Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Has Honda's run - run out?

1115116118120121254

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The 98-02 626 still used a Ford tranny in the 4 cyl auto but was much improved

    Yeah, they'd last 3 years instead of 2. LOL

    Seriously, we observed failures even after the improvements, though the rate of failure did drop slightly.

    Just thought about something - isn't the 2.3l block a Ford design? Mazda tuned and enhanced, but I believe the original architecture is Ford's. Same for the 3l V6 in the 6s.

    The difference with Mazda now is they have deeper pockets. Thankfully Ford it letting them do a lot of the work with the small cars.

    Ironically, I owned a '91 Ford Escort, which had a Mazda engine (that same 1.8l) and chassis. So back then it was reversed.

    -juice
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "Mazda certainly has enhanced performance, though."

    Now you see my point. Good. The Civic coupe and sedan haven't changed much at all from a performance or efficiency standpoint in over 10 years, unless you're talking about the hybrid.

    "I believe Honda reversed the direction in which the engine spins."

    I believe that was only on the new generation engines, not the 1.7L.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,070
    Ford used to have two different 2.3 blocks. One was an OHC unit that first showed up in the Pinto, but ended up in the Mustang and Fairmont. The other was actually the old inline 6 that dated back to the Ford Falcon, with 2 cylinders lopped off. It first showed up in the Tempo, I think.

    Isn't there some 2.3 engine out nowadays that's actually built by Yamaha?
  • "The Civic has not improved engine power or efficiency significantly since 1992. The Protege/Mazda3 has. The 1992 Protege with the 1.8L does not get as good of gas mileage as the Mazda3 with the 2.0L and the 2.0L has more power. The 2.3L gets about the same mileage as the 1992 1.8L but it has 160 hp instead of 125"

    Clearly the Protege had a lot more scope for improvement. And don't forget, the 2.3 is not the standard engine in the MZ3, its an option. That way we can compare the Civic Type R (euro) that gets 210HP from a 2.0L engine.

    A buyer will compare efficieny of two current cars, not see where the car was 10 years back. That's why I brought in the efficiency of the Civic vs MZ3. Get it now?
  • carguy58carguy58 Posts: 2,303
    "The 1992 Protege didn't have problems with AC, CEI's. Overall I agree with you, the Mazda 3 is a big improvement over the Protege, but the execution of Mazda leaves alot to be desired, just like the 6, another car spoiled by the actual execustion."

    I agree with you somewhat about the 3 with the A/C issue and rust on the 3 and 6 respectively. The CEL's on the 3 thats usual first year bug. The 03 and 6 and 04 3 are first year models. I look at it like this as long as Mazda correct these issue's with the current generation 3 and 6 they'll be ok. The only thing is a source like Consumer Reports won't recommend a Mazda car in its first year if major first year issue's with models keep on popping up on Mazda's future line of cars.
  • carguy58carguy58 Posts: 2,303
    "Yikes In the 626 thread we'd have about one failure per week. A rebuilt one still wouldn't give you another 2 years. They were just total junk."

    I see alot of 93-97 626's out there(the Ford Tranny came arrived with the 94 626)but I never observed the ones still running if they had the V6 emblem on them or just the plain 626 emblem on them with just means its a 4 cyl 626. I wonder if you spilt the number of 626 6 cyl models and 4 cyl models out there if there was a great disparity in 6 cyl 626 model's still running than 4 cyl 626 model's still running from the 93-97 period.
  • Like I said, a lot more scope for improvement, and also a change in direction. The same 2.3L is also used in the Mazda6, and the Automobile magazine (The kindest publication towards Mazda6) article that you've been propogating calls it a dog of a car with the Auto. What does that say for performance enhancement for the Mazda6? Even the 3.0 is known to have minimal low end torque. The wagon gets poor EPA gas mileage too, in some cases lesser than some Minivans (a certain Odyssey comes to mind). Anyway, Mazda is nowhere near Honda as far as engine efficiency goes, and the only thing they can boast is the rotor wankel engine in the RX8, and you can't compare a wankel engine with convenctional engine with regards to engine displacement.

    Anyway, this discussion on not only about the Civic, but Honda as a company. And as such, its doing far, far better than Mazda.
  • carguy58carguy58 Posts: 2,303
    Acura's average buyer...

    Yeah that surprised me too that Acura's average buyer is only 43. I doubt the RSX lowers their average buyer that much though because the MDX and TL sell way better than the RSX does. I think its a matter of Acura going back to its sporty styling roots from the early to mid 90's that is leading to their comeback in their last few years that maybe is capturing younger buyers.

