A cheap one hopefully... but the Si will be a coupe, so there might not be a spot in the lineup for one. Although, a luxerious version sold as a Honda would still be cool at the same price range.

1- Lack of torque in most engine models. Think of what would happen if the s2000 had 220+ ft-lbs to go with the 240 hp... much more responsive at all RPM's and probably faster overall.

2- The civic Si, which is supposed to be a sporty small car, is too slow. It should have gotten the RSX-s variant of the K-series, making it a slightly cheaper alternative to the nicer and better handling RSX-s. This is probably Honda's biggest flop.

3- Honda needs a truck (which is being fixed as we speak) that can at least hang with Nissan and Toyota.

4- Honda could use a $50,000 sports car, to compete with the likes of the corvette. Yes, it has the NSX, but it's too expensive for the mid-life crisis types, and largely underpowered for its price range. One could buy a Viper or a slightly-used Ferrari for that... which both offer more "exotic status" and signifigantly more power.

5- Why does Honda absolutley refuse to make a Factory Turbo engine? If they put a 2-liter turbo in a New Si, they'd pull WAY more market than the SRT-4, and could potentially create a tuner car that would be EVERYONE's starting car of choice.

anyone remember the Acura Vigor with the weird V5 engine?

I think Honda/Acura taking so long to recognize that their late model V6 automatic transmissions were problematic. There were all sorts of tranny failures on many recent V6 powered Hondas/Acuras (ie. 01-03 TLs/CLs, 99-02 Accords, Odysseys, etc) and yet Honda took a long time to finally admit there were problems and extend the warranty on them. At one point I was considering a used 02 TL and in doing my research I found countless cases of people having their auto tranny's replaced, and in many cases more than once.

V5... no such thing, it was inline, and many more than just that car had a I5. Volvo has made huge use of the I5 design becasue the middle cylinder is smaller is the engine becomse far more balanced.

Honda is a known for having track style engines. This means they have huge power bands that extend over 3-4K rpms. On a track low end torque does very little for you, low end torque pretty much just helps in take off. If the S2k had 220 ft-lbs, it would probably twist in half. Keep in mind by track, I mean like Mid-Ohio track that has 50+ turns in 3 miles, not 1/4 mile track.

Uhmmm.... yeah. The K20 in the Civic Si IS THE SAME ENGINE (or very close to it) in teh base RSX. And more than a few people on here already siad they are happy with thier Si. The Si wasn't made for everybody, the few that bought the Si, have liked the Si.

Be delivered to dealers in March.

A optioned out S2k is almost $40K. Remember, Honda is aimed at track people, so handling is number 1 in their book, not speed. A s2k can hang with a vette on the curvy track, but that's the $10G differance. But yes, they NSX is out of it's class now days.

I agree, but agian Honda is aimed at the track and handling people. A turbo car does not have the powerband a N/A car can achieve, and turbo lag (no matter how small) can hinder you at the track. Not to mention the turbo's put huge amounts of stress on the internals on the engine, hence making it less reilable. When desinging a turbo motor, it is a whole different ball game, which means to build a turbo motor, Honda will have to bring in people and engineers to deisgn this motor, that costs big bucks for something that Honda is not concerned with (striaght line performance).

I must say that making the SI a hatch doesn't seem like the biggest flop to me. I think the flop is NOT making a coupe also. I think Honda needed a hatch in their line-up to compete, and the SI filled it.

Having never driven one, I can't say for sure, but I know it turns off everyone I know... Can someone tell me why they put the shifter on the SI hatch on the dashboard? I would imagine that alone would have turned of people looking for a hatch (rather than looking for a Honda). I'm not saying a Honda enthuisiest wouldn't love this car, but if your name is Joe Honda and you own the company, you don't want only Honda enthusiests buying your cars. You want everyone buying them.

I also think Honda need to jump on the AWD market soon before it get too far behind.

As for the truck, I will have to wait til I see it in person, but I think that compartment in the bed of the truck is an incredible idea (big enough for a keg I read)

My '96 Acura 2.5 TL also uses the inline 5. (96-98?) 2.5 TLs use it. Once you got to the 3.2 TL, it became a V6.

Also, Honda underrated the 2.5L I5 to 176 hp. On the Acura fourms, its been pretty much proven to be more like 190~ hp. Its a nice engine IMO.

Honda put the shifter next to the wheel because it cuts down the time you only have one hand on the steering wheel. This may not seems big, but when you are autoX or on a curvy track, it make a difference when shifting through a corner.

Honda has AWD civic's and Accord (or actually real time AWD like in the CRV). They just aren't here in the US The problem with this idea is that AWD helps disapate low end torque during luanching, Honda motors don't have much torque, see above for reasons. Going back to the track ordeal, AWD won't help that much, a civic has to be very "built" before it can use this type of technology. As for cars like the EVO and STi, Honda has held their own agianst these cars for many years out side of the US, so I see no reason that will change. I would much rather have an RSX-S over an EVo or STi on a track, that's why Mid-Ohio uses only RSX-S on their school fleet.

Beside AWD consumes lots of power and adds lot of wieght. Take a look at the WRX's flywheel power versus it's power to the tires. Not to mention Honda's are known for being simple cars that last for ever, AWD systems are not simple and will break down before their non-AWD counter part.

No way... It's going to be a great truck although it will have its hands full with the domestic competition...

