Honda needs a production v8

[deevergote]

Right, Ridgeline was what I was looking for. But anyways, yes the NSX will probably be priced lower than the McLarens and the Porches and the Ferraris but I do not think by that much. And the person that could afford an NSX could afford the McLarnes, Porches, etc and why would you spend that much on a Honda when you could get something with prestige in that world.

The NSX is probably going to be priced at about $150,000. $200,000 at the very highest. The McLaren P1 and Porsche 918 Spyder start at about $850,000, and can be optioned to over $1,000,000. I'm comparing the NSX to those cars, because they are the only other comparable hybrid supercars, using electric motors to directly drive wheels as the NSX does.

Sorry I know this isn't what you are looking for, but: 8 cylinders was just a way of adding complexity to make up for weak power output. Honda doesn't need 8 and they know it.

Eh, I wouldn't really say that. V8 power and V6 power are two different things. Market-wise, I feel that luxury cars aren't taken seriously without a V8. Even Porsche, famous for flat 6s, put V8s in their larger luxury and GT cars (Panamera and 928).
I'm personally not a fan of the V6 design, as it's not the most balanced. Granted, modern V6s have addressed that to the point where it's hardly an issue... but V6 to me has always been "not quite a V8".

[rustyaccord]

Sorry I know this isn't what you are looking for, but: 8 cylinders was just a way of adding complexity to make up for weak power output. Honda doesn't need 8 and they know it.

But if they used 8 cylinders just think of the amount of power Honda could squeeze out of it based on the output of some of their current engines.

[deevergote]

It all depends on how it's implemented. There are twin-turbo V8 powered BMWs that make less power than the twin-turbo V6 GTR.

Most companies choose their engine configuration based on packaging needs, fuel economy needs, the intended target market preference, and their own expertise. Honda knows how to make a good V6... V8 would be risky, because it's a new thing for them in terms of mass production. If not risky in terms of actual functionality, risky in that potential buyers may be wary.

Honda should just go completely bonkers, and release an S2000 replacement with a 2.0L V8

[F22Chris]

I think the K23 turbos they put in the first gen RDX would be just as powerful as whatever v8 they could give us. Besides, Hondas J37 puts out 300hp/275tq. General Motors couldn't do that with their 350's till like 2007.

[owequitit]

The NSX is probably going to be priced at about $150,000. $200,000 at the very highest. The McLaren P1 and Porsche 918 Spyder start at about $850,000, and can be optioned to over $1,000,000. I'm comparing the NSX to those cars, because they are the only other comparable hybrid supercars, using electric motors to directly drive wheels as the NSX does.



Eh, I wouldn't really say that. V8 power and V6 power are two different things. Market-wise, I feel that luxury cars aren't taken seriously without a V8. Even Porsche, famous for flat 6s, put V8s in their larger luxury and GT cars (Panamera and 928).
I'm personally not a fan of the V6 design, as it's not the most balanced. Granted, modern V6s have addressed that to the point where it's hardly an issue... but V6 to me has always been "not quite a V8".

You should go test drive a current gen J35 Accord and let me know if that changes your perception.

[CyborgGT]

Personally I just don't see how balance can so completely shape your opinion of an engine. I think I'll always prefer six cylinders over eight, especially in an inline layout. I went on a mountain drive with a Nissan car club a while back, I think there were 13 VQs in the convoy... the most amazing soundtrack ever.

[foamypirate]

I think the K23 turbos they put in the first gen RDX would be just as powerful as whatever v8 they could give us. Besides, Hondas J37 puts out 300hp/275tq. General Motors couldn't do that with their 350's till like 2007.

Your lack of knowledge is showing... The LS1 was putting down 350hp and 365 lb-ft in 97'. The LT1 was 300hp and 340 lb-ft in 1991, using a 35 year old architecture. I love my Honda V6s (I had an 07' 6-6 Accord Sedan that I loved), but those old V8s made huge amounts of torque down low, and pretty good horsepower for their time (starting in the 90s, anyway. The 80s were horrrrrrrible). Yes, they were behind in specific output, but they were still pretty decent and have only gotten better.

[deevergote]

You should go test drive a current gen J35 Accord and let me know if that changes your perception.

I doubt that it would. I'm not saying it's bad... but a V6 is not a V8. Even my old supercharged 3.8L V6 was no replacement for a V8, and that was pretty much what GM intended it to be!

My dislike of V6s for their lack of balance is probably mostly personal prejudice at this point, though. I mean, the old NSX has a V6 pushed to the limit (of what manufacturers would release in a production vehicle, anyway), and they have few serious issues nearly a quarter century later. The GTR uses a V6, as does the new NSX... so yeah, my reasons for disliking the V6 design are mostly just unfounded personal bias.

