Consumer Reports: "Disappointing ION"...

Discussion in 'Saturn ION' started by Warren, Jun 5, 2004.

  1. I think it's more an issue of his bike just not having the omph. Mine's
    got a 95 inch motor, worked heads, 11.5:1 compression, cam, pipes, etc.
    His is stock save for a cam and pipes. And oh yeah, 15 cubes smaller,
    plus his bike's a bit heavier...
     
    Philip Nasadowski, Jun 10, 2004
    #41
  2. Warren

    Justin Guest

    Fit-and-finish aside, this is one of my favorite styled automobiles...
    I liked the Fiero. I had a silver, base model '84 Fiero back in the early
    90's. My father is a mechanic and bought it for $400 with a bad tranny in
    it. He rebuilt the tranny and gave it to me to drive. It had the plain
    steel wheels with the stock beauty rings. Even though it was the first
    year Fiero, it was real dependable. That 2.5 iron Duke was one of the
    strongest 4 bangers ever, albeit not a very spirited engine. Too bad GM
    didn't put the high revving Quad 4 in it!

    Similar cars from that era which I liked also were the '85 to '90 Subaru XT
    (wedge shaped, very cool, available in AWD Turbo), Toyota MR2 (4AGE 16V
    DOHC 1600cc engine that redlined at 7500), Corolla GT-S (same engine as the
    MR2), Nissan Pulsar NX, Isuzu Impulse, and the Mitsubishi Starion.
     
    Justin, Jun 10, 2004
    #42
  3. You mentioned a couple of my all-time favorites!

    Two friends of mine bought new white Corolla GT-Ss. The first was kind of
    boxy with square headlights. The second (a couple of years later) was
    sleeker with pop-up headlights. Both of these cars looked great in white,
    and the second one was one of the first cars I noticed where the factory
    painted everything body colored (incl. mirrors). These Corollas were really
    sharp looking, IMO.

    Someone who worked in the same building bought a new red Dodge Conquest TSi
    (aka Mitsubishi Starion). Man, I loved how this car looked! It's hard to
    find decent pics of these cars today and even when I do, the car looks a
    little dated. But I remember how they made my jaw drop the very first time I
    saw them. Not too many cars do this to me anymore, although maybe being in
    my late-'30s I'm just not as interested.
     
    Mark Gonzales, Jun 10, 2004
    #43
  4. Warren

    Saintor Guest

    Simply put, the Ion is a mediocre car. Saturn is so close to be a
    complete failure, wouldn't it be the VUE's revival, thanks to Honda's
    V6.

    Of course, what I said is not objective. And I don't think that a
    car's evaluation has to be objective. the car has to show balance,
    enough to make you forget about the car's weak points. In the case of
    the Ion, it can't.

    Competition 1, Saturn 0.
     
    Saintor, Jun 13, 2004
    #44
  5. Warren

    Justin Guest

    Objectively, other than the gripers who should never have bought one,

    My theory is that the Ion is just too ugly, compared to the '96 to '02 SL
    series and compared to the new Civic, Kia Sephia, Dodge Neon, etc.. It
    looks better than the Corolla though. The '96 to '99 Saturns, IMHO, were
    wonderfully styled.
     
    Justin, Jun 13, 2004
    #45
  6. Warren

    Blah blah Guest


    The honda v6 isnt special believe me. Its power band is way to high for
    a suv.



    IMHO the ones you named off are far behind saturn in looks. Hell
    saturns way ahead of most of those in crash test and thats not an
    opinion. Kia's are coffins period. People buy Kia's because their stupid
    enough to fall for that 10yr warranty crap. Nothing else is a factor to
    them. There are 2 Ion body styles anyhow. The coupe and sedan look
    nothing alike.
     
    Blah blah, Jun 13, 2004
    #46
  7. Warren

    Saintor Guest

    You obviously don't know what you are talking about. It has specially
    low-end ooomph.
     
    Saintor, Jun 13, 2004
    #47
  8. Warren

    Blah blah Guest

    Specially low-end oomph? Pfft...I know what I'm talking about, I dont
    buy trucks/suv's that need to be whined out to 5000rpm to reach their
    powerband to get a load moving. Get with it. You might enjoy working an
    engine at ridiculously high and wastefull rpms but I do not. Its just
    more wear and tear.

    Lets see... Peak torque at 3600rpm's or peak torque at 4500rpms. Which
    engine will have to be screeming to keep up with the other? I'd rather
    have torque down low where I need it and use it the most. Not only that
    but less engine rotations draw less fuel and air and make for better
    mileage. 4500rpm's to reach peak torque in a suv is a wasteful.
     
