Has Honda's run - run out?

andre1969

the retro, 40's style fenders on that Mazda3 make it look like the hood bulges more than it really does. Although you're right, it probably still has more bulge than the Civic!

logic1

to find engine compartment dimensions as it is passenger or cargo.

Mazda3 does appear a bit bigger.

Mazda gave its compact a new name. But it really is the successor to the Protege. A name which has not been around as long as the Civic, but certainly has a following.

nippononly

"It just needs to keep up, not beat the competition down."

the thing is, what is "beating down the competition" when you introduce it, will fall to average for the segment after a couple of years, and will be at the bottom of the list by the time (5 years) you get around to updating the model.

The K20A makes 160 hp now, which is already what the Mazda3s makes, you can bet the Focus will have a new trick up its sleeve come '07 (or even next year if SVT does something) and is already at 150 hp. Most of the Sentras sold have the 2.5 which already makes 165 hp. Impreza is also rated at 165. And on and on. If you introduce a new Civic whose go-fast version only has 160 hp, you will be completely outclassed within two years, I will bet. Especially if your base model still has a 1.7, now bangin out a whopping 130 hp, just as everybody else is moving on from this number.

Even Toyota, which everyone calls "conservative" and "boring", is now churning out 170 hp Corollas, and you can bet the next Matrix is getting a bigger base engine of some kind, even if it is only the 148 hp 2.0 previously used in the RAV. And that leads the way for Corolla to get the same base engine.

Honda could do two things - put i-VTEC on a new sub-2.0 4-cylinder engine and stroke it up to the point where it could do 140 hp in base form (giving all Civics VVT, not just the top of the line models), or detune the K20A in a way that would make it more economical for Honda to produce in a $15K car, while boosting its fuel efficiency numbers to around the level the current Civic has. Either way, they should really be shooting for an output in the range of 135-145 hp, IMO.

And now, reading my words, I realize I have been thrust into the position of advocating an increase in horsepower without increasing fuel efficiency - gasp! Say it aint so! But in this particular case, Honda really needs big leaps forward with the next Civic to keep them selling.

Does anyone think bringing back a Civic hatch for '06 would be a good idea? Or am I the only hatch die-hard here?! :-P

newcar31

The Mazda 2.3L actually has smaller external dimensions and is lighter than the 2.0L in the Protege that it replaced, so Mazda really didn't need to do anything to accomodate the 2.3L.

newcar31

"Even Toyota, which everyone calls "conservative" and "boring", is now churning out 170 hp Corollas"

Don't forget about the Scion Tc which is a Civic coupe competitor.

newcar31

Doesn't really matter to me. Either one is better than what is available now.

ateixeira

Corolla XRS still lacks torque.

I'll be curious to see how the Scion tC sells, it's priced right and I've already seen about 4-5 on the roads.

-juice

varmint

Strictly speaking, the K20 and the K24 blocks have the same exterior dimensions. The K24 is a bored and stroked version of the K20 block. It's all the supporting hardware that needs to be beefed up (air, electrical, exhaust, etc.), and THAT stuff may add weight and mass.

I don't see a need for additional displacement. The K20 in present form would be enough power for the next Civic EX. The current 1.7 in the EX would work well as the base engine for the LX. Going to the K24 would be overkill.

Frankly, if you want a K24 in a smaller sedan, you want the TSX. If you want cheaper performance, you want the RSX. Go any cheaper, and you're in Civic Si territory. And that's a whole car that needs to be redesigned, not just a powerplant issue. If the Si had been done properly, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

logic1

It is amazing how much weight and size new manufacturing processes and materials are taking off engines.

newcar31

It is pretty amazing. The 2.3L is lighter, smaller, more efficient, and has more power than the 2.0L it replaced.

Then again, the 2.0L was getting old, so I guess I kind of expected the new engine to be better in every way.

Speaking of the old Mazda iron block 2.0L, if Mazda can use that heavy engine in the Protege and still have one of the best handling FWD cars on the planet, I don't see how Honda would have weight balance issues by using their larger 4 cyls in the Civic.

robertsmx

I’m not sure about where the horsepower war will end. Accord saw a big jump from 200 to 240 HP. Odyssey’s power output moved up from 210 HP (MY1999) to 240 HP (2002-2004) and now 255 HP (MY2005). At least in these cases, we have seen gain, rather than drop in fuel economy (at least on paper).

In Civic, however, Honda must keep the philosophy alive. Hopefully, something like a K18A would come around to replace the D-series engine with better torque/power ratings and class leading fuel economy/emissions ratings. 120-125 HP would be enough in a car for most buyers.

