Honda Odyssey Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Has anybody actually published performance stats on the 2002 Ody? I've heard plenty of guesses and estimates, but nothing based on actual testing. I'm particularly interested in 0-60 times and braking distance from 60 mph which should show improvement from 2001.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by phil47:
Has anybody actually published performance stats on the 2002 Ody? I've heard plenty of guesses and estimates, but nothing based on actual testing. I'm particularly interested in 0-60 times and braking distance from 60 mph which should show improvement from 2001.</font>
I just checked Consumer Reports and they list the same numbers for the 2001 and 2002, which just can't be right. I wrote them a note and will post the response (if any) here.

Regards,

Maugham
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I noticed the same thing at the Edmunds site. They had the same figures for 2001 and 2002. I'm not holding my breath on big differences regarding braking, but you'd think the 0-60 would be faster...

Thanks, I'll look for your reply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I noticed the AJAC (Automotive Journalists Association of Canada) did post some results based on testing they did for their "2002 Car of the Year" awards. There website is here:

www.ajac.org/english/index.html

They indicate 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph) at 9.0 seconds, and a braking distance of 144 ft. Based on this, it looks like acceleration has dropped maybe a half second and braking distance is about the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by phil47:
I noticed the same thing at the Edmunds site. They had the same figures for 2001 and 2002. I'm not holding my breath on big differences regarding braking, but you'd think the 0-60 would be faster...

Thanks, I'll look for your reply.
</font>
Phil47,

Consumer Reports wrote back that they don't test every vehicle every year. They didn't feel that the changes for 2002 were large enough to merit buying another Ody to test. That has me quite puzzled - what else needs to be changed besides the engine (35 hp more), transmission (4==>5 spd), and brakes (rear disk) to warrant a new test from CR? I think at the very least they should note that their figures are not current. I'm guessing they are short on budget to buy cars to test.

Maugham
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Maugham:
That has me quite puzzled - what else needs to be changed besides the engine (35 hp more), transmission (4==>5 spd), and brakes (rear disk) to warrant a new test from CR?

</font>
Don't forget that Honda added RP for '02. Red is always faster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by overmyheadcam:
Don't forget that Honda added RP for '02. Red is always faster.</font>
A second <font color=red>RP</font> moved onto our block this today. I hope I don't try to drive off in the wrong one
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Check its engine. Red always leaks, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Maugham:
Phil47,

Consumer Reports wrote back that they don't test every vehicle every year. They didn't feel that the changes for 2002 were large enough to merit buying another Ody to test. That has me quite puzzled - what else needs to be changed besides the engine (35 hp more), transmission (4==>5 spd), and brakes (rear disk) to warrant a new test from CR? I think at the very least they should note that their figures are not current. I'm guessing they are short on budget to buy cars to test.

Maugham
</font>
True. It's not like it was just a change in some sheetmetal or something. At the very least they should have mentioned that they were using "stale" data, and why.

However, I noticed that just about every change from 2001 to 2002 (apart from RP) involved a "tweak" to an existing component as opposed to a "clean sheet of paper" kind of thing. I even read that the new tranny was "cleverly" modified to use many of the same components from the existing 4-speed. It is definitely an improvement, particularly in driveability, but even the stats indicate that it really didn't require retesting. Curious to see if anyone else decides it's worth the test...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
www.ajac.org/english/index.html

They indicate 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph) at 9.0 seconds, and a braking distance of 144 ft. Based on this, it looks like acceleration has dropped maybe a half second and braking distance is about the same. [/B][/QUOTE]


I checked out their website and the 0-60 times are off by at least a half second when noticing that that this was a street start test. Also that last two mph to get to 62mph are the slowest of the test and another .3 to .4 seconds would be shaved off. Car & Driver + Motortrend publish a normal 0-60 time and then a street start afterwards. George in Cleveland had test times at about 8 seconds and under so 8 seconds seems about right. The GMC Envoy for 2002 has been tested by C&D at 7.9 seconds and the Canadian test has it at 9.3 seconds. Definitely off.



[This message has been edited by dsalfred (edited 02-12-2002).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
So I guess we're back to the beginning. Nobody has published data (that can be used to compare the 2001/2002)?
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top