Has Honda's run - run out?

gee35coupe

When she got knocked up, the biker dude left here and she lost her job. Now she has no health care insurance and had to move in with her parents. Her car note is 2 months behind and she may end up driving the 1993 Civic she left at home when she moved out. Dem Hemis ain't cheap.

varmint

At this pace, Jennifer will end up in Subaru's target market!

robertsmx

She will be too old by then for a Civic, anyway.

nippononly

the Civic has always emphasized frugality and light weight with a little bit of fun, so yes, it doesn't need a standard 2.4.

But imagine an EX with the 2.4 from the Accord, and an SI with the 200 hp version of the K20A from the RSX-S! That would STILL be less powerful than the fastest Civic that other markets get, but should allow them to use existing engines to save money and to remain at least competitive thru 2011. But I still say the base engine cannot have 115 hp any more. Those days have come and gone. There should be a way for them to extract 140 hp from a new sub-2L engine, or the existing K20A used in the base RSX, while maintaining the Civic's excellent fuel economy.

BTW, all we ever get around here where I live are the Mazda3s and the 2.5L version of the Sentra. Corolla will be revised for '08, and you can bet that it will have 140+ hp after that. Even if the '06 Civic has 140 hp base, it will still be the lowest-powered car in its segment within two years.

newcar31

""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."

I'm not talking about the 220 hp version of the 2.0L and I'm not saying the 2.4L should be standard.

People in here were suggesting that the 160 hp 2.0L would be a good engine option.

I'm saying that the 160 hp 2.4L is a better option than the 160 hp 2.0L.

It's more powerful and it's more efficient.

robertsmx

Base models (DX/LX) need to target 35 mpg with performance that most people need than deliver 28-30 mpg to do a 0-60 run in 8.0 seconds or less.

Now, EX model could be used to make a performance/feature statement, and 2.0 with 160 HP would more than do it. With the engine/transmission straight off base RSX, getting a low 7.0s run would be easily possible, although fuel economy would suffer. Even with improvements, I suspect getting better than 28/35 mpg would be difficult.

Si/Si-R could benefit from 200 HP. They may not be the fastest of all, but a balance has to be achieved. I just don’t see the point of straying from the basic principles for the sake of a small market segment.

newcar31

Compare the Civic Si to the Accord 2.4L.

Compare the acceleration numbers. Compare the mileage.

I don't see why the 160 hp 2.0L is a better choice than the 160 hp 2.4L.

nippononly

for the EX four-door, which might frequently carry passengers, the 160 hp 2.4L is a way better choice than the 2.0L. And it could still get low 30s combined, I am sure, which would be fine for the EX. I agree that the DX/LX need to do at least five points better in fuel economy. I am confident Honda could do that with a detuned K20A and still draw 140 hp from it, installed in the Civic which after all is 250 pounds lighter than the RSX, where it currently gets mileage in the high 20s.

robertsmx

Civic Si received the laziest of the K20A iterations. It is one of those things I don't understand from Honda. Okay, there is life outside of 0-60 and clearly, the Si wasn't geared optimally to achieve a good run (requires two shifts to get to 60 mph). It is geared just way too short. And with 5-speeds, that also means a very short fifth (affects fuel economy). Put the K20A from RSX (base) as is, and its gearbox, and see the Si run 0-60 in low 7 seconds. May not be a whole lot faster than Accord I-4/MT, but even with K24A instead of K20A, a typical 0-60 run will probably improve by 0.2s or so.

Si/Si-R needed more aggressive rubber, more aggressive brakes, and a 170-190 HP engine. Well, with next generation, hopefully it will have 200 HP.

ateixeira

Honda has tended to keep their cars light so I doubt we'll see a dramatic change of strategy with something as big as 2.4 liters appearing in a Civic.

They have so far avoided the arms race and always focused on economy and emissions in the volume segments.

You want fast get an S2000. Maybe if they made a coupe from the S2000 to appease enthusiasts that autocross...

