Has Honda's run - run out?

gee35coupe

Torque is nice....But Honda has gotten where they are without it. The new engines seem to be making up for it. But as the owner of upteen early Civics, it wasn't that much of an issue. Torque, or the at least the argument about it, is another Edmunds phenomena.

Actually that's what made older Hondas fun. The buildup of power as the revs and noise level increased was intoxicating. When it comes to exhilarating driving, my 2000 SI had it all over my 2003 that I currently drive. And our 1999 Accord EX 5 speed engine was deliciously peaky as the revs rose. Our 04 EX-L 5 speed is a pussycat in comparison.

robertsmx

Does the Civic Si have really horrible gearing and aerodynamics?
Neither. Civic Si is geared just too short to produce better mileage. Why else do you think RSX would do better than Si? And you've not responded, what did you think about 200 HP K24A in TSX compared to 200 HP (now 210 HP) K20A in RSX-S?

The Mazda 2.0L is more efficient than the Mazda 2.3L.
Why would do you think the same doesn’t apply between Honda 2.0 and 2.4? I know the problem. You’re stuck in Civic Si to Accord LX/MT comparison. But that’s a bad way to judge engines.

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?
I didn’t see an answer but “may be”. The question was, is 2.3 a free upgrade over 2.0 in Mazda3? Can it be? Why?

What's your point?
We're talking about (potential) impact of 2.4 compared to 2.0 in Civic. Aren't we?

gee35coupe

You are over 4000 rpm at 80. But boy is it responsive. Gas mileage runs 27-30 mpg no matter how you drive it.

robertsmx

I don’t think cannibalization would be an issue. People get Accord for its size, and Civic for its size and fuel economy. Availability of K24A will not be enough for people to choose between Civic instead of Accord.

With regard to the torque argument, Honda usually chooses to go for smaller displacement to get more horses. The current Si was an attempt to deviate from the norm and people complained about it losing the character. To some extent, I agree. Accord 3.0/V6 may have the power comparable to Altima 3.5/V6 but it does so with less torque. Honda could have used the 3.5/V6 instead, but that wouldn’t be typical Honda.

andre1969

about the Accord, being able to get 240 hp out of a 3.0 V-6, whereas Nissan needs the 3.5 to get about that. Also, torque on Honda's 3.0 is still something like 212 ft-lb. While not exactly stump-pulling territory, that's pretty good for a 3-liter!

anonymousposts

Honda putting the 2.4 in the Civic would be the easy way out.

varmint

"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."

That's the problem. We don't have enough information. Personally, I'd rather not be caught second-guessing people (in this case a company with a tradition for excellent engineering), when I don't have enough information.

And I believe the K24 has a balance shaft that is not needed on the K20. The air intake is bigger, and it has different "plumbing". Adding variations of that nature into the supply lines and assembly process add complexity (which means added costs).

anonymousposts

The engine in our 03 Si has balance shafts but the same engine in the base RSX does not. Presumably it's to calm the engine due to it's high rev inducing gearing.

gagrice

Both engines are similar 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.

I think what you meant to say is the connecting rods would be longer in the 2.4 liter engine, giving it a larger displacement.

I am not an authority on Honda engines. I would think that with all the Honda's I see fixed up in San Diego, that you can get all kinds of enhancements to make that 2.0 L Civic run like a scalded ape.

newcar31

"Civic Si is geared just too short to produce better mileage."

Short gearing would generally make mileage worse. Why does the gearing have to be so short?

"And you've not responded, what did you think about 200 HP K24A in TSX compared to 200 HP (now 210 HP) K20A in RSX-S?"

Because I think the Accord 2.4L vs. the Civic Si is a relevent comparison.

"Why would do you think the same doesn’t apply between Honda 2.0 and 2.4?"

Because they both make the same hp. The Mazda 2.0L has less hp than the 2.3L.

"We're talking about (potential) impact of 2.4 compared to 2.0 in Civic. Aren't we?"

Yes. If the 2.4L Accord performs better than the Si with the 2.0L, wouldn't that apply to the sedan and coupe as well?

"Honda putting the 2.4 in the Civic would be the easy way out."

Your opinion. My opinion is that it makes sense.

"I think what you meant to say is the connecting rods would be longer in the 2.4 liter engine, giving it a larger displacement."