    Blah blah, Jun 13, 2004
    #48
  9. Honda make an engine with *torque*????

    They excel at engines with their torque and HP peaks being uselessly
    high for a street car. Witness the S2000, the car that's downright
    dangerous to merge onto a highway with unless the engine's going at
    least 6 grand.

    Given the way Hondas are now, I'd hate to imagine what they'd be like
    without VTEC (which is a shitty way to vary timming anyway), given
    VTEC's supposed advantage is a broader powerband, though it's only real
    advantage is marketing.

    Oh yes, and is it too much to ask for an automatic that can make up it's
    mind what gear it's in?
     
    Philip Nasadowski, Jun 14, 2004
    #49
  10. Warren

    Saintor Guest

    Absolutely.

    To the contrary of popular belief, all Honda have a relatively flat torque
    curve. Even the B16a on old Civic Si. Except that with sub 2L and
    specialized vehicles like S2000, we are not talking about an high value.

    But the big 4 like the 2.3-2.4L and V6 are fairly torquey at low-end.

    I owned a non-VTEC and a VTEC Accords. The VTEC one had a much better sound
    at high RPM and was slightly more powerful. Behind the obvious marketing
    value, there is a technical point with VTEC. Now with i-VTEC std on
    RSX/Si-R/Accord 4 cyl., the variable timing system is no longer at only high
    RPM.
     
    Saintor, Jun 14, 2004
    #50
  11. Warren

    C. E. White Guest

    If you are only looking at the peak torque, you don't know
    the whole story. It is possible that the Honda V-6 has a
    very flat torque curve and that it has plenty of torque at
    3600 and 4500. Without a torque curve you can't know the
    whole story. For this engine, as used int he Pilot, Honda
    claims a "broad torque cure" that "provides plenty of torque
    across a wide rpm range."

    Regards,

    Ed White
     
    C. E. White, Jun 14, 2004
    #51
  12. ....last time I was at the Honda dealer I noticed the '04 S2000 no longer
    has the 9,000 rpm redline. I'm guessing they're aiming for more torque,
    however it still doesn't make it's full torque until 6500 r's and full
    hp until 7800 r's. Things that make you go hmmmm...
     
    Jonnie Santos, Jun 14, 2004
    #52
  13. They bumped up the displacement from 1997cc to 2157cc by lengthening
    the stroke.

    Dav2.718
     
    David Hungerford, Jun 15, 2004
    #53
  14. Didn't know - thanks.

    I've never driven one (but would like too), however after seeing
    Mitsubishi's Evo with 19lbs of boost and 271 hp for $26k I think the
    Zero (insert sarcasm) would be more of a hoot to drive.
     
    Jonnie Santos, Jun 15, 2004
    #54
  15. np. The latest issue of Car & Driver says it "...provides much better
    midrange response, and the longer stroke brings operating RPM down
    from the stratosphere."
    Yeah, that'd be a trip. I'm not looking for anything that hot and I'm
    a small wagon fan (current ride is a '94 SW2), so I'm fairly annoyed
    at Mitsubishi for their decision to not put the manual tranny in the
    Lancer Ralliart Sportback. (Meanwhile, the Mazda 3 would be $18k
    equipped how I want it...hmmm.)

    Dav2.718
     
    David Hungerford, Jun 15, 2004
    #55
  16. Warren

    satyr Guest

    The Pilot engine is a 3.5 L V6 so compare it to something similar, say
    the 3.4L V6 in the Chevy Venture.

    The Chevy engine produces 210 ft*lb at 4000.
    The Honda engine produces 242 ft*lb at 4500.

    The Chevy engine produces 185hp at 5200.
    The Honda engine produces 240hp at 5400.

    As pointed out, the Honda has a very flat torque curve and certainly
    has more that 210 ft*lb at 4000. In fact, I would wager that it has
    more power at any rpm. It isn't uncommon for a VTEC engine to have
    90% of peak torque from ~2500 to near redline. (Don't know about this
    particular engine.)

    Some people think that hen you increase the torque at higher rpm
    without affecting torque at lower rpm that this somehow makes the
    engine worse. They are stupid.
     
    satyr, Jun 17, 2004
    #56
  17. Warren

    Blah Blah Guest

    I've been away for a few so I lost this thread but since its been
    brought up...
    All the honda's I've driven had always needed to be reved much HIGHER
    than the domestics i've driven to get moving with the same gusto.
    EERRRrrrr
    Wrong, nothing simular about those. You are compairing a 4 valve per
    cylinder engine to a 2 valve per cylinder engine.