I doubt the Civic will get even a 2.0l this decade.

-juice

andre1969

but Honda is definitely in the arms race when you step up to the Accord. Most 0-60 tests I've seen put the Accord 3.0 V-6 about even with the Nissan Altima 3.5. In some test, the Accord is a touch quicker or a touch slower, but close enough to be considered a wash in my book.

And either one positively blew away the Camry with the 3.0/4-speed auto, although I don't know how the newer Camry, with the 3.3/5-speed would do.

The Accord V-6 is also faster from 0-60 than any GM non-supercharged 3.8 V-6, and also faster than the new Malibu 3.5. Also faster than the Taurus/Sable, Intrepid/Concorde/300M, and Stratus/Sebring. And the only 300/Magnum models that will beat it are the Hemis!

ateixeira

Even that V6 has only about average torque. I bet the Honda is lighter and/or geared shorter to be as quick.

Put an 800 lbs payload in it and I bet the Altima 3.5l walks away from it.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, Honda just achieves good efficiency by offering "adequate" vs. class-leading torque.

-juice

newcar31

"Civic Si received the laziest of the K20A iterations. It is one of those things I don't understand from Honda. Okay, there is life outside of 0-60 and clearly, the Si wasn't geared optimally to achieve a good run (requires two shifts to get to 60 mph). It is geared just way too short. And with 5-speeds, that also means a very short fifth (affects fuel economy). Put the K20A from RSX (base) as is, and its gearbox, and see the Si run 0-60 in low 7 seconds."

What is the huge difference between the base RSX drivetrain and the Si drivetrain? I was under the impression that they are the same. Despite what the numbers say, the RSX's drivetrain must be much better considering that you think it will improve the Si's acceleration and fuel economy.

"They have so far avoided the arms race and always focused on economy and emissions in the volume segments."

Would I be asking for the world by wanting more engine options?

What's wrong with offering two engines? One economy minded engine and one powerful engine?

ateixeira

The Si has pretty tiny sales volume, I can't see them justifying two engines for it.

-juice

newcar31

I'm not talking about the Si, I'm talking about the coupe and sedan having a something more than 1.7Ls available.

ateixeira

Perhaps...

Even though HP sells, it seems like Honda touts its SULEV status more than the power they make.

You're talking about a major change in philosophy.

-juice

robertsmx

Accord is actually heavier than Altima, Camry and Mazda6. Usual pick for test is Accord EXV6 w/NAV and that tips the scale at close to 3400 lb.

robertsmx

RSX engine has more low and mid-range torque and its gearing is more relaxed. It is rated slightly better in fuel economy as well (27/33 compared to 26/30). In Civic, and with few tweaks, Honda should be able to squeak 28/34 mpg or better rating without giving up anything in terms of output.

But, there is potentially more on the horizon. Last year, Honda launched K20B, a variation of the K20A with “I-VTEC I” to go against the DI engines with improved fuel economy. And it may be the replacement for the current VTEC-E (lean burn) engine technology. The K20B can run AFR as lean as 64:1!

To put the advantage in perspective, Honda sells a mini-minivan called Stream in Japan with K20A as well as K20B. Both are rated at 156 HP but here is where things become more interesting. K20A is a mid-level engine, and rated at 13.6 km/liter. K20B powers “Absolute”, a top-level model, which also happens to be about 40 kg (about 80-90 lb.) heavier and improves mileage by 10% (to 15 km/liter).

IMO, it is engines like this that have greater promise to be seen in a Civic than a K24A, at least until Civic gains enough size and weight to be in Accord territory.

newcar31

"Even though HP sells, it seems like Honda touts its SULEV status more than the power they make.

You're talking about a major change in philosophy."

Think about it this way. All smaller cars used to come with an engine smaller than 2 liters and now it seems that they are all available with an engine of 2.0L or greater, except Honda.

"RSX engine has more low and mid-range torque and its gearing is more relaxed. It is rated slightly better in fuel economy as well (27/33 compared to 26/30)."

