Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredoops
^ this!
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredoops
^ this!
But you said the Euro is typically thirsty, that is not the case in my view. I have exceeded 1,00km on a tank once & twice exceeded 980km on a tank - you need to have petrol stations located in the right area to achieve 1,000 on a tank. In saying that, for the whole of 2012 I only traveled a little over 1,700km & averaged 8.12L/100, that was without leaving the city limits of Hervey Bay & no trip over 7km in length. So if that is typically thirsty I don't know what economical is.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosMaster
If you haven't noticed. All the car's I've listed were much more powerful, and larger (not really in the BMW case), and they are matching a 4 cylinder in terms of economy. What I mean to say is that, if you were to change over to say, a Camry or Passat, in the same conditions, it would eclipse what your Euro has been achieving. Not to mention, the case you're using is, even a V8 Turbo diesel Range Rover Vogue would manage similar consumption, and that thing's a tank in comparison to the Euro.Quote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
Look, I get that you admire your car. I love mine as well. But the fact is, Honda has been lagging behind these past few years. It's not entirely their fault. After the GFC hit, they were without (as) much government backing. Then the Thailand floods hit, which basically put their production to a halt in most countries. Because of that, they're about 5 years behind. The evidence is clear throughout their range. The "new" Civic, for example, underneath is exactly the same as the 2003 model but with a new skin. The current CU2 is basically running the same engine and drive train as the 2003 CL9. The S2k, of which production finally stopped 2-3 years ago, was already 11 years old, and they still were charging 80k for it, because to them, it was the peak of their technology. Even though the interior was bland and empty of any luxuries, and the engine, while a gem in 1999 (and still is today) had already been surpassed by hot hatchbacks, but Honda refused to acknowledge this due to the lack of funds. Name one model that has had a significant upgrade compared to it's decade old counter part in Honda's range.
Do you drive like a grandma and shift at 2000rpms?Quote:
Originally Posted by buddah51au
You may find that shifting too early actually results in worse fuel consumption. Besides, he drives an Auto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasemas
It seems that someone else was listening in on the interview of the Honda CEO...
http://www.houseofjapan.com/auto-mot...odel-confirmed
The new CRV's 2.4L engine has 140kW output like the CL9 engine but on 91 RON petrol. I hope that the new Euro comes with a 91 RON engine as I'm sick of paying 174.9 cpl for 95 RON instead of 159.9 cpl for 91 RON.
I was in Melbourne over Xmas and New Year (go on, some have a go at me for writing Xmas) and paid 122.9 cpl for 91 RON. You guys down there massively under-pay for petrol. They should put it up to something more realistic like what we pay. (err.. lol)
Well with DI you shouldn't "NEED" PULP.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPQR
having said that, the reason petrol is cheap in VIC is because of refinement capabilities here, compared to North where everything's imported
Ahh trueQuote:
Originally Posted by ChaosMaster
So if its an auto... slowly press foot down... And get to 60km/h in 35 seconds?
Nah the torque converter would be doing most of the pushing actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasemas
No turbos, no dual-clutch box, just the same old incremental updates cloaked as new tech :(
I have a feeling Japanese makes like Honda, Toyota and Mazda are banking on perceptions of their reliability to sell. What's with the resolute Japanese obsession with high compression, naturally aspirated engines and direct injection when everyone else is moving to forced induction? It's funny because Toyota and Nissan were among the first to go with turbos in the first place. Hybrid tech is interesting but Honda's IMA recovers lost energy rather than acting as a main power source like on the Prius.
Fiat and VW have tiny 1.4 litre turbos with more power than the aging 2.0 lump Honda uses. Fiat 1.8 and VW 2.0 turbos put out lots more power and torque than the ancient K24 while using less fuel and burning cleaner. CVTs feel horrid compared to dual-clutch boxes... I would rather take a lumpy old Selespeed single-clutch robotized manual instead of a CVT.
Honda has to do much more to survive.
After driving cars with DSG, I would pick an auto or manual anytime. The reliability issues are woeful.
+1 with what Aaronng said. DSG is crap. At least my experiences with them haven't left me very impressed.
That and many are finding that the good old auto torque convertor can be much more efficient than the DSG, handle a much higher outputs, are cheaper to produce and much more reliable and smooth. It's why BMW and Merc (who were investing in DSG) are now moving back to torque converters.
I'm not sure about the Turbo thing though. I mean it seems the Japs are really into free revving NA engines, I don't know why they seem against Turbos. Perhaps it is the reliability and cost which is pushing them back. Or perhaps Japanese roads require revs over torque?