porsches, Ferraris, etc.

And that mileage is real - as long as you keep your boot out of it. My LS1 Z28 gave up next to nothing on my new V6 Accord in terms of MPG. And that Z28 would walk away from the Honda without even trying. (Was the Z28 even remotely as "nice" as the Accord? Nope, not even close. But that's not the point.)

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 03:10 PM
What I'm saying is if I want performance, I open my garage and get out my Hemi Cuda.

That's not an overly fast car by today's standards. In showroom trim they produced ~ 390 SAE NET HP and weighed ~ 3,800 pounds.

The C6 Corvette would roast it; it makes a tad more power and is ~ 500 pounds lighter. It also gets ~ 3X the mileage. :D

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 03:18 PM
You still don't get it. Maybe the Vettes HP to weight ratio, and drag coefificent is optimum for MPG. When you try to squeeze large horsepower out of a V6 you have to be giving up some economy. As for the Cuda...don't even try to compare the 60's Muscle car era with today...that is apples and oranges.

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 03:22 PM
You still don't get it. Maybe the Vettes HP to weight ratio, and drag coefificent is optimum for MPG. When you try to squeeze large horsepower out of a V6 you have to be giving up some economy. As for the Cuda...don't even try to compare the 60's Muscle car era with today...that is apples and oranges.

But those DOHC V6s (NSX) and inline 4s (S2000) are "high tech" and much smaller in displacement. Shouldn't they be vastly more fuel efficient than a heavier car powered by a far more powerful, 6.0 liter pushrod V8?

The S2000 is ~ 400 pounds lighter than the 'Vette and is every bit as "aero." Yet, it gets just 20 city/26 highway, despite the fact that it produces just 240 HP and a measly 162-LB-Ft of torque. I guess I'm not seeing the "high tech" in that picture. :confused:

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 03:47 PM
What I'm trying to tell you is the Vette motor is not an engineering masterpeice of fuel efficiencies. Do you think GM care about the MPGs for a Vette?? If they did they would be marketing idiots. Or maybe, maybe when they put that big engine in a plastic car with little drag they went " hey look at that, it gets good gas mileage too."

And all of your other examples are not that far off in MPG. 1 or 2MPG-come on

I'm done, I don't care about GM or their plastic cars....I'm looking for a FORIEGN truck.

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 03:55 PM
What I'm trying to tell you is the Vette motor is not an engineering masterpeice of fuel efficiencies. Do you think GM care about the MPGs for a Vette?? If they did they would be marketing idiots. Or maybe maybe when the put that big engine in a plastic car with little drag they went " hey look at that, it gets good gas mileage too."

And all of your other examples are not that far off in MPG.

I'm done, I don't care about GM or their plastic cars....I'm looking for a FORIEGN truck.

Nissan's 4.0 liter V6 Xterra is essentially identical in weight to the Ridgeline. That engine makes 265 HP, a robust 282 LB-FT of torque and yields 17 city/21 Highway (vs. 16/21 for the Ridgeline).

According to the latest C&D, that Xterra rips from 0 - 60 in 7.3 seconds and runs the 1/4 mile in 15.8 sec @ 88 MPH. That is SOLID performance for that type of vehicle.

Would you agree that the Ridgeline would be a better truck with that engine? Or are you simply so brand loyal to Honda that you refuse to consider the products offered by all other manufacturers?

Of course GM "cares" about the 'Vette's fuel economy. They have to in order to conform with CAFE - just like every other manufacturer does. The alternatives are fines by the Federal Gov and/or a "gas guzzler" tax, which many customers aren't willing to pay.

Again, the S2000 is LIGHTER than the 'Vette (by ~ 400 pounds), is aerodynamically similar to the 'Vette and manages a mere 20/26 MPG, despite the fact that it produces 160 fewer horses and 238 fewer LB-FT from its "efficient" and "high tech" four cylinder. :eek: They are both 2 seater "sports cars" that use 6 speed manuals.