    Since there isnt a 4valve per cylinder engine try compairing to one that
    "is" the same size and "is" just as new and not dating back to the early
    90's. Try the G6's 3.5L.

    HP 200@5600
    TQ 220@3200 <<< right where it ought to be.
    No peddle smashing to get moving from a stop light or merging on the
    highway. Gee...Amazing how pushrod technology is still kicking ass. 10hp
    less 22lb ft less torque "but" 12 less valves and 3 less cams and 3 feet
    less of timing chain... Not to mention no VVT to deal with.
    So I'm stupid for voicing the things I have experienced myself "first
    hand"? Oookay.

    Btw heres gm's torque curve for the 3.4L, I'll wait for honda's 3.5
    http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/gmpow/la1_curves.htm
    That is if they put out any truthful figures unlike nissan.
     
    Blah Blah, Jun 17, 2004
    #57
  18. Warren

    satyr Guest

    This is such a sweeping statement that it is pretty hard to respond
    to. I dont know which Hondas or domestics you have driven. But even
    taking it at face value, so what? I dont think you will find many
    Honda fans who think that taking the engine to high rpms is a burden.
    If it bothers you, don't buy one.
    There isn't?
    I don't think that it is Honda's fault that Chevy is still selling 10+
    year old engine technology, but OK...
    I would bet that the Honda has less than 220 ft*lb at 3200. Your
    complaint seems to be that the Honda produces too much torque at
    higher rpm, not that it delivers too little at 3200.
    Uh, 240 - 200 = 40 (That is 20% more for the Honda.)
    So it kicks ass by producing 20% less hp and 10% less torque?
    What is involved in "dealing with" VVT (and lift BTW)? There is no
    extra maintenance and the system has essentially perfect reliability -
    never heard of a failure.
    Could you enlighten us regarding your experience with how engines that
    produce the same power at lower rpm and more power at higher rpm are
    worse?
    I don't have a torque curve for the 3.5, but here is an independent
    measurement (taken through the wheels) for the Honda 3.0.
    http://sohc.vtec.net/article_files/113992/03tovaccord6mtdyno.jpg
    Note that the engine produces 185 - 195 ft*lb (ie, at least 95% of
    peak torque) at any rpm between 1900 and 6100. Torque at 1500 rpm is
    about 90% of peak. When you figure in a 10% loss through the drive
    train, the lower end of the torque curve is just about identical to
    the GM motors you posted at the bottom end (despite 14% less
    displacement.) At the top end, the Honda is still producing 90% of
    peak torque at 6400 - 600 rpm past the GM redline. The result is 60
    to 70 additional hp but you don't *have* to use if you just want to
    equal the GM's performance.

    Here is a torque curve from a VTEC 4 to further illustrate the broad
    torque peak:
    http://sohc.vtec.net//article_files/8542/02sidyno-02.gif
     
    satyr, Jun 17, 2004
    #58
  19. The S2000 was changed this year because the perfect sportscar had no
    bottom end. Everyone who I've talked to who's driven one says the same
    thing - at low RPMs, it's a dog.
    Ahh, I wish my harley could reach tose #s. as it is, it's about 1/2 of
    that. Actually, Vs a same size Honda car motor, it makes more or less
    the same HP and better torque. So much for an antique pushrod design*...
    Pushrod engines can still compete. Everyone bashes GM for still making
    them, but they WORK, and for the most part, about as good as anything
    else. It's like minivans - Detroit's don't have 5 speed autos, Tokyo's
    do. Well, nobody care how many gears a minivan tranny has, but they do
    care if it shifts constantly, which is the biggest problem with the
    existing computer controlled 5 speed autos.

    *Yes, I've ridden the amazing 600 cc crotchrocket. They're a JOKE until
    they hit 2 grand below redline, at which point they're nothing really
    special either.
     
    Philip Nasadowski, Jun 17, 2004
    #59
  20. Warren

    Saintor Guest

    Pushrod engines can still compete. Everyone bashes GM for still making
    They work so much that GM is now purchasing V6s from Honda. I don't agree
    with your last part. GM said recently that after one year, they are very
    pleased with the deal. It has contributed to increase dramatically the VUE
    sales.
     
    Saintor, Jun 18, 2004
    #60
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.