# BMW and Honda



## ed325i (Dec 20, 2001)

The Roadstergal said:


> I disagree.  I think Mazda has prioritized good handling, inexpensive cars for some time now...


You are right. I forgot about Mazda.

Ed


----------



## Matthew330Ci (Sep 9, 2002)

I posted a thread somewhat like this a long time ago. mine was how many people that i knew had hondas who 'moved up' to bimmers.

my last car was a 2000 civic si, i loved that car, in fact i consider it more fun to drive than the 330ci, the 330ci is too isolated and numb for me.


----------



## Matthew330Ci (Sep 9, 2002)

wingspan said:


> I have a question on this topic: Why do Honda brakes stink? (or seem to.) Pickup any C&D or R&T article and look at the braking distances; It seems to me anecdotally they are all very very long compared to most other cars. :dunno:


tires


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> http://www.norcalevo.net/video/motegibattle.wmv
> 
> Highly recommended video. A good example what the NSX can do in the hands of an experienced driver.


see when they show the race from the front. the extra wide lambo murc looked like it was going to eat the nsx in one gulp. 

as for the nsx-r, it says that the engine is blueprinted and claims 274hp. i wonder if this is still the "274/280ps" that most japanese high-perf claims in their advertising. :eeps: it also weighs 265lbs less than the regular nsx.

http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/General/modelinfo/nsx_type_r.htm
:yummy:


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

Advantage Honda: Absolute cost
Primary disadvantage Honda: FWD

Advantage BMW: Safety, RWD (handling), Inline-6, Paint.
Primary disadvantage BMW: Spoils you.

IMHO, the BMW is the better value, but it's entry fee is higher.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

ObD said:


> Advantage Honda: Absolute cost
> Primary disadvantage Honda: *FWD*


 


ObD said:


> Advantage BMW: *Safety*, RWD (handling), Inline-6, *Paint*.
> Primary disadvantage BMW: Spoils you.
> 
> IMHO, the BMW is the better value, but it's entry fee is higher.


the nhts gives the e46 a poor rating for side impact. the new civic gets i think all 5's. and that's a civic. :dunno: paint???? bmw makes you pay more for metallic. it better be good. but is it really?


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

BMW4phillygirl said:


> For moi, I easily went from Honda to BMW, simply for the wow/status factor. Hey, it was the next logical step for me at that age (27). I wasn't going to bother with an in-between car like an Acura or Lexus, because I felt they were more "mature" brands, more for old people who are married or something like that and being single at the time, I really, really wanted that bimmer. Crazy thing is, before bimmerfest, I was pretty much resigned to buying a Lexus for my next car (my husband's influence), but having been on here for almost a year now, I have truly grown to appreciate the BMW "BRAND" more than anything else, and I think I'm going to have to do some major sucking up to hubby to get the next generation 5-series in another 6 years....


Ah, one of the few and proud enough not to deny that they bought their BMW at least in part, if not entirely, because of the prestige factor. BMW4phillygirl, I salute you.

Er, but of course, status had NOTHING to do with my purchase. Nothing at all. It's solely the handling, yep, that's it. :eeps:

BTW, I'm another former Honda owner. Darn proud of it, too. And I'm amazed at the Lexus folk who are so into their awesome handling IS's and GS's who constantly rag on and bash Honda/Acura, especially when Hondas are 10x more sporty and yet still mostly as reliable as Toyotas... :tsk:


----------



## BlackChrome (Nov 16, 2003)

ObD said:


> Advantage Honda: Absolute cost
> Primary disadvantage Honda: FWD
> 
> Advantage BMW: Safety, RWD (handling), Inline-6, Paint.
> ...


Well, remember C&D rated the e36 M3 best handling car? For under $30K, the Prelude SH (FWD) was their first pick. The e36Ti (RWD) was the 2nd pick...go figure.

If handling was the only subject, I'd pick an Integra Type R over a 330 with Sport Package anyday.


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

Matthew330Ci said:


> my last car was a 2000 civic si, i loved that car, in fact i consider it more fun to drive than the 330ci, the 330ci is too isolated and numb for me.


I had a 99 Si, and it was a very fun car. What that car had was a great motor (happiness was just beyond 5600 rpm) and a surprisingly capable chassis (last generation of the double wishbone front suspension). Bang for the buck was awesome, the car loved to be modded and at the end of the day it was a reliable Honda.

But more fun that a 330? Pass that blunt down here....


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

BlackChrome said:


> If handling was the only subject, I'd pick an Integra Type R over a 330 with Sport Package anyday.


:stupid: The Type-R was awesome because it didn't handle like a FWD car.

Unfortunately that engine didn't have enough torque to open a pickle jar.


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

philippek said:


> Unfortunately that engine didn't have enough torque to open a pickle jar.


 :rofl: Quote of the day for sure.


----------



## mkh (Mar 24, 2003)

LA525iT said:


> As brilliantly engineered as it was when it came out a billion years ago, the interior is to this day cheaper feeling than my 8 year old Integra Special Edition. Difference is, a new NSX costs in the neighborhood of $90k and my Integra is worth about 5% of that.
> 
> Plus, the hp and torque numbers dont seem that impressive anymore. 0-60 in 6 seconds do not a supercar make, by 2005 standards.


hmm... I really don't know what NSX are you talking about? It has worse interior than your Integra? 0-60 in 6 secs? Maybe it's a replica.

Even though the NSX has 290hp, it only weighs 3000lbs. Its performance numbers are about the same as an E46 M3. So, it is still very impressive by 2005 standards.


----------



## mkh (Mar 24, 2003)

As a Honda loyalist, I've been going along with the Honda/Acura history. Started with an '81 Accord, then '85 CRX-Si (this was the most fun car I've ever owned), '91 Integra GS, '95 Integra GSR, and lastly a '97 Integra Type-R, I can boldly say that up to 1997, Honda was the only Japanese car that can get a taste of German driving dynamics. And it was also the best FWD vehicle. 

Unfortunately, in recent years, they are gradually drifting away from this philosophy and started chasing after Lexus. The only two models that remain its old heritage are the S2000 and NSX. And that is the exact reason I do not like the new TL. It just doesn't look and feel like a sport sedan. It's like a luxury sedan with some decent power. In terms of driving feel and overall balance, the TSX is much better than the TL. So, Honda was once a threat to BMW, but not anymore. Well, actually BMW is also slowly moving away from that direction too. That said, Honda is still holding one thing in spades - the shifter, and they are still miles ahead of everyone.

I don't care too much about Nissan/Infinity. Yes, they did accomplish a lot compared to their previous, especially in the performance dept., but still lack the ultimate driving factor (ie. fun). I never like Toyota/Lexus. I think they are going in opposite direction.


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

mkh said:


> ...Honda was the only Japanese car that can get a taste of German driving dynamics.


I agree with this. In the past, back when a lot of us owned Hondas ('84 CRX, '91 Integra & wife's '96 Civic EX), they were the sporty, refined, affordable choice.

These days, as we talk about what's out there, the cars from Infiniti and Mazda are looking sportier than a lot of what Honda has.

Of course, this is all in a general sense as a response to the original poster's question...there's obviously nothing wrong with the S2000, and I like the RSX, TSX and TL to some extent too, but right now I'd rather have a Infiniti G35 or RX-8.


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

swchang said:


> It seems like a large number of people on this board once had Hondas, or still do, and loved the driving experience they offered. People don't talk as much about Toyotas and Nissans, although Mazdas do get a lot of mention. At the same time, Infiniti, not Acura, is often referred to as the "Japanese BMW." What's the deal here? Why would Honda make their cars more fun to drive than the other Japanese non-lux competition, and then make Acuras not as sporty? Why would Infiniti strive to deliver BMW-like handling and then Nissan not deliver on their end as well?
> 
> People here obviously like their cars to deliver a big fun factor. I've noticed a strong affinity for Audi, Honda, and Mazda. Infiniti doesn't seem to be as big, despite the BMW comparisons in most other forums and the automotive press. There also seems to be an aversion to MB in particular, and Lexus and Toyota are almost ignored.


As others have said, Honda's lack of RWD kills them in the entry lux class. They do huge business but not with enthusiasts. They get the people who like luxo-barges like the ES330 and Buicks. Bummer too as I am one who likes Honda...a lot. Great, great transmissions and IMHO, the best built cars around.

Infiniti is fun. Like Nissan too. Both suffer from feeling cheap.

Love Mazda. I'd rather a 20k Mazda3 2.3s hatch over anything else under 23k. Fun, fun handiling cars. Nobody can touch the fun of a manual miata on a cool coastal night. Haven't driven the elise, it may be better though.

Toyota...bland. Just bland at every turn.

MB's only car I find attractive = the new slk. But it's way too pricey. Put it at 35k and I'd consider it.


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

swchang said:


> Ah, one of the few and proud enough not to deny that they bought their BMW at least in part, if not entirely, because of the prestige factor. BMW4phillygirl, I salute you.
> 
> Er, but of course, status had NOTHING to do with my purchase. Nothing at all. It's solely the handling, yep, that's it. :eeps:


I avoided test driving BMWs *because* of the stigma attached to them. Even after loving the drive I was reluctant to buy into the brand. Heck two years later I'm still troubled by the brand. :rofl:


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

blueguydotcom said:


> I avoided test driving BMWs *because* of the stigma attached to them. Even after loving the drive I was reluctant to buy into the brand. Heck two years later I'm still troubled by the brand. :rofl:


:stupid:


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

HW said:


> see when they show the race from the front. the extra wide lambo murc looked like it was going to eat the nsx in one gulp.
> 
> as for the nsx-r, it says that the engine is blueprinted and claims 274hp. i wonder if this is still the "274/280ps" that most japanese high-perf claims in their advertising. :eeps: it also weighs 265lbs less than the regular nsx.
> 
> ...


It may be a 10+ year old car but I still love NSXs. I've considered buying a used one as it's a Honda so if the body's in good shape, rest of it should be fine.


----------



## e46Christian (Feb 27, 2003)

mkh said:


> I don't care too much about Nissan/Infinity. Yes, they did accomplish a lot compared to their previous, especially in the performance dept., but still lack the ultimate driving factor (ie. fun). I never like Toyota/Lexus. I think they are going in opposite direction.


 To be quite honest, I enjoy driving my brother's 1990 Nissan 240SX more than my e46 anyday. It's more direct in just about any way you can imagine, and it's ~2800lbs. My only complaint is that the car could use a tad more power. 
In other words, nothing an SR20DET can't fix.


----------



## ride365 (Dec 19, 2001)

this doesn't fit the tone of the thread, but honda and bmw are special to me for the following reasons:

- motorcycle AND car manufacturer
- affinity for high engineering and NA motors
- racing heritage

they both have the same downside

- trying to appeal to the masses at the cost of excitement

i feel brand loyalty to no other auto company except maybe toyota.


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

e46Christian said:



> To be quite honest, I enjoy driving my brother's 1990 Nissan 240SX more than my e46 anyday. It's more direct in just about any way you can imagine, and it's ~2800lbs. My only complaint is that the car could use a tad more power.
> In other words, nothing an SR20DET can't fix.


I really think Nissan made a major boo-boo by not tossing the turbo version of the sylvia here. it woulda sold like gangbusters. fantastic cars.


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

mkh said:


> Even though the NSX has 290hp, it only weighs 3000lbs.


Only 3000 lbs? 

Even if you're looking power/weight, the S54 M roadster and M coupe beat that at 315hp for 3100lbs...


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

The Roadstergal said:


> Only 3000 lbs?
> 
> Even if you're looking power/weight, the S54 M roadster and M coupe beat that at 315hp for 3100lbs...


this site gives weight details of each edition
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/General/modelinfo/modelinfo.htm

the lightest is a 2800 lb type-r (original type-r not new type-r). not sure what the type-r #2 weighs in at.

edit: appears to be ~2800 as well for the type-r #2 
http://www.exoticcarsite.com/pages/honda_nsx-r.htm


----------



## jrp (Nov 11, 2004)

blueguydotcom said:


> I avoided test driving BMWs *because* of the stigma attached to them. Even after loving the drive I was reluctant to buy into the brand. Heck two years later I'm still troubled by the brand. :rofl:


I had a first gen Eclipse GSX and a 3000GT VR-4 in the early 90's (AWD was a big deal to me back in the MidWest)...I never really paid any attention to BMW's (snobby, underpowered, overpriced yuppie mobiles). My move out West roughly coincided with the release of the E36 M3...it did not have the swoopy speed racer profiles of my cars but I was struck at how purposeful it looked.

So I took one out for a test drive. Within days, both Mitsus were gone.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

mkh said:


> hmm... I really don't know what NSX are you talking about? It has worse interior than your Integra? 0-60 in 6 secs? Maybe it's a replica.
> 
> Even though the NSX has 290hp, it only weighs 3000lbs. Its performance numbers are about the same as an E46 M3. So, it is still very impressive by 2005 standards.


2004 nsx 6spd manual
0-62mph(100km/h) in 5.0s
http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/acura_nsx.asp


----------



## BlackChrome (Nov 16, 2003)

blueguydotcom said:


> It may be a 10+ year old car but I still love NSXs. I've considered buying a used one as it's a Honda so if the body's in good shape, rest of it should be fine.


Be careful thought because OEM parts for NSX are extremely pricy (I'd say, on average, twice of what an Integra part would cost).


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

BlackChrome said:


> Be careful thought because OEM parts for NSX are extremely pricy (I'd say, on average, twice of what an Integra part would cost).


could that be because they are made of more expensive materials and methods. alu vs. steel, cast and forged vs. stamped/extruded? :dunno:


----------



## e46Christian (Feb 27, 2003)

blueguydotcom said:


> I really think Nissan made a major boo-boo by not tossing the turbo version of the sylvia here. it woulda sold like gangbusters. fantastic cars.


 They felt it would cannibalize sales from the 300ZX, which coincidentaly, is what's on my list as a next car (300ZX TT). My 3'er is gone.


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

e46Christian said:


> They felt it would cannibalize sales from the 300ZX, which coincidentaly, is what's on my list as a next car (300ZX TT). My 3'er is gone.


350zx tt? or an old school 300zx?


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

HW said:


> could that be because they are made of more expensive materials and methods. alu vs. steel, cast and forged vs. stamped/extruded? :dunno:


I'd hope so, considering the integra shared components with the civic!


----------



## BlackChrome (Nov 16, 2003)

HW said:


> could that be because they are made of more expensive materials and methods. alu vs. steel, cast and forged vs. stamped/extruded? :dunno:


That and the NSX doesn't really share many parts with other Hondas.


----------



## Matthew330Ci (Sep 9, 2002)

philippek said:


> I had a 99 Si, and it was a very fun car. What that car had was a great motor (happiness was just beyond 5600 rpm) and a surprisingly capable chassis (last generation of the double wishbone front suspension). Bang for the buck was awesome, the car loved to be modded and at the end of the day it was a reliable Honda.
> 
> But more fun that a 330? Pass that blunt down here....


it's all about the directness and feel. the e46 is numb and isolated. the civic was direct. plus, it was slower but that vtec crossover and high revving motor was an absolute hoot with a CAI. not to mention, at 2600 lbs, it was light and nimble.

but then maybe it is possible that my memory of the civic is being given the halo effect from the passage of time, who knows. but then again, even now, when i drive my brother's 92 accord, there is a directness to the way it feels that is missing from the e46...


----------



## mwette (Sep 16, 2002)

For two years before I got my 330Ci i had to drive a 93 accord 4-door, 4 banger.
I'm sorry, this car was not fun to drive. Brakes were weak and would shake the
chassis at highway speeds. Reasonable car for the price, but not a Bimmer.


----------



## ride365 (Dec 19, 2001)

mwette said:


> For two years before I got my 330Ci i had to drive a 93 accord 4-door, 4 banger.
> I'm sorry, this car was not fun to drive. Brakes were weak and would shake the
> chassis at highway speeds. Reasonable car for the price, but not a Bimmer.


as a counterpoint, i had a 95 accord 4-door, 4-banger. car was solid... never had a problem with it. for what it was, it was pretty fun to drive too. then and now i wholeheartedly recommend the accord.


----------



## Matthew330Ci (Sep 9, 2002)

to clarify, i wasn't saying the accord is more fun than the bimmer, but it does give you more of a feel for the road.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

blueguydotcom said:


> I'd hope so, considering the integra shared components with the civic!


yeep, the civic and the integra were based on the same chassis. the prelude, accord, vigor and odyssey share the same chassis.


----------



## e46Christian (Feb 27, 2003)

blueguydotcom said:


> 350zx tt? or an old school 300zx?


 Old school 300ZX TT. It was my dream car through college in the early-mid 90's. It's the only other car I've ever lusted after that I haven't owned.


----------



## glaws (Feb 21, 2002)

The Honda Accord I owned for four years was utterly dependable - and quite boring. I was glad to be able to graduate to the BMW 328Ci that I had before the M3.


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

e46Christian said:


> Old school 300ZX TT. It was my dream car through college in the early-mid 90's. It's the only other car I've ever lusted after that I haven't owned.


me too. when i was a teen that was THE car I wanted. still find them attractive, but my affection through the years turned to the rx7 - 97. yummy.


----------



## MaxBuck (Jan 30, 2005)

Anyone here who is poor-mouthing the 2004-05 Acura TL should drive one equipped with good shoes. Had the chance to do so at the local Toyota Taste of Luxury event on an autocross course (along with the 530i, 745i, and 545i w/o sport package). The TL was one of two cars that were the buzz of the event - the other being the 7er. Found out the TL had $250 tires (can't remember which ones) that greatly improved handling compared to the stockers. Lexus mechanics onhand were greatly pissed that their machines were not similarly equipped, though they admitted the 300is was the only model that could come close to taking the TL.

For my money, the TL is a much more exciting car to drive than the 330i. More power, more-precise (though certainly FWD) handling. And much better brakes than the 2002 TL-S that I presently drive. But change out the poor stock tires ASAP!


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

mkh said:


> hmm... I really don't know what NSX are you talking about? It has worse interior than your Integra? 0-60 in 6 secs? Maybe it's a replica.
> 
> Even though the NSX has 290hp, it only weighs 3000lbs. Its performance numbers are about the same as an E46 M3. So, it is still very impressive by 2005 standards.


 And those are pretty crappy numbers for a dedicated purpose mid-engine "sports" car. The M3 si only impressive in my book because of its seating capacity and practicality.


----------