    As far as the Civic Average age buyer is concerned the last time I read it was 39 years old.
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "Clearly the Protege had a lot more scope for improvement. And don't forget, the 2.3 is not the standard engine in the MZ3, its an option."

    Even the standard 2.0L is an improvement. My point hasn't changed and you haven't refuted my point yet. The Civic hasn't changed much in over 10 years. Get it? Do you understand?

    "A buyer will compare efficieny of two current cars, not see where the car was 10 years back."

    I was not talking about the efficiency of the two current cars, I WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW THE CIVIC HASN'T CHANGED MUCH IN OVER 10 YEARS with regards to power and fuel efficiency while the Mazda has. Refute that.

    Besides, the 2.0L in the Mazda is just about as fuel efficient as the 1.7L in the Honda.

    "The same 2.3L is also used in the Mazda6, and the Automobile magazine (The kindest publication towards Mazda6) article that you've been propogating calls it a dog of a car with the Auto."

    What does that have to do with the Civic not changing? The Civic hasn't changed with regards to efficiency or power in over 10 years. Respond to that.
  • carguy58carguy58 Posts: 2,303
    alright lets not pick on each other. Mazda did do well in the late 80's/early 90's. The Ford tranny killed them in the 626. The 95 Protege they tried to be Honda and Toyota which did not work. The 98 626 that didn't work out for them either. Now Mazda is trying to re-invent Lets give Mazda sometime and see how they do. Its unfair to compare them to Honda. Of course Mazda is going to be behind in engines from Honda because Honda is the benchmark automaker in engines.
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "What does that say for performance enhancement for the Mazda6? Even the 3.0 is known to have minimal low end torque. The wagon gets poor EPA gas mileage too, in some cases lesser than some Minivans (a certain Odyssey comes to mind). Anyway, Mazda is nowhere near Honda as far as engine efficiency goes, and the only thing they can boast is the rotor wankel engine in the RX8, and you can't compare a wankel engine with convenctional engine with regards to engine displacement."

    LOL!

    Despite all of that, the Civic hasn't changed much with regards to efficiency or power in over 10 years.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Excellent post (#3549).
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Actually, not to take what I said back, but I recall a Ford Escort LX-E review in C&D that hit 60mph with that 1.8l in 7.5 seconds.

    The Mazda3 2.3l took 7.6 seconds IIRC.

    So the old engine was quicker in some cases. I think Proteges were in the 8 second range, though, pretty close to the 2.3l and perhaps even better than the 2.0l.

    As for Honda, well, they probably haven't grown the engine much simply because they haven't had to. The 1.7l is surely cheaper to build yet it sells in more volume than the 3.

    Fuel efficiency was already good so there was less room for improvement. You get dimishing returns.

    The 1.8l engine wasn't bad, I averaged about 28mpg driving spiritedly. I doubt the 2.3l is any better in real-world driving.

    -juice
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "Of course Mazda is going to be behind in engines from Honda because Honda is the benchmark automaker in engines."

    Forget about Mazda. Look at how the Accord has changed since 1992. More powerful, more efficient. What about the Civic?

    "Actually, not to take what I said back, but I recall a Ford Escort LX-E review in C&D that hit 60mph with that 1.8l in 7.5 seconds.

    The Mazda3 2.3l took 7.6 seconds IIRC."

    Car and Driver did 0-60 in the Mazda3s hatchback in 7.4 seconds. The Mazda3 hatchback is quite a bit heavier than a Ford Escort LX-E, yet it's still a little quicker, and it gets the same EPA mileage. Improvement.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    "I believe that was only on the new generation engines, not the 1.7L."

    But it does include the K series used in the Si here and more upscale Civics in other markets. So the engine bay accommodates both the old and new.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    Honda said they changed to struts because they wanted to fit the electrical steering system in there. Believe it if you want... I'm just saying that Honda said that, in an official capacity.

    The Accord is taller now, but it's wide enough to have the space to fit the wishbone suspension and everything else that goes in there.

    As for the Civic not changing... I dunno, robertsmx already stated that its power range has increased 30-65%, along with its weight and price. Just like every other car of its class. It's always had smaller engines than its competitors and that hasn't changed, but that's part of Honda's identity. Apparently there's enough torque for the many who buy the car.

    Finally there are all the people who buy lower-trim Civics for the mileage. I think they take the mileage thing a bit too far but there are many of them. And none of the Civic's high-power competitors come close in that, at least on paper, which is what matters to said buyers.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    A tenth is a rounding error, not a significant improvement.

    I do think that efficiency has improved significantly, however.

    But like I said, isn't that 2.3l based on the one from the Ford Focus? Ford has that engine tuned as a PZEV, and to me that's even more impressive.