No, I meant what I said the first time. Take apart an engine sometime and you'll see what I mean.

ateixeira

Altima has crept up in HP, it started at 240 but now I think it's up to 265 or so. I'm sure there have been incremental improvements in performance, too.

Not that I think the Accord needs more power. Camry has less HP and they sell more (though fleet sales help).

Is the Mazda 2.0l a Mazda design, or is it derived from the Focus' Zetec engine? The 2.3l is a Ford block I believe, with Mazda heads and tuning. That may be how they kept costs down.

-juice

robertsmx

Why does the gearing have to be so short?

I couldn’t speak for Honda. The fact is, it is and it is geared shorter than RSX (base) and not really emphasizing on fuel economy.

Because I think the Accord 2.4L vs. the Civic Si is a relevent comparison.

How is the difference between 2.4 in TSX and 2.0 in RSX-S irrelevant? You’re attempting to prove that K24A gets better mileage than K20A. If that were true, shouldn’t the same apply in every case? You’re comparing 160 HP to 160 HP, and I’m comparing 200 HP to 200 HP.

Because they both make the same hp. The Mazda 2.0L has less hp than the 2.3L.

So does K20A (RSX-S) and K24A (TSX).
Is it that Mazda wanted to offer 2.0-liter instead of standard 2.3-liter engine to offer less power?

robertsmx

Altima is at 250 HP now. Honda and Nissan seem to have gone crazy lately. Six years ago, the redesigned Odyssey started with 210 HP 3.5/V6. For 2002, Honda bumped the output to 240 HP without the need for premium grade gasoline. And 2005 Odyssey arrives with 255 HP. In this case, at least, the fuel economy rating has still gone up (and even better with VCM in the top two trims now rated 20/28 mpg). Accord Hybrid is due to be rated at 255 HP. It took a while, but RL gets a jump from 225 HP to 300 HP.

It would be interesting to see if this trend stops somewhere. In case of Civic, it will be interesting if Honda can be as wild as it has been with its V6 engines in Accord, TL, RL, MDX and Odyssey.

gee35coupe

The Si gearing is too short. But it is responsive from 35 mph all the way to 130 mph. I'd go for a little taller gearing but hey, you can't have everything.

Honda ain't putting no 2.4L in the Civic. There's no need nor demand.

Honda has made 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, and 2.4L engines with 160 hp. Looks like they are tuning the engines for a goal. Must be more than just displacement that decides which engine goes where. I think it would be silly to have a 2.4L engine in a Civic. Let the lower tier makes go that route. I applaud Toyota for going with the 1.8.

Actually putting the 2.4 in the Accord IS the easy way out. But then where do you go. Next step for those that have such large engines in the economy class is V6's. Where is the economy in that? The only reason to go there would be if you don't have the resources to create better smaller engines. I.e Mitsu, Nissan, Mazda, Dodge, Chevy.

You opinion doesn't make sense when you consider all the other safety, emmisions, weight, packaging, handling etc. that goes into a car. All you are basing you opinion is that the 2.4 and 2.0 make the same hp and would make the Civic faster. "Faster" just for the sake of the word isn't a priority to Honda in it's Civic. They've proven this over several generations. That's not a opinion, it's a fact.

Speaking of the Ody....That is one fast van. I have surprised many "performance" oriented vehicles with ours. It's a hoot. I'd go so far as to say it may have too much power. But it sure can flatten out the hills though.

ateixeira

I'd like to see them keep the current power levels but work on improving fuel economy, primarily. VCM is a great start.

Most people never race but they stop to get gas about once a week!

-juice

varmint

I think the thing that is missing from Newcar's assessment is the fact that he is focusing only on 0-60 times as the sole gauge for performance. 0-60 times illustrate only what happens in the first two gears. I don't have stats in front of me, but I'm willing to wager that comparing 0-100 mpg sprints and quarter mile times will show the difference in gearing between the Civic Si and the economy-minded Accord.

I think Robertsmx is closer when comparing the RSX-S and the TSX. Both are performance-oriented in this comparison.

IMHO, the thing that would hold a Civic K24 back would be city mpg. Larger displacement engines can be tweaked with wider gear ratios to provide better fuel economy on the highway. But in the city, these larger engines can't hide their thirst. It takes more air and more fuel to push a bigger piston. Without the momentum of highway cruising speeds, economy suffers.