And I'm not talking about GM cars as much as I'm talking about the efficiency of the GEN III/IV V8s that are used in some of them.

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 04:01 PM
yes great....but I'm not planning on running a Ridgeline in any QM races

Did you buy a Ridgeline.....how much did you pay?

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 04:05 PM
andI have never owned a Honda

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 04:05 PM
yes great....but I'm not planning on running a Ridgeline in any QM races

Did you buy a Ridgeline.....how much did you pay?

The XTerra's engine would also yield benefits in towing...and a slight benefit in fuel efficiency. More power, significantly more torque, more towing ability and slightly BETTER fuel efficiency. :)

Those things don't matter to you?

I'm thinking about buying a Ridgeline. I'm disappointed by the MPG...I was hoping for at least 18/22. I'd be willing to live with some trade-off in performance for gain in fuel efficiency. But the gain in fuel efficiency clearly isn't there.

And with gasoline heading to ~ $2.50+ per gallon, I do care about fuel efficiency.

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 04:08 PM
andI have never owned a Honda

I've had 3 Hondas (plus a lot of other cars).

I'm presently driving an '04 Accord EX/V6/auto. It's a beautifully made car and GM isn't capable of building anything like it for the money.

But that Accord is ~ 1,100 pounds lighter than a Ridgeline, yet it's just 15 HP down.

I'd like the Ridgeline's performance to be closer to the Accord's.

And it would be if it had the 310 HP GM Vortec 5300 HO in it. ;)

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 04:11 PM
If one MPG is going to break your bank then you shouldn't be buying a truck. AND do you ever get the advertised MPG in your vehicles..OPPS sorry the Vette gets that....right.

I bet you will pay MSRP too right? That's what they are going for...right?

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 04:13 PM
If one MPG is going to break your bank then you shouldn't be buying a truck. AND do you ever get the advertised MPG in your vehicles..OPPS sorry the Vette gets that....right.

I bet you will pay MSRP too right? That's what they are going for...right?

I've never paid close to MSRP for any car in my life.

EPA figures are very accurate for PURPOSES OF COMPARISON. They aren't intended to reflect the actual mileage that everyone will get.

My LS1 Z28's ACTUAL fuel economy was within a hair of this Accord's. And that's a fact.

The Z28 was rated @ 19/28 and this Accord is rated @ 21/30.

But the Z28 produced ~ 110 more HP. :rolleyes:

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 04:18 PM
If you want a Ridgeline now and belive all of the dealer BS you will be paying MSRP..or close.

How come your Z28's mileage is a hair away from your Accord by 2 MPG but the 2000 is way off the vette off with 2 mpg? I don't get it.

Didn't a car manufacturer have to give a rebate for false MPG ratings....well regulated comparison numbers huh?

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 04:21 PM
If you want a Ridgeline now and belive all of the dealer BS you will be paying MSRP..or close.

How come your Z28's mileage is a hair away from your Accord by 2 MPG but the 2000 is way off the vette off with 2 mpg? I don't get it.

Didn't a car manufacturer have to give a rebate for false MPG ratings....well regulated comparison numbers huh?

Car manufacturers don't come up with mileage ratings; the EPA does.

And you're thinking of MAZDA giving rebates for publishing HP figures that were a little "opimistic."

The 240 HP S2000 is rated @ 20/26.

My ~ 350 HP Z28 and the new, 400 HP C6 Corvette are rated @ 19/28.

My 240 HP Accord is rated @ 21/30.

What's there not to get?

Both "low tech" GM pushrod V8s beat both Hondas in terms of HP/MPG.

And the S2000's engine is simply TOO SMALL for the car it's in. It therefore has to rev like hell to make any power. And high revs kill fuel efficiency. And therein lays the paradox that I'm trying to point out.

maybearidge
03-19-2005, 04:24 PM
I have to go..my Mom is calling...dinner is ready.

