I was looking into upgrading from CL9 to a CU2 today... I was research for the possibility for some USDM Acura front grill/bumpers to be put in (cause I just cant get over the looks of the CU2... what the hell were they thinking when they deisgned that thing...)
Anyway, I found something interesting for the USDM vs AUDM K24Z engine... Everything else seems identical... except...
1. Power: USDM K24Z produces 147kw instead of 148kw on the AUDM K24Z
2. Fuel: USDM K24Z recommands 91RON (can even use mid-grade 89 RON), while AUDM is 95RON min.
3. Fuel consumption: USDM 10.69/7.59Liter per 100km (City/Highway) | AUDM 12.3/6.9 Litre per 100km (Urban/Extra Urban) *
*There is differences between EPA and ADR on fuel consumption, EPA (USA) tend to calculate less for "City" compared to ADR "Urban" and EPA (USA) tend to calculate higher consumption for Highway compared to ADR "Extra-Urban", the difference is +/- 10% it appears over all.
So.... I can jsut imagine how much money I can save with the 91 Ron... LOL.
I'ts different units. They use AKI. 91 AKI = 95RON. 87 AKI = 91 RON. The fuel econ figures are prob due to variations in the testing method between countries.
just buy a civic if you want fuel economy and since u hate the cu2 so much lol
It;s just the front grill, something about it just dont work for me. the acura with the chome mustache and more rounded foglight spacings is much better imo.
just buy a civic if you want fuel economy and since u hate the cu2 so much lol
+1 to that.
Originally Posted by Fredoops
It;s just the front grill, something about it just dont work for me. the acura with the chome mustache and more rounded foglight spacings is much better imo.
No need to hate =P But have you considered looking at the optional Modulo Sports grill/Mugen grill for the CU2?
As for fuel consumption think about this:
Full tank of 91RON into my GD3 (1.5L) - not sure on the Fuel tank capacity: ~$45 -> 400-500km Highway and City driving -> Averaging about 7.0L/100km (Auto)
Full tank 95RON into my CU2 (2.4L) - 65L: ~$90-100 -> 800-900km Highway and City driving -> Averaging about 10.0L/100km (Auto)
So if you think about it you don't save much more with 91RON and a much less powerful engine...95RON is "better" for the engine in the long run anyways. Having said that, I've also read that 95RON also increases the fuel consumption of the car. That's my point of view of it anyways
No need to hate =P But have you considered looking at the optional Modulo Sports grill/Mugen grill for the CU2?
I saw the face lift coming out, the problem seems to be the sharp edges with the facelift didn't seem to address, so many of them make the styling a bit fuzzy.
I FINALLY found what exactly the front end is bugging me... it is the side and shape of the grill... Gotta go for work, i'll explain it later with pics when i came back.
As for fuel consumption think about this:
Full tank of 91RON into my GD3 (1.5L) - not sure on the Fuel tank capacity: ~$45 -> 400-500km Highway and City driving -> Averaging about 7.0L/100km (Auto)
Full tank 95RON into my CU2 (2.4L) - 65L: ~$90-100 -> 800-900km Highway and City driving -> Averaging about 10.0L/100km (Auto)
So if you think about it you don't save much more with 91RON and a much less powerful engine...95RON is "better" for the engine in the long run anyways. Having said that, I've also read that 95RON also increases the fuel consumption of the car. That's my point of view of it anyways
If you drive 20,000km a year, then that is 1400L of 91RON or $1820 if the price was $1.30 per litre. In comparison, the CU2 would use 2000L of fuel for the same distance and if it was $1.45 per litre for 95RON, then it will cost $2900. So the difference in a year is $1080. For some people that is a lot of money, and for others, that is nothing compared to their ciggie cost (4 packs per week, $15 a pack = $3120).
OK, Back from work.... I dont have an art degree so explaning the issue with the front grill might take a while... so bare with me.
Now Look at the picture below, i've made a few markings.
Notice the RED line running below the head lights to the centre of the car, you see the grill is bascially a continuation of the line below the light perfectly, this i believe is honda trying to get this whole "angular" styling working.
However. the headlight was not a full flat shape, but the edge of the headlight towards the grill has a "kink" in it. See the area indicated by the BLUE lines. it effectively made the headlight very narrow on the inner edge, so you have part of the headlight connecting with the grill and the bottom which isnt connected with the grill. The flow of the angular shape is borken, it's made worse by the size of the grill, which is you see the black line's i've pointed out, it's full 1/2 of the height of the front bumper. That wouldn't be bad if the proportion is good.... but it isnt. the headlights for the CU2 are thin and narrow, the grill is huge and bulky. a stark contrast, and not a good contrast at that.
Lots of cars have large sized front grills, like Mercedes, but they have large headlights to complement it, this one doesnt. This is like someone with a very narrow eye but a HUGE nose, and a shinny nose at that.
the grill aint that big in real life
just replace it if u dont like it, u got mugen or modulo or DIY russian style if you want. (cut off the centre bar) plenty of choices
How about this look, i just modify the picture in paint with red line as the grill and blue line as the headlinghts? Does this look propotion? Why Honda can't make like this way of nice looking?
Originally Posted by furythree
+1
Bookmarks