Given that the Civic is a global car and designed to function on the crowded city streets of Japan and Europe, I don't see them sacrificing fuel economy to appease the demands of torque fans (who generally don't buy Honda's anyway).

robertsmx

Cars in $14-18K price range a load of power to sell, they need balanced appeal to a typical first time new car buyer (or a second car, as was true in my case). I got (2000) Civic EX over LX for couple of reasons, one being that it was the only trim with ABS otherwise there was no need for an additional 21 HP (back then, LX had 106 HP).

Based on the data I provided earlier, 1988 Civic was offered with only one displacement (1.5-liter) in several tunes… from fuel efficient 62 HP for the CRX HF to whopping 105 HP at the top. Each engine seemed to have a purpose. And I doubt that philosophy will change, and there is no need to.

That’s a good reason why I think a K18 would serve the purpose well, even with “just” 120-125 HP in a 2500 lb. chassis. Yeah, it may do 0-60 in 9.0s but if we all bought cars for their 0-60 capabilities, we should be getting Mustangs. For most practical purpose that is sufficiently quick. What a car with K18 must do is improve upon fuel economy as well as emissions of current Civic. How about 35-40 mpg, and greenhouse emissions rating under 5? And the added power/torque should be enough to keep up the owner smiling.

Now, to address the need of some buyers, who are willing to go out and spend more dollars for some extra features, and to make a marketing splash in another sense, a more powerful engine could do it. It could even be the same K18, pretty much like the case has been with Civic for most of its history, as it was for Integra and is for Corolla. Or, it could be taking advantage of some added displacement (K20) with added character typical associated with Honda engines.

newcar31

"Like arguing a wall"

Between you, anon, and robertsmx, that pretty much sums it up.

I'm done.

anonymousposts

I guess if we are the wall then you are the .... Great Wall of China?

newcar31

If you spent time trying to debate the points that I have made instead of trying to be witty, you might be able to convince me of something.

anonymousposts

The points have been debated and you refuse to accept any opinion other than your own.

newcar31

LMAO!!!!

You're so accepting of others' opinions.

anonymousposts

I am.

I stand behind my statement that Honda does not need to put the 2.4L engine in the Civic. Honda can do whatever it wants with a smaller displacement. If they want the 2.0L to get 160HP and 35 MPG it will.

newcar31

"When they are right I am."

Now there are right and wrong opinions?

"If they want the 2.0L to get 160HP and 35 MPG it will."

What's the point when a 2.4L already does that?

anonymousposts

The Accord is supposed to be an upgrade over the Civic. It's harder to justify the "upgrade" when you can get a cheaper Civic with most of the goodness for a few grand less.

newcar31

"I stand behind my statement that Honda does not need to put the 2.4L engine in the Civic."

Honda doesn't need to do anything.

"Honda can do whatever it wants with a smaller displacement."

Really? Let's see 300 lbs-ft of torque from a non-turbo 2.0L.

newcar31

"The Accord is supposed to be an upgrade over the Civic. It's harder to justify the "upgrade" when you can get a cheaper Civic with most of the goodness for a few grand less."

Oh, I see, now it's marketing reasons rather than practical reasons.

PF_Flyer

Let's move away from the personal back and forth and try and stick to the topics please.

Thanks for your cooperation and participation.

PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

Chat is on TONIGHT. Check out the schedule

nippononly

"The Accord is supposed to be an upgrade over the Civic. It's harder to justify the "upgrade" when you can get a cheaper Civic with most of the goodness for a few grand less."

You still can't get past the fact that the Civic is significantly smaller than the Accord. I mean, lots of companies sell a version of their small car that makes more power than the base version of their midsize car. (including, ironically, Toyota - king of the "we don't play the horsepower game" mentality).

Honda could probably take the "sophistication" route and slap i-VTEC on the 1.7 they have now for the next Civic DX/LX, boost it to 130 hp or so along with giving it the extra midrange torque that would provide. But in that case, the EX should definitely have the current SI engine, doing the full 160 hp (and with the taller gears of the current base RSX, for better fuel economy). Then they could sell a proper 200 hp SI (current RSX-S powertrain, perhaps? it would cost them less) in limited numbers with a $20K price tag that would not have to be heavily discounted to sell like the current model. It could keep its slightly-exotic appeal and would only require that the RSX line moves up 20 hp as it was supposed to do this year and will almost certainly do with the next revision.