K20A has more than enough potential to take on the larger displacement engines from competition. It is a refined engine, with up to 220 HP on tap. To bring the point home, I must quote the sportiest Accord sedan… the Euro-R. For some reason, Honda opted to use 220 HP/152 lb.-ft K20A to power the Euro-R instead of the 200 HP/171 lb.-ft K24A (that powers the 24T, 24TL and 24S trims). In case of Civic EX, 150-170 HP would more than do it. Even if it simply matches the XRS in terms of peak power, the K20A would be torquier (and refined).

BTW, K20A is supposedly a smaller package than the B18C (engine that powered the Integra GS-R). And if K24A is about the same size as K20A, it would be comparable to B18 and that could mean that it will fit under the hood of the Civic.

newcar31

"It's all the supporting hardware that needs to be beefed up (air, electrical, exhaust, etc.), and THAT stuff may add weight and mass."

Why would the exhaust, electrical, air, etc. need to be "beefed up" on the K24? Since they're the same block, I would imagine that all of the accesories and the exhaust could be the same.

"Going to the K24 would be overkill."

Nah, it'd just be matching some of the competitors. The Neon SRT-4 is overkill.

Here are my estimates for a Civic sedan with the 160 hp K24:

0-60: 7.0 seconds
MPG: 27 mpg city, 34 mpg highway

That doesn't sound like overkill, that sounds perfect.

robertsmx

Why would you want K24A for 160 HP when K20A can get you the same? And even without knowing the details, I would say that K24A would add a few pounds, if not a lot (compared to K20A).

driftracer

Overkill for who? Someone looking for a boring commuter mobile, perhaps, but there are cars out there that keep the SRT-4 in its place.

newcar31

"Why would you want K24A for 160 HP when K20A can get you the same?"

Because the K24 doesn't work as hard to make 160 hp and I don't think you'd gain much in fuel efficiency by using the K20 instead. Also, the K24 has more potential simply because it has more displacement.

"And even without knowing the details, I would say that K24A would add a few pounds, if not a lot (compared to K20A)."

Without knowing the details and considering the blocks are the same, I'd say their weights are similar.

newcar31

"Overkill for who?"

Overkill compared to a 1.7L Civic.

newcar31

"but there are cars out there that keep the SRT-4 in its place."

For the money, I can only think of 2 cars that match up well with the SRT-4, the WRX and a V8 Mustang and neither one of them will "keep the SRT-4 in its place" especially considering the simple performance upgrades available for the SRT-4.

driftracer

why does everything have to be equal? When autocrossing or other LEGAL racing events, you don't get the chance to say to the event coordinator "No fair, his car cost more than mine, I can't run against him in the same class.."

I'm just happy with the status that my three buds with SRT-4s won't line up against me...they'd never live down getting smoked by a 40 year old guy in a PT Cruiser...

robertsmx

We should try to figure out why Accord Euro-R is equipped with K20A instead of K24A. While there may not be appreciable gains to be had from K20A compared to K24A (in fuel economy), Civic could use smaller and lighter engine. The K20A works well in RSX, it would do better in Civic.

nippononly

is the Euro Accord-R based on a model originally available in the Japanese home market? In Japan they are taxed based on displacement, so given two engines with the same peak power rating, they would go with the smaller provided it had enough grunt to do the job for most buyers.

It might not be necessary, but it would sure be nice to see a 200 hp top-of-the-line Civic available in the States next time around.

newcar31

"why does everything have to be equal?"

It doesn't really have to be, but I am talking about new cars.

I could build an early 90s Mustang that would destroy just about anything for the price of a new Neon SRT-4.

newcar31

"I'm just happy with the status that my three buds with SRT-4s won't line up against me...they'd never live down getting smoked by a 40 year old guy in a PT Cruiser..."

Why would your PT Cruiser be faster? Lemme guess, it's modded. Well, I don't need to tell you that a likewise modded Neon SRT-4 would take care of your PT Cruiser.

driftracer

upgrades, plus exhaust, intake, BOV conversion, and an MSD ignition system.

No, I've been up against 2 of my local buds' SRTs - they don't hook up like mine, and I edged them out - both are Stage 2 cars...gotta love traction control!!

Perhaps the driver makes the difference - who knows?

Why the heck can't Honda make something fun like this? Like a WRX? Or an SRT-4?

carlisimo

Clarify on the K20A... the K20A2 is the RSX-S's crazy revving engine, while the K20A3 is the base RSX and Civic Si's more boring one. The K24A2 in the TSX is more similar to the K20A2, and the K24 in the CR-V and Accord are more similar to the K20A3. The fun one isn't as good for emissions and low end torque, and most of the buying public wouldn't like it.

It also needs to come in something cheaper than the RSX-S or TSX.

newcar31

"No, I've been up against 2 of my local buds' SRTs - they don't hook up like mine, and I edged them out - both are Stage 2 cars...gotta love traction control!!"

I guess it might be part driver/part traction control but if you were at a dragstrip and you both were running slicks, you'd be toast. You're already toast in autocross.

"Why the heck can't Honda make something fun like this? Like a WRX? Or an SRT-4?"

I'm sure the tuner crowd would love to get their hands on a 2.4L Civic without an engine swap.

driftracer

to refrain from broad opinions, especially when you don't know my activities and accomplishments...

"You're already toast in autocross"

Is that so? Is that why I won a regional championship last year and I'm on my way to another one, and only Street Modified or STX Class WRXs beat my times? An SRT hasn't touched me in autocross yet.

I live for autocross, by the way.

And I'd get my son a 2.4 Civic hatch in a heartbeat!

gee35coupe

There's no reason to build a 2.4L Civic when they are doing just fine with the 1.7's. I mean the 1998-2002 Accord only had 145 hp. It would be rediculous for Honda to put that large displacement engine in the Civic. It's the answer to the question no ones asking. No one except those of us on Edmunds that is.

Selling like hotcakes???
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2003-02-06-srt- _x.htm
Just 3,000 '03 models are planned. Future numbers are undisclosed.

Those are some rare hotcakes.

Just as the regular Neon is a sub-par economy car. No matter how fast you make a Neon, it's still a Neon.

driftracer

your argument -

"Just 3,000 '03 models are planned"

Planned, as in, that's it - they're selling in some areas at $2-3 above sticker, and there are no rebates or finance incentives. For a domestic vehicle with direct relation to the rental car Neon (has a $3k rebate PLUS financing), that's nothing short of staggering to this used car appraiser/vehicle auction buyer (who sees domestics take a bath all the time)...

Just because they only planned 3,000 doesn't mean that they built 10,000 and only 3,000 sold, and the rest are rotting on lots, as I'm thinking your statement implies.

newcar31

"Is that so? Is that why I won a regional championship last year and I'm on my way to another one, and only Street Modified or STX Class WRXs beat my times? An SRT hasn't touched me in autocross yet."

You'd get better times in a Neon SRT-4.

driftracer

I've run an SRT-4 (one of my best friends has one) and I didn't do as good as my times in my PT - my PT is a freak, and it's set up for Street Modified and runs coilovers, bigger sway bars, polyurethane throughout - sure, I could do the same to an SRT-4, but I already OWN the PT, and the SRTs can't touch it, so what's the point? Buy another car to shave a couple of seconds, when I've already set up a car that SRT guys can't touch, plus will haul groceries and actually fit those boxes of stuff from Ikea?

We'd better get back on topic before we get whacked.

anonymousposts

I had a 99 Accord 2.3L and traded that for a 3.0L V6 Accord. You could feel the extra weight on the front wheels.

It's silly for Honda to put the Accord's engine in the Civic. The Civic is not big enough IMO to warrant anything larger than a 2.0L.

People want the Accord's engine, the Accord's safety features, and the Accord's suspension for the price of a Civic. There's no way Honda can do that and keep the Civic at current price levels. Mazda tried it with the 3 and that's how you end up with a $20,000+ economy car.

newcar31

I don't deny the PT cruiser's great balance of utility and speed, but the Neon is a quicker all around car. I'd bet a couple hundred pounds and a lower center of gravity is worth more than just a couple tenths off of autocross times.

Back on topic.

The Civic may be doing "just fine" with the 1.7L, but there are many other small cars with larger, more powerful engines available.

Off the top of my head, Focus, Mazda3, Corolla, Lancer, Jetta, Sentra, pretty much every small sedan besides the Koreans on the market.

I don't see why Honda wouldn't offer a larger engine in the next generation Civic.

driftracer

"99 Accord 2.3L and traded that for a 3.0L V6 Accord"

Sure, there's probably 100-150 lbs, it's a V6, plus a bigger radiator, transmission, etc..

seminole_kev

anonymousposts -"The Civic is not big enough IMO to warrant anything larger than a 2.0L."

Bah! Cram as big a engine as you can or go turbo it. Either way, more torque is nice. I'd be more interested in a 2.4L civic than anything they've offered in awhile. (Civic Type R would change that though....)

newcar31

"There's no way Honda can do that and keep the Civic at current price levels. Mazda tried it with the 3 and that's how you end up with a $20,000+ economy car."

The base model 2.0L Mazda3 has 20 more hp than a Civic EX and stickers for about $14K.

A 2.3L Mazda3 stickers for about $17K.

boaz47

the origional SI and later CRX such a hot deal was the surprise you could give people with the little cars. I felt the same about my Prelude because they were sleepers to people that simply didn't know what they were up against. With the old SI you could tune the thing to hunt down much faster "looking" cars. I learned a long time ago not to assume you were quicker or faster than the guy next to you. Those little Focus SVTs thought a lot of people that lesson at the 1/8th mile in Realto. even some little Saturns built with SPS performance parts have done very well against people who didn't know better. The point some of us have made or are trying to make is the SI was both quick "and" economic and one of the best in class. Today the Civic gets dissed for decontenting buy car magazines that at one time loved everything about the car. Things have changed. The Si is no longer quick and by no means the top of its class. I do not believe Honda has run out or fallen on its face. It just has been treading water for the last few years. And to answer my friend nippon, another try at the Honda hatch? I just don't see it. However for his sake try and try again may just work sooner or later. The market share monster is looking over Honda's shoulder however and you know how that freezes board members?

anonymousposts

I just don't see putting a 2.4L engine in the Civic. Why should they when the 2.0L from the RSX/Si would be more than adequate for the Civic DX, LX, and EX. The Si should get a more tuned version of that engine.

Mitsubishi put the 2.4L in the Ralliart, Nissan has a 2.5 in the Sentra, and Mazda has the 2.3 in the Mazda3. I know I very rarely see a Ralliart or a Sentra 2.5. The 3 is selling well but most 3 sedans I see are i models.

I think the 2.4l engine is awesome. We have bought 3 Accords equipped with this engine. I just don't feel a car the size of a Civic warrants this engine when the smaller 2.0l would be a better fit and make just as much HP.

Even with the 2.3 engine the 3 is far from quick so what's the point?

grbeck

Will the next-generation Civic be larger than the current model? I don't know if it's the styling or an actual size difference, but the Mazda3 has a more "important" look than the current Civic, which suffers from a narrow tread (especially when looked at from the rear) and tires that appear to be too skinny. The Mazda has a more broad-shouldered stance.

gee35coupe

That I'm sure adds to its appearance. But it also adds to the replacement cost of the tires and the ride. Most "economy car" buyers arent concerned about "stance" and 0-60. They want the car to start in the morning, get 35 mpg, and be very cheap to run and insure. We can all sit here and hope the Civic turns into a SR-T beater but it ain't hapnin' when the highest selling Civic is still the LX automatic. I mean even the much heralded Mazda 6 and 3 have variations that offer nearly everything an enthusiast would want but they have barely made a difference in the market.

This is another case of Edmundsania.

We were lucky to get the Accord coupe 6mt.

proe

What I do not understand is why people would spend thousands of dollars trying to make their little civic go faster while people who have money will just go out there and buy a Porsche GT, which is a street version of the race car and you got people to maintain your cars.
I guess it is just like the old saying about the spoiler. "Spoiler is a cheap way to make non-sporty cars look sporty."
It is pretty funny to see someone spending over $20,000 on a $10,000 civic. I mean it all looks good on paper but do you really think you have a chance to against Porsche GT on a track even you have 1000 hps on your little honda civic? I bet your little civic will spin out of control at first hairpin.

carlisimo

Pride in your own car, man. In building it up yourself, the way you want it and with your bare hands. Especially in previous generations, the Civic is a fun car to drive and has a potential that its economy parts don't come close to. Change its power, suspension, etc., and you feel each improvement with some satisfaction that you did it.

The Civic wouldn't have made it big among tuners without the interchangeability that made parts-swapping easy, and painless enough to get a lot of amateurs to try it. Sure, a lot of Civic owners just slap on things that make it look cool. But there are also many who really know and feel what's going on under the hood of their car, and I'd call them "car people" more so than most Porsche GT owners.