AccordV6
03-19-2005, 04:25 PM
I have to go..my Mom is calling...dinner is ready.


OK...bye......

80honda
03-21-2005, 01:52 PM
Since you mentioned the EPA ratings. You can get better EPA ratings just by playing the EPA game. By installing a shift lock-out device that prohibits use of I think it is 2 and 3rd gear, the EPA will bump the mileage rating up. The car doesn't actually get better mileage, but the EPA will give you a better rating.

Remember those silly shift lights that became popular on cars in the late 80's and 90's. Just by installing a shift light, the EPA would rate the car something like 10% higher. The car didn't get better mileage, but it did get a better rating.

Another thing about the Honda Engine. It is ULEV rated all 50 states. Some people actually care about the environment and think about things like pollution when buying a vehicle.

How many ULEV Chevrolet trucks are there sold all 50 states.

Bottom line. Die hard Honda people would NEVER accept a GM engine in a Honda. Can you imagine what would happen to the reliability ratings. I would bet money that would plummet.

Ridge
03-21-2005, 03:13 PM
.

Bottom line. Die hard Honda people would NEVER accept a GM engine in a Honda. Can you imagine what would happen to the reliability ratings. I would bet money that would plummet.


You are so right. :cool:

80honda
03-21-2005, 03:43 PM
One forum poster states
"My LS1 Z28's ACTUAL fuel economy was within a hair of this Accord's. And that's a fact. The Z28 was rated @ 19/28 and this Accord is rated @ 21/30."


Went to Edmunds and looked up their Observed mileage on a few vehicles using the Chevrolet engine.

Camaro 16
But the Accord V6 got 26 on the Edmunds test.
Corvette 16.76
Avalance 12
Hummer 9.2

rfs830
03-21-2005, 10:56 PM
I know 5 people that have z28s and all of them said they dont get good gas milage but do have alot of power. Now 2 of them went form that to a new v6 accord and say there get great gas milage compared to there z28s. So I dont know were this person is saying his z28 is like the accord when I know people that that will say other wize.

jvacierto
03-22-2005, 11:21 AM
The website auto.consumerguide.com has also stated the Accord has been getting over 20MPG consistently while the Z28 gets less (low teens) and is one of their "cons" for the car.

EPA ratings and HP and Torque specs are nice, but just numbers in the end . . . they're guidelines for a car's performance. They don't tell how one engine will perform when in another car with different weight, aerodynamics, design goals, transmission, etc. And they don't tell how the vehicle will perform in the real world.

I'm not denying a good GM V8 would be good in the Ridgeline. There are just too many factors to just assume it will make the Ridgeline perform better than it already is. As for the comment from AccordV6 about how he wants the Ridgeline to perform more like an Accord . . . many reviewers have already stated it does, so it's all a matter of opinion.

fcatwo
04-23-2005, 09:40 PM
GM truck V-8's are aligned front to back and drive the rear wheels first and the front wheels second. Hondas are set up opposite to that. I can't imagine there is enough room between the front wheels of a Ridge to fit a large V-8 and a tranny even using the Honda V-6 tranny. Someone on Odyclub.com called it a "packaging" issue and Honda must have crossed that bridge early in the concept/design phase for the Ridge.

Frank

mkmatsuman
04-24-2005, 01:05 AM
No way am I driving a Honda with a GM motor. I don't care how much HP or torque it has.
I agree with 80honda, we are a Honda family and our current Honda Civic has over 274,000 on it and I finally changed my 1st clutch. Out previous Honda had 374,000 before my wife had an accident in it. Reliability is definitely in Honda's vocabulary

DoctorJ
04-24-2005, 08:08 AM
FYI
My S2000 got over 30 MPG hwy and about 22 MPG city. Dynoed at 202.8 RWHP, and given there is an average of 18% loss in a manual transmission, the HP and mileage ratings from Honda appear to be conservative. It also would pull in 6th gear at low RPMs despite the low torque rating. It would do 0-60 in about 5.5 seconds. Top speed is rated at 150 however there are some idiots out there that have got their's up to 165.