All this talk of Civic and Accord potentially overlapping engines has me wondering how soon, if ever, Accord will sell predominantly as a V-6. For now, the 4-cyl is still 70-80% of sales. As to the poster above who speculates we will see a 350 hp V-8 Accord in ten years, I would say 350 hp yes, V-8 no. Knowing Honda, probably a V-6! :-)

anonymousposts

My point all along has been that Honda doesn't need the 2.4 in the Civic. They have other engines capable of producing the same HP and MPG so why not use them and leave the 2.4 for the Accord and the TSX?

andre1969

that Honda put a 2.4 in the Civic is that it was already there and available, and, well, they aren't putting anything else in it for the time being! My main argument was that they should do SOMETHING to give it more power. Not standard, necessarily, but as an option. Whether they do it with a bigger 4-cyl or a more powerful small 4-cyl, I don't care. Just DO IT!!

BTW, if they ever do offer an optional engine, they should make it optional across the board. When they had that 160 hp Civic, wasn't that only offered in the hatchback model? I saw a Civic coupe yesterday; I think it was an '05, because the front-end looked a bit different from what I've been seeing. Now that Civic coupe is a damn nice looking little car, and would be really cool if they offered a higher-performance engine.

gee35coupe

The Civic and Corolla are the most in-demand small cars on the market. In the past, they have produced Corolla's that had powerful engines for thier time. No one cared, so they dropped the option. Heck, at one time they even had RWD Corollas. There is no way Honda is going to drop the 2.4 in the Civic. It's simply not needed. The models that have the large engines aren't making that much of a difference so what's the point?

I mean come on. Honda knows they sell more LX-automatics than anything. What impetus do they have to create a 160 hp EX? It's like a V6 stick Accord, or a "performance" oriented version, it ain't happnin'.

It would be cool though, but the more models that are created, the higher the cost across the board. That's why you can't have any "options" on Honda cars. When all cars are equipped the same, it saves cash.

To answer whether there will be a 2.4L Civic, you have to look no further than the past few generations of the car. It would be a complete turnaround in philosophy.

robertsmx

It would be nice to see something like this at the entry level for Honda…
Jazz/Fit
Price Class:
$10K – 15K
Engine:
1.6-liter I-4 (110 HP), 38-46 mpg [DX/LX]

Civic
Price Class:
$14K – 20K
Engine:
1.8-liter I-4 (120 HP), 35-40 mpg [DX/LX]
2.0-liter I-4 (160 HP), 28-36 mpg [EX]
2.0-liter I-4 (200 HP), 25-30 mpg [SiR]

For Acura…
RSX
Price Class:
$22K – 25K
Engine:
2.4-liter I-4 (200 HP), 24-30 mpg [Base]
2.4-liter I-4 (220 HP), 22-30 mpg [Sport w/ATTS]

TSX
Price Class:
$28K – 32K
Engine:
3.0-liter V6 (240 HP), 22-30 mpg [w/AWD]

ateixeira

Dunno, if the Fit/Jazz come here as 7 seaters, I almost think the bigger engines should go in those, rather than the lower-payload Civic.

110hp pulling a 7 person payload of maybe 1200 lbs?

And that TSX would be a huge jump in price if they maintained the current level of content. Add $2 grand for AWD and maybe another $1500 for the V6, and it's too close to the TL.

-juice

varmint

I think you may be confusing the Fit/Jazz with the Stream. The Stream was the seven seater (now being replaced by the Edix). The Fit is a 4 or 5 seater, kinda like the Aveo or Scion Xa.

I agree with you on the TSX, though. I don't think it needs AWD and I'd rather see a smaller engine than the current 3.0. That block has been... well... around the block. I would think that Honda could come up with a smaller, lighter one using their new production techniques.

newcar31

"There is no way Honda is going to drop the 2.4 in the Civic. It's simply not needed."

The same exact thing could have been said about the 240 hp V6 in the Accord.

"To answer whether there will be a 2.4L Civic, you have to look no further than the past few generations of the car. It would be a complete turnaround in philosophy."

With that kind of thinking, a V6 Accord would not exist.

varmint

I think the problem here is that nobody knows enough about what what a 2.4L engine would do to the Civic. I understand your theory about the K24 in the Accord, even though I don't think the comparison with an Si is quite a direct as you believe.