    Mazda adds S-VT to make more power, though torque is about the same and it loses the PZEV status. But you're giving Mazda all the credit, I think Ford deserves most of it actually.

    From Ford's point of view, they got the 2.3l to be more efficient than the 2.0l Zetec, along with more power, more torque, and less emissions. Royal Flush. Give the trophy to Ford, not Mazda.

    As for the Civic, again, I'll go to the diminishing returns argument. It's harder to improve on mileage when you're in the 30s, vs. the 20s that the 1.8l was getting for Mazda.

    -juice
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "I dunno, robertsmx already stated that its power range has increased 30-65%"

    How so? The most powerful engine in the Civic coupe/sedan in 1992 was 125 hp. Now, it's 127 hp.

    "But like I said, isn't that 2.3l based on the one from the Ford Focus?"

    The 2.3L was in the Mazda6 in 2002 in other markets and manufactured in Hiroshima, before the Focus had it.

    http://www.carseverything.com/content/article/1346.3/

    From the article:

    "Mazda Motor Corporation's new family of 4-cylinder engines is the latest in a new range of powertrains that will establish Mazda as Ford Motor Company's center of excellence for all large I-4 gasoline engine development."

    "Mazda adds S-VT to make more power, though torque is about the same and it loses the PZEV status."

    I thought the PZEV status is mainly due to a special gas tank?
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "A tenth is a rounding error, not a significant improvement."

    Lol. Yeah, I agree, a tenth is not significant.

    "Actually, not to take what I said back, but I recall a Ford Escort LX-E review in C&D that hit 60mph with that 1.8l in 7.5 seconds.

    The Mazda3 2.3l took 7.6 seconds IIRC.

    So the old engine was quicker in some cases."

    I'm sorry, but I'm a car nerd and I remember 0-60 times, and I had to correct you, but it's funny that you say that about "rounding errors" when you also said "the old engine was quicker in some cases" when you thought the difference was 7.6 vs. 7.5
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Still, wasn't it an evolution of a Ford engine family? IMO a PZEV with good torque is a better achievement than what Mazda managed.

    PZEV requires more than a gas tank, I'm sure the engine tuning is significantly different. Basically it has to pollute only the equivalent of what a pure electric car would generate based on the energy required to charge it.

    New engine - new to Mazda, maybe.

    My point is the 2.3l is not a descendant of the 1.8l we're talking about. It's an evolution of a Ford block. So we should compare what Mazda has accomplished with what Ford has accomplished with the same block.

    They have a lot more in common than that 1.8l (which now resides in the Miata, somewhat evolved).

    The V6 in the 6s is based on the Duratec, also. While it manages good HP, torque is just 192 and only at very high rpm. Ford managed 207 at lower rpm for its cars.

    It may be hard to seperate the two, but Mazda tossing S-VT on a couple of engines doesn't mean they deserve a medal.

    Jaguar uses the same Duratec block and manages more HP and torque.

    So from that point of view all Mazda has is a de-tuned Jaguar engine. Or a tuned up Ford one.

    -juice
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Got me on the rounding error comment. ;-)

    But I still say the 2.3l started life as a Ford block.

    -juice
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "Still, wasn't it an evolution of a Ford engine family?"

    What Ford engine family? The engine was brand new in 2002 and is not related at all to the old Ford 2.3L or the 2.5L that were used for years in old T-birds, Mustangs, etc.

    "PZEV requires more than a gas tank"

    I swear I remember reading somewhere that the main thing about the PZEV Focus was the gas tank.

    "My point is the 2.3l is not a descendant of the 1.8l we're talking about. It's an evolution of a Ford block."

    What Ford block? I know where the 3.0L V6 in the Mazda6 came from, not sure where the 2.3L came from since it wasn't used in any vehicles before 2002 as it is not the same engine as the older Ford 2.3L or 2.5L. Like I said, unlike the 3.0L, the 2.3L was brand new in 2002.

    "The V6 in the 6s is based on the Duratec, also."

    I know that. It was used in the Taurus and Escape before the Mazda6.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    IIRC, the big difference between PZEV and the SULEV rating is how long the emissions hardware is warranted. Maybe I'm just thinking of a CARB rating and not a national one, though.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,070
    and it looks like the Mazda 2.3 is a stroked version of their 2.0.

    2.0: 3.44 X 3.27 (bore X stroke)
    2.3: 3.44 X 3.70

    The Ford Focus 2.3 has the same bore X stroke. So the Focus 2.3 is a Mazda engine, then?

