GS69

The pics work for me but if they do not work for you, here is a link:
Temple of VTEC

TSX


NSX


Fit


Accord

Nextourer

??? I don't see anytihng.

Gojirra99

I got red X's but HERE's the LINK

Nextourer

ahh, thanks for the link.

So basically, the Fit will look like the new CR-V, the Accord will look like the CSX, the TSX will look like the current TL and the new NSX will look like the last gen TL hahaha.

LexFather

^^^^ That sums it up.....I've gotten more excited waiting for my butter to melt on my garlic bread...

Gojirra99

That's actually pretty exiting for me I love garlic bread !!
I will be particularly disappointed with the next NSX if that' the way they are going to design it . . .

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

mmm 2.3L turbo SH-AWD TSX?

Nextourer

I guess power really. Most keep saying they're using turbo to get more power while using less fuel. However, the Murano with a 3.5 litre V6 gets better mileage (and a tad more power) than the RDX. Even the heavier RX350 gets better mileage. The only one that's slightly worse is the CX-7

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

they didnt want to put a V6 in the RDX because it would make the front heavier was one of their main reasons going turbo 4. Also the new MDX is going to have a V6, no sense in making the RDX V6, dont want to turn the MDX into another RL. Turbos always make worse mileage vs an equivalent N/A anyways

tmf2004

iTrader: (15)

I like the TSX... Now it looks like it may compete with the Mazdaspped 6 and other cars of it class... mmmmmmmm Turbo

MPLexus301

iTrader: (3)

I can honestly say that I'm really disappointed with every car shown there. The NSX is probably the biggest disappointment. It just looks OLD. That TSX looks like a GM concept car for some reason. And if the new Accord looks like the new Civic...

Nextourer

Really? I always thought that turbos can give similar (maybe slightly worse) mileage as a similar displacement engine but with the addition of extra oomph (and of course fuel penalty) if desired.

SteVTEC

That's what marketing hacks have been saying for years, but it just isn't true. Turbo engines need a lower static compression ratio which means when you're cruising and off boost (90% of the time) your efficiency stinks. They also have to run turbo engines richers than normal to bring the EGTs down to protect the turbocharger(s) from excessively high exhaust temperatures otherwise. Turbos are much better off in diesels which are compression ignition in the first place, and also have much lower exhuast temps. Direct injected turbo engines at least solve the static compression issue because it allows for a much higher CR, but naturally aspirated engines can use direct injection also... Still doesn't solve some of the other problems either.

Under a moderately heavy load and actually making some power, a smaller displacement turbo engine will make that power "more efficiently" than a larger NA engine, but in cars most of the time the engine is not under much of a load so that's really a moot point. It doesn't stop marketers from using it though. They might quote a 10% improvement in efficiency looking at some narrow area of an engine's BSFC map vs another, nevermind the fact that the engine will rarely if ever be operating in that range and that it's irrelevant.

toy4two

Well there goes the Neighborhood. Looks like GM will be surpassing Honda with innovative designs.

That NSX is lame, they should do that old NSX concept from a few years ago.

United #10

I hope Honda will put the Turbo on next TSX. But why 2.3? It should be 2.4. The new FIT looks great!!