It's kind of like debating the Tooth Fairy. You can't prove that he exists. We can't prove that he doesn't. The issue revolves around too many things we don't know.

alfox

...like so many discussions in TH.

newcar31

"I think the problem here is that nobody knows enough about what what a 2.4L engine would do to the Civic."

True, but we do know what it does to the Accord and we do know that it's in the same engine family as the 2.0L that's already in the Civic.

We also know how the 2.0L performs in the Civic, and it's not as good as the 2.4L in the Accord.

andre1969

a 302 V-8 can be made to fit in a Ford Focus, and a 426 Hemi can be fitted into a PT Cruiser, so maybe Honda should just not mess around with bigger 4's and V-6es, and come out with a Civic V-8! ;-)

http://www.automobilemag.com/news/0311_focusv8/
http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/26405/

varmint

"We also know how the 2.0L performs in the Civic, and it's not as good as the 2.4L in the Accord."

You are only using one measure of performance to make that claim. 0-60 times only reflect how fast the car will go in gears one and two. Have you compared passing times, quarter mile times, or any form of rolling acceleration?

Also, your only claim regarding fuel economy is highway mileage, You ignore the city mileage and are comparing a car geared for performance with another geared for economy. Have you ever seen a K20 geared for economy?

I've seen the K24 geared for performance, and it's rated about 4 mpg lower than the Accord you've been using. Can you accept that K20 geared for performance is going to have a similar penalty?

robertsmx

Yeah, $28K-32K may be unrealistic TSX (AWD and V6) with all the features that it does, and it would get close to TL, but Acura could orient these two cars with difference, TSX emphasizing on sport and TL on "touring" comfort. I would think that was the intention anyway with the nomenclature. And TL could use AWD too (and likely will).

Perhaps, TSX could be offered with K24A with J30A as an option.

robertsmx

The same exact thing could have been said about the 240 hp V6 in the Accord.
But a V6 is needed in a family sedan market. What may not be needed is 240 HP. But then, Honda’s isn’t using 3.5-liter 300 HP engine, so it isn’t a huge deal to me anyway.

With that kind of thinking, a V6 Accord would not exist.
Can you guess why Civic may be called a “Civic”?

We also know how the 2.0L performs in the Civic
No, we don’t. You shouldn’t judge an engine based on specification from one sheet. There are just too many variables involved. If you insist (and you have not responded to this), why not see how 200 HP K24A compares to 200 HP K20A? I’m hoping for a 2750 lb. or lighter 200 HP Civic Si, not 160 HP and heavier Civic Si with 160 HP.

newcar31

"Have you ever seen a K20 geared for economy?"

If they used the K20 as the upgrade (performance oriented) engine in the Civic sedan and coupe, would it be geared for economy or performance if the base engine was already geared for economy?

"I've seen the K24 geared for performance, and it's rated about 4 mpg lower than the Accord you've been using."

What Honda vehicle has the 160 hp 2.4L geared for performance?

newcar31

"Can you accept that K20 geared for performance is going to have a similar penalty?"

Can you accept that the 160 hp 2.4L from the Accord would get better mileage and perform better in the lighter Civic than in the Accord if it had the same gearing?

"If you insist (and you have not responded to this), why not see how 200 HP K24A compares to 200 HP K20A?"

Why not stick to the specific engines that we are comparing?

gagrice

I'm with you!!!!

robertsmx

Why not stick to the specific engines that we are comparing?
K20A and K24A are the engines we’re talking about, correct? So, what is wrong with comparing these engines (both) tuned for performance?

ateixeira

I stand correct, thanks varmint. Yes I was thinking of the Stream making it to the US (wishful thinking, perhaps). I imagine it would need at least that 2.4l, minimum.

andre: Monster Miata? )

-juice

newcar31

"So, what is wrong with comparing these engines (both) tuned for performance?"

OK, make your point about these two engines.

newcar31

"Yes I was thinking of the Stream making it to the US (wishful thinking, perhaps). I imagine it would need at least that 2.4l, minimum."

Funny, even though I never suggested that the 2.4L be the standard engine in the Civic.

The Accord needs 240 hp.

The S2000 needs 240 hp.

The RSX needs 200 hp.

The Odyssey needs 240 hp.

The TL needs 270 hp.

The Civic coupe and sedan make do with 127 hp-maximum.