[F22Chris]

Your lack of knowledge is showing... The LS1 was putting down 350hp and 365 lb-ft in 97'. The LT1 was 300hp and 340 lb-ft in 1991, using a 35 year old architecture. I love my Honda V6s (I had an 07' 6-6 Accord Sedan that I loved), but those old V8s made huge amounts of torque down low, and pretty good horsepower for their time (starting in the 90s, anyway. The 80s were horrrrrrrible). Yes, they were behind in specific output, but they were still pretty decent and have only gotten better.

Let me say I was being extra about the year, I'm aware Ls2 engines were already putting out like 500hp by then(2007). I'm not super knowledgeable about it, but I know that 92 f bodies which I know had lt1's, didn't even put out 300HP, because the same engine was in the vette putting down 300. I'm bias as well. The only v8's Ive ever touched are 350's from the 80's. Mostly C-10's, and some early 1500's with that weird fuel injected carburetor. They're not the fastest by any means, but they're reliable as hell. I agree, they have only gotten better. Not only that, but now they are fast as hell, and you can get LS parts at Waffle House if you wanted.

I would like to see a v8 happen, but I'm skeptical. The EPA is getting more strict, and pretty soon, like 2025 soon, the MPG regulation is going to be at like 55 per gallon if I remember. I think Honda is going to stick with the small displacement + turbos formula to meet regulations..

[deevergote]

LS2 was only doing 400hp (I've got one in my driveway )

Don't forget that while most common V8s in the 90s were making under 300hp, many common V6s were making under 200hp. 90s V8s that made horsepower figures on par with today's average V6 engines still made torque figures that are on par with today's high-performance N/A V6s.

The V6 has its place, but I do feel that a proper luxury vehicle should have a V8. The 3rd gen Legend (Acura RL) would have torn Lexus a new one if it had a V8 spinning the rear wheels. Instead, it was cross-shopped with the Lexus ES.
Performance cars can vary... the Miata is a performance car, IMO... and it has an underpowered 4 cylinder. Even with my dislike of the V6 design, I give the original NSX full credit as a legitimate sports car. I don't think Honda has any sports car designs that would be suitable for a V8.

[F22Chris]

Lol like I said, not super knowledgeable.

[MrTShoff]

I dont think theres a place for a Honda v8. I mean what would they do with it? V8s in general are probably going the way of the dinosaur soon in anything but trucks and american sports/ponycars and even they wont be invunerable to it (see new ford gt). It really makes no sense for Honda to have a v8 in a production car considering how well and smooth they've been known to make the 4 and 6 cylinder engines run. Hondas time to shine with a v8 (read: the 90s) has really come and gone in my opinion.

[CyborgGT]

Realistically, no, a V8 doesn't make sense for Honda, especially these days. But for the enthusiast set, a small V8 easily has a place in one or two performance models. I love that Lexus decided to put an NA V8 in the RC F. Personally I don't think the SUVs and Ody need anything more than a strong 6. Ridgeline, maybe (do they still make 'em?), but a turbo 6 would work well; I don't want Honda making a big diesel pickup.

[oni_cb7]

The Corvette's V8 fuel economy is impressive... though probably rated a LITTLE high. My CTS-V is rated at 16-25mpg, and I don't think I've ever seen 25mpg on the highway. I do average between 14 and 16 around town, though. Still, it's the EPA ratings that matter in terms of a manufacturer's ability to produce cars like that!

That 30mpg number is based off of real measurements from current owners. That isn't the EPA rating. I just google searched. I know that the tech involved in the new Corvette is phenomenal and allow the motor to run extremely efficient. Especially the cylinder deactivation.

[owequitit]

I doubt that it would. I'm not saying it's bad... but a V6 is not a V8. Even my old supercharged 3.8L V6 was no replacement for a V8, and that was pretty much what GM intended it to be!

My dislike of V6s for their lack of balance is probably mostly personal prejudice at this point, though. I mean, the old NSX has a V6 pushed to the limit (of what manufacturers would release in a production vehicle, anyway), and they have few serious issues nearly a quarter century later. The GTR uses a V6, as does the new NSX... so yeah, my reasons for disliking the V6 design are mostly just unfounded personal bias.

The 3.8 is a turd compared to the modern J series. First, that you are basing your claim of 6 cylinder balance on that hunk of crap is funny. Almost every V6 made was smoother, including the C series which was also 90* but didn't need balance shafts. You can't even FEEL the J series running. And it is putting out around 50HP more than the 3.8, and has about the flatest 6 cylinder torque curve you will see.

Comparing a GM engine that was basically 40 years old when you owned it is just not apples to apples. I am not saying that V8's aren't more powerful, but the smoothness in modern applications is questionable.

60* V6's are almost perfectly harmonically balanced anyway, only slightly worse than the perfectly balanced I6.