Those are the people who Honda is tuning out. Economy car buyers are still loving the Civic, as are reviewers. For most people my age, the default (non-enthusiast) car choices are still the Civic and Corolla and I don't see any change in how many lean towards one or the other. In other words, Honda's not doing anything wrong with the base Civic. It's getting stiffer competition though, so I don't think being a good mainstream car company will be enough.

lil302000

I agree, the pride and fun of making your vehicle your own. From changes to make it different from everyone else to performance changes. For me it's the bike for you it's the Civic, but it's all the same.

sorter

The Tc is a better value as well. In my eyes, it looks sharper than a 3.

newcar31

"just don't see putting a 2.4L engine in the Civic. Why should they when the 2.0L from the RSX/Si would be more than adequate for the Civic DX, LX, and EX. The Si should get a more tuned version of that engine."

So what if the 2.0L and 2.4L both make 160 hp? The 160 hp 2.4L is a more powerful engine, period, and it's not physically bigger than the 2.0L because they're from the same engine family. What's the point of the 2.0L? Just because Honda makes a 2.0L with 240 hp doesn't mean I'd want one in an Accord instead of a 240 hp 3.0L V6.

"Even with the 2.3 engine the 3 is far from quick so what's the point?"

C&D tested the hatchback and got 0-60 in 7.4 seconds. That's "far from quick"?

What would that make the Civic with the 1.7L?

newcar31

Now that I think about it, the 2.4L Accord is faster than the Civic Si and gets better gas mileage.

What is the point of the 2.0L? The 2.4L pulls a heavier car around, faster, and more efficiently than the 2.0L does a lighter car.

andre1969

I just learned something. I was going to make an argument that the Civic has bulked up a lot, and is much heavier than it used to be, so it's time for a bigger engine. However, compared to the '91 Civic rental I had once, the current Civic is only about 200 lb heavier. This, despite being about 6 inches longer (174.6" vs 168.8") 3 inches taller (56.7 vs 53.5), almost 5 inches more wheelbase (103.1 vs 98.4) and almost an inch wider (67.5 vs 66.7).

Although despite that bulking up, front legroom has actually gone down about an inch (42.2 vs 43.1"), so that at least explains to me why I was able to drive that '91 for about 1500 miles with no complaints, but can tell I don't like the new model after only a quick test sit. Although I still say there's something whacked about how they measure legroom. I've driven much bigger cars that only have about 42" of legroom, and they're much more comfortable.

Still, I'm impressed that Honda has done that good of a job of keeping the weight down on the Civic.
And in that comparison test chart I posted yesterday, http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/100022/page019.html, the Civic is the lightest car, coming in at 90 to 303 lb less than the cars it was compared to. Although the Sentra, with the big, powerful 2.4, was only 92 lb heavier, so it's not necessarily a given that a bigger engine will a porker make!

robertsmx

Japanese (and European) market Accords get a choice of K20A as well as K24A. Base JDM models (20E and 20EL) get K20A with 155 HP. The 200 HP K24A powers Accord’s 24S (“Sport”), 24T (“Touring”) and 24TL (“Touring Luxury”) models.

Accord 24S is the sportiest of these cars until you consider Accord-R. While 24S gets 200 HP K24A and sport tuned chassis, it doesn’t get 6-speed manual transmission (in Japan). OTOH, Accord-R gets 220 HP K20A and only 6-speed manual transmission (power train shared with ITR) to go with a 100 lb. lighter body (at just 3015 lb, well over 200 lb lighter than Acura TSX and 100 lb less than base 24S). It is not a stripped model either. Comes with everything standard (and more).

Since K24A is already offered in other trims, it can’t be displacement tax that affects the choice between K24A and K20A.

varmint

"What's the point of the 2.0L?"

The K20 can rev a good deal higher than the K24, ultimately producing more power. This can be witnessed with the 220 hp ATR Robertsmx was talking about. With smaller pistons and a shorter stroke, it can better handle the stresses of heading north of the 8,000 rpm mark.

With the 200 hp TSX, I'm told that Honda set a new piston speed record for themselves (faster than the S2000). While I'm sure they can go faster with the K24, it's probably going to take more engineering than it would take to produce the same power with the K20.

varmint

Ultimately, the question is not how much power the car can make. We're talking about the Civic, not the next NSX. The current Civic was designed with a 25 year old, young professional woman named Jennifer in mind. She was the target demographic. It was not the Solo II circuits.

andre1969

but I hear Jennifer couldn't take it anymore and dumped her accountant boyfriend and is now dating a biker dude who has a Harley and a black '68 GTO. She got knocked up, and the sonogram indicated she's gonna have twins, so they're thinking of trading in that Civic for a Hemi Magnum!