One thing left out here is the gearing ratios for each of the engine/vehicle combinations. Typically a higher reving engine at hwy speeds will yield less gas mileage. The engine does not fully dictate the gas mileage of a complete vehicle.

I am sure you could swap many of the different engines discussed here into other body shapes and the mileage rating would change due to the aerodynamics and weight.

One thing left out about Honda, there would be nothing wrong with them buying an engine or some other part from someone else, they certainly don't make every part for their cars. However those parts would need to meet the quality standards set forth by Honda to their contact manufacturers. Honda did not design every part on the Rigdeline (neither the S2000 and probably others) and sought some of the best companies to help them with the overall truck.

Who knows why a GM engine was not used, it probably did not have anything to do with it being a GM motor. It could have been manufacturing timeframes to market, cost issues, political issues within either company.

There is no doubt that GM has been on the forefront of quality mass produced small block V8 engines for consumer vehicles. I have personally played a role in engine testing for prototype 4.3 liter V8s from GM.

There are so many factors engineers and marketing people have to consider for every aspect of a new design. I think its unbelievable how well most car manufacturers do in this age of incredibly demanding consumers.

I am glad we have so many choices - in America, the land of the free (and milk and honey stuff too :D )

shovelhd
04-24-2005, 10:01 AM
There's no question in my mind that Honda will deliver a V8 powered pickup within the next ten years, but it won't be based on the Ridgeline. It will be designed to compete directly with the Tundra, F-150, Dodge Ram, etc. It will not use a purchased motor, it will be internally developed, if only for one reason - NASCAR Craftsman Truck racing.

This is entirely my own opinion and is not based on facts.

Ridge Man
04-24-2005, 11:59 AM
e -gads thought I was on an Auto Weeks Forum. Thanks guys you all presented your views quite well good healthy pros & cons, but kinda like politics no end in sight. Will the sun continue to rise & set ?? Hope so!
"Si hoc legere scis,mnimus eruditionus habes"
"Non urum ad ventum"Compare trucks with trucks and cars with cars.

I just showed you what GMC's 310 HP 5300 VORTEC HO does. And BTW, that engine is MUCH less expensive to produce than Nissan's 32 valve, DOHC V8.

In terms of performance cars, the new C6 Corvette, with it's "dinosaur" 6.0 liter V8 yields 19 city/28 highway and produces 400 HP. That's 17.02 HP/average MPG.

I challenge you to name ANY other performance car - at ANY price, that can touch that combination of fuel economy and power. (Just for laughs, check out the S2000 and Acura NSX. They aren't even remotely close.) Then check out the Porsches, Ferraris, etc.

And that mileage is real - as long as you keep your boot out of it. My LS1 Z28 gave up next to nothing on my new V6 Accord in terms of MPG. And that Z28 would walk away from the Honda without even trying. (Was the Z28 even remotely as "nice" as the Accord? Nope, not even close. But that's not the point.)

The Great Tristano
04-24-2005, 02:20 PM
Also like politics, it's clear that people were having a hard time listening to other views.

The Ridgeline's fuel effiency is disappointing, I don't see how anyone can argue that. If Chevy could build a Silverado that even came close to Honda reliability and did something about their horrible interiors, I wouldn't even have to think twice before buying one. I don't feel that I need a V8 with 300+ hp and lb.ft., but if I'm not gonna get much better mileage with a V6 and have to sacrifice at least 50 hp and a substancial torque range, it might not be the best decision.

Still, ULEV is nothing to snuff just because average people don't know what it means. I would gladly give up some power for ULEV, though in this case it seems to be backwards...ULEV leads to lower fuel economy???