I actually sat down one night for dinner at a chineese place, and the guy next to me was a salesman from where I bought my car. He siad they got to go up to the IX center and dive it on a little course they had set thier, and they also got tod rive the Nissan and the Toyota and a couple domestics to compare. He siad it was built really tough, but it lack somethings like bed space and there where a couple of things that won't be popular. But Honda is not producing very many, so not many will be sold, at first.

the 88-91 DX/wagons not having a right-side mirror...

and the Si, it looks ugly in it's current form... woulda been better if they had made it look like a souped up coupe or sedan (I'm thinking of the m3 and m5 here)

Rumors are that SH-AWD will make its way to other cars. The RDX will come out with it and the TL will supposedly be next. But then again, those aren't small cars, they're based on the Accord platform so they'll have big engines compared to tiny 4bangers. These are also sold here as luxery cars so they can easily be repaired if anything goes wrong.

Honda has pretty flatly said that SH-AWD needs a V6.
The TL will NOT get SH-AWD.
The RDX will most likely not get it anytime soon. Hell, no one really knows what motor the RDX will get. Rumors are a V6 detuned from the factory or a turbo I4.

Linky to autoweek about AWD demand

Thats what autoweek said. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised since it is a car competing in a class with AWD available on most cars.

I am STILL pissed about it, I had a 2000 'Lude before I got my civic and I loved that car.

I let my friend who is an avid Rustang lover drive that car and he fell in love, he said that car was more fun to drive than any of the 5.0 rustangs he's driven.

Honda didn't know what they had with the 'Lude

How do you know? What makes you say that?

When I bought my Civic I got into a conversation with the guy at the dealer abotu the Prelude he apparently loved it as much as I did. He seemed to think we would see the Prelude again someday.

But where do you get that idea that it will come back?

If it does I'll be right there to trade in my Civic and buy it.

someday maybe...

I would love to the lude come back, but I just don't see it happening as long as the RSX (or some sporty coupe in the $30K range is around) is still around and the S2K is around. Lets not forget the sales of the lude where low, so while the enthusiast liked it, the normal public didn't care for it much, and let face it we are the minorty of car buyers. Most Americans would much prefer to be completely disconnected from the road. But I am happy with what I think is the replacement, the RSX-S, just wish I could afford one.

Man every other suv you see in San Antonio is a Pilot...

Why do people in San Antonio need an SUV? I don't need one, and I drove through 5 inches of snow today with out a problem? I just don't understand the America's need for SUV's

My mom has one to haul all our horse stuff in the back and plus we need the third row when we take my grandparents places... and the Pilot is the most car like one with enough space... it gets used trust me

although I realize half the people here don't need them...

but in all actuallty a pilot is jus a lifted oddessy

One thing I noticed about the Prelude that always kind of bugged me is that Honda NEVER advertised it. They will advertise Civic and Accord all day long (and understandable, I know, Accord/Civic are their cash cows) But I never saw a Prelude commercial. Even now, *IF* the s2000 happens to make it into a Honda commercial it's for only a split second before they cut away to the accord and civic. And they wonder why it didn't sell?

True, sales were low. But there was at least a base cult following that bought Preludes and would continue to do so, if honda kept making them I never would have stopped buying them. My Civic would be a Prelude, no doubt. All Honda would need to do is expand that base. The Prelude had this weird way of making people HAVE to have one once they drive it. My friend who I mentioned above drove my Prelude three years ago and STILL talks about it and complains that I never let him drive it again.

(Mainly, I just wanted to shut him up because he kept ragging on me about "rice mobiels" and how much better rustangs were, I wanted to prove to him otherwise.)

I had an 88 prelude si in yellow and I loved it. Got 5 tickets in like 7 months with it tho! Now, I hate yellow cars! But I loved that prelude

The new Honda truck IMO is going to flop and that ugly looking mini-van..Also how can we forget the Element I think that thing is ugly.

On a track, low end torque helps a little, yes. But this is the road we're talking about, where a car is going to spend 90% of it's time between 1.5k - 4k rpm. At this point, low-end torque is what you need. I'd rather not be redlining my car just to merge on the freeway.

I stressed the "type-S" variant of the K20 engine. I know the Si shares the exact engine as the Base RSX, but that's the problem!

If you own an Si, and you enjoy it... More power to ya... But the reason I didn't buy one was the lack of power.
[/QUOTE]


I mentioned this... It's being fixed.

Corvettes more than hold their own against S2000's. Then again, it's hard to make comparisions, since the Corvette is in Super Stock and the s2000 is in A-Stock.


Most of this I understand and agree with. However, let me bring several turbocharged examples that tend to kick *** on a track. Mistu Evo series, WRX (+STi), Supra Turbo, 911 Turbo, MR2 turbo, etc. These guys tackle a Road course with ease.

A turbo's powerband is comparitivley spikey, and yes, turbo lag can result... However, this mainly affects low-end torque only, which you've already mentioned to "do very little for you." In addition, if a flat torque curve is what you want, take a look at an engine like the 1.8T -- full torque at 1800 rpm.

The only real reason I think Honda doesn't do a turbo engine is reliability... on that, we agree.

I think Acura shouldnt have took away the names and replaced them with Numbers and letters... Like Legend and Integra sound hotter than RL and RSX

Also i think instead of making the civic only for low emissions and high fuel milage they should have brought the Honda City to America and let that compete in that market... And the Civic should have been more of a beefed up car to compete with its competitors that have more HP and more styling options (Mazda 3)

Agreed, Bring back the Legend nameplate which has so much more recognition than the "RL". I mean, Mercedes has had the SL for 50 years so it registers with people. Acura's RL just doesn't sound as great as a "Legend"

Agreed, Acura's older naming scheme was a lot better than the current, seemingly random, strings of letters they use to identify their cars now.

The Integra, for god's sake bring back the Integra!

You say the element is ugly?

People would say the same thing about the 7thgen civic.