    BTW, the Focus 2.0, which has a bore x stroke of 3.34 X 3.46, is derived from the old Escort 1.9, which I think is just an enlarged version of the 1.6 that the Escort first came with way back in 1981.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,693
    a PZEV is just a SULEV with a 150K mile performance warranty on the emissions components, and a zero-vapor-loss gas cap. The actual emissions limit of both is the same though. And I believe in both cases the only smog-forming emissions occur during warm-up. Once the catalyst is at its operating temperature, it catches 100% (smog-forming emissions only, of course)? Going by fuzzy memory on that last one.

    As to the ongoing discussion on fuel efficiency, the Civic (specifically the HX) is still the highest-rated car (gas-only) on the road. In fact, in real-world testing, it gets close to some of the hybrids as well as the Jetta TDI diesel for mileage. Even the high-volume LX is tops in its class, neck and neck with Corolla, while all the others in the class lag significantly behind, including the Sentra, the Mazda3 2.0, and the Focus. Not to mention the Cavalier and the Neon.

    As much as I would like to see Civic with a jump in power for the next gen, I am undecided whether I would like to see a significant jump in fuel efficiency instead. Given the wants and needs of the market, I will bet the '06 gets a boost in power, and only a slight (if any) increase in gas miserliness.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "As to the ongoing discussion on fuel efficiency, the Civic (specifically the HX) is still the highest-rated car (gas-only) on the road. In fact, in real-world testing, it gets close to some of the hybrids as well as the Jetta TDI diesel for mileage. Even the high-volume LX is tops in its class"

    So if they already have three (including the hybrid) high mileage choices in the Civic line, why does the EX have to make do with 127 hp?

    Is it really that crazy of a question? Is it way out of line? There are already 3 different power outputs available, why not give the 3rd choice a little more juice?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    The most powerful engine in the Civic coupe/sedan in 1992 was 125 hp. Now, it's 127 hp

    I consider Civic Si to be a Civic, I'm not sure why you don't. In 1992, Civic Si and EX were the two models with top power in Civic lineup at 125 HP. Civic Si has since gone up to 160 HP, while peak power for EX hasn't changed, although midrange has.

    Honda does not change models drastically. Last time that did happen was with 1998 Accord but to accomodate the need for largish family sedan with a V6 for the American market.

    As for Civic, 1992-1995 generation was followed up with 1996-2000. The 1.5 was dumped in favor of 1.6 throughout (earlier, only EX and Si got 1.6 others had 1.5). EX had its output uprated to 127 HP, with minor improvement in fuel economy.

    2001-present Civic saw a minor bump in displacement for added midrange power, although the top end wasn't increase (for HX and EX trims but it did for LX trim).

    But here is an interesting stat on fuel economy. The 127 HP Civic EX now delivers 31-32 mpg (city)/ 37-38 mpg highway.

    Back in 1992, the 125 HP Civic EX was rated slightly lower at 27-29 mpg (city)/ 34-36 mpg. Not a huge jump (on highway), but overall increase is reasonable (10-15% in city where it really counts for compact cars) considering that the new version has added safety, features, weight, size and power.

    So if they already have three (including the hybrid) high mileage choices in the Civic line, why does the EX have to make do with 127 hp

    How much power is needed in a 2600 lb car? Remember, I'm asking for need, not want. If you want to consider the latter, feel free to tell me how much would be "wanted" in a 2600 lb car?

    Outside of marketing needs for sake of running flashy commercials on television, personally, I don't see the need for overly powerful cars. 19-20 lb. per HP works well for me today, so why wouldn't it, tomorrow?
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "I consider Civic Si to be a Civic, I'm not sure why you don't."

    Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I'm talking about the sedan and coupe.

    "Honda does not change models drastically."

    Since 1990 (and even before that), the Accord has changed quite a bit. IIRC, in 1990, the most power you could get in the Accord was 125 hp. The last year of that generation, it was bumped up to 140 hp. Then, in the next generation the 4 cyl made 160 hp and eventually you could get a V6 with 170 hp. The next generation, the V6 got bumped to 200 hp. We all know the current generation V6 is at 240 hp. In 13 years, the top engine in the Accord gained 115 hp, or an extra Civic LX engine, lol.

    The Accord does not "need" a 240 hp V6 any more than the Civic sedan and coupe "need" at least 160 hp for the top engine.

    "How much power is needed in a 2600 lb car? Remember, I'm asking for need, not want."

    If a 3 cyl Geo Metro can carry 4 people, I'm sure 80-90 hp would work in a Civic. You wouldn't "need" any more than that to accelerate to and maintain a freeway speed.
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "Outside of marketing needs for sake of running flashy commercials on television, personally, I don't see the need for overly powerful cars. 19-20 lb. per HP works well for me"

    For you. Not for anyone with a 240 hp Accord apparently.
This discussion has been closed.