The price and fuel economy are in my opinion the greatest flaws of this vehicle. The price I expect from Honda, but not 16mpg. :(

DISCLAIMER: I did not mean to imply that either ULEV or fuel economy is the direct result of the other, or that they're even related as far as the mechanics of a vehicle are concerned, just that I would expect a ULEV vehicle to get pretty good mileage, or it's essentially no better than a vehicle getting decent mileage but pumping out pounds of toxic emission crap.

boxsky
04-27-2005, 04:41 PM
Didn't Honda learn from its mistakes with the Isuzu fiasco. GM has had many engine problems compared to the Jap engines. If they want a V8 take 2 fours and put them together or just design it themselves.

boxsky
04-27-2005, 04:49 PM
My friends GM truck gets 13mpg his Z28 gets about 16. I think you should send in your car to the gov't so they can test to see why you are getting better gas mileage then anyone else. These camaro lovers blow smoke all the time. :D

On what set of facts are you basing your ENGINE reliability statements on?

Have you ever been in a vehicle powered by an LS1/LS1 derived engine?

I have. I owned an '99 LS1 powered Z28. The car was lacking in many areas compared to a Honda. The engine was NOT one of those areas. And it's more than just "specs;" it's also seat-of-the-pants. It made my V6 Accord seem slow in comparison while yielding real world fuel mileage that was strikingly comparable.

Ever witness 2,000 RPM @ 92 MPH (in 6th gear) without even having to think about downshifting in order to pass?

Ever see a car pull cleanly in 6th gear with 600 RPM showing on the tach?

GM could learn a lot from Honda.

But Honda could learn a lot from GM about making inexpensive, POWERFUL and fuel efficient V8s.

maybearidge
04-27-2005, 08:12 PM
Wow...I can't believe this thread is still going. Why the hell would I buy a Honda with a GM motor?? That would defeat my whole purpose of buying JAP cars-reliability, mileage technology. I would have not thought once of buying the RL with a GM motor...stop being ridiculous!! ;)

oldguy
08-25-2005, 10:13 PM
I was looking up something else and stumbled upon this thred. If you remember, I talked about my 78 Buick Century Wagon,WITH THE VEGA TRANSMISSION and the CRACKED REAR AXILES, Plus other problems. I bought
the car and it had a missing crome window trim piece. Took it back to the dealer 5 times and the part never came in,WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS ORDERED. I have bought Stanza's , Acura integras (180k miles before the cvc joints went). The transmission on the Buick went out @ 50k miles, GM was only replacing those that went out before 35K miles. I argued with the dealer and was told that "The car you bought is a GM car, the only difference is the trim that Chevy,Buick, etc... use"; therefore, it was perfectly reliable for GM to put a Vega trans in your car. The last GM product I will ever buy,EVER!!! Before, the Ridgeline, when I traded the Acura and got a Toyota Selara, had it for 2 years, but couldn't hall andything and bought a Toyota Highlander V6 , nice car but could only pull 3500lbs; therefore, went to a Toyota 2 wheel drive V8 4 Runner. The 4 runner got better in town and mixed mph 17 to 18.5, but the HWY mph is about the same. Why the Ridgeline, I can haul bigger anteques for the wife and she likes and I do also like the drive and feel of the Ridge over the 4 Runner. The wife says its a truck, I say its a utility vehicale, but its a truck :rolleyes: .

stinger
08-27-2005, 03:44 PM
Like the majority of people here,I bought a Honda because IT IS A HONDA.
my last vehicle was a GM.considering my personal experience with GM and to make a long story short, lets just say if Honda even uses as much as a door handle from GM.I will never buy a Honda again.
who cares if a few of GM engines are good.there are thousands of other components in a vehicle.the whole package has to be good to get good reliability and customer satisfaction.thats just my opinion and choice,
if GM is your choice,now is a great time to buy them,they have extended their employee pricing offer to everyone.their employees are not very happy about it but then again how else can they keep them employed. :rolleyes: