Last post on Aug 26, 2009 at 7:49 PM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander
What is this discussion about?
Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, Mitsubishi Outlander
#117 of 121 Re: Apples to apples [comem47]
Aug 26, 2009 (2:15 am)
Acceleration is a combination of torque and gearing. A V6 making 200 ft-lbs but with a 0.70 gear ratio, will accelerate the same as the same vehcile making 100ft-lbs but with a 1.40 gear ratio. Of course, the smaller engine is running twice the RPM's so they are both rpoducing the same HP.
So yes, torque is the most improtant, but it's the gearing that determines how it accelrates... that's in part how a manual transmission can have an advantage.
To understand it better, consider how quickly a 600cc motorcycle accelerates in 3rd gear at say 10,000 RPM vs. 2nd gear at 10,000 RPM. Both are making the same torque and horsepower, the only difference is how fast they are traveling, and the mechanical advantage available. You'll find that even if you factor out wind drag, a vehcile will accelerate proportional to the gear ratio at a given RPM.
#118 of 121 Re: Apples to apples [motoguy128]
Aug 26, 2009 (3:39 am)
One upon a time 4 cylinder automatics were so lossy and badly set up that indeed you better have a stick or you couldn't get out of your own way . My sister's auto Pinto back in '73 comes to mind. When it downshifted it would scream as the revs soared, but go no faster! It's a lot different today with much better designed 4 cylinder autos, and I know I couldn't out-shift my 6 speed auto in the V6 Outlander. I know I also prefer towing in an auto, so much easier in stop and go traffic.
#119 of 121 Re: Apples to apples [comem47]
Aug 26, 2009 (3:23 pm)
The six-speed auto in the V6 Outlander is programmed great for shifting when you need power, lower rpm's for cruising, etc. I've always liked stickshifts, but I don't miss it at all in my Outlander.
#120 of 121 Re: CRV or Rav4? [piast]
Aug 26, 2009 (6:20 pm)
When making comparisons, we need to fairly compare the inline four cylinder versions of each vehicle.
According to Consumer Guide to Auto, the 2008 Mitsubishi I4 clocks in at 9.4 seconds from 0-60.
And according to the test data from Motor Trend for the 2008 models, it appears the CR-V and RAV4s inline four engines perform pretty much on par with each other...with a slight edge to the CR-V's 0-60 in 9.2 seconds compared to RAV4's 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the report for the 2009 RAV4 I4 which has added horsepower up to 179 rpm, nor the 2009 CR-V report. I would say all the comparable I4s have similar acceleration.
2008 Toyota RAV4 I4
Acceleration to mph
0-30 3.3 sec
Passing, 45-65 mph 5.0 sec
Quarter mile 17.1 sec 81.5 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph 123 ft
Lateral acceleration 0.71 g (avg)
MT figure eight 30.0 sec 0.52 g (avg)
Top-gear revs 60 mph 2200 rpm
2008 Honda CR-V I4
Acceleration to mph
0-30 3.0 sec
Passing, 45-65 mph 4.8 sec
Quarter mile 17.0 sec 81.1 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph 134 ft
Lateral acceleration 0.76 (avg)
MT figure eight 28.8 sec 0.56 g (avg)
Top-gear revs 60 mph 1900 rpm
#121 of 121 Re: CRV or Rav4? [dronestudios]
Aug 26, 2009 (7:49 pm)
"When making comparisons, we need to fairly compare the inline four cylinder versions of each vehicle."
Normally yes, but in this case, No.
What started this conversation is a statement someone made about how their 2005 4 cylinder CRV with a stick would smoke any V6 CUV automatic.
It's truly apples to oranges, but there you have it.