That doesn't make sense. Why would Honda do that?

"In Civic, and with few tweaks, Honda should be able to squeak 28/34 mpg or better rating without giving up anything in terms of output."

Again, the 3000 lbs 2.4L Accord is rated at 26 city, 34 highway with a manual, and it's faster than the 2.0L Civic Si.

I'm basing my argument on what we KNOW now, not on what I think Honda can do with the 2.0L with a "few tweaks".

So far, the argument for using the 160 hp 2.0L instead of the 160 hp 2.4L in the Civic is weak.

robertsmx

I'm basing my argument on what we KNOW now, not on what I think Honda can do with the 2.0L with a "few tweaks".

But you don’t know how K24A will affect Civic, do you? At this point we can only work on assumptions. That being said, and I’ve already mentioned earlier, JDM Accord is sold with two engine displacement, 2.0 (K20A) and 2.4 (K24A). With similar feature content, the 2.0 equipped Accord is 30-50 kg (70-100 lb.) lighter than 2.4 equipped Accord, and gets 15% better fuel economy. Of course, in this case, the K24A is tuned for 200 HP and the K20A gets 155 HP.

And the “tweak” isn’t a possibility, K20B has been in the market for about a year. Probably a good engine for Civic to add performance without compromising much in the basic “Civic” philosophy.

newcar31

"But you don’t know how K24A will affect Civic, do you?"

I'm not sure what you mean.

What I do know is that the 2.4L and 2.0L are in the same engine family, so if the 2.4L is heavier or bigger, it's not by much, and certainly not enough to "affect the Civic".

I also know that the Accord with the 2.4L and a manual does 0-60 in 7.5 seconds (according to C&D), and is EPA rated at 26 mpg city and 34 mpg highway.

Based on what we know, I don't think it's too far fetched to guess that a Civic would be faster and get better mileage than the Accord with the 2.4L. Considering that the Accord's numbers are more than respectable, I would guess that the specific numbers for a 2.4L Civic would be outstanding and much better than the current Si in both acceleration and fuel mileage.

Maybe I'm just a crazy lunatic Edmunds car freak, but I definately would like to see a 2.4L Civic EX sedan.

robertsmx

Yeah, it would be interesting, because K24A feels more like a small V6 than a four banger. I'm not sure how the extra torque will affect the handling aspects (torque-steer) since the K24A is a very responsive engine.

I used to read Honda's PR on how its new K-series engines are 10-15% smaller and lighter than older engines with similar displacement. So, that would make K20 similar (if not smaller) in package and weight to B18. But, does that mean K24 would be as compact/light as B18? If it were, I'm sure Honda would have loved to mention it (helps make a bigger splash with larger numbers thrown in).

So, although K20A and K24A are from the same family, I doubt they have identical packaging size and weight. The choice does seem to add a good few pounds to Accord as I mentioned above.

While the difference may not be substantial, it could still add up, or not fit under the hood of the Civic without substantial changes.

As for performance and fuel economy, it would be anybody's guess until we actually see it. I do it all the time as well.

newcar31

have ever guessed 10 years ago that there would be a 240 hp Accord that goes 0-60 in 5.9 seconds?

Does the Accord really need 240 hp? I mean, it does just fine with the 2.4L. My brother's old 110 hp 88' Accord was peppy.

Considering there are 240 hp Accords now, I don't think a 160 hp 2.4L Civic is "dreamin" or a "major change in philosophy".

robertsmx

I don't think Accord needed 240 HP. IMO, 220 HP would had been just fine, also leaving room for "future expansion". Back in Fall 1997, I didn't think I needed the Accord V6, otherwise I would be driving one today. Instead, I "settled" for 150 HP I-4 and couldn't be happier. If I consider Accord next time around, I might end up with EX-L again.

With Accord V6 though, Honda managed to improve fuel economy and emissions (some over the last 3.0/V6 and a lot over the 2.7/V6). The car had to grow in size to compete in the family sedan class. Civic doesn't need to grow. I bought one because my wife wanted a small car that was fuel efficient, reliable and had decent get up and go. And we've not been disappointed with our Civic EX with "only" 127 HP.

anonymousposts

I guess that's why the small car segment is dying. People want 2.4L in a Civic. 10 years ago Honda was just putting a 2.7L V6 in the Accord. I'm sure Honda could put the 2.4L in the Civic but why should they when they have perfectly capable smaller engines?

It's funny how you are trying to make the 2.0l Honda engine out as inferior when it produces just as much HP and comparable 0-60 times as the larger 2.3 engine that's found in the 3s. The Si weighs 82lbs more than the 3s yet gets nearly the same MPG (25/32 vs. 26/30) with similar 0-60 times (times for both have ranged from the mid-to-high 7's. So either the Si engine is better than you make it out to be or the 2.3L in the 3 and 6 needs some help. And for all of the complaints about the Civic's 1.7 in the EX it has returned 0-60 times in the 7.9-8.5 range with a manual transmission while getting nearly 40 MPG.

I don't think a 160HP Civic is out of the question but Honda can easily do it with a smaller engine while leaving the 2.4L for the Accord/TSX. Unlike Mazda, who has limited resources, Honda doesn't have to share engines between it's compact car and midsize sedan.

newcar31

"It's funny how you are trying to make the 2.0l Honda engine out as inferior when it produces just as much HP and comparable 0-60 times as the larger 2.3 engine that's found in the 3s."

Why is that funny? It's funny that you know I have a Mazda and have to rip Mazda all the time. I wasn't comparing the Honda 2.0L to a Mazda engine, I was comparing it to Honda's own 2.4L. Go back and read it, I'm not kidding.

In my eyes, the Honda 160 hp 2.0L engine IS INFERIOR to the Honda 160 hp 2.4L considering the performance and mileage figures for the Accord 2.4L and the Civic Si.

newcar31

"And for all of the complaints about the Civic's 1.7 in the EX it has returned 0-60 times in the 7.9-8.5 range with a manual transmission while getting nearly 40 MPG."

So what? If the Accord gets 34 mpg with the 2.4L, what would the Civic get with the same engine?

anonymousposts

It's funnier that you know we like Honda's and we know that you know that we know that you don't like Hondas yet you come in here to trash/question Honda at every opportunity. There is nothing wrong with the 2.0L Si engine that unplugging your keyboard wouldn't solve.

newcar31

You wouldn't have brought up Mazda in your post if I didn't have a Mazda. I wasn't even talking about Mazda. I guess I was making too much sense and you had to find some way to rip me.

"yet you come in here to trash/question Honda at every opportunity."

Read my last few posts. Am I "trashing" Honda?

No.

And what would this thread be if you couldn't "question" Honda?

"There is nothing wrong with the 2.0L Si engine that unplugging your keyboard wouldn't solve."

OK.

I never said anything was wrong with the 2.0L, I said the 2.4L is better. Nobody has been able to explain why the 2.0L would be a better engine for the Civic.

It's not more powerful. It's not more efficient. It's not smaller or lighter.

So please, tell me why the 2.0L is a better choice than the 2.4L without arguing for the sake of arguing and without dragging Mazda into it.

carlisimo

Is the redline in the TSX's 2.4L engine lower than in the 2.0? I would guess that a .6L cylinder puts more stress on its parts than a .5L.

I guess we're only a couple of generations before seeing V6 Civics...

andre1969

first off, a Honda Civic with the 1.7/manual might do 0-60 in 7.9-8.5 seconds, and it might be able to get 40 mpg on the highway, but in the real world you're going to get one or the other. You start doing enough of those maximum acceleration takeoffs, and I don't care how gently you drive on the highway, your fuel economy ain't gonna be anywhere near 40 mpg!

In the Edmund's test of a Civic 1.7/4-speed auto, 0-60 was 10.5 seconds. Way back in 1985, an Accord with the automatic and the optional engine would do 0-60 in about 11.1. I think the standard engine had around 86 hp and the optional had about 100. I dunno what an automatic Civic would do in '85, though, but today's Civic is more like 1985's Accord in size and status than it was 1985's Civic. So in 20 years, that doesn't seem like a whole lot of progress when it comes to acceleration.

motownusa

Obviously the biggest advantage of the 2.4L over the 2.0 engine would be more low end torque. But the Civis Si isn't a mid size car aimed at a forty year old with a wife and two to three kids. Peaky engine somewhat buzzy exhaust is a trademark of the Civic Si. Even Toyota is joining the frey with the souped up Corolla XRS. It produces 170 Hp from a 1.8L engine. Why do you think the Honda S2000 only comes with a 2.2L 4 banger.

anonymousposts

We had a 93 Civic EX that we drove hard. Revs rarely stayed below 4000 and the car rarely saw any speed below 80 when on the highway. Still returned MPG in the mid-30's or higher.

Todays Civic is the same size as the 85 Accord yet it has airbags, sunroof, cruise, AC, etc to add weight. It may not seem like a lot of progress to you but when you consider domestic brands are still selling sports cars with live axles (Mustang) and fresh designs with a OHV engine (Equinox) Honda doesn't seem that bad.

andre1969

and over the course of that whole vacation, which was about 1500 miles of mostly California highway driving, it averaged 29 mpg. It had a 4-speed automatic and the optional larger engine that had 108 hp. At first, it had trouble getting up over 75-80 mph, but I discoverd that was because the tranny didn't like to downshift at those speeds.

I found that if I shifted manually to 3rd and stomped it, and then got up past that sticking point, and shifted back into overdrive, it would go faster. All the way up to 115, given enough of a downhill grade! Overall though, I liked that little Civic, and it gave me a newfound respect for small cars.

As for the comparison of a new Civic to an '85 Accord, while on the surface it looks like the car has made great strides. And in fact, it has. And actually despite all that safety stuff added, weight is only up by maybe 200 lb or so compared to an '85 Accord. BTW, the one tested in my 1985 new car guide was loaded to the hilt...leather, sunroof, etc.

However, compare some of the other cars of today to their 1985 predecessors, and they just seem to have advanced much further. Honda was really at the head of the class with the Accord and Civic in 1985. Great fuel economy, great acceleration, and if you could keep the rust off of them, great cars in general.

In that same 1985 car guide, they had a Camry automatic that did 0-60 in 13 seconds. A Cavalier 4-cyl/auto that also did it in about 13 seconds. A Topaz automatic that was more like 16 seconds!

Today though, a Corolla, which really equates to a 1985 Camry more than a new one would (I'd equate a modern Accord or Camry more to something like a 1985 small LTD/Marquis, Bonneville/Cutlass sedan, or, at the smallest, a Cressida), but the Edmunds Corolla automatic did 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. So over the course of almost 2 decades, I see about 6/10 of a second improvement in the Honda, but more like 3.5 in the Toyota!

As for Ford, well I think the worse acceleration I've ever seen a Focus post is about 11.2 seconds, for a base 2.0/automatic. That's a big jump from the Tempo/Topaz 15.9! And a Cavalier, tired and outdated that the platform is, can do 0-60 in around 8 seconds, with the Ecotech/automatic.

So overall I don't think Honda is doing badly, but they just don't seem as "ahead of the curve" as they used to be. I think they did a great job with the Accord, although I'm not crazy about the styling, but the Civic just seems too mid-pack nowadays compared to the other great small cars out there.

anonymousposts

The Corolla was redesigned 2 years after the current Civic. You would expect it to offer better acceleration. We'll see what happens when the 06 Civic comes out.

andre1969

how fast a car performs has nothing to do with how up-to-date the platform is.

robertsmx

In my eyes, the Honda 160 hp 2.0L engine IS INFERIOR to the Honda 160 hp 2.4L considering the performance and mileage figures for the Accord 2.4L and the Civic Si.
What criteria are you using to dismiss K20A in favor of K24A? Do you realize there are some factors other than use of K20A that affects performance and mileage numbers in Civic Si?

