Honda to focus on hybrid, halts development on V8 engine, rear-drive
2009 Acura TSX – Click above for high-res image gallery
Not long ago, Honda announced its intentions to build a V8 engine for its next-gen Acura flagship sedan, which was also likely to be migrated to a rear-wheel-drive platform. Unsurprisingly in light of the recent global economic downturn, that program was recently canceled. Speaking at his first press conference, newly-appointed Honda President Takanobu Ito says that was a "good decision." Ito goes on to say it's important for Honda to continue its reputation for innovation, saying:
I don't think we need a classic front-engine, rear-drive car. It would be meaningless to emulate what other companies have been doing for more than five decades... We are considering incorporating new engines, motors, transmissions and chassis into mid- to large-sized hybrid vehicles, and I think this is a good opportunity for change.In addition to the V8 engine and RWD platform, clean diesels are also rather unfortunately on the backburner in favor of hybrids. We'd rather have both, naturally.
Gallery: 2009 Acura TSX
[Source: Automotive News – Sub. Req.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Lorena Palin 6:54PM (7/20/2009)
OK, I can see scrapping the V8, but why the hell are all the car companies abandoning rear drive layouts for "luxury" and "performance" cars? Like, seriously. Maby FWD is cheaper or more compact, and is better for regular midsized sedans, compacts, and subcompacts, but RWD or AWD is something you want in a performance vehicle.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 7:59PM (7/20/2009)
Maybe someone at Honda did a realistic evaluation of oil reserves. More then half have already reached peaked production and have begun to decline. China is reporting they are "growing" by 8% in a global recession. World population is approaching 7 billion people. Electric motors have the best torque characteristics.
Maybe the V8 is dead.
Throwback 9:27PM (7/20/2009)
Might as well stick with what you know. FWD fuel efficient cars.
Reply
Lorena Palin 10:14PM (7/20/2009)
The Acura NSX was brilliant, and rear drive, the S2000 is rear drive, and brilliant. I think most acuras are rear drive or rear biased AWD.
I really don't get what is so much more fuel efficent about FWD. I mean slightly less weight, I guess, but it's not much. I mean especially on a performance oriented vehicle that already has a larger than necessary (as inlarger than 1.5-1.8 litres), it's just silling to wreck your handling like that.
Throwback 9:53AM (7/21/2009)
The only rear drive Honda currently for sale is the S2000. All Acuras are derivatives of front drive Hondas. The TSX is built of the Euro Accord platform, the TL is built of the USA Accord, with AWD optional. The RL is an AWD derivative of the US Accord. The MDX, Odessy and Ridgeline are all built off the same platform. I have no doubt Honda could build a top flight RWD sedan, they choose to maximize their profits by using proven FWD platforms. One reason why Acura is not in the same league as Lexus.
Anthony 10:11PM (7/20/2009)
What we do with the latest technology today will be pivotal. The human race, on a global scale, needs to move forward. It is the next evolutionary step. We could have done it during the Reagan Presidency, but the U.S. was fighting the cold war and used all our human and material resources for the lunar landings. So conservation practices were encouraged. Maybe now, we can go ahead with the new alternative energy generation plans and electron driven transportation systems (fuel cell, lithium ion batteries). Silicon valley will provide us with the genious we need to accomplish this. Even GM's executives have acknowledged this. Look at Tesla Motors (TM). If TM doesn't produce the $20,000 and under electric car, China will (Buffet).
Reply
Lorena Palin 10:20PM (7/20/2009)
So what does this have to do with weather you put the power down in the back or in the front?
A big part of new technology is making it appeal. if you market a *performance* car, you need to make it handle well. You can get your power any way you have it, electricity, V8s, smaller turbo engines with direct injection, diesel, fuel cells, steam, hamsters- dosn't really matter. But but see the way cars handle is worked out fairly well, and has very little to do with that.
Big preachy speach does very little. Engineering does.
Anthony 10:51PM (7/20/2009)
You don't get it, do you? Whether or not, or how we get there is important and of course, we must be "good looking."
Lorena Palin 12:47PM (7/22/2009)
What don't I get?
I understand perfectly well that you can power a car on any number of things, and many of them are more favorable to our current gasoline engines (personally I think fuel cells are BS, but I do favor series hybrids that use a more efficient power generation system (combined gas and steam turbine maybe?) .
I also understand that this has to gain public support and attention on a very large scale (I assume that's what you mean by "looking good")
Now, what I completely fail to understand is why any of these innovations prevent you from making a RWD or AWD performance car? Does RWD look bad? Does performance look bad?
The tesla Roadster, which from the first post I gather you are a fan of, is Rear wheel drive, and performs pretty damn well. It was one of the main reasons alot of people got into the whole EV thing, because suddenly someone said "We have an EV supercar. It does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds and can corner like a ferrari"
Before that the perception was that an electric car was basically a hot-rodded golf cart that would do 0-60...eventually...with a tail wind...going down hill.
Now, anything that is marketed as "green" and "performance" has to be good at performance. Why? Because performance enthusiasts are very ready to condemn anything "green" as half-assed, it has a lot to prove right from the start.
Front wheel drive just guarantees understeer and angry motor heads.
Reply