comparing CU2 and CL9

[aaronng]

If your looking for fast, Honda is not for you. Nothing out of Honda's range in recent years is anywhere near fast. Fast enough is good enough. The K24 that all Euro's run is the torquiest engine Honda makes, and yet I'm happy to say torque is the one thing is lacks. But that's with all Honda engines, their designed to rev.

One thing I find is that we get used to the torque. After driving an NC MX-5, I found that eventhough it has a better torque/weight ratio than the CL9, the engine just wouldn't increase in revs with about 50% throttle when in 2nd gear below 2000 rpm. The CL9 in comparison will still slowly accelerate, so the K24 engine does have its plusses.

If you're wondering why I'm talking about torque, it's cos torque matters low down, and KW matters at the high end. [/quote]
Both are measuring different things. Torque production varies with RPM, so you need to look at the torque vs RPM profile. An Aurion has much more torque than a 3.0 L Commodore on paper, yet the Commodore has the majority at low RPM between 2500-4000 thus pulling harder in that range, whereas the Aurion has a majority of torque above 4000 RPM, letting it overtake the Commodore at high RPM.

kW is just the measurement of work at a particular RPM. Around the peak power, if you can keep the engine revs close to that peak power RPM for longer, the engine does more work and hence the car goes faster and further within an alloted time. On its own it means nothing, example being the Corolla Sportivo with 141kW/1225kg. Great on paper, but even a DC2 VTIR kills it with its 125kW and a worse power/weight ratio.

In theory, the CL9 should be faster, due to the sheer difference in weight (150kg give or take), while the CU2 basically has a retuned engine for better fuel econ. Those 8kw won't really matter much. The gearing is said to be shorter, which would improve the acceleration a bit, but would make it worse for long drives on FWYs. CU2 also has wider tyres which would contribute to better take off. In the end though, both will perform very similarly. So in the end, it's down to you.

Agreed, unfortunately the weight makes the CU2 feel a bit slower than the CL9. The CU2 does make up for it in many other areas. It has a very nice interior, the wheel track is much wider than the CL9, giving it better cornering ability and it looks much more upmarket than the CL9.

If what you're after is speed and power though, look else where. I'm sure you could get a FalcoDore for similar money.

Yes, a manual VEII SV6 would be very nice. Drove the auto for a few days and the torque and power was amazing. Shame that these cars feel very loose and rattly after 4 years, I'm on my 2nd base Commodore now and so far the pattern has been repeating consistently.