If the Accord gets 34 mpg with the 2.4L, what would the Civic get with the same engine?
We can only guess, and it could be same or one mpg better. But with similar tune, K20A (or better, K20B) should do better. There must be a reason why vehicles equipped with smaller displacement engines tend to deliver better mileage than trims with larger displacement.

Nobody has been able to explain why the 2.0L would be a better engine for the Civic.
Attempt has been made, but you refuse to accept it. Can you prove use of K24A will help Civic retain its balance, cost, emissions, fuel economy and performance better than K20A? If you could, I will take your word for it.

robertsmx

Yep. K24A likely has the same stress level at 5500 rpm as the K20A does at 6500 rpm. But, I wouldn’t worry about those things in a Honda engine anyway.

K24A in TSX has an impressive redline (7100 rpm) given that its bore and stroke measurements are at 87 mm and 99 mm respectively. At 7400 rpm fuel cut off point, we’re talking about impressive piston speed. This is a good reason I don’t see K24A improving much beyond what it currently delivers (may be another 10-20 HP, maximum).

K20A is a square design (bore = 86 mm and stroke = 86 mm). In RSX (base) and Civic Si, the engine has an artificially low redline at just 6800 rpm. OTOH, the hotter versions (RSX-S, CTR and ITR) get pushed to 8100 rpm thru 8400 rpm. So, it might be possible to push the K20A into 240 HP or so, but that may not be possible with K24A.

And if 240 HP were possible with both, K20A and K24A, in racing events, it might be a better idea to go with K20A simply because it can help save enough weight to negate the torque advantage of the larger displacement engine while helping in handling department.

Speaking of “V6” Civics, I actually thought it might provide for a good propaganda for Honda to put the 1.8-liter Flat-6 in Civic. That engine is rated at about 120 HP (5500 rpm)/125 lb.-ft (4000 rpm). But given our endless need for power, I think you’re right we just might see 240 HP V6 powering the Civic someday while Accord has a 350 HP V8.

newcar31

"What criteria are you using to dismiss K20A in favor of K24A?"

I don't know how many times I have to bring it up.

Compare the Accord 2.4L to the Civic Si.

"Do you realize there are some factors other than use of K20A that affects performance and mileage numbers in Civic Si?"

Like what?

"Attempt has been made, but you refuse to accept it."

Attempt is the key word there.

"Can you prove use of K24A will help Civic retain its balance, cost, emissions, fuel economy and performance better than K20A?"

Balance? Both engines are similiar in size and weight. The K24 is a version of the K20 with more displacement. If it's a stroked version, the connecting rod would be shorter and maybe lighter on the 2.4L than the 2.0L. So, I can't see how an extra .4 liters would add much weight or size to the engine. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2.4L ended up being lighter than the 2.0L.

Cost?

Neither one of us knows how much each engine costs to build, but isn't the 2.0L a DOHC engine and the 2.4L is SOHC? Which one would you guess to be more expensive?

Emissions?

Why would the 2.4L meet emissions requirements in the Accord but not the Civic?

Fuel economy and performance?

Again, we've been through this. Take a look at the 2.4L Accord and the Civic Si.

ateixeira

A 2.4l in the Civic might cost Honda some Accord sales, keep that in mind. I'm sure Accord is more profitable at its higher price points.

Also, you can't get the 6 speed in the sedan, and I'm sure most Accords are sedans.

I like that 2.4l engine, as do many here, but keep in mind that's the engine at the center of the CR-V engine fire controversy.

-juice

anonymousposts

I love the 2.4 in our Accord but I don't think it's necessary to put this engine in the Civic. The 2.0 is capable of serving the same purpose while leaving the 2.4 for the Accord/TSX.

newcar31

"We can only guess, and it could be same or one mpg better."

Even if it is the same or 1 mpg better, is that not good enough?

My Brother's manual EX Civic is rated for 37 mpg highway.

If the Accord gets 34 mpg highway and if we were to guess that the Civic would get 1 mpg better, that makes 35 mpg highway.

Hmmm....

37 mpg with the 1.7L or 35 mpg with the 2.4L?

Forget about the 2.0L or the 1.7L, I know what I'd take.

robertsmx

Civic Engine Options in 1988:
1.5L 62 hp/90 lb.-ft
1.5L 70 hp/82 lb.-ft
1.5L 92 hp/97 lb.-ft
1.5L 105 hp/101 lb.-ft

Accord Engine Options in 1988:
2.0L 98 hp/109 lb.-ft
2.0L 120 hp/130 lb.-ft

Civic Engine Choices after the third redesign since 1988:
1.7L 115 hp/110 lb.-ft
1.7L 117 hp/111 lb.-ft
1.7L 127 hp/114 lb.-ft
2.0L 160 hp/132 lb.-ft

Over 13 years, Civic has grown a little in size and gained weight (about 20-25%) but also gained in power by same or in greater proportion (than weight gain) resulting in a safer, roomier, feature laden (compared to the past) better performing, cleaner car with similar or better fuel economy (except when compared to CRX HF) and cleaner emissions. Acceleration is only a small part of the big picture that progress brings.

However, compare some of the other cars of today to their 1985 predecessors, and they just seem to have advanced much further.
I choose to disagree. While it may be true for “some” brands, it is not true for all. I would take a 1980s Corolla GT-S in a heartbeat over the current Corolla. I used to have one. And that was the last Toyota that appealed to me.

In case of Civic, as people say it, don’t mess with success. Civic has been on top for a while, and the situation hasn’t warranted drastic changes. With every generation, Honda has modified Civic subtly, and playing it safe. Not a bad idea.

Now, if the sales struggle and the competition chooses to be aggressive (and positive results show up over an extended period of time) then it would make sense for Honda to be more aggressive. I’m sure they are well aware of the need to keep the Civic moving off the lot at same, if not better, pace than it does. Accord and Odyssey are prime examples of Honda choice of being more aggressive.

I somehow doubt, putting K24A will enable Honda to sell more than 300-325K units of Civic every year. And it definitely won’t help in other markets (like Canada) where smaller engines are preferred.

how fast a car performs has nothing to do with how up-to-date the platform is.
Corolla’s platform isn’t something to write home about. ;-)

Achieving performance isn’t a big deal, especially for companies like Honda or Toyota. But they are in business of making money and will take steps to achieve the goals. Toyota is being aggressive with Corolla with hope that somehow the tide turns around. I’m sure Honda is well aware of where it wants to keep Civic. All it might take is doing what Honda is already doing in some other markets. How about a Thai market like Civic with 160 HP 2.0-liter I-4 with 5-speed sport shift auto? That would more than easily handle any noise Toyota is trying to make with Corolla XRS and Mazda with its 3.

ateixeira

With the 2.4l Civic would cannibalize Accord sales. I don't think Honda sales overall would grow.

-juice

andre1969

would cannibalize Accord sales no matter how powerfu an engine were put into it. There's just too big of a size difference between the two. If they were closer in size, like, say, the Chevy Malibu and Impala, I could see it, but not as they are. I thought the V-6 Altima would positively kill the Maxima when it was introduced, as by that time the Altima became about the same size as the Max, offered similar performance with the V-6, and was a lot cheaper (although that showed up on the interior). But that didn't happen. Maxima sales continued to grow, although I haven't paid much attention to how well the '04 Max is doing.

robertsmx

You’re using a car (Civic Si) disregarding everything that affects the numbers that you’re trying to compare. By same measure, why don’t you compare K24A in TSX (200 HP) to K20A in RSX-S (200 HP)? Wouldn’t you expect TSX to get better gas mileage by the same token that you do between Accord and Civic Si? What is wrong with that picture you’re trying to frame?

Let us use your favorite company Mazda to address your concerns. Can you tell me what is the point of offering 2-liter engine if 2.3-liter engine is already offered?

Balance? Both engines are similiar in size and weight.

Is that a guess, or you know for sure? In that case, I would have expected Honda to say that their new 2.4 is actually smaller and lighter than their old 1.8. But I haven’t. Instead, the company chose to compare the 2.0 to 1.8 and the 2.4 to the old 2.2. Would you take a guess, why?

Neither one of us knows how much each engine costs to build, but isn't the 2.0L a DOHC engine and the 2.4L is SOHC? Which one would you guess to be more expensive?

Both are DOHC (didn’t you already draw conclusions based on the notion that they were based on same design?). I would think the 2.4 will add cost. Wouldn’t you? Is upgrade from 2.0 to 2.3 in Mazda3 free?

Why would the 2.4L meet emissions requirements in the Accord but not the Civic?

Meeting emissions requirements is not the end of it. I would expect 2.0 to have lower emissions than 2.4. But realistically, I would like to see K20B make it into Civic EX rather than K20A which would be a further improvement.

Again, we've been through this. Take a look at the 2.4L Accord and the Civic Si.
But, we’re talking about Civic with 2.0 compared to Civic with 2.4.

If the Accord gets 34 mpg highway and if we were to guess that the Civic would get 1 mpg better, that makes 35 mpg city.
I’m sure Honda is aware of its engines. If they think they will get better results from 2.4 than from 2.0 while getting more power and cleaner emissions, do you think they will choose to go the wrong way?

newcar31

"You’re using a car (Civic Si) disregarding everything that affects the numbers that you’re trying to compare."

Like what? What am I disregarding? Does the Civic Si have really horrible gearing and aerodynamics?

"Let us use your favorite company Mazda to address your concerns. Can you tell me what is the point of offering 2-liter engine if 2.3-liter engine is already offered?"

Easy. The Mazda 2.0L is more efficient than the Mazda 2.3L. That's not the case with Honda's 2.0L vs. their 2.4L as evidenced by the Honda Accord 2.4L and the Civic Si.

"I would think the 2.4 will add cost. Wouldn’t you?"

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it costs just a little more, maybe not. Do you know? Besides the displacement difference, what are the other differences? Are shorter connecting rods more expensive?

"But, we’re talking about Civic with 2.0 compared to Civic with 2.4."

What's your point?

ateixeira

How 'bout TSX sales, then? ;-)

-juice

gee35coupe

Civics have never had class leading anything but fuel economy and emissions when it comes to the engines Honda used. The 1996 had 106hp out of a 1.6 to 160 hp out of another version of the same displacement. Why would Honda put a 2.4L engine in the smallest car they make when they have proven that they can get nearly any amount of power they want out of a given displacement.

Edmunds is the only place where everyone wants a V6 stick. Majority of customers couldn't care less as long as they can get the mid-level automatic.

We don't all race from light to light. We don't all race every car that thinks it's going to pass us. We don't all read every published car magazine to compare 0-60 times.

Shoot...why stop at the 2.4...Go on ahead and throw some forced induction in there. Yeah what we need is a 300 hp all wheel drive Civic. NOT. They would cost $30k and have horrible emmissions and mileage.

I think Honda should go to a nice 1.8 with around 140hp or so in the EX and use the up level 1.7L in there now for the DX and LX. They can use the 2.0 from the RSX-S in the SI.

Horsepower doesn't keep you number one nor does it mean the car is any better or worse. There will always be someone faster. There's nothing you can do about it. At least not within reason. It seems Honda picks a price point and builds the best car they can to fit it. You can't beat that.

ateixeira

Well, they could get HP but the never could get torque from the sub 2 liter cars, even the S2000.

But I'm not advocating bigger engines in the Civic, anyway.

Let's see how the Mazda3 sells. I seriously doubt it'll outsell the Civic, even with the bigger engines.

-juice